Anarchism and Hierarchy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14251423
I believe that, in a "truly free society," there will exist a plurality of hierarchies or dependencies. Such as the patient on the doctor, child on caretaker, etc. Would the traditional "small business" be barred from an anarcho-syndicalist model? What if a certain group of people decide they need a boss because they feel someone is so qualified? When it comes to anarchy (which I am not a political anarchist, but still very interested in the topic), I feel that organization is what the people want in the community. I don't like all of these labels within the movement. Im just ranting again I guess, and I thought this page was supportive of my thoughts enough before for me to post. Is there anyone here that shares the same sentiment?
#14251585
Anarchism has traditionally been described as opposition to hierarchy, but I feel that this needs a little unpacking. What we are opposed to is what are known as "dominator hierarchies." These are social hierarchies in which one person has the power over others, especially the power to give orders and dole out punishment to those who don't obey them. This can be contrasted with inclusive or actualization hierarchies, in which the higher levels of organization include the lower levels. The spokescouncil model used in activist circles works on this principle. The idea is to have a kind of inverted hierarchy, in which the "higher" positions answer to the "lower" level organization. Something like this might play out if, as you mention, workers decide they want to hire a manager. Leaving aside the fact that co-ops can usually be managed just fine by the workers themselves, if they chose to elect a manager, that manager would be accountable to them rather than to a board of directors, CEO, or stockholders, as is currently the case. As for a patient seeing a doctor, that is simply a matter of expertise. A person can be an "authority" on a particular subject or field without coercively exercising authority over others.
#14251604
That makes sense, and I would agree. In short, I guess I would not bar small businesses or property from my anarchist society
User avatar
By emmitt
#14251749
The Creator of the Market Anarchist FAQ wrote:Market anarchists generally reject all forms of paternalism which deny the ability of free people to make reasonable decisions about their own lives. If someone wishes to trade their labor for a price they find acceptable, we wouldn’t use force to prevent it.

However, market forces naturally undermine exploitation. Market anarchists tend to see economic domination of working people as the product of statism and not the market. In a free society without Benjamin Tucker’s Four Monopolies over land, currency, patents and tariffs, the economic dependency proletarians have upon capitalists is virtually destroyed. Capitalism, in the sense of an unjust status quo characterized by state-driven monopolization of capital, depends upon a captive labor force whose better options are destroyed or precluded by state intervention in the market on behalf of a parasitic elite.

When people can work for themselves or in a horizontally organized workplace, they generally prefer it. Wouldn’t all of us prefer colleagues over bosses? In order for a capitalist firm to exist in a free society it would typically need to offer a much better deal to its workers, who would otherwise flock to better opportunities elsewhere — opportunities that are currently strangled in the cradle by the state.

So while market anarchists typically do not have an a priori moral opposition to wage labor, we have strong moral objections to the currently existing statist monopoly capitalism which makes wage labor a nearly inescapable trap.

In other words, opposition to the wage system in the sense of an unjust system of oppression doesn’t mean that some sort of anarcho-cops have to arrest people that voluntarily agree to work for or hire somebody else. By abolishing the state, we abolish state-driven monopolization of capital so that there would no longer be a “wage system” in which one’s only choices are working for somebody else or starving


I think this should help you feel more at home in the market anarchist movement.
User avatar
By Eran
#14267113
Indeed.

I don't know of any material difference between Market Anarchy and Anarcho-Capitalism, other than in emphasis and expectations.
User avatar
By emmitt
#14267119
Well, there's one major difference. Tuckerite market anarchists are generally in favor of abolishing private property in land. It would be replaced with an occupancy and use system.

Benjamin Tucker wrote:It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual occupancy and use.
#14267503
emmitt wrote:Well, there's one major difference. Tuckerite market anarchists are generally in favor of abolishing private property in land. It would be replaced with an occupancy and use system.

Indeed. And this change in property relations is why capitalists as we know them today would not exist. Workers could, if they chose, pick a manager to run the workplace. But the manager would be accountable to the workers rather than to some absentee capitalist owner.
User avatar
By Husky
#14267507
Paradigm wrote:Indeed. And this change in property relations is why capitalists as we know them today would not exist. Workers could, if they chose, pick a manager to run the workplace. But the manager would be accountable to the workers rather than to some absentee capitalist owner.


How do you intend to implement this?

If workers want to work for someone in a way that you do not permit, what would you do?
#14267508
Husky wrote:How do you intend to implement this?

Simple. Abolish the state, so that there will be no entity to enforce capitalist property relations.

If workers want to work for someone in a way that you do not permit, what would you do?

It's not a matter of permitting it. It's a matter of the state not being there to make it possible in the first place.
#14267514
Husky wrote:But how will you prevent people from engaging in 'capitalist property relations'?

