6 ms·

> Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that t

> Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society One thing that always struck me, was in a capitialistic society we are actually all incentivised to fix potholes ourselves... Basically the improved potholes keep us safe, improve business, etc. I think many are just so short sighted, that when they think of capitalism they think of the standard "greedy corporation" If people actually thought two steps ahead (including said corporation) theyd be more like Amazon, improve logistics and you improve the world. Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as much. That's a selfish, capitalism-centric act

bbctol 9y ago
...unless it violates someone else's property rights. The point of capitalism is that people can own things, and you can do what you want as long as you don't violate that system of ownership. The point of anarchism is that you can basically do what you want.
- kiliantics 9y ago
  > The point of anarchism is that you can basically do what you want. This is a simplistic characterisation. Anarchists hold individual liberty in the highest regard but also believe in solidarity and mutual aid. You can "basically do what you want" as long as you aren't restricting the individual freedom of others but rather supporting everyone in having access to the same means and rights as you do. Since exploitation of people is so endemic in our society, anarchists work mainly to free themselves and others from oppressive systems. Right now we can't do what we want, so anarchists fight against the social dynamics which are preventing this.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Well, but in the absence of an overriding rulership, i.e. anarchy, you actually can do what you want even if you're restricting the individual freedom of others and denying them access to the same means and rights as you do. There's clear motivation for some people to do that, and what's going to prevent them from doing that to weaker or less resourceful people? And a system capable and intent on effectively doing that essentially becomes a de facto system of governance, and the situation ceases to be an anarchy.
    - kiliantics 9y ago
      System of governance is different to a state. Anarchists are against the state but not necessarily against government, as long as that government's power comes from voluntary association and not by coercion.
  - spraak 9y ago
    This is a great clarification, not sure why the downvotes.
  - IanDrake 9y ago
    “Right now we can’t do what we want...” What is it you want to do that you’re not allowed to? Also, why are anarchist teaming up with communist in order to limit free speech? I’m specifically talking about Antifa trying to stop a jew (Shapiro) and a gay man married to a black man (Milo) from speaking at Berkeley? Do anarchists support free speech or not?
    - dnautics 9y ago
      Anarchists are not a monolithic block. Communism is an anarchist philosophy, ultimately... Agree with it or not, a (simplified) original reading of the Marxist historical programme involves a dialectic model whereby you wind up in a stateless society by building up and tearing down a central state. This would contrast with anarchocapitalists who arguably advocate a more direct route to anarchy, usually tinged with crypto conservative sentiments... And probably a classical socialist (as in Benjamin Tucker) take on anarchism would be still different, but I don't think there are many of them left, though there might be some contemporary philosophical adherents to Max stirner that live in that space there.
      - kiliantics 9y ago
        I don't consider anarchocapitalists part of the Anarchist tradition. Even Rothbard said "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." Anarchists, like other communists, have as their goal a "classless, moneyless, stateless society". This absolutely cannot include capitalism because any capitalist society inherently allows for classes to exist and would probably require money. Furthermore, it is pretty evident that capitalism cannot exist without a state and therefore the term "anarchocapitalism" is an oxymoron.
        dnautics 9y ago
        Anarchocapitalists are not strongly connected to the anarchist tradition, though they do inherit a thin thread via Benjamin Tucker, and American libertarianism. They are still anarchists in the strictest sense in that they are for the abolition of the state (open question of if property rights make sense in a stateless society), even if they got there via a largely different tradition. Classless and moneyless attributes are optional in anarchism though they are features of some branches of the tradition, in particular those that emerged from the Marx branch. I doubt Tucker, for example, would have claimed a moneyless and classless society as necessary attributes of his social ideal, and he was definitely a classical socialist anarchist.
reptantchaos92 9y ago
People have always worked to make their environment better for themselves and everyone prior to capitalism. Perhaps you're the one who bought into the propaganda and claim for capitalism properties that have nothing to do with it as a mode of production.
- ralusek 9y ago
  You don't need propaganda to value capitalism. Capitalism is the natural product of freedom. It is not a designed system, it is an emergent system.
  - Crye 9y ago
    You are thinking of markets. Capitalism requires the state. Property rights do not enforce themselves.
    - dnautics 9y ago
      These days sloppy use of the word capitalism by both its proponents and critics means that colloquially capitalism == free markets, vs "the acquisition of capital as its own virtue"
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Capitalism is the natural product of freedom. This is true in the sense that it is the natural products of a very specific conception of property rights that was advanced by the commercial class (they became the capitalist class) for their own benefit, and for which, several centuries after the model began becoming dominant in Western Europe “natural rights” justifications were concocted. > It is not a designed system, it is an emergent system. It wasn't “designed” in the sense of deep theory and engineering, and it is “emergent” in the sense that it is a product of individual advantage seeking by members of a particular social group.
- IanDrake 9y ago
  These people who existed “prior to capitalism”, what political and economic model did they have?
croon 9y ago
Which business pays for it? I don't want mine to pay for it, because someone else will. And I can keep using the road because who's gonna stop me? > One thing that always struck me, was in a capitialistic society we are actually all incentivised to fix potholes ourselves Is it not the case that in any society, we are all incentivised to fix it ourselves. Who is the government in your society? Us or them? Why not both?
- patrickmay 9y ago
  Them. Unfortunately, a single person has very little ability to impact his or her government. That, combined with the observed fact that the goal of any government organization eventually becomes the perpetuation of that organization, is why the answer to your question cannot be "both".
  - croon 9y ago
    Everyone is a single person, and yet almost everything we've ever accomplished has been collaborations. > That, combined with the observed fact that the goal of any government organization eventually becomes the perpetuation of that organization That may or may not be true, but regardless, it's then good that most developed countries have established a form of government where organizations within that government don't have complete autonomy and always answer to some form of elected representative of the people.
syrrim 9y ago
>Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as much. That's a selfish, capitalism-centric act Everything can be reduced to egoism if you look in close enough. The problem is that when taking an approximation capitalism is short sighted. Short term profit is taken to be a good approximation for long term profit, which in turn is taken to be a good approximation for continued sustainability. Consider: if I start a business, I probably expect it to be profitable a year from now. If I am making an ambitious startup, I might allow five or ten years to be profitable. If I am Jeff Bezos, I might allow thirty years to be profitable. All these are assumed to approximate the very long term. If my business is profitable next year, I assume I will be able to keep running it for ten years. If I've run my business for ten years, then I assume I will be able to pass it to my children. If I get my business from my parents, then I assume it will be with the family forever. Consider: I start a fishing business. I take a loan out for a boat and some nets, and pay them off by years end. Now I make a profit selling my fish. This is a success under capitalism. If I am very successful, and manage to buy a few more boats and hire some workers to man them, and am raking in money in ten years, this is considered a major success under capitalism. Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. What if by the eleventh year the fish have run out, and I go bankrupt? What if people who survived off my fish starved to death? This is no longer a success, either from a capitalist or egoist perspective. But if we use profit as a proxy for success, for the first ten years it /was/ a success. Now if we had called Bezos in to consult, he would have told us this would happen and advised us to start a different business. But most people aren't Bezos. Furthermore, capitalism doesn't encourage us to think like Bezos. If I'm raking it in for ten years, why don't I squirrel away a couple million into a savings account, and live off that as my retirement? If I do, why should I care about the business going bankrupt (limited liability FTW), and the people starving? In other words: Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars. Why doesn't he buy up a small nation, along with all the people living there to take care of him, and live the highest life imaginable until he dies (and pass it on to his children until they die)? The answer to this question sure as hell isn't because of capitalism.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  > Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start destroying his capital. You are talking about capitalism, where the fish is owned by someone - right? (With the last paragraph you seem to argue against yourself. It is very disturbing.)

