@neonsnake @whatzaname @RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @gerrymcgovern “…deprives people of the means of survival and indeed thriving..." is perfect.
Capitalism is the organization of society around the interests of capital and for the production of profits. That's all. Capital doesn't care about freedom, options, prosperity, competition, or any of other benefits capitalism's apologists put forward. Capital, in fact, views these things as wasteful, as lost profits to be recaptured.
@maxleibman @neonsnake @whatzaname @AlexanderKingsbury @gerrymcgovern
And even profit is secondary IMO, really just a mechanism towards the ultimate concern: Capital, the true god of this world.
The vast majority of people under capitalism have no meaningful say about the distribution of scarce resources or goals. The closest analogy to capitalism is probably feudalism, just with markets for lordships and serfs.
@maxleibman @whatzaname @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy
The ideal of anarchism is for people to have meaningful choices for themselves, which includes the freedom to enter into voluntary agreements with other people.
“Common direction” can exist under any system; anarchists only ask for that common direction to be mutually agreed upon and voluntarily effected, not imposed by some coercive hierarchy.
@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @maxleibman @whatzaname
You’re not sure how people might cooperate to achieve a shared goal without being threatened with violence?
@maxleibman @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @whatzaname @neonsnake
You are using stronger words than I would have used, but essentially, yes. For example I would use "punishment" instead of "violence".
@maxleibman @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @whatzaname @neonsnake
It sounds like maybe you’re mixing up *consequences* with coercion. Hierarchical societies like ours compel cooperation through threats of violence. Anarchism anticipates people being maximally free to make choices without fear of aggression. That doesn’t mean people would be free from *consequences* of their choices.
Haven’t you ever cooperated with other people to achieve a shared goal without fear of being hurt? Maybe even once?
@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @maxleibman @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @whatzaname
@HeavenlyPossum
Maybe so.
I talked of punishment instead of violence, because violence is a form of punishment, but not all punishments involve violence. For punishment between peers, the most common form would be social: loss of relationship, damaged reputation, social exclusion, etc. It's not physical, it's not from the state, but it still forces me to behave a certain way. Isn't that a form of coercion?
@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @maxleibman @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @whatzaname
If loss of relationship, etc, were forms of coercion, then freedom of association would be a meaningless concept. If you proposition me for sex and I say “no,” I have not coerced you by declining to associate with you in the manner you sought. I have not “forced” you to do anything by withholding my consent.
@neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @whatzaname @maxleibman @gerrymcgovern
Let's use this example in a different way: all my potential sexual partners appreciate a nice outfit. I don't like to dress up, but because of the fear of ending without any sexual partner, I am forced to dress up and make efforts that, otherwise, I would not have. I am still free to dress the way I want, but the punishment I would get from this behavior is not worth the reward.
@neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @whatzaname @maxleibman @gerrymcgovern
And in this case, there is no open threat, or no spoken punishment. I weigh the possible rewards and the possible consequences to my actions beforehand, and adjust my behavior accordingly. A lot of the social order we have around us is based on this I think.
And indeed, I used the word consequences here 😊
@neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @whatzaname @maxleibman @gerrymcgovern
Anarchism makes no objection to voluntary choices or free association. When anarchists talk about people being free from coercion, they mean *coercive hierarchies,* not these phenomena.
@neonsnake @maxleibman @AlexanderKingsbury @whatzaname @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern
Ok understood.
But then do you think social order can be maintained without any coercives hierarchies?
For example, if I grow some vegetables for my own consumption, what will prevent other people to come and take it? Is it my own responsibility to protect it?
@neonsnake @maxleibman @AlexanderKingsbury @whatzaname @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern
@ronang @whatzaname @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @maxleibman
The absence of coercive hierarchies doesn’t imply the absence of self-defense, which includes voluntary cooperative self-defense with others.
You’re conflating basic human speciality with “punishment” and punishment with “coercion” and this genuinely has nothing to do with anarchism or anything else I was talking about.
If you choose to behave in a way that you hope will prompt a response from someone else, with no violence involved, then you have not been forced by anyone. No one owes you sex, or any other voluntary response, and you cannot consider yourself coerced or forced by someone else.
@neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @whatzaname @maxleibman @RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury
Max Leibman has moved!
RD
AKingsbury
HeavenlyPossum
Ronan