#market anarchist

[miochimochi]

Made 2 new lino cuts. The fabric here isn't the best for stamping it seems but it's enough to show off.

[miochimochi]

A good time to bring these texts to the table:

Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! by David Graeber

Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos

if it helps, i very genuinely believe an anarchist future is possible and i believe people have already started building it

[guavagyal]

leftism, communism, socialism & anarchism need a major brand & PR re-haul in the West, mainly America.

too many people think we're white, cringey, and sanctimonious assholes who preach about North Korea & the USSR (you're scaring away the maidens & being weird). they gotta be stylish, funny, and know how to speak to people. that whole litmus test for leftists is played out. you need to be populist, central, & not weird.

[himbofur]

What kind of material thing would you like rn? I would love a lobter dinner 🦞

[aardwolfpunx]

tidbits from a really good gale article about capitalism and free stores

while here do your daily clicks for palestine 🇵🇸

Under the logic of capitalism, you only deserve to "make a living" if you sell yourself and your labor power to a capitalist. At a free store, the criteria for participating is simply being alive.

People who benefit from the current system—landlords, police, politicians and bosses��rely on mass media and our schooling systems to deceive and dull the population into believing capitalism is the most efficient way, or the only viable way of producing and distributing resources.

But what currently exists is one way of organizing a society of many, and it isn't serving most of us. An ability to imagine and create non-hierarchical alternatives threatens the authority of people benefiting from the current system. At a free store, we can begin to glimpse a world where everything is free and built on voluntary exchange of labor, resources and knowledge.

More recently, anarchists started organizing "Really Really Free Markets" (RRFMs) throughout the 2000s, which tend to be pop-up events, across the United States. These markets never completely dwindled but, if media coverage is to be an accurate benchmark of organizing efforts, there seems to have been an uptick in RRFMs over the past couple years. Collectives are organizing them in cities large and small, from Louisville, Kentucky; Corvallis, Oregon; Avon, North Carolina; Ypsilanti, Michigan; Tempe, Arizona; New Paltz, New York; Athens, Georgia; Jersey City, New Jersey; and in many other locations.

Sohal also emphasized the collective's desire to facilitate connections and relationships in the neighborhood. "People can come in with their kids and sit down or sit outside and rest and chat. We've been talking about having a really big, comfy seating area, and sitting options outside," she said. "We know the power of talking to your neighbors, and we're hoping that having a physical free store will allow conversations between neighbors so that people are letting people around them know that this resource exists. Maybe neighbors will pick up groceries for each other."

"There's a really high rate of poverty in Pulaski County, and in a lot of Southwest Virginia and its really common for a lot of places that do offer help to do a lot of means testing and put other barriers in-between people and help," Hazel Wines, an organizer involved in the free store told VPM News. "And we wanted to remove as those barriers and just be a place where people could help each other. It's not just food, it's not just clothes.… Everyone deserves to live a life of dignity and we want to help provide that."

[homoqueerjewhobbit]

The secret rule of who gets a plus one to my wedding is how happy I am that you're in a relationship. Cousin who's dragged a different weeb into every family photo for a decade? Nah, this weeb isn't drinking on my dime. Friend who finally found a genuinely nice boy after dating a string of abusive Maoists? Hell, invite his mom, too.

[somerandomg33k]

I wonder

I am kind of curious about the history of the Stock Market. My Anarcho-Syndicalist instinct is that there is some horribleness attached to the Stock Market's history. After all, we are talking about Capitalism. Do any socialists, communists, or anarchists have sources on the history of the Stock Market?

[clowningaroundmars]

the way that i am now downloading stock market news apps......... and squinting at these crazy ass news articles and learning finance terms n shit.... trying to read these number and graphs........

i am morphing into a middle aged dad of 3 kids. 🧍‍♂️

[headmateeconomy]

my friend, we are anti-revisionist marxist-leninists. not only do we not support headmate markets - we don’t support markets at all lol. I just wanted to make my position (and Minty’s position) very clear on this.

Honestly thats fine with us, were eco-anarchist so we get where youre coming from -🎰

[miochimochi]

From Land to Capital C

( Previous | - )

( Index )

D'you like the title? Huh? Yeah, it sucks, I know. Let's get into this.

In My Work, My Property I laid out the grounds for recognizing property ownership - the idea extending beyond what I wrote, such as the workers owning the factory they labor. In Defining Anarchism I put down that definition of property and, importantly enough, capitalism. Since then I've come to further unstand my gripes with capitalism and what truly defines it. But before getting into that, a recap of these pieces I mentioned.

