It said right in your quote that people do work that “no one volunteers to do”. If they aren’t volunteering, then something is providing the impetus.
Broadly the writing avoids the more difficult nuance of how the community gets unplesant work to be “shared” when no one volunteers. This suggests enforcement one way or another.
At small scale of a commune, some pretty human interactions can probably serve to drive this in a pretty reasonable way, by instilling sense of duty and comradery and potentially shame inherent to everyone knowing everyone else in a nuanced way. As you scale up, when inevitably people start losing track of each other, those soft mechanisms deteriorate, and the systems start to develop cracks for exploitation. Capitalism breaks in some ways, other systems break down in others. Fundamentally human behavior when interaction becomes diluted at scale tends to suck.
If they aren’t volunteering, then something is providing the impetus.
Sure, which you can read my quoted section above, or even better, click the link to an anarchist FAQ which goes over a number of solutions and approaches.
Broadly the writing avoids the more difficult nuance of how the community gets unplesant work to be “shared” when no one volunteers. This suggests enforcement one way or another.
Fundamentally human behavior when interaction becomes diluted at scale tends to suck.
I get where you’re coming from, but my point is that we can collectively design a system that sucks the least, and it sure as shit is not capitalism. There are examples of large-scale anarchist societies which demonstrate how anarchism works at scale, both historical and current, such as Revolutionary Spain and the Zapatista movement in Mexico.
It said right in your quote that people do work that “no one volunteers to do”. If they aren’t volunteering, then something is providing the impetus.
Broadly the writing avoids the more difficult nuance of how the community gets unplesant work to be “shared” when no one volunteers. This suggests enforcement one way or another.
At small scale of a commune, some pretty human interactions can probably serve to drive this in a pretty reasonable way, by instilling sense of duty and comradery and potentially shame inherent to everyone knowing everyone else in a nuanced way. As you scale up, when inevitably people start losing track of each other, those soft mechanisms deteriorate, and the systems start to develop cracks for exploitation. Capitalism breaks in some ways, other systems break down in others. Fundamentally human behavior when interaction becomes diluted at scale tends to suck.
Sure, which you can read my quoted section above, or even better, click the link to an anarchist FAQ which goes over a number of solutions and approaches.
I’d encourage you to pause and read an anarchist FAQ’s answer to the question “Who will do the dirty or unpleasant work?”, and also the subsequent section, “What about the person who will not work?”. You’re spending a lot of energy debating this with me when you could do a little reading and have all the answers you’re looking for in far more detail and far better explained than little ol’ me can give you!
I get where you’re coming from, but my point is that we can collectively design a system that sucks the least, and it sure as shit is not capitalism. There are examples of large-scale anarchist societies which demonstrate how anarchism works at scale, both historical and current, such as Revolutionary Spain and the Zapatista movement in Mexico.