Are the Mexican Drug Cartels a good example of anarchism and free association at work?
They seem like anarchist militias who have transcended spooks, the state, religion, moral taboos and all the things that bound humanity in the past and kept it from flourishing.
Might makes right.
Right?
There not free a association, they're feudal lords who terrorize anyone who opposes them.
No
Why can't I write a coherent sentence?
I should just go to sleep already.
They're a union of egoists.
You'll say anything to be edgy, won't you, you little shit?
of course, you have to fight those who try to subvert and destroy you.
An anarchist militia.
this tbh famaroni
They're a completely capitalist venture with a strong hierarchy to ensure & protect their markets and to enforce the will of the head honcho. Not very anarchist at all.
...
No, the community patrols and Zapatistas who fight the cartels (and also fight the Mexican police) are anarchist free association.
OP is a fag.
anarchists can engage in any economic organization they want. whatever suits the people in their group.
Zapatistashave huge fucking balls to fight the cartels, when they proably outnumber and outgun any Zapatista militia, never mind the cartels basically being funded by the US.
I don't know much about their ideology, but Marcos is a bro.
To be anarchist they need to advocate random violence on top of whatever they are doing.
How does one become "free association"?
What this freedom consists of?
Do you need a state to secure this freedom?
No. Leader's income is hardly based on owning the means of production. You might claim some exploitation at work, but it's not capitalist venture.
Who rules by general consent. No state actually enforces this hierarchy, does it?
Well, yes. They are missing this random violence thing.
rural mexicans = dumb catholics
Stop trying to apoligize for neo-feudalism, it's clear to anyone with more than 2 braincells to rub together that the cartels are inherently capitalistic and authoritarian, thus not anarchist.
Zapitistas also don't seem to have ever stooped selling drugs to fund themselves, which is even more of a feat.
abcnews.go.com
Fucking tankies, everyone.
But I know Marcos has written about his ideology and what the Zapitistas are supposed to represent, but I haven't really read any of it yet.
this isn't about racism at all, it's just that rural mexicans are retarded catholics that eat up whatever the pope shits into their mouth
(I'm mexican, by the way)
I live in a Mexican neighborhood in the US, and I kinda see what you mean.
capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism. an anarchist group can engage in all sorts of economic arrangements.
authoritarian only to themselves, only to their own anarachist structure, whatever it happens to be. But external forces do not bind it.
It's Ancap tbh
Go away, aynclap.
The Cartels control the means of their production and give to each worker his fair share.
if outside forces try to destroy them they will react accordingly. Anarchists and communists are not pacifists, and the idea of "human rights" is basically a spook to them.
Stop lying.
anarchism specifically denies hierarchical relationships. Hence, an-arch as opposed to hier-arch. Capitalist systems are hierarchical. So no, you can't be capitalist and anarchist.
Tell that to the ancap who has been shitposting for the past 6 hours.
no, it just uses them to its benefit.
nope.
what determines a hierarchical relationship? think about it
Yeah they are. We already explained this earlier aynclap. If someone is born into a family that has 100 million dollars they are in a higher hierarchical position than someone born into poverty.
how does that make them higher in "hierarchy" ? because they can buy more things? So what? Do you even know what hierarchy means?
nope try again. you're just repeating empty words.
do you have something against working for a living?
I'm against working for a wage.
Anarchism literally means against hierarchy. It is exactly what the name says. It's like saying a monarch can in fact be one person of a council who equally share power just to "take advantage" of it. But that's not what a mon-arch is.
A hierarchical relationship is one in which one person has the ability to dictate the flow of resources and power generated by the group while others do not.
Please don't be retarded. That is not how hierarchy works. They're almost certainly going to take a higher place in hierarchy but simply having said money is not in itself the hierarchy.
I'm pointing out the fact that those who have money take a higher position in hierarchy. You aren't going to find a homeless guy having nearly as much influence as a billionaire. And someone who has a lot of money objectively has a much easier term gathering the materials you need to survive than someone who has none.
so in your system everyone is supposed to have exactly the same amount of money or is everything just free? And no one has the ability to enrich themselves beyond "the fair average" otherwise that creates hierarchy and injustice ?
makes no sense. think about what hierarchy means.
someone with more money is just someone with more money.
someone with great looks is someone with great looks
someone born with high IQ is someone with high IQ. how they use their resources is what matters, it could be an advantage or a disadvantage. you can't stop people from having "advantages"
what does "influence" have to do with hierarchy? A charismatic preacher can have a shit ton of influence while being broke. Are you saying people in your "society" have to have the same influence in all areas of life?
Influence, as in be able to dictate the flow of resources. They have a monopoly on power over resources as money is every commodity and none of them at the same time. You can't seriously tell me that if someone owned the supply of water for an area, they wouldn't be in a higher position of power than a worker.
And no, but in non-capitalist system the worker receives his full share accordingly( and that includes workers who's job takes more skill, they will receive more pay) but we do away with shareholders.
oops forgot to take off my shitpost flag
I should've been more clear, the ancom explained the hierarchal aspect of capitalism way more eloquent than me.
dictating resource flow is not a hierarchical relationship, it's basically a necessity in many areas where expert knowledge is required and ignorant people voluntarily allow experts to dictate resource flow for their benefit.
