So she's holding a paper that say's "Political Compass" on it. The political compass has 2 axis' Authoritarian <> Anti-Authoritarian and Left <> Right. I assume it distinguishes Libertarian and Anarchist on the Left <> Right axis because they're both Anti-Authoritarian.
Therefore I conclude the Anarchist is saying Anti-Authoritarian Rightists become Anti-Authoritarian Leftists after 6 months of thought.
I'm sure "AgoristView" will view this differently. He's the God of Reality.
I don't get the four quadrant political compass as well to be honest
I find it hard how can there be libertarian left. I think it only make sense for there to be libertarian right
Since left believe shared resources / occupying means of production. At which how can one achieve and manage that means of production without having a body to organize it. Hence it will resort back to collectivism at the end of the day which is not libertarian in my opinion.
It's both a tragedy and a psyop that people believe left always means collectivism. Collectivism describes communism/socialism. Leftism means an opposition to hierarchy and class stratification; a desire for egalitarianism. Anarchists are people who agree with Communists on the problem (because they're leftist); but not the solution (because they're anti-authoritarian).
Political words are difficult because they change quickly and can mean different things to different people at the same time.
It's not as is right (freemarket) pro hierarchy and class stratification either though.
What is right then, if not about free market.
Or am I mixing right and libertarian?
Is right conservativism?
But AFAIK the political compass left or right is about economic freedom, not about religiousness / keeping traditions and things like that
Honestly, it's a mess. Different words mean different things to different people.
Keeping traditions is right because its pro hierarchy (right now). Capitalism is pro hierarchy because it believes the better you are the more money you have. Militarism is right because it's obviously a hierarchy.
Capitalism is not an ideology of freedom, its an ideology of domination.
What gave you the idea that capitalism is the idoleology of domination
Have you ever played slither io? That's exactly the game theory. Once one party gets an advantage thanks to the Pareto Distribution they use their previous success as an advantage to themselves and their descendants. Capitalism would be fair if everyone started from the same start line. The issue is when the descendants of the rich and powerful get help from family and friends from within their own class.
Rightists and Capitalists don't like talking about class.
I beg to disagree. The rich made mistake and can become poor
The issue isn't in capitalism.
But in
1. government (that allow crony socialism or commonly known as crony socialism). Calling it capitalism doesn't make sense as it is not freemarket anymore since government is involved. Like bailing out the rich.
2. Fiat. This allow rich to earn money without working. Just taking interest all the time
Without those two, the rich wont be too big to fail. And have to actually continue to provide value to maintain their wealth. And if they do maintain their wealth because they continue to provide value, so be it. The enemy are leeches that don't provide value
True Free Market Capitalism isn't bad in theory. It just can't last more that a generation or two. It can never sustain; it is always temporary. It's winner take all over time. The ruling class and ruled class always separate out.
Don't misunderstand me. I hate Capitalism and Communism equally. The Authoritarians present a false choice through their propaganda. They want you to think Authoritarian-Left and Authoritarian-Right are the only valid choices. It's bullshit.
It's only temporary to the degree that money is corruptible. A sound monetary system is a fairly effective check on arbitrary authority & political parasites. Corruption of money (centralized manipulation of trade) is always foundational to establishing a sustainable ruling class, which is just the destruction of capitalism. As stated in the communist manifesto, central banking is a key step in their efforts to infect a society.
We can hope. We will know if our little Bitcoin experiment succeeds.
My real hope is Bitcoin will make the Communism vs Capitalism narrative go away. It's a ruling class propaganda fuelled False Choice fallacy.
What part of capitalism do you believe to be propaganda?
The only propaganda I see seems to be focused on making people believe that the results of some authoritarianism or political parasitism is actually the result of some capitalist principle. It seems to me that the goal is to get people to hate critical aspects of actual freedom & identify them as things that need to be smashed. If people are innoculated against the ideas that make their freedom & prosperity possible then they are much easier to maintain as slaves. If you get the slaves fighting capitalism (free trade & property rights) for you, then authoritarianism reigns.
Saying Capitalism is the only true source of Freedom is propaganda. Using Capitalism as a synonym for Freedom is propaganda. Saying anything that isn't Capitalism is Communism is propaganda.
Capitalism is just free trade with respect for indiviual rights. It is entirely possible for voluntary communes to exist within an honest capitalist system. Mutual aid societies, & cooperatives were far more common when the US govt was far smaller, suggesting that libertarian ideals (smaller or no govts) are very friendly to voluntary communes, mutual aid, & cooperatives.
The key is that individuals cannot be forced to contribute to a commune if they decide they'd rather not, which basically means the existence of the group must benefit all participants. If it doesn't then it is likely to naturally dissolve. Slavery is not acceptable in an honest capitalist system.
In contrast, capitalists are not free to exist or to trade within socialist & communist systems. One is freedom, while the others are different forms of slavery which can only exist by destroying freedom. If you desire some form of communism that doesn't involve enslaving anyone, then an honest capitalist system is no threat to you.
You can object to my definition of capitalism, but I haven't seen you provide any meaningful definition for the word. All of the anarcho capitalists & agorists I know believe that capitalism is free trade with respect for individual rights. There is no public school teaching that, so I fail to see how that is propaganda. It's just respect for private ownership (individual ownership) of capital (tools, money, etc).
I am trying to describe to you what I (and others like me) believe, & you seem unusually hung up on the words I am using rather than trying to actually understand me
I agree basically with what you're saying here. Its just the manipulation of the word "Anarchism" is what pisses me off.
Maybe Anarchists (left) and Capitalists (right) can coexist successfully in a free and stateless society. Thank you for forcing me to think about this more.
