What's the bottom line of "anarcho"-capitalism? I'm referring to things like liberty equality solidarity etc etc etc. What is this system trying to achieve.
It's trying to achieve no system in the sense of a construct of coercive government.
I'd say ancap, in a phrase, is about establishing absolute liberty to individuals within a society based on free markets and property rights.
That_Which_Isnt: What is this system trying to achieve.
What is this system trying to achieve.
Maximum individual liberty and no legal coercion.
It's not really a system, it's the absence of a system.
The absence of a system that can legally steal individual's income by labeling themselves as the "protectors" (government).
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Absolute liberty like the liberty to rape?
That_Which_Isnt: Absolute liberty like the liberty to rape?
Notice I stated "no legal coercion".
Anarcho-capitalism is founded on property rights, if someone is violating someone else's property (including their body) then that is aggression/coercion.
Statist advocate that a group of people that called themselves "government" have the right to violate individual's property rights, anarcho-capitalists believe there is no acceptions.
So what about when the employer is in possession of the employees body during wage-slavery? He's free to exploit him in anyway he deems fit then since he's purchased that persons time right? Like he doesn't have to bother securing the workplace to be free of pollution or other hazards then.
That_Which_Isnt: So what about when the employer is in possession of the employees body during wage-slavery? He's free to exploit him in anyway he deems fit then since he's purchased that persons time right?
So what about when the employer is in possession of the employees body during wage-slavery? He's free to exploit him in anyway he deems fit then since he's purchased that persons time right?
An employer is compensating an employee for their time and labour. He does not "own" them for the period they're at work. And how is an employer "exploiting" someone who is mutually consenting to provide time and labour? Please elaborate on "wage-slavery".
That_Which_Isnt: Like he doesn't have to bother securing the workplace to be free of pollution or other hazards then.
Like he doesn't have to bother securing the workplace to be free of pollution or other hazards then.
Why not? How is a safe working environment not in an employer's interest?
"An employer is compensating an employee for their time and labour. He does not "own" them for the period they're at work. And how is an employer "exploiting" someone who is mutually consenting to provide time and labour? Please elaborate on "wage-slavery"."
Wait I thought we just said that a person's body was property why can't I buy that, are you already instituting regulations? An employer owns the means of production, an employee works them. The employer estimates the value of the employees labour, and pays him less, that is the source of profit, exploitation.
Wage-slavery is the term used to describe conditions after chattel-slavery was gotten rid of, a more polite time when people called things what they were. Since the Employer controls the means of production, the Employee has no choice but to sell his/her labour and therefor time, because you cannot alienate labour from a person, it is not a commodity, which is precisely what you're trying to do. So in essence you're purchasing someone else's liberty.
"Why not? How is a safe working environment not in an employer's interest?"
He/she owns the means of production, he's in the minority. There are tons of people looking for work, if a few die so what?
Oh god. Calvinism, the labor theory of value, and exploitation, how boring.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I'm unfamiliar with Calvinism, do enlighten me. Most of my education comes from the First Internationals. As an aside why are you guys called ANARCHO-capitalists anyway, I see no bearing to actual Anarchy?
That_Which_Isnt:Wait I thought we just said that a person's body was property why can't I buy that, are you already instituting regulations?
What do you mean by regulations?
That_Which_Isnt:The employer estimates the value of the employees labour, and pays him less, that is the source of profit, exploitation.
So you feel that Marxian surplus labor is the only form of profit in the market place?
That_Which_Isnt:Since the Employer controls the means of production, the Employee has no choice but to sell his/her labour and therefor time, because you cannot alienate labour from a person, it is not a commodity, which is precisely what you're trying to do. So in essence you're purchasing someone else's liberty
That seems rather nonsensical. One, an employee can leave such a profession so they still retain their liberty. The ability to leave is perhaps one of the most powerful tools for if one is tied to something with or without consent, they truly weld no power. Second, why can't an employee come to own means of production?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
That_Which_Isnt:As an aside why are you guys called ANARCHO-capitalists anyway, I see no bearing to actual Anarchy?
Anarchy is a system without governmental authority. It literally means no ruler. Economic theories are abound with such implications.
That_Which_Isnt: I'm unfamiliar with Calvinism, do enlighten me. Most of my education comes from the First Internationals. As an aside why are you guys called ANARCHO-capitalists anyway, I see no bearing to actual Anarchy?
First Internationals? Well, that explains it then...
With regards to your previous post, I agree with laughing_man's rebuttal. The labour theory of value has been debunked many, many times. Menger even did it in Marx's time:
"Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good." - Principles of Austrian Economics, Carl Menger, 1871.
That_Which_Isnt: Most of my education comes from the First Internationals.
Most of my education comes from the First Internationals.
/thread
"What do you mean by regulations?"
I've been told An-Cap is Capitalism without regulation, I've been told my body is property. What's stopping someone from buying property?
"So you feel that Marxian surplus labor is the only form of profit in the market place?"
I'm unfamiliar with this term I haven't chipped that far into First International yet, do explain.
"That seems rather nonsensical. One, an employee can leave such a profession so they still retain their liberty. The ability to leave is perhaps one of the most powerful tools for if one is tied to something with or without consent, they truly weld no power."
Okay they can quit their job... now what are they going to do starve? that sounds practical. I do agree with the idea of a general strike though to permanently get-rid of capitalism, all the workers of the world must do is fold their arms and the world comes to a crawl. Then once they seize the means of production and abolish private property as they did during the Spanish Revolution we can truly be rid of Capitalism (I'm an actual Anarchist btw).
"Second, why can't an employee come to own means of production?"
Because the means of production are limited, and once you own the means of production and start employing people.. well you become the employer >_>.
"Anarchy is a system without governmental authority. It literally means no ruler. Economic theories are abound with such implications."
Wrong, Anarchy is a system based around the maximization of Liberty Equality and Solidarity, these three cannot exist without the other. As such a consistent Anarchist will oppose all forms of Vertical Hierarchy such as the State, Sexism, Racism, Capitalism, Discrimination based upon sexual orientation etc.
I don't want to debate semantics though so lets not,
How old are you and how many years have you been reading political writings?
"First Internationals? Well, that explains it then...
"Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good." - Principles of Austrian Economics, Carl Menger, 1871."
I'm uncertain as to how that quote applies in anyway, I'm not discussing the value of the product, but of the labour. If the labourer did have to labour for a thousand years to get that diamond you can bet your ass he would be paid less than whatever that diamond is worth, same for if it was discovered in one day.
That_Which_Isnt:I'm unfamiliar with Calvinism, do enlighten me.
You know, the whole, "LABOR IS A PART OF ME, IT'S PART OF MY HUMANITY, I'M BEING PROSTITUTED WHEN I GIVE OUT MY LABOR EVEN THOUGH I WANNA DO IT." (I used caps because they're usually yelling, for whatever reason).
The anarcho-communists were from the fourth international, the Trotskyites.
That_Which_Isnt:I'm uncertain as to how that quote applies in anyway, I'm not discussing the value of the product, but of the labour.
because the exploitation theory of profit is contingent upon the labor theory of value. Without it, the laborer has no justification for all of the income whatsoever, and would in fact be a thief for demanding it. Without exploitation, you have nothing.
"How old are you and how many years have you been reading political writings?"
Seeking to employ Ad-hominem later? I'll not indulge you.
"You know, the whole, "LABOR IS A PART OF ME, IT'S PART OF MY HUMANITY, I'M BEING PROSTITUTED WHEN I GIVE OUT MY LABOR EVEN THOUGH I WANNA DO IT." (I used caps because they're usually yelling, for whatever reason)."
You would argue the opposite? Do tell me how you plan on separating your ability to run a factory from your body. That should make for a most interesting experience.
"The anarcho-communists were from the fourth international, the Trotskyites."
This is just outright false, Kropotkin was one of the first advocates of Anarcho-communism. Fourth International wasn't until the 1960s
"because the exploitation theory of profit is contingent upon the labor theory of value. Without it, the laborer has no justification for all of the income whatsoever, and would in fact be a thief for demanding it. Without exploitation, you have nothing."
Other than the fact that the labourer did the actual work whereas the capitalist "owned" the property through some arbitrary dictation. Have you ever read any Proudhon?
