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?
The guy that wrote the book on cooperative evolution was a prominent anarchist. Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution by Kropotkin would answer your question in long form.
In short, though, anarchy practices horizontal organization (which can be less intuitive to many). So one answer could be that the little guys don’t let the big guy beat them each up with the stick - i.e., mutual defense.
I want to flip the picture, though, and point out that anarchists oppose capitalism because it produces hierarchy and inequality. In the anarchist view, the “guy with the bigger stick” is currently protected by markets and a police apparatus that serves to protect capital accumulation and other private property. Anarchism generally opposes the structures that are required to keep the “guy with the bigger stick” in power when he is vastly outnumbered, so your question is probably more relevant to our present-day systems than anarchist ones.
Thats an interesting point. I‘ve read a lot of answers by now and I really enjoy how many different viewpoints and interpretations come together along with patterns of probably the core of the topic.
Person with big stick < A bunch of people with pockets full of rocks
Not when the big stick is made of enriched Uranium