20 ms·

I think that this is a really interesting concept, but dislike the name. All social anarchists (anarchist-communists, anarchist-syndicalists, even mutualists et

I think that this is a really interesting concept, but dislike the name. All social anarchists (anarchist-communists, anarchist-syndicalists, even mutualists etc) would see anarchy as a social process rather than a purely individualised "every man for himself" system. It disregards the possibility for non-coercive collective forms of decision making. but, saying this, a concept that discovers the loss in a system where each actor is purely self-interested is useful and interesting.

ue_ 10y ago
I talk with a lot of anarchists and perhaps the only ones of them who are truly in the spirit of "every man for himself" are an-caps and Stirnerists.
- Proven 10y ago
  I don't think ancaps are all like that. You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Does that translate into pathological selfishness and other extreme behavior that goes in customers' nerves? I don't think so, because such business wouldn't last long. I agree with the GP post above, and I'd also like to point out the idiocy of the "scientific" assumption from Wikipedia that "central planners" have superior information compared to self-interested agents who follow their own optimization strategies. F. A. Hayek is one of best authors on this topic.
  - ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
    I was bracing myself for comments that either missed the point entirely or low brow attempts to dismantle the piece. I am surprised and happy to find an intelligent discussion! It's becoming rarer on hn.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Serving your customers well is entirely out of self interest, especially in large corporations; in fact, this is the easiest example of "every man for himself". You serve your customers well because ultimately it brings you more profit. Sure, it's not as sure sighted as screwing over every customer, but people who are selfish aren't necessarily stupid. I would argue that the very act of running a business in such a society is not only wrong due to the exploitation of workers, but also the motivation underlying (almost) every transaction in which your goal is to sell things in such a way as to get yourself the largest profit. Of course that doesn't happen in real life. People have moral standards. I think I'm just a cynical ancom with regard to how people would really behave in the absence of all regulation. Let's not forget what large companies can still get away with today, and imagine what it would be like with anti-competitive monopolies, oligarchies, and two or three organisations controlling mainstream information sources. So sure, your business doesn't last long because you were too obviously selfish. Your next plan of action is to pay a news outlet (or better yet, already be in control of one) to cover you. Or if you can't do that, there's still hope - you can band together with like minded people and start another business. Not without worker exploitation, of course. You need all the surplus value you can get. I simply do not have the hope that "serving your customers well" is enough to prevent what actors in a capitalist system are truly capable of doing. Let's not forget the sheer paradoxical nature of "anarcho-capitalism" (the inherent class system set up of the bourgeoisie and proletariat is the exact opposite of non-hierarchical relations). I'm not really a proponent of central planning myself, so I agree with you on that.
    - justinmk 10y ago
      > Serving your customers well is entirely out of self interest, Right, just like "altruism" is also rooted in self-interest. It turns out that people are motivated by all kinds of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
      - ue_ 10y ago
        I don't mean to say that everyone acts entirely for themselves, with no action motivated by kindness. I mean to say that in a sytem with multiple people trying to do the same thing you are doing (selling for a profit), you'll have to compete with people with various moral standards and ways of getting their profit. This kind of system, I believe, eventually forces out those who are not "aggressive" enough with their methods, and if not eventually, it will happen over time due to the fact that capitalism requires ever higher and higher returns. While admirable in itself to act kindly in a capitalist system, it is ultimately detrimental to the success (and thus survival) of the company. There are of course examples of ethical practices (free range eggs for example), but they only continue once they become sufficiently practical.
        greggyb 10y ago
        > ...the fact that capitalism requires ever higher and higher returns. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production. Ever higher and higher returns are a result, so far, of capitalism.
        danharaj 10y ago
        I guess all those colonial wars and government interventions to build and prop up industries never resulted in higher returns. Capitalism is most certainly not just private ownership of the means of production. That is too reductionist. That is like saying biology is chemistry. Technically true, but misses the point. Because the means of production are held privately there is a class distinction between owners and workers. Owners derive their profit from the labor of their workers. Workers want to work less for higher wages, owners want the opposite. This becomes the locus of class struggle. Because all society now responds to the needs of capital, the superstructure and the state come to serve primarily bourgeois(owners) class interests. Considering how many wars and coups have been fought to forcibly introduce capitalism into other countries and forcibly extract their resources and labor, to say that private ownership results in higher returns is almost offensive in how it elides the emergent dynamics of capitalism.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I don't think ancaps are all like that. You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Does that translate into pathological selfishness and other extreme behavior that goes in customers' nerves? I don't think so, because such business wouldn't last long. It can last long enough to make you rich. Or it can last for several lifetimes as long as you have the clout to make it the only deal around (or historical and regional accidents made it so). In fact, there's also the old saying "there's a sucker born every minute": you just get new customers.