That_Which_Isnt: I've been told An-Cap is Capitalism without regulation, I've been told my body is property. What's stopping someone from buying property?
Nothing. Willing buyer, willing seller. People literally rent and buy each other's bodies all the time. A person can prostitute themselves, they can sell their semen or eggs. A woman can sell her services as a surrogate mother etc. etc.
That_Which_Isnt: Okay they can quit their job... now what are they going to do starve? that sounds practical. I do agree with the idea of a general strike though to permanently get-rid of capitalism, all the workers of the world must do is fold their arms and the world comes to a crawl. Then once they seize the means of production and abolish private property as they did during the Spanish Revolution we can truly be rid of Capitalism (I'm an actual Anarchist btw).
*sigh* Is it really such a difficult thing to grasp that life is not fair and nothing in life is free. Since when is anyone in this world simply entitled to whatever they deem they need?
Your notion of workers "seizing the means of productions" means what exactly? They would simply be taking ownership of property as a seemingly public organization. This is called government and socialism. That's hardly anarchic.
That_Which_Isnt: Wrong, Anarchy is a system based around the maximization of Liberty Equality and Solidarity, these three cannot exist without the other. As such a consistent Anarchist will oppose all forms of Vertical Hierarchy such as the State, Sexism, Racism, Capitalism, Discrimination based upon sexual orientation etc.
I can tell why you don't want to debate semantics. You're happy just dictating to us what our words and ideals should mean. Would this be reminiscent of what your worker-run socialist utopia would be like? /sarcasm
Anarchy simply means no government. Period.
Seeking to know whether you are young and/or inexperienced enough to excuse. There hasn't been any need to pretend so far. Anyway, your comment about Menger seems to answer the question.
That_Which_Isnt:"So you feel that Marxian surplus labor is the only form of profit in the market place?"
Marxian surplus labour is more accurately described as the Marxist exploitation theory, Marx's theory that employees have the value of their labour deducted by capitalists to produce profit. You, above, said:
That_Which_Isnt: The employer estimates the value of the employees labour, and pays him less, that is the source of profit, exploitation.
Hence others appellating you as a believer in the Marxian exploitation theory.
You may be rather interested in this essay by Bryan Caplan on the subject of the Spanish anarchists. Suffice to say, their society was anything but a free one. I'm also rather curious how you are going to calculate prices in socialist production without effective price signalling from the consumers.
That_Which_Isnt:Wrong, Anarchy is a system based around the maximization of Liberty Equality and Solidarity, these three cannot exist without the other. As such a consistent Anarchist will oppose all forms of Vertical Hierarchy such as the State, Sexism, Racism, Capitalism, Discrimination based upon sexual orientation etc.
Definitions of anarchism vary and the meanings of words evolve and change over time. To some people, anarchy means chaos. To others, it means no government. Others share your definition. It's variable.
Assuming that you are actually curious about anarcho-capitalism, and not simply trolling these boards, I think you would find it considerably illuminating if you pick up a book and read it in order to get a sense of where we are coming from. Judging by your questions, I would highly recommend A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, as it does of masterful job of starting from the most basic principles and logically developing from there. I think you will find this course of action most preferable to your current behavior as it would afford you the ability to more fully understand our arguments in an expeditious and insightful fashion.
Best of luck!
That_Which_Isnt: Other than the fact that the labourer did the actual work whereas the capitalist "owned" the property through some arbitrary dictation.
Other than the fact that the labourer did the actual work whereas the capitalist "owned" the property through some arbitrary dictation.
So this ubiquitous "capitalist" never worked himself to acquire his property or means of productions? When he has a business, he doesn't contribute (often without immediate compensation) with his own time and labour? He doesn't undertake the full financial risk of the enterprise with his own capital? I guess "capitalists" are just magicked into existence by the oppressive wizards of Mordor, or something...
That_Which_Isnt:I've been told An-Cap is Capitalism without regulation, I've been told my body is property. What's stopping someone from buying property?
Perhaps you misread. Without 'regulation' means without rules or legal codes. There is still law under anarchism. I can recommend some works if you are interested in learning how that is. You are going to run into two camps within this movement though, one that thinks voluntary slavery is possible and one that thinks it isn't. I am on the side of thinking that it isn't.
That_Which_Isnt:I'm unfamiliar with this term I haven't chipped that far into First International yet, do explain.
The first international is really a power struggle between Marx and Bakunin namely Marxians vs anarcho-communists. Marx believed that profit from capitalism is derived from surplus value. Namely workers are told to work let us say 5 days a week when what they need to survive can be done in 3 days, therefore those extra two days are termed 'surplus value.'
That_Which_Isnt: Okay they can quit their job... now what are they going to do starve? that sounds practical.
Okay they can quit their job... now what are they going to do starve? that sounds practical.
That_Which_Isnt: I do agree with the idea of a general strike though to permanently get-rid of capitalism, all the workers of the world must do is fold their arms and the world comes to a crawl.
Such class consciousness would never be achieved and how are we defining capitalism by the way?
That_Which_Isnt:Then once they seize the means of production and abolish private property as they did during the Spanish Revolution we can truly be rid of Capitalism (I'm an actual Anarchist btw).
So is it to be run by councils?
That_Which_Isnt:Because the means of production are limited, and once you own the means of production and start employing people.. well you become the employer >_>.
And means of production cannot be traded? You seem to labor under the premise that we live in a static state.
That_Which_Isnt:Wrong, Anarchy is a system based around the maximization of Liberty Equality and Solidarity, these three cannot exist without the other
According to whom? Such connotations are not apart of the definition of 'no ruler'
That_Which_Isnt:As such a consistent Anarchist will oppose all forms of Vertical Hierarchy such as the State, Sexism, Racism, Capitalism, Discrimination based upon sexual orientation etc.
Firstly, there are anarcho-capitalists who oppose sexism and racism. I happen to be one of them. However, do not take your crusade into the camp of coercion. Enslaving so others maybe free, killing so that others may live.
That_Which_Isnt:Do tell me how you plan on separating your ability to run a factory from your body. That should make for a most interesting experience.
I could choose not to work, and complain on forums all day in my mother's basement.
That_Which_Isnt:This is just outright false, Kropotkin was one of the first advocates of Anarcho-communism. Fourth International wasn't until the 1960s
Lenin wasn't talking about anarchy during the first international.
That_Which_Isnt:Other than the fact that the labourer did the actual work whereas the capitalist "owned" the property through some arbitrary dictation.
Yeah, arbitrary. You know, working, saving, and then taking a risk and investing. Providing capital to the workers, increasing productivity and the marginal productivity of the workers, and therefore their wages. Yeah, arbitrary dictation.
"Nothing. Willing buyer, willing seller. People literally rent and buy each other's bodies all the time. A person can prostitute themselves, they can sell their semen or eggs. A woman can sell her services as a surrogate mother etc. etc."
So you're okay with Chattel Slavery?
"*sigh* Is it really such a difficult thing to grasp that life is not fair and nothing in life is free. Since when is anyone in this world simply entitled to whatever they deem they need?"
So we're running with an ideology that from the outset forces you to accept that some people WILL be better off than you are.
"Your notion of workers "seizing the means of productions" means what exactly? They would simply be taking ownership of property as a seemingly public organization. This is called government and socialism. That's hardly anarchic."
Actually it's entirely Anarchic, I suggest you read some actual Anarchist literature might I recommend http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html.
Anarchism is typically referred to as Libertarian SOCIALISM. And Socialism does NOT imply Government, that's what Anarchy is, and Communism actually, they both have the same endgoal in sight, they just advocate for different methods. Whereas Anarchy has worked before, Communism hasn't.
"I can tell why you don't want to debate semantics. You're happy just dictating to us what our words and ideals should mean. Would this be reminiscent of what your worker-run socialist utopia would be like? /sarcasm
Anarchy simply means no government. Period."
No, my worker-run society would be quite similar to the Spanish Revolution, where, once profit motive was removed, productivity went up by quite a bit. Nice backing for your statement there, whereas I have history of several hundred years on my side, that of Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Joseph Proudhon, etc. The original Anarchist thinkers.
That_Which_Isnt:So we're running with an ideology that from the outset forces you to accept that some people WILL be better off than you are.
Yeah honey, people are different (believe it or not); some are more capable than others. I know, shocking.
That_Which_Isnt:Actually it's entirely Anarchic, I suggest you read some actual Anarchist literature might I recommend http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html.
Yeah, using coercion and stealing private property is the epitome of freedom. I'm getting it. Assuming that the leaders of the revolution will hand over the means of production and give up their power is notion no serious person could ever believe.
That_Which_Isnt: Whereas Anarchy has worked before, Communism hasn't.
Whereas Anarchy has worked before, Communism hasn't.
Not your kind of anarchy.
That_Which_Isnt:No, my worker-run society would be quite similar to the Spanish Revolution, where, once profit motive was removed, productivity went up by quite a bit.
What can I do but laugh?
That_Which_Isnt: So you're okay with Chattel Slavery?
Mutual consent, mate. When you're under anesthesia you're a chattel slave to your doctor.
That_Which_Isnt: So we're running with an ideology that from the outset forces you to accept that some people WILL be better off than you are.
From the outset of what? Human existence? Of course some people will be better off than others. This is completely fortuitous, it is not "forced" for me to accept this. It is self-evident. Besides, tell me how -my- life would improve if everybody was as equally well off as I am? (Which, currently, means they have a small apartment and $200 in their wallet. Hardly a grandiose life of riches and wellness)
"You may be rather interested in this essay by Bryan Caplan on the subject of the Spanish anarchists. Suffice to say, their society was anything but a free one. I'm also rather curious how you are going to calculate prices in socialist production without effective price signalling from the consumers."
I think you might be interested in this pamphlet. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html A classless society has no use for currency, as currency can be accumulated much like private property to create inequalities.
"Definitions of anarchism vary and the meanings of words evolve and change over time. To some people, anarchy means chaos. To others, it means no government. Others share your definition. It's variable."
I feel my side is sort of arbitrarily entitled our version of the word since we've used it for several hundred years, but I'm going to concede an argument of semantics.
"So this ubiquitous "capitalist" never worked himself to acquire his property or means of productions? When he has a business, he doesn't contribute (often without immediate compensation) with his own time and labour? He doesn't undertake the full financial risk of the enterprise with his own capital? I guess "capitalists" are just magicked into existence by the oppressive wizards of Mordor, or something..."
Sons and Daughters of Capitalists surely worked very hard to be born no doubt. Just because you can work your way into position of slave-master does not justify the position. Even if you do risk slave revolts.
"Perhaps you misread. Without 'regulation' means without rules or legal codes. There is still law under anarchism. I can recommend some works if you are interested in learning how that is. You are going to run into two camps within this movement though, one that thinks voluntary slavery is possible and one that thinks it isn't. I am on the side of thinking that it isn't."
Rules/legal codes, and laws. We're really splitting hairs unless I can get some sort of definite definition on these two terms.
"The first international is really a power struggle between Marx and Bakunin namely Marxians vs anarcho-communists. Marx believed that profit from capitalism is derived from surplus value. Namely workers are told to work let us say 5 days a week when what they need to survive can be done in 3 days, therefore those extra two days are termed 'surplus value.'"
Right right, Communists and Anarchists only differ in the means in which they would achieve their classless society. Communists advocate for a vanguard State which would tear down Capitalism and then step-down. Anarchy advocates for self-liberation amongst people and eventually a General Strike and repossession of the means of production, along the way we can Smash the State. Learning from the Spanish Revolution we can see that the State does not just go away after Capitalism is done-away with. Just because Capitalism created the State doesn't mean when you eliminate it the State becomes moot.
"Such class consciousness would never be achieved and how are we defining capitalism by the way?"
Such class-consciousness HAS been achieved before, besides it's my job as an Anarchist to help people self-liberate themselves in that way. I'm defining Capitalism as any system which has private property. If I need to make the distinction between property and possession let me know.
"So is it to be run by councils?"
Councils maybe, there's other ways to organize, but yes.
"And means of production cannot be traded? You seem to labor under the premise that we live in a static state."
Being able to trade the tools of oppression does not eliminate their evils
"According to whom? Such connotations are not apart of the definition of 'no ruler'"
The classic Anarchist thinkers. Being without ruler necessarily implies everyone is equal because there is no division between ruler and ruled, because of this liberty is implied because if we're all equal then we obviously have the same liberties, and humans being a tribe oriented species solidarity follows naturally and is dependent upon equality, for how can you work with an inferior?
"However, do not take your crusade into the camp of coercion. Enslaving so others maybe free, killing so that others may live."
I'm uncertain as to what you're saying here.
"I could choose not to work, and complain on forums all day in my mother's basement."
Again, that's not very practical.
"Lenin wasn't talking about anarchy during the first international."
Anarchy shares nothing in common with Leninism, but plenty with Marxism. I didn't think Lenin was even AT the first international?
"Yeah, arbitrary. You know, working, saving, and then taking a risk and investing. Providing capital to the workers, increasing productivity and the marginal productivity of the workers, and therefore their wages. Yeah, arbitrary dictation."
Yup, people just decided "Hey I own this piece of land, I just do, and I'm going to establish a government to defend my right to own it." Your statement of Providing capital to the workers is sickening, you do realize if the Capitalist hadn't taken the means of production that job would be entirely unnecessary? You say that as if we're indebted to the Capitalist and should be grateful he is giving us the breadcrumbs of his/her success.
"Yeah honey, people are different (believe it or not); some are more capable than others. I know, shocking."
Do I SERIOUSLY need to explain what Equality is to you?
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Anarchists do not believe in equality of endowment which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist but are a cause for joy, not fear or regret. Why? Because life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share. That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words a corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people into discussions of biology. The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike. Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they standardise so much of life. Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true of other human needs. Equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. For anarchists, the concepts of "equality" as equality of outcome or equality of endowment are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical society, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. This means that under capitalism equality of opportunity without a rough equality of outcome (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists desire equality of outcome but this applies to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case.
"Yeah, using coercion and stealing private property is the epitome of freedom. I'm getting it. Assuming that the leaders of the revolution will hand over the means of production and give up their power is notion no serious person could ever believe."
Sometimes coercion is necessary against a rapist and pacifism will no longer work. There are no leaders in this Revolution, do not confuse Anarchy with Communism, I'm not a Communist for the reason you just listed.
"Not your kind of anarchy."
Paris Commune (nearly), Spanish Revolution, Native American tribes (some), Humanity for the first 50k years or 5k years depending on if you're religious.
"What can I do but laugh?"
You want to dispute facts? "With the profit motive gone, safety became more important and the number of accidents was reduced. Fares were lowered and services improved. In I 936, 183,543, 516 passengers were carried. In 1937 this had gone up by 50 million. The trams were running so efficiently that the workers were able to give money to other sections of urban transport. Wages were equalised for all workers and increased over the previous rates. For the first time free medical care was provided for the work force."
"Mutual consent, mate. When you're under anesthesia you're a chattel slave to your doctor."
That's horizontal Hierarchy with which I have no problem, in the matters of boots, I differ to the authority of the bootmakers
"From the outset of what? Human existence? Of course some people will be better off than others. This is completely fortuitous, it is not "forced" for me to accept this. It is self-evident. Besides, tell me how -my- life would improve if everybody was as equally well off as I am? (Which, currently, means they have a small apartment and $200 in their wallet. Hardly a grandiose life of riches and wellness) "
From the outset of this ideology, it doesn't even try to mask the fact that there will be no equality. It is sad to see a society so heavily ingrained with the idea of inequality, but we have been fed it since conception. If anything you would be brought up not down in equalizing wealth instantly. And Equality should be self-evident, if even so much as ONE person is oppressed you are missing the full experience of life. What if that one person was the next Einstein?
Reading this thread so far, I assume this person is either:
1. A forum member who started a new account as an intellectual exercise (not a very rigorous one, it appears)
2. A forum member who started a new account for a laugh (brilliant caricature, mate)
3. Absolutely serious (was that a chill that ran down my spine?)
phrizek: 3. Absolutely serious (was that a chill that ran down my spine?)
Although I consider it the least likely, it wouldn't be the first time.
Right mate, so your idea of anarchy is everybody owns everything and some benevolent council will decide what needs to be produced by who for what and when?
