0·
22 hours agoand builds a kind of stability out of this
Gestures wildly hwhat?!
Oh, yeah, well it only stays that way as long as there’s enough competition to prevent any single actor from gaining too much control. Like I said, it’s not good.
anarchism deals with this issue by not allowing anyone to accumulate wealth in the first place.
How exactly would this be enforced in an anarchist society? Who would be doing the “not allowing”, and how would they decide what constitutes too much accumulation, and what form would the enforcement take?
If I am a woodworker, and I make furniture in a particular style, and that style becomes desirable so that other people want to have furniture made by me, and are willing to trade goods and services to me beyond what you might consider the normal value of the materials and labor cost of the furniture, am I now “accumulating wealth” by making furniture that is highly valued? Have I already accumulated wealth by acquiring the tools and the workshop needed to make the furniture?
If I am a painter, and my paintings become popular, am I accumulating wealth by continuing to produce paintings which I know will be highly valued?
If I start a library, am I accumulating wealth by collecting books?
How are these in any way “enforcement”?
Who defines “need” or “reasonable”?
Ultimately what I am understanding from what you are saying is that this anarchist society requires individuals to be self-monitoring and self-limiting. I think all of human history describes how unrealistic that idea is.
Further, it would require that all 8billion+ people in the world have some collectively shared definition of what is reasonable, deserving, needful. This is a kind of conformity and uniformity that I find deeply uncomfortable.