4 ms·

Anarchism describes a way of organizing society in a cooperative way without government compulsion. The idea that it is incompatible with capitalism, which is i

Anarchism describes a way of organizing society in a cooperative way without government compulsion. The idea that it is incompatible with capitalism, which is inherently based on mutual cooperation, is something pushed retroactively by socialist anarchists. Also, the idea that hierarchies of any type cannot exist within anarchies is more socialist revisionism. Most anarchist societies over history have had hierarchies in some form or another. Somalia and Iceland's periods of anarchy are two such examples.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Anarchism describes a way of organizing society in a cooperative way without government compulsion. The idea that it is compatible with capitalism, which is inherently based on exploitation of labor and asymmetric distribution of returns favoring capital, is something being pushed retroactively by capitalist anarchists.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  I disagree out of hand that capitalism is "based" on exploitation of labor, but even if it were, exploitation and differing levels of capital return are completely compatible with anarchism. Anarchism is not a synonym for utopia. People can do bad things or simply amoral things that you happen to not like within a stateless societal framework such as anarchism.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    An anarchist society would necessarily dismantle hierarchies as they arose in an ongoing manner. If you tried to create capitalism in an anarchist society - that is to say, create a system of private property ownership whereby you could own the means of production and extract the surplus labor of a working class, without participating in the labor - that society should quickly recognize this is an unjust hierarchy that must be abolished to maintain anarchism. I think we have all experienced, living in a capitalist society, that such a system creates a very steep hierarchy where the wealthy have much more power than those without wealth. Anti-statism is not axiomatic to anarchism, it results from it's opposition to domination and the principle of means-ends unity, and opposing the state is not a sufficient condition for being an anarchist. It's worth noting anarchism was an offshoot of socialism - to say that this is a narrative projected backwards from anarchosocialists is incorrect.
    - missedthecue 4y ago
      "everyone would simply choose not to enjoy the benefits of private property" isn't a very compelling argument. In fact, it's observably untrue. We can look at societies that forbade the ownership of private property and these systems always gravitated toward it in spite of state enforcement. People didn't gravitate away from it. Black markets thrived in these economies.
      - lasfter 4y ago
        I think of the transition from capitalism to socialism as similar to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. If you offered someone with a basic education and a decent job the opportunity to take a land tenancy as a serf under you, they would refuse. Ownership of private property extends to a larger and larger population with each upheaval of the world's economic systems. The end result is socialism, where private property is owned by everyone, and is thus public. Why would I give you private ownership of what is, under socialism, partly my land? I think the more credible critique of anarchy is that it is too hopelessly idealistic to occur any time soon.
        missedthecue 4y ago
        You would give private ownership because of the same reason anything happens under capitalism. Because you are compensated what you think is a fair price. There are lots of critiques of anarchy. This isn't my only one or my best one. I am only pointing out that anarchism and private property and trade are fully compatible. Democracies often protect free speech, but a democracy without free speech protection is completely conceivable. This is concept I am trying to explain.
        maxbond 4y ago
