• bc93@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation, not by taking advantage of people’s poor decision-making - this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.

      Anarchists are all about rules and regulations, as long as they’re non-hierarchical - to the extent that one of the major phrases associated with anarchism is “Anarchy is order”, and the well recognised symbol of the A within the O. For example, you could agree with a group of friends to take turns to be the designated driver - any of you can freely and voluntarily decide to get a taxi, but you decide to work together for the benefit of the group. If someone takes advantage of the benefit without taking their turn, you’ll quickly all agree to stop driving that friend. This is a really simplified example of how anarchism works.

      I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it. It’s a very sensible and coherent ideology.

        • bc93@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Predatory loans is a great example - they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices. If you’re poor and you’re struggling to make ends meet, your credit card is already maxed out because you had to fix your car and you can’t afford groceries what other option do you have other than a short term loan?

          Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things! You know that, you little rascal! If youre interested in the etymology, the term anarchism comes from the greek “an archos”, e.g. without hierarchy. It is possible to have laws without hierarchy.

          An absence of state, definitely. Government? Depends on your definition of government but if you take it to mean state then sure. Lawlessness and disorder, definitely not - I’ve been to several anarchist collective groups and they’re some of the most well-structured, organised and managed events going.

            • bc93@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Sure, go read the Wikipedia article, that’ll give you a solid foundation! I’d suggest the Conquest of Bread if you’re interested, or google “what is Anarchism”

                • bc93@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It’s the other way around - because the establishment has so much to fear from anarchism, they peddle anti-anarchist propaganda. If we renamed anarchism, they’d just do the same thing. Anarchism does exactly what the name implies - against heirarchies.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Anarchism is not what you believe it to be. The Wikipedia page honestly isn’t too bad for it:

      Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, this reading of anarchism is placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).

      Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              The Wikipedia page seems to be generally correct. It’s a pretty broad political spectrum though with a reasonably long history. Some anarchists disagree with each other (as people in any group do) so there isn’t a perfect definition. The synopsis of the wiki is probably as good as you’ll get without reading the literature. Proudhon is probably the most famous anarchist, if you want to read up on his works.

            • bc93@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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 2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

              Not sure why you’re so obsessed with the dictionary. Is it some kind of kink or something? x

                • bc93@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Arguing based on dictionary definitions is like, a meme. It’s like those facebook memes with the horribly written maths problems. The dictionary definition of a word will never capture the full nuanced meaning of the term. Arguing about it is pure pedantry.