this is post is based on a conversation i had with someone about whether we positively connect our anarchism to democracy or not, because on one hand the democratic ideal, of everyone being in power and making decisions together is pretty neat and anarchist, and that's also what many people think of when they hear democracy, but then democracies (as in democratic organisations and states) since the greek inception of the word also have almost exclusively been the ruling of a privileged few over the rest, with just enought power (or illusion of power) handed back to us that we wouldnt rebel. as one argument goes: if "democracy" literally means "rulership of the people" then who are the people?
sadly we did not kiss after the conversation :<
but i think we agreed that honestly either is fine ฅ^>⩊<^ฅ
and now: me rambling about anarchy :3
if you are wondering now "anarchy? isnt that when everyone just does whatever they want and fucks everyone else over?? isnt that just destructive chaos?"
then well, that is one definition of anarchy but it is not the anarchy that anarchists desire ;3
anarchy as anarchists understand it is a society organizing itself by anarchist principles. this expesses itself through things such as mutual aide, free association, absence or minimalization of hierarchies and direct action.
basically people getting together in all areas of their lives, to together fulfill their needs, help each other, make decisions among those affected and resolve conflicts together. it's ofc not always glamourus, no society is, but we believe that it is a better way of living and organizing and we can start building it here and now by just doing those things
important values of anarchy are equality, freedom, solidarity, consent, and uniqueness. those are also shared (or claimed to be shared) by other political movements and organizations, but i would argue that most put other things first such as upholding the current system, maintaining and extending the rulers power and such.
ofc not all anarchists think alike so at the end of the day this is just one perspective out of many
if u are intrigued now and wanna hear more about anarchism, you could check out the anarchist faq or ask in the comments but pws don't be mean
The hoarding behaviours likely can be greatly alleviated by providing every human with basic societal safety nets. If you know that you'll have food, water, shelter and other basic amenities even if you lose your job (or get sick, or get old, or take a maternal/paternal leave etc), how likely are you to want to hoard money or other items just for the sake of it?
Of course, the small percentage of people would still do that, which is how we have the billionaires.
I wish that were true, but that simply does not align with my experience with people.
Are there people who would be satisfied with their basic needs being met? Yes, but I believe they are a small minority. The small percentage of people who are billionaires is not representative of all of the people who want to be, just the people who wanted to be AND SUCCEEDED. You do not know the names of the vast majority of people who have succumbed to greed and tried to become that wealthy, only to fail.
A huge factor is social status. Most people I see around me are highly concerned with how they are perceived by others. They want the job title, the bigger house, the bigger car, the expensive clothes. They want to be seen at the exclusive clubs and restaurants. They want the latest videogame console, to watch the latest movie and TV show, and be able to talk to other people about all of the #content they have consumed. That's why all these billionaires have mega-yachts - it's not because there is some correlation between sailing and business accumen, but because all of these wealthy people are using their megayachts to schmooze and show off to each other. It's why billionaires are starting to get into space travel. Most people want external validation and status over others.
Until we find a way to solve that as a species, I think we need either systems in place to prevent hoarding or we end up where we are today with the terrible consequences of wealth inequality.
We need therapy, as a species. Billionaires have become a horrible role model as they've built up this social status you've mentioned. The only real way to resolve that is to educate the humanity and also to remove them from power.
I know I would hoard less if I trusted the system for my basic needs. And, if I just get a few more years of good job, I might be ready to stop hoarding (and continue working, just with a lot more mutual aid and independent creator support going out).
But, I just don't think that's true of my father (RIP), or some of the people I met during my time in Northwest Arkansas; none of them even "millionaires" but all having a real drive to squeeze another penny out of every nickel. And, as you say, we have billionaires: any of them that aren't just handing out money every waking hour are not behaving ethically.
I just don't know that one the scale of 8b people, or even 300m people, that there aren't enough natural "hoarders" to ruin everything. But, I'm also sampling from as experience where everyone I meet is steeped in the "water" of Capitalism from the cradle, so maybe there'd be fewer natural "hoarders" in if Captialism hadn't soaked into us before puberty.
If we improve the material conditions, I believe with every generation the hoarding would diminish. Obviously, some people would need therapy or other sort of help, but I believe a very small percentage of humanity is actually irredeemable.
Material conditions have been improving for centuries and wealth inequality is arguably the worst it has ever been.
We can grow more food more efficiently than ever. We can build housing more efficiently than ever. We can make clothing more efficiently than ever. Globalization should, theoretically, greatly reduce the impacts of local disasters like earthquakes, storms, droughts, fires, etc to an extent never before seen on the planet.
Measuring income inequality throughout history and comparing it to today is challenging, but there are a lot of arguments that today's world is worse than anything we have seen before. At the very least, it is in the same conversation as notable moments in history like the Great Depression.
Well, existing inequality doesn't go away on its own just because material conditions improved.
First, they aren't improved enough to solve all the issues on their own. Second, under capitalism the wealthy are benefitting more from those improvements. And third, previous attempts at moving away from capitalism all either got taken over by dictators and turned into state-sponsored capitalism (see USSR and China), or got backstabbed and crushed by aforementioned state-sponsored capitalism (see various anarchists communes of 20th century).
We've gotta improve material conditions and eat the rich.