Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tall-Log-1955 t1_ixdmamz wrote

Anarchists are fully erect

70

NotThatMadisonPaige t1_ixfilir wrote

I came here to make an anarchist comment but I’m pleased to see that it’s been handled. Thank you kind human.

7

GhostDieM t1_ixepuz5 wrote

Don't anarchists want to not follow somebody though? I imagine they'd be erect by something like "cats have the best lifestyle" or something

−4

NotThatMadisonPaige t1_ixfjlgt wrote

No not exactly. It’s hierarchies we oppose. We oppose imbalances of power and don’t believe anyone should have power over others unless absolutely necessary and unavoidable.

The fluid nature of these animal configurations is preferable to hierarchies that are permanent and power oriented.

14

conquer69 t1_ixfv6d0 wrote

What about anarchocapitalists? Isn't that contradictory? Or are those not anarchists?

1

DontDoomScroll t1_ixfxh1g wrote

Capitalism is a vertical hierarchy. Those with wealth over those without. Boss over worker.
And the mega corps in ancapistan will form defacto states. Anarchists don't like states.

Anarchy: Against Hierarchy.

Definitionally anarchocapitalism is not consistent. It's not just that I don't like the ideology that would be harmful in practice, and wouldn't want such ideology associated with me; foremost the words contradict eachother.

10

DontDoomScroll t1_ixfx1cy wrote

>don’t believe anyone should have power over others unless absolutely necessary and unavoidable.

Some anarchists will beyond fight you for upholding authoritarian structures.
You do not speak for all anarchists, there are many anarchies.

1

Jason_CO t1_ixdxwlv wrote

Anarchy is not having a leader.

−25

ubermeisters t1_ixe6xt2 wrote

anarchy is spouting off definitions that don't match the term you associate them with

33

MarkHirsbrunner t1_ixe6gj5 wrote

No, it means the absence of government, not absence of leaders.

−3

Pixelwind t1_ixkpf8q wrote

Actually you are both wrong anarchy is the absence of unjust hierarchical power structures, so for example you could have a leader so long as that leader is subject to the will of the people and can be removed from leadership by the people, you could also have a government comprised of such leaders.

Anarchy is not incompatible with governance or leadership. Beliefs like those are the product of a several century long propaganda campaign by the people in positions of unjust power who would stand to lose said power if anarchy came to fruition.

1

Jason_CO t1_ixeds3g wrote

If you have leaders you have a form of government.

−12

Catalyst375 t1_ixevvht wrote

Not really. Deffering to someone with expertise and allowing them to oversee and organize an effort pertaining to their specialty doesn't necessarily mean that you're forming a hierarchical system. If people voluntarily elect to listen to this temporary leader's advice in order to better achieve their collective goals, and the leader doesn't have some mechanism to enforce their wishes, then the leader's station isn't higher than anyone else's. If the process is fluid, like with the sheep in the article, then it's simply a matter of people choosing to give someone increased capacity to manage the group while their knowledge and experience is relevant before shifting that limited authority (distinct from power) to someone whose abilities are more relevant.

While commonly characterized as being chaotic, anarchism doesn't require a total lack of any structure, order, and/or organization. The main caveat is that any system of organization is a matter of voluntary association, and that anyone in a leadership role isn't granted undue authority or presumed inherent legitimacy and the ability to impress their will upon others.

15

MarkHirsbrunner t1_ixeoege wrote

That's an inaccurately broad definition of "government.". Are street gangs governments? Are the management of my office a government? Was General Buck Naked a part of a government? The answer to all of these is "No."

8

conquer69 t1_ixfwn69 wrote

> Are street gangs governments?

Yes. They have hierarchies, coups, police, resources, rules and laws, etc. The Russian regime is more gang than government.

0

MarkHirsbrunner t1_ixfzjve wrote

If you define government that broadly, anarchy cannot exist as there will always be social hierarchies in any human culture.

2

Jason_CO t1_ixetl6q wrote

Actually yes to all of those. A governing body is not restricted to a nation or similar.

If you have any sort of leadership restricting the individual, you do not have anarchy

−11

MarkHirsbrunner t1_ixezxh1 wrote

Your definition of governance is too broad. It must have legal authority to conduct the affairs of a political unit. A strong man who tells people what to do and it's only listened to because of fear of force is not a government. A person chosen to speak for a group but who has no authority is not a government. My boss only has authority over me in regards to my work duties, and that is only at my consent...I can choose at any time to say "I'm not going to work for you" and he has no authority over me at that point.

Words have meanings, and a government requires more than just a leader.

6