7 ms·

Same here. Growing up fully immersed in the capitalist world it’s easy to think that this is the natural state of things. This book, among others, helped me c

Same here. Growing up fully immersed in the capitalist world it’s easy to think that this is the natural state of things. This book, among others, helped me change perspective and challenge my assumptions about the world. Totally recommended.

_0ffh 4y ago
Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.
- public_defender 4y ago
  That would not be an accurate label. Nothing you wrote implies any economic system. Of course the society you describe would allow for capitalism, but it equally allows other models.
  - _0ffh 4y ago
    > That would not be an accurate label ...in your estimation. I and many others would call it such, and with good reason. In our estimation it is capitalism that allows for other models, as long as they are peaceful and respect property rights. Nothing about capitalism hinders you to follow your social instincts. You are free to share your possessions with whomever you choose. You can jointly own whatever you want with whomever you want. That is capitalism.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      I can't run my own bank and abolish the capitalist system. I first need ten million dollars worth of capitalist money just to get started. Every clever path to eliminate capitalism from within is blocked through absurd licensing requirements by the government. The amount of loopholes I have to go through just to end capitalism from within are ridiculous and can hardly be described as voluntary. To abolish capitalism you need to provide cost effective liquidity, this means you will have to start an alternative money or payment system with a demurrage fee. The challenge is using existing constructs in the law to create something that cannot be banned by the government or the central bank. How voluntary... After you have done that you must now gather members and build the actual payment network because liquidity isn't provided by money, it is provided by the people trading with money. This is in fact the easiest problem because demurrage currencies are superior competitors to the capitalist system which is why they had to the banned before world war two or else people wouldn't become polarized enough to want Nazis in power. Third you will have to bypass banking regulations and somehow offer most of the services banks offer without a banking license. I haven't found any, de facto illegal. There is nothing voluntary about this. Finally, you have to somehow convince the government to adopt the non capitalist system for tax payments. If you cannot do so, you must wreck your brain trying to find an incentive structure that is competitive enough to make people who have freshly received money from the government put it into your money system faster than they pull it out by paying their taxes. Again, the fact that the government forces all economic activity to go through the capitalist system is not very voluntary. If anything, it is lipstick on a pig. I believe the banking loophole and the tax incentive structure can be solved but that only shows how fragile and ridiculous capitalism is, if an obviously superior system has so much trouble establishing itself even though it is superior in almost every respect and it is highly competitive.
- okasaki 4y ago
  How can private property exist in such a society? If you and I both claim to own some land and we can't come to an agreement, isn't it going to be decided with superior force? How is this society mutually beneficial by definition? If I own the fields and decide to destroy the produce (it's mine, I can do whatever I want?) while the locals starve, this is fine right?
  - _0ffh 4y ago
    > How is this society mutually beneficial by definition I wrote "voluntary social interactions [...] are by definition mutually beneficial". A voluntary interaction implies that all participants in the interaction have chosen to do so by their own free will. That implies that they value going through with the interaction higher than to forego the interaction. Hence, it benefits all of them. > If you and I both claim to own some land and we can't come to an agreement, isn't it going to be decided with superior force? That's merely a technical problem. A land register might be a solution.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > isn't it going to be decided with superior force? Yes. There is always going to be a superior force and it decides who owns what. Practically, the point of anarchism is that the force should be limited (voluntarily, like how armies in a healthy democracy voluntarily subordinate themselves to the voters) to the absolute minimum role possible. For example, the popular configuration right now is that the group that controls the strongest army (ie, 'the government') is also seen as responsible for providing healthcare and welfare. The anarchists think this is stupid because there is no reason to think that there is an organization that is simultaneously good at so many things at once. > How is this society mutually beneficial by definition? Anyone using force to achieve their aims gets removed from society, so all that is left is people transacting mutually beneficially. It isn't so radical, that is close to what we have now. The vision is basically you go to the shops and buy stuff.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      >Anyone using force to achieve their aims gets removed from society, I think I see a fatal flaw in the logic here....
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The cited article quotes Kropotkin talking about ants and how they cooperate. It says if an ant does not cooperate by sharing food, they are treated as an enemy. This is what he meant by mutual aid. > Kropotkin was fascinated by how ant cheaters (those who refuse to dispense aid) are dealt with: “If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or even worse. If the refusal has been made while its kinsfolk were fighting with some other species, they will fall back upon the greedy individual with greater vehemence than even upon the enemies themselves.” A 19th century Russian prince that became a socialist perhaps thinks of something different when he thinks of "beaurocracy" or "government" than a 21st century HN reader does.
  - _0ffh 4y ago
    Yes, I know. I read the article. I also think it is sensible to be aware of cheaters and treat them accordingly, though we're not a haplodiploid species. Bear in mind that dealing with cheaters must not be taken as an excuse for violence or robbery. What is your point regarding my answer to gp post? I didn't even mention the words "bureaucracy" or "government". Rest assured though, that I despise them both.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      The article used those terms, in a way that cast Kropotkin in a "right libertarian" light which struck me as anachronistic given his time period. Your comment seemed to echo that, talking about some Anarcho-capitalist libertarian ideal buzzword society, linking that to his anarchism and then further attaching the generic word 'capitalist' to it. This felt like a stretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism > Anarcho-capitalism is also distinguished from anarchism, an anti-capitalist movement that opposes unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, and social anarchism, a branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as interrelated with mutual aid. Unlike anarchists, anarcho-capitalists support private property and private institutions. Anarcho-capitalists also reject the libertarian socialist economic theories of anarchism, arguing that they are inherently authoritarian or require authoritarianism to achieve, while believing that there is no coercion under capitalism. Despite its name, anarcho-capitalism lies outside the tradition of anarchism and is more closely affiliated with capitalism, right-libertarianism, and liberalism
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  That's not a capitalist society. This is the correct definition for Capitalism: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. It doesn't imply voluntary social interactions, it doesn't imply some sort of protection against the "superior force" you mention. The values you enounce belong to any healthy society as voluntary social interactions happen in socialism too, where the majority (the proletariat) is protected against the use of superior force by the rich. Now, would you please explain how can social interactions be voluntary in a system where property-less people have no other choice to survive but to accept the least bad offer from those who own the means of production? Interactions can really be voluntary once neither of the parts depend on the interaction to survive. Once we free exchanges from such power play, then we can talk about will. This is why the only just and free system can be one where nobody has to struggle for the material needs necessary for their survival.
  - _0ffh 4y ago
    And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      > And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. > Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug. Capitalism thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalists made tons of profits out of it. They also profited immensely from the now cheap and union free labor force, all thanks to the fascist police beating and arresting any unionist. There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence. It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite.
- imtringued 4y ago
  I am very confused. Such a society wouldn't be obsessed with capital or money. It can't even be any form of -ism.

