Anarchist: Help a brother out

[Britanania]

Sometimes I associate as an anarcho-monarchist, but take that with a grain of salt.

....How the hell is that supposed to work?

It's complicated, to say the least. It's a little tongue in cheek, a little serious, a little wishful thinking.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

So if an individual wanted to not hire gays and dump toxic gunk, what would happen? Would you side with individual, or the environment and homosexuals?

If you side with the individual, then it's hard to prioritize the environment and homosexual community since you allow individuals to do what individuals want to do, which may involve selfishness and discrimination.

If you side with the environment and homosexual, then it's hard to prioritize the individual, since you're prioritizing a special interest group and ecology over an individuals beliefs.

Wut. Homophobia is a perpetuation of an oppressive hierarchy and no anarchist would support it. These individualists wouldn't be anarchists if they hold onto homophobic beliefs. And if there were, there would be united direct action from actual anarchists to combat the homophobia. Plus, I would hardly call homophobia individualist. It denies that homosexuals are individuals with unique experiences and instead classifies them as a great "other" with distinct group characteristics. Holding onto phobias is against individualism in its entirety. Plu,s it would be incredibly hard to maintain homophobic beliefs without a state enforcing cis-patriarchal inequality.

It's one thing to say you believe in power to the individual. It's another thing to say you prioritize the environment. It's ANOTHER thing to say you prioritize gay rights.
So imagine you lived in a anarchist community where an individual wanted to not hire gays and dump toxic gunk. Would you side with the individual, or the environment and homosexuals? Who would you agree with more?

[Salus Maior]

....How the hell is that supposed to work?

It's complicated, to say the least. It's a little tongue in cheek, a little serious, a little wishful thinking.

Doesn't exactly answer my question but whatever

[Meryuma]

Wut. Homophobia is a perpetuation of an oppressive hierarchy and no anarchist would support it. These individualists wouldn't be anarchists if they hold onto homophobic beliefs. And if there were, there would be united direct action from actual anarchists to combat the homophobia. Plus, I would hardly call homophobia individualist. It denies that homosexuals are individuals with unique experiences and instead classifies them as a great "other" with distinct group characteristics. Holding onto phobias is against individualism in its entirety. Plu,s it would be incredibly hard to maintain homophobic beliefs without a state enforcing cis-patriarchal inequality.

It's one thing to say you believe in power to the individual. It's another thing to say you prioritize the environment. It's ANOTHER thing to say you prioritize gay rights.
So imagine you lived in a anarchist community where an individual wanted to not hire gays and dump toxic gunk. Would you side with the individual, or the environment and homosexuals? Who would you agree with more?

Hiring? Why would there be wage labor?

[Gages Icelandic Army]

@Meryuma
Some anarchies allow for it. And he/she never specified the economics of their anarchy type. So...

1. There's a chance that their idea anarchy is capitalist
2. Even if it isn't, and there isn't a medium of exchange, you could still hire someone and pay them with supplies or something.
3. Even if that's not what they're thinking of, it's still an interesting theoretical question that I asked them to make them think about whether or not they value individualism more than they those do liberal-esque priorities.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

And a friendly reminder to vote!

[The New Sea Territory]

IIRC, ideas like minarchism and anarcho-capitalism used to have more of a presence on NSG around 2011/2012. It has since apparently declined, and as far as I've seen it's become a prevalent view on NSG that ancaps cannot accurately be described as anarchists.

A number of us also migrated to other political philosophies. While many on reddit and NS went to other right-wing ideologies, a couple within the Youtube ancap scene and myself when to real anarchism.

I suggest you read What Is To Be Done? Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Das Capital by Karl Marx, and the works of Bakunin

Suggest that they read Capital? Ha! You can't honestly expect them to read that dull four volume tome. It wouldn't be that helpful anyway, as it's focus is an analysis of capitalism. Unless you're really into Marxism, you're much better off just reading Wikipedia pages.

No, I think he means Das Kapital, the condensed version.

Might I ask what in the hell Anarcho-Socialism is? That is contradictory as all hell.

Stale meme, 0/10. Much personal incredulity, such rigid definitions, so doge.

[Salus Maior]

Might I ask what in the hell Anarcho-Socialism is? That is contradictory as all hell.

Stale meme, 0/10. Much personal incredulity, such rigid definitions, so doge.

You know, maybe people would have fewer objections or be less likely to make inaccurate statements about anarchism if you actually tried to explain it in a coherent manner rather than deride them for not having a decent understanding of it.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Not even getting into the fact that that would not work at all, look at the word Socialism, then bear in mind that the term was coined in reference to Governance. Socialism is the belief that the Government has a Social Responsibility to its people, implying that there is some form of leadership establishing a basic social service, be it policing or road-paving.

