Who are anarchists and who aren't.

[Mr Anonymous]

So what do you guys think about rogue individuals like pirates, thieves, blackmarketeers, and criminals?

Are they anarchists?

I talked to a market anarchist and he told me that a existence of anarchism has no room for lawless individuals.

How would anarchists here classify these groups of rogue people?

[Bodhisattva]

I think when it comes down to it, if you're a privateer/pirate for philosophical reasons (sort of like the Sea Shepherds), it's one thing. If you're breaking the law because you don't give a damn for the happiness of others, it's entirely different.

To be honest, we're being patriotic when we disobey laws that serve only the elite.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

The very men who founded the US had some capital ideas, heh.

[Francois Tremblay]

Being an Anarchist has to do with what you believe, not with your occupation.

[rebelmouse]

So what do you guys think about rogue individuals like pirates, thieves, blackmarketeers, and criminals?
Are they anarchists?
I talked to a market anarchist and he told me that a existence of anarchism has no room for lawless individuals.
How would anarchists here classify these groups of rogue people?

some of them are anarchists, some of them are not.
some of them can be in harmony with anarchism even they don't know anything about anarchism: 4 bandits gather themselves, discuss equally and decide with consensus, make robbery where they take 400 000 Dollars and every person get 100 000 for himself/herself. that's in harmony with anarchism: they don't have hierarchy, they decided together with consensus (about plan, risk, who take which part of job, etc), everybody got equal money from robbery. after action they can split and live their private life till next action, or they can be together everyday like group of friends).
of course, if they support anarchist idea, I would expect from them to give one part of money for movement. I don't think that anarcho-robbers should give everything for movement, people have their private life and it would be masochistic that they give all 400 000 Dollars for movement and to stay personally hungry (plus all members of group mostly have different life, some of them can be middle class, some of them can be homeless, it means someone could give more money for movement, someone less).

[Noleaders]

So what do you guys think about rogue individuals like pirates, thieves, blackmarketeers, and criminals?

Are they anarchists?

I talked to a market anarchist and he told me that a existence of anarchism has no room for lawless individuals.

How would anarchists here classify these groups of rogue people?

Anarchicts oppose coercion and support libertarian values as opposed to authoritarian ones. Libertarian values are based on what is essential to self ownership - Life, liberty and property (although what counts as legitimate property is debated)

A pirate or thief is clearly coercive and initiates violence against one or more of these principles so no there are not anarchists no matter how they organise themselves

Criminals i guess depends on the crime. A violent thug would be breaking these principles but a drug user would not. A victimless criminal could but is not neccessarily an anarchist.

The black market is praised by many market anarchists as legitimate and a possible strategy to take down the state so again they could be anarchists. The current black markets are often run by violent criminals but this is because of the added risk involved when using the blackmarket which often weeds out more peaceful people. In a market anarchy there could be no such thing as a blackmarketeer.

The reason we are against the state is because of the coercive monopoly it maintains and by its very nature breaks all 3 of the libertarian values. The state is the biggest pirate, thief, blackmarketeer and criminal of them all.
This is why we propose society should be based on free association instead.

[Maithuna69]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

Nice. How about

Laws are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools - Douglas Bader.

[Stealth]

I dont have any respect for people who rob the working class. People are entitled to the product of their labor, and to steal it is wrong, unless you are on the brink of starvation and they seem to have plenty.

On the other hand, corporations have illegitimate holdings. They have failed to pay their workers the product of their labor, and are cheating them. They collect money through subsidies while remaining private companies. They are granted use of public resources but they do not give back to their community. The executive level workers do not labor but live off the labor of others. They practice usury and exploitation, so I dont really feel very sorry for them when they get robbed.

Dont steal from the poor though. And dont steal from your fellow Anarchists. One time when I was younger, I bought some groceries with food stamps while I was living in a squat....yeah, real bourgeoisie. So this punk girl I knew started talking to me and her friends stole my groceries. Then she said 'they probably needed it more than you do'. Right, Im just rolling in excess because I had some food stamps and could actually walk into a store instead of dumpster that day. It kind of pissed me off.

[Noleaders]

Corporations dont fail to pay their workers their labours worth but they do socialize a lot of their costs which is worse cos it affects everyone.

