this is post is based on a conversation i had with someone about whether we positively connect our anarchism to democracy or not, because on one hand the democratic ideal, of everyone being in power and making decisions together is pretty neat and anarchist, and that’s also what many people think of when they hear democracy, but then democracies (as in democratic organisations and states) since the greek inception of the word also have almost exclusively been the ruling of a privileged few over the rest, with just enought power (or illusion of power) handed back to us that we wouldnt rebel. as one argument goes: if “democracy” literally means “rulership of the people” then who are the people?
sadly we did not kiss after the conversation :<
but i think we agreed that honestly either is fine ฅ>⩊<ฅ
and now: me rambling about anarchy :3
if you are wondering now “anarchy? isnt that when everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over?? isnt that just destructive chaos?”
then well, that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3
anarchy as anarchists understand it is a society organizing itself by anarchist principles. this expesses itself through things such as mutual aide, free association, absence or minimalization of hierarchies and direct action.
basically people getting together in all areas of their lives, to together fulfill their needs, help each other, make decisions among those affected and resolve conflicts together. it’s ofc not always glamourus, no society is, but we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things
important values of anarchy are equality, freedom, solidarity, consent, and uniqueness. those are also shared (or claimed to be shared) by other political movements and organizations, but i would argue that most put other things first such as upholding the current system, maintaining and extending the rulers power and such.
ofc not all anarchists think alike so at the end of the day this is just one perspective out of many
if u are intrigued now and wanna hear more about anarchism, you could check out the anarchist faq or ask in the comments but pws don’t be mean
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.
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.
Every governent structure could fall under someone who is persuasive enough it being a revolution or a cult emassing power or whatever there are ofc many things we can do to midigate this risk and things that would make this harder are weaved into most anarchist theorys
Absolutely, you’re right that it can subvert any government system, but I’m mostly curious as to how an anarchist system would protect itself without that working directly against the desire for minimal hierarchy.
Ideally, no single person should be able to make decisions on behalf of other people, ever. There should be a consensus required and reached so that everyone has a say in how they live. Of course, that requires that everyone has a basic minimum level of education and quality of life, that simply wasn’t possible in the societies of the past.
Sorry, I know this is probably digging into the guts of the system, but I am curious about it. I have seen the concept of “consensus” suggested as a solution to this before, but what happens when complete consensus is not possible?
Take, as a rather extreme but hopefully illustrative example, a situation where two people desperately need a replacement heart, each will certainly die soon without it, both have the same requirements, and organs that match are rare. A suitable heart arrives at the hospital both are at. Who decides which patient lives? I am certain that each patient, and their families, will insist it is them that does, and will not consent to the other receiving it in their stead. This situation could be replaced with any allocation of an important, but scarce, resource.
How is such a decision made when consensus will not occur? Should it be the medical staff who make the choice? If it is, it must eventually fall to an individual to choose unless the staff can somehow reach consensus, but in either case it is a life-or-death decision over someone else.
I realise that’s a rather extreme example, but I’m not trying to set up some “gottcha”, just trying to understand how this sort of system is expected to work. Every description I’ve read tends to just gloss over the edge cases.
Asking questions and doubting any system is right, and is the core of any anarchist movement. I don’t have a ready answer for your hypothetical, unfortunately. All we can do is to push our society forward to reduce scarcity and thus reduce the chances of such grim situations occurring. And there likely won’t be a one size fits all solution for such cases.
If there is truly no way to choose via consensus, perhaps a random chance can help ensure that at least one person survives. I realize that deciding life or death based on something like a coin toss is grim, but that would be one way to resolve the situation without escalating to blame and conflict.
Maybe the anarchist FAQ linked in the OP has a more in-depth answer to your question, though. I recommend you check that out of you’re interested.