To be or not to be....Controlled.
Under the capitalist system you have the absolute freedom of choice for inconsequential things. You have dozens of different toothpastes, hundreds of different phones, different TV’s, and different computers.
But under the capitalist system you have a supremely limited choice for anything of consequence. Limited political representation and choice, limited control over one’s work, limited access to necessities, and a limited pursuit of fulfillment.Nothing meaningful is offered in capitalism.
So Steemit, How do you guys view Anarchism? Do you believe that it's workable?
I had to think for my self......will a government always be in place? Even if it's not intended?
Imagine living in a nation with no one governing it. CHAOS. Now don't get me wrong.....I tend to lean a little toward the anti - government movement myself but let's be realistic. People love POWER and CONTROL. (whether they admit it or not)
Legality is a matter of power. What is legal is not based on "universal moral values" – it is based on what those in power determine to be useful to uphold their power.
I tell my sister this all the time......just because it's the law does not make it right......the law in many ways contradict itself. But we can all agree government is VERY hypocritical.
So, what is anarchism?
Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that one human is not superior to another human and thus, shouldn't rule another human.
I must agree NO human is more superior than the other. Regardless of race, class, gender, belief, etc. Everyone should be treated equally as such. BUT, can we all be treated as equals and still have a government in place?
This question for me is very difficult to answer especially if you fully understand humans....someone will always want to be in CONTROL.
Money will always be a factor and there will be greed. As long as money exists we will always be at odds with the government. The rich eats off of the poor and the poor.....starves.
"If you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life."
— Bob Black
What is revolution? What is solution?
In my upmost opinion....money is the key to kicking the governments ass. Every man should work for himself and everyone should stop buying from these big corporate businesses. Keep your money IN YOUR community.
It has often been suggested to me that the Constitution of the United States is a sufficient safeguard for the freedom of its citizens. It is obvious that even the freedom it pretends to guarantee is very limited.
As I spoke about in my last post we aren't even gifted with PRIVACY. Everything we find new and cool and "techy" is another scheme from the government to spy on us.
As wonderful as anarchy sounds, how beneficial do you think it would be?
You ever watch those movies where a group of people are stranded on an island and they are looking for a way home? Well, eventually one or maybe even two people will start to feel superior. They began to argue because of opposing beliefs and now everyone is choosing sides....there you have it guys.....a government is being created.
So what do you guys think?
Capitalism doesn't imply the limitations you suggest:
"Capitalism : a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government"
or
" Capitalism : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
While I think the wording in these definitions is a bit biased (describing capitalism from the perspective of a person choosing how to organize an entire economy takes a socialist mindset for granted), it certainly doesn't imply any particular government structure, or even that a government structure exists. At its core, it implies only that individuals have inherent rights, rather than only being granted arbitrary privileges by society or government.
Is this some kind of libertarian doctrine?The defintion of capitalism does not include individual rights.
Wikipedia: Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
I guess you mean classical liberalism?Or libertarianism?
Anyway,the problem is that the right to own property is not a right based on moral principles,but on law,and on exploitation.Global inequality is getting worse every year.Here are some figures for the Us:
Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media[4] reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".[5] The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1000% for the top 1%.
Individual ownership is not capitalism,this existed long before,long before money,although not in a modern legal system.The problem is not with ownership,but when this is extended to accumulation of capital and resources,and unethical profit maximation. when profit maximation leads to explotation of workers or appropriation of property,it comes into conflict with self ownership.
It seems absurd to justify sweatshops in china on the basis of"individual rights"
The definitions of capitalism to which you are replying are from Merriam-Webster.
If the means of production are owned by government, rather than by individuals, then individuals can have no rights. The right to own/control a means of producing value is the most basic right, and without it no others can exist. A person's ownership of his own volition is his most basic means of producing any valuable change, so from the very beginning human rights are founded on the capitalist principle of ownership by individuals.
Using examples of oppression under socialist governments is not an effective argument against capitalism.
You need a blockchain economic system
I disagree with this statement because I probably have a different definition of "capitalism" than you do. I think of capitalism as google defines it:
There need not be a government for people to operate in a free market and voluntarily decide to save and use capital to flourish while voluntarily entering into labor and service contracts with others. I would go further and say we need not have a "country" or imaginary border defining the monopoly on the use of force within a geographic region for a small group of people.
I think of things in terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
The people who do the most to improving well being for the largest group of people are at the top of that hierarchy. We shouldn't try to pull them down, but instead follow their lead and bring more people out of poverty. Taking the monopoly on money creation out of the hands of governments is a step in that direction and Steemit will be part of the peaceful revolution.
I'm upvoting because I enjoy all conversations about Voluntaryism and anarchy. :)
Do you really think that it's possible to bring people out of poverty and move them up the latter? Like i said in the post...people are greedy.
