Conversely, since it by definition requires the absence of hierarchies, we wouldn't have a situation where we are compelled to oppress marginalized groups, no matter how popular the idea may be (I'm thinking here for example of how US liberals say our president has "no choice" but to imprison immigrants and participate in genocide just because there are enough racists that agree we should oppress these groups)

I could go on, but I'm going to shut up now before someone pops out of a well

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's fair. I think generally anarchists have good ideas. If there is a violent revolution, I would probably end up being your comrade in arms.

I don't think we would win though. Most people think anarchism is a bad word right now. I can't imagine recruiting fighters during the revolution under the banner of anarchism. Hell even progressivism isn't very popular. As always, liberals are the problem.

We may have to have a revolution but I think it needs way more time to cook.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'd participate in revolution because I'm not so ideologically entrenched that I'd refuse participation any anti-capitalist movement, but my ideal vision would be more aligned to what the Zapatistas have tried to do

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. I'm pretty ignorant about the Zapatistas. Looking over the Wikipedia and they seem all right.

I don't quite follow you. Do you mean like instead of winning the revolution. You take a chunk of the country create borders and install some kind of anarchy?

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago

I'm not sure "borders" is a term they'd use, but generally speaking yeah

Anarchism can start at the community level and often doesn't necessitate revolution