My Work, My Property details my reasoning behind my support for property rights. Essentially, it is a modification on the labor theory of property, so popularized by John Locke. The basics of the theory are that labor is the legitimizing factor of property - legitimate here meaning "rightful" rather than any connection to legality. In order for something to be owned, it must first be the result of an act of original appropriation (e.g. a wild tree is unowned, but a laborer cutting it down and making planks is now in ownership of those planks as a result of the labor to create them). As a result of this need for the initial act, one can conclude that which is unlabored is thus unowned, such as the land.

In Defining Anarchy I stated that the dividing line between Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarchists was in the definition of Capitalism. I ended up defining capitalism as, "a system of the theft of the capital of others to the benefit of the few." Since then, I've understood more of the backbone of capitalism and what allows much of the woes of this system to take place. Statist Capitalists and Anarcho-Capitalists alike have a commonality (and thus can be considered a cornerstone of Capitalism itself): land ownership.

Land ownership, as defined by the Sans-Lockean labor theory of property, is illegitimate as the land was not created by the owner. Instead, land is common property. Locke had posited that land ownership was rightful so long as enough land was left in common for others, but such a dictation requires there be a governing system to determine how much land is rightfully allowed to be owned. Such an amount would also have to be adjusted as the population changes, so a system of logistics and surveying is necessary to ensure that the property lines change to keep enough land left in common. But the likelihood of capitalists allowing such changes to their property lines is slim to none, so a system of enforcement must also be created to keep the property lines in order based on the decisions of the previous system.

All of this creates a logistical nightmare and still doesn't answer the question of just how much is too much. It's 10% land left in common enough? 5%? 1%? Without a state, there is no regulation of this, so 0% is just as likely. But also without a state, there is no regulator to prevent someone else from building a house within the bounds of which one has determined is theirs. How far away from one's house is allowed to be owned under such a system? As far as the eye can see? Does it end where someone else builds a house? Then what about for them, is it then directly in the middle? Is your property whatever you can build a fence around? What if one doesn't want a fence on their property, will you then take away the right to that property? None of it makes any sense and is fundamentally against the idea of labor as a legitimizing factor.

There are also issues with land ownership beyond the logistical nightmare of determining property lines. The allowance of land ownership means exclusivity to natural resources, such as that of a stream. The construction of a dam leads to the controlling of the water supply in many places which could lead to many people being forced to move or go thirsty, not due to an act of nature but due to the greedy believing they have a right to the water. The same can be said of natural food supplies, such as forage and game. When you control the unlabored food and water supply, you have created a hierarchy in which the needs of others has been restricted from them and then sold back to them. Such is entirely opposed to anarchism.

Other factors of land ownership include restriction on freedom of travel and the ability of others to homestead. However far from one's house you consider to be their property, the free movement of others becomes limited to that which you allow them to travel, even if that claimed land is a square mile of forest. The same can be said of homesteading as that requires there to be available land. Making the unlabored stretches of land one's own inherently excludes others from settling and laboring that land. And again, these claims are entirely opposed to the labor theory of property by which one can legitimize the claims.

This idea of land ownership, I've come to understand, is my biggest gripe with the system of capitalism. Once a locked in Anarcho-Capitalist, I've since rejected the label and this is why. This all places Capitalism as a form of Landlordism and can only be upheld through the initiation of force. No anarchist society would accept the claims of property beyond that which is labored, nor should they.

[publicuniversalenemy]

am i perhaps THEE luckiest guy inthe world? sources point to Yes

[butchstalinist]

---

[undead-moth]

Because this is such an excellent post I'm going to try to keep my infodump here brief but I can't pass it up:

Whether or not something that happens within a story is "realistic" is determined by an agreement made between the writer and the audience in the premise.

The writer establishes the rules of the world and promises not to break them as long as you, the audience, promise to believe anything that happens without breaking them is real even if they aren't plausible or possible (re: realistic) in real life.

This is where the term "suspension of disbelief" comes from. If the writer asks you to suspend your disbelief higher than they initially promised in the premise, that means they broke one of the rules, and something has happened that goes against what you agreed to believe is plausible or possible for the purposes of immersing yourself in the story. If a story asks you to suspend your disbelief too high from the outset, that means something about this story is just too implausible or impossible as a premise for you to immerse yourself in personally.

When something "unrealistic" happens within a story, it very specifically refers to what shouldn't be plausible or possible within the story's universe -

It does not refer to what is implausible or impossible in real life.

This is why criticism of tragedies, horror, and musicals are often missing the point, and don't offer productive analysis. It doesn't matter if someone in real life would "wait a few minutes" to see if Juliet wakes up. It doesn't matter if losing cell service is "convenient." It doesn't matter if no one "bursts into song" in real life. None of these genres have the same rules as real life and they're not meant to.

