Question to Anarchists

[Boboulas]

(11-25-2011 05:36 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  That link lost its relevance to me when I saw this

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ6.html

But it answered his question soooooo, moot point on your behalf.

[Surkov]

Depending on what type of Anarchist you ask you will get different answers. I'm inclined to answer that every workplace, residence, and facility will be run on a the basis of direct democracy taking the votes of those who make up each of these collective entities and communicating the results with other workplaces, residences, and facilities.

As for the issue of having such a large variety of people with different beliefs. That falls along the lines of Panarchism. It is generally thought to be a form of Anarchism, and rightly so in my opinion.

I feel that a development of relations between those of different social systems and ideologies would come about gradually as a result of revolution. Assuming that there is no seizure of power or imposition of ideology during said revolution.

By this I mean, As people take back their lives they will do so in such a manner that there will arise different "factions" for lack of a better word. These factions will learn to deal with each other over time.

The concept is not unlike the answer I gave at the beginning of my post in reference to how things would run without a notable hierarchy.

Since I am apparently babbling incoherently, I would like to clarify that the first three lines of my post are in response to.

(11-24-2011 01:29 AM)Younes Wrote:  It's hard to manage this shit, kinda like managing grassroot movements with too many people in it... a sort of hierarchy must be formed... mustn't it?

While lines four to ten take into account and respond to this part specifically

(11-24-2011 01:29 AM)Younes Wrote:  There are cities with up to 17 mio people, different kinds of people with different kinds of views, traditions, languages and backgrounds...

[1871]

Aha - this has now become the 'incoherent babble' thread.

[Surkov]

(12-05-2011 02:22 AM)1871 Wrote:  Aha - this has now become the 'incoherent babble' thread.

Gee Thanks.

[Notorious1994]

(11-24-2011 05:50 AM)HamishFTW Wrote:  Humanity hasn't evolved to that point yet OBVIOUSLY. Co-operation is the pathway to redemption AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PATH LIES

How would we evolve to a point that would solve this? A species doesn't evolve into a better fit for a social system for millions of years

[Fuzzly Bear]

Yea because there are so many examples that we can use for comparison




http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...=i+met+god


how would we evolve to that point? evolution is about adapting and surviving, right? it's pretty obvious that we're going to need to cooperate to survive the next thousand years