Asklemmy

43984 readers

709 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

283

ELI5 why is anarchy not "the guy with the bigger stick" making the rules? (lemmy.giftedmc.com)

submitted 10 months ago by haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

209 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] prayer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The world itself is anarchistic. Each counties has its rules but international politics have no governing body (the UN doesn't really rule over every state, just serve to mediate discussion). The country with the biggest stick would probably be the US, but they haven't conquered Canada or Mexico, let alone everyone else. Other players like Russia or China have influence too.

While the US does have a lot of soft power in influencing nations, they certainly aren't making the rules for other countries and puppeting them.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

While the US does have a lot of soft power in influencing nations, they certainly aren’t making the rules for other countries and puppeting them.

South America would probably disagree.

[–] hangukdise@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

That was true in the 60s, but now most south American governments are ostensibly anti-american but need to be in okay terms with america so that they can trade internationally

[–] moormaan@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

While the US does have a lot of soft power in influencing nations, they certainly aren't making the rules for other countries and puppeting them.

This is a very rosy eyed statement. The "soft" power is the visible part, just the tip of the iceberg.