Part of Anarchy is understanding and accepting that that is a true for all individual life regardless of any laws or guideline.
Consequences come after actions and do not stop committing to an action.
But the more important part is taking this knowledge and asking ourselves, how can we deal with this fact and build a society that respects it while maintaining order?
If there are “consequences” for drawing an anarchy symbol in one way or another, I’m not sure that the person advocating these “consequences” believes that involuntary hierarchy is a bad thing.
I was speaking more general but for that action specifically it seems to the consequences are for some other anarchists to call you an edgdlord and for the mainstream non anarchists crowd to not take you seriously.
They are free to choose wether they care about those.
As a consequence of me posting my comment, you replied with yours. Are you establishing an involuntary hierarchy by replying? It was me who consented to reading it and responding to it with the full knowledge that as a consequence you will drive this discussion further.
The anarchist principles i choose to follow allow me to accept that other people can choose to not be anarchists.
I am not going to demand that people stop creating involuntary hierarchy because doing so itself would be establishing an involuntary hierarchy.
I chose to belief that with enough time and education eventually all people wil come to realise the communal benefit of a modern anarchist society and chose to become anarchists themselves from their own will.
I also accept that even people who are anarchists can be fickle, especially at certain moments and commit to actions which go against their own principles. So is the case with all human life, i have never met a person who never acts hypocritically to their own ideals. I accept this reality.
That building such further will take longer then i have decades left to live Is but a sad detail that does nothing to change this.
Part of Anarchy is understanding and accepting that that is a true for all individual life regardless of any laws or guideline.
I feel like this is the crux that I’ve seen people disregarding too often. They know how to make the perfect society, and it only requires everyone else having the same exact ideology and priorities that they do.
That line in particular isn’t an ideology, it’s a fact. Committing murder is illegal, but if I want to, I can still murder someone. More generally, systems can be put into place to prevent behaviour, but anyone can still try to get around them.
(I’m not a full on anarchist since it doesn’t seem practical but I do agree with many of the ideals.)
Every time I see someone advocating for anarchy on Lemmy (which is a lot), it comes down to “well if everyone works together in harmony and also there are no neighboring states with imperialist intentions, then everything will be great!”. If everyone was perfectly altruistic then literally any government form would work - capitalism, communism, even fascism.
Fascism heavily implies one group specificly not being altruistic.
Anarchy is just the trust that we could someday have a society based in kindnes and cooperation. If we could have a try. There are already well working anarchosyndical comunes around the world.
Regardless of semantics, it would “work” if it’s what 100% of the population supported and worked towards. Obviously that’s not the case in reality, but the same applies to anarchism. Anarchism (edit: and fascism, just to be clear) are uniquely vulnerable to bad actors when the reality sets in that not everyone is going to be well intentioned.
Also from a geo-political perspective, anarchism would be exceptionally easy for neighbors with bad intentions (think Russia) to take advantage of.
I don’t understand why people think this is the case, anarchy doesn’t mean we let shit people do shit things. We still fight back, we still kick them out of our communities and we still protect one another. Real world anarchy has a pretty strong history of fighting back and keeping itself safe, the Zapatista still exist, the Spanish anarchists basically just lost a war and that’s not exactly a problem unique to anarchism…
It’s no more vulnerable than other societal structures, it’s significantly less so given the way that corruption is much much hard to get away with given that individual people can’t hold positions of power, only positions of responsibility which may be taken from them at any moment.
Spanish anarchists lost the war because they were disorganized and vulnerable to external pressure (competing political parties like the Communists at the time) which was half my original point.
Zapatistas exist in the single poorest state in Mexico, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the “ideal government form” as many here apparently believe.
I’m having too good of a day to argue about this so believe what you will, it’s no skin off my back. But I’ll say that being poor is not the same thing as being crushed by external forces, I never mentioned anything about anarchy making people rich. Anyway, wealth is literally a meaningless metric to those of us who don’t want or believe in money.
The case of the Spanish collectives is a lot more nuanced than that. Regardless, acting as if being disorganised is a result of anarchism is just silly.
Like I said believe what you want but again, there’s no reason anarchy is any less susceptible to external forces than anything else. It’s just about structuring society and giving a shit about people.
hii, please do not let lemmy comments form your understanding of anarchism. it seems that gave you some wrong ideas. anarchists are not naive or idealistic about people and hierarchical structures.
if you want to learn about anarchism, i can recommend a few video essays which might give you a better understanding of anarchism and might answer your criticism.
(full disclosure, i havent watched these videos in a while, and mostly picked them, because i vaguely remember them talking about the topics you mentioned)
all of these videos are by the same person. i think they make some of the best videos about anarchist theory that i know, (and videos are a easy way to get into new things), while also being active on the ground as an anarchist organiser, being able to measure their ideas against their lived reality. i hope you will consider what they have to say
I mean, you can do whatever you want.
Part of Anarchy is understanding and accepting that that is a true for all individual life regardless of any laws or guideline.
Consequences come after actions and do not stop committing to an action.
But the more important part is taking this knowledge and asking ourselves, how can we deal with this fact and build a society that respects it while maintaining order?
If there are “consequences” for drawing an anarchy symbol in one way or another, I’m not sure that the person advocating these “consequences” believes that involuntary hierarchy is a bad thing.
I was speaking more general but for that action specifically it seems to the consequences are for some other anarchists to call you an edgdlord and for the mainstream non anarchists crowd to not take you seriously.
They are free to choose wether they care about those.
Sounds like involuntary hierarchy to me! Maybe not on the level of ‘official’ organization, but certainly on the level of gatekeeping and bullying.
As a consequence of me posting my comment, you replied with yours. Are you establishing an involuntary hierarchy by replying? It was me who consented to reading it and responding to it with the full knowledge that as a consequence you will drive this discussion further.
The anarchist principles i choose to follow allow me to accept that other people can choose to not be anarchists.
I am not going to demand that people stop creating involuntary hierarchy because doing so itself would be establishing an involuntary hierarchy.
I chose to belief that with enough time and education eventually all people wil come to realise the communal benefit of a modern anarchist society and chose to become anarchists themselves from their own will.
I also accept that even people who are anarchists can be fickle, especially at certain moments and commit to actions which go against their own principles. So is the case with all human life, i have never met a person who never acts hypocritically to their own ideals. I accept this reality.
That building such further will take longer then i have decades left to live Is but a sad detail that does nothing to change this.
I feel like this is the crux that I’ve seen people disregarding too often. They know how to make the perfect society, and it only requires everyone else having the same exact ideology and priorities that they do.
That line in particular isn’t an ideology, it’s a fact. Committing murder is illegal, but if I want to, I can still murder someone. More generally, systems can be put into place to prevent behaviour, but anyone can still try to get around them.
(I’m not a full on anarchist since it doesn’t seem practical but I do agree with many of the ideals.)
Every time I see someone advocating for anarchy on Lemmy (which is a lot), it comes down to “well if everyone works together in harmony and also there are no neighboring states with imperialist intentions, then everything will be great!”. If everyone was perfectly altruistic then literally any government form would work - capitalism, communism, even fascism.
Fascism heavily implies one group specificly not being altruistic. Anarchy is just the trust that we could someday have a society based in kindnes and cooperation. If we could have a try. There are already well working anarchosyndical comunes around the world.
Regardless of semantics, it would “work” if it’s what 100% of the population supported and worked towards. Obviously that’s not the case in reality, but the same applies to anarchism. Anarchism (edit: and fascism, just to be clear) are uniquely vulnerable to bad actors when the reality sets in that not everyone is going to be well intentioned.
Also from a geo-political perspective, anarchism would be exceptionally easy for neighbors with bad intentions (think Russia) to take advantage of.
I don’t understand why people think this is the case, anarchy doesn’t mean we let shit people do shit things. We still fight back, we still kick them out of our communities and we still protect one another. Real world anarchy has a pretty strong history of fighting back and keeping itself safe, the Zapatista still exist, the Spanish anarchists basically just lost a war and that’s not exactly a problem unique to anarchism…
It’s no more vulnerable than other societal structures, it’s significantly less so given the way that corruption is much much hard to get away with given that individual people can’t hold positions of power, only positions of responsibility which may be taken from them at any moment.
It’s not it “would work if,” it does work.
Spanish anarchists lost the war because they were disorganized and vulnerable to external pressure (competing political parties like the Communists at the time) which was half my original point.
Zapatistas exist in the single poorest state in Mexico, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the “ideal government form” as many here apparently believe.
I’m having too good of a day to argue about this so believe what you will, it’s no skin off my back. But I’ll say that being poor is not the same thing as being crushed by external forces, I never mentioned anything about anarchy making people rich. Anyway, wealth is literally a meaningless metric to those of us who don’t want or believe in money.
The case of the Spanish collectives is a lot more nuanced than that. Regardless, acting as if being disorganised is a result of anarchism is just silly.
Like I said believe what you want but again, there’s no reason anarchy is any less susceptible to external forces than anything else. It’s just about structuring society and giving a shit about people.
hii, please do not let lemmy comments form your understanding of anarchism. it seems that gave you some wrong ideas. anarchists are not naive or idealistic about people and hierarchical structures.
if you want to learn about anarchism, i can recommend a few video essays which might give you a better understanding of anarchism and might answer your criticism.
(full disclosure, i havent watched these videos in a while, and mostly picked them, because i vaguely remember them talking about the topics you mentioned)
all of these videos are by the same person. i think they make some of the best videos about anarchist theory that i know, (and videos are a easy way to get into new things), while also being active on the ground as an anarchist organiser, being able to measure their ideas against their lived reality. i hope you will consider what they have to say
take care :3