Hacker News Reader

Comment by oinksoft | Hacker News Reader

The abundance (of mostly idle drills) the author points to is one of the main ideas behind Kropotkin's mutualism ("anarcho-communism"). Industrialization and agricultural breakthroughs have produced such plenty that it is inexcusable that anybody wants for, well, any common need. In a mutual system, the drill belongs to nobody, and it is taken and used as needed. Idealism? Surely. But many anarchists would tell you that anarchism is an ideal, a goal, more than it is a destination to be arrived at in short order.

So, I'd much rather see a tools co-op than yet another tools rental service; perhaps I fail at capitalism in seeing this as something other than a startup opportunity. Maybe this is what the author is getting at, but the article is couched in startup language.

View on HN

> Idealism? Surely. But many anarchists would tell you that anarchism is an ideal, a goal, more than it is a destination to be arrived at in short order.

It always struck me, that so many people discard the idea of anarchism either as "a teenage rebel idealism", terrorism, or simply "not going to work". Hence they go back to capitalism or however things work today.

But in the end, what anarcho-communism is trying to achieve is what most of us would agree with: eliminate poverty and exploitation (via equal rights to access means of production), let people have control over their own lives, direct democracy and self-organization. And when people say it's not going to work, it saddens me that we are not even trying to move in that direction. Of course, it may not ever happen, but innovating in this direction surely could lead us to a better world.

Of course, don't take my word for it, as I'm obviously biased. Instead research the topic if you're interested.

  But in the end, what anarcho-communism is trying to achieve is what most of us would agree with: eliminate poverty and exploitation (via equal rights to access means of production)

You can replace the words 'anarcho-capitalism' with every single other political system, and you'd reach the same ideal endpoint. Everything promises fairness. People don't simply dismiss anarchism as 'teenage rebel idealism' because they're unaware of your notions of endpoint, they disagree with it because of inherent flaws (namely that money tends to lead to more money, and any system devoid of oversight or regulation will inevitably lead to a power structure built around those already with power).

There is no panaceatic system -- only the continual tamping of natural power leavening. To claim that your system, above others, will achieve a system that brings about permanent fairness is to belie a shallow consideration for how power accumulates.

Note 'anarcho-communism', not -capitalism. In fairness, I am opposed to anarcho-capitalism for the reason you outlined above:

> namely that money tends to lead to more money

In general, yes - there is no such thing as "panaceatic system", instead I was suggesting to trying to find different methods, organization structures to lower the possibility of (or in ideal world eliminating) power accumulation.

Actually, plenty of anarcho-capitalists basically do disagree on the nature of fairness, and therefore on the very metric on which we want the economy run.

The problem I have with anarcho-communism is that it is identical to the tribalism and village/clan based ways of organizing society that we have progressed out of.

The basic enforcement mechanism under every a-c system I have ever read is to "drive them out of town." Thieves, rapists, ect will be banished from group. We have only to look to the past to see just horrible of a system that can be for people who have a different skin color, sexual orientation, ect from the dominant group.

Anarchism without pacifism is a contradiction, and pure anarchism can only succeed as far as can pure pacifism. Neither are likely to happen, so again, they are more ideals that should influence a more virtuous way of living, and perhaps governing, than near goals to be achieved by force or distance. As such, it's pretty obvious that "driving them out" is as far from virtue or pacifism as you can get, and is totally counter to the spirit of volunteerism. Neither imprisonment nor exile are tolerable solutions for the pacifist.

> Anarchism without pacifism is a contradiction

Please expound on this - that statement sounds unintuitive and generally the opposite of what I'd expect

Anarchism rejects coercion. Pacifism rejects violence, including coercion. They go hand-in-hand. Why would you expect anarchism to be the opposite of pacifism?

Probably because its easy to conflate Anarchism, a clear ideology, with anarchy, a state of social/political/governmental organization that may coincide with Anarchist ideology, but may also more closely resemble Hobbes' state of nature: "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

So then how would an anarchist community deal with attacks one it's members?

Capitalism wins mostly because prices communicate information more efficiently than community meetings. Say your society is running scarce of drills, how do people coordinate another drill being manufactured? Maybe someone just likes making drills, but what about more messy things like sewage or garbage or elderly care. Capitalism solves these problems more efficiently. It is more efficient for us all to have a drill than it is for you to waste time going to walk for a drill, finding it not there, etc.

Capitalism doesn't "win"; just like anarchism, it has downsides. In anarchism, as you said, nothing has market value, so priorities are nebulous. Well, the downfall of capitalism (from an ethical standpoint) is that everything has a price, including human life, labor, and injury.

Ethically, I prefer the side of the fence that grimaces at such valuation, even if things are less efficient for that side. Why? Well, because on the other side, the greatest efficiencies are only accessible to the wealthiest people: There is an "efficiency" (quality of life) gradient that is directly tied to personal wealth, and it's disgusting. We've known for a long time now that wealth does not necessarily follow virtue or hard work.

Is there something particular about sewers that prohibits them from being public works? Further, no moral society allows sewage to be solved by pure capitalism, because the obvious consequence would be to let the poor rot in their own filth. Sadly, in many parts of the world, this is the case.

A glance at the world's countless poor and downtrodden shows that global capitalism is a miserable failure, so I think it's unfair to point out theoretic deficiencies of anarchism or other systems as reason to persist with the status quo. "Don't point out the splinter in another's eye when there is a log in your own."

I upvoted you not because I agree with your counter point, but that it adds to the discussion.

I'm a minarchist/anacro-capitalist/geolibertarian somewhere near there anyway, so I understand your left-anarchism point of view. When I say "win" I was referring to the original comment about the overproduction of drills. When evaluated for wether or not it is efficient to have community shared drills vs individually owned drills.

It doesn't matter to me what someone's personal wealth is. At all. If there were an extra terrestrial that had a vast, planet sized space ship just past pluto I wouldn't be jealous of it. I wouldn't claim it. It is his, why should it matter to me?

The only wealth I take issue with is wealth that was created through fraud, like the original bankers that created fractional reserve lending.

People that don't want the poor to suffer should help the poor. I think the best way to help poor countries is to introduce libertarian-style capitalism (as opposed to state-sponsored or fascist capitalism). The poor need contracts, safety, skills, literacy, communication, and industry; these will lift them up from poverty. Not community drills that don't scale, and lead to the poor staying poor.

Capitalism doesn't "win", it just has a greater tendency to take over the world.

  So, I'd much rather see a tools co-op than yet 
  another tools rental service

Having visited my local hackspace I discovered that machines are easily broken and time-consuming to repair, especially when you rely on skilled volunteers doing repairs in their free time.

They had several broken rapid prototyping machines, lathes, drill presses and similar.

I think things getting broken is inevitable, and if I expect other people to fix the things I broke it only seems fair for me to give them something for their trouble. So for-profit tool loans seem like the common sense path IMHO.

Hackerspaces tend to be such "tools co-op", even if often the work is done on-place.

You're welcome to come and borrow my drill any time.

After having seen the following talk with Noam Chomsky, I said to myself "I should really learn more about the history of anarchism and the causes and conditions of its demise".

Who is Chomsky's Favorite Anarchist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8KpRb38Uks

There is a tool rental service close to home. Unfortuately it costs a third of the price to rent it for a day, so I end up buying the tools even if I need them for a week and I know I'll never ever need them again (I"m renovating my house).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com