Capitalism *is* compatible with anarchism

[African_Prince]

My views have changed over the past few weeks. I'm hesitant to call myself an anarchist anything because I don't want to be associated with most self-proclaimed anarchists but I'm starting to think of myself as an anarchist without adjectives, with a preference for communism. The idea that capitalism necessarily contradicts the principles of anarchism is just rhetoric, I say this having once claimed it myself. 1) The fact that the early anarchists were socialists is irrelevant. Anarchists are opposed to authority and coercion, nothing more. The fact that the first people to articulate their anti-authoritarian views were also opposed to capitalism has nothing to do with the basic concept of anarchism. The early, self-proclaimed anarchists opposed communism as well. 2) The distinction that anarcho-socialists make between private property and personal possesions is meaningless and arbitrary. The concept of property is socially constructed but unless we return to the primitive, hunter-gather lifestyle of our ancestors, we need to recognize that certain things rightfully belong to other people. In a society without central planners, nobody can come along and say that when my personal possession becomes economically productive, it is no longer my personal possession but the rightful property of the people I allow access to in exchange for part of what they earn using it or the community as a whole. 2) "Anarchists" like Noam Chomsky argue that workers are coerced into working for a boss under threat of starvation in much the same way that slaves are coerced into working for a master under threat of violence. It's true that people are generally coerced into working for others rather than going to work because it's fun but the comparison is inappropriate. In the first scenario, you are being cocerced by circumstance to work for an employer, it isn't your employer's fault that you need food, clothing, shelter etc. In the second scenario, your being coerced by a moral agent who will do something to you if you do not comply, not giving someone money for not performing labor cannot be considered coercion, coercion requires action.





I believe that an anarcho-capitalist society would fail or at least be very undesirable to live in (who wants to pay for defense, medical attention, primary school etc. ) but if a group of people voluntarily want to create a capitalist, free market economy, no consistent anarchist can oppose this,so long as their interactions with one another are voluntary and without coercion. I have a moral problem with capitalism, I think a voluntarily communist society would be far more compassionate but capitalism is not an injustice, it's just amoral. Anarchism/libertarianism is a theory of justice, it's a political philosophy and not an economic one. I wish people would understand this.

[thelastindividual]

Anarchists are opposed to authority and coercion, nothing more.

Are we? I agree that "anarchy" is simply any state of existence that lacks coercion, but "anarchism" and it's proponents "anarchists" are a specific historical/philosophical movement and should be treated as such.

1) The fact that the early anarchists were socialists is irrelevant... The fact that the first people to articulate their anti-authoritarian views were also opposed to capitalism has nothing to do with the basic concept of anarchism. The early, self-proclaimed anarchists opposed communism as well.

"Anarchism" doesn't really mean anything. It's really just a garbled string of syllables that we've attached meaning to. You can mess around with fancy greek words all you want, it still won't objectively make it mean anything. As I said above anarchism is not an abstract theoretical concept but a definite historical trend and the fact that the majority of people within that trend and every single one of them pre-1960's was anti-capitalist is pretty damning.

Also there were anarcho-communists quite early on - Joseph Déjacque for example. And anarcho-communism can clearly be observed as arising out of the historical anarchist movement. Anarcho-capitalism on the other hand was first theorised by a man who had no connections to anarchism, whose previous political affiliation was with small government free marketeers such as Von Mises, and whose anarchism was arived at not as a result of any sort of interaction or engagement with the historical anarchist movement, but by taking his thoughts on economics inherited from Von Mises to their logical conclusion. The most tenuous link you could probably find is his article on Spooner and Tucker in which he clearly distances himself from their economics despite mild praise for their general outlook.

And of course if we look at anarchism as a movement rather than an abstract idea that exists in people's heads then we find that historically the vast majority of self-described anarchists have been anarcho-communists. You would be hard pressed to even find a mutualist in the real world, let alone a full on ancap. In fact most of them seem to confine their activities to the internet and have little to no political organisation apart from the libertarian party which as of the 2008 Denver accord explicitly states that the government has a legitimate role to play in protecting rights.

2) The distinction that anarcho-socialists make between private property and personal possesions is meaningless and arbitrary.

The distinctions anarcho-communists make between personal possesions and property in general are indeed arbitrary and based on some rather amusing jumping through intellectual hoops to get around the fact that any scheme of ownership is going to be a scheme of property (Property being generally defined as something that you own). However any scheme of ownership is not necessarily a scheme of property rights nor of private property.

Property rights are written in stone. However the arrangements in anarcho-communism are purely social. Private property moreover is the explicit set in stone and exclusive right to an object. In anarcho-communism everything is de jure (i.e legally, though there are no express property laws of course ) owned by everyone so there is no private property. There are social relations of ownership which mean that certain people are allowed to claim right over something more than others for purposes of convenience, but these are fluid arrangements and not set in stone unlike private property.

we need to recognize that certain things rightfully belong to other people.

Quite an assertion. Can you prove this with any kind of legimitate argument that doesn't resolve into utilitarianism (A grounds on which private property would still fail)?

Need I remind you of the first self-described anarchist work in history?

In a society without central planners, nobody can come along and say that when my personal possession becomes economically productive

Who ever suggested that?

What is being argued by anarcho-communists has nothing to do with productivity. It is about resources and some people suffering unnecessarily as a result of being denied them. Many people are being denied basic rights such as the right to life in order to uphold the sacred "right to property". This is obviously totally absurd.

it is no longer my personal possession but the rightful property of the people I allow access to in exchange for part of what they earn using it or the community as a whole.

Why should anyone exact tribute for work done in the past?

2)

lol, I think you mistyped that one

"Anarchists" like Noam Chomsky

Why the quotation marks? Because professor Chomsky is infintely more consistent in his analysis than people who would uphold the sacred capitalist right of property such as yourself, so you feel the need to call his credentials into question because you've become so blinded by this dogma that you uphold it as eternal truth and argue that anyone who has their property taken from them is being "coerced" even where their ownership of such things is forcing a large majority of the population to sell their lives hour by hour to them?

it isn't your employer's fault that you need food, clothing, shelter etc. I

But it clearly is since they're the ones who've managed to hoard all the resources for themselves (Usually through countless acts of underhandedness and occasionally outright theft) and declare the right to property sacrosanct in order to dupe people into believing that their impoverishment has nothing to with them when it clearly does. Dupes such as yourself who even claim to be anarchists whilst bowing before the almighty god of "private property".

You are also ignoring the unrelated to anarchist "principles" but still entirely valid argument that the employer-employee relationship is exploitative.

Anarchism/libertarianism is a theory of justice,

Although I have already shown how this is incorrect if it were true I would of course point out that Justice is, as Bertrand Russell says, equality.

I'd like to take the time to point you and everyone else who still needs convincing that "anarcho"-capitalism would be a disaster in the direction of this book which was just pointed out to me on RevLeft:


(The image is clickable)

[African_Prince]

Are we? I agree that "anarchy" is simply any state of existence that lacks coercion, but "anarchism" and it's proponents "anarchists" are a specific historical/philosophical movement and should be treated as such.

Now we're playing with semantics. An anarchist is someone who advocates anarchy, anarchism is the philosophy that anarchy is just and desirable. If you want to identify the specific tradition of anarcho-socialists say just that - anarcho socialism.

And of course if we look at anarchism as a movement rather than an abstract idea that exists in people's heads then we find that historically the vast majority of self-described anarchists have been anarcho-communists.

See previous reply. Again, what economic system self-described anarchists have historically identified with is irrelevant.

The distinctions anarcho-communists make between personal possesions and property in general are indeed arbitrary and based on some rather amusing jumping through intellectual hoops to get around the fact that anything that any scheme of ownership is going to be a scheme of property. However any scheme of ownership is not necessarily a scheme of property rights nor of private property.

