I think there's many layers of fallacy to chip away at here.
Dialectical materialism is at best just philosophy at worst religious fundamentalism - dialectics can only negate, so they can't actually prove anything. I suggest Jacob Blumenfeld's book on Max Stirner.
Then we get to the myth of progress. Feudalism to Capitalism wasn't a positive thing for most people, not that either state was desirable.
But the real problem is thinking that the problem is the economic system. The problem is in authority. The end goal is not the creation of a benevolent centralised system, but of distribution of authority such that there is no system for which domination can take root. Capitalism collapses if there is no authority enforcing property laws.
I can go more in depth if you want.
icypaper OP wrote (edited )
I would appreciate a more in-depth explanation. As you explained, the common anarchist view(beyond the ancoms I have experience with) do not view capitalism from the "oppressor-oppressing" class standpoint that a Marxist would view the stages of economy on, but rather the more simple metric of "is there authority in this system?" Also, explain who you think the transition from feudalism to capitalism did and didn't benefit.
On the topic of the rise of Capitalism, you could read The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand. There's probably better texts, but that should give a start.
Overall Capitalism benefitted the colonisers at the extent of the colonists - initially internal colonisation of Europe before expansion to the rest of the world.
Fool wrote (edited )
Another flaw being in assumption a "common" theory, which actually runs contrary to the concept of no authority.
I would appreciate a more in-depth explanation
Ok! How's this:
"is there authority in this system?"
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments