Asklemmy

43965 readers

1974 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

272

ELI5 why is anarchy not "the guy with the bigger stick" making the rules? (lemmy.giftedmc.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

196 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] janonymous 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

In an anarchist society, that is a community without hierarchies and rulers, threats are handled by the community. So one person with a big stick would have to fight everyone else to establish their dominance.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

My point was that the "stick" could just be charisma. Our problem as a society seems to be gullibility (for the majority) and a blind trust in power figures. I always have to think of "negan" in twd as a figure taking hold in a chaotic situation. Someone explained that anarchism isnt "chaos" but my ability to grasp it isnt that deep yet.

[–] daltotron 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I tend to think that twd is fiction, and the people who negan piss off, who want to kill negan, only need to get lucky once, while negan needs to keep succeeding over and over (I've never seen the walking dead tho I'm just kind of going based on vibes).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I agree. A work of fiction often pushes it to the extremes. But we are seeing irl figures that succeed bit by bit, making the world worse (while others improve it on the other side, which leads to constant debate over the actual state of the world).

But since I read and heard a lot more about anarchism now, the proposed structure is a lot more complex than just absence of a government. So my goal has been achieved and I have been educated. :)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well as history shows, the best way to fight and prevent that is with education.

Anarchism is mutual aid, it’s working together without having to be made to. Think of how a household can divide chores between members of it, even the dirty ones get done.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Or would tell 10% of them. They are special Then use those to influence another 20%. With that, a LOUD 30% WILL DOMINATE THE DISCUSSIONS.

And a new king is born!

[–] MindSkipperBro12 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That sounds very… infeasible as a society.

[–] janonymous 1 points 10 months ago

There are and have been a number of anarchist communities. It is feasible, but I agree that in our current globalized world state it is hard to imagine for anything bigger than a village to survive for long.