Anarchy! (Um . . . Relationship Anarchy, that is.)

I agree with the venerated Ms. Goldman on her assessment of love, but would not ever want to live in the economic society espoused by her and the anarchist/terrorists of her day. I am a proud, successful, self-made business owner and would never want to live in an economic system that did not directly reward innovation, private property and ownership. Relationship Anarchy is an entirely different animal in my book.

How is it any different? The thing is that we see you as the terrorists, private property requires the threat of violence, how is that any different from terrorism? Do you think that it's terrorism to fight ISIS when they're murdering and torturing people? When people work at your business do you give them the full value of the products that they create (or service) or only a wage? They have no choice other than to accept that wage because if they don't they won't be able to survive, they won't be able to survive because if they try to grow food etc. the government will use violence against them. How is this not an abusive human relationship?

Personal property is the stuff you need and your house etc, private property is stuff like a factory or a shop or something that you didn't make that others need, you can only justify preventing people from accessing these things if you don't see them as humans (just like the Nazis didn't see the Jews as humans, I'm sure Hitler also worked hard to kill them all but that doesn't mean it was fine) because no matter what fucked up logic you use telling someone that is starving to death that they can't have one of your 10, 000 burgers because you claim to own them is not OK, especially when they "oh so greedily" ensure their means of survival and you use the threat of violence against them, although I'm sure those starving Africans just need to work harder. What makes you think your claim to ownership is legitimate because I think that the only thing making it so is the hordes of police men who will beat up anybody that disagrees with you.

Stop dehumanizing the systems of distribution, these are relationships between living, breathing human beings. From my perspective it looks like you couldn't care less about screwing someone else over if your not in love with them. Does it only become exploitation when it's someone dear to you? Oh, and just so you know the system rewarded the inventers of the ebola vaccine with the knowledge that no matter how hard they tried to get it tested it wouldn't because the Africans didn't deserve to get the vaccine, they're too poor to live (no I'm not making this up, I wish I was). Capitalism is thwarting innovation more than it's inspiring it, inventions and discoveries are made by people who are interested in them, they don't need to be rewarded. Imagine if people were allowed to follow their passions as long as nobody was starving to death, imagine the innovation that Capitalism is destroying. This system of organization is dystopian, Capitalism kills so I don't care whether you like it or not I will not let this systematic slaughter continue. You are the one who has to justify this, every day you go to work you contribute to the continued suffering and death of humans, you choose to contribute.

This is a system that forces humans to relate to people in a certain manner, do you think that the resources that people create should be distributed according to who can exploit the most (or who had ancestors that exploited the most) and that everybody else should just die if that's what it takes, is that how you want society to operate? That is capitalism. Or do you want the resources to be distributed according to who actually needs them? That is Communism. Do you think that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not screwing over anybody else? That is Anarchism.

Just to make it clear this is not political, Anarchism is only political when people force their politics on us and we have to tell them to fuck off and explain how to organize without their shitty politics because people don't know how to live without them. When I say that my Relationship Anarchy is Anarchism I mean that I don't force anything on anybody, I treat people with basic respect, no bigotry, no forcing them to do anything with the threat of violence, that is Anarchism. No "friends", no "husbands", no masters (boss), no slaves. We are all humans, drop the pointless titles already. Drop the assumptions that you have built up, stop percieving exploitation as OK, the only reason we had chattel slavery for so long is because people just accepted it as a fact of life. It's time to question how you relate to people other than with stereotypes like boss and worker. That is Relationship Anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism is thwarting innovation more than it's inspiring it, inventions and discoveries are made by people who are interested in them, they don't need to be rewarded. Imagine if people were allowed to follow their passions as long as nobody was starving to death, imagine the innovation that Capitalism is destroying.
Lawful protection of investment and intellectual property are what make ongoing entrepreneurship possible. Countries that not only recognize but enforce trademarking and copyright law see vastly more innovation and much healthier economic environments for all.



