this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
283 points (92.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43984 readers
738 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

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

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Hyperreality@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

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 the soviet project failed to this new man, 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

[โ€“] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago

The USSR was ML, which is definitely not anarchist. They even crushed anarchist experiments like Makhnovia and the Kronstadt rebellion. Most anarchists I've encountered very justifiably hate the USSR.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] bigboismith@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Anarchy is generally assumes that people will naturally cooperate without arbitrary distinctions. In practice most anarchists are mostly anti centralization. The smaller the political entities are the better (singular persons if you take it to the extremes).

[โ€“] Burningpizza@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[โ€“] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 10 months ago

That was fun to listen to! Thank you very much!

[โ€“] prayer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] Burningpizza@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I've got the perfect podcast for you Philosophize this. This topic is covered in the last two episodes.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] Thavron@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago

I would just like to point out that it's not possible to be politically agnostic. Besides political stances or ideologies not being religions, everyone has some point of view on at least some issues, be they societal, financial, etc.

load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