Cowbee

Materialism is quite literally the position that history is shaped by physical, material conditions, and reality, rather than the will or thoughts of individuals.

Claiming that I don't understand what Materialism is when you've been arguing against Primitive Communism as though it's Modern Anarchism is absurd.

Which part was the historical fallacy? The part where I gave explicit examples of both the ROK and US massacring civilians, or the part where I mentioned that South Korea has major issues with rising fascist movements, such as under current president Yoon? The same president who has targeted women and disabled people to rile up the increasingly conservative male voterbase, similar to how Trump rose to power in the US?

North Korea isn't a good state, not in any meaningful capacity, but neither is South Korea. Additionally, the ROK was modeled by the Americans, the Korean intelligence agency is literally the KCIA. The ROK is essentially a US puppet state, they are allowed to govern themselves until what they do goes against the US.

Materialism is doing away with the idea that history is shaped by ideas and will, rather than material conditions. It isn't going against proposed theory by targeting unrelated theory.

You're arguing that you cannot make predictions or try new things, despite validity of the theoretical basis, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been done.

You're definitely not getting it.

That's actually ahistorical. There were numerous pro-democracy protests, and subsequent massacres by the ROK. Gwang-ju is perhaps the most famous example of the ROK slaughtering countless civilians protesting for democracy, but it happened during wartime as well. Korea's modern history, North and South, is intensely complicated and messy, and to pretend it's a simple matter of the US protecting the defenseless South Koreans from the big bad North Koreans is just as wrong as saying that North Korea is 100% good and just.

There's also the No Gun Ri Massacre, by which American soldiers murdered hundreds of South Korean men, women, and children.

South Korea in particular has a history of military dictatorship, coups, and massacres of pro-democracy civilians, and even in recent years is still having trouble with fascism.

You can't prove something that hasn't existed. You're arguing against theory by saying it hasn't been put into practice, disallowing it from being put into practice to be tested. This is the same anti-leftist, anti-development argument. The theory itself needs to be discounted.

You're not making any sort of analysis, just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that primitive anarchism is the same as modern anarchism, and moreover are taking a mystical approach, rather than a practical approach. That's why I'm saying you ignore Materialism, rather than arguing on the basis that humans are driven by material conditions, you instead argue that since one unrelated tangential structure turned into another, that Anarchism itself is bunk.

We aren't going to agree here, clearly.

How does one design something that hasn't been built before?

You have to prove why they would run into the same problems, you're still making vague accusations of Anarcho-Primitivism being the same as Modern Anarchist structure. The lack of existing structure disproving the possible existence of said structure is the same argument Anti-Communists and Anti-Socialists make with regularity, and is similarly an incomplete argument.

I, again, am not an Anarchist, but your method of argumentation is fundamentally flawed and won't convince any Anarchist to join a Marxist movement. It lacks Materialism in its analysis and is of the same quality as generic Anti-Leftist argumentation. Instead, you should argue against concepts like ParEcon, Mutual Aid, and other Anarchist theory, without arguing against Primitive Communism.

You do realize that the US has control of South Korea's military during time of war, correct? It's an explicit part of their structure. South Korea quite literally does not have complete agency, despite what you're saying.

If you're taking a materialist approach, you would recognize that hierarchy was more effective than primitive communism, not Anarchism. You'd have to argue against modern propositions of flat organization, not just anarcho-primitivism. I'm sure many Anarchists would agree with you that hierarchical forms of structure are generally more effective than Anarcho-Primitivism, but would disagree that hierarchy is necessary or even better than modern Anarchist theory.

I'm well aware of Marx's rejections of Anarchism, I just think that since Marx is a human and could not predict modern Anarchist theory, modern Marxists should argue against modern Anarchism, rather than historical.

Nobody said it because it's such a low hanging fruit that it's actually just straight up rotten and fell off years ago.

Lemmy was founded by a Communist, and Communism in theory is focused on creating a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society via Worker ownership of the means of production. It's fairly easy to see why Lemmy, a platform built on decentralization and a rejection of the profit motive, appeals to leftists like Communists.

Additionally, most Communists practice Materialism, and analyze historical events and structures on the basis of their material conditions. Rather than believing tools have mystical properties that corrupt the minds of those that collectively own them, they look at why historical examples of Socialism have turned out the way they did, and seek to learn from them.

Nobody in any serious number seriously wants a dictatorship with an absolute state.

I'm not an Anarchist, I'm just explaining misconceptions about Anarchism. You ironically lack Materialism in your analysis, with several instances of you claiming hierarchy simply appears, without analyzing the mechanisms of why.

Additionally, society has never been organized historically the way modern Anarchists desire it to be, primitive Communism is not what Anarchists, except for the fringe Anarcho-Primitivists, argue for. Again, they want strong horizontal organization, filled with decentralization. It isn't an arbitrary rejection of organization period.

All in all, I do think you can do better. Rather than simply saying things "appear to organize in certain manners," question the material conditions that changed organizational structures, and analyze why you think specific examples of horizontal organization posited by Anarchists would regress into hierarchy.