• @RealFknNito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    110 months ago

    Well I hear a lot of revolutionary LARPers so I do tend to get exhausted hearing about Anarchy and how it’s the solution to all our problems. Elected politicians still have a good degree of power, we still elect them to power, so I feel like there’s still a lot more we can do within the system before burning it down becomes a serious solution.

    If you want to burn down the Supreme Court, okay. Congress? Hell yeah. Two party voting? Absolutely. But the entire system, top to bottom, definitely doesn’t need a full restart. The things we want are hard, will be slow, but I’ve never thought “Man, we’d get a lot more done if there was more civil unrest.”

    • @Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Anyone who says anarchy is a solution is a grade A moron. Anarchy by definition isn’t even a system. It’s just a bunch of people doing what they want. The best case scenario is that anarchy results in a bunch of smaller, more community catered systems. Which at that point it’s not anarchy anymore. Even then, every smaller system is vulnerable to the very human tendency of being swallowed up by the guy with the bigger stick.

      In fact, if anything, anarchy would slip into fascism as soon as it becomes clear what coalition has the bigger guns.

      So feel better knowing that anarchy larpers are really just getting their rocks off on how they imagine it would be, when in reality most everyone would just end up yeilding to the biggest guns because we fear for our lives.

      • @LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        010 months ago

        You don’t seem to understand what anarchy is or what anarchist politics is. You should know what you’re talking about before you speak with confident derision.

        • @Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          an·ar·chy noun 1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems. 2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.

          Want to enlighten me? Because based on the raw definition, what I said is consistent. But please do explain to me how anarchy is supposed to work for 350 million people

          • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            110 months ago

            That second definition is really weird. An organization on the basis of voluntary cooperation is a government.

            Really this just highlights the absurdity of anarchy. It’s more of a libertarian myth than anything else.

            • @areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              110 months ago

              That second definition is really weird. An organization on the basis of voluntary cooperation is a government.

              Dictatorships are a form of government that isn’t based on voluntary cooperation. In fact almost no government has 100% support of it’s citizens. That’s why we have things like the police and military. You’ve just shown you don’t see any of the threats or violence involved in state craft, or are pretending not to.

              Really this just highlights the absurdity of anarchy. It’s more of a libertarian myth than anything else.

              What kind of libertarian are you talking about specifically? The word has become very muddied and represents very different groups and ideologies.