First of all: Are you assuming I’m in America? If you are then you’re wrong. And moving to somewhere currently going through mass deportations is just taking a huge unnecessary risk.

Secondly: while an unstable political situation could be a good motivator to get people organizing collectively, It’s also equally likely that an authoritarian state emerges that will suppress any attempt to reduce peoples dependency to the state. While it would be exciting I don’t think I’m personally up for it.

I think that it is safer to begin collectivisation somewhere that’s more politically stable to grow a big enough following that when hostilities start you could hold your own. Unless some place already has a lot of anarchic/syndicalist thought then It’s going to be hard to start it with everyone at each-others throats.

And it’s also possible I’ve misunderstood you’re comment and you’re using anarchy as a synonym for chaos. In which case I just want to point out that my use is different. When I say anarchy I mean a power structure based on mutual aid and strong interpersonal relations without any leaders or hierarchy.

I am an EU citizen so Ireland will probably be easier but I’m wondering by how much. I’m much more drawn to the UK as I am more connected to It’s culture.

My biggest concern is finding new connections. I struggle with it here as well and I don’t think moving to another country will just magically make that go away. Although I do feel more confident in English than in my native language.

Left-Right (Left-Right) and Authoritarian-Libertarian (up-down).

You could have a command that recommends commands and then you select them on a drop-down list.

Alternatively if the dataset is verified you wouldn’t need to worry about it running dangerous commands, since it doesn’t know any. Or you could have a list of verified commands that run automatically and any command not on that list requires confirmation.

But this is missing the point that most of the time I know exactly what command I want to run so adding a LLM Is quite useless. The reason so much of linux is still relying on commands is because for a lot of people (myself included) commands are quick and efficient.

I should post a follow-up saying “You don’t have to listen to people that have no intention of listening to you”.

One needs to listen to a neo-nazi to understand them, help them. The problem is that they won’t listen to us because being angry is easier.

“Hi! You’re on a rock floating in space.”

All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn’t realize it’s wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.

All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.

Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.

Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.

I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I’d rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that’s depressing.

I think when using words like better you are voicing your opinion and not providing any objective assessment on other peoples opinion. In this context I would interpret better as a subjective personal opinion. While a phrase like "a quote I like more from that episode: " would have also worked. In a forum using less words leading to a snappier comment is better for legibility.

But I can certainly see how the phrase could be considered negative.

Interestingly you can believe that hierarchy is natural and still be a leftist, because coercive hierarchies (such as capitalist or the state) that the left is against prevent these natural hierarchies from emerging. The problem with the right is that they have a model of society in their mind and think that any divergence isn’t natural and must be fixed (by either capitalism or the state). While the left understands that there is no reason some people can’t be in power and so want’s to equalize the playing field.

Human beings aren’t made equally and there will always be some hierarchy in human society. Leftists just want to give everyone the opportunity to rise up the ranks instead of just the “right” people. That is why everyone must be treated equally you don’t know where they exist in the hierarchy.

Technically there isn’t a single social hierarchy. But multiple overlapping ones. Some people are better in some things and other are better in other things. Saying that everyone is equal is too simplified. Society is more complex than that.

But as a generalization (especially when compared to the right) it is correct.

Yeah I understand and actually agree with the points you’ve raised. I just like using different mediums for different experiences and wanted to balance the conversation.

So does tone not enhance your learning experience in any way? Because for me some concepts are a lot easier to grasp when I have someone explain them to me. Also listening is a lot less effort and can be done passively while for me reading requires a lot more of a conscious effort.

Video is a fundamentally different form of media than text and so the goals it achieves are also different. Text might be more useful for getting ideas across because words can be reread but you cannot replicate tone in text and tone can be crucial to understanding the message.

That’s why I think there’s significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

That is exactly what I am saying. That is the anarchist revolution. Changing society to be non-hierarchical. It isn’t replacing one government with another. It is transforming people to organize in non-hierarchical ways. The revolution is long and takes time and has been going on since the first anarchists thought their theory. It isn’t fought with swords and guns but with thoughts and ideas. That is the revolution

(or to put it in another way)

The revolution I’m talking about isn’t a coup. It isn’t using weapons to destroy the government. It is teaching people that there is nothing inherently hierarchical about human society and we can live without it. If any government falls because of anarchism it will be because non-hierarchical associations have replaced the government or the government tried to stop anarchists from organizing and the anarchists fought back.

I hope that by clearing up what I mean about revolution. The other questions also get solved.

tribalism seems baked into the human existence

That’s right, it seems baked into human existence because that’s how most humans are raised. I believe humans are capable of moving past that.

I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse

I don’t see how the ideas fall apart when scaled up. When applying the way you interact with others to interacting with other communities the same rules apply. instead of organizing society between individuals you organize society between collectives. Same basic structures apply.

I apologize you couldn’t find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
(hopefully this doesn’t come off as patronizing)

I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn’t in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j

To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don’t the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.

Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.

I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn’t lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.

What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.

The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.

I most certainly do not mean men with guns taking whatever they want. That is authoritarian. The revolution is an ongoing process to redefine society as a non-hierarchical. I see it as non-violent: only defending against violence, never inciting it.

Between writing that comment I read through the anarchist FAQ on revolution.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secj7
And I agree with it wholeheartedly.

We as a species are far enough for anarchism to work, people just have to stop believing in authority, and we have to help them.

I also do not think anarchism is a utopia. There is nothing about it that couldn’t work. Non-hierarchical societies have existed, and their dissolution just means people aren’t ready yet.

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.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full

At least for anarchism there does exist a comprehensive faq.

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.