3 ms·

You are of course correct. I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea

You are of course correct. I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea as you note. Sometimes to avoid the ambiguity, I use "social anarchism" to refer to those espoused by the original anarchists and most organised anarchists today. The reason why anarcho-capitalism is not regarded as anarchistic is because of its nature as being what the Socialists regard as hierarchical and its institutions as non-voluntary by espousing a hierarchy seen in the class distinction, that is, one class owns the property, the other does not. This, to them, is a power relationship, and one which cannot be justified. The social anarchists are against unjutsified authority, not authority in general. Parapharasing Bakunin, in the matter of shoes I defer to the authority of the bootmaker, not because he is more powerful, but because it's my choice. To me it is clear that the mere abolition of the state is insufficient for human liberation, we must also stop the material conditions which manifest the state from coming into existence, that is, ownership of property, from which the state can derive its power most easily through the collection of tax or rent.

bytefederal-ceo 9y ago
Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive, that life feeds on life and instead build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence.
- etplayer 9y ago
  >Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. This sounds awfully theological to me. >You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. I honestly have no idea where you get this idea from, and I've had to explain it so many times; it's a popular misconception about Communism but I simply have trouble understanding where it originates. If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this idea from? As far as I know, no Communist espouses it. For a counter to your point, take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution[0] however your very premise is flawed; Communism does not mean the absolute equality of everyone, as even a child can see that people are different and have different strengths. Communism is merely a more equal system in which people receive the product of their labour in fully. > To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive This is a tired point, the fact that it is still trotted out reeks of naturalistic fallacy, and the idea that humans are no better than the universe, ignoring the fact that the forms of oppressive have changed but the relationships remain roughly the same. You seem to suggest that capitalism, or at least some class society, is necessary. I see no reason to believe this is true. You assume that these systems are natural, deriving right from the universe itself; again, you expound theology. >that life feeds on life This is a funny point because even though this is unavoidable, humans have created ways to minimise the extent to which this occurs, by consuming less life i.e vegetarianism. Do you see how this thinking can also apply to, say, capitalism? We may not eliminate certain pressures but we can certainly reduce them. >build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence Not really. I'd say that capitalism does this instead, and the reason is that within capitalism we could only hope to do that if it brings profit to the speculators. This idea that capitalism is a promoter of human progress is obviously false given the great amount of pollution, false science etc. which happens in the name of capital itself. If we can't even care for this planet, what makes you think that capitalism nurtures prolonged interplanetary existence? The very idea seems ridiculous to me. In short, you've confused nature with a rather recent mode of production (which optimises for things that aren't natural at all) and used a theological argument to say that it must be this way or we'll be doomed to massive turmoil and never leaving planet Earth. [0] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua...
  - aoeuasdf1 9y ago
    I admit I have a hard time imagining how an advanced economy could work without a government. Can you clarify your opinions here - in your anarchist utopia, - Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor? - Does a central bank exist? If not, how is inflation & deflation controlled? (A common criticism of Marxists is capitalisms boom / bust cycle - how does getting rid of the government solve this?) - Without a government, how are market failures solved: Who discourages negative externalities such as pollution, violence, theft, human trafficking, pushing dangerous drugs on minors? It's in no-one's individual self-interest to prevent these things - they require collective action. Who funds actions with positive externalities such as trash collection, fundamental scientific research, maintaining and protecting national parks, etc - Many modern industries are extremely capital intensive. I get the idea that a revolution will expropriate existing capital. But going forward, who will create new capital if owning & profiting from it is impossible? Who pays the laborer who produces capital? In my understanding, we either need to incentivize capital production by having the government pay for it and own it (state-owned industries), or by allowing people to buy it and profit off of the ownership. How does anarchism solve this? I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      >Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor? The workers own the products that they make, and if made in join production then I expect some calculation to be made in terms of socially necessary labour time to be used for calculation. Another option is labour vouchers, which are distinct from money because they are non-exchangeable with others and one cannot accumulate more than 365*24 per year (as they are hour based). This puts an end to the function of capital accumulation which is found in money. >Does a central bank exist? Probably not. I expect there to be multiple communities each maintaining their own banks of extra produce from which people can either withdraw freely (higher stage of Communism) or with labour vouchers (lower stage). Many would disagree with me on this point, and I'm by far the most well read in terms of distributive aspects. >externalities The absence of the state does not preclude collective action or sets of rules. In the same way that if someone appropriated means of production and forced people to work the machines for wage, I would encourage revolution against them, even in an anarchist society. >trash collection, research, maintaining Undesirable jobs would probably be allocated on a rota-like system, or some other democratically decided way. Research and maintenance doubtlessly people find motivating in themselves, so I think that would be covered by self-interested parties. I know a few people who would likely be interested to do one or the other. Education would naturally focus around the fulfilment of jobs which are short in supply. >Who pays the laborer who produces capital? There is no payment, this is the whole point of Communism and anarchism. Wage labour is off the table. What kind of capital production are you talking about? If talking about the development of constant capital (materials, machinery, tools etc.) then the allocation of people to make these resources is probably allocated such that each person needs to do the minimal amount work, either in exchange for labour vouchers or a share of the products made with the materials, machinery and tools that were produced. The same goes for the maintenance of that capital, as a machine degenerates by its labour content leaving it into the goods it produces, and it is repaired by supplying it with new labour. This seems difficult to calculate. >I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists. That's mostly because "leftism" is a massive variety of tendencies, factions, parties, individuals, theorists, ideologies. They (like mine I assume) are non-answers because most people don't don't devote much time to think of this when they have more motivation to study the critique of capitalism, or just do other things. I have to say that most people are simply unmotivated, and I am one of them. People like the original anarchists, Zizek, Badiou, the Marxian economists etc. have much more time to devote.
waterhouse 9y ago
There are people who argue that land ownership in general is unjustified. One argument is that the areas of land in question are often many times larger than what the owner has used or can use; for example, in the early history of America, there were small groups of individuals (e.g. [1]) who found areas of hundreds of thousands of acres, surveyed them, and were then granted exclusive ownership of them by the reigning government. These people may have a point; no theory of homesteading could possibly justify those land claims. So let's concern ourselves with material goods for now: The processes of making most useful material goods, today, involve long setups where you take input materials X and Y, use equipment A to do step 1, use equipment B to do step 2, add material Z and use equipment C to do step 3, and so on. The process wouldn't work if some people decided they wanted to use equipment B for something else and just took it. If there is no ownership of property, what is there to prevent that from happening? You mention a bootmaker. Why can't some random person decide he wants to use one of the bootmaker's tools for his own projects, take it, and stop the bootmaker from accomplishing anything? On the other hand, if the bootmaker does have some kind of right to prevent the rando from taking the tools he's accustomed to using—by force, if the rando is stubborn—then that's starting to sound like ownership, and I don't understand how this might differ from the conventional treatment of material goods as ownable property. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Company