The main problem among left anarchists seems to come when their ideas do not pan out the way they would like because most people do not enjoy being vaguely socially obligated to one another.
For example, a gift economy is just a less precise version of trade & the lack of precision is really only preferred by those who have less to offer & therfore something to gain from keeping things vague.
As an ancap I tend to be wary of anyone from the left because I have seen the mental gymnastics they will engage in to justify stealing (even from friends) when things aren't going their way.
Sure. You can label all of humankind as Machiavellian all you want. It's your right. My main issue with you (and all so called AnCaps) is the use of the word Anarchist.
The article below was provided by another so-called AnCap elsewhere in this thread. In the article Rothbard himself concluded that those who think like him should call themselves Nonarchist, not Anarchist.
I think most people find ways to make themselves the good guy in their own mind while doing shitty things. That's not a Machivellian indifference to morality, it's an effort to twist or reframe reality in order to feel better about themselves because they do care about morality.
I have no plans to stop using the word anarchist or agorist & I suspect there are more ancaps using those words more effectively in the spread of ideas than people on the left at this point. The left stole "liberalism" and transformed it into something completely illiberal. At least "anarchy" in the ancap sense makes sense. I don't really care if people who don't think ownership should exist feel like I'm stealing their word 😏
How are you ruled or controled by anyone in a free market?
Anarchy means no rulers. Minarchy means there is a limited ruling class. Oligarchy means there is a ruling group. Monarchy means a single ruler.
There is no meaningful power hierarchy in any trade relationship. Both parties are free to stop dealing with the other at any time.
The only remaining hierarchy, social status, is a completely inevitable part of society. You can't make people equally confident, equally skilled, equally funny, equally happy, equally intelligent, equally fit, equally clean, etc. All of those things (and more) matter can play a role in social status. Anything you could equalize would only cause other things to matter more. There will always be different skill levels in all things so social status is absolutely going to always exist. The flattest possible social graph is going to be one where any person is free to find (or even create) whatever they are good at, so long as doing so isn't creating a power hierarchy by politically or economically burdening anyone else. In other words, anarcho capitalism.
In a free market, the more value you produce for others, the more money you make, as determined by the people giving you money in exchange for stuff. It's quite literally a collectively determined status. If you piss people off they can stop giving you money.
Value is subjective, but the amount of a sound money that people are willing to trade you in exchange for your stuff or your services is basically the most objective measure of value there is. What people spend hard earned money on is a much more honest confession of their values than anything they say.
Having more money in an honest society doesn't actually create any sort of power hierarchy. No matter how much I have I can't force anyone to do anything. Money is not a threat of force. It's peaceful persuasion. I can offer you a million dollars, but if you say no I can't take your car or your house. It doesn't matter how much money Walmart has they can't make me shop there or support them, except when there's a pool of govt funds already stolen from people which they can use political connections to acquire. The structural theft of taxation is incompatible with a respect for property rights.
There is plenty of value that isn't exchanged for money.
There's child bearing, cooking, cleaning, friendship, neighbors sharing tools, neighbors watching for thieves, neighbors watering your garden while you're away, wise old people giving wisdom, extended family members babysitting children on date night, friendship, love letters, singing Christmas carols, helping someone in an emergency, someone playing with you on a sports team, someone playing against you on a sports team, helping a friend when they fail, helping someone study for a test, defending your little brother from a bully and much much much much more.
I feel sorry for you if you think the world and society should be reduced to being only transactional. That's not a world I want to live in. Not all work can be scaled and commodified to create surplus (see the above list). Productivity and surplus increases through improved efficiency can only be applied to a portion of the real economy. Those sectors are what capitalists prefer to talk about and spend their energy developing. There are people, particularly women, who are busy doing the important work in a society and are less able to participate in your aggressive and adversarial economic fight to the death.
The lowering birth rates in our society is likely caused by your putting a money price on everything. The work that women prefer to do has been devalued under capitalism even though nothing else could be more important.
Yes there are basic aspects of life & human connection that give people all sorts of meaning & fulfillment, without involving money. But all cooperative voluntary interactions do generally produce a surplus or a profit of some kind. If you cook with another person the profit is probably in the enjoyment you get from the interaction beyond just the food you might have produced on your own. Every voluntary human interaction takes place because both sides believe there is some benefit or value in the interaction, whether material, emotional, spiritual, now or in the future, people generally do things because they think those things will improve life in some way.
Many of those things you listed are valuable because they are rare, or because they require someone's time & effort & energy which are the scarce values that a sound money is supposed to represent. Trade is cooperative & mutually beneficial. In a free market, people get rich to your benefit, not at your expense. If a man has earned a billion sats it's because he created much more than a billion sats worth of value for others & did not consume for himself. You can't eat money. He created real valuable goods & services, & decided to hold only an abstraction which is a promise that he can consume something at some point in the future, in exchange for the real wealth he produced.
People are unable to live the way they want today & unable to plan for the future or have families because their tool for economic coordination (money) is being corrupted & has been increasingly so for the last 100+ years. Money is half of every trade. It touches everything. When money becomes corrupt, society becomes corrupt.
Look dude I hear you and I understand your point of view. However, I would prefer you use 'AnCap' or 'Anarcho-Capitalist'. If you say 'Anarchist' it confuses the normies into thinking I believe something that I don't. An 'Anarchist' has been portrayed as a 'bomb thrower' and 'Anarchy' has been portrayed as 'chaos' (intentionally) for too long. Now we are having our name stolen. I'm starting to think there's a non-zero chance that AnCaps stealing the word 'Anarchy' is a pysop. True Anarchism has many sets of powerful enemies.
