kropotkinbeard:
One can’t be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period. Now, there are several ways to deal with this inconvient fact if you’re a capitalist looking for a way to square a circle, that is, hijack the term libertarian/anarchist and marry it to capitalism. One way is simply to pretend that the relationship is not hierarchical, when it is nothing but, unless, perhaps, one is working strictly for themselves, which is almost never the case. But this would simply be delusional. Another way is to simply ignore this inherent conflict, take the anti-authoritarian aspects (thinking of them as being primarily anti-state) of anarchism/libertarianism, and pretend that this is “libertarian” or “anarchist”, which it is not. We’ve already had a good demonstration here by a (linguistic relativist) fellow beliving that words mean nothing, and that calling oneself bachelor, if he is married, isn’t a problem for him, but rather a problem for the folks who think he’s using the term “bachelor” incorrectly. If you assume this “logic”, yeah, you could be a capitalist and anti-authoritarian in the same way as you could be married and a bachelor.
Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?