bytefederal-ceo 9y ago

Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive, that life feeds on life and instead build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence.

etplayer 9y ago
>Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. This sounds awfully theological to me. >You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. I honestly have no idea where you get this idea from, and I've had to explain it so many times; it's a popular misconception about Communism but I simply have trouble understanding where it originates. If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this idea from? As far as I know, no Communist espouses it. For a counter to your point, take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution[0] however your very premise is flawed; Communism does not mean the absolute equality of everyone, as even a child can see that people are different and have different strengths. Communism is merely a more equal system in which people receive the product of their labour in fully. > To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive This is a tired point, the fact that it is still trotted out reeks of naturalistic fallacy, and the idea that humans are no better than the universe, ignoring the fact that the forms of oppressive have changed but the relationships remain roughly the same. You seem to suggest that capitalism, or at least some class society, is necessary. I see no reason to believe this is true. You assume that these systems are natural, deriving right from the universe itself; again, you expound theology. >that life feeds on life This is a funny point because even though this is unavoidable, humans have created ways to minimise the extent to which this occurs, by consuming less life i.e vegetarianism. Do you see how this thinking can also apply to, say, capitalism? We may not eliminate certain pressures but we can certainly reduce them. >build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence Not really. I'd say that capitalism does this instead, and the reason is that within capitalism we could only hope to do that if it brings profit to the speculators. This idea that capitalism is a promoter of human progress is obviously false given the great amount of pollution, false science etc. which happens in the name of capital itself. If we can't even care for this planet, what makes you think that capitalism nurtures prolonged interplanetary existence? The very idea seems ridiculous to me. In short, you've confused nature with a rather recent mode of production (which optimises for things that aren't natural at all) and used a theological argument to say that it must be this way or we'll be doomed to massive turmoil and never leaving planet Earth. [0] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua...
- aoeuasdf1 9y ago
  I admit I have a hard time imagining how an advanced economy could work without a government. Can you clarify your opinions here - in your anarchist utopia, - Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor? - Does a central bank exist? If not, how is inflation & deflation controlled? (A common criticism of Marxists is capitalisms boom / bust cycle - how does getting rid of the government solve this?) - Without a government, how are market failures solved: Who discourages negative externalities such as pollution, violence, theft, human trafficking, pushing dangerous drugs on minors? It's in no-one's individual self-interest to prevent these things - they require collective action. Who funds actions with positive externalities such as trash collection, fundamental scientific research, maintaining and protecting national parks, etc - Many modern industries are extremely capital intensive. I get the idea that a revolution will expropriate existing capital. But going forward, who will create new capital if owning & profiting from it is impossible? Who pays the laborer who produces capital? In my understanding, we either need to incentivize capital production by having the government pay for it and own it (state-owned industries), or by allowing people to buy it and profit off of the ownership. How does anarchism solve this? I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    >Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor? The workers own the products that they make, and if made in join production then I expect some calculation to be made in terms of socially necessary labour time to be used for calculation. Another option is labour vouchers, which are distinct from money because they are non-exchangeable with others and one cannot accumulate more than 365*24 per year (as they are hour based). This puts an end to the function of capital accumulation which is found in money. >Does a central bank exist? Probably not. I expect there to be multiple communities each maintaining their own banks of extra produce from which people can either withdraw freely (higher stage of Communism) or with labour vouchers (lower stage). Many would disagree with me on this point, and I'm by far the most well read in terms of distributive aspects. >externalities The absence of the state does not preclude collective action or sets of rules. In the same way that if someone appropriated means of production and forced people to work the machines for wage, I would encourage revolution against them, even in an anarchist society. >trash collection, research, maintaining Undesirable jobs would probably be allocated on a rota-like system, or some other democratically decided way. Research and maintenance doubtlessly people find motivating in themselves, so I think that would be covered by self-interested parties. I know a few people who would likely be interested to do one or the other. Education would naturally focus around the fulfilment of jobs which are short in supply. >Who pays the laborer who produces capital? There is no payment, this is the whole point of Communism and anarchism. Wage labour is off the table. What kind of capital production are you talking about? If talking about the development of constant capital (materials, machinery, tools etc.) then the allocation of people to make these resources is probably allocated such that each person needs to do the minimal amount work, either in exchange for labour vouchers or a share of the products made with the materials, machinery and tools that were produced. The same goes for the maintenance of that capital, as a machine degenerates by its labour content leaving it into the goods it produces, and it is repaired by supplying it with new labour. This seems difficult to calculate. >I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists. That's mostly because "leftism" is a massive variety of tendencies, factions, parties, individuals, theorists, ideologies. They (like mine I assume) are non-answers because most people don't don't devote much time to think of this when they have more motivation to study the critique of capitalism, or just do other things. I have to say that most people are simply unmotivated, and I am one of them. People like the original anarchists, Zizek, Badiou, the Marxian economists etc. have much more time to devote.

waterhouse 9y ago

There are people who argue that land ownership in general is unjustified. One argument is that the areas of land in question are often many times larger than what the owner has used or can use; for example, in the early history of America, there were small groups of individuals (e.g. [1]) who found areas of hundreds of thousands of acres, surveyed them, and were then granted exclusive ownership of them by the reigning government. These people may have a point; no theory of homesteading could possibly justify those land claims. So let's concern ourselves with material goods for now: The processes of making most useful material goods, today, involve long setups where you take input materials X and Y, use equipment A to do step 1, use equipment B to do step 2, add material Z and use equipment C to do step 3, and so on. The process wouldn't work if some people decided they wanted to use equipment B for something else and just took it. If there is no ownership of property, what is there to prevent that from happening? You mention a bootmaker. Why can't some random person decide he wants to use one of the bootmaker's tools for his own projects, take it, and stop the bootmaker from accomplishing anything? On the other hand, if the bootmaker does have some kind of right to prevent the rando from taking the tools he's accustomed to using—by force, if the rando is stubborn—then that's starting to sound like ownership, and I don't understand how this might differ from the conventional treatment of material goods as ownable property. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Company