You're viewing part of a thread.
Anarchists believe that if horizontal power structures are in place, it becomes difficult to go against that current. Ie, if everyone has power, in order to gain more power than another, one must require people willing to give up their power to submit to them in order to push against others. This theoretical group would also have to be strong enough to go against the rest of the public.
It's similar to why Communists believe once Communism is globally achieved, there wouldn't be mechanisms for Capitalism to come back, just like Monarchism is almost nonexistant today.
Yet, that's not how real world actually works is it. Humanity grew out of small scale societies that operate the way you described, and then inevitably every large society ends up creating hierarchies. And societies that have hierarchies appear to consistently outcompete those that do not. It's not like this is a hypothetical discussion, we have thousands of years of human history to look at and see what forms of organization work in practice. Communists believe that there need to be explicit mechanisms that allow the working class to hold power and prevent regressions into capitalism.
I'm not an Anarchist, I'm just explaining misconceptions about Anarchism. You ironically lack Materialism in your analysis, with several instances of you claiming hierarchy simply appears, without analyzing the mechanisms of why.
Additionally, society has never been organized historically the way modern Anarchists desire it to be, primitive Communism is not what Anarchists, except for the fringe Anarcho-Primitivists, argue for. Again, they want strong horizontal organization, filled with decentralization. It isn't an arbitrary rejection of organization period.
All in all, I do think you can do better. Rather than simply saying things "appear to organize in certain manners," question the material conditions that changed organizational structures, and analyze why you think specific examples of horizontal organization posited by Anarchists would regress into hierarchy.
I'm well familiar with the argument Anarchists make, I'm just pointing out that it appears to be divorced from reality. I'm also not claiming that hierarchy simply appears. I even provided a link in a different comment explaining why hierarchies become necessary for any complex organization https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
My argument is basically that hierarchies appear because they are effective, and if the current system was somehow overthrown, and this flat society was created, then we'd see hierarchies start forming because like minded people would recognize their value. Once that process starts people who choose to organize in this fashion would have competitive advantage over those who do not. This is just a process of natural selection at work.
If you're taking a materialist approach, you would recognize that hierarchy was more effective than primitive communism, not Anarchism. You'd have to argue against modern propositions of flat organization, not just anarcho-primitivism. I'm sure many Anarchists would agree with you that hierarchical forms of structure are generally more effective than Anarcho-Primitivism, but would disagree that hierarchy is necessary or even better than modern Anarchist theory.
I'm well aware of Marx's rejections of Anarchism, I just think that since Marx is a human and could not predict modern Anarchist theory, modern Marxists should argue against modern Anarchism, rather than historical.
I am arguing against modern propositions of flat organization because they run into the same problems. The onus to demonstrate viable alternatives to hierarchies is on the people who disagree with hierarchies being necessary. So far, we don't have any functional examples of the kinds of approach anarchists promote, nor is there any reason to believe it would work.
Furthermore, given that the current system is organized in a hierarchical fashion, dismantling this system would require an equivalent level of organization. Hence why all the actual successful revolutions we've seen have been centrally organized. Marxists have actually put their theories into practice and have achieved tangible results. Anarchists have so far failed to achieve much of anything other than acting as a roach motel for the left.
You have to prove why they would run into the same problems, you're still making vague accusations of Anarcho-Primitivism being the same as Modern Anarchist structure. The lack of existing structure disproving the possible existence of said structure is the same argument Anti-Communists and Anti-Socialists make with regularity, and is similarly an incomplete argument.
I, again, am not an Anarchist, but your method of argumentation is fundamentally flawed and won't convince any Anarchist to join a Marxist movement. It lacks Materialism in its analysis and is of the same quality as generic Anti-Leftist argumentation. Instead, you should argue against concepts like ParEcon, Mutual Aid, and other Anarchist theory, without arguing against Primitive Communism.
No, it's very much the people who are advocating for this theory who have to prove that it works and not the other way around. Communists have put their ideas into action, we know that this approach works, and we know that it results in many tangible improvements over the current capitalist system.
The argument I'm making is against the ways of organization that Anarchists promote, and these are fundamental to the ideology regardless of what specific branch we're talking about. I simply gave primitivist version as an example that actually existed. The others are even more hypothetical. Meanwhile, not sure why you'd bring up talking about Materialism in an argument about organization.
You can't prove something that hasn't existed. You're arguing against theory by saying it hasn't been put into practice, disallowing it from being put into practice to be tested. This is the same anti-leftist, anti-development argument. The theory itself needs to be discounted.
You're not making any sort of analysis, just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that primitive anarchism is the same as modern anarchism, and moreover are taking a mystical approach, rather than a practical approach. That's why I'm saying you ignore Materialism, rather than arguing on the basis that humans are driven by material conditions, you instead argue that since one unrelated tangential structure turned into another, that Anarchism itself is bunk.
We aren't going to agree here, clearly.
You can’t prove something that hasn’t existed.
Putting theory into practice is literally what Materialism is. Thanks for confirming that you're the one lacking Materialist position in this argument.
You’re not making any sort of analysis, just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that primitive anarchism is the same as modern anarchism, and moreover are taking a mystical approach, rather than a practical approach.
That's literally the opposite of the facts. I'm advocating for an approach based on a theory that has been successfully put into practice and has demonstrated results. You are the one who is sticking your head in the sand and talking about some hypotheticals that have never been tested or put into practice. You need to learn what Materialism is if you're going to keep using this word.
Materialism is doing away with the idea that history is shaped by ideas and will, rather than material conditions. It isn't going against proposed theory by targeting unrelated theory.
You're arguing that you cannot make predictions or try new things, despite validity of the theoretical basis, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been done.
You're definitely not getting it.