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?

  • ale@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    What if the workers disagree with each other? I’ve had the same question as OP for a long time with no answer.

    • InputZero@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      So most of the time I talk to self proclaimed anarchist they’re actually Anarcommunists which can be broadly described as “From each their ability, to each their need.” If a conflict such as workers disagreeing arises, as it’s been described to me, a representative community council would arbitrate the disagreement and everyone would see to it’s enforcement. Personally I find it rather naive because it excludes resolving disputes between communities and focuses on incorporating communities together to settle disputes. Which is fine so long as the communities are willing to incorporate each other’s welfare into their considerations.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        At that point, it isn’t anarchy as a “representative community council” with the power of enforcement is just another name for “state power”.

        Of course I don’t think anarchy can truly exist in anything but hunter-gatherer societies either so it is a moot point.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Disagreements are bound to happen. Ideally, this hypothetical anarchist society would need to have a system in which to air grievances ethically and then a public forum to determine the viability of integrating the new idea or revising an old idea that folks find objectionable. Rooting out bad actors would be the challenge, not the good faith compromises required to get everyone on the same page.

      If you think that all sounds like a lot of work for every single disagreement, I would counter that point by saying this hypothetical anarchist society isn’t interested in creating wealth out of thin air, nuclear proliferation or the military industrial complex, or real estate scams.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      As members of the same class, workers interests should be more or less aligned and disagreements should be mostly minor. Differences can be settled by compromise or people can withdraw from the organization if not.