Not really, because somehow a libertarian society where you can own slaves is less “authoritarian” than a socialist society where everyone is fed, housed, because the poor capitalists don’t get the power to exploit people.
Meanwhile a primitive anarchist commune with so little development of the means of production, a person’s only options are to fill a very specific role in society or starve becomes free again.
The term “authoritarian” is not useful for describing how much agency people in a society have over their own lives.
Not really, because somehow a libertarian society where you can own slaves is less “authoritarian” than a socialist society where everyone is fed, housed, because the poor capitalists don’t get the power to exploit people.
I’ve never heard anyone argue that before, and it’s not shown on the compass itself. Do you have any evidence to back that up?
Not really, because somehow a libertarian society where you can own slaves is less “authoritarian” than a socialist society where everyone is fed, housed, because the poor capitalists don’t get the power to exploit people.
Meanwhile a primitive anarchist commune with so little development of the means of production, a person’s only options are to fill a very specific role in society or starve becomes free again.
The term “authoritarian” is not useful for describing how much agency people in a society have over their own lives.
I’ve never heard anyone argue that before, and it’s not shown on the compass itself. Do you have any evidence to back that up?