Why do you believe in it, do you approve it in theory or also in practice? I think a lot of people approve of anarchism in theory but rejects the possibility of it to be put in practice unless we live in an utopia… which I don’t think we do, unfortunately. Maybe techno-anarchism would be more practical? Technology is such badly regulated and ordinary people are punished harsher than corporate so I really think techno-anarchism deserves a lot more attention (not saying anarchism itself doesn’t) I see a lot of people here are more knowledgeable than me so don’t take my word so seriously, maybe I shouldn’t be expressing my idiot thoughts on it, or maybe just embrace it and ask regardless of any shame I might get.

I’m not trying to be mean to anyone, just genuinely wanted to discuss with whoever is willing to chip in on the topic.

  • L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Not if you take the traditional definition no. All natural life tends towards organization of some kind, which implies that organization is a consequence of life until proven otherwise.

    If you take a more modern definition of anarchy where you mean decentralized rules, then I could imagine a situation in which it occurs. Though it’s a far stretch to say that replacing a ruler with rules inherently solves the issue of power imbalance. Wether I am playing the game against an intelligent being or a logical system is irrelevant if the rules are unfair.

    • ulterno@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 minutes ago

      Having rules, means we need to be sure everyone follows it. And having a condition in which everyone wants to and strives to follow it, is also something utopian.

      So even if the rules turn out to be desirable, a deterrent would be required. Now of course, for the thoughtful, the deterrent would be the possibility of losing long term stability, but for those who only think of immediate gains, you either have to band up (which eventually causes formation of communities and states) or they band up (= bandits) and eventually become kings (the problematic kind).

      And then these things come into play:
      Cooperation game Pretty good linking of thoughts by Veritasion

      Then comes the most important point (or at least what I consider so). Technological progress. Science is very much viable in Anarchy, with most scientist-scientist interactions not really requiring a state in the first place. You just need an incentive structure that is good enough to make maintenance (including prevention of loss of knowledge) and further improvements, a desirable endeavour. And science can take a lot of resources, while not showing any return for a long time.
      Depending upon the case, this might incite frustration in those, investing in it for those working on it.
      And stagnation is not a possibility. Any attempts at that will just cause a slow downfall.