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?

  • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Organized labor is the biggest stick. If workers organize themselves based on an anarchist basis, they can potentially wield this stick very gracefully to ward off or even preclude the entities that would dominate and exploit them.

    The end goal is basically the same as Marxism: a stateless, classless society. It’s a fair question as to whether the anarchist route that forgoes an interim worker state is viable.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Huh? Organized labor can only exist when laws protect them. Otherwise companies will always find scabs, and eventually, willing long term workers.

      If organized labor is the law, then they are government all over again.

      Not saying positing labor as a governmental body is a bad idea.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        For most of the history of capitalism, and in many cases still to this day, organized labor and various labor actions have been illegal, but it still happens.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          True, but what organized labor does exist is supported by, and validated by government.

          • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            No. Organized labor exists in spite of the government. For example, in the US, sympathy strikes are illegal. Many jurisdictions have so called right-to-work laws which weaken unions. A union is its members, not the laws to which it’s subjugated.

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Lol sure. Any examples of organized labor existing in the absence of government, where that group themselves does not become the enforcing, power projecting government?

              What you’re describing are the symptoms of imperfect government.

              The absence of government is a power vacuum that will be filled. Things like labor organization require structure, and if they have to do not have it, if they persist, they become government. (Enforcement, power projection, etc.)

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        What are laws other than agreed upon tenets to live one’s life by? We write them down and have a big grandiose way of announcing new legislation currently, all anarchists would do is make sure that those are baked into the social contract. Anarchists and Marxists would be the first group of people to enshrine worker protections into their society.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          My point is that a governmental body, an enforcer of the social contract (whatever social contract the group wants) is required. I.e. someone with a stick.