In Praise of Anarchy

Part II (Part I can be found here) from Club Orlov. Raises some very salient points about the ecological nature of Anarchism.

When confronted with an increasingly despotic régime, the good people of almost any nation will cower in their homes and, once they are flushed out, will allow themselves to be herded like domesticated animals. They will gladly take orders from whoever gives them, because their worst fear is not despotism—it is anarchy. Anarchy! Are you afraid of anarchy? Or are you more afraid of hierarchy? Color me strange, but I am much more afraid of being subjected to a chain of command than of anarchy (which is a lack of hierarchy).

Mind you, this is not an irrational fear, but comes from a lifetime of studying nature, human as well as the regular kind, and of working within hierarchically organized organizations as well as some anarchically organized ones. The anarchically organized ones work better. I have worked in a number of start-up companies, which were quite anarchic, in a good way, and were therefore able to invent and to innovate. I have also worked in a number of big, established companies, with many hierarchies of management, and a laborious approval process for any new proposal. These companies couldn’t invent or innovate worth a damn, and only continue to exist because the system favors big companies. When faced with the need to do something new, they always tried to buy a smaller, innovative company. This is because in a hierarchical organization people who know more are inevitably forced to take orders from people who know less, and often know nothing at all beyond knowing how to get promoted. The result is that in hierarchical organizations—and I have seen this over and over again—the smart people sit around and do nothing (or as little as possible) because following stupid orders is a waste of time, while the stupid people run around like chickens trying to get themselves promoted. This is not a matter of scale, but of organization: I have worked in just one (but it was quite educational) start-up that was organized as a rigid hierarchy and had a laborious approval process for any new proposal. This abnormal, dysfunctional situation came about because one of the founders was cognitively impaired, and the company did not get very far at all.

Thus, I may be persuaded to accede to the specific and temporary authority of a superior (superior at a given task) but I find it problematic to blindly accept the authority of my superior’s superior. It does happen that a competent person gets kicked upstairs into management. This has happened to the best of us, and has even happened to me. But to keep climbing up the hierarchy after that is to prove that the promotion wasn’t an error, and that the person in question really is management material, i.e., a bit dumb, not particularly scrupulous, but very obedient. I am definitely not management material: I seem to be missing a gene that allows middle-management types to automatically look up to their superiors and look down on their inferiors. I could never get past the thought that this hierarchy thing is all a big mistake. If anarchy works so well for the birds, the bees, the dolphins and the wildebeest—why can’t it work for us? There are many things that deserve be feared in the world, but a pleasantly, congenially, efficiently organized lack of hierarchy is definitely not one of them…

[continues at Club Orlov]

, , , , ,

68 Responses to In Praise of Anarchy

  1. Ted Heistman October 11, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    See this is what I am talking about all you Debbie Downers:

    “I have worked in a number of start-up companies, which were quite
    anarchic, in a good way, and were therefore able to invent and to
    innovate. I have also worked in a number of big, established companies,
    with many hierarchies of management, and a laborious approval process
    for any new proposal. These companies couldn’t invent or innovate worth a
    damn, and only continue to exist because the system favors big
    companies”

    If things become more anarchist their will be economic growth. I mean if you really want to live in a debris hut by all means do, but you won’t have to.

  2. Ted Heistman October 11, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    See this is what I am talking about all you Debbie Downers:

    “I have worked in a number of start-up companies, which were quite
    anarchic, in a good way, and were therefore able to invent and to
    innovate. I have also worked in a number of big, established companies,
    with many hierarchies of management, and a laborious approval process
    for any new proposal. These companies couldn’t invent or innovate worth a
    damn, and only continue to exist because the system favors big
    companies”

    If things become more anarchist their will be economic growth. I mean if you really want to live in a debris hut by all means do, but you won’t have to.

    • Squidlord234 October 11, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

      Just because there isn’t economic growth doesn’t mean you’ll be living in any kind of hut, you braindead plebian. 

