Ask an Anarchist

[RFC_Viceroy]

Perhaps not "The Market" but market forces have existed long before capitalism and will continue to after capitalism. By some definitions capitalism is itself is called the "anti-market". I don't feel like explaining but search your heart, you know it to be true.

I'm not sure what definitions you are using.

Can you define "Capitalism"?

Can you define "market"?

Are you advocating in any way outlawing capitalism as an economic model, or are you simply suggesting that it would cease existing on its own in the absence of the State?

if a private property owner wants to start a business and structure it in a capitalistic format, is that OK as long as those who agree to work for him do it of their own free will?

 

[Linkman226]

A group of vigilantes appear, become venerated by the people as heroes. Eventually they become nobles and their leader king.

Your belief that people are just mindless sheep is both degrading and demeaning, and your theory that this is how kings arose, via mass popularity rather than mindless bloodshed and the tyrannical imposition of one man's will over the general populace, is not just ahistorical but actually downright anti-historical. Such a thing not only never did account for how most kings and dictators arose, but actually could never have accounted for the overwhelming majority of kings and dictators seizing power in any conceivable reality, since monarchy and autocracy are inherently anti-populist.

 

[Linkman226]

Are you advocating in any way outlawing capitalism as an economic model, or are you simply suggesting that it would cease existing on its own in the absence of the State?

if a private property owner wants to start a business and structure it in a capitalistic format, is that OK as long as those who agree to work for him do it of their own free will?

First question: Capitalism cannot exist without a state.

Second question: No, capitalism is inherently exploitative and the concept of "free will" is essentially meaningless in a capitalist context.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

First question: Capitalism cannot exist without a state.

Hmmm... I don't see why this would be the case. Can you explain?

Second question: No, capitalism is inherently exploitative and the concept of "free will" is essentially meaningless in a capitalist context.

Why is it explotative if people agree to it? And what are you going to do about it?

 

[timtofly]

what is this i dont even

Not sure why such reaction, but wrong thread for question:

[QUOTE="Ask a Reactionary";13490586]A group of vigilantes appear, become venerated by the people as heroes. Eventually they become nobles and their leader king. [/QUOTE]

 

[Hygro]

I'm not sure what definitions you are using.

Can you define "Capitalism"?

Can you define "market"?

Are you advocating in any way outlawing capitalism as an economic model, or are you simply suggesting that it would cease existing on its own in the absence of the State?

if a private property owner wants to start a business and structure it in a capitalistic format, is that OK as long as those who agree to work for him do it of their own free will?

Capitalism is a form of social mediation defined by the harnessing of commodified labor-time in service of concentrated capital accumulation. It has existed for about 800 years.

"The Market" is a 20th and 21st century term to refer a macroeconomy governed by a political system that defers to the logic of neoclassical microeconomics. It has its roots in Ricardo and 19th century England and America.

Lowercase "m" markets are where people exchange things of economic value for other things of economic value. This can be anything. These have existed between 6,000 and 12,000 years. Probably closer to 6,000.

Modern humans are loosely 100,000 years old, mind you.

"The Free Market" and free markets are also two different things. "The Free Market" is state backed "laissez-faire" which is a form of state intervention.

Lowercase "free markets" appear similar, and are what you think they are, places of free exchange of economic value.

I don't think capitalism is an economic model, nor do I think "outlawing" it makes sense as a concept. I think capitalism is a sociological phenomenon that leads to certain economic models, all of which historically have been a battle between real free trade and state sponsored winner-picking. Winner-picking, again, can come in the hidden form of "The Free Market".

As a partner of a small business myself, who has just contracted out a bunch of work making ample use of private credit, I would be a hypocrite to say anything other than yes, I am okay with people entering into free agreements trading labor for money or commodities. I do recognize the system can be exploitive, but I also recognize the system can be fair.

