I generally use “anarchist” to describe my political philosophy. I’m pretty sure I’m using it correctly, but I’m not certain. I haven’t had much contact with other “anarchists”, just a bit of exposure through history and such.

First off, to me, “anarchism” doesn’t mean “no government”. Rather it means “no intrinsic authority”. What I see among historical anarchists is an opposition to practices that, frankly, aren’t all that often practiced any more, in the political realm. I’m referring to rule by bloodline and such, nobility and royalty. I get the impression the early anarchists wanted to do away with royal governance, in favor of a federation of voluntary governments instituted at the local level. Which is to say, they believed in government; they just wanted to do away with imposed external authority.

But I do see our current economic relations as having a great deal of externally imposed authority in it… though going into my beliefs about why, and what could be done about it, would be beyond the scope of this essay.

To me, anarchism means the following:

  1. Favoring no unnecessary relationships of authority.

  2. Where authority is necessary, it should be granted by those over whom the authority is exercised, directly and individually, to the greatest extent practicable. So, for example, if we have an economic system that leaves both employers and employees with the same level of market power (we do not, but if we did), the employer-employee relationship would qualify, since it commences by choice of both parties, and can end by the choice of either party.

  3. Where this is impracticable, the authority in question should always be temporary, with a clearly delineated end. For example, the parent-child relationship is necessarily one of authority, since children lack the faculties to make all the decisions one needs to make. But this relationship should be premised on preparing the child to survive outside this relationship, and have a clear end point (the point of their majority). And I mainly include this but just for the parent-child relationship; I can’t think of any others.

All this being said, I know there are those for whom Anarchism means “no government”, usually detractors who don’t actually understand the philosophy… or so I assume. Do I assume incorrectly? Is my use of the term wildly incorrect? I really don’t know.

  • Rottcodd@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Actually, there’s a very simple test for whether or not you’re getting the concept.

    Essentially, you’re saying that you advocate for “government” with some significant constraints - that you don’t believe that it should be “no government.” It doesn’t really matter what form the “government” might take or what the constraints might be - it’s sufficient to the point that that’s broadly what you want.

    And you recognize that there are other people who believe that anarchism means no government at all - who want to be entirely free from any and all authority.

    So the question is - would those people ever be subject to your “government”?

    The only answer that’s compatible with anarchism is “no.”

    In an anarchistic system, you would be entirely free to enter into whatever relationship you wanted with snyone else who was also willing. Were you so inclined, you could even appoint “royalty” to rule over you. It’s your choice.

    The thing that you could not do - not because it would somehow be prohibited but because the instant that you actually did it, the system would no longer be anarchistic - is make somebody else subject to the rule of your government contrary to their own will.

    • andreasm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The issue with this is the Ring of Power from the Lord of the Rings.

      People would want to be part of this because the Ring pulls them closer. If they join, they have a chance at being King.

      Then 5000 years of feudalism or totalitarianism passed and all the anarchists were slaughtered (… AGAIN.)

      I believe anarchists need to have a more active relationship with power structures, but then is pre-emptive anarchism really anarchistic?

      Perhaps the choice left to us the same choice as trees have. Grow and die and grow again.

      Or… Was Frodo an anarchist?