- dunslandsboo 10y ago
  Most anarcho-capitalists that I know and from who I learn are absolutely not about "every man for himself" at all. Charity and voluntary cooperation are major parts of the society as they would like it to become. See https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...
  - antocv 10y ago
    Doesnt that seem like an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalist? Like up-down?
    - boona 10y ago
      As far as I can tell it's the only consistent form of anarchy. For instance in discussions with anarchy-communists, if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of production. The communists I've talked to believe that there would be some public police force. When asked how any decision would be made by the collective, since it is a system run by "society" not by any individuals, the answer often hear is through democratic means (i.e. not anarchy). Considering only those two aspects, you already moved from anarchy to a form of democratic socialism. Edit: If you have a different point of view, please tell me where I err. The view point I've developed is based on my discussions with the communists, but it obviously doesn't mean that I've gotten the full story.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        > if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of product No. That's personal (not private) property. The MoP are manned by labour supplied by the proletariat. If you are having people working with that widget maker (aside from yourself), and you are paying them wages (or slavery), then it qualifies as MoP and the workers would seize it. In the same way, a programmer's computer, provided the owner is not using it as MoP for wage-labour, belongs to the programmer. >When asked how any decision would be made by the collective, since it is a system run by "society" not by any individuals, the answer often hear is through democratic means Our experiences differ; usually the response is that people can organise themselves freely into collectives or communes. There is no police force to force you to join a commune or obey their rules.
- pyrale 10y ago
  Anar-caps have always been separated from anarchists. I don't know why they took this name -they were in quite an identity crisis about it [1]-. A better name could be stateless capitalists. [1] Murray Rothbard, "Are libertarian anarchists" : https://mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists https://mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    Actually anarcho-capitalism permits anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, and mutualist enclaves (in addition to any voluntary organization) within of a polycentric legal order. It is the most inclusive variety of anarchism.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      Anar-caps permit any other form of anarchism - provided you own land. Statism permits any other form of government - provided you pay taxes and respect the law.
      - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
        You don't actually have to own the land...You could rent the land or hold the land as a collective.
        pyrale 10y ago
        Yeah, if someone is willing to enter a contract with you, which they are free to decline. Anyhow, beyond the mere principle of having to be part of a system you reject, it is quite weird to say that any anarchist could live in an anar-cap utopia, when there are such differences between them ; just like it would be weird to say that any anarchy can fully develop as a community within a statist society.
      - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
        Under US form of government, it is not permitted to have multiple overlapping anarchist legal orders, unless the system was radically reformed.
pron 10y ago
> the possibility for non-coercive collective forms of decision making. Can you define "non-coercive"? If you want to disallow coercion you must study how coercion actually works on humans rather than decide a priori what constitutes coercion. It is therefore possible that a "non-coercive collective forms of decision making" does not exist (or can only exist under certain unrealistic parameters).
- CaptainSwing 10y ago
  You're right that it is tricky. Many social anarchists and communists use the phrase 'voluntary cooperation' to describe the social order in a communist society (in the sense of a society without either capitalism or the state). Whether this is possible or not is beside the point. The argument I was making was simply that the use of the word anarchy in the concept is at odds with its use by most adherents to anarchism
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Alternatively, one could simply pay attention to how life is lived. Most things humans do are done out of habit. One might suspect that all our beneficial habits would break down if there weren't an almighty parental figure lying in wait to punish us, but that also contradicts lived experience: humans in more permissive societies habitually live in relative harmony even more than those in less permissive ones.
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    Any socialist etc. who studies history will point out that our permissive peaceful society exists with a lot of implied violence that is just made invisible or normalized. American incarceration rates and health care tied to employer come to mind.
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      Not sure that "too many people in prisons for victimless crimes" and "tax law that makes employer-tied healthcare almost inevitable" are aspects of society's permissiveness.
nerdponx 10y ago
Economists tend to go for whimsical names for their high concepts, cf. "Tragedy of the Commons"
- Hoasi 10y ago
  That's when their inner poet does the talking.

ue_ 10y ago

I talk with a lot of anarchists and perhaps the only ones of them who are truly in the spirit of "every man for himself" are an-caps and Stirnerists.

