If anarcho capitalism didnt exist, would you rather be a minarchist or an anarcho leftist (communist/syndicalist/mutualist whatever)?
Id rather be one of the anarcho left, not sure which one.
Well maybe not, i mean minarchy is not THAT bad if you like to compromise principle…
Well damn… I was gonna make a thread like this… And hell I probably still will.
Anyway, definitely minarchist, leftist anarchism has potential, but not in the absence of a capitalist society.
i dunno but the anarcho left has some pretty good music… riot folk, poison girl, etc
leftist anarchism has potential
I’d like you to make a thread on this. I’ve noticed you saying things before like this, I’d be interested in hearing why you have the sympathies.
All I know is everytime I develop any sympathies with any of their theories -or even “empathy” with any of their concerns, it turns out I hit a brick wall.
Anyway - in so much as minarchy means “custom law with a mostly capitalist system” - certainly minarchy. I seriously don’t know how radical leftism as I have seen it stated will lead to anything but a catastrophe.
Mutualism doesn’t seem all thaaaaat evil, but with the loose definitions of “minarchy” some people like to have, I’ll go with minarchy. (Some minarchists are essentially AnCaps but are afraid of the anarchist label - they want all government services to be paid for by voluntary fees, and although the government maintains a monopoly on the law they believe in infinite secession - essentially AnCap).
maybe cuz im still young and radical i lean towards left anarchy more, but it is a kinda abstract theory
“kinda?”
It’s hella abstract as I’ve seen it stated! They’re against “hierarchy” and they prefer to leave the actual definition of hierarchy “undefined” so that they can adapt to the situation.
Mutualism doesn’t seem all thaaaaat evil
That’s what I thought at first. But they seem to be hardcore money cranks. And when you start asking about intrest, rent, etc - they tend to get very very obscure and slippery; they pull a lot of tap dances with purposefully annoying terms (e.g.“free markets” NOT “capitalism” - insist on being called “leftist” because of theFrench assembly or whatever other types of fashionable word Platonisms they wish to use)
We talk about elastic property rights and custom law, AND THEY STILL WISH TO USE different terminology. Something is fishy.
Do they understand that money is just a medium of trade? Money in itself is not evil, but the attitude that which you look at money can be.
Well, i said kinda, because i thot i was too dumb to understand it (wikipedia is good, but hard to understand sometimes)…
Do they understand that money is just a medium of trade
I have no idea what they understand. If you look through threads here where LL’s have come up in flares and fits - they simply duck out ofargument and slip into sloganing and have a penchant for caring more about labels.
Just go to the all-left.net forum to see them in their natural environment. 99% of it’s all about the right (left) way to support the right (left) cause, and how they hate ancaps.
Anyway,
you’re not too dumb to understand anything. You just have no need to understand something at the moment, you arein the process of learning something, or it is gibberish. Don’t doubt yourself on these trivial things that people try to cram down your throat and lord over you. The minute somone does that laugh in their face and move on,and that will easily demonstrate the uselessness of the BS they’re trying to sell you.
So you saying they just talk all rhetoric..
hurr durr greedy capitalists and their sweatshops viva la revoluciya!!! change, be different blah blah blah, fuck masters..!
Im sure there are very intelligible left anarchists though
Like ronald reagan… says he will spend less and tax less
spends money on sdi
If the issue of left vs. right anarchism hinges solely on the issue of property, I could very comfortably be a ‘left anarchist’. By this I mean an individualist anarchist in support of an occupancy/use property scheme. In fact I often find myself indifferent to the effectual differences between usufruct (occ/use) and private property. Even if there were no minarchy, I’d still probably go to an anarcho-leftist territory, because at least it would be fascinating.
I’m sure there are some problems with the effects of usufruct and the moralistic prescriptions of various mutualist doctrines, but I can’t pinpoint them right now. I used to think that it would be a big problem for consumers to be able to provide demand for capital goods, but realized there could easily be a business bond market rather than an equity one, wherein investors or more creditors than capitalists. People could deposit savings in banks and indicate whether they would like to warehouse or invest, whereafter banks could place their money on the business bond market or refer it to a financial advisor. All in all I think it would work out ok. The biggest problem with investment is whether leftists would even give a shit about it, thinking that investment is for guys who wear khakis, not understanding the structure of production. Oh well, I think it could work out ok, in the manner outlined above.
On the Mutualist monetary crankiness, it’s really not a problem at all. Their whole proposal is for people to issue notes based on promises for labor or time. That’s fine. But it’ll get the shit discounted out of it at banknote clearings, in favor of gold. That seems obvious to me, and humorously telling of the leftist mindset, which always ignores the restraints of the market, seeking to build pies in the sky. Let them have their ‘mutualist bank’ it won’t make any difference, until of course they go violent on the gold reserve banks. Though I would expect it might not come to that.
Also, goddamn the LibertarianLeftists. Instead of bridging the gap between anarchisms, they’ve only made the leftists hate anything right of the ALL, meaning the whole Mises crowd, despite the two sharing an identical politico-economic prescription. The whole ‘emphasis’ thing is bullshit, despite some fantastic literature produced by that crowd (Carson specifically).
On usufruct: is it really so bad? What would it change so significantly that the end of subsidized transportation wouldn’t already largely put into effect? Let me know.
I think alot of people who oppose capitalism, often mix up corporatism with true capitalism.
This is very true and a big problem. I’ve oft ventured into the Anarchism subreddit, to have AnComs tell me they don’t ‘believe’ that there would be a difference between a free market and a state-corporate one. It’s mind-boggling. As a gross generalization, most anarcho-leftists view anarchy like porn: no masters, no bosses, no god = sexy… but freedom of contract, capital accumulation, rule of law = snore get off the stage old man!
There are some anarcho-leftists who kind of get it, and would even be willing to cooperate within an individualist property paradigm, whether usufruct or private, but still favor the aesthetic of a more communal society. It’s for this reason that I am currently liking usufruct. If more Rothbardians were Tuckerites, maybe there could be a real bridge. The whole point is to double the number of anarchists in agreement, though typical AnCom ‘hotheadedness’ (read: stupidity) often gives me cause for concern.
I think alot of people who oppose capitalism, often mix up corporatism with true capitalism.
Can I haz karma now?
What is usufruct?
@ Wheylous - Lol
@ Kevin - Usufruct is property paradigm based off of occupancy and use.
Releveant to the thread:
On usufruct: is it really so bad? What would it change so significantly that the end of subsidized transportation wouldn’t already largely put into effect? Let me know.
From the very little I understand:
I don’t think it’s bad at all, is probably somewhat desirable, and in fact may be necessary in a way(?). Isn’t this essentially the work of Ostrom?
The main thrust is though, one can not base a theory out of it. This is a consequence of the market / institutional process and structure. One can not start with what instutions ought to be or look like, nor can one emphasize such things. That’s where it gets very deadly (literally) and “top down” intellectual masturbation. This comes with part ofmy confusion with mutualism - it looks more at plausible ends and wishes to make that the focus.
Hmm. You’re sounding kind of historicist here, in terms of assuming that private property is an outcome of what historical market process has existed, which suprises me. I don’t see how one cannot base theory of the usufruct principle. Though I completely agree that much of mutualist (and worse, what’s left of it) doctrine is about painting pictures and giving suggestions on what color to paint the cooperative-kitchen, that does not mean that there isn’t room for the theoretical fleshing-out of usufruct.
There’s kind of a tendency in this kind of literature to say: look how horrible this shit is right now, let’s become free and then sort it out amongst ourselves. I agree that this could lead to mass starvation. But just because private property has been the reigning paradigm of the last few centuries does not mean that it and market process are inextricable, or have I misunderstood you?
The left needs more rightists writing their own literature for them. Treatises not flyers. Maybe then we could throw most of it in the trash once it reveals itself in plain english.