Two have a point. One does not. - eviltoast
  • Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I think pure anarchism relies too much on people being good and working things out. Historically that just doesn’t pan out. So there does need to be some greater structure for organizing things, but I have no idea what it would look like.

    Syndicalism offers some ideas for organizing into loose groups and interrelations between those syndicates but I haven’t dug deeply into the mechanics of it. I think ultimately humanity has to organize into groups of about 1000 individuals, related by common interests and mutual aid, with some grander scheme for global distribution of reaources. Soviets? Universal suffrage and democracy? Republicanism? Maybe each syndicate chooses for itself and somehow global anarchy between them “just works” (but I doubt it)?

    Anyway, a fun problem to debate and armchair strategize about, since presumably none of us have the money and power to overthrow the current world order.