http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#1cd2ed22-942b-48df-9e30-f478099b308c I have not read all of Proudhons works. I would be interested in looking over the sections of his work where he was advocating hierarchical structures as a preference rather than as a compromise, for example in the Paris Commune. It seems like part of the time he was talking about how to reform the current systems, and part of the time he was talking about the ideal voluntary society, but consistently he attacked the notion of political reform without economic reform. There may be some radical strains of Libertarianism that reject some of the hierarchical and exploitative elements within capitalism, but they are certainly not the majority that you think of when you think of Libertarians. "Again, capitalism is not the problem." I think you will find that most Anarchists will not agree with you, especially those who follow the more collectivist branches including Kropotkin and Malatesta and Rocker. Even among mutualists and individualists they virtually all condemn capitalism. Proudhon advocated worker owned free markets. He was somewhere between individualism and collectivism and laid the foundation for Anarcho-Syndicalism. The type of free market that was practiced in Spain during the Anarchist uprising and resistance to Francos fascists can not accurately be described as a capitalist free market because the workers seized control of the means of production, which is socialist, but without giving dictatorial powers to a ruling party. Also, what made this federation of autonomous unions different from a Jeffersonian Republic is their degree of autonomy and the fact that they were practicing direct participatory democracy. "Responsible positions" were not hierarchical the same way our current or even early Republic was because the unions through direct democratic means could reverse decisions made by these positions which were on quick rotation and could instantly recall any delegate. Responsible positions existed for the sake of efficiency, but they were held in check through bottom up participatory democratic means. Claiming that this vision is compatible with a Capitalist Jeffersonian Republic seems like a bit of a stretch. There are some common themes, such as confederation, small government, individual liberty, ect, but Jefferson was not advocating worker owned and controlled free markets and nor was he advocating that the Republic be ultimately subject to direct democracy from within autonomous unions. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:09:25 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#1cd2ed22-942b-48df-9e30-f478099b308c Djinn 2008-12-02T19:09:25Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#0cc44260-0ce6-42f3-8725-ef4365fbba69 "Sort of. He was an advocate of local autonomous organization among peers. He was NOT advocating a Republic composed of ruling parties or an elite class and nor was he advocating democratic centralism." Almost correct. He advocated local autonomous organizations, but those included minimal government, and included the acceptance (albeit begrudgingly) of hierarchical structures in said (gov and non-gov) organizations. He did advocate a republic (in the sense that Jefferson used the word - weak & limited central gov and stronger local control). "This is incompatible with the modern Libertarian party (despite some similarities) and with capitalism in general." Incorrect. It is incompatible with the majority opinion within Libertarian circles, to be sure, but not with Libertarianism on the whole (see: Green Libertarianism, "blue-green alliance", Geo-libertarianism, and other more recent developments...many doubtless a reaction against the Harry Browne bent in the LP since the late 1980s/early 1990s). Similarly, you use the word capitalism too broadly. Without question, the "old school" capitalists are in the vast majority, and it is there your opinion is doubtless correct. However, there have always been rival systems (rival to the corporate model, like co-ops, collectives, par-econ biz models, etc.) within the free market. John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO), for example, is one who has taken a large step in the right direction, demonstrating (though it is merely at the retail level) how it is possible to have a win-win-win situation with stake-holders/employees, top-level management/owners, and customers/community even within a predominantly hierarchical structure. Mondragon Book Store is a less well-known example, but has no hierarchy (pure par-econ - though this has been demonstrated to be less efficient than division of labor). South End press and the better known Z Communications (Z Net, Z Magazine, etc.) also run on similar ideas that compete directly - and successfully - with old school corporatism and minimize (though usually they do not eliminate) the role of hierarchies. Again, capitalism is not the problem. The problem is the alliance of state with corporations (laws demonstrating preference for the corporate model, protectionistic policies for corporations and the rich who run them, etc.). Capitalism contains the corporate structure, but it also contains the solutions (rival systems in free markets, et al). "He argued that property was theft and rent was robbery." He also argued that "property is freedom" and that rent was healthy. "So yes, you can be an individualist Anarchist and advocate free markets in a mutualist economy, but once you start being a corporate apologist, advocating that Walmart and Starbucks take over the role of the state while continuing to extract profit on every level of trade transaction and advocate a basically privatized dictatorship/plutocracy then you have probably drifted too far back into capitalism to still be an Anarchist." With that I completely agree. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:07:36 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#0cc44260-0ce6-42f3-8725-ef4365fbba69 David M. 2008-12-02T14:07:36Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#e0af4b48-4b89-40d3-9df1-d7a08fa7bcbd "However, it does not sound quite in synch with the Proudhon I have read. It's been a while, so perhaps I am mistaken, but I could have sworn Proudhon - who was a mutualist who used "anarchy" to describe LIMITED gov rather than no gov (his vision was all about embracing LOCAL as opposed to federal level institutions) - believed in the free market and individual ownership of the means of production (he was not a socialist or communist, despite claims to that effect, and he wrote about that as well)." Sort of. He was an advocate of local autonomous organization among peers. He was NOT advocating a Republic composed of ruling parties or an elite class and nor was he advocating democratic centralism. On economics, he was not an advocate of a central government redistributing wealth as was Marx's vision, because he was concerned about the greater tyranny of the state. However, what makes him anti-capitalist is his total opposition to the practice of usury, his rejection of the notion of property (Though he did say it was a lesser evil compared to state ownership), his advocacy of the labor theory of value, and his advocacy of land stewardship as opposed to ownership and the belief that workers are entitled to the value of what they produce rejecting the concept of profiting by exploiting the labor of others. This is incompatible with the modern Libertarian party (despite some similarities) and with capitalism in general. "In fact, Proudhon only bitched about capitalism due to the fact that the land owners presumably secured their land by force and because goods are sold well above the cost to produce & distribute them." I think it was a bit more than that. He argued that property was theft and rent was robbery. He talked about the land barons but I dont think he was merely advocating that they be replaced by a private economic elite. "It was excess profit he disliked, not free exchange in a free market, which he found superior to ALL other systems" Yes. Proudhon advocated a free market, not a planned economy. It was his views on land ownership and the charging of interest (The wealthy continuing to profit from the resources they acquired without trading them or contributing with their own labor). He felt it was unethical for somebody to obtain wealth, buy up all the land then forever onward extract interest from those who live and work on the land without ever lifting a finger again. So yes, you can be an individualist Anarchist and advocate free markets in a mutualist economy, but once you start being a corporate apologist, advocating that Walmart and Starbucks take over the role of the state while continuing to extract profit on every level of trade transaction and advocate a basically privatized dictatorship/plutocracy then you have probably drifted too far back into capitalism to still be an Anarchist. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:34:54 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#e0af4b48-4b89-40d3-9df1-d7a08fa7bcbd Djinn 2008-12-01T20:34:54Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#def22ecf-1aab-4e2f-81d9-bd07d0c5d4b1 Interesting perspective on Proudhan. However, it does not sound quite in synch with the Proudhon I have read. It's been a while, so perhaps I am mistaken, but I could have sworn Proudhon - who was a mutualist who used "anarchy" to describe LIMITED gov rather than no gov (his vision was all about embracing LOCAL as opposed to federal level institutions) - believed in the free market and individual ownership of the means of production (he was not a socialist or communist, despite claims to that effect, and he wrote about that as well). In fact, Proudhon only bitched about capitalism due to the fact that the land owners presumably secured their land by force and because goods are sold well above the cost to produce & distribute them. It was excess profit he disliked, not free exchange in a free market, which he found superior to ALL other systems (his words: "....business transactions alone produce the social order..."). Due to that, his early writings supported labor-ownership rather than individual ownership of the means of production, but he was very clear this was something be begrudgingly embraced as a necessary counter to the excesses of individual ownership. He also supported eliminating taxes, preferred co-ops to state socialization of industry, and abhorred the notion of violent revolution. I could go on, but then those who disagree might toss Proudhon out due to his overt sexism & racism, or for his advocacy of mandatory military service and the like (which, to my mind, throws out the baby with the bath-water). Godwin embraced many of these principles, too, I might add (though he ever used the term "anarchist", he was clearly anti-statist), and other "fathers of modern anarchism", like Tucker and Thoreau, had similar issues with the excesses of those embracing capitalism, but NOT with the free market. As an aside, the "Big Three" that all early anarchists raged about were Government, Capitalism, and Religion. Not, however, government, free market, and religion. I point this out because those bashing capitalism tend to confuse it with free markets and even with typical top-down division of labor biz structures. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:48:17 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#def22ecf-1aab-4e2f-81d9-bd07d0c5d4b1 David M. 2008-12-01T13:48:17Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#c43e3a01-8461-4b54-8678-3e6c8b13f9cb Sounds about right. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:35:53 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#c43e3a01-8461-4b54-8678-3e6c8b13f9cb Max 2008-12-01T06:35:53Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#17221b74-eb7e-4a1e-accc-76596b7fe9a9 Word. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:42:14 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#17221b74-eb7e-4a1e-accc-76596b7fe9a9 Tedster 2008-12-01T05:42:14Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#2735afe2-4bff-4fcb-af67-472b214ebbb9 To the Libertarian Capitalists, government is merely an obstacle to exercising their 'freedom' to exert their own hierarchy. Instead of public police controlled by corrupt officials you have private security forces who answer directly to a wealthy owner or corporate entity. How does that make any positive difference to the people who are being policed? They are merely replacing the government with corporations and they have even less democratic power than they had before under the government and the wealthy wield absolute power. For as long as Anarchism has existed as a political philosophy (It has roots in even older traditions, such as serfdoms and traditional societies) it has been a movement against all forms of class hierarchy and economic hierarchy was talked about as much if not more than government hierarchy. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:41:00 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#2735afe2-4bff-4fcb-af67-472b214ebbb9 Djinn 2008-12-01T05:41:00Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#4fe50b82-0462-404a-8c3c-a2ab3906b60a If you eliminate government and keep everything else, then you still don't have anarchy. It never has been just about eliminating government. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:36:24 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#4fe50b82-0462-404a-8c3c-a2ab3906b60a Tedster 2008-12-01T03:36:24Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#7d2e613e-748b-4d93-bf87-14d8029dc393 Well, Anarchy is derived from Greek which means 'without rulers'. Some people had used the term to describe a situation of chaos implying that without the benevolent rule of a higher class to guide the unwashed masses that chaos would be the natural result. Proudhon was the first to use the term Anarchy to describe a political philosophy. His writings go a lot deeper than merely being without rulers but goes on to give a very detailed position on a great many things. I have actually met some people who say they are for "anarchy" in the lower case, meaning chaos. I would describe such people as Nihilists though. Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:36:23 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#7d2e613e-748b-4d93-bf87-14d8029dc393 Djinn 2008-11-30T21:36:23Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#86a5d116-bcd9-465b-81cb-7ebc084af518 Unless my history & linguistics is off (please do correct me if I'm wrong), political anarchy IS anarchy. Period. All else flows from that. Anarchy is simply defined as a political philosophy embracing the notion of no government (the Greek "anarchos", which means "without a leader"). Different schools of thought elaborate with specific additions particular to their given school of anarchism (they range from absolute individualism to absolute collectivism), but again, all else flows from the notion that humans do not need government. Sun, 30 Nov 2008 13:24:05 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#86a5d116-bcd9-465b-81cb-7ebc084af518 David M. 2008-11-30T13:24:05Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#83388bda-a8c0-474f-ab17-d4e27e2cbb3b Anarchy is a lack of class hierarchy. What is left in its place could be any number of things. Political Anarchy is generally an attempt to replace hierarchical systems with egalitarian alternatives though the term has also been applied to situations where an established order has fallen into chaos. Political Anarchists are not advocates of chaos but egalitarian alternatives to class hierarchy. Anarchism is almost exclusively in reference to political Anarchy and not in reference to the lowercase 'anarchy'. Anarchism is a collection of fluid systems and collection of ideas and methodology on the nature of class hierarchy and the means to combat it. Anarchists generally dont limit their opposition to class hierarchy to just state hierarchy but consider patriarchy, racism, plutocracy and capitalism to be equally oppressive in the absence of the state which is why the vast majority of Anarchists reject right-Libertarianism Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:36:31 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#83388bda-a8c0-474f-ab17-d4e27e2cbb3b Djinn 2008-11-29T21:36:31Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#13247827-b65b-4465-885c-97b6ab4bfe0e is anarchy not that you are the ruler of thyself? there is a ruler, it is you, self govern yourself and help the world and people around you? Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:48:09 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#13247827-b65b-4465-885c-97b6ab4bfe0e j 2008-11-29T12:48:09Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#ddfb9677-4260-4eca-be77-7a9d852b4352 Anarchy- A state in which individuals are free to plot the course of his/her own life based on nothing other then self dictated ethics. Anarchist- An individual who feels that the above is the only ethical form of government. Or reasons that the above is the only possible government as no government can strip the headstrong of their freedom of will and mind, only rob them of their life. Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:24:05 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#ddfb9677-4260-4eca-be77-7a9d852b4352 Max 2008-11-29T11:24:05Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#93030620-99ad-4d4b-a2a6-54d868431a1d dry technical: Anarchy - no ruler Anarchism - advocacy for the elimination of ruler-status from society at all possible levels Anarchist - person who's ideals are informed by support for anarchy, and/or actively seeks to eliminate ruler-status and promotes the individual freedom and sovereignty of all people lokifreign flavored: Anarchy - the only ethical foundation for governance Anarchism - intelligent response to social nature Anarchist - sexy wexy Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:38:50 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#93030620-99ad-4d4b-a2a6-54d868431a1d Lokifreign 2008-11-29T06:38:50Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#41ea3f23-d32d-4276-8fef-0a8c5b69df50 Anarchism is when there is no leader or any power above another. All relationships are at a peer level. Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:58:54 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#41ea3f23-d32d-4276-8fef-0a8c5b69df50 Tedster 2008-11-29T04:58:54Z http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#18b646a1-c1ca-4623-b260-96fc19cd9abb with so many minds out there and so many thoughts, i am curious to what yours is... what does it mean to be a anarchist whom believes in anarchy? Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:31:01 GMT http://anarchism.tribe.net/thread/3eb602ae-8ac4-4fc0-875c-f87c15bb077d#18b646a1-c1ca-4623-b260-96fc19cd9abb j 2008-11-28T23:31:01Z