The answer is a communist party

[Revoltingest]

Well, no case needs be made.

Anarchism is not about disorganisation. Quite the opposite, actually. An anarchist society is one which is run on democratic principles from the bottom-up - it is democratic all the way through. Local assemblies of people could then co-operate in ways they see fit with others, and send representatives to regional co-operative ventures.

Rojava is not running on a statist model. But they have been hands-down the most effective force in the regional arena in the fight against the Islamic State. So your hypothesis on defence doesn't really hold true.

Time is a factor in whether a system of government or non-governance survives.
Rojava has had a very short life. Its having recently popped into existence doesn't
mean that it will endure. Moreover, this does not debunk my claim that people tend
to form governments. Note that the vast majority of people around the world are
under the thumb of one or another. Some (eg, ours) have been around for centuries.
Others are more recent, but only as replacements for prior governments.

This discussion is analogous to arguments about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Some argue that it's possible for a closed system's entropy to increase because it
can happen briefly on a microscopic scale. But this isn't relevant in the real world
on a larger scale because the tendency for entropy to increase is overwhelming.
So we don't get to disobey the law of entropy in the larger real world.
And in that world, governments happen.

One could also, in relation to that, look at the example of the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. Having switched from capitalistic and statist systems of organising industry, agriculture, defence and so forth, productivity went through the roof! It was only because they were turned-on by other Republican factions that the war went to Franco.

'
I'm not familiar with agricultural economy of that time & place.
But I do know that Spain now has a government.

 

[Sanzbir]

It's for that reason alone that communists hold the moral high ground.

Moral high ground, eh??

Enough to justify invading my grandmother's country, stealing their farmland, and trying to execute her as a child??

 

[Sanzbir]

As opposed to liberalism, that peaceful bringer of secular democracy to the brown, uncivilized masses of the world?

@Revoltingest too.

Whataboutism is disgusting.

When I state something like "The Holocaust was Bad" I should be free of arrogant neo-nazis like yourself stating "but what about the sins of western countries?!"

My family was targeted for execution by the Soviets, was put into the camps by the Nazis, and was firebombed at Dresden by the Brits.

I am well acquainted by the evil on all sides of it. And no the fact that my family suffered at Dresden does not mean I'll give a free pass to the Soviets who wanted to see them dead. One crime does not expunge the others. There doesn't have to be a "good guys" side in every given conflict. The real world isn't Lord of the Rings.

 

[Shad]

Moral high ground, eh??

Enough to justify invading my grandmother's country, stealing their farmland, and trying to execute her as a child??

Obviously your grandmother was immoral /s.

When people invoke the moral high ground their view become ideological like a religion. Anyone against them must be immoral or oppressed. No moral sane person can ever disagree with those claiming the moral high ground as it is by definition moral. That is a religion. This is why people accept the slaughter of millions as those millions were obviously immoral thus deserved death.

 

[Sanzbir]

Well, yes and no. I had a great uncle who would probably qualify as an elite, and an another who was a average working class citizen.

Good for you!!

The uncle in my family was a murdered. The rest of the family was put on a list to be killed for the crime of being related to that uncle.

Good to see you proclaiming your system of oppression a "success" from the viewpoint of your family's privilege and power.

Sure, it wasn't a failure, for you. Systems of oppression are never failures for the oppressors, only the oppressed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Moral high ground, eh??

Enough to justify invading my grandmother's country, stealing their farmland, and trying to execute her as a child??

The must have deserved it, prolly cuz they were capitalists.
Communists are peaceful, only defend themselves.
What was your grandmother doing on their land anyway?

 

[Wu Wei]

The must have deserved it, prolly cuz they were capitalists.
Communists are peaceful, only defend themselves.
What was your grandmother doing on their land anyway?

wait...aren't Communists a bunch hippies that live in a commune...I find it hard to believe the peace, love and tie-dye crowd would be capable of such acts...at least not while high

 

[Revoltingest]

wait...aren't Communists a bunch hippies that live in a commune...I find it hard to believe the peace, love and tie-dye crowd would be capable of such acts...at least not while high

Communists also fight for freedom.
I have proof!

 

[Kirran]

Time is a factor in whether a system of government or non-governance survives.
Rojava has had a very short life. Its having recently popped into existence doesn't
mean that it will endure. Moreover, this does not debunk my claim that people tend
to form governments. Note that the vast majority of people around the world are
under the thumb of one or another. Some (eg, ours) have been around for centuries.
Others are more recent, but only as replacements for prior governments.

This discussion is analogous to arguments about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Some argue that it's possible for a closed system's entropy to increase because it
can happen briefly on a microscopic scale. But this isn't relevant in the real world
on a larger scale because the tendency for entropy to increase is overwhelming.
So we don't get to disobey the law of entropy in the larger real world.
And in that world, governments happen.
'
I'm not familiar with agricultural economy of that time & place.
But I do know that Spain now has a government.

Good points. Although you do seem to have been avoiding the example of the Zapatistas. What even short-lived examples, like Rojava and Anarchist Catalonia, can show is that the system is valid. They prove the potential of its effectiveness.

Now, the same argument you make here could have been made just as legitimately regarding monarchist systems of government 500 years ago, in discussion with someone talking about the possibility of organising societies along republican lines.

And actually, for much of history many communities (and even still many today) run themselves effectively without any intervention from a state regardless, so there is more precedence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good points. Although you do seem to have been avoiding the example of the Zapatistas.

I picked one to look into as representative.
I avoided a 2nd because it takes some effort.
If the one example fails, it makes the 2nd less compelling to investigate.
Moreover, even if it did comport with your argument that large groups of
people don't tend to government, the examples of them forming governments
is overwhelming.

What even short-lived examples, like Rojava and Anarchist Catalonia, can show is that the system is valid. They prove the potential of its effectiveness.

Now, the same argument you make here could have been made just as legitimately regarding monarchist systems of government 500 years ago, in discussion with someone talking about the possibility of organising societies along republican lines.

And actually, for much of history many communities (and even still many today) run themselves effectively without any intervention from a state regardless, so there is more precedence.

I didn't & wouldn't argue that groups tend to form monarchies because
I see no evidence of that. That is merely one form of government.

Intervention in local affairs by the larger state does indeed
happen when the locals don't go along with a superior body.
The larger body still governs.

 

[Stevicus]

Moral high ground, eh??

Enough to justify invading my grandmother's country, stealing their farmland, and trying to execute her as a child??

Without knowing the circumstances of your own personal situation or that of your grandmother, I'm disinclined to comment.

I'm not a heartless person, and I can say in all honesty that I have never intentionally harmed another human being in my entire life. That's why I can say what I say with a clear conscience and not get drawn into another "guilt by association" kind of argument.

 

[Stevicus]

Obviously your grandmother was immoral /s.

When people invoke the moral high ground their view become ideological like a religion. Anyone against them must be immoral or oppressed. No moral sane person can ever disagree with those claiming the moral high ground as it is by definition moral. That is a religion. This is why people accept the slaughter of millions as those millions were obviously immoral thus deserved death.

Well, when one grows up with incessant moralistic posturing and propaganda about "evil empires," then the only real argument to be had is regarding the moral high ground. That's the beginning and the end of the argument right there for Americans, so that's all there is to deal with.

That's what we in the West have made famous - and it's why our political culture (and popular culture in general) involves an endless parade of the "victim olympics" - because we're such a moral and upstanding nation and this kind of stuff sells to the masses.

So, whenever this subject is broached and we get the usual Western sanctimony, then it deserves the response it gets.

 

[Wu Wei]

Communists also fight for freedom.
I have proof!

Not while they're high on the goofballs

 

[Kirran]

I picked one to look into as representative.
I avoided a 2nd because it takes some effort.
If the one example fails, it makes the 2nd less compelling to investigate.
Moreover, even if it did comport with your argument that large groups of
people don't tend to government, the examples of them forming governments
is overwhelming.

I didn't & wouldn't argue that groups tend to form monarchies because
I see no evidence of that. That is merely one form of government.

Intervention in local affairs by the larger state does indeed
happen when the locals don't go along with a superior body.
The larger body still governs.

Well the examples illustrate different aspects of what is being talked about.

