Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism are not entirely Mutually Exclusive

[Octobox]

Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism are not Mutually Exclusive in a free-society. A-Caps and A-Coms would most likely exist in a free-society -- if they both only form mediated contracts (between individuals) or communal unions (respectively) in the short-run. Contracts and Unions require force in the medium to long-run.

A-Caps have it right (up to the point they get into property rights)
----There's nothing wrong nor is there a Gov't to stop two individuals from entering into a contractual relationship with an agreed upon mediator. No voluntary society could stop it. However, the assets/commodities/labor being traded must be "mobile." Meaning it can't be an asset that requires a permanent use of land. If it does then what Title Department would have authority or what security firm would have authority to make new members or the next generation observe this "permanent right?" The answer is "none" -- because there is no gov't in A-Cap -- No authority.

A-Com can work as long as "communalism" is event-drive and only temporary. Hierarchy always forms in the medium to long-run in any union. A "union" established to get chores, grow crops, engineer dams, channel flood waters, or create tech advancements will always have a few "experts" rise to the top and special favors would be granted to them for their advanced service (even if it just means more praise and better mating opportunities) -- people always shower gifts on leaders or star individuals (athletes are an example - great warriors - entrepreneurs).

A-Com always falls apart at this point "the abolition of social hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy) and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, as well as the abolition of private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) and money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money)." (from Wiki)

Anarchism means "voluntary" and "no authority" -- therefore how can you have an equalization of wealth without theft? You can't. Say you transition from Corporatism straight into A-Com in 1 months time (if you set a 1yr target transition the wealthy will grab-bag as many assets as possible) -- once gov't is abolished to form the A-Com there's no authority to confiscate it. The wealthy in the new A-Com society would hire former Navy Seals and Delta Force in trade for the use of assets or to gain commodities.

Additionally A-Com falls apart with the "no hierachy rule." A-Cap has hierarchy but there is no authority to enforce it - so they only allow that class structure during short-run contractual arrangements.

In A-Com if people are living communally (let's say 1000 people) there will be duties that are better suited to some (owing to hierachy in education -- opportunities gained from Corporatist Society they just transitioned from) and if you are in a commune with even 20% creative-innovative-entrepreneurial type people the 200 would quickly form a hiearchy and competitive ideation over the 800. These "advantages" cannot be equalized and will mean some people will have to do the shitty work (sewage) -- (pig farming) -- (steel working). Specialization would occur and dependence formed. People tend to associate by craft and community -- their children's mentors would most likely come from this level; thus an talent opportunity cost is formed -- if say Einstein is born to a pig farmer.

Since neither A-Cap nor A-Com can "tax" there are no public schools and thus education is transferred via mentorship (primarily) -- In A-Cap this is no problem because during the transition from Corporatism to A-Cap all Gov't facilities for education and training would be sold to individuals or private firms -- private firms would keep what they had or sell it off -- with no barriers to market entry competition would arise as most Gov't Facilities for education (including equipment) is outmoded by the private sector (during Corporatism). The latter is okay because not everyone can afford the same education -- however, with the profits they do earn soon they'd buy better equipment. Nevertheless people can easily become (career wise and entrepreneurial wise) more than their parents or relatives in A-Cap.

A-Com (no gov't - no standing military) would be open for invasion -- A-Com's have serious issues with gun ownership -- the guns would be confiscated and kept in the "commons," where invariably the more militant minded would horde the weapons. Invaders would buy this information and attack armories and weapons cashes first. In A-Cap without gov't everyone is armed and a healthy gun-culture is created -- this just can't be stopped without gov't force.

A-Com would do away with "money" -- Does this mean gold / silver as well? People love to barter and they would begin to use these commodities regardless. A-Com (without force or gov't) would soon find itself traditing in non-regulated free-market currency.

A-Cap would embrace this. So, if a man is payed wisely for his labor the value of it goes up, in an A-Cap society. If you determine that there will be a deficit in rice crops (and that's an important staple) you might contractually agree to be paid in rice at spring time prices -- come next year your labor from the previous year is worth more. Addtionally, if gold or silver is fluctuating towards "hording" (as it would - cyclically) and you can interpret this -- getting paid in gold for a month or a season might be the wisest.

A-Com would try to "force" (voluntarily) an equal distribution regardless of ones input -- this is nonsense. If people have a great warrior or innovator in their village people will naturally give him a little extra to either gain favor or to keep him at peak performance -- always happens.


The ideal "anarchist" society would have the best of both A-Cap and A-Com -- This would naturally form. There are moments when one or the other is the wisest choice -- without force this can't be stopped.

However, if you try to force one or the other -- you will lose adaptive change and gov't would form again.

Essentially -- Short-Term Contracts (voluntary and mediated) and Short-Term Communalism (mostly to handle emergencies or difficutl big projects the group finds necessary). No long term land-ownership -- save personal use. People would likely live in A-Com Communities and work in A-Cap competitive markets.

[Octobox]

Of course before the above can be debated we'd have to agree to terms.

Some working definitions would be necessary.

Slavery is 100% Taxation - 100% Travel Control - 100% Business Ideation Control (No Start-Ups) - 100% Currency Authority -- ZERO Self-Rule

Corporatism (what we have in America) is 80-90% Taxation (direct and indirect) - 5% Travel Control - 5% Business Ideation Control - 100% Currency Authority.

Travel Control and Business Ideation Control refers to the ease of travel (the freedom) and business ideation is the speed at which one can get an idea to market or start a new business.

Ron Paul's Minarchism is 7-12% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 0% Business Ideation Control - 0% Currency Authority -- 88-93% Self-Rule

Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism 0% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 0% Business Ideation Control - 0% Currency Authority - Voluntary Midiation Authority over Private Contracts (the latter is privatized)

Anarcho-Communism 0% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 100% Business Ideation Control - 100% Currency Authority. Can't start your own business and cannot have currency -- the "authority" for this in a voluntary society does not exist so I don't know how it would be enforced.

Octobox

[Jack]

Yes they are. The only maintainable system is communist. To quote Kropotkin "The revolution must be Communist, or else there will be bloodshed", don't try the "U CAN FORM TEH COMMUNS" bullshit, there's no such thing as "voluntaryism" and nobody care's about your 93% anarchy bullshit.

You can't have capitalism and communism, stop trying to bridge the gap.

[Jack]

Oh, and a stateless society without communism or something similar always has resulted in chaos or a new state forming, prove me wrong.

[DixieFlatline]

The ideal "anarchist" society would have the best of both A-Cap and A-Com -- This would naturally form. There are moments when one or the other is the wisest choice -- without force this can't be stopped.

However, if you try to force one or the other -- you will lose adaptive change and gov't would form again.
I disagree with this.

Anarcho-capitalism allows for socialists enclaves and systems to form, but Anarcho-communism does not allow for capitalist enclaves and systems to form.

Anarcho-capitalism is merely a system of voluntarism based around the non-aggression principle. It is very simple, and fairly broad.

As soon as you institutionalize force, monopoly or property, you will destroy the freedom to choose Anarcho-communism.

I personally do not like communism, socialism etc. But I have no beef with socialists who wish to pursue that social system provided they do not use violence against me and my property. I will trade and interact with them voluntarily as long as they are willing to do so.

I think people get messed up with ancap, thinking it is more defined or narrow than it is. It isn't. It is about market anarchy. The market will decide outcomes, not guns, not mobs and not oligarchs or kings.

[DixieFlatline]

Yes they are. The only maintainable system is communist. To quote Kropotkin "The revolution must be Communist, or else there will be bloodshed"
Every communist revolution has been bloody, before, during and after. You don't see mass graves in America or Canada or France. Lots of mass graves in Asia and eastern Europe.


You can't have capitalism and communism, stop trying to bridge the gap.
Sure you can. In a voluntary society, who could stop either?


Oh, and a stateless society without communism or something similar always has resulted in chaos or a new state forming, prove me wrong.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Even if you could prove this (you can't), it wouldn't prove the inverse (that communism always results in no new state forming).

[Jack]

I disagree with this.

Anarcho-capitalism allows for socialists enclaves and systems to form, but Anarcho-communism does not allow for capitalist enclaves and systems to form.

Well gee howdy mister, you're going to let me and my friends play communism! Aww gee.

Now more serious: That means we would have to buy the land, participate in the capitalist marketplace, and still have to engage in capitalism to have anything more than basic nessecities because a plot of land isn't going to produce everything you need. Get some federalism up in this *****, and what if we want, say, internet? That would mean all the equipment would need to be set up and purchased, and then because of the capitalist marketplace we would be forced to charge for it unless we produce absolutely everything that has to do with it.




Anarcho-capitalism is merely a system of voluntarism based around the non-aggression principle. It is very simple, and fairly broad.

You don't get out much, do you? Not everybody plays by the same moral code or principle because things like that are flexible. Obviously I'm not going to rob you, but if I need to feed my family or get my next fix I sure as hell am, and boom there goes your whole "non-aggression principle"





As soon as you institutionalize force, monopoly or property, you will destroy the freedom to choose Anarcho-communism.

The choice comes in revolution, it's not like we're going to pick up one day and move to an island and establish communism.



I personally do not like communism, socialism etc. But I have no beef with socialists who wish to pursue that social system provided they do not use violence against me and my property. I will trade and interact with them voluntarily as long as they are willing to do so.

We're not going to be the ones to use violence against you, but the guy who lost his job and can't pay his bills and has no social support will. See: Montreal Police Strike of 1969 to get an idea of crapitalism without the state.

In conclusion, voluntaryism does not exist, there is no way to escape capitalism but revolution, or death.

[Jack]

Every communist revolution has been bloody, before, during and after. You don't see mass graves in America or Canada or France. Lots of mass graves in Asia and eastern Europe.

Hey, idiot, anarchist communism.



Sure you can. In a voluntary society, who could stop either?

Me.



Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Even if you could prove this (you can't)

Somalia, any time the police have gone on strike.

[Jack]

By the way, if you really wanted to go off and play capitalism with your buddies, nobody is stopping you, but it's not a very fun game.

[DixieFlatline]

Well gee howdy mister, you're going to let me and my friends play communism! Aww gee.
Not "going to let". I cannot on principle oppose it. I believe in freedom to choose. That means you have the same freedom I ask for myself.


Now more serious: That means we would have to buy the land, participate in the capitalist marketplace, and still have to engage in capitalism to have anything more than basic nessecities because a plot of land isn't going to produce everything you need.
No, that is incorrect. You would not have to buy land. You could homestead it. You don't have to participate in the capitalist marketplace if you do not want to. Yes, a plot of land won't produce everything you need, and likewise the plots of land of others won't produce everything they need. This is where voluntary trade comes in. But that too is your choice. It's up to you how you define necessities. Some people think that is access to high tech networks and media, the latest in cutting edge medical tech and exotic foods from around the world. Some people might think it is protein shakes, fiber pills and cotton pajamas. We're all different in how we define our needs and wants.


Get some federalism up in this *****, and what if we want, say, internet? That would mean all the equipment would need to be set up and purchased, and then because of the capitalist marketplace we would be forced to charge for it unless we produce absolutely everything that has to do with it.
If you want internet, and cannot provide it for yourself, the only ethical way to acquire it from someone who has it, is to trade for it. Likewise, if you had internet, and the capitalists wanted it, they would have to deal with you voluntarily if they wanted access to it. You would be within your rights to set the price high, or even to withhold the service. The capitalists have no right to coerce your property, technology or labour from you.


You don't get out much, do you?
I followed some of my amigos onto this forum and noticed that several RevLefters, you in particular, resort to ad hominem in discussion. I can curse and name call with the best of them, but I would rather do that with someone I genuinely dislike, perhaps a statist. I am here to get a better understanding of your perspective, and to perhaps offer clarifications about my perspective. The rhetorical theatrics are not the way to a better society for anyone.


Not everybody plays by the same moral code or principle because things like that are flexible. Obviously I'm not going to rob you, but if I need to feed my family or get my next fix I sure as hell am, and boom there goes your whole "non-aggression principle"
I don't need you to play by my moral code for me to have that code. I will use defensive force when you try to rob me. I will never try to rob you. If you are persistent and dangerous enough, I will use lethal force, although I would rather not do that. I might even help you feed your family or get your fix so we don't have to risk damage to our lives and property. With me in particular, all you would have to do is ask for assistance or aid and I would probably do my best to accommodate.


The choice comes in revolution, it's not like we're going to pick up one day and move to an island and establish communism.
I know. The anarcho-primitivists have every opportunity to move into forests and jungles and they don't do it either. Everyone is fixated on the state solving their problem, if only they can get their hands on the guns and the levers of power.

I reject coercion and state power absolutely. There is no other principled position for an anarchist.


We're not going to be the ones to use violence against you, but the guy who lost his job and can't pay his bills and has no social support will.
The cost in blood for him to initiate violence will be a deterrent. I am happy you will not initiate violence with me. I want to be friends.


See: Montreal Police Strike of 1969 to get an idea of crapitalism without the state.
Capitalism without the state means there is no monopoly on violence. Police are only one state monopoly of violence, and usually not the greatest one. If I recall, unions used the opportunity to create violence in the absence of police deterrence. This is not something an anarcho-capitalist would participate in, because they reject aggression.


In conclusion, voluntaryism does not exist, there is no way to escape capitalism but revolution, or death.
I don't want to escape capitalism. I suspect you mean the left version of capitalism, which we call state socialism. Capitalism for me is private property ownership, necessary for a free market, or market anarchy. We can't trade voluntarily if we don't actually have clear title or ownership of what we trade.

I like capitalism. It means no one owns me.

[DixieFlatline]

Hey, idiot, anarchist communism.
Never met him.


Me.
I'm not worried then.


Somalia, any time the police have gone on strike.
When the police go on strike, that's not anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is the absence of aggressive force, or no institutional monopolies, including law, justice and enforcement.

Regardless, I think you should look up the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. What you were asking is unprovable because it is a logical fallacy.


By the way, if you really wanted to go off and play capitalism with your buddies, nobody is stopping you, but it's not a very fun game.
Well, the state is stopping us. It has the guns, and doesn't want us to have the capacity to defend ourselves. It doesn't want us to make our own laws, or keep the fruits of our own labour. It wants to redistribute our production to the parasite class. It has a territorial monopoly on force. It doesn't allow private ownership of property or absolute property rights. It claims to be our moral teacher as it slaughters innocents with its war machine. It supposes it can tell us who we can sleep with, get married to, or what we can put in our bodies.

This is not a capitalist system. Not by a long shot.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course an anarcho-communist society and an anarcho-capitalist society could "coexist" - in the sense that they could both exist on the same planet. As long as there is a clear border between them, any two societies of any kind can "coexist."

But I don't think we should tolerate the existence of anarcho-capitalism, for the same reason we should not tolerate the existence of slavery. Exploitation and private property over means of production are the source of all injustice, and must be eradicated everywhere.


Not "going to let". I cannot on principle oppose it. I believe in freedom to choose. That means you have the same freedom I ask for myself.
All property is a restriction on one's freedom to choose (yes, this includes both private and public property). The more objects you own, the less objects I can use. The less objects I can use, the less choices of action are available to me.


No, that is incorrect. You would not have to buy land. You could homestead it.
Really? Where? Antarctica? I wasn't aware there was any unowned land left on planet Earth, except the land that is buried under kilometers of ice.

Besides, in order to homestead land you must first reach it. Unless you happen to live right next to it, you must pay transportation costs to reach it. If it's on the other side of the planet, those costs may be far too high for most people to afford.


You don't have to participate in the capitalist marketplace if you do not want to.
True, you could choose to die.


Yes, a plot of land won't produce everything you need, and likewise the plots of land of others won't produce everything they need.
That's not the point. Even assuming everyone could get a plot of land, not anyone has the knowledge required to be a farmer. And even if you had it, you'd still need to buy seeds, and maybe water for irrigation, and animals, and so on.

Not playing by society's rules is not a real option. It is extremely difficult - for most people, utterly impossible - to be self-sufficient.


We're all different in how we define our needs and wants.
We all need food and clean water, in order to live. Most people cannot provide those things for themselves.


If you want internet, and cannot provide it for yourself, the only ethical way to acquire it from someone who has it, is to trade for it.
Assuming they have a right to exclude me from use of their internet.


The capitalists have no right to coerce your property, technology or labour from you.
"Rights" are only as good as the armed forces protecting them.


I don't need you to play by my moral code for me to have that code.
The same holds true for me. Unfortunately, our moral codes are incompatible. I do not mean simply that one person could not follow both codes at once. I mean that if I am able to follow my moral code to the fullest extent, and you are able to follow your moral code to the fullest extent, we cannot both continue to exist in the same universe.

There is nothing you could offer me in trade that would make me tolerate the existence of an anarcho-capitalist society, just like there is nothing you could offer me in trade that would make me tolerate the existence of slavery. I am not interested in negotiations. I am not interested in compromises. My goals absolutely require the negation of your goals.

So you see, our goals are irreconcilable. Either you forcibly restrain me, I forcibly restrain you, or a third force restrains both of us from following our goals (which is the case at present).

One of the underlying assumptions of some types of anarchism is that all people could have voluntary relations with each other. But that is not true. Sometimes, the contending goals of two people are such that voluntary relations between them are impossible.

By the way, out of curiosity, is there anything I could offer you in trade to make you support communism?


With me in particular, all you would have to do is ask for assistance or aid and I would probably do my best to accommodate.
Yet you would tolerate enormously wealthy people excluding impoverished workers from access to the most basic requirements of human survival.

Those who defend the rights of evil men to commit evil acts are themselves evil.


I reject coercion and state power absolutely. There is no other principled position for an anarchist.
The only way to eliminate coercion from the world is to eliminate all contact between human beings.


The cost in blood for him to initiate violence will be a deterrent.
That never seemed to be a deterrent for any fortune-seeking conquistador in the past.


I am happy you will not initiate violence with me. I want to be friends.
We cannot be friends while you advocate a society based on exploitation. I will refrain from initiating force against you only while the state prevents me from doing so.

If we were to live in an anarcho-capitalist society, I would attempt to form an armed group to destroy the private security agencies and replace them with a socialist state. If you were to attempt to stop this by force, I would attempt to kill you. I would prefer to use as little violence as possible, but I would be ready to use as much violence as necessary to achieve the goal.


Well, the state is stopping us. It has the guns, and doesn't want us to have the capacity to defend ourselves. It doesn't want us to make our own laws, or keep the fruits of our own labour.
I'll make you a deal: You get to keep as your private property absolutely everything that you can create using only your own labour and nothing else.

Good luck making something out of pure labour, though. Physical objects tend to be made of atoms - and you did not create those atoms out of nothing, so they do not belong to you.


It doesn't allow private ownership of property or absolute property rights.
Absolute property rights require absolute power on the part of the property holders. This is because all rights are only as strong as the armed forces defending them.


It claims to be our moral teacher as it slaughters innocents with its war machine.
Many more people die from easily preventable diseases than war. Many more people die from lack of state intervention than from too much state intervention.


I like capitalism. It means no one owns me.
No one owns you in socialism or communism either.

In my experience, most libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are driven by an intense dislike of the idea that other people have control over their lives. Unfortunately, this is a dislike of society itself. As long as you live with other people - as long as you trade with other people - you are necessarily influenced by their actions. Sometimes, they are in a position to dictate your actions by making you choose between following their orders and death (or unacceptable suffering).

If a man points a gun to your head and says "do what I say or die," or if a property owner denies you access to the resources you need in order to survive and says "do what I say or die," there is no difference. Your choice in both situations is between following orders and death. Any philosophy which suggests that you are somehow more "free" in the second situation is a philosophy divorced from reality.

[DixieFlatline]

But I don't think we should tolerate the existence of anarcho-capitalism, for the same reason we should not tolerate the existence of slavery. Exploitation and private property over means of production are the source of all injustice, and must be eradicated everywhere.
That's merely an argument against free choice. There is nothing to stop people from choosing anarcho-communism, but if they peacefully and voluntarily choose otherwise, (which means exploitation is a non-concept) then I don't see why you would have the moral authority to coerce them into doing something they don't want to do.

Now if you believe that violence is the appropriate way to order a society, then I have to yield to your perspective. My premise is that an involuntary society is a slave society.


All property is a restriction on one's freedom to choose (yes, this includes both private and public property). The more objects you own, the less objects I can use. The less objects I can use, the less choices of action are available to me.
Not really. Property is scarce as a function of nature. We don't live in a world without scarcity. There are material limits on everything including time (labour) as our lives are also finite.

You're assuming trade is a zero sum game. This is incorrect. When two people voluntarily trade, they only exchange because they feel they are both getting a good deal. You might want water right now, and I might want candy, an exchange leaves neither of us exploited as long as we agree on the exchange. In fact, we're both happy to have what we desired and the other person was willing to give up for something we perceived as having less value.


Really? Where? Antarctica? I wasn't aware there was any unowned land left on planet Earth, except the land that is buried under kilometers of ice.
There is lots of unowned land. All titles acquired through coercion are nullified post-state. If no one has a claim to that property, then it is open to the landless labourer class. And likewise, 2D land is so 20th century. We can build up property, go underground, live on the water, under the water, and soon, outside the atmosphere. The land scarcity problem will probably be seriously beat back this century or the next. The issue of land might not be an anachronism yet, but it will be one day.

Btw, I have dibs on McMurdo. I think it would be bad ass to live in Antarctica. Security would be very cheap.


Besides, in order to homestead land you must first reach it. Unless you happen to live right next to it, you must pay transportation costs to reach it. If it's on the other side of the planet, those costs may be far too high for most people to afford.
Sure, everyone has to pay a cost of transportation to travel. There are no free choices. Oil is not free to pump out of the ground, nor cars free to manufacture, or boats free to sail. There are resource costs for every action, even choosing to stay in place and establish a homesteading claim.


True, you could choose to die.
Or you could form a communist economy. All sorts of voluntary, non-violent choices are available.


That's not the point. Even assuming everyone could get a plot of land, not anyone has the knowledge required to be a farmer. And even if you had it, you'd still need to buy seeds, and maybe water for irrigation, and animals, and so on.
Sure, you're going to have that issue no matter what. Scarcity is an issue. Productive skills don't come with birth. Life is about a progression, even forgetting material goods, an accumulation of human capital, experiences, relationships, the refinement of talents, the mastery of mental acuity.


Not playing by society's rules is not a real option. It is extremely difficult - for most people, utterly impossible - to be self-sufficient.

We all need food and clean water, in order to live. Most people cannot provide those things for themselves.
Well, what is the alternative? You reject capitalism, which is my choice, but I can respect when you want to reject it, but now you lament that without the capitalist economy, then communists might not be able to provide for themselves.

Even if you get rid of all capitalists, someone in the enclave still has to figure out how to supply clean water and food. That problem isn't caused by capitalism, it is a natural condition of human existence.


Assuming they have a right to exclude me from use of their internet.
As much as you would have a right to exclude them from strip mining your commune.


"Rights" are only as good as the armed forces protecting them.
That's very true.


The same holds true for me. Unfortunately, our moral codes are incompatible. I do not mean simply that one person could not follow both codes at once. I mean that if I am able to follow my moral code to the fullest extent, and you are able to follow your moral code to the fullest extent, we cannot both continue to exist in the same universe.
My moral code is not to aggress (initiate force) against anyone else. If you are for aggression, then yes we will have problems. I don't know why left anarchists are inclined to use violence, as it is the very issue we all have with the state (capitalist or socialist). Violence is not a solution. Every violent revolution has just lead to more violence. It's how we are controlled by our masters. When we reject violence, and when we refuse to be cowed by it, even at the cost of our own lives, is when we truly become free.


There is nothing you could offer me in trade that would make me tolerate the existence of an anarcho-capitalist society, just like there is nothing you could offer me in trade that would make me tolerate the existence of slavery. I am not interested in negotiations. I am not interested in compromises. My goals absolutely require the negation of your goals.

So you see, our goals are irreconcilable. Either you forcibly restrain me, I forcibly restrain you, or a third force restrains both of us from following our goals (which is the case at present).
An anarcho-capitalist society is one based on peace. I cannot fathom why you would equate it with slavery, where it seeks to institutionalize that every man and woman is sovereign, whether they are black or asian, fat or skinny, healthy or sick, poor or rich. It says that no one has a higher claim on anyone else. Everyone has the highest claim on their own life and body and labour.


One of the underlying assumptions of some types of anarchism is that all people could have voluntary relations with each other. But that is not true. Sometimes, the contending goals of two people are such that voluntary relations between them are impossible.

By the way, out of curiosity, is there anything I could offer you in trade to make you support communism?
We can have voluntary relations if you believe in people interacting without being coerced with violence. If you believe violence is appropriate to make people behave in a "correct" manner, even if it is victimless and non-confrontational, then voluntarism must be impossible.

I don't like communism for five reasons.



I am fairly certain socialism cannot economically calculate scarcity.
I don't endorse the use of violence which is the basis for militarism and the pigs.
I don't agree with collectivism, I am a methodological individualist. I believe that society is made up of people, not people are made by society.
I subscribe to a natural rights theory of law.
I reject revolution in favour of of it's root, evolution.

If you can address any of those, that would move me much closer to communism.


Yet you would tolerate enormously wealthy people excluding impoverished workers from access to the most basic requirements of human survival.
Not at all. Enormously wealthy people in a free society have to be superior at providing for their fellow man. They can't steal or force people to do things by violence. Someone who is exclusionary in a market economy has less trading partners, and thus, less prosperity because they limit their access to the division of labour.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, any more than there is something wrong with winning a gold medal in a footrace, or getting the highest score on an exam. If it is done honestly.


The only way to eliminate coercion from the world is to eliminate all contact between human beings.
That doesn't validate the use of violence however. Our standard for behaviour cannot be defined by the lowest common denominators, those sociopaths with no respect for life.


That never seemed to be a deterrent for any fortune-seeking conquistador in the past.
You couldn't buy a spray bottle of mace for 1 hours wages in the past. You couldn't buy a gun with sufficient ammunition on a single day's wages in the past. Decent weaponry and armour were very expensive to produce. Thanks to capitalism, anyone can get materials for self-defense rather cheaply relative to their wage labour.

My friend, the world is improving. It may seem like a cesspool of evil and tyranny at times, but the good guys are winning. It is inevitable.


We cannot be friends while you advocate a society based on exploitation. I will refrain from initiating force against you only while the state prevents me from doing so.
I think I have addressed this already. I don't support exploitation. I absolutely oppose it. I oppose it more than you, as you would use force to coerce them, and that is exploitation in and of itself.

You are welcome to attack me when the state is gone, but I might make you a better offer of friendship, perhaps some of my legendary shrimp curry, or a bottle of fine Kirana brandy ;). Keep your options open.


If we were to live in an anarcho-capitalist society, I would attempt to form an armed group to destroy the private security agencies and replace them with a socialist state. If you were to attempt to stop this by force, I would attempt to kill you. I would prefer to use as little violence as possible, but I would be ready to use as much violence as necessary to achieve the goal.
A better idea would be to buy off my DRO or PDA. It's very expensive to wage war. Besides, you don't want to kill me. I'm a genius. I produce multiples of my consumption. You would definitely want to enslave me to increase the prosperity of the commune. Plus I know a little about growing vegetables.


No one owns you in socialism or communism either.
Sure they do. Under the state, no one has absolute freedom to live his own life as he wishes. Thus, he is enslaved. Enslaved to socialism, or communism, or more generally, collectivism, which is to say to his fellow man. There is a reason why you want to attack people who mean you no harm. You will only tolerate one system, and everyone else must be eliminated, and those within it, cannot have the option to leave and become capitalist, and are thus slaves.


In my experience, most libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are driven by an intense dislike of the idea that other people have control over their lives.
Yes, we reject all forms of slavery imposed on ourselves, and pledge to not impose slavery on any others as a matter of consistency in our principles.


Unfortunately, this is a dislike of society itself. As long as you live with other people - as long as you trade with other people - you are necessarily influenced by their actions.
We love society. We like a peaceful tolerant society where violence is abhorred and no one uses force to acquire monopoly.

We also love to trade, as long as no one is forcing us to do so with a gun to our head. The only difference between imperialism and socialism is who is holding the gun. We would rather that both parties are disarmed, or both parties have guns so the transaction is conducted on equal ground.


Sometimes, they are in a position to dictate your actions by making you choose between following their orders and death (or unacceptable suffering).
Generally, people don't do this to each other. There are bad people, and there will be bad people (attracted to the power of the state) in communism too. But generally, humans are not evil creatures. Children are not born into this world to eat their parents and destroy civilization. If you really believe that people are inherently this bad, then you definitely don't want to establish a monopoly society that includes them, and where they have always gravitated to seizing control of the state. Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Mao, Napoleon, Churchill, Lincoln, etc all had a thirst for death, tyranny and power. And the costs were millions and millions of lives.

That is why we favour political decentralization. So even if some strongman comes to power, it is not absolute power, and people have places to flee to from that strongman's tyranny.


If a man points a gun to your head and says "do what I say or die," or if a property owner denies you access to the resources you need in order to survive and says "do what I say or die," there is no difference.
There is a huge difference. One is the initiation of aggressive force, the other is not. No resources necessary for survival on this planet are ownable by one individual. Nature is abundant. It supplies what we need on almost every square inch of this planet.

There may be times when someone denies someone else access, but in a voluntary society, there are many ways around those issues. The only time I see this sort of exclusion, is when the state decides to punish people by refusing them trade, as the UN did to Iraq, and murdered 500,000 children under the age of 5 with economic sanctions.


Your choice in both situations is between following orders and death. Any philosophy which suggests that you are somehow more "free" in the second situation is a philosophy divorced from reality.
But you are free. You have other options. In the first scenario, you have only death as a second option. In the exclusion scenario, you are only being excluded from by one party, they are not directing you to die. You still have trade with others, your own creative capacity and production that can provide for your needs.

Good discussion. If you reply again, I might further reply by being selective. The conversation is starting to get too long to read in one sitting.

Thanks.

[Misanthrope]

Every communist revolution has been bloody, before, during and after. You don't see mass graves in America or Canada or France. Lots of mass graves in Asia and eastern Europe.


Sure you can. In a voluntary society, who could stop either?


Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Even if you could prove this (you can't), it wouldn't prove the inverse (that communism always results in no new state forming).

America, Canada and France have committed numerous crimes against humanity as well though. The state whether it has a hammer and sickle on its flag or stars and stripes commits horrendous crimes against society.

In a stateless society, I don't think socialism or capitalism can coexist. If more factories are owned by workers than not the workers in the capitalist factories will unionize and you know what happens from there. In a stateless society, if there are democratically managed factories they will most likely win the hearts of the exploited workers and win competitively in the market. In anarchic Spain, democratically managed factories experienced exponential growths in productivity.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying, I would never want to see another Soviet Union or Mao's China. I would much rather have an anarcho-capitalist society than a state socialist society.

[Octobox]

Jack: You do understand I was referring to Anarcho-Communism and not Big Gov't Communism that you support.

You "volunteer" to stop at lights -- to accept barter at flea markets -- You volunteer to marry -- You volunteer to pay for your meal.

Every form of volunterism is immediately followed by a cause-effect relationship -- reward / punishment.

Voluntarism can come Consciously or by Abdication of Self-Rule -- regardless, the compromise or agreement is yours.

It would be fun to debate with you if you weren't so hostile -- it makes you seem impatient. You don't have to follow my posts, no one is "following" me over you -- your voice is the loudest, hahaha.

Good Luck with that ;-)

[Octobox]

Oh, and a stateless society without communism or something similar always has resulted in chaos or a new state forming, prove me wrong.


Show me a communist society that has lead to anything less than massive death and gangsterism, hahaha.

There have been a few, but they are hardly worth mentioning owing to their isolationism.

I'm not advocating 100% Anarchist Societies -- at least not as a transitionary step from Corporatism (which is what we have in America right now).

I was just posting on A-Cap and A-Com -- just some thoughts, I was looking for discussion not verbal kung-fu with a defenseless opponent.

*wink*

Octo

[mykittyhasaboner]

Hahaha, too bad anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

This thread is pointless. How can one seriously propose anarchist-capitalism? It's such a joke.

[Octobox]

I disagree with this. Anarcho-capitalism allows for socialists enclaves and systems to form, but Anarcho-communism does not allow for capitalist enclaves and systems to form.

Dixie: A-Com cannot be "anarchist" (at all) if it is not "voluntary" -- but I agree with you A-Cap is freer - in theory. However, the A-Cap model for long-run property rights would require force -- that's #1. Also, the A-Cap model for "transition" is so full of holes regarding "how to" correct property disputes and then "how to" enforce them after (from Corporatism to A-Cap -- after the transition).


Anarcho-capitalism is merely a system of voluntarism based around the non-aggression principle. It is very simple, and fairly broad.

Yes -- I agree 100% with the Idealism -- It's when you meditate on how to implement it that things fall apart -- mostly around Property Rights.

Mobile property is easy -- both A-Cap and A-Com allow for personal assets as long as it either does not bind land or bind labor.



As soon as you institutionalize force, monopoly or property, you will destroy the freedom to choose Anarcho-communism.

I never suggested that -- I'm not sure where you are coming from, are you just stating a truism to build debate points, smile. Oh, okay -- I see your point. AGREED!


I personally do not like communism, socialism etc. But I have no beef with socialists who wish to pursue that social system provided they do not use violence against me and my property. I will trade and interact with them voluntarily as long as they are willing to do so.

AGREED! -- My property rights comment has more to do with the transition then anything. A-Cap also fails at river, lake, and ocean management.

In A-Cap you'd have to hire a militia or a court -- lopsided interests -- to "force" the change -- regarding polluting or dumping.


I think people get messed up with ancap, thinking it is more defined or narrow than it is. It isn't. It is about market anarchy. The market will decide outcomes, not guns, not mobs and not oligarchs or kings.

Dixie -- I never said I disagree with A-Cap in the market place -- My disagreement is the complete lack of meditation on property disputes (prior to trainsition and after) -- Also, pollution/dumping in rivers-oceans-lakes. You can privatize a lake (I guess) -- but even if you did see someone dump, with 100% protection of identity there's no way to arrest. You can only kidnap and detain.

Granted without Gov't Subsidized low-level products - oil - coal - plastics you might not have as much to dump. Nevertheless in A-Cap you'd need a private court and security firm to "prosecute" -- and that will lead to abuse of authority.


Octobox

[Misanthrope]

Hahaha, too bad anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

This thread is pointless. How can one seriously propose anarchist-capitalism? It's such a joke.

Please elaborate. I find it pretty practical, the services that a government provides can easily be provided by private industry. I'm not saying that is ideal though.

[Octobox]

Hahaha, too bad anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. This thread is pointless. How can one seriously propose anarchist-capitalism? It's such a joke.


A-Cap -- is anarchy (no-rule) regarding taxation -- anarchy regarding currency use -- anarchy in all markets (products - service).

What's hard to believe. Anarchism simply means "No Rule" or "No Authority"

Anarcho-Cap believes people will enter into voluntary contracts and on big ticket items will have a mediator who has power of attorny over both participants.

The problem I have with A-Cap is over long-run property rights -- long-run river and ocean management -- and the lack of a clear plan on how to transition from Corporatism to A-Cap.

I believe the transition needed is some form of Minarchism -- then as people got used to it a complete transition into some type of anarchism (or voluntarism). That first transition my take many decades.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Please elaborate. I find it pretty practical, the services that a government provides can easily be provided by private industry. I'm not saying that is ideal though.

Except if your operating a privately owned business, you have exploitation. Anarchism by definition implies the abolition of hierarchy, authority, exploitation, and oppression. You cannot have exploitation alongside supposed 'anarchy'.


A-Cap -- is anarchy (no-rule) regarding taxation -- anarchy regarding currency use -- anarchy in all markets (products - service).
What the fuck does this even mean? Is this a joke?



What's hard to believe. Anarchism simply means "No Rule" or "No Authority"
Anarchism, implies a society ruled by the worker's, where the capitalists have been abolished, as well as the state. As much as I disagree with anarchism on a theoretical level, it's certainly not as simple as "no rule" or "no authority", that is pure idealism.

How can you have "no rule or authority" when private owners have all the authority under your wonderfully hypothetical "a-cap" society?


Anarcho-Cap believes people will enter into voluntary contracts and on big ticket items will have a mediator who has power of attorny over both participants.
I don't care what "a-caps" believe. It's complete idealist nonsense.


The problem I have with A-Cap is over long-run property rights -- long-run river and ocean management -- and the lack of a clear plan on how to transition from Corporatism to A-Cap.

A plan of transition from 'corporatism' to "a-cap"? Hahahahah, that's rich.



I believe the transition needed is some form of Minarchism -- then as people got used to it a complete transition into some type of anarchism (or voluntarism). That first transition my take many decades.

All this talk of transition is preposterous; how is a society going to democratically manage this transition when there is no state and private businesses own the means of production?


....oh wait, this is all pointless anyways, because anarcho-capitalism doesn't even exist as a movement in the real world.

[Forward Union]

Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism are not Mutually Exclusive in a free-society.

http://img38.picoodle.com/img/img38/8/7/3/f_rasta1m_063560b.png

It's like Ying and Yang maaan

[Octobox]

Of course an anarcho-communist society and an anarcho-capitalist society could "coexist" - in the sense that they could both exist on the same planet. As long as there is a clear border between them, any two societies of any kind can "coexist."

"Border Control" is not consistent with Anarchy (of anykind) -- If Anarchy means "No Authority over the Individual"

We could assume that both demand voluntary borders, but the military needed to support such a thing functions best under top-down management. Therefore there must be some level of force.

Of course to transition from Corporatism to Anarchy I believe we need to move through a less "taxing" society that is relatively familiar. Such as a close to anarchy model as possible -- "Min-Archy" or "Minimal Authority"


But I don't think we should tolerate the existence of anarcho-capitalism, for the same reason we should not tolerate the existence of slavery. Exploitation and private property over means of production are the source of all injustice, and must be eradicated everywhere.

"None Tolerance" of course is a model of aggression -- good luck with that one. So far, all forms of aggressive gov'ts are failing; mostly because to succeed they need to grow and spread. More taxes -- More Resources -- More Hegemony.



All property is a restriction on one's freedom to choose (yes, this includes both private and public property). The more objects you own, the less objects I can use. The less objects I can use, the less choices of action are available to me.

I don't agree with A-Cap in regard to property rights.

I think A-Cap property rights can work in "communities" after all property disputes are handled (prior to transition from Corporatism to A-Capitalism). I've explained why back a few pages.

A-Communism says people can own private property as long as its regarding "use" -- (including small plots for food production or living). But, all property used to build "wealth" cannot be owned by any individual. There's a non-hording clause -- which is a righteous theory. However, in an A-Cap society the only way to have profit bursts is by way of entrepreneurialism or intrapreneurialism. There's no other way.

So, having wealth locked up in property would not be wise for the wealthy -- when there is perfect competitition in currency there is less fluctuation in "real" value -- property value is based on currency valuation. As we can see in the U.S. As Fed Bankers destroy dollar the housing market (in real dollars -- purchasing power).

Octobox

[Octobox]

mykittyhasaboner: Except if your operating a privately owned business, you have exploitation. Anarchism by definition implies the abolition of hierarchy, authority, exploitation, and oppression. You cannot have exploitation alongside supposed 'anarchy'.


Octobox: Consumers are the only true "individuals" -- everyone is a consumer (during every single day) -- protect the consumer - by removing all "rights" (by gov't fiat - credit - force - regulation - subsidization) and by removing all "rights" (by gov't fiat credit - force - regulation - subsidization) and you will have a free-society.

The "owner" would "own assets" for the purpose of pleasing the consumer. And the worker (in an A-Cap society) would not be an "slave" he would be a sub-contractor -- he would contract with the owner only to get pass-thru earnings from the consumer. The consumer then (the only individual) is King -- as long as there is ZERO Gov't Force -- ZERO Gov't Regulatory Favoritism -- and ZERO Gov't Advantages given to either OWNER or Sub-Contractor (worker in a free-society).

[Octobox]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octobox http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-and-t111263/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-and-t111263/showthread.php?p=1470999#post1470999)
A-Cap -- is anarchy (no-rule) regarding taxation -- anarchy regarding currency use -- anarchy in all markets (products - service).

mykittyhasaboner (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-and-t111263/member.php?u=15799) What the fuck does this even mean? Is this a joke?


Quote:
What's hard to believe. Anarchism simply means "No Rule" or "No Authority"

mykittyhasaboner (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-and-t111263/member.php?u=15799) Anarchism, implies a society ruled by the worker's, where the capitalists have been abolished, as well as the state. As much as I disagree with anarchism on a theoretical level, it's certainly not as simple as "no rule" or "no authority", that is pure idealism.

I'm sorry there is the original greek root word definition then there is fantasical reinterpretation.

Greek Root Words: "An" (meaning NOT) and "Archos" (meaning AUTHORITY)

It was originally used to refer to "self-rule" -- so, it is defined as "No Authority over the Individual"

You can't change the original meaning of words -- no matter the strength of the prolitariate book burners -- hahahaha.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

DixieFlatline, thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. I will attempt to answer every one of your points, though I'm sure this will take a long time and result in an enormous post. You've been rather polite and reasonable, so I will return the favour.


That's merely an argument against free choice. There is nothing to stop people from choosing anarcho-communism, but if they peacefully and voluntarily choose otherwise, (which means exploitation is a non-concept) then I don't see why you would have the moral authority to coerce them into doing something they don't want to do.
However, if a majority of the people living under anarcho-capitalism say "I wish I lived in a different kind of society, but I do not have the wealth to make that happen" - which I believe to be a near certainty - then I do have the moral authority, and the moral obligation, to use every means at my disposal to help these people.

Military intervention may not be necessary. We may be able to destroy anarcho-capitalism simply by granting all the workers in the ancap society asylum, and thus starving their bosses of labour. But that might take too long, and there is no reason why those workers should need to abandon their homes just to escape the tyranny of property. Also, their oppressors need to be brought to justice. For these reasons, if I lived in a communist society with an ancap one next door, I would be an outspoken advocate of the military solution.

Carthago delenda est! ;)


Now if you believe that violence is the appropriate way to order a society, then I have to yield to your perspective. My premise is that an involuntary society is a slave society.
I do not believe that coercion is a binary issue. I do not believe that something must be either voluntary or involuntary. I believe there is a continuum of "voluntary-ness," so to speak.

I define this "voluntary-ness," or the level of coercion, based on the number of acceptable alternatives available to a person making a choice. The more acceptable alternatives you have, the freer your choice.

In order for something to be truly and absolutely voluntary, it must be a choice between infinite alternatives. Such a thing is clearly impossible, so, in this sense, a voluntary society is impossible. If your number of choices is reduced for any reason - because someone put a gun to your head, because private property prevents you from using certain objects, or because you're trapped at the bottom of a pit - then you are less free. The more your choices are reduced, the less freedom you have (thus, for example, a gun to your head does reduce your freedom more than private property, but they both act to reduce your freedom).


Not really. Property is scarce as a function of nature. We don't live in a world without scarcity. There are material limits on everything including time (labour) as our lives are also finite.
Scarcity is a function of nature, but scarcity does not dictate who gets to own what. The more your own, the greater your freedom, and the lower my freedom. Since I believe people should have equal freedom, I believe people should be equal in terms of property ownership.


You're assuming trade is a zero sum game.
No. Did I say anything about trade? I'm talking about property ownership. The situation is unjust before any trade occurs.


When two people voluntarily trade, they only exchange because they feel they are both getting a good deal. You might want water right now, and I might want candy, an exchange leaves neither of us exploited as long as we agree on the exchange.
That's a ridiculously simplistic view. You are denying the possibility of extortion. Or in other words, you are saying there is nothing morally wrong with blackmail.

If you have a choice between death and a trade that involves giving all your property to me in exchange for your life, you will feel that the trade gives you a "good deal," in the sense that it's better than the alternative. Does that make it just? Of course not. A trade is perfectly just only when the two parties are faced with a precisely equal number of alternatives. The greater the difference between your number of trading alternatives and my number of trading alternatives, the more the trade is unbalanced to the advantage of the person with more alternatives.


There is lots of unowned land. All titles acquired through coercion are nullified post-state.
You mean, something like 99% of all currently existing property titles?

That would create lots of unowned land, true. It would also create a mad rush to homestead as much land as possible as quickly as possible. Within a generation, there would be no unowned land left and we would be back where we are now.


And likewise, 2D land is so 20th century. We can build up property, go underground, live on the water, under the water, and soon, outside the atmosphere.
Which costs money. A hell of a lot of money.

Seriously, you ancaps need to stop thinking about your future society as if everyone will have an infinite amount of money at their disposal to buy anything they wish.


Or you could form a communist economy. All sorts of voluntary, non-violent choices are available.
You cannot form a communist economy if the people wishing to form such an economy do not have sufficient wealth to buy means of production. I mean, that's exactly the case right now! You think I wouldn't want to live in a socialist country? But me and my comrades can't exactly afford to buy a country-sized patch of land complete with factories (even assuming the state would let us do it).


Sure, you're going to have that issue no matter what. Scarcity is an issue. Productive skills don't come with birth. Life is about a progression, even forgetting material goods, an accumulation of human capital, experiences, relationships, the refinement of talents, the mastery of mental acuity.
Yes, precisely. People will always depend on each other for survival. The idea of the independent individual is a myth.


Well, what is the alternative? You reject capitalism, which is my choice, but I can respect when you want to reject it, but now you lament that without the capitalist economy, then communists might not be able to provide for themselves.
I lament that without the larger industrial economy, a small enclave of any kind will not be able to provide for itself. Capitalism or communism have nothing to do with it. A capitalist enclave in a communist economy would be just as unable to provide for itself.

And that means that the idea of creating enclaves to implement your preferred economic system is a mirage. An viable economic system has a certain minimum size. A minority that is not large enough to create a viable economic system by itself has no choice but to live under the system decided by the majority.


Even if you get rid of all capitalists, someone in the enclave still has to figure out how to supply clean water and food. That problem isn't caused by capitalism, it is a natural condition of human existence.
Of course the problem isn't caused by capitalists! I never said it was. The problem is caused by capitalism. The problem is caused by the current economic system, not by the people who happen to profit from that system. Getting rid of the capitalists would solve nothing.


