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?
I don’t see a good lemmy community to learn more about anarchy. Am i missing something? I know about sources online, but it would be nice to read what actual people have to discuss.
Same! Please lmk if you find something!
I’m not sure how to link for lemmy, but you can try:
https://kbin.social/m/anarchism
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]To link for lemmy, do !community@instance
Example: [email protected]
Thank you! I might have made the mistake of searching for anarchy instead of anarchism
There’s [email protected] and [email protected]
Thank you!
I found these communities for you, did you check them already?
Great! No, they didn’t pop up when i used the search function of lemmy, only some tiny or dead ones
Glad I could help you!
That’s why anarchy isn’t stable, it’s a state between governments but eventually some kind of rule will emerge, and you’re correct in that “bigger stick” is likely to be the first.
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.
Thank you very much for contributing! :) I‘ve read to almost all of the answers so far and they’re more than I could have hoped for. Very happy that this discussion works so well.
The short of it is “power to the people”.
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.
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).
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…
Yeah that’s a long read and the webpage as it is designed itself isn’t inviting, @[email protected] 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 - A Beginners Guide - Kinna, Ruth.pdf
Some youtube recommendations : Zoe Baker (@anarchozoe) ; Anark (@Anark) ; Red Planet (@RedPlanetShow) ; AudibleAnarchist (@AudibleAnarchist1)
Thank you so much for this elaborate reply. I will check your sources out.
Counter measures against warlordism would be crucial for effective anarchism for sure!
I think the easiest approach to anarchism is searching for Chomsky talking about it.
Will check it out, thanks!
My take on anarchism is that it’s valuable as a criticism of any form of social organization, but not valuable as its own form of organization. I would never vote for an anarchist or join an anarchist movement because I don’t want to put criticism first. Something must exist before it can be criticized. But anarchists offer truly great insight into out social structures
Imaginary utopias remain imaginary. Anarchy is whomever is willing to brutalize others the most rules until someone worse comes along.
Eh no… It’s kind of ridiculous that you went from the first phrase that made sense and could have been the basis for a very simple explanation of what anarchy is to then describing something that has nothing to do with anarchy as being anarchy.
Every now and then Lemmy has an actual discussion like this that gives me hope that it can become more than just an idiotic link aggregator. Thanks!
Thanks for the feedback. I enjoy it as well.
I’m not an expert, nor do I claim to be even moderately smart about things, but I would think anarchy devolves to other labels once there’s a bigger stick being used.
Edit: it might be a dictatorship, or a monarchy if the stick is jewel encrusted
Yes, anarchy is an interrim state in which no power mechanic has yet taken hold. But naturally it will, in one way or another.
Not necessarily. Anarchy doesn’t imply chaos or complete absence of societal structures.
It mostly means no central ruling group/class or individual holds the monopoly on violence and government.i’m also not super educated on this but this much i know
That is a misconception. Anarchism is a equal distribution of power among all participants. This will not change “naturally”. It can be changed by either efforts from within to establish a single individual or group as a ruler over the rest, or by outside forces. Neither I would classify as happening just naturally.
It’s more the idea that it can be changed that I think the previous commenter was referring to. Since anarchy is not a codified structure, it is susceptible to a plurality forming around influential figures who become de facto leaders, and suddenly the system of anarchy falls apart.
If the plurality remains influential, you’ve got a dictatorship/monarchy. The majority could work together to block the dictatorship from forming, but that would require organization and compromise to bring people with disparate priorities together, effectively creating an early stage democracy.
In such a scenario, should either side prevail, they will also want some structure that either preserves their power (in the case of dictatorship) or places checks on power (in the case of democracy) and suddenly you have a government again.
There is a lot of confusion around anarchism, because it is a negative description: It’s a collective without leader, without governing institutions. It doesn’t say much about how this collective organizes instead. So you could call the chaotic state after a government coup Anarchy. But that isn’t what anarchists are talking about and I don’t think that is what OP meant either.
