- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Re: The net is information anarchism

In Reply to: Re: The net is information anarchism posted by Josh Harper on January 14, 1997 at 12:12:27:

[stuff deleted]
: Now, for a quick note on Capitalism. Capitalism is a necessary option for
: anarchism. People must have the option for free trade. However, capitalism
: would become a simple matter of transaction between two parties, not a
: forced cash for merchandise system that currently exists. And for those of
: you who claim to wish for the abolition of capitalism, I hope you all lead
: the most self sufficient lifestyles possible, and reject the meat and
: dairy industries. Meat and dairy rely on slavery and pain for profit, as
: well as a percieved biological hierarchy on part of the consumer. If you
: are not Vegan, you are not a revolutionary.

: For the animals, the earth, and anarchism,
: Josh Harper

[first time on the list]
As an anarcho-capitalist I don't see society as some cake mix where you need all the necessary ingredients, even if you regard capitalism to be one of them. I hardly understand one sentence of your last paragraph.
First of all I don't see your support for the statement "must have the option for free trade". 'Must' and 'necessary' imply an objective that you haven't stated (I will for the time being assume it means something bleeding heart like humanity). Surely under capitalism where things are owned privately trade must occur unless you talk about a society that doesn't have division of labour. You seem to grasp trade must occur, however a non-capitalistic society where everything is publicly owned such transactions are not considered trade, merely shared goods. The only explanation is you are implying non-capitalism is impossible (which I'm inclined to agree with).
Secondly capitalism is, has always been, and will always continue to be (beyond the depths of an idealist's reality distortion field) private ownership and control, which is the antithesis of both socialism and statism which is public and state ownership and control respectively. Capitalism also 'inevitably encourages the division of labour, economic calculation, capital accumulation, technological improvement, and the voluntary social cooperation of a market economy in which mass production is designed for the consumption of the sovereign masses' (quoted from a small economics book I own) because of how people have behaved under a system of private ownership. Capitalism itself can not of course be defined as 'division of labour' nor anything capitalism has *lead* to. It's definition will remain the same in order not to make communication using english any more confusing than mass media already has. You seem to want to change the definition to mean the "transaction between two parties" which is (free?) trade, not capitalism. You also state capitalism is currently "forced cash for merchandise system" which I am perplexed as to what that means. If you don't want the merchandise don't pay the cash. If you want a TV at Wall Mart then you will try to exchange something (like a service) for cash, then trade cash for the TV. Maybe you make bread and want to trade bread instead of cash, is Wall Mart forcing you to use cash because you want to use bread? Nobody is forcing you to use cash, and I doubt Wall Mart would like being forced to accept bread. In fact, don't bother going to my garage sale either.
Thirdly what the hell does all this have to do with refusing meat? Are you suggesting the cow trades it's life for grass under a capitalist system? Gee...maybe the cabbage trades it's life for dirt |-p. Animals are no more individuals in the economy than are bacteria and slime molds.
I realize you were probably not expecting close scrutiny of your words...but it's hard to know what you mean.

• Clarification on anarcho-capitalism

Follow Ups:

None.