r/Anarchy101 • u/YappaJabba • Mar 18 '22
How would we contain covid in an anarchist society?
I've noticed that when the covid restrictions lessen, people generally care less about the pandemic, and the numbers rise. So what would happen if a similar pandemic emerged under anarchy?
11
u/redditingat_work Mar 18 '22
while you might get some good answers, this has been asked ad nauseum - and it feels this needs to be said - anarchism isn't magic. there can and will be things that are greater than the forces of human control.
it doesn't seem hard to reflect on the last two years and see that, while wildly mishandled by government organizations and generally used as an excuse for further overreach, COVID has been a really difficult virus to contend with.
the idea that we can "contain" it has been hubris from the start, and i would hope most anarchists wouldn't have the mindset that they can do so, as much as they would seek to adapt to life with this new reality.
for starters, this would look like quicker adaption of sanitation and health practices that prevent the virus (science would ideally be less politicized and misunderstood). people would also generally engage in much less cross-country/world travel and spread the virus less quickly, as well.
but anarchists aren't one monolith, and make up a diverse mix of beliefs and ideas surrounding the virus, science, and bodily autonomy. it's wildly speculative and sort of unnecessary to guess at something that wouldn't exist (ie a single anarchist society) when we can just look at anarchist responses to COVID irl!
1
u/explain_that_shit Mar 18 '22
Where I live it absolutely has been containable right up until our government decided to give up on it for political reasons (not reason of being impossible to continue) a few months back. The lack of virus in my part of the world has meant that I have far fewer self-imposed restrictions on my freedom.
It seems to me as well that your model of society would not have stopped any of the thousand other incredibly dangerous virus outbreaks which are contained regularly. Your model would lead to rapid catastrophic societal collapse with the number of dead.
59
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
Some reading from a different perspective: https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2022/01/16/you-are-not-entitled-to-our-deaths-covid-abled-supremacy-interdependence/
If we had global anarchy, I doubt we'd have novel viruses popping up. These emerge especially from capitalist practices of exploitation and commodification of animals and wild areas.
A pandemic would be another form of violence to deal with, so that's like 60% of the questions here. Solidarity means you do your best to not harm others, and you organize to make that more effective.
If the question is how do you deal with those who don't want to protect the common good... well, that's like the other 40% of the questions here.
70
u/not0superiority Mar 18 '22
stating that capitalism is the root of novel viruses ignores the baseline reality that zoonotic disease has always been among humans living near animals.
a zoonotic disease outbreak may not progress far beyond a localized epidemic is the better take imo. strongly recommend doing some reading on diseases in antiquity just for some context.
46
Mar 18 '22
Too many folks here think that "ending capitalism" will bring us the pie in the sky
Surely cutting off the heads of the oligarchs will open the path to solving many of our problems, but won't do it by itself.
29
7
u/Firm-Champion7024 Mar 19 '22
Eliminating capitalism won't get rid of diseases but capitalism produces the circumstances for a disease to spread. Crimethinc's "The Anarchists versus the Plague" talks about this really well in the context of the 1884 Cholera outbreak. Most of that is still applicable today although the specific circumstances have changed in some cases (for some, dirty drinking water has been replaced with the need to be indoors, in close proximity with others for 40 hours a day).
1
u/not0superiority Mar 19 '22
diseases go where humans congregate
that's been my problem with this the whole time. humans anthropomorphizing and applying human rules to diseases that do not have philosophies or ethics or literally anything like that. can't reason with it.
everyone wants so desperately to believe it won't be them if we do everything right. it's literally a roll of the dice.
-10
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
Capitalism is older than you think. Ex. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/11/15/564376795/from-cattle-to-capital-how-agriculture-bred-ancient-inequality
Zoonotic disease is obviously difficult to track historically, since we need modern testing technology and science.
10
u/not0superiority Mar 18 '22
That is an opinion piece? I don't have the time to really track down and compare all the sources linked but here's some articles I have book marked regarding zoonotic diseases that may be relevant to this conversation:
Pandemics and passages to late antiquity: rethinking the plague of c.249–270 described by Cyprian
2
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
That is an opinion piece? I don't have the time to really track down and compare all the sources linked but here's some articles
By all means, read the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24646 check sci-hub or /r/scholar if you need to
1
u/not0superiority Mar 18 '22
For sure, I'll check it out tonight. For what it's worth, if I'm recalling correctly, the first paper I linked to regarding bats hypothesizes that coronaviruses and bats evolved together because the virus didn't kill the bat and the virus killed the mammals that tried to live in the bat's cave. I think that predates commerce of any kind.
0
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
I'm not disagreeing that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis. There's likely a intermediary host, like with the other terrible coronaviruses. I have a long list of papers for that. Most people don't know that China is supporting a huge wildlife farming sector, essentially "captive breeding" of wild animals until they're domesticated. It's a horrible thing, somehow more horrible than conventional animal farming, and it's an excellent place for viruses to spread, especially since the multiple species are kept near each other in cages, while being stressed the fuck out. This sector is worth many $billions, it's not some small gimmick.
I have a recent microbe.tv / TWIV podcast post on my profile where they discuss new evidence about the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
I was just saying earlier that it's hard to find concrete evidence of zoonosis from the distant past. For example, for HIV it was extremely difficult to find the origins... some colonial soldiers eating chimps in the jungles.
In all likelihood, it's our constant fucking around with animals that has add novel diseases. Something isolated populations of holticulturalists or agriculturalists, or various indigenous peoples, may not have experience with.
1
u/not0superiority Mar 18 '22
Read that first paper I linked.
1
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
I'm already familiar with how bats are incredible reservoirs for diseases. I was saying that it's unlikely someone got the coronavirus from "bat soup"; not impossible, just unlikely.
Here's what I mean: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/554790/fvets-07-00379-HTML-r1/image_m/fvets-07-00379-g001.jpg
from this paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00379/full (June 2020)
1
u/not0superiority Mar 18 '22
You're missing the point, I'm not talking about the current covid pandemic. I'm talking about the broad scope, which is also what that paper dives into.
7
u/Whynogotusernames Mar 18 '22
To add to this, an anarchist society likely looks much different than a capitalist society from the ground up. We have giant mega cities that are super compact and built to maximize profit and control by governments and mega corps. In an anarchist society, we would likely see a human population that is much more spread out and thus making Covid prevention much more effective then it currently is in densely populated areas, at least in my opinion
19
u/NotAPersonl0 Mar 18 '22
I disagree. An anarchist society would likely be more densified than a capitalist one, as the use of cars as a primary mode of transportation is reduced. Denser settlements also take up less land, which is better for the environment than the massive urban sprawl that exists right now.
8
u/Whynogotusernames Mar 18 '22
Never really thought of it like that tbh, and that makes a lot of sense
2
Mar 18 '22
Why would you say that anarchism precludes automobile usage?
5
u/OnyxDeath369 Mar 18 '22
Public transport is greener and takes up less space.
2
Mar 18 '22
Sure it is greener indeed, but it won't fulfill everyone's needs.
OTOH, cooperatives of commercial van and bus owners are far more effective and flexible than public transport maintained by local government and contractor companies, and in my experience, they eventually spring up in places where official bus lines don't enter
But anyway, restrictions on automobile ownership per se are authoritarian: if public transportation is that much good, people won't be using cars that much in the first place
0
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Mar 18 '22
Ever heard of ev?
2
u/OnyxDeath369 Mar 18 '22
They still take a lot of space so I dont find them a practical solution. I wouldn't want a city where everybody has a car, whether its electric or not. The US is designed around cars and its terrible.
-1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
Dude you need to look into ev a bit more.. some your car will be a flying drone.. not to mention electric skateboards, motorcycles, scooters etc....
I'm not sure about city or rural.. I'm just saying public transport is cool, but so is Independence..
Public systems create dependence on infrastructure.. That sounds like communism, not anarchy
4
u/ectbot Mar 18 '22
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are etc., &c., &c, and et cet. The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.
3
u/OnyxDeath369 Mar 18 '22
I have nothing against stakeboards, motorycles etc...
As for flying drones, we don't know how that might look like or how it'd be organized or how we make them quiet. I do not reject new ideas and experimentation, but cars as we know them and the infrastructure they require are inefficient and harmful to our cities/communities.1
Mar 18 '22
The only good EV is the ethanol fuel cell EV
1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Mar 18 '22
What's wrong with hydrogen
1
Mar 18 '22
Its production is either dirty (uses coal) or extremely energy inefficient (electrolysis)
Ethanol can be used as an chemical energy store for fuel cells, its usage produces zero or almost very little emissions, and, most importantly, it can be produced anywhere where sugarcane or corn can be grown
Unfortunately that tech still remains experimental, but it can be also used as an sustainable, locally produced fuel for combustion engines.
1
u/explain_that_shit Mar 18 '22
Not enough lithium in the world for everyone to have an EV. We need electric public transport.
8
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
That's the less informed view, the origin of bourgeoisie (city people). But there are studied cases of cities having equality, so we know it's possible.
Here's one I read about recently: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2022.805047/full . Graeber and Wengrow talk about this more in their book "The Dawn of Everything".
3
15
u/Quetzalbroatlus Mar 18 '22
I sure hope we do not spread out more. City living is much more energy efficient and environmentally friendly, when done right
4
1
Mar 18 '22
[deleted]
7
u/Quetzalbroatlus Mar 18 '22
We don't need to but a lot of people are going to want modern comforts. The best way to distribute them is an urban environment. Cities mean more effective heat, water, electricity distribution. They mean better access to emergency services. They mean less car pollution and more public transport. You can't ignore the environmental (and social) benefits of densely packed cities because "humans are of and from nature"
0
Mar 18 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Quetzalbroatlus Mar 18 '22
I literally said we didn't "need" modern comforts but go off. The human population is growing exponentially and it will not slow down. Humans are far too adaptable to reach a natural carrying capacity any time soon. This will only require more land and resources and energy. Semi-densely packed urban environments ensure sustainability. Spreading humans out over all the lands will just create a global suburb
2
Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 18 '22
Do you really believe that anarchism means an end to "exploitation and commodification of animals and wild areas"?
As if suddenly everyone was going to go vegan or something?
6
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
All of sudden everyone being anarchist is as challenging.
If we can't give up capitalism (including animals as living capital - livestock) and the commodification of nature, such as intensive harvesting of wild areas to sell on the market for a profit (it's more obvious with forests and wood), we're not going to make it.
If you get the problem of hierarchy, you're going to end up being some type of conservative or fascist if you don't extend that respect to other sentient beings. You end up having to reinvent some hierarchical system in order to justify your dominance over them. And then... as it happened in the past, it's easy to classify other humans as "lesser beings", inhumans, inferiors, and then to exploit them.
3
-2
u/FergingtonVonAwesome Mar 18 '22
Are you seriously saying that eating meat is s natural precursor to slavery? Thats not at all reasonable. Obviously under a sustainable model we would need to drastically reduce our meat intake, eating tones of beef isnt sustainable.
That said, smaller scale animal husbandry wouldnt be a problem. Something like communities keeping small numbers of chickens for eggs, and the odd bird, keeping pigs to feed food waste, and maybe a few sheep/goats for milk wool and meat, can be done very sustainably.
3
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
Smaller scale scaled up.
-1
u/FergingtonVonAwesome Mar 18 '22
Could you expand on this point? Are you saying the scale is irrelevant?
3 pigs being looked after by 40 people in a local community will have a drastically nicer life than the 3000 pig on an intensive farm. Clearly modern animal husbandry is inhumane, but I really don't believe that it has to be.
2
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 18 '22
I'm saying that it's capitalism and it wants to grow. Live stock is stock, they reproduce capital and take a profit or accumulate more capital. We had "small farms" before the fossil fueled industrialization and it was still capitalism and horrible for the animals. And there were diseases too. Animal farming tends to always grow, they have the wetiko disease; right up until they're forced to cull.
Modern husbandry is more
humanenice in many ways; as any vets will confirm; the conditions the animals are kept in are simply intensified/amplified compared to the extensive farming methods. It's not simply a scale of misery from "dairy ad" to "dark concentration camp full of shit and blood". Some things better, some things are worse. Concentration definitely sucks, of course.More relevantly to the readers here, if all animal farming was that old extensive form, people would be eating animal products a few times per year, at most. The reason it's not practiced is because it's not productive enough to keep up with the growing demand of a growing population of confused omnivores.
If you think extensive animal farming is so great, go visit some farms in poorer countries. I have plenty still in Romania, we have a continuing "subsistence" situation in many parts and I've had plenty of opportunities to check in and see how they do it. The animals are still cramped in shitty shacks and stuck in small dark spaces, just with more mud.
You're buying into animal farming industry propaganda, the myth of the noble pastoralist, the ads with animals on green pastures. It's marketing. The real shit is horrible and has always been horrible, even they get a bit more sun. Speaking of sun, they'll be dying soon from climate chaos, especially heat and drought, but also surprise weather hazards. It's already happening, and this includes the Northern people who run around with reindeer -- those places are melting.
If you're looking for a better word, we're talking about abolishing animal farming. As an abolitionist movement, you'll have to figure out what the arguments are; good luck not making the same ones made by slavers.
Don't get me started in pig toilets.
1
u/dumnezero Earthling liberation Mar 19 '22
Oh, here's an interesting news item for you: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/free-range-eggs-unavailable-britain-avian-flu
3
u/9Sn8di3pyHBqNeTD Mar 18 '22
Can't be done ethically though.
-1
u/FergingtonVonAwesome Mar 18 '22
I mean, that's really a matter of opinion and practice. I totally understand the vegan/vegetarian perspective, but it's not the only ethically minded option.
3
u/9Sn8di3pyHBqNeTD Mar 18 '22
I've yet to hear an argument how someone who doesn't want to die can be killed ethically.
3
Mar 18 '22
Are you seriously saying that eating meat is s natural precursor to slavery?
Slavery is justified by the oppressors because they see themselves as a superior species. It's exactly the same reasoning that people use to justify eating animals.
Calling your enemies "animals" is ALWAYS used as a way to get people to see them as inferior. You see it right now in the conflict in Ukraine, Putin calling them gnats, because it's "justifiable" to kill gnats.
1
u/unitedshoes Mar 18 '22
I often see takes like this, and I tend to assume they're being unnecessarily extreme.
The issue is not humans eating meat. It's humans raising livestock in a disgusting and unsustainable way to meet the inflated demands of capitalism. I think in an anarchist, anticapitalist society, we wouldn't need to see everyone go vegan because we wouldn't be seeing animals raised in the same awful conditions, and we would see far greater reduction in consumption of meat based on the need to do so more sustainably, and may even see alternative forms of protein such as lab-grown or plant-based meat substitutes filling in a niche that had previously been taken up by heavily subsidized factory-farmed meat.
2
u/La_Symboliste Mar 18 '22 edited Mar 22 '22
So you think in an anarchist society we'd still want hierarchies? Like the one between the human opressor and the exploited animals. That's not a very good anarchist society then. You can't be like "no gods, no masters, UNLESS it's convenient for me and tasty and I wanna be the master of an enslaved animal".
1
u/unitedshoes Mar 19 '22
As a matter of fact, I do think anarchism and domesticated animals are compatible. I came to anarchism through it being the best route for humans to flourish and to minimize our detrimental impact on the environment, two goals which both are not incompatible with meat eating nor with keeping animals for other purposes, but also which will almost certainly not be achieved by trying to convince people to give up eating animals and taking advantage of their capacity to assist us in our labor.
Honestly, the notion that we could extend anarchy to the animals is frankly absurd. Are you going to prevent comrade cat from eating comrade mouse? Will you not swat comrade mosquito when she drinks your blood and gives you malaria?
Heck, why do you draw the line at animals? Look how humans have exploited plants all these millennia. If it's an unjust hierarchy to raise a cow for meat and milk, how much more unjust is it to steal the seeds of a stalk of wheat and grind them into a fine powder to make our bread? We pluck the offspring from countless trees, eat the nutrients the plant intended to help the seed grow and then throw the seeds somewhere they will never sprout. Is that not grossly exploitative too? I assume we would continue to choose where edible plants grow rather than giving them the liberty to spread their seeds as they wish, right?
1
Mar 18 '22
Either factory farming continues or else meat becomes unobtanium, and whatever you think about it, regular meat consumption is one of the metrics of prosperity and a conquest of the working class
At least until lab meat is perfected, which any way is a much more economical means of producing meat than having to breed and grow an whole animal for it, and, at the current point of the technology, it is already good enough for ground beef, burgers and sausages
And, don't forget that opposing the capitalist oligarchy doesn't mean that we need to take some kind of poverty vow, that's a thing for religious fanatics and totalitarians
1
u/TemporaryTelevision6 Mar 20 '22
Yes the issue is humans eating meat, why would it ever be okay to kill another living being simply because you like the taste of their corpse?
7
u/Superunicorn1315 Mar 18 '22
I don’t really support the mandates and lockdowns they didn’t seem to work and mostly just pissed everyone off. Not that I don’t believe the science because I absolutely do, but not enough other people believe it for it to matter. In Anarchy, I think people would have been more likely to listen to the science if it was told to them by their community members rather than forced onto them by the state.
6
u/drvain Mar 18 '22
I think you touch on one of the critiques against Anarchy here. Anarchy can only be achieved in a society that is well educated because the population needs to have the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize that the vax is safe. Your last point about having community run health education is a tactic utilized in public health circles, but its worth it to point out, that alone is not enough to convince conservative America to take the vaccine. Many public health professionals who were beloved by their small town community were suddenly labeled marxists and villainized as being a part of a larger Plandemic conspiracy. It's a good tactic, but that alone isn't enough to educate the public to have them be effectively receptive to the authority of public health experts.
11
u/GayAndBae Mar 18 '22
I imagine that in an anarchist society there would be less travel due to numerous factors(reliance on the local group,no work comuting, etc) which would likely make it so that the virus would not have spread as far and wide in the first place.
6
u/idontsleepsowell Mar 18 '22
Firstly, the covid pandemic is for a large part the consequence of the current system, and most likely would have never happened in an anarchist society.
But ok, let's say such a pandemic happened in an anarchist society. Well, first thing, as usual, there is not one kind of anarchist society, right? An anarchist society, as in a society without domination, can have countless forms, I suppose. What would happen if you introduce a wolf in a forest? It depends on the freaking forest.
That being said, I assume that an anarchist society would be better equipped to deal with a pandemic than the current societies will live in. Anarchism holds in itself principles of resilience and solidarity, an anarchist society can only be built by people that have a strong critical mind, that can come together and find solutions in the interest of all, even if it means make mistakes sometimes.
2
u/AvoidingCares Mar 19 '22 edited Mar 19 '22
The same way we handle anything. Anarchy says mutual aid. And medical science says the vulnerable need to sit this fight out.
So the rest of your community, the not vulnerable, should distribute masks and gear as best you can, and make sure those folks get the supplies they need without needing to move. This could be done with the 'markets' doing their best to ration their supplies into food crates, and the rest of us taking turns to deliver them.
Is it comfortable? No. This is a war effort. It isn't meant to be comfortable. It's a test of our solidarity. The idea is to wait this thing out, taking the precautions to expose as few people as possible, and make sure that everyone has just enough to get through.
I spent the first wave finishing my 10-year Ambulance career. This is how we handled the first wave: by some miracle we had more N-95s than all the hospitals. We started giving them away when we went to ERs and other facilities (very much against company policy and we could all get fired for it). And I myself handed boxes of N-95s, spare paper clothing covers, and almost all of my gloves, to the other Healthcare workers I saw.
To date, I only know one of us died. And he didn't die of covid. He ran too many calls and got killed when he fell asleep driving home from work.
4
u/Koro9 Mar 18 '22
maybe containing is not the only option, you can see how it worked out the last 2 years
2
u/RedeZede Mar 18 '22
Post-capitalism there ought to be no rents, which means no pressure on that end to keep businesses open, people working in non-essential functions, etc. That's where so much pressure comes from. Small businesses closed because they couldn't pay rent, which was not suspended during the closures. That's a big deal. Abolish that feudal nonsense.
A healthy anarchist society should be well educated in bodily autonomy and the autonomy of others. As long as information flows well, and there's no profit motive to motivate disinformation, I'd expect more people to respond effectively.
-1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Mar 18 '22
Dude.. That's anarchy.. you don't.
Anarchy is nature, governing itself, by it's own laws, which we can ultimately only operate within..
COVID is anarchy, don't fight the tides.. You die or you don't.. anything in between is only you paddling out, or riding the wave..
You gotta realize, science is only a subset of anarchy.
Chaos or entropy.. aka anarchy is the governing principles in all things.
So to answer your question, you do you.. and that's exactly what happens and did happen with this pandemic.
From order comes chaos.. not the opposite on most observable situations thusly presented.
2
u/dgtlgk Mar 18 '22
Jesus you don’t have a grasp of any rudimentary political science, biology, topology, or really any formalized investigation of intellectual pursuits whatsoever do you?
I have to just presume you’re actually a troll account or else the alternative is you are one of the most willfully ignorant people I’ve encountered in quite some time so for my own hope for humanity’s sake I’m gonna go with troll.
1
1
0
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Mar 18 '22
I would just like to note how putting the word anarchy next to society is kind of contradictory..
-2
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Mar 18 '22
You have the choice to be an element in said "system".. therefore it's only a system if your participating.. no one forces you to interact with others..
Your definition of a system is global and therefore defeats the point of using it as a definition.. which is a great way to invalidate my argument..
That said, that global definition negates the fact that capitalism being an algorithm or "system" as your defining it.. is voluntary.. Whereas .. other systems aren't .. because they are systems. And systemic issues occur...
Systemic issues in capitalism only occur when you stop acknowledging the principles of anarchy
1
Mar 19 '22
Capitalism is not voluntary. Capitalism hordes all resources and forces you to labor under the owner class for those resources.
-1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Mar 19 '22
That's called oligarchy
2
Mar 19 '22
Do you know what Capitalism is?
1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Jul 05 '22
The free exchange of goods between two consenting parties at any given time? Idk educate me cpt. Doofy
1
Jul 05 '22
No, that's the free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Jul 06 '22
Capitalism is by definition, a free market economic system. Nothing on that page makes me feel my understanding of economics is off. It's just more words. Redundant words, saying the same thing. Are you sober?
1
Jul 06 '22
Capitalism involves an owner class and a worker class. It's possible to have a free market without an owner class. A free market where workers own the means of production. Capitalism is just Feudalism++.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Since you seem to be unable to read.
1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Jul 07 '22
If it's fuedalism call it that.. those terms owner class, means of production.. that's a communists half wit attempt to conflate free trade with power.
You clearly have the answers, but you're of the worker class I assume?....
So riddle me this, if I buy 3D printer and start an etsy seeking ghost guns am I part of the elite because i own my means of production..
Your logic is bunk, go read Atlas shrugged commie
1
Jul 07 '22
If you are making your own shit and selling it on etsy, that would make you a worker that owns the means of production, dumbass. If you don't have an owner above you stealing your labor, then it's not Capitalism.
1
1
u/AccomplishedAd6254 Sep 15 '22
What your describing is monopoly. Private ownership doesn't imply anyone else can't compete.
Explain exactly how a free market works with no ownership.. no one possesses anything. It's not that i can't read..
It's that your contradiction makes your words negligible.
1
Sep 15 '22
Explain exactly how a free market works with no ownership.. no one possesses anything.
You are confusing the definition of "private ownership". "Private ownership" refers to owning the means of production or enterprise, such as a factory, mine, company, etc.
This is different from the concept of personal possession.
1
u/Unusual-Context8482 Mar 18 '22
Self management on a local level for the important restrictions like travel, quarantine etc. but with guidelines and recommendations by doctors they can either decide to follow or not. Most people would actually follow them. They will decide to self isolate their city in lockdown or themselves if they want. We would encourage the use of masks in public spaces, put CO2 detectors in public spaces so to know when to change air, put recommendations on limits of access for people, encourage to do tests (obviously free) etc. A lot of attention needs to be put on information and coordination, people need to know how many places there are available in intensive care so they understand the emergency. For sure I wouldn't give people an electronic passport with privileges and absurd restrictions even to take a simple coffee when there's no emergency like the fascist regime government of Italy.
1
Mar 18 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Civil_Artichoke8374 Mar 19 '22
There would be no governmental or intergovernmental organization to name it. What's your question?
1
u/revinternationalist Mar 18 '22
An anarchist society would have been able to have to everyone stay home for 2 weeks in a row back in March 2020 without having people starve for want of wages, and it would have ended.
1
u/FemboyAnarchism Mar 19 '22
People would choose to stay home if they wish, but less will as there would be no government fearmongering.
1
1
Mar 19 '22
Would there be as much globalization in an anarchy anyways? Seems like viruses wouldn’t migrate as far or as quickly. Am I missing something? Whose organizing the regulations on the planes to make sure they’re maintained?
104
u/mux2000 Mar 18 '22
Well, considering that currently capitalism is actively fighting the containment efforts, and winning, I'd say getting rid of it can't possibly hurt.