bbctol 9y ago

...unless it violates someone else's property rights. The point of capitalism is that people can own things, and you can do what you want as long as you don't violate that system of ownership. The point of anarchism is that you can basically do what you want.

kiliantics 9y ago
> The point of anarchism is that you can basically do what you want. This is a simplistic characterisation. Anarchists hold individual liberty in the highest regard but also believe in solidarity and mutual aid. You can "basically do what you want" as long as you aren't restricting the individual freedom of others but rather supporting everyone in having access to the same means and rights as you do. Since exploitation of people is so endemic in our society, anarchists work mainly to free themselves and others from oppressive systems. Right now we can't do what we want, so anarchists fight against the social dynamics which are preventing this.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Well, but in the absence of an overriding rulership, i.e. anarchy, you actually can do what you want even if you're restricting the individual freedom of others and denying them access to the same means and rights as you do. There's clear motivation for some people to do that, and what's going to prevent them from doing that to weaker or less resourceful people? And a system capable and intent on effectively doing that essentially becomes a de facto system of governance, and the situation ceases to be an anarchy.
  - kiliantics 9y ago
    System of governance is different to a state. Anarchists are against the state but not necessarily against government, as long as that government's power comes from voluntary association and not by coercion.
- spraak 9y ago
  This is a great clarification, not sure why the downvotes.
- IanDrake 9y ago
  “Right now we can’t do what we want...” What is it you want to do that you’re not allowed to? Also, why are anarchist teaming up with communist in order to limit free speech? I’m specifically talking about Antifa trying to stop a jew (Shapiro) and a gay man married to a black man (Milo) from speaking at Berkeley? Do anarchists support free speech or not?
  - dnautics 9y ago
    Anarchists are not a monolithic block. Communism is an anarchist philosophy, ultimately... Agree with it or not, a (simplified) original reading of the Marxist historical programme involves a dialectic model whereby you wind up in a stateless society by building up and tearing down a central state. This would contrast with anarchocapitalists who arguably advocate a more direct route to anarchy, usually tinged with crypto conservative sentiments... And probably a classical socialist (as in Benjamin Tucker) take on anarchism would be still different, but I don't think there are many of them left, though there might be some contemporary philosophical adherents to Max stirner that live in that space there.
    - kiliantics 9y ago
      I don't consider anarchocapitalists part of the Anarchist tradition. Even Rothbard said "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." Anarchists, like other communists, have as their goal a "classless, moneyless, stateless society". This absolutely cannot include capitalism because any capitalist society inherently allows for classes to exist and would probably require money. Furthermore, it is pretty evident that capitalism cannot exist without a state and therefore the term "anarchocapitalism" is an oxymoron.
      - dnautics 9y ago
        Anarchocapitalists are not strongly connected to the anarchist tradition, though they do inherit a thin thread via Benjamin Tucker, and American libertarianism. They are still anarchists in the strictest sense in that they are for the abolition of the state (open question of if property rights make sense in a stateless society), even if they got there via a largely different tradition. Classless and moneyless attributes are optional in anarchism though they are features of some branches of the tradition, in particular those that emerged from the Marx branch. I doubt Tucker, for example, would have claimed a moneyless and classless society as necessary attributes of his social ideal, and he was definitely a classical socialist anarchist.

