I’m not saying money is the source of evil, but it is a tool used by it. It heavily centralizes value making it easier to hoard. The other part of that being positions of power. Without money someone would have to hoard a valued resource like foods. What would allow someone to hoard enough food to affect others is authority. Anarchy tries to address both these issues. Some versions like Mutualism do keep money, and even anarcho-communists have used money through an anarchist market socialism to transition to a moneyless society. Anarchy does not mean no rules and no organization. It means consentual and horizontal organization. Rules that the community consent to, not forced upon them.
And I think it is naive of you to think your position isn’t idealogically influenced. We both want an ethical way to run an economy and there are ethical and unethical ways of doing that. The difference between us is what we view as an ethical and possible economic system. If you are interested in reaching an understanding of each others views I do not mind continuing this conversation. But if you are just trying to win a fight, I am not interested in continuing this.
My point about the presence of ideology in this discussion is that it started without ideology being a factor, that I was discussing economics the same way one might discuss physics out biology. You brought ideology into it, and I answered those points as best as I could given the blatant misunderstandings that I perceived regarding the economic aspects of your ideology. As an avowed socialist myself, I won’t try to claim that I don’t have views impacted by ideology but that doesn’t mean ideology can’t be set aside when discussing sciences like economics. Indeed, seeing ideology aside is imperative to understanding the real nature of the observable world, and these observations must inform one’s ideology least one start saying things like “2+2=5”. Which is precisely what I feel you’ve been doing. You’re rejecting explanations of how economies work because it doesn’t fit your ideological views. That is folly.
Given that your original question has been answered repeatedly, and you’ve rejected those answers, I can only conclude that the questions were asked in bad faith. I don’t think further conversation will be productive. The only “fight” to be “won” is one that you started, and I’m tired of playing chess with pigeons. If you feel that means you “won” the discussion, then more power to you. Feel free to hit me up again when you want to actually understand things as they are, instead of how you think they ought to be.
I was never disagreeing with you out of ideological difference. I simply disagreed with the logic. Granted this discussion is over text and there are a lot of different ways for both of us to misunderstand the other. I did not go into this trying to win a fight, and never intended it to go in that direction. I feel it is best to end it with “agree to disagree” as I feel one or both of us is misunderstanding each other because of the communication barrier that comes with text.
I’m not saying money is the source of evil, but it is a tool used by it. It heavily centralizes value making it easier to hoard. The other part of that being positions of power. Without money someone would have to hoard a valued resource like foods. What would allow someone to hoard enough food to affect others is authority. Anarchy tries to address both these issues. Some versions like Mutualism do keep money, and even anarcho-communists have used money through an anarchist market socialism to transition to a moneyless society. Anarchy does not mean no rules and no organization. It means consentual and horizontal organization. Rules that the community consent to, not forced upon them. And I think it is naive of you to think your position isn’t idealogically influenced. We both want an ethical way to run an economy and there are ethical and unethical ways of doing that. The difference between us is what we view as an ethical and possible economic system. If you are interested in reaching an understanding of each others views I do not mind continuing this conversation. But if you are just trying to win a fight, I am not interested in continuing this.
My point about the presence of ideology in this discussion is that it started without ideology being a factor, that I was discussing economics the same way one might discuss physics out biology. You brought ideology into it, and I answered those points as best as I could given the blatant misunderstandings that I perceived regarding the economic aspects of your ideology. As an avowed socialist myself, I won’t try to claim that I don’t have views impacted by ideology but that doesn’t mean ideology can’t be set aside when discussing sciences like economics. Indeed, seeing ideology aside is imperative to understanding the real nature of the observable world, and these observations must inform one’s ideology least one start saying things like “2+2=5”. Which is precisely what I feel you’ve been doing. You’re rejecting explanations of how economies work because it doesn’t fit your ideological views. That is folly.
Given that your original question has been answered repeatedly, and you’ve rejected those answers, I can only conclude that the questions were asked in bad faith. I don’t think further conversation will be productive. The only “fight” to be “won” is one that you started, and I’m tired of playing chess with pigeons. If you feel that means you “won” the discussion, then more power to you. Feel free to hit me up again when you want to actually understand things as they are, instead of how you think they ought to be.
I was never disagreeing with you out of ideological difference. I simply disagreed with the logic. Granted this discussion is over text and there are a lot of different ways for both of us to misunderstand the other. I did not go into this trying to win a fight, and never intended it to go in that direction. I feel it is best to end it with “agree to disagree” as I feel one or both of us is misunderstanding each other because of the communication barrier that comes with text.