this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
733 points (100.0% liked)
196
16509 readers
2335 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well first you would probably have to get rid of one of those words since you can't have anarchy and rules.
You can have mutually agreed upon rules and structure in anarchism. "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin explains the theory behind anarcho-communism pretty well. I'm not aware of any form of anarchism that doesn't have rules in some form. At the very least, you'd have the "rule" against hierarchies, otherwise you wouldn't have anarchism.
Which makes it sound like anarchy is a concept that can't be applied the the real world as there will always be rules. So without changing the base definition of anarchy, any other offshoot is by nature of the requirement of rules,
Not Anarchism.
Seems it would be best to come up with a system with defined rules that allow for freedoms and just call it what is and not rely on the hype that is "anarchy" to sell. Otherwise please remind me what state charter Peter Kropotkin wrote or what governing body of a state rules with Anarchy as their leading principle? Somalia ended their civil war over this so I can't think of one can you?
And yes I understand that there is sub groups practicing but using the protection that is offered by operating inside of a state should not count.
Anarchism is the absence of hierarchies, not the absence of rules. There are very much thriving anarchist communities and agencies among us, even if they don't use the term "anarchist."
Communism is defined as "a stateless, classless society." This too is anarchism.
Not exactly right it's still kind of a democracy
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
Communism is a state of anarchy. If someone told you different, they were wrong.
I don't know that it's workable, but self-described communists have always seen statelessness as a goal. They differ mainly in if there should be intermediate steps or if we should jump straight into it.
Anarchist Communism has no real life example to even look at and remains entirely as a school of thought philosophical dream because it's a paradox of definitions. It's simply impossible to be with and without structure.
You can have limited rules and have individualistic agency and issues that arise with it, or defined rules with specific limitations that define the agency while still giving social agency but it does not equate to them being synonymous.
Also the party that pushed for this state system dissolved after only 12 years due to infighting on the nature of how it would work. The answer being that the ideologies don't work in practice.
Anarcho-Communism is one of the most popular forms of Anarchism, and Anarchism has rules, just not authority or hierarchy. It's a horizontal organizational structure, not the absence of all structure.
Aye. A slogan I've occasionally heard is "rule without rulers".