Val

More specifically, yes. It is collective anarchism, but in this context I think it is obvious enough that I don't need to clarify it further.

Also I think that any type of anarchism allows for collective anarchism, and by extension could be used to mean collective anarchism.

What's annoying is that we probably would be a whole lot closer to actual communism and anarchism if the bolsheviks never took power and destroy all the communism that was happening during the Russian revolution.

I do not want an anarchist revolution that forces anarchy onto the entire society. That would not work. The people wouldn't accept it. I want a system where anarchism can be implemented alongside other systems so everyone, me included, can find their spot, their best way to live. I do not think everyone is an anarchist, and can live in an anarchist system. People have different values and those values impact their politics. I just want a space where anarchy can exist without being destroyed. If a person is fine working 9-5 for 5 days a week for just enough money to pay rent, buy food and maybe sometimes some clothes then that's fine. I would rather die.

The entire first two paragraphs of your statement is exactly what the CCP and USSR attempted to set up but it failed miserably due to efficiency issues, They then consolidated in to sudo fascism. How many attempts do you need to see that people in aggregate cannot form that level of trust in society or social engagement?

I do not believe that's what the USSR was trying to do, but because I wasn't there I cannot say for certain. All I can say is that if they did try to do it they failed to stop authoritarians getting to power and that was on them, not on the ideology. If you try to force a bunch of people who do not care about running their own lives and give them the power to run their own lives they will walk up to the first person telling them what to do and mindlessly do it. This is why an anarchist revolution has to be cultural as well as political. People need to want it, otherwise they won't get it.

A hundred years have past since then. Humanity has gone from an agrarian society to a post-industrial (robots) society. I think the circumstances have changed enough to make any assumptions based on past revolutions inaccurate.

Anarchism does not provide robust power to protect minorities so it does not matter if it does not allow discrimination, it cannot prevent it

The community prevents it. If someone is acting like a dick people come together and deal with it. Together. Anarchism does not provide this power because it is up to the community to decide how it works.

That is why for any such society to exist there must be a widespread cultural belief in opposing authority. All of the members of society need to call out those who try to consolidate power. The entire community must be opposed to any individual power grab. They must not be given the opportunity. That is the only way to sustain the system.

That is why I use anarchist instead. It means all of that while also making it clear that authoritarianism is not ok.

Actually an entire state made out of democratic worker unions sounds pretty good. Although I personally would prefer no state.

Okay, how to I even begin. I'm going to start with a Thank You! This comment has made me think about a lot of different aspects of my Ideology and I am genuinely grateful that your comment initiated that. Ensuring clearer understanding of my ideology is very important to me.

Let's start with the easy response. The final statement of my previous comment was very absolute.

if you remove all of the things from capitalism that make it incompatible you will end up with anarchy.

I now see that was a mistake. What I should have said instead was that it would make it more anarchistic, and you have confirmed this by suggesting methods that I believe are anarchistic. All the steps have the purpose of lessening the power structures of current society and if I would have to think about how to transition a capitalist society into an anarchist society I imagine I would come up with similar steps.

Therefor I support this "small capitalism". I see it as a stepping stone towards anarchism, because it is moving in the right direction. It just doesn't go far enough. You seem to be okay with money as a concept (and maybe wage slavery unless it falls under "equity of at the lowest levels"), I am not. I think that as long as money is a necessity to live you have the means through witch you can coerce others and remove these freedoms and safeguards put in place so in the end you will have just capitalism. Cruel, unjust and uncaring capitalism.

Removing money does not prevent against this, because anarchism also requires a lot of oversight to prevent collapsing. Money is just another vector of collapse that capitalism has. Also unlike anarchism, capitalism also does not have oversight of society by all members of society. This is the cultural anarchism I am talking about. Anarchists have no representative democracy, No political laziness. Everyone has a voice and you can't give your voice to someone else. All the individuals are collectively in charge of everything that happens in their commune, and the society is nothing more than a collection of communes.

I also believe both can coexist. Nothing about anarchism prevents collaboration with other political systems. In fact I believe that an anarchist society must have good relations with a neighboring capitalist system to survive, because otherwise the capitalists in the system have nowhere to go and will rebel, the other society functions like an overflow pipe. Also the effect works reversed as well.

Anarchism does not allow for discrimination. All forms of discrimination are antithetical to anarchism.

Also I would like to address the in anarchism capitalism is dissent argument. Is fascism dissent? or theocracy? because from an anarchist point of view all those are coercive unjust power structures, that should be dismantled. They are authoritarian and oppressive. anarchy does not allow capitalism of this. It is the same logic as the paradox of tolerance, but also I do not believe alternative systems should not be allowed to exists. as long as they respect our right to independence and self-determination I have no problem with alternate political systems existing, only if they are unreasonably oppressive (including genocidal).

I could also talk about economics but I think this comment is already long enough.

Okay, I agree. LLMs might be useful for education. But they should not replace practical experience.

I just am skeptical to everyone that says we should replace something with AI, because most of the time these decisions seem to be motivated by profit and aren't actually better.

I thank you for the detailed answer. It is going to take me time to properly think about everything you have said. I will get back to you when I have finished thinking about it. You have definitely given me lots to think about and I thank you for it.

But one thing I will say is that I am talking about cultural anarchism instead of economical one. such a culture needs time to grow and a few months of economic decentralization is a god start anarchism requires a lot more than that.

EDIT: You just might have triggered a massive change in how I perceive politics. Thank You!

I did not claim that anarchist societies did not have internal problems, I said that anarchist societies have ended because of external problems. Internal problems exists but they aren't fatal. The USSR and CCP were not anarchist. The economy may have functioned anarchically for a couple of months but the people were not anarchists and the ones that took power were vanguardists (because they usurped the previous state and used it to repress the population).

Also I am interested to know how anarchy, the system that is inherently based on dissent, does not allow dissent. Anarchy is only dissent. There isn't a single anarchist ideology. Anarchy is a way of thought that rejects the idea of conformity and it being a "single party system" is an insane thing to suggest.

The last thing I want to do is cause harm. I belie this society is possible but I do not want it implemented unless I know it can survive in a humane way. This is ideology it is the long term goals that we set for ourselves so we have something to strive for. This change should only happen if the people are ready for it. If they believe it. I think that any society that humans can imagine can exists as long as all the individuals in that society want it to.

My worldview does not cause less harm than any of the current ones. All of the points that you but forward come from the lack of faith in the system, or more accurately the people that make up the system. My ideology is based on the fact that people can be good, kind and selfless and the only thing stopping entire society from being those things is because our natural kindness gets destroyed by the current culture. I understand that this might be a naive thing to think but the world is currently ending (because of the "less harmful ideologies") so being naive and hopeful is the best thing I can do.

I am an anarchist because It is a society build on human interaction, kindness, friendliness, acceptance and tolerance. That is what my anarchy is. people existing for the sake of their friends and neighbors. If you can show me another ideology that has all of that I am eager to listen. because those things are antithetical to capitalism, and if you remove all of the things from capitalism that make it incompatible you will end up with anarchy.

The biggest problem about Saharan solar farm is how are you going to get the power to where it needs to be?

The examples you provide are negatively biased. You don't know all of the normal and useful things they learn because they don't stand out. Also two of those examples (Church and school busses) come from current cultural biases, something a solarpunk society would hopefully mitigate.

I think AI is not suited for discussion. It might be good at conversation but discussion isn't just conversation. Discussion requires understanding of others to a degree I don't think AI can achieve.

I concede my point about resources, but will add that the model will get outdated and will need retraining every once in a while.

Textbooks are bad. I agree. I just think they should be replaced with a human that knows what they are talking about and the topics that are learnt are things that the kid actually wants to know instead of what people think they should know.

Also I can't help but notice you ignored one of my core arguments: that solarpunk societies are about strong human connections and replacing one of the main sources of these connections is a bad idea.

I also think that the process of finding information is as important as the actual information. If all of your questions are answered just by typing it into the computer then you never learn the importance of checking information accuracy, accounting for bias and other very useful skills.

AI allows you to shortcut to the information you seek which means you never learn how to actually think for yourself.