Opinions on socialist individual anarchism.

[Nusocialist]

What are people's opinions here of the socialist free market anarchists like Tucker,Warren and Proudhon.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archi...honarchive.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/proudhon/Proudhonarchive.html)
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archi...cker/index.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bright/tucker/index.html)
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archi...ren/warren.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bright/warren/warren.html)

[RevMARKSman]

If they want workers' power, and they can demonstrate their system to include workers' power, then all well and good. However, this ideology is easily disproven as it is based on morality, which can obviously be bent by anyone in their material interests.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:06 am
If they want workers' power, and they can demonstrate their system to include workers' power, then all well and good. However, this ideology is easily disproven as it is based on morality, which can obviously be bent by anyone in their material interests.
They certainly want worker's power and their systems would give it,but I don't see how it is based on morality.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 04, 2007 07:10 pm--> (Nusocialist @ January 04, 2007 07:10 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 12:06 am
If they want workers' power, and they can demonstrate their system to include workers' power, then all well and good. However, this ideology is easily disproven as it is based on morality, which can obviously be bent by anyone in their material interests.
They certainly want worker's power and their systems would give it,but I don't see how it is based on morality. [/b]
Most of the individualist anarchists I have met morally oppose rent, interest and profit as "usury", but also as "exploitation". If other indiv-anarchists base their opinions on what they want from material reality, not what they think is "right", then it would be fine with me.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+January 05, 2007 12:46 am--> (MonicaTTmed @ January 05, 2007 12:46 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:10 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 12:06 am
If they want workers' power, and they can demonstrate their system to include workers' power, then all well and good. However, this ideology is easily disproven as it is based on morality, which can obviously be bent by anyone in their material interests.
They certainly want worker's power and their systems would give it,but I don't see how it is based on morality.
Most of the individualist anarchists I have met morally oppose rent, interest and profit as "usury", but also as "exploitation". If other indiv-anarchists base their opinions on what they want from material reality, not what they think is "right", then it would be fine with me. [/b]
I really don't understand your point,sorry.
Are you talking about natural law vs historical materialism?

[bezdomni]

My opinion? They are all useless idiots.

The labels "socialist", "free market" and "anarchist" are all mutually exclusive.

[KC]

Monica, read the thread before posting in it.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 04, 2007 09:19 pm
Monica, read the thread before posting in it.
I read the thread. I was talking about my impressions of contemporary indiv-anarchists, not what the original theorists thought.

[KC]

I read the thread. I was talking about my impressions of contemporary indiv-anarchists, not what the original theorists thought.

That has nothing to do with the thread.

[which doctor]

Whoops!

[KC]

Wow, nobody's reading this thread. He said absolutely nothing about authoritarianism.

[which doctor]

Shut up Zampano/Lazar/Khayembii Communique. I accidentally posted something here that I meant to post somewhere else. I made a mistake. In three posts you've contributed absolutely nothing to this thread. Get over yourself.

[YSR]

While I haven't read enough Tucker or Warren to qualify as knowledgeable on them, I've always been tolerant of Proudhonists/mutualists (insofar as they appear today).

While their level of understanding of the class struggle is obviously low, they do maintain a strong opposition to the state. I've found them to be the most pragmatic of anarchists, which while being their greatest strength is also their greatest theoretical weakness. Their willingness to accept features of capitalism smacks of a weak understanding of class society and the way in which hierarchy comes about.

Certainly, they would be tolerated in a situation in which anarchism has taken hold over a large area. They might even be the most useful of anarchists in a traditional Marxist-style internal revolution.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:15 am
My opinion? They are all useless idiots.

The labels "socialist", "free market" and "anarchist" are all mutually exclusive.
And yet Leninism,freedom and socialism are not?

[Nusocialist]

While their level of understanding of the class struggle is obviously low,
How so?

I've found them to be the most pragmatic of anarchists, which while being their greatest strength is also their greatest theoretical weakness. Their willingness to accept features of capitalism smacks of a weak understanding of class society and the way in which hierarchy comes about.
What do you mean features of capitalism?
Capitalism is a specific form of system where the gov't has interfered and continues to interfere to maintain a system of class society within the market.
It is not a natural occurance in a free market,this is what Tucker believed and I must agree with them.
I think Tucker and the mutualists actually have a better understanding of capitalism than many socialists,particularly orthodox marxists.
And they certainly have a better idea of the dangers of authoritarianism and centralisation(like most anarchists.) than most marxists and the need for liberty beyond economic socialism or communism.

[KC]

And yet Leninism,freedom and socialism are not?

Leninism doesn't exist.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Fob+--> (Fob)Shut up Zampano/Lazar/Khayembii Communique. I accidentally posted something here that I meant to post somewhere else. I made a mistake. In three posts you've contributed absolutely nothing to this thread.[/b]

Make that four!


nusocialist
Capitalism is a specific form of system where the gov't has interfered and continues to interfere to maintain a system of class society within the market.
It is not a natural occurance in a free market,this is what Tucker believed and I must agree with them.

I don't buy it. The an-caps love this guy, and this is exactly why.

Capitalism is qualified by the build-up of capital in industrial society. So far, every "free market" has become capitalist (to my knowledge). At the risk of being an economic determinist, I'd say these things have something to do with each other. And the answer is another simple anarchist concept: hierarchy. The free market inevitably produces a hierarchial system which becomes capitalism (or fascism, or feudalism, or some other flavor of hierarchy.)

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 05, 2007 06:52 pm
I don't buy it. The an-caps love this guy, and this is exactly why.


He's quite popular among the social anarchists as well.
As for the ancaps most of them are not anarchists anyway,only a fringe around the Rothbardian left deserves that name and then they are not capitalists as we know it.

Capitalism is qualified by the build-up of capital in industrial society. So far, every "free market" has become capitalist (to my knowledge). At the risk of being an economic determinist, I'd say these things have something to do with each other. And the answer is another simple anarchist concept: hierarchy. The free market inevitably produces a hierarchial system which becomes capitalism (or fascism, or feudalism, or some other flavor of hierarchy.)
Hasn't there only been one society like modern capitalism?
And this has been mark by massive state intervention from primitive accumulation onwards, in a free market there could be no hierarchy because you could own your own means of production so you wouldn't work in a capitalist workplace or except less than the value you put in.
Land would be cheap and abundant and through mutual banks the interest on loans would be down to costs,less than 1%.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 05, 2007 08:17 am

And yet Leninism,freedom and socialism are not?

Leninism doesn't exist.
Wishful thinking.

[KC]

Wishful thinking.

Truth.