3 ms·

> Being a capitalist who thinks they believe in anti-capitalism may be hypocritical but it is not a logical impossibility. I don't think it's hypocritical to n

> Being a capitalist who thinks they believe in anti-capitalism may be hypocritical but it is not a logical impossibility. I don't think it's hypocritical to not want to live in the system you have to live in. > Even most libertarian socialists seem to have been aware of this themselves. Straying from Proudhon, consider this essay (Appeal to the Young) [0] by Peter Kropotkin. Look at the audience he is writing to - it is precisely young, rich professionals! Kropotkin wasn't talking to Gen Z and millennials, which was your claim. I mean I wish what you were saying were true, but I don't think you're going to find any polls that come even close to supporting popularity among those demographics right now. Maybe in the future. > I was referring to hierarchical, centralized action as in the form of the state. So, the opposite of collective action, just dominance by one group over the rest like we already have.

whimsicalism 4y ago
> I don't think it's hypocritical to not want to live in the system you have to live in. You were the one suggesting it was a contradiction, although I disagree that you have to be a capitalist (ie. have substantial ownership stakes in MOP, like many tech workers do) in our society. > find any polls that come even close to supporting popularity My claim is not that most affluent young people are Proudhon lovers (obviously that would be ridiculous, and I understand your ire if you thought that is what I am saying), but rather that most Proudhon lovers are affluent young people. > the opposite of collective action, just dominance by one group over the rest like we already have. Yes, that would be the (in my view naive) left libertarian view. I disagree that collective intrinsically means decentralized or non-hierarchical.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > You were the one suggesting it was a contradiction, although I disagree that you have to be a capitalist (ie. have substantial ownership stakes in MOP, like many tech workers do) in our society. It is and then you equivocated on "capitalist." To ideologically be a capitalist and socialist is a literal contradiction. To own capital and be a socialist is not a literal contradiction, but could be hypocritical or not depending on other actions (Engels usually being considered not hypocritical, for example.) To participate in capitalism because one has no choice and be a socialist is never a contradiction or hypocritical. > My claim is not that most affluent young people are Proudhon lovers (obviously that would be ridiculous, and I understand your ire if you thought that is what I am saying), but rather that most Proudhon lovers are affluent young people. I see. My anecdata is quite different.. I see it mostly in blue collar jobs in the reunionization movements. Right now Starbucks is the big one, but a lot of burger flippers, clerks, mechanics, etc. I don't think you'd consider any of them rich or capitalists... I should mention that I actively follow these movements. > I disagree that collective intrinsically means decentralized or non-hierarchical. It's not really the will of the collective if it's not democratic and it can't be democratic if its hierarchical, wouldn't you say? Like maybe if you had arbitrary right of recall you could argue that, but even then I don't think so because the hierarchy can both manipulate wills of the subordinates (e.g. media) and also just ignore them. That's not very "collective." I mean I'd say hierarchy is definitively domination. Abandoning that is abandoning the meaning of the word... I guess you're right, people in political science do use the word like that, like how natioanlism can be a collectivism, but again I think that's equivocation or we're just talking about two different concepts using the same word.

whimsicalism 4y ago

> I don't think it's hypocritical to not want to live in the system you have to live in. You were the one suggesting it was a contradiction, although I disagree that you have to be a capitalist (ie. have substantial ownership stakes in MOP, like many tech workers do) in our society. > find any polls that come even close to supporting popularity My claim is not that most affluent young people are Proudhon lovers (obviously that would be ridiculous, and I understand your ire if you thought that is what I am saying), but rather that most Proudhon lovers are affluent young people. > the opposite of collective action, just dominance by one group over the rest like we already have. Yes, that would be the (in my view naive) left libertarian view. I disagree that collective intrinsically means decentralized or non-hierarchical.

guerrilla 4y ago
> You were the one suggesting it was a contradiction, although I disagree that you have to be a capitalist (ie. have substantial ownership stakes in MOP, like many tech workers do) in our society. It is and then you equivocated on "capitalist." To ideologically be a capitalist and socialist is a literal contradiction. To own capital and be a socialist is not a literal contradiction, but could be hypocritical or not depending on other actions (Engels usually being considered not hypocritical, for example.) To participate in capitalism because one has no choice and be a socialist is never a contradiction or hypocritical. > My claim is not that most affluent young people are Proudhon lovers (obviously that would be ridiculous, and I understand your ire if you thought that is what I am saying), but rather that most Proudhon lovers are affluent young people. I see. My anecdata is quite different.. I see it mostly in blue collar jobs in the reunionization movements. Right now Starbucks is the big one, but a lot of burger flippers, clerks, mechanics, etc. I don't think you'd consider any of them rich or capitalists... I should mention that I actively follow these movements. > I disagree that collective intrinsically means decentralized or non-hierarchical. It's not really the will of the collective if it's not democratic and it can't be democratic if its hierarchical, wouldn't you say? Like maybe if you had arbitrary right of recall you could argue that, but even then I don't think so because the hierarchy can both manipulate wills of the subordinates (e.g. media) and also just ignore them. That's not very "collective." I mean I'd say hierarchy is definitively domination. Abandoning that is abandoning the meaning of the word... I guess you're right, people in political science do use the word like that, like how natioanlism can be a collectivism, but again I think that's equivocation or we're just talking about two different concepts using the same word.