So, do the anarchists not think that capitalism will just prevail and bring along with it the classes of the haves and have nots? Anarchy won’t solve the problem of wealth inequality, will it? I have genuinely never understood this aspect of anarchism.
Anarchism is opposition to power hierarchies, specifically non-consensual or coercive ones. Wealth inequality without safety networks is a coercive power hierarchy, and so needs to be fought. Capitalism as a whole is almost always incompatible with anarchy, at least in the way we tend to do it now. In a system with strong social safety networks the choice to work for someone can actually be a choice, and so some schools of thought would view it as compatible.
Others view exclusive ownership of property as someone asserting power over someone else’s ability to use said property, and therefore wrong. Needless to say, abolition of private property is not compatible with capitalism.
Capitalism as a whole is almost always incompatible with anarchy, at least in the way we tend to do it now.
That last part is really important. Many anarchists, socialists, and whatnot recognize that capitalism can be fine. It’s just that humans really suck at doing capitalism, we keep doing pseudo-feudalism instead
Hoarding resources will be banned. If you start doing it, we’ll beat you up before you can get enough to hire a private army. Also, only the most corrupt people would go work as a private soldier, because everyone’s needs are met so there’s no poverty to drive people to do bad things. You’d have to promise private security a lot of money to betray their nation for basically no reason.
So this anarchy is a self contained commune where nobody is allowed in that doesn’t agree with the rules. And if somebody breaks the rules, they must leave. This sums it up? It can’t apply to a country because that would never work. But to a small village, sure.
Also, hopefully the people outside the village don’t find ways of fucking with them (such as redirecting waterways that affect the downstream village).
Yes, my understanding is that Anarchists want to break down governments into smaller and smaller bits in order to allow for more and more direct democracy and cooperation.
I’ve definitely come to understand there’s a lot of brands of anarchism. I don’t think my initial opinion about anarchism has changed much, though, but I understand there is much more nuance to it.
So, do the anarchists not think that capitalism will just prevail and bring along with it the classes of the haves and have nots? Anarchy won’t solve the problem of wealth inequality, will it? I have genuinely never understood this aspect of anarchism.
Anarchism is opposition to power hierarchies, specifically non-consensual or coercive ones. Wealth inequality without safety networks is a coercive power hierarchy, and so needs to be fought. Capitalism as a whole is almost always incompatible with anarchy, at least in the way we tend to do it now. In a system with strong social safety networks the choice to work for someone can actually be a choice, and so some schools of thought would view it as compatible.
Others view exclusive ownership of property as someone asserting power over someone else’s ability to use said property, and therefore wrong. Needless to say, abolition of private property is not compatible with capitalism.
That last part is really important. Many anarchists, socialists, and whatnot recognize that capitalism can be fine. It’s just that humans really suck at doing capitalism, we keep doing pseudo-feudalism instead
I actually really like this analysis
We’re gonna beat up the capitalists
You don’t think the capitalists would have the resources to defend themselves?
Hoarding resources will be banned. If you start doing it, we’ll beat you up before you can get enough to hire a private army. Also, only the most corrupt people would go work as a private soldier, because everyone’s needs are met so there’s no poverty to drive people to do bad things. You’d have to promise private security a lot of money to betray their nation for basically no reason.
So this anarchy is a self contained commune where nobody is allowed in that doesn’t agree with the rules. And if somebody breaks the rules, they must leave. This sums it up? It can’t apply to a country because that would never work. But to a small village, sure.
Also, hopefully the people outside the village don’t find ways of fucking with them (such as redirecting waterways that affect the downstream village).
Yes, my understanding is that Anarchists want to break down governments into smaller and smaller bits in order to allow for more and more direct democracy and cooperation.
This sounds interesting, and not at all what I would have thought of as anarchy. It definitely requires solidarity among its people.
I should say, that’s not how all Anarchists view it, but as far as I identify as an anarchist, that’s what Anarchism is.
I’ve definitely come to understand there’s a lot of brands of anarchism. I don’t think my initial opinion about anarchism has changed much, though, but I understand there is much more nuance to it.