this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2026

332 points (96.1% liked)

196

7104 readers

1996 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone

will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone

TheCoolerMia@lemmy.blahaj.zone

rockSlayer@lemmy.world

JoMiran@lemmy.ml

TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone

erotador@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Arkhive@lemmy.blahaj.zone

BadJojo@lemmy.blahaj.zone

rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone

WillStealYourUsername@piefed.blahaj.zone

332

anarchy meow (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 1 day ago by riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] schildfrosch@feddit.org 36 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

i wrote a whole paragraph but then fat-fingered and deleted it :(

i guess i will literally go touch grass then

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 17 hours ago

Anarachy is democracy without coercion. Specifically you should never be subject to violence for exercising your rights in contradiction to a plurality (or even majority) vote.

Or, it can be. There's really no restrictions on how a group of anarchists reach (or fail to reach) a consensus.

(I am NOT an expert in anarchy, but this is my impression from my sometimes visits to the Anarchist FAQ.)

[–] KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t know what device you are on but you can ushally shake you phone to undo that.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 1 hour ago

Now phone in toilet please advise.

[–] Gyrcas@piefed.zip 13 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

There exist different kinds of democracy, with the anarchist direct democracy by a community deciding together being the best form of it :3

[–] Val@anarchist.nexus 7 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Does this direct democracy include majority rule?

If not then why keep calling it democracy? Is anarchy not enough? What does the term democracy give that anarchy doesn't?
If it does then I don't know how anarchic I would call it. My tolerance for anarchy is quite large so I can see it working but I also would definitely understand people who don't consider it such.

And as a final note: by going back to the roots of the word "an-archy" loosely means "no-rule" and "demo-cracy" loosely means "people rule". So taking purely by their roots they are contradictory. One wishes for the abolishment of "rule" while the other wishes for people to "rule".

All this is meant as just fun discussion about words and ideas. In the grand scheme none of this matters as I think that the reality will be too messy to fit into any neat definition and at the end of the day if people are free it doesn't matter.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 10 hours ago

It's simple to combine them then. First we institute people-rule, then we eliminate all the people, and it becomes no-people-rule, "andemocracy". I am a human and not an LLM.

[–] Gyrcas@piefed.zip 2 points 16 hours ago

Yes it would be a majority rule, I believe there should still be a unified direction to avoid pulling in two opposite directions. But nothing should be set in stone, issues need to be debated to get people to agree together, not just "This is better!!" and "That is better!!". No elected politicians either, decisions made by the people, everyone matters equal. I don't know if it match perfectly with anarchism, but tbh I'm just confused as fuck in my daily life and it seemed to be the closest thing to what I want, which is why I'm identifying as such

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 7 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

An anarcho-syndicated commune, you say?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 18 hours ago

We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] jaschop@awful.systems 18 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

I've been enjoying the writing of Zoe Baker recently. Specifically Means and Ends about the historical origins of anarchism. While looking for that, I also saw an essay on Anarchism and Democracy that references more recent thinkers. Might check that out too.

Anyway, one of the takeaways for me was this: the fundamental opposition to parlamentary democracy entered the (european) anarchist canon in a time, when firstly parliaments were typically created as concessions by monarchs to stave off revolution, and by design ineffectual. And secondly violent revolution was still very much on the table. In this context participation in state democracy was opposed categorically as a strategic error.

If you live in a country where these two facts are no longer accurate (okay #1 is debatable, but #2 generally no), the strategic conclusions should also be different. Even if you have a post-state vision of democracy, some level of involvement in state democracy (or at least not torpedoing those efforts on principle) is non-optional in my opinion. Not least because fascists are trying to capture those systems to suppress all of our movements even harder.