Proven 10y ago
I don't think ancaps are all like that. You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Does that translate into pathological selfishness and other extreme behavior that goes in customers' nerves? I don't think so, because such business wouldn't last long. I agree with the GP post above, and I'd also like to point out the idiocy of the "scientific" assumption from Wikipedia that "central planners" have superior information compared to self-interested agents who follow their own optimization strategies. F. A. Hayek is one of best authors on this topic.
- ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
  I was bracing myself for comments that either missed the point entirely or low brow attempts to dismantle the piece. I am surprised and happy to find an intelligent discussion! It's becoming rarer on hn.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Serving your customers well is entirely out of self interest, especially in large corporations; in fact, this is the easiest example of "every man for himself". You serve your customers well because ultimately it brings you more profit. Sure, it's not as sure sighted as screwing over every customer, but people who are selfish aren't necessarily stupid. I would argue that the very act of running a business in such a society is not only wrong due to the exploitation of workers, but also the motivation underlying (almost) every transaction in which your goal is to sell things in such a way as to get yourself the largest profit. Of course that doesn't happen in real life. People have moral standards. I think I'm just a cynical ancom with regard to how people would really behave in the absence of all regulation. Let's not forget what large companies can still get away with today, and imagine what it would be like with anti-competitive monopolies, oligarchies, and two or three organisations controlling mainstream information sources. So sure, your business doesn't last long because you were too obviously selfish. Your next plan of action is to pay a news outlet (or better yet, already be in control of one) to cover you. Or if you can't do that, there's still hope - you can band together with like minded people and start another business. Not without worker exploitation, of course. You need all the surplus value you can get. I simply do not have the hope that "serving your customers well" is enough to prevent what actors in a capitalist system are truly capable of doing. Let's not forget the sheer paradoxical nature of "anarcho-capitalism" (the inherent class system set up of the bourgeoisie and proletariat is the exact opposite of non-hierarchical relations). I'm not really a proponent of central planning myself, so I agree with you on that.
  - justinmk 10y ago
    > Serving your customers well is entirely out of self interest, Right, just like "altruism" is also rooted in self-interest. It turns out that people are motivated by all kinds of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
    - ue_ 10y ago
      I don't mean to say that everyone acts entirely for themselves, with no action motivated by kindness. I mean to say that in a sytem with multiple people trying to do the same thing you are doing (selling for a profit), you'll have to compete with people with various moral standards and ways of getting their profit. This kind of system, I believe, eventually forces out those who are not "aggressive" enough with their methods, and if not eventually, it will happen over time due to the fact that capitalism requires ever higher and higher returns. While admirable in itself to act kindly in a capitalist system, it is ultimately detrimental to the success (and thus survival) of the company. There are of course examples of ethical practices (free range eggs for example), but they only continue once they become sufficiently practical.
      - greggyb 10y ago
        > ...the fact that capitalism requires ever higher and higher returns. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production. Ever higher and higher returns are a result, so far, of capitalism.
        danharaj 10y ago
        I guess all those colonial wars and government interventions to build and prop up industries never resulted in higher returns. Capitalism is most certainly not just private ownership of the means of production. That is too reductionist. That is like saying biology is chemistry. Technically true, but misses the point. Because the means of production are held privately there is a class distinction between owners and workers. Owners derive their profit from the labor of their workers. Workers want to work less for higher wages, owners want the opposite. This becomes the locus of class struggle. Because all society now responds to the needs of capital, the superstructure and the state come to serve primarily bourgeois(owners) class interests. Considering how many wars and coups have been fought to forcibly introduce capitalism into other countries and forcibly extract their resources and labor, to say that private ownership results in higher returns is almost offensive in how it elides the emergent dynamics of capitalism.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I don't think ancaps are all like that. You can't run business if you don't serve your customers well. Does that translate into pathological selfishness and other extreme behavior that goes in customers' nerves? I don't think so, because such business wouldn't last long. It can last long enough to make you rich. Or it can last for several lifetimes as long as you have the clout to make it the only deal around (or historical and regional accidents made it so). In fact, there's also the old saying "there's a sucker born every minute": you just get new customers.
dunslandsboo 10y ago
Most anarcho-capitalists that I know and from who I learn are absolutely not about "every man for himself" at all. Charity and voluntary cooperation are major parts of the society as they would like it to become. See https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...
- antocv 10y ago
  Doesnt that seem like an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalist? Like up-down?
  - boona 10y ago
    As far as I can tell it's the only consistent form of anarchy. For instance in discussions with anarchy-communists, if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of production. The communists I've talked to believe that there would be some public police force. When asked how any decision would be made by the collective, since it is a system run by "society" not by any individuals, the answer often hear is through democratic means (i.e. not anarchy). Considering only those two aspects, you already moved from anarchy to a form of democratic socialism. Edit: If you have a different point of view, please tell me where I err. The view point I've developed is based on my discussions with the communists, but it obviously doesn't mean that I've gotten the full story.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      > if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of product No. That's personal (not private) property. The MoP are manned by labour supplied by the proletariat. If you are having people working with that widget maker (aside from yourself), and you are paying them wages (or slavery), then it qualifies as MoP and the workers would seize it. In the same way, a programmer's computer, provided the owner is not using it as MoP for wage-labour, belongs to the programmer. >When asked how any decision would be made by the collective, since it is a system run by "society" not by any individuals, the answer often hear is through democratic means Our experiences differ; usually the response is that people can organise themselves freely into collectives or communes. There is no police force to force you to join a commune or obey their rules.
pyrale 10y ago
Anar-caps have always been separated from anarchists. I don't know why they took this name -they were in quite an identity crisis about it [1]-. A better name could be stateless capitalists. [1] Murray Rothbard, "Are libertarian anarchists" : https://mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists https://mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  Actually anarcho-capitalism permits anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, and mutualist enclaves (in addition to any voluntary organization) within of a polycentric legal order. It is the most inclusive variety of anarchism.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    Anar-caps permit any other form of anarchism - provided you own land. Statism permits any other form of government - provided you pay taxes and respect the law.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      You don't actually have to own the land...You could rent the land or hold the land as a collective.
      - pyrale 10y ago
        Yeah, if someone is willing to enter a contract with you, which they are free to decline. Anyhow, beyond the mere principle of having to be part of a system you reject, it is quite weird to say that any anarchist could live in an anar-cap utopia, when there are such differences between them ; just like it would be weird to say that any anarchy can fully develop as a community within a statist society.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      Under US form of government, it is not permitted to have multiple overlapping anarchist legal orders, unless the system was radically reformed.

