The Student Room Group

Any Anarchists out there?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by James Milibanter
I was already much more blunt with this character... I told him to do one, and he appears to have done.


:lol: You seem to tell everyone to go "do one". What that actually means I couldn't say; people don't actually say that in the real world.

If you have constipated linguistic faculties, I could at least suggest some creditable, respectable insults?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
:lol: You seem to tell everyone to go "do one". What that actually means I couldn't say; people don't actually say that in the real world.

If you have constipated linguistic faculties, I could at least suggest some creditable, respectable insults?

***** *********** ******** **** ******** ******** ********* ***** **** ****?
Changed my mind,
Original post by DErasmus
Changed my mind,

In what way?
Why is there no Anarcho-Capitalist or Voluntaryist option?

Also

Original post by James Milibanter
I never said they wouldn't. i might want a nice T.V. and someone might want a nice bike, we can swap, it is in mutual interest. however capitalism works in the interests of massive corporations whom fund the political parties that then make policies that give the massive corporations an easier time.
TTIP for example. Can you stop with this senseless argument, you aren't convincing anyone because we all know that your argument makes no sense. Just go and do one, will you?


Currently existing capitalism may only be in the interests of corporations but you forget that corporations are creations of the state. Without the state, there would be no corporations.

Proper capitalism or free trade is merely the voluntary exchange of property without the use of coercion.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Falcatas
Why is there no Anarcho-Capitalist or Voluntaryist option?

Also



Currently existing capitalism may only be in the interests of corporations but you forget that corporations are creations of the state. Without the state, there would be no corporations.

Proper capitalism or free trade is merely the voluntary exchange of property without the use of coercion.

I offered the option of Neither or Both, which was supposed to be for the many strains of libertarianism. In my personal opinion, I disapprove of anarcho-capitalism and see it as a mere facade for a laissez faire system and Neo-Liberalism.
The poll was ruined when rather than reading the question (which explicitly states that it is for anarchists) they just clicked the option of both/neither as a means of saying they weren't anarchists.
Reply 246
Original post by Falcatas
Why is there no Anarcho-Capitalist or Voluntaryist option?


As far as I'm aware, most anarchists don't consider 'Anarcho-Capitalism' to be a 'proper' form of anarchism, anarchism is not only anti-statist but against all forms of unjustified authority.


Original post by Falcatas

Currently existing capitalism may only be in the interests of corporations but you forget that corporations are creations of the state. Without the state, there would be no corporations.

Proper capitalism or free trade is merely the voluntary exchange of property without the use of coercion.


I'd like to point out that a market economy is not necessarily exclusive to capitalism - though this puts it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJvsyAETqc
Anarchy seems to turn a blind eye on the fact that the majority of people are selfish and for the most part, destructive if not kept in check.
Original post by Comus
As far as I'm aware, most anarchists don't consider 'Anarcho-Capitalism' to be a 'proper' form of anarchism, anarchism is not only anti-statist but against all forms of unjustified authority.




I'd like to point out that a market economy is not necessarily exclusive to capitalism - though this puts it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJvsyAETqc



Anarchy just means no government. There no reason why it forbids capitalism (in the sense of voluntary free trade).

Libertarian Socialism is contradictory, how can you enforce property owners to give up their property without coercion?
Private property has its base in nature as an extension of our own bodies (we have ownership of our own bodies!)
Reply 249
Original post by Falcatas
Anarchy just means no government. There no reason why it forbids capitalism (in the sense of voluntary free trade).

Anarchy means 'no rulers', the implication is quite different. Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on free trade (look at Mutualism for example). From its very origin in the 19th century (Proudhon, Bakunin et al), anarchism has been an anti-capitalist ideology.

Original post by Falcatas

Libertarian Socialism is contradictory, how can you enforce property owners to give up their property without coercion?
Private property has its base in nature as an extension of our own bodies (we have ownership of our own bodies!)


You're ignoring how the term 'libertarian' has been used historically before its co-option by the American right in the 1970s - previous to that and currently throughout the world, with the exception of America and to a lesser extent the UK, the word 'libertarian' has been used as a term for an anti-statist and anti-capitalist ideology - the first person to refer to himself as a libertarian was the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque. And you think that taking away someone's ability to coerce is in itself coercive? The term 'libertarian socialism' (as well as terms such as left-libertarianism etc) are used to differentiate it both from state socialism (particularly of the vanguardist variety) and right-wing libertarianism.

I'd like to ask for elaboration on your final point if you would be so kind, but I think its important to point out that anarchists differentiate between personal property and private property.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Comus
Anarchy means 'no rulers', the implication is quite different. Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on free trade (look at Mutualism for example). From its very origin in the 19th century (Proudhon, Bakunin et al), anarchism has been an anti-capitalist ideology.



