this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
283 points (92.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
709 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).

Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] janonymous@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

In an anarchist society, that is a community without hierarchies and rulers, threats are handled by the community. So one person with a big stick would have to fight everyone else to establish their dominance.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] MC_Lovecraft@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's a whole lot of different takes here already, so I'm just going to plug this very excellent book: Practical Anarchism: A Guide for Daily Life and bounce.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] Shalakushka@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

It is, a lot of people just have pseudo mystical beliefs about how people will act when there is no state. They like to imagine everything bad about humans is capitalism/the state/insert Boogeyman, not that the state and laws exist because we tried the alternative and no system at all always does work out to might makes right. A warlord always moves in to fill the power vacuum.

Some people are bastards and any system you create has to be created with the explicit assumptions that people are bastards. Some people just want to believe no one is a bastard or that there are not enough bastards to hurt the reasonable people. I think those people are wildly optimistic, and removing power structures does not remove the temptation to exert power or the ability, only one specific means.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] inlandempire@jlai.lu 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Answering the following question might help in clearing up misconceptions: what is anarchism to you ?

From there we can discuss whether or not your definition is correct, and address your question.

[โ€“] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 7 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I was reading through this: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca2 but I'm overwhelmed with the amount of content and just wanted to understand if other people have an "easier to grasp the basics" stance I could ask of them.

I would so much love a "lateral society" where you are not better or worse than the person next to you (open source was recently cited as anarcho communism example) but are encouraged to contribute what you can to public benefit.

But watching examples of decapitated states devolving in to warlord rule makes me think the idea does not really work.

Example: we have this problem with 3E in open source, where some people just aren't educated enough on history and vile human behavior to put countermeasures in place and succumb to warlordism again (big company taking control in this case).

[โ€“] inlandempire@jlai.lu 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah that's a long read and the webpage as it is designed itself isn't inviting, @Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml posted a great comment which might be an easier introduction. I'll just select and copy paste paragraphs from your link that are relevant to understanding anarchism, but I do recommend allocating the time to read the whole thing if you're interested in learning more :

anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three principles: liberty, equality and solidarity.

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself [...] Thus the society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority.

Equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under capitalism.

Solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. [...] without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated," "dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves."

Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.

Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. [...] Only by a rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially, can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. [...] anarchists favour organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached.

Addiitonally, this is a recommended read : Ruth Kinna - Anarchism: A Beginner's Guide - https://files.libcom.org/files/Anarchism%20-%20A%20Beginners%20Guide%20-%20Kinna,%20Ruth.pdf

Some youtube recommendations : Zoe Baker (@anarchozoe) ; Anark (@Anark) ; Red Planet (@RedPlanetShow) ; AudibleAnarchist (@AudibleAnarchist1)

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] DessertStorms@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just waking up so don't have the brain power to give an in depth answer (Lettuceeatlettuce's reply is god E: good obviously, not god lol.. In anarchism there are no gods no masters!), but one thing jumped out at me:

But watching examples of decapitated states devolving in to warlord rule makes me think the idea does not really work.

The problem with looking at examples of anarchism (or communism for that matter) within a wider capitalist world is that capitalism despises competition and will do anything in its power to destroy it. So capitalist states intervene, either directly by installing a well funded and armed opposition to the anti-capitalists, or they indirectly create war in the region so neighbouring countries can destroy the project, or they impose sanctions making it impossible for the project to survive, and so on... The other option is that the "leader" (which shouldn't exist) can't help but be tempted by the power capitalism can offer (only) those at the top, and they turn on their own project, making it state capitalist themselves, leading to its demise (like the USSR). But that is because we've been socialised under capitalism for so long it's hard to unlearn, not because greed and selfishness are "human nature".

Remove capitalism entirely, and re-educate people with our natural instincts of cooperation and community, and things would turn out very differently..

load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] snooggums@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One thing to keep in mind is that any kind of government is at risk of being the the group with the bigger stick. A dictatorship only works because the group that supports the dictator keeps them in power. A democracy can still treat some of its citizens terribly, and the structure of the government makes is harder to oppose than "the guy with the bigger stick".

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] Dieterlan@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Saving this for later, as I want to hear responses as well.

load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