What is the anarchist response to "equality of what"?

Question

Amartya Sen's famous essay "Equality of what?" and subsequent development of "capability approach" to justice seems to adapt well with anarchist ideals of a society with equal access to means for fulfillment of needs. But, Sen's theory is clearly a liberal welfarist approach to the quesrioq of justice. Does anarchist theory offer any critique of Sen's theory? Even broad outline will be much appreciated.

Comments

i haven't read the essay. but generally the issue with liberals is that they assume/require a state that will ensure whatever goodness they think should happen. even if they don't call it a state.

in general, who determines what equality means, and ensures that equality (of whatever sort) exists?

Answer 1

ok first off this is only my response, not the anarchist response.  to me it seems the opposite of anarchic to believe there is a singular correct response to any issue, though i imagine that was just unfortunate wording?

anywho, having skim read the essay my response is an eye roll.  the essay is steeped in the stalest of formal academic philosophy.  talk of utilitarianism, ‘maximising utility’, and other such jargon abound.  he seems to idealize and mathematize his conception of the world right out of reality, to the point where i would probably connect more with someone in a k-hole than with whoever wrote this.

but fundamentally my problem is the fact that the enitre 8000 odd word essay is based soley on the idea of ‘morality’.  what even is ‘morality’?  and  what place does it have in anarchy?

obviously i have my own opinion about that.  i think morality is not a thing, a non-thing, just a way people talk about their own desires and feelings so they feel more authoritative.  i think that morality is merely a complex system of rules and values that is possessed by a individual or a culture.  this essay -on the other hand- treats morality as a concrete thing that is to be grappled with, to be tallied, and maximised. so given that this whole essay is built to engage with something -morality- that i dont even think exists, i dont think it needs much responding to.

edited to meet seriousity quota

Comments

That quota is getting harder and harder to gauge. I don't see what was wrong with your answer or comment about the readibility of your answer. My comment above about the guy being an economist and it being an economic theory criticism of another economist was baleeted also

---

zubaz, perhaps you don't remember accurately what your comment said. this is a site for people to ask questions about anarchy, of anarchists. your removed comment said that the question was bad (useless, irrelevant). this is antithetical to the purpose.

pm exists for more personal chats.