Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Post-Leftist Anarchy

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by antitude420, Jun 20, 2010.

  1. antitude420

    antitude420Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    So, what are your thoughts on this matter?

    (And can someone explain it to me in a simple way, wikipedia isn't working for me right now :D )
     

  2. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    63

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    What the fuck is this stupid term ? another invention by the anarcho-capitalists too scared to call themselves anarcho-capitalists ???

    Anarchism is leftish, end of the story. Usually only the anarcho-capitalists reject the left...

    EDIT: Ok well after going to wikipedia i discovered a very weird definition... It's the first time i heard this term, it simply doesnt exist in french language

    some quotes by wikipedia:


    From what i read here, this is definatly leftish politics. I think they just want to dissociate themselves with the INSTITUTIONAL left politics, i.e. leftish partys and the reformist left... Which most of the anarchist would agree to.

    They are influenced by leftish ideas, leftish philosophers and they talk about leftish anarchism examples (spanish revolution, etc)...

    It's just another stupid useless term in the anarchist divisions.... Now i understand why Errico Malatesta called for an "anarchist without qualicatives / anarchist without adjective" movement....
     
  3. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    But they do raise some interesting points that are worth evaluating if just for the self questioning Ungov, though I do agree it is another way of labeling and division....
     
  4. antitude420

    antitude420Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    Yea...

    I don't know I just find this movement weird and I don't think it brings any light or solutions, rather than that it just criticizes and associates with anarcho-primitivists and individualists, both of whom I don't really agree with.

    I've always been an anarcho-syndicalist/communist and will probably be forever :)
     
  5. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     
    thanks for the edit there cause i'm pretty sure i'm one of the few anarcho-capitalists(though i don't generally like to use that term) thats actually supportive of the post-left school of thought, it's generally pretty anti-capitalist. anarcho-capitalists also don't necessarily reject the left unless you're using the term "left" to exclusively refer to marxist ideals. most modern anarcho-capitalists/market anarchists/voluntaryist's consider themselves to be left-libertarian. when murray rothbard created the idea of anarcho-capitalism he was pretty heavily influenced by a lot of leftist's. he even advocated the seizure of state and corporate property by workers and students(http://williamgillis.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ng-is.html).
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    63

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Anarcho-capitalist ? What the hell are you doing here ?
     
  7. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Oh dear, all the worst tendencies in anarchism rolled into one big pile of shit, with a pretentious name to go with it, lol.
    Let's rephrase: 'non-left non-anarchist post-modern bourgeois intellectual masturbation'

    BTW Anarcho-Capitalism :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: do you not find it difficult to have a politics whose name is a contradiction in terms?
     
  8. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     

    i'm actually a voluntaryist which is a term thats been around a little longer then anarcho-capitalist and emphasizes a slightly different philosophy but it is generally synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, in that it is a form of free market anarchism. voluntaryism however does not specifically require anyone to be a capitalist, but only that all human interaction be free from coercion and conducted on a voluntary basis. we have no problem with people choosing to be communists and living communally so long as they respect the rights of anyone who choses not to embrace that lifestyle to live as they chose. the ideas of mutual aid and mutualism are actually pretty popular amongst most voluntaryists these days.

    as far as what the hell am i doing here goes, well, i was just looking for digital copies of a lot of my vinyl without having to buy a usb turntable and the forums caught my eye. i thought it was at least somewhat obvious from my other posts that i was at least slightly pro-market.
     
  9. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     
    again, i rarely identify myself as such but i am of the left-rothbardian school of thought so i can generally be considered one. i have no personal objections to capitalism in and of itself, however i believe in the free market and i think that using the term "capitalist" to describe my views is a bit limiting in that i'm open to communal living, mutualism, mutual aid, barter, and gift economies so long as individuals are free to chose whether or not they want to participate. i'm assuming in your idea of anarchy people aren't free to make that type of choice, leading me to wonder, am i really the one utilizing a contradiction of terms?
     
  10. Valsira

    ValsiraExperienced Member Experienced member


    73

    0

    0

    Dec 14, 2009
     
    Not really familiar with this branch of thought but if they're influenced by Max Stirner then I doubt I'd agree with them on much.
     
  11. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Voluntaryistpunk:
    What you're describing there seems very far from what i've ever read on anarcho-capitalism - capitalism being a system which is, in it's very basis form, a system based on the exploitation of others. How can we have capitalism without someone being a capitalist aka. investing capital into industry? Apart from that, how can we have a capitalistic system, where mutual aid and gift economy functions together with capitalism? Won't that lead to a split in the world, in the creating just another cold-war between two economic systems?

    I'm asking because i'm interested. Even if i disagree with it, anarcho-capitalism etc. isn't necessarily intolerance, which is the only thing i won't be tolerant towards. It sounds to me like you're actually not disagreeing with us that much.
    But i have to ask, how come you support capitalism? It's a system that - we've seen - exploits a lot of people, denies it's own core values (free competition etc.) and creates authority and thereby war and hatred, as well as further exploitation of humans and nature. I find it hard to believe that capitalism can co-exist with anarchy, due to the fact, that possession is power, and capitalism is the right to posses - there by also owning land, historical artifacts, factories and other stuff, which in anarchy would be collectively run by a community. Wouldn't that end with war, since capitalism would buy out the essentials for living from the small communities, and wouldn't it end with some people being exploited? I don't see how this should bring peace in anyway, or remove authority.

    Apart from that, you say that people wouldn't have a choice in anarchism as most people on this site promotes it - but would they in capitalism? Without someone earning little (less than for which they produce), capitalism can't exist - Why would anyone choose to stay in a capitalist system if they are being exploited? Wouldn't people join the communities?
    As i see it, in the communities, a lot of individual systems can occur - some anarcho-syndicalist's don't even deny the existence of money in a anarchist society - yet with capitalism, they can be bought out.

    I'm sorry that became a little long, i'm just really confused about how it is supposed to function
     
  12. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    63

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    This doesn't answer the question "what the hell are you doing here"

    respecting others as long as they respect you, yeah sure, very easy to say in theory but not in pratice. The logical of profit from capitalism is destroying the earth and we all live on the same earth. Also, capitalists want to force everyone to pay taxes so what are you going to do with anarchists who refuse to pay taxes ? Your taxes can't be volountary or else everyone in your anarchocapitalist society will refuse to pay them... There are many many other flaws. Opposite ideas can't live as neighbors in peace...
     
  13. antitude420

    antitude420Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    After reading more into the wiki page about post-left anarchism, I found out that they blantely call "STORES" to what we (anarcho-syndicalists/communists) call "distribution centres". Which is fucking ignorant and insulting! A store involves buying and selling, which doesn't happen there, where everyone takes and produces "according to their ability and according to their need".

    Fucking wannabe, intelectual, rethoric, assholes :@
     
  14. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    So what will be the problem? Hopefully only a handfull of bancrotteurs still believing in the "free" market...
    Why should I support his free business - while I am supported by my local community/syndicate where I have the chance do my thing to support everybody else - FOR FREE!
    My boss is a bit like him, even transfering my union fees so I don't have to do it myself. Grateful as poor me is, I gave him a leather whip and a set of plastic vampire fangs for christmas - for this he gave me the boot, only to apologize three days later and asking me to come back - sorry me, I had to, 'cause there is no real alternative, so I'm still slaving for him. Since then we do little discussions here and there, always with the same un-happy end:
    IF I WOULDN'T BE FORCED TO I WOULDN'T ACCEPT TO SLAVE FOR HIM BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO BETTER THINGS THAN THIS...
    So let's do a little bit to prove we're right - some people may need a bit longer to realize, maybe editing wikipedia will help everyone to reach the happy end a bit sooner, 'till then: PLEASE KEEP ON THE DISCUSSION!
     
  15. antitude420

    antitude420Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    Sorry, I know english isn't your first language, it's not mine either but I wasn't able to understand a damn thing about your comment. Well, I understood you gave your boss a leather wip and a set of plastic vampire fangs, he fired you and then asked you to came back. Not sure about the rest of the post though o_O
     
  16. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Actually the real hard core capitalists are pretty set against paying taxes. That's what set off the American Revolution after all. It's also one of the reasons so many jobs have been moved over seas.
    I have to disagree with you there. My friends all have wildly different ideas when it comes to politics. One friend leans pretty right. Another is pretty left. I think I fall somewhere between both of them. We get all great. Sure there are some heated discussions at times but in the end we are still friends.
     
  17. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     
    if you've met someone who's identified themselves as an anarcho-capitalist who supported the idea of taxation, i apologize, you were speaking with someone who was incredibly confused regarding the actual ideology they claimed to represent. opposition to taxation is a pretty fundamental concept within market anarchism. the anarchists who refuse to pay them, generally speaking, are us. so you're essentially asking me what i plan to do about us when you ask me what we're going to do with the "anarchists who refuse to pay taxes". taxation is theft by threat of force and the funds acquired in this manner are primarily used to initiate force against peaceful people. what good is done by them, the voluntaryist would argue, would be better done by private charity and through mutual aid societies that don't need to utilize coercion in order to obtain their funding. as for roads, schools, police, firemen, libraries, parks, etc. they could all be provided for by the private sector again without the need for coercion, either by private businesses charging a fee for use, cooperatives/collectives(possibly operating off of donations or also charging per usage), or generous private donors may finance a park for public use free of charge(something that happens from time to time even in the current system). without the violent coercive monopoly that is the state, people would be able to cooperate freely to find the best solutions that worked for them and any combination of these possible service providers would be free to exist and compete side by side. i'll expand on these ideas further in response to Shuei below.

    i'm going to start by saying that i actually used to be an anarcho-communist and a glance over my bookshelf would probably have you thinking i was pretty red if you overlooked the ayn rand and didn't think anything of the individualist anarchist tittles. the fact that i now defend capitalism is still a bit of a shock to myself and most of my friends. however, the capitalism that i support, is not the capitalism that we know today. the capitalism we know today is state capitalism, also sometimes called corporatism. anarcho-capitalism is laissez faire capitalism, a completely free market where people are free to trade as they choose.

    capitalism itself is nothing more then people cooperating freely. it's trade where rather then goods being directly exchanged for each other, a mutually agreed upon currency is exchanged for the goods instead. notice that i said currency rather then money, thats because people pretty much automatically associate the idea of money with todays central bank notes and those are a product of state capitalism. rather then being backed by something of actual value, it's printed on paper with no intrinsic value and only backed by threat of force by government that merchants must accept it as actual money. in a free market, there would be no central panks and no government monopoly on the printing of money. merchants would be free to accept whatever currencies they chose.

    at one point in early american history before the establishment of the federal reserve an anarchist by the name of josiah warren(the first american to call himself an anarchist actually) started a store that he called the time store. at josiah warren's time store, his customers paid him for his labor by issuing an I.O.U agreeing to provide an equal amount of labor to him at his request in whatever labor field they were in. this labor theory of value actually got pretty popular in cincinnati and a lot of other merchants started to also accept payment in the form of these labor notes. thats just one real world example of what would be perceived as an anti-capitalist idea, the idea of directly exchanging labor for labor, functioning within capitalism itself.

    anarcho-capitalism itself is really nothing more then an evolution of the ideas of josiah warren and his followers within the early american individualist anarchist movement. these anarchists such as warren, benjamin tucker, lysander spooner, etc. referred to themselves as socialists but were essentially market anarchists. they believed in a right to property(based off the ideas of self ownership as a natural law/right), individual sovereignty, abolishment of government as a monopoly provider of law, roads, and security(arguing for all of these things to be provided by a market system of free competition rather that by a violent coercive monopoly), and the labor theory of value(both warren's and prodhouns concept of it). all murray rothbard really did in creating anarcho-capitalism was update the economic theory of these early anarchists, arguing that labor alone wasn't an effective method for determining the value of a good or service. he was an economist by profession and saw within austrian economics(the school which he was a member of) an economic theory he considered to be the most compatible with achieving individual liberty. austrian economists such as ludwig von misses had already been arguing that government was the sole cause for all market failures and that the market as a natural ecosystem could more effectively regulate itself without adverse effects then any government body could.

    most of the negative qualities you mentioned such as war, denial of it's core values, exploitation of people, etc. are basically the reasons why one choses to be a an anarcho-capitalist, rather then supporting the existing state capitalism. men develop the power to do these things not because of the market itself, but because of government regulations and actions within the market done in their favor. anarcho-capitalists see the state as man's primary enemy against freedom for this reason. without the burdens created to enter in to business by government that protect existing businesses(license requirements, minimum wage laws, taxes, zoning laws, etc.). any man or group of men would be free from needing permission from government to provide services. this might not entirely eliminate the idea of wage slavery, but most people would be free to be self employed and those who maybe didn't have the means to be self employed(such as those just entering the workforce) would have a wider choice of employers and a much higher ratio of employers to laborers resulting in employers offering much more competitive packages to attract laborers. people would basically only be exploited so much as they consented to in this type of scenario. some rothbardian's like samuel edward konkin III have even argued that even those who labor for others in a market anarchist society might potentially do so only as self employed independent contractors rather then wage slaves.

    it's also important to note how property is believed to be rightfully owned to an anarcho-capitalist, as that will address some of your other questions. we believe in the homesteading principle, which means that a person becomes the rightful owner of something by mixing their labor with otherwise unowned resources. property which otherwise already has been homesteaded, that is, other peoples property, can be acquired by engaging in whatever trade agreement the rightful homesteader consents to. that being said, i mentioned in an earlier reply that rothbard actually believed in students and workers taking back land to form cooperatives. this idea was based on the concept that the existence of the state makes the rightful ownership of a lot of existent property, questionable. in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no state, therefore there would be no state owned public property. all things owned by the state would be returned to the private sector, rothbard however felt some things currently supposedly existing within the private sector were questionable because they received large amounts of their funding from the state or assisted the state in acting in crimes against humanity such as manufacturing weapons for it's wars. these institution's rothbard believed in order to rightfully be returned to the private sector should be turned over to the workers within them or in the case of government funded schools, sometimes to the students within them. it was these students and workers, rothbard believed, who were truly mixing their labor with these resources and the owners by accepting funding from the state were accepting stolen money and had no right to what they'd acquired with that stolen money.

    you're probably starting to see, within these basic ideas there's a lot of room for other anarchist schools of thought. syndicalists could potentially play a major roll in returning state funded businesses to the private sector and running them after. collectivists wishing to live communally could acquire land to do so by homesteading unowned portions of land and if they needed anything they were unable to produce themselves they could negotiate trade that could just as easily be paid for with labor or a direct trade of goods as money. we see a lot of these ideas being implemented within our current capitalist society, there's certainly no reason why they couldn't be implemented within an anarcho-capitalist one. i just read about a hospital in brooklyn, ny for example thats now accepting payment for services from artists otherwise unable to pay by allowing them to pay directly with their art. painters provide the hospital with artwork to hang up in their rooms, musicians perform for terminally ill people, etc. capitalism itself isn't a hinderance to people cooperating freely and negotiating trade agreements that work for them, government is.

    hopefully, i adequately addressed most of your concerns. sorry it was so long but i wanted to try to give you a decent explanation that was a little more then just rhetoric. if i need to elaborate anymore on any of these areas feel free to ask.
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    63

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Capitalism, even anarcho-capitalism, is still a monstruous logic of profit. It has nothing to do with anarchism, stop using the prefix "anarcho-" you are just a stateless capitalist. And anyway, if you were an anarchist before then maybe you'd understand that abolishing the state without abolishing capitalism will just lead to an aristocracy of the bourgeoisie. Anarcho-capitalism has no principe of equality or auto-gestion, you are not against private proprety, it has nothing to do with anarchism. As long as people will keep thinking only about the profits, they will keep destroying the arth and the forests just to make money. And i refuse to live with those peoples. Even if you don't live in anarchist society, you are still destroying the same earth we live in. In your society unequality would still exist, the rich assholes would still exploit children and underpay their workers, there would still be peoples dying of hunger while others have everything, etc... This is a big joke, it doesn't have anything to do. It's just capitalism without state, and the bourgeoisie would still have the power it has today so they would quickly take the power. And even if they didn't take the power, they would still have the same economical power they have today. Take only a few multinationals together, and they have more economical power than the government.

    On top of all, you don't even have any historical exemples to back your theory on. This proves that your ideas are impossible to apply. It never happenned and will never happen.

    Sorry but i argued so often with stupid anarcho-capitalist i don't have the patience to do it again. Your ideas are full of shit, you are the shame of anarchism.

    You have nothing to do on this forum. Please read the "who are we" text:

     
  19. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     

    i had a long fight against my own cognitive dissonance so i respectfully understand your outrage. i felt the logic in and of itself would be sufficient without the need for extensive historical references and felt i was already more then long winded enough without including more then the josiah warren story. i originally thought about expanding further on what lead josiah warren to formulate his ideas of anarchism and how that solidified my belief that communism could never succeed on a global level but decided not to. since you brought up the subject of property however and how it's an idea fundamentally opposed to anarchism, i might as well do so. josiah warren prior to declaring himself an anarchist and starting his time store was a participant in robert owen's failed experimental society known as "new harmony". it was the ideas of robert owen and many of his followers that were later discovered by engels, then introduced to marx that lead to "the communist manifesto". marx would have done a great service to the citizens of the former soviet union had he more thoroughly analyzed robert owen's earlier failure at achieving a communist society and drawn the same conclusions that warren had as a participant in it. the story of robert owen and new harmony itself is pretty well portrayed in the PBS documentary "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism" in the first segment, available on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LJEI1egwkw. the documentary doesn't mention josiah warren however. in case you don't want to watch the video, new harmony was basically one of many experimental utopia's that robert owen tried to create upon his arrival in america. it was based in a large town in indiana that had previously belonged to an obscure religious sect originally known just as harmony. the experiment was participated in by many prominent early american progressives and basically was the worlds first experiment in communism. they banned money, property and other commodities. it started in 1825 and dissolved in 1829 due to constant conflict. the participants being mostly intellectuals and having different views on how work and other matters should be addressed, rarely were able to come to a collective agreement on how to handle things collectively and thus, not much was ever accomplished.

    marx essentially sought to correct these problems in his ideas of communism by exploiting the poor and working class with them being less educated and therefore less likely to have dissenting opinions. he would address dealing with the intellectuals by coercion and delegating decision making to a temporary central government. despite not being much of a worker himself, having taken over a decade to write "das capital" all while being supported by the labor of his loyal friend/chump engels, marx did a great job of pushing this idea that surrendering their own individual liberty to the collective good would somehow give workers liberty. they would be free from the oppression of the bourgeois, but required to be loyal to the collective regardless of their own individual desires.

    a decade before marx and engels published the communist manifesto after having been inspired by the ideas of robert owen's brand of socialism and proudhon's ideas on property. josiah warren had created his own idea of socialism using the same labor theory of value ideas as proudhon's mutualism but substituting his own ideas on property based off his experience living in the failed experiment at new harmony. writting of it that:

    it was from those observations during his time at new harmony that lead him in declaring himself an anarchist and choosing to believe in liberty, of which he said, "Liberty, then, is the sovereignty of the individual, and never shall man know liberty until each and every individual is acknowledged to be the only legitimate sovereign of his or her person, time, and property, each living and acting at his own cost”. this is what i believe. if you feel this doesn't make me an anarchist, thats fine with me. i never became an anarchist in order to seek someone's permission to call myself such.

    as far as real world examples in market anarchism go, as i saw mentioned on another thread about anarcho-capitalism, somalia would be the most notable example of a similar concept. however just as any anarcho-communist would argue that somalia is no example of anarchism, most market anarchists would argue the same. the government of somalia fell out of mass civil strife and disorder, not out of any organized anarchist actions to bring about a more just society. the concept of market anarchism that exists there is just the natural form that the market took after the collapse of the state. it's by no means a perfect picture of a market anarchist society and certainly not an example that a market anarchist would give for the actual world they're trying to achieve but it is an example worth citing based off the success it has had for what it is. the fact that the market was able to quickly move to provide services generally delegated to the state and able to provide sufficient improvements over what existed before under state control and what exists within the borders of it's neighbors that still have a state is proof the basic concept can support itself and provide an improvement in quality of life. getting your phone turned on in somalia generally takes 3 days, in nearby kenya it can involve being on a waiting list for a year and their rates are amongst the lowest in africa.

    the american west is a better example and this is a pretty decent paper detailing that http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

    and again, i don't generally classify myself as an anarcho-capitalist so i don't see that rule as being a big deal. i'm a voluntaryist, i take an apologist style approach to defending anarcho-capitalism when i see it being attacked by people who don't seam to understand it, because i understand the fears and personally i don't think rothbard did the best job of naming his ideas. he wasn't so sure of it himself either. hence why he usually ended up referring to himself as a libertarian most of the time.

    i recognize that as the idea exists today the concept of capitalism generally leads to people automatically thinking of rogue corporations ruthlessly exploiting their workers and the environment with near immunity. however, the thing is, corporations only exist because of governments. it's governments that recognize their charters and grant limited liability to groups of individuals that wouldn't otherwise be available to an individual. without the state, you simply can't have a corporation as we have today and in a market anarchist society, businesses would be fully liable to pay full restitution to anyone harmed or any property damaged by their actions. imagine if bp's responsibility in the oil spill wasn't capped at $75 million thanks to legislators working on their behalf back in the 90's? insurance companies weren't so keen on covering them that far out in the ocean if they were going to be fully liable, that was the market attempting to regulate itself, unfortunately government stepped in and fucked things up. rather then being fully liable for the livelihoods of the fisherman who labored in the gulf every day, the surrounding tourist industry, the property damaged, etc. which would be in the billions, they're only required to pay a measly $75 million and as a corporation they're legally exempt from being held properly accountable for the lives lost by their negligence as well.
     
  20. kaoskat

    kaoskatActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    3

    Nov 16, 2009
     
    *ponders* i can see what you're saying, VP. essentially, when taken down its base components, there's little difference between someone saying "i'll trade this chicken for a handful of beans and an hour spent planting them," and someone going "i have raised these many chickens for self and the rest must be redistributed" and then someone else going "i have so many beans, i'm gonna be helpful and plant some for my neighbor." one is direct, one is indirect, both ensure needs are met. it's simple, reasonable and rational to assume that people, left to their own devices, would barter in addition to a collective model; with your re-definition of captitalism, it isn't necessarily a problem and to say that it is pretty much parallels someone insisting that because the fascist communist systems existed, that any communistic society will automatically be abusive. anyway, I get it, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss your pov with Ungov, 'cause it made for interesting reading.

    I think more than ever that Anarchy Without Adjectives is the way to go, honestly. Human experience and human ability and the systems we come up with should never be so absolute as to never allow for flexibility on an individual level, as necessary. There is always exceptions we didn't consider, when legislating for other people and other situations, and where lies inflexibility and absolutes, is the beginning of abuse, power struggles, and war.
     
Loading...