Daily Anarchist Forum
June 25, 2019, 09:40:55 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Some Thoughts on the Ethos of Capitalism  (Read 59321 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2010, 01:35:08 AM »

Quote
... deep breath...
You wrote that whole thing and only took ONE breath!!! David Blaine's an anarchist!!!

I think there are some good points here from Veritas Justitia. It is true that the state is part of what drives anarchists apart. Our early life exposure to the false left right paradigm gives us different opinions about where the market "doesn't work." In this sense, the form of anarchy you end up with depends upon the road you took to get there. If you show a democratic socialist something like the Anatomy of the State, you *could* inadvertently push the socialist into AnCommunism.

However, I do have a response to this:
Quote
At the end of the day, being an anarchist means being against using violence against innocent people. In other words, only retaliatory force is politically legitimate (if even that). I see this as being one of the greatest challenges to Anarcho-Capitalism, as well as Anarcho-anything. We must realise that we all feel the same
It's only half right. It's true that anarchists claim to oppose the initiation of violence. But the problem is how we define violence, which further comes down to opinions about property. We consider using force to defend our property to be self-defense, while someone who doesn't believe in property considers the defender to actually be the AGGRESSOR.

I've sadly come to conclude that even though ancoms and ancaps both hate the state, they do so for the exact opposite reasons. Libertarians hate it for violating property rights, and the communists hate it because it doesn't violate them enough (or in the right way). AnComms are just democratic socialists who got upset that the state doesn't steal quickly enough, so they gave up on it. That really explains why their camp just doesn't get economics at all. They grew up on the political leftism garbage about "exploitation." And it's hard to blame them. The average person just listens to all the trash that teachers/professors spew at them during lectures (happened to me today, where capitalism was blamed for people's sense of hopelessness).

So far, I've pointed out another difference between ancoms and ancaps, and illustrated part of the reason why we end up on different paths. Now I want to explain why it is almost impossible to convert someone from one of these camps to another:

Consider a 3D cartesian coordinate system. Economic liberty and civil liberty on the x and y axes. Then the z axis is "Energy." So this is going to parallel a chemistry reaction coordinate diagram, except in 3D. Lower energies are stable, and higher energies are unstable. You can think of a 3D surface of "pools" and "peaks" and "rivers" and "hills" etc... Happens to be that political leftism and rightism are high in energy (unstable) with only small hills between them (that's why people can switch from Democratic to Republican more often than they can from statist to anarchist). The "hills" that trap the statists in both of the major political camps are higher on the outside though, trapping people in the system. But both are very high in energy relative to things like anarchism. Still, not many people come up with the energy to overcome the barrier. Most people are stuck in these pools that are very high up. The few people who overcome end up falling into extremely low energy positions (anarchism of some sort). They are in pools so far down that you can never come up with the "energy" necessary to get back to statism. It's not really possible (unless you never understood it to begin with). However, one can get out of statism along different routes, and the stable position you end up at may just be farther away from someone else's anarchy that it is from political libertarianism. For the ancomms, they are more likely to become democratic socialists again than they would go straight to ancap.....

A little bit abstract, but if you've got the chem background, I think this will be a fascinating way to think about it. I was excited the first time I thought about this. It makes so much sense. I really want to draw a picture of what I think this 3d surface looks like, and then label it and upload it....someone will have to remind me to stay on top of this!!
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Veritas Justitia
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2010, 10:00:50 AM »

well said. I was kinda trying to make that point at the end. I had already said so much, i think it might have gotten lost.

I agree 100%. some people out there who call themselves anarchists surely are not. while we define property differently, that doesn't change the fact that if you look at things objectively, these anarcho-commies clearly think violence is ok to force their version of "anarchy" to exist. if its not voluntary, it isnt anarchism.

i think murray rothbard made a point of saying that voluntary socialism is fine, but without the state forcing people what to do, who would voluntarily form a socialist commune? and if one came to exist, i dont think many people would stick around to long.

josiah warren would be a great example of this. he joined that new harmony commune and couldn't stand it. it was a mess. even voluntarily, it was so against human nature. absolutely evil. he left and became, in my opinion, one of the greatest (natural/absolute) rights theorists out there.

i think anarcho-communes would be just as prevalent as extremely right wing wack jobs grouping together and forming their own society where you cant do hardly anything other than worship the bible and talk about how much you hate gay people and drug use. you see that kind of behavior with mormons, amish, and mennonites currently. at least they don't go around preaching how they have the only solution and we're all evil for not following it.

.. o, wait....

the point i was getting at is that anarchists like proudhon are fine. he wanted socialism (or if you wanna get picky mutualism), but he also admitted that it would be wrong to force people into it. i'm hoping that anyone who feels that way can realize we're the exact same politically. we need strength in numbers. i'd love to succeed and do something like the laissez-faire city. it'd be great to multiply our numbers and do that asap. america is going no where good, and i don't wanna be around when it comes crashing down. its not fair for those of us who've withdrawn our consent from the state to be punished for it's crimes. all we've done is tried to live as peacefully as we can in this system, i think it's time we get out and leave in true peace elsewhere.

also, great visual. that'd be a cool youtube video
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2010, 12:27:16 PM »

Quote
the point i was getting at is that anarchists like proudhon are fine. he wanted socialism (or if you wanna get picky mutualism), but he also admitted that it would be wrong to force people into it
I have not read proudhon, yet I agree with your summary of his ideas. That's really what it comes down to, ancap allows ancomm, but not vice versa. We are more tolerant. Let each side do as they please (and we'll obviously see who has the better living standard!!)

Quote
also, great visual. that'd be a cool youtube video
That's a great idea!! I never thought of doing a video. Once I get the whole ubuntu thing down, I'll get some free video making software and play around (if I ever get enough time......sigh). I'd be sure to post it here  Grin
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
RJ Miller
Full Member
***
Posts: 161


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2011, 09:34:28 PM »

I remember seeing this several months ago when it first appeared. When I get the chance I would like to do a full critique of it as well as everything else this guy has posted on his site. Maybe I publish the latter on this site's blog or something...

I have another idea in mind as well but I do not plan on making it public knowledge here.

Seth, check your email in the next couple days.  Grin
Logged

stateexempt.com - The book should be done by early 2015

Privatize + Legalize + Decentralize
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2011, 09:53:51 PM »

Ok RJ. Welcome to the forum.  Smiley
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2012, 09:42:52 AM »

Quote
Capitalism then is the Darth Vader of socio-economic systems, and socialism is Luke Skywalker leading the revolt against it.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. 
Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!