• PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Sure, but what the other poster is saying is that getting there is nearly impossible because a significant number of people are always going to manipulate things so that they end up with authority.

    You can, and groups regularly do, get there, in mostly stable communities.

    It requires an active citizenry, but it is very much possible. The question is whether it is desirable, and whether it is competitive with other forms of communities. And I raise this question as someone who regards himself as communist and anarchist-sympathetic, but still skeptical of the desirability of the end-state.

    In any case, anarchism and communism are not as utopian as they’re being presented here. There’s a considerable amount of writing on libertarian socialist dynamics and conflict resolution, including numerous real-world examples. The issue isn’t as simple as “It’s not possible” or “No one has thought of a solution yet”, but questions of relative efficacy, development material conditions, the circumstances for stability, etc etc etc.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Eh, small communes are a very different thing. First, they are much smaller than a country. And the most important part: they’re voluntary and pretty much consist of people who want to be there.

      Unlike a country where millions of people want different things. So unless you want to go tribes again, it simply can’t ever work.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Check historically anarchist regions during the height of non-ML leftism in the first half of the 20th century AD, like Ukraine and Anarchist Catalonia.