You can’t prove that
Comment on What do you think of anarchism?
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months agobeing ruled by warlords is not anarchist.
iii@mander.xyz 2 months ago
Comment on What do you think of anarchism?
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months agobeing ruled by warlords is not anarchist.
You can’t prove that
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
this is a no true Scotsman.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
you can’t prove this
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 months 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?
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 months ago
gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strateg….
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 months 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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
power vacuums are a myth
count_dongulus@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months 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.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
no, it doesn’t
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
any time.