I don't understand how anarcho-capitalists think capitalism would somehow be less oppressive just because the state is taken out of it. There would still be captialists exploiting workers.
"But all contracts would be voluntary," they say.
"But starving people will enter into exploitative contracts so they can afford to eat," I say. "It's not true consent or truly voluntary if death is your only other option."
@ink_slinger if the state is taken out of it, it won't prop up 'too big to fail' structures that are artificially surviving
@ink_slinger Economic freedom is an absolute requirement for a person to exercise any other freedom.
@Motoma Right, but being exploited by someone isn't economic freedom. If you don't own the full fruits of your own labour, you're not truly free.
@ink_slinger You're right, I'm agreeing with what I suspect was your initial premise.
Capitalism enslaves the poor by dictating their behavior--the very definition of a market failure. Anarchism serves only to expound these market failures.
@Motoma I wasn't sure if we were agreeing or not. Thanks for clarifying!
@Motoma Although, do we agree? I think anarchism is the only way to be truly, 100% free. But not anarcho-capitalism. That's just unfettered capitalism by a different name.
@ink_slinger I guess we do not agree, then. Anarchism takes the failures of the free market and extends them to all societal interactions.
@Motoma If you assume people are basically selfish, yes. I tend not to feel that way (though, on my more cynical days, I do).
Still, full anarchy is mostly an ideal for me. I think, in reality, we'd need something a bit more structure (and, really, anarchy doesn't mean no structure or organization at all). Currently, I lean toward some form of mutualism or democratic/municipal confederation.
@jay I agree. I don't see a meaningful difference. At least under the current regime there is arguably *some* protection from the worst excesses of capitalism (minimum wage, etc). Rightwing libertarianism would remove even those very small protections.
@ink_slinger
The way I look at it, all systems are oppressive in one way or another.
True anarchy can never exists because individuals create rules for their own lives which others are bound to transgress or, at the very least disagree with.
There are very few people in the world with a genuine all-encompassing Live and Let Live attitude to life.
Everyone has limits, whether they like to admit it or not.
@TheWryObserver I mostly agree, but anarchy isn't about having no rules (though, certainly, fewer limits on individual liberty would be better). Any rules would be mutually agreed upon by as direct a democracy as possible. And they'd evolve as needed.
There'd probably still be criminals and rules to enforce. The trick is keep decision making mutual and avoid becoming just another state.
@TheWryObserver In some ways, this is an ideal that may not be achievable, hence people have developed more moderate or reformist ideas like municipal confederalism.
I'm too cynical. I think that Municipal Confederalism is great in principle, but first you've got to get over the natural inclination of people in general to be selfish. Gangsters look more successful than saints.
And if you try to force people to "play nice and co-operate" you are just creating a dictatorship.
I often catch myself thinking along the lines of, "Why can't people just get along for mutual benefit?"
But then I remember reality.
@TheWryObserver Yeah, I flip flop back and forth a lot over what's actually realistic vs what's an impossible ideal.
Ultimately, I think we can be freer than we currently are. But I don't know what that looks like in the end or how far along the spectrum between totalitarianism and anarchism we can actually get before human nature (whatever that is) starts making things too messy.
A fine ideal and a great trick if you can pull it off.
But where there are humans there will always be those who wish to control others and those who wish to be controlled. Or at least, those who can't be arsed whether they are controlled or not.
I've seen collectives, kibbutzes and co-operatives. There always seems to be someone in overall charge, someone who, maybe through a lack of will from the rest, ends up making unilateral decisions.
@ink_slinger How are you going to mediate exchange with others without money?
@NOiDEa I admit I don't have a definitive answer. But there are options: gift economy, common storehouse of goods you take from as needed, etc.
There's not necessarily a need to eliminate money, either. Money predates capitalism. You can have a different economic system and still use money.
@ink_slinger OK assuming for now keep money as most efficient exchange; anarcho-capitalism would be a bottom up system of organisation (peer2peer) whereas corporate capitalism (current) & socialist planned economy (1984) would be from the top down
@NOiDEa I agree with a peer to peer type system, though it necessarily a capitalist one. Worker co-ops, plus mom-and-pops with no employees who aren't part of their immediate family working in a market economy could arguably be fair and without oppression. But that ain't capitalism.
@ink_slinger surely worker co-ops and mum-and-pops ARE by definition capitalist -as they are owned and controlled (freely) by the individuals themselves - the other option is the state has the control (and tells you what to do...and power corrupts...). Surely the former is preferable?
A key nuance for me in defining #capitalism is whether or not the institutional structures center #capital or something else. In a normal corporation, governance power and profit distribution are based on size of capital ownership. In a #coop, governance power is person- rather than capital-based, and profits are distributed prorated by use (hours worked in a #workercoop) not capital investment.
@KevinCarson1 @ink_slinger @NOiDEa You might find this interview with #DavidEllerman interesting: http://www.thestraddler.com/201715/piece2.php
@NOiDEa The workers in these structures fully own the means of production and aren't controlled by someone how merely invests capital without doing the labour. It can be a market economy, but it's not capitalism.
@jay @NOiDEa Are we, or have we just built social constructs that enable greed? We're social animals. In pre-agrarian societies, people have to rely on one another and don't usually try to rip off their fellow clans people (though they'll often have no issues doing so to outsiders). Greed isn't really an option.
(This is where I joke that civilization was a mistake and pretend I'm an anarcho-primitavist.)
@ink_slinger @jay agree - we 'stand on the shoulders of giants'
@jay @ink_slinger @mattcropp yes is a danger with co-ops of smaller and smaller 'ingroups'. However doesn't neccessitate/ justify enforcing top down authoritarian control. Ultimate ingroup is the individual or shall we be assimilated like the BORG?
Better people choose to identify with humanity & the artificial mechanisms are well designed p2p mechanisms: 'think global act local'
@jay @NOiDEa This is why, as an idealist, I'm an anarchist. As a realist, I see something like municipal confederalism as more practical. There's still some order/structure, but it's highly democratic and, at the most local levels, involves direct democracy.
What they have going in #Rojava looks like a decent model, based on my fairly limited understanding.
@NOiDEa @jay Now, for all kinds of deep cultural reasons -- and the fact that they're in the middle of a war -- #Rojava isn't always living up to the ideals upon which it's founded. But it's the closest thing to an anarchist "state" (irony!) since the Spanish Civil War. I'm watching with great interest.
@jay @ink_slinger yes but coordination does not need to be top down is the point https://youtu.be/AZX6awZq5Z0
@jay @ink_slinger yes but coordination does not need to be top down https://youtu.be/AZX6awZq5Z0
@jay @ink_slinger advances in technology are allowing p2p solutions for things such you mention such as speculative capital - fundingcircle.com
@jay @ink_slinger https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html though @rms probably better placed to comment than I
@jay @ink_slinger as before, see fundingcircle.com (or similar) for market for physical goods and services
@jay @ink_slinger wealth transfer will happen by neccessity i.e. when you need food. Natural selection is a fundamental way that nature operates. It selects for the most suited (x) and scale free networks, and inequality (favouring the better adapted) naturally result from this. The question is which is the lesser evil- resultant inequality, or top control and all that inevitably entails with authority, power and corruption ( or a third way perhaps)?
@NOiDEa @ink_slinger planned economy was top-down back in the day because there was no technology to control non-market systems. In a digitally connected, distributed and node-based society there's a good chance planning could occur on a P2P level via secure communication channels (the blockchain?) and result in an allocation of goods and services as good, or even better than what we'd see in a market-based society
@NOiDEa @ink_slinger precisely. The enabling tech is there, what's lacking is the will to detach from capitalism as a system, as most people are afraid and not willing to give up what little safety they currently have
@Antanicus @ink_slinger making myself useful with p2p internet is on my long list of important things to be proactive with that I haven't got round to yet!
Ideas and technology change the world, politics follows
@NOiDEa @ink_slinger stay tuned then, as there are many things happening right now ;) @mattcropp #social.coop
@Antanicus @NOiDEa The fear is real. I talk a big game but, on a surface level, the status quo is working pretty OK for me, so I fear change even though I believe alternative systems would make things better for the vast majority of humanity.
@ink_slinger @NOiDEa the fear is real because the system is skewed against the people. But yes, I fully understand your point. I often daydream of leaving my job and experience true freedom, but then the fear of not finding a job after the "break" period paralizes me and I postpone the decision indefinitely...
@Antanicus @ink_slinger I am trying to make my own product to make the break but I am currently drowning in the 'C'
@NOiDEa @Antanicus I read that as "drowning in cock." Too busy fucking to get to work? That's a good problem to have. 😅
@Antanicus @ink_slinger @Antanicus Ha - it is a hard problem - but it's not THAT hard! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)
@NOiDEa @Antanicus @Antanicus That makes way more sense in context.
@ink_slinger just described the US right there.