Asklemmy

43939 readers

436 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

280

ELI5 why is anarchy not "the guy with the bigger stick" making the rules? (lemmy.giftedmc.com)

submitted 10 months ago by haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

204 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Anarchy means nobody is in charge. As soon as somebody with a big stick says they’re in charge it stops being anarchy.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Kind of incredible that they asked for a simple answer and you're the only one providing one in a sea of false information and extremely elaborate replies...

"Anarchy is an utopia where there's no one in a position of authority because no one feels the need/pulsion to be in power, what you're describing is outside these parameters so it isn't anarchy." would have been my version of what you said.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As an anarchist, I don’t think anarchy is a utopia, but the natural state of humanity.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Based on all of human history? No

Ever since we've been living in groups there's been leaders and that started before homo sapiens and that's the case in all of the animal kingdom.

Also by the definition of utopia, being an utopia doesn't prevent something from being a natural state so I don't know why you would oppose one to the other.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Your assertion runs counter to quite a bit of reading I've done on the social organization of prehistoric and native groups. Also most of the time people exist in a state of anarchy.