• Natanael
    link
    fedilink
    56 hours ago

    Of course a group of people could use violence to oppress other people. But then you no longer have anarchy.

    The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      136 hours ago

      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)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      36 hours ago

      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.