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

thanky for ur comment :3
zoe baker is great!

i think you are right that the state can't and shouldn't be ignored and we should try to get the state to improve conditions, but i also believe that we have to be careful about it.

there is the big rist of getting coopted or corrupte by the state, its logic, and it's burocracy.

and then of course there is also a limit on what is achievable using state power. we can't use it to prefigure a statless society, at best we can use it to create a fertile conditions for a statless society to grow. but that growing has to be done outside of it and is what i think requires the main focus.

[–] jaschop@awful.systems 7 points 20 hours ago

You don't know how ready I was to receive the most toxic reply ever conceived by man.

I declare your takes to be extremely good and correct and, frankly, you're incredibly cool and attractive for having them.

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 18 hours ago

She also has a pretty great YouTube channel if you're into video essay-style content.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3FD64RRsrCLpiZNkq7ZkSg

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 29 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The fact that existing democracies (like all human endeavours) are flawed doesn't mean that democracy is a bad idea.

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (5 children)

i'd argue it all depends on how one defines democracy. is it an ideal or a state governed by a minoriry of parlament or representatives? depending on that the flaw is either build in or something that can be overcome. either way i believe the solution is anarchy. the question is wherher anarchy is democracy or not...

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Bipauler@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago

Everybody up in here all having serious conversations and, I'm just like obsessed with the fact the fourth panel is artistically so much different than the first three lol

[–] notabot@piefed.social 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for your ramble on anarchism, it's a good read, but there are some things that always puzzle me with this ideal:

that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3

How does a society prevent, or at least reduce the chance of, tipping into "everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over"?

I can see how this works when the society is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, and can get together to self-correct. Once you get past that size limit though, which is around 150 from the studies I've seen IIRC, you're going to tend to get cliques and factions forming, who may well work against each other, especially if some resource is constrained.

Capitalism and, what I shall generously call, "representative" democracy as systems seem less at risk as they sort of rely on that behaviour to function. I'm not saying that's good, but it's resilient up to a very high level of inequality.

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

Absolutely! I see so many people talking about other systems, but comparatively few actually making them happen. In most places there is enough space in the current system to build small examples of different approaches and show how they work better.

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 4 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

The society is at a much higher chance of "everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over" when there's an imbalance of power. Like right now, with capitalism. Global superpowers and billionaires are in fact doing just that.

In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close to that much power/money/influence.

[–] notabot@piefed.social 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The society is at a much higher chance of “everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over” when there’s an imbalance of power. Like right now, with capitalism.

The thing is that is the current system, that's how it's designed to work, rather than being a risk to the system. Obviously there's a limit to that imbalance somewhere, and we may well be banging up against it, but so far the system is functioning as intended.

In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close to that much power/money/influence.

What happens when someone is persuasive enough get others to follow them? That allows them to consolodate both influence and potentially resources. Again, in democracy we'd probably call tgat the start of either a cult or political party, and that's how it's supposed to work, whereas in an anarchist system you want to avoid it.

[–] wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

Every governent structure could fall under someone who is persuasive enough it being a revolution or a cult emassing power or whatever there are ofc many things we can do to midigate this risk and things that would make this harder are weaved into most anarchist theorys

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

In an anarchist society, no single person would be able to get close tl that much power/money/influencd

One of the things in hear from.Anarchists is that anarchy is perhaps the most common, most "natural" form of governance. That we are all born anarchists. But historically e see this same problem over and over again.

In a society which allows violence as a means to resolve disputes, those who are the best at violence are able to accumulate resources and power. Combine this with biological trends and you get patriarchy. Eventually you get people who are good at organizing, so factions or tribes form. Eventually a class structure emerges with the organizers at the top, those.who commit violence below them, and those who are good at neither at the bottom.

I have yet to see an anarchist system with a leveling mechanism that I think could actually work scale.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I wouldn't consider anarchy a "society which allows violence as a means to resolve disputes". But, I can see how you might make that assumption.

I agree that the "most natural" form of governance is actually warlord-ism, the best people at violence raid from the worst people at violence, and often amass some level of power just a little beyond what a isolated community can wield. At least recent history seems to have this happen a lot when existing governments fall.

