What keeps individuals from benefiting from society without contributing to it? Who determines appropriate contributions? I don’t know if you can do that in an anarchical framework
The community itself would make those decisions in a way that works for them. Us telling them in the future now from the past how to live their lives is tyrannical
Does the majority need to agree with the decisions? Or could the majority appoint people to make the decisions? Or could one person simply take charge and unilaterally make decisions as a dictator? Would any of those be acceptable?
You do this already. If you are part of a church or friend group or organisation or whatever, you usually sort out issues when they come up by talking to one another. Saying people are going to vote is a weird framing of normal collaboration, because most of the time we agree on decisions by talking and compromising
I mean I should be able to name as many as anybody on the planet, including you. My point is that I am not going to say “well they might do X” because then from now on “X” becomes the focal point of the possibilities. I am not even going to hold my future self hostage to what present me suggests
Not at all. It’s “I am not going to tell others how to make decisions for their communities.” It really isn’t that difficult to use one’s imagination to come up with possibilities. You are a human being with a brain. You don’t need a Moses like me to lead you to the possibilities. You can do so yourself. This is the issue with global society now, we only do what others tell us is possible, we are terrified of imagining ourselves what can be possible. Think freely comrade, don’t let others dictate your future to you
The community themselves decide. If it’s enough of a problem, the community will organize to address it how they see fit. That’s the whole point of anarchism. We don’t have all the answers and we don’t claim to, the people that run into these issues will find the solutions that best suites their needs.
So does the community vote on everything then? If there are too many decisions, could they appoint someone to make some of the decisions on their behalf? Or does every little decision need to be voted on by everyone? If not, I don’t see how it’s different than democracy
Decisions concerning the community as a whole would probably be voted on, or at least discussed and a decision made by the community as a whole. Otherwise the only people that need to be concerned with something is those that are involved.
And about capitalism, rich people (and by “rich”, I mean people that don’t need to work to stay rich and stay getting richer) have more access and influence on decision making them anybody else.
Decision power should be spread more evenly, your society can have people delegated to take decisions, but that decisions should reflect the interest of the society as a whole, not only who gets economic power.
Agree, but are democracy and anarchy synonymous? The original post was taking about anarchical communism witch I thought was different than democratic socialism.
What keeps individuals from benefiting from society without contributing to it? Who determines appropriate contributions? I don’t know if you can do that in an anarchical framework
The community itself would make those decisions in a way that works for them. Us telling them in the future now from the past how to live their lives is tyrannical
Does the majority need to agree with the decisions? Or could the majority appoint people to make the decisions? Or could one person simply take charge and unilaterally make decisions as a dictator? Would any of those be acceptable?
See my comment above for answers to these questions
How would the community make the decisions? Would everyone have to vote on every issue that appears?
You do this already. If you are part of a church or friend group or organisation or whatever, you usually sort out issues when they come up by talking to one another. Saying people are going to vote is a weird framing of normal collaboration, because most of the time we agree on decisions by talking and compromising
I do agree in the small scale it works (ex: small village). But I don’t agree it scales to society as a whole.
See my comment above
Surely, with so many ways of making decisions that might work for each community, you can name one?
They would probably vote. How they’d vote idk, that’s not for me to decide.
I mean I should be able to name as many as anybody on the planet, including you. My point is that I am not going to say “well they might do X” because then from now on “X” becomes the focal point of the possibilities. I am not even going to hold my future self hostage to what present me suggests
So it’s basically “idk, but I know when we get there it’s going to be perfect… somehow”, got it.
Not at all. It’s “I am not going to tell others how to make decisions for their communities.” It really isn’t that difficult to use one’s imagination to come up with possibilities. You are a human being with a brain. You don’t need a Moses like me to lead you to the possibilities. You can do so yourself. This is the issue with global society now, we only do what others tell us is possible, we are terrified of imagining ourselves what can be possible. Think freely comrade, don’t let others dictate your future to you
The community themselves decide. If it’s enough of a problem, the community will organize to address it how they see fit. That’s the whole point of anarchism. We don’t have all the answers and we don’t claim to, the people that run into these issues will find the solutions that best suites their needs.
So does the community vote on everything then? If there are too many decisions, could they appoint someone to make some of the decisions on their behalf? Or does every little decision need to be voted on by everyone? If not, I don’t see how it’s different than democracy
Decisions concerning the community as a whole would probably be voted on, or at least discussed and a decision made by the community as a whole. Otherwise the only people that need to be concerned with something is those that are involved.
Democracy and capitalism are not synonymous.
And about capitalism, rich people (and by “rich”, I mean people that don’t need to work to stay rich and stay getting richer) have more access and influence on decision making them anybody else. Decision power should be spread more evenly, your society can have people delegated to take decisions, but that decisions should reflect the interest of the society as a whole, not only who gets economic power.
Agree, but are democracy and anarchy synonymous? The original post was taking about anarchical communism witch I thought was different than democratic socialism.
Valid point… Didn’t account for the anarchy part