this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
16 points (94.4% liked)

Anarchism

1401 readers
130 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

Other anarchist comms

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
16
Is Anarchism viable? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 3 hours ago by glowinfly@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Why do you believe in it, do you approve it in theory or also in practice? I think a lot of people approve of anarchism in theory but rejects the possibility of it to be put in practice unless we live in an utopia.. which I don't think we do, unfortunately. Maybe techno-anarchism would be more practical? Technology is such badly regulated and ordinary people are punished harsher than corporate so I really think techno-anarchism deserves a lot more attention (not saying anarchism itself doesn't) I see a lot of people here are more knowledgeable than me so don't take my word so seriously, maybe I shouldn't be expressing my idiot thoughts on it, or maybe just embrace it and ask regardless of any shame I might get.

I'm not trying to be mean to anyone, just genuinely wanted to discuss with whoever is willing to chip in on the topic.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

Not if you take the traditional definition no. All natural life tends towards organization of some kind, which implies that organization is a consequence of life until proven otherwise.

If you take a more modern definition of anarchy where you mean decentralized rules, then I could imagine a situation in which it occurs. Though it's a far stretch to say that replacing a ruler with rules inherently solves the issue of power imbalance. Wether I am playing the game against an intelligent being or a logical system is irrelevant if the rules are unfair.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

No.

Unless this is the anarchism communi- . . it is?

Yes.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago

I agree, I think.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

If by viable you mean able to be implemented without enormous problems, I would argue that capitalism isn't viable. I believe anarchism would be better for more people than the status quo, so I'd say it's viable in comparison

Edit: to answer the other part of your question, I practice anarchism in my daily life. Anarchism, to me, is a value more so than a political ideology. I don't believe in hierarchy, so I don't perpetuate hierarchy, and I actively work to dismantle it around me

[–] Nednarb44@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

What are some examples of that in your day to day life? If you don't mind sharing.

[–] glowinfly@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry if its a dumb question, but if its to compare to another political spectrum in regards to what it can do to more peoppe, wouldn't it be better to compare with social democracy? Finland is social democrat, people has affordable healthcare etc (except mental health access - not impossible but harder than anything else), they tax the rich, rich committing crimes punishable by fines get a way bigger fine compared to the middle class. Do you mean hierarchy is bad in any case? In regards to technology, I'd be inclined to say people in power are doing a shitty job, but anything else depends subjectively, I find Nordic countries a better reference to compare than countries like USA/Germany/France, you can see people on the happiness index (said by many its more of feeling gratitude and satisfied) many of the countries on top are Nordic countries, they also regulate tech better compared to other countries (for example, Iceland - referring to them as a good example of a country properly regulating tech, its not perfect but its not like the rest of the world isn't setting a really low bar)

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 31 minutes ago

No such thing as a dumb question!

Money functions as a points system to facilitate class hierarchy, so I don't believe money should exist. Social democracies are still capitalist.

Some people prefer to distinguish "justified" hierarchies, e.g., hierarchies of expertise (like teacher-student type relationships)- i.e., someone being in charge is okay if it's well justified.

Others however, like myself, prefer to focus on the underlying power dynamics. I don't think society or its institutions should ever be granting anyone power over another person

When I look at these countries you mention, rather than seeing efficient and equal distribution of resources, what I see is a lot of unnecessary mediating factors, embedded in an inherently unjust structure- the state itself. The people there may be relatively happy, but they're not free

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Yes. Next question, please.

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Well let's see. The concept of the state Is roughly 3,000 years old, and humanity is roughly 300,000 years old so.

But implementing it on any sort of scale alongside nuclear extractionist states would be pretty tricky. At the very least they would start dumping their waste into these zones if not openly land grabbing and hunting anarchists for sport.

[–] glowinfly@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Finland gave away land to Russia to keep peace and they never asked for it back, Sweden could still be an empire but it isn't, they're not nuclead states but they are not 3rd world country either, in fact, their political crisis seem like a joke when you compare to how the rest of the world is when they are in the midst of a political crisis I think Nordic countries are a lot better to debate when it comes to this than what UK, Portugal, US, Germany, France, Russia, China has been doing for pretty long or used to, they definitely set the bar really low so every argument against state seem even enraging, rightfully

I could just being biased so don't take it any of my say as a good point, I just want to discuss in regards to it, you do have good points

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

While this is true, homogeneous culture combined with comparatively harsh conditions throughout Scandinavia along with the typical standing armies that would be difficult to maintain under an anarchic coalition or syndicate certainly play a role. I think the world has a lot to learn from the Nordic models, but am skeptical about their long-term viability as American hegemony sunsets.