Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments


selver wrote (edited )

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

The freedom to own land is entirely useless without the ability to freely do so, which capitalism denies the majority of people & communities, or only grants after a lifetime of slavery. I don't know where the fuck you live, but individuals & communities don't own shit here; the banks and millionaires do.

And you should ask non-white nations about how capitalists really feel about your right to not be kicked off your property & killed for it.


DC2342 wrote (edited )

Your absolutely right, however we do not currently have capitalism and free markets, we have a system of corrupt crony capitalism that acts like a state of communist fascism, in which large banks and corporations have become synonymous with government. That's what my first comment was about.


selver wrote (edited )

The modern usage of the word "capitalism" originated from anti-capitalists like Proudhon, Marx, and Blanc. When radical leftists refer to capitalism, they are not referring to free markets, or not only referring to free markets. Proudhon and others like him, 200 years ago, were referring to the exact problems you choose to throw under the name "crony capitalism." Wealth inequality, exploitation, concentration of power, class struggle, etc. Capitalism has been "crony capitalism", and anti-free market, from day one. It has always meant wealth for a concentrated few, poverty or slavery for everyone else, and that was recognized with the very invention of the word "capitalism."

If you are a big free market advocate arguing with radical leftists, you are never going to get anywhere if you continue using "capitalism" to describe what you support. Capitalism has always been used by leftists to describe the system we live in, a society ruled by capitalists, where workers are forced to be exploited by them in order to live. Plenty of free market anarchists have, in my opinion, made pretty strong arguments for the idea that free markets are not what led to capitalism, that State granted privilege via land enclosures, colonialism, political power, etc. are largely what led to inequality initially. But, if you use the word capitalism around leftists, you are signaling that you are fine with the massive inequality, corporate structures, hierarchy, dispossession, poverty, modern corporations, economic oligarchies, etc. I believe there is room for more nuanced debate between free market people and anarchists, but before that could even begin it would mean clearly separating oneself from what leftists call "capitalism."

Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace “Anti-Capitalism”

The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand

Markets not Capitalism

Your absolutely wrong communism is where everything is publicly owned by government and you work for and get paid by the government.

Go read anarcho-communists from centuries ago who called the shitshow that was the USSR, and split with the Marxists over it. Be an anti-communist if you want, but at least be familiar with the arguments. No anarchist is advocating government-run anything.


DC2342 wrote

Damn you made some good points, but still people shouldn't go around calling anarchy communism. Thank you for setting me straight with the capitalism syntax.


selver wrote (edited )

Whether you agree with communism or not, the majority of the first anarchists were communists (first few chapters of Conquest of Bread (1906) explains what anarchists mean by "anti-state communism"). It's completely ahistorical to say anarchists shouldn't call themselves anarcho-commmunists, it's always been one of the main branches of anarchism.

That being said, I tend to agree that anarchists shouldn't use the word when talking to non-anarchists. The USSR & China successfully changed the definition for 99% of people, if a world superpower steals a word, just let it go (and there are plenty of Marxists we'd do well to avoid being lumped in with too).


DC2342 wrote

So now that we have that out of the way, in anarchy how would your people solve the problem of an individual having nuclear weapon type power? For instance whats to stop me from taking over your entire system and holding you all hostage under the threat of blowing up your whole planet?


selver wrote

I don't believe in the sort of rigid system that could offer a specific context-independent answer. Coming up with solutions for imaginary problems in an imaginary utopia is antithetical to the kind of politics I'm interested in. Anarchists would solve that problem like they solve every other problem; direct action, mutual aid, an ethical commitment to the greatest possible freedom for others, opposition to authoritarianism, passionate resistance to all attempts at rulership, etc. It'd depend entirely on the specific context & culture, but hopefully would be stopped long before a nuclear weapon was even manufactured.


ziq wrote

Your people are already doing that to us, American.