Indeed. I’m just criticizing OP suggesting this might be a way to structure society in general. I’m a fan of anarchism, but like many idealized political systems it doesn’t work as advertised. Same for communism and capitalism. That’s why sensible nations have long chosen social capitalism.
No one is suggesting this is a way to structure society. It’s an example of a small, radical action an individual can take.
Anarchism can look like seemingly small, community-focused acts. The point is that it is not scary or apocalyptic. It is also not a single defined system that either “works” or “doesn’t work”.
Ararchism works great so long and the entire group is committed to the plan, and retains the power to expell any person who tries to take advantage. To each as required, from each as able is more arnarchistic than communist. It’s the attempt of one in group to obtain and retain that power of expulsion that leads to a power structure.
If they cannot play nicely, it’s not my prerogative to care. Imo anarchy is for people who can get along, those who cannot can go bar bar where ever they want, somewhere else.
And as long as the group is small and does not need to sustain itself without an external exchange of capital and goods. Like a commune, but working in the real world.
The group can be any size so long as everyone involved is against structured social power. How much digression from the ethos is allowed is up to the community at large
This is your brain on capitalism…
Indeed. I’m just criticizing OP suggesting this might be a way to structure society in general. I’m a fan of anarchism, but like many idealized political systems it doesn’t work as advertised. Same for communism and capitalism. That’s why sensible nations have long chosen social capitalism.
No one is suggesting this is a way to structure society. It’s an example of a small, radical action an individual can take.
Anarchism can look like seemingly small, community-focused acts. The point is that it is not scary or apocalyptic. It is also not a single defined system that either “works” or “doesn’t work”.
Ararchism works great so long and the entire group is committed to the plan, and retains the power to expell any person who tries to take advantage. To each as required, from each as able is more arnarchistic than communist. It’s the attempt of one in group to obtain and retain that power of expulsion that leads to a power structure.
what about the people you expell? what happens to them?
If they cannot play nicely, it’s not my prerogative to care. Imo anarchy is for people who can get along, those who cannot can go bar bar where ever they want, somewhere else.
your ideal society has a mechanism for depersoning a certain group of people to the point that they can be sent to die in the wilderness?
And as long as the group is small and does not need to sustain itself without an external exchange of capital and goods. Like a commune, but working in the real world.
The group can be any size so long as everyone involved is against structured social power. How much digression from the ethos is allowed is up to the community at large