Fine, but 500 years ago one would see the majority of societies tending towards monarchy. Now we move on. We continue to do so.

We don't accept dictatorship and authoritarianism just because it's common, we don't decide they are necessary because of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well the examples illustrate different aspects of what is being talked about.

Fine, but 500 years ago one would see the majority of societies tending towards monarchy. Now we move on. We continue to do so.

We don't accept dictatorship and authoritarianism just because it's common, we don't decide they are necessary because of that.

The most popular form of government will change over the centuries.
But what doesn't change is people's desire to have government...
...& then complain bitterly about it. I'm all on board with that!

 

[Kirran]

The most popular form of government will change over the centuries.
But what doesn't change is people's desire to have government...
...& then complain bitterly about it. I'm all on board with that!

Then how does one account for the actual situations in which anarchist principles prevail in how a society is organised?

Societies change. Different systems come into play at different times. There is no reason to think anything like the current system will persist in perpetuity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then how does one account for the actual situations in which anarchist principles prevail in how a society is organised?

The desire for anarchy doesn't go away for some of us.
(Although we libertarians are better described as "minarchist".)
And it can have some influence upon government.
But government prevails.
Looking around....
To the north, I see the Canuckistanian government, & continuing over the pole, the Russian government.
To the south, I see the Mexicostanian government, & various banana republics south of them.
Government is an endless plague which will always be.

Societies change. Different systems come into play at different times. There is no reason to think anything like the current system will persist in perpetuity.

Oh, I agree that there will be change.
And with it will be government, either fueling or fighting it.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Whataboutism is disgusting.

When I state something like "The Holocaust was Bad" I should be free of arrogant neo-nazis like yourself stating "but what about the sins of western countries?!"

My family was targeted for execution by the Soviets, was put into the camps by the Nazis, and was firebombed at Dresden by the Brits.

I am well acquainted by the evil on all sides of it. And no the fact that my family suffered at Dresden does not mean I'll give a free pass to the Soviets who wanted to see them dead. One crime does not expunge the others. There doesn't have to be a "good guys" side in every given conflict. The real world isn't Lord of the Rings.

I am not a neo-nazi, and I apologize if my post offended you. I meant to criticize the sort of attitude that looks over the sins of the dominant ideology of the time, forgetting occurrences such as the famines and impoverishment of India under British rule, or the effects of colonialism throughout Africa, or American involvement in the Middle East, or Chinese censorship and social repression, all committed under the banner of liberalism.

There is a tendency for liberals to see rival ideologies as uniquely violent forces. And perhaps they may be, especially in the case of fascism. But this critique is not generally extended to liberalism itself; in your original post, you seemed to think we could just avoid 'violent' ideologies. Assuming you are American, you live in a country established on the blood of millions. How do you begin to 'avoid' such things when every day, thousands of people die because of American, liberal, influence?

As you wisely stated, there aren't necessarily 'good guys' -- entirely free of blame. I was not trying to spread 'whataboutism', as you put it, but try to add a measure of balance -- one cannot say no to 'violent ideologies' when the entire world is inundated with an ideology practically dripping with blood. Nazism is of course immeasurably worse in every aspect compared to liberalism. But people have legitimate grievances against the current state of the world.

 

[Kirran]

The desire for anarchy doesn't go away for some of us.
(Although we libertarians are better described as "minarchist".)
And it can have some influence upon government.
But government prevails.
Looking around....
To the north, I see the Canuckistanian government, & continuing over the pole, the Russian government.
To the south, I see the Mexicostanian government, & various banana republics south of them.
Government is an endless plague which will always be.

Oh, I agree that there will be change.
And with it will be government, either fueling or fighting it.

I dunno man, I guess I see things as being more mutable than that, and the ways in which humans can organise themselves as being both more varied and flexible than you give them credit. We can rest upon that difference, I suspect.

 

[Revoltingest]

I dunno man, I guess I see things as being more mutable than that, and the ways in which humans can organise themselves as being both more varied and flexible than you give them credit. We can rest upon that difference, I suspect.

I too see different ways of organizing.
And when I become dictator, prepare
to watch change in Americastan.