🇺🇲 “Freedom”
deleted by creator
Let’s be realistic now!
Anarchy just shifts the problem from “people with the most money bully the people with less” to “people with the most guns bully the people with less”.
I don’t remember one anarchist revolution where the lord of wars emerged. Not in Ukraine, not in Spain, not in Korea, not in Chiappas. However, hierarchical organization do create lord of wars; from bolcheviks to fascists, including liberal regimes. And European Union is not the last to create dictatorship elsewhere through its imperialism.
For info, mass media in Europe don’t give a shit about authoritarianism in the US. They just talk about trade issue and taxes. This is not the freedom you’re looking for
The hierarchical organizations didn’t always exist did they? They formed from anarchy.
Again, you need to source. To one of those example evolve in hierarchical organization. If you claim is “no organization could exist with total equality”, we do agree. But we could say the same with communism, or even democracy. We need to be materialist, and tend to equality and freedom. And privileges tend te reproduce through time
What problems are there in: “Everyone should be armed! Money is theft!”?
Innumerable.
Then get to solving them!
European neoliberalism continues to create more problems, for profits!
Then get to solving them!
Generally one doesn’t look to those in the ideological opposition for solutions.
Like European Neoliberalism…. How many more slaves from Africa & Guatemala do you need, @[email protected] ?
Lord.
So, I have a question: how did kings and governments get the monopoly on violence?
Anarchism doesn’t really have a great answer to that question, and frankly I really dont think it needs one. It’s reckons that people who understand the freedoms they have will fight to maintain them, and it understands those ideas within the context of now, rather than trying to thread a shakey narrative through all of history. If you want men from 100 years ago to answer all your questions today then Marxism is probably closer to what you want
Doubtless you can find Anarchist arguing about that question, its a good question. But at its core Anarchism is a more of a philosophy rather than an ideology. Its a collection of tools that one can employ to solve problems and win concessions from authority.
That said if you want to see some of said argument, The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow gives some nice answers. And does so whilst trying to build on the up to date evidence about what life was like that long ago.
Ah makes sense, thank you for that great answer (:
So in the root it relies on a belief that “good” people are in the majority and that our current structure gives an outsized amount of power to “bad” people?
Yes, but it’s not like we spent the last 200 years hoping for that to happen on its own. In the very beginning the idea was “let’s assassinate the king the rest will sort itself”, nope, it doesn’t, the king is in people’s heads.
A word you’ll hear used quite often nowadays in theoretical Anarchist circles is “prefiguration”, building the new in the shell of the old, in particular building horizontal modes of organisation. When you see something being organised hierarchically, say, a workplace, and you have an idea on how to organise it horizontally (e.g. a cooperative), then do so. And be good at it.
The idea is that thus, hierarchical realism can be fought: That idea that people have in their head that to organise something, someone has to be in charge, call the shots, order people around, be able to exert authority over others, force others. The more people are part of those kinds of structures, the more obvious it will become that horizontal modes of organisation are also possible on larger levels, and people will work towards creating those. The avalanche needs to be built from the bottom up, as weird as that sounds.
In short: I can’t tell you what’s over the horizon, but I can give you a compass and say “Here, that direction, doesn’t that look promising? Let’s take a first step!”.
…and meta side-note we’re on lemmy. As everyone can just spin up their own instance (or happily join an instance with admins who admin instead of try to rule over their users) and the instances interact horizontally it’s quite anarchic in principle. Evidently, it also works. That it was written by tankies is just extra irony on top, showing how little they understand their pet enemy.
Yea it basically requires that you are either a bad actor pretending this is true, or a basement dweller who choses to believe this is true. They have no idea the kind of assholes you meet traversing society, or they are the assholes. The 5 million people in Manhattan are just not going to live peacefully without law and order. Be fun to watch tho.
From inaction and popular belief that they can give people safety. People gave the “defense” job to kings and goverments with belief that they could focus on other stuff, not realizing they are giving up their freedom. Soon, kings and gov start to violate people all around.
To be fair, the ancient world was wildly unsafe and governments did provide a modicum of safety. Not just against aggressions, but also in terms of reliable access to food.
“Reliable access to food” as in “rowing bands of bandits won’t burn your crops, in exchange, you have to pay tax to the king”
But yes it was a slow getting-use-to, at first it was at eye level “we grow food, you fight”. That slow progression can be clearly seen by the various stuff that nobility couldn’t do in the middle ages. You could not, for example, remove peasants from their land, it wasn’t so much illegal as not thinkable – until you could. Capitalism, especially in today’s world, has no “noblesse oblige” any more that’s why it’s so much harsher in pretty much all aspects. Sure, liberal democracy claws some of that back but that’s not capitalism.
“Reliable access to food” as in “rowing bands of bandits won’t burn your crops, in exchange, you have to pay tax to the king”
Not just that. Centralized settlements allowed for pooling resources, better grain storage, and easier production of high-calorie items such as bread.
at first it was at eye level “we grow food, you fight”
I don’t think that’s how it came about. At first it was “we build our houses together and pool our grain so we can better defend ourselves against aggressors”, then “oh those guys at the temple are pretty good at keeping count and dividing the food among us”, then “oh this organization helps us produce surplus food so now we can have dedicated guards who train instead of growing food”, then “oh the priesthood sure became powerful now that they control the guards”, etc…
The monopoly on violence is an extremely modern concept which is easy to oversimplify, especially in historical contexts which can be very varied. The things you mention are really local to medieval Europe and don’t necessarily translate well to other settings.