        That's not a very conventional view of democracy. Without freedom of speech, how would we conduct rigorous debate and come to an unforced consensus? Voting can happen without freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean it was a meaningful election or that the democratic apparatus is more than a fig leaf for a dictatorial regime. Anarchism isn't magic, it's entirely possible that an anarchist society fails and becomes capitalist. Just like democracy isn't magic and can fail and become a dictatorship. But that doesn't make these things compatible. My body will one day fail and I will die, but I don't consider my life to be compatible with organ failure. I'm gathering your definition of anarchism is, "everyone does what they want, except forming a state, and therefore everything is compatible with anarchism?" Because that's not what anarchists are talking about, the classic quip being, "no government doesn't mean no governance." The definition of anarchism I would use, given in this video essay [1], is (paraphrasing) a body of theory, method of critique, and set of practices to implement a society free of hierarchies of domination. Given that capitalism is a hierarchy whereby the wealthy are able to impose their vision on others (a concrete example being when Charlie Munger donated $1.5B in order to implement his vision of an ideal college dorm at UC Santa Barbara, one that encodes his particular ideological values) I can't see a way it is compatible with anarchism. [1] https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8 https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8
bee_rider 4y ago
What do you mean by capitalism? The sort of more formal idea that ownership of an asset entitles one to the production from that asset? Or the more informal (but widespread) general cluster of ideas around free markets and all that jazz. I don’t really see how the former could work really well in anarchy. Like hypothetically say you “owned” a workshop that could make something useful for the community, they would probably collectively agree that… they should just walk in and start using it. What next? On the other hand, it seems to me that the general idea of markets could be used. Like, if there was a community workshop, but you were unusually good at making shoes, and had a workstation at that workshop, presumably nothing would prevent you from trading your shoes to other people. The economic value doesn’t really come from the asset of the workstation in that case, though, it comes from your abilities, right?
- missedthecue 4y ago
  I think actually the inverse is true; that market socialist systems would quickly evolve into capitalist systems. The main reason is that the capitalist benefits from what economists call the free rider problem, while communal projects don't get the same benefits. And there is no way to prevent some enterprising individual from capitalising on it and outcompeting all of the socialist firms without an enforcement mechanism such as the state to punish them when they do so.
  - lasfter 4y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding what anarchy is supposed to look like. How does one capitalize in an anarchist society divorced from capitalism? As in, what does capital mean? What does it mean to profit? How can one "outcompete" a "socialist firm"? When there is no money or private property, every firm belongs to everyone who wants it. Why is a state necessary to punish hierarchies? Presumably in an anarchist world, people have learned to distrust and dislike hierarchies on principle, refuse to partake in it and join together to punish those who do.
- js8 4y ago
  It's common to equate capitalism (which is the economic reality) with free market (or economic liberalism, which is the underlying ideology, and never completely true in practice). Typical definition of capitalism is that it is a system where (a) significant amount of capital is privately owned and (b) significant amount of labor is traded in a free market (in other words, labor is a commodity).
drewcoo 4y ago
> capitalism, which is inherently based on mutual cooperation Competition is not cooperation. Profit is not cooperation. Privatization is not cooperation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

