2026-10-28 17:49 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@paultimate14@lemmy.world 2026-10-28 18:55
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.
-
@notabot@piefed.social 2026-10-28 18:39
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.
-
@jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 2026-10-28 21:37
how would any anarchist society handle the existence of all the non anarchist societies around it?