The the descriptions of anarchy I have seen, violence is only permissive in defense of the rights of self or others, in particular but not limited to bodily autonomy and is not used to resolve disputes.

Still, I'm uneasy about the leveling mechanisms I've seen proposed to counter the hoarding behaviors that seems to be not uncommon among humans, particularly those steeped in Capitalism like myself. I also probably have trust issues.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

violence is only permissive

What does this mean? I understand you go on to list the circumstances where violence could be permitted, but who exactly is doing the permitting here and how does that work? Are we expecting everyone who feels that their rights have been violated to be responsible for their own justice? If we want to ban people from using violence to achieve their own goals, or for collectivizing violence...How do you does anyone actually stop them? There are options like economic and social consequences, but when I look at world history those things can only succeed in rare scenarios.

in defense of the rights of self or others

Who judges this in an anarchist society? This is a statement that is very easy for political philosophers to make but is incredibly difficult to translate to the real world. Even on the case of individual vs individual, physical violence.

But what about the more abstract violence? Looking back at ancient history, that could be things like overhunting, overfishing, overlogging. Hoarding rain water. People living downstream of others dealing with human waste in the river they depend upon. In modern times, who do we stop people from mining and burning fossil fuels?

i'm uneasy about the leveling mechanisms

High marginal tax rates funding social programs has, historically, worked. Part of what is necessary for it to work though is the collective and organized threat of violence against the wealthy, for the crime of being too wealthy.

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The hoarding behaviours likely can be greatly alleviated by providing every human with basic societal safety nets. If you know that you'll have food, water, shelter and other basic amenities even if you lose your job (or get sick, or get old, or take a maternal/paternal leave etc), how likely are you to want to hoard money or other items just for the sake of it?

Of course, the small percentage of people would still do that, which is how we have the billionaires.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I know I would hoard less if I trusted the system for my basic needs. And, if I just get a few more years of good job, I might be ready to stop hoarding (and continue working, just with a lot more mutual aid and independent creator support going out).

But, I just don't think that's true of my father (RIP), or some of the people I met during my time in Northwest Arkansas; none of them even "millionaires" but all having a real drive to squeeze another penny out of every nickel. And, as you say, we have billionaires: any of them that aren't just handing out money every waking hour are not behaving ethically.

I just don't know that one the scale of 8b people, or even 300m people, that there aren't enough natural "hoarders" to ruin everything. But, I'm also sampling from as experience where everyone I meet is steeped in the "water" of Capitalism from the cradle, so maybe there'd be fewer natural "hoarders" in if Captialism hadn't soaked into us before puberty.

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 2 points 13 hours ago

If we improve the material conditions, I believe with every generation the hoarding would diminish. Obviously, some people would need therapy or other sort of help, but I believe a very small percentage of humanity is actually irredeemable.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago (8 children)

What's everyone's opinion on gradual reform vs sudden revolution and how to accomplish that, probability of success, costs/risks/consequences etc?

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 12 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Well, both have their issues. Gradual reform will be the work of generations, and good luck keeping everyone pointed in the same direction for that long. Sudden revolution overcomes that issue, but it's basically a dice roll on what you are going to get on the other side of it. The idealized version of the outcome that the initial revolutionaries present is very rarely what you actually get.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

i believe that social change is necessarily a gradual project, because we need to build the new systems and learn to act self empowered and build new relations to each other and all of that takes time and room for experimentation.

people can show great initiative during power vacuums or sudden breaks, but if they never experienced anything else, i think they are likely to just reproduce what they already know.

the important thing is that states and private companies can not bring those gradual changes. they can make things easier, encourage things, and open doors, but at the end of the day it's against their own interest to completely subvert their own power and we need to learn to be indepentent from them and reclaim our power. we have to be the change. we can't wait for or rely on reforms.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments