Getting rid of any concept of a state is what allows corporations to fill the gap. It’s corporate feudalism. The only thing that can push back against a collective entity is another collective entity.
No one wants authoritarians telling us how to live our lives. People are the priority, not consolidating power into the hands of a few individual rulers.
You ask for anarchy without realizing that anarchy is what the rich fucks like elon really dream of. A world without governments where their exclusion from any obligations to society and legal responsibility can be institutionalized.
This does not end up how you think it does. Not allowing for unchecked corporate power doesn’t mean consolidation of government power into the hands of a few.
Our system is broken because we allow corporations to go around the people and buy influence directly from politicians. Not all systems have to do that.
But Removing the people that corporations are currently buying influence from doesn’t mean they do being bad. It just means they have even fewer obstacles to doing what they want than they do now.
Getting rid of any concept of a state is what allows corporations to fill the gap. It’s corporate feudalism. The only thing that can push back against a collective entity is another collective entity.
And a strong regulation state would just be corporate captured like it is today.
Not necessarily.
No, it allows people to fill in the gap.
No one wants authoritarians telling us how to live our lives. People are the priority, not consolidating power into the hands of a few individual rulers.
You ask for anarchy without realizing that anarchy is what the rich fucks like elon really dream of. A world without governments where their exclusion from any obligations to society and legal responsibility can be institutionalized.
And then we have true, official neofeudalism.
Muskrat is at best an anarchocapitalist, which isn’t real anarchism because it doesn’t reject hierarchy.
Really, he’s a what’s best for me fuck everyone else ideology but with white supremacist flavoring. Pick your label for it, but anarchist is not it.
Not saying he is an anarchist, just that he wants anarchism. So he can become the new state.
He wants chaos, not anarchism.
Anarchy is communism and he is arguing like a communist
You are right about why it doesn’t work, someone will just fill the gap
Anarchy is not communism.
Anarchy is a system that doesn’t have an overarching hierarchical governmental system. Anarchy is bottom-up rather than top-down social management.
Communism can spring from anarchy, but is not a necessary component nor a necessary outcome.
Libertarians are anarchists, but on the right. Suggest communism to a libertarian and see where it gets you.
Some but not all anarchy is communism.
This does not end up how you think it does. Not allowing for unchecked corporate power doesn’t mean consolidation of government power into the hands of a few.
Our system is broken because we allow corporations to go around the people and buy influence directly from politicians. Not all systems have to do that.
But Removing the people that corporations are currently buying influence from doesn’t mean they do being bad. It just means they have even fewer obstacles to doing what they want than they do now.
I think there might be a word for that