You just made this up to fabricate an issue. They generally only need a person to mediate decisions as a representative. The only "training" you need to represent the people is to be a fucking person.
This is basically indoctrination at its finest. You're saying some rich asshole who has never lived a day in the life of a regular person can represent you better than yourself. They're usually pretty clueless people with some irrelevant degree in business or law who simply ask experts to inform them on various matters. Regular people can ask experts too.
Fair enough ill concede the point of politicians becuase in our system as well they are suppoused to be laymans. Btw, Im not saying a rich guy can represent me better, im saying a guy who had a few months of training on international politics can be a better ambassador.
Except anarchists divide societies into communes of anywhere from 20-300 people, so we're not talking about that at all. It's like you don't understand what autonomy is. We're not an empire. We have no reason or interests to control that many people with centralised authority. Not to mention that when someone tries to distribute food to "millions or billions of people" on their own shit like this tends to happen.
This does not seem practical. communities of 300 people max will not be able to sustain the ludicrous amount of population this world currently have, nor a semblance of the previous quality of life first worders are accustomed to. If there is a famine in the deserts of texas or whatever, do you just let them starve?
If your local generator fails, are you gonna hail on the radio till some peoples factory hails you back? Obviously its not going to be this apocalypse level of isolationsim but I dont see how seperating to basically villages going to sustain anything close to whats needed in terms of populations. A quick google search shows me theres about 320 million people just in the usa currently. seperated to groups of 300 gives you a million villages which sounds somewhat ineffective.
This is another fallacy. Do you know how much money, time and resources private enterprises have to funnel to the media to stall debates and fuel controversy? Human beings are generally quite pragmatic. It takes 18 years of schooling and a lifetime of television to turn them against one another.
This is a flaw in how the current system is being run, not a basic flaw in its ideas. If you run 300 pop communities i see how direct democracies work, but in practically sized groups of millions of voters it'd take quite a bit of time for each person to decide on each act, provided they all want to think about it fully (not saying this is something that our current representatives do). If you say that in your utopia everyone does that ill accept it as part of your ideas.
Yes, but again, we're not an empire. We have no interest in "getting big." We're interested in creating autonomy as opposed to imperialism. Control directly conflicts human self-interest. The dysfunction of capitalism and nationalism are simply byproducts of their larger purpose, which is to collect taxes and kill the poor.
Again for my point, Im not talking about getting big. Im talking about being big enough for everyone to survive.
The dysfunction of capitalism and nationalism are simply byproducts of their larger purpose, which is to collect taxes and kill the poor.
A man on the other side of the argument would say that the larger purpose of capitalism is being efficient. I understand that in reality it doesnt work like that but we are talking about the basic ideas.
my main problem with anarchism is just how this is all going to effectively keep life going.