Property rights are written in stone. However the arrangements in anarcho-communism are purely social. Private property moreover is the explicit set in stone and exclusive right to an object. In anarcho-communism everything is de jure (i.e legally, though there are no express property laws of course ) owned by everyone so there is no private property. There are social relations of ownership which mean that certain people are allowed to claim right over something more than others for purposes of convenience, but these are fluid arrangements and not set in stone unlike private property.

There is no objective criteria we can use to determine what someone rightfully own which is why I admit that property is socially constructed. If everything belongs to everyone who is considered members of a group, they have equal decision making power in regards to the use of what they collectively own but this is as meaningful as saying that a woman's husband has just as much say in whether or not she has an abortion as she does. They can't have equal say, one decision has to outrule the other when it comes down to it. If we both own a laptop and we want to use it at the same time, who decides who gets to use it? Again, there's no objective criteria and this will always be a problem, in *any* economic system, but it's reasonable that something belongs to someone if they have a claim to either discovery or modification or inherited/purchased it from someone who does. Your 'social relations of ownership', this is the meaningless distinction I was talking about. Who decides which certain people are allowed to claim the right over something for 'purposes of convenience'? We don't equally own something if you have more of a right to determine how it should be used than I do.

Quite an assertion. Can you prove this with any kind of legimitate argument that doesn't resolve into utilitarianism (A grounds on which private property would still fail)?

See previous reply. We cannot live in a world where anyone can walk in to your house and eat your food because everything is collectively owned (or not owned by anyone). No two people can own something equal and only individuals, not groups, have a right to the fruit of their labour or rights of any kind. If you don't mind living in such a world then you can't criticize capitalism as unjust because you have no more of a right to decide what is done with a factory than a factory owner does.

Who ever suggested that?

I build up a factory with my bare hands, it is the fruit of my labor (or the fruit of the labour of someone I inherit it from). According to most of the traditional anarchists, I have no right to usurp income that people I allow access to my factory make because it rightfully belongs either to the workers or to the community.

What is being argued by anarcho-communists has nothing to do with productivity. It is about resources and some people suffering unnecessarily as a result of being denied them.

This is why I consider capitalism to be morally undesirable but as far as people being denied these resources, who do they rightfully belong to to say what they *should* be distributed? The only reasonable criteria for determining how a resource should be used, I think, is labour (I mean in making something economically productive to begin with) or inheriting a resource from someone who created that resource through labour.

Many people are being denied basic rights such as the right to life in order to uphold the sacred "right to property". This is obviously totally absurd.

It is absurd, morally, but I'm not convived that capitalism is an injustice. You can't define rights in terms of what you should have, you can only define rights in terms of what should not be done to you. If you are dying of thirst, someone can not be faulted (from a justice point of view) for not giving you water. You can't violate someone's right through inaction, only through action (like raping or killing them). Nobody has a 'right' to food, the world isn't set up for our benefit. If that sounds callous, I'm speaking from a justice point of view. Morally, it's our duty to do as much as people to increase the standard of living for all sentient beings.

Why should anyone exact tribute for work done in the past?

As you have a right to do what you want to do with your body, you should have a right to the fruit of your labour (something you perform with your body).

Why the quotation marks? Because professor Chomsky is infintely more consistent in his analysis than people who would uphold the sacred capitalist right of property such as yourself, so you feel the need to call his credentials into question because you've become so blinded by this dogma that you uphold it as eternal truth and argue that anyone who has their property taken from them is being "coerced" even where their ownership of such things is forcing a large majority of the population to sell their lives hour by hour to them?

Noam Chomsky thinks he's justified in slapping children to teach them not to cross the street. Surely, there are other ways to explain to a child that they can be harmed if they cross the street without a grown up. How is that anarchism? According to Chomsky, anyone who gets off on porn is "sick" because even if women (surprise, surprise, he has nothing to say about male pornstars) do sex work consensually, they are always being objectified/exploited by the evil, capitalist dictators. How is this libertarian rather than authoritarian? I think my argument is consistent and I think it's perverted to compare employer-employee relationsyhips to 18th century chattel slavery. Not providing someone with resources they need is not coercion, single-minded and uncaring, yes, but coercion is 'do this or I will harm you'. A meaningful definition of coercion has to be described in positive terms.

