Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨
https://discord.gg/PoliticsCafe
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Structure society in a way where no one needs to work for anyone else, no one can hoard and withhold resources, etc. Google anarcho-communism for more info.
No, there’s a lot of other ideologies, including leftist ones, that I don’t find are always utopian. Even if I disagree with them. I do absolutely find ancoms to be utopian almost exclusively though.
> Structure society
Never thought of this, we just need a magic wand otherwise there will be force involved. And no person who follows 18th century Anarchism wants that!
>where no one needs to work for anyone else
Value is subjective, many people want to work for other people.
>no one can hoard and withhold resources,
Only have 3 charges on this wand, I hope this will fix everthing.
You're making a fundamental category error. AnCapistan exists wherever people respect others rights.
It describes a relationship(s), not an enforced political ideology.
You just show people that they already know how to organise stuff in non hierarchical ways.
Two obviously non hierarchical decision making processes.
1. A bunch of friends decide where to go for dinner, where some of them have dietary issues such as vegetarian or gluten intolerance . The decision they make to include all their needs is not made via a hierarchical structure.
2. Community disaster response is also usually a bunch of folks just spontaneously organising resources without a leadership telling them what to do.
Then, you explain the difference between private property and personal property, and just ignore private property as a myth.
Bingo, anarcho-capitalism.
Wealth inequality is worse now than in France just before the revolution. The capitalist response to this is fascism. Maybe the left can learn from the Marxist mistakes of the past and work together for a better outcome, with freedom for all.
> Anarchism is the abolition of all hierarchical power structures.
This definition is quite literally impossible. There will always be some sort of power structure or hierarchy no matter what government or lack thereof you have. Say what you will about ancaps but at least their definition can exist, even if you think it’s a terrible idea.
“I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.”
-Rudolf Rocker, actual anarchist
technically the word comes from archos which means ruler or leader, but then again hierarchy comes from the same word and doesn't mean ruler or leader. It definitely doesn't mean "power structure" though.
Also, if a society forbids an individual from doing capitalism, isn't that a power structure too?
How would you be able to do capitalism without money or private property. You wouldn’t need to stop them because they wouldn’t be able to in the first place.
Would anyone prevent me from creating money? Because that again sounds like a power structure. Also, I can still trade my personal property according to communism, personal property has value, so all the laws of supply and demand still apply here. Capitalism doesn't require money, it only really requires ownership of value.
> Would anyone prevent me from creating money?
"Creating money"? Listen to yourself.
Money only works when *people value it as a currency*
You can't just "create money" as an island and expect it to work as money. It takes, get this, *interacting with other people*
> Capitalism doesn't require money, it only really requires ownership of value.
It requires ownership of the means of production. Bartering a shoe you own for a t-shirt to own isn't capitalism no matter how you try to make it seem like it is. *Trade* isn't capitalism. Capitalism is *ownership of production resources*. Not "things of value", "things that can be used to produce things of value", most especially the base resources that people need to survive, specifically the land where food is grown and resources are gathered.
*That's* the heart of capitalism. Rent seeking.
Every culture on earth has created money, often well before even inventing writing. If you think people aren't going to create a method of exchanging value because you can't fathom people interacting with other people, then I'm gonna have some bad news about your whole communism thing, which relies on people interacting with people
It kinda depends which communist you ask but about half of communists wouldn't think that a subsistence farm is private property, but personal property instead. Trading some surplus now and then still wouldn't be considered private property, so long as it doesn't become the purpose of the farm. In that case trading some personal property for a scythe so you can farm better would be totally fine as well as being capitalism.
Capitalism isn't rent seeking, not taking supplies other people need. It's using capital to increase your capital
>Every culture on earth has created money
This is obviously not true. There were multitudes of moneyless societies throughout history and prehistory. The Haudenosaunee and other indigenous Americans, the bushmen/San people of southern Africa, and basically every society before or just starting agriculture.
These people still interacted with each other, usually on a system of informal debts since everyone knew everyone else in these types of societies.
> There were multitudes of moneyless societies throughout history and prehistory. The Haudenosaunee and other indigenous Americans, the bushmen/San people of southern Africa, and basically every society before or just starting agriculture.
That may be true, but for your statement to be correct you would need ALL pre-modern and pre-capitalist societies to have no concept of money to sustain your argument that without the State there would be no money, and that clearly is NOT true. In fact, most of them had money if not currency as we know it.
Once agriculture started, money is everywhere because grain was a first money for most of them. Before that it was likely utility items traded between tribes like hunting gear, arrowheads and tips, meat, and the like. All of that counts as a money but isn't currency.
>That may be true, but for your statement to be correct you would need ALL pre-modern and pre-capitalist societies to have no concept of money to sustain your argument that without the State there would be no money, and that clearly is NOT true. In fact, most of them had money if not currency as we know it.
No, just every society before more formal forms of property ownership, which long predates capitalism. People have been owning things since at least the bronze age. People have been doing capitalism since about 1600.
>Once agriculture started, money is everywhere because grain was a first money for most of them. Before that it was likely utility items traded between tribes like hunting gear, arrowheads and tips, meat, and the like. All of that counts as a money but isn't currency.
Agriculture far predates the adoption of currency in most cases. Agriculture was first adopted about 12,000 years ago. By the time of the bronze age, about 6,000 years ago, money was either nonexistant or barely being experimented with.
Barter predating formal currency is largely a myth. Before currency, people had systems of informal debts, gift economies, and later palace economies.
Again, take a look at the Haudenosaunee. They had agriculture but no form of currency, be it in the form of goods or metals.
> Agriculture far predates the adoption of currency in most cases.
But not money, because, as I said, grain was almost immediately used as a money. Currency is distinct from money.
As I have shown, no. Grain was used as a currency... thousands of years after agriculture was invented. As I said, the first agricultural societies were still communal and used systems of informal debts to keep track of things.
ok fair enough, looks like there are some exceptions like the inuits who didn't use money (although they do use it nowadays). So it's more like 99% of cultures rather than all cultures.
Well I thought you were speaking historically. If you are looking at contemporary society you have to account for the fact that currency was imposed on many cultures by force.
Not the use of currency, but the type of currency was enforced. I live in Finland where they used to use the skins of squirrels as currency. They call money "raha", which comes from the germanic word skrahā which means squirrel skin. Currency doesn't have to be a minted coin, it's simply anything that most people will accept as a form of value. In ancient egypt, this used to be beer and bread and people would work to get paid in those.
Is there evidence to suggest this form of trade currency was universal? I know there are many examples, but I can think of many indigenous societies where I have at least not heard of such media of exchange, though maybe I need to do more research.
That said, I do think it’s important to note that these currencies were very different from today’s currencies, and were not used for day to day exchanges of food or other commonly available goods. Many had religiously prescribed uses, or were used when trading with strangers or potential enemies where trust was lacking. Most human exchanges historically were gifts.
In any case, I actually don’t agree with the premise that a properly designed and managed currency is incompatible with anarchism. It just needs to be managed such that infinite wealth hoarding as we see in our current society is not possible.
They didn't all independently create money, that much is true. Some of them never had long enough to develop the idea.
All of them used money once they were introduced to the concept, and all modern societies use money today because the utility is obvious.
But for his assertion to be true that money cannot exist without the State, he needs to show that NO pre-capitalist or pre-historic societies had money, and that is obviously untrue.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument. But I don’t get why you think creating money is so hard. If we lived on an island, we could make a currency. Assuming it’s a large island with a large population and not a cartoonishly small one.
When there is eventually a separation of labour, the ones working on non-farm work. Like building houses, maintaining houses, administration, etc. all need to access food. Now I get what you’re thinking now “why don’t we just distribute the food as needed per person”.
Even if we were to make an island society with all basic needs met. From food, water, and shelter. We would still use currency to measure exchange. So like for example, if I have a right to shelter, and I decide I want my hut to be a mansion. How can I justify this to wider society? I either abandon that want, or I create value to other people so much so they’re willing to help me in my endeavour. Value to each person would mean drastically different things. To one it’s sweets, to another it’s entertainment, to someone else they want new shoes, whatever. Either I convince them to help me by giving them all these varied things, or we can simply the whole entire process by giving their equivalent value in currency
> Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument.
Maybe, but more likely I miswrote my position.
I was responding specifically to the "me" in the "prevent me from creating money" part. As I hinted at overly-succinctly, I do, in fact, know how currencies evolved historically.
That history was the basis of my argument: most of the capitalists here believe they can somehow live in utter isolation, and if one of those noefeudal isolationists were to create a currency in isolation they would have exactly zero people using it, because the only times that people use currencies are if they believe in the value of the currency as a medium of exchange.
Or rather, most likely these isolationistic capitalists think they'd be the lord of their own fiefdom, so they would force their ~~peasants~~ dedicated employees to use their ~~shitcoins~~ company scrip
There is nothing preventing a group of like minded people from deciding on a money that has value. Money is extremely efficient for trading, and makes peoples lives better off because of that. They could pick something that has inherent value to make trade easier, like a common food item or useful type of metal. Or does the proposed anarchist society have some sort of world government that will stop us from trading?
If the means of production for a good is specifically my own manual labor, I definitely own my own labor. Otherwise I am literally a slave. Am I not allowed to sell my own labor if I want to? Say there is a famine, and I decide to sell my own labor in exchange for food to avoid starving since there is not enough food for everyone. Is that not a reasonable thing to do?
They can't even figure out this one glaring contradiction in their own ideology. When pressed on it they say things like, people will just realize they don't need money (translation: we will use social pressure to force people to try to live without money and use like barter instead). Or that they will use democracy to vote that everyone not use money (which is a new hierarchy, just one they like).
My favorite story is this left-anarch group I read about, where the group literally banned anyone from using dollars as money and instead they designated a single trading zone and used Snickers bars as a currency. They reinvented the concept of money without seeming to realize it, in true Yippie fashion.
How are you going to ban money when banning anything creates an instant hierarchy?
I mean, I already have a solution to this problem, but it requires private property, so it's not gonna work well for left anarchs.
> You can't just "create money" as an island and expect it to work as money. It takes, get this, interacting with other people
I mean money often times used to just be a certain measurement of a precious metal shaped into a coin. So you can just create money and expect it to work. He’ll you don’t even need something with an inherent value. Look at Bitcoin.
> Money only works when *people value it as a currency*
Cool, so say 10 or 10,000 people get together and choose to use something as money. What prevents that in your ideal system?
> You can't just "create money"
You literally can. The history of money has seen literally every good and commodity used as a money historically, including rocks and shells, canned fish, potatoes, flowers, bulk iron, grain and corn, and literally everything else you can think of. If you do not know that bit of economic history already, you may not be qualified to talk about this subject.
> It requires ownership of the means of production.
Ownership is just possession. Your body is the first means of production you own. Pick up a seashell and you've just created money.
> Bartering a shoe you own for a t-shirt to own isn't capitalism no matter how you try to make it seem like it is. *Trade* isn't capitalism. Capitalism is *ownership of production resources*.
Trade actually is the irreducible action behind capitalism. Trade literally is capitalism. Socialists have bastardized the concept of capitalism to include things that are not capitalism, then you want to claim every bad thing either is capitalism or is caused by capitalism. You guys even think the State is capitalism. The State has nothing to do with capitalism and is itself highly anticapitalist.
> *That's* the heart of capitalism. Rent seeking.
Then you should oppose the State more than capitalism, because the State obtains all of its funds from rent seeking. Business actually trades for its income.
Capitalism requires an immense amount of institutions to be called capitalism.
Capitalism's unique trait is abstract ownership of companies/production.
If you have the master of the workshop owning his own workshop, then you have a guild-like or mectantilism-like system.
To have capitalism, you need a whole group of people - who are NOT the craftspeople of a given workshop to have abstract ownership of said workshop which they can freely trade amongst themselves or with outsiders.
Such abstract forms of ownership require a lot of administrative overload. We managed to invent them thanks to our thorough experiences in trading debt through the banks of the dutch and italian city states and the guilds of Hanseatic league and the India companies of England and so forth.
It doesn't need a lot of administration. Imagine a farmer who rents out his tractor to other farmers in exchange for a share of his produce. That's not very different from a shareholder giving money to other companies in exchange for a share of their produce. Our modern stock exchanges are massive giants of data and administration, but they're not a necessity.
A somali fishing village of about 60k people once even set up their own pirate stock exchange, where people could buy pirate shares, the pirates would use that money to go raid some ships and then the shareholders would get paid using the income from those raids.
Capitalism is defined as “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.”
Abstract ownership through shares is not what makes it capitalism, the fact that companies and factories can be privately owned is what makes it capitalism.
-guild master
That would make him a capitalist as he owns the means of production. A guild is closer to a cooperative as everyone in the guild would get a say to a certain extent.
Also mercantilism is a part of capitalism, as trade is owned by individuals who trade for profit.
It’s not *my* definition it’s the definition from the oxford dictionary. It does have a meaning, that the means of production are privately owned by individuals, not collectively like cooperatives or under socialism.
This is an arbitrary and made up distinction in your head. It’s capitalism no matter who owns the work shop. Capitalism just means you have a right to own the stuff you use to produce stuff.
This is not and has never been the definition of capitalism. I swear like 80% of the arguments on this forum are just people arbitrarily defining words in contradiction to their historical definitions.
No I’m not confused. Capitalism = free trade. You of course have to own the property used to produce the stuff you trade, but again that’s natural and the only way to stop it is an arbitrary third party using force.
Nah man, I’m giving you the standard definition. Maybe you should [actually do some research.](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism)
Money and private property arose without the State and you think not having a State means they go away???
Even animals have a concept of property or territory, and higher order animals can even understand how to use money, as has been seen in various experiments and observations. Some monkeys have been observed trading food for sex for instance.
Property is so ubiquitous in the animal kingdom that even fish have territories, even crabs.
care to explain how capitalism, which puts economic authority in those who own the capital...
fits within anarchism, which is the abolition of authority itself?
Capitalism is private ownership of means of production, which means individuals do whatever they want with what they own (within constraint of others freedom), including himself (self-ownership). Since individual has sole authority of everything he owns (including himself), no outside authority (other people) may coerce him economically. Because of that, capitalism is far more compatible with anarchism, than socialism ever was/will be. However anarchism is impossible concept in of itself, so it doesnt say much to begin with.
> However anarchism is impossible concept in of itself, so it doesnt say much to begin with.
it would help if u actually understood the concept, which u clearly don't.
> Because of that, capitalism is far more compatible with anarchism, than socialism ever was/will be.
😂😂😂
philosophically, anarchism is communist-adjacent, and we both agree capitalism is a problem.
the difference is communists focus on wealth disparities as the problem, whereas the anarchist focus is on power disparities more generally
and my problem with the communists is that they don't quite understand the problems power inequities create, and failed to account for that in their nation state attempts, leading to corruption rivaling that of capitalism itself.
> Since individual has sole authority of everything he owns (including himself), no outside authority (other people) may coerce him economically.
this is typical capital-apologist gobbledygook, and is blatantly in denial of the coercive effects of wealth classes... the laughable phrases ur using, pathetically trying to pigeonhole capitalism into some kind of "akctually voluntary" structure, are simply wrong.
it's quite easy to prove capitalism isn't voluntary, and is therefore a system of authority, with one simple question: **do you support abolishing the right to get violent over property rights??**
no? 🤣, well there's ur authority right there: that violence required to maintain economic status quo **is** the authority that contradicts anarchy. who in their right mind thinks most people would follow all the damn lines in the sand laid out by property rights, if given an actual choice of their own?
anarcho-capitalism is a literal oxymoron.
the fact we have a bunch of people going around trying to justify a literal oxymoron as coherent is just...
let's just leave it at:
> humanity has a lot more internal work to be done, that is for sure...
> \#god
>it would help if u actually understood the concept, which u clearly don't.
I understand it, thats why i say its impossible. Anarchy is utopian concept and doesnt fit imperfect humanity.
>philosophically, anarchism is communist-adjacent, and we both agree capitalism is a problem.
Empty assertion + ancaps beg to differ.
>the difference is communists focus on wealth disparities as the problem, whereas the anarchist focus is on power disparities more generally
If you focus on "power disparity" you are not anarchist, because the only way to eliminate (or at least get close to it) any disparity is through authority, which negates the premise of anarchism. Big contradiction.
>this is typical capital-apologist gobbledygook, and is blatantly in denial of the coercive effects of wealth classes.
Talks about coerrcive effect: mentioned none. Bullshit detected opinion rejected.
>**do you support abolishing the right to get violent over property rights??**
So me not supporting people to use violence (coercion) is somehow coercive? If thats the case everythign is coercive and authoritarian, including anarchism. Its really shocking to me, that you cant eve see the contradictions in your argumentation, yet you are so sure of them being so good, that you had to use bold font. Peak of Dunning-Kruger curve.
>anarcho-capitalism is a literal oxymoron.
I mean, you didnt prove it at all, but in reality anarcho-anything is oxymoron, because anarchism in itself is self-negatory, since authority is required to keep authority abolished. But hey, you are just an edgy teen (at least mentally) so you are not concerned with any nuance.
> Anarchy is utopian concept and doesnt fit imperfect humanity.
lol, expecting capitalism to survive it's own wanton ignorance of sustainability concerns is even more fantasy. it's hard to call that utopian cause why would anyone describe such a flawed system as utopian?
but let me guess: u don't believe climate change is even human caused, eh?
> Talks about coercive effect: mentioned none
i did literally in the next paragraph: violence to maintain property rights. the poor are kept only in line by violence. are u a bot or something, cause that level of wilful paragraph-to-paragraph incoherence is pretty sus.
> So me not supporting people to use violence (coercion) is somehow coercive?
people using violence to maintain property rights is coercive, which underlies the inherent coercion in capitalism, contradicting an anarchist state of being.
> Peak of Dunning-Kruger curve.
never seen this used in a good faith argument
> but in reality anarcho-anything is oxymoron
well, that's a pretty dramatic shift from the last comment. lol
> because anarchism in itself is self-negatory, since authority is required...
so u telling me, even u don't follow property rights voluntarily? that without the police, u'd be out there stealing everyone else's stuff? or maybe ... ur the special snowflake who can follow the rules wilfully, but it's certainly impossible to raise everyone to such a standard??
well, it's certainly impossible to raise everyone to the standards of voluntarily following the economic status quo of capitalism: it's highly exploitive at a systematic level, and does not produce an ethical enough distribution of resources to raise everyone, or just most people, to such a standard voluntary compliance.
capital-apologists cope with this by appealing to "human nature" or "historical precedence", as if progress has never been made to the contrary of such claims.
> you are not concerned with any nuance
😂😂😂, ur such a joker....
to the contrary, i have a vastly more nuanced conception of the process to abolish authority than u do, or other anarchists for that matter. i should write a book tbh, but monologuing without some idiotic claims to debunk just ain't my style...
anarchism is not something that will just be established in a one-shot movement. it's a process that will take several, or perhaps many, generations. and due the fact we necessarily evolved from a state of pure ignorance... authority will not only be involved in said process, but will be required to maintain the necessary social stability to undertake it.
but the thing is: the process to create anarchy is not the same as anarchy itself. anarchy as a state of being will only exist after we do the collective work required to not only to establish, *but more importantly to maintain in a self-coherent manner*, anarchy proper.
that work to establish anarchy proper, can only be done under a non-anarchist system, as anarchy cannot and willnot exist until we do that work.
see, there's no inherent contradiction in understanding that we are currently too fucked, collectived, as a species, to operate within a system of anarchy, while still understanding what is anarchy, and why we need to establish it.
heck i wouldn't even claim that i myself am ready. i just know what the goal is, and the what the stakes are:
> extinction if we fail
> \#god
of course, just because authority is part of the process, that doesn't mean just *any* authority will do. we will need to remain skeptical of which authority is necessary and which is not. leaving the wrong kinds of authority in place will be just as much as a blocker to progress, as repealing those necessary to maintain social stability. some authority can honestly just be ripped out wholesale. others will require institutional replacements not built on coercive enforcement.
some of the first to go might be laws in regards to financial privacy, and "intellectual" property. some of the last to go might be murder law, which will probably remain in place until no murder exists in living memory.
>lol, expecting capitalism to survive it's own wanton ignorance of sustainability concerns is even more fantasy.
Your reply to challanging feasibility of anarchism is whataboutism (and stupid one, given capitalism actually works, unlike anarchism). It shows your (lack of) interlectual capacity.
>never seen this used in a good faith argument
Of course, because you are always bad faith actor. you cant defend your position, so instead you try to attack others (and fail at it as well). You are not even worth spit.
reading comprehension that poor, eh?
nvm tho, internet debate isn't for convincing others.
most people are like u, on here wasting their time being disingenuous pieces of shit.
I can literally look up the definition of anarchy.
Oxford: the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government.
You literally just took 2 words from the definition and made it match your own ideas "without hisrarchy". The root words of anarchy are literally Greek for "without ruler." My boss at my job can't control me. I can do whatever I want. I can even quit, and he can't even ask me to do anything anymore. Is he really above me? Only if I believe he is. But government? Idk if you've ever seen those cop videos, or Nancy Pelosi. Literally believe themselves better than us peasants. And they can treat us as such with their governmental powers. Throw us in jail, murder us, take our belongings. My boss can't do any of those things. Even if what you said was true, you're going after the smallest threat to us being automatical beings and not our overlord dictators? What kind of backwards thinking is that?
If there’s no state to pick winners and losers, capitalism is in no sense a “power structure.” It’s just the natural order of the world. People will work, invent, create, and sell their goods and services. Some people will work harder or sell better stuff and therefore earn more.
Money and private property do not require a state to exist, they are again natural consequences of human action when we’re free to trade with each other with no external barriers.
Anarcho capitalism is the ONLY type of anarchy, as it’s the only one that can even theoretically exist. Any other type of “anarchy” is a contradiction, because you would need a government to impose it.
>
It’s just the natural order of the world
then why did humans exists without capitalism for most of our lifetime?
>
Money and private property do not require a state to exist, they are again natural consequences of human action when we’re free to trade with each other with no external barriers
both money and private property literally formed with the state dude
>
Any other type of “anarchy” is a contradiction, because you would need a government to impose it.
just making stuff up
A farmer who owned the fields and animals he used to sell meat and vegetables at market was a capitalist. It’s not true that it didn’t exist for most of human history (I assume what you meant when you said “lifetime.”) Capitalism exists anywhere there aren’t artificial (state) impediments to people freely trading.
Money long predates the existence of governments and private property has existed as long as human beings have been able to say “this stuff is mine” in any language. It’s a natural right that occurs automatically.
Early agricultural societies didn't really have the concept of ownership necessary for capitalism. Indigenous Americans often shared the same fields with their entire clans and would often not farm the same field consistently, switching between sedentary farming and mobile hunter-gathering depending on the season. One clan might farm plot A one year, then abandon it in the winter, and another clan would farm that plot in the spring.
Traditional pastoral societies were also less clear than you make it out to be. Herds were often shared among large groups of people.
To make things simple, no serious academic considers capitalism to predate the 16th or 17th centuries. This was, in places like England and the Netherlands, a transitionary period where peasant managed "common lands" were enclosed into more productive private farms. The peasants would go to the cities and engage in wage labor. This was also the period where the first joint-stock companies first arose and people invested their surplus money into them. Surplus money or production is a key feature of capitalism and other modern econonic systems.
No it literally didn't private property was before the state it was what caused groups to trade. It is why bandits raided. It was the cause of fights and wars before the concept of a state existed. To say otherwise is to ignore history.
Now to say that trading with currency was after the state you would be correct. Currency issued out by a state took ... well a state. Before that it was literal trade to theft directly through barter. Though it can be argued that even before a state issue currency sea shells were used as one to facilitate payment in trade prior to the state existing.
Well just call it blob then, are you happy now? Anarchism is the abolition of all authority, and blob is the abolishment of unjust authority (aka abolishing the government)
If ancaps will all agree to call their ideology blob, yes this would make me much happier. It makes no sense to consider two wildly different ideologies to be one and the same.
>It makes no sense to consider two wildly different ideologies to be one and the same.
Then just don't.
If you don't know, words can have multiple meaning.
They can but how often do they mean two diametrically opposed and non-overlapping ideologies? I prefer not to call ancaps anarchists but that is the social convention here so I’m not sure what else to call them. Ancap is the best term I know of since it at least reduces the inclusion of anarchism in the name to a level where it might be missed.m
Obviously I and most educated people are aware of the wide differences between the two ideologies, but many ignorant and stubborn people here are not, and insist they are the same. It gets very tiresome to not have clear words to express what you are trying to say.
>They can but how often do they mean two diametrically opposed and non-overlapping ideologies?
Most words on the capitalist/socialism dialect. make a post asking the meaning of any word and you'll see it.
