this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
78 points (85.5% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

321 readers
4 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
  1. Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
  2. Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
  3. Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod

Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's not a problem with anarchists in general, I think, but that the kind of anarchists who put themselves into positions of power are generally... not the ones you want in power. Regardless of ideology, power, even the smallest, pettiest kind, tends to attract a certain kind of person more often, on average.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I thought the point of anarchy was not having positions of power.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are always positions of power. Anarchists are interested in minimizing the institutionalization of power and individual offices. And also, that even anarchists don't live in a currently-anarchist society/structure, and have to work within that. Don't believe Lemmy has implemented

Taking turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...

[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Just to add on to your mention of there always being positions of power, I believe there is a difference between someone having power/authority in a specific moment or in a limited capacity versus a hierarchy.

A hierarchy enforces compliance from the top down, while individuals are capable of ceding to limited authority in specific situations; see every Anarchist military unit like the CNT, RIAU, BOAK, YPG and YPJ. Any individual member has the right to disobey, to leave. It’s not a contract enforced by the UCMJ, with codes criminalizing dissent and desertion, like in the US military.

I think the difference between positions inherently having power and hierarchical power have been explained much better in other comments, but I just wanted to add that there are real world examples of Anarchists consenting to power/leadership, and it resulting in effective small unit combat effectiveness, outside of thought experiments or generalities.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s not a contract enforced by the UCMJ, with codes criminalizing dissent and desertion, like in the US military.

I mean, I feel the need to point out that dissent, refusal of orders, and desertion were all punishable in CNT militias.

Any wartime unit is necessarily going to be stricter on such things, as coordination, timing, and accurate estimations are all vital in military operations.

The anarchist militias were very effective in the Spanish Civil War, though, you are correct about that.

[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thank you for the clarification, that’s really interesting.

Was desertion specifically deserting a line unit on rotation? Could an enlisted person willingly leave when their unit was rotated off the line for resupply for example? Or was it more a situation where upon enlistment you willfully submitted to the commands authority for the period of enlistment?

Do you have any recommendations for reading material on that subject specifically? I had just assumed the CNT operated like most of the other militias I mentioned, although now that I’m thinking about it I guess most of the anecdotal evidence for fighters dropping in and out at will are foreign (predominantly white) volunteers, so that just might be my privilege showing.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

It's been a long time since I've done serious reading on the subject, unfortunately. Article 4 of the CNT regulations for militiamen outlines offenses, though, and treating abandoning one's post and desertion as separate offenses suggests it wasn't just leaving the front line that counted as desertion.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, but if your system is anarchist, those are exactly the kind of people who are going to wind up running things.

There’s a lot of overlap between anarchism and good sense. I’m not trying to be snarky about it. But it does seem that it has a couple of fatal flaws, and that is one. You could say that the early anarchists and the American founding fathers both identified the same types of failure modes in government and societal hierarchy, and where the founding fathers came up with a flawed system that nonetheless made a sincere effort to design a society of free individuals who could each live their lives in a pretty anarchist-friendly fashion, while still taking account of the realities of power and how to mitigate the problems of it… the anarchists just decided, “If we don’t pay attention to these problems then they won’t exist, much easier.”

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's... more complex than that. You should pick a more serious anarchist's brain. They do consider these problems.

Personally, I think the term 'anarchy' works against them because of its literal meaning and its connotations. I always mentally replace it with the synonym of libertarian socialism, and find it works wonders in reducing preconceptions.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Is there someone I should read? I read some of the Wikipedia article to try to educate myself but I didn’t get all that far.

Edit: I think the fact that I made someone so salty they felt the need to downvote this comment means I’m doing something right.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Discussing the matter with actual anarchists is preferable. There are fewer central agreed-upon texts to anarchism (appropriately enough, lmao), and many of those that remain influential are... quite thick. Kropotkin is available if you are the patient sort.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 6 points 3 weeks ago

I read the abridged version of the abridged version of Kropotkin just now. I like it quite a lot. I more or less stand by my assessment of the flaws in it, as compared with an approach like the founders of the US, but it sounds like good stuff. I think like a lot of things the devil is in the details.

I am mostly being snarky about the laughable brand of faux-anarchism that got me banned and deleted in this instance, not trying to throw too much shade at real anarchism.