reptantchaos92 9y ago

People have always worked to make their environment better for themselves and everyone prior to capitalism. Perhaps you're the one who bought into the propaganda and claim for capitalism properties that have nothing to do with it as a mode of production.

ralusek 9y ago
You don't need propaganda to value capitalism. Capitalism is the natural product of freedom. It is not a designed system, it is an emergent system.
- Crye 9y ago
  You are thinking of markets. Capitalism requires the state. Property rights do not enforce themselves.
  - dnautics 9y ago
    These days sloppy use of the word capitalism by both its proponents and critics means that colloquially capitalism == free markets, vs "the acquisition of capital as its own virtue"
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Capitalism is the natural product of freedom. This is true in the sense that it is the natural products of a very specific conception of property rights that was advanced by the commercial class (they became the capitalist class) for their own benefit, and for which, several centuries after the model began becoming dominant in Western Europe “natural rights” justifications were concocted. > It is not a designed system, it is an emergent system. It wasn't “designed” in the sense of deep theory and engineering, and it is “emergent” in the sense that it is a product of individual advantage seeking by members of a particular social group.
IanDrake 9y ago
These people who existed “prior to capitalism”, what political and economic model did they have?

croon 9y ago

Which business pays for it? I don't want mine to pay for it, because someone else will. And I can keep using the road because who's gonna stop me? > One thing that always struck me, was in a capitialistic society we are actually all incentivised to fix potholes ourselves Is it not the case that in any society, we are all incentivised to fix it ourselves. Who is the government in your society? Us or them? Why not both?

patrickmay 9y ago
Them. Unfortunately, a single person has very little ability to impact his or her government. That, combined with the observed fact that the goal of any government organization eventually becomes the perpetuation of that organization, is why the answer to your question cannot be "both".
- croon 9y ago
  Everyone is a single person, and yet almost everything we've ever accomplished has been collaborations. > That, combined with the observed fact that the goal of any government organization eventually becomes the perpetuation of that organization That may or may not be true, but regardless, it's then good that most developed countries have established a form of government where organizations within that government don't have complete autonomy and always answer to some form of elected representative of the people.

syrrim 9y ago

>Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as much. That's a selfish, capitalism-centric act Everything can be reduced to egoism if you look in close enough. The problem is that when taking an approximation capitalism is short sighted. Short term profit is taken to be a good approximation for long term profit, which in turn is taken to be a good approximation for continued sustainability. Consider: if I start a business, I probably expect it to be profitable a year from now. If I am making an ambitious startup, I might allow five or ten years to be profitable. If I am Jeff Bezos, I might allow thirty years to be profitable. All these are assumed to approximate the very long term. If my business is profitable next year, I assume I will be able to keep running it for ten years. If I've run my business for ten years, then I assume I will be able to pass it to my children. If I get my business from my parents, then I assume it will be with the family forever. Consider: I start a fishing business. I take a loan out for a boat and some nets, and pay them off by years end. Now I make a profit selling my fish. This is a success under capitalism. If I am very successful, and manage to buy a few more boats and hire some workers to man them, and am raking in money in ten years, this is considered a major success under capitalism. Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. What if by the eleventh year the fish have run out, and I go bankrupt? What if people who survived off my fish starved to death? This is no longer a success, either from a capitalist or egoist perspective. But if we use profit as a proxy for success, for the first ten years it /was/ a success. Now if we had called Bezos in to consult, he would have told us this would happen and advised us to start a different business. But most people aren't Bezos. Furthermore, capitalism doesn't encourage us to think like Bezos. If I'm raking it in for ten years, why don't I squirrel away a couple million into a savings account, and live off that as my retirement? If I do, why should I care about the business going bankrupt (limited liability FTW), and the people starving? In other words: Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars. Why doesn't he buy up a small nation, along with all the people living there to take care of him, and live the highest life imaginable until he dies (and pass it on to his children until they die)? The answer to this question sure as hell isn't because of capitalism.

mdpopescu 9y ago
> Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start destroying his capital. You are talking about capitalism, where the fish is owned by someone - right? (With the last paragraph you seem to argue against yourself. It is very disturbing.)