I'm going to get some sleep, if anyone else is curious about anarchism the AFAQ often has answers for many of your common questions.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
The part where we all die, because a foreign army invades us, and no one is doom guy.
Saying this as a green anarcho transhumanist.
Anarchists can organize and fight militarily quite effectively while still maintaining a bottom-up system, as demonstrated by the Anarchist militias of Makhno and Catalonia (and though not Anarchist, Rojava is an example of a decentralized army). The issue all Anarchist attempts have faced militarily is a lack of any allies on the world stage, allowing the authoritarian nations around them to crush them due to lack of supplies (or sudden betrayal of ML 'allies').
Part of anarchism that bothers me is that without central authority keeping track of everything my ability to find specific help I need would be solely dependent on whether I or any of my friends know person with that particular set of skills.
Anarchism depends on free exchange of information, I'll give a real life example from people without an anarchist ideology to make this more approachable:
I've recently installed an arch-linux based operating system, knowing that there is ArchWiki to depend on if i need guidance on specific issues, that is solely because the arch community tries to be helpful and documents almost every issue or thing one might need help with.
So now I, someone who's new to linux (albeit with existing knowledge in software overall) and arch specifically, does not need to know anyone personally to fix my own issues.
Do note about this example, that this approach is limited by my existing knowledge and also by how accessible the wiki is, BUT, in other, simpler situations I wouldn't be as limited in my scope.
TL;DR: as long as people can exchange information (ideas, recipes, etc) comfortably, we can expect they will, and we can depend on information sources (libraries, platforms, etc.) to hone our skills, fix whatever we need in the moment, or whatever else.
PS. All anarchists advocate for bringing about a reality in which we all have more free time, so that we may reap the fruits of this and many other aspects of life we want to improve, read about other ideas for a more in-depth explanation.
If you're interested in more, read about Tool Libraries, I'd go into more details about all this but this comment is getting long enough :^).
I know what a tool is. And while I admire the ideals of renaissance men trying to become proficient in every possible skill, I would not trust a person who watched few videos and tinkered a bit with every single situation in my life.
I guess anarchism isn't something I would be able to work with.
What central authority pairs you with finding specific help today? When I need to find someone, I generally search online and connect myself with people I need to.
The part where you either assume people don't have misaligned interests or that they do but they can resolve it in a rational way.
I think a system where everyone has a pretty similar amount of power / influence is way better in dealing with that than systems where individuals are able to hoard power and resources to further their misaligned interests.
The "not making decisions for me" part is a very Trump-like thing to say. Society only works by compromise.
A federalist democracy is probably the closest we get to a free society, and one difficult part of it is, that you have to make decisions for others.
The “not making decisions for me” part is a very Trump-like thing to say. Society only works by compromise.
Society only works by consent. If the people do not consent to the laws, they are authoritarian and should be resisted.
Any top-down system of governance will never be free by its very nature.
The only free society we will get is an anarchist one where people agree to work together and create rules that they can all abide by. Those who don't want to abide by the communities rules can leave.
When I shoot a Nazi in the face, I am taking away his choice to shoot trans people in the face. If the Nazi does not consent to the law of not shooting trans people in the face, I will still shoot him in the face. If the Nazi argues that I am taking away his ability to make the decision to shoot trans people in the face, I will still shoot him in the face.
And if the Nazi argues that he is part of a community I am not in and that community has a law about shooting trans people in the face, I will still shoot him in the face.
Society only works by mutual aid. If you will not help me when I am vulnerable, why should I waste my time building a relationship with you?
Consent is secondary. A specific form of helping someone by creating a smooth exit with them if they don't want to be there anymore. Which means it can be overruled if aid is more important. You can push someone out of the way of a moving bus without asking. You can raise a child who isn't capable of consent yet. You can shoot a Nazi in the face.
Which unfortunately means that a community where people agree to work together and create rules they can all abide by is not necessarily in the clear. If that community produces far more CO2 emissions than their fair share, they are causing harm through climate change and should (IMO) be stopped. If they are on stolen land and refuse entry to native people, if they poison the river downstream, if they abuse children, if they put barbed wire fences across a natural area, if they factory farm animals, if they dry out a natural aquifer for frivolous consumption - if they raid the commons or cause harm to others in any way, they should (IMO) be stopped.
I'm ready to admit this is less free for those local societies than if they could pollute everyone into extinction. Anarchism isn't about perfect freedom, it's about abolishing hierarchy. You will attend the weekly meetings and you will help the community make informed decisions. You will avoid causing harm and you will avoid violating consent. Not because someone told you to, but because "everyone" told you to. Horizontal accountability, and horizontal enforcement if necessary.
The only free society we will get is an anarchist one where people agree to work together and create rules that they can all abide by. Those who don't want to abide by the communities rules can leave.
That's not anarchy. That's some form of democracy.
Any top-down system of governance will never be free by its very nature.
That's exactly the kind of logic bullies use to inflict their freedom on others.
Society only works by consent. If the people do not consent to the laws, they are authoritarian and should be resisted.
