With all the talk about anarchism and voluntarism on Steemit lately, I figured I couldn't be the only one who didn't get what the fuss is all about. So I did some research, partly for my own comprehension, and partly to explain to YOU what it's all about. As anarchism is a fairly understood concept, I started from there.
Introduction
Anarchism is a political belief which opposes compulsory government rule. It advocates for a society that exists without a coercive state because the government does not add any value to the life of people hence is unnecessary. The reason for rejecting states is because they are not morally upright, and they should not have the right to command an individual. Although, anarchism does not advocate for immediate removal of states, it gives room for the transition from one form of government to another. Its aim is helping the oppressed and marginalized people in the society (Berkman, 2003).
That's not really accurate. The reason it's called "voluntaryism" isn't because everyone is expected to voluntarily do the right thing. It's called that because the standard of the right thing is allowing people to do things voluntarily.
If someone forces another person to sign a contract against their will, or kidnaps them, or extorts money from them, that doesn't mean that everyone will just overlook it, or that they won't punish the offender - quite the opposite. The point is that, this standard of behaviour should apply to everyone - including those who call themselves "government".
ok! this comment is follow worthy for me!
Thanks!
Very interesting post, @r4fken! But I find your distinction between Anarchism vs Modern Voluntarism a little bit troublesome. If MV is Anarchism, why should we contrast it with this term? Isn't it better to make a distinction between Libertarian Anarchism (anarcho-capitalism) and Communo-Anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism)?
The main reason voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism has popped up in place of pure anarchy, or anarcho-syndicalism, is because anarcho-syndicalism strictly prohibits property ownership, and is therefore incompatible with the non-aggression principle. It also requires a centralized coercive authority to be implemented, making it a self-detonating way to organize a society in a decentralized way.
Hi! I am a content-detection robot. This post is to help manual curators; I have NOT flagged you.
Here is similar content:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/uri-gordon-anarchism-and-political-theory-contemporary-problems
he only used refrences to state his point cheetah
Nah you just used it as refrence
I am going to follow you if it is ok
maybe i will be inspired because i doubt any of mine are anygood
Great post. Following.
Not persuaded by this:
Didn't know anarchy had a State :)
Who rules the meaning of "anarchism?"
To me, an important part of anarchism (some call it voluntaryism) is it's simplicity. It is so simple we don't need "authorities" to interpret the various flavors. Some people will need guidance in following or discovering the logical consequences, but the idea is simple: No Rulers, No Aggression and Self Ownership. These follow from the right to life. There can't be rulers without "legalized" aggression. There can't be self ownership if there are rulers. Without self ownership there can't be a right to pursue life.
Anyone agreeing so far should be able to see that ownership of property, the fruits of one's labor, is an extension of self ownership and the right to life. It should also be clear that central ownership of property or communism would require force, rullers and aggression.
I see no reason to discuss various colors or flavors of anarchism. If someone wants to live a primitive life with or without others they can call themselves whatever they want and still be anarchists if they follow the above principles.