Dunno how accurate this is but if you like doing those quizzes see where you fall on leftist values. https://leftvalues.github.io/index.html
Depends on how pure you want it to be, without any side effects
You might want to cache things, like handles to resources or other dependencies?
deleted by creator
Nothing wrong with classes in functional programming though. Just return a new instance of the class from your method, rather than mutating an existing instance.
Right, I think the two aren’t as different as they appear. You can think of a closure as an object with just one method.
If OO programming is fundamentally about objects sending messages to each other, then there are many ways to approach that. Some of those ways are totally compatible with functional programming.
The legacy of C++ has dominated what OOP is “supposed” to be, but it doesn’t have to work like that.
Do anarchists think anarchy will result in a system with no classes?
Yes, because anarchism is against all hierarchies and the class system is a form of hierarchy. Instead, decisions should me made collectively, for example in councils open for everyone
@lugal @danc4498 Anarchism is against specifically unjust hierarchies, it can permit certain ones to exist within individual communities should the community find it justified, but still strongly favours not having any where possible.
There are a group of anarchists who would still believe in the idea of an adult > child hierarchy as they struggle to imagine an alternative world without it.
Isn’t anarchy just against imposed hierarchy? Most anarchists I’ve met are okay with heirarchies that form naturally, and believe those hierarchies to be enough for society to function, hence why they call themselves anarchists, not minarchists.
I have never heard the term minarchist. Many anarchists say, we need structures against the building of hierarchies, like avoiding knowledge hierarchies by doing skillshares.
Natural authorities are a different topic. I think Kropotkin was an example of a leader who was accepted because everyone agreed with him. Once he said something people didn’t like, they rejected him as a leader. You can call this a hierarchy if you like. I wouldn’t because he couldn’t coerce his followers but this is pure terminology.
So, do the anarchists not think that capitalism will just prevail and bring along with it the classes of the haves and have nots? Anarchy won’t solve the problem of wealth inequality, will it? I have genuinely never understood this aspect of anarchism.
The system where someone monopolizes a essential good and leverages that to gain power is called anarcho-capitalism and is a whole different thing. In anarchy, ownership on that level does not exist. Neither a company nor a person can own a factory, or a farm, or the power grid. Employment doesn’t exist. People can band together and distribute tasks for a common goal (such as producing a certain good) but they all hold equal stake in all decisions.
Of course a group of people could use violence to oppress other people. But then you no longer have anarchy. The same way a democracy stops beeing a democracy once a group seizes power and doesn’t allow fair elections anymore.
Neither a company nor a person can own a factory, or a farm, or the power grid
And who is going to stop a company from owning a factory or a farm? It wouldn’t even require violence for a company to do so. It just requires them to have enough resources to pay people to do it.
I guess I don’t see what you call “anarchy” as a system that would ever exist more than a year. The end result would always be “anarcho-capitalism”. That, or, people would have to form their own government to prevent that system.
The company would need violence. There’s no reason for workers to work in a factory for less money than their goods are sold for, and there’s no reason for the company to pay workers more than the goods are sold for. Without violence the workers could just produce and sell the goods themselves and ignore the company.
Is this a society without computers and other modern day electronics? Or do you think workers will be able to handle developing technology on their own?
Well, it’s unlikely the entire world will turn anarchist all at once, and the modern supply chain is global, so the anarchist community would trade for what they need from outside the community. Or they may choose to go anarcho-primitivism I guess. I think some remote indigenous tribes we have now could be considered anarcho-primitivist. The most successful anarcho-socialist community would probably be the Zapatistas.
The community. With hockey sticks.
Of course a group of people could use violence to oppress other people. But then you no longer have anarchy.
The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism
You will always end up recreating some form of organizations to manage resources. The best you can do is ensure those organizations are structured with accountability to make sure they’re fair to everybody
The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism
This is a common misunderstanding. While there are anti organisationist anarchists, others dream of a world while spanning confederation based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchism in general isn’t the absence of organization but the absence of hierarchy and domination (therefore isn’t anticapitalist in nature)
It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.
You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.
True, that’s also a form of anarchism
That’s more or less where anarcho-syndaclism goes. Get all the workers into unions who take over their companies and turn them into co-ops. Then the co-ops collaborate and you don’t need the state or anything else.
Anarchism is anti capitalist in nature since capitalism entails hierarchies
I just don’t understand how people think an anarchy can protect itself from capitalism.
Let’s take the most “conservative” form of anarchism: anarchosyndicalism. Every factory is organized in councils, confederated both with the import or mining council and the consumer council. Now a capitalist comes and asks how much this factory costs. Do you think the council will tell them a price or to fuck off?
Well, I don’t think a capitalist will call themselves a capitalist. I think they will have allies that get themselves appointed to the council and before we know it the factory is doing the bidding of the capitalists.
And yes, I am incredibly cynical (I blame the last 25 years), so I get that a less cynical perspective exists where this wouldn’t happen.
The council isn’t elected. It’s open for everyone to join in all decisions. It might delegate some tasks, even smaller decisions, but it can always recall them.
So in your scenario, the council would delegate the power to sell the factory to a group of people which is very unlikely. Now this group of people who are trusted by everyone would decide to sell the factory which might happen. But the council would most certainly recall them from this decision making power the never should have given away in the first place.
Maybe I should have stressed more that a council is really open for everyone to join. It’s not an elected parliament or something
Guns, tanks, bombs, drones, mostly.
We’re gonna beat up the capitalists
You don’t think the capitalists would have the resources to defend themselves?
Hoarding resources will be banned. If you start doing it, we’ll beat you up before you can get enough to hire a private army. Also, only the most corrupt people would go work as a private soldier, because everyone’s needs are met so there’s no poverty to drive people to do bad things. You’d have to promise private security a lot of money to betray their nation for basically no reason.
So this anarchy is a self contained commune where nobody is allowed in that doesn’t agree with the rules. And if somebody breaks the rules, they must leave. This sums it up? It can’t apply to a country because that would never work. But to a small village, sure.
Also, hopefully the people outside the village don’t find ways of fucking with them (such as redirecting waterways that affect the downstream village).
There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.
In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/
Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US. You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement. You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions. You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.
Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.
Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US.
Thanks, I guess :)
You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement.
I make no such claim, and I don’t make assumptions regarding enforcement either. Constitutional enforcement is discussed in quite some detail.
You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions.
There is majority voting on deposal of rulers, to be specific. Their replacement isn’t voted on by a majority of the population.
Constitutional changes are voted on through majority, but first require a majority of the monarchs to be on board.
Both these limitations are intentionally designed to mitigate manipulation of the population.
You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.
There is quite some detail about the enforcement mechanisms. The idea is very much not to assume, but to persuade the monarchs to act in a benevolent manner, by enticement through both the carrot (wealth for as long as they rule), but also the stick (deposal if the majority doesn’t vote in favour of their actions, with a threat of assassination if they refuse to be deposed).
Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.
Ah. So it wasn’t me that claimed that corruption is fundamentally impossible, it’s you that claim to have the definitive answer.
For what it’s worth, I agree power shouldn’t be concentrated in the few. Which is why I split power across districts, and between citizens and monarchs, and why the group of monarchs for each district cannot be too small either. It’s all there if you could try to be a little less dismissive.
That fact that you think “idealistic version of early US” is a compliment is very telling.
Pray tell, what does it tell?
Kings are bad
:D
From your other responses I can see you’re being sarcastic, but yeah, seems that many won’t read any further after seeing the word monarchy :shrug:
How would you reach consensus between hundreds of millions of people?
Look, I am sympathetic to the cause behind anarchism but it doesn’t work because it insists on ignoring biological realities. We need to look no further than our ape cousins to see how some hierarchical structure is inherent to our society. Only through the existence of a state can we reduce hierarchy and increase equality.
A stateless society wouldn’t last 10 minutes before establishing a state.
It’s not one big council but a confederation of councils. I like the idea of fractal democracy. Like a huge river branching into smaller ones and when you zoom in, these smaller ones branch again and again. You have councils on many levels, each making decisions, delegating to the next level and being recallable from below.
I agree with you in that we cannot have a society without some form of state, but I think the idea is that we would have small community governments with more or less direct democracy. Also, bio-essentialism? Really?
I guess you can call it that but as I understand it bio-essentialism denies that society has any roles at all in shaping the individual. For me there’s obvious environmental pressures that force us to act a certain way in order to survive which in turn shapes us as individuals and our societies. Of course I’m talking back to the very first human societies, but all modern societies by necessity must trace their origins there. But at a certain point we started to add rules that are based on idealized humanity, divinity, which is in my view inherently hostile to human nature.
We are animals and we have no real way to discern instinct from rational. For all you know every “rational” thought you’ve ever had is actually just an instinct. How would you be able to tell that it isn’t? But that’s neither here nor there, my point is we need to form societies that are sympathetic to our biological realities, instead of societies formed on moral values sourced from anti-human religions or idealized human religions. We would be much much happier.
I know people don’t like these type of stances because they are sometimes used to exclude trans people, or to justify racism but that’s just using science to arrive at the wrong conclusions.
Yeah, I can agree to that.
When a monkey hoards all the bananas, the other monkeys kill him and share the bananas. Anarchy is natural.
If might makes right a state will end up forming anyways. A populist commune is still a state. Anarchy is not possible in any sense of what one might describe as a functional society. As soon as there’s a society a state will form.
But that’s also not how chimpanzee society works anyways, since mostly it’s an alpha challenged by a younger stronger chimp who takes their place and makes sure everyone else follows the rules. They even have something like a police force.
It’s actually right in the name. Anarchy from an-arkhos means “without ruler”. They think hierarchies are illegitimate per se.
They define anarchy differently from the common definition. Anarchists believe in creating community organizations to serve the needs of society, but they refrain from calling it a state because they believe a state requires a monopoly on the acceptable use of violence.
They don’t think that we should just dissolve society and let everyone fend for themselves to eliminate class, unless they’re an edgy teenager.
That’s functionally the difference between Anarchism, a fundamentally Individualist and Idealist ideology, and Marxism, which is fundamentally Collectivist and Scientific.
A Marxist political society will also tend towards Classlessness and Statelessness, though in the case of Marxism both of these are not goals but an inevitable result of a society dominated by the Proletariat according to Marxist theory.
an inevitable result of a society dominated by the Proletariat according to Marxist theory.
Ah yes. That’s why after the Bolshevik revolution, Stalin stepped in and dissolved the state.
Revolution is a monad
I use states, but no classes. G’MIC is my main language. I do appreciate the functional way of thinking after writing in it for so long. States are just variables that defines the mode of something, right?
That’s just a communist thing, not an anarchist-specific thing…
Just like functional programing is about making state explicit, not making it go away.
Overall, both arms are wrong… so they cancel out or something like that.
Protest anonymously, function anonymously.
Declare your intentions!
@Instantnudel@feddit.org 🚩🏴🚩🏴🚩🏴
Ich freue mich über ihre Frage. Ich fühle mich geehrt hier zu sein. Ich möchte ihnen jetzt garkein vorwurf machen aber sie haben diese Frage doch auswendig gelernt. Sie haben unser Programm nichtmal gelesen. Würden sie Habeck auch so eine Frage stellen? Jetzt unterbrechen sie mich nicht!
deleted by creator
Settle down, elon
