• Sploosh the Water@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m an anarchist, I’m against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.

      But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of “leaders” who have no inherent right to do so in the name of “society” or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.

        • Sploosh the Water@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. Fallacious argument. Just because something hasn’t been successful before or people don’t see how to make it work doesn’t justify an existing unethical/immoral system. Plenty of people thought it was crazy to imagine a world where slavery wasn’t a thing. That didn’t justify continuing that system though.

          2. There are many of examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities that exist. Many Shaolin monastic communities are anarchistic, and egalitarian depending on the sect. Some Mennonite and old world Amish communities are anarchistic also, having only collective property and some personal property, no privatization.

          Some first nations tribes were pseudo-anarchist, operating as a collective with egalitarian leadership based largely on life experience and wisdom, they maintained completely voluntary relationships with other tribes in the region and had no private property.

            • Akasazh@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not really successes at all if you’ve read your Marx.

              All of them followed in Stalins ‘leninistic’ (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).

              The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.