this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
855 points (93.3% liked)
Political Memes
7754 readers
2760 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's the term "anarchy" describing a state of chaos, and there's the philosophical political term anarchism, which is completely separate.
You're assuming the chaos is what anarchist philosophers want, which is incorrect.
Authority would be handled democratically or rotationally in an anarchist society. As an example, the police could be voted into place at a meeting that occurs every saturday where anyone who wants can attend to decide what the people in a given region do.
Chaos is a byproduct of human nature. Central authority and law is meant to kept that chaos in check.
Given your example, what would happen if two groups in the same town both elected their own police force with wildly different directives?
What happens when you give those cops the means to enforce their directives and they decide to enact their own rules?
How would you even get them to do their job without a centrally backed currency?
Your response indicates you've never actually engaged with any anarchist philosophers or thought before, let me ask you this, do you really think no anarchist philosopher EVER thought of any of those points? Research the beliefs of bakunin, kropotkin, and the likes before giving strong opinions on anarchism, else you look unbelievably ignorant to anyone who actually is familiar with the material.
Law, sure, central authority? It does the opposite, it causes a great deal of misery and chaos. It is unchecked power held by few who won't give it up under any circumstances, it maximizes the chaos of humanity. Freedom and democracy are the only counter-balance, and anarchists just want to maximize democracy.
Both groups would show up to the meeting and either reach consensus or leave it to a democratic vote. I want to point out that this has NEVER happened in any anarchist society, why do you think this is a likely scenario? If they were absolutely deadset, I suppose there could be a schism, but there's no historical reference for this, because why would this ever happen?
Please, if you're going to try a gotcha argument like this, engage with the material and look for a historic reference. This WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS? can be done with any ideology, if there's no historic reference for it, then sure, it could cause a disaster, but it hasn't ever so why should I care? I can come up with countless theoretical disasters, and real ones for capitalism.
They'll do poorly at the next town meeting and probably be demoted/swapped out...
They can choose not to do it, of course. There's an idea of mutual aid, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, the people would be grateful for them doing a good job and would help them elsewise, as just one example. Mutualism actually has various currency-related anarchist strategies, a central authority is not needed for making a currency valid, I don't know why you believe that premise to be the case.
I agree central authority has the potential to lead to complete and utter chaos, like we saw in countless wars particularly WW1 and 2.
Or they'd decide to cling to their own power. It all depends on which individuals get to any position of power. In an anarchic society, smaller amounts of power can go a lot further. A militia of 10000 men roaming through a decentralized federation of people has the potential to do a lot of damage. With monopolized violence that militia would have a difficult time ever forming.
Most of my thinking is in regard to a state like America turning into an anarchist society. Given there's 350 million~ Americans, it's a certainty that there would be a plethora of groups organizing to solidify their power base. That's why there are no anarchist nation-state sized population to look to as an example for the hypotheticals I've posed. Any opportunity for anarchism has already given way to a centralized government.
Wherever humans are involved, there will inevitably be disaster. There are many, many valid critiques of capitalism, especially the digital corporate capitalism that has taken over.
What would this look like in practice? If you lived in what is now California and you wanted to sell to someone in current day New York, what currency would you accept in lieu of money within an anarchist society?
The fact there are none is proof that's exactly what happens.
Exactly.
I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding. I should clarify that I do not wish that centralized government has to be the case. I wish human nature was not inherently violent and greedy. If anarchism could work, I would be happy to partake. However, I do not believe that it is possible for a sustained community to exist as an anarchy because human nature eventually pushes us to organize. We are a species dictated by game theory.
No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you're describing, proof the thing you're describing would be a primary source saying that happened.
That means none of the problems with anarchism are internal, which is a significant blow to the notion that we shouldn't be doing anarchism.
It doesn't, considering the only thing that stops anarchism is external forces destroying it, it's completely possible.
This premise has nothing to do with anything, it doesn't matter how violent or greedy people are, anarchist philosophy has no bearing on these ideas.
Anarchism is not disorganized, it's actually HIGHLY organized, because it's democratically managed.
I don't see what that has to do with anything.
So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see? anarchism is fundamentally flawed.
No, the world is setup in a way that destroys peoples movements in general, this isn't a flaw with anarchist ideology, this just means it's difficult to create an anarchist society while the US is a world superpower.
Dude stop wasting all this effort on a willing idiot, save the energy for something useful.
when you can type at 160wpm it's not much effort, and if it helps even one person (not the idiot) it'll have been worth it for me!
Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.
As long as people are involved, there's the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn't as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.
I do appreciate how much hope you have.
By this logic, if you were a feudalist, you'd say "capitalism could never work" simply because the conditions haven't been historically right.
Right, so, anarchism has a reduced chance of internal strife and failure...
It has nothing to do with hope, and everything to do with reading and understanding theory and history.
There are millions of Jimmys. Self-serving, power hungry people end up in positions of power because they are willing to do whatever it takes to get there. It's ok if you think I'm an ignorant asshole.
You'll find it difficult to convince people of your ideology if your first move is to call someone an asshole when they disagree with you.