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?

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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

    • kriz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      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
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

        • lily33@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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