67
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] evranch@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

Right, but the problem is that anarchy by its nature isn't "enforced". So it exists in an ecosystem alongside other ways of living.

If others choose to accumulate resources and use them to destroy their anarchic neighbour to seize their resources, the anarchists will obviously have to defend themselves.

How do you defend yourselves against such a threat? To do so you are forced to accumulate resources. And thus anarchy ends up progressing to feudalism. While I like the concept of anarchy and believe it works on a small scale, in practice just about every society that is in conflict with others has followed the same path from anarchy->monarchy->democracy->oligarchy, almost as if it's forced by game theory principles.

I feel like anarchy does work, but only in isolation from competition.

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 months ago

If others choose to accumulate resources and use them to destroy their anarchic neighbour to seize their resources, the anarchists will obviously have to defend themselves.

Accumulation of resources implies exploitation. Anarchists will agitate those exploited to overthrow their exploiters.

How do you defend yourselves against such a threat? To do so you are forced to accumulate resources.

That doesn't follow. Unless by "accumulate resources" you mean the generic practice of a society having stuff? Anarchists don't need a single person accumulating stuff to defend themselves.

I think you should read more about anarchism instead of imagining wild scenarios. Rest assured that anarchists have considered the defense argument.

this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
67 points (100.0% liked)

Anarchism

1356 readers
46 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS