Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

  • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    4 days ago

    In a right wing “anarchy”, dangerous foods will appear in the markets all the time.

    In a left wing anarchist society, the community would consult their experts on food safety then band together and colletively stop making such foods, and stop importing those from other communities.

    • Asetru@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      That’s anarchy? Wow, that’s dumb. They should not just collectively decide something. They should write down what they decided so that people who couldn’t attend or that later come from outside the community know what has been decided. Or, even better, if I know I can’t participate in the decision (or don’t want to) I should be able to pass my voice to somebody who’s there who I trust. Or, even better, just in case that person spontaneously gets sick or dies, to a group of people. Maybe, to get some consistency with people getting to know the details of the decision making process and the prior decisions, only redistribute these stand in votes every few years or so. Just to get the anarchy organised a bit.

      • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        That sounds great!

        Wait a minute… That doesn’t sound like anarchy… That sounds like democracy!

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      I have to admit I never really understood how anarchist societies were supposed to work. Now that you’ve pointed out they are just people banding together to make collective decisions based on expert information, I can’t fathom why I ever thought they could go wrong.

      • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Simple: they wouldn’t work that way.

        Left anarchism, like everything left, only works on paper.

        Here’s a few holes:

        • Who decides who is and isn’t an expert? Jim Jones was considered an expert by the Jonestown people, RFK is considered one by maga.

        • Assuming we find a way to establish an “expert” category of citizens, that’s already hierarchical. You now have a ruling class since these people get more of a say than the average person by virtue of their role, and don’t have a completely flat anarchist society anymore but instead a sort of representative technocracy.

        • Moreover anarchist societies are supposed to not employ coercion, so even if you had experts whose opinion dictates norms, how are you going to enforce them?

        Anarchists (left and right) reinvent the state, just shittier, less consistent, and without founding principles, every time they are put in front of the practical needs of a society where not everyone agrees with them.

        Some go as far as inventing authoritarian oligarchies, just ones they happen to agree with and thus support.

        • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Some go as far as inventing authoritarian oligarchies

          tankies are authoritarian, their “leftism” is just a disguise to obtain power

          • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            They are authoritarian and marxist leftists, they are not mutually exclusive, if anything they are more likely bedfellows than not, by necessity.

            You can’t have a free economy without decentralised price controls (i.e. a market) and you can’t have a market without ownership, so you will eventually end up having a control economy if you remove private ownership from the equation, and control economies are fundamentally authoritarian.

            The ultimate means of production is the person, and you don’t get to own it exclusively, even if it’s yourself.

            • blarghly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I think some market-based leftists have proposed various solutions for this problem, like mandating that all companies be run as coops. But I’m still skeptical of these for a number of reasons.

              • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                That’s also a non-solution, all it does is make scaling a company a huge mess, and contractorship basically mandatory for any kind of expansion.

                I.e. I don’t hire anyone cause they would need to buy into the co-op, or they’d have their surplus value taken and thus be exploited, so instead everyone makes self-employed ““co-ops”” and hires eachother as contracting businesses.

                It’s literally just capitalism with really stupid centralist extra steps.