zlacker

>>obilgi+(OP)
A friend lives in Seattle and texted me today about his visit last night:

> I was there last night and it's such a cool pseudo utopian place

> The media coverage of it is WILD

> People on the internet are convinced it's protected by armed guards and people are dying of hunger and instead its...like a music festival campground

> There are speakers, musicians, art walls. I took a group pic for a bunch of black guys last night and they were so proud of what was built because they felt like they fought for it, which in a sense, they did.

>>conroy+fz1
> a music festival campground

Which is fun for a while until people start dying or fighting like they always do and suddenly you need a group of people who spend their time dealing with it. Anarchic utopias do not stay utopic for all that long.

>>solida+HB1
> Anarchic utopias do not stay utopic for all that long.

At least one counterexample to this is Exarcheia[1] in Athens, which has been relatively unpoliced for the last 50 years.

I was there about a year ago and was struck by how both peaceful and lively it was. Nowhere in Athens felt nearly as alive.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exarcheia

>>woodru+GH1
Does self policing constitute anarchist? The few times I've dug into the background of anarchist communities have shown they do have some enforcement of social standards, and can effectively be viewed as a smaller scale government that the larger government has decided to take a more hands off approach compare to other areas of similar size that attempt to act legally independent.

>>SkyBel+uC3
Yes! Anarchist does not imply "individuals can do whatever they like", that's more a right-Libertarian thing. Anarchism (or at least the relevant bit here) is largely the idea of challenging and trying to avoid creating persistent power structures and dynamics, so communities regulating themselves without creating a persistent, external-to-the-community police force is very anarchist.