• bearboiblake@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Seems like your mind is made up! I think this is just going to be one of those “agree to disagree” situations. The answers to your objections can be found in the Anarchist FAQ, I’d recommend learning more about it before dismissing it!

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      On the contrary, my mind is constantly open and I’ve read quite a bit. But what I’ve read generally falls into three categories:

      1. Totally hand-wavey, concerned more with guiding principles than actionable models. No attempt is made to describe how to devise a non-hierarchical system that fulfills the needs of the people.

      2. Delusional, based entirely on people suddenly being way more cooperative and efficient in group decisions than they’ve ever actually been observed to be en masse.

      3. Inconsequential, “non-hierarchical” is abstracted so far that most modern democracies could be described as such after relatively minor reform. These seem the most practical to me, like the proponents actually considered the mechanics of how the system would work in the material world.

      I’m not trying to dismiss it, but everything I’ve read either makes it sound like a fantasy, or a minor change.