Why does Anarchism not work philosohpically?

It requires relativism to function and the destruction of ethnocentrism. Often the people who are against ethnocentrism and the intervention in another society's moralty and the idea that one culture is superior over the other, create an objective standard with a moral code with no right or wrong. This is unreasonable because it is self-destructive to remove all senses of right and wrong. It rrejects the legitimacy and credibility of relativism because when you hold the moral doctrine of relativism consistently it will erase relativism itself instead of creating a moral philosophy that promotes being free of right and wrong. They also have no grounds to tell other people what is right or wrong or how to treat other societies as they themselves cannot define what it means to form a culture or society, are cults a society, what about two people forming a strict moral code? To reduce moral issues to personal taste is the destruction of philosophy, if it were a simple matter of personal attitude then two people with conflicting views would not have conflicting views at all. But since moral views cause conflict moral arguments matter and must be discussed, we cannot simply argue that there is no conflict at all.

>>9078302
Read a book.

>>9078321
Recommend me one

>>9078325
Mutual Aid by Kropotkin, then you will see that anarchism is actually a pretty good idea. It will also clear a lot of misunderstandings that you may have about anarchism.

Also if you have some questions about anarchism I can try to answer them, though I'm not really a specialist on it.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 340x255px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 340x255px

It does

The main problem with anarchism is that it's split up so many times there is zero hope of it ever happening.

>>9078339
Unless you force it and millions die before you successfully remove all original structures, especially when you add Socialism as a replacement which even argues against social and cultural structures, i.e cultural hegemony, and the fact that there's severe contradictions in the class locating that not even Erik Ollin Wright was able to fix.

>>9078364
>force
That's the thing, there are so many different types of anarchism there isn't any actual hope of even doing that.

>>9078371
Anarcho-Communism is the largest Anarchist movement in the world, they argue for a violent revolution to overthrow the Capitalist state and would defenitely force it through where they to be given the change.

It's mostly not feasible because people don't understand the complexities of our modern state. they think that if mister right-wing or center-right conservative is elected that it means that society is going to some biblethumping bookclub or 4 years.We are Capitalist societies, but we borrow things from Keynesianism, Austrianism, Socialism, Monetarism just to name one example.

I think this has created a society that all people can somewhat agree with and made things comfortable enough not to be willing to follow one ideology to the end and see where it takes us, especially us Europeans are kind of done with utopian idealism, safe for the EU in my opinion.

>>9078334

>local government employee resists government employment

>>9078302
>you can do whatever you want but please do not kill me, be a good boy !

>>9078404
Only rich people are comfortable. Working people still suffer and still are exploited.

>>9078420
anarchism ≠ no rules

File: q.jpg (147KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1000x1000px

>>9078302

The problem with anarchism is that it's an ideology, and hence it doesn't tell the whole goddamn story.

>"Society is corrupt and irredeemable and capitalism must be destroyed!" he tweeted on his Iphone while sipping a Starbux coffee while living on the Yale campus.

>>9078423
Selling your labour to someone who can improve your results is not exploitation.

And if you are talking about some sweatshops somewhere in Taiwan, those have co-creted the Four Asian Tigers, which have been competing with the western world in an export-driven economy for a few decades now, and have dragged almost all of the Asian continent out of the third-world slums.

People mostly call that exploitation or post-colonialism because they refuse to acknowledge that mostly weber was wrong about Capitalist imperialism and the Asian content suffering for being too Neo-Confucianist to accept Capitalism.

>>9078436
Care to explain?
I understand your argument and tried to formulate it myself, but wasn't able to.

File: 1445170376763.png (102KB, 500x530px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x530px

>>9078436
>In order to critique capitalism you have to live innawoods on your self-sufficient farm built from your handmade tools which you invented yourself

Kindly fuck off

>>9078313
>type all this shit
>no one cares

lol @ ur life

>>9078442
It's not true to say that Western society is a corrupt shithole that needs to be destroyed.

People who believe things like that(Anti-fa for example), are people who have literally no clue how fucking horrible society actually can become, and how many things and how many upright people have to be honest enough to do their job for the West to function like it does.

