this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
1022 points (94.6% liked)

Memes

45550 readers
1605 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 67 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (53 children)

Anarchy (as a political philosophy) is about an absence of coercion.

Capitalism is about the supremacy of property rights over all other rights, backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn't play along.

How anyone can think those two concepts are compatible is beyond me.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn't play along.

Every political ideology includes that. What good are rules without enforcement? Just because the enforcers are supposed to be random individuals in some ideologies doesn't mean the threat of violence for not playing along is gone.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Anarchism claims to be different. But yeah, that's a big part of why I see anarchism as a thought experiment and not a serious ideology.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm an anarchist, and my take is that anarchism isn't pacifism, and "no coercion" is a bad summary. It's more about the absence of hierarchical coercion and instead distribution of power to all people and communities.

If you're going around burning down houses, your anarchist neighbors are going to use force to take away your matches and gasoline if you don't stop.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yup, that is my understanding as well. Likewise, if you're going around stealing, and someone happens to think that's bad, they can use force to stop you because there's no state telling them otherwise.

The idea that if there's no state we'd automatically be living in communist utopia where everything is shared and nobody owns anything is flawed on its face. It's certainly possible that there would be groups or tribes of people that choose to live that way, but other tribes would form around the idea that property rights should be protected and build a community around that.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're very much misrepresenting how anarchism is supposed to work with that "automatically" statement. No one thinks if will happen by itself, there's a whole library on thought on how to go about making it the societal norm, with quite a lot of good points that humanity already largely acted like this for most of its two to three hundred thousand years of existence.

Supposedly, anyways. I suppose paleolithic man might well have been selling mammoth futures and executing debtors in the street.

But I also don't really buy it in a urban society unless that society is largely run by the Culture's Minds.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

I only put that there because the thread starter seems to be an anarcho-communist who thinks that in absence of a state enforcing property rights, property rights simply won't be enforced. That is not the case. They may or may not be enforced, either by the property owner themselves or their tribe/community.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Ok I should preface by saying I think ancap is dumb and having a slight disagreement with what you've said does not mean I'm not defending them. They're asshats.

But: imo, anarchist thought escapes definition. There's no such thing as anarchism (in the sense of an agreed-upon political philosophy), only anarchists.

Readers of Rene Girard might describe coersion (insofar as it's a natural result of hegemony), as a sort of force of nature, like violence, that, if society doesn't find a healthy way to express, will come out sideways, in ways that are anti-social.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Anarchism can only exist when there's a single individual not interacting with any other person, period. Every human interaction immediately breaks any sort of anarchism, there will always be some agreed upon behavior, whether implicit or explicit, violently enforced or not.

I suppose most ancaps are actually minarchists, or "minimal state" proponents, because capitalism fails terribly without laws and some way to enforce them. Without a state (even as small as a group's leadership), "ownership" doesn't exist, whoever's stronger owns the thing. You blink, you lose. You die, it's first dibs. Fell for a scam? Too bad, you should've been smarter. Got captured and sold into slave labor? Too bad, you should've seen that coming. Someone stole your stuff? Too bad, you should've secured it better.

load more comments (50 replies)