• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    I am arguing against modern propositions of flat organization because they run into the same problems. The onus to demonstrate viable alternatives to hierarchies is on the people who disagree with hierarchies being necessary. So far, we don’t have any functional examples of the kinds of approach anarchists promote, nor is there any reason to believe it would work.

    Furthermore, given that the current system is organized in a hierarchical fashion, dismantling this system would require an equivalent level of organization. Hence why all the actual successful revolutions we’ve seen have been centrally organized. Marxists have actually put their theories into practice and have achieved tangible results. Anarchists have so far failed to achieve much of anything other than acting as a roach motel for the left.

    • Cowbee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You have to prove why they would run into the same problems, you’re still making vague accusations of Anarcho-Primitivism being the same as Modern Anarchist structure. The lack of existing structure disproving the possible existence of said structure is the same argument Anti-Communists and Anti-Socialists make with regularity, and is similarly an incomplete argument.

      I, again, am not an Anarchist, but your method of argumentation is fundamentally flawed and won’t convince any Anarchist to join a Marxist movement. It lacks Materialism in its analysis and is of the same quality as generic Anti-Leftist argumentation. Instead, you should argue against concepts like ParEcon, Mutual Aid, and other Anarchist theory, without arguing against Primitive Communism.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, it’s very much the people who are advocating for this theory who have to prove that it works and not the other way around. Communists have put their ideas into action, we know that this approach works, and we know that it results in many tangible improvements over the current capitalist system.

        The argument I’m making is against the ways of organization that Anarchists promote, and these are fundamental to the ideology regardless of what specific branch we’re talking about. I simply gave primitivist version as an example that actually existed. The others are even more hypothetical. Meanwhile, not sure why you’d bring up talking about Materialism in an argument about organization.

        • Cowbee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You can’t prove something that hasn’t existed. You’re arguing against theory by saying it hasn’t been put into practice, disallowing it from being put into practice to be tested. This is the same anti-leftist, anti-development argument. The theory itself needs to be discounted.

          You’re not making any sort of analysis, just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that primitive anarchism is the same as modern anarchism, and moreover are taking a mystical approach, rather than a practical approach. That’s why I’m saying you ignore Materialism, rather than arguing on the basis that humans are driven by material conditions, you instead argue that since one unrelated tangential structure turned into another, that Anarchism itself is bunk.

          We aren’t going to agree here, clearly.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            You can’t prove something that hasn’t existed.

            Putting theory into practice is literally what Materialism is. Thanks for confirming that you’re the one lacking Materialist position in this argument.

            You’re not making any sort of analysis, just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that primitive anarchism is the same as modern anarchism, and moreover are taking a mystical approach, rather than a practical approach.

            That’s literally the opposite of the facts. I’m advocating for an approach based on a theory that has been successfully put into practice and has demonstrated results. You are the one who is sticking your head in the sand and talking about some hypotheticals that have never been tested or put into practice. You need to learn what Materialism is if you’re going to keep using this word.

            • Cowbee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Materialism is doing away with the idea that history is shaped by ideas and will, rather than material conditions. It isn’t going against proposed theory by targeting unrelated theory.

              You’re arguing that you cannot make predictions or try new things, despite validity of the theoretical basis, on the grounds that it hasn’t yet been done.

              You’re definitely not getting it.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                11 months ago

                No, Materialism does not in fact do away with ideas, what it says is that there is a dialectical relationship between ideas and material reality, between theory and practice. I’m arguing that any theory that hasn’t been put into practice does not have much value. Materialism means coming up with an idea, trying it out, seeing the results, integrating that into the theory, and trying again. Continuous dialectical process of improving the theory and testing it is what Materialism actually is.

                You’ve made it abundantly clear that you don’t actually understand the subject you’re attempting to debate here. Maybe spend some time educating yourself instead of telling other people they’re not getting it.

                • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Materialism is quite literally the position that history is shaped by physical, material conditions, and reality, rather than the will or thoughts of individuals.

                  Claiming that I don’t understand what Materialism is when you’ve been arguing against Primitive Communism as though it’s Modern Anarchism is absurd.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    All you do is just misrepresent what I’m saying never addressing the actual points being made. Bya.