this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
30 points (74.2% liked)

anarchism

2665 readers
16 users here now

Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society without borders, bosses, or rulers where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of themselves and the environment.

Theory

Introductory Anarchist Theory

Anarcho-Capitalism

Discord Legacy A collaborative doc of books and other materials compiled by the #anarchism channel on the Discord, containing texts and materials for all sorts of tendencies and affinities.

The Theory List :) https://hackmd.io/AJzzPSyIQz-BRxfY3fKBig?view Feel free to make an account and edit to your hearts content, or just DM me your suggestions ^~^ - The_Dawn

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

statists: "those aren't societies; those are tribes. where people are forced to barter for food because they don't have money yet, and they experience solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short lives!"

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 week ago (2 children)

but they are just tribes. saying "statists make this argument" doesn't invalidate the argument lol. you're acting like these tribes didn't have hierarchies and lineages and privilege based on both. (they did)

not having a state isn't the same thing as anarchism. anarchism is an actual and fairly refined philosophy that has to account for material conditions, social and economic reality and shape them with anarchist thought. it isn't just when no state.

and i mean no disrespect to you when i say this, but comments like this are why most leftists tend to leave anarchism once they're exposed to more "authoritarian" socialist theory. the "authoritarians" simply make a much better argument. anarchism sounds great until you've really considered the arguments that "statist" leftists make

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago

At least by the Marxist definition, these societies virtually all did have states, they were just very small states. They enforced the oppression of women by men (patriarchy) along with other class relations.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

not having a state isn't the same thing as anarchism. anarchism is an actual and fairly refined philosophy that has to account for material conditions, social and economic reality and shape them with anarchist thought. it isn't just when no state.

yall are giving em toooo much credit but yeah. The marxist leninists are the best anarchists at the end of the day.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Patriarchal* agrarian societies were brutal, though, and have nothing to do with anarchism if anarchism is worth anything. The "forced to barter bc no money" is a myth made up by capitalists though, since all of these societies were either self-sufficient or simply pillaged from other societies. The telling in which theses societies were reliant on trade between each other is so silly it doesn't even rise to the level of Adam Smith's "barter myth," which itself is discredited.

*in the old sense of men literally ruling as a rule, with all the women being in a condition not meaningfully distinguishable from slavery.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

since all of these societies were either self-sufficient or simply pillaged from other societies. The telling in which theses societies were reliant on trade between each other is so silly it doesn't even rise to the level of Adam Smith's "barter myth," which itself is discredited

the hell are you talking about, trade is very well documented in the medditerrean since the bronze age

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm talking about the tribal societies

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Most societies for thousands of years did not barter. Bartering is a myth, but that does not mean trade itself is a myth. Most had some form of money and accounting. The complexity of ancient civilizations should not be underestimated.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

mfers need to read Debt: The First 5000 years. graeber

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

a vulgar generalization! many "tribal" social organizations had monetary development and were plugged into a long range trading network. cornwall continuously exported tin from the bronze age through the medieval period, regardless of the state of political sophistication it was subject to

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I concede that I should have said bartering.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Trade is arguably a lot earlier, too. In the Mediterranean region obsidian (from volcanic regions) was highly prized during the neolithic for making sharp blades, and even though there are only a few sources of it in the entire region obsidian blades can be found all over the Med. Speaks to some kind of trading network operating during the neolithic, if not earlier.