this is post is based on a conversation i had with someone about whether we positively connect our anarchism to democracy or not, because on one hand the democratic ideal, of everyone being in power and making decisions together is pretty neat and anarchist, and that's also what many people think of when they hear democracy, but then democracies (as in democratic organisations and states) since the greek inception of the word also have almost exclusively been the ruling of a privileged few over the rest, with just enought power (or illusion of power) handed back to us that we wouldnt rebel. as one argument goes: if "democracy" literally means "rulership of the people" then who are the people?
sadly we did not kiss after the conversation :<
but i think we agreed that honestly either is fine ฅ^>⩊<^ฅ
and now: me rambling about anarchy :3
if you are wondering now "anarchy? isnt that when everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over?? isnt that just destructive chaos?"
then well, that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3
anarchy as anarchists understand it is a society organizing itself by anarchist principles. this expesses itself through things such as mutual aide, free association, absence or minimalization of hierarchies and direct action.
basically people getting together in all areas of their lives, to together fulfill their needs, help each other, make decisions among those affected and resolve conflicts together. it's ofc not always glamourus, no society is, but we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things
important values of anarchy are equality, freedom, solidarity, consent, and uniqueness. those are also shared (or claimed to be shared) by other political movements and organizations, but i would argue that most put other things first such as upholding the current system, maintaining and extending the rulers power and such.
ofc not all anarchists think alike so at the end of the day this is just one perspective out of many
if u are intrigued now and wanna hear more about anarchism, you could check out the anarchist faq or ask in the comments but pws don't be mean
No, you are called to defend not only yourself, but others as well. Everyone is responsible both for their own and everyone else's justice. If you are more capable and willing to produce justice, you may produce more than you need. In many ways it is like all the other requirements of a good life: excess freely given, unmet need freely taken.
If someone wants to fit into some "heroic police officer" or even "hero vigilante" role, they will likely be celebrated and supported as long as their actions are heroic, but if they take any bad actions they will be reprimanded and resisted; they chosen role will not be a justification or mitigation.
Threats of violence are allowed to be neutralized by whatever means, including preemptive, defensive violence. All actions should be for the collective good, even as they are done by individuals. Collaboration, communication, and coordination are encouraged in whatever form the individuals find is best.
I think a lot of what is done depends too much on specifics to make general statements. But, anything from a strong talking to next time the offender interacts with the community to assassination to revolution-scale secretive, cellular, violent action might be justified.
Each person is their own conscience. Anyone may arbitrate, and others might comply or ignore it as their conscience dictates. Arbitration might call for violence, and if executed, that violence will surely be judged in turn.
Despoiling the commons is considered anti-social behavior and is subject to resistance. Generally this will start with a discussion, but if consensus can't be reached, property damage (e.g. destroying tools and/or machinery) will stop the worst effects with no "crimes against persons". But, persons or organizations that purposely and repeatedly engage in anti-social behavior will be treated as if they were the government and resisted potentially violently.
I don't disagree. I'm all for bringing back to 92% marginal tax bracket, getting rid of corporate welfare (particularly for petrochemical companies), and really building a safety net that ensures no one has to go without food, water, clothing, and shelter, whether they can work or not. I can defend anarchy while still working within the existing systems. Sometimes the best way to the goal actually is building up something you later will choose to tear down.
I'm not even a committed anarchist, but I know that all of your questions, and every "gotcha" question for anarchists I've ever seen, has already been considered and answered in anarchist theory, sometime many, many times -- often even refined through the practice of anarchist societies.
So the meek are dependent upon the benevolence and excess production of the strong.
This is assuming that "justice" is constant, objective, and binary, when it is none of those things.
This is also assuming the capacity exists for individuals. I could very easily choose to travel to Gaza or Ukraine right now, and I am sure I could find a way to join the Palestinians and Ukrainians in their respective fights. I am not doing that, because there are other things I want to do with my life. I could participate in some sort of community watch program if I wanted to, but I do not because I have other things I want to do with my life. We need to compel people with the threat of violence just to get them to participate in jury duty, and you expect them to suddenly dedicate their lives to defending everyone else? That is simply not how humans work.
There are no objective lines between heroic or villainous actions. Heroes and villains are works of fiction. In reality, heroes and villains are determined by messaging, public relations, and marketing.
Drive through any town in America and count how many thin blue line signs you see. These people honestly believe that the police are heroes. A lot of people think "the troops" are heroes for murdering brown people in the middle east.
The term "collective good" sounds really great in essays on political philosophies, but has been impossible to put into practice in the real world. There are some right now who believe that sacrificing our land, our water, our trees, our energy, and the work of human artisans to create AI is in favor of the "collective good".
I could have gone through your whole comment and continued, but it's all the same stuff. These are not "gotcha" questions. They are the very real and obvious flaws that are the reasons that anarchism is not popular. This is not the first time I have sought out the answers to these questions myself. I suppose our difference here is that when I read anarchist theory, I find some ideas that I like but a lot of the solutions are incredibly optimistic, or are dependent upon a world in which everyone was born into an anarchist utopia.
And I don't mean that as a particular dig at anarchy. I'm sure we could talk and agree at-length about the problems with authoritarianism of all kinds. Even my preferred system, social democracy, has some very clear and obvious flaws like protecting minorities and the state monopoly on violence. I'm in favor of elections for representative democracy in general, but electoralism has plenty of its own flaws and needs to be tempered with other forms of democracy.
Yes, society only has excess production to spend. This is true in any system.