- What led to the Haymarket Massacre, which might have been the main catalyst behind the 8-hour workday... So I cannot hate it out of principle
- Seems reasonable but I don't know how to actually implement it
- For some reason is more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism rather than the other variants, which I thought was... Interesting
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
60 points (86.6% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36781 readers
1566 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It rules!
The end goal of civilization.
Stateless, Egalitarian societies.
Technically the whole world runs on pure anarchism. No rules, only those created by local groups. With agreements between some of the groups. Most of it enforced by violence.
Laws only exist because most people believe in them. For the rest they are enforced with violence. I believe that anarchy would result in a similar system. Most people would behave but some would not. To protect everyone eventually some kind of police and laws would form again.
Anarchism has nothing to do with "no rules"
Quite literally impossible to implement. Same as true "Libertarianism". Can't actually exist.
Look at it this way. You and your neighbours want no government. No taxes. No laws. No "authority" telling you what to do and how to do it. Great!
What happens when the road needs to be fixed? Do you fix just the road in front of your house? Or do you negotiate with your neighbours for you all to pay a fair share to get the entire road done? Congratulations...you just invented government.
So now the road is getting done, but the people doing the work really don't want to deal with every individual for every particular decision. It's a much better idea to elect one person to do the communicating. Congratulations...you just invented civics and beaurocracy
This person that you all agreed to handle all of this stuff doesn't have time anymore to support himself or his family because he's dealing with your shit, so he demands that each of you pay an amount to keep in able to feed himself while he administrates your "anarchic society." Congratulations...you just invented taxes
Replace "roads" with literally anything else in a community and the end result is the same. Both Libertarians and Anarchists are fucking morons.
Anarchism isn't "no government". I don't think your larger assessment is incorrect in that anarchism is utopian in nature and unrealistic on a larger scale but your understanding of the ideology is flawed.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Pls no anarcho capitalism. A good breakdown of the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g&t=1
I think it's one gun away from a dictatorship.
For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.
Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you... i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.
Lastly, I like trains. Trains don't happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line... I think it took them 30+ years.
For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.
Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?
Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you… i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.
Why can't they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?
Trains don’t happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line… I think it took them 30+ years.
Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn't an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?
For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.
Why do you think this is incompatible with anarchism?
There still must be a state with the capacity for violence to prevent strongman takeovers. Most descriptions of anarchism generally exclude the existence of a unified state and often exclude any form of non-individual violence.
Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you… i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.
Why can't they simply vote on such laws being absolute, and hard to change, like we currently do in non-anarchist democracies?
What state apparatus would be preserved into anarchism that would provide these supports and how would it be funded? Additionally, how would we reconcile the lack of a state with the need for apparatuses to oppose individual suppression that are necessarily authoritarian and imbued with violence. Think first about a village of good people with one abusive relationship - that village can perhaps support the spouse in escaping that relationship. Think now about an evangelical or Mormon community with widespread and socially accepted spousal abuse - a solution to that abuse will almost never emerge internally. An outside authority imbued with the power of violence by a large populace is required to make that situation just - and that justice will come against the majority opinion of that locale.
Shit like this has happened in the past - most cult raids you've heard of were breaking up situations where everyone made a voluntary choice with the assistance of coercion and other disabling factors.
Trains don’t happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line… I think it took them 30+ years.
Why did it take them 30+ years? Why couldn't an anarchist society simply vote to build a new train line?
It took them 30+ years because they needed to privately fund it. I think you may be confusing anarchy with council republics or other devolved and federated forms of governments (like Lenin's idealized Soviets - not to be confused with the USSR).
It's important also to look at the costs of devolution of power. After the first Trump term human rights around reproductive care were devolved to be the decision of the states - that devolution of power resulted in less freedoms for individuals.
People like to focus on the "I can do..." freedoms in US political thought but I think some of our most important freedoms are "I can refuse to have ... done to me" freedoms - and those two freedoms are always in opposition. Someone wants to not be murdered and someone else wants to murder them - no matter the outcome someone is having their freedom restrained.
There still must be a state with the capacity for violence to prevent strongman takeovers. Most descriptions of anarchism generally exclude the existence of a unified state and often exclude any form of non-individual violence.
Yeah, against the state, but not a government, which in anarchist philosophy are two different things.
What state apparatus would be preserved into anarchism that would provide these supports and how would it be funded?
None, but plenty of government apparatuses would exist with funding through taxes...
Additionally, how would we reconcile the lack of a state with the need for apparatuses to oppose individual suppression that are necessarily authoritarian and imbued with violence.
Usually through rotational authority, again, this shows you haven't read any anarchist philosophy.
Think first about a village of good people with one abusive relationship - that village can perhaps support the spouse in escaping that relationship. Think now about an evangelical or Mormon community with widespread and socially accepted spousal abuse - a solution to that abuse will almost never emerge internally. An outside authority imbued with the power of violence by a large populace is required to make that situation just - and that justice will come against the majority opinion of that locale.
rotational. authority.
Shit like this has happened in the past - most cult raids you’ve heard of were breaking up situations where everyone made a voluntary choice with the assistance of coercion and other disabling factors.
no anarchist philosophers supported cult-like systems.
It took them 30+ years because they needed to privately fund it. I think you may be confusing anarchy with council republics or other devolved and federated forms of governments (like Lenin’s idealized Soviets - not to be confused with the USSR).
Their need to privately fund it only exists in a society that isn't anarchist. I'm not confusing anarchy, I've read my anarchist philosophy, and could talk to you about the beliefs of bakunin, proudhon, and kropotkin, there's others, but those are the basic ones.
It’s important also to look at the costs of devolution of power. After the first Trump term human rights around reproductive care were devolved to be the decision of the states - that devolution of power resulted in less freedoms for individuals.
Sure, it is important, but I don't see what that has to do with our discussion.
People like to focus on the “I can do…” freedoms in US political thought but I think some of our most important freedoms are “I can refuse to have … done to me” freedoms - and those two freedoms are always in opposition. Someone wants to not be murdered and someone else wants to murder them - no matter the outcome someone is having their freedom restrained.
yup, that's true, don't know what it has to do with anything though.
I don’t think practically you could end up with a state of anarchism because it implies that humans can exist in a power vacuum. Something will always fill that vacuum. Now, the question is what is that thing? It can take a lot of forms. The goal should be to make it serve the qualitative needs of most people - food, shelter, well being, safety. People advocating for true anarchy are usually doing so from a naive idealism. Idealism is often good, but sometimes ignores other factors that make the ideal impossible to achieve.
Anarchists are not against government, they're against the state, and these are two different things.
They are also not against rules, there's no power vacuum because power is held by consensus. I don't think you've ever read an anarchist philosopher, based on this take.
load more comments
(2 replies)
coupled with communism it's the real shit
Responsible anarchism is a good ideal to aim for, but in pure form it's utopian. Realistic way to get closer to this ideal is shifting to stateless/borderless societies that center around some alternative entities other than geopolitical nation-states.
I see it as a guideline for how society could be structured after the elimination of class.
I think it's great. We should fucking try it.
Seriously, though, I think it would be nice but it's going to be impossible unless you can fully get rid of greedy, corrupt, power hungry pieces of shit with zero empathy.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I consider myself an anarcho-pragmatist. It would be nice not to have any rulers or an hierarchy. But I also know people well enough to know that unless we defer any decision making to a supercomputer everyone trusts, we're going to need some form of societal structure.
load more comments
(1 replies)