4 ms·
Anarchism doesn't require everyone to cooperate. Anarchism requires identifying justifiable authority, and dismantling it. Certainly unjustifiable authority w
by AndyNemmity 2y ago
Anarchism doesn't require everyone to cooperate.
Anarchism requires identifying justifiable authority, and dismantling it.
Certainly unjustifiable authority won't cooperate.
- causal 2y agoTrying to figure out if that really leaves any room for non-cooperation. It sounds a lot like "cooperation is voluntary but you will be dismantled if you don't"
- AndyNemmity 2y agoIt leaves room for non-cooperation. Although we really must define what non-cooperation means in this context. Ending Slavery didn't leave room for the decision to non-cooperate with it, by continuing to own Slaves, or to be a Slave. Certainly depends on the specifics. Just like Slavery was dismantled with no choice for those who wished it to continue.
- causal 2y agoCan it tolerate someone having private property?
- AndyNemmity 2y agoThis is a very difficult question to answer. Because it's a gradient. Certainly it could tolerate it within a transition. You could imagine Worker controlled corporations entirely, however with private property still existing. I also think it depends heavily on the definition of private property, which is a specific set of rules in every locality. Certainly some of those rules would be different. But I think what you're getting at is, "What's the ideal?", and the answer I think would not tolerate private property. But honestly, I'm not sure I believe that. Again, I can think of definitions I think work.
- goatlover 2y agoAnd if some communities wish to be anarcho-capitalist, would they be permitted, or would other communities try to interfere?