«12. . .126127128129130131132. . .192193»
...but it is the best weapon against ancaps. Mutualism is certainly a more free market system than capitalism, and ancaps do value individualism and the free market, even if these things are distorted by capitalism.
Libertarian Australia and Vertway
Could you explain this for a stupid person like me? Or give a link that would explain it?
What kind of "free" market is administrated dictatorially, participated in by slaves to both wages and debt? That's capitalism's "freedom." Mutualism allows for a market economy - except, socialist. Obviously it's more than just market socialism, but yeah.
The new sea territory, Gramonia, Kincoboh, Kassimo, and 1 otherVertway
Oh and I have another question for discussion: how do you all feel about parents punishing their kids (not necessarily corporal, but just punishment in general)? I believe it would be necessary in an anarchist society for parents to teach their children what to do and teaching them to work hard so that they can be productive in such society. Since there would be no government for them to fall back upon, they would truly be on their own, so they need to be taught at a young age what to do and how to survive in the society. Idk, open for discussion.
LSR's "Advice for Market Libertarians":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJvsyAETqc
Mutualism is effectively a more competitive market. You can't start a business without owning property. So. if the lack of ownership of private property is a barrier to entry into the market, then all markets are biased in favor of those who inherit ownership or property. Capitalism itself keeps the majority of the people (the working class) locked out of the market, because thedo not inherit property and do not have the means of acquiring it. Even if they did acquire it, they are starting the race two laps too late.
If property were owned by everyone, and people could trade products they made using this commonly owned property, everyone would effectively be self-employed, meaning everyone would be competing in the market. More competition = more freedom in an ancap analysis...so I don't see how mutualism is not the logical conclusion.
"Property" being defined as ownership of the means of production: land, factories, etc. Not personal belongings (which have little macroeconomic significance post-production).
So essentially what it is is that Mutualism puts everyone on an even playing field, and tears down huge businesses such as Walmart, because such large businesses would have an interest in creating their own state?
That, too. Large businesses, who want to maintain their hegemony in the market, would engage in unethical behavior, even in an anarcho-capitalist society. The most effective way to defend their class position would be the use of the state. Whether they literally recreate a republic, or just have a private military company that holds a monopoly on the use of force over the territory they are hired to defend, a state is the logical conclusion of property. In human history, the first city-states were a direct development from land ownership, after the Neolithic revolution.
Gramonia and Libertarian Australia
Of course. I don't think anarchists (well, not all of us) have abolition of any concept of the family as a primary goal. Parental authority is authority that is obviously justifiable to a reasonable extent. A parent should be able to exert force over their child, because toddlers won't always listen when you tell them not to run in traffic, and they need to be picked up and taken inside.
Corporal punishment has been scientifically and statistically proven to be harmful to children. There are no benefits to the practice. That said, I don't think we should go taking away every kid whose parent spanked them once when they had a violent public meltdown or something.
False. There would be no state. There would most certainly be a government. I'm certain an anarchist community would intervene or offer assistance in necessary child-rearing situations. "Takes a village to raise a child," yes?
It's crazy to me how capitalists who've been exposed to socialism can still genuinely feel their system is the one that's truly just and fair. The very statement socialist economics are based on is "to each according to his contribution!" We want the products of labor to be owned by the laborers. We want absolute equality of opportunity. Abolition of unearned income, like rent (profiting off of another's existence while sitting on your ass with an illegitimate piece of paper saying you can), obscene financial inheritance (f*ck trust fund kids), or interest ("oh, thanks for putting all your money in this spot - here, we're going to steal this poor person's last few dollars because those last few dollars aren't enough, and give it to you! that makes sense!").
In socialism, it is flatly true: If you want more, you have to work for it. Even if that was the case with capitalism - which it is not, at all, in any way - socialism would still be better, because if you are unable to work, or even if you were born a lazy unmotivated ethics-lacking sh*t, you still don't have to f*cking die. Socialism is simply the most moral, consistent, reasonable, fair, and just economic system invented.
Oh, also: Democracy. Very good in economy as well.
Only ancraps dislike democracy in economy :P
Good on you, comrade! The movement, because of your presence, is stronger. Mind if I ask what you teach?
That reminds me of a good quote, from the French anarchist Louise Michel: "The task of teachers, those obscure soldiers of civilization, is to give to the people the intellectual means to revolt."
You seem to be right on task. :P
I'm a philosophy teacher. Considering the nature of my subject I've found pretty easy to reconcile the contents of the official syllabus with a more open and complete approach just by presenting different alternatives and letting them discuss.
I have to say that all of you guys commenting on the subject have been very helpful and gave me a lot of inspiration on how to treat this questions (as well as many others) in my class, so thank you all.
Damn, I wish all teachers could have that attitude. Your students are lucky to have lessons like that.
I was fortunate enough to have a history teacher at school many years ago introduce me to anarchism after I wrote him a really pompous essay about the "Great Tragedy Of The Soviet Union". He just took me aside, lent me his copy of "Homage to Catalonia" and told me to read it, it would make me feel better. It did. People always joked about him being some sort of mad leftist, but he never divulged his politics, he just lived them.
So yes, I believe from the discussions that my initial attraction to mutualism was well placed.
*pauses to pick a few fruits placing them in a basket that is then left in the middle of the table for anyone to graze from*
As an "Eco-Anarchist" I am curious as to what you guys think about the inherent unsustainability of the measurement of success by growth. In a world of limited natural resources the only way to protect future generations from poverty is by developing a system where repeatable sufficiency is seen as preferable to "growth".
Does anyone have any knowledge of proposed systems that might serve this purpose.
This is kind of in line with Grammonia's parents punishing children, what are views on police. Obviously the current system is principally wrong because they defend laws and paper rather than people, but it seems like a necessary job. At least as something of an unbiased 3rd party to help solve communal disputes. I go back and forth on the issue of needing some form of police force. No disputes though the current police system is just an arm of the state.
It was found t be common to not know the father in pre historical society so as the whole community was involved in raising it.
Hmm. Well, that was prehistory. I'm not aiming for an ultra-deluxe strain of that ableist reactionary pile of ideological sh*t we call primitivism. :P
I know, just pointing it out.
And I'm glad that a ancap society will never see the day once.
An anarchist economy would, in my view, be inevitably be a sufficiency one. For there would be nobody (if an ancap) to force you to work for a precise number of hours so that he could accumulate the surplus you don't need to survive at the end of the day. Native americans had, I believe, a philosophy on a sufficiency economy. Claiming that if we tended to work more than for what we truly need, then someone would have to get the surplus, and actually work less and earn more. Although it is possible that workers or community would force themselves to work for a precise number of hours, just to get more wealth if they desired.
But just for you people to know : a native american at the time of the 16th century, could produce the necessary wealth he needed to survive (water supplies, clothing, housing and food) by working two days a week. Now, just imagine how effective we are already, with our technics being one thousand times more productive than in primitive times. But yeah I said that if we suppressed meat, then there would be more plant based products (and that is to say food) to everyone. But that's another debate we had.
Still very true with social animals, many of which are matriarchal. Even in cases where a single male has a harem that he defends, often times it is the females that run the day to day issues with a single female taking a degree of social dominance.
«12. . .126127128129130131132. . .192193»
Advertisement
