Second meme (hopefully better)
Second meme (hopefully better)
Transcription: White text on black background with the anarchist logo at the top reading "True freedom begins when everyone starts listening to everyone else". At the bottom left corner is a signature "ee/u/val".
You're viewing a single thread.
I recently heard "Freedom is the availability of choice." This not only feels like the correct definition, it also includes how poverty strips freedom away by limiting choice. When we say freedom we typically mean political freedom, but I think we should adapt this definition so we can also include economic freedoms.
The anarchists will argue against wealth redistribution because it takes (forcefully via taxes) money from the richer, thus committing a larger sin of anti-freedom than giving this economic freedom for the poorer. You can not make forcefully responsible one person for another person freedoms in anarchism.
Anarchists argue that capitalism is an oppressive hierarchy that should be dismantled. That the ruling class is using money as a tool to oppress the poor and restrict their freedom.
Anarchism is a leftist/socialist way of thought. It does not protect the rich. Any anarchist who protects the rich is an oxymoron. Like the "anarcho-capitalists".
For further reading: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secf1
Sure, anarcho-communists and syndicalists would like just essentially abolish private ownership of means of manufacturing, but not anarcho-individualists. I guess I should have been more clear that I meant my answer from anarcho-individualist point of view.
Sorry! I over-reacted. You are absolutely right. I am just used to the communist/syndicalist side and so when seeing someone talk about anarchism being against taxes the mind immediately jumps to the an-cap conclusion.
However I wonder how does individualist anarchism deal with wealth inequality? And the above mentioned economic freedoms limiting political freedom?
Free Markets: Anarcho-individualists support free markets as a means to distribute resources efficiently. They argue that without state interference, markets would naturally adjust to ensure fair competition and opportunity for all.
Elimination of Monopolies: They believe that many forms of economic inequality stem from monopolies and privileges granted by the state. By eliminating these, they argue that individuals would have equal opportunities to succeed based on their talents and efforts.
Voluntary Mutual Aid: While they reject compulsory welfare systems, anarcho-individualists support voluntary mutual aid societies, where individuals can freely join and contribute to support each other in times of need.
Education and Empowerment: Anarcho-individualists stress the importance of education and self-improvement as means for individuals to improve their circumstances. They argue that an educated and informed populace is better equipped to challenge and overcome social inequalities.
Personal Responsibility: They emphasize personal responsibility and self-reliance. Each individual is seen as responsible for their own well-being and should not depend on coercive institutions for support.
Non-Aggression Principle: This principle states that individuals should not initiate force or coercion against others. By adhering to this principle, anarcho-individualists believe that a just and equitable society can be achieved where individuals respect each other's rights and freedoms
Please note, I personally am not an anarchist, even though I find many principles attractive. I just don't think that they will work because of the voluntary aspects and internal contradictions (e.g. no state, but elimination of the monopolies. How?)
A very important thing about individualist and mutualist anarchists that you completely omitted is that they are market socialists. They want an economy run by coops. By omitting this huge point, you described "anarcho"-capitalism. It would be lying by omission if done intentionally, though I believe that you have simply made an honest mistake.
A state is not the only way that people organize themselves and make decisions. A state forms when a person or group of people make decisions for the people in a given territory as a whole, and then impose these decisions on them through force or the threat of force. If the people make decisions collectively, without relying on kings, presidents, or senators and these decisions are not enforced by an unaccountable army/police force, then you have anarchy.
Under such a system, it is completely feasible to prevent the formation of monopolies, even if you still use a market. First, coops do not have as much of a drive towards monopolization that capitalist enterprises do. This is because the earnings of the decision-makers is not based on extracting surplus value from wage laborers. Second, if monopoly formation is noticed, then the next time the community holds an assembly, they can vote to break up the would-be monopoly.
Finally, individualist/mutualist anarchists would argue in favour of wealth redistribution. Recall that the rich have amassed their wealth through exploitation of the poor. It would be right to reverse such injustice.
You would do well to read the FAQ that the other guy linked. It talks about individualist anarchists too.
How is that different from anarcho-syndicalism?
The market and the lack of coordination between cooperatives?