BioShock 2 revealed that Andrew Ryan had a secret prison to throw people into when they disrupted his control over the city. And more than once he decided he would burn it all down rather than let someone else win.
It may have masqueraded as anarchy, but the system was still rigged from the start. There was always a ruler. And power can corrupt even the strongest idealistic convictions
And this, intentionally or not, is the real message. There’s no such thing as a real meritocracy, the system is always rigged in favor of the people who created it.
No, what you describe is chaos. Anarchy means there are no rulers. People rule themselves and are also looking out for each other thus enforcing the minimum set of rules that are necessary to have a stable society. Rules can come from a consensus, yes.
A current example is the anarchist punk camp on Sylt where it was decided that dogs need to be on a leash when your are in the camp. If someone sees someone with a dog without a leash, they tell them of the decision and why it was made and that’s it.
Not to mention the obvious fact that a position of, “rule enforcer”, even where necessary like like tracking down and imprisoning a murderer, needn’t be a permanent role given to people that can then abuse others with that authority.
Anarchism doesn’t mean zero authority. It means no unjustified authority.
Since writing that last comment I have that funny thought of a diplomacy lottery in my head where it’s randomly decided who will join a trained diplomat or experts on state visits to represent the people. “… And this year… Dale will visit the environmental summit with our experts in …” followed by an AMA where Dale can share their impressions. I’d love it ;D
“I learned that it’s just a retreat for rich fucks to suck themselves off and pretend like they’re saving the world while changing nothing for the better.”
No. They only receive the authority to do a specific thing. They go out of bounds? That’s OBVIOUSLY an abuse of authority and they’ll get themselves in trouble.
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
Yeah, those are definitions when used as a literary term, or an extreme example. You’re not wrong that anarchy can refer to no rules at all, but social contracts and agreements can exist and it still be anarchy just fine.
The same thing that happens anywhere else? A power struggle between the people who want it and don’t? Are you implying this is unique to anarchism in some way? I don’t see why it would be.
There is a legal recourse, you’re saying someone with power ignored the law and attempted a coup… do you think coups don’t happen in non anarchist countries? How is this unique to anarchism in any way?
You might wanna read up slightly on this, you’re quite far away from the consensus meaning of anarchism. While superficial, you could start with the first three paragraphs of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Anarchism is full of rules and laws, though. Arguably, one aspect of anarchism is replacing rulers with rules as far as possible, but that’s possibly a contentious phrasing.
I don’t think you’re engaging in good faith here, not sure why. For what it’s worth, in your example, the negotiation of rules with the goal of consensus finding and avoidance of unjust exertion of power plays a major role in anarchist practices. Anomic states of existence and anarchic ones are far apart. The former leads to kings and conquest, the latter to tedious discussions about minutiae of daily existence.
There are reasons why anarchist groups are hard to infiltrate by cops
The issue is that finitebanjo has conflated the two different meanings of Anarchy. Donpiano is talking about contemporary anarchism, a mode of governance without authority structures. One that argues that hierarchies and centralized power is the root of most of humanities ails. Governance is still performed, but it’s on an individual level between peers where each member of the group is an active part in decision making.
Finitebanjo is talking about anarchy, the state of lawlessness that arises when the state fails to perform its governing duties. Most associated with riots and looting. The problem is when they call it “anarchism in it’s truest form”, they’re conflating the state of lawlessness when the state abandons an area with a system of governance. It is not the same thing.
rofl Bioshock is explicitly NOT anarchism in its truest form… Big Daddys existing at all disproves that by itself, let alone Ryan’s ruling of the city.
deleted by creator
BioShock 2 revealed that Andrew Ryan had a secret prison to throw people into when they disrupted his control over the city. And more than once he decided he would burn it all down rather than let someone else win.
It may have masqueraded as anarchy, but the system was still rigged from the start. There was always a ruler. And power can corrupt even the strongest idealistic convictions
And this, intentionally or not, is the real message. There’s no such thing as a real meritocracy, the system is always rigged in favor of the people who created it.
deleted by creator
Anarchy is explicitly against “profits”.
And it doesn’t mean that there are no rules but no rulers.
deleted by creator
No, what you describe is chaos. Anarchy means there are no rulers. People rule themselves and are also looking out for each other thus enforcing the minimum set of rules that are necessary to have a stable society. Rules can come from a consensus, yes.
A current example is the anarchist punk camp on Sylt where it was decided that dogs need to be on a leash when your are in the camp. If someone sees someone with a dog without a leash, they tell them of the decision and why it was made and that’s it.
Not to mention the obvious fact that a position of, “rule enforcer”, even where necessary like like tracking down and imprisoning a murderer, needn’t be a permanent role given to people that can then abuse others with that authority.
Anarchism doesn’t mean zero authority. It means no unjustified authority.
Since writing that last comment I have that funny thought of a diplomacy lottery in my head where it’s randomly decided who will join a trained diplomat or experts on state visits to represent the people. “… And this year… Dale will visit the environmental summit with our experts in …” followed by an AMA where Dale can share their impressions. I’d love it ;D
“I learned that it’s just a retreat for rich fucks to suck themselves off and pretend like they’re saving the world while changing nothing for the better.”
deleted by creator
No. They only receive the authority to do a specific thing. They go out of bounds? That’s OBVIOUSLY an abuse of authority and they’ll get themselves in trouble.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
deleted by creator
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
1 : in a literal sense or manner
2 : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
Yeah, those are definitions when used as a literary term, or an extreme example. You’re not wrong that anarchy can refer to no rules at all, but social contracts and agreements can exist and it still be anarchy just fine.
Only if you’re an edgy teenage dumbass who just watched A Clockwork Orange…
deleted by creator
usually anarchists advocate for elected or rotational positions for policing.
deleted by creator
The same thing that happens anywhere else? A power struggle between the people who want it and don’t? Are you implying this is unique to anarchism in some way? I don’t see why it would be.
deleted by creator
There is a legal recourse, you’re saying someone with power ignored the law and attempted a coup… do you think coups don’t happen in non anarchist countries? How is this unique to anarchism in any way?
deleted by creator
Core ideas of anarchism: mutual aid, no hierarchies, stateless moneyless society, free association.
This person: anarchism is capitalism without rules
deleted by creator
Surely you know better after skimming through a dictionary than me, an anarchist that has read dozens of anarchist theory books
deleted by creator
You might wanna read up slightly on this, you’re quite far away from the consensus meaning of anarchism. While superficial, you could start with the first three paragraphs of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Three paragraphs may be too long of a read for that person
deleted by creator
Which anarchist philosophers or anarchists agree with you?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That’s not anarchism you’re describing, maybe you’re thinking of "anarcho"capitalism?
deleted by creator
Anarchism is full of rules and laws, though. Arguably, one aspect of anarchism is replacing rulers with rules as far as possible, but that’s possibly a contentious phrasing.
deleted by creator
I don’t think you’re engaging in good faith here, not sure why. For what it’s worth, in your example, the negotiation of rules with the goal of consensus finding and avoidance of unjust exertion of power plays a major role in anarchist practices. Anomic states of existence and anarchic ones are far apart. The former leads to kings and conquest, the latter to tedious discussions about minutiae of daily existence.
There are reasons why anarchist groups are hard to infiltrate by cops
deleted by creator
No they’re saying the spleen harvesters are NOT anarchists at all.
The issue is that finitebanjo has conflated the two different meanings of Anarchy. Donpiano is talking about contemporary anarchism, a mode of governance without authority structures. One that argues that hierarchies and centralized power is the root of most of humanities ails. Governance is still performed, but it’s on an individual level between peers where each member of the group is an active part in decision making.
Finitebanjo is talking about anarchy, the state of lawlessness that arises when the state fails to perform its governing duties. Most associated with riots and looting. The problem is when they call it “anarchism in it’s truest form”, they’re conflating the state of lawlessness when the state abandons an area with a system of governance. It is not the same thing.
deleted by creator
A democratic power structure is decentralized.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, such trivialities like the answer to your conundrum are meaningless to someone as proudly ignorant on a topic as yourself. My bad.
deleted by creator
rofl Bioshock is explicitly NOT anarchism in its truest form… Big Daddys existing at all disproves that by itself, let alone Ryan’s ruling of the city.
deleted by creator
They are still a de-facto authority regardless of their purpose. De-facto authority is by definition NOT anarchism.