It doesn't work for everyone, no. But just like in 1800s Europe, when monarchists died off suddenly republics were obvious. I suspect much of the same will come to pass regarding systems of government tending towards anarchism and boomers.
Just because some political ideologies have their day, doesn't mean they all will. Representative democracies of the 19th century had been preceded by proto-representative democracies like the Parliament of England, they weren't a fully new thing at that point by any means, even at the large state level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England
There have been attempts at large, nation-scale anarchist communities, like revolutionary Catalonia, or Makhnovia, but the most fundamental problem they have isn't functioning well, but simply continuing to exist. Without a strong state, they seem to just fall over to competing states or forces. And this isn't very easily fixed within anarchism, because the whole point is to not have a state, and certainly not a strong one.
The most fundamental flaw for a large anarchist, state-equivalent community, is the inability to resist state or state-like forces both internally (revolution/civil war) and externally (other states invading or taking territory). While certainly anarchists theorycraft on how this issue can be fixed, out in the real world, well, it hasn't happened yet, so it remains theorycraft.
Even some of the real-life examples anarchists point to, like Rojava, aren't really very anarchist; Rojava still has plenty of police, for example, which is a very un-anarchist thing to have around.
This response has put me firmly in the "you need to think about this a bit, bantunes" camp.
Why?
The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon. It certainly isn't a Chinese, Russian, Japanese, South African, or, well, the "rest of the world" phenomenon. To me, this makes me think you are viewing the world from a US perspective, without any attempt to see things from outside that prism.
On top of that, the wild assertion that "boomers" somehow created an authoritarian government is beyond incomprehensible. While every generation has its flaws, yes every single generation, boomers were the hippie generation.
Yes, hippies. The "free love" movement, anti-authoritarian counter culture that quite literally existed in highly conservative Western post-war cultures. The level of protest, anti-materialism, anti-corporate stance which hippies took, particularly in the US, far, far, far outweighs anything seen in the decades since.
Of course, like every other generation since, for thousands and thousands of years, once they aged they became just like those they wanted to replace.
But, let's walk away from the fact that boomers = hippies, and hippies protested, fought, and died in protests en mass, and even enacted some real change. Let's look at the overall assertion here.
You're claiming republics were "obvious", and that this somehow sparked an instantaneous move from feudal, to republic. Yet in many places, these changes took literally centuries. And the powers of Kings were very gradually eroded, sometimes with blood, and other times with threat of blood.
Even "revolutionary" moments in most Western cultures were smaller stepping stones, each effecting smaller sections of culture about governing, and self-governing.
And really, suffrage for the "common person", for example, is less than 100 years old in many democracies. Like the UK, Canada, the US. In fact, for many cases, less than 50 years!
And this change was gradual too. For example, in the UK with Lords challenging the King's right to tax, creating the "House of Lords", or the modern Senate. Or, the allowance of freemen with significant land, or land rental, being allowed to vote.
It wasn't until 1918 that all white men in the UK could vote, and women/everyone else at 1928.
This was a gradual, step by step change, each transformative, but each fought for.
Now ... I have no doubt change will come, for there is nothing that ever remains static.
However, what you are suggesting is that people will simply "all get along". Literally, that is what anarchism suggests. For, you cannot compel people to leave, or stop them from doing things you don't want, if you do not use violence as an end tool.
If you have a counter to this, a realistic, logical, sensible counter to the idea that people will just all be nice to one another? I'd love to hear it.
> The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon.
I used boomer as a shorthand for "person rooted in the old ways" all over the world, not just US older citizens.
> Of course, like every other generation since, for thousands and thousands of years, once they aged they became just like those they wanted to replace.
Yes, they both sold out and are watching from the bleachers as things get progressively worse (rate of home ownership, food stamp usage, life expectancy). Don't tell me what they did in their early teens/twenties absolves them from criticism.
> However, what you are suggesting is that people will simply "all get along".
OK, this response has put me firmly in the "you need to really read about anarchism a bit, bbarnett" camp. Anarchism doesn't magically will away human tendencies to lie, cheat and want to have power over others. It simply turns the tables on illegitimate authority.
A 2 min browse over Wikipedia could have netted you:
"anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy – hierarchy being the institutionalization of authority within a society."
