Anarchism

3885 readers

1 users here now

Are you an Anarchist? The answer might surprise you!

Rules:

Be respectful
Don't be a nazi
Argue about the point and not the person
This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.

See also:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

In an anarchist world, food would be free right? (midwest.social)

submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

In a Left-Libertarian utopia all basic human rights / needs would surely be freely met for everyone : shelter, clothes, warmth, food and clean water, healthcare, education...

How humanity can deem itself civilized when there are those without these things is a mystery to me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 years ago

This depends alot on the anarchist world, the state and the development an anarchist society has taken up to the point of perception. Not all anarchist ideas include the instant abolition of money as a concept, some ideas include the shift to other forms of exchange.

For an in-depth read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago

You would be free to chose a community where it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Couldn't you choose whether it's free or not?

[+] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

Anarchist society is usually thought of as a system of voluntary association, sometimes also called "voting with your feet". Thus there might be communities that decide by consensus that the provision of food is conditional, but unless it is a mild condition like "you have to help preparing the food" many people would probably find it unethical and move somewhere else (or split up the community to change the rules).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

So if I'm understanding this correctly, if the majority of people in a certain anarchist society decided to deprive certain people of food, the onus would be on the individual(s) deprived of food to leave their home(s) and current lifestyle(s) if they don't like being deprived of food?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

No, that would be the dictatorship of the 51%, a concept strongly opposed by nearly all anarchists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

there might be communities that decide by consensus that the provision of food is conditional

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

You seem to be not aware of what "consensus" means.

Sorry, but I am happy to discuss this with you after you read up on some fundamentals (or stop being contrarian on purpose).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

That sounds like a hoppeanism (ancap) philosophy https://polcompball.miraheze.org/wiki/Hoppeanism