The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what would later be labelled "utopian socialism". Simon coined "socialism" as a contrast to the liberal doctrine of "individualism", which stressed that people act or should act as if they are in isolation from one another.[46] The original "utopian" socialists condemned liberal individualism for failing to address social concerns during the industrial revolution, including poverty, social oppression, and gross inequalities in wealth; viewing liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition.[46] They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism based on the shared ownership of resources, although their proposals for socialism differed significantly. Saint-Simon proposed economic planning, scientific administration, and the application of modern scientific advancements to the organization of society; by contrast, Robert Owen proposed the organization of production and ownership in cooperatives

[The New Sea Territory]

Stale meme, 0/10. Much personal incredulity, such rigid definitions, so doge.

You know, maybe people would have fewer objections or be less likely to make inaccurate statements about anarchism if you actually tried to explain it in a coherent manner rather than deride them for not having a decent understanding of it.

I learned long ago that people who say stuff like "anarcho-communism! Omagherd dats a kontradickshun" really aren't worth the effort to explain things to. I've tried multiple approaches, from wall-of-text quote dumping, to dictionary citing, to book-recommending, to citing historical examples of anarchism. I've never seen any of these people convinced.

Really, it's a self-fulfilling statement and it gets really circular: "socialism and anarchism are contradictory. fact. checkm8 anarchists"; "well, actually they aren't, and here's some books/dictionaries/historical examples of socialist anarchism"; "oh yeah, but socialism is the big gubmint and anarchism is no gubmint"; "well, here's some evidence saying otherwise"; "but socialism and anarchism are contradictory".

[Salus Maior]

You know, maybe people would have fewer objections or be less likely to make inaccurate statements about anarchism if you actually tried to explain it in a coherent manner rather than deride them for not having a decent understanding of it.

I learned long ago that people who say stuff like "anarcho-communism! Omagherd dats a kontradickshun" really aren't worth the effort to explain things to. I've tried multiple approaches, from wall-of-text quote dumping, to dictionary citing, to book-recommending, to citing historical examples of anarchism. I've never seen any of these people convinced.

Really, it's a self-fulfilling statement and it gets really circular: "socialism and anarchism are contradictory. fact. checkm8 anarchists"; "well, actually they aren't, and here's some books/dictionaries/historical examples of socialist anarchism"; "oh yeah, but socialism is the big gubmint and anarchism is no gubmint"; "well, here's some evidence saying otherwise"; "but socialism and anarchism are contradictory".

Ah, I see.

Guess I'm familiar with that kind of thing myself. Sounds kind of like the "Oh, you're a Christian? Why're you eating shellfish/wearing mixed fabric/working on the sabbath" argument I hear all the time. Same shit. I can give a Text-wall, cite history, cite the Bible, etc. No amount of evidence can convince them because they just want to be fortified in what they already believe, not actually learn anything.

Although while we're on the subject, how does Anarcho-Socialism work? And I mean that as a "I really don't know" kind of thing.

[The New Sea Territory]

I learned long ago that people who say stuff like "anarcho-communism! Omagherd dats a kontradickshun" really aren't worth the effort to explain things to. I've tried multiple approaches, from wall-of-text quote dumping, to dictionary citing, to book-recommending, to citing historical examples of anarchism. I've never seen any of these people convinced.

Really, it's a self-fulfilling statement and it gets really circular: "socialism and anarchism are contradictory. fact. checkm8 anarchists"; "well, actually they aren't, and here's some books/dictionaries/historical examples of socialist anarchism"; "oh yeah, but socialism is the big gubmint and anarchism is no gubmint"; "well, here's some evidence saying otherwise"; "but socialism and anarchism are contradictory".

Ah, I see.

Guess I'm familiar with that kind of thing myself. Sounds kind of like the "Oh, you're a Christian? Why're you eating shellfish/wearing mixed fabric/working on the sabbath" argument I hear all the time. Same shit. I can give a Text-wall, cite history, cite the Bible, etc. No amount of evidence can convince them because they just want to be fortified in what they already believe, not actually learn anything.

Although while we're on the subject, how does Anarcho-Socialism work? And I mean that as a "I really don't know" kind of thing.

It's either free markets or "artificial markets". Either could be a transitional stage into communism.

Mutualism functions as a free market socialist system based of competing worker co-ops and a mutual-credit banking system. The means of production are socially owned, but can be possessed by individuals or collectives based on occupancy and use. Workers own all the products of their labor, and trade it on a free market. Effectively, everyone is self-employed, while some people freely associate with others to form co-operatives.

Collectivism/syndicalism is built on unions who democratically manage the workplaces (in a confederal system). The workers are paid for their labor in labor vouchers, which are based on time laboring and can be exchanged in general stores (where all the products go) for consumer goods. These labor vouchers can't be accumulated by other individuals, and are destroyed when redeemed for consumer goods.

Communism itself is a gift economy. The means of production are commonly owned, workers own the products of their own labor and share it with others for their own benefit. It's not a barter system (as anthropologist David Graeber, who supports a gift economy iirc, says these really never existed), but one based more or less on debt to other people. It's how humans lived for thousands of years.