      God you people are pathetic closed minded simpletons. You all love to pretend you’re all deeply philosophical open minded savants, but you’re all just average nerds that are trying to separate yourselves from all the other average nerds by swimming an inch or two out of the mainstream.

    • Squidlord234 October 11, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

      Just because there isn’t economic growth doesn’t mean you’ll be living in any kind of hut, you braindead plebian. 

      God you people are pathetic closed minded simpletons. You all love to pretend you’re all deeply philosophical open minded savants, but you’re all just average nerds that are trying to separate yourselves from all the other average nerds by swimming an inch or two out of the mainstream.

      • Ted Heistman October 11, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

         You aren’t a nerd right, “squidlord” Anonymous keyboard warrior extraordinaire?

        I’ll pretend you made a cogent point. As people use their brains better, this creates wealth. People are learning that destroying the environment is bad. Other people are coming up with innovative ways to create goods and services that don’t destroy the Earth.  This has the potential for economic growth, especially services. A service could be cleaning up pollution, purifying drinking water, reforestation, creating organic farms from denuded wastelands. This can create jobs.

        The death urge thing of simply crying “no more!” is not going to help anything. But a lot of wanna-be bohemian hipsters like being depressed and talking about the end of the world so maybe they think its stylish.

      • Ted Heistman October 11, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

         You aren’t a nerd right, “squidlord” Anonymous keyboard warrior extraordinaire?

        I’ll pretend you made a cogent point. As people use their brains better, this creates wealth. People are learning that destroying the environment is bad. Other people are coming up with innovative ways to create goods and services that don’t destroy the Earth.  This has the potential for economic growth, especially services. A service could be cleaning up pollution, purifying drinking water, reforestation, creating organic farms from denuded wastelands. This can create jobs.

        The death urge thing of simply crying “no more!” is not going to help anything. But a lot of wanna-be bohemian hipsters like being depressed and talking about the end of the world so maybe they think its stylish.

        • Chaorder Gradient October 11, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

          i weep for some people’s reading comprehension…

        • Chaorder Gradient October 11, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

          i weep for some people’s reading comprehension…

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 8:32 am #

             Yeah, I did say “you don’t have to live in a hut” didn’t I?

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 8:32 am #

             Yeah, I did say “you don’t have to live in a hut” didn’t I?

        • Monkey See Monkey Do October 12, 2012 at 4:18 am #

          The growth of this sick system IS the ‘death urge’ you talk about. Perhaps in some hypothetical future in which we are able to grow cyclically without destroying our environment, but until then we have to ‘put our bodies upon the gears’ my friend.

        • Monkey See Monkey Do October 12, 2012 at 4:18 am #

          The growth of this sick system IS the ‘death urge’ you talk about. Perhaps in some hypothetical future in which we are able to grow cyclically without destroying our environment, but until then we have to ‘put our bodies upon the gears’ my friend.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 8:48 am #

            Wanting to grow, expand your influence, etc. is not a death urge. Creativity is not a death urge. Wanting everything to stop and stay the same is the death urge.

            You can play a game of semantics and say you want “development” instead of growth but I relly sense that “steady state” “zero growth” appeals to people weary of life itself.

            I agree that growth based on unsustainable exploitation of finite, non renewable resources is unsustainable, but human creativity is infinite.

          • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 9:42 am #

            It’s not a semantic game, it’s clarity of thought.  Should a bedridden man weighing 650 lbs. continue to grow?  No, he should shrink and develop his muscles.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 10:02 am #

             He could grow by becoming smarter and enlarging his sphere of influence and thus make bank!

          • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 10:34 am #

            And when he dies early of morbid obesity, that “bank” will be useless to him.

          • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 10:34 am #

            And when he dies early of morbid obesity, that “bank” will be useless to him.

        • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 9:47 am #

          Ascribing psychological motivations to people who talk about the facts of deforestation, mass extinctions, pollution, the limits of energy production, and the contradictions in monetary policy does not change those facts and their trajectory.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 9:54 am #

             You are the one creating a false dilemma, my friend. You are saying basically that since economic growth can only happen through “deforestation, mass extinctions, pollution, the limits of energy production, and the contradictions in monetary policy”

            Therefore-

            We must stop all economic growth or else we are doomed-cue ominous music.

