Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchists Unite!

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 2:34:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All anarchists want statelessness. We vary (considerably!) on preferred economic system. The cool thing is that anarchists do not forcibly prevent others from choosing their own property systems. The different conceptions should be seen as vibrant diversity, not sectarian rivalry. Anarcho-Socialists and Anarcho-Capitalists are more alike than different, notwithstanding the volume of esoteric economic debates that amount to little more than crystal ball gazing into possible stateless futures. I think it was Bakunin who said that (paraphrase) any anarchist that has a set program for the future just doesn't get the concept, the nature of emergent voluntary order. I will make one prediction. In a future free world, people will be using economic systems we haven't even thought of yet.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 3:13:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
F*cking anarchists.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 3:14:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What the actual f*ck is an anrcho-socialist. Socialists are nothing like you scumbags.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 3:16:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/6/2013 3:14:03 PM, RationalMadman wrote:
What the actual f*ck is an anrcho-socialist. Socialists are nothing like you scumbags.

Anarcho-Socialists are a segment of Anarchism who prefer voluntary societies that operate on socialist/collectivist principles.

and calm down.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 8:55:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The closest thing to anarchist capitalism in Bakunin's day was the "free market socialism" (mutualism) of Proudhon, and even that was too individualistic for Bakunin. He opted to ally with Marx instead, despite their differences regarding the State.

Anarchist capitalism is in fact nothing more than the refined capitalism Marx wrote, literally, volumes (Das Kapital) about and termed an "anarchic society of despots". When capitals, which are like states themselves, are anarchic in relation to each other, that's hardly anarchy from the perspective of a common anarchist or any anarchist who empathizes with the common man.

In other words, you're illegitimately narrowing the economic question to a preference for collectivism or individualism. No, socialist anarchists view the capitalist's authority as every bit as illegitimate as the state's--convergent with the state's, in fact. He won't squander an opportunity to chip away at it just because some yuppie who's internalized the capitalist schema considers it putting the cart before the horse.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 9:44:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 8:55:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
The closest thing to anarchist capitalism in Bakunin's day was the "free market socialism" (mutualism) of Proudhon, and even that was too individualistic for Bakunin. He opted to ally with Marx instead, despite their differences regarding the State.

Anarchist capitalism is in fact nothing more than the refined capitalism Marx wrote, literally, volumes (Das Kapital) about and termed an "anarchic society of despots". When capitals, which are like states themselves, are anarchic in relation to each other, that's hardly anarchy from the perspective of a common anarchist or any anarchist who empathizes with the common man.

In other words, you're illegitimately narrowing the economic question to a preference for collectivism or individualism. No, socialist anarchists view the capitalist's authority as every bit as illegitimate as the state's--convergent with the state's, in fact. He won't squander an opportunity to chip away at it just because some yuppie who's internalized the capitalist schema considers it putting the cart before the horse.

This is unfortunately the view of too many left anarchists. It's a matter of equating markets in theory with markets in practice. AnCapitalists support markets in theory, that is, unconstrained free trade and contract between consenting adults. Left anarchists on the other hand seem more to focus on State capitalism, the amalgamation of markets with State interference on behalf of capitalists. It's just as bad as when AnCapitalists "refute" AnSocialism with examples of State socialist economies. Everyone's just arguing past each other.

Carson, Long, Chartier, Spangler, et al have literally written volumes on this problem. AnSocialists and AnCapitalists shouldn't get too caught up in normative economics and instead simply embrace an all encompassing voluntaryism.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 12:30:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 9:44:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This is unfortunately the view of too many left anarchists. It's a matter of equating markets in theory with markets in practice. AnCapitalists support markets in theory, that is, unconstrained free trade and contract between consenting adults. Left anarchists on the other hand seem more to focus on State capitalism, the amalgamation of markets with State interference on behalf of capitalists. It's just as bad as when AnCapitalists "refute" AnSocialism with examples of State socialist economies. Everyone's just arguing past each other.

But I barely mentioned the state capitalist fusion. The primary objection left-anarchists have to capitalism is not that they invoke the state, but rather that they are like states, having absolute control over what is like territory (or, in the case of landlords, exactly territory). To put it another way, the primary left-anarchist objection is not that capitalists dare to be individuals, but rather that they presume to extend that self-ownership to that which is external to them and the interest of all.

Carson, Long, Chartier, Spangler, et al have literally written volumes on this problem. AnSocialists and AnCapitalists shouldn't get too caught up in normative economics and instead simply embrace an all encompassing voluntaryism.

But Carson et al. do get caught up in normative economics, even writing volumes about it. They don't want people to "volunteer" to refrain from interfering with individual designs on the common environment; they want people to feel obliged to refrain, same as they might feel obliged not to cross an agent of a state. Carson, at least, recognizes the necessity of justifying such demands in terms of reciprocity, but he must resurrect the labor theory of value in order to do so. Mainstream anarchism, on the hand, has rejected that theory since the time of Kropotkin.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 1:44:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/6/2013 2:34:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
All anarchists want statelessness. We vary (considerably!) on preferred economic system. The cool thing is that anarchists do not forcibly prevent others from choosing their own property systems. The different conceptions should be seen as vibrant diversity, not sectarian rivalry. Anarcho-Socialists and Anarcho-Capitalists are more alike than different, notwithstanding the volume of esoteric economic debates that amount to little more than crystal ball gazing into possible stateless futures. I think it was Bakunin who said that (paraphrase) any anarchist that has a set program for the future just doesn't get the concept, the nature of emergent voluntary order. I will make one prediction. In a future free world, people will be using economic systems we haven't even thought of yet.

Then get thinking, since it's nothing but a detached and intellectually abstract pipe dream anyway, the only place it's going to happen is in your mind. So you may as well start right now thinking up those new economic systems you haven't thought of yet.

But hey, don't be a stranger, from time to time you should come back to the real world and tell us how the make believe world worked out .
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 7:06:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/6/2013 2:34:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
All anarchists want statelessness. We vary (considerably!) on preferred economic system. The cool thing is that anarchists do not forcibly prevent others from choosing their own property systems. The different conceptions should be seen as vibrant diversity, not sectarian rivalry. Anarcho-Socialists and Anarcho-Capitalists are more alike than different, notwithstanding the volume of esoteric economic debates that amount to little more than crystal ball gazing into possible stateless futures. I think it was Bakunin who said that (paraphrase) any anarchist that has a set program for the future just doesn't get the concept, the nature of emergent voluntary order. I will make one prediction. In a future free world, people will be using economic systems we haven't even thought of yet.

While it"s being "cool" is indeed compelling, my favorite argument for anarchy is still with the authoritarian autocrat who advocated violence and terrorism to bring about his totalitarian state, Mikhail Bakunin.

We should abolish the state because everyone can just agree on everything, but if you think anarchists can agree on anything, then you just don"t understand how anarchism works.

I mean, I just don"t see how you can refute an argument like that without giggling the whole time.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:46:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 7:06:47 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
While it"s being "cool" is indeed compelling, my favorite argument for anarchy is still with the authoritarian autocrat who advocated violence and terrorism to bring about his totalitarian state, Mikhail Bakunin.

While the sheepish masses reflexively obey the rule that the possessive "its" gets no apostrophes, you say, "f that, I'm giving it two." Pure anarchy.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 11:17:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 10:46:18 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/8/2013 7:06:47 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
While it"s being "cool" is indeed compelling, my favorite argument for anarchy is still with the authoritarian autocrat who advocated violence and terrorism to bring about his totalitarian state, Mikhail Bakunin.

While the sheepish masses reflexively obey the rule that the possessive "its" gets no apostrophes, you say, "f that, I'm giving it two." Pure anarchy.

The punctuation argument for anarchy isn't that compelling either, you probably need more than that to abolish the state..
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 11:59:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Voltairine de Cleyre was initially drawn to individualist anarchism, but evolved through mutualism to an "anarchism without adjectives." She believed that any system was acceptable as long as it did not involve force.

The debate between the left and right anarchists seems to boil down to the concept of property (obviously).

"The primary objection left-anarchists have to capitalism is not that they invoke the state, but rather that they are like states, having absolute control over what is like territory (or, in the case of landlords, exactly territory)." -- CarefulNow

Okay, suppose a group of people lived in an anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist society. What is to stop an individual from say stealing or destroying what's in another's "possession" or the fruits of their labor if there is no distinguishable way to identify property? This is what allows me to not outright reject anarcho-capitalism as a philosophical theory premised on a voluntary market exchange, though in my ideal society - the one I would opt into - there would be an emphasis on pro-labor worker rights (which could take many forms: syndicalism, heavily unionized, democratic workplaces, etc.) not "capitalistic" but ultimately accepts and respects the notion of property. I wouldn't want it to be acceptable to have strangers walk into my house uninvited on the basis that we live in a world without borders.

