Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+5 votes
Since I've began learning about and identifying with anarchism I've become obsessed with considering how my daily decisions contribute to capitalism.  I work a Union job that provides me with a typical suburban life for me and my family. We live in a house, bank owned at the time, shop at chain grocery stores, drive cars, etc. etc. I live paycheck to paycheck like most wage slaves but I do realize that I'm better off than many many people. I often feel guilty about this. It seems that my life epitomizes the typical statist/capitalist American. As I said I feel bad about this but what are my other options, give all of my possessions away and live in a campground with my family?

How do you make daily decisions as an anarchist? When you're forced to make a purchase like food do you try to stay away from places like Walmart? Do you shop at a store where they employ union workers? Does it even matter if the workers are unionized or not?
by (210 points)
great question. and the type of question i entertain almost daily.
same here. i hope to give a little more thought and write up an (my) answer.

2 Answers

+3 votes

the bottom line, for me, is to be very aware of what my desires, motivations/intentions, and priorities are for my life. and to let go of the illusions i grew up with. many years ago i got clear on what some of those were, and i made some dramatic changes to my life in order to start realizing them. none of what i did to change my life is going to do anything to change "the world", end capitalism, destroy the state, or whatever. it merely has reduced (pretty dramatically) the extent to which i must interact with the institutions i despise, and therefore it has reduced their impact on my life. and i am much happier as a result.

but then i personally like (and strive for) simplicity in my life. most people seem to crave complexity, or at least that is what their behavior leads me to believe (despite, in many cases, words to the contrary).

if it is important to you to support union workers, then by all means, shop only at union stores. (i'm not sure how that really supports them in any way other than "moral" support or some abstract sense of solidarity, but no matter). if you hate walmart, don't shop there (again, how much this really matters to them or their success, is probably negligible). the point here is, do what you want to do because it is what you want to do (because it meets your own needs/desires); don't have illusions about how it is going to change anything other than that moment. voting with one's dollars can be personally satisfying, but i don't see it changing anything about capitalism. eg; green capitalism is still capitalism.

my suggestion would be to take serious stock of your life, and do your best to identify what your true (authentic?) needs and desires are - not those that have been sold to you/shoved down your throat by the institutions that run civilization (capital, the state, culture/society, academia, science(tm), public relations, etc). then, decide what you can do to (realistically) to bring your life more in line with what you really want (and need).  

self-sufficiency is a huge factor in my own detachment from civilized institutions. everything i can do on my own to meet my own needs/desires, provides me greater freedom from that which i hate. i have no illusions that i will ever be 100% self-sufficient, but i continue to try to get ever closer to that pipe dream, within my own constraints.

if you limit the scope of your pursuits to your own life (and the lives of those you choose to share yours with), you can avoid a huge amount of pain, guilt, disappointment, disillusionment, etc. some call that selfish; i call it practical.

now i'm rambling...

by (13.4k points)

"Asker, you're right, we do not have the power unless we unite.  But if enough people can come together, people have the power to change things.  "

This isn't what I said at all... there's no change to the relationship between worker and boss (or customer and store) that would be desirable or worth working at.

"This isn't what I said at all"  I know/knew that.  I was trying to get back to the boycott thing which I know, now, is unacceptable to most here.  

I know that we strengthen the system as we participate in it, but for most people I know, I do not see a way of avoiding the trap they/we are in.  The system/capitalism is about control, and by and large, control is accomplished by keeping the masses in debt--forcing them to work, most of the time long hours for little as compared to the amount they need to be debt free.

It seems to me, in one way, we are saying the same thing: that is we try not to participate with the system however we can.  I would try and advocate large organized movements of non participation in order to slap the power holders in the face (although it will not change the relationship of worker and boss); others here, as I understand, try to limit their participation as much as possible as individuals.


I did just order: The Great Anarchists: Ideas and Teachings of Seven Major Thinkers by Eltzbacher.  Maybe that will be little better introduction, as I continue to read the threads here also.

@sas: a couple thoughts:

1. you seem to feel somehow "responsible" for helping "the workers" in their cruddy situation with jobs and debt. if your objective is not to make corporations "better", then what do you ultimately think some mass movement can accomplish (that is not some typical reform [which clearly change very little if anything], eg a minimum wage increase)? if you think you can appeal to institutional power to eradicate itself, you are as delusional as the commies that think the state will simply wither away.

2. you seem to think my ideas are worth "throwing out there". and you seem to think a mass movement is necessary to bring about meaningful change.  how about this: an unorganized mass movement of individuals detaching/isolating from the institutions of power and control (rather than appealing to them to be nicer) and taking direct control of their own time, sustenance, relationships and pleasure?  and for those who so desire, acting in ways to destroy those institutions more directly (though with enough people(tm) detached, would there even be such a need?). that is the only kind of movement, other than a good bowel movement, that i can get with.

i am only mostly joking.

from a bob black interview on @news:

"There is nothing more divisive than an insistence on unity."

'you seem to feel somehow "responsible" for helping "the workers" in their cruddy situation with jobs and debt.'  This is true.  I'm not sure why.  I guess I just don't think that the those with the power should just keep getting away with fn people.

"how about this: an unorganized mass movement of individuals detaching/isolating from the institutions of power and control (rather than appealing to them to be nicer). . ."  Now, that is a good idea!  Of course that would mean for the mass movement to stop buying from them--right?  Otherwise it (the institutions of power would just keep going on and we would not really be isolated from them (LOL).

No, but I did not think of it that way--the way you propose--an anarchist movement of self-reliant communities?  I think that such a movement is possible.  And it is a good point.

+1 vote
There's no style of being an employee or consumer that you could adopt that would make you less imbricated in capitalism. (I'm answering first in these terms since that's how you posed the question, even though there could be other types of daily decisions).

There might well be styles of consuming that, for example, make one feel more ethical, but this is obviously an aspect of marketing. An "ethical commodity" is worth more b/c you feel good about purchasing it.

In just war theory there's often been the idea that your actions in war have their most serious/important effects on you yourself. Your moral character, your eternal soul, etc., suffers when you commit an atrocity (never mind how many people die). It strikes me that this is terribly relevant to any question of a possible ethical consumption, since no matter what products you buy, the deaths still pile up.

That's why, for me, it's unacceptable to engage in any form of work or consumption that appears to justify itself. It would be morally dangerous to console yourself, or to imagine your decisions in this context have some ameliorating effect. Better to go on feeling guilty, than to assuage the guilt via a different type of (equally pernicious) buying.

Here's my idea, in relation to the activities you bring up (working + shopping) but also more generally, as a tactic for living in a world of permanent war, and keeping yourself together, whole, perceptive:

1.Cultivate irony. Shield yourself a little from the things that are asked of you and don't invest yourself in them fully but keep your distance. By keeping your distance you create room within yourself to think and feel.

Equally, you should practice this kind of ironic shielding in relation to proposed "solutions," and political programs, and to reaction and criticism in general. An incomplete critique is worse than no critique, and is usually shallower and less interesting.

2.As the world contracts, open your eyes wider. Social control becomes tighter and more absolute, but as it does so it can never make the whole world boring and gray.  Even in the most intensely policed metropolis there is so much to see and think about and understand, so do that. It's a legitimate pleasure and maybe the last one left.

(if this sounds like advice, please bear in mind that it's intended more for myself than for an unwilling audience)
by (8.0k points)
edited by
Dot, “neither moral nor immoral”

I think in order for anyone to be happy there must be a degree of freedom to do what ever one wants without having to answer to anyone. But neither should anyone be a nuisance to others without good reason.

“criminal” on this web-site was/is, I guess, a poor choice of words. When I wrote criminal I meant actions which would be considered a nuisance to most in society.

'"moral" and "morality" to refer to something that is imposed from without'

I understand completely. Participating on atheists web-sites as well in the past, I understand the whole concept of morality as something created by “others.” That is why I wrote above that morality is something subjective and it is not. That is, it is subjective to one's historical position in their particular society, but for one to be moral, to me, they must care about justice in their community. But as I wrote above, it is alright for people to be amoral (neither moral or a nuisance) as their right to be free.
if you are really interested in anarchy, you may want to expand your readings to anarchist (and other) writers who are critical of progressivism, liberalism and leftism. that is where things got really interesting for me (a former leftist/progressive who broke free maybe 15 years ago). if you cling to progressivism, you will find a great deal of contention on this site. which can be one of the best ways to add meaningfully to your pool of ideas. if you are open-minded, that is. most progressives that have passed through here are (or seem, based on interactions) completely closed-minded and rigidly dogmatic.

i suggest some exploration at you could browse topics like "post-left", "progress", "liberalism", etc.

edited to add: moving away from leftism/progressivism does NOT mean, in an anarchist context, moving to "the right". the whole left/right (false) dichotomy is one of the things many anarchists try to get away from. the term "post-left" is applicable (more so than, say, post-right) only because of the historical ties (which many progressives seem to want to perpetuate) between anarchy and the left.
fa, I will continue to read.  Gotta finish what I'm reading now though.
stillaslave, I think you might be interested in Nietzsche's book, The Genealogy of Morals, as a way of thinking about the ideas you're alluding to w/ your commentary about Red Cloud. (The book has to do with the idea that there are 'fashions' in morality, that change for various reasons without finding a firm foundation ever. It's kind of like what you were saying, but I think might help you develop this line of thought more)

Asker, Nietzsche

I have read Nietzsche in the past, but it has been a long time--at least 30 years ago.  Since it is a copout to look to someone else for morality, and to some, morality is just an idea which has been made up, it is subjective in that sense, but I think the idea of being moral, being true to what is right, good and beautiful to one's self and her/his community is important.  I will get around to the suggested reads.