I'm curious why you asked the bottom two questions.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As a partner of a small business myself, who has just contracted about $3,000 of work in the past week

That is an adorable way to describe a struggling musician

More seriously - I find your definitions intriguing, cool stuff
Oh and I think that

I would be a hypocrite to say anything other than yes, I am okay with people entering into free agreements trading labor for money or commodities.

is not true. You can still partake and profit form a given system while not supporting it. Because to not support it doesn't require you to be a selfless idealist. It just requires you to think that you could obtain greater utility in another system, while you still may care to acquire utility in the present system.

It is unfortunate that most people are not aware of such nuance (I myself was not fully aware of it - which sounds ridiculous, but its true nevertheless I am afraid).

 

[Hygro]

That is an adorable way to describe a struggling musician

More seriously - I find your definitions intriguing, cool stuff
Oh and I think that

I'm struggling insofar as I'm scrambling to get funding. In terms of everything else this process could not be going any smoother. I'd be happy to go deep into personal debt but I'm tapped out. Sigh.

But thanks

Oh and I think that is not true. You can still partake and profit form a given system while not supporting it. Because to not support it doesn't require you to be a selfless idealist. It just requires you to think that you could obtain greater utility in another system, while you still may care to acquire utility in the present system.

It is unfortunate that most people are not aware of such nuance (I myself was not fully aware of it).

Perhaps, but I'm gonna do you one better and say that being a hypocrite doesn't define whether or not something is right or wrong to do in the first place.

I could go in as more equal with the people I'm working with, or do it from a non-profit standpoint. By definition aiming to make a chart song is aiming to make an achievement based on sales rather than art, or even listens. And I'm taking a stab at topping the charts.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes I very much agree that it in itself can not say so. It also seems absurd to me to assume otherwise.

And sure you do what is to your liking. We all do one way or another, I agree with Ayn Rand so far I just think we can and should distinguish between values one exhibits in ones personal dealings and the values perpetuated by a given system/structure. Just as we should distinguish between individuals and societies (rather than go all Thatcher and outright deny the existence of the later).
Anyway, I wish you luck. It would be cool if another person of OT becomes more or less famous (we already got someone who once appeared on the history channel, yay!)

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure it does, or at least not to me - could you elaborate?

Well, what I'm basically getting at is that I imagine all law would be something more similar to civil than criminal law. The framework of criminal law considers behaviour in terms of whether or not it transgresses against the state: the actual harm done to the victim (if a victim even exists!) is entirely secondary. The fact that victims (or their families) can take out separate, civil suits reflects this distinction. In an anarchist society, there's no state against which one can transgress, so an law would be concerned with the relationships between people.

The analogy to civil law isn't perfect, because I don't imagine that people would just sit around waiting until a murderer or rapist had a private suit taken out against them. But it gets some way towards the change in paradigm, the shift from a state-centred to person-centred understanding of law and lawfulness.

As an anarcho-capitalist myself I am aware of the difficulties this presents. I'm not asking for an absolute, unchanging blueprint. But from what I understand of anarcho-capitalist societies, the market takes on the role of "the sword" against violent criminals so to speak. What I'm asking is how this works without a market. Or is there still a market even if there isn't "Capitalism?"

Well, people would organise themselves in some fashion, consider the allegations raised, deliberate upon them, reach some sort of resolution, and recommend some sort of response. That's really about as detailed as I can get without engaging in pure speculation, and speculation for which I am totally unequipped.

Let me make it simple. Say Mr. A murders Mr. B. Is Mr. A punished, and if so, how is he punished?

I think that the paradigm of "punishment" is fundamentally authoritarian. It's retribution for transgression against an authority. To "punish" somebody is always to assert an uneven relationship of power between punisher and punished, which is evidently contrary to anarchist aspirations. I mean, you ask if Mr. A is punished, but punished by who? Who is the unspoken authority in your scenario?

I think an anarchist society, like historical stateless societies, would tend to emphasise recompense and security over punishment: that victims are in some way compensated for their suffering, and that we do what we can to avoid the transgressor committing similar acts in the future.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes I very much agree that it in itself can not say so. It also seems absurd to me to assume otherwise.

And sure you do what is to your liking. We all do one way or another, I agree with Ayn Rand so far I just think we can and should distinguish between values one exhibits in ones personal dealings and the values perpetuated by a given system/structure. Just as we should distinguish between individuals and societies (rather than go all Thatcher and outright deny the existence of the later).

In fairness, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Thatcher wasn't actually denying the existence of society, she was denying that society was an agent to which people could attribute their ills. And while this is point-dodging of the most dishonest kind, it's not really the Randian declaration of hyper-individualism that it's taken for.

If anything, Thatcher believed altogether too strongly in society: a society of hierarchy and obedience, in the face of which the individual counted for very little. It's only really since Blair that her legacy has been cast in terms of neoliberal individualism, because her ideological inheritors retained her economic policies while dropping the more overtly conservative policies. People who lived under her government were very aware of how enthusiastically nationalist, racist and homophobic she was, of her preoccupation with "law and order", and of her deep contempt for civil liberties at home and abroad. (Not, mind you, that her inheritors departed from her too greatly on any of these points, they simply avoid revelling in them quite so openly.)

To put it simply, there's a reason why V for Vendetta takes place in a fascist rather than neoliberal dystopia. And just as Moore was telling a story about the future to describe his present, so we tell stories about the past to do the same.

 

[Tahuti]

First question: Capitalism cannot exist without a state.

Perhaps that is, but you have to be more precise in your argumentation. Again, Libertarians believe that property rights are individual and can be individually enforced - including groups of individuals. I'd say Capitalism in fact could exist without a state, though it would significantly smaller-in-scope.

Capitalism is a form of social mediation defined by the harnessing of commodified labor-time in service of concentrated capital accumulation. It has existed for about 800 years.

"The Market" is a 20th and 21st century term to refer a macroeconomy governed by a political system that defers to the logic of neoclassical microeconomics. It has its roots in Ricardo and 19th century England and America.

It is a pretty weird since I would say the market is more broad than capitalism. Markets can be socialist, mutualist and distributist, just as well as capitalist.

 

[Mouthwash]

People who lived under her government were very aware of how enthusiastically nationalist, racist and homophobic she was, of her preoccupation with "law and order", and of her deep contempt for civil liberties at home and abroad.

Not that I want to be taken as defending her, but is there a concrete example of this?

 

[Hygro]

Perhaps that is, but you have to be more precise in your argumentation. Again, Libertarians believe that property rights are individual and can be individually enforced - including groups of individuals. I'd say Capitalism in fact could exist without a state, though it would significantly smaller-in-scope.



It is a pretty weird since I would say the market is more broad than capitalism. Markets can be socialist, mutualist and distributist, just as well as capitalist.

Before one can be "more precise in argumentation", one must be precise in reading.

I agree that markets are more basic, broadly applicable thing. Let's revisit what was removed:

"The Market" is a 20th and 21st century term to refer a macroeconomy governed by a political system that defers to the logic of neoclassical microeconomics. It has its roots in Ricardo and 19th century England and America.

Lowercase "m" markets are where people exchange things of economic value for other things of economic value. This can be anything. These have existed between 6,000 and 12,000 years. Probably closer to 6,000.

And in case anyone missed the distinction, I refer back to it with the word "also":

[...]
"The Free Market" and free markets are also two different things.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not that I want to be taken as defending her, but is there a concrete example of this?

Her consistent and unqualified support for the white supremacist regime in South Africa was one of the biggies.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@TF
Okay, thanks for the info

 

[Tahuti]

Her consistent and unqualified support for the white supremacist regime in South Africa was one of the biggies.

Mobutu Sese Seko was also an ally of South Africa. Does it make him anti-black?

 

[Traitorfish]

Mobutu Sese Seko was also an ally of South Africa. Does it make him anti-black?

He certainly didn't do black people any favours.

 

[Tahuti]

He certainly didn't do black people any favours.

Well, he was black himself. And he definitely treated himself lavishly to say the least, so all works out in the end!

 

[Traitorfish]

The utility monster strikes again!