Of course, while I don't pretend to have it all figured out - and I DO think the idea that ancap --> state-like monopolies has merit - I agree with de Cleyre and others who have posted here in noting that voluntaryism (anarchism) should be the premise that binds all anarchists together to fight toward a mutual goal of non-oppression. CarefulNow does make a good point though - one I think ancaps have been completely insufficient at countering (though again, the left fails to make a compelling argument against property as well).

I'm open to discuss.
President of DDO
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 2:31:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 11:59:02 AM, Danielle wrote:
Okay, suppose a group of people lived in an anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist society. What is to stop an individual from say stealing or destroying what's in another's "possession" or the fruits of their labor if there is no distinguishable way to identify property? This is what allows me to not outright reject anarcho-capitalism as a philosophical theory premised on a voluntary market exchange, though in my ideal society - the one I would opt into - there would be an emphasis on pro-labor worker rights (which could take many forms: syndicalism, heavily unionized, democratic workplaces, etc.) not "capitalistic" but ultimately accepts and respects the notion of property. I wouldn't want it to be acceptable to have strangers walk into my house uninvited on the basis that we live in a world without borders.

Socialists don't a priori oppose exclusive possession of, say, a house; they just recognize that it's a continuously social determination, not the necessary wage of building or occupying the house. "The fruits of their labor" is, after all, incomplete. Nothing is solely the product of labor; labor in empty space would be futile. All production comes at the additional opportunity cost of the resources it's applied to. When you unilaterally take possession of something, you externalize that opportunity cost. So occupancy alone clearly doesn't justify exclusive possession. Building the house, on the other hand, could justify far more than exclusive possession--depending on the term of exclusive possession, the subsequent utility of the house, and of course the aforementioned opportunity cost--but far less than permanent property in the land and materials committed to it the house.
Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 3:36:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only thing Anarcho-Capitalists have in common with left Anarchists, is statelessness.

I'm a left Anarchist and while I respect Anarcho-Capitalists, I feel that it would be difficult to work with them for a revolutionized society since our distribution of production would be completely opposite.
I feel that Capitalism would defeat the purpose of being free from authoritarianism because I believe Capitalism is authoritarian
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 5:22:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/6/2013 2:37:45 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
anarkay!

(procedes to stab neighbour over fence dispute, and destroy all the roads)

Win.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 6:39:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 3:36:43 PM, Yarely wrote:
The only thing Anarcho-Capitalists have in common with left Anarchists, is statelessness.


I'm a left Anarchist and while I respect Anarcho-Capitalists, I feel that it would be difficult to work with them for a revolutionized society since our distribution of production would be completely opposite.
I feel that Capitalism would defeat the purpose of being free from authoritarianism because I believe Capitalism is authoritarian

Russia and China are certainly emerging as authoritarian capitalist states,but that is the exception, what makes you think captalism is authoritarian?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 7:04:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 6:39:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Russia and China are certainly emerging as authoritarian capitalist states,but that is the exception, what makes you think captalism is authoritarian?

You're considering only the specific case of the authority that governs all--capitalists and those the capitalists otherwise govern. That capitalists generally otherwise exercise dictatorial control over their capitals is uncontroversial (unless we surrender "dictatorial" to connotation). The difference is in how authority is rationalized. Modern states rationalize their authority by reference to democracy, whereas formerly they would be rationalized by reference to heredity, divinity, acts, etc. Capitals, on the other hand, are rationalized by reference to exchange, always begging the question of the origin of that which was exchanged. To their credit, anarchist capitalists, unlike libertarians, at least consider such questions important; however, their homesteading principle is scarcely a better rationalization than divine right.
Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:27:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 6:39:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 3:36:43 PM, Yarely wrote:
The only thing Anarcho-Capitalists have in common with left Anarchists, is statelessness.


I'm a left Anarchist and while I respect Anarcho-Capitalists, I feel that it would be difficult to work with them for a revolutionized society since our distribution of production would be completely opposite.
I feel that Capitalism would defeat the purpose of being free from authoritarianism because I believe Capitalism is authoritarian

Russia and China are certainly emerging as authoritarian capitalist states,but that is the exception, what makes you think captalism is authoritarian?

I believe that Capitalism is authoritarian because it is set up in a way where the rich rule over the labor workers.
Are the labor workers free under Capitalism?
No because they are not free from the authority of the bosses.
Are the homeless free?
No because they do not have the liberties to buy a house and live comfortably because they are under the authority of the wealthier people who can buy that and more.

Capitalism also creates unemployment.
Anybody could have a job. The problem is that it isn't efficient.
Because if factories had 500 people working for not much hours, as opposed to 100 people working for ridiculous hours, than it would be less efficient as they have to build more space in the building for the extra people.
Businesses work for efficiency and profits instead of for the people.

This opposes the sentiment of Anarchy, as Anarchy is freedom from harmful authoritarian oppression.
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 9:02:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 2:31:28 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
So occupancy alone clearly doesn't justify exclusive possession. Building the house, on the other hand, could justify far more than exclusive possession--depending on the term of exclusive possession, the subsequent utility of the house, and of course the aforementioned opportunity cost--but far less than permanent property in the land and materials committed to it the house.

So if I build a house, I can't pass that house onto my child if I so choose? Because they didn't build it? If people couldn't buy/sell things they didn't make or labor on then how could a market exist? And what do you mean by "subsequent utility of the house?"
President of DDO
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 11:47:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 9:02:37 PM, Danielle wrote:
So if I build a house, I can't pass that house onto my child if I so choose? Because they didn't build it? If people couldn't buy/sell things they didn't make or labor on then how could a market exist? And what do you mean by "subsequent utility of the house?"

The value of the house after having been depreciated by the time you spent exclusively possessing it. As for tying products to the corresponding producers, that's not what I advocate. On the contrary, I explained why the product isn't a fair wage for its production. A fair wage for building a house is the value of the house minus the opportunity costs. Now, if you wanted to spend part of that wage renting the house, there would be nothing wrong with that; however, a free market implies you'd have to compete with any other interested tenants. So you really have nothing to pass on to your child. He's enriched by the universality of that fact and has every opportunity to spend those riches (i.e. entitlement to the full value of his labor) as you did. But if you're asking society to leave the house alone as your infinite progeny laze in it, no, you can't take that for granted.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 5:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:27:51 PM, Yarely wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:39:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 3:36:43 PM, Yarely wrote:
The only thing Anarcho-Capitalists have in common with left Anarchists, is statelessness.


I'm a left Anarchist and while I respect Anarcho-Capitalists, I feel that it would be difficult to work with them for a revolutionized society since our distribution of production would be completely opposite.
I feel that Capitalism would defeat the purpose of being free from authoritarianism because I believe Capitalism is authoritarian

Russia and China are certainly emerging as authoritarian capitalist states,but that is the exception, what makes you think captalism is authoritarian?

I believe that Capitalism is authoritarian because it is set up in a way where the rich rule over the labor workers.

What alternative do you propose?

Are the labor workers free under Capitalism?
No because they are not free from the authority of the bosses.

How do you suppose they could work without being under the authority of bosses?

Are the homeless free?
No because they do not have the liberties to buy a house and live comfortably because they are under the authority of the wealthier people who can buy that and more.

So this is an agalitarian vision run amok, you advocate freedom from inequality? If one person chooses to work and another chooses not to, they are unfairly under the authority of the person who chooses to work because the one who works has the ability to buy things they can't?

Capitalism also creates unemployment.

As opposed to what?

Anybody could have a job. The problem is that it isn't efficient.

Are you advocating that we abolish the state and jobs?

Because if factories had 500 people working for not much hours, as opposed to 100 people working for ridiculous hours, than it would be less efficient as they have to build more space in the building for the extra people.
Businesses work for efficiency and profits instead of for the people.

Would you eliminate busiinesses too?

This opposes the sentiment of Anarchy, as Anarchy is freedom from harmful authoritarian oppression.

So the sentiment is that any differences in wealth or authority is unfair and should be eliminated? I find it more than a little hard to envision a workable system without a state, jobs, and businesses. Can you explicate on how your anarchy system works? Specifically around how services provided by the state are provided, how workers are freed from the tyrany of employers, and how the system would eliminate the inequality between those who have more than others.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 5:50:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 8:55:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
The closest thing to anarchist capitalism in Bakunin's day was the "free market socialism" (mutualism) of Proudhon, and even that was too individualistic for Bakunin. He opted to ally with Marx instead, despite their differences regarding the State.