Watch some Yaron Brooks presentations. "People are greedy" may actually be the reason people do get out of poverty in the first place. Markets create opportunity for people to expand the pie of wealth.
anarchy,as in anarchocapitalism? How will we deal with all the injustices and environmental destruction,weapons industry, child labour,toxic work environments,etc,etc,that happen continously on a global scale,with global capitalism as the main perpetrator? Government will not save us,but neither will letting multinationals have their will,because of a misguided idea of freedom. Capitalism and the state are always cooperating,they are not opposed to each other,that is the neoliberal system in a nutshell.
Btw I am an anarchist,and as most anarchists,an anticapitalist. More concretely,I´m a post scarcity anarchist,in the tradition of Murray Bookchin. You seem more like a right wing libertarian to me.
Post scarcity, to me, will not happen while we are still classified as human. The vast differences in desire and ambition within the human species will always be huge. Some will want to vacation on mars, some will be happy living in a shack. Those differences will lead to vastly different inputs and outputs.
Yes, I agree we have enough resources right now on the planet to food and clothe everyone, but it's a lot more complicated than that. If we tried to unilaterally make everyone the same right now, over all human well-being would go down (IMO), because the inventions and world-changing concepts aren't coming from the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy, but from the top. We'll never advance as a species if we're trying to pull the best of us down, but only if we work to pull the lowest up. To me, that has to be done within a moral society which means via voluntary interactions. The NAP and all that.
I see government as one of the worst polluters out there. They legitimize it, package it, and sell the privilege. I may be wrong about that, but the corruption level right now is insane.
I'm lump this in with private prisons. They only have one customer: the government. That's not a market, that's a monopoly. Remove the government, and this market will dry up because most people aren't willing to waste a trillion dollars on a plane that doesn't even work.
From my perspective, I think many people misunderstand some aspects of labor markets historically. It's easy for us to judge others and say "Those sweat shops are bad and you should feel bad! End them now!" without realizing, potentially, within that country, the only alternative might be starvation and death in the fields. I'm not justifying child labor, I'm just saying there's a lot going on and historically different areas have gone through different transitions (agricultural, industrial, post industrial, etc). We should help these processes move along as quickly as possible, but I don't think it's humane to stop them if people suffer long term. (Again, listen to Yaron Brooks on this stuff).
Quit. In the global Internet economy, there are a lot more options (including blogging on Steemit!) and people aren't locked into dead-end jobs as they have been in the past.
You say "global capitalism" but I say "government created false monopolies." That's where things get messed up, cronyized, etc.
At least, from my perspective.
I love how many Ancaps we have around here jumping on this. Good work people.
I am from Italy... the first country sheep ruled! I had to quit my job and move in another country because to find a Job there I had to work for free or be sun of someone with power. In my country who is governing is stealing all the money they can...corruption is everywhere... everyone want a power...me as well! BUT I would like to be powerful because I am good in what I do and not because some friends of mine want to "make me powerful " robbing others.
Wow I had no idea Itaaly was even like that . Thats creepy
Yep it is :( I had to move in England to find a good job as I am qualified and now they want to go out from EU...
It's nice to have an anarchist around.
Freedom of Choice and Buying Insurance With the correct incorporation of a realistic, subjective "currency" such as gold or another precious metal, and with the gradual dissolution of government, it is unequivocally feasible for a state of anarchy to exist that has potentially greater opportunity than a state of any form of government. It relies greatly on the principles of economics--namely those of supply and demand and reputation. This would apply to the purchasing of insurance. A wide selection of "insurance" plans provide the same protection from things unpredictable as a government would, if not more. An individual may "subscribe" to particular insurances to protect themselves from what they choose to protect themselves from.
I would not want to live in that world. Freedom of choice must be combined with solidarity and empathy,and as a society,social justice.All individuals rely on cooperation with others,that´s why we organise ourselves in society.
I am an anarchist(not an anarchocapitalist),and this means that I want to organise society from the bottom up,in free collaboration and self governance. In a post scarcity world,because that is what we are heading for,with the growing digitalisation,and progress in robotics and automation. How will people´self ownership and well being be provided for in your anarchocapitalist dream scenario? By insurance companies? Maybe if you are rich you can hire mercenaries?
I myself ,as a poor man from a working class background,what are my chances in your sweet dream scenario?
The revolution is on the blockchain
https://steemit.com/blockchain/@cultura.bitcoin/revolution-is-happening-the-rest-just-don-t-know-it
I think that there is a natural progression for human government that takes place over time. I'm not sure that anarchy has a place in that progression because it is immediately forced out by the other forms of government. It is to weak to exist.
Order may feel oppressive to some especially younger people, but generally speaking families of humans crave order no matter what kind it is. It is difficult to raise children without it.
Order gives us the ability to build extremely complex systems such as the one I'm typing on right now. If we want freedom from these systems we will have to do without their benefits and go back a few hundred years. I'm sure that would be seen as fine by some people. But for me its not.
On the subject of how governments form I think you might find this interesting. It uses game of thrones as an example and discusses the forming of centralized governments.