Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

I think we can smash capitalism and state by means of unions. I want to reduce work to get more free time already within capitalism.

I am skeptical about general strike, though, more positive to the Swedish register method and other forms of mass civil disobedience. A union shouldn't run future society, the people should.

−4

veuzi wrote (edited )

I think we can smash capitalism and state by means of unions.

That's optimistic, bordering on naive.

I want to reduce work to get more free time already within capitalism.

That's more down to earth in regards to what unions can and do achieve. As for me, if I want more free time, I'll just quit.

A union shouldn't run future society, the people should.

If "the people" becomes a polity, what you have is not anarchy.

5

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Why is direct democracy not anarchy?

1

veuzi wrote

Do I have to explain this again?

Whether democracy is majority rule or "rule of the people", it's rulership. Rulership is authoritarian and unanarchistic. Anarchy means no rule.

3

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Well I don't agree it is authoritarian. At least it is better than individuals viewing themselves as aristocrats above democracy. And the question remains: what is the alternative way of making decisions concerning a collective?

−1

veuzi wrote

Well I don't agree it is authoritarian.

Authority is the right to command. If a democratic decision imposes the collective's right to command, it is authoritarian. Words have meanings.

At least it is better than individuals viewing themselves as aristocrats above democracy.

I don't care.

And the question remains: what is the alternative way of making decisions concerning a collective?

Talking about it. Maybe a decision is made, maybe not. I don't care.

2

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"I don't care"

Now that's a serious way of challenging state and capitalism. Loads of people will join an anarchist movement.

−3

veuzi wrote (edited )

I don't care if you think democracy is better than whatever "aristocrats viewing themselves above it" means. I don't know any aristocrats and if I did, I'd steal their shit.

I don't care about prescribing a clear-cut alternative or one-size-fits-all solution in a context where everything is possible and any proposal you make will invite an infinity of further questions. "Yeah, but have you thought about this extremely specific hypothetical scenario? Checkmate". That's what you're gonna get if you start prescribing answers to "how does anarchy work". So I don't care. Anarchy is not a utopia and it is not an end goal. It is something you do right now, a way of relating to other individuals and society, and undermining the various archies we are forced to exist under.

Loads of people will join an anarchist movement.

Guess what, I don't care if people join the anarchist 'movement' or not.

4

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"Guess what, I don't care if people join the anarchist 'movement' or not."

You don't want to achieve a post-capitalist anarchy?

−3

veuzi wrote

Anarchist revolution isn't going to happen. If capitalism falls, it will collapse by its own mechanics. Praxis and direct action is still worth doing for its own sake.

Welcome to the wonderful world of anarcho-nihilism.

5

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"Welcome to the wonderful world of anarcho-nihilism."

Sounds like a squat for drug addicts and alcoholics

−6

veuzi wrote

Drug addicts and alcoholics are always welcome in my squat. Unlike you, I don't judge people for their choice of substances.

6

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

I still wonder what the alternative to syndicalist revolution is. How can we replace the state and with what kind of structure if not by direct democracy?

−3

veuzi wrote

The state should not be replaced. That's the point. Replacing the state means making a new state.

3

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

State and capitalism should be replaced precisely because we don't need them, that is anarchist societies should take their place. But what should be the structure of anarchy, the institutional framework? What promotes maximum freedom for all?

1

veuzi wrote (edited )

what should be the structure of anarchy

Free association. Taking part in any association, organisation, or even society generally should be voluntary. Abandoning an association for any reason, such as it not representing your interests, should not affect the means for the individual to live and be free.

the institutional framework?

A billion trillion institutional frameworks, maybe even no institutions and no common framework.

What promotes maximum freedom for all?

I'm not a utilitarian so I'm not about maximizing any values at all. Free association at least leaves the options open.

2

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Not much of a clarification. If one part of the population wants plan economy only, one part market economy only, and one part a mix. All proposals can't be implemented. Majority decision is a solution.

−2

veuzi wrote

Let the economies overlap, then. There is no reason for a singular form of economy to be imposed on a society.

Majority decision is a solution.

Is it a solution when it doesn't even resolve the conflict and leaves the minority dissenters with the conclusion of "tough shit, deal with it"?

More like an imposition.

2

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"Let the economies overlap, then. There is no reason for a singular form of economy to be imposed on a society."

Sounds good. But if people won't compromise and reach a consensus, then a majority decision is needed I think.

1

veuzi wrote

I will refuse to abide by any majority decisions, and if it is forced on me, I will react violently.

3

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Good luck with getting along with other people

−3

veuzi wrote

Thanks. Think I'll fuck off now and go to my local dive bar where I will have no trouble with getting along with people.

4