All of the examples you mention where anarchy works are small groups of <50 people. This post is talking about anarchy in the scope of an entire labor market. That is thousands of millions of people. The context is way different. Furthermore, all of those examples are small anarchic groups in the context of a non-anarchic society.
A family can be anarchic, but they still can call the police if a family member murders another one.
I won’t read a book just to argue with someone. Each word has thousands of definitions depending on who uses it. Each different person I’ve talked to in this thread has a different definition of what anarchy is. If I read a book about anarchy, I can only argue with the author. I won’t read 1 book per random person on the internet.
I ask a simple question: how is an anarchic system going to defend against foreign and inside enemies? In any other system this is a simple answer, yet for anarchy I’m encountering walls of text that either sidetrack the conversation or give an utopian answer of “everyone would come together and defend eachother” which has no basis in reality.
I think you’re more invested in feeling right than learning why people think differently to you.
Defending oneself from imperial aggression is hard, almost everyone basically just relies on being too much of a pain in the arse + alliances + paying tribute. It’s unlikely that would change. Generally state militaries are ineffective vs local decentralised resistance and actually occupying ground. See failures in Iraq (twice), afganistan, Vietnam, Korea etc.
All of the examples you mention where anarchy works are small groups of <50 people. This post is talking about anarchy in the scope of an entire labor market. That is thousands of millions of people. The context is way different. Furthermore, all of those examples are small anarchic groups in the context of a non-anarchic society.
A family can be anarchic, but they still can call the police if a family member murders another one.
I won’t read a book just to argue with someone. Each word has thousands of definitions depending on who uses it. Each different person I’ve talked to in this thread has a different definition of what anarchy is. If I read a book about anarchy, I can only argue with the author. I won’t read 1 book per random person on the internet.
I ask a simple question: how is an anarchic system going to defend against foreign and inside enemies? In any other system this is a simple answer, yet for anarchy I’m encountering walls of text that either sidetrack the conversation or give an utopian answer of “everyone would come together and defend eachother” which has no basis in reality.
I think you’re more invested in feeling right than learning why people think differently to you.
Defending oneself from imperial aggression is hard, almost everyone basically just relies on being too much of a pain in the arse + alliances + paying tribute. It’s unlikely that would change. Generally state militaries are ineffective vs local decentralised resistance and actually occupying ground. See failures in Iraq (twice), afganistan, Vietnam, Korea etc.