Comment on What do you think of anarchism?

• MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.

  source

  • nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.

    this is a no true Scotsman.

    source

    • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.

      source

      • nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.

        you can’t prove this

        source
  • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.

    Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.

    Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?

    source

    • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.

      gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strateg….

      source

      • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently.

        There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, however.

        source
  • nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum

    power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change

    source

    • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      ? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control.

      US pulls out of Afghanistan. Before they can even board the plane, the Taliban has completely seized control.

      source

      • nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        power vacuums are a myth

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • count_dongulus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.

      source

      • nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I don’t know the particular histories you’re talking about, but I bet it involves private property, prisons, and policing. none of that is anarchy.

        source
  • nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The point stands though.

    no, it doesn’t

    source

    • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.

      source

      • nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        any time.

        source
• iii@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  You can’t prove that

  source