Am I a 'true' anarchist?

[Guest]

I’ve been reading up on anarchy quite a bit lately, and I’ve found that anarchists generally define capitalism as a system where states (or persons acting as states) hold up property rights.

I’m sorry if this has already been answered many times, but here is my question: suppose that under anarchism, persons voluntarily choose to work as wage-earners for a capitalist. Obviously, with no state, they would be able to overthrow the capitalist and take over whenever they please, but let’s say that they do voluntarily choose to work for him. They choose to work for him because they have different time preferences, and want him to take all the risks.

For instance, if the workers have a feeling the capitalist’s business is going to be unsuccessful from the beginning, they would actually be more poor by overthrowing the capitalist and running the business. As wage earners, they would make more money on the wage system, because the capitalist will go completely bankrupt and not be able to recollect the wages he paid. It’s for this reason that I think some would voluntarily choose to participate in capitalism, under anarchy. Sure, they could shun the capitalist and run the business themselves, whenever they please, but sometimes they would losing money by doing such a thing.

Also, since the capitalist would be well aware that the workers could simply rob him blind whenever they wish, he would have a strong incentive to let them form unions, etc, since there would be no state to protect him.

So, while I obviously don’t believe in property rights (which must be protected by some state system), I see nothing wrong with capitalism as a completely voluntary system of labor. I also see nothing wrong with persons choosing to practice syndicalism, mutualism, communism, or any other voluntary system of their choice.

Am I a ‘true’ anarchist? I’m only wondering.

Thanks for any input, and sorry if this has already been answered.

[tedster]

Well, capitalism is concidered contrary to capitalism because there is always a degree of submission in capitalism. Anarchy stems from a Greek word for no leader, which not only means no government, but also no managers. A business would only be on a collective level were no one person to answer to.

It is assumed in Anarchy that there is no trading or the current model of cash as we know it, although it is occasionally discussed that any measurement would strickly be counted in terms of hours one works, or by rationed. Problem with that, is that it will cause a deviation from Anarchism since it would be a form of submission.

I would suggest that you google "everything you always wanted to know about anarchism" as it is consise in comparision to the Anarchist FAQ.

[Guest]

If it is truly voluntary, it is not hierarchical; if it is truly hierarchical, it is not voluntary. If we assume, first, market anarchism like Proudhon's model, such that capital doesn't matter, and second, that most of the people involved want guaranteed returns, and the remainder want gambles which might (more or less equally) raise or lower their returns, then they can work something out.

[Nexonic]

So, while I obviously don’t believe in property rights (which must be protected by some state system), I see nothing wrong with capitalism as a completely voluntary system of labor. I also see nothing wrong with persons choosing to practice syndicalism, mutualism, communism, or any other voluntary system of their choice.

Am I a ‘true’ anarchist? I’m only wondering.

Sure why not? I also think one doesn't need to choose [edit]exclusively[/edit] between syndicalism, mutualism, communism, etc, they can always choose all by having some aspects of their life appear communistic, some appear capitalistic and so on.

[Guest]

Thank you, Nexonic. I figured the entire point of anarchy would be that you can practice any voluntary economic system you want.

After all, if force was used to stop people, it wouldn't exactly be anarchy, would it? It would be some kind of state.

[tedster]

Well, capitalism is concidered contrary to capitalism

Damn it! I hate it when I type stupid things like that.

[FuzzBeast]

was wondering when you'd notice...

but yeah, aside from capitalism which is inherently heirarchial, the other systems (communism, syndicalism, mutualism, etc.) or some combinations of the previous would probably work just fine.
Capitalism without a state would inherently lead back to feudalism, if not in name.

[|Y|]

Guest,

I’ve been reading up on anarchy quite a bit lately, and I’ve found that anarchists generally define capitalism as a system where states (or persons acting as states) hold up property rights.

That's pretty much exactly it. A state is necessary for holding up non-possessive capitalist property rights.

For example, I own five houses, and I only live in and care for one of them. I have titles for them all, and I hire police forces (either through taxes or directly) to keep squatters out of them.

Now, assume that situation, squatters inhabit an empty house. They never agreed to the capitalist ownership of said house, they never signed an agreement. It is the state and its constitutions and laws which bestowed them that "right." And of course, the force and authoritarianism of the capitalists through their police forces and other coercive forces (such as exclusive business contracts, and monopoly power).

I’m sorry if this has already been answered many times, but here is my question: suppose that under anarchism, persons voluntarily choose to work as wage-earners for a capitalist. Obviously, with no state, they would be able to overthrow the capitalist and take over whenever they please, but let’s say that they do voluntarily choose to work for him. They choose to work for him because they have different time preferences, and want him to take all the risks.

Let's assume that this is a practical scenario (it is not). If a person choses to let someone steal their labor from them, then that is obviously their business. But the key is that said person deserves at the bare minimum the choice to associate with such a business (or to not associate with businesses in that vein). This choice is not granted in capitalism, because practically every business in the world has a boss of some sort. Capitalism isn't the only system which has this, it's just the one which is most pervasive (and thus deserves more criticism).

I ask you, though. If I were working for myself, I would receive all the profits of my labor, whereas if I were to work for a capitalist, I would only receive part of the profits of my labor (sometimes as bad as 100th of the wealth my labor produces; in the case of sweatshop factories for example). Why would I do this? Is the capitalist risk really worth such a huge part of my labor? No. It is not. Such is tyrrany, and if most people had the choice they would not chose such a system.

It’s for this reason that I think some would voluntarily choose to participate in capitalism, under anarchy. Sure, they could shun the capitalist and run the business themselves, whenever they please, but sometimes they would losing money by doing such a thing.

This assumes that monetary motivation is necessary. This isn't a "capitalism in anarchism" scenario, this is a "capitalism in capitalism" scenario. Think about it. If the sole goal for working was to obtain money and be secure in your wealth, then someone else must own the wealth on which you need access. Anarchism assumes that if capitalist property didn't exist, that ones "right" to the worlds resources didn't exist, then people would quickly and rampantly exploit those resources. What stops them is capitalism!

At the bare minimum anarchism would have to bring up the standard of living and wealth of the worlds population to a more equitable level, this would make capitalism obsolete and irrelevant. Those who wish to "accumulate wealth" would be silly fools, because there is only so much wealth that can be useful.

Also, since the capitalist would be well aware that the workers could simply rob him blind whenever they wish, he would have a strong incentive to let them form unions, etc, since there would be no state to protect him.

Heh, if they are free to form unions there is very little in the way of difference between a collectively owned business and one where a union has significant say. If I can go in and barter my wage, then the capitalist owner really doesn't have control over his property (which is why many capitalists are against unions).

So, while I obviously don’t believe in property rights (which must be protected by some state system), I see nothing wrong with capitalism as a completely voluntary system of labor. I also see nothing wrong with persons choosing to practice syndicalism, mutualism, communism, or any other voluntary system of their choice.

I don't know that you don't believe in capitalist property rights. Mind you all anarchists believe in property rights. In the end capitalists don't believe in true property rights. I don't have a right to this car I am leasing. I don't have a right to this house I am renting, and so on. The only property right that capitalists truly have is the right to control others with their property.

Capitalism, within anarchism, would be nothing more than a fanciful game that children play.

[Guest]

Hello, Y.

To some (not all), the risk certainly would be worth getting paid at a wage. Think about this for one second, without dismissing it too quickly. Being paid a wage gurantees that you'll get paid immediately, regardless of whether or not the product sells. Some people like that. They don't want to buy all the materials and pay for advertising, while spending hours and hours making products, and risk having all of it be in vain. At a wage, they have very few responsibilities, and don't have to worry about the stress of managing a business, etc. And if the business sinks, the capitalist is fucked to high heaven, while the workers are at the arcade, playing Duke Nukem with all his money.

However, I do not support capitalist property rights (unless they are voluntarily respected), and agree with you that most would probably choose different type of system. I'm only talking about small a minority that would want to participate in capitalism. We can't speak for all people, it is inevitable that a group or something would want to practice it.

I would prefer self-employment, myself. In fact, I'm quite the eBay fan these days.

[|Y|]

Oh, certainly I agree that capitalism makes things easy for people. It exploits apathy admirably. So I won't argue with that.

[trueness]

If it's voluntary it's fine. So long as the workers still have the first say if they all just decide to do what ever the manager tells them to do and let him take their labor minus the wages that's fine. But they could change their minds whenever they want and too bad for the manager.

In fact for some more complicated jobs workers might hire advisors and agree to follow their decisions except when they vote to overrule them. So long as everyone owns the means of production they use that's not inconsistent with anarchosocialism. Physical labor uses the machinery. So, the workers own the machinery. Planning and problem-solving is a form of labor using one's mind. The advisor owns his mind. They can freely exchange their labor.

That's why the argument that some critics make that cooperatives would be too inefficient because too many people are making decisions doesn't stand. If it really is inefficient the workers will voluntarily entrust some or even all decision-making in a hired but completely overrideable and fireable manager.

[Thunk]

I know this topic has been dead for nearly 2 years but I thought I might add my 2 cents.

If the scenario the question asker puts forward is around -- that the workers are afraid of the risk, then under a system of anarchism, they could just hire a "risk-taker," as the capitalist has no greater authority than they do. This "risk-taker" would get paid greater wages, be charged with temporary management of the company until its inevitable collapse, etc. But he wouldn't have any real power over his workers, and there wouldn't be a boss-over-worker hierarchy. So essentially, it would be voluntary and non-hierarchical, and therefore it wouldn't be capitalism. When the guy starts assuming the power to fire other workers, decide pay autocratically, etc, then we have capitalism, but if people are free then they would have no personal/collective incentive to let that happen.