this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
650 points (98.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43755 readers
1210 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd argue it should be the default position.
Why should I respect this elaborate system of property rights that was largely built by and for terrible human beings who actively sought to tyrannize others for their own gain?
How much of the wealth held today can be traced back to morally illegitimate if not outright criminal beginnings?
To be fair that's kind of what has happened with communism in the past too.
I don't think the problem is any system it's the human nature that causes us to make those systems in the first place. The ideal system is anarchy and everyone just agrees to get along and share but that's unfortunately impossible
Technically speaking, Marxist idea of communism is a system where everyone just agrees to get along and share. The goal of communism and anarchism is largely the same, the differences are in how to reach that goal. Anarchists believe class struggles can be solved without a state apparatus while communists believe state apparatus will wither away on its own once the class struggle has been solved. In both cases you end up in a classless and stateless system where people just get along.
That's the dream of both systems. Historically one has had ulterior motives because of the horrible track record of the Bolsheviks. Spain and Russia's revolution itself, and then post war all spent time with the heavy hand of hierarchy dominating those under them. Trials, executions, and treachery. Constant propaganda and a total lack of comradery between the anarchists. George Orwell spoke of the constant push to present the anarchist militias as the problems in Spain. In Oppenheimer (didn't expect to read it here too) one person becomes an officer in the Spanish republican army and hears word that before his squad even started fighting there would be a cleansing of anarchist members of their group.
I'm not saying every attempt at Maxist Leninist communism is somehow going to turn into this but it does seem like the heavy hand of the state begs to be used to dominate.
Cool story. I don't respect the property claims of those authoritarian regimes, either.
In what way is anarchism an authoritarian regime
I wouldn’t say it’s super elaborate. You can buy land and then you can choose (broadly) what to do on that land.
The alternative is that you can’t and everyone can do whatever they like wherever they like it.
I know which of the two options I’d choose.
What about when a few rich folks buy up all the land and you can't afford any for yourself so you have to work for them or starve? Like what's happening now
What?
The only options aren't capitalism or total anarchy.
I’d agree with that, but I was typing my post as a reaction to someone who said they didn’t feel like supporting property rights. So we were already out in the extreme end of the argument.
Not only are you presenting a false dichotomy, but you've also reduced two very complex concepts to flippant, inaccurate, "edgy" statements.