The system where someone monopolizes a essential good and leverages that to gain power is called anarcho-capitalism and is a whole different thing.
In anarchy, ownership on that level does not exist. Neither a company nor a person can own a factory, or a farm, or the power grid. Employment doesn’t exist. People can band together and distribute tasks for a common goal (such as producing a certain good) but they all hold equal stake in all decisions.
Of course a group of people could use violence to oppress other people. But then you no longer have anarchy. The same way a democracy stops beeing a democracy once a group seizes power and doesn’t allow fair elections anymore.
Neither a company nor a person can own a factory, or a farm, or the power grid
And who is going to stop a company from owning a factory or a farm? It wouldn’t even require violence for a company to do so. It just requires them to have enough resources to pay people to do it.
I guess I don’t see what you call “anarchy” as a system that would ever exist more than a year. The end result would always be “anarcho-capitalism”. That, or, people would have to form their own government to prevent that system.
The company would need violence. There’s no reason for workers to work in a factory for less money than their goods are sold for, and there’s no reason for the company to pay workers more than the goods are sold for. Without violence the workers could just produce and sell the goods themselves and ignore the company.
Yeah, that’s what I mean, the workers could go in the factory, produce the goods, and sell them, if the company did not use violence. It’s not clear where the factory came from in this hypothetical. The community could’ve built it, it could have been abandoned, or the company could’ve claimed they “owned” it (which is not possible in the society, so it would be seized).
Is this a society without computers and other modern day electronics? Or do you think workers will be able to handle developing technology on their own?
Well, it’s unlikely the entire world will turn anarchist all at once, and the modern supply chain is global, so the anarchist community would trade for what they need from outside the community. Or they may choose to go anarcho-primitivism I guess. I think some remote indigenous tribes we have now could be considered anarcho-primitivist. The most successful anarcho-socialist community would probably be the Zapatistas.
The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism
This is a common misunderstanding. While there are anti organisationist anarchists, others dream of a world while spanning confederation based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchism in general isn’t the absence of organization but the absence of hierarchy and domination (therefore isn’t anticapitalist in nature)
It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.
You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.
That’s more or less where anarcho-syndaclism goes. Get all the workers into unions who take over their companies and turn them into co-ops. Then the co-ops collaborate and you don’t need the state or anything else.
The system where someone monopolizes a essential good and leverages that to gain power is called anarcho-capitalism and is a whole different thing. In anarchy, ownership on that level does not exist. Neither a company nor a person can own a factory, or a farm, or the power grid. Employment doesn’t exist. People can band together and distribute tasks for a common goal (such as producing a certain good) but they all hold equal stake in all decisions.
Of course a group of people could use violence to oppress other people. But then you no longer have anarchy. The same way a democracy stops beeing a democracy once a group seizes power and doesn’t allow fair elections anymore.
And who is going to stop a company from owning a factory or a farm? It wouldn’t even require violence for a company to do so. It just requires them to have enough resources to pay people to do it.
I guess I don’t see what you call “anarchy” as a system that would ever exist more than a year. The end result would always be “anarcho-capitalism”. That, or, people would have to form their own government to prevent that system.
The company would need violence. There’s no reason for workers to work in a factory for less money than their goods are sold for, and there’s no reason for the company to pay workers more than the goods are sold for. Without violence the workers could just produce and sell the goods themselves and ignore the company.
The factory helps make the goods though
Yeah, that’s what I mean, the workers could go in the factory, produce the goods, and sell them, if the company did not use violence. It’s not clear where the factory came from in this hypothetical. The community could’ve built it, it could have been abandoned, or the company could’ve claimed they “owned” it (which is not possible in the society, so it would be seized).
Is this a society without computers and other modern day electronics? Or do you think workers will be able to handle developing technology on their own?
Well, it’s unlikely the entire world will turn anarchist all at once, and the modern supply chain is global, so the anarchist community would trade for what they need from outside the community. Or they may choose to go anarcho-primitivism I guess. I think some remote indigenous tribes we have now could be considered anarcho-primitivist. The most successful anarcho-socialist community would probably be the Zapatistas.
The community. With hockey sticks.
The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism
This is a common misunderstanding. While there are anti organisationist anarchists, others dream of a world while spanning confederation based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchism in general isn’t the absence of organization but the absence of hierarchy and domination (therefore isn’t anticapitalist in nature)
It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.
You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.
True, that’s also a form of anarchism
That’s more or less where anarcho-syndaclism goes. Get all the workers into unions who take over their companies and turn them into co-ops. Then the co-ops collaborate and you don’t need the state or anything else.