Showing posts with label mutualism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mutualism. Show all posts
Sunday, 17 July 2011
theres life in the old blog yet!
well, it seems like i may be ressurecting this blog. many of my political views have changed since i abandoned this blog. i am still an anarchist, but i am now more anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist then mutualist. i'm not convinced that a free market of any kind is a good idea. i don't think it can avoid the creation of inequality. i also don't hold to any of the conspiricy theories i did before. i'm very much a beliver in freethought and anti-theism
Monday, 12 October 2009
Friday, 16 January 2009
soicial anarchist
I while ago,You'll remember, that I was confused over whether I was an individualist anarchist or a social anarchist. I know that Mutualism in many ways is between the social and individualist schools. I have realised that I am primarily a social anarchist because I would prefer that mutualist banks (I will probably talk about this at some point) be collectively owned by the community to avoid the generation of a capitalist enterprise. I also lean more towards the original proudhonian mutualism rather then the more tuckerite strand. There are bits of individualist thoughts in my general philosophy, but large areas of social anarchism exist there too.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Sunday, 4 January 2009
Tucker
Yesterday I talked about whether I was an individualist anarchist or a social anarchist. I am a mutualist, so the confusion in me regarding that is understandable, due to the fact that mutualism is the meeting point between the two strands of the anarchist tradition. After thinking about it I cannot subscribe to the teachings of people like tucker because of this whole idea of private competing protection agencies. This is an awful idea. not only is it exploitative from lots of angles, it would lead to all sorts of armed conflicts and has capitalistic features. I see some REAL problems there. not good, not good at all. Which is why I have decided that when I refer to specifically what type of anarchist I am I will just say Mutualist.
I won't use the term "market anarchist", even though technically I am, because I don't want to be thought of as anywhere near those vulgar libertarians that call themselves "anarcho-capitalists". no way.
My individualism is not as radical as some, I must admit. I'm no egoist. I have aspects of individualist and social thought in my general philosophy.
what you have to realise about these posts is that it is essentially me thinking out loud. I'm figuring things out. So I seem to contradict myself it's just that I'm thinking matters over.
I won't use the term "market anarchist", even though technically I am, because I don't want to be thought of as anywhere near those vulgar libertarians that call themselves "anarcho-capitalists". no way.
My individualism is not as radical as some, I must admit. I'm no egoist. I have aspects of individualist and social thought in my general philosophy.
what you have to realise about these posts is that it is essentially me thinking out loud. I'm figuring things out. So I seem to contradict myself it's just that I'm thinking matters over.
Saturday, 3 January 2009
individualism
turns out I might be an individualist anarchist, which surprised me because I thought I was a social anarchist. Not that it matters in the long run, but hey, we'll see if this proves true. I'm certainly pro-free-market, anti-capitalist,anti-rothbard,anti-konkin, anti-state, pro-mutualist, pro-freedom.
I would say I'm against the notion of collectives as the ideal. The rights of the individual are extremely important. I still maintain that social interaction is important, but individual rights are paramount.
Instead of people being bunched together in collectives, individuals, when needing to work with other individuals, should come together voluntarily to form co-operatives with no leaders, no higher authorities and therefore no hierarchies. decisions should be made when everyone in the co-operative has had a say and are in full agreement.
Does this make me an individualist? looks like it.
But I'm an anarchist first and foremost.
I would say I'm against the notion of collectives as the ideal. The rights of the individual are extremely important. I still maintain that social interaction is important, but individual rights are paramount.
Instead of people being bunched together in collectives, individuals, when needing to work with other individuals, should come together voluntarily to form co-operatives with no leaders, no higher authorities and therefore no hierarchies. decisions should be made when everyone in the co-operative has had a say and are in full agreement.
Does this make me an individualist? looks like it.
But I'm an anarchist first and foremost.
Friday, 2 January 2009
minarchism, markets and capitalism
I think minarchism is really naive. Governments are instruments of control and exploitation. they never stay small.
look at America. It started off with small government, constitutionalist libertarian ideals and look where it is now.
After a relatively short period, it has devolved into the mess it is now- A hostile capitalist society on the way to full tyranny. It dominates the world and is a major threat (that's the American government, not the citizens- I feel compassion towards them. I'd love America to truly be the land of the free. it isn't.) to the rest of the world. It arms countries, sets up dictatorships and then starts bloody wars to overthrow them when they get out of control.
Saddam was put into power by the US.
so was the current regime of Iran.
I'm willing to bet that Afghanistan was too.
saying you want a small government is like if I had a malignant tumour and the doctors wanted me to have it removed, But instead I tell them "no,no just shrink it. I'll be fine!".
Governments never stay small.
They grow and grow and grow. They dominate and bring tyranny (government itself is tyranny)
and next thing you know, you have cancer.
minarchism is naive.
Also, the state breeds capitalism. State socialism (what an oxymoron) can only ever postpone capitalism.
You cannot have true socialism (workers owning the means of production and controlling it democratically) when there is a state. The state is a class in and of itself. this simply whittles society down to two classes. The working class and the ruling class- the producers and the parasites.
Capitalism dominates the word market, even though it is perfectly possible to have the producers trading with each other in a voluntary,free,unregulated way without being capitalist. To me, the ideal society would be made up of self employed workers,artisans etc coming together and voluntarily forming co-operatives, in order to carry out projects with the community collectively owning the means of production. decisions should be made fairly and democratically. No authorities, just everyone on a level playing field. Having some sort of free market is fine.
I do not mean free market in the Marxist sense. I am not a Marxist (goodness no), though I am a socialist. The idea that the free market simply expresses the underlying long-term transition from feudalism to capitalism is nonsense. it's just that if we are to have a market, then we shouldn't have tax,tariffs and regulation. After all, the formation of a free society necessitates the abolition of the state and notions of authority,hierarchy etc. I don't see economics and history in that sort of Marxian transition notion, as if this is some sort of progression, an evolution if you will. no,no,no. To me an evolution indicates something positive. Feudalism is bad, I think we can all agree with that, but was the move from feudalism to capitalism that bigger a move? its just the move from battery to free-range. It's still a form of exploitation of labour. its still essentially human farming. that's what governments are in a way. It's people farming.
Simply having people trading ,exchanging items, is fine. Not sure you could suppress it without coercion anyway, even if you wanted. it's just that an autonomous structure based on voluntary co-operation, mutual aid and workers self ownership are needed to make it fair. agreement between producers is needed for things to function. you don't need big brother breathing down your neck.
common sense and reasonableness are not artificial concepts. Profit (as in the gaining and hoarding of money) should not be the important thing. The natural form of profit should be the product of ones labour. Money is fine as long as it is treated for what it is, a token of exchange. Nothing more, nothing less.
Property should be based on personal use. Buying a building of piece of land and then paying someone to use it is wrong. Capitalism encourages selfishness. it is a parasite that makes its victims parasites themselves. obviously we can't go straight into Anarchy. a lot of people are in this artificial state of the mememe mentality. They are dependant on the state and are manipulated into loving their manipulation. We must ease the crutch away. We must educate them.
look at America. It started off with small government, constitutionalist libertarian ideals and look where it is now.
After a relatively short period, it has devolved into the mess it is now- A hostile capitalist society on the way to full tyranny. It dominates the world and is a major threat (that's the American government, not the citizens- I feel compassion towards them. I'd love America to truly be the land of the free. it isn't.) to the rest of the world. It arms countries, sets up dictatorships and then starts bloody wars to overthrow them when they get out of control.
Saddam was put into power by the US.
so was the current regime of Iran.
I'm willing to bet that Afghanistan was too.
saying you want a small government is like if I had a malignant tumour and the doctors wanted me to have it removed, But instead I tell them "no,no just shrink it. I'll be fine!".
Governments never stay small.
They grow and grow and grow. They dominate and bring tyranny (government itself is tyranny)
and next thing you know, you have cancer.
minarchism is naive.
Also, the state breeds capitalism. State socialism (what an oxymoron) can only ever postpone capitalism.
You cannot have true socialism (workers owning the means of production and controlling it democratically) when there is a state. The state is a class in and of itself. this simply whittles society down to two classes. The working class and the ruling class- the producers and the parasites.
Capitalism dominates the word market, even though it is perfectly possible to have the producers trading with each other in a voluntary,free,unregulated way without being capitalist. To me, the ideal society would be made up of self employed workers,artisans etc coming together and voluntarily forming co-operatives, in order to carry out projects with the community collectively owning the means of production. decisions should be made fairly and democratically. No authorities, just everyone on a level playing field. Having some sort of free market is fine.
I do not mean free market in the Marxist sense. I am not a Marxist (goodness no), though I am a socialist. The idea that the free market simply expresses the underlying long-term transition from feudalism to capitalism is nonsense. it's just that if we are to have a market, then we shouldn't have tax,tariffs and regulation. After all, the formation of a free society necessitates the abolition of the state and notions of authority,hierarchy etc. I don't see economics and history in that sort of Marxian transition notion, as if this is some sort of progression, an evolution if you will. no,no,no. To me an evolution indicates something positive. Feudalism is bad, I think we can all agree with that, but was the move from feudalism to capitalism that bigger a move? its just the move from battery to free-range. It's still a form of exploitation of labour. its still essentially human farming. that's what governments are in a way. It's people farming.
Simply having people trading ,exchanging items, is fine. Not sure you could suppress it without coercion anyway, even if you wanted. it's just that an autonomous structure based on voluntary co-operation, mutual aid and workers self ownership are needed to make it fair. agreement between producers is needed for things to function. you don't need big brother breathing down your neck.
common sense and reasonableness are not artificial concepts. Profit (as in the gaining and hoarding of money) should not be the important thing. The natural form of profit should be the product of ones labour. Money is fine as long as it is treated for what it is, a token of exchange. Nothing more, nothing less.
Property should be based on personal use. Buying a building of piece of land and then paying someone to use it is wrong. Capitalism encourages selfishness. it is a parasite that makes its victims parasites themselves. obviously we can't go straight into Anarchy. a lot of people are in this artificial state of the mememe mentality. They are dependant on the state and are manipulated into loving their manipulation. We must ease the crutch away. We must educate them.
Sunday, 28 December 2008
anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron
It just is.
Capitalism is exploitative and hierarchical by it's nature.
It exploits others, involves private ownership of the means of production, necessitating bosses and it creates monopolies . Anarchism is against all forms of hierarchy,exploitation and coercion. one of the main principles of capitalism is the making of profits above all else. it is greedy and manipulative and cannot exist without a state. It requires private property (which is theft), subsidies and protection by the state and therefore goes against anarchism. Anarchism is not just about abolishing the state. Abolishing the government is a very very important feature to Anarchism, but it's not the be-all-and -end-all of everything.
I can't stand how they (and some other people) assume that if you are a market anarchist, you are somehow automaticaly a capitalist. horsefeathers. it is perfectly possible to be pro-market but anti-capitalism. mutualism is a good example of how this could be done. it is my contention that so called "anarcho"-capitalists are esentially small-state libertarians (minarchists) who are in denial.
Inspired by George Carlin, I'm going to make a list of people or ideas I could do without. this will take me a while so I don't know when it will appear. I will not order it in any particular way just randomly. I may do another along opposite (ie positive) lines. whatch this space.
Capitalism is exploitative and hierarchical by it's nature.
It exploits others, involves private ownership of the means of production, necessitating bosses and it creates monopolies . Anarchism is against all forms of hierarchy,exploitation and coercion. one of the main principles of capitalism is the making of profits above all else. it is greedy and manipulative and cannot exist without a state. It requires private property (which is theft), subsidies and protection by the state and therefore goes against anarchism. Anarchism is not just about abolishing the state. Abolishing the government is a very very important feature to Anarchism, but it's not the be-all-and -end-all of everything.
I can't stand how they (and some other people) assume that if you are a market anarchist, you are somehow automaticaly a capitalist. horsefeathers. it is perfectly possible to be pro-market but anti-capitalism. mutualism is a good example of how this could be done. it is my contention that so called "anarcho"-capitalists are esentially small-state libertarians (minarchists) who are in denial.
Inspired by George Carlin, I'm going to make a list of people or ideas I could do without. this will take me a while so I don't know when it will appear. I will not order it in any particular way just randomly. I may do another along opposite (ie positive) lines. whatch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
