JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in:Secular Sevens
11/8/2013 8:10:19 PM
48
Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • 45 replies Yup the bait is strong in this one

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Florence: 11/8/2013 9:51:29 PM
    Every anarchist from Proudhon to Tucker is an anti-capitalist, then all of a sudden Murray Rothbro shows up and the definition of anarchism magically changes to include capitalists. Right. Also: [quote]Anarchism isn't opposed to private property or capitalism, which isn't at all hierarchical.[/quote] What? Of course capitalism is hierarchical. Unless you think a wage laborer being ordered around by a manager, with the only alternative being starvation, isn't an example of a hierarchy?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/8/2013 10:22:07 PM
    [quote]What? Of course capitalism is hierarchical. Unless you think a wage laborer being ordered around by a manager, with the only alternative being starvation, isn't an example of a hierarchy?[/quote] That's a horrible example. Capitalism is an economic model, not a social construct or form of governance. According to your definition of hierarchy, it's inevitable. Mammals have a hierarchal way of interacting by their nature. Think about neanderthals or even fkn monkeys from 5000 years ago. The baby or child tends to listen to their parent or alpha of their tribe, even tho there is zero govt nor money involved.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism]economic models, social constructs and forms of governance aren't independent of each other[/url] - it just appears that way through the lens of western liberal democracies.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/8/2013 11:27:34 PM
    I think you missed my point. The other guy was claiming capitalism is a form of hierarchy, when in reality it's very anarchic, except for the fact that property rights are upheld, bc the notion that one owns one's property is a given by nature. And I was pointing out some form of hierarchy is also given by nature, and that capitalism isn't necessary the cause of hierarchy.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Seggi: 11/9/2013 12:09:34 AM
    [quote]I think you missed my point. The other guy was claiming capitalism is a form of hierarchy, when in reality it's very anarchic, except for the fact that property rights are upheld, bc the notion that one owns one's property is a given by nature.[/quote] And your dismissal of the idea that capitalism is hierarchical is seemingly based on an assumption that any practice not codified into and mandated by law can't exist as a consequence of other laws, or even as a lack of them. The existence of privately owned and unequally distributed capital necessitates the employment of working people by the owners of that capital as well as a general arrangement of people by wealth - i.e. a hierarchy.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/9/2013 12:11:59 AM
    I refer you to my previous post. Specifically the 2nd paragraph.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • That hierarchies exist in nature says nothing of the ones that exist because of private ownership of capital.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/9/2013 2:24:00 AM
    The notion we're entitled to our own property, and that we own our property, is a given right [i]by[/i] nature and by our humanity. Which makes your statement null. Hierarchy is a part of nature(which you don't disagree with). Private property is a part of nature(which directly supports my argument).

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Seggi: 11/9/2013 6:16:52 AM
    Even if private property [i]were[/i] a part of nature (It's not really - you could only really say that were the case when you're talking about land that's currently being used by the 'owner', in which case your argument would actually be [i]in favour[/i] of collectivisation and worker control of their own production), that wouldn't imply that it's a right all people are entitled to. And, then, even if a right to private property [i]were[/i] a right granted by nature (and again, it's not), that would still not imply that capitalism is not a cause of hierarchy.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownership of the means of production. The hierarchy I gave an example of is entailed by this mode of production. Although I did make one mistake in that post, and that was unilaterally opposing hierarchy. I should specify that I oppose only those hierarchies which limit autonomy, such as capitalism and the state.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/9/2013 2:19:57 AM
    Private property too, is something enforced by law(specifically the Constitution, which I respect it does that, bc it's merely upholding natural rights given to us by our humanity). Again, capitalism is an economic system which is the study of interaction between free individuals, based on their means of exchange, in correlation to the supply of goods and service to the demand of said free people. it has nothing to do with social construct, or hierarchy derived from governance.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • That's not what capitalism is. Like, at all. If that were the definition of capitalism, then the study of Makhno's anarcho-communist Ukraine (which was composed of free individuals) would be an example of capitalism, which is absurd. Furthermore, many capitalist economies are not 100% free, such as that of the US. You could claim that the US isn't truly capitalist, but this flies in the face of what capitalism has always been defined as.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/8/2013 10:59:28 PM
    Just bc a society is considered "anarchist" doesn't mean they follow the same form of economics... And you're right, the US is absolutely not capitalist... Familiar with Laissez-Faire? That's true capitalism.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Just bc a society is considered "anarchist" doesn't mean they follow the same form of economics... [/quote]A study of the anarcho-communists in the Free Territory fit your definition of capitalism, so I don't see what the problem is. [quote]And you're right, the US is absolutely not capitalist... Familiar with Laissez-Faire? That's true capitalism.[/quote]Well I used to be a right-wing ''libertarian,'' so yes, I'm familiar with laissez-faire. Laissez-faire capitalism is one particular form of capitalism (which has not and will never exist), but capitalism is broader than that. I already told you the definition of capitalism--which, keep in mind, is not my own wacky socialist definition, but the universally accepted one. To reiterate, capitalism is a mode of production in which the means of production are owned privately and run for-profit.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Anarchism isn't defined how people act while calling themselves anarchist, and capitalism is not at all hierarchical. Why do you assume the only alternative is to starve? Rely on yourself, find a job you're happy to agree to or begin your own company.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Where on earth do you think the definition came from? No one sat down and decided to arbitrarily define ''anarchism'' just in case someone decided to adopt such an ideology. Its definition comes from what is advocated by those who historically called themselves anarchists, e.g. Godwin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Warren, etc. Anti-capitalism was no less fundamental to their philosophies than anti-statism was. Indeed, the tradition of anarchism was born out of Godwin's and Proudhon's critiques of private property. And I already explained why capitalism is hierarchical, by giving an example of a hierarchy which results from capitalism. [quote]Why do you assume the only alternative is to starve? Rely on yourself, find a job you're happy to agree to or begin your own company.[/quote]I guess this is the sort of privileged thinking I'd can expect from a libertarian. If people could simply find a job they liked and be happy, they would. And it's not feasible to suggest that everyone start a business, and so long as this is so, capitalism inherently relies on the negation of autonomy.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Those people did not define it, anarchism simply means there is no government, anarchism can be interpreted many ways beyond that, but that is the general definition. Just because anarchy has been negative the majority of times doesn't mean it has to be that way. Just because it can be abused does not mean capitalism itself is hierarchical, there is plenty of examples that proves it is not. No one is forced to participate in capitalism, and it can definitely work in an anarchist society. Living for yourself is not "Privileged." It's a right. I found a job I like and am perfectly happy.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Those people did not define it[/quote]They themselves didn't define it, but the definition was a result of their beliefs. Just as how in philosophy ''German idealism'' is a concept which results from the tradition of Hegel, Fichte, etc. If I came to espouse a radical form of materialism and called myself a ''materialistic German idealist,'' I would clearly be wrong to do so. [quote]anarchism simply means there is no government, anarchism can be interpreted many ways beyond that, but that is the general definition. Just because anarchy has been negative the majority of times doesn't mean it has to be that way. [/quote]Nice assertion there. . . [quote]Just because it can be abused does not mean capitalism itself is hierarchical, there is plenty of examples that proves it is not[/quote]I gave an example of a hierarchy which is directly entailed by capitalism (not just some abuse of capitalism). Unless you somehow refute this, then capitalism is hierarchical. [quote]Living for yourself is not "Privileged." It's a right. I found a job I like and am perfectly happy.[/quote]Considering that so many people have their autonomy violated in their everyday lives, yes, living for yourself is privileged (and it is indeed a right as well, in the colloquial sense).

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • It's not an assertion, it's the truth. It's not hierarchical, no one is forcing you to work there, you are agreeing to terms of employment. You told me the result of working, which is the point of working. That's not hierarchical. You have never proven capitalism is hierarchical in the first place, until you do so you're making a baseless claim. The fact tyranny exists is not proof of the contrary. We also have the right to defend ourselves, that is not a privilege either.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]It's not an assertion, it's the truth. [/quote]I don't think you understand my qualm. You merely asserted that, with no evidence. [quote]It's not hierarchical, no one is forcing you to work there, you are agreeing to terms of employment. You told me the result of working, which is the point of working. That's not hierarchical.[/quote]Since there is no viable alternative, and because the means of production are (by coercion, of course) monopolized by the bourgeoisie, yes, you are forced to work there. [quote]The fact tyranny exists is not proof of the contrary. We also have the right to defend ourselves, that is not a privilege either.[/quote]Privilege is when one group/person in a group has a better status than others, or does not face the oppression that others do. I think rights and privileges are not mutually exclusive; for instance, people have the right not to be oppressed by racism, yes those who are not oppressed by racism are privileged. The situation is similar in the case of class.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Saruman: 11/8/2013 10:50:16 PM
    No evidence? Have you never read the definition of anarchy? It's right in there. There IS an alternative and there is no coercion. You are not forced to work, not even for a monopoly which is nearly impossible to do now without government force causing a monopoly. You're not privileged when your rights are inalienable, you'd be subjected to tyranny and infringement when the reverse happens. (Which is why we have the right to defend ourselves)

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]No evidence? Have you never read the definition of anarchy? It's right in there. [/quote]Um. In where? [quote]There IS an alternative and there is no coercion. You are not forced to work, not even for a monopoly which is nearly impossible to do now without government force causing a monopoly. [/quote]For most working class people the only alternative is to quit and let themselves and their families suffer. This is an alternative, but it is not a viable alternative. Furthermore, even if capitalist wage labor were voluntary, it still wouldn't follow that it's a moral system. Voluntary association is a necessary but insufficient criteria for a moral association. [quote]You're not privileged when your rights are inalienable, you'd be subjected to tyranny and infringement when the reverse happens. (Which is why we have the right to defend ourselves)[/quote]>inalienable rights >what

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • The definition, it was posted in this thread. No, their are more options than that. The fact you refuse to see that is your own fault. There's also nothing immoral about it, it's just reality. Capitalism is meant to be efficient and productive to ensure progress in the market. Rights are inalienable, this should be general knowledge. That's why they are natural.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]The definition, it was posted in this thread. [/quote]But you're just asserting to me that that's the definition. I need evidence. [quote]No, their are more options than that. The fact you refuse to see that is your own fault.[/quote]Such as? [quote]There's also nothing immoral about it, it's just reality. Capitalism is meant to be efficient and productive to ensure progress in the market. [/quote]It doesn't have to be reality though, there are alternatives. And so long as there are alternatives, we should choose the system which minimizes suffering/maximizes well-being. [quote]Rights are inalienable, this should be general knowledge. That's why they are natural.[/quote]It's not general knowledge. In fact, that's one very specific view espoused by a few specific philosophers. You're just asserting things to me, you're not actually providing any arguments to back your assertions up.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon