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

  • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
    3·
    2 days ago

    we live in a horrible society which pushes ppl to be horrible to each other. assuming that people would be as horrible in a better sociaty is unrealistically pessimistic. i don’t blame you too much for the assumption, cause its kinda what we are taught but, it is defo bs

      • wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        no i dont think it is a “rule for the entirety of human existance” there have been plenty of rulerless societys and there have been plenty of better ppl its js that the folks willing to murder ant impirialize are gonna grow quicker and push there views onto other folks

          • Val@anarchist.nexusEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

            First you need to have a solid measure of both “success” and “anarchistic”. Does the CNT/FAI count? Rojava/DAANES? Paris commune? Tribal societies basically anywhere pre-civilisation?

            There are reasons to discard every anarchist experiment or society because you do not deem them “successful”. Especially if you measure success in an archic way.

          • erin@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            A quick Google search (or your search engine of choice) could do that, but I’d like to highlight the Zapatistas. Though they don’t define themselves as such, as “anarchism” as it is defined is connected to Western civilization, they display many anarchist adjacent values and organization. They’ve been very successful. No police, no state.

            Edit: Also like, the majority of human history. Centralized governance with monopoly on the use of force is a relatively new concept, in the grand scheme of human history.