4 ms·

I don't think anarchy is the negation of capitalism.

by delusional 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
In practice, was communism less alienating than capitalism? I doubt it.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Soviet workers used to say "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Czech workers during the communist era used to say “If you’re not stealing from the state, you’re stealing from your family” (“Kdo neokrádá stát, okrádá rodinu”)
kuramitropolis 4y ago
Nah GP actually has a good radical/reductionist approach by jumping straight to anarchies.
rakoo 4y ago
The side effect of capitalism is that not only money becomes concentrated, but also power. Not only because money buys power, but because the one who ones the machines can dictate how the one who operates it works. Anarchism refutes the idea that one has power over another, and as such accumulation of money and not owning the means of production is antithetical to anarchism
- _vdpp 4y ago
  This reminds me of a small organic farm owner who said something to the effect of “why can’t I just trade my extra produce with the farmer down the street who has extra eggs? And then I can use the eggs to make pastries and trade those with my neighbor who makes homemade clothing?” Someone responded, “congrats, you just invented capitalism.” Since eggs go bad and produce is heavy, maybe we could invent a durable “value storage” or “token” or “fiat” to trade instead. Storage and transmission of this value store could become useful trades in their own right. This sounds like a very natural thing to do, almost like it would arise on its own without anyone having to _force_ this on anyone, as opposed to literally every other economic system, including your definition. In your “anarchism” how do you enforce the non-ownership of the means of production except by force? Do you force the farmer not to grow anything?
  - rakoo 4y ago
    > congrats, you just invented capitalism. No, thats not capitalism but trade. You need to read up on what actually is capitalism and how accumulation of useful resources (wheat, cocoa, spice) is different from accumulation of money. Basically: it only makes sense inasmuch as you can consume the accumulated stuff, so a million ton of wood logs won't matter as much as one million ton of coins. > This sounds like a very natural thing to do, almost like it would arise on its own without anyone having to _force_ this on anyone, as opposed to literally every other economic system, including your definition. You're still thinking in a capitalistic world and you don't seem like you can't get out of it. The whole point of alternative economic systems is to produce enough for everybody. Such that needs are provided by the community. If everyone has what they need, why would there be a price on anything ? Why would more-than-enough wheat trade against more-than-enough wood ? It doesn't make sense. Trade happens because it's a way to solve scarcity, but the whole idea behind anarchism is to understand what is needed and make sure there is no scarcity there. > In your “anarchism” how do you enforce the non-ownership of the means of production except by force? Do you force the farmer not to grow anything? In anarchism, all decisions are taken by everyone. No one forces anything on anyone. I know, it's a hard concept to grasp, but communities can think and decide what's best for them. The farmer can grow whatever they want, but if it doesn't benefit the community then they are on their own. It's all about what is good for the group and what makes us go forward, together.
    - Cederfjard 4y ago
      > If everyone has what they need, why would there be a price on anything? Will everyone really always have what they need, or is that a theoretical state that is actually very unlikely to be achieved? Also, is it in human nature (in general, discounting outliers) to be entirely satisfied and not want more, especially in relation to the people around you? > The farmer can grow whatever they want, but if it doesn't benefit the community then they are on their own. What happens if more than just one farmer opts out of the anarchistic lifestyle, they embrace capitalism, and outcompete the anarchists? Could that ever reach a point where it would be necessary to stop them by force in order to preserve the anarchistic society? Basically I’m curious how things would shake out in reality, compared to theoretic models that presupposes that everyone acts in the best interest of society as a whole (given that they can all agree on what that is), and not themselves in particular (which I think is more realistic, on average).

I don't think anarchy is the negation of capitalism.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

In practice, was communism less alienating than capitalism? I doubt it.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Soviet workers used to say "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Czech workers during the communist era used to say “If you’re not stealing from the state, you’re stealing from your family” (“Kdo neokrádá stát, okrádá rodinu”)

kuramitropolis 4y ago

Nah GP actually has a good radical/reductionist approach by jumping straight to anarchies.

rakoo 4y ago

The side effect of capitalism is that not only money becomes concentrated, but also power. Not only because money buys power, but because the one who ones the machines can dictate how the one who operates it works. Anarchism refutes the idea that one has power over another, and as such accumulation of money and not owning the means of production is antithetical to anarchism

_vdpp 4y ago
This reminds me of a small organic farm owner who said something to the effect of “why can’t I just trade my extra produce with the farmer down the street who has extra eggs? And then I can use the eggs to make pastries and trade those with my neighbor who makes homemade clothing?” Someone responded, “congrats, you just invented capitalism.” Since eggs go bad and produce is heavy, maybe we could invent a durable “value storage” or “token” or “fiat” to trade instead. Storage and transmission of this value store could become useful trades in their own right. This sounds like a very natural thing to do, almost like it would arise on its own without anyone having to _force_ this on anyone, as opposed to literally every other economic system, including your definition. In your “anarchism” how do you enforce the non-ownership of the means of production except by force? Do you force the farmer not to grow anything?
- rakoo 4y ago
  > congrats, you just invented capitalism. No, thats not capitalism but trade. You need to read up on what actually is capitalism and how accumulation of useful resources (wheat, cocoa, spice) is different from accumulation of money. Basically: it only makes sense inasmuch as you can consume the accumulated stuff, so a million ton of wood logs won't matter as much as one million ton of coins. > This sounds like a very natural thing to do, almost like it would arise on its own without anyone having to _force_ this on anyone, as opposed to literally every other economic system, including your definition. You're still thinking in a capitalistic world and you don't seem like you can't get out of it. The whole point of alternative economic systems is to produce enough for everybody. Such that needs are provided by the community. If everyone has what they need, why would there be a price on anything ? Why would more-than-enough wheat trade against more-than-enough wood ? It doesn't make sense. Trade happens because it's a way to solve scarcity, but the whole idea behind anarchism is to understand what is needed and make sure there is no scarcity there. > In your “anarchism” how do you enforce the non-ownership of the means of production except by force? Do you force the farmer not to grow anything? In anarchism, all decisions are taken by everyone. No one forces anything on anyone. I know, it's a hard concept to grasp, but communities can think and decide what's best for them. The farmer can grow whatever they want, but if it doesn't benefit the community then they are on their own. It's all about what is good for the group and what makes us go forward, together.
  - Cederfjard 4y ago
    > If everyone has what they need, why would there be a price on anything? Will everyone really always have what they need, or is that a theoretical state that is actually very unlikely to be achieved? Also, is it in human nature (in general, discounting outliers) to be entirely satisfied and not want more, especially in relation to the people around you? > The farmer can grow whatever they want, but if it doesn't benefit the community then they are on their own. What happens if more than just one farmer opts out of the anarchistic lifestyle, they embrace capitalism, and outcompete the anarchists? Could that ever reach a point where it would be necessary to stop them by force in order to preserve the anarchistic society? Basically I’m curious how things would shake out in reality, compared to theoretic models that presupposes that everyone acts in the best interest of society as a whole (given that they can all agree on what that is), and not themselves in particular (which I think is more realistic, on average).