genuine Q: what are the appealing parts anarchism over like democratic socialism, as I feel like the idea of some systems existing in order to equalize power if done well could do better for society over like no systems at all, but I may just be uninformed/bad at finding text on the subjects of it
So true. There would still be governance, it just wouldn't be violently coercive, aggressively imperialist, or vertically hierarchized. A good example of one would be delegated consensus democracy, a far better option than our current "choose your rulers" Potemkin village representative democracy.
Ok but where is "there"?
My point with the ideology thing is that you're doing yourself (and anarchism) a disservice by engaging with ideologies as blueprints for an imaginary utopia, instead of understanding them as a kind of worldview that applies to the world as it exists right now
I'm not looking for a debate or a lecture. I've read the theory and I understand where you're coming from. But this was a simple answer to a simple question
For instance, say that your system says that you need three doctors to say “yes, that’s a transgender”. Making it become no doctors and just a psychologist is making it more anarchist.
anarchism IS a system and is propagandized by fascists and liberals alike to not be. it's just a system that all the people agree on and run themselves
Hey! So anarchism is not a system of governance I:e “we have no systems at all” it is a way of organizing society, and by extension a way to organize a govt. It exists on the core principal that most hierarchy is artificial, and that most systems are served better
By having horizontal organization rather then vertical, and when there is a requirement for a vertical hierarchy that it is important to keep it around only as long as is required, as creating a multitude of those systems with no way of keeping them accountable allows them to consolidate more and
More power, eventually leading to a system where someone at the top has more control and is unanswerable to the rest of the people (I:e, every western democracy, some more then others)
It's a contentious subject. Anarchists do not have faith in governments to be able to govern in an equitable way.
Any place where power is concentrated, like a president, prime minister, shah, czar, etc., will become a target for the most power-hungry people. With time, they WILL be corrupted.
Anarchists reject the idea that we just need to get the *right* representatives behind the levers of power, because any human will inevitably be corrupted by that power.
See Castro and Chavez's "socialist" revolutions.
See China's self-appointed president-for-life.
See every American president.
Comments
Sorry Uwu
But unlike a lot of other ideologies you can't just take the internal logic to its logical conclusion and have a system of government fall out
My point with the ideology thing is that you're doing yourself (and anarchism) a disservice by engaging with ideologies as blueprints for an imaginary utopia, instead of understanding them as a kind of worldview that applies to the world as it exists right now
Any place where power is concentrated, like a president, prime minister, shah, czar, etc., will become a target for the most power-hungry people. With time, they WILL be corrupted.
See Castro and Chavez's "socialist" revolutions.
See China's self-appointed president-for-life.
See every American president.