From my perspective it looks like you couldn't care less about screwing someone else over if your not in love with them.
Now you're just being silly. I'd be happy to talk more in a seperate thread, prefereably down in the off-topic Fireplace, but your October Revolution rant really has nothing to do with Relationship Anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Lawful protection of investment and intellectual property are what make ongoing entrepreneurship possible. Countries that not only recognize but enforce trademarking and copyright law see vastly more innovation and much healthier economic environments for all.

Are you seriously trying to imply that nobody invented anything before intellectial property and people threw money at people and threatened anybody else that tried to with violence. Imagine if somebody copyrighted the wheel or the idea of growing crops, you are being silly. People invent things because they are interested, not because somebody throws money at them. In this society their motivation comes from the threat of violence and death.

Now you're just being silly. I'd be happy to talk more in a seperate thread, prefereably down in the off-topic Fireplace, but your October Revolution rant really has nothing to do with Relationship Anarchy.

This has everything to do with Relationship Anarchy, I was implying that you turn a blind eye to relationships between people when titles and abstract terms are used.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...tructional-manifesto-for-relationship-anarchy

"Each relationship is independent, and a relationship between autonomous individuals."

"The state is a social relationship; a certain way of people relating to one another. It can be destroyed by creating new social relationships; ie, by people relating to one another differently." - Gustav Landauer

"Love is abundant, and every relationship is unique"
You are ignoring relationships between people when they're not close to you, only seeing relationships as emotional feelings between people. A relationship between people who call themselves boss and worker is nothing but a relationship between two human beings, you wouldn't exploit your sexual partner the same way that you exploit employees, would you?

"Love and respect instead of entitlement"
"Deciding to not base a relationship on a foundation of entitlement is about respecting others’ independence and self-determination. Your feelings for a person or your history together does not make you entitled to command and control a partner to comply with what is considered normal to do in a relationship."

Private property is based on what is considered normal and entitlement, it does not repect others independance. By preventing other people from accessing machines etc. that they need to ensure their survival and forcing them to go through you to access them, you are commanding and controling them to comply with what is considered normal to do in the relationship. The same goes for the state.

"Explore how you can engage without stepping over boundaries and personal beliefs."

The "political" schools of thought that are a part of Anarchism exist for the sole reason of organizing without stepping over boundries and don't force personal beliefs.

"Find your core set of relationship values"
"How do you wish to be treated by others? What are your basic boundaries and expectations on all relationships? Find your core set of values and use it for all relationships."

The "identity" schools of thought in Anarchism like Anarcha-Feminism are based on explaining why certain ways of treating others are not ok, they want people to stop treating them like crap and forcing a system where that method of treatment is dominant (crappy explanation but close enough).

"Heterosexism is rampant and out there, but don’t let fear lead you"

"Remember that there is a very powerful normative system in play that dictates what real love is, and how people should live. Many will question you and the validity of your relationships when you don’t follow these norms. Work with the people you love to find escapes and tricks to counter the worst of the problematic norms. Find positive counter spells and don’t let fear drive your relationships."

Statism and Capitalism are rampant and there is a very powerful normative system in play that dictates how people should live, it attacks us when we attempt to escape, we don't let fear rule us.

"Build for the lovely unexpected

"Being free to be spontaneous — to express oneself without fear of punishments or a sense of burdened “shoulds” — is what gives life to relationships based on relationship anarchy. Organize based on a wish to meet and explore each other — not on duties and demands and disappointment when they are not met."

We express ourselves without fear of punishments (the governments), I do this without fear of their unjust law, living our life freely is what gives life to Anarchy, building the new world in the shell of the old. We organize based on a wish of freedom, we meet and explore ignoring the demmands of the state, I am not dissapointed when attempts fail.

"Fake it til’ you make it"

"Sometimes it can feel like you need to be some complete super human to handle all the norm breaking involved in choosing relationships that don’t map to the norm. A great trick is the “fake it til’ you make it” strategy — when you are feeling strong and inspired, think about how you would like to see yourself act. Talk to and seek support from others who challenge norms, and never reproach yourself when the norm pressure gets you into behaviour you didn’t wish for."

It feels like I have to be some complete super human to break these norms, they are embedded into people by propaganda and we are violently attacked when we try to organize without oppression, all because they don't map to the norm. When I'm unsure of how to smash the systems of oppression I think about how I would like to have things organized after it's all done. I seek support from my comrades and never give up.

"Trust is better"

I may be failing at this one, I should trust that you want to be happy and free and just don't understand why what you're doing is messed up. There is so much suffering going on that it's hard to explain without getting angry, it's important.

"Change through communication"

"For most human activities, there is some form of norm in place for how it is supposed to work. If you want to deviate from this pattern, you need to communicate — otherwise things tend to end up just following the norm, as others behave according to it. Communication and joint actions for change is the only way to break away."

We try to change the status quo by communicating and organizing for change.

"Customize your commitments"

"Relationship anarchy is not about never committing to anything — it’s about designing your own commitments with the people around you, and freeing them from norms dictating that certain types of commitments are a requirement for love to be real, or that some commitments like raising children or moving in together have to be driven by certain kinds of feelings. Start from scratch and be explicit about what kind of commitments you want to make with other people!"

Anarchism is not about never commiting to anything, it's not chaos or simply the lack of a state (RA: not just the lack of titles and commitments), it's about organizing with people however you wish as long as your not screwing them over, we are trying to free people from the state and Capitalism which dictates how people live and that their way is the only way. We are clear in saying that we want to organize without oppression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_anarchy
"Relationship anarchy (abbreviated RA) is the practice of forming relationships which are not bound by rules aside from what the people involved mutually agree on."

Anarchism is the practice of forming relationships which are not bound by rules aside from what the people involved mutually agree on.

"Relationship anarchists look at each relationship (romantic or otherwise) individually, as opposed to categorizing them according to societal norms such as 'just friends', 'in a relationship', 'in an open relationship', etc."

I look at each relationship (romantic or otherwise) individually, as opposed to categorizing them according to societal norms such as 'boss', 'worker', 'police officer', etc. You shouldn't force someone into wage labour or prevent them from accessing either the means of production or the basic means of survival just because that is how this society functions, it's just like saying it's OK for a husband to rape his wife because in that society it's normal.

This is how it's connected, do you understand what I'm trying to convey yet?
 
Last edited:
People invent things because they are interested, not because somebody throws money at them. In this society their motivation comes from the threat of violence and death.

Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were motivated by the threat of violence and death? :rolleyes:
The only reason we're all enjoying iPhones today is because the US has an economic system of healthy free market competition combined with reasonable trademark law, protecting investments in brand equity. Everybody wins.
 
Last edited:
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were motivated by the threat of violence and death? :rolleyes:
The only reason we're all enjoying iPhones today is because the US has an economic system of healthy free market competition combined with reasonable trademark law, protecting investments in brand equity. Everybody wins.

When I say they are motivated by the threat of violence and death I mean their relationship to the products of labour, most people who innovate for companies have no choice other than to accept their wage or be denied access to the means of production (fear of death), or violence if they ignored their baseless claims (police and prison). There is no need for competition, people can work together to build something better by cooperating. If you were to ask them why they created it I bet you they wouldn't say "because I wanted to compete with others" but something like I was interested/bored/didn't want to be forced to work for a wage. The system of distribution isn't what makes people innovate, it's the people themselves.

The people who actually make the iPhones don't win, they kill themselves because Apple moved to a country (arbitrary lines over landmass) where the work force can be exploited easily, unlike people under the rule of "western countries" which had a labour movement that stopped the Capitalists from doing things like working people until they die or child labour. Times before the labour movement reduced the exploitation of working people were barbaric.

It doesn't matter how much Capitalism uses peoples innovation because in the end doing so requires exploiting people and is leading the eco-system to a collapse, killing masses of people. I have no problem with the free market, my problem is with Capitalism. Capitalism is a combination of wage labour and private property (I'm referring specifically to the means of production), people can trade whatever they want as long as they're not preventing somebody from accessing what they need to produce and survive etc., that's what I have a problem with.

To enforce a law you need to use violence whenever somebody breaks it, you can't justify beating and kidnapping somebody just because they copied somebody else, that isn't reasonable. Why do you think people have the right to force each other to do things just because their rules (which were not agreed to) are called law, doesn't that go against Relationship Anarchy?
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with the free market, my problem is with Capitalism. Capitalism is a combination of wage labour and private property (I'm referring specifically to the means of production), people can trade whatever they want as long as they're not preventing somebody from accessing what they need to produce and survive etc., that's what I have a problem with.

