• cacheson@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The difference is than in an ideal anarchist polity, the minority can secede, even down to the individual. “Majority rule” only happens to the extent that the minority doesn’t find secession to be a worthwhile option. Whereas under democracy, the land and resources of the minority, and even the people themselves are considered to rightfully belong to the state. Any serious attempt at secession is met with violence.

    Actually-existing “anarchistic” societies may not completely live up to this ideal, but it is what we strive for. Anarchists consider freedom of association and freedom of disassociation to be paramount.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a nice concept that maybe could work if you live in a society without any shared resource, no infrastructure at all and no things that are built in a shared way, since everyone needs to be independent and self-sufficient enough to secede at any time.

      I think, even at neolithic times we might have been too advanced for that to work.

      • cacheson@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t mean that people can’t coordinate, just that the coordination needs to be voluntary. Think networks rather than hierarchies.

        It’s similar to how the fediverse is organized. Any instance can defederate from any other for any reason, but we all try to mostly stick together, because there’s benefits to doing so. Those that are dissatisfied with the policies of the instance that they’re on can break off and form their own (ideally we’d have account migration too, but that’ll take time). No one is forced to connect, but the whole thing works regardless.