Remember to take shitposts seriously, it’s what the cool kids are doing
Anarchists do believe in board game rules. Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
Lawless society
Submitted 3 months ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to [deleted]
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/f11c5612-2558-4f36-b90f-f0e5791be916.jpeg
Comments
umbraroze@lemmy.world 3 months ago
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
Kinda. The most important part is that if someone disagrees with the house rules, they can choose to disassociate from the house and go somewhere else. There’s no state to say “this open field that’s not utilized is mine, bitch!” and then taze you.
emmie@lemmy.world 3 months ago
There’s the state neighbouring anarchists which can’t form a state and so probably they exist within the borders of some state unless some state respects not a state
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
I can think of one or two times where house rules were appropriate, and a couple of dozen times where they broke the game. I think that you should only apply a house rule where 1) the game is already broken and 2) you’re reasonably sure that the house rule won’t break it further. It’s good for when an otherwise fun game is ruined by something that the game designers overlooked.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Well, if you were someone playing a game with them, then you can incorporate this. The point is that it’s not obligatory and is based on the people participating
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Look y’all we can have decentralised worker cooperative communes with everyone contributing and things distributed as needed for the betterment of everyone’s living conditions rather than the enriching of the few, but only if I get to actually be Hitler in Secret Hitler next time we play!
match@pawb.social 3 months ago
we had to stop playing Secret Hitler because nobody would play the fascists
Yareckt@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
You got me. I’m taking rhis seriously :D Anarchy isn’t against rules. Just against hierarchy’s or unequal distribution of power. Which makes boardgames pretty anarchic since everyone can enforce the rules.
match@pawb.social 3 months ago
playing board games is a form of self-governance and builds revolution
ummthatguy@lemmy.world 3 months ago
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Anarchy is not against rules, it’s against rulers.
lowleveldata@programming.dev 3 months ago
I want to be a board game rule lawyer one day
general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 3 months ago
I actually believe one day we’ll need lawyers and courts for complex virtual reality worlds.
jonkenator@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Does anybody know what game that is? It looks cool.
Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
Cones of Dunshire.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Looks like a 3D puzzle with some minis in front of it.
DMBFFF@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Most board games are based on consensus.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Tankies linking Engels’ “On Authority” in 3…
TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 3 months ago
ITT: Frantic redefinition of what anarchism is. Here it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Since this comment means its my turn now, I’ll redefine it into “no rules except the ones I agree with, otherwise GFY” sprinkled with a heavy dose of personal charisma that often clouds objectivity and the complexity of the reality.
JWayn596@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That’s not what anarchism is.
I like to call anarchism as neighborliness extended as a political ideology. Consider it libertarianism with a pinch of collectivism
You do it all the time when you organize a group of friends to go to the movies. There is no elected leader.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, they destroyed a lot of public and military comms infrastructure, so the military ended up teaming up with anarchists because they had a decentralized comms going.
Anarchism is compatible with existing political ideologies, however in my opinion works best at small scales.
TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 2 months ago
There’s no elected leader, but there’s an implicit one: the one organizing it, who might just give you the cold shoulder for any number of reasons. Anarchism is best defined in Wikipedia, and isn’t really limited to “small scales”. It is most validated when it is a movement existing within authoritarian states, out of necessity, which is why Revolutionary Action joined into the Revolutionary Committee among other groups, which is what you are referring to.
By itself and out of context, and specially when it manifests in societies that are actually functional, democratic, and with adequate social policies, I favor my own definition, but it can’t really be defined practically and objectively without context except by mine. “No (your Russian) rules except the ones I agree with, otherwise GFY” sprinkled with a heavy dose of personal charisma is what Revolutionary Action is doing to Russia as it attempts to annex Ukraine.
RandomGuy79@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Because they aren’t anarchists. They’re pissy Lil shits who want everyone Else to play by their rules
lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Anarchism isn’t the absence of rules but the absence of authority. Some anarchist ideas even replace the centralized authority figure with rules that apply to everyone and of cause free association so you are not forced to follow them and can move on instead
photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Without some kind of authority, how can those rules be enforced?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Decentralized authority
Dozzi92@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Publicly shun people. You’re a rule breaker? You’ve been shunned by society and people who associate with you will be known associates of the shunned.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Short answer: The community.
In small contexts, a mutual understanding is sufficient. There are “Radical Therapy” groups with no central therapist who decides who talks how much but instead have rules like fixed times for each person. I don’t think people will break these rules but exclusion is always an option with very intransigent people.
In bigger contexts like the Commons, people deliberate on their own rules. Minor transgressions will have minor consequences and the worst is – again – exclusion. People are more willing to stick to the rules and watch others if they were part of the process that created the rules. If you want to dive deeper, I remember a podcast episode by SRSLY WRONG and a YouTube video by Andrewism about The Commons or The Tragedy of the Common.
jdeath@lemm.ee 3 months ago
free (dis) association
StaticFalconar@lemmy.world 3 months ago
More cancel culture over putting all the power to the military and police.
GladiusB@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Peer pressure, self awareness, probably a few others I can’t think of.
mo_lave@reddthat.com 3 months ago
So is Lemmy (the platform) a case of anarchism at work?
match@pawb.social 3 months ago
it’s an archipelagic confederation, so yes!
lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
That’s a very good question. It’s as anarchist as modern social media gets.
The thing is the moderators. In an anarchist utopia, they would take turns, be recallable and have to justify their decisions.
The last point is true for some instances but not all (think of the vegan cat food debate on .world verses how .ml blocks voices critical of China and Russia).
The other two points – to my knowledge – barely happen. This isn’t a huge problem, as I said, it’s as anarchist as social media comes. But it contains the risk of a centralized power. Sure, you can always leave the instance (even easier than on mastodon where you lose your followers) but this resembles the Libertarian “freedom” to choose your oppressor. Internal equality is very important.
This isn’t to criticize Lemmy. It’s overall very good and as anarchist as realistically and practically possible. But to showcase the anarchist ideal of councils and to spotlight the minor flaws we should be aware of, even if there is no perfect solution.
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 3 months ago
No just free association. But having no alternatives to legitimate needs, like participating in our civilization’s free speech discourse through the internet, free association doesn’t help. So before the fediverse you were “forced” to associate with reddit/facebook/twitter or have little association at all.
I’m not sure how anarchism would work for a social media platform. Everyone is a mod? Everyone can post anything and can delete anything? :D
GladiusB@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Most grass roots societies are like that. It’s “self” ruling so to speak. At least from what I have gathered and read. It’s been awhile since I did deep dive on it.
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 3 months ago
coercive relationships are adjudicated the oppressors
lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
That’s why it’s important to keep the rules non coercive
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Anarchism is communism but for intellectuals
lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Well, there is a whole anti intellectual movement within anarchism which stems at least in part from a critique of intellectuals as an elite. That said, there are elitist Marxist and even ML uni professors, but also anarchist ones. I wouldn’t draw the line there.
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 3 months ago
I reject your definition and substitute my own. But I won’t tell you!