• Derp@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    15 days ago

    I mean, anarchism was the initial state, so it has been tried. It seems that it is not very resilient against being replaced by other systems, so it can’t really be the best system in the real world.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Unlike the resilient anti-capitalism of Marxist states amirite.

      It’s almost like you need to learn and evolve from the mistakes of the past to create systems that work in the present.

      For example, when white colonizers land on your shores, don’t ignore them and start an escalating series of tribal wars to sell them war-slaves.

      Also, maybe don’t have slaves.

      See? We’ve already improved on proto-anarchism.

      • Derp@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        Yes. And by improving and changing the system, it by definition stops being anarchism and becomes something else. Which is what I was saying.

    • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      The anarchists love to come out of the woodwork whenever democracy is having a bad day, then they disappear whenever someone mentions medicine being more of a global effort.

      Yes, I’m sure an entirely fragmented world full of companies protected by privatized militias would be extremely cooperative, with the added bonus modifier of there being no borders.