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 hope we get more discussions like this on Lemmy. Awesome!
Generally, it’s envisioned as being a lot like now, but with no classes, and people making and remaking the rules on the fly rather than having set laws and set authorities. No laws, no government, but not no rules.
Full disclosure, I’m not convinced personally; I need more evidence it can work.
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.
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, @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 - A Beginners Guide - Kinna, Ruth.pdf
Some youtube recommendations : Zoe Baker (@anarchozoe) ; Anark (@Anark) ; Red Planet (@RedPlanetShow) ; AudibleAnarchist (@AudibleAnarchist1)
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.
I’ve got the perfect podcast for you Philosophize this. This topic is covered in the last two episodes.
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.
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.
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.
I agree in principle. Yet I think there is no one alternative but a lot and I dont think we have really tried them, especially not given the technological advances we are making. While not sold on anything yet, I’m definitely not a fan of the status quo.
I’m also not saying capitalism is inherently bad but the current state of it is so severely corrupt that nobody should defend it imo.
Agreed. Capital, states, etc all have issues in the same way. I just think the state can work for the people and I’m not convinced of the alternative. Both libertarians and anarchosyndicalists have some wild basically religious ideas about how everyone will basically just work together and not dick each other over because of… Social norms, I guess? I just have a hard time believing it.
I seem to get mostly the same answers for why other forms of government dont work: some people are dicks.
In our current form we have the same issue.
Do you see how the problem are not the form of government but the sort of „dickish“ people.
We dont teach our kids about the dark triad in school afaik and its not illegal to treat someone like shit as long as you dont break laws. That way we peoduce traumatized people who might become abusers themselves.
Maybe we should revise if our „clear cut“ laws are the right thing. Maybe we should abstract from the basal „you shall not steal“ and other basic rules on a case by case basis. With the power of technology, that sounds achievable.
Anarchy means nobody is in charge. As soon as somebody with a big stick says they’re in charge it stops being anarchy.
Kind of incredible that they asked for a simple answer and you’re the only one providing one in a sea of false information and extremely elaborate replies…
“Anarchy is an utopia where there’s no one in a position of authority because no one feels the need/pulsion to be in power, what you’re describing is outside these parameters so it isn’t anarchy.” would have been my version of what you said.
As an anarchist, I don’t think anarchy is a utopia, but the natural state of humanity.
Based on all of human history? No
Ever since we’ve been living in groups there’s been leaders and that started before homo sapiens and that’s the case in all of the animal kingdom.
Also by the definition of utopia, being an utopia doesn’t prevent something from being a natural state so I don’t know why you would oppose one to the other.
Your assertion runs counter to quite a bit of reading I’ve done on the social organization of prehistoric and native groups. Also most of the time people exist in a state of anarchy.
Saving this for later, as I want to hear responses 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
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.
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 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.
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.
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. :)
I would just like to point out that it’s not possible to be politically agnostic. Besides political stances or ideologies not being religions, everyone has some point of view on at least some issues, be they societal, financial, etc.
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.
Anarchism understood as a proper model and not just “chaos” is about horizontal and distributed power structures.
The whole idea is that no single person or group has a monopoly on power. Now if you are asking how do anarchist societies prevent people or groups like that from rising up and forming monopolies of power, there are a bunch of different answers. Ultimately it’s about collective action and proper structure.
If your organization’s rules allow for a single person to rise up and take over, it isn’t formed correctly. It’s like the Fediverse, no one server or person gets to make the rules for all the other servers or developers.
Everything is federated by the choice of the instances and ultimately the users. If they don’t agree with how any instance is being run, they can start their own and run it how they want, federating with who they want assuming it is mutual.
Anybody can fork the project at any time, build it different, start a new instance, run it how they want, etc.
You build into your society, mechanisms that resist monopolies of power. It’s like how your body’s immune system has layers of protection against all kinds of germs.
Another example, in typical small company the structure is top-down with the owner usually being a single person with universal power over all their employees. They can hire and fire whoever they want whenever they want. They can shut down the company or change how any part of it operates whenever they want. Nothing in that company structure protects the employees from abuse by the owner.
There is no magic bullet to protect against everything, just like how your body despite being healthy and strong can still succumb to cancer, infection, poison, etc. That isn’t a reason to just give up on being fit and healthy, because it is about improving your odds and trying to make your life on the average better.
Oh, I never thought of the Fediverse being anarchic (anarchistic?), that’s a nice thought (then again servers are mostly structured hierarchical with admins and mods and users?).
I’m not sure how well it translates into societies, though. I love the principles of anarchy, I strongly believe that there should be no one ruling over or deciding for other people but I’m not sure this would work in reality since I can just see how the people with the “big stick” (armies) would just invade us while we’re endlessly debating what the best course of action is. I know this is a bleak outlook on the world but you can kind of see it happening now where Russia can just count on Europe and the US arguing among themselves (in their respective systems) while the dictatorship is just fucking shit up. I sure hope I’m proven wrong!
