I don't see a good lemmy community to learn more about anarchy. Am i missing something? I know about sources online, but it would be nice to read what actual people have to discuss.
In an anarchist society, that is a community without hierarchies and rulers, threats are handled by the community. So one person with a big stick would have to fight everyone else to establish their dominance.
It is, a lot of people just have pseudo mystical beliefs about how people will act when there is no state. They like to imagine everything bad about humans is capitalism/the state/insert Boogeyman, not that the state and laws exist because we tried the alternative and no system at all always does work out to might makes right. A warlord always moves in to fill the power vacuum.
Some people are bastards and any system you create has to be created with the explicit assumptions that people are bastards. Some people just want to believe no one is a bastard or that there are not enough bastards to hurt the reasonable people. I think those people are wildly optimistic, and removing power structures does not remove the temptation to exert power or the ability, only one specific means.
I agree in principle. Yet I think there is no one alternative but a lot and I dont think we have really tried them, especially not given the technological advances we are making. While not sold on anything yet, I'm definitely not a fan of the status quo.
I'm also not saying capitalism is inherently bad but the current state of it is so severely corrupt that nobody should defend it imo.
Agreed. Capital, states, etc all have issues in the same way. I just think the state can work for the people and I'm not convinced of the alternative. Both libertarians and anarchosyndicalists have some wild basically religious ideas about how everyone will basically just work together and not dick each other over because of... Social norms, I guess? I just have a hard time believing it.
There's a whole lot of different takes here already, so I'm just going to plug this very excellent book: Practical Anarchism: A Guide for Daily Life and bounce.
Answering the following question might help in clearing up misconceptions: what is anarchism to you ?
From there we can discuss whether or not your definition is correct, and address your question.
I was reading through this: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca2 but I'm overwhelmed with the amount of content and just wanted to understand if other people have an "easier to grasp the basics" stance I could ask of them.
I would so much love a "lateral society" where you are not better or worse than the person next to you (open source was recently cited as anarcho communism example) but are encouraged to contribute what you can to public benefit.
But watching examples of decapitated states devolving in to warlord rule makes me think the idea does not really work.
Example: we have this problem with 3E in open source, where some people just aren't educated enough on history and vile human behavior to put countermeasures in place and succumb to warlordism again (big company taking control in this case).
Yeah that's a long read and the webpage as it is designed itself isn't inviting, @Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml posted a great comment which might be an easier introduction. I'll just select and copy paste paragraphs from your link that are relevant to understanding anarchism, but I do recommend allocating the time to read the whole thing if you're interested in learning more :
anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three principles: liberty, equality and solidarity.
Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself [...] Thus the society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority.
Equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under capitalism.
Solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. [...] without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated," "dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves."
Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.
Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. [...] Only by a rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially, can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. [...] anarchists favour organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached.
Addiitonally, this is a recommended read : Ruth Kinna - Anarchism: A Beginner's Guide - https://files.libcom.org/files/Anarchism%20-%20A%20Beginners%20Guide%20-%20Kinna,%20Ruth.pdf
Some youtube recommendations : Zoe Baker (@anarchozoe) ; Anark (@Anark) ; Red Planet (@RedPlanetShow) ; AudibleAnarchist (@AudibleAnarchist1)
Just waking up so don't have the brain power to give an in depth answer (Lettuceeatlettuce's reply is god E: good obviously, not god lol.. In anarchism there are no gods no masters!), but one thing jumped out at me:
But watching examples of decapitated states devolving in to warlord rule makes me think the idea does not really work.
The problem with looking at examples of anarchism (or communism for that matter) within a wider capitalist world is that capitalism despises competition and will do anything in its power to destroy it. So capitalist states intervene, either directly by installing a well funded and armed opposition to the anti-capitalists, or they indirectly create war in the region so neighbouring countries can destroy the project, or they impose sanctions making it impossible for the project to survive, and so on... The other option is that the "leader" (which shouldn't exist) can't help but be tempted by the power capitalism can offer (only) those at the top, and they turn on their own project, making it state capitalist themselves, leading to its demise (like the USSR). But that is because we've been socialised under capitalism for so long it's hard to unlearn, not because greed and selfishness are "human nature".
Remove capitalism entirely, and re-educate people with our natural instincts of cooperation and community, and things would turn out very differently..
One thing to keep in mind is that any kind of government is at risk of being the the group with the bigger stick. A dictatorship only works because the group that supports the dictator keeps them in power. A democracy can still treat some of its citizens terribly, and the structure of the government makes is harder to oppose than "the guy with the bigger stick".
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~