Bitcoin Forum
August 23, 2017, 02:18:20 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: eMansipater and anarchism  (Read 10000 times)
sortedmush
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
April 02, 2011, 06:42:46 PM
 #101

I really don't get left anarchists opposition to hierarchy, mainly because of what I percieve as the inconsistency I outlined. I'd like to get a left anarchist's take on things, preferably in the form of a skype chat .. I do have a lot of questions.
If you manage to do that could you, with their agreement, post a summary here? I'd be interested, too. My knowledge of anarchism is primarily left-oriented, but it's very out of date. I know the broad historical themes, but not the current debates.

Will do  Grin
1503497900
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503497900

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503497900
Reply with quote  #2

1503497900
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503497900
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503497900

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503497900
Reply with quote  #2

1503497900
Report to moderator
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
April 02, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
 #102


I really don't get left anarchists opposition to hierarchy, mainly because of what I percieve as the inconsistency I outlined. I'd like to get a left anarchist's take on things, preferably in the form of a skype chat .. I do have a lot of questions.


I concluded that they are inconsistent with regard to profit, on the sample size of one. Rather, I could not figure out why profit is evil.

qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile
April 02, 2011, 09:13:34 PM
 #103

Hierarchy isn't a big deal to me. It's a tool, and I'm not going to tell people which tools they can and can't use. I'm just going to expose, ridicule, boycott and ostracise those who initiate violence.

It seems there's lot more of a difference between left and right anarchists than meets the eye.

I really don't get left anarchists opposition to hierarchy, mainly because of what I percieve as the inconsistency I outlined. I'd like to get a left anarchist's take on things, preferably in the form of a skype chat .. I do have a lot of questions.
IIRC, when left anarchists use the word 'hierarchy' it is only hierarchy in the form of coercive power relationships that they mean. Left anarchists have no problems with the implicit hierarchy formed from natural authority, for example.
sortedmush
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
April 02, 2011, 10:35:24 PM
 #104

IIRC, when left anarchists use the word 'hierarchy' it is only hierarchy in the form of coercive power relationships that they mean. Left anarchists have no problems with the implicit hierarchy formed from natural authority, for example.

I still don't get it. Perhaps the confusion stems from what is considered coercion. I don't get how owning stuff is coercive given my understanding of the word.

I concluded that they are inconsistent with regard to profit, on the sample size of one. Rather, I could not figure out why profit is evil.

Me neither. Though I can understand that profit and wealth seem to correlate with evil.
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile
April 03, 2011, 02:10:01 AM
 #105

IIRC, when left anarchists use the word 'hierarchy' it is only hierarchy in the form of coercive power relationships that they mean. Left anarchists have no problems with the implicit hierarchy formed from natural authority, for example.
I still don't get it. Perhaps the confusion stems from what is considered coercion. I don't get how owning stuff is coercive given my understanding of the word.
Where or not owning stuff is considered coercive depends on how it is used. If the owner works their property themselves, left anarchists call that property 'possession' and have no issue with it. In fact, many left anarchists would wish the world of labor consisted only of artisans and syndicates. (When you combine this with the free market, one gets Mutualism.)

When one has a working class (a class of people who only own their labor), then paying someone a fraction of what they produce to use the property is viewed as coercive (and many left anarchists will not recogne your claim to the property as legitimate). The reason why they find this coercive is that the needs of the worker compel them to work for someone like you, hence why they consider the "you can always work for someone else" retort to be invalid.
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2011, 04:14:55 AM
 #106

You would have entered into a contract voluntarily with the land lord to live on his property. I would expect that such a contract would require that you move out if you did not pay. If you refuse to leave when you are in breach of contract the land lord is within his rights to remove you. A point not to be glossed over is the fact that you would have been made aware of, and explicitly agreed to the rules in advance. The landlord does have a use for the land/house/room, and that is the renting of it to another person who's willing and able to pay the fee.
Contract or not, landlords cannot exist without the violence to remove people from their homes.

