4 ms·

This is the problem with much of the spectrum of political rhetoric in America, they're almost all somehow unrealistic in their basic, shared presumption of a

This is the problem with much of the spectrum of political rhetoric in America, they're almost all somehow unrealistic in their basic, shared presumption of a world without some over-determining Other (a black box concept that is somehow causal of all social woes) is the goal: feminists, a world without patriarchy, anarchists, a world without hierarchy, Nazis and White Supremacists, a world without racial degeneration, so on and so forth). Socio-political issues tend to be more complex in causal factors than political rhetoric can possibly bare. Look at how conservatives re-evaluate the value of "BLM" at every opportunity since it represents all Black politics to them even though Official BLM is a distinct political group in the Black community of whom not every Black person agrees with the stated manifesto on their website, there being more than enough easily searchable YouTube videos to learn the opinion of various Black commentators.

jessaustin 6y ago
Actual feminists and anarchists have more nuanced views than you present here. (I confess I don't know enough "Nazis and White Supremacists" to say; perhaps they are just that simplistic. Nice implicit comparison, though!) It seems that upon hearing "let's have less X", you can't get past your instinct that X is the basis of all imaginable human life. It is to your credit that you haven't had a similar reaction to those who oppose racism.
lefrenchy 6y ago
Your argument can be applied in the same way to the current economic system in the US (capitalism). The free market capitalist system has the shared presumption that free markets are efficient and will allocate resources effectively. This shared presumption is unrealistic in that same fashion, since entirely free markets are not possible (market manipulation, monopoly, etc...). No reasonable anarchist will say their solution solves all problems, but they would argue their ideal society would be better and would solve problems we are faced with today.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  Monopolies may happen because of superior technology (or better placement, in short, it's much better for the consumers) or because of politics. If it's for superior technology, I think the monetary gain is justified. Also, in a world without patents or copyright, everyone is free to reproduce the technology, if they can. For the market to be manipulated, you would need something that lives outside of market rules, namely politicians who can use violent threats to shape the market to benefit them and their friends. In both cases, if we get rid of a government and we move law making and law enforcement in the hands of the free market, we end up with a system which is the closest representation of what citizens want. It may not fair or just according to someone's ideals, but it would be a close reflection of what people wants and it would remove the form of violence which is most commonly perpetrated in the world: state initiated violence.
  - dmwallin 6y ago
    You tell me the rules and I’ll show you how your free market can be manipulated from within the rules. How do you propose to prevent things such as collusion (free association) and price manipulation. All systems of economics are also systems of power. If the only system of power is the economic one than your economy is your de facto government. If a structure for “governmental“ power is identical to the economic structure you have zero ability to fix abusive power imbalances when they eventually arise. It’s the same reason it’s good to have many checks and balances within government itself. Every structure has flaws, and any singular structure of power will have it’s flaws exploited unchecked.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  The difference is that in practice, most "pro-capitalism" individuals are actually okay with the state taking on a wide variety of tasks on some level: military, police, roads, public schools, environmental regulations, labor and health codes, zoning, etc. Sure, GOP-controlled (or your local right-wing equivalent) areas tend to have less of these things, but less isn't the same thing as none. In contrast, anarchists are usually opposed to having any state whatsoever. The ideology tends towards being far more extreme and uncompromising.
noodle 6y ago
> This is the problem with much of the spectrum of political rhetoric in America, they're almost all somehow unrealistic in their basic, shared presumption of a world without some over-determining Other I mean, you can essentially formulate any world view that takes any clearcut stance into the in-group and out-group dynamic. People who are pro democracy are looking for a world without oligarchy/monarchy, making those who want to consolidate power around a few people as the out group. Etc..

jessaustin 6y ago

Actual feminists and anarchists have more nuanced views than you present here. (I confess I don't know enough "Nazis and White Supremacists" to say; perhaps they are just that simplistic. Nice implicit comparison, though!) It seems that upon hearing "let's have less X", you can't get past your instinct that X is the basis of all imaginable human life. It is to your credit that you haven't had a similar reaction to those who oppose racism.

lefrenchy 6y ago

Your argument can be applied in the same way to the current economic system in the US (capitalism). The free market capitalist system has the shared presumption that free markets are efficient and will allocate resources effectively. This shared presumption is unrealistic in that same fashion, since entirely free markets are not possible (market manipulation, monopoly, etc...). No reasonable anarchist will say their solution solves all problems, but they would argue their ideal society would be better and would solve problems we are faced with today.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
Monopolies may happen because of superior technology (or better placement, in short, it's much better for the consumers) or because of politics. If it's for superior technology, I think the monetary gain is justified. Also, in a world without patents or copyright, everyone is free to reproduce the technology, if they can. For the market to be manipulated, you would need something that lives outside of market rules, namely politicians who can use violent threats to shape the market to benefit them and their friends. In both cases, if we get rid of a government and we move law making and law enforcement in the hands of the free market, we end up with a system which is the closest representation of what citizens want. It may not fair or just according to someone's ideals, but it would be a close reflection of what people wants and it would remove the form of violence which is most commonly perpetrated in the world: state initiated violence.
- dmwallin 6y ago
  You tell me the rules and I’ll show you how your free market can be manipulated from within the rules. How do you propose to prevent things such as collusion (free association) and price manipulation. All systems of economics are also systems of power. If the only system of power is the economic one than your economy is your de facto government. If a structure for “governmental“ power is identical to the economic structure you have zero ability to fix abusive power imbalances when they eventually arise. It’s the same reason it’s good to have many checks and balances within government itself. Every structure has flaws, and any singular structure of power will have it’s flaws exploited unchecked.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
The difference is that in practice, most "pro-capitalism" individuals are actually okay with the state taking on a wide variety of tasks on some level: military, police, roads, public schools, environmental regulations, labor and health codes, zoning, etc. Sure, GOP-controlled (or your local right-wing equivalent) areas tend to have less of these things, but less isn't the same thing as none. In contrast, anarchists are usually opposed to having any state whatsoever. The ideology tends towards being far more extreme and uncompromising.

noodle 6y ago

> This is the problem with much of the spectrum of political rhetoric in America, they're almost all somehow unrealistic in their basic, shared presumption of a world without some over-determining Other I mean, you can essentially formulate any world view that takes any clearcut stance into the in-group and out-group dynamic. People who are pro democracy are looking for a world without oligarchy/monarchy, making those who want to consolidate power around a few people as the out group. Etc..