Remember to take shitposts seriously, it’s what the cool kids are doing
ITT: Frantic redefinition of what anarchism is. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Since this comment means its my turn now, I’ll redefine it into “no rules except the ones I agree with, otherwise GFY” sprinkled with a heavy dose of personal charisma that often clouds objectivity and the complexity of the reality.
That’s not what anarchism is.
I like to call anarchism as neighborliness extended as a political ideology. Consider it libertarianism with a pinch of collectivism
You do it all the time when you organize a group of friends to go to the movies. There is no elected leader.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, they destroyed a lot of public and military comms infrastructure, so the military ended up teaming up with anarchists because they had a decentralized comms going.
Anarchism is compatible with existing political ideologies, however in my opinion works best at small scales.
There’s no elected leader, but there’s an implicit one: the one organizing it, who might just give you the cold shoulder for any number of reasons. Anarchism is best defined in Wikipedia, and isn’t really limited to “small scales”. It is most validated when it is a movement existing within authoritarian states, out of necessity, which is why Revolutionary Action joined into the Revolutionary Committee among other groups, which is what you are referring to.
By itself and out of context, and specially when it manifests in societies that are actually functional, democratic, and with adequate social policies, I favor my own definition, but it can’t really be defined practically and objectively without context. “No (to your Russian) rules except the ones I agree with (Ukrainian national stability and identity), otherwise GFY” sprinkled with a heavy dose of personal charisma is what Revolutionary Action is doing to Russia as it attempts to annex Ukraine, thanks for the example.
Because they aren’t anarchists. They’re pissy Lil shits who want everyone Else to play by their rules
Anarchism isn’t the absence of rules but the absence of authority. Some anarchist ideas even replace the centralized authority figure with rules that apply to everyone and of cause free association so you are not forced to follow them and can move on instead
It’s always good to learn something from comments under memes. You make me think about libertarianism that sounds like a different (right wing) take on anarchism.
I’m not sure what makes you think of (right wing) libertarians. I specified the absence of authority. Libertarians are fond of the idea of voluntary contracts – or let’s rather call it voluntary authority – which in effect is never voluntary. You can choose for whom to work but there is a ruling class you have to work for. All you can do is choose your oppressor.
Free association among equals on the other hand is a very common idea among (left/socialist) anarchists and I think very early on. You can choose and leave the community you belong to.
Well you learned the wrong here, anarchy isnt the absence of authority it’s the absence of hierarchy.
Some systems are clearly hierarchical, capitalism, dictatorship, feudalism.
Now I have a hard time imagining how you would enforce certain laws, or rules without authority.
Authority is usually understood by anarchists as a component of hierarchy. I’d be interested to hear your definition that doesn’t make it hierarchical.
And there are ways of enforcing rules that don’t require authority, like diffuse sanctions, essentially community-based enforcement.
There’s a whole school of anti-carceral justice thought that deals with this.
Rules are enforced by the collective not by a small minority essentially. Things like direct democracy doesn’t contradict with their philosophy. Essentially middle management and above in all aspects of financial and political life would be abolished.
Short answer: The community.
In small contexts, a mutual understanding is sufficient. There are “Radical Therapy” groups with no central therapist who decides who talks how much but instead have rules like fixed times for each person. I don’t think people will break these rules but exclusion is always an option with very intransigent people.
In bigger contexts like the Commons, people deliberate on their own rules. Minor transgressions will have minor consequences and the worst is – again – exclusion. People are more willing to stick to the rules and watch others if they were part of the process that created the rules. If you want to dive deeper, I remember a podcast episode by SRSLY WRONG and a YouTube video by Andrewism about The Commons or The Tragedy of the Common.
Publicly shun people. You’re a rule breaker? You’ve been shunned by society and people who associate with you will be known associates of the shunned.
And further to that we have voluntary prison. Essentially, if you’re guilty of something and want to have the benefits of this society, you need to agree to a loss of some privileges - in whatever form is necessary. If you won’t, well good luck surviving when nobody will trade with you or let you live near them.
If you won’t agree to that, you can leave, but the full details of your trial and conviction are public and your decision to leave will be broadcast, so our neighbours know to look out for you.
That means trials will need to be fair, and seen to be fair, or else it will be easy to ask for asylum. Prisoners need to be fairly treated, or they will try their luck in a nearby place.
But if someone chooses to leave and is just trying to run from the consequences of their actions, well they’ll have a hard time being accepted anywhere else.
it’s an archipelagic confederation, so yes!
No just free association. But having no alternatives to legitimate needs, like participating in our civilization’s free speech discourse through the internet, free association doesn’t help. So before the fediverse you were “forced” to associate with reddit/facebook/twitter or have little association at all.
I’m not sure how anarchism would work for a social media platform. Everyone is a mod? Everyone can post anything and can delete anything? 😀
I believe generally as a philosophy anarchism only makes sense as all authority should be challenged and needs to be justified or be abolished. The amount of authority justified and needed might be relative to the level of “enlightenment” of the participants.
That’s a very good question. It’s as anarchist as modern social media gets.
The thing is the moderators. In an anarchist utopia, they would take turns, be recallable and have to justify their decisions.
The last point is true for some instances but not all (think of the vegan cat food debate on .world verses how .ml blocks voices critical of China and Russia).
The other two points – to my knowledge – barely happen. This isn’t a huge problem, as I said, it’s as anarchist as social media comes. But it contains the risk of a centralized power. Sure, you can always leave the instance (even easier than on mastodon where you lose your followers) but this resembles the Libertarian “freedom” to choose your oppressor. Internal equality is very important.
This isn’t to criticize Lemmy. It’s overall very good and as anarchist as realistically and practically possible. But to showcase the anarchist ideal of councils and to spotlight the minor flaws we should be aware of, even if there is no perfect solution.
Tankies linking Engels’ “On Authority” in 3…
Anarchists do believe in board game rules. Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
I can think of one or two times where house rules were appropriate, and a couple of dozen times where they broke the game. I think that you should only apply a house rule where 1) the game is already broken and 2) you’re reasonably sure that the house rule won’t break it further. It’s good for when an otherwise fun game is ruined by something that the game designers overlooked.
Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
Kinda. The most important part is that if someone disagrees with the house rules, they can choose to disassociate from the house and go somewhere else. There’s no state to say “this open field that’s not utilized is mine, bitch!” and then taze you.
There’s the state neighbouring anarchists who can’t form a state and so probably anarchists exist protected within the borders of some state unless some state respects not a state
However a state cannot acknowledge existence of something that doesn’t exist and has no joint body of commonality. Hence genghis khan moment. A state conquers the ownerless land.
Thus emergents from this Darwinian history are states. Squashing individuality in name of security against genghis khans.
Anarchism remains a purely theoretical thought exercise or a relic of the far past tribes
U r assuming that anarchists would be peaceful n just roll over on their backs to show their tummies to Genghis Khan.
The goal of anarchism is freedom. The existence of a State means no freedom. Thus, anarchist militias unite to fight this threat. A stateless society doesn’t equate an unorganised society.