But it clearly is since they're the ones who've managed to hoard all the resources for themselves (Usually through countless acts of underhandedness and occasionally outright theft) and declare the right to property sacrosanct in order to dupe people into believing that their impoverishment has nothing to with them when it clearly does. Dupes such as yourself who even claim to be anarchists whilst bowing before the almighty god of "private property".

I respect your argument but I think this is rhetoric. They're just people, you make them out to be bigger than normal people, as though all humans can be neatly defined by their economic class and there's some conspiracy by the upper classes to shit on the lower class. It's a mystical way of looking at the world.

You are also ignoring the unrelated to anarchist "principles" but still entirely valid argument that the employer-employee relationship is exploitative

.

The employer-employee relationship is exploitative but it's a relationship that an employee can discontinue without any positive consequences, the same is not true for the slave owner-slave relationship. Capitalists do not have to give you money anymore than a man/woman you are attracted to has to have sex with you. I myself would have said something like "no human can rightfully be considered the owner of any natural resource, regardless of modificiation/discovery so capitalists don't rightfully own means of production" but even if this (the first part, human ownership being arbitrary and socially constructed) were true, and it is from an objective standpoint, workers have no more of a right to means of production than capitalists do. Since determining what you own is arbitrary no matter what kind of an economic system we live in, it should be based on the time and effort you spend producing something economically useful with what we almost all agree you rightfully own - your body.

Although I have already shown how this is incorrect if it were true I would of course point out that Justice is, as Bertrand Russell says, equality.

There are different kinds of equality. Anarchism is political egalitarianism. All humans are not equally intelligent, creative, attractive, kind etc. but we are all equal in deserving the right to control our own bodies and live. Political egalitarianism may not lead to economic egalitarianism but it's the most basic kind of equality there is.

I'd like to take the time to point you and everyone else who still needs convincing that "anarcho"-capitalism would be a disaster in the direction of this book which was just pointed out to me on RevLeft:


(The image is clickable)

I agree that anarcho-capitalism would probably be a disaster which is why I'm an anarcho-communist but it wouldn't be an injustice. A common response to libertarianism/anarchism is "would it work"? It doesn't matter. It's justice. Using coercion and violence to abtain money to help provide people with the basic necessities of life (ie. taxation) is an injustice, even if it is beneficial for 'society' at large.

[Insecuritykiller]

What exactly are you trying to say? Never mind. capitalism and anarchism are compatible? Let me share my somewhat unrelated thoughts.

I'll just say this to you. The workers are working, this is amazeing. What we need to do is get all the theives and thugs, and steal all that money back off them and give it to the true workers. We could do this with one simple tax.

I believe further more that we could do without banks and just give a money insentive to a few intelligent individuals to create businesses, selected by those in charge of big business. Then the people who actually run society can also manage the flow of money aswell. Though this is not necessary, and perhaps it is wise to keep those who manage the flow of money and those who know about technolegy seperate. But we can pay them both nicely.

Social democracy could work absolutely perfectly. Lots and lots of things could be funded by the government. The failing music industry and movie industry. Just get the government to fund these! We can have a hybrid socialist/capitalist society and it would absolutly work.

It wouldnt be anarchism exactly. But if the true workers are in charge and getting the benefits of their work then thats a good society. I don't know if this has anything to do with what you're saying.

But there might be some anarchist idea that you could take this to the next level and have it somewhat looking like anarchism. Thats how i think what i'm saying is related to what you're saying.

My idea of anarchism, which is seperate from this is that these people who know about technolegy draw up communist plans and people volenteer for positions within those plans for the benefit of society. I call it a collective investment of labour, that would pay off for all involved. However once these plans are over i believe society can go back to useing work to make a living. So you dont have to think about being an anarchist and you can just go about your life. Useing pure bartar i believe, which is the most anarchist i think.

[thelastindividual]

Now we're playing with semantics.

