An Israeli missile has hit Iran, two US officials have told the BBC’s US partner CBS News.
Iranian state media is reporting that flights have been suspended over several cities, according to Associated Press.
Iran has been on high alert after Israel said it would respond to an Iranian attack against it on Saturday night
Great, like that the world, nukes included, would be ruled by the strongest, which often aren’t the brightest of us.
youre thinking of ancaps.
That’s not something I know about, mind putting me in the loop?
In any case, I was sarcastic if that wasn’t obvious. There is good people among anarchists, as well as among those who aren’t. But not having rules make it way easier for the bad apples to get their way with it, as with them it requires a lot more investment and careful planing to break them.
Anarchism, like most other social organisation theory, isn’t immune to mass manipulation, coercion, or similar techniques used by the few to impose their view and interest to the broader masses.
As far as I understand, Anarchism doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers. No hierarchy of people.
The rules would be set up in such a way to actively discourage individual accumulation of power as much as possible. But a system like that could still have rules, just enforced collectively instead of power being parceled out to individuals. I think there are a lot of practical ways you can try to reduce power accumulation, like term limits is a very obvious example that is a concept we are familiar with. Or like ways of reducing wealth inequality can also be seen as a way of trying to reduce hierarchy.
I don’t know all the theory, I honestly feel like that kinda shit isn’t always the most useful anyways. But there are obvious things we can do now to reduce hierarchy and they seem like things that would be good. Having an ideological stance that hierarchy is bad, and we should reduce it as much as possible… that’s Anarchism.
When the state nextdoor rolls in with tanks, aircraft, and warships, how do you push them back? Is the ‘collective enforcement’ armed with such weapons as well, trains together, and has a solid command structure to coordinate and fight back the invader? How do you organize the command structure of your military defense force such that it fits within the ‘collective enforcement’ model, without instantly devolving into a free for all?
first off, rigidly vertical command structures basically always lose to structures with more devolved authority. its a pattern borne out by 20th century warfare. this isn’t some fringe anarchist theory; you’ll learn this in a military academy. theres math behind why this works.
second: organized ≠ hierarchal. just because you can’t imagine what this would look like doesn’t mean there aren’t volumes and volumes about it, and history going back to at least the ancient world in a military context.
third: aside from extermination, which tends to put people opposing you on the same page; try a military occupation of a population with as many guns and as rough terrain as the american empire. it can’t be done. sure, maybe you take DC, but no way in hell do you hold Appalachia or Chicago, if you even penetrate in the first place. even Florida or Los Angeles would be a blood bath for any would-be occupier. it literally can’t be done. if you think otherwise, you’re missing multiple entire categories of things about how wars and armies work. if you doubt this, ask why Afghanistan and Vietnam aren’t us colonies right now.
Probably you do what they did in Afghanistan and use IEDs
Sucks to be a civilian or one of said militants in Afghanistan though. You die at much higher rates than your occupier and your people are completely at their mercy. Normally one would want to stop an invasion before it is an occupation, not just weather an occupation, while taking dizzying losses, for decades.
I mean more seriously the basic question you’re asking is just how an anarchist community would fight off an outside force, and that’s kind of a really complicated question, to ask, which probably doesn’t have that much to do with the overall structure of a country’s governance. If you want a more in depth answer, then the distinct advantage of a decentralized structure in that kind of context is the ability to be hardier, while maybe being less coordinated, caveat, this isn’t necessarily the case, or maybe being able to make snap judgements less effectively, which, also maybe is not an advantage.
We’ve also not really seen many peer or near peer conflicts in the modern era, with maybe the major exception being Ukraine. Everything else has been proxy wars waged by larger colonial powers, and there’s not any level of organization that’s going to really help out against drone strikes.
The larger thing that you’re maybe getting at here is that centralization and hierarchy is kind of an easier short-term gain specifically because of it’s authoritarian nature, so everyone kind of, is automatically more likely to lean into it. Especially at larger scales, as those larger scales kind of, select for those more authoritarian structures automatically. We’re more likely to have those power structures at large scales, basically. So we don’t have a whole lot of examples to go on, and especially not at large scales or from peer conflict. The things we see the most are anti-colonial struggles. I dunno, you could try looking at the ezln, but there’s not much good documentation in English. that I’ve seen.
Anarchy is not not having rules, it’s not having rulers.
Think democracy of the purest form. Not elected (and bribed corrupt) representatives who pay themselves from our pockets to push their own agendas.
what exactly is this argument you’re making? would it not apply to switching to democracy? would it not apply to moving towards liberalism? how come when it comes to going further left suddenly “no system is perfect” arguments come out as if better needs to be perfect
therefore you must put the few in charge without contest? compromise with tyrants? edit: except forgetting to negotiate for yourself, and being all in on team tyrant?
sorry I dont mean to sound rude, its just it always sounds like a christian standing up in the pews, proclaiming that the pastor is being corrupted by the devil, and declaring that he’s done with this blasphemous church, and he’s starting his own church (of the devil. but not in like the cool way, because he’s a christian)
it just sounds like an excuse to not try. and its not like there aren’t measures to take; forms of organization, social leveling conventions, etc.
sounds like you don’t know what the word sarcasm means. is the word you were looking for ‘flippant’? its a good word and I’m sad I don’t see it more, so I hope you did.
so yeah its not perfect? nothing is? but most criticisms of anarchist thought seem to just be describing the present as what-if, and most of the ‘solutions’ to ‘avoiding’ those involve ‘let’s just do that on purpose right now!’. including this one. the point is resistance and resilience, not immunity. also like human dignity and well being and flourishing and junk.