Add new comment

anon (not verified)
You're correct in noting that

You're correct in noting that looking at global problems leads to technocratic government and management as solutions.
That is the problem with conceiving anarchy as the solution to all problems or defining it as "being against all bad things".
I'm not saying you should be cheering for bad things, or unconcerned with problems, but that this preoccupation isn't necessarily anarchist, or having to do with anarchy, and may even conflict with it, which is why you're conflicted.
Problems defined and conceived from a liberal humanism will only seem to have liberal humanistic "solutions" (big bad things and human suffering are not really solved but coped with), more technology (which discipline bodies that adapt to use them)s, management (with its prescriptions for prevention and risk management), and progress. Transhumanists take it to the silly extreme of fantasizing with abolishing death.

If your anarchy is defined as "I want to prevent or stop human suffering." or "I want to prevent or stop bad things from happening at all." then that priority and shift of focus will conflict with the one of simply being against authority and domination/obedience.
When reading about Rojava, they commented that in the middle of armed combat is a context where hierarchical command was useful to them, to keep them alive and achieve their goals. It may be possible that imagining effective global responses to global problems like world hunger or infectious diseases would necessarily require governments or NGO's or philanthropic millionaires.
In a world of committed realist pragmatist busy problem solvers there is very little room for anarchy. If anarchist don't prioritize anarchy, who will? In the end this is what will always make anarchist a very marginal minority, there are many pressing issues for survival, comfort etc that people value more greatly and preoccupy them more than freedom, and would happily use violence, or coercion, or command structures for its effectiveness and expediency.

Asking "What to do about coronavirus?" is different than asking "How to combat authority in the context of coronavirus pandemic?"
The first will be concerned with public health, supply and demand, medicine -(as mutual aid, if the question is qualified "as an anarchist") the second is concerned with attack, disruption, evasion, flippant enjoyment without regards on measures and limitations or sensible impositions. The first will be concerned with safety, and the best way to do things, the second will be concerned with freedom and doing whatever you want. There are definitely ways to do a bit of both, as well as a lot of one or the other, as well as very little of one or the other.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Z
Z
V
T
G
c
7
3
Enter the code without spaces.