3 ms·

A swedish rapper said in 1998; "Den enda sanna demokraten är anarkist", translates to "the only true democrat is anarchist". Not meaning the Democratic party i

A swedish rapper said in 1998; "Den enda sanna demokraten är anarkist", translates to "the only true democrat is anarchist". Not meaning the Democratic party in the US but rather a literal interpretation of the two words. Democrat meaning rule of the people and anarchist meaning no leaders. I was raised to believe in anarchism, and I still do at heart. But if it were ever to work we'd need strict and global regulations on centralized power that would need to be upheld by a coalition which would itself become a centralized power. Because evolution itself is randomness unchecked. So a political ideology alone can't control when someone will come along wanting to exploit systems to break free and gain more power for themselves or their own people.

mijamo 6y ago
Anarchism does not mean no leader. It means no authority. Hence why it is fundamentally different than democracy because democracy implies an authority somehow attributed to the people (directly or indirectly).
feralimal 6y ago
I break the word 'democrat' into demo and crat. 'Demo' meaning the people, the demos, the citizenry. 'Crat' as in hold in Greek. So, citizen-hold. Or alternatively, 'mob rule'! Really, IMO, you want individual rule for each individual. No system, no groups - just individuals. Anyone free to do what they want as long as they don't harm another individual. Do unto others, and all that. That would be a closer definition of anarchy for me.
uncletammy 6y ago
> Because evolution itself is randomness unchecked. Eloquently put
seneca 6y ago
> Because evolution itself is randomness unchecked. Randomness unchecked is chaos. Evolution actually specifically requires a check, in the form of the organism's environment, which is what prunes the ineffective branches. This is also so for human organizations. Without agreed upon rules to check undesirable traits we end up with Chaos.
zingplex 6y ago
> I was raised to believe in anarchism, and I still do at heart. But if it were ever to work we'd need strict and global regulations on centralized power that would need to be upheld by a coalition which would itself become a centralized power. Murray Bookchin argued for this in what he called Democratic Confederalism, which would create a series of federated communes with the administrative tasks being undertaken collectively by the confederal network whilst policy would be dictated by the communes themselves. The confederal network would have the right to break up centralized power as it develops in one or several of the communes as well as protect human rights and prevent ecological destruction.

mijamo 6y ago

Anarchism does not mean no leader. It means no authority. Hence why it is fundamentally different than democracy because democracy implies an authority somehow attributed to the people (directly or indirectly).

feralimal 6y ago

I break the word 'democrat' into demo and crat. 'Demo' meaning the people, the demos, the citizenry. 'Crat' as in hold in Greek. So, citizen-hold. Or alternatively, 'mob rule'! Really, IMO, you want individual rule for each individual. No system, no groups - just individuals. Anyone free to do what they want as long as they don't harm another individual. Do unto others, and all that. That would be a closer definition of anarchy for me.

uncletammy 6y ago

> Because evolution itself is randomness unchecked. Eloquently put

seneca 6y ago

> Because evolution itself is randomness unchecked. Randomness unchecked is chaos. Evolution actually specifically requires a check, in the form of the organism's environment, which is what prunes the ineffective branches. This is also so for human organizations. Without agreed upon rules to check undesirable traits we end up with Chaos.

zingplex 6y ago

> I was raised to believe in anarchism, and I still do at heart. But if it were ever to work we'd need strict and global regulations on centralized power that would need to be upheld by a coalition which would itself become a centralized power. Murray Bookchin argued for this in what he called Democratic Confederalism, which would create a series of federated communes with the administrative tasks being undertaken collectively by the confederal network whilst policy would be dictated by the communes themselves. The confederal network would have the right to break up centralized power as it develops in one or several of the communes as well as protect human rights and prevent ecological destruction.