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?

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    A lot of political theory is written in the societal equivalent of an airless room with a frictionless floor. It doesn’t take into account how humans work within the system, especially bad actors.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Which is why the only systems that have ever worked are mixed systems that account for human nature.

      A 100% democratic system would have problems because nobody would have any experience or expertise, so people would govern based on ignorance. A 100% communist system doesn’t work because we don’t have a fair system to allocate resources, and as soon as someone becomes in charge of allocating resources, they allocate more for themselves. Even 100% authoritarian systems don’t work because a dictator has to sleep sometime. There may be a figurehead / leader in an authoritarian system, but unless that person delegates some power and control, they’ll be killed and replaced pretty quickly.

      • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Historically the dictator one hasn’t worked well is because every last one has been an actual troglodyte, making moronic decisions after moronic decision. At this point I’m fairly sure only the people with a room temperature IQ want to be dictators. Like I’m sure they would get deposed if they gave out that power but that just hasn’t happened much.