[Ashlak]

Since this seems to be the current version of anarchist general, I have a question:

Would you guys consider mutualism a version of individualist anarchism, or somewhere between that and collectivist anarchism?

[Democratic Mixonia]

Definitely a green anarchist. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[The New Sea Territory]

Since this seems to be the current version of anarchist general, I have a question:

Would you guys consider mutualism a version of individualist anarchism, or somewhere between that and collectivist anarchism?

It's social anarchism, just popular among individualists in the vein of Benjamin Tucker. Most individualist anarchists, historically, have tended to be mutualists. However, Proudhon was not an individualist anarchist at all. (And modern individualist anarchism I think is dominated by communism, actually).

I think individualist anarchism isn't referring to a system, but a tendency or tradition within the anarchist system that is much more dealing with philosophy and ethics than politics. The two sorts of individualist anarchism are Tucker's natural rights ideas (Tucker was a mutualist and influenced many other mutualists) and Stirner's iconoclastic egoism (le spookbuster himself). Tucker later abandoned his own position for Stirner's, after translating much of Stirner's and Nietzsche's (not anarchist, but highly influential on anarchism) works.

[Meryuma]

@Meryuma
Some anarchies allow for it. And he/she never specified the economics of their anarchy type. So...

1. There's a chance that their idea anarchy is capitalist
2. Even if it isn't, and there isn't a medium of exchange, you could still hire someone and pay them with supplies or something.
3. Even if that's not what they're thinking of, it's still an interesting theoretical question that I asked them to make them think about whether or not they value individualism more than they those do liberal-esque priorities.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is actually statist tho. In an ancap society, a property owner has complete jurisdiction over their property and there are no theoretical limits on land ownership. The landlord within a given property would therefore have a legal monopoly on the use of force (enforced thru private police) within their plot of land, making them the ruler of an autocratic micro-state. Capitalism is based around the hierarchies of worker/boss and landlord/tenant. These modern hierarchies emerged in a period (18th/19th centuries) marked by large-scale imperialism and collusion between state power and burgeoning corporate power, and there is no reason why they would be maintained in a stateless society. Exchange of labor for money could happen under mutualism, I guess, but it would be in a pretty informal context.

In any case, there is no reason in your thought experiment why the supposed unbound individualism of the homophobic boss or the pollutor would outweigh the individual desires of the gay person or those affected by the pollution. Being individualists, the gay person or the people living downriver have no obligation to heed the authority of those who keep them down, and so the homophobe or pollutor would quickly face the risk of ostracism or revolt. That's anarchist individualism.

[Shetl]

Christian anarchist here. Jesus’ teachings are all about acting in line with your conscience, and in order to enable everyone to do that, hierarchies and use of force need to be abolished, including the enforcement of ethical standards that organized Christianity (in misguided Pharisaic tradition, thanks to Paul the Apostle) has been fond of. Capitalism isn’t bad per se, but accumulating wealth while there are poor people out there is going to hurt you in the long run. The dichotomy between “individual” and “collective” is regarded false, since everyone is equal where it counts - if your idea of society harms even one person, you need to go back to the drawing board.

[Autonomous Titoists]

I am what I call a "wishful anarchist". I don't think anarchy would work, but if everyone cooperated, it would be PERFECT.

Then you're not an anarchist. You're a utopian

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not an anarchist, but individualism is right up my alley.

[The Grim Reaper]

Suggest that they read Capital? Ha! You can't honestly expect them to read that dull four volume tome. It wouldn't be that helpful anyway, as it's focus is an analysis of capitalism. Unless you're really into Marxism, you're much better off just reading Wikipedia pages.

One must understand the thesis to understand the antithesis

True, but Das Kapital is really fucking boring. I'm saying this as someone who spent half his eighteenth birthday reading it, I'm a dull person by choice. It's a literal economics textbook.

In terms of understanding Marx, the Communist Manifesto is easy to read, easy to get, and mostly devoid of real information. But it's a reasonable lead-in to Das Kapital. It'll tell you if you like the antithesis enough to read the thesis.

In terms of actual anarchism, the book that was my introduction was Kropotkin's autobiography - Memoirs of a Revolutionist. A much more personable tract on political ideology. Best paired with other writings, though - either by Kropotkin, or others. If you're concerned with literary quality, the writings of Tolstoy were generally accepted by anarchist contemporaries, and succeeding generations, as a valid contribution to the understanding of anarchism at the time, even though Tolstoy was generally apathetic towards identifying himself within a particular ideological school. More importantly, he's generally accepted to be a good writer.

[Augusta Pinochet]

More Minarchist but kinda leaning towards Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Noahs Second Country]

My country is an anarchy...but not me

[New Waterford]

I would primarily identify as an ancom/syndicalist/Christian anarchist. I guess I'm an anarcha-feminist by extension (though I can't exactly speak for the movement, as a male). Currently reading The Conquest of Bread.

[New Waterford]

RIP

[PaNTuXIa]

What would my anarchist comrades think of a left-wing minarchy?