Comment by nyx_land | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nyx_land | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

David Graeber already had an answer to this with his idea of "bullshit jobs", wherein as the labor that is necessary to keep society running is slowly reduced or automated away entirely by technological advancement, more jobs are invented that serve no practical purpose other than to keep people performing the wage labor ritual of selling their time to capitalists (keep in mind Graeber was a left-wing anarchist) in order to justify having access to resources. Even if there's absolutely no basis in reality for people to continue working, people will be made to think that they need to continue working and will be kept under the threat of work or starvation no matter how abundant resources and labor power are unless they simply refuse to continue to do so like we're seeing right now with the Great Resignation, which is essentially just people waking up to the realization that most of the jobs available to people today (especially young people entering the workforce) are bullshit jobs.

I assumed that his views represented the previous post ww2 world where work, companies, careers were all things to pursue but since this decade I think there's a mismatch as we can indeed see in the great resignation.

Maybe it will push back people to pursue passion, excellency and social bond (I will do things of high value for me and others so we're all happier).

All Anarchists are left wing. AnCaps aren't anarchists. Anarchism is inherently socialist.

Why do AnCaps present themselves as anarchist? Is it a name recognition marketing strategy? Are they themselves mistaken, or are they trying to convince others of them being anarchist?

I see this a lot, where ancaps present themselves as anarchist, and believe that they are left wing, but when asked are shown to be ancaps by their answers. I don’t know what the endgame is in these conversations, for them or for me, as I’m mostly asking exploratory questions and have no agenda in asking per se.

Murray Rothbard did it to both high jack left wing fervor and also to convince people that it was radical to give capitalists unfettered power. It's little more than an attempt by capitalists to create a fake opposition that is actually anything but. Most AnCaps do it because they have been duped into thinking it's real Anarchism (I was a fervent AnCap from 2012-2015. The Ron Paul campaign got me in, and Rand Pauls hypocrisy convinced me to join the left wing)

Late reply, but do you happen to have more info around timelines? I feel like the name Murray Rothbard is familiar but doesn’t ring a bell.

Why is anarchism necessarily socialist? If it’s just about the lack of hierarchal centralized power, then laissez faire capitalism can fit with decentralized communities who don’t restrict economic activity.

I’m not saying it’s good, only questioning a certain definition.

This anarchist is very supportive of non-authoritarian voluntary socialism. I hope that my support and those of many others will eventually bring it into existence. I value that workers be free, more than that they be organized. In many cases the former will depend somewhat on the latter, but that is contingent not essential.

Capitalism is itself hierarchical. You have the Capitalist who owns the Capital goods and controls the workers who provide the labour in order to turn a profit all of which is exploited by the capitalist for the capitalist gains.

Markets are accepted in Anarchism (and socialism) but Capitalism is not.

I agree with you but I'm also not really interested in getting into what would undoubtedly be a fruitless tangential debate about anarchism on the orange site, so I just phrased the comment in a way to skirt that potential discussion

Reply on news.ycombinator.com