Asklemmy

43786 readers

713 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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Let's say you risk nothing if you murder. Would you start right away going on a killing spree ? Chances you think "I won't but others will" and others actually think the same. An anarchist would probably analyse this by saying that destroying trust between indivuals living together is a basic tool power use to justify its domination. A pedantic anarchist would get his Latin out at this point. Divide et impera.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You misunderstood my question. I did not mean to ask why there would be no murderers. My question is this:

If anarchism is not against rules but rather authority, how would you deal with murderers? If there is no authority to sentence them, would they remain free individuals?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Anarchists usually think that a lot of murderers actually get away with it in our actual world, be it through war crimes, neglecting sanitary or safety rules to maximise profit; you can extend this list with a lot of legal murders.

Anarchism definitely does not define a specific rule for what to do with murderers. Different communities might want to handle that differently. They usually think that prison does not solve anything though, and that only the poor get sent there anyway.

I think a mistake is to think that anarchism is a "feature-complete" view of the world, when it really is the realisation that power corrupts, and that we should keep this in mind when organising ourselves. Arguably, over the long run, anarchist views are winning: institutions that prevent - in theory - crazy psychopath from taking absolute power, churches losing power over our lives, women considered as human beings; these are things anarchists have pushed for, for 2 centuries. This short essay might give you more insight: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you

[–] droans -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

By that logic, there either never has been a murder in human history or governments cause people to murder.

Anarchy isn't some deep philosophy, it's just a lack of any sort of life experience.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

By your logic, murders don't happen anymore in liberal democracies?

It isn't some deep philosophy indeed. It's very practical and not a church in any way. Anarchists usually don't care about people calling themselves anarchists, but consider that some stuff like counter measures to absolute power that our institutions have, gender equality and some other stuff are things they've been pushing for a while.

At its very core, anarchism is the refusal of any fundamental dogma, and in some ways very related to the scientific method and rationalism. This is probably a more personal take than what I've written so far ;-)

Chill out man, we aren't coming to behead you or anything. <3

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn't realize it's wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.

All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.

Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.

Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.

I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I'd rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that's depressing.