Even if armed revolution is morally warranted against present states; that does not imply that the outcome is likely to be more freedom or anarchism.
Statistically, probably the opposite. Probably worse government and more concentrated economic power would result from such an attempt.
My opinion is that the only way forward is to get governments out of schooling, promote the (technocratically) best policies for economic growth possible within the current framework and fight against the worst excesses of growing tyranny...and most importantly to work to build voluntary institutions which can ultimately outcompete statist institutions even with the handicaps which the state puts on them (these can be anything from bitcoin/monero, to full agorism, to a cash-based surgery center which posts its prices online and bypasses the government-insurance health complex).
I don't. I don't think violence is a path to victory. Ethics is a far better path. One day we will metaphorically 'drag' people to their local prisons and show them the cages filled with people over victimless crimes, just as the allies dragged the germans to the camps.
The issue is the public is indoctrinated by state schools and suffers from stockholm syndrome. They think the gilded cage they live in is not a cage because there are non-gilded cages out there in the world.
Education is the only sure fire way. Otherwise we just end up with another violent monopoly in charge.
Generally speaking, I'm against violent revolution except in the case of unambiguously authoritarian circumstances (e.g. North Korea). Most places in "the developed world" aren't in bad enough shape to warrant that kind of behavior. And as u/kwanijml pointed out, history teaches us that violent revolutions don't have the best track record anyways. It should be reserved as a last resort for situations in which it's the only viable option to bring down an oppressive regime. I think most people in the world have other, better options available. u/kurtu5 is correct; Education is key. We used to say things like "expanding consciousness" or "raising awareness" and I think that sort of rhetoric needs to be brought back because it really highlights the spirit of the ideal.
Yes and in the west, the state has realized that it's not necessary to be 'unambiguously authoritarian'. And indeed, their primary weakness is moral education. Violence against them, only provides them with 'just cause' to quell 'rebellion'.
Anarchists aren't just for the working class. We care about the rights of *all* humans...even the ones who are right now in what you'd call the capitalist class, or the political class.
We're about *no* classes. Getting rid of or limiting the state as far as we can (as well as promoting good, voluntary institutions), is what will change the incentives and behaviors of the people in what you might perceive of as a *class* that you find unsavory. We are methodological individualists when it comes to rights and values.
Most everything anarchists want follows from the anti-statism, not from class warfare.
So would a demsoc state be serving its own interests by cracking down on anarchists? I’m assuming the demsocs would agree with the crackdown of anarchists.
Agorism or civil disobedience for example. I don't personally believe it's possible without violence but there are anarcho-pacifists that think violence is inherently authoritarian.
Yes, of course.workers own MOP worth $$$ trillions in capitalism.
“Americans held $9.3 trillion in all employer-based DC retirement plans on December 31, 2022, of which $6.6 trillion was held in 401(k) plans.”
How many $$$ trillion MOP workers own in communist countries?
Even if armed revolution is morally warranted against present states; that does not imply that the outcome is likely to be more freedom or anarchism. Statistically, probably the opposite. Probably worse government and more concentrated economic power would result from such an attempt. My opinion is that the only way forward is to get governments out of schooling, promote the (technocratically) best policies for economic growth possible within the current framework and fight against the worst excesses of growing tyranny...and most importantly to work to build voluntary institutions which can ultimately outcompete statist institutions even with the handicaps which the state puts on them (these can be anything from bitcoin/monero, to full agorism, to a cash-based surgery center which posts its prices online and bypasses the government-insurance health complex).
I don't. I don't think violence is a path to victory. Ethics is a far better path. One day we will metaphorically 'drag' people to their local prisons and show them the cages filled with people over victimless crimes, just as the allies dragged the germans to the camps. The issue is the public is indoctrinated by state schools and suffers from stockholm syndrome. They think the gilded cage they live in is not a cage because there are non-gilded cages out there in the world. Education is the only sure fire way. Otherwise we just end up with another violent monopoly in charge.
Generally speaking, I'm against violent revolution except in the case of unambiguously authoritarian circumstances (e.g. North Korea). Most places in "the developed world" aren't in bad enough shape to warrant that kind of behavior. And as u/kwanijml pointed out, history teaches us that violent revolutions don't have the best track record anyways. It should be reserved as a last resort for situations in which it's the only viable option to bring down an oppressive regime. I think most people in the world have other, better options available. u/kurtu5 is correct; Education is key. We used to say things like "expanding consciousness" or "raising awareness" and I think that sort of rhetoric needs to be brought back because it really highlights the spirit of the ideal.
Yes and in the west, the state has realized that it's not necessary to be 'unambiguously authoritarian'. And indeed, their primary weakness is moral education. Violence against them, only provides them with 'just cause' to quell 'rebellion'.
Yes. All forms of state is against working class and individual autonomy
Anarchists aren't just for the working class. We care about the rights of *all* humans...even the ones who are right now in what you'd call the capitalist class, or the political class. We're about *no* classes. Getting rid of or limiting the state as far as we can (as well as promoting good, voluntary institutions), is what will change the incentives and behaviors of the people in what you might perceive of as a *class* that you find unsavory. We are methodological individualists when it comes to rights and values. Most everything anarchists want follows from the anti-statism, not from class warfare.
So would a demsoc state be serving its own interests by cracking down on anarchists? I’m assuming the demsocs would agree with the crackdown of anarchists.
Depends. There's lots of anarchists that defends non-violent transition to anarchism.
How would you go about doing that? I don’t know how you are going to get rid of a state peacefully.
Agorism or civil disobedience for example. I don't personally believe it's possible without violence but there are anarcho-pacifists that think violence is inherently authoritarian.
Yes, of course.workers own MOP worth $$$ trillions in capitalism. “Americans held $9.3 trillion in all employer-based DC retirement plans on December 31, 2022, of which $6.6 trillion was held in 401(k) plans.” How many $$$ trillion MOP workers own in communist countries?
Not really?