The anarchists is Spain did operate factories for very short period of time.
For a few years.
However, collectivizing factories is far cry from building them. In addition, plenty of coercive behavior was used and a power structure was already beginning to form.
Well, there are really two different questions, here; the merit of the Spanish Anarchist collectives, and, more broadly, whether or not Anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with human nature. These are two distinct questions that are largely independent of eachother. For the purposes of this conversation; I'd rather focus on the latter, as I think it is the most pertinent. However, I will say that the Spanish expiriment represents an instructive example, and, at the very least, calls into question this belief that Anarchism is somehow incompatible with modern, technological society. (In fact; this is how Anarchists have almost exclusively conceived of it.)
That is because you don't understand the complexity of modern industry.
This isn't an argument.
You are so used to the market economy that you have no real concept of what would happen if it stopped functioning.
I'm not suggesting that goods should no longer be created, or services should no longer be performed. I'm making a suggesttion about how production and services should be organized.
Every raw material of every item you aren't even aware exists would have to accounted for, manufactured into a finished good and distributed. The computer you type on was made with 30 raw materials, manufactured in a dozen parts, using tools than each required a dozen raw materials of their own and so forth. Hundreds of people labored in the total production process of that computer, in dozens of different geographic locations.
Yes.
Actually the burden of proof is on you.
No. Again; any exercise of authority must be subject to a heavy burden of proof as to it's legitimacy. (The burden of proof increasing in proportion to the degree of infringement on the rights of others.) You're saying people should have no control, or very little control mover their productive lives, You're saying people should have a very minimal role in governance, that they need to be managed by a professional class of technocrats, politicians, etc., who know best, and can operate the monolithic institutions that run the show and keep the rabble in line. That must be justified. I'm saying people should have more control over their lives, that government should be more democratic, more transparent, etc. That never needs to be justified.
We have a functioning industrial society that more or less works today, built on the coercive authority of the state. If we are going to change a working system, it is up to you to provide some proof your new model will be an acceptable replacement.
That depends on what 'functional' means. Even simply by comparison to the rest of the industrialized world, the United States lags by almost every metric; poverty, income inequality, unemployment, literacy, infant mortality, access to healthcare, crime, etc. I think the millions of people who suffer the consequences of these social problems would have a different take on how our society 'works.' So, it really cannot be argued that there isn't significant room for improvement. (Incidentally, on some level, I agree. I think our political and economic system generally works to do what it's supposed to do; perpetuate an endless cycle of exploitation and domination by an elite minority at the expense of everyone else.)
I, also, never once suggested that these changes would take place overnight. In truth, barring, some enormous paradigm shift, like a Technological Singularity, I'm not sure it would necessarily ever completely end.
