Thanks for this article, I too have the same gripes about the usury and predatory domination of the government/economy that characterizes humanity’s condition. I think being able to reach decisions on a daily basis with fellow humans without mini wars breaking out amongst family/friends/neighbors makes us think “well why can’t we just ke…
Thanks for this article, I too have the same gripes about the usury and predatory domination of the government/economy that characterizes humanity’s condition. I think being able to reach decisions on a daily basis with fellow humans without mini wars breaking out amongst family/friends/neighbors makes us think “well why can’t we just keep doing it like this on all levels of society?” I do think that the continued amassing of humans is what makes the ability to keep things that civil more and more tenuous.
In an anarchist society, from what I gathered from the article, it’s based more on a true popular vote to make decisions. As the population of the community increases, is it practical to call for a 100% participation vote on every step of the way? I feel like at some point, representatives or governing bodies will be appointed, and now we have people who have been given a measure of power. Ideally, they strictly do the will of the people though. But what is their incentive for shouldering a heavier responsibility than those who aren’t in that position, more pay/distinct privileges? A class starts to form.
In any case, given that things will be held to a true popular vote, when heavy decisions are given in favor of the majority, the minority are going to have to deal with it. Will they be able to? I hope so. Will some folks be frustrated enough with not getting their way and start doing what they want anyway? Will someone rise up to fight the cause of the minority, perhaps “campaign” for a representative position? Will folks somehow find a commonality in their views, clumping up as a separate identity distinct from the rest?
I would waaay prefer folks to be decent enough to make the anarchist way work, because there’s no doubt that these governments are self serving and abusive. But I have a hard time seeing how good-natured humans will continue to be as the numbers of a community rise, especially since the abusive governments we have today all originate with these same good natured humans.
These are great questions, and there are different possible answers that have worked well in real non-hierarchal societies. I’d like to share more of those examples in my future articles, but you can find some in books like Anarchy In Action & Anarchy Works in the meantime.
But I always think it is important to realise that Anarchism doesn’t rely on people being angels to function successful, it focuses on removing people having power over others so that if they have far less potential to do damage. Whereas our current systems allow rulers to do a great deal of evil in the name of maintaining power.
As for the question of numbers I agree that a community is most cohesive when people all know each other, so the important thing is to not lose this, for this to form the basis of society, from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
Thanks for this article, I too have the same gripes about the usury and predatory domination of the government/economy that characterizes humanity’s condition. I think being able to reach decisions on a daily basis with fellow humans without mini wars breaking out amongst family/friends/neighbors makes us think “well why can’t we just keep doing it like this on all levels of society?” I do think that the continued amassing of humans is what makes the ability to keep things that civil more and more tenuous.
In an anarchist society, from what I gathered from the article, it’s based more on a true popular vote to make decisions. As the population of the community increases, is it practical to call for a 100% participation vote on every step of the way? I feel like at some point, representatives or governing bodies will be appointed, and now we have people who have been given a measure of power. Ideally, they strictly do the will of the people though. But what is their incentive for shouldering a heavier responsibility than those who aren’t in that position, more pay/distinct privileges? A class starts to form.
In any case, given that things will be held to a true popular vote, when heavy decisions are given in favor of the majority, the minority are going to have to deal with it. Will they be able to? I hope so. Will some folks be frustrated enough with not getting their way and start doing what they want anyway? Will someone rise up to fight the cause of the minority, perhaps “campaign” for a representative position? Will folks somehow find a commonality in their views, clumping up as a separate identity distinct from the rest?
I would waaay prefer folks to be decent enough to make the anarchist way work, because there’s no doubt that these governments are self serving and abusive. But I have a hard time seeing how good-natured humans will continue to be as the numbers of a community rise, especially since the abusive governments we have today all originate with these same good natured humans.
These are great questions, and there are different possible answers that have worked well in real non-hierarchal societies. I’d like to share more of those examples in my future articles, but you can find some in books like Anarchy In Action & Anarchy Works in the meantime.
But I always think it is important to realise that Anarchism doesn’t rely on people being angels to function successful, it focuses on removing people having power over others so that if they have far less potential to do damage. Whereas our current systems allow rulers to do a great deal of evil in the name of maintaining power.
As for the question of numbers I agree that a community is most cohesive when people all know each other, so the important thing is to not lose this, for this to form the basis of society, from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
I look forward to the articles yet to come, thank you