            I am saying that economic growth can be tied into creating wealth. i.e. cleaning up pollution, reversing deforestation, building clean energy grids, raising living standards and quality of life. So what do you say to that?

          • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 10:37 am #

            First, your interpretation of what I’m saying was not what I’m saying.

            Second, cleaning up pollution, building clean energy grids and whatnot are not growth (because many other economic activities would have to be stopped), they’re development.  And I’d heartily approve of them.

            But if you, as you wrote, agree that growth based on exploitation of finite resources is unsustainable, then I think we have far less difference in opinion than you think.  You might want to use the word development in the future so people have a clearer understanding of what you’re advocating.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 10:43 am #

            I think the economy would still grow if it was based on sustainable development. So maybe its just semantics.

            I think economic activity will be more tied into real wealth creation in the future due to people being more enlightened about sustainability. Its happening already.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 10:43 am #

            I think the economy would still grow if it was based on sustainable development. So maybe its just semantics.

            I think economic activity will be more tied into real wealth creation in the future due to people being more enlightened about sustainability. Its happening already.

  3. BuzzCoastin October 12, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    anarchy means too many different things to too many different people
    to serve as a useful term on which to base a discussion
    about something for which we have no appropriate cliches

    what do call a society where
    the people are served, not ruled
    and the service is optional not mandatory
    rules are simple, observance of rules is a matter of conscience
    a group of elected representatives serves as arbitrators of disputes

    when we develop a sufficient vocabulary of cliches
    they will magically transform into archetypes

  4. BuzzCoastin October 12, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    anarchy means too many different things to too many different people
    to serve as a useful term on which to base a discussion
    about something for which we have no appropriate cliches

    what do call a society where
    the people are served, not ruled
    and the service is optional not mandatory
    rules are simple, observance of rules is a matter of conscience
    a group of elected representatives serves as arbitrators of disputes

    when we develop a sufficient vocabulary of cliches
    they will magically transform into archetypes

    • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 8:42 am #

       Historically there have been warrior castes of people that have been anarchist among themselves, but have then wreaked havoc on others and subjugated them.

      Widening the circle of equality I think has been the result of electoral politics. This can lead to despotism also. because you get a bunch of people who want to be equal but also want to be led and want to be taken care of.

      I think equals need to be adults first.

      This is what Tocqueville was talking about in “what form of despotism do democratic nations have to fear”

      I think anarchism works best in small groups. Possibly “dunbar’s number” has an effect.

    • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 8:42 am #

       Historically there have been warrior castes of people that have been anarchist among themselves, but have then wreaked havoc on others and subjugated them.

      Widening the circle of equality I think has been the result of electoral politics. This can lead to despotism also. because you get a bunch of people who want to be equal but also want to be led and want to be taken care of.

      I think equals need to be adults first.

      This is what Tocqueville was talking about in “what form of despotism do democratic nations have to fear”

      I think anarchism works best in small groups. Possibly “dunbar’s number” has an effect.

      • BuzzCoastin October 12, 2012 at 8:50 am #

        your response underscores the problem of words
        is anarchy lawlessness or just the elimination of rulers

        the United States is in a state of anarchy right now
        it is a country with an abrogated constitution
        and a ruling class above the law
        where laws are used to oppress and not serve the sheeple

        to me anarchy is the removal of oppressive rule
        and replaced with social services by public servants
        but I have no cliche to articulate this concept with

        • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 9:02 am #

          The only thing I can picture as working is a society of  people being passionate about what they do. But a lot of people are so risk averse that they never will. So they cling to Power. They attach themselves to power in order to have “security”

          Government employees are like this. They want the security of a government job. So really if its a despotic government its doesn’t matter to them as long as its big and powerful and can thus deliver “security” to them. So they work at their miserable job, the post office or the dmv or public school and do as little as possible.

          That’s what I think of then you say “public servant”  So you must be thinking of something different.

        • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 9:02 am #

          The only thing I can picture as working is a society of  people being passionate about what they do. But a lot of people are so risk averse that they never will. So they cling to Power. They attach themselves to power in order to have “security”

          Government employees are like this. They want the security of a government job. So really if its a despotic government its doesn’t matter to them as long as its big and powerful and can thus deliver “security” to them. So they work at their miserable job, the post office or the dmv or public school and do as little as possible.

          That’s what I think of then you say “public servant”  So you must be thinking of something different.

          • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 9:49 am #

            So what should be done with or about people who are “risk averse” (i.e. likely traumatized)?

          • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 9:49 am #

            So what should be done with or about people who are “risk averse” (i.e. likely traumatized)?

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 10:18 am #

            If they have something they want to do in life but feel afraid to do it they should seek to overcome their fears and do it. 

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 10:18 am #

            If they have something they want to do in life but feel afraid to do it they should seek to overcome their fears and do it. 

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 11:38 am #

            that all psychological patients simply must raise themselves from illness simply of their own accord is magical thinking, and not in a good way.

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 11:38 am #

            that all psychological patients simply must raise themselves from illness simply of their own accord is magical thinking, and not in a good way.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

             that’s not what I’m and this is just some weird rabbit trail.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

             that’s not what I’m and this is just some weird rabbit trail.

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

             you’re right, i took your last comment out of context. but i think what i said has some merit in that many psychological illnesses derive from sociological problems, so it is not simply a case of letting fear go, but learning to adapt in a new paradigm. adapting can be profoundly difficult for  people with psychological “disorders.”

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

             you’re right, i took your last comment out of context. but i think what i said has some merit in that many psychological illnesses derive from sociological problems, so it is not simply a case of letting fear go, but learning to adapt in a new paradigm. adapting can be profoundly difficult for  people with psychological “disorders.”

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

             So what’s your point? We need a big federal government in order for anyone to be helped?

            I just think wanting a huge State apparatus in order to provide welfare for everyone and then turn around and say that we don’t want this huge State to become oppressive is too much to ask.

            I think people can help other people without the State. I think there is a difference between anarchy and basically just wanting to be a State Employee and having lots of government benefits. 

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

             So what’s your point? We need a big federal government in order for anyone to be helped?

            I just think wanting a huge State apparatus in order to provide welfare for everyone and then turn around and say that we don’t want this huge State to become oppressive is too much to ask.

            I think people can help other people without the State. I think there is a difference between anarchy and basically just wanting to be a State Employee and having lots of government benefits. 

          • Andrew October 12, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

            Perhaps the problem is in our theoretical constructions “state” and “government.”  If they are unpacked, perhaps “welfare” and “oppression” can be separated.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

             The problem is they have grown up together and then people on the left say “wouldn’t it be great to have all this tax revenue and just get rid of war and spend it all on welfare!!! Yeah!!! that would be awesome!!! Wellfare for everybody!!!”

            I am skeptical of that and I don’t think that is what anarchy is.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

             The problem is they have grown up together and then people on the left say “wouldn’t it be great to have all this tax revenue and just get rid of war and spend it all on welfare!!! Yeah!!! that would be awesome!!! Wellfare for everybody!!!”

            I am skeptical of that and I don’t think that is what anarchy is.

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

            i’m an anarchist so inherently anti-state, anti capitalist. my point was actually the opposite, it was how hierarchical societies (or rather empires) can create psychological problems in individuals.( and in saying this i acknowledge this a rather broad ambiguous thesis) referring to what you and andrew said about ‘fear.’

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

            i’m an anarchist so inherently anti-state, anti capitalist. my point was actually the opposite, it was how hierarchical societies (or rather empires) can create psychological problems in individuals.( and in saying this i acknowledge this a rather broad ambiguous thesis) referring to what you and andrew said about ‘fear.’

          • Eric Fischer October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

            The problem with that theory is that all we know about human nature in social groups indicates that they will inevitably form hierarchies anywhere none exist. 
            The only variances in that aspect are what are the guidelines and how do they flow from one generation to the next.

