Excellent article.
But it also highlights just how much insight has been lost by the erasure of anarchist philosophy from political & academic discourse.
Anarchism elegantly reconciles “the unreconcilable: individual freedom and community freedom.”
Here’s how: 1/10
But it also highlights just how much insight has been lost by the erasure of anarchist philosophy from political & academic discourse.
Anarchism elegantly reconciles “the unreconcilable: individual freedom and community freedom.”
Here’s how: 1/10
Anarchism seeks to give decision making power to those affected by decisions, in proportion to the degree they are affected.
If a decision only affects an individual, with no effect on anyone else, then that individual should have full say:
i.e. individual freedom. 2/10
If a decision only affects an individual, with no effect on anyone else, then that individual should have full say:
i.e. individual freedom. 2/10
But once a decision affects another person, group, class, etc then they too should have a say: a say in proportion to the degree they are affected.
What matters is *who* is affected & if a decision affects a community, they get to have a fair say.
i.e. community freedom. 3/10
What matters is *who* is affected & if a decision affects a community, they get to have a fair say.
i.e. community freedom. 3/10
Anarchism’s insight is that in order to reconcile the ‘unreconcilable,’ in order to maximize freedom & democratic self-determination, the most important thing is determining who is affected by decisions & ensuing those affected have a fair say in those decisions. 4/10
In the example of slavery, anarchist ideals would give slaves the most say in the matter since obviously they are by far the most affected by the institution of slavery & would thus never allow for such an inhumane institution in the first place. 5/10
But what about ‘community freedom’?
Here too, anarchism has the right answer: If a decision affects an entire community, then the entire community should have a say.
Why? Because it *affects* them. 6/10
Here too, anarchism has the right answer: If a decision affects an entire community, then the entire community should have a say.
Why? Because it *affects* them. 6/10
In the example of protective measures against Covid-19: the community’s desire for protective measures to safeguard ourselves is not a violation of freedom.
It’s a recognition that *real* freedom means *everyone* gets to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. 7/10
It’s a recognition that *real* freedom means *everyone* gets to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. 7/10
Anarchism’s ideal of giving each person a say in decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions elegantly reconciles both freedom & democratic self-determination. 8/10
There will never be a perfect calculus of every person having the perfect amount of say in perfect proportion to the degree they are affected.
But Anarchism gives us the right ideal to strive towards: every person having a fair say in the decisions that affect their lives. 9/10
But Anarchism gives us the right ideal to strive towards: every person having a fair say in the decisions that affect their lives. 9/10
Anarchism doesn’t mean you always get to do whatever you want. It doesn’t mean you always get what you want.
Anarchism means you always have a fair say in the decisions that affect your life & that’s a societal ideal we should all strive towards. 10/10
Anarchism means you always have a fair say in the decisions that affect your life & that’s a societal ideal we should all strive towards. 10/10
