The Democratic National Convention™ of Libjerk

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago (19 children)

I appreciate the larger-context link, but it's not very convincing. It doesn't even convince itself in the end:

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this.

I've gotten the exact same lecture from Libertarians. "Life would be perfect if everything was run via free-market capitalism!" But I'm similarly unconvinced because there's noting to indicate that at the inter-state level it would be anything but fantasy.

Unless your pitch is that Anarchy just means, "love thy neighbor"? In which case, cool I'm on board. But I think it's confusing to use an existing word with a meaning to mean something totally different.

hideshow 19 child comments

parent

[+] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus [S] 8 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (14 children)

who is it that you think should rule the entire world?

I suppose my objection is that "The Anarchist Library" seems like it's got some kind of grand vision behind it for a world without masters. But it sounds like you're saying that Anarchy is just going, "wow my masters are crap and i wish i didn't have to do their dumb shit." If so, I guess I'm an anarchist. Feels kinda lame, is all. And I empathize with the picture of text in the OP that says it's lame. |-:

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

In The Dawn Of Everything Graeber puts forth three tenets for actual freedom that are consistent with anarchist ideals:

freedom to move. This means the freedom to go anywhere, although people having personal property and space is respected. So no borders but you can’t just post up in someone’s bedroom and say “I live here now.”
freedom to associate (and not associate) with others. You cannot be forbidden from being part of a group nor can you be required to be part of one.
freedom to refuse. Your actions are done only by your choice. You cannot be compelled to take action or remain inactive.

As with most simple sets of rules these quickly lead to complex scenarios but I think they make a good basis for an equitable society.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem with having rights but no authority is that there's no recourse for someone whose rights are infringed, because effectively stopping that requires some kind of authority with the power to do so.

For me this falls under "would be nice if everyone stuck to this, but it completely fails when someone decides they don't want to stick to it".

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

This is why communities need to build up and connect. Consent-based power structures (e.g. direct democracy, decentralized, horizontal power structures) can provide aid and assistance to those subjected to rights violations.

While there may not be a formal police force, do you think everybody in such a world would stand idle in the face of a tyrant or mass murderer? It's only happening now because people are so disconnected and given the fact there is no democracy - only an illusion of it.

Under socialism, people won't be as motivated to steal and commit other crimes to meet their needs, besides perhaps sexual "needs", which I'd argue such sexual crimes would become rarer as healthier communities form and rebuild. And individuals who committed crimes in the past would likely be allowed to be rehabilitated and properly enabled to re-enter society, instead of being left with no choice to commit crime to survive because nobody wants to hire them.

If you or anybody else knows more about anarchy than I do, please correct me if I'm wrong, but anarchy is not chaos without the state and centralized governance.

Related reading: https://www.anarchy.no/anrights.html

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Consent-based power structures generally rarely last for long. Power has a tendency to accumulate, as there will always be people who hoard it. And historically, that power is often given willingly, obtained through deception or through sheer strength. Smaller communities have no real ability to resist such larger hierarchies that will form when someone or some group decides to no longer play by anarchist rules.

I personally think anarchism correctly identifies the accumulation of power as an inherent threat to society. But I don't think power in general is the problem, but rather the accumulation in a single entity is. A measure of power is necessary to protect a community.

It's why the whole "separation of powers" idea has worked fairly well in the past, though perhaps the powers should be separated even further. Separated domains, each with clearly defined limits on their powers.

parent

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

What is the recourse when those freedoms are infringed?

parent

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I think these are good ideas. What I don't understand is how they survive in the world. Let's say you're an anarchist community of 200 people living in Palestine...?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Anarchy has a government of people with no specific rules or enforcement. It's dumb as shit, what you want is communism or socialism where rules don't apply to you specifically unless you consent, they want to be king in a land of peasants they just don't want to feel bad about it.