Not everyone can own a business for obvious reasons, there isnt an inch of
the globe or "forest"you could live in without being harassed for
trespassing, and buying a plot of land again requires participating in the
system. There Is No choice and this is why anarchy and capitalism are
impossible to conflate in any accurate sense.
On Jul 12, 2016 10:25 AM, "Penny Gaff" <pennygaffgallery@???> wrote:
> The fact is "voluntary hierarchies" dont exist for the majority of the
> labour force stuggling for subsistence. Your suggestions to "opt out" are
> unrealistic. There is no choice but to participate in the system.
> I never understand the distinction between "private property" and
> "personal property". Take away the lunch or wallet of any die-hard
> communist, they will fight against it as much as a capitalist.
>
> Anything that can be used as personal property, can also be used for
> profit. Your home coffee machine is a consumer good. Open up a coffee shop
> and it is now a "means of production". In real life, there is no valid line
> between personal property and private property, or a consumer good or a
> means of production. If I'm using my computer to watch movies online, then
> it is a consumer good. If I use it to build web sites and get paid, it is
> my "means of production". If I hire a freelancer on upwork for graphic
> design, now am I a "capitalist exploiting worker"?
>
> Capitalists oppressing workers is based on long debunked theory of "labor
> theory of value".
>
> Labor has no inherent value. You can dig a hole in the ground half a day,
> then fill it back the rest of the day, and will have worked hard, but will
> have achieved nothing of value.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A
>
> I have no problem with voluntary hierarchies. Some employee joining a
> company in a voluntary way. I have a problem with top-to-bottom enforced
> violent hierarchies.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Penny Gaff <pennygaffgallery@???>
> wrote:
>
>> hmm im afraid Capitalism isnt voluntary except in the myopic sense
>> suggested above. Either you participate in capitalism or starve, this is
>> not a choice. Profit, the foundation of capitalism, is inherently
>> exploitative. Extracting surplus value from labour is exploitation. Where
>> ever there is exploitation there is by definition hierarchy.
>>
>> The problem here I think is the definition of anarchy. It seems venture
>> capitalists have hijacked the term as a synonym for "free" as in "free
>> market" which unless you are a business tycoon has nothing to do with
>> freedom
>>
>> _____"Penny and Pablo, does your view of Anarchy have some sort of
>> property rights? If you and your entire family travel to visit family for
>> a month do you still have a claim to your home when you return? " _____
>>
>> tough question about property ownership. I think it is worth examining
>> whether someone would want to occupy a property that is clearly someone
>> elses "home" just beacuse it lies empty for a month. Its not really my
>> perception of ownership that validates the ownership rather others who
>> respect the fact me andmy family have lovingly tended,maintained and
>> improved a place with heart and soul, so the place becomes sacred and the
>> family become indigenous to it, signifying "ownership".
>>
>> Esentially private property is problematic and needs rethinking, private
>> property isnot to be confused with personal property as in pocessions which
>> is a different matter and perfectly acceptable in my view.
>> I think the definition of capitalism here is the problem. One side
>> seems to think the capitalism in the term means it's a top down systemic
>> economic system that is about hierarchies where socialism is about flat
>> structures.
>>
>> While the other side is referring to capitalism as if it refers to a
>> bottom up system based on 1 to 1, voluntary free market interactions where
>> each side will only trade if they perceive it to be in their best interest.
>> The "anarchy" refers to a lack of monopolistic hierarchies who could force
>> one-sided trades to happen. Lacking force a trade cannot happen when one
>> party perceives themselves to be worse off from trading than if they had
>> not traded)
>>
>> I think most self identifying anarcho-capitalists are using the term in
>> the latter sense while the people saying they don't make sense are thinking
>> in terms of the former. Perhaps this is the disconnect?
>>
>>
>> Penny and Pablo, does your view of Anarchy have some sort of property
>> rights? If you and your entire family travel to visit family for a month
>> do you still have a claim to your home when you return?
>>
>> Adam B. Levine
>> Editor-in-Chief
>> The Let's Talk Bitcoin! <http://www.letstalkbitcoin.com/> Show
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Penny Gaff <pennygaffgallery@???>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Anarcho-capitalism is surely an oxymoron. Anarchy operates without
>>> hierarchy, capitalism is fundamentally based on hierarchy. So how can the
>>> two possibly be conflated?
>>> On Jul 11, 2016 7:44 PM, "psy" <epsylon@???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Amir:
>>>> > Pablo, you made a good outline for a general anarchist theory which
>>>> > still needs some development because it leaves out a path for creating
>>>> > this society from our current context. Bookchin has very strong
>>>> > arguments for a sort of federal democracy by creating civil society
>>>> > movements that take political power through local municipalities. In
>>>> > Catalonia for instance, there's an anarchist cooperative we work with
>>>> > called the CIC (http://cooperativa.cat) organizing small local
>>>> > businesses and cooperatives to evade the economic system through
>>>> > economic disobedience, such as using the law to avoid paying tax (like
>>>> > the big corporations do). The Kurdish movements in Turkey switched
>>>> from
>>>> > a struggle for de jure independence to a struggle for de facto
>>>> > independence heavily influenced by Bookchin's ideas of libertarian
>>>> > municipalism.
>>>> >
>>>> > Bookchin's ideas are refreshing because they point to a real path to
>>>> > political power that is actually very contemporary and being employed
>>>> by
>>>> > anarchist groups in multiple places. Combined with free market
>>>> mutualist
>>>> > or syndicalist ideas which give a path to economic power, and we have
>>>> a
>>>> > solution for strong thriving anarchist societies. The key is civil
>>>> > society development and this is where the postmodernists like
>>>> Nietzsche
>>>> > or Foucault have a massive contribution that point to big flaws in the
>>>> > fabric of our moral systems that are life-denying and the propensity
>>>> for
>>>> > lying through rationalist positivism (which makes Objectivism look
>>>> > ridiculous). Philosophy influences scientific development and rational
>>>> > truth- words like central planning, command and control economy, and
>>>> ...
>>>> > are old fashioned today. Instead we're more likely to use words like
>>>> > tipping point, butterfly effect, ...
>>>> >
>>>> > Ours is an age of movement, uncertainty and transition. By necessity
>>>> > anarchism has to change with the times. It feels that this age of
>>>> > materialist Marxism has tainted anarchist thought since Proudhon,
>>>> making
>>>> > anarchism anachronistic and dogmatic at times. That's not to say that
>>>> > anarcho-communism has nothing valuable to offer. The liberating thing
>>>> > about anarchism is that every strain of anarchism (even
>>>> > anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism) tells us new interesting
>>>> > things, and offers up new strategies and tactics for fighting
>>>> > authoritarianism.
>>>> >
>>>> > By saying you are a proponent of anarcho-communism or
>>>> anarcho-capitalism
>>>> > means you believe that questions of class and economy are the most
>>>> > important issues- not our ethics, how we administrate and govern, the
>>>> > relations between people and culture. However one philosophy gives us
>>>> a
>>>> > history of experience for organizing economically. The original
>>>> > criticism of capitalism emerged from Proudhon, the anarcho-syndicalist
>>>> > and first person to call themselves an anarchist.
>>>> >
>>>> > The other philosophy gives us practical tools like Bitcoin, smart
>>>> > contracts and agorism. It also teaches us about economics and the
>>>> > destructive role played by central banks and corrupt government
>>>> > intervention in the economy. These are all useful, valuable ideas and
>>>> we
>>>> > should not reject ideas completely without studying them all first,
>>>> and
>>>> > then you deciding what to take, and what to leave.
>>>>
>>>> +1.
>>>>
>>>> Really nice explained mentioning Bookchin as a point to start.
>>>>
>>>> We can also talk about some opposite views: Freud.
>>>>
>>>> His theories are directly related with individualism ("I", "super-I",
>>>> etc..) which are intrinsically related, from a humanistic point of view,
>>>> with capitalism methods.
>>>>
>>>> Nietzsche... +1
>>>>
>>>> What about capitalistic dogma: "More Benefit for Less Cost"?
>>>>
>>>> Can an "anarcho-capitalist" tell me that follows that doctrine by using
>>>> contemporary market to engage anarchism?.
>>>>
>>>> Aren't they hidden "neoliberalism"?. For that to read
>>>> "anarcho-capitalism" for me sounds confusing.
>>>>
>>>> To be pragmatic doesn't means to be individualistic. Collaborative
>>>> pragmatism is a powerful tool. And capitalism, almost as I am realizing
>>>> it, trying to be as most objetivist as possible, is fundamentally based
>>>> on forgive problems derived by manufacture, such as plastics, CO2
>>>> emissions, etc, but also slavery processes on "third development"
>>>> countries like de-localization, tax evasions, etc...
>>>>
>>>> I think it is really easy to talk about "anarcho-capitalism" from a
>>>> social classes point of view. Mostly if you are on the Occident part
>>>> because capitalism has indeed "bourgeoisie".
>>>>
>>>> What about "anarcho-bourgeoisie"?.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe "anarcho-capitalists" are confused with "anarcho-bourgeoisie"
>>>> which is more related with Marx's anarchists doctrines...
>>>>
>>>> > psy:
>>>> >> You will cannot practice never anarchism by using capitalism.
>>>> >> You always will be subjugated to market rules which are really
>>>> >> anti-socials.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's a very dogmatic thing to say. How do you feel about projects
>>>> > organized by the Catalan cooperative which are using the free market
>>>> to
>>>> > support socialist projects. Are they not practicing anarchism because
>>>> > they are using capitalism?
>>>>
>>>> Well. I am agree with an interventionist market in which products and
>>>> services are directly related with the ecological/human problems they
>>>> cause to be made. Before and after consume them.
>>>>
>>>> I am not agree with "free" market rules. Almost, with actual neo-market
>>>> doctrine based at offer/demand. I am agree with engage nature/humanity
>>>> more up than "tagged projects", etc. So social/cooperative individuals
>>>> greater than social technocracies.
>>>>
>>>> For that I on the way of that Catalan cooperative ideas. I just only
>>>> remarking that needs more next steps to be done. And that is not
>>>> "anarcho-capitalism" what they are trying.
>>>>
>>>> > If you like cooperatives, then you are supporting non-authoritarian
>>>> > socialism.
>>>>
>>>> Even mutualism. +1.
>>>>
>>>> > Nietzsche teaches us that we can create our own moral systems. There
>>>> is
>>>> > nothing authoritative or intrinsically right. Just societies and
>>>> values.
>>>> > And this is where it gets exciting- the Kurds are postmodernists. When
>>>> > you say this or that isn't anarchism remember Wikipedia:
>>>> >
>>>> > "Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism
>>>> > does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world
>>>> > view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy."
>>>> >
>>>> > "Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are
>>>> > mutually exclusive."
>>>> >
>>>> > Different strategies and tactics from different schools of anarchism
>>>> can
>>>> > be used side by side, and mixed together in different ways to create
>>>> new
>>>> > societies with different values. Anarchism is far too rich to reduce
>>>> it
>>>> > down to a single school or even reject recognized schools in their
>>>> entirety.
>>>>
>>>> Totally agree.
>>>>
>>>> I just putting in context what "anarcho-capitalism" is giving to that
>>>> theories/practices.
>>>>
>>>> By the moment, I cannot see any good one to follow it at the point to
>>>> self-tag me as: "an anarcho-capitalist".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] Anonymous - Official…
