• Jtotheb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      You think the issue with non authoritarian collectivization is that people don’t like making things?…

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        No. The problem is that what people want is not the same as what the people need.

        The central problem of economics is that humans have infinite desires, which need resources to be met, and resources are finite. Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

        If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers, you’re gone get more fiction books than you can read, and you’re probably die of hunger, because now the other 900 have to sustain the 100 writers for basically no value. Since probably most people will only want to read the top 1-2 that are actually good.

        If the other 99-98 other writers don’t have any pressure to change careers because the community provides for them, why would they? The thing they want to do most is writing!

        And all that is assuming such a civilization exists. From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense. Our world was born anarchic. There were no CEOs nor governments. And the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies, because that is the most efficient way.

        The natural consequence of anarchy is non-anarchy. Anarchy is not a final state, it’s transitory. Anarchy is not a stable state.

        Just like you can try mixing water and oil all you want, the moment you stop stirring, they will separate.

        The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force. That is, if you want anarchy, there must be someone enforcing that there be anarchy. And if that’s the case, then it’s no longer anarchy, since there is a ruler.