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?

  • InputZero@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    So most of the time I talk to self proclaimed anarchist they’re actually Anarcommunists which can be broadly described as “From each their ability, to each their need.” If a conflict such as workers disagreeing arises, as it’s been described to me, a representative community council would arbitrate the disagreement and everyone would see to it’s enforcement. Personally I find it rather naive because it excludes resolving disputes between communities and focuses on incorporating communities together to settle disputes. Which is fine so long as the communities are willing to incorporate each other’s welfare into their considerations.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      At that point, it isn’t anarchy as a “representative community council” with the power of enforcement is just another name for “state power”.

      Of course I don’t think anarchy can truly exist in anything but hunter-gatherer societies either so it is a moot point.