My moral code is not to aggress (initiate force) against anyone else. If you are for aggression, then yes we will have problems. I don't know why left anarchists are inclined to use violence...
Opposition to aggression cannot generate a coherent moral code all by itself. If I destroy your barn, was that aggression? It depends on who rightfully owns the land under the barn. You can't just be opposed to aggression. You also need to define who has a rightful moral claim to which objects.

You ancaps oppose aggression, but support private property. Left-anarchists also oppose aggression, but believe all private property claims are an illegitimate way to exclude people from the use of land or various objects. Thus, from their point of view, all the violence they use is retaliatory and not aggressive.

For my part, I do not oppose aggression. I am a consequentialist (utilitarian, to be precise). I believe aggression can be good or bad, depending on its consequences. Therefore, sometimes I am for aggression and sometimes I am against it.

Of course, I am not an anarchist of any kind. I proudly wear the badge of a "state socialist."


Every violent revolution has just lead to more violence.
Since a society without violence is impossible, of course it has.


An anarcho-capitalist society is one based on peace.
Bullshit, and you know it. You don't oppose violence, you only oppose the "initiation" of violence. You have no objection to armed thugs protecting the property of the rich against the starving masses. You have no objection to those armed thugs shooting unarmed civilians if those civilians try to seize some of the property of the rich in order to survive.


I cannot fathom why you would equate it with slavery...
Because both slavery and anarcho-capitalism enable some people to use their property rights to have absolute control over the lives of others.


We can have voluntary relations if you believe in people interacting without being coerced with violence.
And if I don't believe that private property is legitimate, because (among other things), homesteading is not a legitimate way to acquire property?


If you believe violence is appropriate to make people behave in a "correct" manner, even if it is victimless and non-confrontational, then voluntarism must be impossible.
Very few things are truly victimless. In order for your activity to be victimless, it must be of such nature that it makes no difference to me whether you perform that activity or simply vanish into thin air.

Taking drugs or having sex with whoever you want is truly victimless, because whether you do those things or anything else in your home, it has no impact on me whatsoever.

However, your economic activity does have an impact on me, and a very big one, as long as we both work and trade within the same economic system (i.e. as long as you trade with some people who trade with other people who trade with me).


I don't like communism for five reasons.

* I am fairly certain socialism cannot economically calculate scarcity.
* I don't endorse the use of violence which is the basis for militarism and the pigs.
* I don't agree with collectivism, I am a methodological individualist. I believe that society is made up of people, not people are made by society.
* I subscribe to a natural rights theory of law.
* I reject revolution in favour of of it's root, evolution.

If you can address any of those, that would move me much closer to communism.
1. As you probably know, I cannot pretend to address the economic calculation problem without writing at least an essay about twice the size of this post. However, I would like to make a few points and raise a few questions. First, the entire economic calculation debate after Lange pretty much hinges on the nature of human knowledge and its use in the economy. The secondary Austrian argument that socialists could not plan the economy even if they had the required information has now become completely obsolete, due to computer technology.

The Austrian case now relies on the existence, and importance, of economic information that cannot be centralized. For you to be right, it is not enough for such information to exist. It must have such crucial importance that one cannot build a good enough approximate plan without having this information. Do you have any reason to believe that this information is indeed as important as you claim?

Also, bear in mind that planners do not need to know how a certain task is done, as long as they know who can do it, how quickly they can do it, and what inputs they need.

2. Presumably you do endorse the use of retaliatory violence, and you merely oppose the initiation of violence. But, as I pointed out above, the same act of violence may be initiation or retaliation depending on the property rights involved. Therefore, the issue of violence is really irrelevant between us. We are separated by our views of property rights. From my view of property rights, all the violence I support is retaliatory.

3. Methodological individualism seems to fly in the face of everything we know about the universe. It relies on the idea that human action is uncaused. Every physical process we know is either fully deterministic or random. For methodological individualism to be correct, human action must be neither. This is an extraordinary claim. I see no extraordinary evidence.

4. Some of my comrades (though not myself) also subscribe to a natural rights theory of law. Natural rights, by themselves, do not imply capitalism. Natural rights plus the homestead principle imply capitalism. You can subscribe to a natural rights theory of law and reject capitalism as long as you reject the homestead principle. This can be done either by (a) pointing out that there is no reason why combining something owned (labour) with something unowned should result in a product that is owned, or (b) arguing that land ownership is only legitimate as long as the owner continues to use the land - mixing your labour with it once and then forgetting about it isn't good enough.

5. I believe revolution is simply much more effective in bringing about change - any kind of change, for better or for worse. I think the historical record proves this.


You couldn't buy a spray bottle of mace for 1 hours wages in the past. You couldn't buy a gun with sufficient ammunition on a single day's wages in the past. Decent weaponry and armour were very expensive to produce. Thanks to capitalism, anyone can get materials for self-defense rather cheaply relative to their wage labour.
True. But also thanks to capitalism, there are many new and devastating weapons for the rich and powerful: Tanks, artillery, fighter planes, helicopters, smart missiles, advanced sniper rifles...

There is an arms race between the weapons of the people and the weapons of the elite. I'm not sure if we are in a better or worse position in this arms race than 500 years ago.


My friend, the world is improving. It may seem like a cesspool of evil and tyranny at times, but the good guys are winning. It is inevitable.
Now you're starting to sound like Marx. ;)


There is a reason why you want to attack people who mean you no harm.
To the extent that you want to exclude me from the use of means of production that you deem to be your private property, you do mean me harm.

Private property over a certain piece of capital harms all those who do not own said piece of capital.


You will only tolerate one system, and everyone else must be eliminated, and those within it, cannot have the option to leave and become capitalist, and are thus slaves.
Actually, those within my preferred communist system will have the option to leave and become capitalist. As long as they do not take any of our collective property with them, as long as they do not wish to claim any land as their exclusive private property, and as long as their children will be free to reject capitalism.

I want all existing means of production to become collective property. If, at some point, you want to break away from the socialist or communist society and build your own means of production from scratch, you are welcome to do so. You will have to reach some sort of agreement with the collective for your raw materials, but that can be done on a voluntary basis.

I would never advocate military intervention against a capitalist society made up entirely of people who chose to be there. I start advocating military intervention when there are people who were born into capitalism and do not have any easy way to reject capitalist society.


We love society. We like a peaceful tolerant society where violence is abhorred and no one uses force to acquire monopoly.
Private property is enforced by violence and therefore a society based on private property is a society based on violence.

But I've said this already, haven't I? I'll stop repeating myself. You should also stop repeating yourself with all the stuff about how peaceful you supposedly are.


Generally, people don't do this to each other. There are bad people, and there will be bad people (attracted to the power of the state) in communism too. But generally, humans are not evil creatures. Children are not born into this world to eat their parents and destroy civilization. If you really believe that people are inherently this bad, then you definitely don't want to establish a monopoly society that includes them, and where they have always gravitated to seizing control of the state.
Generally, humans follow their own personal interests. And generally, if a person's pursuit of her own interests will cause some harm to others, this person will continue to pursue her interests regardless. In other words, most people do not intentionally set out to do anything evil, but are willing to commit evil deeds if these deeds will benefit them personally.

What keeps evil at bay is society. When a person openly commits an evil deed, others will tend to ally against this person, and make her pay. If we are to have a society where evil is kept in check, we must allow society to punish evil individuals in this manner. My fundamental belief about the relation of humanity to evil is this: People want to be able to do evil things themselves, but they do not want anyone else to be able to do anything evil.

That is why I want people to have some control over each other. I do not want one person, or one group, to have control over everyone else. I want every person to have an equal amount of control over every other person. Thus I am a collectivist.

I do not like to speak in terms of ownership, but you could visualize what I am talking about as follows: Instead of you owning yourself, you own an equal share in yourself and in everyone else of the planet. If there are six billion people on Earth, then you own a six-billionth of each person. (of course, that is not a good representation of everything I believe, since I do think there are some matters in which you ought to have full sovereignty over yourself, but it is a close enough approximation)


But you are free. You have other options.
Other options. Other options... So, perhaps on some instinctive level, you agree with the view of freedom I presented at the beginning of this post. Your degree of freedom depends on how many options you have. Anything that reduces your number of options - be it the state or private property - reduces your freedom.

Whew, that was a long post. Feel free to reply to it selectively. :)

[trivas7]

Of course, I am not an anarchist of any kind. I proudly wear the badge of a "state socialist."

Wow, not only are you a statist, this makes you an anti-communist.


Since a society without violence is impossible, of course it has.
This has been historically true. Why do you believe this is categorically true?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Octobox: Consumers are the only true "individuals" -- everyone is a consumer (during every single day) -- protect the consumer - by removing all "rights" (by gov't fiat - credit - force - regulation - subsidization) and by removing all "rights" (by gov't fiat credit - force - regulation - subsidization) and you will have a free-society.

The "owner" would "own assets" for the purpose of pleasing the consumer. And the worker (in an A-Cap society) would not be an "slave" he would be a sub-contractor -- he would contract with the owner only to get pass-thru earnings from the consumer. The consumer then (the only individual) is King -- as long as there is ZERO Gov't Force -- ZERO Gov't Regulatory Favoritism -- and ZERO Gov't Advantages given to either OWNER or Sub-Contractor (worker in a free-society).

All this is a load of garbage that doesn't explain a single thing. It's almost like your talking straight out of your ass, as there is no realistic example nor possibility of the government simply being abolished, and then all of the sudden "we have a free society". Your little "explanation" also completely forgoes any mention of production or ownership of production.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Octobox http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-and-t111263/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-and-t111263/showthread.php?p=1470999#post1470999)
A-Cap -- is anarchy (no-rule) regarding taxation -- anarchy regarding currency use -- anarchy in all markets (products - service).



Quote:
What's hard to believe. Anarchism simply means "No Rule" or "No Authority"


I'm sorry there is the original greek root word definition then there is fantasical reinterpretation.

Greek Root Words: "An" (meaning NOT) and "Archos" (meaning AUTHORITY)

It was originally used to refer to "self-rule" -- so, it is defined as "No Authority over the Individual"

You can't change the original meaning of words -- no matter the strength of the prolitariate book burners -- hahahaha.

This proves your simply an idealist who think a specific use of a word can justify the validity of some ridiculous hypothetical economic system. I didn't change any definition of any word; ask any real anarchist what 'anarchism' means and I doubt it will be a simple "no rules or authority".

[trivas7]

This proves your simply an idealist who think a specific use of a word can justify the validity of some ridiculous hypothetical economic system. I didn't change any definition of any word; ask any real anarchist what 'anarchism' means and I doubt it will be a simple "no rules or authority".
Wow, Pot say hello to kettle.

[Jack]

Jack: You do understand I was referring to Anarcho-Communism and not Big Gov't Communism that you support.

No. If you would kindly note the person in my picture is an anarchist, I am a member of the anarchist group, and if you would look outside OI you will see I constantly jab at Leninists.

[Havet]

quote from Kwisatz Haderach (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=8782)


The more your own, the greater your freedom, and the lower my freedom.For anyone caring, this is the biggest mistake and the biggest fallacy most people believe in life: Life Is a Zero Sum Game

Interesting article on subject:

"Life is not a zero-sum game. We can all come out ahead.

Personal growth, social advancement, cultural progress are not zero-sum. We can move forward on all fronts, creating new territory, expanding limits, broadening boundaries, and surpassing old frontiers.

The course of human history, both evolutionary and cultural, has been one of betterment—of becoming, by our own lights, more than we had been before. That is not zero-sum, and neither is life.
Game theory, from which the zero-sum concept arose, starts with two and expands. It’s not so different in life. Two is the smallest number in a relationship. And being a religion of ethical relationships, two is the smallest number in Ethical Culture. The largest, if I’m up to date on my global population figures, is something on the order of six and a half billion people.

Game theory applies to some very serious things not generally considered games, like war. But it doesn’t apply to some other things. Take economics, for example. Sure, you can take a “the rich get rich and the poor get poorer” approach, which is a pretty easy sell in this era of the millionaire next door, but it’s really not true.

We have democracy and we have capitalism. For good or for bad, and there’s some of both in each, they are our political and economic systems. But how do they play out in our personal and public lives?
Look back 100 years. Solid comparative figures are hard to come by but in 1906, poverty in the USA stood at something above 40% and unemployment at something less than 2%. People were working but, they weren’t very well off. Survival, not advancement, was the concern of nearly half our citizenry.

Flash forward a century. Unemployment is about the same, but the poverty figure has fallen dramatically to roughly 12%—less that a third of that of a century ago—even though the criteria for poverty have risen."

Nobody else needs to lose in order for you to win. Get that into your head, and things get easier.


In other words, most people here think life is a zero-sum game. If I profit from selling you a pair of shoes, a newspaper or a motor car, then you have "lost". If you are poor, your poverty must be caused by my wealth, and vice versa. No-where in most people mental universe is the idea entertained that both sides in a trade gain, since why else would they trade in the first place? In your world, no wealth is really ever created, just redistributed or grabbed by one group from another. Your world is essentially closed. It is not surprising that a world fashioned according to such beliefs will be marked by stasis and decline. If we were to accept your take on capitalism, the history of mankind and its staggering increase in wealth at all levels would be incomprehensible.

Not wanting to leave anyone without more info:

Wealth Is Demonstrably Not Zero-Sum

First, lets ask the related question: Is wealth zero sum and is society, or at least the material portions of society, always in decline? No.

Lets compare the life of an average American in 1900 and today. On every dimension you can think of, we all are orders of magnitude wealthier today (by wealth, I mean the term broadly. I mean not just cash, like Scrooge McDuck’s big vault, but also lifespan, healthiness, leisure time, quality of life, etc).


Life expectancy has increase from 47 to 77 years
Infant mortality rates have fallen from one in ten to one in 150.
Average income - in real dollars - has risen from $4,748 to $32,444

In 1900, the average person started their working life at 13, worked 10 hours a day, six days a week with no real vacation right up to the day they died in their mid-forties. Today, the average person works 8 hours a day for five days a week and gets 2-3 weeks of vacation. They work from the age of 18, and sometimes start work as late as 25, and typically take at least 10 years of retirement before they die.
But what about the poor? Well, the poor are certainly wealthier today than the poor were in 1900. But in many ways, the poor are wealthier (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm) even than the “robber barons (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/02/in_praise_of_ro.html)” of the 19th century: Just check out this comparison (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/a_zerosum_wealt.html)! Today, even people below the poverty line have a good chance to live past 70. 99% of those below the poverty line in the US have electricity, running water, flush toilets, and a refrigerator. 95% have a TV, 88% have a phone, 71% have a car, and 70%have air conditioning. Cornelius Vanderbilt had none of these, and his children only got running water and electricity later in life.


To anticipate the zero-summer’s response, I presume they would argue that the US somehow did this by “exploiting” other countries. Its hard to imagine the mechanism for this, especially since the US did not have a colonial empire like France or Britain (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2004/10/french_vs_anglo.html), and in fact the US net gave away more wealth to other nations in the last century (in the form of outright grants as well as money and lives spent in their defense) than every other nation on earth combined. I won’t go into the detailed proof here, but you can do the same analysis we did for the US for every country in the world: Virtually no one has gotten worse, and 99.9% of the people of the world are at least as wealthy (again in the broad sense) or wealthier than in 1900. Yes, some have slipped in relative terms vs. the richest nations, but everyone is up on an absolute basis.


To balance the wealth equation, there must be a huge reservoir out there of potential energy, or I guess you would call it potential wealth. This source is the human mind. All wealth flows from the human mind, and that source of energy is also unreasonably large, much larger than most people imagine. But you might say - that can’t be right. What about gold, that’s wealth isn’t it, and it just comes out of the ground. Yes, it comes out of the ground, but how? And where?


Someone had to use his mind to know how to find the gold and how to extract it.



here's an interesting anecdote on the subject:

Hanging out at the beach one day with a distant family member, we got into a discussion about capitalism and socialism. In particular, we were arguing about whether brute labor, as socialism teaches, is the source of all wealth (which, socialism further argues, is in turn stolen by the capitalist masters). The young woman, as were most people her age, was taught mainly by the socialists who dominate college academia nowadays. I was trying to find a way to connect with her, to get her to question her assumptions, but was struggling because she really had not been taught many of the fundamental building blocks of either philosophy or economics, but rather a mish-mash of politically correct points of view that seem to substitute nowadays for both.
I picked up a handful of sand, and said “this is almost pure silicon, virtually identical to what powers a computer. Take as much labor as you want, and build me a computer with it — the only limitation is you can only have true manual laborers - no engineers or managers or other capitalist lackeys”.
She replied that my request was BS, that it took a lot of money to build an electronics plant, and her group of laborers didn’t have any and bankers would never lend them any.
I told her - assume for our discussion that I have tons of money, and I will give you and your laborers as much as you need. The only restriction I put on it is that you may only buy raw materials - steel, land, silicon - in their crudest forms. It is up to you to assemble these raw materials, with your laborers, to build the factory and make me my computer.

She thought for a few seconds, and responded “but I can’t - I don’t know how. I need someone to tell me how to do it”

The only real difference between beach sand, worth $0, and a microchip, worth thousands of dollars a gram, is what the human mind has added.



Complementing link whre i've taken most of the arguments: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/wealth_creation.html

Enjoy

[mikelepore]

How can one seriously propose anarchist-capitalism? It's such a joke.

Someone may try it for about three minutes. Then some hungry person would run off with a loaf of bread without having the money to put down. The propertied class would realize that there is no state power to track down and capture the dangerous person --- and that would mark the sudden end of the experiment in anarchist-capitalism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Wow, Pot say hello to kettle.
Mind making a relevant comment or argument?

[Octobox]

Someone may try it for about three minutes. Then some hungry person would run off with a loaf of bread without having the money to put down. The propertied class would realize that there is no state power to track down and capture the dangerous person --- and that would mark the sudden end of the experiment in anarchist-capitalism.

I do not really support A-Cap, at least not as a transitionary model from American Corporatism (linked with World Banking Hegemony) to 100% Anarchy (whatever the type).

I believe that a "form" of Minarcism (min-archos or minimal authority) would be the best transitionary model (for Americans) since it would allow them "a lessoning" of Big Gov't (which is a hinderance to creativity and innovation -- it is a monopoly). This could be worked out in stages.

The first thing that needs to be done is to close all foreign military bases and bring all troops home. This will save $1T per year as long as we do not allow Obomba to roll it into a phony universal health care ponzy or CO2 wealth transfer schema.

If we could reduce gov't spending to 2000 budget level and keep all the war money (eliminate the CIA entirely) we'd be sitting pretty fat and we could keep all the welfare programs.

If we could eventually work the Min-Archos (Minarchy) down to only a 7-12% (in total) tax system (keeping our Army and Air Guard protecting our borders AND keeping our Navy protecting our waters) we'd be able to have all social-product-service industries in "relative" anarchy (pure competition) with no negative side effects.

Once the elite are forced to look to the only wealth drivers in a 88-93% Anarchy or very low tax Minarchy (less the national and state sales tax to run navy-army-air guard/search&rescue) -- the only profit driver left (without protectionism / interventionism on the part of gov't) is entrepreneurialism/intrapreneurialism. The latter two come predominately from the highest producing business start-ups / innovation / r&d from three main groups (by class-race-degree) are immigrants, blacks, and engineers.

It would probably take the worlds elite 50 to 100 years to let go of the past mechanisms of control -- to become adaptive investors rather than control freaks.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

For anyone caring, this is the biggest mistake and the biggest fallacy most people believe in life: Life Is a Zero Sum Game

[article follows]
First of all, your article was talking about wealth, whereas I was talking about freedom. Freedom is a zero-sum game, regardless of what may be the case with wealth.

Second, it is perfectly true that wealth is not a zero-sum game in the long run. There may be more wealth in the future, thus opening up the possibility for everyone to get richer (this is only a possibility, not a guarantee, mind you). But wealth IS a zero-sum game at any given point in time. Right now, if you suddenly get $100 in the next second, the rest of the world will be $100 poorer. Sure, the rest of the world may recover this loss in time, but until then, it will be poorer.

It may be true that, in 1000 years, even the poorest person will be filthy rich by present-day standards. But I don't care how much wealth people might have in 1000 years. I care how much wealth they have NOW.

You see, the exploited, downtrodden and starving people of the world don't have the luxury of waiting around a few centuries for things to get better. In the long run, all sorts of things might happen. But as Keynes pointed out: In the long run, we're all dead.

[trivas7]

First of all, your article was talking about wealth, whereas I was talking about freedom. Freedom is a zero-sum game, regardless of what may be the case with wealth.

Define wealth, freedom.

[Havet]

First of all, your article was talking about wealth, whereas I was talking about freedom. Freedom is a zero-sum game, regardless of what may be the case with wealth.

FIne, i'll accept that you were indeed talking of freedom.


Second, it is perfectly true that wealth is not a zero-sum game in the long run. There may be more wealth in the future, thus opening up the possibility for everyone to get richer (this is only a possibility, not a guarantee, mind you). But wealth IS a zero-sum game at any given point in time. Right now, if you suddenly get $100 in the next second, the rest of the world will be $100 poorer. Sure, the rest of the world may recover this loss in time, but until then, it will be poorer.

haha

First of all, i do not need to steal, murder or enslave to make 100$, in case you were implicitly suggesting it.

let's talk about property: i am walking in nobody's property and a find a big chunk of wood. I walk some more and i find a couple of rocks. I will now proceed to make a chair:

i hit the rocks into each other in such a way i can now use them to carve wood. I now take the wood and carve it in such a way i produce a chair. Notice how it was not ONLY PHYSICAL LABOUR that produced the chair, my MIND was the most important part.

Since the chair is a result of my labor, i own the chair.

I arrive at a village where nobody ever saw a chair, and suddenly they realize the greatness of my invention and they trade food they grew for my chair. For sake of argument let's assume my design is so innovative it wouldve actually been worth 100$, because the people in that village were actually willing to give me 100$

HOW IS THE WORLD 100$ POORER?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Define wealth, freedom.
Wealth: The total value of goods and services available for use by a certain person or group.

Freedom: Having power to determine the course of one's own life. The more a person's life depends on that person's decisions, the greater freedom that person has. Absolute freedom requires omnipotence, since only an omnipotent being can have complete control over everything that happens to it. Freedom can be reduced by other people as well as by nature.

In reply to some of your previous points:


Wow, not only are you a statist, this makes you an anti-communist.
You misunderstand. I am a communist because I oppose the thing called "the state" by Marxists. I oppose any organization that enforces the rule of one class over another. I oppose any social hierarchy.

But as far as right-libertarians are concerned, I am a "state socialist," because I support the thing they call "the state." I believe there ought to be an organization with a monopoly over the legitimate use of force. In communism, this organization would consist of the entire community, organized as a democratic collective.


This [the idea that a society without violence is impossible] has been historically true. Why do you believe this is categorically true?
People have different goals. Some of those goals are mutually exclusive. Whenever two people have mutually exclusive goals that neither of them is willing to give up, violence (or the threat of violence) is inevitable.

