Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?  (Read 33804 times)

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2010, 11:55:42 pm »

Absolutely impossible due to historic events.
Logged

maxxoccupancy

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3659
  • Evil prevails when good men don't vote Libertarian
    • fija.org
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2010, 01:19:58 am »

Corporate socialism does not equal capitalism.

If we as a society demonstrate a real respect for others to keep the goods, services, and real property that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

Steal the incentive--or allow it to be stolen--and we have nothing.
Logged
If you are interested in putting together an IT-creative firm to help provide jobs for liberty folks in the future, send me a Personal Message.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2010, 05:35:42 am »

that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2010, 09:25:07 am »

that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2010, 09:56:13 am »

that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2010, 11:07:37 am »

No. Corporatism... not capitalism. I own stocks... I certainly do not 'command' labor. And unlike labor, my 'stored labor' is placed at risk.
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2010, 01:17:10 pm »

that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

I think anyone that understands liberty get the distinction between the two ideas that we are talking about.  Its just about which words are used to describe these ideas that we seem to be in disagreement.   What some folks on here are saying capitalism is, I would instead call either crony capitalism, corporatism, state capitalism, or fascism.  And I think its inherent what kind of capitalism someone is talking about if they call themselves an anarcho-capitalist.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2010, 02:50:29 pm »

Quote
And I think its inherent what kind of capitalism someone is talking about if they call themselves an anarcho-capitalist.

I don't...that is why the term "vulgar libertarianism" was coined!

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html

excerpt:

"vulgar libertarianism as an ideology in the opening section of Chapter Four of my Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. Since that passage is as coherent a description as I am likely to write, rather than reinvent the wheel I'll just take the lazy man's way out and paste in the relevant paragraphs:

    This school of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." For every imaginable policy issue, the good guys and bad guys can be predicted with ease, by simply inverting the slogan of Animal Farm: "Two legs good, four legs baaaad." In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."


    The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.


    Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles.""
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2010, 03:23:44 pm »

See you were not attacking anarcho-capitalists there.  Ayn Rand was very much against anarcho-capitalism, Milton Friedman wasn't an AnCap either.  And what exactly do you mean by 'defending the wealth of existing corporations'?
Logged

FreeStyle

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2010, 04:29:43 pm »

the rub I have with the mutualist idea versus the anarcho-capitalist idea, is that under one you would never have the right to do as you please on your property, because they don't believe you can legitimately own any property.   Under the other you can have unlimited ideals as long as the principles of not harming others is in place. 

In a voluntary society, I can own property, a small 4 acre forest.  Mutualist types don't have to enjoy the fact that I will and can defend my 4 acres of trees as long as they keep themselves off of it.

In a mutualist society, others will choose how much land you can have based on what you can defend.  If you can't hang around your entire life on that 4 acres of land, eventually someone will choose to tear it down and build what THEY want.

Forget conservation land in a mutualist world.  Eventually you will have to leave your property and when that happens someone will start building their shack on it.  They will claim that you're not using the land to their satisfaction, and they will change your property that they don't believe you have any right to.  Perhaps they might have some of their friends move in beside them and choose to remove your trees, home, driveway, and farmland to do as they please with it.  What can you do about it, you'd have to revert to the always disgusting 'might makes right'

far as I'm concerned, capitalism continues to get a bad rep based on the corporatist world that has come from it.  Damn you if you choose to purchase land from someone else, take a tree on it, carve it into a canoe, and sell it for a profit in order to help fund your life and the process of cuttingg down another tree to make a canoe out of. 

Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2010, 07:34:16 pm »

Quote
because they don't believe you can legitimately own any property.

but they do - based on occupancy and use.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2010, 07:57:10 pm »

Anarcho-”Capitalism” is impossible
Posted by Anna Morgenstern on Sep 19, 2010 in Feature Articles

Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism.  I happen to think this is actually backwards.  If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.

People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such.  But what then is a free market?  If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition.  In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.

Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public?  Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham.  It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State.  Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.

Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists.  Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property.  So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.

But the focus on goals, I think, is very much over-emphasized in anarchist communities, at the expense of looking at means.  Goals sometimes lead people toward certain means, but it is the means that determine results, not the goals.  And if the anarcho-capitalists follow anarchist means, the results will be anarchy, not some impossible “anarcho-capitalism”.

Anarchy does not mean social utopia, it means a society where there is no privileged authority.  There will still be social evils to be dealt with under anarchy.  But anarchy is an important step toward fighting those evils without giving birth to all new ones.

My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    * Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    * Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    * Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

to read the rest of the story...

http://c4ss.org/content/4043
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2010, 08:15:30 pm »

Anarcho-”Capitalism” is impossible
Posted by Anna Morgenstern on Sep 19, 2010 in Feature Articles

Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism.  I happen to think this is actually backwards.  If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.

People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such.  But what then is a free market?  If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition.  In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.

Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public?  Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham.  It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State.  Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.

Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists.  Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property.  So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.

But the focus on goals, I think, is very much over-emphasized in anarchist communities, at the expense of looking at means.  Goals sometimes lead people toward certain means, but it is the means that determine results, not the goals.  And if the anarcho-capitalists follow anarchist means, the results will be anarchy, not some impossible “anarcho-capitalism”.

Anarchy does not mean social utopia, it means a society where there is no privileged authority.  There will still be social evils to be dealt with under anarchy.  But anarchy is an important step toward fighting those evils without giving birth to all new ones.

My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    * Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    * Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    * Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

to read the rest of the story...

http://c4ss.org/content/4043

her explanations for the "impossibility" of capitalism in anarchy are a joke, and don't make any economic sense.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2010, 08:28:08 pm »

In a true anarchy, capitalism would be improbable... but her comments on wage slavery are a joke. An individual can sell their labor for any price they deem sufficient... if they can find a willing employer.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2010, 12:47:14 am »

that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

Yes mutualism is socialism. Proudhon was not a nice guy. He inspired Karl Marx to become a socialist if I remember correctly meaning his works were the basis of the anti-capitalist "movements" you see today. Socialism is the opposite of freedom even "libertarian socialism". Socialism means democracy which automatically equates to mob rule of the 51% taking everything away from the 49%. u complain about capitalists taking "capital" from workers but try working in a workplace where 51% of your coworkers take everything from you. That's socialism that's democracy that's mutualism. No individual rights.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 10   Go Up
 

anything