Capitalism is not anarchism

White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.

White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for whites to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening, or threatened with deportation.

White privilege is knowing that if the bomber turns out to be white, he or she will be viewed as an exception to an otherwise non-white rule, an aberration, an anomaly, and that he or she will be able to join the ranks of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph and Joe Stackand George Metesky and Byron De La Beckwith and Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas Blanton and Herman Frank Cash and Robert Chambliss and James von Brunn and Robert Mathews and David Laneand Michael F. Griffin and Paul Hill and John Salvi and James Kopp and Luke Helder and James David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Shelley Shannon and Dennis Mahon and Wade Michael Page andByron Williams and Kevin Harpham and William Krar and Judith Bruey and Edward Feltus andRaymond Kirk Dillard and Adam Lynn Cunningham and Bonnell Hughes and Randall Garrett Cole and James Ray McElroy and Michael Gorbey and Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman and Frederick Thomas and Paul Ross Evans and Matt Goldsby and Jimmy Simmons and Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins and Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe and David McMenemy and Bobby Joe Rogers andFrancis Grady and Demetrius Van Crocker and Floyd Raymond Looker, among the pantheon of white people who engage in (or have plotted) politically motivated violence meant to terrorize and kill, but whose actions result in the assumption of absolutely nothing about white people generally, or white Christians in particular.

And white privilege is being able to know nothing about the crimes committed by most of the terrorists listed above — indeed, never to have so much as heard most of their names — let alone to make assumptions about the role that their racial or ethnic identity may have played in their crimes.

White privilege is knowing that if the Boston bomber turns out to be white, we  will not be asked to denounce him or her, so as to prove our own loyalties to the common national good. It is knowing that the next time a cop sees one of us standing on the sidewalk cheering on runners in a marathon, that cop will say exactly nothing to us as a result.

White privilege is knowing that if you are a white student from Nebraska — as opposed to, say, a student from Saudi Arabia — that no one, and I mean no one would think it important to detain and question you in the wake of a bombing such as the one at the Boston Marathon.

And white privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Belfast. And if he’s an Italian American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.

I have only really just started studying Marxism in depth (though I am stopping short of Capital for now). Subsequently, while reading Bertell Ollman‘s Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in a Capitalist Society, it once again struck me that (right-)libertarianism is really just lazy Marxism. In many ways libertarianism reads like the first third of Marxism: the area which explores methodological questions and the nature of man. Both libertarianism and Marxism are generally fairly agreeable – and in agreement – in this area, but the former never really fleshes out its arguments satisfactorily. Often I find libertarians, after describing some basic principles (non coercion etc.), make the jump to property rights and capitalism being the bestest thing ever, without fully explaining it.*

The stupidity speaks for itself…

The stupidity speaks for itself…

publickeydeath:

“Capitalism for Kids” (via R/anarchism)

publickeydeath:

“Capitalism for Kids” (via R/anarchism)

The Difference Between Liberals and Libertarians, as Seen by Chris.

chrisswallow:

Now, I’m not saying what I’m about to say is how it is or that these are the facts.  It’s just my opinion. 

There’s actually a good amount of common ground. The main point is that the government sucks, and both sides want them to have less power over our lives.  Simple enough.  We both think the government should stay out of the bedroom, and we agree on just about all the other social issues as well as our views on the war spending. 

Liberals and Libertarians are equally boring in that regard, in that they oppose government intervention in their personal lives, but fail to understand the socio-economic mechanism that gives the state so much power (ie capitalism).

Both understand the power and corruption of the rich and the destruction of all the other classes because of it.  Most liberals I know, or see on TV/Tumblr/Facebook, feel it’s the government’s job to feed and house the poor by taxing the rich or raise minimum wage and welfare and basically legislate the rich into redistributing their wealth to the less fortunate, all while pushing laws to make everyone equal and all the things that, ideally, shouldn’t even really be a problem.  Nobody can really argue with what they’re trying to achieve.  It’s basically peace and acceptance of everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and whatever else makes us different. An honorable cause.

You are too kind to liberals. Liberals support those things on paper, but by supporting a State capitalist system, they really are unable to do any of those things because the rich control the political process.

The difference, in my eyes, is personal accountability. I identify as a libertarian.  Here’s why.  Here’s also why I feel that, if more liberals even knew what a libertarian was, there’d be a lot more libertarians.  Libertarians believe that it’s not the government’s job to really do much of anything.  Instead of using their power to do good things, Libertarians feel they should just be stripped of their power and the money we give them via taxes should just be put back in the hands of the people.  We feel that people should be left to make their own decisions and run their own lives with their own money.  That includes taking government out of our social and love lives. Instead of increasing taxes and just blindly giving the government our money to spend on what they wish, we’d rather keep the money and spend it however WE wish.