A society without violence would require either (a) people that never have mutually exclusive goals, and/or (b) people that are always willing to give up any of their goals, under the right conditions. I don't think either of those requirements is remotely plausible.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

First of all, i do not need to steal, murder or enslave to make 100$, in case you were implicitly suggesting it.
I wasn't. I was thinking of you randomly finding $100 on the street, actually.


let's talk about property: i am walking in nobody's property and a find a big chunk of wood. I walk some more and i find a couple of rocks. I will now proceed to make a chair
I said "if you suddenly get $100 in the next second." What you are describing takes more than a second.

Sure you can create wealth. My point was that creation of wealth takes time. You have not refuted that point. The total wealth available at time t=t0 is fixed.


Since the chair is a result of my labor, i own the chair.
No. The chair is composed of your labour plus natural resources. Even assuming the natural resources are "unowned" (which, by the way, I do not agree that they are), why should owned + unowned = owned?

[Havet]

I wasn't. I was thinking of you randomly finding $100 on the street, actually.

Even so, i would only be making one person poorer: the person who lost the $100 in the street.



I said "if you suddenly get $100 in the next second." What you are describing takes more than a second.

Sure you can create wealth. My point was that creation of wealth takes time. You have not refuted that point. The total wealth available at time t=t0 is fixed.

Well, you cannot produce wealth in a second, so in your case wealth can never be produced, only lost/found and/or stolen.

in any case, your arguments are confusing. First you claim you are only concerned with wealth at t=0, that is, in any given INSTANCE, which is of course useless. It add nothing to the point i was refuting, which was that wealth is a zero-sum game.

You have only claimed it is a zero sum game, without backing up how is society made poorer by this.



No. The chair is composed of your labour plus natural resources. Even assuming the natural resources are "unowned" (which, by the way, I do not agree that they are), why should owned + unowned = owned?

I have found natural resources which nobody owned and nobody was using. I then engage in applying my labor to them and modify them. Since they are now the product of my labor, i don't own them? Why? When can things be owned? Never? Why? If you are implying things can't be owned, then certainly you wouldn't mind me dropping by where you are right now and taking off your clothes - you do not own them, taking your food - you do not own them as well, and kicking you out of wherever you are living - you do not own that place.

If you are thinking of replying that if you cannot own these things, neither can I, well what does it matter? Fine, I won't keep your clothes, your food and your house, i'll merely kick you out because you can't own them either.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Even so, i would only be making one person poorer: the person who lost the $100 in the street.
Um, yeah, that's what I said. You'd be making the rest of the world poorer. In this case, that person who lost the $100 is part of "the rest of the world."

Or maybe there were two $50 banknotes lost by two different people, in which case you'd be making two other people poorer. Again, those two other people were part of "the rest of the world."

We can repeat the process with three people, and so on until everyone in the world is involved, if you wish.


Well, you cannot produce wealth in a second, so in your case wealth can never be produced, only lost/found and/or stolen.
Yes, my point exactly.


in any case, your arguments are confusing. First you claim you are only concerned with wealth at t=0, that is, in any given INSTANCE, which is of course useless. It add nothing to the point i was refuting, which was that wealth is a zero-sum game.

You have only claimed it is a zero sum game, without backing up how is society made poorer by this.
You really need to stop assuming things and read what I actually say:


it is perfectly true that wealth is not a zero-sum game in the long run. [emphasis added]
I never claimed that wealth is a zero-sum game. In fact I explicitly said that it isn't.

My point was that although wealth can increase, this increase is currently far too slow to be of any real help to most people who are alive today. What good is it to know that poor people's lives will be significantly improved centuries from now? How does that help poor people today?

Sure, everyone will be richer eventually. But "eventually" is too late. By the time "eventually" comes along, we will all be long dead.

That is my point. I also have other arguments to make, such as the argument that capitalism cannot sustain economic growth forever, but I think I should go slowly with you.


I have found natural resources which nobody owned and nobody was using. I then engage in applying my labor to them and modify them. Since they are now the product of my labor, i don't own them? Why?
You're the one who believes in these fairy tales called natural property rights. The onus is on YOU to tell me why they make sense.

Why should owned + unowned = owned? So far your only answer has been, "why not?" That's equivalent to "because I said so." Not good enough.


When can things be owned? Never? Why?
Why not?

That was your answer to my question, so I'm throwing it right back at you. Why should anything be owned?


If you are implying things can't be owned, then certainly you wouldn't mind me dropping by where you are right now and taking off your clothes - you do not own them, taking your food - you do not own them as well, and kicking you out of wherever you are living - you do not own that place.
And here we see the fundamental cause of your error. You do not understand that someone can have exclusive rights to use an object without owning that object.

Suppose someone else - let's say "society," but it could also be another individual - owns the house I live in. And society decides that I should be the only person allowed to live in this house. Then you are not allowed to kick me out of the house, even though I do not own it. The same applies to all sorts of objects I use. Society owns them, and therefore society can decide to grant me exclusive rights to use them.

See? Exclusive use-rights and ownership rights are two different things.

You can have the right to KEEP something without having the right to OWN that object.

Now, please notice that this conclusion does not depend on society being able to own things. Even if society did not own my house, I could still have the right to use it exclusively without having the right to own it. What's the difference? There are many differences. Ownership implies that the house remains mine even if I don't use it, so I could move out and you still wouldn't be allowed to move in. With use-rights, I might forfeit my right to use the house when I move out, so in that case you might be able to freely move in.

[GPDP]

You can have the right to KEEP something without having the right to OWN that object.

http://www.gedankenverbrechen.org/%7Etk/NeoWhoa.jpg

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, I know, it's quite amazing, isn't it? After this, I think I'll practice teaching multiplication. When enough practice explaining these sorts of things, I may even be able to open a school for gifted libertarians.

[Havet]

Um, yeah, that's what I said. You'd be making the rest of the world poorer. In this case, that person who lost the $100 is part of "the rest of the world."

How am i making a japanese across the globe poorer by finding a lost $100 in america?

These are 2 individuals. How are these 2 individuals making everyone else worse off by this "accidental" exchange?



Yes, my point exactly.But what does it matter if wealth is produced in a second or not? Wealth is produced, before it can be used. Sure it takes time, but everything else takes time: living takes more than 1 second, does that mean people are not alive in t=0?


My point was that although wealth can increase, this increase is currently far too slow to be of any real help to most people who are alive today. What good is it to know that poor people's lives will be significantly improved centuries from now? How does that help poor people today?What good is to know that planting a seed will significantly improve people's lives months from now, when they collect the crops?

Anyway, that's not the argument i want to make.

You think wealth increase is far too slow? Compared to WHAT?


Lets compare the life of an average American in 1900 and today. On every dimension you can think of, we all are orders of magnitude wealthier today (by wealth, I mean the term broadly. I mean not just cash, like Scrooge McDuck’s big vault, but also lifespan, healthiness, leisure time, quality of life, etc).


Life expectancy has increase from 47 to 77 years
Infant mortality rates have fallen from one in ten to one in 150.
Average income - in real dollars - has risen from $4,748 to $32,444

In 1900, the average person started their working life at 13, worked 10 hours a day, six days a week with no real vacation right up to the day they died in their mid-forties. Today, the average person works 8 hours a day for five days a week and gets 2-3 weeks of vacation. They work from the age of 18, and sometimes start work as late as 25, and typically take at least 10 years of retirement before they die.
But what about the poor? Well, the poor are certainly wealthier today than the poor were in 1900. But in many ways, the poor are wealthier (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm) even than the “robber barons (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/02/in_praise_of_ro.html)” of the 19th century: Just check out this comparison (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/a_zerosum_wealt.html)! Today, even people below the poverty line have a good chance to live past 70. 99% of those below the poverty line in the US have electricity, running water, flush toilets, and a refrigerator. 95% have a TV, 88% have a phone, 71% have a car, and 70%have air conditioning. Cornelius Vanderbilt had none of these, and his children only got running water and electricity later in life.Wealth has incredibly increased in the last 100 years in comparison to any other time in human history (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Gdp_chart.png)

humans have been around for 300 000 years. What has caused this increase in wealth? A relatively free market with property rights granted by the state.

I don't know how you can be honest enough to claim wealth has increased very slowly, and proceed to attack free markets, when it has been relatively free markets that have allowed for this great development of people's lives. Instead of relatively free markets, we had feudalism and tribalism, and did they ever create wealth? Of course not, they thought wealth was static, to be looted and stolen. It was with the rise of freer countries like America that people understood that wealth had to be produced, and since then we have all benefited from their endeavors.



Sure, everyone will be richer eventually. But "eventually" is too late. By the time "eventually" comes along, we will all be long dead.You are assuming people produce for poor people, which they don't, although poor people are the ones that benefit the most from these increase in wealth. If wealth creation was too slow, then we would be dead already.


You're the one who believes in these fairy tales called natural property rights. The onus is on YOU to tell me why they make sense.But it is you who are critizing ME for them not making sense to you. The onus is actually on you.

In any case, i'll show you an interesting argument friedman raised on natural rights:

"I can control the motions of my body by a simple act of will. You can control its motions by imposing overwhelming force, by making believable threats to which I will yield, or in various other ways. Controlling it may be possible for both of us, but it is much cheaper and easier for me. In this sense, we may describe my body as my natural property. The same description applies to my gun because I know where I hid it and you do not. Even land may be natural property to some extent if my detailed knowledge of the terrain makes it easier for me to use or defend it. Such property is natural inasmuch as my possession of it exists in the state of nature and is independent of social convention. The fact that I can control certain things more cheaply than you can is technology, not law or morals.

'Self ownership' is both a moral axiom and a technological fact."


Why should owned + unowned = owned? So far your only answer has been, "why not?" That's equivalent to "because I said so." Not good enough.Because the individual used his mind to transform an object into another. Since he owns his body, he controls his body, he is responsible for his actions. The result of his actions, he also owns. Now you can only "own" something that is physical, you cannot own the scar you just made an enemy, firstly because you agressed against someone else's body (which is someone else's responsibility) and secondly because the end result is still within another person's responsability.

I am also assuming one owns the product of his labor if the tools and resources he used to fabricate the product of his labor, besides his mind, were unowned or agreed upon with the owner that the end result would be the laborer's property.

In case of land, I don't buy the homesteading approach (finders-keepers). I prefer the "mix your labor" approach, not only because it makes more sense, but because it is more practical, that which is the object of practice being the life of an individual.

This is why in order for someone to "own" a land (space cannot be objectively owned, so im using this merely to explain a little better), he could only do so by mixing his labor with the land, for example, by build a structure on it. If i were to mix my labor with the land by simply putting pesticides, then my claim on the land would disappear when the pesticides disappeared, just as when i build a sand castle in the beach, I own the sand castle, but when the atoms of sand return to a previous state where there is no castle structure, i no longer own it, because the product of my labor (my mind) has disappeared from the physical world, without anybody's agression of course.



Why not?

That was your answer to my question, so I'm throwing it right back at you. Why should anything be owned?Practical applications, as well as ethical ones. It is much more practical to allow people to own things themselves, and letting them use them as they want the most, because, like i argued above, many will engage in creating more things when there is a natural incentive to do so (profit), and thus creating more things, from existing resources, by the use of their mind, which will end up putting everyone better of.

As for ethical reasons, just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality-to think, to work and to keep the results-which means: the right of property. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.

All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion: those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s poverty is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.


And here we see the fundamental cause of your error. You do not understand that someone can have exclusive rights to use an object without owning that object.I now do, after reading your post, although i think that doesn't achieve any practical result and confuses more than it helps to improve life on this earth.


Suppose someone else - let's say "society," but it could also be another individual - owns the house I live in. And society decides that I should be the only person allowed to live in this house. Then you are not allowed to kick me out of the house, even though I do not own it. The same applies to all sorts of objects I use. Society owns them, and therefore society can decide to grant me exclusive rights to use them.In order for your scheme to work, the individual must own the house in order to let you live in it, but you are claiming you don't need ownership in order to have exclusive rights to the house, so youve basically reached a contradiction here.

In your cause, the owner, since he owns the house, and therefore "has the right to consume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption), sell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell), rent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting), mortgage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage), transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer) and exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange) his or her property.", then he can of course let you stay in his house for free, if he so chooses.

However, by using the word society, lets assume majority, and let's assume that the majority, democratically, votes, for some reason, that you are to be left without house and food, because there are people who need them more than you. Such is the problem when you have highly centralized power (state, state capitalism, artificial monopoly capitalist companies, etc). When denying people their products of their labor, you are denying their lives, and they become slaves to whoever holds the biggest gun.


See? Exclusive use-rights and ownership rights are two different things. Yup, and you can have both in an ownership-rightbased society.


You can have the right to KEEP something without having the right to OWN that object.right again - if the initial owner agrees. If he stops agreeing, then you cease to have exclusive rights to it. When you ownership, you get to decide what do with things, instead of being at the mercy of those who own that property.

Now, please notice that this conclusion does not depend on society being able to own things. Even if society did not own my house, I could still have the right to use it exclusively without having the right to own it. What's the difference? There are many differences. Ownership implies that the house remains mine even if I don't use it, so I could move out and you still wouldn't be allowed to move in. With use-rights, I might forfeit my right to use the house when I move out, so in that case you might be able to freely move in.by forfeit you mean you give your permission for me to live there? But that is the same as ownership rights.

"An owner of property has the right to consume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption), sell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell), rent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting), mortgage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage), transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer) and exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange) his or her property."

This means you can either let me move in, or not letting anyone move in, for whatever reason. This is the choice owners of property have. And the more property is distributed without coercion (which has been the trend, in feudal times, as people here point out, around 95% of the land was owned by 2% of the people, whereas now many people have a house, or an apartment of his own. However, there is still many people which don't own where they live (they are merely renting), but whenever they get enough money they can always buy a house.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I do not really support A-Cap, at least not as a transitionary model from American Corporatism (linked with World Banking Hegemony) to 100% Anarchy (whatever the type).
Ha, OK.


I believe that a "form" of Minarcism (min-archos or minimal authority) would be the best transitionary model (for Americans) since it would allow them "a lessoning" of Big Gov't (which is a hinderance to creativity and innovation -- it is a monopoly). This could be worked out in stages.

Fact: the majority of innovation and creativity in the American economy has been done by NASA or the military, state funds in other words.


The first thing that needs to be done is to close all foreign military bases and bring all troops home. This will save $1T per year as long as we do not allow Obomba to roll it into a phony universal health care ponzy or CO2 wealth transfer schema.
"Closing all the bases and bringing all the troops home" isn't going to stop imperialism.

What the hell does Obama and "phony healthcare" have to do with anything? You really are some crazy liberal, good thing your in OI.


If we could reduce gov't spending to 2000 budget level and keep all the war money (eliminate the CIA entirely) we'd be sitting pretty fat and we could keep all the welfare programs.
Lol, welfare programs? What happened to anarchy and the elimination of state monopoly?


If we could eventually work the Min-Archos (Minarchy) down to only a 7-12% (in total) tax system (keeping our Army and Air Guard protecting our borders AND keeping our Navy protecting our waters) we'd be able to have all social-product-service industries in "relative" anarchy (pure competition) with no negative side effects.
Wow, your batshit insane and all this reeks of nationalism and petit-bourgeois idealism.

If your going to practice "Minarchy" (or whatever crazy liberal nonsense your talking about) then how the hell do you expect to retain the worlds most advanced military industrial complex?


Once the elite are forced to look to the only wealth drivers in a 88-93% Anarchy or very low tax Minarchy (less the national and state sales tax to run navy-army-air guard/search&rescue) -- the only profit driver left (without protectionism / interventionism on the part of gov't) is entrepreneurialism/intrapreneurialism. The latter two come predominately from the highest producing business start-ups / innovation / r&d from three main groups (by class-race-degree) are immigrants, blacks, and engineers.

...I don't even know what the hell your talking about now.


It would probably take the worlds elite 50 to 100 years to let go of the past mechanisms of control -- to become adaptive investors rather than control freaks.

Uh, if you want anarchism, then your gunna have to abolish "the elites" outright. That is the central tenant of anarchism.

[GPDP]

everything said thus far

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/protestwarriors/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hayenmill, please read this whole post, even if you don't have time to reply to all of it:


the owner [...] "has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer and exchange his or her property."
This is very true, and extremely important! Property isn't just the right to use something, it's also the right to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer and exchange that object. Property is not really one right, but a whole package of rights. You can have some without having the others.

I'll come back to this later on, but keep it in mind. It's really the key to any understanding of property rights.


How am i making a japanese across the globe poorer by finding a lost $100 in america?

These are 2 individuals. How are these 2 individuals making everyone else worse off by this "accidental" exchange?
*facepalms* You don't get it. Fine, let me put it this way: In order for you to suddenly grow richer by $100 in the next second, someone must become poorer. That someone could be one guy who lost a $100 banknote, or it could be 10,000 people who lost one cent each. But the point is, your gain is someone else's loss. Zero-sum.

In the short term, wealth is a zero-sum game. In the long term it's not zero-sum. In the "middle term," it's sort of in-between. If I gave you one day instead of one second, you could create some wealth, but still, there's a limit to how much wealth you can create in one day. It's not exactly zero-sum, not it's not possible to make everyone filthy rich either.


But what does it matter if wealth is produced in a second or not? Wealth is produced, before it can be used. Sure it takes time, but everything else takes time: living takes more than 1 second, does that mean people are not alive in t=0?
Are you seriously asking me what's the difference between you getting rich today and you getting rich in 100 years, assuming you're still alive?


What good is to know that planting a seed will significantly improve people's lives months from now, when they collect the crops?
Planting a seed is absolutely useless to a person who is starving now and won't live long enough to eat whatever comes out of that seed.

See? You're saying that if we wait long enough, everything will be fine. I'm saying most people don't have the luxury of waiting.


Anyway, that's not the argument i want to make.
It's the argument you started out with.


You think wealth increase is far too slow? Compared to WHAT?
Compared to how quickly we could improve the condition of the working class through socialism.


Wealth has incredibly increased in the last 100 years in comparison to any other time in human history.
Yeah. So?

It may be better than before, but it's still not nearly good ENOUGH. Billions of people are still dirt poor. Millions are starving. The working class is terribly exploited worldwide.

The best century in human history so far was not nearly good enough. We need much more improvement, and much faster.


humans have been around for 300 000 years. What has caused this increase in wealth? A relatively free market with property rights granted by the state.
Actually it was the industrial revolution. Wealth increased dramatically EVERYWHERE, not just in places with "a relatively free market with property rights granted by the state." Every single place on Earth that industrialized, no matter how it did it, no matter if it was a free market or a state planned economy, is much better off today than it was 100 years ago.

It's almost like progress-in-a-can: Just add industry. Now granted, some places progressed faster than others, but ALL places progressed.


I don't know how you can be honest enough to claim wealth has increased very slowly, and proceed to attack free markets, when it has been relatively free markets that have allowed for this great development of people's lives.
Are you familiar with Marxism at all? Here, let me quote the Communist Manifesto for you:


The bourgeoisie [the capitalist class], during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
Marxists do not deny that capitalism has brought great economic growth, great improvements in technology and so on. What we are saying is:

1. This cannot go on forever. Capitalism can only go so far, and it is running out of steam. Already growth rates are much lower in all capitalist countries than they were in the past. Capitalist growth is slowing down, and will eventually stop.

2. Capitalist progress came with great social costs. It could have been done with less costs.

3. Although capitalism did some good things in its time, socialism can do better.


Instead of relatively free markets, we had feudalism and tribalism, and did they ever create wealth?
Do I look like I support feudalism or tribalism? Of course capitalism is better than them. And socialism is better than capitalism, and communism is better than socialism.


Of course not, they thought wealth was static, to be looted and stolen.
Actually, they didn't think anything at all about wealth. The concept of wealth as a single measurable variable had not been invented yet. It had not occurred to anyone that you could somehow add together cows and pigs and bricks and gold.


It was with the rise of freer countries like America that people understood that wealth had to be produced, and since then we have all benefited from their endeavors.
No, people did not understand anything. Industry was invented, and developed, and then rapid changes started happening. Later, people tried to understand these changes and their cause, so they came up with all sorts of ideas like wealth and economic growth.

History drives ideas, not the other way around.


You are assuming people produce for poor people, which they don't, although poor people are the ones that benefit the most from these increase in wealth.
What are you talking about? The wealth of the rich is growing faster than the wealth of the poor. Therefore, the rich benefit more.

And I'm not assuming production is for the poor, I'm saying production should be for the poor, even though it currently isn't.

Also, all this talk about rich and poor is getting vague. By "poor," I mean the working class.


If wealth creation was too slow, then we would be dead already.
Anyone living in 1900 and waiting around for economic growth to make him wealthy is dead already.


But it is you who are critizing ME for them not making sense to you. The onus is actually on you.
You said owned + unowned = owned. Why is that?

I will ask this question until you answer it. When you combine something owned with something unowned, why should the result be owned?


In any case, i'll show you an interesting argument friedman raised on natural rights:

I can control the motions of my body by a simple act of will. You can control its motions by imposing overwhelming force, by making believable threats to which I will yield, or in various other ways. Controlling it may be possible for both of us, but it is much cheaper and easier for me. In this sense, we may describe my body as my natural property.
First mistake: Control is not the same as property.

We can both agree that it is best if you control your body. That does not mean you should own your body. As you pointed out, the right of ownership implies the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange the thing you own.

You should control your body. That does not mean you should also be able to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange your body.


Even land may be natural property to some extent if my detailed knowledge of the terrain makes it easier for me to use or defend it.
Second mistake: By this argument, land should be owned by whoever knows most about it. If I have more knowledge of your land than you do (for example, because I studied every inch of it from satellite photos), then I get to take your land.

Ridiculous.


Such property is natural inasmuch as my possession of it exists in the state of nature and is independent of social convention.
Third mistake: Possession is not property.

True, possession is natural. If an apple is in your hand, you possess it. You control it. Now suppose you put that apple down, and leave. You no longer possess it. You are no longer in control of it. But somehow, that apple can remain your property even when you do not physically hold it, even when you are nowhere near it.

That is not natural any more. That is social convention. Possession is natural, but property is social convention.


The fact that I can control certain things more cheaply than you can is technology, not law or morals.

'Self ownership' is both a moral axiom and a technological fact.
Fourth mistake: So you're saying that things should be owned by whoever can control them most cheaply?

Fine, but that could just as easily be the state, or some scientific expert. You don't really have any guarantee that an object's present private owner is the person who can control that object most cheaply. It could be anyone.

And as for your body - again, control is not ownership.


Because the individual used his mind to transform an object into another. Since he owns his body, he controls his body, he is responsible for his actions. The result of his actions, he also owns.
Always? I walk into a forest which I do not own. Maybe you own it. I cut down a tree and make a table out of it. Do I own the table, since it was the result of my actions, and my actions alone?

No?

Ah, so if you took an action on an object which you did not own, the result of that action is not yours after all.

Then we're back where we started. You take an action upon land or natural resources which you did not own. Why should the result be yours?


I am also assuming one owns the product of his labor if the tools and resources he used to fabricate the product of his labor, besides his mind, were unowned or agreed upon with the owner that the end result would be the laborer's property.
You're assuming that owned + unowned = owned? Why?

Oh, and by the way, why should you own your labour? You should control your labour, certainly, but why should you also be able to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange your labour?


In case of land, I don't buy the homesteading approach (finders-keepers). I prefer the "mix your labor" approach, not only because it makes more sense, but because it is more practical, that which is the object of practice being the life of an individual.
Ok, assuming labour is owned and land is unowned...

Why should owned + unowned = owned?

And what happens if two people mix their labour with the same land? What happens if you only mix your labour with some parts of your land (which is what always happens in reality)?


This is why in order for someone to "own" a land (space cannot be objectively owned, so im using this merely to explain a little better), he could only do so by mixing his labor with the land, for example, by build a structure on it. If i were to mix my labor with the land by simply putting pesticides, then my claim on the land would disappear when the pesticides disappeared, just as when i build a sand castle in the beach, I own the sand castle, but when the atoms of sand return to a previous state where there is no castle structure, i no longer own it, because the product of my labor (my mind) has disappeared from the physical world, without anybody's agression of course.
Then no one can own a forest? Or any land in its natural , untouched state? But presumably people will want to go to forests and cut down trees for wood, for example, or dig mines. Should anyone be allowed to cut down any tree anywhere, or dig any mine anywhere? What happens if two people want to cut the same tree or dig a mine in the same place?


Practical applications, as well as ethical ones. It is much more practical to allow people to own things themselves, and letting them use them as they want the most, because, like i argued above, many will engage in creating more things when there is a natural incentive to do so (profit), and thus creating more things, from existing resources, by the use of their mind, which will end up putting everyone better of.
Profit can be collective as well as individual. If one man can work for a profit, then 100 people can also work for a profit (which they share between them), a whole country can work for a shared profit, and the entire human species can work for a shared profit.


As for ethical reasons, just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality-to think, to work and to keep the results-which means: the right of property.
Wrong. You can think, work, and even keep the results without having the right to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange those results.


All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion: those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent.
The products of a mind, yes.

But a physical object is not made of pure thought. It is made of thought + work + natural resources. Just because a person should be able to use his mind however he sees fit, does not mean he has the right to own natural resources.


I know do, after reading your post, although i think that doesn't achieve any practical result and confuses more than it helps to improve life on this earth.
There are many, many different proposals for economic systems based on people using things without owning them. It's what all leftism - anarchism, socialism, communism - is all about. Do not dismiss it so lightly. I only gave you one example.


In order for your scheme to work, the individual must own the house in order to let you live in it, but you are claiming you don't need ownership in order to have exclusive rights to the house, so youve basically reached a contradiction here.
No, I'm just saying you can have exclusive rights to live in the house without also having the rights to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange that house. Each of those rights is separate from the other. Property is not really one right, but a whole package of rights. You can have some without having the others.


However, by using the word society, lets assume majority, and let's assume that the majority, democratically, votes, for some reason, that you are to be left without house and food, because there are people who need them more than you. Such is the problem when you have highly centralized power (state, state capitalism, artificial monopoly capitalist companies, etc).
Actually, you have that problem always, in any society, no matter what. You don't need centralized power for it.

Suppose we have perfect anarchy, and everyone owns a gun to defend himself. What happens if the majority decides one day to kill the minority, and for some reason can't be reasoned with? Well, if every man has a gun, the majority has more guns than the minority, because they have more people. So they can kill the minority. Just like in your example.

Can we solve that problem by giving more guns to the minority? Yes, but then what happens if the minority decides to kill the majority one day? They have more guns now, so they can do it. The same problem again.

In any society, either the majority will have the power to kill the minority, or the minority will have the power to kill the majority. There is no way around it. You can't balance their powers, because then they can just get out of balance easily by having one man move from one group to the other. And if you give every individual equal power, then the majority rules.

And if one group can kill the other, then they can certainly take their houses, using the same method.

So you see, there will always be some group with the power to take your house, in your system as much as mine.


right again - if the initial owner agrees. If he stops agreeing, then you cease to have exclusive rights to it. When you have exclusive rights, you get to decide what do with things, instead of being at the mercy of those who own that property.
You are always at the mercy of society, whether you like it or not. That's why I'm not concerned about giving society ownership of my house. Look: If they wanted me dead, they could do it already. If they wanted to take my house, they could do it already. I'm not giving them any more power over me than they already have. If they hate me, I'm screwed anyway.

But I don't think they hate me. I don't think they ever will. I think I'll be able to live in my house just fine.


by forfeit you mean you give your permission for me to live there?
No, by forfeit I mean you don't need my permission to move into an empty house, even if I lived in that house before it was empty.

I want housing to be arranged as follows: A number of houses are built by the commune, or the collective, or whatever you call it. Every person or family gets a house. The commune gives them the right to stay there as long as they want. When they decide to move out, or when they die, the commune decides what to do with the house that just became empty.

[Octobox]

I was going to quote you then I decided to just translate and pretend you said it ;-) -- It's faster this way


Blaaah - Raaaant - Blaaah - Oppose - Repeat


All's you ever do is present contrarian points of view or ad hominem attacks -- you truly haven't said anything.

Tell me if you agree or disagree with this -- not based on your or my idealism, but how things are right now.

Corporatist Revenue Stream (comes from): Consumers-who-Purchase, Consumers-who-Invest, and Gov't (Lobbied: Subsidization, Regulatory Advantages, Bailouts, Fiat Credit, and Judicial Rulings [paid for comparative advantages].

The above is how GM and Chrysler stay in business -- the "people" voted their product out over that of the Japanese better built cars.

When "groupist" (Corporatist, Unionist, and Big Bankers) lobby Congress to give advantages over consumer-will they might be propping up inefficient or un-wanted concepts / cars / ethics. Would you agree with that or do you believe that everything those groupist want is pure and clean.

[yuon]

The above is how GM and Chrysler stay in business -- the "people" voted their product out over that of the Japanese better built cars.
Funny, I thought that both had filed for bankruptcy? In other words, without the government "interfering", both would have gone out of business...

Not to mention all that other interference the government does, such as tariffs and other taxes.

So, I guess that GM and Chrysler didn't stay in business because the "people" voted for anything, I would suggest that it was the government all along.

[Octobox]

So, I guess that GM and Chrysler didn't stay in business because the "people" voted for anything, I would suggest that it was the government all along.

Correct.

All workers are consumers
All owners are consumers

Everyone is a consumer (every day).

Maybe what we are looking for is not A-Cap or A-Com but Con-Archos (Consumer Archos) a conarchy -- hahahaha.

[Havet]

This is very true, and extremely important! Property isn't just the right to use something, it's also the right to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer and exchange that object. Property is not really one right, but a whole package of rights. You can have some without having the others.yeah. and i can only engage in each one of those little rights if i own something.


*facepalms* You don't get it. Fine, let me put it this way: In order for you to suddenly grow richer by $100 in the next second, someone must become poorer. That someone could be one guy who lost a $100 banknote, or it could be 10,000 people who lost one cent each. But the point is, your gain is someone else's loss. Zero-sum.Well again we were both assuming that in your scenario nobody could really create wealth in a second. since i havent thought of a way to create wealth in 1 second, ill have to follow your premise.


In the short term, wealth is a zero-sum game. In the long term it's not zero-sum. In the "middle term," it's sort of in-between. If I gave you one day instead of one second, you could create some wealth, but still, there's a limit to how much wealth you can create in one day. It's not exactly zero-sum, not it's not possible to make everyone filthy rich either.Ok, the point i was trying to argue is how is wealth creation making someone poorer, mid or long run. But if you are saying you are agreeing with me, then why are we even discussing this lol.


Are you seriously asking me what's the difference between you getting rich today and you getting rich in 100 years, assuming you're still alive?The point is, it no longer takes 100 years for someone to get rich, or for poor people to benefit from wealth creation.

You hear of many inventions and progresses every year. And they usually take, at most, 10 years to become fully noticieable. As technology continues to have an incentive to improve, it's natural that the time it takes for new inventions to be noticeable decreases. Did you remmember what i said about forcing a mind to work? You cannot force innovation to go faster. it will go faster if left alone.



Planting a seed is absolutely useless to a person who is starving now and won't live long enough to eat whatever comes out of that seed.it is useless for the person who is starving now, but it will be useful for the ones who planted it knowing they will need it someday. If you want to help poor people who are in terrible conditions NOW you cannot of course expect technological improvements to improve so fast it will take seconds to solve their problems. Nor should you try and force technology to help poor people right now. What i would propose is to help their hunger with voluntary aid: going around like many charities do and offering them a free meal. But i dont think its enough to "give them the fish". One should also try to "teach them to fish". Teach them skills, re-insert them in schools, etc.


See? You're saying that if we wait long enough, everything will be fine. I'm saying most people don't have the luxury of waiting.Everything will be fine, in the long run. In the short run, some people will of course need help getting around. As long as people are free to organize themselves into institutions that help the needful, then okay by me.



Compared to how quickly we could improve the condition of the working class through socialism.And since that involves using unjustified force one way or another then i am against it.




It may be better than before, but it's still not nearly good ENOUGH. Billions of people are still dirt poor. Millions are starving. The working class is terribly exploited worldwide.I dont want to deny they are still many poor people, but using force to solve this problems isn't going to help. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for taking down (which is force in self-defense to previous agression) the governments and dictatorships that are largely the biggest cause of oppression.


Actually it was the industrial revolution. Wealth increased dramatically EVERYWHERE, not just in places with "a relatively free market with property rights granted by the state." Every single place on Earth that industrialized, no matter how it did it, no matter if it was a free market or a state planned economy, is much better off today than it was 100 years ago.

It's almost like progress-in-a-can: Just add industry. Now granted, some places progressed faster than others, but ALL places progressed.and how were people going to enjoy the fruits of these new technology if there were terrible oppression and the threat of being stolen by some authority at any minute?

Yes, the industrial revolution, with the new knowledge that was discovered, was one of the main factors. But so was relative freedom. What im saying is that in place where there was relative freedom, the benefits of the industrial revolution were felt more than in places where there was a state-planned economy.


Marxists do not deny that capitalism has brought great economic growth, great improvements in technology and so on. What we are saying is:

1. This cannot go on forever. Capitalism can only go so far, and it is running out of steam. Already growth rates are much lower in all capitalist countries than they were in the past. Capitalist growth is slowing down, and will eventually stop.

2. Capitalist progress came with great social costs. It could have been done with less costs.

3. Although capitalism did some good things in its time, socialism can do better.1. how can capitalism only go so far? I presume you are mentioning the fact that there is scarce resources. But most of the wealth in the world is a direct result of the use of the human mind. Take the example of metals. At some point in the future, we will have extracted all metals, or almost all metals at the surface, so it will cost more to extract them further down the ground, which means recycling will be hundreds of times more profitable than it is today (and today it is already a very profitable business). At some further point, we will have extracted all of the metal and we will just continue reusing it. I'm pretty sure the same will happen with other materials.

2. Yes, terrible social costs...

"Looking at the period 1981-2001, the percentage of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has halved. Most of this improvement has occurred in East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia) and South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#cite_note-3) In East Asia the World Bank reported that "The poverty headcount rate at the $2-a-day level is estimated to have fallen to about 27 percent , down from 29.5 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 1990."

Looks like a relatively free market over some years in Asia (Hong Kong, Shangai, India, China, Japan, etc) has done horrible things to the people there.

3.again, since it presuposes the use of force somewhere in time (taking the factories by force, stealing some to give to others), i think it will Phail tremendously every time it is attempted.



Do I look like I support feudalism or tribalism? Of course capitalism is better than them. And socialism is better than capitalism, and communism is better than socialism.Sure it is...



Actually, they didn't think anything at all about wealth. The concept of wealth as a single measurable variable had not been invented yet. It had not occurred to anyone that you could somehow add together cows and pigs and bricks and gold.

Actually...

"The Industrial Revolution was a period in the late 18th and early 19th centuries"

"Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith), in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations), described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". "

"An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is the magnum opus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_opus) of the Scottish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland) economist Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith). It is a clearly written account of economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution)"

They might not think of wealth as we thought today, but they understood that they "could somehow add together cows and pigs and bricks and gold" and improve their lives and the lives of others.



No, people did not understand anything. Industry was invented, and developed, and then rapid changes started happening. Later, people tried to understand these changes and their cause, so they came up with all sorts of ideas like wealth and economic growth.

History drives ideas, not the other way around."If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to [I]make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created"

History drives ideas? What? lol

How could history every drive ideas? I mean, yeah many ideas come from existing problems of the past, but it was always something NEW that improved life on this earth.

If the standard of ideas were old ideas of history, we would retreat in life quality and standard of living.


What are you talking about? The wealth of the rich is growing faster than the wealth of the poor. Therefore, the rich benefit more.I suppose you just forgot to supply the facts for this claim?

In any case, here is some interesting data on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL0ygI-5dco&feature=PlayList&p=823CD02829DEE102&index=0


And I'm not assuming production is for the poor, I'm saying production should be for the poor, even though it currently isn't.

what do you mean by production being for the working class? Production knows no classes, races or countries. It simply responds where there is more demand. If many people don't have a certain service, it will now be very profitable for a company to provide that service.


Anyone living in 1900 and waiting around for economic growth to make him wealthy is dead already.People don't sit around and expect others to make them wealthy. You have to work, to create wealth as well, in order to be benefited by it. And as we have developed, it has been needed to work less, or to make less money, in order to be able to be provided with more products and services, which means prices have declined.


You said owned + unowned = owned. Why is that?

I will ask this question until you answer it. When you combine something owned with something unowned, why should the result be owned?I cannot answer it. Your objection is valid, when placed that way. However, by your logic, then no natural resources can be owned. Since ownership implies "the right to consume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption), sell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell), rent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting), mortgage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage), transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer) and exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange)", then natural resources cannot be consumed, sold, rented, mortgaged, transfered or exchanged. Therefore, we will all die from starvation, because food is a natural resource. That doesn't make sense as well.


First mistake: Control is not the same as property.

We can both agree that it is best if you control your body. That does not mean you should own your body. As you pointed out, the right of ownership implies the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange the thing you own.

You should control your body. That does not mean you should also be able to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange your body.If its my body, which I control, and my responsibility, why should I not be able to sell my body (like a prostitute), rent my body (rent my physical labor to a factory), (one cannot phisically mortgage a body), (one cannot phisically transfer a body, at least not yet technologically), (one cannot exchange a body, at least not yet technologically)?

To deny that i can do whatever i want with ym body so long as that action doesn't interefere (by force) with the actions of others is to claim I don't control my body, and that someone else should. and that's slavery.


Second mistake: By this argument, land should be owned by whoever knows most about it. If I have more knowledge of your land than you do (for example, because I studied every inch of it from satellite photos), then I get to take your land.

Ridiculous.Good objection, however, he was talking in terms of defense. So it wouldnt do you any good unless you actually tried to conquer my land by the use of more knowledge you have of it. In any case, your objection is noted, and i agree with it, this argument doesnt seem very reasonable.


Third mistake: Possession is not property.

True, possession is natural. If an apple is in your hand, you possess it. You control it. Now suppose you put that apple down, and leave. You no longer possess it. You are no longer in control of it. But somehow, that apple can remain your property even when you do not physically hold it, even when you are nowhere near it.

That is not natural any more. That is social convention. Possession is natural, but property is social convention.Apparently, i have come to the same conclusion as you. any object doesn't change it's physical properties simply because i own it. I can only own something if the rest of society recognizes that I can own it. ConfederalSocialist puts it better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eShZ76P3jWc&feature=PlayList&p=96D07AF5CDC6D371&index=2

I find his arguments the most reasonable argument ever on ownership.


Fourth mistake: So you're saying that things should be owned by whoever can control them most cheaply?

Fine, but that could just as easily be the state, or some scientific expert. You don't really have any guarantee that an object's present private owner is the person who can control that object most cheaply. It could be anyone.Yeah, again a fine and reasonable objection. Actually, now that i think of it, why the fuck i even posted friedman's arguments, they sound so ridiculous. I guess i may have misread them at the time. Sorry for having wasted your time.


Always? I walk into a forest which I do not own. Maybe you own it. I cut down a tree and make a table out of it. Do I own the table, since it was the result of my actions, and my actions alone?

No?According to my old view on property:

You own the table - if the forest was owned by no one

You do not own the table - if the forest was owned by me (imagine i planted it for instance)


Ah, so if you took an action on an object which you did not own, the result of that action is not yours after all.You would only not own it if it the natural resources were someone else's property.


Then we're back where we started. You take an action upon land or natural resources which you did not own. Why should the result be yours?Like i said above, valid objection. Keep in mind though, that nobody owned it either. Since i was the first to use my actions, which i am responsible for, then i am the one who controls the consequent result of my actions.

(strangely this is now sounding to me very similar to hoemsteading, lol)



Oh, and by the way, why should you own your labour? You should control your labour, certainly, but why should you also be able to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange your labour?What would be the point of controling what i do, but being able to do nothing with my end result?

Only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery)



And what happens if two people mix their labour with the same land? What happens if you only mix your labour with some parts of your land (which is what always happens in reality)?If the mixed their labour with the same land - both own the land

if i only mix my labor with some parts of the land, and assuming i didnt own the land first - i own the parts of the land in which i have mixed my labor with.


Then no one can own a forest? Or any land in its natural , untouched state? But presumably people will want to go to forests and cut down trees for wood, for example, or dig mines. Should anyone be allowed to cut down any tree anywhere, or dig any mine anywhere? What happens if two people want to cut the same tree or dig a mine in the same place?Well one could own a forest, if one planted one where there was notihng, or one chopped the trees down (labor as well). Same for land. One would have to mix his labor in order to "own" it (building a structure, planting something, digging something, etc)

If two people cut the same tree (i assume by mutual consent) then they both own the tree (unless one had specifically asked for the help of another if he agreed that only the first could then keep the tree in the end). Sharing of labor => sharing of property.

Just as an individual comes to own that which was unowned by mixing his labor with it or using it regularly, a whole community or society can come to own a thing in common by mixing their labor with it collectively, meaning that no individual may appropriate it as his own. This may apply to roads, parks, rivers, and portions of oceans.

Example by Roderick Long:

"Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms — not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor — not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned."


Profit can be collective as well as individual. If one man can work for a profit, then 100 people can also work for a profit (which they share between them), a whole country can work for a shared profit, and the entire human species can work for a shared profit.And the more diverse profit is the less each party has to gain from the action. (imagine the whole human species working for shared property)


Wrong. You can think, work, and even keep the results without having the right to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange those results.I dont know if you did this intentionally or not, but you made a word dissapear:

"An owner of property has the right to consume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption), sell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell), rent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting), mortgage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage), transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer) and exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange) his or her property"

How can you keep the results if you cannot use/consume/enjoy them?


The products of a mind, yes.

But a physical object is not made of pure thought. It is made of thought + work + natural resources. Just because a person should be able to use his mind however he sees fit, does not mean he has the right to own natural resources.But thats the thing, isn't? He won't be owning natural resources, unless he used labor to create them, he is owning the end result of natural resources by his mind. Just going over a lake and saying it is mine is certainly idiotic, because one did nothing over it to even begin justfying why he should own it. But with a chair, for example, made out of a natural tree, is not a natural resource. A chair is not a natural resource, paper is not natural resource, and almsot every object you see today is not natural resources.



No, I'm just saying you can have exclusive rights to live in the house without also having the rights to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer or exchange that house. Each of those rights is separate from the other. Property is not really one right, but a whole package of rights. You can have some without having the others.Again, the word consuming has disappeared from the definition of property and ownership.



Actually, you have that problem always, in any society, no matter what. You don't need centralized power for it.

Suppose we have perfect anarchy, and everyone owns a gun to defend himself. What happens if the majority decides one day to kill the minority, and for some reason can't be reasoned with? Well, if every man has a gun, the majority has more guns than the minority, because they have more people. So they can kill the minority. Just like in your example.

Can we solve that problem by giving more guns to the minority? Yes, but then what happens if the minority decides to kill the majority one day? They have more guns now, so they can do it. The same problem again.

In any society, either the majority will have the power to kill the minority, or the minority will have the power to kill the majority. There is no way around it. You can't balance their powers, because then they can just get out of balance easily by having one man move from one group to the other. And if you give every individual equal power, then the majority rules.

And if one group can kill the other, then they can certainly take their houses, using the same method.

So you see, there will always be some group with the power to take your house, in your system as much as mine.Your system legitimizes a majority from doing things i consider bad, simply because more people think its right - the majority. I don't think in terms of majority or minority. I think in terms of individuals. Now if many, or few but well armed, individuals come to use force upon me, in "my anarchy", either i have the money and hire a really good defense agency (very expensive, assuming the enemies are a lot), i gather myself with people and defend ourselves volutnarily (i convince them that we have more to gain by joining toguether and defending ourselves than to try and fight back individually) or i try to fight back alone, confident in my struggle and in my right not to be murdered, stolen or enslaved, even if one minute was all i could last in the battle. I prefer the second option



You are always at the mercy of society, whether you like it or not. That's why I'm not concerned about giving society ownership of my house. Look: If they wanted me dead, they could do it already. If they wanted to take my house, they could do it already. I'm not giving them any more power over me than they already have. If they hate me, I'm screwed anyway.Yeah, i know. You'll notice ive taken that stand a lot more openly, especially in the video i referenced, about a new way to think of property.



No, by forfeit I mean you don't need my permission to move into an empty house, even if I lived in that house before it was empty.

I want housing to be arranged as follows: A number of houses are built by the commune, or the collective, or whatever you call it. Every person or family gets a house. The commune gives them the right to stay there as long as they want. When they decide to move out, or when they die, the commune decides what to do with the house that just became empty.Well, im assuming you left the house as you found it, in any case you didnt mix your labor with it, so you wouldnt own it.

Well, i think your commune could very well exist in a market anarchist society, as long as the commune didn't try to force other people into your way of management (you could always expand by convincing people your method of management was optimal though). So, like i said somewhere ago, different ways of management could co-exist (and you can be pretty damn sure that if some corporation tried to impose their management method on your commune i would go there and help you, even if i believed the corporation to be a better management method, which i dont).

Phew, what a big reply. Could you try to shrink this up a bit please? I'll try to do my best to shrink it as well next time.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I was going to quote you then I decided to just translate and pretend you said it ;-) -- It's faster this way
You have such a clever sense of humor.





All's you ever do is present contrarian points of view or ad hominem attacks -- you truly haven't said anything.
That's because there isn't anything to say to what you've said, which is pretty much nothing also.

I've pointed out that anarchism and capitalism are two completely opposite ideological trends as well as historical manifestations. Like it or not, anarchism started as a branch of socialism, and has always been geared towards abolishing capitalism. This is what anarchism is in the real world, anarcho-capitalism is just some dumb tendency made up by confused liberals (life yourself) that has no merit in realty. Tell me, how will the state be abolished, and then how will capitalism still exist? Capitalism requires a state, as the propertied class is only the propertied class if they have the means to defend, you guessed it, their property.

Your portrayal of anarchism as some idealist notion of "no authority" is your first mistake in compiling this wonderful theory, because anarchism as an ideology is about ownership of the means of production by the worker's and abolishing all forms of exploitative and hierarchical order. That is what anarchism is, ask any of them on revleft. This cannot coexist with capitalism because, as I clarified before, capitalism requires a state, therefore capitalism cannot operate "without authority".


Tell me if you agree or disagree with this -- not based on your or my idealism, but how things are right now.

Corporatist Revenue Stream (comes from): Consumers-who-Purchase, Consumers-who-Invest, and Gov't (Lobbied: Subsidization, Regulatory Advantages, Bailouts, Fiat Credit, and Judicial Rulings [paid for comparative advantages].

The above is how GM and Chrysler stay in business -- the "people" voted their product out over that of the Japanese better built cars.

When "groupist" (Corporatist, Unionist, and Big Bankers) lobby Congress to give advantages over consumer-will they might be propping up inefficient or un-wanted concepts / cars / ethics. Would you agree with that or do you believe that everything those groupist want is pure and clean.

I don't agree with any of this tripe, because it doesn't even make any sense. Do you mind explaining your views in a coherent, and elaborate way?

Ignoring your horrible grammar and equally as horrible attempts to characterize monopoly capitalism.....

I don't agree with any of that, because it is based on capitalism. Why the hell would ask me, a Marxist, if I agree with how capitalism operates? Regardless if its in real life, or in some fools head (anarcho-capitalism).

[mykittyhasaboner]

humans have been around for 300 000 years. What has caused this increase in wealth? A relatively free market with property rights granted by the state.

You've got to be shitting me. Do you realize that monopolies have pretty much dominated these "free markets" for the last 100 years?

The 20th century has seen the most development in human history, obviously. However to attribute this as a result of "relatively free-markets" is preposterous. The overwhelming mass of humanity that is Russia, China, and various surrounding countries have industrialized and developed modern society through planned economics. Even in bourgeois capitalist countries during the 20th century, development and increase in wealth had been done in a monopolistic frame work, any 'competition' in the markets pretty much ceased around the turn of the century (and even before then, this 'competition' was carried out in a very un-competitive way, through massive colonialist exploitation and conquest).

[Plagueround]

You don't see mass graves in America


Yeah, most of America's mass graves had to be abandoned and no longer maintained after the survivors were moved to reservations. Serious question: How does one arrive at this type of perception of history? Is it willful ignorance, distortion, or not reading a book beyond the First Grade Easy Reader version of Thanksgiving?

[mykittyhasaboner]

^^American imperialists were too busy killing and enslaving others to dig graves.

[Havet]

You've got to be shitting me. Do you realize that monopolies have pretty much dominated these "free markets" for the last 100 years?

The 20th century has seen the most development in human history, obviously. However to attribute this as a result of "relatively free-markets" is preposterous. The overwhelming mass of humanity that is Russia, China, and various surrounding countries have industrialized and developed modern society through planned economics. Even in bourgeois capitalist countries during the 20th century, development and increase in wealth had been done in a monopolistic frame work, any 'competition' in the markets pretty much ceased around the turn of the century (and even before then, this 'competition' was carried out in a very un-competitive way, through massive colonialist exploitation and conquest).

you are counting that there is a natural trend towards monopoly where in fact there isn't.

it is the existance of brutal repression by government on those who practice those businessnesses that breed more brutality from the business owners and create those cartels. I would recommend you reading the chapter "Monopoly, how to lose your shirt" of the book "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. It has a lot of information on how cartels weren't able to succeed in the late 19th - early 20th century without government intervention. I can quote some if you are interested.

In fact, friedman himself argues that the best historical refutation for the thesis that unregulated laissez-faire leads to monopoly is in a socialist historian Gabriel Kolko's books called "The triumph of Conservatism" and "Railroads and Regulation". He argues that at the end of the 19th century businessmen believed the future was with bigness, with conglomerates and cartels, but were wrong: the organizations they formed to control markets and reduce costs were almost invariably failures, returning lower profits than their smaller competitors, unable to fix prices, and controlling a steadily shrinking share of the market. The regulatory comissions supossedly were formed to restrain monopolistic businessmen. Actually, Kolko argues, they were formed at the request of unsuccessful monopolists to prevent the competition which had frustrated their efforts.

[RGacky3]

A-Caps have it right (up to the point they get into property rights)

There is no "up to to point" Capitalism STARTS with property rights.

[mykittyhasaboner]

you are counting that there is a natural trend towards monopoly where in fact there isn't.

Too bad history is on my side then.


it is the existance of brutal repression by government on those who practice those businessnesses that breed more brutality from the business owners and create those cartels. I would recommend you reading the chapter "Monopoly, how to lose your shirt" of the book "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. It has a lot of information on how cartels weren't able to succeed in the late 19th - early 20th century without government intervention. I can quote some if you are interested.

In fact, friedman himself argues that the best historical refutation for the thesis that unregulated laissez-faire leads to monopoly is in a socialist historian Gabriel Kolko's books called "The triumph of Conservatism" and "Railroads and Regulation". He argues that at the end of the 19th century businessmen believed the future was with bigness, with conglomerates and cartels, but were wrong: the organizations they formed to control markets and reduce costs were almost invariably failures, returning lower profits than their smaller competitors, unable to fix prices, and controlling a steadily shrinking share of the market. The regulatory comissions supossedly were formed to restrain monopolistic businessmen. Actually, Kolko argues, they were formed at the request of unsuccessful monopolists to prevent the competition which had frustrated their efforts.This doesn't really seem like an argument to me, more like your just repeating what someone else said for the sake of it. No worries though, I can do the same, but I'll just give you a link instead.

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

Have fun refuting that.

[Havet]

Too bad history is on my side then.

sure it is...

besides not showing any factual proof, you do not even decently explain how they appear. I will now proceed to explain how they can appear, but why they ar very uncommon.

The degree of concentration in the economy, according to Mcgee in his book "Standard Oil" (provided below as a source) has been relatively stable. It always appears to be increasing because highly concentrated industries are much more visible than more competitive ones. To give you an example sometime between 1920 and the present, General Motors acquired a commanding position in the automobile industry. Few of us realize that during the same period U.S.Steel lost its dominance in the steel industry. For the same reason, we tend to exagerate the amount of concentration at any given time.

In most economic activities, the efficiency of a firm increases with size up to some optimum size and then decreases. The increasing efficiency reflects the advantages of mass production. These advatnages generally occur only up to some definite level of size; for example, one steel mill is far more efficient than a backyard blast furnance, but making an existing steel mill larger brings no added advantage - that is why steel mills are the size they are - and two steel mills are no more efficient than one. Increasing size also brings increased cost of administrative bureocracy. The men at the top get further and further removed from what is actually going on at the bottom and are therefore more likely to make costly mistakes. So efficiency tens to decrease with increasing size once firms have passed the point where they can take full advantage of mass production. For this reason some very large firms, General Motors, for example, break themselves into semi-autonomous units in order to approximate as nearly as possible the more efficient administrative arrangements of smaller firms.

A natural monopoly exists when the optimum size for a firm in some area of production is so large that there is room for only one such firm on the market. A smaller competitor is less efficient than the monopoly firm and hence unable to compete with it. Except where the market is very small (a small town grocery store for example), this is a rather uncommon situation. In the steel industry, which is generally regarded as high concentrated, there are between two hundred and three hundred steel mills, and between one hundred and two hundred firms. The largest four firms (which are by no means the most profitable) produce only haf the total output, and the next four produce only 16 percent of total output.

Even a natural monopoly is limited in its ability to raise prices. If it raises them high enough, smaller less efficient firms find that they can compete profitably. A natural monopoly thus can make money selling goods at a priceat which other firms lose money and thus retain the whole market. But it retains the market only so long as the price stays low enough that other firms cannot make a profit. This is what is called potential competition.

A famous example is Alcoa Aluminium. One of the charges brought against Alcoa during the anti-trust hearings that resutled in its breakup was that it had hekpt competitors out of the aluminium business by keeping its prices low and by taking advatnage of every possible technological advance to lower them still further.

The power of a natural monopoly is also limited by indirect competition. Even if steel production were a natural monopoly, and even if the monopoly firm were enormously more efficient than potential competitors, its prices would be limited by the existence of substitutes of steel. As it drove prices higher and higher, people would use more aluminium, plastic, and wood for construction. Similarly a railroad, even if it is a monopoly, faces competition from canal barges, trucks and airplanes.

For all these reasons antural monopolies, although they occasioanlly exist under institutions of laissez-faire, do not seriously interfere with the workings of the market. The methods government uses to control such monopolies do far more damage than the monopolies themselves.


Now proceed to show historical evidence that there has been many monopolies during a large enough period of time that actually harmed (and i mean NATURAL monopolies, not STATE monopolies)

Book:
Standard Oil (http://books.google.pt/books?id=CQFixQA6p9UC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=mcgee+monopoly&source=bl&ots=NfbFIH5JtL&sig=LXagJdiWIKHg1HOaQR4yiNH-uiQ&hl=pt-PT&ei=3z9CSt3sGI2RjAfi5_DtBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)

[mykittyhasaboner]

sure it is...

besides not showing any factual proof, you do not even decently explain how they appear.
That's because I don't need to, Lenin did it nicely in that link I gave you.

I will, frankly, ignore a large part of what you've just written here, because half of it is irrelevant in my opinion. Since all of this was essentially argued for, and done away with in 1918, most of the arguments I present will come straight from Lenin's quill (well after being translated and typed of course ;)).



Now proceed to show historical evidence that there has been many monopolies during a large enough period of time that actually harmed (and i mean NATURAL monopolies, not STATE monopolies)I will stick to my own arguement rather than one you've given me; which was (If you forgot) that free-market competition has little to do with the growth of production and wealth in the 20th century, and at it's most competitive period in the late 19th century, lead to monopoly capitalism. I don't care about the difference nor the relevance between "natural and state" monopolies. The point is that free-market competition, as raging as it was before the turn of the 20th century, inevitably led to monopolies. Today, monopolies play the most important role in the market, as they have for the past century.





The degree of concentration in the economy, according to Mcgee in his book "Standard Oil" (provided below as a source) has been relatively stable. It always appears to be increasing because highly concentrated industries are much more visible than more competitive ones. To give you an example sometime between 1920 and the present, General Motors acquired a commanding position in the automobile industry. Few of us realize that during the same period U.S.Steel lost its dominance in the steel industry. For the same reason, we tend to exagerate the amount of concentration at any given time.Maybe some exaggerate, but the increased concentration of production in to various industries is exactly what leads to monopoly:

The enormous growth of industry and the remarkably rapid concentration of production in ever-larger enterprises are one of the most characteristic features of capitalism. Modern production censuses give most complete and most exact data on this process.
In Germany, for example, out of every 1,000 industrial enterprises, large enterprises, i.e., those employing more than 50 workers, numbered three in 1882, six in 1895 and nine in 1907; and out of every 100 workers employed, this group of enterprises employed. 22, 30 and 37, respectively. Concentration of production, however, is much more intense than the concentration of workers, since labour in the large enterprises is much more productive. This is shown by the figures on steam-engines and electric motors. If we take what in Germany is called industry in the broad sense of the term, that is, including commerce, transport, etc., we get the following picture. Large-scale enterprises, 30,588 out of a total of 3,265,623, that is to say, 0.9 per cent. These enterprises employ 5,700,000 workers out of a total of 14,400,000, i.e., 39.4 per cent; they use 6,600,000 steam horse power out of a total of 8,800,000, i.e., 75.3 per cent, and 1,200,000 kilowatts of electricity out of a total of 1,500,000, i.e., 77.2 per cent.
Less than one-hundredth of the total number of enterprises utilise more than three-fourths of the total amount of steam and electric power! Two million nine hundred and seventy thousand small enterprises (employing up to five workers), constituting 91 per cent of the total, utilise only 7 per cent of the total amount of steam and electric power! Tens of thousands of huge enterprises are everything; millions of small ones are nothing.
In 1907, there were in Germany 586 establishments employing one thousand and more workers, nearly one-tenth (1,380,000) of the total number of workers employed in industry, and they consumed almost one-third (32 per cent) of the total amount of steam and electric power.[1] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P197F01) As we shall see, money capital and the banks make this superiority of a handful of the largest enterprises still more overwhelming, in the most literal sense of the word, i.e., millions of small, medium and even some big “proprietors” are in fact in complete subjection to some hundreds of millionaire financiers.
In another advanced country of modern capitalism, the United States of America, the growth of the concentration of production is still greater. Here statistics single out industry in the narrow sense of the word and classify enterprises according to the value of their annual output. In 1904 large-scale enterprises with an output valued at one million dollars and over, numbered 1,900 (out of 216,180, i.e., 0.9 per cent). These employed 1,400,000 workers (out of 5,500,000, i.e., 25.6 per cent) and the value of their output amounted to $5,600,000,000 (out of $14,800,000,000, i.e., 38 per cent). Five years later, in 1909, the corresponding figures were: 3,060 enterprises (out of 268,491, i.e., 1.1 per cent) employing 2,000,000 workers (out of 6,600,000, i.e., 30.5 per cent) with an output valued at $9,000,000,000 (out of $20,700,000,000, i.e., 43.8 per cent). [2] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P197F02)
Almost half the total production of all the enterprises of the country was carried on by one-hundredth part of these enterprises! These 3,000 giant enterprises embrace 258 branches of industry. From this it can be seen that at a certain stage of its development concentration itself, as it were, leads straight to monopoly, for a score or so of giant enterprises can easily arrive at an agreement, and on the other hand, the hindrance to competition, the tendency towards monopoly, arises from the huge size of the enterprises. This transformation of competition into monopoly is one of the most important—if not the most important—phenomena of modern capitalist economy, and we must deal with it in greater detail.





In most economic activities, the efficiency of a firm increases with size up to some optimum size and then decreases. The increasing efficiency reflects the advantages of mass production. These advatnages generally occur only up to some definite level of size; for example, one steel mill is far more efficient than a backyard blast furnance, but making an existing steel mill larger brings no added advantage - that is why steel mills are the size they are - and two steel mills are no more efficient than one. Increasing size also brings increased cost of administrative bureocracy. The men at the top get further and further removed from what is actually going on at the bottom and are therefore more likely to make costly mistakes. So efficiency tens to decrease with increasing size once firms have passed the point where they can take full advantage of mass production. For this reason some very large firms, General Motors, for example, break themselves into semi-autonomous units in order to approximate as nearly as possible the more efficient administrative arrangements of smaller firms.

A natural monopoly exists when the optimum size for a firm in some area of production is so large that there is room for only one such firm on the market. A smaller competitor is less efficient than the monopoly firm and hence unable to compete with it. Except where the market is very small (a small town grocery store for example), this is a rather uncommon situation. In the steel industry, which is generally regarded as high concentrated, there are between two hundred and three hundred steel mills, and between one hundred and two hundred firms. The largest four firms (which are by no means the most profitable) produce only haf the total output, and the next four produce only 16 percent of total output.
Again, the refutation of this was given in 1918.


The report of the American Government Commission on Trusts states: “Their superiority over competitors is due to the magnitude of their enterprises and their excellent technical equipment. Since its inception, the Tobacco Trust has devoted all its efforts to the universal substitution of mechanical for manual labour. With this end in view it has bought up all patents that have anything to do with the manufacture of tobacco and has spent enormous sums for this purpose. Many of these patents at first proved to be of no use, and had to be modified by the engineers employed by the trust. At the end of 1906, two subsidiary companies were formed solely to acquire patents. With the same object in view, the trust has built its own foundries, machine shops and repair shops. One of these establishments, that in Brooklyn, employs on the average 300 workers; here experiments are carried out on inventions concerning the manufacture of cigarettes, cheroots, snuff, tinfoil for packing, boxes, etc. Here, also, inventions are perfected.”[13] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P204F01) “Other trusts also employ what are called development engineers whose business it is to devise new methods of production and to test technical improvements. The United States Steel Corporation grants big bonuses to its workers and engineers for all inventions that raise technical efficiency, or reduce cost of production.”[14] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P204F02)
In German large-scale industry, e.g., in the chemical industry, which has developed so enormously during these last few decades, the promotion of technical improvement is organised in the same way. By 1908 the process of concentration of production had already given rise to two main “groups” which, in their way, were also in the nature of monopolies. At first these groups constituted “dual alliances” of two pairs of big factories, each having a capital of from twenty to twenty-one million marks-on the one hand, the former Meister Factory in Hochst and the Casella Factory in Frankfurt am Main; and on the other hand, the aniline and soda factory at Ludwigshafen and the former Bayer Factory at Elberfeld. Then, in 1905, one of these groups, and in 1908 the other group, each concluded an agreement with yet another big factory. The result was the formation of two “triple alliances”, each with a capital of from forty to fifty million marks. And these “alliances” have already begun to “approach” each other, to reach “an understanding” about prices, etc.[15] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P205F01)
Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised.
This is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits) of a country and even, as we shall see, of several countries, or of the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations “divide” them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labour is monopolised, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured—railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation.
Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognised free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable.





The power of a natural monopoly is also limited by indirect competition. Even if steel production were a natural monopoly, and even if the monopoly firm were enormously more efficient than potential competitors, its prices would be limited by the existence of substitutes of steel. As it drove prices higher and higher, people would use more aluminium, plastic, and wood for construction. Similarly a railroad, even if it is a monopoly, faces competition from canal barges, trucks and airplanes.

For all these reasons antural monopolies, although they occasioanlly exist under institutions of laissez-faire, do not seriously interfere with the workings of the market. The methods government uses to control such monopolies do far more damage than the monopolies themselves.
Occasionally exist? Try encompassing the entire capitalist market. Do not interfere with free-market competition? The nature of a monopoly ("natural or state") is the elimination of competition.


Translated into ordinary human language this means that the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still “reigns” and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the “geniuses” of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialised production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialisation, goes to benefit . . . the speculators. We shall see later how “on these grounds” reactionary, petty-bourgeois critics of capitalist imperialism dream of going back to “free”, “peaceful”, and “honest” competition.
“The prolonged raising of prices which results from the formation of cartels,” says Kestner, “has hitherto been observed only in respect of the most important means of production, particularly coal, iron and potassium, but never in respect of manufactured goods. Similarly, the increase in profits resulting from this raising of prices has been limited only to the industries which produce means of production. To this observation we must add that the industries which process raw materials (and not semi-manufactures) not only secure advantages from the cartel formation in the shape of high profits, to the detriment of the finished goods industry, but have also secured a dominating position over the latter, which did not exist under free competition.”[16] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P207F01)
The words which I have italicised reveal the essence of the case which the bourgeois economists admit so reluctantly and so rarely, and which the present-day defenders of opportunism, led by Kautsky, so zealously try to evade and brush aside. Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the “latest phase of capitalist development”; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies.
I shall give one more example of the methods employed by the cartels. Where it is possible to capture all or the chief sources of raw materials, the rise of cartels and formation of monopolies is particularly easy. It would be wrong, however, to assume that monopolies do not arise in other industries in which it is impossible to corner the sources of raw materials. The cement industry, for instance, can find its raw materials everywhere. Yet in Germany this industry too is strongly cartelised. The cement manufacturers have formed regional syndicates: South German, Rhine-Westplialian, etc. The prices fixed are monopoly prices: 230 to 280 marks a car-load, when the cost price is 180 marks! The enterprises pay a dividend of from 12 to 16 per cent—and it must not be forgotten that the “geniuses” of modern speculation know how to pocket big profits besides what they draw in dividends. In order to prevent competition in such a profitable industry, the monopolists even resort to various stratagems: they spread false rumours about the bad situation in their industry; anonymous warnings are published in the newspapers, like the following: “Capitalists, don’t invest your capital in the cement industry!”; lastly, they buy up “outsiders” (those outside the syndicates) and pay them compensation of 60,000, 80,000 and even 150,000 marks.[17] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P208F01) Monopoly hews a path for itself everywhere without scruple as to the means, from paying a “modest” sum to buy off competitors, to the American device of employing dynamite against them.
The statement that cartels can abolish crises is a fable spread by bourgeois economists who at all costs desire to place capitalism in a favourable light. On the contrary, the monopoly created in certain branches of industry increases and intensifies the anarchy inherent in capitalist production as a whole. The disparity between the development of agriculture and that of industry, which is characteristic of capitalism in general, is increased. The privileged position of the most highly cartelised, so-called heavy industry, especially coal and iron, causes “a still greater lack of co-ordination” in other branches of industry—as Jeidels, the author of one of the best works on “the relationship of the German big banks to industry”, admits.[18] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm#fwV22P208F02)

[Octobox]

There is no "up to to point" Capitalism STARTS with property rights.

There are "in-use" property rights in anarcho-communism.

Property Rights are what most wars have been fought over (specifically in relation to access; hunting grounds, fresh water, fishing, soil, grassing land, and mass herd migrations). So, of course "true" Capitalism (Anarcho-Capitalism and Free-Market-Anarchy) have focused on this heavily.

Economics (all branches) are philosophies that will lead to the "least" wars or so their proponents have argued. All of them get into property rights (how to maintain vs how to eliminate).

To say Communism does not focus on that would be a huge misnomer.

So, the argument is "do you maintain (by force)" or "do you disolve (by force" -- and the third argument is "is force necessary?" The latter are the voluntarists -- A-Caps, A-Syns, A-Coms, an A-Socialists.

Personally I believe we need a transition -- I don't care what brand of Anarchy we move into; but, to determine what "brand" we need to get closer to it so we can see it with fresher (less taxed) minds.

An=Not
Archos=Authority

Min=Minimal
Archos=Authority

MinArchy -- a well designed minarchy lead by consumers (everyone is one).

Ocotobx

[Octobox]

You have such a clever sense of humor.

I've pointed out that anarchism and capitalism are two completely opposite ideological trends as well as historical manifestations. Like it or not, anarchism started as a branch of socialism, and has always been geared towards abolishing capitalism.

Can you site sources -- is it universally accepted that "anarchism" started as a form of socialism -- was it a "temporary" union -- geared up for the purpose of overthrowing a "tyrant" (at one moment in time)? It would have to be, because for anything to stay voluntary -- it must reside in the short-run. In the long-run every ideology either dies or turns to force.

Anarchism is a greek word with root-words that have a very specific meaning -- why would it come out of greece then be transformed in meaning to "group-think?" Anarchism, by definition is Individualist -- An=No and Archos=Authority -- Why would socialist gather under such an obvious Individualist banner; unless it was a temporary union (which Capitalism allows for).

Statism is not Capitalism

You and I can have a mutual agreement -- come to contractual terms -- have them mediated by someone with both agree to -- and conduct transportable property transfer. That is very much possible and something that has taken place during all of human history.

I agree with you in one sense. I'm not convinced of how A-Caps can effect land or mineral rights in the long-run -- Nor am I convinced that we can transition from Corporatism to A-Cap with all the property disputes un-resolved. I'm not a Rothbardian. I think a transition needs to take place to deal with this. If Corporatism is Max-Archy (maximum authority) then Minarchism is Min-Archy (minimum authority) and would be the logical transition -- for me a Minarchism that benefits the consumer is the most obvious.

In socialism is it possible for people to have property rights? Or is it a zero property-right existence? Can I own (best use or in-use) the property that I work and live on? Who determines "best use" or "in-use?"


I don't agree with any of this tripe, because it doesn't even make any sens?

"sens?"


Ignoring your horrible grammar and equally as horrible attempts to characterize monopoly capitalism....

If you are going to be a grammar Nazi -- then be perrrrfect? Hahahaha "equally as horrible" should be "equally horrible" -- but that's cool. Oh, does "correct" quoting count. I never said "monopoly capitalism" I said Crony-Capitalism (which is the only way to have a monopoly in the long-run).


I don't agree with any of that, because it is based on capitalism. Why the hell would ask me, a Marxist, if I agree with how capitalism operates?

Actually that was a very logical question -- I was trying to ass-ertain if you could sniff out the correct definition of Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism. You saw the trap and avoided the truth by pulling the ever so tiring ---- "...but I'm only a 'ittle cawmoonist, so natchoorally I disagwee....we don't provide sewwootions we only blitch (blog rant) fo-evoo and evoo (forever and ever)."

[anticap]

Can you site sources -- is it universally accepted that "anarchism" started as a form of socialism

There's about 2,000 pages of source material at anarchistfaq.org

[Octobox]

There's about 2,000 pages of source material at anarchistfaq.org

You mean "The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective?'

They are noted "social anarchists" -- so of course their definitions are going to "exclude" anarcho-capitalist theory.

The definition of social anarchism (defined as anarchist-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist-communism), anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism), collectivist-anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist-anarchism) and Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon)'s mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory))). According to their Wiki page.

They created this FAQ in '95 -- That hardly answers my question.

I said the word is "Greek" in origin -- You cannot change it's meaning -- you can hijack the word (as the word capitalism has been hijacked by socialists and neoconservatives a like).

An = No
Archos = Authority

That's an Individualist Argument (in the long-run)

In the Short-Run you can have Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-Communism (et al social anarchist philosophies); however, on all sides of the original An-Archos if you take these groups arguments into the long run you will have "force."

Anarcho-Communist say you "can't" have currency and no one can own means of production. This might be true in the long-run -- but in the short-run you would need to use force to keep people from developing currency.

Can you imagine how slow transactions would be if there was no currency?

Anarcho-Syndicalist would say "you can't have wages" -- so, no sub-contracting. That's is absurd -- you can't "force" that in a voluntary society.

Anarcho-Capitalist would say "you can own land-property" -- I'm not convinced you can do this in the long run -- Because during transition all public land must become "owned" and that will lead to strife.

I've meditated very deeply on this and I can't resolve any of these positions "perfectly" -- there is always a failing point.

This is why "until our minds are cleared from the effects of Corporatism" we need to transiton through a Minarchism (or Min-Archos or Minimum Authority) -- if you understand Corproatism to be Max-Archos or Maximum Authority; whether it is from Big Gov't or lobbied by Corporatists, there is no doubt we are "ruled over."

Octobox

[anticap]

You mean "The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective?'

They are noted "social anarchists" -- so of course their definitions are going to "exclude" anarcho-capitalist theory.

[drivel redacted]

Yes. That FAQ.

You asked for sources. There are some 2,000 pages jam-packed with them. Sources from the giants of anarchism (as much as I hate using that phrase), not the FAQ writers (although they provide much useful insights as well).

There's no need to PM me when you reply to me, I subscribe to threads I participate in.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Can you site sources -- is it universally accepted that "anarchism" started as a form of socialism -- was it a "temporary" union -- geared up for the purpose of overthrowing a "tyrant" (at one moment in time)? It would have to be, because for anything to stay voluntary -- it must reside in the short-run. In the long-run every ideology either dies or turns to force.

Free Territory of Ukraine, Northeastern Spain during the Spanish Civil War to name the most famous examples.

Short-run? Long-run? What are you talking about?


Anarchism is a greek word with root-words that have a very specific meaning -- why would it come out of greece then be transformed in meaning to "group-think?"
OK, that's it I can safely say it. Your a complete fucking idiot.

Let me spell it out for you.

Words, mean different things to different people. A political ideology cannot be judged according to what it's called, rather the ideology or movement itself. Anarchism, a socialist, anti-capitalist political philosophy, used the word 'Anarchy' because it meant "no rule or authority" in Ancient Greek, so what, this doesn't mean that anarchism as an ideology amounts to simply "no rule or authority". Second, you speak as if words don't evolve, or aren't used in different ways, and that's completely absurd.



Anarchism, by definition is Individualist -- An=No and Archos=Authority -- Why would socialist gather under such an obvious Individualist banner; unless it was a temporary union (which Capitalism allows for).

Why don't you define what you mean by individualism first? It's hard to tell what certain words mean to you, because you take the labels of certain politics too literally.


Statism is not Capitalism
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol:




You and I can have a mutual agreement -- come to contractual terms -- have them mediated by someone with both agree to -- and conduct transportable property transfer. That is very much possible and something that has taken place during all of human history.
Again, you spew nonsense and idealism. I don't care how many mutual agreements you can make, this isn't a concrete basis for an economic system. Mutual fucking agreements don't dictate the material economic conditions of society; again you completely show your lack of insight when it comes to capitalism. If capitalism were based on mutual agreements, then wheres the mutual agreement between the owners and the workers? Don't give me some hiring contract shit, or "you chose to work there", because that is complete nonsense. Capitalism operates based on an exploitative system where the owners of capital retain their property, and workers remain with nothing but wages or scraps from the table. So go ahead, prove to me that capitalism operates on a voluntary basis, prove that every single act of imperialism, war, attacks on workers, etc were all voluntary and mutual agreements. Go ahead, this will be good.


I agree with you in one sense. I'm not convinced of how A-Caps can effect land or mineral rights in the long-run -- Nor am I convinced that we can transition from Corporatism to A-Cap with all the property disputes un-resolved. I'm not a Rothbardian. I think a transition needs to take place to deal with this. If Corporatism is Max-Archy (maximum authority) then Minarchism is Min-Archy (minimum authority) and would be the logical transition -- for me a Minarchism that benefits the consumer is the most obvious.

*sigh* You will never, ever, ever, ever, be able to implement any kind of "transition" if you abolish the state and decentralize all the concentration of production, and completely unsocialise all forms of capital, then you aren't transitioning, your simply destroying the progress of humanity starting from about the late 1700's. All of your worthless dribble has no basis in reality, nor is there any concrete suggestion of how any of this nonsense you advocate will be implemented. Just give up.


In socialism is it possible for people to have property rights? Or is it a zero property-right existence? Can I own (best use or in-use) the property that I work and live on? Who determines "best use" or "in-use?"
Property is owned by society as a whole in socialsm. After the bourgeoisie have been expropriated and defeated (in any given country, multiple countries, or the whole world) the workers of society take hold of the means an tools of production, capital, and begin to transfrom society based on the common ownership of society based on the rule of the people. A worker's state, must be established in order to defend the power of the workers, as well as organize the control and ownership of production. A socialist worker's state (that is, a healthy one) mus be organized among the workers themselves, and positions must be democratically elected, and affairs (ranging from the local to the national, or international) must be handeled by either elected officials, as well as other organizations that make up a workers state. The best way to do this in my opinion, organizationally speaking, is through the form of soviets (russian for 'worker's council').

To give real world examples, you can find your answer in almost any worker's revolution from 1917 up until now. The Soviet Union as the first worker's state in history, was the first group of countries to abolish bourgeois rule, and survive the reaction of international bourgeois capital. The Soviet republic had two types of property state property (or public property, that is property owned by the whole people, as the worker's state in a socialist society is the manifestion of the rule of workers) and collective property (mostly agriculture, this type of property belonged to the workers who formed a part of the collective).




"sens?"
Oh no, god forbid! I made a typo!




If you are going to be a grammar Nazi -- then be perrrrfect? Hahahaha "equally as horrible" should be "equally horrible" -- but that's cool. Oh, does "correct" quoting count. I never said "monopoly capitalism" I said Crony-Capitalism (which is the only way to have a monopoly in the long-run).
Grammar nazi? Pathetic; not only your horrible use of the word nazi, but you can't explain your crazy ideology using simple sentences, rather than a bunch of run-on--hypehened---over speerated--(am I really being a "Nazi" now?), difficult to read sentences, that lose, the reader, after you endlessly mention (fiat moeny, subsidies, etc etc)--stuff that doesn't even make sense. If you want to make it any easier to understand, make it easy to read, thats all I'm saying.



Actually that was a very logical question -- I was trying to ass-ertain if you could sniff out the correct definition of Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism. You saw the trap and avoided the truth by pulling the ever so tiring ---- "...but I'm only a 'ittle cawmoonist, so natchoorally I disagwee....we don't provide sewwootions we only blitch (blog rant) fo-evoo and evoo (forever and ever)."Well its nice to see your so mature, and can discuss in a meaningful manner with out making:


ad hominem attacks

Capitalism vs "Crony Capitalism"? Great, more fictional labeles that only make sense in your deluded head. I'd rather just ignore this bullshit.

[RGacky3]

There are "in-use" property rights in anarcho-communism.


If there is no need for a law for the "property rights" then its pointless to talk about.

For Capitalist property rights "Law" is needed. To stop someone picking apples from a tree that someone 100 miles away "owns".


Anarcho-Syndicalist would say "you can't have wages" -- so, no sub-contracting. That's is absurd -- you can't "force" that in a voluntary society.

Yeah sure, let me ask you something, why would anyone sub-contract them self out in an anarcho-communist society?


Anarcho-Communist say you "can't" have currency and no one can own means of production. This might be true in the long-run -- but in the short-run you would need to use force to keep people from developing currency.

Can you imagine how slow transactions would be if there was no currency?

Why would you need force? Without property laws there would be no need to develop currency.


Free Territory of Ukraine, Northeastern Spain during the Spanish Civil War to name the most famous examples.

Short-run? Long-run? What are you talking about?

If I had a dime that, that had to be repeated over and over again to show that anarchism would'nt turn into people raping and eating each other, or dictators raising up to control the community.


Why don't you define what you mean by individualism first? It's hard to tell what certain words mean to you, because you take the labels of certain politics too literally.

individualism has nothing to do wtih private property, infact private property laws end up taking away (most peoples) individualism, and forcing them into (not collectivism) by subservience (not the most anarchist of concepts).


In socialism is it possible for people to have property rights? Or is it a zero property-right existence? Can I own (best use or in-use) the property that I work and live on? Who determines "best use" or "in-use?"

You don't need property laws to have in use property.

[Havet]

I will stick to my own arguement rather than one you've given me; which was (If you forgot) that free-market competition has little to do with the growth of production and wealth in the 20th century, and at it's most competitive period in the late 19th century, lead to monopoly capitalism. I don't care about the difference nor the relevance between "natural and state" monopolies. The point is that free-market competition, as raging as it was before the turn of the 20th century, inevitably led to monopolies. Today, monopolies play the most important role in the market, as they have for the past century.

Yes that was your initial argument. You also mentioned that it was planned economies that led to industrialization, in Russia and China

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif

Yes, farm privatization was surely part of a planned economy:rolleyes:

On monopolies:

The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price

... the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so as oil comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market for it.
... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; as as to those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to prevent the oil coming at that price.

Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state governments have succeeded where the oil produceers of 1872 have failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state restrictions on production they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

It is also widely believed that railroads wielded unlimited monopoly power. Actually, as shown in Kolko's book, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes - twenty existed between St.Louis and Atlanta, for instance.

Railroad rebates, cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via competitior.
Railroad executives often got toguether to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months, for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the agreeement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in.

J.p Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) commited his enourmous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met almost unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for eg, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D03E3DE143AEF33A2575BC0A9619C94689FD7CF) to control rates among western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where it had been before he intervened.

By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Comission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) was created by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it tp help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

During its the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first inthe direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates (which Kolko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko) estimates were costing the railroads 10% of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power to set rates.

The people with the greatest interest in the ICC were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices they had been unable to get on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldace_F._Walker), one of the original appointees to the ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the board of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads to the present day, in addition it has expanded its power and authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, whenever possible, from undercutting the railroads.



Lenin Data

I have nothing against lenin, and his data is probably right, but:
1- he was assuming there was still a completely free market on the dates he mentioned, when in fact government intervention had already taken place.
2- he assumes also that the monopolies on that time are all natural and a consequence of unregulation.

There are historical examples, especially on railroads:

Elkin's Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elkins_Act) (1903) - "strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) of 1887 by imposing heavy fines on railroads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport) offering rebates and on the shippers accepting them. The railroad companies were not permitted to deviate from published rates."

Hepburn Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepburn_Act) (1906) - " gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) (ICC) the power to set maximum railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad) rates and led to the discontinuation of free passes to loyal shippers. In addition, the ICC could view the railroads' financial records, a task simplified by standardized bookkeeping systems. For any railroad that resisted, the ICC's conditions would remain in effect until the outcome of litigation said otherwise. By the Hepburn Act, the ICC's authority was extended to cover bridges, terminals, ferries, sleeping cars, express companies and oil pipelines."

Further Sources for these acts (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h921.html)


I have also explained above how does government regulation actually favors big business. if you'd like to see more examples, i can show it you (more precisely, the CAB and the AMA).

----

If you still can't understand why natural monopolies are so rare, consider the following example:

Suppose a onopoly is formed, as was U.S.Steel, by financers who succeed in buying up many of the existing firms. Assume further that there is no question of a natural monopoly; a firm much smaller than the new monster can produce as efficiently perhaps even more efficiently. It is commonly argued that the large firm will nonetheless be able to achieve and maintain complete control of the industry. This argument, like many others, depends on the false analogy of market competition to a battle in which the strongest must win.
Suppose the monopoly starts with 99% of the market and that the remaining 1% is held by a single competitor. To make things more dramatic, let me play the role of the competitor. It is argued, that the monopoly being bigger and more powerful, can easily drive me out.
In order to do so, the monopoly must cut its price to a level at which I am losing money. But since the monopoly is no more efficient than I am, it is losing just as much money per unit sold. Its resources may be 99 times as great as mine, but it is also losing money 99 times as fast as I am.
It is doing worse than that. In order to force me to keep my prices down, the monopoly must be willing to sell to everyone who wants to buy; otherwise unsupplied customers will buy from me at the old price. Since at the new old price customers will want to buy more than before, the monopolist must expand production, this losing even more money. If the good we produce ca be easily stored, the anticipation of future prices rises, once our battle is over, will increase present demand still further.

Meanwhile, i have more attractive options. I can, if I wish, continue to produce at full capacity and sell at a loss, loing one dollar for every hundrer or more lost by the monopoly. Or I may save money by laying off some of my workers, closing down part of my plant, an decreasing production until the monopoly gets tired of wasting money.

What about the situation where the monopoly engages in regional price cutting, taking a loss in the area i am operating and making it up in other parts of the country? If i am seriously worried about that prospect, I can take the precaution of opening outlets in all his major markets. Even if i do not, the high prices he charges in other areas to make up for his losses against me will make those areas very attractive to other new firms. Once they are estabished, he no longer has a market in which to make up his losses.
This the artificial monopoly which he tries to use its size to maintain its monopoly is in a sad position, as U.S.Steel, whcih was formed with 60% of total steel production, but which now has about 25%, found out to its sorrow. It has often been claimed that Rockefeller used such tactics to build Standard Oil, but there seems to be little or no evidence for the charge. Standard Oil officials occasionally tried to use the threat of cutitng prices and starting price was in an attempt to persuade competitors to keep their production down and their prices up. But the competitors understood the logic of the situation better than later historians, as shown by the response, quoted by McGee, of the manager of the Cornplanter Refining Company to such a threat:

"Well, I says, 'Mr.Moffet, I am very glad you put it that way, because if it is up to you the only way you can get it [the business] is to cut the market [reduce prices], and if you cut the market I will cut you for 200 miles around, and I will make you sell the stuff,' and I says, 'I don't want a bigger picnic than that; sell it if you want to,' and I bid him good day and left."


The threat never materialized. Indeed it appears, from McGee's evidence, that price cutting more often was started by the small independent firms in an attempt to cut into Standard's market and that many of them were quite successful. Cornplanter's capital grew, in 20 years, from $10,000 to $450,000. As McGee says, commenting on the evidence presented against Standard in the 1911 antitrust case: "It is interesting that most of the ex-Standard employees who destitifed about Standard's deadly predatory tactics entered the oil business when they left Standard. They also prospered."

Another strategy which Rockefeller probably did employ, is to buy out competitors. This is usually cheaper than spending a fortune trying to drive them out - at least, it is cheaper in the short run. The trouble is that people soon realize they can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to Rockefeller at a whopping profit. David.P.Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutie refineries to Rockefeller. There was a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitation in his later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.



Occasionally exist? Try encompassing the entire capitalist market. Do not interfere with free-market competition? The nature of a monopoly ("natural or state") is the elimination of competition.

adressed somewhere above...

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yes that was your initial argument. You also mentioned that it was planned economies that led to industrialization, in Russia and China

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif

Yes, farm privatization was surely part of a planned economy

The industrialization of China began before 1976, before the ousting of the "Gang of Four" and the usurping of power by Deng and his market-reformists. Also, gross domestic product, isn't exactly a measuring stick for industrialization.


On monopolies:

The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price

... the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so as oil comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market for it.
... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; as as to those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to prevent the oil coming at that price.

Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state governments have succeeded where the oil produceers of 1872 have failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state restrictions on production they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

It is also widely believed that railroads wielded unlimited monopoly power. Actually, as shown in Kolko's book, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes - twenty existed between St.Louis and Atlanta, for instance.

Railroad rebates, cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via competitior.
Railroad executives often got toguether to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months, for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the agreeement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in.


J.p Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) commited his enourmous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met almost unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for eg, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D03E3DE143AEF33A2575BC0A9619C94689FD7CF) to control rates among western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where it had been before he intervened.

By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Comission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) was created by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it tp help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

During its the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first inthe direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates (which Kolko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko) estimates were costing the railroads 10% of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power to set rates.

The people with the greatest interest in the ICC were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices they had been unable to get on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldace_F._Walker), one of the original appointees to the ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the board of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads to the present day, in addition it has expanded its power and authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, whenever possible, from undercutting the railroads.Hayenmill, I appreciate your sharing of knowledge on these companies, but it has little to do with proving that free-market competition does not lead to monopoly, as I have been arguing (that it does) this whole time.



I have nothing against lenin:ohmy: You don't? Awesome, we need more people like you then. ;)


, and his data is probably right, but:
1- he was assuming there was still a completely free market on the dates he mentioned, when in fact government intervention had already taken place.No in fact he is arguing the exact opposite; he knew that the "free-market" had lost most real competition by the time he was writing this. That is the whole point of his argument.



2- he assumes also that the monopolies on that time are all natural and a consequence of unregulation.No, because I don't think Lenin even distinguished between "natural or state" monopolies, because he realized that it these distinctions are irrelevant. Lenin knew that with the ever increasing concentration of production in industry, on such a large scale, that competition would either give-way through state monopoly or simply the simple lack of ability for most enterprises to compete (ie natural monopoly).



I have also explained above how does government regulation actually favors big business. if you'd like to see more examples, i can show it you (more precisely, the CAB and the AMA).Bourgeois government regulation, sure. Of course, this is the whole point of imperialism and monopoly capitalism, that the largest most productive enterprises that literally swallow up the competition be protected and entrusted by the bourgeois state.

----


If you still can't understand why natural monopolies are so rare, consider the following example:Monopolies aren't rare, they form the basis for the imperialist market.

[Bud Struggle]

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif


That graph certainly says a lot about the difference between Communism and Capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

Yes that was your initial argument. You also mentioned that it was planned economies that led to industrialization, in Russia and China

removed graph to save space

Yes, farm privatization was surely part of a planned economy:rolleyes:
[SIZE=4]
That's an interesting one because you will notice that China's economic growth has been largely focused in urban areas, indeed things have arguably gotten worse in rural areas. One could argue that farm privatisation was a reform with negative impact that coincided with tremendous growth in other areas of the country.

Of course urban China has seen spectacular economic growth, whether that would have happened without the market reform or under a different kind of reform is unfortunately an open question, though I am inclined to think that it would have. Either way however, simply looking at growth is misleading. A new elite has blossomed in China, but ordinary people are seeing mixed results to put it mildly. In rural areas it is pretty disastrous for reasons previously mentioned and many have been hit hard by the removal of social services.

Growth that catapults a minority ahead while failing to benefit the majority is not satisfactory. Even if you buy into "trickle down" theory, China is still going to be hit hard by all the negative social effects of social inequality over the years. Unlike other East Asian economies such as Hong Kong and Singapore, it is making no effort whatsoever to limit inequality (though admittedly it is rather more difficult for the world's biggest country than it is for City States) and as such the country will become more and more divided. The effects of that-ranging from high crime rates to lower life expectancy-are well documented.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That graph certainly says a lot about the difference between Communism and Capitalism.
It's nominal GDP. It can go up thanks to inflation alone.

[Octobox]

Free Territory of Ukraine, Northeastern Spain during the Spanish Civil War to name the most famous examples.

Short-run? Long-run? What are you talking about?

It depends on the industry or measuring device -- if we are using options it might be one month. If we are talking about business start-up a short-run is probably 1 fiscal year. If we are talking about farming -- a short-run might be one season or one harvesting season. One wiki defines it as: "A Period during which only some factors or variables can be changed because there is not enough time to change the others." Another Wiki says "the concept of the short-run refers to the decision-making time frame of a firm in which at least one factor of production is fixed. Costs which are fixed in the short-run have no impact on a firms decisions"




OK, that's it I can safely say it. Your a complete fucking idiot.

Nice

I think you are incapable of debate -- you give incomplete answers then argue from authority -- that's why you don't get "anarchism" (no authority) -- when that fails you resort to name calling.

Maybe you do not believe in A-Com either? If so, why are you responding to me -- my concern is A-Cap and A-Coms errors in rationale; both of them are off.

If you are a Communist (not A-Com) then you don't believe in voluntarism -- so stop ghosting my posts.

I want to discuss with people who are serious about getting past the errors in A-Cap and A-Com.

If you want to discuss transitionary models like Minarchism then I'd be happy to on another post or in private.

Flame on Flame of Udin

[Octobox]

If there is no need for a law for the "property rights" then its pointless to talk about.

For Capitalist property rights "Law" is needed. To stop someone picking apples from a tree that someone 100 miles away "owns".

Property Rights include more than just land -- Land Rights in the long run or during the transition (from corporatism to a-cap) is a problem.

Even in A-communism property rights are allowed -- just not over labor and not over land.


Yeah sure, let me ask you something, why would anyone sub-contract them self out in an anarcho-communist society?

There's no such thing, first off, as an A-Com community. So, imagine one. Someone would have an advantage and working for that person would bring benefit -- the same reason "Indians" would "contract" out in the larger American-Indian communities -- when the community gets large enough, trade and exchange begin. Let's say I'm a doctor and whomever works for me gets to mentor and will become a doctor. That's a valuable post. Some father's would give up extra food, or game, or their daughters hand in mariage -- if their son could mentor.

You can't stop prestige -- I've never heard of a society that did not have it -- even if it was only minimal.

