Probably the number one mistake I see pro-market folks make when arguing with conventional anarchists is not recognizing that usually what they most desperately want is secure housing & food with as little labor as possible. Complex economic good provision is not even in scope.
I regularly see middle class libertarians being like "but you can't coordinate an economy with..." when the absolute utopia of someone constantly fatigued by minimum wage jobs is a squat the cops won't threaten and foodstamps that don't depend on endless capricious bureaucracy.
Like explain to an anarchist the complexity of the supply chain involved in making a wifi router and what they hear is "choose between not constantly being abused + worked to the bone to keep housing and food OR having wifi" and literally everyone is gonna choose the former.
When I handwave right out of the gate "sure, everyone should have basic necessities like housing and food" most anarchists consider any economic particulars beyond that (like whether markets are used to coordinate complex production) to be completely anodyne and esoteric.
While leftists often vastly misconstrue the class composition of libertarian rank & file, this IS a place where libertarian arguments often come from a place of ignorant privilege.
And this comes down to one's experience of precarity, etc. Are you constantly tired?
The middle class kid relates to rent & food as kind of rounding errors or a place for indulgence.
The kid in precarity sees them as a site of constant pain and looming fear.
The middle class kid lives entirely in the "wild stretch goal" space of the precariat.
This is the source of a lot of currents in anarchist politics. If the most fanciful utopia you can imagine is GETTING TO REST, then who the fuck cares if that means sagging old rotten walls, compost toilets, and chicken shit instead of having gadgets.
Anarcho-communism works every single day in thousands of land projects and squats around the world.
"works"
In the sense that it provides people with an island of utopia -- the capacity to actually rest, not be shouted at by a boss, maybe even hang out with friends.
That such schemes are completely incapable of scaling up efficiently in economic complexity to handle the mutation, production and distribution of wifi routers etc is not apparent and *not concerning.* Having such toys is a very distant *stretch goal* to most folks.
Now of course I think markets are incredibly important, incredibly necessary. But that's because I recognize the "stretch goals" are necessities too, that we'll choke and stifle without the ability to do nerdy stuff beyond sleep, eat, fuck, gossip on some subsistence farm.
But the average person just wants to be able to catch up on sleep for the first time in decades. The average person has a hard time seeing beyond the far-out-there absurd dream of not having a boss yell at you and threaten to make you homeless by week's end.
Market participation doesn't have to come -- like it does under capitalism -- through the violent removal of other options. It can be motivated by nerdy aspirations seeking useful efficient tools for building, but today? Most only engage cuz precarity has a knife to their throat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
hilariously sloppy and cartoonish reduction of the complex actual intellectual lineage at play, but also amusingly kinda right despite the wildness of grabbing Weil to represent left ascetism
after ww2, with the bomb and technocracy, the humanities and sciences reversed political associations, and this led to the aristocratic values of the classics department getting hybridized with young leftist students into a mutual hostility to modernity
left ascetism has *always* existed -- it's a fairly natural stance to prop up anticapitalism by going "i guess wanting things is bad" -- and this intersected with a pop reduction of Reich and Kropotkin into "human nature is good; machines/society make it bad"
Okay, look team. We can't be out here just making shit up. Yes, anarchists are smart, but it was decentralization and informality that made us hard to infiltrate. The AVERAGE anarchist in 06 was an activist who didn't read theory.
I'm not saying the *average* anarchist was a crustie oogle busy breaking beer bottles, but like, "average" over ANY very large movement has never been the intellectual book club nerds. It's activists who go to documentary nights and talk with people, but are like ehhh about books
If you're constraining "anarchist" to folks who have been organizing consistently in the movement for over a decade, then yeah, the average of those folks is super well read and can wipe the floor with leninist dorks but when we were hegemonic in activism the average was not that
Much of my youth revolved around the website ZineLibrary. It went down around Occupy in a massive loss for a movement whose ideas and knowledge mostly doesn't circulate online but in person.
Anyway I've put it back online with a *thousand* zines: zinelibrary.org
There's tons I've no doubt missed but, while I've tried to make it representative of every branch, I did have some broad limiting filters:
1) PDFs must be imposed. 2) PDFs must not be ugly.
Which largely excludes bad scans and lazy layouts. But some exceptions were made.
Any honest attempt at a comprehensive library representative of the whole movement requires toleration, so @ ing me about how X is problematic probably won't prompt a removal. But there ARE of course boundaries, eg no Ted K, ITS, national-anarchists, etc
This is the most productive public debate between an ancom and an ancap in all of human history so far.
But of course I have to interject that I already solved property a decade ago, and they're both clearly just groping towards my evaluation.
I dunk on Huemer a lot but he gets points for turning to rule utilitarianism (and endorsement of theft in extreme cases), yet it's a pretty severe backdoor for egalitarian considerations... including my insane "there are no objective titles, disagreement is necessary" stuff.
Anyway, property needs to be understood as a collapse of many dynamics around 1) autonomy, 2) agency, 3) utility re conflict, 4) utility re net capacity 5) utility re checks on power, as evaluated A) individually, and B) thru emergent social pressures.
Borders were basically invented in the late 1800s as an imperial managerial tool -- polities had previously desired and competed for in-migration, but empires wanted to control internal labor flows. The whole idea of passports/visas was wildly denounced as insane authoritarianism
The US then bought into this new scheme by the British, Spanish, etc empires, in part because of authoritarian progressivism where low-skilled racist white workers backed vast expansions of state power and the police state here to expel and deport chinese-americans.
The Palmer raids against anarchists, "operation wetback", etc then massively expanded the US police state further and chucked previously basic constitutional liberties. Crude KKK populism driven by the most inane and worthless racist trash who should never be allowed in society.
It's weird to be decades into libertarians discovering left market anarchists and still fielding these kinds of critiques. Anarchism isn't "remove the state and whatever might come is good" it's a deep critique of power and thus *obliges* cultural and institutional changes.
Yes, we frequently highlight the systematic and dispersed impact of sustained state violence on shaping our present capitalist world and its economic and social norms. But we are not "come what may" advocates. As Charles emphasized endlessly: *we* are the market. We get choices.
So libertarians tend to miss that we are obliged not only to rip out the continued impacts of state violence that prop up bosses, corporations, etc, but also to work to *undo* the centuries of distortions and lasting impact upon the distributions and *norms* of our society.