• chillbo_baggins
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think some anarchists are just angry. But “anarchy” as a type of government, means a society without leaders. (Anarchos means “without kings”) just people living peacefully, helping each other, without anyone really needing to be in charge.

    For more info read V for Vendetta. The movie didn’t really cover this well, but the book makes it feel like the next stage of human evolution.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      means a society without leaders.

      You are correct… the word anarchos means “without kings.” Kings aren’t leaders, though… they are cogs of institutionalized power, just like CEOs and prime ministers. Nobody chooses to follow them - people are coerced into doing so through force.

      So no… anarchists have no problems with actual leaders - they have plenty of examples of anarchist leaders themselves, Nestor Makhno just being one.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      arent leaders necessary to organize everyone though? things like traffic for example flow better when they are lead by a central authority commanding the stoplights.

      it doesnt even necessarily mean it has to be coercitive, i imagine most people agree with this particular example.

      • Prunebutt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        These structures can still exist in an anarchist society. The difference is the way decisions are made.

        Hierarchical: top down Anarchist: bottom up

        So the people choose to delegate the task of e.g. making sure the traffic flows properly to a group of people who carry out the will of the collective.

        Currently, these people are chosen by heads of states, ministers, or some other level counted from the top.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          how is this different from communism? it sounds pretty similar to lenins way of doing it

          • Prunebutt@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Well, since I’m an anarcho-communist: It is a communist (as in: a classless, moneyless society based on the principle: to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability) model of how the world would work.

            That’s not how Lenin did things, though. Lenin actively took power away from the sovjets and centralized decision making so that the bolsheviks made decisions top-down, not bottom up. Before the bolsheviks sabotaged it, Ukraine actually was organized in a very anarchist manner after the 1918 revolution.

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I understand the party wanted to defend itself from foreign interference, something Ukraine was not able to do despite uniting with other eastern-european nations for defense. I see this as the main reason why we need socialist states before organizing the conditions for communism to happen.

              How would you see such a large scale defense playing out in an anarchist society? I ask this with political interference, soft power and propaganda also in mind.

              Would the USSR have survived for as long as it did if didnt have Ukraine as a “buffer zone” and a more centralized, hierarchical military? Are there anarchist answers to this?

          • Cowbee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s a form of Communism, hence Anarcho-Communism being the most “popular” form of Anarchism.

            Communists typically side more with Marx over Bakunin, and believe in a state as owned and managed by the Proletariat being the best method by which to achieve the end goal of a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.

            Anarcho-Communists tend to side more with Bakunin over Marx, believing such a structure to be dangerous in and of itself, and seek more decentralized revolutionary change.

            Anarchists additionally tend to believe Marx’s analysis of Capitalism is good, but disagree on methods of achieving Communism. Anarchists aren’t anti-Marx, but rather tend to be more post-Marxist.

            Additionally, there are nuanced differences in Communist structures. In traditional Marxist belief, the Socialist State would build up the infrastructure for Communism before withering away and being maintained by a Communist society, whereas Anarcho-Communists tend to prefer systems of Mutual Aid, which are almost the same but just different strategy.

      • Cowbee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Useful, but not necessary. There are measures that can reasonably overcome the simpler answer of centralization.

        Anarchism isn’t simplicity, it’s deceptively complex.

          • Cowbee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Participatory Economics, Worker councils, worker self-management, Mutual Aid, Syndicalism, etc.