          • Eric Fischer October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

            The problem with that theory is that all we know about human nature in social groups indicates that they will inevitably form hierarchies anywhere none exist. 
            The only variances in that aspect are what are the guidelines and how do they flow from one generation to the next.

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

            but i disagree social groups “inevitably” form hierarchies. there are quite a few extant examples of egalitarian societies (mostly in the global south). i think if you were to remove ‘colonisation’ from the context of recent history the result would have been far more egalitarian examples.

          • Jin The Ninja October 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

            but i disagree social groups “inevitably” form hierarchies. there are quite a few extant examples of egalitarian societies (mostly in the global south). i think if you were to remove ‘colonisation’ from the context of recent history the result would have been far more egalitarian examples.

          • Hadrian999 October 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

            you can’t remove colonization from the model, egalitarian societies have a history of getting crushed by hierarchical societies. any new egalitarian society needs to be able to withstand pressure of outside attack which is inevitable.

          • Hadrian999 October 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

            you can’t remove colonization from the model, egalitarian societies have a history of getting crushed by hierarchical societies. any new egalitarian society needs to be able to withstand pressure of outside attack which is inevitable.

          • Jin The Ninja October 13, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

            completely and utterly agree, i am simply positing that even in the face of colonisation there are extant egalitarian societies and before colonisation there were many more.

          • Jin The Ninja October 13, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

            completely and utterly agree, i am simply positing that even in the face of colonisation there are extant egalitarian societies and before colonisation there were many more.

          • Chaorder Gradient October 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

            i always think of a public servant as someone who literally sacrifices security in favor of the group. Doing their job correctly has the unfortunate consequence of making  themselves obsolete(example, good cops eliminating crime, removing their necessity.) In this sense, public servant’s do not really exist, or if they do, they only exist in a balance with those that are in the permanent state of counteracting them

          • Chaorder Gradient October 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

            i always think of a public servant as someone who literally sacrifices security in favor of the group. Doing their job correctly has the unfortunate consequence of making  themselves obsolete(example, good cops eliminating crime, removing their necessity.) In this sense, public servant’s do not really exist, or if they do, they only exist in a balance with those that are in the permanent state of counteracting them

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

             Here is a clip that mentions two public servants that were assassinated, for protecting the Amazon Rainforest. I first head about them on VBS.tv This clip is informative of the difference between resource extraction and wealth creation, that kind of gets to the crux of what I am talking about

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpbW3tONcwM&noredirect=1

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

             Here is a clip that mentions two public servants that were assassinated, for protecting the Amazon Rainforest. I first head about them on VBS.tv This clip is informative of the difference between resource extraction and wealth creation, that kind of gets to the crux of what I am talking about

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpbW3tONcwM&noredirect=1

          • BuzzCoastin October 12, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

            The concept of public service in the West is tainted with the actuality of public non-service.

            BTW, cops do not prevent or eliminate crime, in fact, they need to create crime to justify their existence and line their pockets.  But society needs peace keepers and most citizens can function in that role.

            As I imagine public service, the necessities of society: roads, dispute settlement, waste management and civil defense can all be provided by society for its common good without rulers, but with public servants.

          • BuzzCoastin October 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

            When I propose public service over rule, I’m not talking about anything we in the West are familiar with. Our collective imagination has been dulled to the point that all we can imagine is what we have known for generations, rulers and being ruled.

            This is the major problem in discussing the evolution of what is called government. We have no cliches like we have for the old system, cliches like: rule of law, democracy, one man one vote… stuff like that.

            I have found that most people are unable to imagine a world without rulers or large central governments, mainly because they lack the words and images to imagine such a state.

            If I use old cliches like “public service” it immediately conjures up the old system of mindless, ineffective bureaucrats and not what it really says, public servants.

          • BuzzCoastin October 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

            When I propose public service over rule, I’m not talking about anything we in the West are familiar with. Our collective imagination has been dulled to the point that all we can imagine is what we have known for generations, rulers and being ruled.

