community and anarchy - pt I

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once we all recognize this, we'll be able to put aside our differences and fight the state together. Until then, we're all pretty much boned. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Though this brings up another question of how to work towards an anarchist society

[/ QUOTE ]

Decentralization.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is not the kind of capitalism that ACers are talking about. I've been trying to tell you this, but you just won't listen. Your definition of "capitalism" is not the same as ours!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

the difference for me is not simply a difference in semantics - i don't believe that the highly refined exchange and specialization aspects of capitalism can be separated from its command aspects - this is what the entire canon of modern heterodox economics and radical political economics tries to explain. it is not that i don't understand what you are positing and simply using a word a different way to piss you off, it is that I think ACers have an incomplete understanding of capitalism as an economic system based on some very untenable assumptions in neoclassical economic theory and I don't think that a "free capitalism" will ever work in the way you all suggest in here. The fact that you look at pre-capitalist systems of exchange as "essentially a form of unrefined capitalism" rather than looking at capitalism as a specific oppressive economic system that was born in tandem with the State and ruling class at a particular moment in history and carries with it a certain set of values, baggage, and a logic of its own bares this out I think. You have naturalized capitalism to the point where you look at all methods of humans interacting throughout history as essentially evolving to this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring his point, and just taking a very long time to justify your definition of capitalism, which is still not ours. Perhaps this would help: On Capitalism.

There is nothing "oppressive" about private property, freedom of exchange, or the existence of commodity money.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In which case it is clear that there is no basic difference between us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly what I've been trying to tell you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
But, according to the communists, justice and equity are, under natural conditions impossible of attainment in an individualistic society, and thus freedom too would not be attained." (Malatesta)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

Communist: ZOMG, individualism! We can't be free under such a society!
Individualist: ZOMG, communism! We can't be free under such a society!

They are both right. Separation is the only realistic solution. Once we all recognize this, we'll be able to put aside our differences and fight the state together. Until then, we're all pretty much boned. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. But there is one fundamental asymmetry, as was pointed out by some smart 19th century mofo whose name I can't recall:

Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez faire be tried.

Paraphrased, of course.