Real "I'm 14 and this is deep" energy here. Laws and governance of any kind are inherently rooted in consent to authority. Hell, even being a good citizen in an anarchy is about consenting to the authority of etiquette, basically the tyranny of empathy over free will. Authority invites resistance, arguing for resistance to authority simply because it exists is an empty nothing burger of a philosophy.
This all feels like a libertarian dog whistle to excuse politics lacking any empathy.
That is literally anarchy. You obviously do not know what anarchy is.
Genuine question because my understanding of anarchism is cursory, but how does anarchism prevent ‘might makes right’ from being the prevailing ideology? If there is no system of laws, how do we protect against rapists and murderers? Does it require everyone to be armed to the teeth at all times just to protect themselves?
Also, how does anarchism ensure we can regulate food safety and medicine? Is the expectation that everyone produce their own food? How do we protect ourselves against the 1%? They have far more resources than the rest of us, so couldn’t they basically muscle their way to the top and cement themselves there, with no hope of being toppled without some sort of systemic change?
How does anarchism prevent ‘might makes right’ from being the prevailing ideology?
How does the world currently prevent that? It doesn't, the largest states do as they wish to the smaller ones, and internally the states do what they wish to the citizens. Under anarchism you would defend your community and your communities would defend each other. You can see this in action in places like the Chiapas were communities defend themselves from the state and cartels.
If there is no system of laws
Anarchism is not a world devoid of rules, in fact it's all about rules. Except these are rules mutually-agreed upon by members of the community rather than dictated by politicians with no interest in the well-being of the community.
how do we protect against rapists and murderers? Does it require everyone to be armed to the teeth at all times just to protect themselves?
How do you protect against rapists and murderers? How do you today, do you ring the cops and wait 30 minutes? Under anarchism the community would ensure its own defence, you and your neighbours and everyone else would be empowered to protect yourselves, and you would want to because its your community. At present you must wait for the bastards to show up and maybe do something to help, if not make the situation actively worse.
Also, how does anarchism ensure we can regulate food safety and medicine?
Why would you want to produce unsafe foods and medicines, there is no profit motive to cut-corners and you are only hurting yourselves.
Is the expectation that everyone produce their own food?
The expectation is communities would produce resources for themselves, and co-operate with neighbouring communities to share what's needed.
How do we protect ourselves against the 1%? They have far more resources than the rest of us, so couldn’t they basically muscle their way to the top and cement themselves there, with no hope of being toppled without some sort of systemic change?
How do you protect yourselves against the 1% today? You don't.
Under anarchism, you actively fight them.
So by that sentiment the world is as it should exist under anarchism. The strongest groups overpowered the lesser groups amd this is where it sits.
Thats the thing. We walked out of the forest under this "system" and kingships, gangs, fiefdoms, and religious conclaves was all we got out of it. What makes you think, particularly in the current climate, that humanity has changed at all enough to not do the exact same thing again.
The part where people with better material positions consolidate power and influence, and exercise that power over the meek.
Or the part where greedy fucks "make their own decisions" that don't factor in externalities or the impact they have to the common good. Resulting in things like the destruction of our natural environment and ecosystem.
This take is like when people try to shit on communism by describing capitalism
That’s not anarchy, it’s chaos. You’re maybe thinking of warlordism, aka ‘ancap’ or market libertarianism?
Anarchy is a lot of work for its participants. If you aren’t outsourcing management decisions about your life, neighbourhood, region, etc., you have to collaborate in making those decisions. If power is allowed to concentrate, your self-determined governing system collapses and anarchy, by definition, is lost. It’s a life of constant renegotiation.
Rojava is illustrative, as it’s established in a self-conscious anarchic process, and by all reports it’s great in many ways but a lot of daily effort, and is under direct assault currently.
Because anarchism only works when everyone is perfectly rational and cooperative. Maybe you are, but many people aren't. The decisions those people make should be controlled: starting fires for fun, dumping waste into drinking water, etc.
The part where I don't get to make decisions for others.
Not really looking forward to the clash that happens when the 2/3s consensus system of Johnsonville upriver comes into conflict with the majority consensus system of Tablesville downriver over the matter of what level of water treatment is necessary before dumping.
For me it's that anarchists are moral purists which often dont align with a leftist slightly less radical or outside of their worldview, in a society that will likely never accept anarchism.
I believe in leftism now, as opposed to "not voting because voting means you believe in people ruling over you." Which is the summary of many anarchists have told me.
Other than that I dont mind anarchists, but if we want change, participating in current society by voting and organizing now is the only way.
Of these options, the part where I don't get to make your decisions, I guess. There's going to be some guy who wants to shit in the drinking water, and I'm going to want to stop him.
I'm fairly certain the anti-anarchism rhetoric instilled into people is a result of long seated anti-intellectualism propaganda and policies.
Some of the biggest proponents of anarchy I have met were professors.
In our current world, the rich and powerful have a vested interest in keeping the population uninformed. Think of how hard they tried to bury communism and socialism. Anarchy, the idea of self-governing, leaves them with no wealth, no power, and nothing to contribute.
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