            This is the major problem in discussing the evolution of what is called government. We have no cliches like we have for the old system, cliches like: rule of law, democracy, one man one vote… stuff like that.

            I have found that most people are unable to imagine a world without rulers or large central governments, mainly because they lack the words and images to imagine such a state.

            If I use old cliches like “public service” it immediately conjures up the old system of mindless, ineffective bureaucrats and not what it really says, public servants.

          • Ted Heistman October 12, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

             I can picture this Brazilian Environmental activist couple as being what you are talking about:

            http://www.vice.com/toxic/toxic-amazon-part-1

  5. Vittu October 12, 2012 at 1:14 am #

    Thanks.

  6. Auto5734955 October 12, 2012 at 5:30 am #

    “will allow themselves to be herded like domesticated animals. They will
    gladly take orders from whoever gives them, because their worst fear is
    not despotism—it is anarchy”
    …by anyone who seems to be in command, because they think that the person giving commands is doing so because, they know what they’re doing (thus the herd mentality). 
    What they fail to recognize is that the person giving orders is doing so for THEIR own benefit not the benefit of the “herd”. 
    The state of the world today bears out what I say.

  7. Dick Rambone October 12, 2012 at 7:57 am #

    Yes, you didn’t get promoted because of your superior intellect and free spirit. Sure.

  8. Dick Rambone October 12, 2012 at 7:57 am #

    Yes, you didn’t get promoted because of your superior intellect and free spirit. Sure.

  9. NonServo October 12, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    First, Define “Anarchically Organized”. Consensus Process? There is no Unified “Anarchistically Organized” model for decision making. There are many.
    Second, hierarchical organization is far more efficient! This leads to the specialization of labor whereby workers are compartmentalized and supports the concept of Proprietorship. When corporations are in control they can establish the wages, safety requirements and even get to decide where to dump the toxic waste!

    Anarchism is a specific thing. Not a Generalization of Chaos or A World Without Order/Wild West scenario. It is a group of specific political and philosophical tendencies. Something organized that aligned itself with the concepts of Total Equality, Direct Democracy, Ecology and Anti-capitalism would perhaps be able to call itself organized with Anarchist Principles. But Anarchist decision making is not what I would call “Efficient”. I would use descriptors like “Just”, “Well-thought out” and “Long as fuck”.

    To say Anarchism would help Economic Growth is a total facepalm. Its obvious your brain is so well trained to the Capitalist Global economic model. Anarchism advocate for the decentralization of everything including the Economy. Sustainability with the environment, its resources and its many inhabitants would be the focus of “Development”. Equilibrium. Not Growth. Growth is Destruction, Colonization and Empire. Growth is Manifest Destiny. And Growth must Die or we will all die.

  10. NonServo October 12, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    First, Define “Anarchically Organized”. Consensus Process? There is no Unified “Anarchistically Organized” model for decision making. There are many.
    Second, hierarchical organization is far more efficient! This leads to the specialization of labor whereby workers are compartmentalized and supports the concept of Proprietorship. When corporations are in control they can establish the wages, safety requirements and even get to decide where to dump the toxic waste!

    Anarchism is a specific thing. Not a Generalization of Chaos or A World Without Order/Wild West scenario. It is a group of specific political and philosophical tendencies. Something organized that aligned itself with the concepts of Total Equality, Direct Democracy, Ecology and Anti-capitalism would perhaps be able to call itself organized with Anarchist Principles. But Anarchist decision making is not what I would call “Efficient”. I would use descriptors like “Just”, “Well-thought out” and “Long as fuck”.

    To say Anarchism would help Economic Growth is a total facepalm. Its obvious your brain is so well trained to the Capitalist Global economic model. Anarchism advocate for the decentralization of everything including the Economy. Sustainability with the environment, its resources and its many inhabitants would be the focus of “Development”. Equilibrium. Not Growth. Growth is Destruction, Colonization and Empire. Growth is Manifest Destiny. And Growth must Die or we will all die.

Leave a Reply