Liberalism support a monopoly on violence, and capitalising the markets. This created the plutocracy that fascists are enjoying today, and continue to enjoy othering and creating the greatest class discrepancy our planet has witnessed.
Anarchism says no to rulers, no to hierarchies. Total horizontally of power and means. Everyone deserves guns, no cops, no politburo/политбюро. The “markets” would be owned by the workers, and what they produce goes to them completely. No corporate owners or C-suites to steal the means workers produce. Most produce waste would cease, since folks can legally recycle and reuse, instead of disposed of goods.
Anarchism is therefore incompatible with Liberalism, because Liberals demand monopolies, and Anarchists demand syndicates. One has a rule, the other a federation of rules.
I don’t think the proliferation of violence is a good thing. I think the most powerful entity having control of violence makes the most sense, as it reduces the amount of violence. That is, assuming that entity is sufficiently limited and democratic, but that of course is the foundation of liberalism.
I think most social democrats would be in favor of private co-ops, state owned industries, and recycling.
If factories/offices were owned by a co-op though, wtih no state, what incentive would they have to let you repair/recycle their product? Who would stop them from putting DRM in their product, and gluing everything together? Who would enforce right-to-repair laws?
the most powerful entity having control of violence makes the most sense, as it reduces the amount of violence. That is, assuming that entity is sufficiently limited and democratic
This is incredibly naïve, because then the instigators of violence end up becoming the state itself. That’s exactly how you get mobsters, warlords, and gestapos. Enough Watergates, and you get the last Edward Snowden, ever. How many more state sanctioned [qualified immune] violence do you need until the last indigenous person is democratically eradicated? (Counting here all Liberal Nations today that still instigate genocide against the indigenous, not just 🇺🇲)
what incentive would [Syndicates] have to let you repair/recycle their product?
The same ones their families and other syndicates would need. If we use the lumber, nails, glue, saws, screws, and sanders to make chairs (metaphor), every worker from their families needs chairs to work, live, and play musical chairs. The demand would produce its need. If they break, we repair, since chairs are necessary for an anarchy.
Who would stop them from putting DRM in their product, and [planning obsolescence]?
The same ones that prevent folks from drinking poison from a known snake oil dealer: demand of disassociation, and refusal to use poisoned goods.
If a chair breaks day one from a syndicate known to make bad chairs, do you go to the same syndicate to get a new longer lasting chair? The metaphor here would be a chair that doesn’t chair without a lock and self-deterioration. Anarchists would just boycott that syndicate from making unchairs.
Who would enforce right-to-repair laws?
Flip this question, because the quo has always been your right to repair. Capitalists forbade you these rights you always had. Liberalism allowed patents, copyrights, EULAs, and regulations from even prohibiting you to reverse engineer and syndicate better products.
Anarchists hate the Liberals that allowed these monopolies to form. So why would anarchists rob you of your rights to look at how stuff works, and make better things?
Liberals hate that right, and desire only elites have that right, so they created the ones who have a right to repair it, and those that can manufacture the product, and you the user without the degree, certification, or license to do either of these things, lest you want a fine, jail time, or worse.
Liberalism support a monopoly on violence, and capitalising the markets. This created the plutocracy that fascists are enjoying today, and continue to enjoy othering and creating the greatest class discrepancy our planet has witnessed.
Anarchism says no to rulers, no to hierarchies. Total horizontally of power and means. Everyone deserves guns, no cops, no politburo/политбюро. The “markets” would be owned by the workers, and what they produce goes to them completely. No corporate owners or C-suites to steal the means workers produce. Most produce waste would cease, since folks can legally recycle and reuse, instead of disposed of goods.
Anarchism is therefore incompatible with Liberalism, because Liberals demand monopolies, and Anarchists demand syndicates. One has a rule, the other a federation of rules.
Thanks for the explanation.
I don’t think the proliferation of violence is a good thing. I think the most powerful entity having control of violence makes the most sense, as it reduces the amount of violence. That is, assuming that entity is sufficiently limited and democratic, but that of course is the foundation of liberalism.
I think most social democrats would be in favor of private co-ops, state owned industries, and recycling.
If factories/offices were owned by a co-op though, wtih no state, what incentive would they have to let you repair/recycle their product? Who would stop them from putting DRM in their product, and gluing everything together? Who would enforce right-to-repair laws?
This is incredibly naïve, because then the instigators of violence end up becoming the state itself. That’s exactly how you get mobsters, warlords, and gestapos. Enough Watergates, and you get the last Edward Snowden, ever. How many more state sanctioned [qualified immune] violence do you need until the last indigenous person is democratically eradicated? (Counting here all Liberal Nations today that still instigate genocide against the indigenous, not just 🇺🇲)
The same ones their families and other syndicates would need. If we use the lumber, nails, glue, saws, screws, and sanders to make chairs (metaphor), every worker from their families needs chairs to work, live, and play musical chairs. The demand would produce its need. If they break, we repair, since chairs are necessary for an anarchy.
The same ones that prevent folks from drinking poison from a known snake oil dealer: demand of disassociation, and refusal to use poisoned goods.
If a chair breaks day one from a syndicate known to make bad chairs, do you go to the same syndicate to get a new longer lasting chair? The metaphor here would be a chair that doesn’t chair without a lock and self-deterioration. Anarchists would just boycott that syndicate from making unchairs.
Flip this question, because the quo has always been your right to repair. Capitalists forbade you these rights you always had. Liberalism allowed patents, copyrights, EULAs, and regulations from even prohibiting you to reverse engineer and syndicate better products.
Anarchists hate the Liberals that allowed these monopolies to form. So why would anarchists rob you of your rights to look at how stuff works, and make better things?
Liberals hate that right, and desire only elites have that right, so they created the ones who have a right to repair it, and those that can manufacture the product, and you the user without the degree, certification, or license to do either of these things, lest you want a fine, jail time, or worse.