anarchism and capitalism

[Fawkes]

hello, i will be the first to admit that i do not know much about anarchy but i do wish to learn more.

but from my current knowledge of anarchy, it seems to me tht it means a complete free society. But isnt that what capitalism is, Free Economy? Personally, the main reason i am against capiitalism is because i believe that by leaving the economy totally free and open, it just makes it easier for greedy corporations and people to monopalize, manipulate, and basically control the economy. That's why i believe that there needs to be intervention by a non-corrupt government or a group which is totally unbiased. But like i said before, my knowledge of anarchy is that it is basically a free society, leaving it wide open for people to do what they do in Capitalism.

I mostly am posting this because i want to learn more about anarchy and i want to see what you guys, particularly the anarchists, have to say about what i said about anarchy and capitalisms relationship.



P.S. dont get offended by my comparison of the two philosophys. Rather, tell me how what i said is incorrect.





Thanks

[violencia.Proletariat]

but from my current knowledge of anarchy, it seems to me tht it means a complete free society

Yes communism is a free society.


But isnt that what capitalism is, Free Economy?

Yes in true "capitalism" this is true for the bourgeoisie, in theory. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie use the labor power of the proletariat and sell what the proletariat produces for profit, while giving the proles a wage that is not equal to the full value of their work. This is not freedom for the proletariat. It's exploitation.


That's why i believe that there needs to be intervention by a non-corrupt government or a group which is totally unbiased.

Neither of these things exist.


my knowledge of anarchy is that it is basically a free society, leaving it wide open for people to do what they do in Capitalism.

Anarchism is the theory that the working class should take over the means of production while at the same time destroying the bourgeois state. We think the power of the state, no matter who's in control always turns out oppressive. Decisions about production and neighborhoods would be made through workers councils and direct democracy.

As real class struggle anarchists are communists, the society would be based off of "from each according to his need, to each according to his ability". Capitalists are oppossed to this.


.S. dont get offended by my comparison of the two philosophys. Rather, tell me how what i said is incorrect.

No problem, happy to help out. :)

Just ask if you want more resources to learn about anarchist-communism.

[Fawkes]

but i thought anarchy jsut meant no authority or rules whatsoever, or is that nihilism?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 2 2006, 08:01 PM
but i thought anarchy jsut meant no authority or rules whatsoever, or is that nihilism?
Anarchy does mean no authority in a sense, there will be no hiearchy. The no rules is just a stereotype added on over the years to discredit it. Anarchism is not against organization.

[cyu]

The way I see anarchism is something like the principle that those most affected by a decision should be those most involved in making it. If a decision affects a lot of people equally, then you have a broad democracy. If a decision doesn't affect so many people, then you narrow down the number of people allowed to vote. In many cases, that narrows it down to one person; thus anarchy.

The main conflict between anarchism and capitalism in my view is the right of employees to assume control over their companies. If one day, most of the people decide they don't like their management or board of directors anymore, then they have the right to start ignoring them and run the company as if they owned it, democratically. With anarchism, the government (if any) would have no right to force them to continue to follow the orders of the old management or board of directors.

[Jadan ja]

I think that nate explained things well, but I would just like to show the main mistake you are making.


but from my current knowledge of anarchy, it seems to me tht it means a complete free society. But isnt that what capitalism is, Free Economy? Personally, the main reason i am against capiitalism is because i believe that by leaving the economy totally free and open, it just makes it easier for greedy corporations and people to monopalize, manipulate, and basically control the economy.

I am not sure what do you define as a "completely free society," but you are saying (or asking) that capitalism is that free society. However, third sentence says that it allows people to "monopalize, manipulate, and basically control the economy." Doesn't that automatically mean that people aren't free and forced to live under such an unfair system that leads to exploitation (as nate explained)?

If you say that capitalism is freedom (and at the same time accept other things you wrote), doesn't that mean that freedom is slavery? A society that exited in ancient times where everyone is free to force others to work for him if he is stronger, can be (with certain definitions similar to those according to which capitalism is a system of freedom) considered a society with greatest freedoms. In other words, is freedom freedom to exploit others or is freedom being free from exploitation, unemployment and other problems of capitalism?

The purpose of this post was to show you the main mistake you are making and show you that what you wrote can be rephrased into "if people are free, they are not free." I am not sure did I explain it well, but I hope that what I wanted to say was understandable.

[RussianAnarchist]

The inevitable from my point view in the anarchistic community destruction of any author's or patent legislation, I think, must become strong blow on the possibility of monopolization. Furthermore, Tukker wrote in regard to this that the free competition, in the economic value of this word, assumes the destruction of the forces of seizure and free sphere of action for the forces of unseizurish property. Accurately also as the freedom of one person must conclude until begins the freedom of another, so also the freedom of economic activity it must stretch to the formation of monopolies. It isn't contradiction. However, neither Takker (although anarcho-capitalism can be considered the logical continuation of anarcho-individualism, but it is possible also not to consider) nor I are not anarcho-capitalists, and I think,which to you best anything would be to read directly Rotthbard or someone of its followers.

