Gregory's Server@amici
Maybe, I don't think too narrowly but you don't think broadly enough?
If citizens only engage on a self-chosen case-by-case basis or not at all, we'd end up with a January 6 type of group of people who're fed up with how things are not going their way.
"Think broadly enough" here means, include how human nature evidently works when you design a socio-economic system on paper.
Citizens must engage in decision-making, and must buy into the anarchic setup, or it won't work and break apart at the first supply shortage the community inevitably encounters. Also, some continuity for how things are run must be ensured. Participating in decision-making only once in a while means, everything is up for being questioned all the time.
|
Top-level
14 comments
 "If citizens only engage on a self-chosen case-by-case basis or not at all" There are no citizens in anarchist society, only participants. You either participate in communal life, or you live as an outsider. You are expected to respect others and their freedom, and you consult them and let them have the say if your projects interfere with their lives. If it doesn't interfere with their lives, then it's none of their business to begin with "or it won't work and break apart at the first supply shortage the community inevitably encounters" You think like a liberal who does not know what it means to love your fellow human beings or be part of a community. An anarchist isn't a consumer in an economy, they are more like the members of a vast family of variably strong ties. They are in it together. If there is a lack of goods ppl are supposed to assume the responsibility for increasing availability Just like a family doesn't fall apart merely because it is poor (indeed, rich families seem to fall apart very easily regardless), a society doesn't fall apart because it lacks goods. It falls apart because ppl don't assume responsibility and take charge. In an anarchist society, you can hope that somebody else makes a surplus of useful things, but if you want something done, you organize to have it done - production is a grass roots activity. When there are no owners of the means of production, you will realize that there is a world of possibilities out there for you to do things, to live a life of meaning, in charge of your own existence. This is a part of human nature that has been oppressed by capitalism and societies of privilege and control. We all can master nature's challenges. What is needed for that to happen is for ppl to give up on self-restrictions, and to share skills, tools, and responsibility > you can't imprison someone although you can stop them from harming others How would this work in practice if, for example, someone is hell-bent on killing people (e.g. due to mental illness)? Would you just throw them out of the city every time accepting that from time to time they would succeed? Would you execute them instead of imprisonment? While this question might sound like a troll, it is not. I am honestly curious how situations like this would be handled. First of all this question much oversimplifies human beings. There is no such human as you describe it, that is a cartoonish hypothetical. There are ppl who have periods of violent psychosis, sure, and there may be someone who develop a strong psychopathic behavior with homicidal leanings. You can confine such ppl while they pose an active threat, but you cannot sentence them and forget about them. Their confinement is predicated on the threat being active. While they are an active threat to others, they can choose to undergo reform as a way to prove that they are no longer an active threat. The point of saying no to jail, is to emphasize that a person is fundamentally free, and that taking away their freedom must be the last resort and a temporary solution. In cases of active conflict, you can kill someone, but your aim isn't to kill, but to render the opponent incapable of harming, to contain their threat. In the same way, jailing / sentencing someone for being threatening, and confining them while they plot to murder someone, are two very different aims and comes from two very different worldviews and views about human beings He wasn't hellbent on killing ppl, he was a person who took up terrorism because he thought that murdering those children would be instrumental to achieving political aims. He wasn't born with an urge to kill others. He was radicalized over time to believe the ends justifies the means Society starts where you cut off my sentence. There is no anarchism without individualism. It is not the neoliberal version, it is every version in a sense, though different versions emphasize it less than others. In anarchism, individualism and collectivism are joined. You aren't a slave to whoever controls society, but you are also morally responsible towards those with whom you choose to make society. There are no borders, so you won't be expected to be part of a society merely for existing or living within the same space as others, but you are always expected to treat others like their freedom is important, not just your own, and you will of course be judged as an asshole if you won't participate in necessary tasks while you live with others. You may not be required to do things, but you can still be disliked for acting especially selfish. |
@anlomedad @graywolf
No, not everything. There are basic principles in anarchism that you can't challenge without diverging from anarchism. It's like an unwritten constitution.
One of these core principles is that everyone should be free, insofar as their freedom does not substantially disrupt other people's freedom. From this principle, other more specific principles follow like nobody can be the master of another, and you can't imprison someone although you can stop them from harming others