Comment on What do you think of anarchism?
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 days agoThe 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.
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?
Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.
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.
Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
? 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.
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.
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.
The point stands though.
no, it doesn’t
Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.
any time.
nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
this is a no true Scotsman.
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 days 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 days ago
you can’t prove this