It’s not a perfect model, but it’s decently close. If Lemmy had a way to distribute server ownership to a group of individuals, that would be even closer.
If I was a whiz at developing, I would love to build that kind of feature.
I understand your concern of external threats to an anarchistic society, but I would just remind you that plenty of centralized governments/societies have also been conquered by other centralized powers. Being centralized by no means protects you from that threat. I think the more relevant factor is just overall size of the opposing force.
It doesn’t matter how weak hamsters are compared to you. If enough of them attack you endlessly, eventually you will succumb, if for no other reason than pure exhaustion lol.
However, there are clear examples IRL of far smaller and weaker decentralized forces successfully resisting a much more powerful centralized force. The VietCong vs the USA in Vietnam, the Mujahideen vs the USSR in Afghanistan, the American Revolutionary forces vs England, the French Resistance vs the Nazis, etc.
I would highly recommend the YouTuber, Anark. He has fantastic content discussing all aspects of anarchism, including defense. He also has links to many other great resources to learn about Anarchism.
bear in mind here that i’m very much not well-versed in anarchist philosophy, but
servers are mostly structured hierarchical with admins and mods and users
i think even in systems like direct democracy (afaik a kind of anarchy because people directly vote on everything?) it doesn’t really scale and you end up needing to elect someone to make implementation decisions toward the overall goals of the society
the key is that it should be very easy to replace that person, and they should have no real “power” other than things that people would mostly come to the same conclusions about anyway - they’re an administrator, a knowledge worker, and their job is procedural
in the fediverse, we join servers whereby we agree to their rules. moderators and admins are a procedural role that is about interpreting and implementing those rules. we can replace them at any time by changing servers and our loss is minimal - less so on mastodon because of the account transfer feature! thus their power over us is always an individual choice and not something that is forced upon us either explicitly or implicitly
I am five years old and I don’t understand anything you just said.
Thank you for reading it :)
I was going to engage in some debate with this, but after your last paragraph I no longer find it necessary.
It illustrates one of the nastier, but also more important of life lessons. No system or even choice is going to be without its own flaws and vulnerabilities, they’ll just be different ones from system to system. So, it’s less about any one system being “right”, or even just “better”, but instead “appropriate to the circumstances/environment/goals”.
Once you acknowledge this, it becomes a lot harder to passionately defend any particular system, because you’re no longer as eager to ignore its own unique vulnerabilities. I believe deeply in democracy and freedom of information for instance, but I cannot bring myself to ignore that it creates a vulnerability for us that someone like Xi Jinping, with his powerful control over the local information space, simply does not experience.
Authoritarian systems, on the other hand, have to deal with the very basic fact that there is nothing divine or magical about that man on top, he’s as human as the rest of us. So, if you get rid of him, you may be able to take and keep his job. Where in a democracy you’d just have to face re-election within a few years.
Pros and cons, always, with pretty much everything. Then the next most important consideration imo is simply scale. Some systems work very well within very small scales, say, a small family. But when scaling these systems up, it can change the circumstances enough that their value changes.
To illustrate this I always like to use littering a banana peel. If just one person litters a banana peel, it is largely harmless. If, however, a million people litter banana peels all in one spot, you can actually create a potential problem where one did not exist before. Scaling the behavior up changes how we need to think about it. This has a lot of ramifications for business in the modern world, where scale is usually desirable. Also feeds into many civil engineering problems.
I don’t think you’re saying anything contrary but I wanted to make one point clear.
The democracy we live under is not unique to capitalism. In fact, our current system has less democracy than an anarchist system would. Also capitalism doesn’t have any requirement to be democratic. Whereas with anarchism, any dictatorship is directly against the core tenets of the system.
That being said, (I have not read enough theory to know for sure but) anarchism doesn’t necessarily preclude the idea of having managers or even CEO’s. It does preclude those positions having total power and control of an enterprise though. Dismantling the hierarchical structure of modern society doesn’t mean having someone be a coordinator of a larger group isn’t helpful. It just means that job isn’t given greater power or more significance than those being coordinated. Our current idea of a CEO is very dictatorial, but that’s not how it has to be.
Exactly. Syndicalism is an anarchist model and in it the union that owns the means of production may decide to have a leadership structure, but that leadership structure has to answer not just to their boss, but also to the collective. The union president might be heavily involved with the company president trying to ensure that the venture is working effectively and planning ahead while also doing right by its workers’ desires. The union leadership would likely be elected and able to either fire or call for the firing of the business leadership.
I think it is important to add that even though no system is perfect and every system has it’s pros and cons, that doesn’t make them equal. As soon as we define goals, for example equal rights, some systems will be better equipped at achieving those while others might be actively hostile to them.
IMO it’s more important to talk about the specific elements of the system, because all the successful systems have used mixes of other systems.
