Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

sudo wrote

I don't like that example, for the only reason fossil fuel industries exist is capitalism, and it should be obvious that it is something anarchists are against.

I don't see why that invalidates the example. Not everyone living in an anarchist society would be an anarchist (at least, not for several decades after the revolution). There are some people who have swallowed capitalist propaganda that renewable energy isn't feasible, or is too unreliable, who would want a coal power plant. You'd have to deal with them in this scenario. If your answer is "Fuck them, they're wrong" (which I would agree with), then you'd be """ruling""" them.

But for the point as a whole, that people will not get their way in regards to building and development, this would be much less of a problem in a non-gentrifying, non-consumerist, non-progress oriented society where people have total freedom of movement, and where building is oriented toward need rather than profit. Those who wish to live in a less populated are can move to one, as well as vice versa.

I just chose building and development as an example, to illustrate a point - there are some situations where the desires of one group of people conflict with the desires of another group, such that if one group gets what they want, the other group will not get what they want. In this case, it wouldn't be solved by the coal power plant people moving somewhere else and building a coal power plant, because it would still be contributing to climate change, meaning the solar people would not have what they want (no polluting power plants anywhere). Plus, if people have to move somewhere else every time they disagree over something non-trivial, you're going to end up with lots of tiny towns with not enough people do to anything meaningful, because people disagree so damn often.

...so if people oppose building something in a specific place, you have to face them directly and consensus is forced.

Consensus is forced?! Dear me, that sounds a lot like someone's being ruled!

Whether they supposedly have the proletarian interests at heart or not doesn't matter when democracy is inherently not representative.

Not representative as in direct democracy, or not representative as in the will of the people isn't being represented?

It abstracts a divisive construct called politics and puts it primarily into the hands of power, something which attracts people who desire it, which is more often than not "bad" people.

Then make it so that all representatives are subject to recall. That way, if they abuse their power, the people can kick them out.

Authority ostracizes those who can do it harm and who do not abide it, which includes vagabonds for example, a lifestyle which will always be criminalized and oppressed by states due to the severe threat it poses.

Capitalist authority does that. In the case of communist authority, it would ostracize people like fascists, because they are actually evil fuckers who would do harm to everyone else. Also, I don't think vagabonds are a good example of people who could do harm to capitalists, because they never actually do anything to try to remove capitalists from power. I'd use revolutionary leftists as an example here.

I care less about a majority than I do every person.

Like I said before, the wants of every person cannot be accounted for, because some of their wants conflict.

The situation is of course close, only small aspects of a wide system are changed, namely economic ones.

No, the changes are massive.

Whether its a few rich people or a few not-rich people (bureaucracy) controlling the economy, it's mostly the same. The underlying political structure is largely indifferent.

The change is massive. The political structure (a democratic republic) is mostly the same, but in the communist case, the candidates for political office will actually have the interests of the masses at heart, so it makes a huge difference.