It's hierarchal because that one person coordinating it owns the product of the whole and has the power to dictate how that product is used while others do not.
So you still have the same problem then.
A person born with a 190 IQ who becomes a super engineer or scientist could end up earning millions of dollars (via his fair share), while a person born with 90 IQ, bad vision and a hunchback becomes a janitor and gets a much smaller "fair share".
So you have hierarchy again.
that's not hierarchy that sounds like it could be an abuse of power, or it could be a very good use of power. pretty vague. but not hierarchy
so like a centrally planned soviet economy? except instead of one person it was central-committee :^)
That's what LTV combined with constant automation and replacement of human labor by capital suggests.
You realize that when you're allowing an expert to do that, you are in a two-way relationship and you have no obligation to said expert, which is something that does happen in a capitalist relationship.
I'm beginning to suspect you're going to argue that nothing is hierarchy.
I should've been more clear, the person who has the millions of dollars is not going to be able to own private property. He is entitled to the fruits of his labour and nothing more. He will get direct compensation for his work and since his work is "skilled labour" he will get more money. You can measure "skilled labour" as a multitude of "unskilled labour" so a dichotomy between the two is false. If his work is worth 100 hours and the workers is worth 6 they will get that accordingly, but no one owns
Hierarchy is divided into subordinate and superiors. This quite manifest itself in the work place. A boss gives order to the worker. A share holder can give orders to management to give workers to a shareholder, this is hierarchy.
And the Soviet system would be considered hierarchy. The end goal of the Soviet system and the end goal of aynclap land are very different though.
forgot the shitposting flag again :(
and *no own ones the entire surplus generated by their collective labour(which can be measured as human labour in the abstract)
and to give orders to a worker* fuark
you might have an obligation, since you are entering into an agreement with an expert and might have to fulfill X, Y, and Z in order for his expert advice or governance to even work and be effective.
objective differences exist.
but "hierarchies" seem to depend on very subjective value-systems, that are poorly defined and make no sense. They exists kind of like apparitions
why compensate him "millions of dollars" for his work if he can't use money to buy private property? What would money be good for?
I'd be curious to see how you "price" one form of labor against another without a supply vs demand market system at work. I guess some arm-chair philosopher just makes it up as he goes along?
Private property does not = personal property.
>I'd be curious to see how you "price" one form of labor against another without a supply vs demand market system at work. I guess some arm-chair philosopher just makes it up as he goes along?
We use the definition of value Adam Smith and David Ricardo use.
If the person in charge owns the surplus produced by the worker, that person is in a higher position of power, i.e. the superior and the worker the subordinate. However, if they both owned the surplus but one was given a larger portion than the other because his work dictated it, that would not be hierarchy.
well that doesn't really matter because in the example you gave a person with "more money" can better secure a "home, property, healthcare, food, security etc" which are personal in nature. So the guy with millions in your system is ipso facto on a much higher level of hierarchy than the janitor. How do you deal with that problem?
>marxist.com
point me to the fair "pricing mechanism" paragraph. :)
why wouldn't it be hierarchy? one person owns more than another. In fact one genius doctor might work only 3 hours a day and make far more than the janitor who works 10hours a day.
So one person will have a bigger house, more property, more security and more leisure time.
While the janitor with 90IQ has to work 10hours a day to get a "fair share" in order to eat and have a home. What's the diff?
>calling profit surplus
>calling wages parts of surplus
>one guy gets more surplus than another cause his work is harder
this is just capitalism lmfao
The LTV is complicated you need to read the whole thing. It involves supply and demand, but it also relies heavier on the hours of the labourer. "Pricing" is decided by how much labour money represents at the time.
And I already conceded I was being dumb. My main point was that someone born into a lot of money can own private property and be in a higher position of power than the worker.
Marx says in Capital that skilled labour can be measures as a multitude of unskilled labour(in time). If someone is doing a job in a business that constitutes "skilled labour" they will receive more of the profit.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what capitalism is at this point. No one has exclusive rights to the product produced. They are only entitled to what their labour produces. In capitalism a shareholder can invest in a company without producing anything.
Yes, but someone with 10 million dollars can acquire private property, whereas someone with no job or who only gets paid enough to get by can not.
What you're describing is just some mutilated version of Capitalism with a vague notion of "fairness" injected into it.
Money doesn't exist under communism, just like the state and private property don't exist. So everything you've been telling me about "prices" and some workers getting "more money" is nonsense.
I'm not talking about Communism I'm talking about Socialism(lower stage communism). And I could be talking about a centrally planned economy that uses labour vouchers for all you know. My whole point was that no one would own exclusive rights to the capital a company produces. You get the full compensation for your labour, but shareholders do not exist.
Just because you're to lazy to read the LTV doesn't mean Marx was writing about "a mutilated version of capitalism". Communism with no state or money, would still use the LTV to decide how things are "priced", or rather how things are valued.