• BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        They have more than one flag? They should all get together and have some kind of symposium to pick a single flag. Get on the same page and all that.

        • egonallanon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think the fully black flag would over all anarchists but leftists have a very ironic love for flags so there’s all sorts of flags.

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ah yes, the “let’s just not have laws or regulations and hopefully nobody kills each other” communists.

        • Shurimal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Anarchy does not mean “no laws or regulations”. Anarchy means “no vertical power structures”.

          BTW, Marx’s idea of a classless, stateless society is essentially anarchist.

          • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Laws and Regulations with no Enforcement is the same as No Laws and No Regulations. Enforcement comes from a vertical power structure.

            Social and societal norms and contracts already exist, and in every applicable example people will immediately betray each other for benefits to themselves. Imagine that on a much larger scale when addictive drugs and fully automatic weapons suddenly become legal but strongly disapproved of.

            • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              This reflects a deep misunderstanding of anarcho-communism which I once shared. As someone who uses a broader definition of ‘state’ which comes into conflict with most anarchists’ narrower definition of ‘state’, I find it more helpful to think of anarcho-communism as an extremely decentralized, directly democratic state without bureaucratic specialists or private property. When someone fucks around, the community gets together to vote on what kind of ‘find out’ follows, and then, as a community, agrees to enforce it.

              There are complete and functioning examples of anarcho-communism in the 20th century, but every individual piece of the puzzle also has historical precedent. Collective enforcement is very common in secure-but-isolated and rural areas before the modern-era; collective decision-making has precedent essentially wherever and whenever a community lacks long-standing decision-making institutions or a ‘strong-man’, etc etc.

              • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                What if a secure-but-isolated rural area has a group who enforces christo-fascist ideological beliefs such as banning maternal medication and care, but the small (comparative to share of total population) vocal group has better guns due to their larger organizational structure spanning churches in several psuedo-states? You think the community is going to line up to be slaughtered by the new might-makes-right societal structure?

                I’m not misunderstanding shit, mate. You’re misunderstanding how powerless a supposed anarcho-anything is against human hostility.

                BTW thanks for engaging with me on this subject, it feels nice to have a decent conversation where I’m not constantly suspicious the other person is some kind of bot, as with most shillery I argue against these days.

                • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  What if a secure-but-isolated rural area has a group who enforces christo-fascist ideological beliefs such as banning maternal medication and care, but the small (comparative to share of total population) vocal group has better guns due to their larger organizational structure spanning churches in several psuedo-states?

                  Then you have the Spanish Civil War.

                  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I suppose if violently offing 1% of the lower class population and (with some outside help) plunging the western world into a decade of war is the cost of true freedom, it’s worth trying at least a few more times. /s

                • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Right, anarchy is anti-authoritarian idealism. Like all utopian ideals, it’s intended to be more of an abstract imperative, in this case to reduce vertical hierarchy, more than a positive expression that the most just society is one where there exists exactly zero vertical hierarchy.

                  • themelm@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    The goal is not zero hierarchy necessarily but that all hierarchies should be justified as necessary, limited in scope, and voluntary.

                    Like if we’re sailing on a boat in the ocean someone has to be the captain and call the shots so that quick effective action can be taken especially in emergencies. However once we get to port we should be able to elect a new captain if the current one is a being a dick.

            • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              There are two levels of discussion here.

              One is about finding a common understanding of what anarchism means, the other about how to achieve it.

              To understand what no vertical power structure could look like, you could imagine a friend group going to the park together. Who suggests what will differ and change over time, but no one inherently has any power over another.

              If we employ a little fantasy, in a post scarcity society (think Star Trek or The Culture), where any conceivable need and whim can be catered for, there is no reason for misbehaviour or crime, and thus no need for enforcement - this is also anarchist.

              As to how we get to such a state of being, I can’t say. Traditions, history, and cultural trauma seem unbridgeable in less than several generations, and even then we would need more resources and knowledge than I think humanity could have on this level on the Kardashev scale.

      • Synthuir@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        No. In politics, Anarchism doesn’t mean ‘no rules, everyone for themselves!’, more like everyone for each other. Well, unless you take AnCaps seriously…

        But regardless, it’s an ideology, not a lack of ideology, and it helps Anarchists to identify and spread their message to use symbols like the flag.

        • tron@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          An-coms are like small government socialists. Give means of production to the local unions! Abolish corps! Abolish federal government!

          • themelm@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well we had to start calling ourselves anarchists because the capitalists stole our word for libertarian you see.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Anarchism is a complex web of horizontal structures, not the absence of it. Having uniting symbolism is perfectly fine.