Cowbee

I'm not an Anarchist, I'm just explaining misconceptions about Anarchism. You ironically lack Materialism in your analysis, with several instances of you claiming hierarchy simply appears, without analyzing the mechanisms of why.

Additionally, society has never been organized historically the way modern Anarchists desire it to be, primitive Communism is not what Anarchists, except for the fringe Anarcho-Primitivists, argue for. Again, they want strong horizontal organization, filled with decentralization. It isn't an arbitrary rejection of organization period.

All in all, I do think you can do better. Rather than simply saying things "appear to organize in certain manners," question the material conditions that changed organizational structures, and analyze why you think specific examples of horizontal organization posited by Anarchists would regress into hierarchy.

Anarchists believe that if horizontal power structures are in place, it becomes difficult to go against that current. Ie, if everyone has power, in order to gain more power than another, one must require people willing to give up their power to submit to them in order to push against others. This theoretical group would also have to be strong enough to go against the rest of the public.

It's similar to why Communists believe once Communism is globally achieved, there wouldn't be mechanisms for Capitalism to come back, just like Monarchism is almost nonexistant today.

I'm no Anarchist, but that's not what Anarchism is. Anarchism is a fully developed horizontal system, rather than vertical. The idea that Anarchism is simply "no rules" is an unfounded stereotype, there's lots of Anarchist theory.

While I personally think it's very difficult to achieve, it wouldn't be for the reasons you've listed. Simply destroying government isn't an Anarchist ideal, building up parallel structures like networks of Mutual Aid to replace the state and make it redundant is Anarchist praxis.

Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchy established in property rights. Doing away with hierarchy does away with Capitalism. Unless, of course, you're arguing for Anarcho-Communism or something.

Sorry, but you're highly wrong about your misconceptions of Communism. Communism in no way starves human impulses to succeed or grow any more than Capitalist success does. Communism eliminates the profit motive, yes, but that is historically a highly flawed motive in general.

Socialism/Communism/Anarchism are not fairy-tale Utopias where everyone magically gets a pony, people still work to produce goods and services. However, this production is democratized, in opposition to anti-democratic privatized systems.

Communism is, at first, Socialism. You're confusing Communism with Monarchism, or Oligarchy, when in reality Communism and Socialism are primarily about democratization and decentralization.

Compare 2 factories.

Factory 1 is Capitalist. It is owned by a businessman, and he employs workers to use said factory to produce commodities for sale on the market. The largest forms of voice the Workers have is Unionization, or, failing that, working somewhere else, if available.

Factory 2 is Socialist. The Workers are the Owners, and as such elect a manager to represent them in worker councils.

Looking at the 2 structures, Socialism is more democratic, and more decentralized, in theory. We must take this theory and see why or why not historical examples have measured up to this, from a practical, Materialist perspective. Tools aren't mystical, they don't corrupt the minds of those who share ownership of them.

It's easy to see why Lemmy, a platform based on decentralization and a rejection of the Profit Motive, has far more leftists.

What an excellent way to dodge literally everything I pointed out and feign a logical high ground. Perfectly smug and absolutely irrelevant.

If everyone has equal power, there's no statist component.

Cooperative structures are not inherently more efficient, but Cooperative work structures would result in higher paid workers. The strawman about a lack of decision making in the Cooperative could easily be flipped, while the Workers are already producing, the Capitalists are figuring out how to extort their customers and workers better.

Communally owned property supports itself by virtue of being communally owned. If nobody has an individual claim to it, someone who tries would be contested by the community, hence its communal ownership.

You only have strawmen and vibes, no actual points.

There are numerous critical flaws of what you just said.

1. Why would Guards support you? If you become a robber-baron, hiring muscle to protect your factories from the Workers, you have to deal with the fact that either you don't actually control and own your factories, the mercenaries do, or accept that you have become a micro-state.

2. What is preventing any of these micro-states from absorbing others and becoming a full state? Nothing.

3. Why would anyone willingly work for you, unless it already reached the point where you are essentially a state? They could make more money simply by working cooperatively.

Private Property cannot maintain itself unless you have a monopoly on violence and thus a state.

Cooperatively owned property, on the other hand, supports itself and is maintained cooperatively. There are no avenues to realistically overturn it.

Anarcho-Capitalism cannot exist, it would cease to exist the very second it did.

Anarcho-Communism is a lofty goal, but is fully capable of existing.

That's the fundamental difference, what you consider to be Private Property simply wouldn't be, it would either be personal property or you wouldn't have it. It is only through threat of violence that one can own the products of tools despite not doing the labor.

You cannot seriously believe in a might makes right society, can you?

If everyone has equal ownership, there is no "mono"poly.

Private ownership requires a monopoly on violence to exist, if you can't defend it there are no rights.