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?

  • nicocool84@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Anarchists tend to think that fear of the state is not the main reason why we don’t murder each other. In other words, following rules that are understood does not require the stick. Anarchists also tend to think that authority mostly enforce rules to maintain itself, and that the common good actually relies on something else.

      • nicocool84@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Let’s say you risk nothing if you murder. Would you start right away going on a killing spree ? Chances you think “I won’t but others will” and others actually think the same. An anarchist would probably analyse this by saying that destroying trust between indivuals living together is a basic tool power use to justify its domination. A pedantic anarchist would get his Latin out at this point. Divide et impera.

        • beSyl@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          You misunderstood my question. I did not mean to ask why there would be no murderers. My question is this:

          • If anarchism is not against rules but rather authority, how would you deal with murderers? If there is no authority to sentence them, would they remain free individuals?
          • nicocool84@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Anarchists usually think that a lot of murderers actually get away with it in our actual world, be it through war crimes, neglecting sanitary or safety rules to maximise profit; you can extend this list with a lot of legal murders.

            Anarchism definitely does not define a specific rule for what to do with murderers. Different communities might want to handle that differently. They usually think that prison does not solve anything though, and that only the poor get sent there anyway.

            I think a mistake is to think that anarchism is a “feature-complete” view of the world, when it really is the realisation that power corrupts, and that we should keep this in mind when organising ourselves. Arguably, over the long run, anarchist views are winning: institutions that prevent - in theory - crazy psychopath from taking absolute power, churches losing power over our lives, women considered as human beings; these are things anarchists have pushed for, for 2 centuries. This short essay might give you more insight: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you