[Francois Tremblay]

Corporations dont fail to pay their workers their labours worth

What the fuck are you talking about? They most definitely do NOT.

[Noleaders]

They dont fail to pay according to labours worth because labour doesn't have an objective value. Im not saying its a fair system but i think we should move away from marx's surplus value cos its wrong.

Personally i think the problem is things like state subsidies, corporate welfare, socialising costs etc. have allowed businesses to grow larger than they would be able to in a stateless market, lots of innefficiencies build up as business gets larger and the market wouldnt allow this without state intervention.

This leads to oligopoly markets which concentrates bargining power in the hands of a few which is why workers and consumers often get a raw deal.

[Stealth]

They dont fail to pay according to labours worth because labour doesn't have an objective value.

Have you ever read Proudhons essay on property? Proudhon would argue that the value of labor is the value of what that labor produces, minus the cost of production. He considered profit a form of theft and the wealthy class to be a bunch of lazy do-nothings who live off the labor of others, and were the workers able to self organize, they are the least essential class in a libertarian socialist society.

Labor is not just another commodity subject to supply and demand, or at least it shouldnt be. Humanity is not just another product to be bought and sold.

[Bodhisattva]

Here here.

[Noleaders]

Im currently reading it. Its pretty good. Thing is the labour theory of value has nothing to do with reality despite a lot of old theories using it. To keep the good things about these theories alive you have to update them.

Also the factory owner does do work. Have you any idea how hard it is to run a business?

As i said above i think the influence of the state has created the ridiculous inbalance between labour and the owners of the means of production. Without it we would have smaller businesss and much more potential for co-operative style ownership.
Happy?

also he did say property is theft but he also said property is liberty and property is impossible did he not?

[Stealth]

The labor theory of value is a perspective. Just because it is not the dominant perspective doesnt mean it wouldnt work. Capitalism is not objectively true if people reject its principles. Prices in reality are not merely set by supply and demand. In our current reality, government intervention sets prices. Thats why its cheaper to eat a Big Mac than a salad. Its makes no fucking sense that fresh veggies are more expensive than beef, since throughout human history the opposite was true....and that is one example of where the free market makes more sense than government subsidies to private industry....but it is not a testament to the fairness of corporate ownership of the means of production or a testament against the labor theory of value.

There is no reason that prices cannot be set based on the labor that is required to produce that item. There is no reason that the workers should not be entitled to a share of what is gained from the companies exchange.

Free markets, those as described by Adam Smith, was NOT an advocacy of the wage system under a plutocracy of corporations. His world view was one where artisans were competing in an otherwise even playing field. The difference between that and corporate monopolies is night and day.

Running a small independent business is in fact a lot of work. That is one reason that when I was living outdoors that I would never steal from mom and pop shops. Those people work hard to keep things together.

In the corporate world you end up with plenty of these lazy layabouts who keep 90% of the profits for themselves.

Profit is theft. If you are making profit, that means you are selling something for more than it is worth, ie, cheating them. If you are trading your labor, that is not 'profit', because money is not the only thing of value. It is an even exchange, and in an even exchange there is no profit, only the product of your labor.

That is why corporate holdings are illegitimate when they pay sweat shop workers 1 dollar a day to produce $2000 a day worth of product from $50 worth of materials and overhead expenses.


Unfortunately, many of us who live in a capitalist society have to behave like capitalists just to feed ourselves or get medical care...its not how I would prefer to live though.

[Noleaders]

Oh yeah don't get me wrong im in no way a supporter of big corporations and I agree 100% with a lot of that. Especially about the difference between free markets and oligopoly markets like we have today.
The problem is who determines what labour is worth? There's no point making something if no one wants it which means to some extent there will always be subjective value.
Look at it from this point of view say a co-operative made a variety of items, one was harder to make but there wasn't much demand for it or others were selling it cheaply or w/e. Whats the best choice sell it cheaply and make a little bit of money but its still money which will be shared or set it highly and make nothing.
Also will the workers benefit more in a co-operative if the prices are set low or high. If the co-operative is making profit but its shared among everyone shouldn't they try to make profit. Is it wrong if you've created something that improves the quality of life in a society and take a reward for it?