Post by @riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone

@riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone

2026-10-28 14:16 UTC

anarchy meow 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 :⩊<^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

Replies (11)

@Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 2026-10-28 15:08

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

Open ##5472856
@JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip 2026-10-28 15:35

Under an anarchist state, how do utilities and infrastructure work?

Open ##5473015
@Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 2026-10-28 15:40

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

Open ##5473045
@schildfrosch@feddit.org 2026-10-28 15:49

i wrote a whole paragraph but then fat-fingered and deleted it :( i guess i will literally go touch grass then

Open ##5473109
@jaschop@awful.systems 2026-10-28 17:01

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 democraticy was opposed categorily 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.

Open ##5473571
@notabot@piefed.social 2026-10-28 17:35

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.

Open ##5473792
@Gyrcas@piefed.zip 2026-10-28 18:34

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

Open ##5474364
@Bipauler@sh.itjust.works 2026-10-28 21:52

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

Open ##5475179
@RmDebArc_5@piefed.zip 2026-10-28 19:47

A sentiment I don’t necessarily agree with but do understand, is that anyone can imagine anything as democracy, but for a discussion/criticism of the current system one should use democracy as in the currently actually existing democracies to stop people from letting their idealized version of democracy be seen as equivalent or close to currently existing democracies

Open ##5480725
@psycholocomotor_no2@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-10-30 17:06

You leave out how this system could exist in reality as an afterthought and only argue that it is more morally better according to your own form of deontological ethics based on “anarchist principles.” You are too focused on arguing that your hypothetical future system is better than capitalism, which, yeah, sure it is, but how do you get there beyond just vague “more mutual aid”? That’s really the most important part actually, not the principles, it’s how our current capitalist reality divided by imperialism and patriarchy can transform into a new system that resolves its contradictions. If you can’t look at your real surroundings and articulate a coherent string of logic for how your anarchist system can come to exist from this starting point.

Open ##5484662
@Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2026-11-02 06:33

ngl anarchy is so blitheringly obvious to me that i struggle to even start arguing for it, it’s like having to argue for eating food. I- y- wh- fucking i don’t know! food is good! the fuck

Open ##5496292