RushKing wrote:
have looked into that. Individualism and collectivism both have authoritarian interpretations. Individuals are allowed to make their own decisions in anarcho-collectivism.
The purpose of collective organization in my ideal society is to pursue and achieve the goals of the individual participants involved. People would do this in free association. I don't identify as a collectivist or individualist.
It feels to me at this point we're talking past each other. It is my opinion (accurate or not) that you have not thought through the ramifications of your proposed society. For example, you say people are free to choose, but only if they conform to what your society deems as acceptable behavior. You acknowledge this to be the case while still describing it as non-governmental and anarchist. However, in order to enforce acceptable behavior you need either a government to enforce it or all people to automatically comply. History has shown that human compliance is an unstable element and thus governments and laws were established.
You think that slower production will lead to higher quality of life, but this is literally in contrast to the basic principles of economics. Even Marx and Engels believed in economics, they just had political views in favor of communism based on economic principles.
Anyways, I've made my closing arguments for now. Have a good day. I'm sure we'll revisit these disagreements sometime later.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."