Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] 0 wrote

4

Kaito OP wrote

There won't be any (self-owned/coop) shop in an anarchist society?

A smaller business is closer to this, than big businesses, tho...

It's like saying that you aren't happy that a government stopped intervening in other countries...

−4

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

Kaito OP wrote

Anarchists are pro-markets (trades of goods) but against exploitation, don't confuse both.

I think that someone talked about a concept called "Markets, not capitalism"

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

1

Kaito OP wrote

"Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty" by Gary Chartie

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

I mean for example, do you think that mutualists are anarchists?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

Kaito OP wrote

Are you serious? Why aren't they anarchists?

They are against hierarchy.

−1

Majrelende wrote

Markets may not always be necessarily hierarchical, but being anti-hierarchy is not the same as being pro-freedom.

3

Kaito OP wrote

We want a voluntary system, so ofc yeah we are pro-freedom.

Removing rulers isn't the first step towards freedom?

−1

Majrelende wrote

Deposing rulers is certainly necessary for freedom, but I would feel unfree personally with community-ownership markets— not to mention ownership by use.

In such a system of collective ownership, if necessities were traded for a certain type of labour, the person might make a habit out of that type of labour— maybe even a job. This means that as part of their routine, they would have to work proportionally to the amount of products they needed, which is better than capitalism, but as it is division of labour, it creates a world in which less voluntary labour is the norm. Of course, we could avoid division of labour by producing all our own food and housing and other necessities. Then, we would only be trading non-necessities, like books and luxuries— though if someone needed to learn how to build a house, they would have to work in order to buy a book on it. Now suppose things which are needed to create necessities, such as knowledge, are non-market. Now, there are only a few types of market products, including luxury items and art. But it might seem silly to trade these away.

It probably could work, but it is not as voluntary as I personally would be comfortable with. At least to me, it seems less complicated and more free to have a cooperative (in the general sense) communist society than a market one.

5

Kaito OP wrote

Why do you feel unfree, when people are trading goods a certain way in your community?

Do you want to be like the government/corporations? Playing the police? If someone is caught trading in this way in this community, then he is banned!

Doesn't go against freedom, btw : but hey, you're free to choose your commune, so no problem, as long as you don't want to attack MY commune.

though if someone needed to learn how to build a house, they would have to work in order to buy a book on it.

Or negociate with their neighbors and ask them how to build a house or telling them that you will pay for it later, borrowing money...etc

Now, there are only a few types of market products, including luxury items and art. But it might seem silly to trade these away.

No, because trading helps fuel innovation

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

Kaito OP wrote

They are not "anarchists", but they are not opposed to anarchism too.

There will always be trade of goods in an anarchist society, no?

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Kaito OP wrote

Wut, what are your thoughts on government foreign policy?

−1