1592
Kick tankies out of 196 (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
737 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Remember kids, Tankies wants to undermine democracy - same as facists.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn't lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.

What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.

The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    After it happens, and there are no hierarchies or authorities, what stops men with guns from taking what they want?

    I don't appreciate your pedantics about my use of hyperbolic verbiage in order to bring an element of humor to my argument.

    Also good job dodging the question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I apologize you couldn't find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
    (hopefully this doesn't come off as patronizing)

    I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn't in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j

    To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don't the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.

    Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The lack of organizational structure for such militias formed by the anarchists and lack of authority mean though that a conspiracy to destroy the anarchist society will always be infinitely many steps ahead of the response of said society.

    Furthermore, what stops the ~30% of people (whether nazi Germany or DJT, that's usually the percentage of votes recieved for right wing radicals) that will almost definitely not be interested in keeping the anarchist society functioning from attaining weapons and having their way? Even ignoring the historic context, tribalism seems baked into the human existence, how is that nullified?

    Further, people will always be fearful, so it's great to say "their fellow anarchists would take up arms" but how many are truly willing to do that? Revolutions would be much more common if they were.

    That's why I think there's significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

    I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse, and have greatly outgrown the small communities in which such a philosophy would be most effective imo.

    Also I totally misinterpreted your joke

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    That’s why I think there’s significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

    That is exactly what I am saying. That is the anarchist revolution. Changing society to be non-hierarchical. It isn't replacing one government with another. It is transforming people to organize in non-hierarchical ways. The revolution is long and takes time and has been going on since the first anarchists thought their theory. It isn't fought with swords and guns but with thoughts and ideas. That is the revolution

    (or to put it in another way)

    The revolution I'm talking about isn't a coup. It isn't using weapons to destroy the government. It is teaching people that there is nothing inherently hierarchical about human society and we can live without it. If any government falls because of anarchism it will be because non-hierarchical associations have replaced the government or the government tried to stop anarchists from organizing and the anarchists fought back.

    I hope that by clearing up what I mean about revolution. The other questions also get solved.

    tribalism seems baked into the human existence

    That's right, it seems baked into human existence because that's how most humans are raised. I believe humans are capable of moving past that.

    I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse

    I don't see how the ideas fall apart when scaled up. When applying the way you interact with others to interacting with other communities the same rules apply. instead of organizing society between individuals you organize society between collectives. Same basic structures apply.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent