• Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anarchism is not the absense of rules, it’s about free association, cooperation and avoiding unjust hierarchies.

      • cristo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Esperanto
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is not the definition of anarchy. Anarchy is defined by the absence of laws and structure in a society. What you are describing is uptopian, or the wikipedia definition of anarchy, which is completely incorrect.

        • AccountMaker@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Errico Malatesta, Anarchy - “The word Anarchy comes from the Greek and its literal meaning is without government: the condition of a people who live without a constituted authority, without government”

          Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism - “Anarchism is the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups […]”

          The main point is a lack of vertical hierarchy, that nobody is being subjugated or forced. For a society to function, it needs cooperation, and anarchical coorperation means that it’s done willingly by all the parties involved, without any compulsion. You can still have structures (as in roles people play in a society). Orwelll wrote in “Homage to Catalonia” how the army he was in had regular soldiers and officers, but the officers couldn’t “order” the soldiers to do anything, and they often argued and explained why they needed the soldiers to do whatever. A wild free-for-all where some strong and brutish people can form a gang and do whatever they want with others is how some anarchists see governments.

          So it’s technically true that there are no “laws” because there is no government to punish you if you don’t follow them, and there’s no vertical structure where someone is your boss who you must obey, but people might get a wrong picture with just that, so I provided a bit more context. I’m not an expert on anarchist theory by any means, but it’s not Hobbes’ natural condition of mankind.

    • perennial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well technically each user could have their own instance if they choose to do so. They’d be free to interact with who they choose to interact with and block who they wouldn’t want to interact with. They’d be free from any outside hierarchy. Many user choose not to do this, but that doesn’t mean the system is inherently hierarchical.

      (I’m excluding the fact that not every user has the capital to host an instance)

      • cristo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Esperanto
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its still not anarchy, its federation. Anarchy is 8chan or any of the random TOR image boards. Lemmy is still a clearnet site and is subject to the overarching clearnet rules. If it wasnt, lemmy would be a very different place.

          • cristo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            Esperanto
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the wikipedia definition of anarchy is completely wrong and is edited by actors who seek to change its definition. It honestly reads like some cope. Anomie is defined by the breakdown of society, it wouldnt fit the defition of unregulated by default society that is non-clearnet forums. The classical definition of anarchy, which is the most correct definition, is what I am describing here. The absence of rules and societal structure, pure lawlessness.