By taking away the entity that makes such property relations possible in the first place: the state. It's like asking me how to stop people from breathing underwater: there is a mechanism required to make it possible in the first place. Take away that mechanism, and there is no more need to "prevent" anything.
#14267519
Husky wrote:So you hypothesize that, in absence of a state, there would no longer remain private property?

Certainly not as we know it today. Who's going to enforce an absentee landlord's claim on a piece of land he's not there to defend? A more natural relation to possessions would be based on occupancy and use. Sort of like seats at a movie theater.
User avatar
By Husky
#14267522
Ok I understand your position mate.

Can a person opt to not participate in a workers co-operative and instead start his own venture?
User avatar
By Eran
#14267695
I have several questions.

First, why do you suppose land is so important? Land has stopped being the dominant mean of production during the 19th century. We are almost 150 years beyond that point.

You argue that without state support, capitalist property relations couldn't exist. I disagree. But set my disagreement aside, and accepting your point, is there any mechanism in the society you propose that enforces any property relations?

For example, you seem to support land rights associated with use and occupancy. Who protects those rights?

How about rights in movable property, either personal or productive? Any protections there? Or could anybody enter my house (correction - the house I happen to sleep in) and take my possessions (corrections - articles I used the day before, but now, being asleep, I am not using)?

Where do you draw the line on use and possession? Are hotels allowed? What about short-term vacation rentals? Would you allow furnished accommodations for students, or would each student have to buy an apartment before they can leave their parents' home?
#14267698
Eran wrote:I have several questions.

First, why do you suppose land is so important? Land has stopped being the dominant mean of production during the 19th century. We are almost 150 years beyond that point.

You argue that without state support, capitalist property relations couldn't exist. I disagree. But set my disagreement aside, and accepting your point, is there any mechanism in the society you propose that enforces any property relations?

For example, you seem to support land rights associated with use and occupancy. Who protects those rights?

How about rights in movable property, either personal or productive? Any protections there? Or could anybody enter my house (correction - the house I happen to sleep in) and take my possessions (corrections - articles I used the day before, but now, being asleep, I am not using)?

Where do you draw the line on use and possession? Are hotels allowed? What about short-term vacation rentals? Would you allow furnished accommodations for students, or would each student have to buy an apartment before they can leave their parents' home?

Land is important because it gives people the freedom to choose whether you want to participate in the economy or not.
Someone who owns land doesn't have to pay rent/mortgage and can choose to grow their own food and live without ever selling or buying something.
User avatar
By Eran
#14267735
This is an attractive, but, in a modern society, entirely unrealistic option.

Moreover, agricultural land is actually not that expensive. A land area beyond which a single family without mechanised help can cultivate can be purchased for a few thousand dollars, or a few months-worth of unskilled labour.

Land is far from being monopolised - many thousands of different sellers compete with each other at any one point in time.


Finally, the more important land is, the more valuable is the service provided by those who homestead virgin (unowned and uncultivated) land. The more rights we give those who homestead virgin land, the greater the supply of useful land to the rest of society.
User avatar
By emmitt
#14267741
1) I don't think anyone really knows how such a system would work. It's rather pointless to write down every single rule beforehand. Market anarchists only support occupancy and use rights because they think it might improve things. (Having said that, there are people like Shawn P. Wilbur who are of the opinion that hotels are not immoral.)

Benjamin Tucker wrote:Mr. Herbert must remember that under Anarchism all rules and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries, and that all disputes, whether about land or anything else, will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts, but the law, the justice of the law, its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction. What better safeguard against rigidity could there be than this? Machinery for altering the law, indeed! Why, under Anarchism the law will be so flexible that it will shape itself to every emergency and need no alteration. And it will then be regarded as just in proportion to its flexibility, instead of as now in proportion to its rigidity


2) Ocucpancy and use rights would only make sense if there's actually a consensus. If most citizens within a certain territory do think occupancy and use rights should be followed, there won't a bunch of mutualists who try to homestead your fucking house while you're gone.

3) Tuckerite market anarchism is an idea of the 19th century.

4) Competing defense associations would be used to enforce occupancy and use rights.
User avatar
By Eran
#14267745
Benjamin Tucker wrote:Mr. Herbert must remember that under Anarchism all rules and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries, and that all disputes, whether about land or anything else, will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts, but the law, the justice of the law, its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction.

This view is inconsistent with the expectation of occupancy-only-based property. After all, juries may well choose to convict trespassers or non-rent-paying tenants.

Competing defence associations would be used to enforce occupancy and use rights.

Excellent. So such competing defence associations could just as easily enforce any other broadly-accepted property rights. We agree that the state isn't required for capitalism to operate, provided only that capitalist property rules enjoy broad public support.
What's your game plan?

All US and all your fellow Canadian citizens hav[…]

WHATSAPP: +1(989)963-5469 BUY Real 100% Verified S[…]

I did not address the points listed because I don[…]

WHATSAPP: +1(989)963-5469 BUY Real 100% Verified S[…]