Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AeroFalcon OP wrote

The main problem wasn't capitalists/inequality, It was that hunter gatherers, from an efficient pov aren't that efficient.

With permaculture, u can grow much more things & there is much more food for every1 than in hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

People just left the hunter gatherers lifestyle and wanted to join the agriculture/wage job lifestyle, sadly...

The hunter gatherer weren't that advanced from a technological pov because of their inefficiency & some assholes decided to invade at this moment... Grr...

−2

Majrelende wrote

Did you read the article?

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Yea.

Egalitarianism doesn't mean that technological progress is forbidden

1

Majrelende wrote

I agree— it is fine as long as it is not hurting anyone in the process. However, this is irrelevant. Even if anarchist communes and micro-states were militarily equal, which is itself an unlikely scenario due to an anarchist society’s less violent tendencies, the rate of success for a micro-state invading an anarchist commune is theoretically 50%. The problem is that anarchist societies are naturally less expansionist due to their efficiency of resource distribution. Unless anarchists of different communes take back another for its inhabitants, they will eventually all be engulfed. It has nothing to do with technology.

Even then, who wants to live their life under the threat of invasion?

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

No, colonialism is a dick move.

What I wanted to say is that the fact that they didn't have enough weapons/technology when their opponents were asshole was the problem.

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

No, I am not victim blamin' at all (in fact I hate this).

But from an analysis/tactical point of view, that was the problem...

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Technological progress is not against anarchism

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

AeroFalcon OP wrote

Yea ofc It will always be wrong for a rapist to rape people. But unfortunately, they still exist & we have to find ways to defend ourselves...

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I really don't get it.

Cuz what happened b4 can't happen in the future bcuz :

I mean today we already have the weapons, defense, internet...etc It's unlikely that capitalists will succeed in invading ancom communes.

There are already a few ancom communes nowadays & not a lot of them have been invaded

And a lot of people will be aware that violence/invading is a dick move (meanwhile in the past, nobody really respected people/life)

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

AeroFalcon OP wrote

It's an indoctrination problem, not a strength problem.

If everyone had social/class awareness, the government would never be able to beat them.

Do u really think that the government can beat billion of people ? Gimme a break...

−1

Majrelende wrote

There are already a few ancom communes nowadays & not a lot of them have been invaded

This is because it is unprofitable to invade anarchist communes. Try putting one right over the world’s largest known oil deposit and watch what happens.

Basically, they are not invading them because there are not enough of them to actually get in their way.

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

0

AeroFalcon OP wrote

I mean today we already have the weapons, defense, internet...etc It's unlikely that capitalists will succeed in invading ancom communes.

There are already a few ancom communes nowadays & not a lot of them have been invaded

−1