I’m politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).

Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    0·
    9 months ago

    I feel this is relevant:

    …proponents of communism have postulated that within the new society of pure communism and the social conditions therein, a New Man and New Woman would develop with qualities reflecting surrounding circumstances of post-scarcity and unprecedented scientific developmen … Among the major traits of a new Soviet man was selfless collectivism. The selfless new man was willing to sacrifice his life for good causes …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man#Selflessness

    Of course, arguably that project failed, so much so that ‘homo Sovieticus’ is now a pejorative:

    Homo Sovieticus (cod Latin for ‘Soviet Man’) is a pejorative term coined to describe the average conformist individual in the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries. Popularized by Soviet writer Aleksandr Zinovyev, it gained negative connotations and represented the perceived outcome of Soviet policies. … Homo Sovieticus (cod Latin for ‘Soviet Man’) is a pejorative term coined to describe the average conformist individual in the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries. … Characteristics of Homo Sovieticus included indifference to work results, lack of initiative, indifference to common property, chauvinism, obedience to government, and a tendency to drink heavily. … traits like indifference, theft, lack of initiative, and submission to authority … Some argued that the disappointment of intellectuals in the Soviet project had negative consequences, contributing to elitism and an anti-populist stance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comOP
      0·
      9 months ago

      Although this is definitely interesting, I dont see yet how it is relevant to anarchy. Feel free to elaborate.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        0·
        9 months ago

        In theory, if everyone has become selfless, there is no need for a man with a stick to create the rules or ensure compliance. No one will want to use a stick to push through rules which are to their advantage. People will simply cooperate with each other or help each other willingly where necessary.

        Think of a group of friends or adult family, where people help each other and cooperate willingly, because they love each other. Hopefully you don’t need to threaten your partner to do their share of the household tasks. You do it because you want your relationship to succeed and want to support each other.

        The USSR tried to create this new man with a stick, propaganda and indoctrination during the dictatorship of the proletariat phase. They never achieved fully realized communism, where everyone willing works to the best of their ability and helps their commune succeed and the commune of communes that is a truly communist society succeed.

        Smaller anarchist communes and experiments will try to do this organically. Everyone chooses to try to do their best and help the rest of the commune. It sounds pie in the sky, but it’s not unlike what volunteer groups do. People believe in a common cause, and freely volunteer their time, because they believe in their shared goal, and enjoy working together.