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?
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.
Anarchy, in it’s purest sense, is to a system what darkness is to light. Darkness is the absence of light, not a thing in-and-of itself. Anarchy is the lack of an establishment or system, rather than a system in itself.
What this means, in practical application, is that most anarchists are simply opposed to whatever system exists currently. Human nature dictates that SOME system will exist as long as we do, so true anarchy can only exist when there are no longer humans around to perceive it.
In historical context, this almost always means that when anarchy “takes over,” what it creates is a “systemic void” which - like any vacuum - quickly gets filled. Usually by the guy with the biggest stick.
I think this is a common misconception about anarchies - that there’s no social control of any kind. If you look at actual real world anarchies like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen they don’t believe in a complete absence of organisation. Far from it - they develop community-based committees which have no actual power in themselves but are used to develop concensus on issues that affect the whole community. So rather than abolishing all rules they’re all about human collaboration and concensus.
For instance when hard drugs became a problem in Christiana the residents got together and banned hard drugs. It’s not a law as such but everyone’s in agreement that if you try to sell hard drugs you’ll be ejected.
It’s not a perfect place and it’s hard to say that their brand of anarchy works well as a system of government. It seems to have been a mixed experience for many people who’ve lived there. But it’s definitely been an interesting social experiment.
There are plenty of documentaries on youtube if you’re interested.
they develop community-based committees which have no actual power in themselves but are used to develop concensus on issues that affect the whole community. So rather than abolishing all rules they’re all about human collaboration and concensus.
So it’s a democracy.
It doesn’t sound like there are any elections, or representatives, or bills or candidates to vote on. Just conducting an ad-hoc “all in favor say aye” type of vote doesn’t mean it’s a democracy. Just because many people come to a consensus doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
Elections and representatives are “representative democracy”, not a true democracy. Voting on issues is democracy. Democracy literally means “the people have the power”
I’m talking about the level of organization. There’s a difference between saying “the best way to resolve this conversation is to ask everyone present for a vote” and “there’s going to be another cyclical election soon, these will be the matters we’re going to vote on.” Counting ayes and nays doesn’t make things a capital-D Democracy, it’s the institutionalization of these practices.
Hmm… so an approach that would have gotten Rodeo’s point across better might have been to say,
“so anarchy is just another name for the purest form of democracy.”
Because democracy is such a broad word that it is occasionally applied to the United States, despite the CIA’s history of coups and the FBI’s history of extrajudicial assassinations of citizens.
Democracies usually have laws and some kind of government. There are no laws in Freetown Christiania and there’s no individual who has direct power over another.
Nah that’s the stereotypical view, where anarchy = chaos. For some reason it also needs to find a dumpster and put fire on it, and ffs I never understood that reference.
Anarchists don’t agree with any of those analogies
Saving this for later, as I want to hear responses as well.
I hope we get more discussions like this on Lemmy. Awesome!
Same here! :)
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.
There’s [email protected] and [email protected]
Thank you!
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]Thank you! I might have made the mistake of searching for anarchy instead of anarchism
To link for lemmy, do !community@instance
Example: [email protected]
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!
deleted by creator
Thats an interesting point. I‘ve read a lot of answers by now and I really enjoy how many different viewpoints and interpretations come together along with patterns of probably the core of the topic.
Person with big stick < A bunch of people with pockets full of rocks
Not when the big stick is made of enriched Uranium
https://open.spotify.com/episode/262vW4junObOATj8j9KAxO?si=4ij18zgzTHq4b1qYrZCijQ
From Spotify if you use it
That was fun to listen to! Thank you very much!
Because the moment anarchy starts making rules, it’s no longer anarchy.
That sounds like anarchy is the societal equivalent of a radioactive element. It is what it is, until some random amount of time when some shit kicks off and it becomes something else.
Which is a property of all things
Yes, and those who has grown a community or company will understand this. The emergence of power structures isn’t a matter of if, but when.
Anarchy is not the absence of rules but the absence of authority.
And without authority to back up the rules- the rules are easily dismissed without consequence. And easily dismissed rules with no consequence is anarchy.
Therefore- rules negate anarchy.
Anarchists tend to think that fear of the state is not the main reason why we don’t murder each other. In other words, following rules that are understood does not require the stick. Anarchists also tend to think that authority mostly enforce rules to maintain itself, and that the common good actually relies on something else.
How does an anarchy society enforce the rules? Say, murders.
Let’s say you risk nothing if you murder. Would you start right away going on a killing spree ? Chances you think “I won’t but others will” and others actually think the same. An anarchist would probably analyse this by saying that destroying trust between indivuals living together is a basic tool power use to justify its domination. A pedantic anarchist would get his Latin out at this point. Divide et impera.