Anarchy as a deliberate system is when a group of people decides to work or live together without selecting a leader or any other form of government, instead resolving decisions that affect everyone together. In that sense it is not an interim state, a leadership-vacuum just waiting to be filled. Although of course Anarchy can transition into another system by various means, but so can every other system as well.
Right, it’s just that there is no component inherent to anarchy which prevents a leader from rising anyways. Someone who is charismatic and skilled at what they do will naturally attract followers, and suddenly factionalism takes hold.
Anarchy can be deliberate, but if it is being proposed as a long-term format for society, it would need some form of protection in place to prevent the entire thing from falling apart the moment a faction of enough mass decides they know what is best for everyone. That’s usually the role a government fulfils, but anarchy doesn’t have that.
It is natural. Any particular individual’s actions are not natural - but the fact that, amongst a large, diverse group of people, there will be someone who would try to establish themselves or their group as rulers - is just a statistical property. So any anarchic system needs a mechanism to counter that.
This is correct. If society becomes a place where a few people are running everything by force it is not anarchy, even if technically there are no written down laws. A lot of anarchist philosophy is about how to achieve and maintain anarchy without it devolving back into hierarchical power structures. There are a lot of different ideas that have spawned their own subgenre of anarchy. I personally think some checks and balances combination of unions and community councils is the most likely to succeed. This is anarcho-syndicalism.
Anarchy is generally assumes that people will naturally cooperate without arbitrary distinctions. In practice most anarchists are mostly anti centralization. The smaller the political entities are the better (singular persons if you take it to the extremes).
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.
My point was that the “stick” could just be charisma. Our problem as a society seems to be gullibility (for the majority) and a blind trust in power figures. I always have to think of “negan” in twd as a figure taking hold in a chaotic situation. Someone explained that anarchism isnt “chaos” but my ability to grasp it isnt that deep yet.
I tend to think that twd is fiction, and the people who negan piss off, who want to kill negan, only need to get lucky once, while negan needs to keep succeeding over and over (I’ve never seen the walking dead tho I’m just kind of going based on vibes).
I agree. A work of fiction often pushes it to the extremes. But we are seeing irl figures that succeed bit by bit, making the world worse (while others improve it on the other side, which leads to constant debate over the actual state of the world).
But since I read and heard a lot more about anarchism now, the proposed structure is a lot more complex than just absence of a government. So my goal has been achieved and I have been educated. :)
The current status quo is the guy with the bigger stick making the rules. You’re asking how that would be different under an anarchistic society? Anarchy works best with small to medium groups of like minded individuals. The idea is that nobody in your village has authority over anyone else, and that you’ve struck a social contract to help each other out with each other’s individual skills ie. the guy who’s really good at baking bakes bread for the village, the person who’s really good at building tables builds tables for the village etc. Of course, if a violent antisocial person wanted to, they could threaten that balance, hence why it’s a good idea for anarchistic societies to of course still protect themselves.
Is this distinct from commune ism
Sounds like a great place :)
the guy with the bigger stick making the rules
aka a monarchy
Also just what we have currently in capitalism.
What most of the replies are missing is that there are several different conceptions of what anarchy and anarchism is, even between so-called anarchists.
Anarchy, when boiled down to most basic component, is the rejection of hierarchy. What constitutes a hierarchy is also a big matter of debate. Every political system is about the guy with the bigger stick making the rules. The difference is who holds the stick (and why). Anarchy is the rejection of the stick. I think it is a disservice to look at anarchy through the same terms as those political systems, because anarchy is not a political system. Anarchy is the rejection of political systems. Anarchy is about the possibility of change. The possibility of freedom.
I can assure you that any so-called anarchists who claim to have a plan for how society will function after the revolution are lying to both you and themselves. There will be no anarchist society after the revolution. A revolution is a fight over the stick. Somebody will be holding it when the dust clears. Anarchy, in truth, is not about the future. It is about the now. It’s about the real, existing struggle for a better present instead of the dream of a better future.
