This conversation took place around Sept. 7th, 2015
Neil Adam Collins Anarcho-capitalism is a complete oxymoron. Capitalism creates and requires hierarchy. Anarchy in incompatible with capitalism. It is common sense.
ANON: No, Neil, that is not "common sense." As I states before, the only integral part of anarchism is the belief in the abolition of coercive political states. That is it. You are simply wrong.
Neil Adam Collins Where do you get your information from, other than Ancap propaganda? All of the great Anarchist thinkers and philosophers of history have pointed out the class struggle that is inherent to capitalism. I recommend reading them. In our monetary system, those with wealth use it to exploit and control those who do not have. The state uses direct force to control and the capitalist uses the desperation of the poor. If you do not have what you need and someone else has more than they need, they can control you. Where do you think the state gets its power from anyway? If they did not hold capital, they would have no ability to control anyone.
Neil Adam Collins
http://www.forbes.com/.../sorry-libertarian-anarchists.../
ANON: You can believe whatever you want, Neil, but that doesn't change the definition dof the word. Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists because they want to abolish the state. That is the ONLY criterion for being an anarchist.
Anarchism - :a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
That in no way precludes a capitalist society. I know you don't LIKE that, but the fact remains.
Neil Adam Collins Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/.../daibhidh-anarcho...
ANON: You're arguing a dictionary definition with what is in reality a blog post? Come back and post more when you've rejoined us on Planet Earth.
Neil Adam Collins "Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist a.s.o. mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion, ideally or practically. "
This situation of people being on equal footing is not possible in a competitive monetary system, such as capitalism. I would also add that the competitive aspect of markets eventually lead towards monopoly, unless there is a state to protect against monopoly, thus ironically becoming the monopoly in the process. In short, the state is the end result of the "free market".
ANON: That is not what ia means, though. Anarchism means what I copied and pasted FROM THE DICTIONARY. It does not mean what you want it to mean. It has a definition whether you like it or not.
Also, the competitive aspect of markets is exactly what PREVENTS monopoly, by definition. "Monopoly" means no competition in a market on the sales end, and "monopsony" means no competition in a market on the purchasing end. They are impossible when competition exists. You're clueless.
Neil Adam Collins "F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?
In a word, no....."
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1
I would also add that many times when someone cannot see how money facilitates the haves to lord it over the have-nots (hierarchy), it is often because they can 'afford' not to notice, so to speak. Those in the well-to-do classes tend to think that capitalism works just fine, because it is in fact working just fine FOR THEM.
"Privilege:when you don't think something is a problem, because it is not a problem for you."
Do you not understand that a competitive system by its nature will create winners and losers? Those who are able to game better than others and accumulate more wealth? They then use that gained advantage in order to compete more efficiently and gain more advantage still. I have a hard time not seeing how obvious this is.
ANON: NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION OF ANARCHISM. You are flinging shit against the wall.
Neil Adam Collins “In modern capitalism economic exploitation rather than political oppression is the real enemy of the people.”
― Emma Goldman
"Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing. Attempts to 'green' capitalism, to make it 'ecological', are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system of endless growth. "
-Murry Bookchin
In "Capitalism", wealth is "earned" most often by the act of owning "capital". In other words, money is made by having money. In turn, this money can be used to get other people to work for the owner, helping him collect even more money (capital). The worker creates value and the owner takes some portion of that value as rent for the use of his capital (land, factories, money, etc..) This is not compatible with freedom, equality or anarchism, in any way.
"All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!"
-Peter Kropotkin
ANON: And he is still wrong. Anarchism, BY DEFINITION, = no state. That is it. You are wrong. I know that is painful to you, but you are literally arguing against the dictionary.
You don't get to define words to your benefit.
Neil Adam Collins The dictionary definition does not encompass the rich history of anarchist thought, in this case.
ANON: Because it doesn't have to. It has to provide an objective definition, not a hagiography of dead anti-capitalists. It is still the definition, and you need to accept it.
Neil Adam Collins It would be foolish to confuse the map (dictionary definition) for the territory (the overwhelming reality of the Anarchist Movement). I am willing to accept that you are right about the dictionary definition but I would also add that it has no authority over the reality of what anarchism is and what it stands for. It is true that Anarcho-Capitalists believe in "voluntary" interactions, same as actual anarchists do. The difference is that Ancaps fail to see how the monetary system causes another, very real form of coercion that does not come from the state.
Wealth inequality, (which every capitalist economist agrees is part of capitalism) breeds its own kind of coercion. This is the thing about capitalism that every anarchist recognizes, except Anarcho-capitalists. I think it is because they hope to someday wear the boot, where as the rest of us want there to be no boot.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. It may be that ancaps cannot see the built in coercion of the capitalist system, because they are rarely poor and because of their privilege, they tend to only see the oppressors, up the chain of command from themselves, the state. Ancaps would much rather there be no government regulation, so that they could exploit those below themselves without interference. "Muh freedom to profit off of those below me". Jealous that the state has already filled the position of exploiter at the top.
The cry for a Libertarian society is a cry for the clock of history to be reset so that "I" may have the chance to be on top this time. Where as the cry of the Anarchist is to abolish the top. When there is money, there will always be the bottom, the top and all of the tiers in between.
ANON: What you call "overwhelming reality," I call "the mainstream of a school of thought." Again, you are conflating two different things.
Neil Adam Collins Very interesting excerpt, insightful on the misunderstanding:
"Part of the problem is that Marxists, like many academics, also tend to assert that anarchists are simply against the state. It is significant that both Marxists and "anarcho"-capitalists tend to define anarchism as purely opposition to government. This is no co-incidence, as both seek to exclude anarchism from its place in the wider socialist movement. This makes perfect sense from the Marxist perspective as it allows them to present their ideology as the only serious anti-capitalist one around (not to mention associating anarchism with "anarcho"-capitalism is an excellent way of discrediting our ideas in the wider radical movement). It should go without saying that this is an obvious and serious misrepresentation of the anarchist position as even a superficial glance at anarchist theory and history shows that no anarchist limited their critique of society simply at the state. So while academics and Marxists seem aware of the anarchist opposition to the state, they usually fail to grasp the anarchist critique applies to all other authoritarian social institutions and how it fits into the overall anarchist analysis and struggle. They seem to think the anarchist condemnation of capitalist private property, patriarchy and so forth are somehow superfluous additions rather than a logical position which reflects the core of anarchism"
- See more at: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1...
ANON: How about citing ONE source that doesn't represent your particular and narrow definition? Your evidence is that a lot of other people seek to make your definition dominant. Did you ever stop to think that the Marxists and ancaps might be right? Also, look at the etymology of the word.
Alicia-Pilar Mogollon Great analogy, Neil. "...the map...terrritory" To me there is so much more to understanding a concept than a dictionary definition. That I believe is just a starting point.
Neil Adam Collins Why yes, Alicia-Pilar Mogollon. Wikipedia can be the same way. It is a very useful place to get a general idea on a subject, but shouldn't be treated as the 'end-all' authority. In order to actually understand details, it helps to read books on the subject, preferably written by anarchists. Or FUCK READING BOOKS LOL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then there was this one posted in an Anarchist group which has a constant stream of arguments between "Anarcho-Capitalists" and what they call "left-anarchists" or "anarcho communists:
Neil Adam Collins I am guessing that communists hate capitalism for the same reason that capitalists hate communism. Neither has ever been able to produce the absence of hierarchy, coercion or exploitation that each claims to get rid of. In the end both systems create a small group owning most of the wealth ad power at the expense of the labor of the majority. One with empty supermarkets, the other with many who cannot afford what is in the full supermarkets. In practice, both systems use money, governments, leaders, armies, violence, laws, and exploitation of the class hierarchy, regardless of their claimed goals, rhetoric or theories. I think that is why there is a such thing called "anarchism" which both lost and failed ideologies of capitalism and communism could learn from. Anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy and rule, be it from, kings, troops or the wealthy.
The communist seems to get half the picture, rejecting rule by the rich, while failing to see that rule by government is still tyranny. The capitalist also gets half the picture, realizing the evils of government, while failing to see the inherent tyranny of money and the class system. An actual anarchist rejects both kinds of tyranny, rather than switching back and forth between them depending upon which one is more comfortable due to personal privilege. In practice, both communists and capitalists fail to ever achieve their own stated goals of freedom, not so much because of each other, but because of an inability to see the inherent tyranny in their own systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment