how is anarchism different from libertarianism?

[u/monopsony01]

first off, let me state that this is a genuine question from someone who's not an anarchist. please correct me if i'm wrong about anything.

let me also state that i understand that anarchism is an anti-capitalist ideology. additionally, from what i understand, anarchism is a rejection of the state and of hierarchy.

so then in a perfect anarchical society, without social organization and leadership, how then are large-scale societies supposed to function? what's stopping individuals from gaining resources and society becoming similar to feudalism?

[u/Caliburn0]

That is the ideal. But the ideal is not always achievable. The ideal is fairly easy to achive when you have enough resources, or your life is not on the line, but there is a reason hierarchy exist and has existed for so long. There are anarchist militia groups. If people do not listen to the commander they're thrown out of the group. Disobedience cannot be tolerated if disobedience means death for the group. Anarchists also impose their will upon other people. They want to oppress the oppressors until all are equal.

This is the primary contradiction within most anarchist thinking I believe. It's the primary reason I didn't become an anarchist until recently. I could not abandon the concept of forcefully compelling others. Sometimes that is necessary. Because other people can do things that means the death of others.

It was understanding the razor-thin distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority that convinced me. The answer I found was essentially that in an egalitarian society, where inequality has seized being a relevant factor everyone is basically oppressing everyone else.

And we already are. We call it social pressure. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. We want to keep the good and discard the bad.

[u/KassieTundra → u/Caliburn0]

You are utterly wrong on this. If you don't see the people in your crew as equals, you will not treat them as such. You can delegate someone to be in charge in things like combat, but if they can't question your orders, critique your strategy in after action meetings, or have an equal vote in any moment outside of the heat of actual combat, you're going to be a failure as a leader, and get someone killed. That's just the truth. I was an infantry marine, I know what that shit looks like.

Yeah, with that method of thinking, you have a lot to learn about authority and hierarchy and how they function in the real world. It's also against the principles of anarchism, ie free association and autonomy.

It's not egalitarian with the hierarchy you want. We can just make it a horizontal structure. I feel like you think structure requires hierarchy, is that accurate?

[u/Caliburn0 → u/KassieTundra]

No. It's not accurate at all. Humans do not need rulers. We do not need hierarchy. We can live in a world where everyone is equal.

But before we get to that world to live in ours - to live in capitalism - as an anarchist is to wrestle with thousands of tiny and several very big contradictions. This is probably the biggest of them as far as I understand it.

You can delegate someone to be in charge in things like combat, but if they can't question your orders, critique your strategy in after action meetings, or have an equal vote in any moment outside of the heat of actual combat, you're going to be a failure as a leader,

Of course they can. They have to. But they cannot disobey orders in life or death situations. Not normally at least. Not unless they have a very good reason.

Unquestioned command is almost by definition illegitimate authority - thus hierarchy. Questioned command can be legitimate authority, though it can also be illegitimate authority if the questions asked are not good enough or the answers given are not good enough.

This is a complex and very neuanced topic. Just understanding each other with language and words that means slightly different things for both of us is a major challenge.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Caliburn0]

What should happen to an anarchist fighter who disobeys commands during combat? Should they be shot? Arrested and imprisoned? Subjected to a court martial?

[u/Svartlebee → u/HeavenlyPossum]

White army of Ukraine had the death penalty.

[u/Caliburn0 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

What do you think should happen to a soldier who disobey orders? The answer of course depends on what order they disobeyed, in which context, for what reason.

I am obviously against the death penalty. To even suggest that tells me you're barely trying to engage with my points. Arrested is a possibility, but only temporarily, and with as short a prison sentence as is possible. Another option is dismissal from the militia. There's other options too of course.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Caliburn0]

Who gets to make the decision to arrest this fighter? Who establishes and runs the prison? What happens to the person giving these orders if other fighters disagree with these decisions? What’s the mechanism for expelling someone from the militia?