Recent comments in /f/anarcho_capitalism

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by tuesday in Checkmate, antipedos! by ziq

First, we don't have to agree with the concept that a thing is bad just because there's a law about it to also recognize that things that are perfectly legal can still be harmful

Yes, but in this case I think generalizations and using age as a metric for ease of use rather than actual ability to consent on a person to person basis is what creates a culture of rape where people don't even know they did something wrong and robs the autonomy and rules over those who can make decisions on their own. So my criticism applies when your comment is literally defending cultural values that cause rape. So you can't even accept that its bad so this quote seems silly.

Even if there were no age of consent laws it would still be wrong to have sex with a child.

yeah ovi, I don't think someone who can cosent to serious decisions like where they live, pursuit in life, medical proceedures, taking care of themself and having sex is something a child can do. So by nature of them being able to consent to sex they wouldn't be a child.

Just because a child can say yes to having sex doesn't mean they are actually fully cognizant of the consequences, both physical and emotional.

yeah ovi. The point I"m making is u actually have to actually meet someone and know them pretty well to know if they can do this. Age is largely irrelevant tho a bit correlated. You know if they can do that by talking to someone not asking how old they are.

then we can also recognize that children, especially teens (who are influenced by an absolute miasma of hormones) aren't going to be able to give the same fully enthusiastic consent for a sexual relationship that an adult can.

oh we are back to policing teen womens bodies bc they are just so hormonal now lol. I get such warm feelings in my body when I get to debate people on if someone is should be able to make major life decisions or not bc you know how young women are with all their hormones.

Children and teens are far more susceptible to coercion and peer-pressure than adults are.

again this isn't exactly true. Sure generally related but when I was a teenager I was already fucking vastly more resistant to coercion and peer pressure than most adults. Do you know how many adults struggle to say no? Its a fucking lot. When I was 17 I had already had years under my belt of setting firm boundaries with people and then enforcing them with violence if need be. I was steadfast and stubborn and wouldn't let anyone push me around. I literally would be the one to get into arguments with the landlord for all my roommates bc everyone else was too scared to say no.

Take one of my roommates, she like couldn't say no to anyone and was 28. Deathly afraid of conflict and was a human doormat. The consenting ability of me as a 17 year old was vastly by leaps and bounds greater than my roommate. Not that I wanted to but I have no fucking doubt in my mind in saying that if I had sex with her I would consider me to have commit sexual assault.

And this is the problem if your metric is age and not actually getting to know someone to determine on a case by case basis ability to consent you actually don't know if someone can consent. And if I listened to nonsense like this I almost would have certainly gone on to sexually assault people. Bc people live very different lives and react vastly different to situations so age can give a vague idea but really won't tell you.

I do use age a lot bc it does give a good metric due to legal rights. Say for instance almost all 16 year old don't live on their own and don't have the legal or financial ability to care for themself. So due to this lack of financial ability, legal rights and other things sex is always going to be a no. But mostly I don't have the audacity to gauge someones ability to make informed decisions until I meet them. I think anarcho decrees to try and control someones body who you have never met and know nothing about based on random correlations is really really bad.

They are still in the process of figuring out how to navigate society and themselves

you don't know u havn't met them

Fourth, this ignores that children and teens are harmed in a lot of ways by sexualization. Sexualizing a child or a teen effectively dehumanizes them and teaches them that their value is in their desirability, rather than in the fullness of their humanity. Children and teens are more frequently developing bad mental health issues, like disordered eating, body dysphoria and depression because they are comparing themselves to sexualized images and seeing the ways that these are valued and upheld by society, and recognizing the ways that their bodies and thoughts don't fit to that standard.

idk where this came from tbh

Children deserve to be free from exploitation and coercion, just as much as any other human is

I disagree completely. The whole point of your argument is to 1. advocate on not determining consent on a case by case basis but by age which is only mildly associated with ability which is actual rape apologia. 2. Their is also the purpose of infantilizations and advocating for those who you deem arbitrarily to be undeveloped not be able to make decisions for themself which is actual coercion. If someone can accept the ramifications, set firm boundaries, not have exploitative relations and a whole host of other nuances of consent then not allowing them to make major life decisions bc their hormones and its best for them is abusive as hell. Trying to decide for people you have never met if they can make major life decisions and promoting restriction a small minority of those under 18 who can consent is shitty af and controlling.

I mean I sound harsh but u r just advocating against consent and just dumping out talking points used to this day to take advantage of and control younger women and queer people. Bc the addition that people can't handle the serious physical ramifications of sex bc hormones they definitely can't make decisions about major life decisions like abortions, moving out, hormone therapy, gender confirmations surgery ect ect. Tho mostly bc if I thought like U I would be a rapist. Not saying u r I am saying this mindset allows for rape due to making assumptions rather than actually determining Consent. And when u assume Consent and don't actual confirm u have it it's called sexual assault.

Edit: ultimately I think this is mostly a disagreement over me explaining myself better so u got the wrong idea so the arguments don't work that great. So not really a super big deal and I should have been more specific

2

tuesday wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in Checkmate, antipedos! by ziq

I think there's a lot wrong with this.

First, we don't have to agree with the concept that a thing is bad just because there's a law about it to also recognize that things that are perfectly legal can still be harmful. I can't imagine an anarchist saying that because rape wouldn't be illegal in an anarchist society that everyone ought to rape everyone they can, because there's no law against it. Even if there were no age of consent laws it would still be wrong to have sex with a child.

Second, we can simultaneously recognize a child's ability to make well informed and rational decisions in situations where they're cognitively able to understand what they're thinking about and still recognize that there's an inherent power differential between adults and children that precludes a child's ability to enthusiastically consent to a sexual relationship. Just because a child can say yes to having sex doesn't mean they are actually fully cognizant of the consequences, both physical and emotional.

Third, if we can recognize that a person who is under the effects of mind altering substances can't give consent in the same way that a person who isn't under the influence is able, then we can also recognize that children, especially teens (who are influenced by an absolute miasma of hormones) aren't going to be able to give the same fully enthusiastic consent for a sexual relationship that an adult can. Children and teens are far more susceptible to coercion and peer-pressure than adults are. They are still in the process of figuring out how to navigate society and themselves. A sexual relationship with an adult will always be coercive because it creates the expectation that this child is somehow also an adult, when speaking purely about biology and development is just not true.

Fourth, this ignores that children and teens are harmed in a lot of ways by sexualization. Sexualizing a child or a teen effectively dehumanizes them and teaches them that their value is in their desirability, rather than in the fullness of their humanity. Children and teens are more frequently developing bad mental health issues, like disordered eating, body dysphoria and depression because they are comparing themselves to sexualized images and seeing the ways that these are valued and upheld by society, and recognizing the ways that their bodies and thoughts don't fit to that standard.

Children deserve to be free from exploitation and coercion, just as much as any other human is. The fact of the matter is that as society stands right now removing age of consent laws just creates the space for the further exploitation of children and I am highly uncomfortable with the thought of making room for the sexual exploitation of children in the name of liberty.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Tbh, I actually think somewhere this could be used to make a good argument for age of Concent. If someone who is under 18 has proven they can make informed decisions about their life and will stick to their guns and not easily be seated by thousands of people's berating them I think that would be a pretty good metric for ability to concent. While the tweet author does seem to have a shit opinion I honestly prefer it to the rapist nonsense that concent ability is determined by ones age and not factors that allow for consent.

I mean sure this guy is a dipshit but like also I can't say it's an easy dunk bc I definely don't want to be on the side of age of Concent ad it's a legal framework that's gives the aok to rape people who can't concent but legally can

Edit: and ovi I doubt the faith of this commenter greatly and more am trying to spur an interesting discussion rather than defend this individual who prob sucks a lot

2

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in Omg these people by ziq

They are anti-government in the same way any shallow, performative nod to rebellion typically seen in American culture is: all aesthetics, no actual conviction, which ultimately leads to a desire for reformation than annihilation.

They dislike the state when it intrudes into their personal lives (which is a very vague threshold; I'd argue that the mere existence of the state would invariably lead to that intrusion), but they still see it as a necessity (albeit, one that needs to be trimmed down a smaller form).

4

ziq OP wrote

Reply to comment by CaptainACAB in Omg these people by ziq

idk if you can really consider them anti-government. they just want a different government (corporatism) with no social security or labor protections

4

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

That's part of it, but I am also saying that you can't just lump theft in with markets, they are different terms that are not hierarchically ordered the way you are asserting. The only way to force that cube into the spherical hole, is to reduce it in some way to something less useful except in the specific rhetorical context you are using here.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

your insistence that market relations be voluntary (though only in appearance) is reminiscent of the pro-capitalism argument that the free market is good because it is voluntary to participate

You misunderstand, my definition is that markets consist of formally consented-to (even if the consent is coerced) transactions. The critique of capitalism, is that it isn't voluntary due to the coerced consent. However, the system requires participation, and is characterized by it, even if everyone involved is resentful for various reasons. They still do it. They have to consent, so they do.

If that consent is removed, that is when you start seeing police violence, in capitalist societies. If people stop working, or buying things, if they even elect the wrong leader, soon the military is kicking in doors. and moreover, people will be suffering due to the scarcity/lack which is implemented once they stop consenting. But it is ludicrous to not see the essential character of capitalism as desiring of this formal participation/consent, and coercing the performance this repeatedly in daily life. It is essential to its reproduction and expansion.

So, what, we should just ignore it when talking about exchange? Are you going to coin a new, equally boring term for an economics that focuses on non-bourgeoisie markets? Let us keep the term market and call capitalist-normalized economics by a new term: bullshit.

No, no need to stop talking about in the context of economics. What I'm saying is, theft is not a market, unless the stolen goods are sold. It's not a market relationship, to steal from the grocery store, or your friend, or your employees' paychecks. It's the opposite of that, if anything it's a disruption of a market, by explicitly subverting the rules which preserve that market. The contradiction of theft being part of the economic hegemony, is one of the central contradictions of capitalism, but it's not because theft is a market based relationship. It's one more associated with statecraft, and which is in dynamic, productive contradiction with markets under capitalism today.

I'm not reducing anything to anything by saying both of these are markets. The only similarity explicit in my definition of markets is that they both result in the exchange of goods.

Then the definition of market is too vague, yes. It's more like a definition of "distribution", I guess.

Placing non-traditional (i.e. non-European) contexts of exchange alongside the sacred bullshit of free-market right-libertarians is a clear break from capitalist-normalized economics, and I think it's a good thing insofar as it causes people indoctrinated into capitalist economics to look at other forms of exchange.

I think it also causes people to extrapolate european-spread social norms and assumptions, onto things which had an entirely different historical context. It dissolves history, which is a trademark of neoliberalism for example.

2

Ennui wrote

Though it's more of a side criticism, your insistence that market relations be voluntary (though only in appearance) is reminiscent of the pro-capitalism argument that the free market is good because it is voluntary to participate. I don't think it's a good strategy to start a critique of capitalism by admitting that it consists of voluntary relations, when so much of the general critique is about showing how capitalist relations are involuntary (e.g. how I don't really have a choice about working for my shitty employer).

For example, indigenous gift-giving cultural events and norms, that isn't comparable to colonial markets which replaced them, they are perhaps similar in certain aspects but to reduce one to the other is reductive.

I'm not reducing anything to anything by saying both of these are markets. The only similarity explicit in my definition of markets is that they both result in the exchange of goods. Placing non-traditional (i.e. non-European) contexts of exchange alongside the sacred bullshit of free-market right-libertarians is a clear break from capitalist-normalized economics, and I think it's a good thing insofar as it causes people indoctrinated into capitalist economics to look at other forms of exchange.

If you argue that such a broad definition of markets results in a loss of purpose, then I argue any definition that excludes involuntary and non-transactional forms of exchange is a loss of functionality. An analysis of capitalist markets that ignores the role of theft, for instance, would be substantially limited. Corporate theft provides insight into corporate leaders' motivations. There are entire industries devoted to the elimination of theft; theft directly influences the distribution of resources in the market. There are markets built on reintegrating stolen goods into voluntary relations. The supposedly voluntary markets of capitalism are built on centuries of explicit state-mandated theft. So, what, we should just ignore it when talking about exchange? Are you going to coin a new, equally boring term for an economics that focuses on non-bourgeoisie markets? Let us keep the term market and call capitalist-normalized economics by a new term: bullshit.

It does this by focusing on terms like "market", "consumer", etc and framing the capitalist meanings as immutable, as if they were not socially produced in particular historical contexts. The entire science of economics is frequently taught this way, and I think it is unhelpful. This is also a major argument, generally summarized, which I have with the left-wing market anarchists, whose views I find too often to be a stone's toss from the views and actions of anarchist capitalists who I have interacted with. The naturalization of socially produced culture is an absolute plague in these spaces, which is a shame but also exactly what I would expect to conclude. This makes these spaces profoundly unwelcoming to people like me, for intersectional reasons.

I don't disagree with anything said here. Facts.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

the fact that theft, gift-giving, communism and capitalism all imply the transfer of goods, willing or not, is good enough for me.

This naturalizes market logic beyond usefulness, markets are when people exchange goods in ostensibly voluntary but conditionally contextualized transactions. Theft is never "ostensibly voluntary", it's always involuntary even on the surface level. Gift-giving is ostensibly voluntary, but also ostensibly not a transaction; gift economies can be analyzed critically with this in mind, but they aren't markets as they have entirely different social and economic characteristics which contextualize them differently. For example, indigenous gift-giving cultural events and norms, that isn't comparable to colonial markets which replaced them, they are perhaps similar in certain aspects but to reduce one to the other is reductive.

Similarly, reducing communism to "it's a market, and thus similar to capitalism" is also reductive even if there is a kernel of truth. Any economic system will entail the distribution of goods and services. So in this reduction, there is a loss of purpose to the terms, or even the discussion itself. And in so doing, the conversational possibilities narrow to that which is workable within the assumed framework. Since this framework is so close to the status quo, this constraint of imagination which is implemented discursively is of concern to those who wish to change things. I would make the same argument toward the statist communists and many more traditional anarchist communists, who do not envision futures which could ever really engage with material conditions produced by markets, but for entirely opposite reasons-- instead of markets, they cling to the state power (or, "dual power") that produced markets. Leads them to the same problem, imo.

What is your definition of markets?

Ibid; it's a transactional space of interaction (digital or physical, etc) with ostensibly "voluntary" interactions between parties with invariably complicated and unequal power relationships, which are in the process, further reproduced by the market. Historically, markets emerged from military activity of imperial states and kingdoms, during the feudal mode of production. In the course of their rise, they eventually supplanted fedualism to create the bourgeois republics which are normalized today.

In this normalization, is the reason for my argument. Capitalism, as a now-hegemonic ideology and social formation, likes to naturalize itself with what I see as sloppy science and manipulative rhetoric to frame it all. It does this by focusing on terms like "market", "consumer", etc and framing the capitalist meanings as immutable, as if they were not socially produced in particular historical contexts. The entire science of economics is frequently taught this way, and I think it is unhelpful. This is also a major argument, generally summarized, which I have with the left-wing market anarchists, whose views I find too often to be a stone's toss from the views and actions of anarchist capitalists who I have interacted with. The naturalization of socially produced culture is an absolute plague in these spaces, which is a shame but also exactly what I would expect to conclude. This makes these spaces profoundly unwelcoming to people like me, for intersectional reasons.

2

Ennui wrote

I don’t mind if it’s myopic because the content and interest of any given market is provided by that market. I don’t know if your goal is to critique the concept of markets, redefine it, whatever, but the fact that theft, gift-giving, communism and capitalism all imply the transfer of goods, willing or not, is good enough for me. That’s why it’s called left-wing market anarchism instead of just “market”. Particular and proposed markets affect the context and method of exchange.

My apologies if you thought that my board statement that capitalism is theft was a literal definition. What is your definition of markets?

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I don’t really mind if it’s myopic

Alright, well then, why bother talking to others at all?

I think it clear that theft is a market relation—what’s capitalism if it isn’t?

capitalism takes time and labor from people because it can be infinitely substituted and symbolically abstracted on an actual market. It extracts resources from the areas in and around it, which can be used similarly for market-based profit. However, it isn't theft, because theft is self-referentially defined in a power relationship to the state which produces the currency and markets which capitalism relies on. Identifying the normative process as theft, is inherently subversive and counter to the expected reality.

However, theft is more ambiguous and general, because it doesn't imply a positionality. Some people steal just to get by, some people steal for symbolic reasons, but only a few steal for resale on a market.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

“Communism” is a sort of market.

I think we would have to get more specific. Some "communists" I have no affinity with whatsoever, I guess.

“Gift-giving” is a market relation.

Only if it's not really a gift. This is frequently the case with "gifts". In fact, it is almost always the case, in capitalist contexts, and feudal contexts, as well as the liminal spaces institial to these contexts.

So is theft.

How does one negotiate with a owner, when you're stealing? Contest of skill? Surveillance/counter-surveillance? This seems extrapolated to the point of absurdity. The effect, is to naturalize market logic as immanent even in places where it is being actively sabotaged. There is a limit to the usefulness of a schema so myopic.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Individualist sort of has two meanings. When most anarchists, like the post-left, reference individualists, they are talking about anarchism rooted in Stirner, not Kropotkin or whatever. Novatore, Armand, Libertad, illegalists, and so on, are called individualists, but they weren't for markets (Novatore wanted to “communalize material wealth” as it will “individualize spiritual wealth” for example).

Sounds like my actual perspective

Then within that, there were some American individualists who were for markets

Goofballs

Market anarchists also draw on the Austrian school of economics these days, but they take the parts they find useful & mix it with Marx, anarchist critique, etc. They have overlapping economic theory with ancaps.

the overlap is what concerns me. it leads them in unhelpful directions.

Personally I think market anarchist economic analysis is far more compelling than socialists, but ultimately I'm anti-economics. They'd argue that the market is working in concert with each other, and that capitalism destroys the environment, not markets.

I don't know, it's a completely irrational and unstable social formation. Markets have generally been preceded and accompanied by standing armies, which create the conditions for their existence.

If you are interested I could point you to a few shorter essays from market anarchists.

Yes, please, if you have the time and interest. I will read them.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

left-wing market anarchism

how could markets exist, without courts to adjudicate them? without police to stop those who redistribute things they are not "entitled" to?

It’s idealistic as fuck

IE, unworkable

I don’t know what individualist anarchism is besides one of a myriad of ways of saying “I’m not a communist.”

Yeah I guess you're right

IMO left-wing market anarchism is simultaneously the best economic synthesis and worst prescription for organizing I’ve ever seen.

I think they go together, because social synthesis is the opposite of social contradiction.

2