Radical Feminism (continued from Capitalism)

[Rampion]

In Chapter 10 of The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin devotes a full section to the liberation of women via machines. He limits his descriptions to household appliances, but a clear inference can be made to extend this liberation to all spheres, excluding the futility of state participation. He describes women as "that drudge of humanity". I find this to be telling- less of Kropotkin's sexism, but more of the ubiquitous mysogyny commonplace both then and now.

Sure, you are right, I totally forgot that, I now remember that he somehow predicted the introduction of washing machines, dishwashers and the likes, but in any case he did not develop a deep theory about sexism, he is pretty much in the same line of thought outlined by Engels in "The Origin of Family, Private Property and State".

[PrintMule]

Whomever makes it in time to see my post : ignore button is a great tool/indicator , do not forget to use it at certain times. ciao

[ErisDiscordia]

More specifically, anarchists are against any type of hierarchical relationship (and this is why they are AGAINST capitalism, something many US folks don't understand because they are poisoned by the joke interpretation of anarchism by Rothbard)

hmmm I keep wondering how you came to the conclusion that capitalism comes with hierarchical structures attached to it. Would you mind to elaborate, please?

ktttn: I find myself more and more confused by your way of putting things. On the one hand I agree with a lot of what you say. While I'm not putting it into a blatant male/female dichotomy, I'd like to see each individual recognized for what he/she is - an individual. This means not judging him by identifying the individual with imaginary groups and letting her/him express him/herself freely and without coercion. I find that by focusing on the matter of sex exclusively, you're bound by the same chains you try fighting against. There are other ways and categories by which people are being subjugated and oppressed.

With that being said, your style of writing comes over as unbelievably arrogant and hateful, to the point that I actually feel the urge to argue against what you say (even though I should probably argue against how you say it) even though I agree for the most part. I simply can not imagine that you will effect any sort of positive change, or change any persons mind even a little in this way. So I ask you: what is your purpose? Is it to spread enlightened liberating ideas among people and educate them? Or to justify your outrage by pointing out and screaming at all the perceived sexist injustices you see everywhere? Or maybe something else entirely?

Please keep in mind that I am actually trying to be helpful.

[Rampion]

More specifically, anarchists are against any type of hierarchical relationship (and this is why they are AGAINST capitalism, something many US folks don't understand because they are poisoned by the joke interpretation of anarchism by Rothbard)

hmmm I keep wondering how you came to the conclusion that capitalism comes with hierarchical structures attached to it. Would you mind to elaborate, please?

Don't have the time to elaborate now, I already tried to explain it thoroughly in the many pages of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160726.0

The very simple answer is that in a capitalist system a vast portion of the population is dependent for its living upon the selling of their labour, which results in wage slavery and private hierarchy. Anarchism is a vital philosophy that not only touches politics but also economics, in the Rothbardian interpretation the "no-ruler" characteristic of anarchism is only relevant for "government rulers", while the "private ruler" is acceptable (e.g.: your "boss", the one telling you what to do in order for you to be able to survive thanks to the wage he is paying you). For a classic anarchist no ruler is acceptable, private or public.

TL;DR -> in a capitalist society, the wealthier de facto rules, thus the "no-ruler" principle is impossible. It can be argued that a very primitive form of "anarcho-capitalism" already took place in the middle ages, and those where hierarchic societies (in fact many Rothbardian followers present the Medieval Iceland society as an example of anarcho-capitalism. They like this example because Medieval Iceland was relatively peaceful, but still it was a highly hierarchic society where the minority of wealthier decided the fate of the majority of poorer. The funding principle is "you can have justice if you have the resources to pay for it") ,

I'll try to elaborate more later on.

[ErisDiscordia]

Thanks for your reply Rampion, it certainly gives food for thought.

I find myself going back and forth on this issue. I think the very word "capitalism" is at the root of a lot of confusion. It's been used and abused and changed its meaning many times so that I find when I hear people talking about "capitalism" most everyone has something a bit different in mind. Even though etymologically speaking it should be quite clear - capitalism is any system of thought putting the concept of "capital" at its core. Which makes me wonder: how can we organize ourselves in a peaceful way without the concept of capital?

I've read your post which you've linked to and to be honest, I still don't quite see how the very concept of capital is in its essence coercive. Maybe I should read the recommended books you've mentioned first? Anyway I won't argue that having capital doesn't give you power, it clearly does. But I'm torn on whether it's any sort of coercive power. After all as the owner of some capital you can offer it to people in return for other stuff you desire and they are free to decline your offer and you can't do anything about it. Well, maybe hire some thugs with your capital and extract it from them anyway. It's when people are dependent on acquiring capital in order to be able to get stuff needed for survival I can see how the power to withhold capital could be viewed as coercive. In other words, as long as there are other alternatives for providing a living besides acquiring a single form of capital I don't see a problem with that. Would you view Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies for example as incompatible with anarchist thought, because they represent a form of capital? I personally wouldn't, because to me anarchy (going back to etymology here) means "no ruler" which doesn't necessarily have to be a person or a group, but a single universal system which everyone is forced to follow. People often accuse anarchists as being "against any rules whatsoever" which I find silly, considering how hooked people seem to be on creating rules all the time. My personal anarchist philosophy just argues against the existence of a single universal system of rules being forced on everybody. I have no problem with several competing/complementary systems of rules or several competing forms of capital for that matter. I argue for this on grounds of efficiency (don't care much for the "moral argument") and aesthetic style (you can laugh now ).

Well I guess I'll read some of those books and come back to this topic later, because I still haven't quite decided on what to think about it.

[Rassah]

The very simple answer is that in a capitalist system a vast portion of the population is dependent for its living upon the selling of their labour, which results in wage slavery and private hierarchy.

I can think of only three ways of survival:

1) Trade your labor to someone who is an expert on how to use it most efficiently, in exchange for things needed for survival (work for a boss).
2) Apply your own labor to acquire things you need to survive yourself (grow/hunt your own food, or run your own business).
3) Steal or live off of other's labor without contributing anything in return.


#2 typically requires a lot more work than #3, either because you are not an expert in all the things you require to survive (may be a good farmer, but suck at building houses), and/or because more people working on the same problem is typically more efficient that a single person working on it by themselves.

#1 is essentially capitalism, where you trade your skill for someone else's capital. #2 is capitalism only if what you produce you end up trading for something else. If all you do in #2 is build your own shelter and grow your own food, that's not capitalism.

#3 isn't capitalism at all. It's either theft or parasitism.

So, am I missing any other means of survival? And if not, which of those do you propose we use?

[Rampion]

The very simple answer is that in a capitalist system a vast portion of the population is dependent for its living upon the selling of their labour, which results in wage slavery and private hierarchy.

I can think of only three ways of survival:

1) Trade your labor to someone who is an expert on how to use it most efficiently, in exchange for things needed for survival (work for a boss).
2) Apply your own labor to acquire things you need to survive yourself (grow/hunt your own food, or run your own business).
3) Steal or live off of other's labor without contributing anything in return.


#2 typically requires a lot more work than #3, either because you are not an expert in all the things you require to survive (may be a good farmer, but suck at building houses), and/or because more people working on the same problem is typically more efficient that a single person working on it by themselves.

#1 is essentially capitalism, where you trade your skill for someone else's capital. #2 is capitalism only if what you produce you end up trading for something else. If all you do in #2 is build your own shelter and grow your own food, that's not capitalism.

#3 isn't capitalism at all. It's either theft or parasitism.

So, am I missing any other means of survival? And if not, which of those do you propose we use?

The founders of anarchism were basically for two types of non-capitalist economy: Mutualism, which is a kind of anti-capitalist free market (Proudhon) and anarchist collectivism (Bakunin).

Other "sub-genres" of collectivist anarchism are a) libertarian communism (Kropotkin) and especially b) anarcho-syndicalism, which we could say that is the most structured, practical and systematic way of organizing economy in a collectivist anarchic society, and the only that was "empyrically tested" (Rudolf Rocker, Diego Abad de Santillán, etc).

The collectivist criticized the mutualist, but they always cooperated as the very strong and basic common point was a fierce anti-capitalsm and anti-totalitarism.

The only mid-sized experience of an anarchist society (Aragon and Catalonia, Spain 1930-1938) had an economy based on collectivist anarchism strongly influenced by the CNT, and thus basically anarcho-syndicalist (BTW, Chomsky is a big fan of anarcho-syndicalism). This spanish experience worked extremely well until it was crushed by the collusion of state communists of the KPSS and the fascists. Nevertheless, the sample is relatively small (it was a community of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, but not millions) and the timeframe quite short (only 7/8 years).

[Rassah]

How is Anarcho-Syndicalism any different from Anarcho-Capitalism, which allows for formation of unions and syndicates? Are labor unions not allowed to compete for employment by capitalists under anarcho-syndicalism? Or do capitalists, i.e. people who have a vision and wish to hire a lot of workers to see their idea become reality, just aren't allowed to exist under anarcho-syndicalism?

[Rampion]

How is Anarcho-Syndicalism any different from Anarcho-Capitalism, which allows for formation of unions and syndicates?

Anarcho-Syndicalism is anti-capitalist, which simply means that there is no private ownership of the means of production.

Anarcho-syndicalism and what Rothbard called "Anarcho-capitalism" are in opposite sides of the spectrum.

Are labor unions not allowed to compete for employment by capitalists under anarcho-syndicalism? Or do capitalists, i.e. people who have a vision and wish to hire a lot of workers to see their idea become reality, just aren't allowed to exist under anarcho-syndicalism?

Anarchism is a revolutionary doctrine that advocates for the abolition of both the state and the private ownership of the means of production. Workers self-manage and control the means of production in an horizontal, non-hierarchic way. No state and no bosses.

The above is not true for the Rothbardian, capitalist interpretation of anarchism, which advocates for the abolition of the state only, while maintaining the private ownership of the means of production. From an historic point of view, "anarcho-capitalism" is pretty much an oxymoron, two words that cannot go together. For the original anarchists, in order to reach the people's liberation abolishing capitalism was as necessary as abolishing the state.

[Rassah]

Anarchism is a revolutionary doctrine that advocates for the abolition of both the state and the private ownership of the means of production. Workers self-manage and control the means of production in an horizontal, non-hierarchic way. No state and no bosses.

Sounds like an extremely inefficient system. So what does one do if he wants to build or make something, and needs specialists for the job?

[ErisDiscordia]

The above is not true for the Rothbardian, capitalist interpretation of anarchism, which advocates for the abolition of the state only, while maintaining the private ownership of the means of production. From an historic point of view, "anarcho-capitalism" is pretty much an oxymoron, two words that cannot go together. For the original anarchists, in order to reach the people's liberation abolishing capitalism was as necessary as abolishing the state.

Do I understand this correctly when I say "anarchism can not maintain private ownership of the means of production because property rights can only be enforced by government"? So is there no way of having the concept of "property" around without the state to define and enforce it? Not sure if I'm willing to embrace this idea, since property seems to be a concept to me and concepts are workable whenever they're shared by people via their cultural operating system.

[Rampion]

Anarchism is a revolutionary doctrine that advocates for the abolition of both the state and the private ownership of the means of production. Workers self-manage and control the means of production in an horizontal, non-hierarchic way. No state and no bosses.

Sounds like an extremely inefficient system. So what does one do if he wants to build or make something, and needs specialists for the job?

If you are interested in the practical aspects of work organization in collectivist anarchism and specifically in anarcho-syndicalism I recommend you Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice, by Rudolph Rocker.

The system was tried and was efficient. Main principles: self-management, direct worker control, integration of agriculture, industry, service and personal participation in self-management.

Quoting Chomsky:

(The anarchists) had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live.

Answering to your question, if a community needs specialists to build something (for example, a water depuration plant), they would just take the decision horizontally and do the work. Each community would interact with others through local assemblies federated regionally, and this way they would coordinate complex work that required highly specialized workers.

In the practical example of the Spanish experience, the anarchist community was roughly 200k to 300k inhabitants in Aragón and 1,000k in Catalonia, and they could pretty much cover their needs internally as those were highly industrialized regions. When they didn't, they just interacted with the Republican Government and other non-anarchist groups on a free association basis.

I will quote something I wrote in another thread and that may anticipate more questions:

Traditional anarchists deal in two ways for the "bad jobs" (for example: mining coal) that nobody would like to do:

1) Some anarchists, let's say the "purist", say that unpleasant but necessary jobs would be shared by all members of the community, always voluntarily. For example: you would go to mine yourself for a week because it's a service for your community, and you would be happy to do that.
2) Some others say that those works would be associated with a higher reward to the individuals performing this jobs.

Then you have the capitalist way to deal with unpleasant jobs: you will always have someone hungry enough do that job, because crawaling in holes is the only way he has to feed himself

Normally anarchists are for 1), and they explain why this works and why this type of mutual aid is natural to humanity with studies on both animals and pre-private property communities, etc*

*The Mutual Aid (Kropotkin)

[Rampion]

The above is not true for the Rothbardian, capitalist interpretation of anarchism, which advocates for the abolition of the state only, while maintaining the private ownership of the means of production. From an historic point of view, "anarcho-capitalism" is pretty much an oxymoron, two words that cannot go together. For the original anarchists, in order to reach the people's liberation abolishing capitalism was as necessary as abolishing the state.

Do I understand this correctly when I say "anarchism can not maintain private ownership of the means of production because property rights can only be enforced by government"? So is there no way of having the concept of "property" around without the state to define and enforce it? Not sure if I'm willing to embrace this idea, since property seems to be a concept to me and concepts are workable whenever they're shared by people via their cultural operating system.

Not really, property rights can also be enforced by individuals (as in the middle ages), but its true that for anarchists modern governments are only a construction in order to defend the privileges and the property rights acquired by the capitalists. Thus, in a capitalist society "the wealthier ruler", and modern states are just a tool of the wealthier (practical example: who do you think rules America? Obama, or the economical powers behind him?)

To understand all this you should read:

The Capital, by Karl Marx, which is the work in which the meaning of capitalism was defined. Not having read this work and discussing politics (and specifically capitalism) is nonsense.
What is the private property? By Proudhon

Now let me add a point I made in the past and that I think its relevant to bring up when discussing with US folks that basically never thought of even discussing the legitimacy of the capitalist system and thus private ownership of means of production:

When Proudhon analyzed private property in the XIX Century (What is the private property?) he concluded that wealth have been concentrated in the same few hands for centuries. He demonstrated empirically that hundreds of years ago, private property of means of production was established by force, and since then nothing changed much. Wealth is concentrated in the very same hands that took it by force centuries ago. Obviously this gave arguments to the prolific anarchist terrorism we have had in Europe, because anarchists thought that if private property was established by force, it could be possible to revert this situation by force only.

There was a time where the majority of European population was anti-capitalist, but it was crushed by the pro-capitalist minority, which was wealthier and thus more powerful.

In the US the majority of population have never been anti-capitalist: just a few generations ago you started from scratch, and you have had a wide spread of wealth since then. As I said earlier, we could say that US is founded on private property, which is quite a different situation compared to Europe.

Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for the majority of US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery

[ErisDiscordia]

Not really, property rights can also be enforced by individuals (as in the middle ages), but its true that for anarchists modern governments are only a construction in order to defend the privileges and the property rights acquired by the capitalists. Thus, in a capitalist society "the wealthier ruler", and modern states are just a tool of the wealthier (practical example: who do you think rules America? Obama, or the economical powers behind him?)

To me it seems quite obvious that the office of president is for show only and the real decisions get made "behind the throne" so to speak. Similarly I view government in todays form as not much more than a tool by which to legitimize and enforce the agenda of people with deep enough pockets and good enough connections to influence the direction government is taking. This is why I keep laughing at people who want the government to "do something" about banks run amok and transnational companies exploiting the hell out of everybody. It can't and it won't because they are the masters of government, not the other way round.

Now let me add a point I made in the past and that I think its relevant to bring up when discussing with US folks that basically never thought of even discussing the legitimacy of the capitalist system and thus private ownership of means of production:

.....

Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for the majority of US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery

By the way I am not from the US I am from a country which has found itself on the socialist side of the iron curtain. Your assessment of property = freedom for US intellectuals is probably accurate (don't know, never been to the US) and property = slavery might express the viewpoint of many a western European intellectual. But in the former east block countries the situation is somewhat different in my experience. During socialist times property still existed, but the ideological tendency was to malign it and fight against it. Or to be clear, fight against private property. Of course there was government owned property. Thus for people in this area the ideological tension doesn't seem to be between property & no property or maybe statism & anarchism but between private property and public property. This is why they keep believing in the (in my mind illusory and misleading) political division of "left wing" and "right wing". They see one as advocating more public property and the other advocating more private property. With this philosophical framework established I think it's easy to see why people fail to think about the concept of "no property" and why my particular flavor of anarchism allows for the existence of property as well. Being a disciple of the Godess of Chaos, this opinion is of course subject to change and revision. Us Discordians don't believe in dogma - we prefer catmas (temporary relative meta-beliefs) I'm going to read up on some of the stuff you've recommended. It's been a while since I read any political philosophy - I've been on a sci-fi reading binge for the last 2-3 years

[Rassah]

I think Proudhon may be getting a bit outdated, in the same way that some really really old dude's rants against kings and monarchs isn't really relevant to our present economic situation. Sure, there are still a lot of old capitalists who own their vast wealth thanks to force, that there are more and more new capitalists that earned it through just capitalism. Examples of such capitalist ventures that are the new super-wealthy that didn't use force are Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and even Microsoft and WalMart. All their wealth came from innovation, and people wanting to give them money in exchange for their products.

By the way, Chomsky's anarchists don't sound all that different from anarcho-capitalists. It all only depends on whether those organic units/communities would freely give up all their belongings freely to any passerby who asks for them, or whether they should protect them and give them up to other communities in trade.

[Rampion]

I think Proudhon may be getting a bit outdated, in the same way that some really really old dude's rants against kings and monarchs isn't really relevant to our present economic situation. Sure, there are still a lot of old capitalists who own their vast wealth thanks to force, that there are more and more new capitalists that earned it through just capitalism. Examples of such capitalist ventures that are the new super-wealthy that didn't use force are Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and even Microsoft and WalMart. All their wealth came from innovation, and people wanting to give them money in exchange for their products.

By the way, Chomsky's anarchists don't sound all that different from anarcho-capitalists. It all only depends on whether those organic units/communities would freely give up all their belongings freely to any passerby who asks for them, or whether they should protect them and give them up to other communities in trade.

Sorry Rassah, but you lack fundamental knowledge on the matter (no offense intended). In anarchist philosophy there's no "giving all your belonging freely to any passerby", that's charity, which is a christian concept abhorred by anarchists.

First, one thing is personal property (your clothes; your furniture; etc.) and a very different thing is private property (which refers only to the means of production: the land; the factory; etc.).

Secondly, most forms of anarchism are not against the existence of free market (except for anarcho-communism), they are against capitalist free market.

Thirdly, anarcho-chapitalist don't accept state hierarchy but accept private hierarchy as the natural state of things. I'll put it silly simple: an anti capitalist anarchist would never accept to be a boss, nor to have a boss. For a collectivist anarchist self-control of the proceeds of his work is fundamental for his liberation as an individual. In collectivist anarchism the workers themselves would decide what to produce, how to produce it, and wether to trade those proceeds or not. For an anarcho-capitalist it's ok to rent his labour at market price (something that for a collectivist anarchist would mean "voluntary slavery"), as long as that its the most profitable option for him. It's basically a very different philosophical approach on what freedom means, and which do you think is the natural way to manage your own time and work.

I'l quote again Chomsky just because, while it can be criticized in many things, he is incredibly clear in his exposition, and he is a character with which US folks should be familiarized with:

"Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will."

Chomsky is quite the prototypical marxist, thus he thinks that capitalism alienates that creative urge intrinsic to human nature he mentions above. Anarchists and other marxist influenced thinkers believe that labour is a fundamental aspect of individual freedom, and this aspect shapes society as a whole. For a marxist, a worker developing his labour in a privately owned system is alienated from his own humanity, becoming a tool for others.

In a nutshell Marx's Theory of Alienation is the contention that under capitalist conditions workers will inevitably lose control of their lives by losing control over their work.

This "theory of alienation" is one of the cardinal points of The Capital, and Marx thoroughly describes 4 differents types of alienation that happen in a capitalist society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation#Types_of_alienation). Understanding those points is crucial to understand past and modern critics to the capitalist system.

BTW, if you'd like to have a "soft and easy", "american" and modern first approach to collectivist anarchism you could start with this: http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1458787435.

[gandhibt]

...

Bravo, I like Chomsky and Marx. Herbert Marcuse, Georg Lucács and of course the background influence to all these guys: G. W. F. Hegel had all good criticism about capitalism.

[ErisDiscordia]

First, one thing is personal property (your clothes; your furniture; etc.) and a very different thing is private property (which refers only to the means of production: the land; the factory; etc.).

Heureka! This seems to be the piece of the puzzle I have been looking for. Now what you are saying is making much more sense to me than before!

[ktttn]

Bump.
Any antifeminists out there want to bitch about how oppressed you are?

So by anti-feminist you mean any person who has been oppressed and also is the owner of a penis? It seems to me you are more interested in metering out your own form of self justified oppression rather than striving for equality, the true goal of actual feminists. I think the word you are looking for is anti-misandrist, because that is what you clearly do - attempt to subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis. Individuals be damned! PENIS = EVIL!

Firstly, thanks for finally posting something somewhat on topis
Secondly , the contents of your pants has as much to do with accepting that the undeniable sweeping waves of abuse women (specifically) have gone through at the hads of self absorbed.men is real. It's propped up by the inane notion of "equality." "Equality" is a myth. I want to end rape culture.

"Subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis."
This is trolling of the least admirable sort. That subjugation- rare as it is, only happens when Men try to stick their dicks where they aren't welcome or needed.

By anti feminist, I mean anyone unwilling to empathize with the construct of reality, as viewed by "the weaker sex."

[TECSHARE]

Bump.
Any antifeminists out there want to bitch about how oppressed you are?

So by anti-feminist you mean any person who has been oppressed and also is the owner of a penis? It seems to me you are more interested in metering out your own form of self justified oppression rather than striving for equality, the true goal of actual feminists. I think the word you are looking for is anti-misandrist, because that is what you clearly do - attempt to subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis. Individuals be damned! PENIS = EVIL!

Firstly, thanks for finally posting something somewhat on topis
Secondly , the contents of your pants has as much to do with accepting that the undeniable sweeping waves of abuse women (specifically) have gone through at the hads of self absorbed.men is real. It's propped up by the inane notion of "equality." "Equality" is a myth. I want to end rape culture.

"Subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis."
This is trolling of the least admirable sort. That subjugation- rare as it is, only happens when Men try to stick their dicks where they aren't welcome or needed.

By anti feminist, I mean anyone unwilling to empathize with the construct of reality, as viewed by "the weaker sex."

So since we are on the topis, you are saying men can not be subjugated? You seem to be only repeating yourself rather than elaborating on your point. Since you don't believe in the possibility of equality, wouldn't that make you a supremacist?