In order for an anarchist society to work out, the vast majority of the people in that society have to be anarchists, sure, I never claimed that it would be easy to achieve

@Danacrag

I don't think everyone has to agree on everything 100% but they have to agree on some basic anarchistic principles at least

even if true anarchy would exist. The ancaps would ruin you =p

idk why its so hard to go back and see what you pinged ppl with but w/e

Ancaps would be re-educated

hahahha

conversion therapy

There's a little @ symbol at the top right of discord that lets you scroll through past pings

i was being sarcastic

@beepcash maybe accidental idk

"I see." Said the blind man to his deaf wife

i hope so

@LustrousMandrill for curiosity, If you were in a full communist state. You would fight against said state to achieve anarchy?

No such thing as a "full communist state", but if it were a socialist state, yes, I'd still seek the abolition of the state

A socialist state would be a huge step in the right direction though

ya, the problem here is that for you communism is anarcho-communism. That's our only disagreement from the start

if you think communism can have/be a state then you probly dont really know what communism is

or you read to many fantasy books

🤦

this is such a boring topic

like I said above, there isn't any flavor of communism that existed that didn't rely on a big authoritarian state

i see it every day

ofc you would, it's what happens when your definition of a word is totally different than the one everyone uses

"hur communism had a state in the past!"

"thats not communism! dialectics n stuff"

im not even a communist

im just sick of it ngl

communism is impossible by itself, but funny enough, you picked an even more impossible one on top of it 😂

wht

like I asked above, how would you have redistribution of wealth?

i mean what was that statement even meant to mean

@⥌鬼気⥍ It would be a very natural process. I mean, it would be kind of difficult for someone to hoard wealth without a state to protect their "private property rights"

the reverse, someone with wealth would be the only one capable of defending himself

wealth is power, without any limits as there is no state

it only takes a group with guns and wealth for your system to fall and not be classless anymore

But the mechanism by which people are able to accumulate so much wealth in the first place would no longer be in place either

it's not "so much". A couple of guns is enough

look at Africa in general. Corruption and forcing people into labor is the basic

without a state there is no protection. At least the ancaps assume that they have to defend themselves

Yes, I'm sure a person with a couple of guns would be able to somehow seize power in an anarchist society where everyone else is also armed and there's a culture of dismantling hierarchy

The community would be the protection