Anarchism describes a way of organizing society in a cooperative way without government compulsion. The idea that it is compatible with capitalism, which is inherently based on exploitation of labor and asymmetric distribution of returns favoring capital, is something being pushed retroactively by capitalist anarchists.

missedthecue 4y ago
I disagree out of hand that capitalism is "based" on exploitation of labor, but even if it were, exploitation and differing levels of capital return are completely compatible with anarchism. Anarchism is not a synonym for utopia. People can do bad things or simply amoral things that you happen to not like within a stateless societal framework such as anarchism.
- maxbond 4y ago
  An anarchist society would necessarily dismantle hierarchies as they arose in an ongoing manner. If you tried to create capitalism in an anarchist society - that is to say, create a system of private property ownership whereby you could own the means of production and extract the surplus labor of a working class, without participating in the labor - that society should quickly recognize this is an unjust hierarchy that must be abolished to maintain anarchism. I think we have all experienced, living in a capitalist society, that such a system creates a very steep hierarchy where the wealthy have much more power than those without wealth. Anti-statism is not axiomatic to anarchism, it results from it's opposition to domination and the principle of means-ends unity, and opposing the state is not a sufficient condition for being an anarchist. It's worth noting anarchism was an offshoot of socialism - to say that this is a narrative projected backwards from anarchosocialists is incorrect.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    "everyone would simply choose not to enjoy the benefits of private property" isn't a very compelling argument. In fact, it's observably untrue. We can look at societies that forbade the ownership of private property and these systems always gravitated toward it in spite of state enforcement. People didn't gravitate away from it. Black markets thrived in these economies.
    - lasfter 4y ago
      I think of the transition from capitalism to socialism as similar to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. If you offered someone with a basic education and a decent job the opportunity to take a land tenancy as a serf under you, they would refuse. Ownership of private property extends to a larger and larger population with each upheaval of the world's economic systems. The end result is socialism, where private property is owned by everyone, and is thus public. Why would I give you private ownership of what is, under socialism, partly my land? I think the more credible critique of anarchy is that it is too hopelessly idealistic to occur any time soon.
      - missedthecue 4y ago
        You would give private ownership because of the same reason anything happens under capitalism. Because you are compensated what you think is a fair price. There are lots of critiques of anarchy. This isn't my only one or my best one. I am only pointing out that anarchism and private property and trade are fully compatible. Democracies often protect free speech, but a democracy without free speech protection is completely conceivable. This is concept I am trying to explain.
        maxbond 4y ago
        That's not a very conventional view of democracy. Without freedom of speech, how would we conduct rigorous debate and come to an unforced consensus? Voting can happen without freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean it was a meaningful election or that the democratic apparatus is more than a fig leaf for a dictatorial regime. Anarchism isn't magic, it's entirely possible that an anarchist society fails and becomes capitalist. Just like democracy isn't magic and can fail and become a dictatorship. But that doesn't make these things compatible. My body will one day fail and I will die, but I don't consider my life to be compatible with organ failure. I'm gathering your definition of anarchism is, "everyone does what they want, except forming a state, and therefore everything is compatible with anarchism?" Because that's not what anarchists are talking about, the classic quip being, "no government doesn't mean no governance." The definition of anarchism I would use, given in this video essay [1], is (paraphrasing) a body of theory, method of critique, and set of practices to implement a society free of hierarchies of domination. Given that capitalism is a hierarchy whereby the wealthy are able to impose their vision on others (a concrete example being when Charlie Munger donated $1.5B in order to implement his vision of an ideal college dorm at UC Santa Barbara, one that encodes his particular ideological values) I can't see a way it is compatible with anarchism. [1] https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8 https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8

bee_rider 4y ago

What do you mean by capitalism? The sort of more formal idea that ownership of an asset entitles one to the production from that asset? Or the more informal (but widespread) general cluster of ideas around free markets and all that jazz. I don’t really see how the former could work really well in anarchy. Like hypothetically say you “owned” a workshop that could make something useful for the community, they would probably collectively agree that… they should just walk in and start using it. What next? On the other hand, it seems to me that the general idea of markets could be used. Like, if there was a community workshop, but you were unusually good at making shoes, and had a workstation at that workshop, presumably nothing would prevent you from trading your shoes to other people. The economic value doesn’t really come from the asset of the workstation in that case, though, it comes from your abilities, right?

missedthecue 4y ago
I think actually the inverse is true; that market socialist systems would quickly evolve into capitalist systems. The main reason is that the capitalist benefits from what economists call the free rider problem, while communal projects don't get the same benefits. And there is no way to prevent some enterprising individual from capitalising on it and outcompeting all of the socialist firms without an enforcement mechanism such as the state to punish them when they do so.
- lasfter 4y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding what anarchy is supposed to look like. How does one capitalize in an anarchist society divorced from capitalism? As in, what does capital mean? What does it mean to profit? How can one "outcompete" a "socialist firm"? When there is no money or private property, every firm belongs to everyone who wants it. Why is a state necessary to punish hierarchies? Presumably in an anarchist world, people have learned to distrust and dislike hierarchies on principle, refuse to partake in it and join together to punish those who do.
js8 4y ago
It's common to equate capitalism (which is the economic reality) with free market (or economic liberalism, which is the underlying ideology, and never completely true in practice). Typical definition of capitalism is that it is a system where (a) significant amount of capital is privately owned and (b) significant amount of labor is traded in a free market (in other words, labor is a commodity).

drewcoo 4y ago

> capitalism, which is inherently based on mutual cooperation Competition is not cooperation. Profit is not cooperation. Privatization is not cooperation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]