Actually this is a moderately interesting debate about the philosophy of language and how we should define certain political groups.

Your criteria seems to be simply whatever's in the name. So following your reasoning a "Marxist-Leninist" is simply someone who follows the ideas of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, however this is of course incorrect as Marxist-Leninist's also follow the ideas of Stalin and his theories of "Socialism in one country". Someone who follows Marx and Lenin is generally called a Leninist.

My criteria is how those movements have historically defined themselves (Not how others have defined them - This point is crucial). And of course, if we look back at how anarchists have defined anarcihsm we find the following:

"Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism..." - Peter Kropotkin, Anarchist Communism: It's Basis and Principles

"Outside of the Mazzinian system which is the system of the republic in the form of a State, there is no other system but that of the republic as a commune, the republic as a federation, a Socialist and a genuine people's republic - the system of Anarchism." - Mikhail Bakunin, Stateless Socialism

"...the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism." - Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism

"Anarchists have always argued and fought for the need for working people to take over and run society, to take into their own hands the control over the workplaces." Anarchist Federation, As We See It

If you want to identify the specific tradition of anarcho-socialists say just that - anarcho socialism.

I don't need to say anarcho-socialist (or at least I shouldn't need to) because socialism is implied by the word anarchism since the anarchist has been socialist since its inception.

See previous reply. Again, what economic system self-described anarchists have historically identified with is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. "Anarchism" is not an abstract theoretical concept that exists outside of time and space as some kind of eternal absolute. It exists as a definite historical movement for a form of stateless socialism.

You might want to read up on Marx and some materialist analysis - Ideas do not exist in some abstract nether world devoid of any links to the material world. "Anarchism" is simply a string of meaningless characters which is intepreted by humans as a certain set of frequencies. It is only given a definite form by it's existence and use in the material world.

There is no objective criteria we can use to determine what someone rightfully own which is why I admit that property is socially constructed.

Well I feel you're being slightly inconsistent. You regard property as a social construct and then you turn around with phrases like this:

we need to recognize that certain things rightfully belong to other people.

You could have just as easily said "It is more convenient to live in a society where people are allowed legal ownership over things."

If everything belongs to everyone who is considered members of a group, they have equal decision making power in regards to the use of what they collectively own but this is as meaningful as saying that a woman's husband has just as much say in whether or not she has an abortion as she does.

Eh? First of all men do not own their wives, no matter what Glenn Beck might think. And when a group of people own a resource jointly it is not necessary for them to have equal decision making power. They might intrust the care of that resources into a third party or one of the more trustworthy members or perhaps take turns in making decisions about it's use. In anarcho-communism certain people can be entrusted with certain goods by society in order to allow society to function properly, the only thing different is that this right is not absolute and society can terminate it's decisions to allow that person to have that resources and take it back.

They can't have equal say, one decision has to outrule the other when it comes down to it. If we both own a laptop and we want to use it at the same time, who decides who gets to use it? Again, there's no objective criteria and this will always be a problem, in *any* economic system,

If there's no objective criteria then where are you getting the idea that anarcho-capitalism is justified?

but it's reasonable that something belongs to someone if they have a claim to either discovery or modification or inherited/purchased it from someone who does.

Well this sounds reasonable but first off the claim that people should have a right to the things they discover is a key argument for the concept of intellectual property, an anarchist of any description should be opposed to the existence of government granted monopolies to ideas.

And of course what is reasonable is always going to be what people think is reasonable based on conditioning. We've been conditioned to think that Property is an almighty abstract god which cannot be broken, so when people say that they should own things because of them improving it or discovering it we accept it because of our conditioning. When we break the conditioning we realise that this is all just jibberish.

Your 'social relations of ownership', this is the meaningless distinction I was talking about. Who decides which certain people are allowed to claim the right over something for 'purposes of convenience'? We don't equally own something if you have more of a right to determine how it should be used than I do.

Well there are two senses of property that are being used here:

Property1 - The de jure legal right to property.
Property 2 - The de facto existing property relations.

