the presidential debates are bullshit
-abby
Let’s tackle a controversial question: Is mutualism a form of “market anarchism”?
It’s a useful sort of question, even though the correct answer is probably “that depends….” Since mutualism has its roots in a world where the distinctions that make a label like “market anarchism” useful simply didn’t exist, distinctions which may themselves run counter to the “classical” mutualist project, it’s tempting to say “no.” But since we’re in the process of rediscovering and reimaging mutualism in a world where the question of “markets” is of real importance, we have to resist the temptation.
c4ss:
Mutualism, in a nut shell, is best understood as follows:
Mutualism is not a specific social, political or economic system. Mutualism as such is simply the assertion that every meaningfully social relation will have the form, at base, of an anarchic encounter between unique individuals—free absolutes—no matter what layers of convention we pile on it. To the extent that our conventions, institutions and norms respect that basic premise, we can call them “mutualist.” To the extent that we commit ourselves to viewing our relations through this lens, and exert ourselves in the extension of mutualistic freedom, we can call ourselves “mutualists.”
From Two Gun Mutualism & The Golden Rule
Mutualist “property” (if one can call it that) is based on Proudhonian possession - e.g. occupancy and use. Proudhon arrives to this conclusion through a ‘trialectical’ analysis of property. In What is Property?, he concludes simultaneously that:
- “Property is Theft”, in the sense of private property which includes absentee ownership of land, and other rent-seeking practices which lead to “right of increase”
- “Property is Freedom”, in the sense that property by possession is proper to man’s proclivity and subsistence, and
- “Property is Impossible” in that absolute private property is founded on a contradiction. …
Shawn P. Wilbur’s new blog, check it out, if you haven’t already :)
i need to blog in this more
we should add more peeps too
-thesepostsarenotcoercive
Hierarchy is the opposite of order.
or·der
n.1. A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group.“…the highest degree of order in society is expressed by the highest degree of individual liberty, in a word, by ANARCHY.”-P.J ProudhonHobbes famously defended the hierarchy of the state by claiming that without it, people lived in a “war of all against all”. Though we will not discuss whether or not this has any historical truth to it, we will say the opposite: the State is a war-zone! The aggressors are economic monopoly, tyrannical politics and cultural hegemony, the enemy is humanity, freedom, social interaction, and Order!
A hierarchy is a system of disorder; incomprehensible, illogical and ineffective. On every level, a hierarchy creates antagonism between the different actors. This form of organizing stirs hate against your fellow man, because you are either competing with him, governing him, or governed by him. So you seek to punish, push, avoid, lie and bad-mouth him, because you’re forced to. It is the only thing that makes sense in a hierarchy! Be the worst you can be, or lose your place in social activity, that is the true message of hierarchy.
In hierarchy, knowledge is divorced from authority, reward is divorced from effort, and communication is obstructed by the fact that one actor has the power to put the other in very uncomfortable positions. As a result, the one taking orders will only communicate that information to his superiors that would not put the subordinated in uncomfortable positions. This is understood, subconsciously by both master and serf, and creates an aura of distrust between them. At the end of the day, you will never be able to fully express yourself, efficiently or authentically, to somebody that has the power to punish, humiliate, deprive and bully you.
From the chaos of hierarchy arises war, violence and nationalism, without it, it’s an impossibility. Those at the top of a hierarchy have actual human beings at their disposal, who can be completely divorced from individual will and dignity if the masters so please. The masters, if they want to, can and do make their human capital into soldiers, party loyalists, patriots, consumerists, paranoid lunatics, criminals, sports hooligans, nationalists, racists, and cold blooded murderers. Obedience is a disease that hinders order; people who will not stand up for their own right to be free will never make sense of the world. We only call what surrounds us “order” because we are thought it from youth; let us be honest with our self. This, this system of hierarchy and submission that surrounds us, is nothing but an invisible Civil War.
“I will not Obey!”, is the chorus of order, “I will only conform to my fellow mans will if I share his intent”, is the verse of all human decency. The only order is that order which is based on mutual agreement, not command and obey. Let’s reverse the notion of Hobbes two monsters, “the state of nature” and the “social contract”: The state of hierarchy is a war of all against all! Therefore, we must agree, through unwritten law, to respect each-other and manage our conduct on the principles of mutual agreement and reciprocity. We say with Anselme Bellegarrigue:
Who says anarchy, says negation of government;
Who says negation of government, says affirmation of the people;
Who says affirmation of the people, says individual liberty;
Who says individual liberty, says sovereignty of each;
Who says sovereignty of each, says equality;
Who says equality, says solidarity or fraternity;
Who says fraternity, says social order;
By contrast:
Who says government, says negation of the people;
Who says negation of the people, says affirmation of political authority;
Who says affirmation of political authority, says individual dependency;
Who says individual dependency, says class supremacy;
Who says class supremacy, says inequality;
Who says inequality, says antagonism;
Who says antagonism, says civil war;
From which it follows that who says government, says civil war.
