4 ms·

"Anarchism" is a completely useless term. On the surface level, it would appear to mean "the absence of a state," and therefore effectively take the form of ana

"Anarchism" is a completely useless term. On the surface level, it would appear to mean "the absence of a state," and therefore effectively take the form of anarcho-capitalism. In practice, however, most people that actually identify as anarchist are far left authoritarian socialists who cannot help but dance around whatever conception of a state they've described as being anything but. The utility of the term "anarchy" to mean "a nonexistent state" is actually an incredibly useful label, as the next closest approximation to that definition is probably the equally loaded "libertarian," so it's very unfortunate that it's effectively made to be synonymous with "radical socialism" in practice. We already have a descriptor for that: radical socialism. Why can't anarchy just mean the absence of a collective mandate?

claudiawerner 8y ago
"Anarchy" as a word for what social anarchists mean (collective means of production, abolition of capital) is what it originally meant - so did "libertarian". Even Rothbard admits that the term was co-opted by "anarcho"capitalists, and it does not mean anarchy at all for them. Anarchy means "without rule", not merely "without the state". Please read up on the history of anarchism. Further, it's worth learning how capitalism without the state cannot exist in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of anarchist authors you can read on this point.
- 0815test 8y ago
  I don't think the "abolition of capital" is something that many anarchists would find desirable, outside of anarcho-primitivism. The computer or device you're using to post this comment is capital. And the thing about anarcho-primitivism is that it's at least a consistent approach to having "collective means of production" and the like, because collective, informal decision making (without any "ruler"-like figures) only scales to groups as large as a forager band or tribe, the largest of which are about 150 members. Any larger than that, and you start to get powerful chieftains and "big men" engaging in recognizable forms of politics to manage and expand their power.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    That's wrong. Anarchists would argue that a computer, for instance, only becomes capital under the conditions which capital in general tends to subsume things which can increase its value. Capital arises in the process of circulation only, and circulation is inextricably linked with production (as Marx proved by refuting Say in the first book of the Grundrisse). For instance, non-scarce goods (like digital goods or books) only became capital with the advent of copyright law. The computer I'm writing this on, as Marx would say, is only potentially capital. I don't buy the idea that Dunbar's number of 150 makes very much sense when we can also talk about federation and the idea of communes.
- ralusek 8y ago
  The reason I stated that the term is meaningless is precisely because I have read about it. In regards to capitalism, there is a different discussion altogether. Very simply stated: capitalism is not a prescriptive ideology, it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." While a central authority to enforce that people don't steal is a mechanism to stabilize a system of any kind, including capitalism, it is by no means necessary for a capitalist system to exist. The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. I choose to work as an engineer for my current employer for the rate that they offered, and that is a procedural state that we've both consented to. No central authority is required to enforce this. If they don't pay me, I'll leave. If I'm not good at my job, they won't pay me. If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together, the lack of prescriptive mandate present in capitalism is precisely what allows them to do so. You can structure your arrangements with other individuals exactly as you see fit, and the degree to which you are limited in your capacity to do so is what a capitalist would argue is the degree to which your system falls short of being a capitalist system. For such a system to be easily associated with a term that claims to mean "without rule" is pretty understandable. It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." No. Both economists (even "bourgeois" ones) and sociologists disagree with this as a definition of capitalism. Please read up on the history of capitalism, which is a specific mode of production which arose in Western Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism. >The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. Why would it be the "best way"? In fact, it seems like a very strongly ideological way which starts by conceiving society as merely an accumulation of individuals who then begin networking, rather than individuals which arise out of an already networked society. This is wonderfully convenient for the subjectivist-individualist viewpoint. On the point of consent, simply because one consents it does not mean that what is happening is morally right - indeed many slaves consented. Frederic Lordon in Marx and Spinoza on Desire elaborates the meaninglessness of consent when it comes to what we need to live and survive. >If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plight of the anarchists - not only is it an individualized situation which could not possibly extend to everyone, but it also insists that localised groups must still engage in the system of capital accumulation, at the very least to pay taxes. In anarcho-capitalist society they'd probably have to pay to rent land too. >It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules. Rules are not rulers.
- iron0013 8y ago
  claudiawerner, I love your comments on HN. As far as I can tell, you are literally the only user of HN who has obviously read deeply from, and is able to accurately expound upon, the canon (or Library, or whatever) of social and political theory. Please keep it up!
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Thanks, I wouldn't consider myself well-read but this topic is particularly interesting to me.
0815test 8y ago
I mean, it's not like anarcho-capitalism is any less useless. The underlying issue is that both anarcho-capitalism and "anarchism" (whatever that might mean) have no satisfactory answer to the basic problem of "so, how exactly are we supposed to resolve disputes without a state?" Any suggestion that dispute resolution can be "privatized" is ultimately meaningless, as the private entity in charge of resolving disputes becomes equivalent to a government - and a rather tyrannical government at that, since it would not come with anything like a written constitution-- or even a widely-understood commitment to rule of law and such basic principles.
- ralusek 8y ago
  Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. Sure our ability to mitigate things like physical violence tends to benefit greatly from collectivizing interests, and at that point a distinction from a state is a blurry concept, but that is a problem that simply exists in any system. Consensual transactions between individuals, however, are enough to provide an unbelievably stable society, without any need for central authority. Enforcement of the integrity of contracts can be enforced by the integrity and reputation of the individuals involved in a transaction. The fact that I continue to be employable, for example, is on the basis of my capabilities and reputation, and the degree to which I engage in behaviors contrary to my own positive perception would negatively impact my ability to continue transacting in good faith with others. At no point is a central authority or mandate a necessary component in the primary dynamics of these relations.
  - cardiffspaceman 8y ago
    > Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. This is not the entire scope of the disputes that will arise nor the remedies that would apply nor the extent of the problem with this idea of yours. For example, if a patient engages a doctor for a health remedy, and that remedy does harm to the patient, what is the remedy? If the remedy is that the doctor must compensate the patient for the harm, how does the patient prevent the doctor from reneging on the compensation? How is it decided whether compensation is due?

claudiawerner 8y ago

"Anarchy" as a word for what social anarchists mean (collective means of production, abolition of capital) is what it originally meant - so did "libertarian". Even Rothbard admits that the term was co-opted by "anarcho"capitalists, and it does not mean anarchy at all for them. Anarchy means "without rule", not merely "without the state". Please read up on the history of anarchism. Further, it's worth learning how capitalism without the state cannot exist in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of anarchist authors you can read on this point.