It’s important to recognize our place in the world. I live in America. My country, right now, is committing genocide. Everybody in this country is responsible for that genocide. Anarchy is about doing something to stop the genocide because I want no responsibility in what is happening. Anarchy is about doing something about the police murdering innocent people on a daily basis because there can be no justification for what is happening. It’s about providing food for people who can’t feed themselves because people don’t have to starve. Anarchy is about doing all of those things even when faced with legal consequences. Anarchy is about protecting people from the guy with the stick. That’s why it’s not a political system.
Because if it is true that for anarchists there is no difference between theory and action, as soon as the idea of social justice lights up in us, illuminates our brain even for a split second, it will never be able to extinguish itself again. Because no matter what we think we will feel guilty, will feel we are accomplices, accomplices to a process of discrimination, repression, genocide, death, a process we will never be able to feel detached from again. How could we define ourselves revolutionaries and anarchists otherwise? What freedom would we be supporting if we were to give our complicity to the assassins in power?
You see how different and critical the situation is for whoever succeeds, through deep analysis of reality or simply by chance or misfortune, in letting an idea as clear as the idea of justice penetrate their brain? There are many such ideas. For example, the idea of freedom is similar. Anyone who thinks about what freedom actually is even for a moment will never again be able to content themselves by simply doing something to slightly extend the freedom of the situations they are living in. From that moment on they will feel guilty and will try to do something to alleviate their sense of suffering. They will fear they have done wrong by not having done anything till now, and from that moment on their lives will change completely.
(Alfredo M. Bonanno, The Anarchist Tension)
To build on this, it would be accurate to say that Anarchy is the principle upon which the technologies of Anarchism are built. Rather than a political system, which inherently function through obligation of participation or subjugation, the technologies of anarchism are participatory. That is to say anarchism provides methodologies of engagement between individuals and groups to achieve outcomes without obligation or subjugation which are imposed by the system, replacing those attributes of hierarchy instead with consent, participation, and consensus which are fundamentally voluntary and opt-in in nature.
Another way to say this is that Political Systems are means by which a group forces rules upon individuals, while Anarchism is a set of methods by which individuals can perform actions as groups.
Very good read! Thank you for elaborating.
That’s what it turns into. Anarchy is only a stable form of government on paper. Like a lot of things, it falls apart when executed in the real world. Mostly because there will always be people who are jerks.
The entire point of anarchy is that there is no government lol
No hierarchal form of government, but rather a coalition of every single person that lives in the society. Things are definitely still governed. It isn’t chaos.
Anarchy is to government what 0 is to math.
0 is really important to math.
Anarchy is important when talking about government, as can be seen in a number of comments in this post.
If your math is full of zeros you have a good time if your government is full of anarchy you will have your bronze statue take down via rope.
I agree. Additional question: do we need these „jerks“?
The jerks won’t be invited to the anarchistic society because they won’t be interested in maintaining the social contract. Enjoy exile, jerks!
That. And usually the stick is a very metaphoric one. As long as mechanisms of power exist, someone will have some kind of upper hand in any and all situations with other people.
For instance, if you’re rich, you can throw more money at a situation and buy good results. If you have a big army, you can threaten someone into doing something for you and they know you have the manpower to back the threat up with actual force. And if you have a lot of connections, you can get stuff done via good will.
Ultimately, you need a government that, as a unit, has the authority to say “WE are the top dogs and there is nothing you can do about it.” Ideally that system is malleable enough by its subjects to always act for the betterment of its subjects, and to hold its members to account.
In the absence of a formal government, that position is filled up by someone else. Either whomever shouts the loudest, has the most friend in the best places, has the biggest pile of money, has the biggest group of bullies, or some combination of those. In fact, that is how most kings’ dynasties in history probably got established.Just like nature abhors a vacuum, society abhors a power vacuum, and the moment you get rid of a king and do nothing to follow up on his removal, someone else is gonna take the throne and the crown and make himself king.
And before you start the republic spiel or the representative democracy spiel, a republic and a house of representatives are basically a royal court with more checks and balances, where the people on the outside as a whole get a say in who’s in that court. It’s basically regularly emptying and refilling thrones and having rules on how to do so.
