An anarchist does not drive on the opposite side of the road just because what side to drive on has a rule. But they might treat a red light as a stop sign when there's little or no traffic.

Like models, rules are never universally right, but some are useful. Good rules are guidelines, that help keep us safe. Not policies to be policed, regardless of the likely outcome.

Following rules because they're rules is recorded in history as "just following orders". We know where that leads.

(2/2)

A couple of days ago I posted about what being an anarchist means to me. Obviously given the way I defined it, I can't determine what it means for anyone else. A contradiction, yes. But one that holds space for flexible ways of understanding that can better respond to our constantly shifting situations.

One thing my freedoms-based definition didn't address though, was how I apply it to political economy. For example, do I believe that all legitimate anarchist politics is anticapitalist?

(1/?)

So one thing I want to clarify is that although I see "anarcho-capitalism" as just fascism with better branding (Peter Thiel being an archetypal example of where it leads), I do accept that a person can be right-leaning economically, and still be an anarchist.

But there are limits, beyond which this becomes a contradiction in ways that are universalizing, and inflexible (again think of the neoreactionaries defending the freedom to deny others freedom).

(2/?)

When people claim that property is an inalienable right - like freedoms of expression or association are - then "property is theft", as Proudhon famously put it. But as long as they accept that property is a social agreement, subject to negotiation and consensus, then "property is freedom" (a lesser known quote from Proudhon).

Having said that, being open to the idea of a place for markets in a free society does *not* make an anarchist right-leaning. It just makes them not a Stalinist.

(3/?)

@cy
> So markets both cannot exist in a free society and a free society cannot persist with any sort of market in place

David Graeber covered this in Debt, better than I possibly could. If you haven't read that, I recommend you do. If you have, maybe time for a refresh?

But one argument against what you say here is that it's ahistorical. In his book Life Inc. Douglas Rushkoff pointed out that the importation of the tradition of the bazaar into Europe had a profoundly liberating effect.

@cy
> The freedom to do business without government interference.

This is some serious reading out of context. Did you even read the thread you're replying to? By what tortured logic did you extract that conclusion from references to Graeber and Rushkoff FFS?

@light

(1/?)

@cy
> So you were not free to buy what you wanted, or sell what you wanted. It was something your tribe or clan decided.

You need to reread Debt. Because that's absolutely *not* what Graeber said, and is totally ahistorical. What he said - as did Charles Eisenstein in Sacred Economics - is that most transactions worked on mutual credit, not account-closing transactions like money payments. Those were only for strangers passing through town, who you didn't expect to see again.

@light

(2/?)

@cy
> With markets (and Persian bazaars) that freedom came to Europe

You need to brush up on your European history (or read Life Inc. it's really good!). Markets arrived in Europe in the Middle Ages, inspired by the Persian bazaars, which Europeans noticed while visiting the Holy Land during the Crusades (to kill the locals and take their stuff).