Breaking down walls, tearing down barriers and abolishing borders.

    • pbpza@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So anarchy - lack of coercive hierarchy is when there is coercive hierarchy? Nope, you are just not especially smart person.

    • sapient [they/them]@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am an anarchist and I do not want to be a strongman. You sound like you don’t have even the most basic understanding of anarchism as a political concept <.<

    • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You engage in anarchism every day, and since you’re here on Lemmy, it’s statistically unlikely you’re beating people up.

        • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t engage in anarchism? At all, ever? So in your group of friends, you have clearly established hierarchy? Do you go on a date with the assumption that one of you is in charge? Have you never gotten together with a group and discussed what’s best for you all, without one person being the leader?

          Anarchism isn’t a lack of rules, or the strong beating the weak, or every person for themselves. Anarchism is rejection of cohersive authority. Anarchism is a thousand little things you do every day with everyone around you. You’ve definitely participated in anarchism, whether you want to admit you have or not. And no amount of protestation is going to change that.

            • Danterious@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              From the comments that you have been making it seems like you have a very negative view of other people and their ability to work together towards things that they both want (i.e. shared goals). This might be informed by your life experience and honestly, I’m sorry for what you have experienced that has led to such a negatively focused view.

              I can’t convince you that anarchism can be good if you believe this staunchly. All I can say is that if you look at your surroundings you could find that people do this all the time.

              An example I like to think about is driving. You know almost nothing about other drivers (how sane they are, where they are going, etc.) but we still drive and trust other drivers not to crash into us, and a majority of the time people are able to get to where they are going unharmed. This is an example of anarchy working in our everyday lives.

              So, anarchism is being dead? Because that’s what happens when you reject authority - they fucking kill you. No exceptions; barely any delays.

              As for this, my philosophy is that as anarchists we should follow the ideas that are based on the paradox of tolerance.

              If we want a tolerant society, we need to be intolerant of intolerant ideas, or else those intolerant ideas over time become the norm.

              The same goes for freedom (which is what anarchists want for everyone)

              If we want a free society, we need to resist people that want to dominate, or else everyone will be dominated.

    • Veraxus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anarchy is one of those leftist ideals that has extreme rightward pressure (i.e. it is inherently unstable). Anarchy will always devolve rapidly into feudalism or other right-wing/authoritarian structures.

      • pbpza@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anarchism is against coercive hierarchies, so not really. Look at Zapatistas or Rojava, they I would say falsify your statement.

      • slushiedrinker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anarchism only exists because hierarchy exists plus power that reinforces the hierarchy. That’s the part you don’t seem to understand. It’s a dialectic. Anarchists are not against working in teams. They’re against being subjugated by hierarchies and powers that keep hierarchies in place with the rationale of “just because we’re in power.” Anarchism questions authority and its existence is dependent on the existence of authority and power structures. Remove the power structures and there is no need for anarchy. You only seem to comprehend one side of the anarchist’s rationale, the one that says, “screw you, I’m not going to obey you.” You seem to not understand the other side of the anarchist’s rationale, which is, “you just want me to be obey because you say so, and I have all kinds of reasons why your say so is irrelevant to reason and logic, because all you’ve done is construct a reason that justifies your authority, which is not natural or even essential to the organization of society.”

      • xachugesh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Humans are by nature social, remove the authority figures and after the initial panic. Tribes will form…from tribes bigger clans, it will not be pretty. Some will lose, some will win…this is not a good route to take.