pron 10y ago

> the possibility for non-coercive collective forms of decision making. Can you define "non-coercive"? If you want to disallow coercion you must study how coercion actually works on humans rather than decide a priori what constitutes coercion. It is therefore possible that a "non-coercive collective forms of decision making" does not exist (or can only exist under certain unrealistic parameters).

CaptainSwing 10y ago
You're right that it is tricky. Many social anarchists and communists use the phrase 'voluntary cooperation' to describe the social order in a communist society (in the sense of a society without either capitalism or the state). Whether this is possible or not is beside the point. The argument I was making was simply that the use of the word anarchy in the concept is at odds with its use by most adherents to anarchism
jessaustin 10y ago
Alternatively, one could simply pay attention to how life is lived. Most things humans do are done out of habit. One might suspect that all our beneficial habits would break down if there weren't an almighty parental figure lying in wait to punish us, but that also contradicts lived experience: humans in more permissive societies habitually live in relative harmony even more than those in less permissive ones.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  Any socialist etc. who studies history will point out that our permissive peaceful society exists with a lot of implied violence that is just made invisible or normalized. American incarceration rates and health care tied to employer come to mind.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    Not sure that "too many people in prisons for victimless crimes" and "tax law that makes employer-tied healthcare almost inevitable" are aspects of society's permissiveness.

nerdponx 10y ago

Economists tend to go for whimsical names for their high concepts, cf. "Tragedy of the Commons"

Hoasi 10y ago
That's when their inner poet does the talking.