To enforce a law you need to use violence whenever somebody breaks it, you can't justify beating and kidnapping somebody just because they copied somebody else, that isn't reasonable. Why do you think people have the right to force each other to do things just because their rules (which were not agreed to) are called law, doesn't that go against Relationship Anarchy?
I am trying to understand your viewpoint about private property. Tell me: how would you react if someone broke into your home to steal your tv? Would you say that your home and tv do not actually belong to you because you're against ownership of property? I mean, I've never understood the insanity of people think it perfectly reasonable to defend their material possessions with a shotgun, but why can't there be things we call our own? If I worked hard to be able to have those things, and someone steals them, should someone whose only efforts are to take something away from me, that they did not earn, be allowed to keep them?
 
I am trying to understand your viewpoint about private property. Tell me: how would you react if someone broke into your home to steal your tv? Would you say that your home and tv do not actually belong to you because you're against ownership of property? I mean, I've never understood the insanity of people think it perfectly reasonable to defend their material possessions with a shotgun, but why can't there be things we call our own? If I worked hard to be able to have those things, and someone steals them, should someone whose only efforts are to take something away from me, that they did not earn, be allowed to keep them?

Your TV is your personal property or "possesion" not private property, if it was gained without exploitation and is intended for personal use it's yours. Someone can only take it from you if they can justify doing so, like for instance if you own a walking stick and somebody has broken their leg they can justify taking it to use as a splint, otherwise you can prevent them from taking it but you can't use violence unless that's justified, which is very rare, so if somebody took it you could snatch it out of their hand but you can't beat them up, you have to be able to argue your point when your taking action against somebody. I think that in a society where there is no private property and everything is distributed according to need there will be less theft, I'm not saying it won't happen though, just that you should try to focus on trying to remove the circumstances that lead to the issues. Ultimately I don't think that anybody has the "right" to anything, so everything is to be discussed.

Private property is a social relationship between the owner and people who are deprived (whereas your possessions are a relationship between you and an object), your axe becomes private property the second you try to prevent (exploit) somebody who needs it more than you do from using it (means of production). The word need is important here, people don't need to swing your axe around, that's a want. To expand on that example a little futher if somebody needed that axe and you said that you would let them borrow the axe but you would like them to bring something back for you that would be fine if both people agreed (gift economy, ever told your friends that you owe them "one"?) but if you prevent them from using it unless they labour for you for 2 hours and give you all of the products that would not be OK because it's an attempt to seperate them from their labour and puts them in a position where you can exploit the person in need (plus you can't sell your labour, you would be selling yourself). I don't see any distinction between having a dictator in government and a dictator in the workplace, the relationship is the same.

So back to your example, if somebody broke into my house to steal my TV I would let them because I don't even use my TV anymore but lets pretend that I do for the sake of argument. First I would ask them why they were stealing the TV, if they gave a good reason like they need it I would tell them to come back tomorrow and fix my house (because they broke in) and then give them the TV, if however they couldn't give a good reason I would still ask them to help with the repairs but afterwards sit down with them, have some tea while watching TV and talk to them about why they wanted to steal it. If I could I may even help them get one but that's not as easy in this society. (I suppose you could say they "owe" me "one" :D)
 
Last edited:
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were motivated by the threat of violence and death? :rolleyes:
The only reason we're all enjoying iPhones today is because the US has an economic system of healthy free market competition combined with reasonable trademark law, protecting investments in brand equity. Everybody wins.

While I may not agree with everything AnarchistwithoutAdjective is saying, I do agree that not everyone wins with the iPhone-- only the wealthy elite (American middle class is incredibly wealthy compared to the rest of the world). The phones are manufactured in abysmal working conditions. The phones rely on coltan, even though the mining for this contributes to ongoing civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But the demand for this product, and the profit incentive, prevent the manufacturer from finding any way to mitigate the harm caused by its production. In fact, once a company has shareholders, it is illegal for its management to choose humans over profit, since it has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximize profit no matter the cost.