Anarchist capitalism is in fact nothing more than the refined capitalism Marx wrote, literally, volumes (Das Kapital) about and termed an "anarchic society of despots". When capitals, which are like states themselves, are anarchic in relation to each other, that's hardly anarchy from the perspective of a common anarchist or any anarchist who empathizes with the common man.

In other words, you're illegitimately narrowing the economic question to a preference for collectivism or individualism. No, socialist anarchists view the capitalist's authority as every bit as illegitimate as the state's--convergent with the state's, in fact. He won't squander an opportunity to chip away at it just because some yuppie who's internalized the capitalist schema considers it putting the cart before the horse.

If the state and capitaism are illegitamate, then what do you propose as an alternative, how are goods and services produced and what kind of distribution system is there?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 11:08:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 5:50:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
If the state and capitaism are illegitamate, then what do you propose as an alternative, how are goods and services produced and what kind of distribution system is there?

Asking for an alternative implies that the parasitic state and capitalists serve some sort of function; no, producers would not suddenly lose the ability to produce, nor distributors distribute, in their absence. Left anarchists have a variety of opinions on how such labors should proceed, and I must admit that my own fraction's proposals have been accused of being too much like a state (and too much like capitalism, for that matter), so much so that it's largely ceased to identify itself as anarchist. But the modern collectivist "state" is nothing more than a grassroots, nested, democratic coordinator of the various producers and consumers. Within modern collectivism, there are further differences, with some believing workplaces should be paid in proportion to the number of individuals in them, others according to the difference between the value of their output and the value of their inputs.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 11:19:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 9:44:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/7/2013 8:55:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
The closest thing to anarchist capitalism in Bakunin's day was the "free market socialism" (mutualism) of Proudhon, and even that was too individualistic for Bakunin. He opted to ally with Marx instead, despite their differences regarding the State.

Anarchist capitalism is in fact nothing more than the refined capitalism Marx wrote, literally, volumes (Das Kapital) about and termed an "anarchic society of despots". When capitals, which are like states themselves, are anarchic in relation to each other, that's hardly anarchy from the perspective of a common anarchist or any anarchist who empathizes with the common man.

In other words, you're illegitimately narrowing the economic question to a preference for collectivism or individualism. No, socialist anarchists view the capitalist's authority as every bit as illegitimate as the state's--convergent with the state's, in fact. He won't squander an opportunity to chip away at it just because some yuppie who's internalized the capitalist schema considers it putting the cart before the horse.

This is unfortunately the view of too many left anarchists. It's a matter of equating markets in theory with markets in practice. AnCapitalists support markets in theory, that is, unconstrained free trade and contract between consenting adults. Left anarchists on the other hand seem more to focus on State capitalism, the amalgamation of markets with State interference on behalf of capitalists. It's just as bad as when AnCapitalists "refute" AnSocialism with examples of State socialist economies. Everyone's just arguing past each other.

Carson, Long, Chartier, Spangler, et al have literally written volumes on this problem. AnSocialists and AnCapitalists shouldn't get too caught up in normative economics and instead simply embrace an all encompassing voluntaryism.

It"s pretty clear that the most influential authors for the anarchy movement are J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien, and perhaps Sega and Nintendo. What you all seem to have in common is a desire for freedom from the tyranny of reality adjusted thinking.

Perhaps the title of the thread should have been "Fantasy Fiction Fans Unite".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 12:01:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 5:44:16 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:27:51 PM, Yarely wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:39:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 3:36:43 PM, Yarely wrote:
The only thing Anarcho-Capitalists have in common with left Anarchists, is statelessness.


I'm a left Anarchist and while I respect Anarcho-Capitalists, I feel that it would be difficult to work with them for a revolutionized society since our distribution of production would be completely opposite.
I feel that Capitalism would defeat the purpose of being free from authoritarianism because I believe Capitalism is authoritarian

Russia and China are certainly emerging as authoritarian capitalist states,but that is the exception, what makes you think captalism is authoritarian?

I believe that Capitalism is authoritarian because it is set up in a way where the rich rule over the labor workers.

What alternative do you propose?
I propose Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism etc.

Are the labor workers free under Capitalism?
No because they are not free from the authority of the bosses.

How do you suppose they could work without being under the authority of bosses?
By not having bosses. By having no businesses

Are the homeless free?
No because they do not have the liberties to buy a house and live comfortably because they are under the authority of the wealthier people who can buy that and more.

So this is an agalitarian vision run amok, you advocate freedom from inequality? If one person chooses to work and another chooses not to, they are unfairly under the authority of the person who chooses to work because the one who works has the ability to buy things they can't?

That is such a simplistic statement. Everyone tends to think that because somebody is successful, that that immediately means that that person worked extremely hard to get where they were.
Not exactly.
Labor workers are probably the hardest workers you'll ever see but hey get pitiful wages and horrible hours.
"In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.

This arrangement is called the wage system.

Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenth of what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.

It means this:

Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories.That's the landlord's profit

What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is his share, his wage.

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.

The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery.

The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery.

That's the order of things called capitalism, and law and government are there to protect this order of things.

Do you wonder that the capitalist and employer, and all those who profit by this order of things, are strong for 'law and order'?

But where do you come in? What benefit have you from that kind of 'law and order'? Don't you see that this 'law and order' only robs you, fools you, and just enslaves you?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu.........;


Capitalism also creates unemployment.

As opposed to what?

Anybody could have a job. The problem is that it isn't efficient.

Are you advocating that we abolish the state and jobs?
We can have jobs without bosses, but money wouldn't exist. Everyone would work for the good of the community.

Because if factories had 500 people working for not much hours, as opposed to 100 people working for ridiculous hours, than it would be less efficient as they have to build more space in the building for the extra people.
Businesses work for efficiency and profits instead of for the people.

Would you eliminate busiinesses too?
Yes businesses shouldn't exist

This opposes the sentiment of Anarchy, as Anarchy is freedom from harmful authoritarian oppression.

So the sentiment is that any differences in wealth or authority is unfair and should be eliminated? I find it more than a little hard to envision a workable system without a state, jobs, and businesses. Can you explicate on how your anarchy system works? Specifically around how services provided by the state are provided, how workers are freed from the tyrany of employers, and how the system would eliminate the inequality between those who have more than others.

Well the system would be where everyone gets an equal share of the means of production. Everyone would pick a job they want and contribute to the community. Nobody would have power over the other and everyone would have fair living arrangements. Nobody would be under the oppression of inequality or the state.
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 1:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 11:19:10 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Perhaps the title of the thread should have been "Fantasy Fiction Fans Unite".

The anthropological consensus is that the hunter-gatherer societies that ultimately gave birth to modern societies were anarchistic. There were of course Big Men, but their sway was temporary and consensual, hardly the inherited entitlement we see today.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 4:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 12:01:17 PM, Yarely wrote:
At 1/9/2013 5:44:16 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:27:51 PM, Yarely wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:39:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 3:36:43 PM, Yarely wrote:
The only thing Anarcho-Capitalists have in common with left Anarchists, is statelessness.


I'm a left Anarchist and while I respect Anarcho-Capitalists, I feel that it would be difficult to work with them for a revolutionized society since our distribution of production would be completely opposite.
I feel that Capitalism would defeat the purpose of being free from authoritarianism because I believe Capitalism is authoritarian

Russia and China are certainly emerging as authoritarian capitalist states,but that is the exception, what makes you think captalism is authoritarian?

I believe that Capitalism is authoritarian because it is set up in a way where the rich rule over the labor workers.

What alternative do you propose?
I propose Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism etc.

Either or, or do you mean Anarcho-Syndicalism followed by Anarcho-Communism?

Are the labor workers free under Capitalism?
No because they are not free from the authority of the bosses.

How do you suppose they could work without being under the authority of bosses?
By not having bosses. By having no businesses

Then what is the means of production, and how is it directed? If you have even a cursory vunderstanding of how goods and services are produced, you know that production cannot be organized in a completely flat manner regarding the work that must be done, How do you run a complex production process with no hierarchy or any layers of directive control?

Are the homeless free?
No because they do not have the liberties to buy a house and live comfortably because they are under the authority of the wealthier people who can buy that and more.

So this is an egalitarian vision run amok, you advocate freedom from inequality? If one person chooses to work and another chooses not to, they are unfairly under the authority of the person who chooses to work because the one who works has the ability to buy things they can't?

That is such a simplistic statement. Everyone tends to think that because somebody is successful, that that immediately means that that person worked extremely hard to get where they were.

No it isn't simplistic, and you answered with a non sequitor. Everyone that has ever worked for a living knows that some people work harder than others, and some are more productive than others. The reality of the situation is that the people who work harder tend to be more successful. There are people who work hard and there are lazy people. How does your system not incent laziness, if I knew I would get the same result by not going to work tomorrow I'd stay home. If I could just pick a job and there were no economic inequalities between jobs, I would certainly pick an easy one.

