I thought the guy was anti-capitalist all around. What’s this about?
Chomsky also once said that Rothbard’s world would devolve into everyone suing each other over everything. At least here he admits that we’ve never had anything even close to capitalism and even says why.
I find it strange how healthcare could exist in a libertarian socialist society. No private sector, no government coercion. Okay, so what happens?
the ends of ancaps and ansynds is the same, voluntarism. In the end it is a state of mind not an economic system.
So are you not an Ancap?
Ancap is a fancy word for voluntaryist.
In other words, all anarcho capitalists are voluntaryists but not all voluntaryists are capitalists (some are ancoms or ansyns).
I think chomsky here is recognizing the difference between “capitalism” (state regulations, interventionism, corporatism, etc, what the masses think it is), and Capitalism (what it truly is supposed to be, free markets, free trade).
I still don’t fully understand how anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are compatible with Voluntaryism. How could you have “to each according to yadayadayada” without coercion?
A train wreck is also a train (that happens to be wrecked)
Um…clarification, plz?
I was assuming that ansyns and ancoms would not use aggression.
But if they do, then they arent voluntaryists.
I thought the mindset was that if communism was so superior then it need not be coerced.
But if it is, then it isnt voluntary.
Yes but the point of their entire philosophy is to structure society to their liking. These societies are both anti-capitalist. While this is wildly open to interperetation, I will assume they are referencing their hostile view towards the free-market. If I decided to pull a Lysander Spooner and create, say, a mail company, I guess under the “anarcho-comsyn law” that would not be permitted.
Certainly not my view of Voluntaryism.
I just meant that anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are both train wrecks, voluntaryist or not. But its possible for them to be voluntaryist, it would be more successful than coerced.
Oh, I see. Could you explain why they are train wrecks? I’m actually considering reading work by Peter Kropotkin.
Because people are diverse and multivarious, posessing exponentially different amounts of wealth, and so on. If I am really good at welding ship hulls together, it does not necessarily follow that I am good at managing a ship factory or investing in the shipbuilding industry, so why would we choose to inseperably bundle management and investment tasks with labor? People can still choose to form worker-managed and worker-owned enterprises, but they wont-because most workers wouldnt choose to invest their capital in a factory. Which is why they dont do it very much nowadays, its just not how people typically do things. Nothing wrong with it, just generally less efficient. Its like riding a horse and buggy to work.
Hmm. Based on what you said, sounds like Valve Corporation is an example of the anarcho-communist working system.
Heh
this guy works at valve. Sounds like spontaneous order due to the patronage of someone who had capital and vision.
The vast majority of what gets discussed under the label “anarchy” - of whatever variety - is just building castles in the air. Any sentence that begins with “In a _______ society” makes me nervous. I’ve written many such sentences myself but nowadays I try to only use them in characterizing and answering someone else’s argument. A rigorous view of the social order should be able to stand on its own without needing to invoke a counterfactual social order to draw contrasts.
Cause-and-effect in the social order is devilishly difficult to establish. In most cases, we have no choice but to admit that we have no idea how things will work out differently if even one variable is changed, let alone many variables.
Rather than speaking of “anarchy”, I think we do well to be as specific as possible about the changes we would like to see. Freeing up of specific markets (and precisely what we mean by “freeing”) can probably express the majority of the changes we would like to see: freeing the market in money production, freeing the market in financial certification and financial trading, and so on. As Big-Hairy-Audacious-Goals, we would even like to see the market in law freed up, the market in security services and even regional defense services. We understand that things will have to change quite a bit before people will even be able to comprehend at the most basic level how such a world is possible and why all of us - except the Elites - will benefit from these changes.
Some other specific things that we would like to see are political disaggregation (secession), revival of common law principles - such as habeas corpus (contra PATRIOT Act), performance bonds, jury nullification, and so on - and a revival of the concept of patriotism, the general sense of distrust of government and loyalty towards one’s community.
But it is my belief that there is a prerequisite to any of this happening. And that is that we need a moral awakening. We need a revival in the popular consciousness that morals matter, in the most general sense. And part and parcel of this reawakening is tackling the juvenile conception of morality as obedience-to-commands, whether divine or Earthly. Until people begin to see that morality is something entirely separate from obedience to commands and that upright (virtuous) living - in at least the most basic sense - is an indispensable component of happiness, no real, lasting changes can occur. But if history is any guide, nothing short of cataclysm will get the wider public to rethink their basic moral stance.
Clayton -
@ Malachi
I don’t understand, what’s wrong with their organizational structure?
Nothing as far as I am aware. It sounds like a great place to work, and they make quality product.
Half-Life is a great game…
But everytime you call Gabe fat, he destroys of a copy of Episode 3.