Message from @Asdrubal
Discord ID: 684058461356818434
> 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)
whoa lots of messages
damm
b r u h
ill respond later cba to type out a paragraph now
Thats some crazy shit
that's cringe, don't ever do that again
🤔
I doubt he's a nazi, @arandomfrog
Oh he was deported again? 😂
He was unintentionally released
Collective Anarchism is just dismantling the state to replace it with a stronger one
No?
Sounds based to me
I'm all for collective anarchism if it results in a stronger state
Nah.
But how is collective anarchism creating a state?
🤔
Common ownership of property is just the basis for a new state
It's like Anarcho capitalism
Eh, no.
You need the functions of the state to maintain it
based!
OwO
No..
<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Bruni#0761 has been warned., Rule 7***
Does warning even affect anything?
No
A warning is by definition a warning it doesn't do anything besides let you know if you do it again you'll be detained
Oh, okay.
So how is saying it should have a call to violence or genocide? In a court of law there would have been no clear target for the threat so there would have been no threat
Discord is pretty strict about it
^