I’m going to get some sleep, if anyone else is curious about anarchism the AFAQ often has answers for many of your common questions.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
Also people can always ask their questions in good faith in any of the
communities to have the chance for follow up questions.
I would only really recommend !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
Slrpnk is largely inactive, and has a post celebrating Chomsky .
And .ml is well .ml, not a good place for anarchists.
It is definitely them not being able to control you.
Genuine question because my understanding of anarchism is cursory, but how does anarchism prevent ‘might makes right’ from being the prevailing ideology? If there is no system of laws, how do we protect against rapists and murderers? Does it require everyone to be armed to the teeth at all times just to protect themselves?
Also, how does anarchism ensure we can regulate food safety and medicine? Is the expectation that everyone produce their own food? How do we protect ourselves against the 1%? They have far more resources than the rest of us, so couldn’t they basically muscle their way to the top and cement themselves there, with no hope of being toppled without some sort of systemic change?
How does anarchism prevent ‘might makes right’ from being the prevailing ideology?
How does the world currently prevent that? It doesn’t, the largest states do as they wish to the smaller ones, and internally the states do what they wish to the citizens. Under anarchism you would defend your community and your communities would defend each other. You can see this in action in places like the Chiapas were communities defend themselves from the state and cartels.
If there is no system of laws
Anarchism is not a world devoid of rules, in fact it’s all about rules. Except these are rules mutually-agreed upon by members of the community rather than dictated by politicians with no interest in the well-being of the community.
how do we protect against rapists and murderers? Does it require everyone to be armed to the teeth at all times just to protect themselves?
How do you protect against rapists and murderers? How do you today, do you ring the cops and wait 30 minutes? Under anarchism the community would ensure its own defence, you and your neighbours and everyone else would be empowered to protect yourselves, and you would want to because its your community. At present you must wait for the bastards to show up and maybe do something to help, if not make the situation actively worse.
Also, how does anarchism ensure we can regulate food safety and medicine?
Why would you want to produce unsafe foods and medicines, there is no profit motive to cut-corners and you are only hurting yourselves.
Is the expectation that everyone produce their own food?
The expectation is communities would produce resources for themselves, and co-operate with neighbouring communities to share what’s needed.
How do we protect ourselves against the 1%? They have far more resources than the rest of us, so couldn’t they basically muscle their way to the top and cement themselves there, with no hope of being toppled without some sort of systemic change?
How do you protect yourselves against the 1% today? You don’t.
Under anarchism, you actively fight them.
So by that sentiment the world is as it should exist under anarchism. The strongest groups overpowered the lesser groups amd this is where it sits.
Thats the thing. We walked out of the forest under this “system” and kingships, gangs, fiefdoms, and religious conclaves was all we got out of it. What makes you think, particularly in the current climate, that humanity has changed at all enough to not do the exact same thing again.
No, that’s not anarchism, it’s kleptocracy, by definition.
Anarchism means more rules, more intimate regulation of public works, not less. For power to spread out, you have to work to prevent its concentration, or you are just catalyzing a transitional moment in history.
What makes me think we can overcome the sociopathy is that culture has progressed along with our knowledge of the mind, and that the spirit of liberty never dies. A minority are authoritarian, even if it’s a large minority. We do have to counteract the immense amount of propaganda and ideology, however.
Ok, so how do these “more rules” come into existence without some centralized body?
Who gets to decide that? It might seem romantic to say that “everybody does”, but how would that go practically?
Like who, comes up with those? Who will explain those rules to others? And most importantly, who will make sure others follow them properly?
Because if everyone gets to decide that on their own if they want to follow a rule or not, then you might as well have no rules since everyone will just do whatever they want.
Like who, comes up with those? Who will explain those rules to others? And most importantly, who will make sure others follow them properly?
Rules are decided on at community-level. That could mean a village comes together to collectively decide on rules for their community, which the entire village can participate in. Once everyone is happy with the rules, and with the methods of enforcement chosen, the entire village will be familiar with them, and can then explain those rules to others. They may also federate with other villages and agree to follow a larger set of rules or standards.
You can see a form of this style of society in practice in Rojava (there’s also this video for an even more in-depth look at how different aspects of Rojava function).
The “not making decisions for me” part is a very Trump-like thing to say. Society only works by compromise.
A federalist democracy is probably the closest we get to a free society, and one difficult part of it is, that you have to make decisions for others.
The “not making decisions for me” part is a very Trump-like thing to say. Society only works by compromise.
Society only works by consent. If the people do not consent to the laws, they are authoritarian and should be resisted.
Any top-down system of governance will never be free by its very nature.
The only free society we will get is an anarchist one where people agree to work together and create rules that they can all abide by. Those who don’t want to abide by the communities rules can leave.
The only free society we will get is an anarchist one where people agree to work together and create rules that they can all abide by. Those who don’t want to abide by the communities rules can leave.
That’s not anarchy. That’s some form of democracy.
Any top-down system of governance will never be free by its very nature.
That’s exactly the kind of logic bullies use to inflict their freedom on others.
Society only works by consent. If the people do not consent to the laws, they are authoritarian and should be resisted.
Real “I’m 14 and this is deep” energy here. Laws and governance of any kind are inherently rooted in consent to authority. Hell, even being a good citizen in an anarchy is about consenting to the authority of etiquette, basically the tyranny of empathy over free will. Authority invites resistance, arguing for resistance to authority simply because it exists is an empty nothing burger of a philosophy.
This all feels like a libertarian dog whistle to excuse politics lacking any empathy.
That is literally anarchy. You obviously do not know what anarchy is.
The part where people with better material positions consolidate power and influence, and exercise that power over the meek.
Or the part where greedy fucks “make their own decisions” that don’t factor in externalities or the impact they have to the common good. Resulting in things like the destruction of our natural environment and ecosystem.
This take is like when people try to shit on communism by describing capitalism
Compare how much environmental damage is done by anarchist societies versus governed societies.
It’s illegal for us to defend ourselves.
My problem with anarchy is that your freedom doesn’t end where mine begins.
That makes zero sense. I’m sure subverting the saying sounded cool, but it doesn’t convey a meaning.
