this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
572 points (97.8% liked)
Videos
16998 readers
134 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is what actual anarchy looks like
Everyday people coming to the aide of a fellow human who is fighting to stop herself being victimized is anarchy? Yeah, pretty much. Doesn't seem like a bad thing, though. If we all took that level of responsibility, you wouldn't need much of a governmental force.
I think everything you just said with many words, is what he said with few words. You're both in agreement.
nuf said
Possibly.
not possibly, entirely
Good. I couldn't be sure. 'This is actual anarchy' is just as readable as 'this is the degeneracy of our modern culture' as it is as 'this is people acting responsibly without need of hierarchy.'
i suppose it’s an understandable knee jerk reaction to assume that.
….
i wrote it because when i see riots there’s usually “it was anarchy on the streets!” somewhere….
but in this case there was a large number of people who saw someone needing help and decided to help, which is actually anarchy on the streets…
They're both technically anarchic, (no hierarchy among rioters either) but things like this demonstrate the lack of hierarchy is clearly not the problem in either situation.
anarchy isn’t just the lack of hierarchy, it’s an organization of society without hierarchical government.
a riot is chaos, not anarchy.
It's a bit of a semantic grey space, like many words. For common use, anarchy and chaos are synonyms, hence why your initial comment could be read both ways. For a certain class of 'rebellious' individual, it's used more like a naive, 'lower case l' libertarianism. For some, it means the absence of any social structure at all, a 'state of nature.' For some others it's the de facto reality of all systems using a definition of 'who has the most capacity for violence makes the rules.' For those studying sociology and anthropology, it's used specifically for a class of societal organizational systems that may be highly organized but share a lack of hierarchy. The shared element between the various uses is the lack of structure so I lean toward keeping it to that basic concept and hesitate to claim any of them are the 'correct' definition.
the equivocation between chaos and anarchy is a deliberate tactic to malign the philosophy.
if every time there was riots people yelled “there’s communism in the streets!” it wouldn’t change the meaning of the word.
throwing libertarian in there is just nuts so i see this going nowhere.
I read it as meaning the exact opposite (as in, the crime part is what anarchy looks like) so they might want to reconsider the wording.
Anarchy is nice
I wish cops were reliable
I wish they weren't corrupt, rapists, murderers, and recently, kidnappers.
Recently?
Abolish police. Form well-regulated militias instead. Most of the "police" don't even live in the neighborhoods they enforce the laws in.
Can you give me one example where this has EVER worked, on a scale larger than a couple thousand people.
not gonna happen
Nah, anarchy probably wouldn't have cops to come pick him up at the end. They'd just beat him some more until they felt justified enough cause what else ya gonna do?
Anarchy would shun them from social systems until they made appropriate reperations. They might be jailed, they might be exiled, they might just be cut off from all but basic food/services/etc.
There are law enforcement answers in anarchist societies that aren't "have cops."
Please elaborate on how you would deal with professional violent criminals in an anarchist manner.
Sure. You try to head off the behavior before it gets there by ensuring basic needs are met for all and through social tools like shunning and group dynamics.
Your scenario springs up whole clothe without the above, so I would offer the following for it : Jail, exile, death. The order depends on the people involved in the society they created.
Being an anarchist doesn't mean you lack the current tools we use, it means you dont have to use them, or at least you dont have to reach for them first.
You didn't answer who exactly would jail a guy with a gun who's willing to use it and knows how to do it.
Id be glad to. Just tell me the name of everyone in the society, their general roles in different social situations, their agreed on laws and rules, and their specific stance on violence and how they want to respond to it.
Once you do, I can answer your very specific questions about a hypothetical community that doesnt currently exist and hasent been defined by any of the people in it.
So you don't have law enforcement answers in anarchist societies that aren't ‘have cops’. Dunno why you had to lie about it.
Its your hypothectical man. I've told you the community will need to come to a consensus on how they handle violence. Thats the only answer I can give if you wont give me the details above.