>>9078449
You're speaking in pure strawman, what defines a society as "corrupt" or a "shithole", who is proposing society falls under this definition. In what way has the potential depth society could be preclude reforming it as it actually exists?

>>9078443
No, but you certainly can't advocate the destruction of capitalism while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of it's labor without appearing like a pathetic hypocrite.

>>9078459
Yeah you can, you just ignore the pathetic hypocrits who claim you are as such

>>9078443
Number of arguments in that comic: 0.

>>9078458
I am talking about people like Noam Chomsky. And I am talking about people like Stefan Molyneux.

The people who actually believe in Rousseau, e.g, that if you only remove our corrupt institutions, humanity will flourish and live in a utopia, because we are born perfect and our social institutions corrupt us.

And no, people like this aren't out to "reform" anything. Because reforming actually means you have to accept that some things that already exist in your society are indeed "good" and worth keeping, but these people want to tear it all down.

Read "God and The State" by Bakunin

It's pretty short and it ought to clear up the general misconceptions about anarchism that people itt have.

>>9078475
You're still speaking in vague plateaus, when does something stop being a reform? You think Chomsky is advocating getting rid of literally "everything" that already exists in society?
Do you not think there are any corrupt institutions that we would be better off without?

It does.
It works fine philosophically, just not under Platonism (which the overwhelming majority of philosophy is.)

Also, most people lack the idealism for it, and also lack the proper kind of pragmatism.

In fact, it literally cannot work with the 'Apollonian' mind.
>>9078313
'relativism' works with a theological groundwork, you know.

>we wuz vikangs n shieeet
on the otherhand, is an awful source of morality.
>>9078449
All societies are bad inherently, because the concept of society is inherently secular.

File: aadsffdsfd.jpg (36KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x960px

>>9078497
>*reads Nietzche once*

>>9078489
>You think Chomsky is advocating getting rid of literally "everything" that already exists in society?

I think Chomsky believes that almost all problems in society can be reduced rationally to the State.

Hence he wants to abolish the State. He doesn't want to "reform" it. He wants it gone. Forever.

>>9078504
>promoting religion
>nietzchean

>>9078508
I think you have a naive idea of what it actually means to identify as an Anarchist. Chomsky talks about many non-state institutions and systems that he views as inherently caustic and has said very little in regards to a sudden radical abolishion of the state.

>>9078523
>I think you have a naive idea of what it actually means to identify as an Anarchist

No, I don't. Because I used to be one. And I also used to believe that institutions could exist without power and authority, but then I grew up.

File: Pierre_Joseph_Proudhon_1865.jpg (103KB, 800x1040px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x1040px

>>9078302
I prefer mutualism or left wing market anarchism but no one gives a shit about it anymore so eehh,

>>9078530
Then I think you had a naive notion of what it meant to be an anarchist while you were an anarchist as a teenager.

Strong proposition, I know

>>9078504
This autismo faggot couldn't appreciate Nietzche

He's a total Stirnerfag

>>9078540
So enlighten me then instead of being a smug asshole.

How do you imagine an institution without leaders and commands would function at all? After all, anarchists aren't simply anti-statist, they are also anti-hierarchy. Which is why they constantly whine that Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.

>>9078546
I don't, which is why I'm not an anarchist. I think you simply miss that their reason for identifying as such is more nuanced than pure schematics

>>9078551
>I think you simply miss that their reason for identifying as such is more nuanced than pure schematics

Their reason for identifying as such is irrelevant. It's based on total rationalistic utopianism, just like fascism, nazism and communism.

>>9078567
>It's based on total rationalistic utopianism, just like fascism, nazism and communism.
yes, but at least you can´t oblígate anyone to anything.

File: 1474156019234.png (192KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 600x399px

>>9078567
>Their reason for identifying as such is irrelevant.

Oh no, in the end its the only thing thats relevant

File: NaziRallyJung.jpg (383KB, 1200x802px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1200x802px

>>9078591
>but at least you can´t oblígate anyone to anything.

You're not "obligating" anyone to anything in a rational ideology. Because when people have accepted the ideology, they will do anything you ask anyway.