303
ELI5 why is anarchy not "the guy with the bigger stick" making the rules?
(lemmy.giftedmc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
303 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43855 readers
1674 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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
Yes, anarchy is an interrim state in which no power mechanic has yet taken hold. But naturally it will, in one way or another.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.