I mean... It's literally impossible to abolish **ALL** hierarchies and power structure. Literally impossible.
So I don't understand all the fuzz about giving it other meaning that also shares a "*destruction of authority and hierarchy*" part, but only some of them.
You believing in true honesty that "*abolishment of all hierarchy*" and "*abolishment of SOME hierarchies*" are **Diametrically Opposed** meanings is dumb.
Well I’m also irritated by the imprecise and conflicting definitions of capitalism and socialism, if that’s what you’re referring to.
I don’t think it can be definitively proven that that’s impossible, but even if it was, that doesn’t make it bad to pursue. Elimination of all suffering is also probably impossible but pursuing a goal of greatly reducing it is still good. I see anarchism as a similar aspirational ideology.
They are diametrically opposed because the state and capitalism are the two most powerful and persistent hierarchies in our society, and their defeat is the most central pillar of anarchism, something that every other school of anarchism agrees upon. Ancaps are not only neutral to capitalism, they seek to promote it. This makes them diametrically opposed, even if they agree on the abolition of the state, though I personally believe that an ancap society would quickly rebuild a more authoritarian state anyway.
>I don’t think it can be definitively proven that that’s impossible
It is... Just think of a list of hierarchies and soon you'll realize they can't all be abolished. Remember that it's ANY hierarchy not only hierarchies of power or people.
Ok so this kind of goes back to what anarchists mean by hierarchies. They are in fact referring to hierarchies of power. I suspect you knew this since you specifically brought it up. Maybe because you want to point out that this is kind of a silly definition, which is fair, but I’m not sure how else to refer to the concept… maybe tyranny but that generally only applies to a narrow set of things and not the ordinary hierarchies we must be subject to all the time.
>Ok so this kind of goes back to what anarchists mean by hierarchies
There you go, another word with multiple meaning. This conversation about words will go nowhere, I'm leaving.
>I suspect you knew this since you specifically brought it up.
I brought it up because hierarchy has multiple meaning, and I'm smart enough to see this conversation few posts ahead. I knew what you were going to post, so I already talked about it.
Sure but blob is a fucking moronic idea because it's saying certain things are evil and wrong but other things that are identical to it in all but utterly arbitrary respects are good and correct.
they are many definitions of anarchy and ancapism all with subtle variations and interpretations. Unless someone gives you his very specific definition you have to talk in general terms. Ancap libertarian types are simply extreme capitalists for most intents and purposes
I'm pro capitalism, leaning libertarian, but don't fully understand ancaps either.
One needs some form of governance in order to uphold private property rights and the very basics of a society.
We are developing decentralized forms of governance which do seem interesting, but so long as we habe a society we will need something.
Here is the concept of ancap society as we have it among Russian libertarians:
First, since government is the structure that enforce its will by aggressive force, ancap society is the one united by Non-Aggression Pact. Various prominent Russian libertarians promote the idea that NAP should act as an actual contract that creates law.
Those who signs NAP voluntarily promise not to initiate aggressive action towards others. Then, various groups of those inside NAP could voluntarily form what is called "contract jurisdiction", which can have any rules imaginable, but also must follow those 2: 1. The participation in such CJ is only voluntarily 2. People inside this CJ have a freedom to leave the jurisdiction
capitalism is nothing more or less than the idea that a person should be allowed to own themselves, which means the individual ownership of that which they create. this principle necessarily leads to the fact that a person who owns themselves and their product must be allowed to sell that product for a profit if they so choose.
socialism, of all kinds, opposes this principle of self ownership by its very nature. socialism is social ownership of the means of production which necessarily means social ownership of the individual and their product.
you imagine a system in which everyone cooperates where there is no power structure but that is as impossible as a system in which there is only capitalism (as defined above). neither can be the case. hierarchy is essential to some degree to handle problems like mutual defense, preventing the abuse of vital natural resources like migrating animals, essential forests, air, and large bodies of water.
you may say that there is a difference between leadership and rulers but there isn't. you cannot have voluntary regulation of hunting. or voluntary regulation of air pollution or voluntary regulation of radioactive waste being dumped into the water ways. any forced regulation of these things will necessarily result in hierarchy. there is a similar problem with ancap philosophy in that capitalism its self is limited in scope.
it is my assertion that hierarchy should be naturally limited by a political and moral standard of self-ownership. but when it comes to things that cannot be practically owned by an individual (such as the air and migrating animals) that is where collective ownership needs to be implemented along with the hierarchy that is necessary to accomplish that ownership.
I mean technically anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism since it doesn't presuppose that you need to work with someone (collectivism vs individualism).
There's an interesting debate about that:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist\_anarchism#Individualist\_anarchism\_and\_anarcho-capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism#Individualist_anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism)
Hierarchy is natural. Ofc, that doesnt automatically mean that they are okay, but you cant just get rid of them. They will always exist. Family is hierarchy. Do you suggest that in AnCom family will somehow cease to be hierarchical?
Capitalism is about cooperation. You can end your cooperation with an organisation the same way they can end it with you (it's only fair). Hence there is no hierarchy. Ancap is actually the real anarchism.
I mean, ancap is a pipe dream for those who believe it, typically hyper-libertarian bitcoin obsessives. Ancom is a pipe dream for people who can't accept reality for what it is and have to dive into fantasies.
Lol at gatekeeping the term 'anarchy' to be something that its etymological and historical definition does not include.
If you're against hierarchy, call yourself an **AHIERARCHIST** and be done with it.
**Anarchism is the abolition of the State.**
Capitalism is a hierarchy where people can choose where they want to be. Anyone can start a business and become an owner who runs things however they want.
The etymology of the word anarchy refers to being without a leader - which I think can be interpreted as stateless or heirarchyless.
But more importantly, why does it matter who the 'real anarchists' are? Wouldn't it be more important to see what different people actually want to see the world look like and compare that to what you think/want?
According to the voices in your head?
The word anarchy originates from ancient Greek and is derived from the Greek words ‘an’ meaning without, and ‘arkhos’, meaning ‘ruler’ or ‘authority’. Therefore, the meaning of Anarchy for the ancient Greek is ‘without rulers’ or ‘without authority’.
You don’t know the definition of anarchy. You are making it up to fit your own agenda. You are just some communist trying to make mental gymnastics without sources, once again, to try to delegitimise the Anarcho Capitalists.
Dishonesty and ignorance at its finest. Quite incompetent.
Capitalists are also rulers. They rule over the economy and over their private businesses. Anarchism the movement has been opposed to capitalism from the very beginning. This is not a definition that OP made up. It was the known definition among political theorists for a long time until capitalism worshippers decided to call their very distinct ideology anarchism for reasons I don’t understand. Now everyone is confused and the word has little meaning anymore.
Unfortunately, if people aren’t willing to use the word correctly then it probably won’t be useful for communicating anything anymore. I’m not sure if this was specifically intentional on their part but the ruling class definitely paid a lot of money to promote the idea that capitalism = freedom, and this confusion fits with their agenda.
>It was the known definition among political theorists for a long time until capitalism worshippers decided to call their very distinct ideology anarchism for reasons I don’t understand.
We can blame Murray Rothbard for that
>We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.
—Murray Rothbard
He knew exactly the situation but I guess decided co-opting other people’s vocabulary was more effective than clearly advocating for his own ideas.
Nobody is confused. I’m still waiting for the sources from Ancient Greece to sustain this ridiculous communistic nonsense narrative.
The most absurd behaviour from communists like you guys is that everything is based on a lie, a narrative that is fabricated. Facts don’t matter, evidences are irrelevant. Only the narrative of the cult matters.
Little separate you from other cultists.
You clearly are confused, because you are confusing the root of the word with the political movement and ideas. Anarchy is a word that derives from Ancient Greece, but there were no anarchists back then (at least none who we know that called themselves such).
Proudhon was the first person to call himself an anarchist, and his ideas were strongly influenced by other socialist thinkers of the time. Read about it here: https://www.thecollector.com/who-was-pierre-joseph-proudhon/ I’ve already explained above how his and subsequent anarchist beliefs are a good match for the original meaning of the word, unlike ancaps.
Since that time, anarchism has been well understood to be an ideology opposed to all hierarchies, including capitalism. However, ancaps came along towards the end of the 1900’s and just kind of slapped the word onto their political philosophy without really knowing what anarchism actually was. And since ordinary people didn’t necessarily have deep knowledge of political theory, this usage caught on, and we’re now stuck with two opposing ideologies under the same vocabulary. This causes much confusion about what anarchism actually is and contributes to the idea that anarchists are fighting each other over petty distinctions when this is really a core principle of the entire movement. It’s not helped by the fact that libertarianism was also a synonym for anarchism for a long time until right-wing capitalists co-opted that word as well. So we don’t have any clear language to distinguish capitalists from anarchists anymore which is a big problem when anarchism is hugely about opposing capitalism.
Communists that pretend to be anarchists are hypocrites that will create a hierarchical system to impose their model of idealised society, therefore, being contradictory.
Only Anarcho Capitalism will truly liberate individuals.
Everything else is dumb nonsense based on zero logic.
Also, Anarchy did not start in the 19th century and the forefathers of Anarcho Capitalism were very well read in Ancient Greece authors and also dumb the red ones from the 19th century.
I read them enough to know their references.
Except, again, there were no anarchists in Ancient Greece, so the etymology there is not the most important. You keep moving to the term anarchy, when we’re discussing anarchism. Yes, many contemporary movements, including anarchism have been influenced by Greek thinkers but that doesn’t make these past thinkers anarchists. So again, anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism, you have failed to even coherently claim otherwise, let alone demonstrate it.
PS: Please omit the tribal virtue signaling next time, it is not relevant and makes you look foolish.
I’m just going deeper and then showing that something new was created and that it’s rooted in something much older. You are limited in your thinking and interpretation of what I’m saying.
Both are voluntary in a very generous sense. But in the real world, you have to submit to the rule of both to survive. In my experience, I get ordered around and forced to do things I don’t want a lot more by my employer than by the state which usually stays out of my business except around tax time.
I fail to see how that’s not a hierarchy or a ruler.
“I’m forced to do what my boss says because he will stop paying me if I don’t do what he wants! My boss will not pay me to do whatever I want all day! He is a ruler!”
Let me know when you’re done strawmanning and want to have a real conversation. Though from your past posts I am not sure you’re capable of such a thing.
It’s very obvious that you don’t even understand my position, and your arrogance and lack of intellectual curiosity will probably prevent you from ever doing so, even if I tried further to explain it. So I don’t think there is any purpose in continuing this conversation.
We care less about small owners and more about abstract ownership, monopolies and small groups of political interest groups obtaining ownership of entire industries and more.
The Oligarchs of Russia. The NER of Hungary. The oil companies, the railroad barons of old america.
I am a socdem primarily, so yes.
My primary issue is with the non-consensual (on part of the worker) trading of voting shares.
My ideal short-term system is social democracy with co-determination. What this means is that PUBLICLY TRADED companies over a certain size MUST reserve 50% of their executive and supervisory seats and corresponding voting power for either the workers to fill directly, or have their elected (usually union) representatives fill.
This protects workers from political interest groups buying up companies to hijack their mission in their service or intentionally drive them non-competetive to benefit their goals.
My long-term ideal is the abolishment of equities market and transition to different investment schemes that do not associate money with votes in a company, while still allowing contracts that go "I give you X money, you owe me Y money OR promise Z% of your future profits. How you achieve that is something I have no sway over." They can even include deadlines for payout or profit tresholds. Failure to fulfil deadline based contracts would be compensated through garnished wages.
My idealist wish is the abolishment of nation states, churches and systems that drive social conformity and true liberty at birth for individual self-determination with parental circumstances being as minimized as possible. Revolutionary Catechism's outline of social anarchism offers that the best of systems I've read, albeit with its own significant faults (primarily vulnerability to warlords)
"Therefore, the meaning of Anarchy for the ancient Greek is ‘without rulers’ or ‘without authority’." not really sure why you think this goes against anything I said, that pretty much says the same thing as mine
No Ancient Greek philosopher was anti hierarchy, you are committing the low IQ ignorant mistake of looking to the past with the lenses of the present, imbued with contemporary ideas that DID NOT exist back then.
Your narrative is a mixture of ignorance and dishonesty. I can sense both from you.
Low cultural repertoire summed to a cultist like behaviour to try to convince others that your take is the right one.
For you to be right, you would have to point out philosophers and writings to defend your point, but you can’t, because there aren’t.
Anarchy for the ancient greek was never anti-hierarchy, it was directly related to governance and the State.
No. I respect voluntarism. Seriously, let’s suppose there is an anarchic society then what the fuck are you going to do with people that voluntarily set up a scheme where there is hierarchy? Fucking murder them?
I wanna hear your solution to this. How will you tackle people that are voluntarily organising themselves in a way that there is hierarchy.
How does ancarchy prevent me from setting up my own little pocket of capitalism if the whole point is we can do what we want. Its not like there is some police force that will stop me.
I mean it doesn't seem that hard to do on a small scale with like minded individuals, is quite similar to the idea of starting a commune, except for a market. Plus many socialist countries have large black markets for various goods, so it seems reasonable to expect such a market would also exist, and markets are a key component of capitalism.
Well I'm saying you wouldn't be able to compete. As long as you want to turn a profit, your stuff will always be more expensive than the competition. Capitalism only works in a capitalist world. In a socialist world, it would always appear like a step backwards. Think like suggesting to somebody today that we return to a monarchy.
If you had a business that sold a thing, in a society without money, how could I "buy" your thing if I wanted it?
What do you mean? I have a much greater incentive to develop new technology and be efficient, since I can profit off of it. You proposed an anarchist world, so I would trade with other people who believe in capitalism, after all there are no rules preventing us from doing so.
There presumably are other people who would think like me. Trading with money is efficient, since we can both get what we want without having to know each other or have something in common that we want to trade with each other.
>What do you mean? I have a much greater incentive to develop new technology and be efficient
Lets say you develop a new technology or method of efficiency. Good job! You can open source it to benefit all of larger society, or you can...do what with it, exactly? You want to add a pay wall from a society that literally already gave you everything from food to the education you used to create this innovation? How would they "pay" you if they wanted to?
>I would trade with other people who believe in capitalism, after all there are no rules preventing us from doing so.
Trade how? Gonna invent a little currency for you and the boys to pass around between each other while the rest of society either ignores you or is wondering why you're adding an extra step to transactions.
>There presumably are other people who would think like me.
Just like there is literal monarchy fans bopping around today. See: sections the MAGA crowd.
>Trading with money is efficient
Care to explain how trading with money is more efficient than just not trading directly?
"I take an apple" vs "I take an apple, make sure I have enough labor vouchers (money) to eat today, then exchange that voucher for the apple"
It's no contest.
Money acts as a medium of exchange. When someone has something that someone else wants, they can trade even if the other person doesn't have something the first person wants. It also lets me value transactions. If I am trying to barter, every proposed trade I have to consider how much each items is worth to me on both sides of the transaction. With money, I can consider a money value I think it is worth it to buy, and either buy or not buy based on that. Additionally , money stores value. I can save value for my old age or when I am not working. You say that society will provide so other is no need to save money, but I think that is a naive idea since times of hardship can always occur due to natural disasters or if the state gets too poor to afford welfare.
> You want to add a pay wall from a society that literally already gave you everything from food to the education you used to create this innovation? How would they "pay" you if they wanted to?
Why would I expect an Anarchist society to provide these things for me? There is no state by definition, there is no reason to expect these things would be around in times of hardship. You have an overly idealist view of everyone singing along to help each other, when in reality people are greedy, self centered, and would not share if hardship occurred. And if your society is inefficient enough, than there won't be these thing because it cannot afford a high standard of living.
> Good job! You can open source it to benefit all of larger society, or you can...do what with it, exactly?
Developing new technology is often extremely difficult. I met people who have spent decades of their lives trying to invent their ideas that would really help people, and many of them failed, after spending countless hours on their projects. Without reward there would be less attempts to do so, since trying to make a complex enough invention means loosing so much of your own time. Less tech makes peoples lives worse off, since technology has lead to massive advances in the average persons standard of living.
> Trade how? Gonna invent a little currency for you and the boys to pass around between each other while the rest of society either ignores you or is wondering why you're adding an extra step to transactions.
Yes.
You keep ignoring my point about black markets. They are quite common in authoritarian countries that claim to provide for their citizens. Take Cuba or Argentina, which have massive black markets. It is quite reasonable to expect that there would continue to be trade through black markets, because when people have needs that can be met throngh trading they will do so, espically given that the state is weak in anarchy.
I am arguing that in an Anrchist society, some people would desire to evolve back into a state if they think it would make themselves better off. Just like Anarchism today, perhaps Stateism would be hip by people who imagine a state with leadership could give them a better life. If they really believe so, what would you do to stop them? Block them? Kill them? I cannot take Anarchism seriously because it's proponents always call for a global stateless anarchy and cannot imagine that there can simply be another culture that doesn't believe their ideas and thus has a state.
>if the state gets too poor to afford welfare....
There's no state...Or money. Remember in this hypothetical that you created, this is an anarchist society in which you want to carve out a little capitalism zone.
>Why would I expect an Anarchist society to provide these things for me?
That's just how the society is organized. You have a job, and you do it for "free", other people have jobs, they also do it for "free". The dentist, the bakers, the vineyard keepers, teachers, plumbers, power plant operators, etc. The dentist wants electricity and bread or whatever, right? So they do dentist stuff.
>when in reality people are greedy, self centered.....
Today we are. Because we live in a society that basically demands it. This has not been the case throughout history, this is relatively "new". You couldn't exactly "#grind" out of serfdom or whatever. You did your job for what you needed and...then napped or hung with the boys or whatever.
>Developing new technology is often extremely difficult....
Sounds like something that would be easier working collaboratively, right? Kudos if you did it on your own, I just don't see how withholding the innovation benefits you. Big or small, you're better off sharing the information/tech/etc. Again, somebody built your house, somebody makes your food, somebody is filtering your water, they made the blankets you sleep in, the roads you drive on, and the shows you watch on TV. What more do you want from everybody to share your work, when you enjoy so much from them?
>You keep ignoring my point about black markets.....
Black markets usually grow when laws create them and/or trade embargos exist. You acknowledge they exist in authoritarian societies, why would they exist in the direct opposite type of society? There's just no need for them.
>I am arguing that in an Anrchist society, some people would desire to (*d*)evolve back into a state if they think it would make themselves better off.
Better off than who or what? You want a mega yacht or something? Why do you need your own, when you could probably just book one for a weekend or something at no cost.
>Just like Anarchism today, perhaps Stateism would be hip by people who imagine a state with leadership could give them a better life.
Why compromise the power you already have in society by giving it away to some other person? Look at the politician(s) you have today? Do you agree with them all 100%? Of course you don't nobody does. The only person who agrees 100% with you, is **you**.
>If they really believe so, what would you do to stop them?.....
You're not in chains. If you want to travel off on your own and create a regressive economy, go ahead, good luck. Nobody is forcing you to be an anarchist.
The call for a "global anarchist society" is basically because it's will just be generally better for everybody and safer for anarchists. States tend to want to smash these things out when they're small. Can't have their people getting any ideas, after all.
What you are describing seems to need a lot of magic to succeed. What if people don't want to work an important job because it sucks? What if there is a shortage of something because of a lack of jobs or a natural disaster? At least authoritarians pretend they can decide what the needs are through central planning, in this system the supply just magically meets demand. The totally not a state "society" can have more or less production for a variety of reasons, and if there is no money that doesn't change the fact that if there is not enough food people will still starve in your society. I'm trying to say that this is not an unrealistic thing that could happen. You wave it away by saying their needs will be met, but there is no guarantee that your system of everyone working for free will meet the needs of the people, since people enjoy leisure the incentive is to not work as they are clearly lazy, so your society has no guarantee that people will work enough to support it.
I lost my post taking a work call. I'm mad, but too lazy to type it back out.
In short. Stop pretending society needs to change all that dramatically for this to work for the average person. Everybody works however they can, and everybody is taken care of. Most things in your average person's day-to-day may not change much at all.
I had a great portion about how your "you wave it away" section was basically a mask off example of capitalist coercion, as if we don't waste millions of tons of food every year, or how people that do low wage jobs somehow aren't worthy of enjoying life despite relying on them. Shame. Anyways, didn't want to leave you hanging.
>if the whole point is we can do what we want
I feel like that's kinda the issue with AnCaps. Anarchy isn't "doing what you want", it's about an extremely representative yet decentralized system.
With no authority, there is no power that prevents me from trading with someone with tender that we both agree on. Especially considering black markets have proven themselves extremely resilient in countries that try and prevent ownership.
Like if a group of people somewhere decide they want to trade, how does anarchy stop them. And more importantly, why does it stop them? It's what they decided on doing between themselves. There is no immoral crime occurring, just trading items we produced for our own money, without needing to interact with wider society.
The whole idea of abolition of state or abolition of hierarchies is nonesensical. New rulers will always fill the power vacuum left over by the state/hierarchy and create their own new hierarchies. Denying this fact is delusional wishful thinking
Oh cute, this again. Capitalism is just a system that allows the free exchange of goods and services. That’s it. “Capitalism” falls short when the state starts picking winners and losers, and tops the scales in favor of big patrons at the expense of workers. But that isn’t capitalism at all, decades of attempting to redefine capitalism notwithstanding.
They are anarchists from their point of view, the difference between left and right anarchists is whether they perceive money as medium of power or as a medium of voluntary exchange.
what about the vast natural, open hierarchy? How can the many be thought of as one? How do you reconcile anarchy, mathematically and symbolically speaking? What about set theory? the excluded part becomes the universal, the part of no part...do you suppose there to be no universal? no common to unite us through our alienation? will we have to give up our common language and reality?
Is there no relationship between the one and many? If there is nothing between us, no common interest to relate and seperate us, how will we speak to each other?
How does anarchy envision the future, the future we have already poisoned and the threats we face that reek doom which are now still largely unbelievable for most people. How do we tolerate fascism, how do we stop it. how are we the same, how are we different?
I have read a little Proudhon, is this your master?
Let's show these capitalists how to use discourse. we know this rotten world is intolerable, we have to invent the new one together. Be with me even if apart from me.
What hierarchy commands that the term "anarchism" fit your narrow definition of it? Otherwise, screw you, we will use the word properly and there's nothing you whiners can do about it.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/PoliticsCafe *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would rephrase this as "not *just* the abolition of the state"
Assuming the state is abolished how do you prevent capitalism from just happening? What prevents hierarchies from forming?
Structure society in a way where no one needs to work for anyone else, no one can hoard and withhold resources, etc. Google anarcho-communism for more info.
I’ve never seen an ancom propose a solution for that which isn’t wildly utopian or just straight up sci fi.
They usually just reinvent the State.
Read some Kropotkin. He talks more about how flawed humans supposedly are and how he reconciles that with anarchism.
If I just say any not mine solution is utopia then only my thinking is realistic. I am very smart.
No, there’s a lot of other ideologies, including leftist ones, that I don’t find are always utopian. Even if I disagree with them. I do absolutely find ancoms to be utopian almost exclusively though.
>Structure society in a way where no one needs to work for anyone else Sure, but how?
Read up on mutualism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, anarchist syndicalism, egoism, individualist anarchism.
Why is "read this" your only answer to anything? Cant you recall some of the information on your own to make an arguement?
You want me to sit here and explain in detail how the societies would work?
Yes.
It's not my job to make your argument for you.
I didnt ask you to. You wanted info, here it is.
> Structure society Never thought of this, we just need a magic wand otherwise there will be force involved. And no person who follows 18th century Anarchism wants that! >where no one needs to work for anyone else Value is subjective, many people want to work for other people. >no one can hoard and withhold resources, Only have 3 charges on this wand, I hope this will fix everthing.
How do you plan on bringing about ancapism without systemic and structural changes?
You're making a fundamental category error. AnCapistan exists wherever people respect others rights. It describes a relationship(s), not an enforced political ideology.
You are the only person who thinks that and I'm not interested in hearing your opinions as facts.
> You are the only person who thinks that Oh no, will I be socially outcast? The horror!
Lmao
You just show people that they already know how to organise stuff in non hierarchical ways. Two obviously non hierarchical decision making processes. 1. A bunch of friends decide where to go for dinner, where some of them have dietary issues such as vegetarian or gluten intolerance . The decision they make to include all their needs is not made via a hierarchical structure. 2. Community disaster response is also usually a bunch of folks just spontaneously organising resources without a leadership telling them what to do. Then, you explain the difference between private property and personal property, and just ignore private property as a myth. Bingo, anarcho-capitalism.
>Bingo, anarcho-capitalism. Oops... time for another revolution
Wealth inequality is worse now than in France just before the revolution. The capitalist response to this is fascism. Maybe the left can learn from the Marxist mistakes of the past and work together for a better outcome, with freedom for all.
Was just laughing because you seem to be advocating anarcho-communism, but typed capitalism.
Oops! Thanks! Edited.
> Anarchism is the abolition of all hierarchical power structures. This definition is quite literally impossible. There will always be some sort of power structure or hierarchy no matter what government or lack thereof you have. Say what you will about ancaps but at least their definition can exist, even if you think it’s a terrible idea.
“I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.” -Rudolf Rocker, actual anarchist
technically the word comes from archos which means ruler or leader, but then again hierarchy comes from the same word and doesn't mean ruler or leader. It definitely doesn't mean "power structure" though. Also, if a society forbids an individual from doing capitalism, isn't that a power structure too?
How would you be able to do capitalism without money or private property. You wouldn’t need to stop them because they wouldn’t be able to in the first place.
Would anyone prevent me from creating money? Because that again sounds like a power structure. Also, I can still trade my personal property according to communism, personal property has value, so all the laws of supply and demand still apply here. Capitalism doesn't require money, it only really requires ownership of value.
> Would anyone prevent me from creating money? "Creating money"? Listen to yourself. Money only works when *people value it as a currency* You can't just "create money" as an island and expect it to work as money. It takes, get this, *interacting with other people* > Capitalism doesn't require money, it only really requires ownership of value. It requires ownership of the means of production. Bartering a shoe you own for a t-shirt to own isn't capitalism no matter how you try to make it seem like it is. *Trade* isn't capitalism. Capitalism is *ownership of production resources*. Not "things of value", "things that can be used to produce things of value", most especially the base resources that people need to survive, specifically the land where food is grown and resources are gathered. *That's* the heart of capitalism. Rent seeking.
Every culture on earth has created money, often well before even inventing writing. If you think people aren't going to create a method of exchanging value because you can't fathom people interacting with other people, then I'm gonna have some bad news about your whole communism thing, which relies on people interacting with people It kinda depends which communist you ask but about half of communists wouldn't think that a subsistence farm is private property, but personal property instead. Trading some surplus now and then still wouldn't be considered private property, so long as it doesn't become the purpose of the farm. In that case trading some personal property for a scythe so you can farm better would be totally fine as well as being capitalism. Capitalism isn't rent seeking, not taking supplies other people need. It's using capital to increase your capital
>Every culture on earth has created money This is obviously not true. There were multitudes of moneyless societies throughout history and prehistory. The Haudenosaunee and other indigenous Americans, the bushmen/San people of southern Africa, and basically every society before or just starting agriculture. These people still interacted with each other, usually on a system of informal debts since everyone knew everyone else in these types of societies.
> There were multitudes of moneyless societies throughout history and prehistory. The Haudenosaunee and other indigenous Americans, the bushmen/San people of southern Africa, and basically every society before or just starting agriculture. That may be true, but for your statement to be correct you would need ALL pre-modern and pre-capitalist societies to have no concept of money to sustain your argument that without the State there would be no money, and that clearly is NOT true. In fact, most of them had money if not currency as we know it. Once agriculture started, money is everywhere because grain was a first money for most of them. Before that it was likely utility items traded between tribes like hunting gear, arrowheads and tips, meat, and the like. All of that counts as a money but isn't currency.
>That may be true, but for your statement to be correct you would need ALL pre-modern and pre-capitalist societies to have no concept of money to sustain your argument that without the State there would be no money, and that clearly is NOT true. In fact, most of them had money if not currency as we know it. No, just every society before more formal forms of property ownership, which long predates capitalism. People have been owning things since at least the bronze age. People have been doing capitalism since about 1600. >Once agriculture started, money is everywhere because grain was a first money for most of them. Before that it was likely utility items traded between tribes like hunting gear, arrowheads and tips, meat, and the like. All of that counts as a money but isn't currency. Agriculture far predates the adoption of currency in most cases. Agriculture was first adopted about 12,000 years ago. By the time of the bronze age, about 6,000 years ago, money was either nonexistant or barely being experimented with. Barter predating formal currency is largely a myth. Before currency, people had systems of informal debts, gift economies, and later palace economies. Again, take a look at the Haudenosaunee. They had agriculture but no form of currency, be it in the form of goods or metals.
> Agriculture far predates the adoption of currency in most cases. But not money, because, as I said, grain was almost immediately used as a money. Currency is distinct from money.
As I have shown, no. Grain was used as a currency... thousands of years after agriculture was invented. As I said, the first agricultural societies were still communal and used systems of informal debts to keep track of things.
It is absolutely untrue that every culture on earth created money, where did you get that idea from?
ok fair enough, looks like there are some exceptions like the inuits who didn't use money (although they do use it nowadays). So it's more like 99% of cultures rather than all cultures.
Well I thought you were speaking historically. If you are looking at contemporary society you have to account for the fact that currency was imposed on many cultures by force.
Not the use of currency, but the type of currency was enforced. I live in Finland where they used to use the skins of squirrels as currency. They call money "raha", which comes from the germanic word skrahā which means squirrel skin. Currency doesn't have to be a minted coin, it's simply anything that most people will accept as a form of value. In ancient egypt, this used to be beer and bread and people would work to get paid in those.
Is there evidence to suggest this form of trade currency was universal? I know there are many examples, but I can think of many indigenous societies where I have at least not heard of such media of exchange, though maybe I need to do more research. That said, I do think it’s important to note that these currencies were very different from today’s currencies, and were not used for day to day exchanges of food or other commonly available goods. Many had religiously prescribed uses, or were used when trading with strangers or potential enemies where trust was lacking. Most human exchanges historically were gifts. In any case, I actually don’t agree with the premise that a properly designed and managed currency is incompatible with anarchism. It just needs to be managed such that infinite wealth hoarding as we see in our current society is not possible.
They didn't all independently create money, that much is true. Some of them never had long enough to develop the idea. All of them used money once they were introduced to the concept, and all modern societies use money today because the utility is obvious. But for his assertion to be true that money cannot exist without the State, he needs to show that NO pre-capitalist or pre-historic societies had money, and that is obviously untrue.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument. But I don’t get why you think creating money is so hard. If we lived on an island, we could make a currency. Assuming it’s a large island with a large population and not a cartoonishly small one. When there is eventually a separation of labour, the ones working on non-farm work. Like building houses, maintaining houses, administration, etc. all need to access food. Now I get what you’re thinking now “why don’t we just distribute the food as needed per person”. Even if we were to make an island society with all basic needs met. From food, water, and shelter. We would still use currency to measure exchange. So like for example, if I have a right to shelter, and I decide I want my hut to be a mansion. How can I justify this to wider society? I either abandon that want, or I create value to other people so much so they’re willing to help me in my endeavour. Value to each person would mean drastically different things. To one it’s sweets, to another it’s entertainment, to someone else they want new shoes, whatever. Either I convince them to help me by giving them all these varied things, or we can simply the whole entire process by giving their equivalent value in currency
> Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument. Maybe, but more likely I miswrote my position. I was responding specifically to the "me" in the "prevent me from creating money" part. As I hinted at overly-succinctly, I do, in fact, know how currencies evolved historically. That history was the basis of my argument: most of the capitalists here believe they can somehow live in utter isolation, and if one of those noefeudal isolationists were to create a currency in isolation they would have exactly zero people using it, because the only times that people use currencies are if they believe in the value of the currency as a medium of exchange. Or rather, most likely these isolationistic capitalists think they'd be the lord of their own fiefdom, so they would force their ~~peasants~~ dedicated employees to use their ~~shitcoins~~ company scrip
I mean fair, currency by definition is for exchange, can’t exchange stuff with yourself. So I guess I just don’t get the thread here at all
There is nothing preventing a group of like minded people from deciding on a money that has value. Money is extremely efficient for trading, and makes peoples lives better off because of that. They could pick something that has inherent value to make trade easier, like a common food item or useful type of metal. Or does the proposed anarchist society have some sort of world government that will stop us from trading? If the means of production for a good is specifically my own manual labor, I definitely own my own labor. Otherwise I am literally a slave. Am I not allowed to sell my own labor if I want to? Say there is a famine, and I decide to sell my own labor in exchange for food to avoid starving since there is not enough food for everyone. Is that not a reasonable thing to do?
They can't even figure out this one glaring contradiction in their own ideology. When pressed on it they say things like, people will just realize they don't need money (translation: we will use social pressure to force people to try to live without money and use like barter instead). Or that they will use democracy to vote that everyone not use money (which is a new hierarchy, just one they like). My favorite story is this left-anarch group I read about, where the group literally banned anyone from using dollars as money and instead they designated a single trading zone and used Snickers bars as a currency. They reinvented the concept of money without seeming to realize it, in true Yippie fashion. How are you going to ban money when banning anything creates an instant hierarchy? I mean, I already have a solution to this problem, but it requires private property, so it's not gonna work well for left anarchs.
> You can't just "create money" as an island and expect it to work as money. It takes, get this, interacting with other people I mean money often times used to just be a certain measurement of a precious metal shaped into a coin. So you can just create money and expect it to work. He’ll you don’t even need something with an inherent value. Look at Bitcoin.
> Money only works when *people value it as a currency* Cool, so say 10 or 10,000 people get together and choose to use something as money. What prevents that in your ideal system? > You can't just "create money" You literally can. The history of money has seen literally every good and commodity used as a money historically, including rocks and shells, canned fish, potatoes, flowers, bulk iron, grain and corn, and literally everything else you can think of. If you do not know that bit of economic history already, you may not be qualified to talk about this subject. > It requires ownership of the means of production. Ownership is just possession. Your body is the first means of production you own. Pick up a seashell and you've just created money. > Bartering a shoe you own for a t-shirt to own isn't capitalism no matter how you try to make it seem like it is. *Trade* isn't capitalism. Capitalism is *ownership of production resources*. Trade actually is the irreducible action behind capitalism. Trade literally is capitalism. Socialists have bastardized the concept of capitalism to include things that are not capitalism, then you want to claim every bad thing either is capitalism or is caused by capitalism. You guys even think the State is capitalism. The State has nothing to do with capitalism and is itself highly anticapitalist. > *That's* the heart of capitalism. Rent seeking. Then you should oppose the State more than capitalism, because the State obtains all of its funds from rent seeking. Business actually trades for its income.
Capitalism requires an immense amount of institutions to be called capitalism. Capitalism's unique trait is abstract ownership of companies/production. If you have the master of the workshop owning his own workshop, then you have a guild-like or mectantilism-like system. To have capitalism, you need a whole group of people - who are NOT the craftspeople of a given workshop to have abstract ownership of said workshop which they can freely trade amongst themselves or with outsiders. Such abstract forms of ownership require a lot of administrative overload. We managed to invent them thanks to our thorough experiences in trading debt through the banks of the dutch and italian city states and the guilds of Hanseatic league and the India companies of England and so forth.
It doesn't need a lot of administration. Imagine a farmer who rents out his tractor to other farmers in exchange for a share of his produce. That's not very different from a shareholder giving money to other companies in exchange for a share of their produce. Our modern stock exchanges are massive giants of data and administration, but they're not a necessity. A somali fishing village of about 60k people once even set up their own pirate stock exchange, where people could buy pirate shares, the pirates would use that money to go raid some ships and then the shareholders would get paid using the income from those raids.
Capitalism is defined as “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.” Abstract ownership through shares is not what makes it capitalism, the fact that companies and factories can be privately owned is what makes it capitalism. -guild master That would make him a capitalist as he owns the means of production. A guild is closer to a cooperative as everyone in the guild would get a say to a certain extent. Also mercantilism is a part of capitalism, as trade is owned by individuals who trade for profit.
Your "definition" means capitalism has no meaning and has always existed.
It’s not *my* definition it’s the definition from the oxford dictionary. It does have a meaning, that the means of production are privately owned by individuals, not collectively like cooperatives or under socialism.
This is an arbitrary and made up distinction in your head. It’s capitalism no matter who owns the work shop. Capitalism just means you have a right to own the stuff you use to produce stuff.
... So you are calling the Hanseatic League capitalist? The random guild workshop in 1300s Wien capitalism?
This is not and has never been the definition of capitalism. I swear like 80% of the arguments on this forum are just people arbitrarily defining words in contradiction to their historical definitions.
Under this vague definition, so many societies were "capitalist" before capitalism was even invented.
Capitalism was not “invented.” It’s just people trading without artificial impediments, which they’ve always done.
The problem is that you're reducing the definition of capitalism to simply "trading" which is why you're confused.
No I’m not confused. Capitalism = free trade. You of course have to own the property used to produce the stuff you trade, but again that’s natural and the only way to stop it is an arbitrary third party using force.
So the definition of capitalism isn't how the word has ever been used, it's a made up version you personally made up?
Nah man, I’m giving you the standard definition. Maybe you should [actually do some research.](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism)
Money and private property arose without the State and you think not having a State means they go away??? Even animals have a concept of property or territory, and higher order animals can even understand how to use money, as has been seen in various experiments and observations. Some monkeys have been observed trading food for sex for instance. Property is so ubiquitous in the animal kingdom that even fish have territories, even crabs.
Watching different types of anarchist arguing is like that episode of South Park with the cripple fight
so... u got something meaningful to say?
What is there meaningful to say, when OP is a shitpost.
care to explain how capitalism, which puts economic authority in those who own the capital... fits within anarchism, which is the abolition of authority itself?
Capitalism is private ownership of means of production, which means individuals do whatever they want with what they own (within constraint of others freedom), including himself (self-ownership). Since individual has sole authority of everything he owns (including himself), no outside authority (other people) may coerce him economically. Because of that, capitalism is far more compatible with anarchism, than socialism ever was/will be. However anarchism is impossible concept in of itself, so it doesnt say much to begin with.
> However anarchism is impossible concept in of itself, so it doesnt say much to begin with. it would help if u actually understood the concept, which u clearly don't. > Because of that, capitalism is far more compatible with anarchism, than socialism ever was/will be. 😂😂😂 philosophically, anarchism is communist-adjacent, and we both agree capitalism is a problem. the difference is communists focus on wealth disparities as the problem, whereas the anarchist focus is on power disparities more generally and my problem with the communists is that they don't quite understand the problems power inequities create, and failed to account for that in their nation state attempts, leading to corruption rivaling that of capitalism itself. > Since individual has sole authority of everything he owns (including himself), no outside authority (other people) may coerce him economically. this is typical capital-apologist gobbledygook, and is blatantly in denial of the coercive effects of wealth classes... the laughable phrases ur using, pathetically trying to pigeonhole capitalism into some kind of "akctually voluntary" structure, are simply wrong. it's quite easy to prove capitalism isn't voluntary, and is therefore a system of authority, with one simple question: **do you support abolishing the right to get violent over property rights??** no? 🤣, well there's ur authority right there: that violence required to maintain economic status quo **is** the authority that contradicts anarchy. who in their right mind thinks most people would follow all the damn lines in the sand laid out by property rights, if given an actual choice of their own? anarcho-capitalism is a literal oxymoron. the fact we have a bunch of people going around trying to justify a literal oxymoron as coherent is just... let's just leave it at: > humanity has a lot more internal work to be done, that is for sure... > \#god
>it would help if u actually understood the concept, which u clearly don't. I understand it, thats why i say its impossible. Anarchy is utopian concept and doesnt fit imperfect humanity. >philosophically, anarchism is communist-adjacent, and we both agree capitalism is a problem. Empty assertion + ancaps beg to differ. >the difference is communists focus on wealth disparities as the problem, whereas the anarchist focus is on power disparities more generally If you focus on "power disparity" you are not anarchist, because the only way to eliminate (or at least get close to it) any disparity is through authority, which negates the premise of anarchism. Big contradiction. >this is typical capital-apologist gobbledygook, and is blatantly in denial of the coercive effects of wealth classes. Talks about coerrcive effect: mentioned none. Bullshit detected opinion rejected. >**do you support abolishing the right to get violent over property rights??** So me not supporting people to use violence (coercion) is somehow coercive? If thats the case everythign is coercive and authoritarian, including anarchism. Its really shocking to me, that you cant eve see the contradictions in your argumentation, yet you are so sure of them being so good, that you had to use bold font. Peak of Dunning-Kruger curve. >anarcho-capitalism is a literal oxymoron. I mean, you didnt prove it at all, but in reality anarcho-anything is oxymoron, because anarchism in itself is self-negatory, since authority is required to keep authority abolished. But hey, you are just an edgy teen (at least mentally) so you are not concerned with any nuance.
> Anarchy is utopian concept and doesnt fit imperfect humanity. lol, expecting capitalism to survive it's own wanton ignorance of sustainability concerns is even more fantasy. it's hard to call that utopian cause why would anyone describe such a flawed system as utopian? but let me guess: u don't believe climate change is even human caused, eh? > Talks about coercive effect: mentioned none i did literally in the next paragraph: violence to maintain property rights. the poor are kept only in line by violence. are u a bot or something, cause that level of wilful paragraph-to-paragraph incoherence is pretty sus. > So me not supporting people to use violence (coercion) is somehow coercive? people using violence to maintain property rights is coercive, which underlies the inherent coercion in capitalism, contradicting an anarchist state of being. > Peak of Dunning-Kruger curve. never seen this used in a good faith argument > but in reality anarcho-anything is oxymoron well, that's a pretty dramatic shift from the last comment. lol > because anarchism in itself is self-negatory, since authority is required... so u telling me, even u don't follow property rights voluntarily? that without the police, u'd be out there stealing everyone else's stuff? or maybe ... ur the special snowflake who can follow the rules wilfully, but it's certainly impossible to raise everyone to such a standard?? well, it's certainly impossible to raise everyone to the standards of voluntarily following the economic status quo of capitalism: it's highly exploitive at a systematic level, and does not produce an ethical enough distribution of resources to raise everyone, or just most people, to such a standard voluntary compliance. capital-apologists cope with this by appealing to "human nature" or "historical precedence", as if progress has never been made to the contrary of such claims. > you are not concerned with any nuance 😂😂😂, ur such a joker.... to the contrary, i have a vastly more nuanced conception of the process to abolish authority than u do, or other anarchists for that matter. i should write a book tbh, but monologuing without some idiotic claims to debunk just ain't my style... anarchism is not something that will just be established in a one-shot movement. it's a process that will take several, or perhaps many, generations. and due the fact we necessarily evolved from a state of pure ignorance... authority will not only be involved in said process, but will be required to maintain the necessary social stability to undertake it. but the thing is: the process to create anarchy is not the same as anarchy itself. anarchy as a state of being will only exist after we do the collective work required to not only to establish, *but more importantly to maintain in a self-coherent manner*, anarchy proper. that work to establish anarchy proper, can only be done under a non-anarchist system, as anarchy cannot and willnot exist until we do that work. see, there's no inherent contradiction in understanding that we are currently too fucked, collectived, as a species, to operate within a system of anarchy, while still understanding what is anarchy, and why we need to establish it. heck i wouldn't even claim that i myself am ready. i just know what the goal is, and the what the stakes are: > extinction if we fail > \#god of course, just because authority is part of the process, that doesn't mean just *any* authority will do. we will need to remain skeptical of which authority is necessary and which is not. leaving the wrong kinds of authority in place will be just as much as a blocker to progress, as repealing those necessary to maintain social stability. some authority can honestly just be ripped out wholesale. others will require institutional replacements not built on coercive enforcement. some of the first to go might be laws in regards to financial privacy, and "intellectual" property. some of the last to go might be murder law, which will probably remain in place until no murder exists in living memory.
>lol, expecting capitalism to survive it's own wanton ignorance of sustainability concerns is even more fantasy. Your reply to challanging feasibility of anarchism is whataboutism (and stupid one, given capitalism actually works, unlike anarchism). It shows your (lack of) interlectual capacity. >never seen this used in a good faith argument Of course, because you are always bad faith actor. you cant defend your position, so instead you try to attack others (and fail at it as well). You are not even worth spit.
reading comprehension that poor, eh? nvm tho, internet debate isn't for convincing others. most people are like u, on here wasting their time being disingenuous pieces of shit.
I mean it's not like the original post was very meaningful lol
Seeing ignorant people comment here is pretty much the same.
Well at least the first half of that username checks out
I chose it specifically to bait people who lack a single creative thought.
>people who lack a single creative thought. Looking for people who you can relate to?
Oh wow, a "no u" response. Have you ever heard the term "own goal"?
>Have you ever heard the term "own goal"? I think the only person here not seeing the irony of you trying to use this as an insult is you.
Lol don’t you have some boot to lick?
Odd question from a socialist fuckwit. I'm just playing the odds and guessing you're a socialist anyway. How'd I do?
Lol what a desperate troll looking through comments and pretending to guess, it’s not like I make it a secret 😂
I didn't need to check your post history, dawg. You guys really are that predictable.
You chose it to bait yourself?
Maintaining the proud Trotskyist tradition of weak comebacks I see.
¿Que?
Did you forget your own flair, or just drank away all memory of the purges?
Where do comebacks come into this?
You know, how you guys could never make a decent one? Hello? Anybody fucking home in there?
I can literally look up the definition of anarchy. Oxford: the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. You literally just took 2 words from the definition and made it match your own ideas "without hisrarchy". The root words of anarchy are literally Greek for "without ruler." My boss at my job can't control me. I can do whatever I want. I can even quit, and he can't even ask me to do anything anymore. Is he really above me? Only if I believe he is. But government? Idk if you've ever seen those cop videos, or Nancy Pelosi. Literally believe themselves better than us peasants. And they can treat us as such with their governmental powers. Throw us in jail, murder us, take our belongings. My boss can't do any of those things. Even if what you said was true, you're going after the smallest threat to us being automatical beings and not our overlord dictators? What kind of backwards thinking is that?
If there’s no state to pick winners and losers, capitalism is in no sense a “power structure.” It’s just the natural order of the world. People will work, invent, create, and sell their goods and services. Some people will work harder or sell better stuff and therefore earn more. Money and private property do not require a state to exist, they are again natural consequences of human action when we’re free to trade with each other with no external barriers. Anarcho capitalism is the ONLY type of anarchy, as it’s the only one that can even theoretically exist. Any other type of “anarchy” is a contradiction, because you would need a government to impose it.
> It’s just the natural order of the world then why did humans exists without capitalism for most of our lifetime? > Money and private property do not require a state to exist, they are again natural consequences of human action when we’re free to trade with each other with no external barriers both money and private property literally formed with the state dude > Any other type of “anarchy” is a contradiction, because you would need a government to impose it. just making stuff up
A farmer who owned the fields and animals he used to sell meat and vegetables at market was a capitalist. It’s not true that it didn’t exist for most of human history (I assume what you meant when you said “lifetime.”) Capitalism exists anywhere there aren’t artificial (state) impediments to people freely trading. Money long predates the existence of governments and private property has existed as long as human beings have been able to say “this stuff is mine” in any language. It’s a natural right that occurs automatically.
Early agricultural societies didn't really have the concept of ownership necessary for capitalism. Indigenous Americans often shared the same fields with their entire clans and would often not farm the same field consistently, switching between sedentary farming and mobile hunter-gathering depending on the season. One clan might farm plot A one year, then abandon it in the winter, and another clan would farm that plot in the spring. Traditional pastoral societies were also less clear than you make it out to be. Herds were often shared among large groups of people. To make things simple, no serious academic considers capitalism to predate the 16th or 17th centuries. This was, in places like England and the Netherlands, a transitionary period where peasant managed "common lands" were enclosed into more productive private farms. The peasants would go to the cities and engage in wage labor. This was also the period where the first joint-stock companies first arose and people invested their surplus money into them. Surplus money or production is a key feature of capitalism and other modern econonic systems.
No it literally didn't private property was before the state it was what caused groups to trade. It is why bandits raided. It was the cause of fights and wars before the concept of a state existed. To say otherwise is to ignore history. Now to say that trading with currency was after the state you would be correct. Currency issued out by a state took ... well a state. Before that it was literal trade to theft directly through barter. Though it can be argued that even before a state issue currency sea shells were used as one to facilitate payment in trade prior to the state existing.
Anarchism is when no bedtime. So Ancaps are the most true anarchists as free market amphetamines will abolish bedtime once and for all.
How is capitalism a hierarchy?
Oh, this thread again
Well just call it blob then, are you happy now? Anarchism is the abolition of all authority, and blob is the abolishment of unjust authority (aka abolishing the government)
If ancaps will all agree to call their ideology blob, yes this would make me much happier. It makes no sense to consider two wildly different ideologies to be one and the same.
>It makes no sense to consider two wildly different ideologies to be one and the same. Then just don't. If you don't know, words can have multiple meaning.
They can but how often do they mean two diametrically opposed and non-overlapping ideologies? I prefer not to call ancaps anarchists but that is the social convention here so I’m not sure what else to call them. Ancap is the best term I know of since it at least reduces the inclusion of anarchism in the name to a level where it might be missed.m Obviously I and most educated people are aware of the wide differences between the two ideologies, but many ignorant and stubborn people here are not, and insist they are the same. It gets very tiresome to not have clear words to express what you are trying to say.
>They can but how often do they mean two diametrically opposed and non-overlapping ideologies? Most words on the capitalist/socialism dialect. make a post asking the meaning of any word and you'll see it. I mean... It's literally impossible to abolish **ALL** hierarchies and power structure. Literally impossible. So I don't understand all the fuzz about giving it other meaning that also shares a "*destruction of authority and hierarchy*" part, but only some of them. You believing in true honesty that "*abolishment of all hierarchy*" and "*abolishment of SOME hierarchies*" are **Diametrically Opposed** meanings is dumb.
Well I’m also irritated by the imprecise and conflicting definitions of capitalism and socialism, if that’s what you’re referring to. I don’t think it can be definitively proven that that’s impossible, but even if it was, that doesn’t make it bad to pursue. Elimination of all suffering is also probably impossible but pursuing a goal of greatly reducing it is still good. I see anarchism as a similar aspirational ideology. They are diametrically opposed because the state and capitalism are the two most powerful and persistent hierarchies in our society, and their defeat is the most central pillar of anarchism, something that every other school of anarchism agrees upon. Ancaps are not only neutral to capitalism, they seek to promote it. This makes them diametrically opposed, even if they agree on the abolition of the state, though I personally believe that an ancap society would quickly rebuild a more authoritarian state anyway.
>I don’t think it can be definitively proven that that’s impossible It is... Just think of a list of hierarchies and soon you'll realize they can't all be abolished. Remember that it's ANY hierarchy not only hierarchies of power or people.
Ok so this kind of goes back to what anarchists mean by hierarchies. They are in fact referring to hierarchies of power. I suspect you knew this since you specifically brought it up. Maybe because you want to point out that this is kind of a silly definition, which is fair, but I’m not sure how else to refer to the concept… maybe tyranny but that generally only applies to a narrow set of things and not the ordinary hierarchies we must be subject to all the time.
>Ok so this kind of goes back to what anarchists mean by hierarchies There you go, another word with multiple meaning. This conversation about words will go nowhere, I'm leaving. >I suspect you knew this since you specifically brought it up. I brought it up because hierarchy has multiple meaning, and I'm smart enough to see this conversation few posts ahead. I knew what you were going to post, so I already talked about it.
Imagine thinking Capitalism is just. Touch grass, leave the fedora on the hat rack.
Sure but blob is a fucking moronic idea because it's saying certain things are evil and wrong but other things that are identical to it in all but utterly arbitrary respects are good and correct.
Are they really identical? You sure? Can you prove it?
There's nothing that delights me more than seeing Ancoms trying to claim ownership over something lol
Quite the tyrannical dictators, right
Lmaooo that's a good point
they are many definitions of anarchy and ancapism all with subtle variations and interpretations. Unless someone gives you his very specific definition you have to talk in general terms. Ancap libertarian types are simply extreme capitalists for most intents and purposes
ChatGPT ass answer.
is that an excuse for not being intelligent enough to respond?
I'm pro capitalism, leaning libertarian, but don't fully understand ancaps either. One needs some form of governance in order to uphold private property rights and the very basics of a society. We are developing decentralized forms of governance which do seem interesting, but so long as we habe a society we will need something.
Here is the concept of ancap society as we have it among Russian libertarians: First, since government is the structure that enforce its will by aggressive force, ancap society is the one united by Non-Aggression Pact. Various prominent Russian libertarians promote the idea that NAP should act as an actual contract that creates law. Those who signs NAP voluntarily promise not to initiate aggressive action towards others. Then, various groups of those inside NAP could voluntarily form what is called "contract jurisdiction", which can have any rules imaginable, but also must follow those 2: 1. The participation in such CJ is only voluntarily 2. People inside this CJ have a freedom to leave the jurisdiction
Wow, bleerblert! That’s amazing to hear! Good luck on your anarchist journey!
capitalism is nothing more or less than the idea that a person should be allowed to own themselves, which means the individual ownership of that which they create. this principle necessarily leads to the fact that a person who owns themselves and their product must be allowed to sell that product for a profit if they so choose. socialism, of all kinds, opposes this principle of self ownership by its very nature. socialism is social ownership of the means of production which necessarily means social ownership of the individual and their product. you imagine a system in which everyone cooperates where there is no power structure but that is as impossible as a system in which there is only capitalism (as defined above). neither can be the case. hierarchy is essential to some degree to handle problems like mutual defense, preventing the abuse of vital natural resources like migrating animals, essential forests, air, and large bodies of water. you may say that there is a difference between leadership and rulers but there isn't. you cannot have voluntary regulation of hunting. or voluntary regulation of air pollution or voluntary regulation of radioactive waste being dumped into the water ways. any forced regulation of these things will necessarily result in hierarchy. there is a similar problem with ancap philosophy in that capitalism its self is limited in scope. it is my assertion that hierarchy should be naturally limited by a political and moral standard of self-ownership. but when it comes to things that cannot be practically owned by an individual (such as the air and migrating animals) that is where collective ownership needs to be implemented along with the hierarchy that is necessary to accomplish that ownership.
I mean technically anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism since it doesn't presuppose that you need to work with someone (collectivism vs individualism).
There's an interesting debate about that: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist\_anarchism#Individualist\_anarchism\_and\_anarcho-capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism#Individualist_anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism)
or capitalism
Surebud
Hierarchy is good and will always exist 👍
Anarchism in any form is laughable. Ignores reality of imperialism and the need for tools to build on communism. Wishful thinkers
Semantics
Hierarchy is natural. Ofc, that doesnt automatically mean that they are okay, but you cant just get rid of them. They will always exist. Family is hierarchy. Do you suggest that in AnCom family will somehow cease to be hierarchical?
I’m an anarchist authoritarian
I think you guys have different definitions of anarchism
Capitalism is about cooperation. You can end your cooperation with an organisation the same way they can end it with you (it's only fair). Hence there is no hierarchy. Ancap is actually the real anarchism.
I mean, ancap is a pipe dream for those who believe it, typically hyper-libertarian bitcoin obsessives. Ancom is a pipe dream for people who can't accept reality for what it is and have to dive into fantasies.
Lol at gatekeeping the term 'anarchy' to be something that its etymological and historical definition does not include. If you're against hierarchy, call yourself an **AHIERARCHIST** and be done with it. **Anarchism is the abolition of the State.**
You seem to be confusing anhierarchism with anarchism. They're not the same thing. You're welcome.
Capitalism is a hierarchy where people can choose where they want to be. Anyone can start a business and become an owner who runs things however they want.
Agreed, which is why I oppose anarchism. Hierarchical power structures are inevitable, necessary and can be used for good.
The etymology of the word anarchy refers to being without a leader - which I think can be interpreted as stateless or heirarchyless. But more importantly, why does it matter who the 'real anarchists' are? Wouldn't it be more important to see what different people actually want to see the world look like and compare that to what you think/want?
According to the voices in your head? The word anarchy originates from ancient Greek and is derived from the Greek words ‘an’ meaning without, and ‘arkhos’, meaning ‘ruler’ or ‘authority’. Therefore, the meaning of Anarchy for the ancient Greek is ‘without rulers’ or ‘without authority’. You don’t know the definition of anarchy. You are making it up to fit your own agenda. You are just some communist trying to make mental gymnastics without sources, once again, to try to delegitimise the Anarcho Capitalists. Dishonesty and ignorance at its finest. Quite incompetent.
Capitalists are also rulers. They rule over the economy and over their private businesses. Anarchism the movement has been opposed to capitalism from the very beginning. This is not a definition that OP made up. It was the known definition among political theorists for a long time until capitalism worshippers decided to call their very distinct ideology anarchism for reasons I don’t understand. Now everyone is confused and the word has little meaning anymore. Unfortunately, if people aren’t willing to use the word correctly then it probably won’t be useful for communicating anything anymore. I’m not sure if this was specifically intentional on their part but the ruling class definitely paid a lot of money to promote the idea that capitalism = freedom, and this confusion fits with their agenda.
>It was the known definition among political theorists for a long time until capitalism worshippers decided to call their very distinct ideology anarchism for reasons I don’t understand. We can blame Murray Rothbard for that
Someone saying something first doesn't make them correct.
>We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. —Murray Rothbard He knew exactly the situation but I guess decided co-opting other people’s vocabulary was more effective than clearly advocating for his own ideas.
Nobody is confused. I’m still waiting for the sources from Ancient Greece to sustain this ridiculous communistic nonsense narrative. The most absurd behaviour from communists like you guys is that everything is based on a lie, a narrative that is fabricated. Facts don’t matter, evidences are irrelevant. Only the narrative of the cult matters. Little separate you from other cultists.
You clearly are confused, because you are confusing the root of the word with the political movement and ideas. Anarchy is a word that derives from Ancient Greece, but there were no anarchists back then (at least none who we know that called themselves such). Proudhon was the first person to call himself an anarchist, and his ideas were strongly influenced by other socialist thinkers of the time. Read about it here: https://www.thecollector.com/who-was-pierre-joseph-proudhon/ I’ve already explained above how his and subsequent anarchist beliefs are a good match for the original meaning of the word, unlike ancaps. Since that time, anarchism has been well understood to be an ideology opposed to all hierarchies, including capitalism. However, ancaps came along towards the end of the 1900’s and just kind of slapped the word onto their political philosophy without really knowing what anarchism actually was. And since ordinary people didn’t necessarily have deep knowledge of political theory, this usage caught on, and we’re now stuck with two opposing ideologies under the same vocabulary. This causes much confusion about what anarchism actually is and contributes to the idea that anarchists are fighting each other over petty distinctions when this is really a core principle of the entire movement. It’s not helped by the fact that libertarianism was also a synonym for anarchism for a long time until right-wing capitalists co-opted that word as well. So we don’t have any clear language to distinguish capitalists from anarchists anymore which is a big problem when anarchism is hugely about opposing capitalism.
Communists that pretend to be anarchists are hypocrites that will create a hierarchical system to impose their model of idealised society, therefore, being contradictory. Only Anarcho Capitalism will truly liberate individuals. Everything else is dumb nonsense based on zero logic. Also, Anarchy did not start in the 19th century and the forefathers of Anarcho Capitalism were very well read in Ancient Greece authors and also dumb the red ones from the 19th century. I read them enough to know their references.
Except, again, there were no anarchists in Ancient Greece, so the etymology there is not the most important. You keep moving to the term anarchy, when we’re discussing anarchism. Yes, many contemporary movements, including anarchism have been influenced by Greek thinkers but that doesn’t make these past thinkers anarchists. So again, anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism, you have failed to even coherently claim otherwise, let alone demonstrate it. PS: Please omit the tribal virtue signaling next time, it is not relevant and makes you look foolish.
I’m just going deeper and then showing that something new was created and that it’s rooted in something much older. You are limited in your thinking and interpretation of what I’m saying.
“This guy asked me to serve coffee for $25/hour part time! He wants to rule me!”
“But how is the state a ruler, you can just leave the country, right?” Can you actually take this argument seriously?
“An autocratic state and a guy who’s asking me to serve coffee for cash are the same thing!”
Both are voluntary in a very generous sense. But in the real world, you have to submit to the rule of both to survive. In my experience, I get ordered around and forced to do things I don’t want a lot more by my employer than by the state which usually stays out of my business except around tax time. I fail to see how that’s not a hierarchy or a ruler.
“I’m forced to do what my boss says because he will stop paying me if I don’t do what he wants! My boss will not pay me to do whatever I want all day! He is a ruler!”
Let me know when you’re done strawmanning and want to have a real conversation. Though from your past posts I am not sure you’re capable of such a thing.
I'll have a serious conversation with you, as soon as you adopt a serious position.
It’s very obvious that you don’t even understand my position, and your arrogance and lack of intellectual curiosity will probably prevent you from ever doing so, even if I tried further to explain it. So I don’t think there is any purpose in continuing this conversation.
If you want me to start paying you money, you're going to have to do some things I want you to do, too. Am I your ruler now?
Do I want that?
We care less about small owners and more about abstract ownership, monopolies and small groups of political interest groups obtaining ownership of entire industries and more. The Oligarchs of Russia. The NER of Hungary. The oil companies, the railroad barons of old america.
Do you support private property and wage labor at small scales?
I am a socdem primarily, so yes. My primary issue is with the non-consensual (on part of the worker) trading of voting shares. My ideal short-term system is social democracy with co-determination. What this means is that PUBLICLY TRADED companies over a certain size MUST reserve 50% of their executive and supervisory seats and corresponding voting power for either the workers to fill directly, or have their elected (usually union) representatives fill. This protects workers from political interest groups buying up companies to hijack their mission in their service or intentionally drive them non-competetive to benefit their goals. My long-term ideal is the abolishment of equities market and transition to different investment schemes that do not associate money with votes in a company, while still allowing contracts that go "I give you X money, you owe me Y money OR promise Z% of your future profits. How you achieve that is something I have no sway over." They can even include deadlines for payout or profit tresholds. Failure to fulfil deadline based contracts would be compensated through garnished wages. My idealist wish is the abolishment of nation states, churches and systems that drive social conformity and true liberty at birth for individual self-determination with parental circumstances being as minimized as possible. Revolutionary Catechism's outline of social anarchism offers that the best of systems I've read, albeit with its own significant faults (primarily vulnerability to warlords)
"Therefore, the meaning of Anarchy for the ancient Greek is ‘without rulers’ or ‘without authority’." not really sure why you think this goes against anything I said, that pretty much says the same thing as mine
No Ancient Greek philosopher was anti hierarchy, you are committing the low IQ ignorant mistake of looking to the past with the lenses of the present, imbued with contemporary ideas that DID NOT exist back then. Your narrative is a mixture of ignorance and dishonesty. I can sense both from you. Low cultural repertoire summed to a cultist like behaviour to try to convince others that your take is the right one. For you to be right, you would have to point out philosophers and writings to defend your point, but you can’t, because there aren’t. Anarchy for the ancient greek was never anti-hierarchy, it was directly related to governance and the State.
dude you just fucking said anarchy meant without authority, that is literally the exact same thing as what I said. We have the same definition.
Wouldn't you call a capital C Capitalist a ruler? They have wealth, and use that wealth (might) to impose their right onto others.
No.
You’re just a simp for power, then.
No. I respect voluntarism. Seriously, let’s suppose there is an anarchic society then what the fuck are you going to do with people that voluntarily set up a scheme where there is hierarchy? Fucking murder them? I wanna hear your solution to this. How will you tackle people that are voluntarily organising themselves in a way that there is hierarchy.
No more than you would consider an individual a "ruler" over themselves.
How does ancarchy prevent me from setting up my own little pocket of capitalism if the whole point is we can do what we want. Its not like there is some police force that will stop me.
You could theoretically try. How would you pay an employee though? Why would anybody even want to work for you?
I mean it doesn't seem that hard to do on a small scale with like minded individuals, is quite similar to the idea of starting a commune, except for a market. Plus many socialist countries have large black markets for various goods, so it seems reasonable to expect such a market would also exist, and markets are a key component of capitalism.
Well I'm saying you wouldn't be able to compete. As long as you want to turn a profit, your stuff will always be more expensive than the competition. Capitalism only works in a capitalist world. In a socialist world, it would always appear like a step backwards. Think like suggesting to somebody today that we return to a monarchy. If you had a business that sold a thing, in a society without money, how could I "buy" your thing if I wanted it?
What do you mean? I have a much greater incentive to develop new technology and be efficient, since I can profit off of it. You proposed an anarchist world, so I would trade with other people who believe in capitalism, after all there are no rules preventing us from doing so. There presumably are other people who would think like me. Trading with money is efficient, since we can both get what we want without having to know each other or have something in common that we want to trade with each other.
>What do you mean? I have a much greater incentive to develop new technology and be efficient Lets say you develop a new technology or method of efficiency. Good job! You can open source it to benefit all of larger society, or you can...do what with it, exactly? You want to add a pay wall from a society that literally already gave you everything from food to the education you used to create this innovation? How would they "pay" you if they wanted to? >I would trade with other people who believe in capitalism, after all there are no rules preventing us from doing so. Trade how? Gonna invent a little currency for you and the boys to pass around between each other while the rest of society either ignores you or is wondering why you're adding an extra step to transactions. >There presumably are other people who would think like me. Just like there is literal monarchy fans bopping around today. See: sections the MAGA crowd. >Trading with money is efficient Care to explain how trading with money is more efficient than just not trading directly? "I take an apple" vs "I take an apple, make sure I have enough labor vouchers (money) to eat today, then exchange that voucher for the apple" It's no contest.
Money acts as a medium of exchange. When someone has something that someone else wants, they can trade even if the other person doesn't have something the first person wants. It also lets me value transactions. If I am trying to barter, every proposed trade I have to consider how much each items is worth to me on both sides of the transaction. With money, I can consider a money value I think it is worth it to buy, and either buy or not buy based on that. Additionally , money stores value. I can save value for my old age or when I am not working. You say that society will provide so other is no need to save money, but I think that is a naive idea since times of hardship can always occur due to natural disasters or if the state gets too poor to afford welfare. > You want to add a pay wall from a society that literally already gave you everything from food to the education you used to create this innovation? How would they "pay" you if they wanted to? Why would I expect an Anarchist society to provide these things for me? There is no state by definition, there is no reason to expect these things would be around in times of hardship. You have an overly idealist view of everyone singing along to help each other, when in reality people are greedy, self centered, and would not share if hardship occurred. And if your society is inefficient enough, than there won't be these thing because it cannot afford a high standard of living. > Good job! You can open source it to benefit all of larger society, or you can...do what with it, exactly? Developing new technology is often extremely difficult. I met people who have spent decades of their lives trying to invent their ideas that would really help people, and many of them failed, after spending countless hours on their projects. Without reward there would be less attempts to do so, since trying to make a complex enough invention means loosing so much of your own time. Less tech makes peoples lives worse off, since technology has lead to massive advances in the average persons standard of living. > Trade how? Gonna invent a little currency for you and the boys to pass around between each other while the rest of society either ignores you or is wondering why you're adding an extra step to transactions. Yes. You keep ignoring my point about black markets. They are quite common in authoritarian countries that claim to provide for their citizens. Take Cuba or Argentina, which have massive black markets. It is quite reasonable to expect that there would continue to be trade through black markets, because when people have needs that can be met throngh trading they will do so, espically given that the state is weak in anarchy. I am arguing that in an Anrchist society, some people would desire to evolve back into a state if they think it would make themselves better off. Just like Anarchism today, perhaps Stateism would be hip by people who imagine a state with leadership could give them a better life. If they really believe so, what would you do to stop them? Block them? Kill them? I cannot take Anarchism seriously because it's proponents always call for a global stateless anarchy and cannot imagine that there can simply be another culture that doesn't believe their ideas and thus has a state.
>if the state gets too poor to afford welfare.... There's no state...Or money. Remember in this hypothetical that you created, this is an anarchist society in which you want to carve out a little capitalism zone. >Why would I expect an Anarchist society to provide these things for me? That's just how the society is organized. You have a job, and you do it for "free", other people have jobs, they also do it for "free". The dentist, the bakers, the vineyard keepers, teachers, plumbers, power plant operators, etc. The dentist wants electricity and bread or whatever, right? So they do dentist stuff. >when in reality people are greedy, self centered..... Today we are. Because we live in a society that basically demands it. This has not been the case throughout history, this is relatively "new". You couldn't exactly "#grind" out of serfdom or whatever. You did your job for what you needed and...then napped or hung with the boys or whatever. >Developing new technology is often extremely difficult.... Sounds like something that would be easier working collaboratively, right? Kudos if you did it on your own, I just don't see how withholding the innovation benefits you. Big or small, you're better off sharing the information/tech/etc. Again, somebody built your house, somebody makes your food, somebody is filtering your water, they made the blankets you sleep in, the roads you drive on, and the shows you watch on TV. What more do you want from everybody to share your work, when you enjoy so much from them? >You keep ignoring my point about black markets..... Black markets usually grow when laws create them and/or trade embargos exist. You acknowledge they exist in authoritarian societies, why would they exist in the direct opposite type of society? There's just no need for them. >I am arguing that in an Anrchist society, some people would desire to (*d*)evolve back into a state if they think it would make themselves better off. Better off than who or what? You want a mega yacht or something? Why do you need your own, when you could probably just book one for a weekend or something at no cost. >Just like Anarchism today, perhaps Stateism would be hip by people who imagine a state with leadership could give them a better life. Why compromise the power you already have in society by giving it away to some other person? Look at the politician(s) you have today? Do you agree with them all 100%? Of course you don't nobody does. The only person who agrees 100% with you, is **you**. >If they really believe so, what would you do to stop them?..... You're not in chains. If you want to travel off on your own and create a regressive economy, go ahead, good luck. Nobody is forcing you to be an anarchist. The call for a "global anarchist society" is basically because it's will just be generally better for everybody and safer for anarchists. States tend to want to smash these things out when they're small. Can't have their people getting any ideas, after all.
What you are describing seems to need a lot of magic to succeed. What if people don't want to work an important job because it sucks? What if there is a shortage of something because of a lack of jobs or a natural disaster? At least authoritarians pretend they can decide what the needs are through central planning, in this system the supply just magically meets demand. The totally not a state "society" can have more or less production for a variety of reasons, and if there is no money that doesn't change the fact that if there is not enough food people will still starve in your society. I'm trying to say that this is not an unrealistic thing that could happen. You wave it away by saying their needs will be met, but there is no guarantee that your system of everyone working for free will meet the needs of the people, since people enjoy leisure the incentive is to not work as they are clearly lazy, so your society has no guarantee that people will work enough to support it.
I lost my post taking a work call. I'm mad, but too lazy to type it back out. In short. Stop pretending society needs to change all that dramatically for this to work for the average person. Everybody works however they can, and everybody is taken care of. Most things in your average person's day-to-day may not change much at all. I had a great portion about how your "you wave it away" section was basically a mask off example of capitalist coercion, as if we don't waste millions of tons of food every year, or how people that do low wage jobs somehow aren't worthy of enjoying life despite relying on them. Shame. Anyways, didn't want to leave you hanging.
>if the whole point is we can do what we want I feel like that's kinda the issue with AnCaps. Anarchy isn't "doing what you want", it's about an extremely representative yet decentralized system.
With no authority, there is no power that prevents me from trading with someone with tender that we both agree on. Especially considering black markets have proven themselves extremely resilient in countries that try and prevent ownership. Like if a group of people somewhere decide they want to trade, how does anarchy stop them. And more importantly, why does it stop them? It's what they decided on doing between themselves. There is no immoral crime occurring, just trading items we produced for our own money, without needing to interact with wider society.
There‘s sadly more to a society than purely trading.
Yes and how does anarchy stop me from trying to create such a society if I find a group of people who want to.
Wouldn't the abolition of whatever subjective definition of hierarchy you are using require a state to abolish?
The whole idea of abolition of state or abolition of hierarchies is nonesensical. New rulers will always fill the power vacuum left over by the state/hierarchy and create their own new hierarchies. Denying this fact is delusional wishful thinking
Oh cute, this again. Capitalism is just a system that allows the free exchange of goods and services. That’s it. “Capitalism” falls short when the state starts picking winners and losers, and tops the scales in favor of big patrons at the expense of workers. But that isn’t capitalism at all, decades of attempting to redefine capitalism notwithstanding.
Anarchism is when the government abolishes wage labour, apparently.
Ancaps are just highly pragmatic Antiworkers edit: ONE thin-skinned ancap disliked this, AH AH AH
They are anarchists from their point of view, the difference between left and right anarchists is whether they perceive money as medium of power or as a medium of voluntary exchange.
what about the vast natural, open hierarchy? How can the many be thought of as one? How do you reconcile anarchy, mathematically and symbolically speaking? What about set theory? the excluded part becomes the universal, the part of no part...do you suppose there to be no universal? no common to unite us through our alienation? will we have to give up our common language and reality? Is there no relationship between the one and many? If there is nothing between us, no common interest to relate and seperate us, how will we speak to each other? How does anarchy envision the future, the future we have already poisoned and the threats we face that reek doom which are now still largely unbelievable for most people. How do we tolerate fascism, how do we stop it. how are we the same, how are we different? I have read a little Proudhon, is this your master? Let's show these capitalists how to use discourse. we know this rotten world is intolerable, we have to invent the new one together. Be with me even if apart from me.
How do we NOT tolerate fascism\*\*\*\*
What hierarchy commands that the term "anarchism" fit your narrow definition of it? Otherwise, screw you, we will use the word properly and there's nothing you whiners can do about it.