Post by @paultimate14@lemmy.world

2026-10-28 18:55 UTC

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.

Replies (3)

@wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-10-28 19:04

It all really depends on how you structure stuff some anarchist comunetys are non violent othersdo use violence but in a “controlled” manner governt by a council or other democratic organ On the part of organizing its harder to take power where structures already use that power organizational organs wont freely give away power or infuance to warlords

Open ##5474275
@rockerface@lemmy.cafe 2026-10-28 19:58

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. Not what I said at all. Please take that argument to those that actually use it and spare me the strawman. I see anarchist society not as past, but as future. Where technology allows everyone to have some guaranteed basic level of life and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to do in fear of death or violence. Of course, for that we need to start with getting rid of already existing people who amassed disproportionate amount of power.

Open ##5474580
@bss03@infosec.pub 2026-10-28 21:17

I wouldn’t consider anarchy a “society which allows violence as a means to resolve disputes”. But, I can see how you might make that assumption. I agree that the “most natural” form of governance is actually warlord-ism, the best people at violence raid from the worst people at violence, and often amass some level of power just a little beyond what a isolated community can wield. At least recent history seems to have this happen a lot when existing governments fall. The the descriptions of anarchy I have seen, violence is only permissive in defense of the rights of self or others, in particular but not limited to bodily autonomy and is not used to resolve disputes. Still, I’m uneasy about the leveling mechanisms I’ve seen proposed to counter the hoarding behaviors that seems to be not uncommon among humans, particularly those steeped in Capitalism like myself. I also probably have trust issues.

Open ##5475027