_0ffh 4y ago

Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.

public_defender 4y ago
That would not be an accurate label. Nothing you wrote implies any economic system. Of course the society you describe would allow for capitalism, but it equally allows other models.
- _0ffh 4y ago
  > That would not be an accurate label ...in your estimation. I and many others would call it such, and with good reason. In our estimation it is capitalism that allows for other models, as long as they are peaceful and respect property rights. Nothing about capitalism hinders you to follow your social instincts. You are free to share your possessions with whomever you choose. You can jointly own whatever you want with whomever you want. That is capitalism.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    I can't run my own bank and abolish the capitalist system. I first need ten million dollars worth of capitalist money just to get started. Every clever path to eliminate capitalism from within is blocked through absurd licensing requirements by the government. The amount of loopholes I have to go through just to end capitalism from within are ridiculous and can hardly be described as voluntary. To abolish capitalism you need to provide cost effective liquidity, this means you will have to start an alternative money or payment system with a demurrage fee. The challenge is using existing constructs in the law to create something that cannot be banned by the government or the central bank. How voluntary... After you have done that you must now gather members and build the actual payment network because liquidity isn't provided by money, it is provided by the people trading with money. This is in fact the easiest problem because demurrage currencies are superior competitors to the capitalist system which is why they had to the banned before world war two or else people wouldn't become polarized enough to want Nazis in power. Third you will have to bypass banking regulations and somehow offer most of the services banks offer without a banking license. I haven't found any, de facto illegal. There is nothing voluntary about this. Finally, you have to somehow convince the government to adopt the non capitalist system for tax payments. If you cannot do so, you must wreck your brain trying to find an incentive structure that is competitive enough to make people who have freshly received money from the government put it into your money system faster than they pull it out by paying their taxes. Again, the fact that the government forces all economic activity to go through the capitalist system is not very voluntary. If anything, it is lipstick on a pig. I believe the banking loophole and the tax incentive structure can be solved but that only shows how fragile and ridiculous capitalism is, if an obviously superior system has so much trouble establishing itself even though it is superior in almost every respect and it is highly competitive.
okasaki 4y ago
How can private property exist in such a society? If you and I both claim to own some land and we can't come to an agreement, isn't it going to be decided with superior force? How is this society mutually beneficial by definition? If I own the fields and decide to destroy the produce (it's mine, I can do whatever I want?) while the locals starve, this is fine right?
- _0ffh 4y ago
  > How is this society mutually beneficial by definition I wrote "voluntary social interactions [...] are by definition mutually beneficial". A voluntary interaction implies that all participants in the interaction have chosen to do so by their own free will. That implies that they value going through with the interaction higher than to forego the interaction. Hence, it benefits all of them. > If you and I both claim to own some land and we can't come to an agreement, isn't it going to be decided with superior force? That's merely a technical problem. A land register might be a solution.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > isn't it going to be decided with superior force? Yes. There is always going to be a superior force and it decides who owns what. Practically, the point of anarchism is that the force should be limited (voluntarily, like how armies in a healthy democracy voluntarily subordinate themselves to the voters) to the absolute minimum role possible. For example, the popular configuration right now is that the group that controls the strongest army (ie, 'the government') is also seen as responsible for providing healthcare and welfare. The anarchists think this is stupid because there is no reason to think that there is an organization that is simultaneously good at so many things at once. > How is this society mutually beneficial by definition? Anyone using force to achieve their aims gets removed from society, so all that is left is people transacting mutually beneficially. It isn't so radical, that is close to what we have now. The vision is basically you go to the shops and buy stuff.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    >Anyone using force to achieve their aims gets removed from society, I think I see a fatal flaw in the logic here....
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The cited article quotes Kropotkin talking about ants and how they cooperate. It says if an ant does not cooperate by sharing food, they are treated as an enemy. This is what he meant by mutual aid. > Kropotkin was fascinated by how ant cheaters (those who refuse to dispense aid) are dealt with: “If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or even worse. If the refusal has been made while its kinsfolk were fighting with some other species, they will fall back upon the greedy individual with greater vehemence than even upon the enemies themselves.” A 19th century Russian prince that became a socialist perhaps thinks of something different when he thinks of "beaurocracy" or "government" than a 21st century HN reader does.
- _0ffh 4y ago
  Yes, I know. I read the article. I also think it is sensible to be aware of cheaters and treat them accordingly, though we're not a haplodiploid species. Bear in mind that dealing with cheaters must not be taken as an excuse for violence or robbery. What is your point regarding my answer to gp post? I didn't even mention the words "bureaucracy" or "government". Rest assured though, that I despise them both.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The article used those terms, in a way that cast Kropotkin in a "right libertarian" light which struck me as anachronistic given his time period. Your comment seemed to echo that, talking about some Anarcho-capitalist libertarian ideal buzzword society, linking that to his anarchism and then further attaching the generic word 'capitalist' to it. This felt like a stretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism > Anarcho-capitalism is also distinguished from anarchism, an anti-capitalist movement that opposes unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, and social anarchism, a branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as interrelated with mutual aid. Unlike anarchists, anarcho-capitalists support private property and private institutions. Anarcho-capitalists also reject the libertarian socialist economic theories of anarchism, arguing that they are inherently authoritarian or require authoritarianism to achieve, while believing that there is no coercion under capitalism. Despite its name, anarcho-capitalism lies outside the tradition of anarchism and is more closely affiliated with capitalism, right-libertarianism, and liberalism
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
That's not a capitalist society. This is the correct definition for Capitalism: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. It doesn't imply voluntary social interactions, it doesn't imply some sort of protection against the "superior force" you mention. The values you enounce belong to any healthy society as voluntary social interactions happen in socialism too, where the majority (the proletariat) is protected against the use of superior force by the rich. Now, would you please explain how can social interactions be voluntary in a system where property-less people have no other choice to survive but to accept the least bad offer from those who own the means of production? Interactions can really be voluntary once neither of the parts depend on the interaction to survive. Once we free exchanges from such power play, then we can talk about will. This is why the only just and free system can be one where nobody has to struggle for the material needs necessary for their survival.
- _0ffh 4y ago
  And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    > And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. > Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug. Capitalism thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalists made tons of profits out of it. They also profited immensely from the now cheap and union free labor force, all thanks to the fascist police beating and arresting any unionist. There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence. It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite.
imtringued 4y ago
I am very confused. Such a society wouldn't be obsessed with capital or money. It can't even be any form of -ism.