You misunderstood my question. I did not mean to ask why there would be no murderers. My question is this:
- If anarchism is not against rules but rather authority, how would you deal with murderers? If there is no authority to sentence them, would they remain free individuals?
Anarchists usually think that a lot of murderers actually get away with it in our actual world, be it through war crimes, neglecting sanitary or safety rules to maximise profit; you can extend this list with a lot of legal murders.
Anarchism definitely does not define a specific rule for what to do with murderers. Different communities might want to handle that differently. They usually think that prison does not solve anything though, and that only the poor get sent there anyway.
I think a mistake is to think that anarchism is a “feature-complete” view of the world, when it really is the realisation that power corrupts, and that we should keep this in mind when organising ourselves. Arguably, over the long run, anarchist views are winning: institutions that prevent - in theory - crazy psychopath from taking absolute power, churches losing power over our lives, women considered as human beings; these are things anarchists have pushed for, for 2 centuries. This short essay might give you more insight: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you
By that logic, there either never has been a murder in human history or governments cause people to murder.
Anarchy isn’t some deep philosophy, it’s just a lack of any sort of life experience.
By your logic, murders don’t happen anymore in liberal democracies?
It isn’t some deep philosophy indeed. It’s very practical and not a church in any way. Anarchists usually don’t care about people calling themselves anarchists, but consider that some stuff like counter measures to absolute power that our institutions have, gender equality and some other stuff are things they’ve been pushing for a while.
At its very core, anarchism is the refusal of any fundamental dogma, and in some ways very related to the scientific method and rationalism. This is probably a more personal take than what I’ve written so far ;-)
Chill out man, we aren’t coming to behead you or anything. <3
All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn’t realize it’s wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.
All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.
Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.
Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.
I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I’d rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that’s depressing.
Rules don’t negate anarchy. I don’t follow rules for fear of punishment, but because they make sense. If they don’t make sense, I seek explanation. If there isn’t a good one, I ignore it.
Is this the Rules version for No Morality without God?
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Abort! Abort! Didn’t mean to link to a reactionary reposter.
The world itself is anarchistic. Each counties has its rules but international politics have no governing body (the UN doesn’t really rule over every state, just serve to mediate discussion). The country with the biggest stick would probably be the US, but they haven’t conquered Canada or Mexico, let alone everyone else. Other players like Russia or China have influence too.
While the US does have a lot of soft power in influencing nations, they certainly aren’t making the rules for other countries and puppeting them.
While the US does have a lot of soft power in influencing nations, they certainly aren’t making the rules for other countries and puppeting them.
South America would probably disagree.
That was true in the 60s, but now most south American governments are ostensibly anti-american but need to be in okay terms with america so that they can trade internationally
While the US does have a lot of soft power in influencing nations, they certainly aren’t making the rules for other countries and puppeting them.
This is a very rosy eyed statement. The “soft” power is the visible part, just the tip of the iceberg.
I’ve got the perfect podcast for you Philosophize this. This topic is covered in the last two episodes.
well then link it! :) thanks in advance
I actually came here to comment the same thing. For any philosophy question, be it a person, or an ideology ‘Philosophize This’ is one of my first stops every time. Stephen West (i thonk thats hos name) explains things so well, and respectfully no matter who he’s talking about.
And i’ve only caught one of his episodes on Anarchism, but it was packed full of really useful information for an initial basis for understanding.
Very cool indeed! I might check out more of his stuff.
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…
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!
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.
A lot of political theory is written in the societal equivalent of an airless room with a frictionless floor. It doesn’t take into account how humans work within the system, especially bad actors.
Which is why the only systems that have ever worked are mixed systems that account for human nature.
A 100% democratic system would have problems because nobody would have any experience or expertise, so people would govern based on ignorance. A 100% communist system doesn’t work because we don’t have a fair system to allocate resources, and as soon as someone becomes in charge of allocating resources, they allocate more for themselves. Even 100% authoritarian systems don’t work because a dictator has to sleep sometime. There may be a figurehead / leader in an authoritarian system, but unless that person delegates some power and control, they’ll be killed and replaced pretty quickly.
Historically the dictator one hasn’t worked well is because every last one has been an actual troglodyte, making moronic decisions after moronic decision. At this point I’m fairly sure only the people with a room temperature IQ want to be dictators. Like I’m sure they would get deposed if they gave out that power but that just hasn’t happened much.
https://youtu.be/fibDNwF8bjs?si=bIMz9kq2831lWgbD
Relevant wkuk
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/fibDNwF8bjs?si=bIMz9kq2831lWgbD
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Oh wow. Its not a bad question how to run a giant plant though in an anarchist system.
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.
Sounds like a great place :)
Is this distinct from commune ism