Anarchists (as illustrated by AnarchistwithoutAdjective) are deeply critical of international capitalism because so many humans suffer under it. While there may not be a viable alternative economic model, I share a lot of that criticism, and can't help but think that there's got to be ways to soften the places where our system is the most cruel. Paying attention, recognizing the value of the humans in sweatshops, the humans in war zones, is a first step.

Anarchists provide incredibly valuable voices, challenging the rules we have in place, highlighting the ways the rules allow us to dehumanize each other. Even if you don't agree with the substitute systems they propose, the challenge is important. Who do you harm, as a consumer? How can you do less harm?

In the SAME WAY, anarchists challenge relationship rules that allow us to dehumanize our lovers. Monogamy has some stifling rules, as does hierarchical poly. Those rules can be degrading. Relationship anarchy offers a rather structureless alternative, driven only by love and shared respect.

I don't practice RA, but I am inspired by it, and it gives me ideas about focusing more on love and mutual respect in all the ways I relate to people.
 
Last edited:
This is utterly false.

Well okay, the officers and directors owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Delaware law controls the majority of American corporations, and Delaware imposes a duty of care and loyalty on directors, to protect the investments of shareholders (most other states impose something similar). When courts evaluate whether a board has met these duties, they look to see whether the board behaved the way a reasonable person would have done in seeking a profit. If a board walks the line between profit and, say, the human rights of people in the supply chain, they run the risk of shareholder lawsuits. The threat of lawsuits influences behavior.

Yes, I oversimplified in my prior statement, but it's still true that corporations law sets up a system that enshrines the ideal of profit over people, with the force of the judicial gavel.
 
Last edited:
I so much agree with what you have said, Becca.

To me anarchism is not a political stance - to me, it's a way of considering how to relate to other individuals. All individuals - not just those that I am romantically or sexually involved with.

Regarding business - that businesses place profit about people is so clearly obvious. I sometimes wonder if it is so much a normal part of life now that it has almost become invisible - just an accepted fact of the world.

The management of people is done by human resources departments. Managers discuss how to staff projects at resourcing meetings. Human beings are referred by their employers as FTEs (full time equivalents) where full time members of staff are 1 FTE and any part time is less than that (I work part time and equate to 0.7).

I have been at at least one meeting where senior management have apologised for very low pay rises and lack of bonuses - explaining to the resource that they very much appreciate all the hard work and that profits have been good for the year but that the company has a moral obligation to gather as much profit as possible for the shareholders.

I attended one memorable meeting where the resources were informed that the company had had excellent news. They had found a way to half staffing costs - by moving jobs to India where people are even more treated like things by employers and are therefore cheaper to employ. Of course, this meant that many of the resources in the UK would find themselves out of a job but that they were sure that every resource in the room could see that this should be a time of celebration - even if there might be a little pain along the way.

The documentary The Corporation is excellent on this subject.
 
Holy shit, those corporate horror stories (the astonishing meetings InfinitePossibility just described) give me the chills and creep me out. I can't support capitalism if those are its fruits.
 
Holy shit, those corporate horror stories (the astonishing meetings InfinitePossibility just described) give me the chills and creep me out. I can't support capitalism if those are its fruits.

I strongly suggest you do more research into these issues if you're serious about understanding the economics of capitalism - research beyond this forum and heavily biased films. Also compare the "horrors" of business in Western capitalist countries with the actual everyday realities of life in countries that are not founded on free market ideals. (And don't get me started on the massive human rights violations that pass for everyday life in those places, too.) There are many reasons, capitalism being one, that since its inception, the USA has been inundated with throngs of freedom seekers from around the world. People who go on and on about the evils of modern day capitalism usually have no idea what life truly is like in places that do not know this concept. Also, go back in history and you'll find that life was general misery compared to what most of us know today.
 
Last edited:
I guess the jury's out. I've always been a strong supporter of capitalist ideals in the past, but now, I don't know what my position is.
 
Holy shit, those corporate horror stories (the astonishing meetings InfinitePossibility just described) give me the chills and creep me out.