There are some workers who need supervision, other's who don't, without bosses, those people won't, or can't do the work. How does your system facilitate supervision without supervisors?

Not exactly.
Labor workers are probably the hardest workers you'll ever see but hey get pitiful wages and horrible hours.
"In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.

This arrangement is called the wage system.

Yeah, I know enough about the wage system to know you are using an archaic definition of one that went away a long time ago.

Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenth of what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.

It means this:

Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories.That's the landlord's profit

What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is his share, his wage.

So all of the value of the goods and services produced came from the workers? The landlord that leased the building added no value, the building the workers work in is unnecessary? Does your system abolish factories?

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.

The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery.

And when the guy doing the same job as me doesn't produce because he is lazy, aren't the rest of us being robbed?

The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery.

That's the order of things called capitalism, and law and government are there to protect this order of things.

Do you wonder that the capitalist and employer, and all those who profit by this order of things, are strong for 'law and order'?

But where do you come in?

Here's where I come in, I'm a capitalist, I'm hard working, and I've created a lot of jobs with the results of my labor, because I work hard I believe I earned what I have, so yeah, I come in on the side of law and order. You see law and order as a bad thing? Are you advocating lawlessness and disorder?

What benefit have you from that kind of 'law and order'? Don't you see that this 'law and order' only robs you, fools you, and just enslaves you?

I think the benefits of law and order come down to being safe from harm, not being robbed, my wife not being raped, my children not being killed in school, you know, stuff like that.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu.........;


Capitalism also creates unemployment.

As opposed to what?

Anybody could have a job. The problem is that it isn't efficient.

And you think a system where nobody is incented to work and nobody directs the means of production is more efficient?

Are you advocating that we abolish the state and jobs?
We can have jobs without bosses, but money wouldn't exist. Everyone would work for the good of the community.

If we abolish business, then where do the jobs come from?

Because if factories had 500 people working for not much hours, as opposed to 100 people working for ridiculous hours, than it would be less efficient as they have to build more space in the building for the extra people.
Businesses work for efficiency and profits instead of for the people.

So your system abolished efficiency too?

Would you eliminate busiinesses too?
Yes businesses shouldn't exist

But then where do the workers go every morning, where are these jobs they go to?

This opposes the sentiment of Anarchy, as Anarchy is freedom from harmful authoritarian oppression.

Continued....
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 4:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 12:01:17 PM, Yarely wrote:
At 1/9/2013 5:44:16 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:27:51 PM, Yarely wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:39:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/8/2013 3:36:43 PM, Yarely wrote:

This opposes the sentiment of Anarchy, as Anarchy is freedom from harmful authoritarian oppression.

So the sentiment is that any differences in wealth or authority is unfair and should be eliminated? I find it more than a little hard to envision a workable system without a state, jobs, and businesses. Can you explicate on how your anarchy system works? Specifically around how services provided by the state are provided, how workers are freed from the tyrany of employers, and how the system would eliminate the inequality between those who have more than others.

Well the system would be where everyone gets an equal share of the means of production. Everyone would pick a job they want and contribute to the community.

And how do you ensure that the distribution of jobs to be done exactly corresond to the distribution of what people choose to do. There will need to be roofers working in the south for instance, very hard work and dangerous work, do you really think there are enough people who would choose to do that work to get the job done? Do you think that all things being equal, there are the enough people who, if they could choose any job, would want to be garbage collector, and that there are enough of them to get all of the garbage collected? Won't there be competition for the easiest and safest jobs. How do you facilitate matching people to the jobs that need to be done if their preferences don't line up perfectly with the jobs?

Nobody would have power over the other and everyone would have fair living arrangements.

I think we'd be living in houses without roofs and a lot of garbage everywhere.

Nobody would be under the oppression of inequality or the state.

And this would all be accomplished through lawlessness and disorder, inefficiency, and everyone just doing what they want?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 4:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 4:40:01 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
And this would all be accomplished through lawlessness and disorder, inefficiency, and everyone just doing what they want?

Anarchy is the absence of leaders, not the absence of order. Humans are not feeble sheep to be controlled; they are individuals all with wills of their own. The notion that there would be no order without government flies in the face of history, i.e., Ireland.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."