21–30 of 113 posts
"Conquest of Bread" had a huge impact on my politics. It cut through the capitalist realist narrative that we're all in economic competition and that capitalism is the only sane solution. It made me feel like another world is possible. I changed my life to pursue these other possibilities ever since.
"Conquest of Bread" had a huge impact on my politics. It cut through the capitalist realist narrative that we're all in economic competition and that capitalism is the only sane solution. It made me feel like another world is possible. I changed my life to pursue these other possibilities ever since.
What else can you recommend reading on the topic?
“the duty of delight”, which is the collected diaries of dorothy day.
“rerum novarum” and “laborem execrens”, papal encyclicals on labor and capital.
Sidenote: That's a really weird way of writing his first name. While the Russian does have a letter that visually resembles ë (unicode: ё), it is not a variation of the letter e as this transcription suggests, but invariably pronounced something like 'yo'. The name is pronounced "Pyotr", and of course corresponds to Peter, by which name Kropotkin was also known. I've no idea where this spelling comes from, but it's l…
I actually like this spelling. The sounds that have exact equivalents use the Latin alphabet and those that do not are replaced by the character's native system. Cause his name is not Pyotr or Peter or Pierre or whatever else. It is Pëtr indeed.
Sidenote: That's a really weird way of writing his first name. While the Russian does have a letter that visually resembles ë (unicode: ё), it is not a variation of the letter e as this transcription suggests, but invariably pronounced something like 'yo'. The name is pronounced "Pyotr", and of course corresponds to Peter, by which name Kropotkin was also known. I've no idea where this spelling comes from, but it's l…
On pronunciation: “Pyotr” is most close, if you use the “y” just to note that the “p” is soft and not as a separate sound – i. e. “Pjotr” would be incorrect.
"Conquest of Bread" had a huge impact on my politics. It cut through the capitalist realist narrative that we're all in economic competition and that capitalism is the only sane solution. It made me feel like another world is possible. I changed my life to pursue these other possibilities ever since.
I heard (of course) of anarchism a long time ago, but I always wrote it off as impractical: since without government, there's nobody to stop somebody from starting one. However, this may be incorrect, but it does require a population that is always willing to fight against the formation of a government. I think now that anarchism is practical, at least for a population of committed anarchists, and in the absence of h…
Council mutualism is not only practical, it's practiced, but it's practiced by Hutterites.
Can it be done without Anabaptist convictions? I don't see any reason why not. Has it? Not with that level of success, no.
The you and what army problem being obvious, inescapable, and inherent, political anarchism will, insofar as it plays a role at all, continue to be a way that people more inherently l'Etat c'est moi about it seize power, often jailing and killing the anarchist leaders (the anarcharchs, if you will) in the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. Growing up fully immersed in the capitalist world it’s easy to think that this is the natural state of things. This book, among others, helped me change perspective and challenge my assumptions about the world. Totally recommended.
Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.
This is what he meant by mutual aid.
> Kropotkin was fascinated by how ant cheaters (those who refuse to dispense aid) are dealt with: “If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or even worse. If the refusal has been made while its kinsfolk were fighting with some other species, they will fall back upon the greedy individual with greater vehemence than even upon the enemies themselves.”
A 19th century Russian prince that became a socialist perhaps thinks of something different when he thinks of "beaurocracy" or "government" than a 21st century HN reader does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.
The cited article quotes Kropotkin talking about ants and how they cooperate. It says if an ant does not cooperate by sharing food, they are treated as an enemy. This is what he meant by mutual aid. > Kropotkin was fascinated by how ant cheaters (those who refuse to dispense aid) are dealt with: “If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or…
What is your point regarding my answer to gp post? I didn't even mention the words "bureaucracy" or "government". Rest assured though, that I despise them both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. Growing up fully immersed in the capitalist world it’s easy to think that this is the natural state of things. This book, among others, helped me change perspective and challenge my assumptions about the world. Totally recommended.
Well, if we lived in a society which was based on voluntary social interactions - which are by definition mutually beneficial - and where bodily attacks and forcible expropriation by dint of the "right" of superior force was deplored and defended against by the majority, I'd call that a capitalist society.
> an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
It doesn't imply voluntary social interactions, it doesn't imply some sort of protection against the "superior force" you mention.
The values you enounce belong to any healthy society as voluntary social interactions happen in socialism too, where the majority (the proletariat) is protected against the use of superior force by the rich.
Now, would you please explain how can social interactions be voluntary in a system where property-less people have no other choice to survive but to accept the least bad offer from those who own the means of production?
Interactions can really be voluntary once neither of the parts depend on the interaction to survive. Once we free exchanges from such power play, then we can talk about will.
This is why the only just and free system can be one where nobody has to struggle for the material needs necessary for their survival.
"Conquest of Bread" had a huge impact on my politics. It cut through the capitalist realist narrative that we're all in economic competition and that capitalism is the only sane solution. It made me feel like another world is possible. I changed my life to pursue these other possibilities ever since.
What else can you recommend reading on the topic?
The idea is to envision a society which is stable, but has no government and yet not perfect people. There can still be theft, violence, laziness, polarizing differences of opinion, etc. but the society thrives despite the absence of a government and nimbly handles these problems. He presents a vision of how it could work. It is not a prescription since it is impossible to prescribe an anarchic society as there is nothing to prescribe to. The criminal justice system becomes a bunch of competing rights organizations, similar to competing insurance companies. It allows for economic evolution of laws as everyone can choose what kind of system they want to be governed by and conflicts of competing legal systems get negotiated and arbitrated. One can choose not to be governed by any laws, but if that individual comes into conflict with others, then there is no one to defend them. They are not automatically cast out for not being part of anything.
Most other anarchic systems seem to assume unity of purpose, a good work ethic, a lack of criminality, and an inability to fundamentally dissent from what the larger group wants. They often get presented as more of a direct democratic government that everyone belongs to while Friedman's approach is literally a lack of any coercive government. There is no governing body that all must yield to, including the collective. The fundamental transactions between people are voluntary and coercion to produce societal needs is both unnecessary and rejected. I find it to be a believable society with the people we have.