• Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    You are completely wrong about what constitutes anarchism. In fact, although there are different anarchist theories, some of the things you cite are incompatible with any form of anarchism. For example, enslavement is objectively hierarchical and impossible to reconcile with anarchism of any form, as is capitalism, as is bombing someone to force them to do your will. You are parroting anti-anarchist propaganda. I’d encourage you to read up on this.

    Anarchist communities definitely have structure. It’s just that the structure is horizontal, so to someone who’s immersed in our hierarchical society, it may be confused for disorder.

    No country is anarchist

    Clap clap! Now you’re understanding! There can be no state, correct.

    because then they couldn’t have rules to consider themselves a country

    It depends on what you mean by “rules.” Certainly, oppression is categorically not permitted under anarchism, nor any form of enslavement or exploitation. You can certainly have agreed upon guidelines and roles in your community. Anarchy isn’t the absence of rules, but rather the absence of hierarchies and a state. Anarchist communities usually have ways of ensuring liberty for all, and may use measures like diffuse sanctions or even exile from the community in extreme cases.

    Edit: Might I add that to me it seems like anarchism is the most considerate, empathetic philosophies. I’m not sure why you think it’s just thoughtless, because it’s not. It encourages things like mutual aid and comraderie.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      LOL holy shit dude.

      No one would own slaves in an anarchist system because some nerd explained that “technically that adds a heirarchy in our society and we don’t have tiers of personhood”?

      Tell that to the guy with the guns and chains.

      No one cares about the textbook definition in real anarchy. They care about getting what they want. And if you don’t have rules to bind people to your side to resist them then your ideals of anarchy are useless. You must destroy the concept of the individual to obtain a version of anarchy that works and the first outsider to realize this and use it will undoubtedly ruin the project.

      Anarchy works as a system in the mind and on paper, but less so when an individual decides they don’t care because they are born with sociopathic tendencies and realize there is no place for themselves other than what they make.

      The absence of a state just makes it more likely to collapse in on itself when the fighting starts and people trying to protect themselves throw others under the bus.

      You can’t say total freedom from labels and structure of a system but then say “oh but don’t do anything that might hurt that.” People have already latched onto the first part. Anarchy works on lly in theory or as an eventual free-for-all until someone comes up with rules which ends the anarchy.

      • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t even know where to start because you are basing this on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what anarchism is. Anarchism does work. I’d encourage you to read that book I linked, at least the introduction.

        I’d also recommend reading “Mutual Aid” by Peter Kropotkin. The ugly traits like greed you reference are greatly exacerbated by our unjust and oppressive society. No species survives without mutual aid.

        Anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with fascism, capitalism, and other unjust and oppressive systems. The fascist with whips and chains won’t cease because some nerd explains anarchism – he will cease because he will he yeeted if he persists in harming others for his own personal gain.

        Please read something. Or listen. I’m sorry if this comes across as rude, but you are very, very ignorant.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          And you are coming from an emphatic and emotionally charged perspective. You have an ideology you want to be true.

          You claim that this system is great and holds up, but it’s like an ice cube. It stays as it is fine until you put it in the ocean.

          The system nor the people are ever as perfect as desired in the thought experiment and in reality it cracks and melts to the force of reality. The same way that laissez-faire economic policy does not lead to shared collective wealth. It only works till one person decides they want to take more and if they get others to agree then it’s over.

          So how is it that this perfect ideology doesn’t work with any of the systems you don’t like but just so happens to perfeclty fit in with one that is favored by you? You have an emotional attachment to the concept working which means all the minor flaws can be overlooked for the joy it will bring. Anyone can pull up someone who has written ad nauseum about their idea of how it should all work but we are bound by the rules of reality and we have data to work from. That is where we find actual systems to work from.

          I’m not malinformed, I just don’t agree with your ideology as I see the flaws inherent to them. I can see the paradox and the reality and nature of humans. At best there will be instances of oppression happening in small scale or even the familial level and when it can not be squashed it will erode at the system the pretends to believe everyone is just and that the flaws can be fixed through joint agreement as everyone will obviously agree with their idea of sanity.

          We are all in the insane asylum. None of us share reality, and unlocking the doors and expecting everyone to play nice is hopeful at best.

          • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            10 months ago

            Again, I’d encourage you to start by understanding what constitutes anarchism. If you want to argue that it won’t work, then fine, but this version of anarchism you’ve concocted in your mind doesn’t match with what any anarchists have ever claimed. No one merely expects everyone to play nice, and nothing about anarchist theory relies on human nature being perfect. It can and does work in spite of our human flaws.

            What it does claim is that traits like mutual aid and cooperation are suppressed in an unjust system, and that these things are just as much present in humans as are harmful traits like competition or war.

            Please read up on what anarchism is. It’s impossible to have a discussion about something totally fabricated and baseless.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Understanding your desired definition of anarchism

              A definition you value because it says that humans will be enterely helpful to each other the moment they are freed from the system you personally do not like (even if for valid reasons). There does not seem to be a lack of charity funds available and yet there is also no lack of people skimming from them.

              You are saying my definition doesn’t mesh with others when all you point to is that of a couple individuals as well that you respect more than me. You can’t even hear my side of the argument without dismissing it because that is the nature of humans.

              It’s impossible to also have a conversation with you as you insist holding onto your perspective because it’s what you brain is trained to do. It’s the way humans protect themselves and it’s why a singular self perceived idea of reality never works because it lacks the nuance of realizing others are here that do not share these thoughts.

              You are correct in this being a waste of time but for the wrong reasons. And also likely why neither of us will have a victory in this ever. Ever. The best we can hope for is to accept and modify reality not change it.

              • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                10 months ago

                Again, anarchism does not claim that we will abruptly end society and everyone will immediately cooperate. Anarchism does not rely on people being perfect. Anarchism is not the absence of rules (though the term “rules” may not be uses, since it implies connection to a hierarchical system).

                You are using a false definition of anarchism, based on anti-anarchist misinformation and propaganda. You make as much sense as the “anarcho” capitalists. You think it means no rules, no guidelines, no societal roles.

                Read up on the Zapatistas. There you will find a good example of an anarchist community at work. Even my non-profit, though not purely anarchist, adopts many of its principles, such as that of horizontality.

                Good day to you. It seems you need more time to reflect and learn from what I’ve said. Honestly understandable – sometimes these forums seem to inherently encourage hostility and doubling down in spite of oneself, and I think you’ll come to know that what I’m saying is accurate once you’ve had some time to mull this over and maybe click some of those links I gave you.