Generally, it's envisioned as being a lot like now, but with no classes, and people making and remaking the rules on the fly rather than having set laws and set authorities. No laws, no government, but not no rules.
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
280 points (92.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
554 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's why anarchy isn't stable, it's a state between governments but eventually some kind of rule will emerge, and you're correct in that "bigger stick" is likely to be the first.
Anarchy in our reality is basically just warlordism. But when people talk about being an anarchist, they usually mean something like anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-capitalism.
I’m not an anarchist so I’m not going to do well explaining it but usually, the “anarchy” part is a step towards a larger transformational goal. No one is an “anarchist” in the sense of wanting society to collapse. The “anarcho-“ part is them saying a layer of power (like the nation state, for instance) is unnecessary.
The short of it is "power to the people".
We have a better word for that. Dictatorship.