• lugal@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes, because anarchism is against all hierarchies and the class system is a form of hierarchy. Instead, decisions should me made collectively, for example in councils open for everyone

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      So, do the anarchists not think that capitalism will just prevail and bring along with it the classes of the haves and have nots? Anarchy won’t solve the problem of wealth inequality, will it? I have genuinely never understood this aspect of anarchism.

      • groet@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

    • KindaABigDyl@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Isn’t anarchy just against imposed hierarchy? Most anarchists I’ve met are okay with heirarchies that form naturally, and believe those hierarchies to be enough for society to function, hence why they call themselves anarchists, not minarchists.

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I have never heard the term minarchist. Many anarchists say, we need structures against the building of hierarchies, like avoiding knowledge hierarchies by doing skillshares.

        Natural authorities are a different topic. I think Kropotkin was an example of a leader who was accepted because everyone agreed with him. Once he said something people didn’t like, they rejected him as a leader. You can call this a hierarchy if you like. I wouldn’t because he couldn’t coerce his followers but this is pure terminology.

    • arendjr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.

      In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/