• RedDoozer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anarchy is not by nature disorganized. Lack of hierarchy doesn’t mean lack of organization. Probably a well-functioning anarchist organization is better organized than most hierarchical ones.

    If friends are not there to defend the group of three, mutual aid is missing. That’s why it failed.

      • RedDoozer@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, there seems to be a bit of a mix-up. Let me clarify.

        In an anarchist group, enforcing anything goes against its fundamental principles.

        If personal gain is the motive, one isn’t truly aligned with the group’s social contract and isn’t considered part of it.

        Decisions are made collectively, without hierarchy. Voting or delegating organisational tasks to sub-groups is the norm.

        I won’t go into words like “attacking,” “defense,” or “threats” as they are military terms, far from the anarchist ethos.

        And I won’t call you “bro” or make you read theory. I feel you won’t.

          • RedDoozer@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why defenseless? The entire organization can defense itself from outsiders. No need of hierarchy for that.

            • Chuymatt@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just one gifted sociopath dooms it from the inside…

              I long for mutual aid society, but every time I have participated in any form of it, I’ve had to back away as it invariably becomes toxic. I just don’t have the energy to keep fighting, honestly.

      • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anarchism is really against coercion, that’s what is meant by hierarchy. Hierarchy only makes sense if it’s used for coercion of other’s behavior.

        There is no reason a group of people can’t organize in a voluntary hierarchy to complete a task without the use of coercion.

        Imagine a group of 10 anarchist making pizza for the homeless. Two of them make pizza for a living and 8 are there for the week to help out. There is nothing preventing those 8 people from taking instruction from the two that know how to make pizza. Nobody is coerced to be there or to do anything.

      • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        We don’t need to incentivse not selling people out. Heirarchy creates a set of incentives TO sell people out. Remove those incentives and people will for the most part not sell people out. You’ve got it exactly backwards.

        Ask your buddy mao about anarchist fighting forces. He literally took anarchist tactics around decentralized militias and used them to great success. The Vietnamese as well. Or have a look at the Spanish revolution, rojava, the Ukrainian black army, or the zapatistas if you need more proof that decentralized militant forces are effective and capable. It doesn’t warrant an in detail explanation because “but how fight if democracy???” is weak as fuck.

    • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What does a well-functioning anarchist organization look like, though? How does one of any size prevent from fracturing into competing factions over time? If such organizations are limited to tight-knit community scales, I can’t see how it’s not eventual feudalism with extra steps.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hierarchy isn’t the opposite of anarchy.

      It’s just a type of rule. As in “an-archy”, without ruler.

      There’s also “synarchy”, meaning “joint rule or government by two or more individuals or parties”, which I feel is far more what people here are advocating in the name of anarchism.