Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-15-2007, 07:37 PM
Dane S Dane S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 4,453
Default Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

The last few days I've been devouring AC material ravenously. I've read the forum's AC faq, most of its links/linked threads and the faq at http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18.
I am seriously intrigued and compelled by much of the logic and I wanted to throw a few of the ideas that have cropped up in my head out here to see what supporters and detractors of AC alike think of them, and to test my reasoning.

1.) AC-land vs. AC principles

To begin with, I love imagining AC-land along with you guys and I think it's a very worthy and relevant undertaking. I think that lines about AC being worthless because it's only a theory, or it's ivory-tower, or it's unrealistic/impossible etc. are supremely stupid. All political ideas are essentially abstract theories. Democracy is abstract theory, monarchy is abstract theory, economics is abstract theory, but abstract theory guides the course of concrete action. What people believe in drives the choices they make and the courses of action they pursue, regardless of that belief's generally held plausibility. If AC-land is the best imaginable society, that is extremely important, because if it is the best, that means it will be convincing to intelligent people, and those intelligent people will think of ways to make it convincing to less intelligent people, and that is how large shifts in cultural attitude can happen.

That said, I think I would like to see more discussion of the principles of AC applied to current situations, and I would like to see these discussions not always regressing (imo) into emotional debates on the minute details of AC-land. I want to know how the principles of AC can guide analysis and action in the here and now, and I think this is primary. As important as AC-land is, I think it only gets its importance from the principles that can be derived from it.

2.) Marketing AC: state corruption of language

If AC is at its heart a theory of free market and competition, then I think it's important to evaluate this theory as one of many competing theories in the market of ideas. The state, a criminal, tyrannical organization (of this I was easily convinced by the AC logic), has a monopoly on force, justice, minting, etc. but it still hasn't achieved a monopoly on ideas (God help us if it ever does). Of course, the state uses its monopolistic power to push its enabling ideologies as hard as it possibly can, but the human mind retains the power of choice, which means the market of ideas remains free, however large a share the state has managed to control. I think it's important for anyone who is looking to change minds (which is the core of the AC mission, right?) to not shy away from this competition.

It seems to me that one of the main ways the state maintains its ideological dominance is by controlling language and meaning. It literally redefines words within a culture's understanding in order to influence opinion. Think of the words communism, atheism, terrorism, democracy, etc. These words have one meaning in political discourse, but their culturally accepted meanings have been totally corrupted in order to deter the masses from embarking on lines of thought that will eventually reveal to them the realities of state brutality and greed.

Perhaps you've guessed where this is leading. I HATE the term Anarchocapitalism. It's accurate enough, sure, but I hate it from a marketing perspective. The word anarchy has been linked to fear of chaos and war among the media-conditioned population, and the seeds of this conditioning can remain even the minds of very intelligent and intellectual people. They see that prefix "Anarcho" and you've immediately lost them. Their minds will close and they will go into defense mode and they'll never seriously consider a word you write or say. If the goal is convince through solid reasoning, I think it's important to present your ideas to others in such a way that they will be forced to confront the logic, perhaps initially believing that it SUPPORTS their position, instead of giving them an easy pretext for dismissing it out of hand according to deep, irrational prejudices that words like "anarchy" will call up.

I don't think I'm at all qualified to come up with new labels, but I'll give it a try anyway. Here are just a couple ideas:

Free Market Society

I like this one because, while it is a perfectly accurate descriptive term for the ideas of AC (as I understand them) it subversively plays off of values that the state itself promotes: freedom, capitalism, social unity. It doesn't throw controversial, polarizing terms in the reader's/listener's face. I mean it sounds positively groovy! What republican won't listen in on this one to hear his supposed "free market" bias confirmed? And those on the left should be piqued by the word "society".

Free Market Government

Same basic idea; though AC is certainly anarchist in the political theory sense, it also certainly provides for the existence of government as the common American thinks of it. Rights, laws, courts, enforcement, military will all exist; it seems important to establish this up front.

Somewhere in the reading I recall a selection about one of the state's major accomplishments being creating a false identification within the populace of law and order and government with the state. A label like this tackles that dichotomy immediately and hopefully sidesteps a lot of anti-anarchy prejudice.

3.) AC as a utopian petri dish

I think the thing that excites me most about AC's ideas is the potential I imagine for a free market of competing societal models. I am in truth more of a utopian or socialist anarchist at heart but I recognize the enormous impracticality issues, the most serious of which is that using any form of power to reorganize society is a form of tyranny no matter how noble its aims and cannot be acceptable. I see AC not as an end but as an intermediary phase between the dark ages of statism and a final golden age where humanity would be free to experiment with millions and millions of different societal models. If the rapid natural selection of the market can't solve the issues of human nature that plague utopian ideals, then nothing can. And if we can never create a worldwide utopia, at least we'll be free in the meantime, and perhaps opportunities for many small utopian pockets of society will exist.

I think many socialists in these discussions have been way way off in their criticisms of capitalism. The important part of AC isn't capitalism, it's freedom! AC would present unparalleled opportunities for socialists to recruit VOLUNTARY followers, and spread their humanist messages through a truly free media. Private property is indeed a myth, but it's a myth that is necessary for making a smooth, non-violent transition to a decent civilization.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-15-2007, 08:59 PM
Nielsio Nielsio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,570
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

0. Great

1. Sure, fine

2. The myth exists and renaming your worldview isn't going to change that. But yeah, I guess some connotations can go. But think about this: when you introduce the idea of no state to someone, they auto-response with "BUT THAT WOULD BE ANARCHY/CHAOS". -> So what you want to do is break down the myth. For example you can show people how anarchy in the food market is a great thing. This also ties in with the term I like to use: market anarchist. This means that I don't want any part of the market to be monopolized. People think monopolies are bad, so therefore this connotation could be good.

People are also using 'voluntary' and 'stateless' society.

3. I think you're a bit off here, probably due to the fact you're still new to really understanding all facets of markets. See this thread for someone with similar traits and the responses: http://freedomainradio.com/board/for...ead/49122.aspx .


In conclusion: you're on a great path and you're doing great. Du Bist Ein AC-er!!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-16-2007, 02:52 AM
Dane S Dane S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 4,453
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

[ QUOTE ]
But think about this: when you introduce the idea of no state to someone, they auto-response with "BUT THAT WOULD BE ANARCHY/CHAOS". -> So what you want to do is break down the myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree breaking down the myth is also a useful undertaking. I think my point is to be mindful of who your audience is. Are you debating, recruiting, or preaching to the choir? Each activity requires a different kind of vocabulary, a style of rhetoric, and lends itself best to some topics over others. I think AC has a big leg up on some other radical ideologies like communism because it shares many fundamental philosophical values with the dominant paradigm instead of rejecting them. I think it's always better to establish agreement and common beliefs before launching an attack on someone. It gives them a chance to let their guard down; kind of like a Trojan horse.

So breaking down the myth is important, but it seems like it's only useful once the person has reached a certain level of understanding. Or perhaps you could also come at it from a completely different angle that doesn't involve AC.

In some cases I wonder if it isn't possible to simply sidestep the myth by espousing the free market and completely avoiding anarchy. If the person is more open to this line of argument, perhaps he can become convinced of the vast potential of the free market, then back his way into anarchy when he realizes that the state could in fact be made obsolete.

[ QUOTE ]
For example you can show people how anarchy in the food market is a great thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd definitely be interested in an explanation of this or a link.

[ QUOTE ]
This also ties in with the term I like to use: market anarchist. This means that I don't want any part of the market to be monopolized. People think monopolies are bad, so therefore this connotation could be good.

People are also using 'voluntary' and 'stateless' society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like all these, especially voluntary society.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're a bit off here, probably due to the fact you're still new to really understanding all facets of markets. See this thread for someone with similar traits and the responses: http://freedomainradio.com/board/for...ead/49122.aspx .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm definitely new to understanding markets. I know very little about economics or political economy. I took a political theory course my first year of college but I skipped all the classes about Marx and I found Hobbes/Locke unreadable [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

In the thread you linked, you write:

[ QUOTE ]
So when there are no territories, what is left (and what can flourish) are people interacting voluntarily (i.e. the market). So if that is the case, how can there be any socialism or communism?

