SooooooMeta t1_j0ztwjg wrote
I thought the ideas on anarchy were kind of sloppy and poorly developed. However, I did like the idea of listing the things that tend to “dominate” us (and certainly anarchy is about trying to minimize these things). I wish that it had not just listed a potpourri of modern contenders to being in charge, but focused on more fundamental components that things are composed of.
For instance, socialist-democratic seems like it actually appeals to the mass/majority (as shown through votes and public discussion), the institution (an appeal to a long-functioning institutions that has shown stability) and the technocratic system (tax codes, legal codes, the educational system standing in for the arbitrary judgements of individuals).
I think it’s extremely odd the author doesn’t even mention the threat of physical coercion, kind of the big daddy of all coercion with tons of thinking around the state holding a monopoly on violence and all that.
Fluggernuffin t1_j113rcy wrote
I think the author would make the argument that all of the dominants he listed have as a feature the threat of physical coercion. Granted, it doesn't include the bully down the street who wants your lunch money, but you could make the argument that the bully is on some level, a monarch. He rules his sidewalk with an iron fist, and only a bigger force will depose him.
I won't say the list is perfect, but I do think it goes beyond simply listing modern authorities.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments