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?
Kind of incredible that they asked for a simple answer and you’re the only one providing one in a sea of false information and extremely elaborate replies…
“Anarchy is an utopia where there’s no one in a position of authority because no one feels the need/pulsion to be in power, what you’re describing is outside these parameters so it isn’t anarchy.” would have been my version of what you said.
As an anarchist, I don’t think anarchy is a utopia, but the natural state of humanity.
Based on all of human history? No
Ever since we’ve been living in groups there’s been leaders and that started before homo sapiens and that’s the case in all of the animal kingdom.
Also by the definition of utopia, being an utopia doesn’t prevent something from being a natural state so I don’t know why you would oppose one to the other.
Your assertion runs counter to quite a bit of reading I’ve done on the social organization of prehistoric and native groups. Also most of the time people exist in a state of anarchy.