4 ms·

Anarchy means "no ruler"; it's the opposite of mob rule.

mc32 6y ago
There is never “no ruler”. Someone always emerges who sets the pace, etc. True anarchy can only exist in very low density situations where population is very low and very sparsely settled. Let’s say fewer than 5 people per square mile actual (not average) on good land. One or fewer would be better. Rural Siberia -Yakutiya, Rural Mongolia. Colonial era trappers and such when they were not in town.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Beautifully demonstrated in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,... ARTHUR: Yes. DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... ARTHUR: Yes, I see. DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,... ARTHUR: Be quiet! DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major-- ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
- nybble41 6y ago
  You seem to be confusing "leaders" with "rulers". It's fine to have someone around who "sets the pace" so long as they are willing to leave other people alone who aren't interested in doing things their way. Anarchy is about the absence of power relationships, not maximizing uniformity of roles or social disorder.
  - mc32 6y ago
    I think you’re starting to get into semantics. But I agree that basically the only way to achieve it is is very low density situations where power relationships can’t be manifested. It’d be an idealized primitive culture -technology will produce power relationships. So will density (water rights, hunting rights, fishing rights, etc)
  - zepto 6y ago
    There can never be an absence of power relationships.
    - someguyorother 6y ago
      In that case, the anarchists would try to find/develop a society that minimizes the number of power relationships.
      - zepto 6y ago
        That’s exactly what an advocate of liberal democracy would say that they are doing.
        nybble41 6y ago
        The anarchist sees all power relationships as a problem, and would eliminate them all given a chance. The non-anarchist advocate of liberal democracy sees some power relationships as legitimate (if only to prevent other, presumably worse ones) and is seeking an "optimal", rather than minimal, level of power relationships. The difference between "anarchist" and "minarchist" lies mainly in what you consider to be the "minimum"—it is perfectly possible to be both, if you define the minimum as zero. The difference is academic, of course, so long as the current level of power relationships in society is well above what even the liberal democracy advocate would consider "optimal".
        zepto 6y ago
        A good distinction, and I agree over all, especially with your final paragraph, although I am not sure it’s completely academic. I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man. I think that anarchism is an idea that necessarily leads to minarchism. Once you get to minarchism, the debate is then back to ‘what is legitimate power?’ which is the perennial question.
        6y ago
coldtea 6y ago
That's anarchism. Anarchy means no established order / ruler -- there can be tons of ad-hoc ones.

mc32 6y ago

There is never “no ruler”. Someone always emerges who sets the pace, etc. True anarchy can only exist in very low density situations where population is very low and very sparsely settled. Let’s say fewer than 5 people per square mile actual (not average) on good land. One or fewer would be better. Rural Siberia -Yakutiya, Rural Mongolia. Colonial era trappers and such when they were not in town.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Beautifully demonstrated in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,... ARTHUR: Yes. DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... ARTHUR: Yes, I see. DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,... ARTHUR: Be quiet! DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major-- ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
nybble41 6y ago
You seem to be confusing "leaders" with "rulers". It's fine to have someone around who "sets the pace" so long as they are willing to leave other people alone who aren't interested in doing things their way. Anarchy is about the absence of power relationships, not maximizing uniformity of roles or social disorder.
- mc32 6y ago
  I think you’re starting to get into semantics. But I agree that basically the only way to achieve it is is very low density situations where power relationships can’t be manifested. It’d be an idealized primitive culture -technology will produce power relationships. So will density (water rights, hunting rights, fishing rights, etc)
- zepto 6y ago
  There can never be an absence of power relationships.
  - someguyorother 6y ago
    In that case, the anarchists would try to find/develop a society that minimizes the number of power relationships.
    - zepto 6y ago
      That’s exactly what an advocate of liberal democracy would say that they are doing.
      - nybble41 6y ago
        The anarchist sees all power relationships as a problem, and would eliminate them all given a chance. The non-anarchist advocate of liberal democracy sees some power relationships as legitimate (if only to prevent other, presumably worse ones) and is seeking an "optimal", rather than minimal, level of power relationships. The difference between "anarchist" and "minarchist" lies mainly in what you consider to be the "minimum"—it is perfectly possible to be both, if you define the minimum as zero. The difference is academic, of course, so long as the current level of power relationships in society is well above what even the liberal democracy advocate would consider "optimal".
        zepto 6y ago
        A good distinction, and I agree over all, especially with your final paragraph, although I am not sure it’s completely academic. I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man. I think that anarchism is an idea that necessarily leads to minarchism. Once you get to minarchism, the debate is then back to ‘what is legitimate power?’ which is the perennial question.
        6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

That's anarchism. Anarchy means no established order / ruler -- there can be tons of ad-hoc ones.