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?

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    11 个月前

    Yes, anarchy is an interrim state in which no power mechanic has yet taken hold. But naturally it will, in one way or another.

    • janonymous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 个月前

      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.

      • lily33@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 个月前

        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.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 个月前

        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.

        • janonymous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 个月前

          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.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 个月前

            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.

    • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 个月前

      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