Here you set a good goal (money/power being back in the hands of the people instead of an ineffectual government), but you don’t account for the oppressive economic aspect of our society. Let’s assume we create this world of limited/no government. By definition, bigger businesses will get richer and poorer people will become poorer because of economies of scale. Thus, economic power will be shifted away from the people. If you truly want power to be in the hands of the people, you will want some mechanism that either renders economies of scale obsolete  or makes it economies of scale not hurt the people. Doing so will either require government intervention, or a change in the economic system itself.

I feel, and I’m sure many others feel this way, that people only get selfish once the things they work for get taken from them.  If we were able to keep the fruits of our labor, it would give us the freedom to financially support whichever causes we want to, as opposed to some of our money being spent on billion dollar research to find out how much an ant eats in a day, or a war we don’t even agree with.  We wouldn’t be forced, by law, to have car insurance. It would be an option. Instead of school loans and insurmountable debt, college would just be more affordable, so you wouldn’t have to take out a 50,000 dollar loan.

You want the fruits of your labor huh? But yet you’re a libertarian? Capitalism does not let workers own the fruits of their labor

I honestly feel like life would be much better for everyone if we lived that way. Let rich people be rich, but make it so they don’t get rich off of our efforts, but their own.  Nobody should be taxed any more than anyone else.  You can’t force equality by tipping the scales in any particular direction.  The only way is to get rid of the scales. 

If you truly believe that, and extend these statements to their logical conclusion, you are a socialist. (not necessarily a socialist who supports government. ie Anarchism is a type of socialism)

There’s a lot more I want to say, but I have to go and I don’t know how to save on this new Tumblr format.

That’s at least what I think.

Peace!

Chris

PS, I welcome different opinions to be openly discussed.  Just be civil and not a dick.

Civility is boring, but I tried to be relatively nice (at least nicer than usual).

freebroccoli:

stfuanarchocapitalists:

freebroccoli:

I think it’s hilarious when a true conservative is argued into a corner by a libertarian on an issue like vice laws, and the conservative tries to justify his stance by redefining freedom.

“If you get addicted you gambling, you aren’t really free, so by throwing you in jail for gambling, I’m actually making you more free.”


Which is as idiotic as the leftists’ “If you have to produce before you can consume, you aren’t really free” idea.

“you have to work before you can get food” 

Guess who said this:

A) The slave owner to the slave

B) The capitalist to the worker

C) All of the above

Also, provide your definition of freedom, please.

How about

D) Nature to everyone.


As I qualified earlier, I’m referring to political freedom (more precisely referred to as liberty), which means that interactions are voluntary, within the constraints of nature.

By definition, nature is not voluntary, as also illustrated by your comment. Therefore, your idea of seeking a ‘voluntary’ society is invalid. A truly ‘voluntary’ society, would taken into a account the restrictions imposed by nature and try to minimize them, instead of setting them as standards, and rejecting all other principles.

for example: If we assume that one has to work to get food (a reasonably valid assumption), then the most free society would be one in which the process of selecting work, and the fruits of one’s labor are both controlled by the individual doing the work. By allowing people to set claim over parts of nature using violence and taking portions of the laborer’s output, they are taking the restrictions that are supposedly ‘naturally imposed’ and causing extra harm with them. tl;dr, if someone is forced to work “by nature”, then why do other people control the entire work process (everything from learning the skills necessary to work, to finding jobs, to working, to the output of your work is controlled by the capitalist class). These interactions should be between an individual and ‘nature’.

younglibertarianadvocate:

I don’t get why just minding you own damn business is such a hard concept…

Seriously. Why can’t capitalists just mind their own business and not have to seize the output produced by the working class.

orwellianlegacy:

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” ~Thomas Sowell
[source]

The philosophical basis for capitalism is the idea that capitalists can claim the others’ fruits of labor. If workers want to keep the fruits of their own labor, you call it “evil socialism”, and thus you believe capitalists should own those outputs, but if the government takes those outputs from the capitalists, then you get all panicky and call it theft. 

orwellianlegacy:

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” ~Thomas Sowell

[source]

The philosophical basis for capitalism is the idea that capitalists can claim the others’ fruits of labor. If workers want to keep the fruits of their own labor, you call it “evil socialism”, and thus you believe capitalists should own those outputs, but if the government takes those outputs from the capitalists, then you get all panicky and call it theft. 

freebroccoli:

I think it’s hilarious when a true conservative is argued into a corner by a libertarian on an issue like vice laws, and the conservative tries to justify his stance by redefining freedom.

“If you get addicted you gambling, you aren’t really free, so by throwing you in jail for gambling, I’m actually making you more free.”


Which is as idiotic as the leftists’ “If you have to produce before you can consume, you aren’t really free” idea.

"you have to work before you can get food" 

Guess who said this:

A) The slave owner to the slave

B) The capitalist to the worker

C) All of the above

Also, provide your definition of freedom, please.