Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.
What extreme libertarian-capitalists seem to want is anomie
5 Likes
There are agreements and associations. As long as there is free association for people to find, live, work, and play with whom they choose then it can be anarchism. It is only when contracts are against oneâs will and associations are forced that things arenât anarchism.
(Which of course produces a lot of difficulty for anarchism in practice, in the real world. For example, how would anarchism deal with people who are actually insane, or who legitimately want to harm strangers? If itâs just to be everyone for themselves, then isnât that simply âmight makes rightâ in a different form?)
In any case, any time that anyone has expectations of another this could be called âsocial lawâ. But this is a built-in need for all primates, and no group of humans can function with it.
And again, I do consider myself a rational anarchist. Itâs a direction I prefer and think is better for humanity. But I think itâs also fair to say that we donât yet have solved how to do it, as effectively as we can in the real world.
3 Likes
Yes, âLibertarianâ just has a separate meaning now for many people, at least in the US. Noam Chomsky himself has said he comes from the libertarian tradition as it used to be called, and now most closely identifies himself as Anarcho-syndicalist.
1 Like
Only in North America though. 6/7ths of the world still uses liberal to describe that kind of politics.
5 Likes
Sure, also âlibertarian socialismâ is a thing.
But since a large part of online discussion involves the US, it can be more clear to at least specify if one doesnât mean the US usage of the term. If only because other non-US people might not be sure if you mean the US usage or not.
2 Likes
In a discussion heavily involving Margaret Thatcher!?
1 Like
Yes, even in this case. Iâm not talking about what should be of course, but about what is. : )
1 Like
Just to be clear, I almost never use libertarian without a further descriptor (usually libertarian-socialist or capitalist, occasionally civil libertarian).
Thinking about that for a little bit. I would change that to âan additional meaningâ
1 Like
Good point. Editing.
1 Like
Gosh: this is not only something I know about, but I can quote a comicâŚ
10 Likes
That is GOLD.
In a, uh, non-capitalistic sense.
2 Likes
I think libertarianism gets a bad rap. Itâs basically anarchism in a three cornered hat, and I donât think thatâs a bad thing.
Thing is, though - instead of being a force for arguing that the state is always inferior to voluntary association, they should be a force for proving it.
EDIT:
In case itâs not obvious in todayâs political climate, I mean proving it by organizing voluntary institutions, not by screwing up the state.
5 Likes
Sure, as long as a set of concepts is for freedom for all, and that includes from corporations and private institutions as well as government and religions, Iâm all for it. : ) The labelâs not the most important part, by far.
The real-world complication is that some structure is required to keep one group of people from getting too much power and enforcing their own structure on others, to a negative effect.
As an example, the Zapatista coffee co-operatives seem to be fine examples of organizations that benefits everyone in it and donât just concentrate the benefits at the top against the workers. But Iâm sure there are enforcements of agreements and punishments of those who work against it, including being kicked out.
2 Likes
Direct democracy. 50%+1 of the vote, or maybe 66%+1? Iâve been involved in organisations that worked with consensus politics, and that turns out to be bad too.
Agree. The spirit with which you approach it matters a lot, and Iâm not at all sure my spirit is in the majority.
Interesting. I havenât read the book, but in the post, I quibble with the parenthetical, âmaybe we treat everyone as equally deserving, or continue to allow some to have much more than everyone elseâ. Everyone can be equally deserving (we are all âcreated equalâ) without everyone having the same amount, after all. And the word âallowâ is a little bit chilling. I think thatâs where we get into trouble with Communism and why its instances in the actual world have been so downtrodden. It has always had a class of those who âallowâ things or not. Thatâs a kind of tyranny.
Given world history (caution - Iâm not an expert) it certainly seems as if the post has Socialism and Communism backwards. The former seems to me to provide more abundance than the latter. What am I missing?
Letâs look at what much of the world sees as the American Golden Age, between the wars and after WWII until⌠well, Nixon. This is the period that led the entire world to see the US as a lodestar, of wealth and equality. Piketty says (I think - I read the reviews, not the book) that the consequence of the twin existential threats of the Depression and the world wars was high taxation on the wealthy and lots of national initiatives - social safety net, roads and infrastructure, etc. This led to a period of unprecedented equality - not a flat line, but a much more shallow curve than we have now. Your boss might make 25 times the average workerâs salary, not 300 times.
But this Golden Age had a lot of opponents. The worm in the apple was, as it always is in the USA, racism. And that allowed the opponents of equality to lever it apart.
2 Likes
A European forum mate of mine once said,
âThe Enlightenment promoted Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The U.S. cares about liberty, Europe cares about equality, and no one cares about fraternity.â
Maybe fraternity is the key to it all. No oneâs tried it yet. Ha, ha! Only serious.
5 Likes
Sure. Any institution can be a problem, AND having no institutions is always a problem. : )
Itâs quite a bit of a bind, itâs no wonder there hasnât been a perfect solution yet.
1 Like
I see no stopping the rich from getting richer, gaining more power over government and media, and forcing our laws to benefit them above all others.
We can, actually. We can stop granting them special rights over the skills, knowledge, and experience that reside in our heads. It starts with some civil disobedience, sure, but once we accept the contents of our own heads to be ours, the ridiculous monopoly rents that fuel a big part of the aristocratsâ power will be seen in its proper context.
4 Likes
No solution available, only best case scenarios, and then best case for whom is the issue. Thatâs where politics come in.
1 Like
