Message from @Railing
Discord ID: 354122676479983617
A good example of an anarchist society is Israeli Kibbutz
*was kibbutz, they recently privatized much of it
So simplified, a mob would rule in a small community and would make their own rules and goals, but this is somehow different from authority?
When you boil it down, it is just an oligarchy in a community.
a mob wouldn't "rule" in any sense of the word. "Rule" implies top-down decision making, which wouldn't exist. People would be free to start their own organizations if the disagree with the prevailing agenda. Furthermore, I would stipulate that all communities organize along anarchist principles so they wouldn't come up with their own rules and regulations.
So what happens when a group get's fed up and starts their own organization that makes rules and regulations?
The point is that an individual would never be subject to any authority, not social relations would be coercive in nature as they are in capitalism
I mean that could happen, but the same could happen in any society
in my view if a group decided it wanted hierarchy in anarchist society, they'd get the wall
It does, they are called rebellions and insurgencies in todays society.
And besides, who enforces the rules, when there are no rules and anybody can do what they want?
From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, I imagine there'd be revolts in an anarcho-communist society
As I said what people want isn't some esoteric concept
There will always be revolts in any society, unless it is made up of mindless drones who do not question anything.
people want community and self-determination.
I mean yes, but regressive social movements are rarely successful
or relevent
I would welcome a revolution in an anarchist thats seeks to further its ideals
regressions to fascism, capitalism, Marxist-Leninism aren't likely though
But people **WILL** want organization and leadership.
because people don't like being murdered and dominated
organization and leadership doesn't necessitate authority
But what is a leader who does not give orders?
they can give orders too
but they wouldn't have any coercive authority
Would people have to democratically vote on every decision he makes?
no
in many settings people would accept that the leader has more experience and knowledge than them
leadersip is self justifying
if people question a leader than I assume there's something wrong with him
Coercion, while unpleasent, is necessary if there are needs for it.
Of course, an anarchist society wouldn't tolerate crime either
in fact it'd likely use capital punishment because people don't like operating prisons
But you said earlier, that the leadership could not use coercion.
So which is it?
in day-to-day life, people can voluntarily follow a leader
a leader doesn't need a whip to influence people and if they do, they aren't a good leader