you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Anarchy is explicitly against "profits".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    And it doesn't mean that there are no rules but no rulers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    No, what you describe is chaos. Anarchy means there are no rulers. People rule themselves and are also looking out for each other thus enforcing the minimum set of rules that are necessary to have a stable society. Rules can come from a consensus, yes.

    A current example is the anarchist punk camp on Sylt where it was decided that dogs need to be on a leash when your are in the camp. If someone sees someone with a dog without a leash, they tell them of the decision and why it was made and that's it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Since writing that last comment I have that funny thought of a diplomacy lottery in my head where it's randomly decided who will join a trained diplomat or experts on state visits to represent the people. "... And this year... Dale will visit the environmental summit with our experts in ..." followed by an AMA where Dale can share their impressions. I'd love it ;D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

    1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, those are definitions when used as a literary term, or an extreme example. You're not wrong that anarchy can refer to no rules at all, but social contracts and agreements can exist and it still be anarchy just fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Well, because things in practice are often different than the extreme end of the definition, and I'm arguing because I enjoy it and it exposes me to other perspectives. Like how you see no benefit to anarchy tells me about your lived expieriences and/or how you would plan to act in an anarchal society.

    Also, social contracts are enforced in anarchy, just not by an entity emposed by a governing body. I'd say social contracts are more worthwhile when they flourish without the need for enforcement. E.g. people watching what they say in public around children. You won't get arrested for swearing until it's "disturbing the peace".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    You should read about the Frontier days in America after the Louisiana Purchase. Might I suggest the testimony of Dee Harkey?

    Harkey continued, “Each person pretty much enforced the laws as he understood them. If the strong imposed his gun on the weak, or became ruthless in his dealings with his fellow man, there was always the posse.”

    Were the majority of the posses which lynched accused men justified in their actions?

    “Regardless of how men are tried, except by God alone, there are possibilities of mistakes. Those people who had to dish out punishment themselves instead of having someone dish it out for them, as is done today after sentence is pronounced, were usually pretty sure of the guilt before the punishment. Naturally, the formed posses were never considered a means to an end. They were just about as unpopular with the law as the lawless.”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    See: the zapatistas and revolutionary catalonia for examples of anarchist societies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    If you mean the zapatistas... duhhh? They were an anarchist movement within a country, they were attacked by the country they were founded in, and their enforcers were held in rotation and decided on by a fully public discussion that anyone in the community could attend, this is fully anarchist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [+] -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    usually anarchists advocate for elected or rotational positions for policing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    The same thing that happens anywhere else? A power struggle between the people who want it and don't? Are you implying this is unique to anarchism in some way? I don't see why it would be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    There is a legal recourse, you're saying someone with power ignored the law and attempted a coup... do you think coups don't happen in non anarchist countries? How is this unique to anarchism in any way?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    Give one historical example of this happening to an anarchist commune?

    also anarchists have all of those legal frameworks in place as well, this is simply not true and has no historical basis.

    In nearly every example I have read about they have been destroyed through military might of an external power, see revolutionary catalonia and the zapatistas as examples. It turns out rich capitalists don't want anarchism to work, and desperately try to destroy it.

  • source
  • parent