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?

  • cozycosmic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    Elections and representatives are “representative democracy”, not a true democracy. Voting on issues is democracy. Democracy literally means “the people have the power”

    • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Hmm… so an approach that would have gotten Rodeo’s point across better might have been to say,

      “so anarchy is just another name for the purest form of democracy.”

      Because democracy is such a broad word that it is occasionally applied to the United States, despite the CIA’s history of coups and the FBI’s history of extrajudicial assassinations of citizens.

    • BiteSizedZeitGeist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m talking about the level of organization. There’s a difference between saying “the best way to resolve this conversation is to ask everyone present for a vote” and “there’s going to be another cyclical election soon, these will be the matters we’re going to vote on.” Counting ayes and nays doesn’t make things a capital-D Democracy, it’s the institutionalization of these practices.