And what’s stopping another group from using oppression to get the monopoly on power again once anarchy is introduced?
You.
You can cease your circular logic. Your response says you didn’t read anarchists praxis, in history.
Well, would you mind telling what I should read to understand it better? The first link you send I did read, the second has thousands of files, so I didn’t know where to start.
Well, can you point us to an example where anarchy effectively worked? With more than a thousand people?
It just doesn’t seem to function, and you just don’t want to try to figure out why and fix it.
That’s the problem IMO with anarchists (like you).
Bro you already have anarchy, trump has turned the USA into a lawless place. This is it chief. Enjoy.
anarchism is the dissolution of the state and its monopoly on violence, not the dissolution of law. an anarchic society can have a law but no state, but a state and no law is a dictatorship
In a society with equally distributed power of violence you wouldn’t have laws, but mere loose agreements. It is the monopoly on violence that gives one the authority to impose laws.
Laws which are used to oppress the poor, and not the colonists extracting wealth from other nations.
Your statist propaganda machine worked so well, that you have people confusing anti oppression tools with oppression tools. Hurrah for European Neoliberalism, Hurrah!
What? Laws are whatever those in power make them. Oppressive vs anti-oppressive is a matter of perspective. Oppressive is what oppresses my side, anti-oppressive is what oppresses the opposing side.
Sure, any society will eventually degrade into the owning class squeezing the working class dry, and society as a whole has short memory leading to cycles of bloody oppression and bloody revolution.
How are bolt cutters oppression?
Okay you lost me. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
given the way real world “monopolies” on violence work, i would contend that true law has never existed
What do you mean by “true law”?
mostly this is a joke about the phrase “true communism has never been tried”: “true law”, a state that fully enforces and abides by the law, has never been tried
Ya, I know. I’ve just never been able to join you in the presumption that law can exist without a state. That’s where property rights come from. That’s where the mediums of exchange come from. At the end of the day someone’s in charge of making rules and enforcing them. At the family level up to a national level; and perhaps even a global level. I admire programs like USaid and see the value of governments. If there ever was a time to gain support for those ideas it would be now. I just want the government I had 4 months ago to come back.
And at this point I should chime in and note that the meaning of “state” in anarchist theory is not the dictionary one – taking wikipedia:
A state is a political entity that regulates society and the population within a definite territory
Other societies have states, anarchist societies are states, by that definition. (Just for the record fascism is the unity of capital and state, not society and state).
Rather, the Anarchist definition formed under the influence of monarchical and bourgeois authoritarianism. Redoing the terminology and using “hierarchy” or something is way overdue IMNSHO: Continuing to use an unexpected definition of “state” causes lots of confusion, provides no clarity, thus hinders praxis, and as the theoretical and practical purpose of theory is to bolster praxis it has to go.
Also makes explaining why Ancaps aren’t Anarchist way easier.
“In your stateless society, who will collect the garbage?” – “The municipalities, just as they do now, I guess” – “Didn’t you just say you want to abolish the state?” – “Yes the municipality will not be a state any more” – “You’re stupid and should feel stupid I’m voting for the fascists at least the garbage gets collected on time”.
Sir, I’m not a fascist. I don’t support death camps.
Maybe you’re looking for another emperor in another castle?
No lol, just knew lots of Anarchists and communists growing up. Oh and the ‘Fight a Tyranical Government’ Libertarians. What are you guys up to these days? You seen the other two around?
The usual: Networking, feeding people, arming people, building solidarity, etc…
Did I mention I’m not American? Or did my name fly past you?
Sorry for assuming you were a weeb that was very rude. I also did not know they were Japanese anarchist so that is an exciting revelation. Carry-on brother. That must be a true oddity in your culture.
I am. Thank you for acknowledging my existence.
🫱🏻🫲🏾
I spent about 3 months traveling between Tokyo and Kagoshima. Even made it to Okinawa and that small island south of Kagoshima. I really appreciate the hospitality that was extended to me the whole time I was there. You guys are truly wonderful nation full of beautiful people history and scenery. Did not meet a single anarchist there, except maybe a French traveler I spent a lot of time drinking with.
Liberte
Liberté 💙🤍❤️!
Both are supportive of oppression of the global south, have a direct hand in a genocide happening as we speak. Both support the terrorists of Israel. Both are detaining immigrants. Both are stealing kids from immigrant families. Both have systemic racism issues.
North americans are delusional that “we have it better” here in ‘Europe’.
Mais oui… Liberté Égalité Fraternité 🇫🇷
Which nations refuse to adhere to International Criminal Court?
I mean, France adhered but still let Netanyahu fly through it’s airspace to reach the US.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/france-criticised-allowing-netanyahus-plane-use-its-airspace
I agree with OP, but also agree that Europe as a whole is only marginally better for “freedom” than the USA.
Weird to ear criticize France don’t randomly step in and the actual issue here: Orban remove their whole country from the International Penal Court so he can globally shine for allow possible war criminals on their soil, isn’t?
You’d change your tune real quick if you realized you accidentally got on a US flight.
Always has been
