Orban's chances of winning Hungary election drop after JD Vance rally

This guy refuses to engage with the fact that the Zapatistas exist, an anarchist region with at least 300,000 people living under it, and also that Revolutionary Spain existed, an extremely successful example of anarchism in practice which resisted Nazi Germany better than any democratic nation in mainland Europe. I have pointed them out to him a few times now and he just keeps ignoring it, like an NPC in Westworld. It's more comfortable to deny reality when it lets you go on believing your existing beliefs. Admitting that you're wrong is hard.

By definition, socialism is a movement of, by, and for working people; distributing power democratically among the working class, and removing power from the wealthy and powerful. If a regime claims to be socialist while maintaining centralized, dictatorial power, then they have hijacked the movement to their own ends while coopting the language of it. Those regimes you mention were authoritarian because they failed to achieve socialism.

Which one? They all work for me

Socialism is, by definition, social ownership of the means of production. That means instead of wealthy private individuals owning, for example, factories and hotels, the factories and the hotels are instead collectively owned and controlled - perhaps by everyone in society, perhaps by those who work there.

You are asking me, how would socialism lead to socialism.

why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries?

No bosses. No exploitation for profit. No pedophile billionaires fucking everyone over. Equality for all. No wage slavery. Unpleasant working conditions would be minimized. Democratization of the workplace.

And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?

It's really important to emphasize that anarchism isn't some blueprint for a society that we follow by rote and dogmatically implement, but rather a base layer of ideas we can use. As per an anarchist FAQ

Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling out their vision of the future in too much detail for it would be contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic about the precise forms the new society must take. Free people will create their own alternative institutions in response to conditions specific to their area as well as their needs, desires and hopes and it would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal policies in advance.

You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse.

Uhm... Russia isn't socialist, mate. They're very, very capitalist. Discourse is good. You might be thinking of discord. I'm just a gay autistic furry trying to make the world a better place.

What you suggest has no evidence of working.

That's actually not true at all, neither historically nor in the present. The Zapatista movement is an example of an anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of individuals living under it, in Mexico. For a historical example, you might be interested to read about revolutionary Spain.

How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn’t even work for a small city?

There are lots and lots of examples of this working in practice! I mentioned two above, but an anarchist FAQ has lots more answers for you.

It's a childish fantasy that is completely unrealistic, consensus even among a thousand people is impossible and unrealistic.
The only consensus possible is the one that the 1 party communist countries in Europe had before Communism disappeared.
That 1 party system was of course in reality an authoritarian dictatorship. And those that disagree are put in prison. That's how you create "consensus".

Well, first off, ignorance, selfishness, and susceptibility to manipulation aren’t fixed traits, they’re produced and reinforced by hierarchical systems - states, corporations, mainstream media, etc. In other words, people behave the way they’re incentivized and conditioned to behave. Luckily, even if people are stupid and selfish, this system has a lot of safeguards, far more than representative democracy. I'll explain:

A consensus-based decision making system does a great deal to prevent these issues. Under representative democracy, individuals have almost no influence. They don't necessarily have to engage with - or even hear out - the opinions of everyone in a discussion. Political engagement is very low under representative democracy, but under a consensus system, necessarily, people need to engage to participate.

That engagement would mean that people have to hear out all voices in a debate, so they'd inherently become more informed on the facts. Additionally, this approach also adds social responsibility, since you're not just casting a single vote, but need to confront your neighbors and discuss with them, meaning selfishness would also be counteracted through that social accountability.

Finally, anarchists are in favor of decentralized decision making. Instead of one big system where half the population can mess things up, anarchists work to build many small, autonomous groups, which are loosely coordinated and work together, with decisions made locally and then bubble up, rather than made centrally and imposed down. That way, even if one group makes bad decisions, it doesn’t drag everyone else down

Much of Europe is social democratic, and that actually works very well by regulating capitalism to prevent exploitation.

As a European, lmao, no. It's better than fascist America, no doubt, but there is still plenty of exploitation under social democracy. Things have only gotten worse as social democracy has eroded and given way to neoliberalism.

European society is also sliding towards fascism, with the exact same causes as in America. The far right is on the rise everywhere because of cost of living outpacing wages, public services increasingly under more and more pressure with less and less funding, and massive, rampant inequality caused by the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Thanks for your reply, I hope you don't mind me copying and pasting something I wrote to someone who replied something quite similar:

Actually, there are current and historical examples of very successful anarchist societies. For a couple of examples, at present, the Zapatistas exist, an anarchist region with at least 300,000 people living under it, and also that Revolutionary Spain existed, an extremely successful example of anarchism in practice which resisted Nazi Germany better than any democratic nation in mainland Europe.