All of those doom scenarios are already possible and have nothing to do with anarchism
Comment on [deleted]
artificialfish@programming.dev 4 months agoBecause an organized state will always overpower it. And history is a story of power.
I always say, show me the theory that allows anarchists to maintain a complex network of nuclear armament. You can’t “anarchically control” the nukes.
horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 4 months ago
artificialfish@programming.dev 4 months ago
They are already possible so we have massive networks of laws and security to try and detect and stop them. That security imposes its will by force into the perpetuator. Thats not anarchism
horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Good thing we have laws and police! Man imagine if Ted Kaczinsky had heard about laws! Or if Luigi Mangione knew about the infrastructure and power of the state!
Lone actors are going to do what they want regardless of the law. The law doesn’t prevent you from punching an asshole in the mouth. You prevent you from doing so.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Are there unjust laws?
artificialfish@programming.dev 4 months ago
lol what about all the lone actors who didn’t succeed. Don’t just cherry pick the losses.
Sure laws can be bad /c/im14andthisisdeep
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
I don’t think you fully understand what anarchism is. Lack of hierarchy does not mean no organizational framework. It means there are no hierarchies.
Nukes have no purpose existing to begin with. The best thing to do with them would be to dismantle them and use their resources for other things. I don’t know why you have immediately decided to imagine an anarchist freed territory as requiring nuclear armaments. Or why you think the litmus test of whether a political ideology is valid or not depends on the answer to “can it allow for nuclear holocaust at the push of a button”.
You seemingly have imagined that an anarchist revolution would intend to preserve the functioning of modern geopolitical superpowers. Needless to say, no. Anarchism in practical implantation results in societies that look dramatically different (including extent anarchist free territories). Ones that don’t partake in overproduction and vast environmental destruction. Ones that are concerned principally with the well-being of the people who live within them.
artificialfish@programming.dev 4 months ago
Your second paragraph just proves you don’t understand the nature of power. Why did Russia Cuba and NK need nukes? Because people without nukes are weak to their enemies. So until the anarchist territory is global, it needs to participate in global geopolitics, in which nukes are actually one of your primary bargaining chips.
Otherwise you’re just a piece of land with no government, and most historical invasions take place when land becomes an easy conquest. Because land is materially useful.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 4 months ago
The communists overwhelming military strength had nothing to do with the fundamentals of anarchism.
A counterexample: The zapatistas of mexico’s system could easily manage nukes.