You're ignoring how the term 'libertarian' has been used historically before its co-option by the American right in the 1970s - previous to that and currently throughout the world, with the exception of America and to a lesser extent the UK, the word 'libertarian' has been used as a term for an anti-statist and anti-capitalist ideology - the first person to refer to himself as a libertarian was the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque. And you think that taking away someone's ability to coerce is in itself coercive? The term 'libertarian socialism' (as well as terms such as left-libertarianism etc) are used to differentiate it both from state socialism (particularly of the vanguardist variety) and right-wing libertarianism.

I'd like to ask for elaboration on your final point if you would be so kind, but I think its important to point out that anarchists differentiate between personal property and private property.



I am aware that traditional anarchists were like that , but even the definition of anarchy being 'without rulers' can still be compatible with capitalism. There are no rulers or hierarchies built into the system. Apparently hierarchies will still exist due to the fact that humans aren't equal in ability (some are stronger, smarter etc). True equality is an unrealistic fantasy.

The proof of Private property follows from:
1. self ownership
2. ownership (or responsibility) of our own actions.


What is the justifcation of distinguishing private property and 'personal' property
Why can't personal property be private property as well?

Things like clothing or food are personal but they can be voluntary exchanged for other objects.

Even my own body technically could be exchanged if I voluntary decided to sell myself into slavery.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 251
Original post by Falcatas
I am aware that traditional anarchists were like that , but even the definition of anarchy being 'without rulers' can still be compatible with capitalism. There are no rulers or hierarchies built into the system.

Capitalism is ultimately based upon the extraction of the surplus value of the working class by the capitalist class. The capitalist class owns the means of production, the working class does not and must sell their ability to work to the capitalist class in order to buy the commodities necessary for day-to-day living from the same class that they sold their labour to in the first place. Sounds like a hierarchy to me, care to justify it?

Original post by Falcatas

Apparently hierarchies will still exist due to the fact that humans aren't equal in ability (some are stronger, smarter etc). True equality is an unrealistic fantasy.

I am aware that there are differing views on this (for instance there is a reasonably large market-abolitionist group within anarchism) but I think we can agree that profiting from one's own labour is very different to profiting from someone else's.

Original post by Falcatas

The proof of Private property follows from:
1. self ownership
2. ownership (or responsibility) of our own actions.

This might sound dense, but how does ownership of oneself and responsibility of one's own actions translate into private ownership of external objects?

Original post by Falcatas

What is the justifcation of distinguishing private property and 'personal' property
Why can't personal property be private property as well?

The key factor differentiating personal and private property is use.

Original post by Falcatas

Things like clothing or food are personal but they can be voluntary exchanged for other objects.

As I've already said, markets are not exclusive to capitalism.
Original post by James Milibanter
As an Anarchist there are three things that I have found:
1. There is absolutely no representation for us. (except Russell Brand and he's a bit like marmite to be honest).
2. There is an extreme prejudice that we are all anti-social thugs that have mohawks and kick bins over.
and 3. More often than not we spend more time arguing against each other over our ideals than we do against the Neo-Liberals.
This is a forum as an attempt to find some common ground amongst us all and perhaps find a set of absolute anarchist fundamentals in which we can all agree upon.


you are nothing but priviliged middle class kids who want to rebel.

Proclaiming yourself to be an anarchist is no different than listening to Marilyn Manson or grime music, or whatever the "disaffected" youth are doing these days.
Original post by Comus
Capitalism is ultimately based upon the extraction of the surplus value of the working class by the capitalist class. The capitalist class owns the means of production, the working class does not and must sell their ability to work to the capitalist class in order to buy the commodities necessary for day-to-day living from the same class that they sold their labour to in the first place. Sounds like a hierarchy to me, care to justify it?




Like I said there are no hierarchies built into the system. There are, however hierarchies that will appear due to the inequality of man. Some people are more skilled, talented and intelligent than others. They are only 'rulers' when it comes to their own private property.
Remember without the state the so called 'capitalist class' would have no political power unlike now, where big corporations enjoy the privileges granted by the state.
It also worth noting that even in the current state some so called 'working class' can aspire to (and often due) become capitalists due to entrepreneurship, which involves risk taking and personal liability and many take this for granted.

Original post by Comus

I am aware that there are differing views on this (for instance there is a reasonably large market-abolitionist group within anarchism) but I think we can agree that profiting from one's own labour is very different to profiting from someone else's.



Why is only one person profiting? If I voluntary offer my labour to someone for a wage then I am profiting. If I felt my labour was worth more than I was being paid, it would be irrational to agree to such a deal.

Profit just means both sides make net positive benefit (possible due to the subjective theory of value).

Original post by Comus


This might sound dense, but how does ownership of oneself and responsibility of one's own actions translate into private ownership of external objects?


The Lockean homesteading principle:

"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property"

There are some variations of this but he main idea is the same. It is possible for multiple to claim ownership and have joint ownership rights.

Original post by Comus


The key factor differentiating personal and private property is use.


Isn't the key factor whether it generates 'profit' or not?

You wouldn't object to a man harvesting produce from his farm but would if he let others harvest produce for a cost (like the 10% of the produce they harvest).

Even our very bodies can be used to generate profit. If a person wishes to sell services (such as singing, comedy or even prostitution) how is that not a use?
Reply 254
Sorry for the lateness of the reply, I been very busy for the past couple of months, just one thing after another, after another.

Original post by Falcatas
Like I said there are no hierarchies built into the system.

Except there are, the capitalist class gains power as they accumulate capital, which they can then use to influence state apparatus etc. (see the Investment Theory of Party Competition)
There are, however hierarchies that will appear due to the inequality of man. Some people are more skilled, talented and intelligent than others.

Irrelevent, it doesn't give one the right to claim hierachial privileges at the expense of others.

Remember without the state the so called 'capitalist class' would have no political power unlike now, where big corporations enjoy the privileges granted by the state.

Ah! We have some agreement.
Capitalism requires a state as it produces an economic elite who, in order to consolidate their class posistion, need protection from the working class, who might *gasp* engage in direct action or even sieze the means of production from the capitalist class. If one hires security to protect private property (as would be necessary for the capitalist to protect their private property from the working class) then the state hasn't been abolished, it has merely been privatised. (State: "an institution which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given area" - per Max Weber)

It also worth noting that even in the current state some so called 'working class' can aspire to (and often due) become capitalists due to entrepreneurship

Irrelavent.
which involves risk taking and personal liability and many take this for granted.

...unless of course, you happen to be 'too big to fail' (a natural consequence of capital accumulation).


If I felt my labour was worth more than I was being paid, it would be irrational to agree to such a deal.

That assumes you have much in the way of choice. If you do not work for a member of the capitalist class it is likely that you will suffer. Despite the fact that overt duress is absent, it is still not a fair bargain. To use an extreme situation for illustration: imagine Person A is walking through the desert and if they don't find water soon it likely they will die of thirst; they then chance upon person B, who has an ample supply of water. A asks B for some water, B demands that in return A should serve a lifelong term of servitude for B. Despite the lack of overt coercion from B, I don't think we can call such an arrangement truly voluntary in any meaningful sense - A is bound by necessity.

The Lockean homesteading principle:

"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property"

Except homesteading has not been the norm historically, much of the land now in private ownership was taken by conquest and bloodshed.
It is possible for multiple to claim ownership and have joint ownership rights
.
For instance the workers owning the means of production that they operate collectively...

Isn't the key factor whether it generates 'profit' or not?

You wouldn't object to a man harvesting produce from his farm but would if he let others harvest produce for a cost (like the 10% of the produce they harvest).

Even our very bodies can be used to generate profit. If a person wishes to sell services (such as singing, comedy or even prostitution) how is that not a use?

I think you may have misunderstood, personal property is that which the person who posseses it actually uses, private property is that over which ownership is claimed but they do not personally use. Whether the person can benefit from ownership of either is incidental. For instance someone who has turned their garden shed into a workshop in which they make, say, furniture which they then sell, is personal ownership of the means of production. On the other hand, the owner of a sweat shop does not operate the machinery therein - private ownership of the means of production.
Original post by Comus
x



Marxist class theory is outdated as 'workers' today often own property and even their own businesses but can't really be thought of as the 'capitalist' class you speak of being factory owners.
Through economically liberalisation they often end up becoming middle class and regardless the working class today are much richer than the working class 50 years ago.

All such 'classes' need protection of their property which does include the property owning working class. There is no need for a state for this. There will always be a demand for defence.

There isn't such thing as 'too big to fail', value can easily drop depending on what other people subjectively decide it is. Unless you think that value exists independently of people.

As for the water analogy, it doesn't matter about morality or not. Neither capitalism or communism is a system of morality. It is possible for both to contain moral and immoral people. No one has a positive obligation to provide for another person even though it certainly can be a good thing to do so.

A lot of land owned by lords and barons were taken by force but the same cannot be said of privately owned business. Public property is the majority of what has been taken by violence and bloodshed and the state has the monopoly to keep it this way.

There is no reason why a group of workers couldn't form their own commune, they could organise how they wanted to but of course they would somehow have to obtain property in the first place.

Well I define having control over is certainly a use so it really is just semantics.
Reply 256
Original post by Falcatas
Marxist class theory is outdated as 'workers' today often own property and even their own businesses but can't really be thought of as the 'capitalist' class you speak of being factory owners.
Through economically liberalisation they often end up becoming middle class and regardless the working class today are much richer than the working class 50 years ago.

By 'class' I'm not talking about material wealth (though there is a distinct trend) but relations towards the means of production, for instance an architect or an engineer working for a firm are working class, incredibly well remunerated members of the working class but working class none-the-less as they do not have ownership of the means of production which they have in common with much less remunerated members of the working class such as a shop assistant earning minimum wage (for instance). In fact, under this conception of class, a select few members of the working class might earn more than owners of small and medium sized businesses (who are members of the capitalist class) - though this is generally not the case. The point is that, regardless of pay, their relationship to the means of production that they operate is the same; similarly the capitalist class - regardless of the size of the enterprises of the individual capitalists' enterprises - all have ownership of means of production which is operated by members of the working class. It is not merely the inequality of income that anarchists oppose but also the hierarchical nature of the relationship between worker and capitalist that wage labour entails.
And the usage of class in this way is not limited to Marxist analysis, but is used in wider socialist analysis, including anarchist analyses, of capitalism and wage labour. This is perhaps not surprising, as communism and anarchism both developed significantly during the era of the first international - for instance one of the main disagreements between Bakunin and Marx, was based on Marx's insistence on a transitional stage before the state 'withered away'.
Original post by Falcatas

All such 'classes' need protection of their property which does include the property owning working class. There is no need for a state for this. There will always be a demand for defence.

Anarchists don't object to defence, they object to institutions laying claim to a monopoly on the violence over a given area.

Original post by Falcatas

There isn't such thing as 'too big to fail', value can easily drop depending on what other people subjectively decide it is. Unless you think that value exists independently of people.

However, without state assistance the collapse of such an institution and the resulting wider fallout from such a collapse is likely to lead to civil unrest or heavy electoral losses for establishment politicians as a best case scenario - therefore capitalist enterprises and politicians have a mutual interest in keeping such institutions afloat, and that's before one even gets to the issue of the investment theory of party competition.

Original post by Falcatas

As for the water analogy, it doesn't matter about morality or not. Neither capitalism or communism is a system of morality. It is possible for both to contain moral and immoral people. No one has a positive obligation to provide for another person even though it certainly can be a good thing to do so.

I never mentioned morality, my point was that such an agreement could not be called voluntary in any meaningful sense.
Original post by Falcatas

A lot of land owned by lords and barons were taken by force but the same cannot be said of privately owned business. Public property is the majority of what has been taken by violence and bloodshed and the state has the monopoly to keep it this way.

The East India Company? The United Fruit Company's involvement with Guatemala?
Original post by Falcatas

There is no reason why a group of workers couldn't form their own commune, they could organise how they wanted to but of course they would somehow have to obtain property in the first place.

An anarchist society requires the abolition of hierarchies which cannot justify themselves (including the state, patriarchy etc.), to attempt to maintain capitalism would not be consistent with anarchism.
Original post by Falcatas

Well I define having control over is certainly a use so it really is just semantics.

How would having mere control over something amount to use?
In any case, if we were to accept that having control over something amounts to use, this control over the means of production is often not even directly exercised by the capitalists themselves but indirectly through members of the coordinator class (managers, foremen etc.) who don't own the means of production but deal with its day to day running and maintaining 'workplace discipline'. I posit that this hierarchy (i.e the coordinator class exercising control over the working class) would also struggle to justify itself.
Original post by Comus
By








An anarchist society requires the abolition of hierarchies which cannot justify themselves (including the state, patriarchy etc.), to attempt to maintain capitalism would not be consistent with anarchism.


If individuals decided to use property for personal use, or made use of a currency, how would you stop this without resorting to force?
Original post by Davij038
If individuals decided to use property for personal use, or made use of a currency, how would you stop this without resorting to force?

You can have democracy within an anarchy, you can also have force without it being coercive, if you refuse give currency any value then quite simply doesn't.
there isn't anything wrong with property, for instance, I can own a bike, i can lend this bike that i have paid/bartered/etc for to someone if i wish to or i cannot. However in a mutualist or even an equal society no one person is more important/wealthy than the next. Think about it as if there was a 100% tax rate, that'll help.
Reply 259
Original post by Davij038
If individuals decided to use property for personal use, or made use of a currency, how would you stop this without resorting to force?


Proudhon differentiates between personal property (or possession) and private property (or sometimes referred to simply as 'property) - the former is considered to be legitimate, the latter is not. Currency exists within a mutualist economic system, generally it's replaced by a system of 'one use only' labour vouchers in anarcho-collectivist conceptions and is completely obsolete within anarcho-communist conceptions.

Quick Reply