Quote
I think the above response fits this situation too.
Ditto.

Quote
What I oppose is the providing of goods and services at the barrel of a gun. I oppose governments because they will use violence to stop you from competing with the services they provide. Many businesses also presently rely on the violence a state can provide to limit competition. What I'm for, is an environment in which no entity can rely on the cost of hampering competition being outsourced to society as a whole.
What's to stop business owners from violently eliminating competition to increase their profits themselves? Criminal enterprises, who do not enjoy protection from the traditional state, do so all the time.

I think I've finally figured out what's wrong here. It doesn't seem that FatherMcGruder respects property rights. That's quite unfortunate.
I just don't think anyone has the right to use, or not use, their property to exploit or otherwise harm others.

Yeah, I don't see how you can respect one kind of property rights ("personal" property), but not another ("capital" property). How do you draw that line? It's almost certain that more people could live in your home than currently does. Can you (McGruder) give an argument against this individual using your home that doesn't also fit for a landlord and his property?
My home? I can have guests, but the decision of allowing additional people to live her belongs to my landlord. If I did own my home though, and if I thought a portion of it would be most useful housing someone, I would sell that portion as a share.

It's kind of funny with you think about it, that people regularly do not own their own homes.

I would say socialists or communists moreso than anarchists

The problem there is that the socialists and communists CALL themselves anarchists, and the press quotes it as if it were true. Remember, the people who subscribe to this philosophy have no qualms about throwing a bomb at you if you are making a "profit" at someone else's "expense" -- in their eyes.

I think it makes more sense for the anarcho-socialists and communists to call themselves Anhierarchists.
As long as a socialist or a communist hates and wishes to get rid of authority, he is an anarchist. If he tolerates authority, even in the form of a state that he expects to wither away, he is not an anarchist.

Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies?
No, but it's what anti-government capitalists try to do, not seeing, or perhaps ignoring, the contradiction.

I've been in a meeting with anarcho-socialists and communists and what happened blew me away, it was fantastic. Nobody interupts, everyone listens and the whole thing goes swimmingly. However, there was a hierarchical structure that spontaneously emerged, served it's purpose and disappeared.
That's not hierarchy, because the apparent leaders don't have any rank over anyone else. They are partners.

Quote
It happens when we communicate, I talk, you listen and vice versa. There is lasting power to be had in maintaining a hierarchy for longer than it's natural life. This is achieved with violence and I am opposed to this. Governments talk, people listen, it's unilateral and perpetual.
Employers talk, employees listen, landlords talk, tenants listen, all unilaterally. These are authoritarian relationships.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
sortedmush
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
April 03, 2011, 10:28:47 AM
 #107

Contract or not, landlords cannot exist without the violence to remove people from their homes.

Yes they can. They can wait until the person has left and change the lock. They can ask politely, pointing our the breach of contract. They can tell others that the person is in on their property without their permission. The person in breach of the contract is in risk of social exclusion.

Anarcho Capitalism doesn't mean that all landlords are required to be heartless bastards just because the community they live in functions on a respect for property rights.

Ditto.
Ditto

What's to stop business owners from violently eliminating competition to increase their profits themselves? Criminal enterprises, who do not enjoy protection from the traditional state, do so all the time.

They'll have to pay for the violence by increasing their prices, thus encouraging competition. What criminal enterprises are you talking about? Drugs? Guns? These won't be criminal. They'll be subject to the market same as anything else. Except the risk (due to prohibition) won't be there. These enterprises won't automatically draw violent people.

There'll also be nothing stopping people from protecting themselves.
[/quote]

Employers talk, employees listen, landlords talk, tenants listen, all unilaterally. These are authoritarian relationships.

But is it implicit and perpetual? If the landlord or employer breaches the contract that you both voluntarily entered into, you would be entitled to remedy. They cannot subject you to anything beyond that which you agree.
Anonymous
Guest

April 04, 2011, 12:18:00 AM
 #108

If employers don't listen, the employees can quit.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!