Economic models in anarchism: what actually works?
in Philosophy ·
William Gonzalez3 said:Honestly, you all are such little fighters.
If the US military were made up of people like you, toppling the global order and establishing a new one would probably be nothing more than a joke.
That being said, I suspect this discussion on anarchism shouldn't get too... well, anarchic—we really ought to steer back toward the actual subject at hand.
In my view, everyone seems to be approaching this from the wrong angle.
Essentially, you are searching for viable, practical economic models—and every other kind of framework, for that matter.
However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that anarchy is, by its very nature, a utopian concept. Therefore, any economic model intended to govern within it shouldn't be anything less than utopian—which is to say, impossible.
The possible simply cannot function within the impossible.
So, perhaps we should pivot toward looking at more idealistic solutions.
For instance, let's consider how an anarchist society might actually operate, and what specific preconditions would need to be met for it to even work.
In an anarchist system, society would have to act in direct opposition to how things work today regarding those who cause harm to the community.
Instead of rewarding or celebrating them—instead of feeling that envy or thinking, "Look at him, he really made it, if only I could do the same"—everyone should simply turn their backs on them.
Workers would need to refuse to work for unscrupulous employers; families would need to distance themselves from members who choose paths of vice, malice, or general debauchery.
To take a local example, an organized anarchy on a forum like this would be entirely feasible if the members of every sub-forum just ignored those who stir up trouble, commit wrongs, or spread toxic thoughts and bad vibes.
In that scenario, moderators wouldn't even be necessary.
Broadly speaking, if we functioned that way, neither institutions nor authorities would be needed, and the world certainly wouldn't descend into chaos.
Look, what’s "possible" always stays tucked inside certain boundaries, right? But the "impossible"—man, that thing has zero limits. That means the "impossible," even when it feels totally incomprehensible, actually swallows up the "possible" too.
Basically...
the "possible" can actually function within the realm of the "impossible."
And get this—on the fringes of what we call possible, you’ve got those "marginal" types—you know, the weirdos and outliers my aunts used to talk about—who basically leapfrog over the boundaries. They smash through barriers and turn the impossible into reality just by existing (just look at any major scientific breakthrough in American history).
Oh, and time is a massive factor here. Why? Because what’s a total impossibility today could easily be standard procedure tomorrow.
@redtinker36 — I dig everything you wrote, really, but I’m tripping over one thing: how can you claim you're nothing without neighbors, yet argue that anarchy is the future? See, if anarchy is where we're headed, then your whole list only matters if your neighbors lose so much value to you that you become totally indifferent toward them. You only truly become "Something" once your neighbors mean absolutely "Nothing" to you.
So, anarchy only works as a path forward if you're "something" while being alone. Like lions out on the plains. There’s no room for two males to coexist there (unless they’re brothers, and even then, it's rare).
Did I totally misread you, or are we speaking two different languages here?