0815test 8y ago
I don't think the "abolition of capital" is something that many anarchists would find desirable, outside of anarcho-primitivism. The computer or device you're using to post this comment is capital. And the thing about anarcho-primitivism is that it's at least a consistent approach to having "collective means of production" and the like, because collective, informal decision making (without any "ruler"-like figures) only scales to groups as large as a forager band or tribe, the largest of which are about 150 members. Any larger than that, and you start to get powerful chieftains and "big men" engaging in recognizable forms of politics to manage and expand their power.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  That's wrong. Anarchists would argue that a computer, for instance, only becomes capital under the conditions which capital in general tends to subsume things which can increase its value. Capital arises in the process of circulation only, and circulation is inextricably linked with production (as Marx proved by refuting Say in the first book of the Grundrisse). For instance, non-scarce goods (like digital goods or books) only became capital with the advent of copyright law. The computer I'm writing this on, as Marx would say, is only potentially capital. I don't buy the idea that Dunbar's number of 150 makes very much sense when we can also talk about federation and the idea of communes.
ralusek 8y ago
The reason I stated that the term is meaningless is precisely because I have read about it. In regards to capitalism, there is a different discussion altogether. Very simply stated: capitalism is not a prescriptive ideology, it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." While a central authority to enforce that people don't steal is a mechanism to stabilize a system of any kind, including capitalism, it is by no means necessary for a capitalist system to exist. The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. I choose to work as an engineer for my current employer for the rate that they offered, and that is a procedural state that we've both consented to. No central authority is required to enforce this. If they don't pay me, I'll leave. If I'm not good at my job, they won't pay me. If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together, the lack of prescriptive mandate present in capitalism is precisely what allows them to do so. You can structure your arrangements with other individuals exactly as you see fit, and the degree to which you are limited in your capacity to do so is what a capitalist would argue is the degree to which your system falls short of being a capitalist system. For such a system to be easily associated with a term that claims to mean "without rule" is pretty understandable. It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." No. Both economists (even "bourgeois" ones) and sociologists disagree with this as a definition of capitalism. Please read up on the history of capitalism, which is a specific mode of production which arose in Western Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism. >The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. Why would it be the "best way"? In fact, it seems like a very strongly ideological way which starts by conceiving society as merely an accumulation of individuals who then begin networking, rather than individuals which arise out of an already networked society. This is wonderfully convenient for the subjectivist-individualist viewpoint. On the point of consent, simply because one consents it does not mean that what is happening is morally right - indeed many slaves consented. Frederic Lordon in Marx and Spinoza on Desire elaborates the meaninglessness of consent when it comes to what we need to live and survive. >If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plight of the anarchists - not only is it an individualized situation which could not possibly extend to everyone, but it also insists that localised groups must still engage in the system of capital accumulation, at the very least to pay taxes. In anarcho-capitalist society they'd probably have to pay to rent land too. >It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules. Rules are not rulers.
iron0013 8y ago
claudiawerner, I love your comments on HN. As far as I can tell, you are literally the only user of HN who has obviously read deeply from, and is able to accurately expound upon, the canon (or Library, or whatever) of social and political theory. Please keep it up!
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Thanks, I wouldn't consider myself well-read but this topic is particularly interesting to me.

0815test 8y ago

I mean, it's not like anarcho-capitalism is any less useless. The underlying issue is that both anarcho-capitalism and "anarchism" (whatever that might mean) have no satisfactory answer to the basic problem of "so, how exactly are we supposed to resolve disputes without a state?" Any suggestion that dispute resolution can be "privatized" is ultimately meaningless, as the private entity in charge of resolving disputes becomes equivalent to a government - and a rather tyrannical government at that, since it would not come with anything like a written constitution-- or even a widely-understood commitment to rule of law and such basic principles.

ralusek 8y ago
Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. Sure our ability to mitigate things like physical violence tends to benefit greatly from collectivizing interests, and at that point a distinction from a state is a blurry concept, but that is a problem that simply exists in any system. Consensual transactions between individuals, however, are enough to provide an unbelievably stable society, without any need for central authority. Enforcement of the integrity of contracts can be enforced by the integrity and reputation of the individuals involved in a transaction. The fact that I continue to be employable, for example, is on the basis of my capabilities and reputation, and the degree to which I engage in behaviors contrary to my own positive perception would negatively impact my ability to continue transacting in good faith with others. At no point is a central authority or mandate a necessary component in the primary dynamics of these relations.
- cardiffspaceman 8y ago
  > Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. This is not the entire scope of the disputes that will arise nor the remedies that would apply nor the extent of the problem with this idea of yours. For example, if a patient engages a doctor for a health remedy, and that remedy does harm to the patient, what is the remedy? If the remedy is that the doctor must compensate the patient for the harm, how does the patient prevent the doctor from reneging on the compensation? How is it decided whether compensation is due?