If these genres are asking you to suspend your disbelief higher than you're able to, it's fair to not be a fan of them. It's not fair to insist all of these genres actually suck just because they don't conform to the specific height at which you personally prefer a story to suspend your disbelief.

This is a dangerous sentiment for me to express, as an editor who spends most of my working life telling writers to knock it off with the 45-word sentences and the adverbs and tortured metaphors, but I do think we're living through a period of weird pragmatic puritanism in mainstream literary taste.

e.g. I keep seeing people talk about 'purple prose' when they actually mean 'the writer uses vivid and/or metaphorical descriptive language'. I've seen people who present themselves as educators offer some of the best genre writing in western canon as examples of 'purple prose' because it engages strategically in prose-poetry to evoke mood and I guess that's sheer decadence when you could instead say "it was dark and scary outside". But that's not what purple prose means. Purple means the construction of the prose itself gets in the way of conveying meaning. mid-00s horse RPers know what I'm talking about. Cerulean orbs flash'd fire as they turn'd 'pon rollforth land, yonder horizonways. <= if I had to read this when I was 12, you don't get to call Ray Bradbury's prose 'purple'.

I griped on here recently about the prepossession with fictional characters in fictional narratives behaving 'rationally' and 'realistically' as if the sole purpose of a made-up story is to convince you it could have happened. No wonder the epistolary form is having a tumblr renaissance. One million billion arguments and thought experiments about The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas that almost all evade the point of the story: that you can't wriggle out of it. The narrator is telling you how it was, is and will be, and you must confront the dissonances it evokes and digest your discomfort. 'Realistic' begins on the author's terms, that's what gives them the power to reach into your brain and fiddle about until sparks happen. You kind of have to trust the process a little bit.

This ultra-orthodox attitude to writing shares a lot of common ground with the tight, tight commodification of art in online spaces. And I mean commodification in the truest sense - the reconstruction of the thing to maximise its capacity to interface with markets. Form and function are overwhelmingly privileged over cloudy ideas like meaning, intent and possibility, because you can apply a sliding value scale to the material aspects of a work. But you can't charge extra for 'more challenging conceptual response to the milieu' in a commission drive. So that shit becomes vestigial. It isn't valued, it isn't taught, so eventually it isn't sought out. At best it's mystified as part of a given writer/artist's 'talent', but either way it grows incumbent on the individual to care enough about that kind of skill to cultivate it.

And it's risky, because unmeasurables come with the possibility of rejection or failure. Drop in too many allegorical descriptions of the rose garden and someone will decide your prose is 'purple' and unserious. A lot of online audiences seem to be terrified of being considered pretentious in their tastes. That creates a real unwillingness to step out into discursive spaces where you 🫵 are expected to develop and explore a personal relationship with each element of a work. No guard rails, no right answers. Word of god is shit to us out here. But fear of getting that kind of analysis wrong makes people hove to work that slavishly explains itself on every page. And I'm left wondering, what's the point of art that leads every single participant to the same conclusion? See Spot run. Run, Spot, run. Down the rollforth land, yonder horizonways. I just want to read more weird stuff.

[graildemitrius]

Come on over and subscribe to my Newsletter for regular updates on my art and bookmaking!

A big part of my coping mechanism, as an artist, seeing a machine shamelessly steal from me and my community, is talking about it. That's what my letter is. A conversation. Please Join in on it!

[miochimochi]

Tim Walz is not just a politician, he's a brown shirt.

[miochimochi]

When it comes to liberation, it cannot be so narrowly focused. We do a disservice to all mankind if we do not seek the liberation of all mankind. Whether it be Palestinian, Jewish, Amerindian, German, Bantu, Thai, or some other group, we all need liberation. The statist element is oppression, the statists oppressors. Global liberation is all tied together. We're never truly free until we're all free. This is where I fight for the liberation of my ancestors near and far. I'm not Celtic first, I'm not Germanic first, I'm not Italic first, and I'm not Amerindian first. I'm human first. Liberation means liberation for all ✊️

Agora! Anarchy! Action!

just wanna say as someone who's Aboriginal that I think First Nations peoples have every right to be a little angry at white leftists (NOT Palestinians, people blaming Palestinians stfu) who ignored our anti-colonial movements for years but are now supporting the Free Palestine movement. If you, someone living in the US, Canada or Australia or Aotearoa, are serious about the liberation of Palestine then you NEED to be just as serious about justice and liberation for the First Nations peoples' who's stolen and colonised land YOU live on. If you're not serious about where YOU fit in the paradigm of anti-colonial work, fix it. Here's a good place to start: if you're a person living on occupied Indigenous lands, learn who's land it really is, and how you can help them as an ally.