Anarchists are PRO capitalism. Anarchy means "no rulers" (greek) and capital means "personal wealth" (latin). Capitalism is against any govt/rulers stealing the wealth of the producers and redistributing it .. redistributing it mostly to themselves.
Anarchism is inherently capitalist and people are learning this fact fast; the think tank efforts to rebrand anarchy as something leftist/socialist are failing.
The "real stories"? Is that to imply that conspiracy facts are not real stories? They are. Conspiracy means two or more people working together in secret to do something harmful. That describes the activities of all govt/rulership, the church, and even random frenemies in our own social circles. The list of examples is long.
The CIA and co tried to malign those working to investigate the JFK assassination by coining "conspiracy theorist". Yet it's painfully obvious that conspiracies permeate the realities of our day to day lives, and that theorizing is something FUNCTIONING MINDS do naturally.
I agree of course about real conspiracies permeating our social and economic structure, capitalism chief among them. Capitalists conspire daily how better to rob the poor. They now also occupy the highest offices of government.
The idea that anarchy is capitalist is historical fiction. Anarchy as a political tradition arose as a response to capitalist enclosures in Europe. It was part of the larger socialist project until Marx and Bakunin split, after which communism and anarchism grew distinct.
The American tradition of anarchy was independent of the European line, but to pretend it was pro-capital is pretty disingenuous. Later of course radical thinkers across the Atlantic met and learned from each other, and their movements often cooperated. It's only very recently that some people started to rebrand anarchy as capitalist, and it's still a uniquely American phenomenon.
If anarchy means no rulers, then that also applies to anyone who tries to own the means of production. Besides that, it's pretty obvious who our rulers are now, and they're none of them socialists.
Capital means personal wealth. Unless you think the spoils of one's labor should be stolen, by govt or otherwise, then you are capitalist. The rulers are not capitalist. They tell us they are so that we will reject capitalism as a whole, thereby securing their position as the biggest creepiest socialists on planet Earth.
Your own body is the means of production. Do you wish your body to be public property, owned "in common"?
Whomever produces a thing owns that thing. Often, several individuals create something together and each have her say and veto. You persuade for unanimity, or it doesn't fly.
Note that land and water sources and atmospheric gases are not things we produce, and we therefore cannot own them; we can only use them and we have a responsibility to do so sensibly and with care.
Anarchy - no rulers.
With no rulers to steal wealth, there must ipso facto be capitalism on a free market. This is all logical progression.
If you do believe it's ok for govt (and thereby its proponents) to steal, then you are socialist. This is a position of moral bankruptcy just as a position with *either* party is.
I don't think we'll reach understanding btwn the two of us, but I'll respond because I want to point out some things to anyone watching.
It's so fascinating to me that you admit, almost offhandedly, that land and water and air cannot be owned, and should be managed collectively with care. That instantly undercuts all claim to private property rights. I agree of course, but that's the most anti-capitalist position you could take. Neither governments nor corporations could ever lay claim to a piece of land again. Sounds good to me!
I wish it were true that whoever produces a thing owns that thing. Tell that to everyone working a blue-collar job; it would instantly upend industry and end the ownership class, bringing immediate and total victory for the labor movement. Full worker ownership of the products of our labor would also affect academics and creatives: suddenly there would be no middle-man institutions; no studios, no publishers, no management taking a cut of what's due the artist or scholar. Again, I love that picture! It's just very anti-capitalist.
These thought experiments are good to do, because it's so hard to imagine ourselves outside the present moment. I long for us to live in a world where wealth isn't stolen by rulers. Where instead we share the riches of this planet equitably and generously. Capitalism has done more than any previous system to make sure that doesn't happen. Here's to hoping it will end sooner rather than later.
I didn't say "land should be managed collectively". you're just making things up, so i stopped reading there. Capitalism is freedom to gain wealth and it is good. *Everyone* can be wealthy. It is socialism that favors only the few.
Anarchy means no rulers, which means each person must be responsible and fair. That justice is upheld by the sovereign individual(s) no matter what. Did someone dump toxic sludge in the river? Ok, the closest 2000 people downstream are now coming for the perpetrator, and there are no thugs in government uniforms to protect him.
The perpetrators can either make it right and be good, or they can henceforth be shunned. As in, no one will sell them food or speak to them. They will move along to a place where they fit better - a place where other criminals will put up with him in their shared shunned desperation.
Everybody wins. :)
Anarchy is capitalist by nature. Capital simply means "personal wealth". Everything one produces is her personal wealth. Things that we don't produce, we can't own. Logically, this is the case.
Almost all of human history has been on homesteads and migration courses. This fraud of "land ownership" is extremely new, as is all government.
No number of think tank trolls can stop the arrival of a decentralized critical mass. The rulers, who are supremely *socialist*, don't stand a chance. Their days are coming to an end.
Excellent piece - and I have also been meaning to thank you for your truly superb series of letters with the robustly (non-delusionally) inspiring Elle Griffin - can't tell you how much it means, to have someone make the full sane case for Anarchy (as opposed to the emotionalist wreckerism, so often used to discredit it).
I find myself forever stuck on square one of the argument - no it isn't abandonment of responsibility, it is instead awareness and acceptance of FULL responsibility - which goes along with "builders not wreckers" (just firm about rejecting false foundations - to the great frustration of both the delusional and the complicit).
Above all - no violence in my name! (and no other politics goes there so clearly)
I do differ with you on a few points of history (and distinctions of reality vs conspiracy) - but I can just as surely tell these are simply differences in what you have read into, and where you have worked, compared to my own experience (there are finite moments. reading and working time for every one of us).
The spirit is the important (and rare) thing - and my friend - you NAIL IT.
Anarchists are PRO capitalism. Anarchy means "no rulers" (greek) and capital means "personal wealth" (latin). Capitalism is against any govt/rulers stealing the wealth of the producers and redistributing it .. redistributing it mostly to themselves.
Anarchism is inherently capitalist and people are learning this fact fast; the think tank efforts to rebrand anarchy as something leftist/socialist are failing.
The "real stories"? Is that to imply that conspiracy facts are not real stories? They are. Conspiracy means two or more people working together in secret to do something harmful. That describes the activities of all govt/rulership, the church, and even random frenemies in our own social circles. The list of examples is long.
The CIA and co tried to malign those working to investigate the JFK assassination by coining "conspiracy theorist". Yet it's painfully obvious that conspiracies permeate the realities of our day to day lives, and that theorizing is something FUNCTIONING MINDS do naturally.
I agree of course about real conspiracies permeating our social and economic structure, capitalism chief among them. Capitalists conspire daily how better to rob the poor. They now also occupy the highest offices of government.
The idea that anarchy is capitalist is historical fiction. Anarchy as a political tradition arose as a response to capitalist enclosures in Europe. It was part of the larger socialist project until Marx and Bakunin split, after which communism and anarchism grew distinct.
The American tradition of anarchy was independent of the European line, but to pretend it was pro-capital is pretty disingenuous. Later of course radical thinkers across the Atlantic met and learned from each other, and their movements often cooperated. It's only very recently that some people started to rebrand anarchy as capitalist, and it's still a uniquely American phenomenon.
If anarchy means no rulers, then that also applies to anyone who tries to own the means of production. Besides that, it's pretty obvious who our rulers are now, and they're none of them socialists.
You are totally and completely incorrect.
Capital means personal wealth. Unless you think the spoils of one's labor should be stolen, by govt or otherwise, then you are capitalist. The rulers are not capitalist. They tell us they are so that we will reject capitalism as a whole, thereby securing their position as the biggest creepiest socialists on planet Earth.
Your own body is the means of production. Do you wish your body to be public property, owned "in common"?
Whomever produces a thing owns that thing. Often, several individuals create something together and each have her say and veto. You persuade for unanimity, or it doesn't fly.
Note that land and water sources and atmospheric gases are not things we produce, and we therefore cannot own them; we can only use them and we have a responsibility to do so sensibly and with care.
Anarchy - no rulers.
With no rulers to steal wealth, there must ipso facto be capitalism on a free market. This is all logical progression.
If you do believe it's ok for govt (and thereby its proponents) to steal, then you are socialist. This is a position of moral bankruptcy just as a position with *either* party is.
I don't think we'll reach understanding btwn the two of us, but I'll respond because I want to point out some things to anyone watching.
It's so fascinating to me that you admit, almost offhandedly, that land and water and air cannot be owned, and should be managed collectively with care. That instantly undercuts all claim to private property rights. I agree of course, but that's the most anti-capitalist position you could take. Neither governments nor corporations could ever lay claim to a piece of land again. Sounds good to me!
I wish it were true that whoever produces a thing owns that thing. Tell that to everyone working a blue-collar job; it would instantly upend industry and end the ownership class, bringing immediate and total victory for the labor movement. Full worker ownership of the products of our labor would also affect academics and creatives: suddenly there would be no middle-man institutions; no studios, no publishers, no management taking a cut of what's due the artist or scholar. Again, I love that picture! It's just very anti-capitalist.
These thought experiments are good to do, because it's so hard to imagine ourselves outside the present moment. I long for us to live in a world where wealth isn't stolen by rulers. Where instead we share the riches of this planet equitably and generously. Capitalism has done more than any previous system to make sure that doesn't happen. Here's to hoping it will end sooner rather than later.
I didn't say "land should be managed collectively". you're just making things up, so i stopped reading there. Capitalism is freedom to gain wealth and it is good. *Everyone* can be wealthy. It is socialism that favors only the few.
Anarchy means no rulers, which means each person must be responsible and fair. That justice is upheld by the sovereign individual(s) no matter what. Did someone dump toxic sludge in the river? Ok, the closest 2000 people downstream are now coming for the perpetrator, and there are no thugs in government uniforms to protect him.
The perpetrators can either make it right and be good, or they can henceforth be shunned. As in, no one will sell them food or speak to them. They will move along to a place where they fit better - a place where other criminals will put up with him in their shared shunned desperation.
Everybody wins. :)
Anarchy is capitalist by nature. Capital simply means "personal wealth". Everything one produces is her personal wealth. Things that we don't produce, we can't own. Logically, this is the case.
Almost all of human history has been on homesteads and migration courses. This fraud of "land ownership" is extremely new, as is all government.
No number of think tank trolls can stop the arrival of a decentralized critical mass. The rulers, who are supremely *socialist*, don't stand a chance. Their days are coming to an end.
Excellent piece - and I have also been meaning to thank you for your truly superb series of letters with the robustly (non-delusionally) inspiring Elle Griffin - can't tell you how much it means, to have someone make the full sane case for Anarchy (as opposed to the emotionalist wreckerism, so often used to discredit it).
I find myself forever stuck on square one of the argument - no it isn't abandonment of responsibility, it is instead awareness and acceptance of FULL responsibility - which goes along with "builders not wreckers" (just firm about rejecting false foundations - to the great frustration of both the delusional and the complicit).
Above all - no violence in my name! (and no other politics goes there so clearly)
I do differ with you on a few points of history (and distinctions of reality vs conspiracy) - but I can just as surely tell these are simply differences in what you have read into, and where you have worked, compared to my own experience (there are finite moments. reading and working time for every one of us).
The spirit is the important (and rare) thing - and my friend - you NAIL IT.
For which you have my heartfelt appreciation!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What an encouraging comment, thank you! I agree that the spirit of the message is most important, and I'm so glad that's coming across.