In anarcho-communism property1 is non-existant or collective. Property2 still exists but it is not a legal right and can be rebuked by the community at any time. We can equally own something in the sense of property1 while being unequal in terms of property2.

See previous reply. We cannot live in a world where anyone can walk in to your house and eat your food because everything is collectively owned (or not owned by anyone).

Agreed

No two people can own something equal and only individuals, not groups, have a right to the fruit of their labour or rights of any kind.

Nonsense.

If you don't mind living in such a world then you can't criticize capitalism as unjust because you have no more of a right to decide what is done with a factory than a factory owner does.

But there are ethical concerns that go beyond such nonsense as the non-aggression principle, which I get the feeling you have swallowed. I can easily criticise capitalism whilst denying property by upholding the one true revolutionary principle - "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!"

I build up a factory with my bare hands, it is the fruit of my labor (or the fruit of the labour of someone I inherit it from). According to most of the traditional anarchists, I have no right to usurp income that people I allow access to my factory make because it rightfully belongs either to the workers or to the community.

The things that people make with your factory would not have been built by you and would not be a part of your factory. Of course you could always close of access to your resource, but then people's willingness to allow you to own that factory would probably dissapear.

This is why I consider capitalism to be morally undesirable but as far as people being denied these resources, who do they rightfully belong to to say what they *should* be distributed? The only reasonable criteria for determining how a resource should be used, I think, is labour (I mean in making something economically productive to begin with) or inheriting a resource from someone who created that resource through labour.

What reason do you have for using labour as a criteria? Reasonable simply doesn't cut it.

It is absurd, morally, but I'm not convived that capitalism is an injustice. You can't define rights in terms of what you should have, you can only define rights in terms of what should not be done to you.

Nonsense. Now who's the one making arbitrary distinctions?

Access to certain kinds of resources are entailed by certain basic rights. The right to healthcare is entailed by the right to life as is the right to water and food.

If you are dying of thirst, someone can not be faulted (from a justice point of view) for not giving you water. You can't violate someone's right through inaction, only through action (like raping or killing them). Nobody has a 'right' to food, the world isn't set up for our benefit.

Nonsense, of course people have a right to food.

If that sounds callous, I'm speaking from a justice point of view. Morally, it's our duty to do as much as people to increase the standard of living for all sentient beings.

Where is the justice in being denied food because fools like you can't shake off the hegemony and see property for what it is?

You seem utterly confused. One minute your arguing that property is socially constructed. The next that no one has a right to food and that this is simply "justice". You simply cannot hold all these conflicting positions at once.

As you have a right to do what you want to do with your body, you should have a right to the fruit of your labour (something you perform with your body).

Again you affirm the "right" to property despite having claimed that it is a construct.

If property truely is a social construct (which it is) then it is perfectly valid for society to redistribute wealth.

Noam Chomsky thinks he's justified in slapping children to teach them not to cross the street.

No, Proffesor Chomsky thinks he's justified in pulling children out of the road to ensure they don't get run over.

According to Chomsky, anyone who gets off on porn is "sick" because even if women (surprise, surprise, he has nothing to say about male pornstars) do sex work consensually, they are always being objectified/exploited by the evil, capitalist dictators.

It could easily be maintained that pornography creates cultural problems in terms of objectification of women even if the women are not being exploited.

I think my argument is consistent and I think it's perverted to compare employer-employee relationsyhips to 18th century chattel slavery.

Except they're exactly the same, you've just mystified it by vailing it in the sacred garb of property (Property was also used as a cover in chattel-slavery, only in a less overt way). It's almost exactly the same, since there is no other option. It doesn't matter how you try and dress it up.

Not providing someone with resources they need is not coercion, single-minded and uncaring, yes, but coercion is 'do this or I will harm you'. A meaningful definition of coercion has to be described in positive terms.

But meaningful harm is being commited. It should be clear as day what the consequences of denying people food is.

I respect your argument but I think this is rhetoric. They're just people, you make them out to be bigger than normal people, as though all humans can be neatly defined by their economic class and there's some conspiracy by the upper classes to shit on the lower class. It's a mystical way of looking at the world.

It's not "mystical" it is in fact quite materialist. Maybe you should read some Marx before coming along and spouting this crap? Maybe you should read some Chomsky on how the elites control people's minds through media propaganda. This is not "mystical" the sacred "right" to property is mystical.

Since determining what you own is arbitrary no matter what kind of an economic system we live in, it should be based on the time and effort you spend producing something economically useful with what we almost all agree you rightfully own - your body.

No, it should be based on human needs.

There are different kinds of equality. Anarchism is political egalitarianism. All humans are not equally intelligent, creative, attractive, kind etc. but we are all equal in deserving the right to control our own bodies and live. Political egalitarianism may not lead to economic egalitarianism but it's the most basic kind of equality there is.

Bourgeois (or "political" as you call it) equality is unspeakable nonsense without at least a roughly egalitarian distribution of property.

I agree that anarcho-capitalism would probably be a disaster which is why I'm an anarcho-communist but it wouldn't be an injustice. A common response to libertarianism/anarchism is "would it work"? It doesn't matter. It's justice. Using coercion and violence to abtain money to help provide people with the basic necessities of life (ie. taxation) is an injustice, even if it is beneficial for 'society' at large.

I have already shown why this is not the case.

[Zazaban]

According to Chomsky, anyone who gets off on porn is "sick" because even if women (surprise, surprise, he has nothing to say about male pornstars) do sex work consensually, they are always being objectified/exploited by the evil, capitalist dictators.

It could easily be maintained that pornography creates cultural problems in terms of objectification of women even if the women are not being exploited.

Beautiful. Just like every other critique of pornography, you assume the non-existence of gay porn.

[jack]

According to Chomsky, anyone who gets off on porn is "sick" because even if women (surprise, surprise, he has nothing to say about male pornstars) do sex work consensually, they are always being objectified/exploited by the evil, capitalist dictators.

It could easily be maintained that pornography creates cultural problems in terms of objectification of women even if the women are not being exploited.

Beautiful. Just like every other critique of pornography, you assume the non-existence of gay porn.

Zazaban's expert analysis once again ignores absolutely everything political in favor of bringing the conversation to sex. Well played, sir, but do you care not whining about sexual conservatism, there's alot more in this thread than that (which, that's not even a sexually conservative outlook, but whatever).

Props, TLI. African Prince, we never considered you an anarchist, not only are you a racist, but you're also a closet capitalist.

[Zazaban]

Zazaban's expert analysis once again ignores absolutely everything political in favor of bringing the conversation to sex. Well played, sir, but do you care not whining about sexual conservatism, there's alot more in this thread than that (which, that's not even a sexually conservative outlook, but whatever).

Props, TLI. African Prince, we never considered you an anarchist, not only are you a racist, but you're also a closet capitalist.

Wasn't the world's most serious complaint, but there isn't much else to discuss, really. The 'anarchism is compatible with capitalism' debate is ludicrous and ought to be derailed whenever it comes up. Especially one that tries to combine nihilism and natural rights.

[thelastindividual]

Beautiful. Just like every other critique of pornography, you assume the non-existence of gay porn.

I'm not assuming anything. I don't need to because I don't agree with Chomsky on porn, but I do think his position could be maintained consistently alongside libertarianism.

[thelastindividual]

Only just found out about this book but it looks pretty good so far:



From the excerpt given here (EDIT: The link wouldn't go in the URL tags like usual, so here's the address to copy and paste into your browser:http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-revolutionary-class-politics-of-anarchism-and-syndicalism-—-book-excerpt/):

...it argues that the broad anarchist tradition was an international movement that cannot be adequately understood through the focus on Western anarchism that typifies most existing accounts. And finally, it suggests that an understanding of the broad anarchist tradition can play an important part in informing progressive struggles against contemporary neoliberalism.

