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
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 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
      ·
      10 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
        10 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
        ·
        10 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
      ·
      10 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