Uh as a fellow Anarchist I apologies for the spamming my friend did.. it wasn’t.. really responsible.

The only way for what?

You give a bad image of Anarcho-Communism

😒

Yeah spamming doesn’t help

Uh

What?

@arandomfrog man focusing on enemies, as you say, would be debating them

Not spamming them

> id beat him up irl
@Sentient23 okay don’t say that tho

@Sentient23 we don’t advocate for the destruction of society

Define anarchy.

Okay, and how does that inevitably lead to destruction of society?

@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156 About 3 years, but most times USSR couped the anarchist societies

@Sentient23 Also you probably know but I just wanna make sure you do: anarchy doesn’t inherently imply a lawless society.

> So you guys can’t defend what you “build”?
@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156 yes we can but we’ll need to organise better than we did last times

@Sentient23 ok but how does it?

@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156 no...

Lmao

I didn’t say a thing about my ideology yet..

No..

Now lemme type haha

> Lol it is a lawless society
@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156 No. Anarchy comes from Greek words that mean stateless (or something like that lol). There are laws, it’s just that they’re decided by the community democratically instead of the state. > So organize better as in make a state?
@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156 No, organise better as in build a powerful voluntary militia and take control of weapons.

Yeah sorry.

Without rulers

No

> Its impossible to ensure your and your groups survival without invoking hierarchy
@Sentient23 Yes, but let me explain

First, most crimes are related to money, so with the abolition of money, a lot of crimes wouldn’t exist anymore. But there are still hate and passionate crimes. There would be a non-official voluntary militia for that kind of things (and for army). And it isn’t a proper hierarchy because the militia isn’t « official »; it’s just people who voluntarily accept to help people in danger, or does not have any more power, since anyone could join that non-official militia. @Sentient23

I did nothing..

I apologised for the guy

Literally

Cause I wanted to come for fun?

No I do not

OwO

@Sentient23 if you wanna debate, agree to be respectful and to not just mock me, alright? I want this debate to be respectful

I’ve talked with too many toxic people online and I don’t want to do so again

“*You cannot abolish money. Money is a medium of exchange. There will always be a medium of exchange because that’s the most efficient way to trade.*”
You think we always had money? Of course money can be abolished! Why couldn’t it? It’s a medium of exchange, and the most efficient one? Sure, but I don’t support trades, so how can’t money be abolished? There’s no proper argument there.

“*The militia not being official does not preclude the presence of hierarchy*”
True, but the fact that literally anybody can do that militia role does. I’ll clarify my militia a bit. Anybody could join it anytime and be given the role they’re best at. **They do not have more power than others** since almost **anybody can join it**.

I’ll answer your last argument in the next message, just wait two seconds

> You cannot put a guy who's 6'7 into a field which orients around being quiet and not being seen. Nor can you put a guy who has 60 iq in charge of planning operations. Who would plan operations? It would be democratically chosen? That's stupid because you're giving the ability of something which necessitates some form of high up knowledge, to brainlets. If you reject this, then your militia would and will get obliterated, which then transforms the argument from a theoretical one to a pragmatic one
@Sentient23
Yeah, you can’t give a tall guy the role to hide and be quiet, true.. but let’s remind ourselves the definition of hierarchy; *”any system of persons or things ranked one above another.”* The short guy who will do the job that requires to be quiet doesn’t have any more power or influence than the tall guy. It’s two different roles, true, but one does not have more power than the other, so it is not a hierarchy. Now the operation argument: well first I don’t really see which kind of operation you are talking about but I’ll answer nevertheless. Of course, the smarter guys would create the strategy, but before just sending troops go fight when they don’t even know what they’re doing, the soldiers will have their say in the plan (doesn’t mean they create the plan, but they can express their opinion on it). Yet, it does not create a hierarchy because of a few reasons; first, soldiers are free to leave the non official militia, so it is completely voluntary - soldiers who obey “orders” do it because they want to, which means it doesn’t give any true power to the planner; second, when the smarter guy shows the plan to soldiers, the soldiers will agree with the plan or not, and if they don’t, they’ll be able to seriously suggest changes, which the planned will be forced to *at least* consider (and the idiots won’t have the interest to suggest smarter plans).

Anyways I should go now

You can answer tho

I might come back later

See you

> You're opposed to trading????? What? How would you help your community if you've forbidden trading. When your militias raid something for supplies, them supplying it to the village would be trading.

Yeah, okay, I think I've misunderstood what you meant before. My trade would follow the logic "To each according to his need", though, not direct trade. By the way supplies don't come raidings from the militia, just wanted to precise.

> It can't be abolished because if trades exist, a medium of exchange will always inevitably come into being. I want eggs from the militia, the eggs they've gathered by raiding an oppossing faction, I want 10 eggs, but there's only 20 eggs, and there's 20 other people, it would be rational to redistribute 1 egg for each person, but i want 10 eggs. How would that be resolved without invoking hierarchy? what if i propose that i give the militia my 3 chickens to redistribute to the rest for their 10 eggs, but they don't want chicken they want apples. So it would be much more rational to agree upon a medium of exchange which could be used as a thing who's purpose is just to be that which enables indirect exchange. It is a proper argument
First, I'd like to point out that the militia is not giving supplied, but is only formed of volunteers who want to defend the commune or defend their people. Second, resources won't have to be rationed most of the time, and if they do, the people will realize it an produce more. Now I'll answer your main argument. In that case, the needs of the 20 people would be evaluated; if you ask 10 eggs just for a fancy recipee while one of the 20 is starving and really needs, let's say, 4 eggs, his request will be heared first and he'll be given the eggs he needs, because the first goal after our Anarchist Revolution is to guarantee food to everyone. Now if you're the one starving, you will be given the 10 eggs. Now, the most likely scenario, after the "no-need to ration" one, is that some people won't need any egg. Example: you need 10 eggs, but some people don't need any egg. In that situation, you'll be given your 10 eggs without question. To each according to his need. But let's pretend that you want 10 eggs but everyone else want 1 egg, and that nobody is starving. Then, you would be asked if you really need those 10 eggs now. You probably will not need them so far. Most people will be willing to say "well, okay, give the minimum

> So you've changed your notion of how militias would function. That's fine. "and be given the role they’re best at" THIS part is crucial here, because by virtue of one person assigning people roles in reference to their abilities, you're invoking hierarchy, since the person applying doesn't get to pick them themselves.
No. First, it is true that the soldier does not pick his role, but he can leave the militia anytime because it isn't even an official body. Second, when suggesting people what they'd be best at, I do not give any additional importance nor power to that person. No additional importance because they all fight for the same cause and no additional power because soldiers can leave the militia. If generals actually had control over soldiers, soldiers couldn't just say "I disagree with you, I suggest you these modifications and I'll leave if you exagerate your plans".

> "almost anybody can join it." Almost? Almost anybody could join it? Who gets to decide the criteria of who can be allowed in the military and who can't? It cannot be dictatorial, since that invokes hierarchy. It also cannot be democratic, since that also invokes hierarchy since 10 people voting Yes on X proposition of criteria, but one people voting No, would mean that X would still be passed, and thus you're invoking hierarchy since those "10" people have more power of decision making than that 1 person.
The community would decide of the criterias democratically. It does not invoke a hierarchy; because we, anarchists, agree that exageration of direct democracy can lead to tyranny of the majority, as you seem to point out. For that kind of things, we would find consensus/compromise.
However, you are beginning to exagerate with hierarchy. Here's the definition: "a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance". That 1 vote that opposes the 10 votes majority isn't less counted than any other vote. It is as counted as the other individual votes. That 1 vote minority isn't less counted, less regarded, less important. It doesn't take away its voter's power or importance. You're almost more paranoid about hierarchy than anarchists themselves. 👀

> That would still invoke hierarchy, since there's two alternatives to invoking democracy in decision making. 1. Either your standard for what constitutes a proposition being passed is EVERYONE agreeing on it, or 2. Your standard is MAJORITY agreeing of it If its the former, no one will agree on anything, since people have different beliefs all the time. Especially if a person is well versed in military training and strategical planning. If its the latter, then that invokes hierarchy since its X Y and Z, having more power than person H.
Depending on the issues, I would choose one or the other. Consensus can happen, though: of course, people have different beliefs, but most of the time, reasonable people are able to agree with something they did not exactly want. Let's take a non-militia related example. Let's say a commune curiously want to redivide their territory and have only 8000 people in the commune (it doesn't make much sense by the way, it's just an example). But let's say one anti-redivision of the territory claims 8000 will not be enough workers to produce necessary goods. Most reasonable people will agree and agree to do a compromise: 9500 people, let's say. The anti-redivision agrees to it and the pro-8000 people do so too. If I decide to choose the majority, then each vote is equal. I will hear the majority, but the one minority vote will be heard, and will have had their one vote, equal to every other. It's not ranking the majority higher, or hearing some individual votes more, or giving more power to the majority. But, again, you're really getting paranoid with "hierarchy"; you're exagerating.

> "Of course, the smarter guys would create the strategy, but before just sending troops go fight when they don’t even know what they’re doing, the soldiers will have their say in the plan" Well this is just ridiculous. This would bring about the full destruction of your operation. Explain to me, would a strategical operation be more effective if only those well versed in strategical training decide how to go about doing the operation, or would it be more efficient if low iqs also got their say in the plan? Unless you're willing to sacrafice efficiency for your theretical belief that hierarchy is bad, you can't evade this problem. If you are however willing to sacrafice efficiency for your theoretical beliefs that hierarchy is bad, then you won't get to sustain the absence of a hierarchy, since a hierarchical militia from faction Y will and would obliterate you. And if that's the case, you've proven anarchy to be contradictory since anarchy in its full pure form, would bring about the antithesis of anarchy.
Low IQs won't have any interest in having their say in the plan. Low IQs won't even care about the plan. Also I do not get your last arguments. I've just explained how militia is not really hierarchical. And how would anarchy in its pure form bring about the antithesis of anarchy?
By the way, I think you are sticking on the militia too much. It's not the most important aspect of the anarchist society, it's not what anarchists think about when they want to establish their society. Details of the militia organisation are specifics that will be decided after the Revolution. Really, I don't think it's really constructive to only focus on that aspect.

> It being voluntary does not preclude the presence of a hierarchy.... I can voluntarily assign myself to X which is hierarchical, but what determines wheter there's hierarchy in X, is whether or not some people have more power in decision making than me
?
But since it's voluntary you don't have to follow these decisions, you can leave anytime.

(sorry for the multiple messages by the way)

🤔

I doubt he's a nazi, @arandomfrog

Oh he was deported again? 😂

No?

Nah.

But how is collective anarchism creating a state?

🤔

Eh, no.

OwO

No..

Does warning even affect anything?

Oh, okay.