These meetings are not astonishing in the corporate world. It's just the usual way of going about business. The apprentice in my team worked in a call centre for a cable TV company before coming to work with us. The stories she tells are far more creepy.

Kev - if you want to read more about how global capitalism can affect parts of the world other than the US (and the UK), I found Jay Griffiths' book Wild incredibly eye opening. It isn't a political book really - it's more a travel diary of the author's experiences when visiting with people in far flung parts of the world.

Oh - and if you want to read political stuff - pretty much any of the political writings or videos of Noam Chomsky. He has an amazing mind and really good way of putting things across. :)
 
Last edited:
I recommend a far more balanced analysis by Dinesh D'Souza called What's So Great About America.


http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-About-America-ebook/dp/B00BS02DS8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books
Amazon.com Review
"Look again at the title of this book: it's not a question, but a statement. "America is the greatest, freest, and most decent society in existence," writes Dinesh D'Souza. "American life as it is lived today [is] the best life that our world has to offer." There are those who hate it, or at least essential elements of it, from radical Islamists to the likes of Patrick Buchanan (on the right) and Jesse Jackson (on the left). But they are wrong to hate it, and D'Souza grapples with all of them in this engaging and compelling volume. D'Souza is the author of provocative books such as Illiberal Education and The End of Racism, plus the appreciative Ronald Reagan. This may be his most personal book, with parts written in the first person as the India-born D'Souza describes his encounter with the United States, first as an immigrant and now as a citizen. Foreign authors such as Alexis de Tocqueville and Gunnar Myrdal have offered some of the most penetrating assessments of America, and D'Souza clearly shares in this noble tradition. "I am constantly surprised by how much I hear racism talked about and how little I actually see it," he writes. What's So Great About America is also vintage D'Souza, full of feisty arguments and sharp humor. He is perhaps better at explaining why America's critics are wrong than explaining why America's celebrants are right, but he's very good at both. Written in the months following the September 11 terrorist strikes, this book should find a large and receptive audience. --John Miller
 
Of course, crazy political anarchy and capilatism bashing have nothing to do with relationship anarchy. I don't know why I keep letting myself get sucked back into this nutty conversation!
 
I'm in the middle when it comes to assessing the United States. I don't think they're as great as some people think, and I don't think they're as awful as some people think, either.

The core problem as I see it is this. First of all, power attracts corruption. Where there is less power, there is usually less corruption. So, when we initiate a new free market and it's all mom-and-pop businesses, things go well. Then larger and larger businesses arrive on the scene, and corruption soon follows. Then people try to stem the corruption by creating a government that imposes limits on what a corporation can do. Things go well for awhile again until certain corporations become so powerful that they can both literally and figuratively buy the government. Now the entity that was supposed to be a shield for the little guy has become a tool for the fat cats. The process is only accelerated by the fact that the larger the government is, the more corruption it attracts as well. Corruption in the government is one of the things that makes the government easy for corporations to buy.

That's all oversimplified and there are certainly people in positions of power who are good people and who greatly desire to do good. But it is hard to do good in any powerful organization. Heck I think that's true of powerful churches as well.

In the movie "Lincoln" (2012, Daniel Day-Lewis), I was struck by how President Lincoln had to engage in some backroom deals and shady politics in order to make the Emancipation Proclamation a defensible reality. Which makes that movie a prime illustration of how hard it is to do good in a powerful organization (such as the government) -- even if you're one of the few good leaders in that organization.

I don't know what the answer is.
 
I'd like to speak up and say D'Souza is a horribly unbalanced source. I've read a book of his, America: Imagine a World Without Her and it was full of horrible logical leaps and really unethical things like associating homosexuality with pedophilia.

He's plead guilty to illegal campaign contribution as well. Someone willing to do unethical things with their financial power is not someone I trust to talk about how finances and economy should work.
 
Alas, I'm a terrible reader. It can take me years to finish a book and I have soooo many books already awaiting my attention. I'm forcing myself to read five pages a day of "More Than Two," at least on most days. It's not easy. For me.

Okay, I admit, I do plenty of reading on this forum. But that's different. I have an addiction. I can't help myself.
 
Back
Top