For anarchists, the centralization of political power is the cause of cronyism and ineffective representative democracy. Practical solutions include decentralization and strengthening of local power. As for police work, community policing and other proposals are part of anarchist manifestos.
It doesn't take a genius to realize democracy as it stands today has failed us. Stricter gun control, for example, is something the overwhelming majority of US voters want and yet it will probably never be enacted. The problem is centralization, the problem is authority without legitimacy. Anarchism doesn't want to abolish the rule of law, it aims to humanize it.
It has nothing to do with a mythical need to change human nature - in fact, it gels with it much more than the current status quo. Of course, like socialism, the word has been tainted over the years. But before you criticize it further as a "mad fantasy", you should probably know what it is you're criticizing. This is a good book to get you started https://www.amazon.com/Fragments-Anarchist-Anthropology-Para...
If you've read my other posts, and several others around here, then I think you'll see a consistent theme. That is, for anarchism to work, you need people to simply "all get along".
You do. You really, honestly do.
All of the methods which anarchists list to deal with rapists, murderers, or even just a guy that stands up and says "OK, the 10 of us have decided we're going to form a democratic government, and you're all part of it", don't seem to hold water.
For example, that last one. You live in a community with 100 people, under anarchism. Those 10 stand up. They state that they run the place. They have guns. Now what? And what if that number is 40 out of 60?
I've heard "shunning", "banishment", and I've heard "hired guns". I've also heard of "local police power", yet that involves government, in that, you need to pay and organize and on and on and on. And all your concerns leak therein.
I think you need to be honest with yourself. The "old ways" you speak of, are pretty much accepted by people 10 to 100. If you think that "most people under (what?) 30? 40? 25? believe in anarchism, you are sadly mistaken.
And there is a reason for that.
I've listed them, others have, but all you care to espouse is that "I don't like the current governmental system" and "we'll just handle it without organized government".
Your failure to see past your preconceived notions in this is a bit baffling.
> That is, for anarchism to work, you need people to simply "all get along".
For current society to work, we all also have to get along, right? I walk down the street nobody robs or kills me, my boss pays me at the end of the month, the power company supplies me with a service as long as I pay for it... aren't we all "getting along"? Of course, there are fringe players, but they are fringe. Anarchism doesn't magically assume everyone everywhere is a well-intentioned player for it to work, no more than capitalism.
> You live in a community with 100 people, under anarchism. Those 10 stand up. They state that they run the place. They have guns. Now what?
How would this be different under capitalism, if 10% of a community rose up with guns? Answer is the same as with anarchism: people would fight back. I don't understand how this is hard to comprehend. It's called Anarchism, not Pacifism. Do you really think anarchists just roll with the punches with everything bad thrown at them? How can you even think that's possible to propose as a system?
Anarchists don't believe, however, in a lap-dog class of the system as the Police exist today. Individuals can be chosen to serve or volunteer as community defense agents, since as I've mentioned _illegitimate_ authority is what Anarchism rails against.
> yet that involves government, in that, you need to pay and organize and on and on and on.
Anarchism is not 100% opposed to systems of governance - it only mandates they are fairer than the current ones. Community councils, if agreed upon by said community, are valid. Just not imposed on them.
> The "old ways" you speak of, are pretty much accepted by people 10 to 100
So was Feudalism - your point?
> If you think that "most people under (what?) 30? 40? 25? believe in anarchism, you are sadly mistaken.
Have I said that? I said as conservatives give away to newer generations, those will be more amenable to different systems of government (precisely because the current one isn't working for them).
> I've listed them, others have, but all you care to espouse is that "I don't like the current governmental system" and "we'll just handle it without organized government".
I don't think you can vote the Anarchists in and from Sunday to Monday we go from late-state capitalism to anarchism. It's a process, all deep change is - we're seeing the end of a neoliberalization process that started in the 70s.
But to think we're living in the best system we can because "it's accepted by people" is really poor, and a capitulation to a system that is visibly cracking. But don't mind me, keep hoping for incremental improvement and see where that gets us...
Look, I've read the above, and I doubt you're surprised that I do not agree. I don't think we'll ever convince each other of anything, really. Too far apart on basic concepts.
But I wanted to do you the courtesy of saying I'm done discussing, instead of just ghosting this thread.