"Right mate, so your idea of anarchy is everybody owns everything and some benevolent council will decide what needs to be produced by who for what and when?"
Everybody will own everything, the council is not a permanent position of election. People will be rotated in and out quite quickly, and at the moment they go against the will of the people they shall be expelled. But yes it would be a planned economy instead of the chaos that is Capitalism.
I'm going to ignore various Ad-hominem posts
That_Which_Isnt: Everybody will own everything, the council is not a permanent position of election. People will be rotated in and out quite quickly, and at the moment they go against the will of the people they shall be expelled. But yes it would be a planned economy instead of the chaos that is Capitalism.
Sounds like statism to me.
That_Which_Isnt: you do realize if the Capitalist hadn't taken the means of production that job would be entirely unnecessary? You say that as if we're indebted to the Capitalist and should be grateful he is giving us the breadcrumbs of his/her success.
Yeah my father fled communist Yugoslavia, came here, stole a bunch of capital and got rich. Greedy bastard. All Chinese, Indian, Korean, Yugoslavian, Polish (ect, ect) immigrants who made it did so because they stole a bunch of capital. I mean, we could get into the calculation debate, but you're entirely unfamiliar with economics, Marxian or otherwise (and I'm too tired from studying all day). The necessity of price formation, an incentive structure, dynamic entrepreneurs, ect, is something you've probably never heard of, or thought much about. We could talk about the fact that Lenin did take over the means of production, and that it lead to a complete disintegration in the division of labor, where people fled the cities to go hunt wild game in the forest. We could talk about how millions starved, and how many more were murdered, but you would just retreat from communism again.
So you want us to go back to 50,000BC tribalism with humans scavenging the landscape for subsistence living while the masses continuously overthrow their tribal council leaders on a superstitious whim?
"Sounds like statism to me."
You do realize Councils are only necessary for very large scale operations where they instructed very strictly by direct democracy (not at all hierarchical) on what to say. Otherwise workers will have their own direct democracy within their factories. I'm not sure how you're defining the State, so I'm going to define it for myself.
I say the State is characterized by three things
1. A monopoly of violence
2. This violence being instutional in nature
3. Centralisation of power into the hands of a few
"Yeah my father fled communist Yugoslavia, came here, stole a bunch of capital and got rich. Greedy bastard. All Chinese, Indian, Korean, Yugoslavian, Polish (ect, ect) immigrants who made it did so because they stole a bunch of capital. I mean, we could get into the calculation debate, but you're entirely unfamiliar with economics, Marxian or otherwise (and I'm too tired from studying all day). The necessity of price formation, an incentive structure, dynamic entrepreneurs, ect, is something you've probably never heard of, or thought much about. We could talk about the fact that Lenin did take over the means of production, and that it lead to a complete disintegration in the division of labor, where people fled the cities to go hunt wild game in the forest. We could talk about how millions starved, and how many more were murdered, but you would just retreat from communism again."
You're making assumptions about how I value Western Capitalist Democracies versus Fascist State Capitalism (or as you call them Communism). I prefer Western Capitalist Democracies where the Government at least answers to the people in theory, unlike State Capitalism which is essentially what An-cap is advocating for which answers only to profit motive. Yes I would retreat from a Strawman when I am an Anarchist NOT a Communist, you guys can't seem to make this distinction for some reason. All those numbers are unnecessary because a classless society has no need for currency, things will be made from each according to ability and to each according to need.
"So you want us to go back to 50,000BC tribalism with humans scavenging the landscape for subsistence living while the masses continuously overthrow their tribal council leaders on a superstitious whim? "
I'm not an Anarcho-primitivist no.
"Everybody will own everything"
Communism
"the council is not a permanent position of election. People will be rotated in and out quite quickly,"
So you're admitting there's a central authority. How is this anarchic?
"and at the moment they go against the will of the people they shall be expelled."
Ah, mob democracy. And by "expelled" you mean "expunged", right?
"But yes it would be a planned economy instead of the chaos that is Capitalism."
Once again, planned implies overlords. So much for anarchy and freedom.
So you're not happy living under the mutually consensual "boot" of capitalists but you're happy living under the "boot" of a chaotic musical-chairs council?
Sounds like primitive tribalism to me...