4 ms·
which is exactly why we should try and make sure that we don't have in-groups that have too much wealth or power.
by mercer 6y ago
which is exactly why we should try and make sure that we don't have in-groups that have too much wealth or power.
- smabie 6y agoHow do we do that? What you're saying is a common tenant of anarchism, but unfortunately, anarchy is unstable. Groups will merge and power will be concentrated until there exists an equilibrium.
- mercer 6y agoThe point is to be the counter-weight to the process you describe (which I agree is what happens). It's not that we can banish in-groups or concentration and power, it's rather that we /can/ put our efforts in preventing or mediating this. And this very effort is what leads to whatever equilibrium we end up with. Consider the current discussion surrounding police brutality in te US, and the racial aspect of it. I don't think anyone expects we'll have 'no police' or 'no racism'. But like in any negotiation, I think it's sensible for the starting point to be more than you hope for, which in the case of many protestors might be operationalized as 'abolish the police' (which sounds quite anarchistic), and in the case of 'the powers that be' might be limp-dicked stuff like "let's just put more camera's on cops' attire but no legal consequences if the footage is lost".