No anarchists believe humans will become saints, or that anarchism necessitates people being good by nature, so I’m not sure who you’re responding to. Certainly not me! You’re thinking of neoliberalism, which is based on the lie that we can all become shiny happy people, and then suddenly capitalism will start working.
Rather, anarchism recognizes that the lion’s share of injustices that are meted out on both a small and large scale are a result of inherently inequitable systems like imperialism, capitalism, and statehood; and hierarchical power structures.
It’s not like instituting anarchism will eliminate all ax murderers or thieves (though thieves would have a rather silly time of it under anarchism), but it works because it is in our own selfish best interests to live in a community of others with a varying range of interests and skill sets.
Hell, Kropotkin even recognizes that people might still long for things like luxury goods within the first generation of an anarchist society, after which such pursuits would be clearly a fool’s errand.
But sure, there’s nothing stopping you from removing yourself from a community, or from behaving in such an egregious way that necessitates your removal by direct action. But when you start breaking down why these petty acts of violence happen against others, most of them can be attributed to: 1. Inequities caused by a system that creates them, 2. Influences of a state, and 3. The existence of hierarchies.
Going back to the teacher example: A bad teacher will say “because I said so,” a better teacher will explain why they said so, but a great teacher will work alongside the class to create a class contract for establishing ground rules, which are open to discussion at any time. You might claim the teacher is at the top of a hierarchy because of their training, education, and skillset, but I would argue that’s not a hierarchy. When I call an electrician, it’s not because I’m above them or they’re above me – they have a certain set of skills to be shared. No hierarchy inherent in that.
No anarchists believe humans will become saints, or that anarchism necessitates people being good by nature, so I’m not sure who you’re responding to. Certainly not me! You’re thinking of neoliberalism, which is based on the lie that we can all become shiny happy people, and then suddenly capitalism will start working.
Rather, anarchism recognizes that the lion’s share of injustices that are meted out on both a small and large scale are a result of inherently inequitable systems like imperialism, capitalism, and statehood; and hierarchical power structures.
It’s not like instituting anarchism will eliminate all ax murderers or thieves (though thieves would have a rather silly time of it under anarchism), but it works because it is in our own selfish best interests to live in a community of others with a varying range of interests and skill sets.
Hell, Kropotkin even recognizes that people might still long for things like luxury goods within the first generation of an anarchist society, after which such pursuits would be clearly a fool’s errand.
But sure, there’s nothing stopping you from removing yourself from a community, or from behaving in such an egregious way that necessitates your removal by direct action. But when you start breaking down why these petty acts of violence happen against others, most of them can be attributed to: 1. Inequities caused by a system that creates them, 2. Influences of a state, and 3. The existence of hierarchies.
Going back to the teacher example: A bad teacher will say “because I said so,” a better teacher will explain why they said so, but a great teacher will work alongside the class to create a class contract for establishing ground rules, which are open to discussion at any time. You might claim the teacher is at the top of a hierarchy because of their training, education, and skillset, but I would argue that’s not a hierarchy. When I call an electrician, it’s not because I’m above them or they’re above me – they have a certain set of skills to be shared. No hierarchy inherent in that.
Dude stop with the walls of text. I thought the meme was an exaggeration but leftists really think they’re right just because they wrote more
“I insist that you respond to my glib dismissive (and incorrect) comments, but you are not allowed sufficient space to explain yourself”
Pretty fashy derailment tactic on your part, don’t you think? What next – tone policing?
Writing more is not writing better. In fact, condensing ideas in a few words is
My comments aren’t that long, though
Skill issue
Almost 50 lines is quite long for a comment