[Fawkes]

jadan ja:
no, i meant that it starts out as free and than it becomes corrupt

[bombeverything]

but from my current knowledge of anarchy, it seems to me tht it means a complete free society. But isnt that what capitalism is, Free Economy?

Not at all. Capitalism is not a 'free economy' at all. It is simply the so called 'right' to own property, and thus the 'right' to employ workers to work for a wage. This results in the domination and expoitation of those who have to work to survive. There is nothing "free" about this arrangement. It is slavery.

As well as this the state exists under capitalism, and it's role is ultimately to protect the ruling class.

What you seem to be thinking of is so called anarcho-capitalism which is an oxymoron. Capitalism necessitates inequality which necessitates hierarchy. Anarchism is about the elimination of authority as well as inequality -- as you cannot destroy one without destroying the other.


Personally, the main reason i am against capiitalism is because i believe that by leaving the economy totally free and open, it just makes it easier for greedy corporations and people to monopalize, manipulate, and basically control the economy.

This is why we advocate workers control over the means of production.


That's why i believe that there needs to be intervention by a non-corrupt government or a group which is totally unbiased.

Impossible my friend.


But like i said before, my knowledge of anarchy is that it is basically a free society, leaving it wide open for people to do what they do in Capitalism.

Anarchism -- a society of free individuals, co-operating as equals in free, self-managed associations.
Capitalism -- a society divided into classes, with the ruling class in control of all the power and wealth of society, and the working class who have to sell their labour to the capitalists in order to survive.

[Fawkes]

thanks

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 2 2006, 10:55 PM
hello, i will be the first to admit that i do not know much about anarchy but i do wish to learn more.

but from my current knowledge of anarchy, it seems to me tht it means a complete free society. But isnt that what capitalism is, Free Economy? Personally, the main reason i am against capiitalism is because i believe that by leaving the economy totally free and open, it just makes it easier for greedy corporations and people to monopalize, manipulate, and basically control the economy. That's why i believe that there needs to be intervention by a non-corrupt government or a group which is totally unbiased. But like i said before, my knowledge of anarchy is that it is basically a free society, leaving it wide open for people to do what they do in Capitalism.

I mostly am posting this because i want to learn more about anarchy and i want to see what you guys, particularly the anarchists, have to say about what i said about anarchy and capitalisms relationship.



P.S. dont get offended by my comparison of the two philosophys. Rather, tell me how what i said is incorrect.





Thanks
Nice examination. :)

[apathy maybe]

See Blackberry&#39;s excellent thread on Anarchism <http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421>. It also contains a link to another excellent thread by the same bloke <http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28053>.

I also commend An Anarchist FAQ which can be found at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/, the geocities main site seems to be down at the moment.


(P.S. Don&#39;t believe the folk who claim that anarchism is only about communism and that other anarchisms aren&#39;t really. Do believe the folks that say that anarchism and capitalism do not mix however. Capitalism leads to accumulation of property and wealth, which leads to heirarchy, which anarchism is against.)

[chimx]

Lower case &#39;c&#39; communism and anarchism are synonymous.

[Robert_Allan_Carroll]

I have a pretty good idea of what an anarchist society is, but, would someone please just write in one post what it is???

[Crazyvichistan]

but from my current knowledge of anarchy, it seems to me tht it means a complete free society. But isnt that what capitalism is, Free Economy? Personally, the main reason i am against capiitalism is because i believe that by leaving the economy totally free and open, it just makes it easier for greedy corporations and people to monopalize, manipulate, and basically control the economy. That&#39;s why i believe that there needs to be intervention by a non-corrupt government or a group which is totally unbiased. But like i said before, my knowledge of anarchy is that it is basically a free society, leaving it wide open for people to do what they do in Capitalism.

Here&#39;s my take on the issue as an Anarchist.
Anarchism as I see it is the end of the economy. Money, as they say, has been the root of all evil, driving conflict and opression up from Babylon through Rome, up through the monetary monopolies of the Church and Monarch during the middle ages, through the current Capitalist opression.
Anarchist society has no money, and no market. People work and live at the community level, trading with goods and work for what they really need. The extrapolation of money in the floating, disturbed theories of the markets (free or not) is simply a clouding of the truth of life, and the needs of the common people. It furthers the goals of the controlling, financially powerful rich, not the millions that live below them. Anarchy frees these people.


I have a pretty good idea of what an anarchist society is, but, would someone please just write in one post what it is???
Picking up from where I left off above, Anarchy and Anarchism Frees the People.
I&#39;m an Eco-Anarchist, so my explanation does not represent a lot of Anarchist view, but here&#39;s my best explanation:
Anarchism is based on the belief that centralised power is the main purveyor of problems in our modern society. In order for liberty and happiness to flourish, this centralised government must be abolished. The central government manipulates the people through war, money and poverty, police and crime, taxation and imprisonment, as it has since its rise after the "invention" of agriculture.
Therefore, the central government should be abolished and overthrown, to be replaced with a return to community and the land.

Limited, open government would exist at the community level to stop the perputration of environmental destruction and to manage disputes and crimes. Anarchist though believes that the state causes most crime to continue through the police system, but I believe that some crime is unavoidable and that without falling to vigilante organizations, the small amount of remaining crime should be dealt with.

People farm and craft in an environmentally friendly way, and enjoy technology that is not destructive to that environment (this is the difference from anarcho-primitivism). They trade and form ties in their neigbourhood and community, forming a closed-circuit that leads to less crime and more happiness. People commit crime against the system today, not their neighbours. In anarchist society, the crime is against people they know, a big stopper.

There is private property, but not in Machivelian sense that exists in the Capitalist system. Property is fleeting, a part of a continous stream of time through which we all flow. People cooperate or don&#39;t based on need an personnality, their hand is not forced, as it has been throughout our history.
THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW&#33;

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Crazyvichistan
People farm and craft in an environmentally friendly way, and enjoy technology that is not destructive to that environment (this is the difference from anarcho-primitivism).

Interesting. Which technology do you exactly define as such? Are you for or against technological progress, and how would you look at an environmentally sustainable hightech society, with big cities and industrialization?

I, and the majority of us here on this board see primitivism as an opposed ideology to communism, and reactionary.

But I&#39;m not too familiar with the ideas of eco-anarchists. Please enlighten me.

[Crazyvichistan]

I, and the majority of us here on this board see primitivism as an opposed ideology to communism, and reactionary.

But I&#39;m not too familiar with the ideas of eco-anarchists. Please enlighten me.
I&#39;m perfectly happy to. First, I&#39;d cite my debate with an Anarcho-Primitivist here (http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50398).
There is some disagreement and some common ground. Basically, they view civilization and technology as the problem. I view centralisation, that developed post-civilization as the main problem.


Interesting. Which technology do you exactly define as such?
Well, solar panels and hybrid cars are technology, as is nuclear or coal power. The difference is that some technologies hurt the environment (chemicals, gigantic tankers, etc.) while others don&#39;t. In order to maintain a standard of living, it is neccessary to have tools to interact with the world and ourselves. Science and technology can help us by creating environmentally friendly technologies, they are simply driven to create destructive technologies by the big business driven capitalist system. I don&#39;t have a way of discerning what is good or bad, but I think that judgment is not too hard.


Are you for or against technological progress,
As I elaborated in the above responce, I&#39;m not against technological progress. I simply believe that in a cuthroat, corporate and capitalist world the developers of technology look for the cheapest angle, not the one that benefits the people and the environment in which they live.


and how would you look at an environmentally sustainable hightech society, with big cities and industrialization?

I view that as somewhat of an oxymoron. Industrialization, Capitalism and Centralism go hand in hand. In the USSR, there was massive environmental destruction. I see the failure of the USSR in its Leninist centralization, and its environment destruction in its blind commitment to industrial production.
Industrial production leads the the to the capitalist-corporatism that leads to the kind of scientific development that I talked of above, the kind that poisons us and the world we live in. That in itself is not sustainable.
Big cities are not the problem, they are a by-product of so many problems I, as an Eco-Anarchist, seek to end. Therefore, an Eco-Anarchist society would not seek to destroy or stop big cities, but they would cease to be neccessary or relevant

[Sentinel]

In order to maintain a standard of living, it is neccessary to have tools to interact with the world and ourselves. Science and technology can help us by creating environmentally friendly technologies, they are simply driven to create destructive technologies by the big business driven capitalist system.

I agree completely&#33; In the post-revolutionary society this will be seen in it&#39;s "full glory". :)


in a cuthroat, corporate and capitalist world the developers of technology look for the cheapest angle, not the one that benefits the people and the environment in which they live.

Very true.


Industrialization, Capitalism and Centralism go hand in hand

Exactly, capitalism brought us industrialization, as a part of human progress. But in communism, I&#39;m convinced it will be sustainable, since the predatory abuse of resources by corporations will be gone.


In the USSR, there was massive environmental destruction. I see the failure of the USSR in its Leninist centralization, and its environment destruction in its blind commitment to industrial production.

The USSR, when it industrialised, was a merely a state capitalist society, and on a much lower tech level than we are today, or will be in the communist future I see ahead of us.

Early power sources and technology were much more environmentally harmful than the ones that&#39;ll be used.

[QUOTE] Industrial production leads the the to the capitalist-corporatism that leads to the kind of scientific development that I talked of above, the kind that poisons us and the world we live in.

It led us to it. But communism lead industrial production away from any harmful paths and poisoning effects, to sustainability.

Thanks for the info. While I most likely won&#39;t become a eco-anarchist tomorrow,
I now realise that you are different from the primitivists, who have no revolutionary potential whatsoever.

That&#39;s a positive surprise, in other words. Oh, and welcome to Revleft. :)

[Crazyvichistan]

Thanks. From talking to Communist elswhere I&#39;ve recently learned that end-stage communism is nearly identical to my philosophy, I just disagree on the issue of the Socialist system. I won&#39;t start that same argument here, since I&#39;m still debating those people right now.


Exactly, capitalism brought us industrialization, as a part of human progress. But in communism, I&#39;m convinced it will be sustainable, since the predatory abuse of resources by corporations will be gone.
Yeah, the one thing I didn&#39;t mention was the end of the monetary system, which drives the whole thing. So basically, I agree.