3 ms·
It's impossible to generalize this without factoring in the external environment. Put a group of mentally stable people together in a safe, hospitable communit
by paxys 3y ago
It's impossible to generalize this without factoring in the external environment.
Put a group of mentally stable people together in a safe, hospitable community with unlimited resources and yes the theory will probably hold true.
But what happens when the food runs out? If there's a natural disaster? A plague? Some other crisis? What if they get invaded by a neighboring tribe whose intentions aren't so great?
That's the true test of anarchy, and humans have shown throughout history that they soundly fail it.
- sumtechguy 3y agoYou do not have to wait for food to run out. There is always 'that one guy trying to ice skate uphill'. They test the limits on everything and do not care about others at all. It only takes one jerk to ruin a party. I know at least 4 people like this, probably more (they hide it better). They would rob you in a heartbeat if they could get away with it and even if they cant. But in general they seem nice and happy and stable. The reality is they just do not want to get caught.
- toyg 3y agoEvolutionarily, you probably want those types too. An orderly tribe might get slaughtered by some unforeseen situation that they try to fight together; whereas the individualist "I don't give a shit" type might just run away - and let his genes survive. Same in situations of starvation: the DGAS types will lie and cheat to get a bit more of this and a bit more of that, ensuring the survival of their genepool - whereas the meek will probably die out. Evolution is not a dinner party, to misquote a certain Chinese guy.
- FranzFerdiNaN 3y agoThis is completely untrue though. Yes, some people are and will continue to be complete assholes who will take advantage of any kind of situation, but pretty much all evidence point towards people banding together and helping each other in times of crises. Its corporations and billionaires and dictators being able to mobilize massive amounts of wealth and/or people that lead to terrible outcomes. So anarchists are completely correct: their tenets reduced to the simple slogan of 'no gods, no masters' is the only fundamentally correct ideology.
- Synaesthesia 3y agoActually in times of crisis and war communities tend to bond together.
- paxys 3y agoYeah, we totally saw that during Covid...
- peter2paul 3y ago[dead]
- izacus 3y agoWe absolutely saw that in pretty much every crisis and wartime studied. And yes, even in COVID times people banded together across countries to help each other.
- pookha 3y agoLOL. I got screamed at by a lunatic because my three year olds trainrobber bandana wasn't covering her nose. Banding together has caveats.
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoYep first thing that happened was shitcan the kids. They knew kids had very little relative risk but the argument was it's worth them losing an education, you don't want Grandma to die do you?
- wahnfrieden 3y agoDawn of Everything has possible examples of that Btw anarchy is quite new. You may learn from eg Zapatistas or Rojave but these are anarchy adjacent
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoI lived in Rojava and they are quite capitalist outside a few sectors. Go someplace like qamislo and it's basically capitalism with street vendors and stark disparity of wealth and poverty. However you can get free bread by simply appearing at a few stalls. The socialist (leftwing anarchism adjacent), mustache-jesus ("apo") stuff is far more revered in the military and certain communes.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoThx for the perspective