A comment in response to the question, "How would an anarchist society be part of a globalized economy?:
"It would be heavily indebted to the IMF at best. At worst, it would be under sanctions, economic blockades, or direct military occupation by imperialist powers. That's why a worker's state is needed to protect the revolution."
@Radical_EgoCom I would think that there would be a useful option of “let’s see what we need when we get there”.
So, just no kind of plan or foresight? That sounds really stupid.
@Radical_EgoCom did I say that? If you look at what happened in Russia there was a hell of a lot of mechanically saying X must follow and then Y. Laying down the law now is idealism in the philosophical sense. Need to know what the options are and make best decision with knowledge at the time.
Not a plan, a discussion. You put up a poll that was very either/or yes and no. I said it's more nuanced. A poll implies we decide now, before we know where we're at.
And stop calling me stupid, willya?
Apart from being rude and uncalled for it's not true. I've been thinking about this shit since about 1983.
I haven't called you stupid once. All I've called stupid was the act of not formulating a plan for future inevitable events. I've presented no plan in this poll for anyone to agree or disagree on. I only presented a quote that suggested that an anarchist society would suffer in the presence of the global economy and imperialist powers, then you suggested the option of “let’s see what we need when we get there,” and I pointed out how that's stupid and shortsighted. 1/2
The reason I call it (not you) stupid is because knowing that an obstacle will appear in the future and not trying to come up with potential solutions on how to deal with it beforehand will leave you with no potential solutions when the obstacle actually comes, leaving you with little to no time to come up with a solution. 2/2
@francis
Coming up with a plan now on how to deal with future problems that will inevitably arise (this is what I'm advocating for, not "laying down the law") isn't idealism. It's practical and smart and is required for any political movement to be successful. Doing the opposite is stupid.