We reject the view that figures like William Godwin (1756–1836), Max Stirner (1806–1856), Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939), and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) are part of the broad anarchist tradition. Likewise, we reject the notion that anarchist currents can be found throughout history: the anarchist movement only emerged in the 1860s, and then as a wing of the modern labour and socialist movement. If we exclude Godwin and the others, for reasons that will become apparent, we include under the rubric of the broad anarchist tradition syndicalists like Daniel De Leon (1852–1914), James Connolly (1868–1916), and William “Big Bill” Haywood (1869–1928). The key figures in defining anarchism and syndicalism were, however, Bakunin (1814–1876), and Pyotr Kropotkin (1842–1921).

The broad anarchist tradition was profoundly influenced by both Proudhon and Marx, but its outlook went far beyond the ideas and aims of both

Side note: I certainly agree with excluding Godwin and Tolstoy. Stirner to a lesser degree. Proudhon was an influence on Bakunin and there were Proudhonists in the first international and the Paris Commune so excluding him from anarchism is kinda stupid though. Don't know too much about Tucker really aside from "State socialism and anarchism" but apparently mutualists and communists used to be pretty close at that time in the US so I'd say it's silly as well.

But the reason Proudhon, Tucker and Stirner can be included is because they actually influenced practical movements and some of their ideas were absorbed into the worldwide anarchist movement. This cannot be said of Rothbard, Hoppe, Block or Long et al.

But the broad idea is correct - Anarchism is a specific historical movement, not a phantom in the minds of western intellectuals.

[Tiecuando]

My only critique of capitalism is that it makes people lazy. And when people are lazy, then it is easier for people who rose to the top to cement their position there unfortunately.

[Anarchological]

If the AK Press view of anarchism is going to prevail, I'm throwing in the towel on anarchism.

AK Press apprently says "We reject the view that figures like William Godwin (1756–1836), Max Stirner (1806–1856), Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939), and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) are part of the broad anarchist tradition."

Communism is totally unworkable. Its command economy has no way to produce thousands of computer parts, the right amount of turnips, jalapeno peppers, and the millions of other things other people want in a logical, efficient, and humane way. So if anarchism is to be synonymous with statist, authoritarian, communism, count me out.

Besides, the actual word an' archism only stands for what I oppose. The word in its orignial sense does not mean Marxism, it means the opposition to authoritarian rules and rulers. It only describes what I am oppposed to; it does not state what I am for, individualism, the freedom of the individual friom government, as Proudhon stated it. So, I am going to reluctantly just stick to an individualist label, and leave the anarchist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-nazi, and all the other anarcho labels for you guys to sort out.

[Tiecuando]

If the AK Press view of anarchism is going to prevail, I'm throwing in the towel on anarchism.

AK Press apprently says "We reject the view that figures like William Godwin (1756–1836), Max Stirner (1806–1856), Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939), and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) are part of the broad anarchist tradition."

Communism is totally unworkable. Its command economy has no way to produce thousands of computer parts, the right amount of turnips, jalapeno peppers, and the millions of other things other people want in a logical, efficient, and humane way. So if anarchism is to be synonymous with statist, authoritarian, communism, count me out.

Besides, the actual word an' archism only stands for what I oppose. The word in its orignial sense does not mean Marxism, it means the opposition to authoritarian rules and rulers. It only describes what I am oppposed to; it does not state what I am for, individualism, the freedom of the individual friom government, as Proudhon stated it. So, I am going to reluctantly just stick to an individualist label, and leave the anarchist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-nazi, and all the other anarcho labels for you guys to sort out.

That's how I feel. Really, a command economy in anarchism?

[Guest]

Anarchological and Tiacuando,
I've read a lot of your posts, and have quoted Anarchological a couple of times. You might check out the Individualist Community forum, and maybe breathe some life into it, or try Anti-State. I haven't seen you posting there.

[Anarchological]

Thanks, I'll check them out. I was thinking about posting in the WendyMcElroy.com discussion forum, but it's more libertarian-anarchist, and t's pretty dead, too. Most people there are hopeless and seem to think Ron Paul is going to provide change they can believe, so there's not a lot of common ground.