this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
328 points (89.4% liked)
Memes
55738 readers
551 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anarchism has a good deal of theory associated with how a horizontalist society can come to be and function. It very much isn't just 'vibes," even if I disagree with it.
See that's the problem I have with this position. Knowledge is something you either have or don't. Its something that can be kept from you. If someone can be 'in the know' about anarchy by studying it, that creates systems of hierarchy and power. Defining it is intellectual oppression. It becomes just another form of political domination and control. Anarchy is, in fact, just vibes.
This is the most extreme form of vibes-based politics I think I've seen in a while. By that standard, schools should not exist. This is peak anti-intellectualism to the point of absurdity.
Have you actually read anarchist theory? I have. I don't agree with it, but the idea that education is an unjustifiable hierarchy is absurd.
No it isn't, you're inventing a concept and believing it to be the concept.
No, I am discussing anarchism the concept as it has evolved over time and has actually existed in real life, even if only for short periods. You've invented a brand new ideology that rejects itself as such and undermines its own premise.
And my point is that your idea of anarchy that's 'evolved over time' and has 'actually existed in real life' is antithetical to what anarchy actually is. You've confused yourself by over intellectualizing the concept.
No, you've confused yourself by dogmatically extrapolating what you think anarchy is from vibes and conjecture.
I don't want anarchy, I'm a communist. That doesn't mean I can afford to invent strawmen to argue against, I take anarchism seriously precisely because I don't agree with it. I evaluate it on its own merits and theory, not by my own invented strawman.
Hi cowbee! Hope you're doing well. Got an anti-anarchism spiel for me? I'm not gonna debate it really, I'm just curious on your thoughts. I see an optimal society as one with as little hierarchy as possible and anarchism as the most pure philosophy on achieving that.
I'm doing pretty well, thanks! Essentially, I disagree that anarchism is a viable path forward for large-scale change, and my reasoning for doing so is that production and distribution have evolved to become more interconnected, complex, and distributed, not horizontalist, individualist, and communalist. It therefore makes more sense to solve the contradiction between privatized profits in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the socialization of labor globally, by socializing the profits, ownership of production and distribution, as well as abolishing class.
Hierarchy isn't intrinsically bad, in my view. Organization with various levels emerges as a common structure in society over time often out of necessity, as production and distribution grows in scale and complexity. The solution to problems of class society isn't to attack the concept of hierarchy, but the material basis of class, that being private ownership of the means of production.
That's the gist of it, really, in a small bite.
I see the take! I may just be a bit too idealist to agree fully, but obviously that world would be way better than our current one. Thanks for sharing.
No problem!
No, it's nonsense and dishonest.
Nope, you're trying to impose your dogmatic, nonsense views on a real, existing movement. A movement that I believe has real flaws based on its real positions, and doesn't need someone inventing a new strawman.
This is nonsense, you're arguing that making a school is equivalent to necessitating everyone gets thrown into a mass grave.
Nope.
Unfortunately we have to live in the real world though. IMO anarchy will likely always be a direction rather than a position. I have a fearful inclination to belive that humans naturally form hierarchy and therefore we must learn how to mitigate that tendency. I can't imagine a better world appears from ignorance and vibes.
It's hard for me to imagine anarchy existing without a culture that believes in it and knows how to execute on it. That'll take a lot of hard work and knowledge to produce.
But what is the IT they know how to execute? Anarchy isn't really a 'thing' so much as an absence of a thing. The idea of a government built on no government is contradictory. That's why you have to vibe it.
A lack of rules feels more like libertarianism than anarchism. Hierarchy will form if you just sit around and let it. Don't you agree?
The IT is basically whatever egalitarian system we know we can perpetuate. Being anti hierarchy is much more complex and active than just vibing it out.
How is a lack of rules more closely associated with libertarianism? Anarchy is the literal absence of government.
Here are some starting points for ya lol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
I see how you could get them confused as they both are about minimizing governance. From my understanding libertarianism is more broad with it. Anarchism still tries to create an egalitarian society though while liberalism is extremely laissez faire.
The vast majority of anarchist have noticed that the world we live in is very unequal and have therefore concluded that it will take work to make a world without hierarchy. A quick look at the history books will show you that anarchist societies aren't the most stable. Now we've never seen an anarchist world so it is hard to say if that would be stable, but anarchist societies embedded in hierarchical worlds are tough to sustain.
Though I'm starting to think that you have really mixed together libertarianism and anarchism into something. So note that when I say anarchism I specifically mean realistic attempts to minimize hierarchy and not pure anti government.
Okay I've had an incling that you aren't arguing in good faith but now I'm convinced enough to say something. If you don't respond to my points about the effort it would take to realistically reduce hierarchy then I'll be out of steam.
The libertarianism parts are a side quest. The main quest is your belief that maintaining your ignorance is important for you to be anarchist.
I'll take that as a response.
"See that's the problem I have with this position. Knowledge is something you either have or don't. Its something that can be kept from you. If someone can be 'in the know' about anarchy by studying it, that creates systems of hierarchy and power. Defining it is intellectual oppression. It becomes just another form of political domination and control. Anarchy is, in fact, just vibes. "
This is ridiculous. There is no world where everyone could have perfectly equal knowledge. That is obviously an extremely silly hill to die on, and you are doing very little by trying to squash it on a completely individual level.
Why not work with others to try to bring equality in more tangible ways? Unfortunately you'd have to learn how to effectively run a mutual aid group. Wouldn't that put you 'in the know'?
Oh the horrors of learning to cook huge batches of food for your community. What a terrible form of intellectual oppression. We must sit still and conver our eyes for fear of doing something wrong.