Discussed already here.
Nice docu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH43YHaUGyQ
My views, as I wrote elsewhere:
The term "Socialism" in its original form means: Workers have to be in control of the means of production. That essentially means flat hierarchies, and fully transparent and "fair" businesses. This is no contradiction at all to a free market. That's why much of today's political discussion is based on false dichotomies.
I however don't subscribe to those who want to abolish competition and demand "solidarity". If worker collective A can't get their shit done and produce much crappier shoes than collective B, well then they will eventually be out of business and have to look for something new. You'd need a world-wide planned economy to prevent that, and I'm not for such a thing, even if it's supposedly implemented "democratically". To close the loop to Austrian economics, well the market does not care if the decisions in a business are made at the top by the managers, or crowd-sourced and agreed on by the whole staff.
Topic: Libertarian my ass! - page 10. (Read 9528 times)
Anarchism was founded by Bakunin et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement.
The first anarchists were anarchosyndicalists. That does not mean that anarchism is anacrchosyndicalism.
So, let me posit a situation, and see how you deal with it:
I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?
Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.
Anarchism is against any type of coercive force, and anarchist theorists pointed capitalism as one of the strongest coercive forces in society in their very first works, which you should read if you sympatize with "libertarians" or "anarchists".
Then you can have your own meaning for anarchism, or for any other word: but sticking to the facts, Anarchism was founded by Bakunit et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement. An anarcho-capitalist is like a nazi-jew.
Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.
the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.
That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.
I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.
So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?
That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.
Yes, you can - but you won't argue that capitalism is not based on consumption of self-production. For most of people, breaking with capitalism and just live on what they produce themselves would mean breaking with society... And anarchism is not an every man for himself, primitivist philosophy, but rather the opposite (again: see Kropotkin's works)
If "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, wouldn't anarcho-syndicalism be redundant? (perhaps this is showing that the political system - or lack thereof - is separate from the economic system) I'd also like to point out that Anarcho-capitalism does not forbid mutual aid, but that anarcho-syndicalism would forbid trade. Which system is more free?
Anarchosyndicalism (also known by some thinkers as "anarchism without adjectives") is the specific description of work organization in an anarchist society, wich by philosophical and historical definition would be non-capitalist and would have no state. The prefix anarcho- serves the puropouse of separating it from the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories.
In any case, an anarchist system would never forbid trade. Anarchist thinkers consider mutualism/cooperativism as the natural way of organizing society, but by definition they would never forbid private propriety, trade, or even capitalist entities. One of the core points of anarchism is: free association, and this "no-forbid" theory is why even a lot of anarchists think its a plain and simple utopia, because somehow successful systems impose themselves with some sort of coercition.
EXAMPLE: Anarchist society would have no army: thus it couldn't be protected by enemies, thus will never succeed and always be defeated.
The thing is, capitalism isn't really an ideology as such, it's just a formalization of the way the world works. You work, you create goods, you exchange goods, you have capitalism.
Anarchism, being the lack of an over-arching control, cannot oppose capitalism any more than it can oppose the laws of gravity or, (perhaps more aptly) fluid dynamics. The only way to suppress capitalism is by imposing control from above. Anti-capitalism is antithetical to anarchism.
Anarchism, being the lack of an over-arching control, cannot oppose capitalism any more than it can oppose the laws of gravity or, (perhaps more aptly) fluid dynamics. The only way to suppress capitalism is by imposing control from above. Anti-capitalism is antithetical to anarchism.
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself
Who says?
The anarcho-syndicalist.
I bet he'd kill for a sandwich.
Nope, taking compensation for work is slavery. But he might do it for the joy of it. Work, after all, is it's own reward.
ITT, we discuss the English language and how it's always trying to start shit.
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself
Who says?
The anarcho-syndicalist.
I bet he'd kill for a sandwich.
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself
Who says?
The anarcho-syndicalist.
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself
Who says?
Quote
region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938
First at all, seems strange that
Quote
without any crimes in 7/8 years
because:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
You can read a detailed description of the facts related to the anarchosyndicalist experience in Aragón during 1930 and 1938 in the book below, written by the English historian Kelsey Graham: http://books.google.es/books?id=WjR8mqM0hmcC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
You will discover that anarchists in opposition to a) fascists, b) communists and c) spanish republican state created an anarchist "island" in Aragón where economy and society worked flawlessy (and with NO CRIME) until this experience was crushed by the fascist counter-revolution. These men called themselves "libertarians".
But of course text books, wikipedia et al. will tell you that anarchists were bad people who burnt god-fearing christians. Hey: who win writes history.
the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.
That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.
I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.
So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?
That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.
If you are interested in understanding deeply how anarchists thinks you can feed yourself in a mutualist type of economy, I recommend you:
1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).
If "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, wouldn't anarcho-syndicalism be redundant? (perhaps this is showing that the political system - or lack thereof - is separate from the economic system) I'd also like to point out that Anarcho-capitalism does not forbid mutual aid, but that anarcho-syndicalism would forbid trade. Which system is more free?1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).
And now the short (and superficial) answer: Anarchists believe that, if you work in a factory/field/company - that factory/field/company belongs to you. You (and not the State or a private owner) have to decide how to organize production, and you and your community have to directly benefit from that production.
If I own the field I work in (not an impossibility under capitalism, I might add) why does my community have to benefit from my production? Would that not be slavery? Slavery to the community? And if I have the ultimate decision on how to organize production, what if I decide to organize production in such a way that it does not benefit the community? Anarchists don't believe that you should feed from the groceries you cultivate on your own, that is a common but very mistaken misconception.
I'm quite aware of that. You believe that I should work - and work is it's own reward - and then just give away the production. 
Quote
region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938
First at all, seems strange that
Quote
without any crimes in 7/8 years
because:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
I think the problem is the freedom definition, itself.
Term "liberal",in spanish from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_de_C%C3%A1diz
From Liberal, Liberalism, not opposed to State.
the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.
That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.
I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.
So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?
That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.
If you are interested in understanding deeply how anarchists think you can feed yourself in a mutualist type of economy, I recommend you:
1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).
And now the short (and superficial) answer: Anarchists believe that, if you work in a factory/field/company - that factory/field/company belongs to you. You (and not the State or a private owner) have to decide how to organize production, and you and your community have to directly benefit from that production. Anarchists don't believe that you should feed from the groceries you cultivate on your own, that is a common but very mistaken misconception. Anarchists were born in industrail societies, and their mutualist conception of the economy is tightly linked to industrial society.
the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.
That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.
I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.
So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?
the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.
That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?
Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.
You may think this is unrealistic, utopian, unpractical or anachronic: my point is not to discuss this, as it would take a very long (and interesting) debate, and at the end of the day the fact that an anarchist society is possible have never been proved or refutated empirically*: is pure and simple speculation.
My intention is point out the origins of the term libertarian, and how this term is used in rather a funny way in the US. If in the meantime, if I get only one "capitalist anarchist" to read one of the books of the anarchist thinkers (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, Abad de Santillán, etc.) I will be more than happy.
*this is true apart from very small exceptions, as for the kibutz in Israel or the Aragón (Spain) experience from 1930 to 1938. A very small sample indeed.
OP: Semantic masturbation.
the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.
This is true even if the person works only to feed himself. The highest bidder, in this case, is merely himself. As it happens, trade and the market make each participant's life better. A farmer can have better clothes than he can make himself, and a clothes-maker can have better food than he can grow himself.
That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?
You seem to have an odd - specifically communist - definition of "Anarchism." Let's see if we can correct that.
Nothing about a desire for a voluntary society that is specifically anti-market. Indeed,
Quote
an·ar·chism
noun /ˈanərˌkizəm/
1. Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
2. Anarchists as a political force or movement
noun /ˈanərˌkizəm/
1. Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
2. Anarchists as a political force or movement
Nothing about a desire for a voluntary society that is specifically anti-market. Indeed,
In bold the core of this matter. For Bakunin, Kropotkin and the other anarchism founders, capitalism IS a compulsive force. If you read their fundational works, you will understand that for anarchists, capitalist free-market meant:
- the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death. For anarchists, free-market capitalism was just a form of slavery: "salary slavery"
Anarchists were (and are) AGAINST this as they saw it as freedom-killer.
What I'm saying is that it's kinda funny to call yourself "libertarian" or "anarchist" when you are pro-capitalism. Again: anarcho-capitalist is an OXYMORON. Just call yourself liberal, or anti-state liberal or ultra-liberal: that would be much more appropriate from a philosophic and historical point of view.
Jump to: