Political philosophy tests are not only flawed in the sense that they assume everyone can be pigeonholed into a concrete set of views that they MUST hold because of the answers to some questions regardless of their logic behind their answers, but because they are inherently biased by what the author of it thinks of the various views they define. A few days ago out of sheer boredom I messed with one on the site Select Smart, and got results I have screen captured at this link. Click if you care.
Despite what I have just stated about the uselessness of what I did at the time, it did jog today some thoughts about political philosophy with the help of my good friend malt liquor, which I will simply present and let say whatever. so here goes:
The easiest thing to say about my views is that I am opposed to the state (that is, the philosophy that considers a declared monopoly of violence necessary to a stable society is my enemy). Also, I am against what we commonly know as capitalism. I have previously noted here the slipperiness of how the commonly thought of alternative to capitalism — that is, socialism — is defined, in attempt to further describe where I’m coming from. Funny enough, the quiz I took puts me closer to “anarcho-capitalism” than “anarcho-communism” anyway, which says more about how the author of the quiz defines both than how I think.
As I have described before, though I oppose capitalism I am not of the mind that collective economics is good of its own sake — I don’t oppose individual efforts, or even property rights for that matter. Simultaneously, I personally think the concept of anarcho-capitalism is inherently mistaken due to the very nature of capitalism itself. When I hear the term “anarcho capitalist”, I question the understanding of the history of capitalism by whoever is deploying it. I’d even go as far as to say that “anarcho-capitalism” is like saying “vegan BBQ joint”: an absurdity contradicting the point of the latter term.
My respect for individualism doesn’t even come close to letting capitalism off the hook. In fact, brace yourselves for the following: I believe the definition of capitalism as a non-collectivist ideology by its defenders is horseshit. The practiced use of self-interest betrays such with slight thought. Consider how actions by organized labor are universally seen by proponents of capitalism, as an inherent violation to the correct order of things. Well damn, do workers not have interests of their own, or do those of only a few count? It is as if the worth of self interest itself were determined via hierarchy — which, last I checked, anarchy was supposed to oppose in essence. In other words, I reject capitalism for much the same reason many reject, say, Catholicism — an elite to be obeyed by the followers for the sake of the faith makes me barf.
Cobble the above together with how often the highest status economic actors in capitalism benefit from the intervention of the existent state, and it is a puzzle how such is expected to survive in its recognizable form with the subtraction of the guns pointed at us all.
Surely some may be asking now how I envision the economy of a post-state society operating. While I would caution against seeing such vision as a reason to impose a structure, as that would defeat the purpose of anarchy, my… suspicion (I’d rather call it that) would be that most economic activity would for reasons of logic and approachability consist of layers of syndicalist endeavors & lasseiz-faire indie business, due to the non viability of capitalism as we know it without enforced hierarchy and constant subsidy. Wage labor would rather than being a requirement for survival be such a rarity that it’d be a preference of the very few out of intentional decision to not be involved in the planning of a larger scale operation — in other words, you’d practically have to beg people to just Do rather than also Own.
I don’t pretend this is particularly clear still or profound, it is merely what I think, and a lubricated form at that. Do what you will with it… *burp*.