Two points:
"I have to go to a place" actually has its own semantic implications. It's a modern construction, deliberately vague to imply intentional mystery or semi-sincere shame.
"How flies the time" ironically makes the speaker sound more well-versed in English, like a stuffy old professor.
That's obtuse. Everyone bases everything on their opinion. You develop your opinion with information of the world. You're likewise basing everything on your opinion. Heliocentrists make better arguments than geocentrists in my opinion too, doesn't make that opinion wrong. Human reason is just the process of refining our opinions of the world.
I read the theory, I weighed it against the evidence of my experience, I came to conclusions. When theory conflicts with evidence, evidence takes precedence.
Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That's all been considered and there are solutions. It's nothing complicated.
Yes, exactly. How is that any different from the existing system where power given is temporary and positions are constantly rotated?
Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn't an argument against anything other than humanity
Yes, exactly. Any system without robust checks and balances is powerless against tyranny. You've got it backwards though, anarchy is by far more susceptible to tyranny because checks and balances are ultimately hierarchical. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have spent decades laying the groundwork for their brand of tyranny, and still Trump doesn't have the power to do everything he wants because the power we set up for him has rules and limitations, checks and balances.
You're arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren't trying to figure anything out for yourself.
Untrue. I only asked for the most basic information and you didn't have anything. I've spent a great deal of thought over the last few decades trying to figure these things out for myself, aided by the hundreds of schools of political thought. I'm not saying these things and asking these questions because I couldn't be bothered to think for myself. I say these things precisely because I've figured these things out extensively, and have found this particular class of thought to be desperately lacking.
You aren't so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven't considered.
And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I've read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.
That's what rules are for. Robert's rules of order is a good point of reference for it for meetings, and does not require hierarchy.
That's what I mean when I say "hierarchy" is a slippery term. Robert's rules don't function without a president authorized to adjudicate.
You just want to say "it can't work" and then ignore anything else.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say "it can work" and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.
And even what you do address, is obtusely vague. "Have rules", not what those rules are or how you enforce them. "Cooperate and make decisions by consensus", not how that cooperative structure is organized, how it obstructs exploitation, or how such a functional structure differs substantially from existing "hierarchical" structures.
Looks like 10 things to me
Nothing ever completely replaces everything.
That's kind of my point. Anarchy is more an idealistic aspiration than a practical system. We'll get to anarcho-communism eventually, it's practically a certainty, but that's probably a century or two in the future. We need a lot of fundamental cultural and material shifts before the average individual will embrace the concepts, and there aren't any shortcuts in geopolitics.
Have you ever actually implemented a system that replaces an existing one?
A government? No.
I didn't say a government, that was not the question I asked: a club function, a group project, a large event, a project team; any coordination of people for the purpose of performing some task or making some decision. The basic principles are similar to a government, though difficulties multiply with scale. But the difficulties intrinsic to organizing humans are present in some form at every scale. If you've ever organized humans, you'll understand the difficulties I'm referring to. If you haven't, this topic might be beyond your expertise.
So very frequently, the replacement is ambitious and idealistic, but it's not until implementation that the flaws become apparent.
Which is why you need to build it.
Again, the hand-waving. "The answer is to just give it a shot!" That completely ignores the fact that politics is inherently social and emotional. A poorly implemented experiment will sour the public on the concept, and ultimately do more harm than good.
Any political strategy without an eye for optics and effective persuasion is useless. Action for action's sake is literally one of Eco's features of fascism. We didn't need to fall for that trap. We are an experiment, we need a carefully constructed, detailed, tested plan to generate buy-in. Politics without buy-in is nothing but theory.
A new charter, a new direction for the system, a new iteration of the system with revised mandates. I don't think he would have anticipated total rejection of the basic model.
The implementation is probably the thing that's debated most. The thing about the left is they mostly all agree on what they want, but they don't agree on how. Some want a revolution, because they think that'll create a better foundation. Some want gradual change to existing systems. Etc. You have an idea in your head that you want to be true, and you assume it must be true, but you don't actually want to find any knowledge to (dis)prove it.
I agree that this is the general condition of the left, and a tad ironic for you to say. I've explored most of the clades of political theory, particularly on the left. I've read a lot, and agreed with a lot, but I have too much experience organizing people to accept the rose-colored glasses endemic to anarchist theory. Again, maybe in a century or two, but there's too much intermediate growth as a species necessary to actually operate that way.
It just doesn't offer much of substance which isn't addressed more thoroughly elsewhere. Even the central concept of "hierarchy" is difficult to pin down. I've heard definitions so liberal that modern western democracies technically count as anarchic since representatives are voted in, and definitions so conservative that they couldn't even convene a public works task force.
And that's really the central point. With every logistical difficulty, anarchism either hand-waves "The people will agree cooperatively", or introduces a provisional acceptable hierarchy that looks an awful lot like existing structures at scale. It's just not a strong foundation at this stage of human civilization.
Even impoverished Americans have a relatively high standard of living, globally speaking. People are struggling, but they generally have a roof over their heads and don't have to eat their pets. We're not where we should be by any measure, but we're also nowhere near the levels of desperation that push people to armed revolt.
Have you heard of Community Policing before?
I have. In actual implementation, it's still hierarchical, it just encourages outreach and communication between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Yes, not everyone can be involved with everything all the time. The key is accountability and cooperation. Our current democracies are largely missing both of these. In an ideal world, sure they're accountable to voters, but power in that is unfairly controlled by the owner class.
We already have accountability and cooperation through democratic elections. If you think that's insufficient, that's a valid critique, but not in itself a replacement. That's the sticking point, developing a replacement that doesn't fall to the same problems of the current system.
You said you're a systems person. Have you ever actually implemented a system that replaces an existing one? So very frequently, the replacement is ambitious and idealistic, but it's not until implementation that the flaws become apparent. Building a stable system with effective checks and balances is much more difficult than anarchist literature suggests. And even if you do make a system that starts off stable, it's only a matter of time before people figure out a way to exploit the system.
You can have a system that's democratic, responsive, or just. But you can't have all three, they are functionally at odds with one another. You can design a system that appears to be all three, but implementation will expose the design flaws sooner or later.
They thought we'd have torn it apart and built something better by now
I doubt it. I believe they expected we'd change the system they built, and I agree that we should, but the foundation is pretty difficult to improve upon. Not saying it's perfect, but pragmatically it's fairly practical. If anything, it suffers mostly from the charges we've made to it; capping the House and Citizens United have been particularly damaging changes.
It does not hand wave it away. You hand wave away the solutions and just say "oh, they haven't actually considered it."
I respectfully disagree. Sure, solutions are considered, but not really the implementation of those solutions, which is my contention. The solutions exist, but they're not well developed. Again, they either assume greed and malice will spontaneously disappear, or kick the can down the road under the banner of "cooperation".
I am not ignorant of the solutions, I've read a great deal of theory. I just didn't find them compelling. I have made a sincere attempt, I am not confused. I just have too much experience implementing human systems to be convinced by the solutions provided.
Swamp Thing : the saga of the Swamp Thing by Moore, Alan, 1953
I guess Moore, Alan, 1953 is technically correct.
Eh, bread and circuses. People are still relatively comfortable and complacent.
I have a single volume hardcover copy of The Invisibles. It's massive, definitely impractical to carry, but propped up on the coffee table, it's really not unpleasant to read.
Been-a-while On-the-pot