• TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    As much as I abhor the state and wish we live like the state of Cheran (ironic of me to say state in this case, I know), anarchy will only work in a very small group, where everyone knows each other, are like-minded enough to not abuse each other’s goodwill, and respect each other’s personal boundaries.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Don’t know is EC has that signed in the image tbh. I just crossposted in this case.

  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Anti-anarchist pretty much think

    • Anarchy = chaos

    This is heavily promoted by mainstream media and language

    • Anarchists are pacifist

    Many people seem unable to comprehend how a community might defend itself without a standing military and so assume we must be unwilling to defend ourselves.

    • Nothing can be accomplished without coercion

    Because most of us have grown up within strict hierarchies coerced to do things we don’t want, we have trouble imagining any other way.

    • Everyone is inherently a selfish asshole

    This is probably projection in most cases

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      How do you keep an Anarchic Utopia then? What stops Dickie McDickerson and his thugs from establishing a state on top of you?

      • perestroika@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The same that stops them from taking over a democracy. Sometimes.

        If a society became anarchist enough to abolish state structures, there obviously had to exist a reason - there had to exist popular support.

        Thus, someone attempting to recreate a state would face questions and opposition. People would try to persuade them of their error. If they declared a state, anarchists would not recognize it. If it claimed sovereignity above a territory, anarchists might not recognize that either.

        The new state might encounter problems - unwilling residents would leave and be accepted in anarchy, annoyed anarchists would organize trade boycotts and sanctions, ultimately it could go badly and armed confrontation could follow. In some scenarios, the state might remain and attract people who want to live there. In some scenarios, war would follow - and if the majority really was anarchist, the state would lose and disappear.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Oh no, you misunderstand. They’re not giving you a choice. They aren’t proponents of democracy or any kind of representative government. You have to go from an Anarchic state to resisting an organized group while they are grabbing community leaders in the middle of the night and taking young men and women to work camps.

          • perestroika@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            To resist an organized group, you communicate the problem (in an anarchist society, communicating the problem of a nascent state seems like the easy part), present evidence of the nature and severity of the problem, and ask people and existing organizations to mobilize.

            Whether the next step is obstructing the state peacefully or mass production of munitions, would already depend on how bad the state has got.