Another aspect of property: there is a difference between communes and communism. Most families are communes, where the whole family shares in property. But the difference with communism is that communes choose to participate in this type of relationship. Under communism people are forced to give up control over their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the issue with the -ism portions of communism and socialism? I wouldn't advocate trying to force anyone into any form of society, so if that's what -ism implies, I won't use those terms anymore.

I think I'm an Anarchocapitalistsocialist (lol). As long as the state exists, it seems likely I'll be against the state. As soon as it's gone, I'd probably one of the first in AC-land trying to come up with models for voluntary egalitarian societies and trying to convince everyone that worrying so much about money and property and status is a huge waste of time. Am I missing something with this mindset? It seems like it fits into the AC system well enough.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-16-2007, 02:22 PM
hmkpoker hmkpoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stronger than ever before
Posts: 7,525
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

[ QUOTE ]

I think I'm an Anarchocapitalistsocialist (lol). As long as the state exists, it seems likely I'll be against the state. As soon as it's gone, I'd probably one of the first in AC-land trying to come up with models for voluntary egalitarian societies and trying to convince everyone that worrying so much about money and property and status is a huge waste of time. Am I missing something with this mindset? It seems like it fits into the AC system well enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally understand what you mean, and actually I'm with you in a lot of ways. Capitalism is good for macroeconomic activity, but (voluntary) socialism has a lot of merit in microeconomics.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-16-2007, 03:29 PM
m_the0ry m_the0ry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 790
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

I just don't see how you can expect a self regulating market to keep wealth distribution in check. Extremely unnatural constructs like tax bracketing and constructs against monopolies and oligopolies are in place in most capitalist governments. You can't speculate what it would be like to live in a market driven society without centralized government without considering this.

Anarchocapitalism would lead to horrendous problems in distribution of wealth (.01% wealthiest owning 99.99% of the wealth).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-16-2007, 03:34 PM
WillMagic WillMagic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back by popular demand
Posts: 3,197
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

m_theory,

a) why are you focused on wealth distribution as opposed to the absolute wealth of the lower classes? the market is not a zero-sum game. the rich are rich because they create wealth, not because they steal it.

b) your statistic is completely absurd. 01% controlling 99%...yeah right.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-16-2007, 06:46 PM
hmkpoker hmkpoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stronger than ever before
Posts: 7,525
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how you can expect a self regulating market to keep wealth distribution in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The single greatest concentration of power and wealth (the state) does not exist.

2) Corporations will not exist, because no court would hold a ficititious business entity as culpable rather than the human beings operating the business. This means that businesses can no longer go public with extremely limited liability, thus making it much more difficult for businesses to grow to some of the market-irrational sizes we see today.

3) The state cannot provide protection for drug companies, insurance companies, banks and other massive businesses, meaning that they must face the brunt of competition. (With a six-figure loan and a handful of mexicans, I could produce morphine and thebaine derivatives more cheaply than Merck. I don't think they'd like that.)

4) The rich have substantially less access to cheap credit, making it both more difficult for them to hoard valuable assets (real estate), and easier for the poor who no longer have to pay for their free lunch through inflation.

5) Technological improvements lead to lower barriers to entry, making the phenomenon of a natural monopoly more difficult as time progresses.

6) As competition becomes more intense over time, greater capital reinvestment is demanded of the business owners. This means that a greater percentage of the profits must be reinvested in the resource department (the employees) in order to keep the business afloat.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-15-2007, 09:02 PM
ojc02 ojc02 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: and ideas are bulletproof
Posts: 1,017
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

Nice post.

I don't think this is such a great idea though:
[ QUOTE ]
Free Market Government

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all very well to remove the word "anarcho" from the name but you can't remove the meaning. If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

Just my 2c.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-15-2007, 09:07 PM
valenzuela valenzuela is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 6,508
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

I like youre post, I think voluntary society its better
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-16-2007, 03:22 AM
Dane S Dane S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 4,453
Default Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

[ QUOTE ]
If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you defining government? If you define it as a system of law, order, and defense, then government does exist in AC-land, right? It just doesn't have any connection to state power. It seems like stressing the governmental role which a free market can provide could be a good way to defuse many of the fears that are generally associated with anarchy. It also sounds less radical and stresses the critical difference between government (law, order, defense) and state (tyranny) which many many people never realize.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.