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 Ok, now I've calmed down a bit, let me flesh out my point and see if it clarifies anything for you.

This turns on how we're defining "business". Does a subsistence farmer selling surplus veges in a bazaar-inspired medieval market, or a baker selling bread there, count as "business"? In the broadest sense, sure, but not in the sense that I think concerns you here.

For this explanation, I'll use 'bazaar' instead of 'market' to avoid confusion with other uses of 'market'.

@light

(2/?)

Were medieval bazaars free from central government interference (ie the King and the Crown)? Yes, as most governance functions in the Middle Ages were more localised. Nation-state scale government didn't become practical until the emergence of tech like national train networks and reliable postal system, which were originally inseparable from them.

Were bazaars unregulated? certainly not. For a start they existed by the grace of the local landlord and church authorities.

(3/?)

Within that, a bazaar was a commons, run by and for the community that bought and sold in it. Like any sustainable commons, this required regulation, eg to avoid having stallholders selling poisonous food or faulty goods, or people stealing from stallholders, or anything else that would threaten the market's reputation.

The modern equivalent would be a supermarket run as a multi-stakeholder co-op, where workers, producers and customers all have a stake in ownership and decision-making.

(4/?)

Is a bazaar or a co-op supermarket the ideal model for food exchange in a community too large to do it by trading veges over the back fence? The question makes no sense to me. There are no 'ideal' models, only what makes the most sense as a response to a given situation.

Gaining this understanding this is one thing that makes slogging through the dense prose of situationist writing worthwhile. Revolutionary Self-Theory isn't too hard a read, and is a good intro;

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory

(5/5)

Are Farmer's Markets (also inspired by the medieval bazaar) and co-op supermarkets an improvement on corporate supermarkets and their highly centralised, too-big-to-fail supply chains? I think so. Keep in mind that union-driven projects like this were used to build worker self-management in the lead up to the Spanish revolution.

Could there be a place for them in a society run mostly on anarchist principles? On what basis could we suppress them without becoming Stalinists or Red Guards?

@strypey

while i agree with the goals here and am in favour of street markets and bazaars and farmwrs markets and mutual aid networks and worker co-ops and so on...
...i would step back and wonder what are prerequsites for those?

certainly all of the above have in common that they use money owned by the capitalists and billionaires, who would love all the above and then print money for themselves to buy the most popular ppl and products who are happy to receive lots of money we all work for

@strypey

... that IS the centralizing/consolidating/bullying effect @cy mentioned, but imho misleadingly associated it with any kind of market in general, ...its in the money we use.

@light @KevinCarson1 @strypey @cy imho that has been tried by a project called "Ripple" and it didnt scale so that turned into XRP.

The best or closest system to that today is imho bitcoin lightning and its amazing.

Maybe theres a way to scale the original idea, but it requires imho open supply chain and a massive amount of people keen to try hard to work with this and even then its unclear. if it works we can still switch to it, but bitcoin lightning with open supply chains could get us there

@KevinCarson1 @light @strypey @cy

i think that is a misunderstanding

1. bitcoin is not backed by something and "proof of work" is just a mechanism to defend the network against attackers trying to rob everyone

2. money is never scarce. the wording is misleading - i agree. only goods and services can be scarce. a limited money supply does not make it scarce, it just standardizes it - is 1kg or 1m as a standard measurement unit scarce? ...would you want constant change in what 1m or 1kg means?

@KevinCarson1 @light @strypey @cy

i am saying this, because if you had more or less money in circulation and everything else stays the same (e.g. demand and supply of services and goods) then prices just adapt and you keep the same buying power.

nothing here is scarce and therr is no problem.

problems appear under fiat where the epstein class constantly prints money to defraud us, hence the growing divide between poor and rich. bitcoin inverts this by ending money printing to pay for upkeep

@KevinCarson1 @light @strypey @cy

if you mean backes by nothing, then mostly yes.
...but comm9n understanding of "fiat momey" is a money that can be printed at will by certain parties to enrich themselves and their friends and causes on the account of the rest of us which is the vast majority of ppl

(1/?)

@serapath
> all money is "fiat," and always has been

> if you mean backed by nothing, then mostly yes

I think @KevinCarson1 means that all money is an imposition of an intermediating technology by the powerful on those with less power. See the true origin stories of money in David Graeber's Debt and Charles Eisenstein's Sacred Economics (bit more accessible to the average reader), as tokens uses to force people to provision a warlords' armies, by taxing them in the tokens.

@light @cy

(2/?)

I'm not sure I agree 100%. My definition of money includes things like mutual credit (LETS green dollars and time credits), vouchers, and market money (see Rushkoff's Life Inc.). Which are voluntary, not imposed.

But I definitely agree with Kevin that all *currency* is fiat.

(3/3)

I'm on the fence about whether crypto-tokens are fiat money or not. Maybe they're more like non-geographical, digital time credits? Like a mutual credit system, there are ways people using it can issue new tokens, and every transaction is always 'cleared' (happy to expand on this).

I can imagine arguments that they're an attempt by technofascists to impose a new form of fiat money by stealth, like E-Coin in Mr Robot. But that's drawing a long bow.