I think the point GP was making was that the co-founder was basing their judgment secondhand from stories from friends and headlines.

Another bit I found peculiar was the mentions of anarchism while seeming to have a rigid idea of what the event should or should not be. It's certainly far less anarchistic today—placements, permits, law enforcement—but it's not exactly anarchism to say it isn't allowed to evolve to fit the scale and culture of the participants.

▲

megagpt2 a day ago | parent [-]

Every anarchistic community ends up with rules to ensure things run smoothly. I think anarchism should be viewed as the movement towards less rules, not a movement that allows absolutely no rules. Allocating office desks so that everyone knows where their desk is is just common sense - if you're concerned about people envying the best desks, randomise it every week. You have to mark out roads if you want there to be roads.

Law enforcement was probably there because law enforcement said they'd ban the whole event if law enforcement wasn't there. That's how they typically work.

▲

teaearlgraycold a day ago | parent | next [-]

Anarchism is rules without rulers. Removal of unnecessary hierarchies.

▲

psunavy03 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The absurdity of anarchism is thus shown. It always ultimately ends up re-inventing government.

▲

vegenaise a day ago | parent [-]

anarchism is no rulers, not no rules. "it always ends up..." please, i would love to hear all these examples you have. burning man isn't anarchism, btw. anarchism rejects all hierarchies, is typically horizontally organized, often ran by consensus though decision making varies by flavor, is inherently anticapitalist. there would be no profit and remuneration would be even across the board. you can see how burning man could never be called anarchist. but some examples for your consideration, ezln doesn't claim it but the way they organize themselves it's largely the same, rojava, cnt-fai/revolutionary spain.

	▲	Ancapistani a day ago \| parent [-]
		> anarchism […] is inherently anticapitalist No, it’s not. I get that your flavor may be, and that’s fine, but your definition is neither the only one or the first.

▲

sleepybrett a day ago | parent | prev [-]

everyone always insinuates the extreme, see currently the right and left trying to burn down the scary socialists.

Does america need more socialism to to help break the back of this oligarchic fascist state fuck yes. Do I want to live in pure socialism, no, no I do not. I will however hold positions further left than I think we are able to achieve simply to help move the overton window back to some fucking sanity.

We stake out these purely moral positions at the extreme poles because we want to move the concept of where the center actually is, we know we cannot achieve some kind of communist/socialist utopia, but you don't win by negotiating with yourself before you are at the table with the adversary.