The Wappo and Pomo people had extensive trade with other Bay Area Indian tribes. They lived in Tribal-Anarchy. They would give game or herds as bridal doweries, hahahaha.

Read "all of human history" to catch up on this.


Why would you need force? Without property laws there would be no need to develop currency.

As soon as you have exchange then you will want "speed in exchange" -- I don't want to drag my communities (best products -- in the south maybe peppers and in the north maybe beans) down to market every day -- so we come up with an agreed means of trade (coins - gold - silver) whatever we hold valuable.


If I had a dime that, that had to be repeated over and over again to show that anarchism would'nt turn into people raping and eating each other, or dictators raising up to control the community.

Anarchism worked in the Americas for 10,000 years prior to settlers comming. Tribal Anarchism -- Tribes ruled within but no one ruled between.


individualism has nothing to do wtih private property, infact private property laws end up taking away (most peoples) individualism, and forcing them into (not collectivism) by subservience (not the most anarchist of concepts).

Private Property Laws -- cannot be enforced in Anarcho-Capitalism (A-Cap) -- unless there is an agreed upon mediator. Then when you agree and leave it's your job to protect it -- no gov't can help you there.

I do have issue with A-Cap notions of Land-Property-Rights.


You don't need property laws to have in use property.

Someone must be held responsible if it is abused and that abuse gets into the underground water or travels through the air.

I'm not an "anarchist" -- I'm a "min-archist" (minimal authority) as a transtion from American Corporatism "Max-archist" (maximal authority).

More improtantly I'm a Consumer-Archist (Con-Archos or Consumer Authority) -- I believe that everyone produces for consumption and the consumer should decide 100% what's to be produced and what's not.

Unless you believe in Internet Gov't Regulation -- if you do then you are not a Conusmer Anarchist.

Maybe you believe people produce for the goodness of their hearts?

Even love is generated to be consumed by the recipient -- hopefully given in kind.

Knowledge is generated to be consumed

Means of Productionare created to produce - product sold / traded to be consumed.

[RGacky3]

That graph certainly says a lot about the difference between Communism and Capitalism.

Its settled, your an absolute idiot.


Originally Posted by Octobox http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1475587#post1475587)
Can you site sources -- is it universally accepted that "anarchism" started as a form of socialism -- was it a "temporary" union -- geared up for the purpose of overthrowing a "tyrant" (at one moment in time)? It would have to be, because for anything to stay voluntary -- it must reside in the short-run. In the long-run every ideology either dies or turns to force. Free Territory of Ukraine, Northeastern Spain during the Spanish Civil War to name the most famous examples.

Short-run? Long-run? What are you talking about?

That was the origional question.

Now what are you talking about here?


It depends on the industry or measuring device -- if we are using options it might be one month. If we are talking about business start-up a short-run is probably 1 fiscal year. If we are talking about farming -- a short-run might be one season or one harvesting season. One wiki defines it as: "A Period during which only some factors or variables can be changed because there is not enough time to change the others." Another Wiki says "the concept of the short-run refers to the decision-making time frame of a firm in which at least one factor of production is fixed. Costs which are fixed in the short-run have no impact on a firms decisions"


If you can't follow the discussion and remember what the questions you aksed that we are answering you can't have a discussion.

Anarchism is'nt per indusry. His examples were societies.


Property Rights include more than just land -- Land Rights in the long run or during the transition (from corporatism to a-cap) is a problem.

Even in A-communism property rights are allowed -- just not over labor and not over land.

Of coarse property rights are allowed, but not by law, in other words you are allowed to have something, but property rights laws are a different thing.

Property rights laws are what is required for Capitalist property.


when the community gets large enough, trade and exchange begin. Let's say I'm a doctor and whomever works for me gets to mentor and will become a doctor. That's a valuable post. Some father's would give up extra food, or game, or their daughters hand in mariage -- if their son could mentor.

Why would a guy need extra food or game if it was available to him for free. That might make sense in a hunter gatherer society, but we live in a post industrial society, we can easily produce enough food for everyone, and without property laws theres no way for someone to hoard enough food to make a difference.


As soon as you have exchange then you will want "speed in exchange" -- I don't want to drag my communities (best products -- in the south maybe peppers and in the north maybe beans) down to market every day -- so we come up with an agreed means of trade (coins - gold - silver) whatever we hold valuable.

Exchange in a anarcho-communist society would be probably very minimal, without property laws like I said, theres no way for someone to hoard up enough stuff to make enchange the way of the land. Anarcho Communist soceities would run on the mutual aid pricniple (which is the natural way to run things without property laws)


Anarchism worked in the Americas for 10,000 years prior to settlers comming. Tribal Anarchism -- Tribes ruled within but no one ruled between.


The Americas is a very big place, some tribes were loose anarchistic tribes, others were not.

But thats not what I was talking about, I was talking about other anarchist examples, mentioned probably more than once in this thread, I'll repeat them if you want.


Someone must be held responsible if it is abused and that abuse gets into the underground water or travels through the air.

I'm not an "anarchist" -- I'm a "min-archist" (minimal authority) as a transtion from American Corporatism "Max-archist" (maximal authority).

More improtantly I'm a Consumer-Archist (Con-Archos or Consumer Authority) -- I believe that everyone produces for consumption and the consumer should decide 100% what's to be produced and what's not.

Unless you believe in Internet Gov't Regulation -- if you do then you are not a Conusmer Anarchist.

Maybe you believe people produce for the goodness of their hearts?

Even love is generated to be consumed by the recipient -- hopefully given in kind.

Knowledge is generated to be consumed

Means of Productionare created to produce - product sold / traded to be consumed.

Save it for your journal.

[Jack]

About the China graph: Economies grow exponentially, it doesn't mean the Chinese working class is any better off.

For instance, since population grows exponentially as well, I could say that the higher population growth at the start of Capitalism v. the 900's was due to Capitalism itself.

[Octobox]

That was the origional question.

I was responding to the other guy "hello kitty" or whatever -- you read both of my posts (one to you and one to him).



If you can't follow the discussion and remember what the questions you aksed that we are answering you can't have a discussion. Anarchism is'nt per indusry. His examples were societies.


It cracks me up you say I need to follow arguments when you are guilty of the same thing -- hopefully I wont have to prove this [go back and re-read]


Of coarse property rights are allowed, but not by law, in other words you are allowed to have something, but property rights laws are a different thing. Property rights laws are what is required for Capitalist property.

I don't need a law to "own" something -- nothing in nature takes possessions back -- whether its a rock or a camera. I "own" it because it's in my possession (presumably I bought it); unless you saw me steal it. The law is meant to disuade or return stolen goods -- that's it.

The "gangster" laws are developed with civilians abdicate self-rule or they never understood it in the first place. Without a thourough understanding of Individualism (there's the obvious then there's the subtle) one cannot hope to ever be "free."

Nothing wrong with temporary unions to get this done, but the "leaders" must be willing to relinquish power.

Theft is illegal/immoral/un-ethical regardless the society and there has never been a society that failed to address it (in one way or another).

Specialization brings advatanges (eventually leverageable advantages), but if the societ is voluntary then they exist only in the short-run. Wisdom can keep the advantage going but never in the long-run by force.

Meditate on how people will specialize and then seek power - there's never been a society where this didn't happen -- not one.



Why would a guy need extra food or game if it was available to him for free. That might make sense in a hunter gatherer society, but we live in a post industrial society, we can easily produce enough food for everyone, and without property laws theres no way for someone to hoard enough food to make a difference.

To gain "favor" -- To sell it to "greedy" people.

"We can easily produce enough food." You really don't understand the effects of "specialization." Some will work harder than others -- some will have to work long-hard (as an intern or in college) before being able to work, they will demand "more" for their sacrifice.

Do you plan on having "cities?" Specialization and Pockets are about all you need to kick start some form of capitalism, hahaha.


Exchange in a anarcho-communist society would be probably very minimal, without property laws like I said, theres no way for someone to hoard up enough stuff to make enchange the way of the land. Anarcho Communist soceities would run on the mutual aid pricniple (which is the natural way to run things without property laws)

You've never seen or heard of a "society" in modern times (dealing with modern issues) existing like this.

Maybe you are a primitivist -- do you want to go back to the late 1800's or early 1900's -- basic farming -- no electricity.

We've only had Corporatism - Econonmic Fascism - Dictorial Socialism - or Gov't Gangsterism. The world has never seen economic-individualism or "communism" (by you folks definition) not on a level that makes the philosophies provable. If you get to say there has been "real" capitalism then you must allow others to say China-Korea-Cuba-Russia (one of those) was "real" communism.

[ls]

Yes they are mutually exclusive, any kind of Capitalism is a ridiculously bad idea and the other makes sense.

Even other an-caps in this thread agree that they can't coexist, this kind of ridiculous coexistant thinking is exactly the kind of irrational insanity you can expect of ancaps.

[Octobox]

Yes they are mutually exclusive, any kind of Capitalism is a ridiculously bad idea and the other makes sense.

Even other an-caps in this thread agree that they can't coexist, this kind of ridiculous coexistant thinking is exactly the kind of irrational insanity you can expect of ancaps.

What? That didn't make sense. You said A-Caps don't think "A-Com and A-Caps can coexist" then you say this "coexistant thinking is just the type of "irrational insanity" that you can expect from A-Caps, hmmm?

Yes that is crazy -- Who said that?

[robbo203]

Are anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism mutually exclusive? It depends on how far you want push the "mutual exclusivity" bit. There are commonalities you can find between any two given sets of ideologies if you care to look.

In a substantive significant sense are these two compatible? Can they coexist? I would say no. Anarcho capitalism is based on production for the market and private ownership of the means of production. Despite itself ,"anarcho-capitalism" will inevitably generate the need for a state of some kind because inevitably it will lead to to, or is predicated upon, class division. Anarcho communism, on the other hand, entails the complete abolution of all market relations, wage labour, money and the state. It is predicated on the principle "from each according to ability to each according to need". Literally speaking that means individuals have completely free access to the things that they need - no exchange is involved - and contribute to the production of these things on a completely voluntary basis.

That also means it simply not possible for a market to develop in these conditions. Why pay for something when you can get it for free? If the means of production are owned in common and are accessible to everyone on a "for use" basis, economic exchange cannnot take root. Exchange implies private (including state) ownership of the means of production. It implies exclusion from the means of production and therefore not communism but some form of capitalism be it private capitalism or state capitalism (as in the USSR).

There is no logical or consistent way in which anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism can coexist. I dont believe anarcho-capitalism is remotely plausible anyway becuase capitalism without a state is just nonsense. It cannot happen. Anarcho communism is the only material basis upon which one realistically anticipate the complete disappearance of the state and will completely extinguish even the theoretical possibility of anarcho-capitalism

[Octobox]

Anarcho capitalism is based on production for the market and private ownership of the means of production.

No it's based on consumption -- the means are a justification for the ends (obviously not always ethical). To thin the worker or the owner are not in business to make a product that is "consumed" (in some fashion) is why communist think thusly, "Why pay for something when you can get it for free?"


Despite itself ,"anarcho-capitalism" will inevitably.....lead to to, or is predicated upon, class division.


Class Division does not begin with "production" it begins with specialization -- "production" is for consumers created by those with "specialized" knowledge.

Put these in proper order; the entrepreneur or the project or consumer-demand?


It is predicated on the principle "from each according to ability to each according to need".

Whoever has that job will have a lot of economic leverage.

It should be the consumer -- demand is pure and always moral as long asthe demanders pay the true cost (morally and economically). It's like the abortion issue. Make the mothers pay the real cost and you will 1/4 the 1.32M abortions in the first year. I think it cost $900 a pop. If you want more of something Welfarize it.



Literally speaking that means individuals have completely free access to the things that they need - no exchange is involved - and contribute to the production of these things on a completely voluntary basis.

Nothing is free dear -- someone will work harder and wiser than others -- some will have positions that are greatly admired and appreciated. People are greedy and ferrit things away for themselves. Prisons use cigarettes as currency -- you just can't stop this process.


Why pay for something when you can get it for free?


If the means of production are owned in common and are accessible to everyone on a "for use" basis, economic exchange cannnot take root.


True -- If there is force. You can't regulate fairness. Biologically and Evolutionarily there is no "fairness" in nature or the universe. Some people have longer bigger muscles -- some are more intelligent -- and EVERYONE lies (in the long-run).


There is no logical or consistent way in which anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism can coexist.

Sure there is -- Let A-Com handle land-based-property issues -- Let A-Cap handle all other property issues and currency and owner/labor issues.

Stop thinking in terms of industrialization. I can buy a computer and start an internet business with less than $2000.

[robbo203]

No it's based on consumption -- the means are a justification for the ends (obviously not always ethical). To thin the worker or the owner are not in business to make a product that is "consumed" (in some fashion) is why communist think thusly, "Why pay for something when you can get it for free?".

I am not too sure what you are driving at here. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, consumer goods do not materialise out of thin air; they are produced. And in the sphere of production we encounter definite relations of production which differentiate individuals along class lines - those who own the means of production and those who dont and who therefore have to sell their working abilities to those who do. Anarcho capitalism will inevitably be a class based system along these lines




Class Division does not begin with "production" it begins with specialization -- "production" is for consumers created by those with "specialized" knowledge.


How does this connect with what I said? I was not talking about the origins of class society. I was talking about anarcho-capitalism which I kind of thought was what this thread was about



Whoever has that job will have a lot of economic leverage

It should be the consumer -- demand is pure and always moral as long asthe demanders pay the true cost (morally and economically). It's like the abortion issue. Make the mothers pay the real cost and you will 1/4 the 1.32M abortions in the first year. I think it cost $900 a pop. If you want more of something Welfarize it..


I have no idea what you are talking about. What economic leverage? To do what? I was talking about the principle from each according to ability to each according to need. You seem to have gone off at a tangent

As for consumers paying the true cost what is the "true cost"? For instance, there have been attempts by the actuarial/insurance industry and others to cost the lives of workers. So compensation for the loss of life as a result of say some industrial accident is reckoned to be such and such amount. How would you begin to explain to the family of a victim that this amount represented the "true cost". Can we ever capture this thing called the true cost. I doubt it



Nothing is free dear -- someone will work harder and wiser than others -- some will have positions that are greatly admired and appreciated. People are greedy and ferrit things away for themselves. Prisons use cigarettes as currency -- you just can't stop this process...

You are completely missing the point here. I am talking about the basic principles of an anarcho-communist society. To say that nothing is free in the sense that everything has opportunity costs is quite true but besides the point. I am talking about "free" in the sense of transactions not being quid pro quo transactions. In other words , a gift economy not an exchange economy. In anarcho communism you dont "exchange" goods. Exchange implies private ownership of the means of production not common ownership

As for saying "People are greedy and ferrit things away for themselves" - yes under certain conditions people will behave greedily. Under other conditions they wont. Marshall Sahlins in his classic book Stone Age Economics points out that hunter gatherer peoples typically ridicule the idea of garnering possessions becuase it actually impedes their nomadic way of life. I live near a small spa towmn in Spain where drinking water flows freely and in abundance from the public fountains. I havent noticed many people greedily pushing aside others in a mad rush to fill up as many containers as possible with this abundant water




True -- If there is force. You can't regulate fairness. Biologically and Evolutionarily there is no "fairness" in nature or the universe. Some people have longer bigger muscles -- some are more intelligent -- and EVERYONE lies (in the long-run)....

Its not a question of force. You dont need force to ensure the anarcho communism functions properly. Free access will always beat having to pay for goods and services on the market hands down every time for a very obvious reason





Sure there is -- Let A-Com handle land-based-property issues -- Let A-Cap handle all other property issues and currency and owner/labor issues..

You are not dealing with the point I just made. How can A-Cap coesist with A-com when free access will inevitably kill market trading stone-dead in its tracks. Free access will always outcompete, so to speak, and win over a market economy. To piously propose some kind of division of labour along the lines you suggest is a forlorn hope



Stop thinking in terms of industrialization. I can buy a computer and start an internet business with less than $2000.

How is this remotely relevant to what we are talking about? You seem to have a tendency to go off at a tangent at the drop of a hat...

[Octobox]

I am not too sure what you are driving at here. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, consumer goods do not materialise out of thin air; they are produced.

Okay -- thanks for the clarification.


And in the sphere of production we encounter definite relations of production which differentiate individuals along class lines - those who own the means of production and those who dont and who therefore have to sell their working abilities to those who do. Anarcho capitalism will inevitably be a class based system along these lines.

This is the Marx Industrialist argument; this is the basis of his fatwa on capitalism (the latter term he coined). We are in the information age not the industrial revolution. On a per capita basis there are 1000 to 1 more private (small) businesses now as compared to then. The reason?

The means of production are highly inexpensive and anyone can own them. Factories (owing to unions, regulation, taxation, and inflation) are being driven over seas and an explosion (in the last 20 years) of micro-cap business has emerged.

I have 12 means of income all of which come from my one computer and a small fee for server revenues -- cost to me? $1000 start up and $60 per month.

My point is without Big Gov't and with 100% Anarchy (no authority) in the Currency Market the class-struggle as we know it would end.

In a "free-market" economy (two sources of revenue: consumers-who-purchase and consumers-who-invest) the wealthy earn profit bursts in the short-run and poor and middle class save and hold wealth in the long-run -- this is exactly the opposite today. Today the wealthy move slow and the poor / middle class sprint. If that isn't obvious I can explain it.

There are only two profit-drivers in a free-market: entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism -- there's no other way to have profit-bursts.

In Economic-Fascism (what we have now) the "3rd" leg in the revenue stream is "gov't lobbied advantages" -- this is the consumer-will over-ride -- it allows the wealthy to hold onto assets when they are no longer profitable; altering the course of technological and business development.

Octobox

[RGacky3]

I don't need a law to "own" something -- nothing in nature takes possessions back -- whether its a rock or a camera. I "own" it because it's in my possession (presumably I bought it); unless you saw me steal it. The law is meant to disuade or return stolen goods -- that's it.

possenssions is different from capitalist ownership.


Nothing wrong with temporary unions to get this done, but the "leaders" must be willing to relinquish power.

If their power is directly accountable and relinquishable, and there is not institutions for them to hold on to power (the IWW for example), it does'nt matter if they are willing or not.

I'll say its perfectly ok for bosses to exist as long as they are willing to relinquish power.


"We can easily produce enough food." You really don't understand the effects of "specialization." Some will work harder than others -- some will have to work long-hard (as an intern or in college) before being able to work, they will demand "more" for their sacrifice.

Do you plan on having "cities?" Specialization and Pockets are about all you need to kick start some form of capitalism, hahaha.


The Specialization your talking about does'nt change anything, because people still "need" each other. Also, like I said, without property laws how can one hoard wealth?

[Patchd]

Every communist revolution has been bloody, before, during and after. You don't see mass graves in America or Canada or France. Lots of mass graves in Asia and eastern Europe.

That's because the US (and other Imperialist) state[s] and ruling class[es] have preferred to keep the mass graves on foreign lands that they had invaded. Not to mention that the USA is not the only Capitalist state, most of Africa is too remember, in fact, pretty much the whole world is.

... and France, really? Have you forgotten WWI?

http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/warpictures/trenches/images-trenches/07-trenches-after-the-attack-gw000.jpg

It might be a good idea to think about your words before using them, ultimately, Capitalism has been responsible for more deaths than "Communism" ever has been. :rolleyes:

[trivas7]

[...]Capitalism has been responsible for more deaths than "Communism" ever has been.
Why is that you hypostasize an economic system into an agent of death, as if economic systems were moral agents? I've never understood this way of arguing, except to condemn as immoral what you oppose. Individuals are moral agents, not economic systems. Capitalists qua capitalists are not agents of death to those who die under capitalism for whatever reason.

[RGacky3]

Why is that you hypostasize an economic system into an agent of death, as if economic systems were moral agents? I've never understood this way of arguing, except to condemn as immoral what you oppose. Individuals are moral agents, not economic systems. Capitalists qua capitalists are not agents of death to those who die under capitalism for whatever reason.

No one was talking about morality, Capitalist kills more poeple because it gives people the power and motivation to kill people, and the institutions and incentive too.

[Patchd]

Why is that you hypostasize an economic system into an agent of death, as if economic systems were moral agents? I've never understood this way of arguing, except to condemn as immoral what you oppose. Individuals are moral agents, not economic systems. Capitalists qua capitalists are not agents of death to those who die under capitalism for whatever reason.

Well for one, economics and politics are not separate. Wars are always representative of at least one side of the Capitalist class, obviously, in times of war, the ruling class will sometimes split over the issue, it's not homogeneous I understand, but either way, war under Capitalism has always been representative of one wing of the bourgeoisie. Thus, is representative of Capitalist expansion, the expansion bit is the important part, as obviously, Capitalism needs to constantly expand into other markets in order to be able to survive and beat their competitors, this is the nature of the economic system we live in.

I'm sorry, but there's no denying that. The ruling class, represented by the state does not fight wars because it's nice to do so or because they're somehow 'helping' the subjects of another region of the world, that may be the pretence they provide for their own subjects in order to garner support, but it's merely that, a pretence.

[trivas7]

Well for one, economics and politics are not separate. Wars are always representative of at least one side of the Capitalist class, obviously, in times of war, the ruling class will sometimes split over the issue, it's not homogeneous I understand, but either way, war under Capitalism has always been representative of one wing of the bourgeoisie. Thus, is representative of Capitalist expansion, the expansion bit is the important part, as obviously, Capitalism needs to constantly expand into other markets in order to be able to survive and beat their competitors, this is the nature of the economic system we live in.

The initiator of force in war is the state, not capitalists. Capitalism is voluntarism, not the initiation of force.

[RGacky3]

The initiator of force in war is the state, not capitalists. Capitalism is voluntarism, not the initiation of force.

I haev a feeling trivas7 is a robot.

[Manifesto]

No, that is incorrect. You would not have to buy land. You could homestead it. You don't have to participate in the capitalist marketplace if you do not want to.
Ya and while we are at it why do we not recreate the feudal system and become vassals!

[Chicano Shamrock]

What's hard to believe. Anarchism simply means "No Rule" or "No Authority"


I'm sorry there is the original greek root word definition then there is fantasical reinterpretation.

Greek Root Words: "An" (meaning NOT) and "Archos" (meaning AUTHORITY)

It was originally used to refer to "self-rule" -- so, it is defined as "No Authority over the Individual"

You can't change the original meaning of words -- no matter the strength of the prolitariate book burners -- hahahaha.
Ok but we aren't talking about greek words are we. If you want to say An Archos then go ahead. That is not the same thing as ANARCHISM. Anarchism is a political theory that has been cultivated for over a century. When we use the word "Anarchy" we aren't saying An Archos are we?

Anarchism is a political theory that is not about "No Authority" and "No Rule". We are all for rules as long as they are come about without a hierarchy. Capitalism creates a hierarchy.

You can't just go about making up definitions for things willy nilly. If our language isn't structured then how do we communicate? LOL

[trivas7]

You can't just go about making up definitions for things willy nilly. If our language isn't structured then how do we communicate? LOL
But the definition of words change. As someone mentioned, at one point anarchists were not considered socialists at all.

[Jack]

But the definition of words change. As someone mentioned, at one point anarchists were not considered socialists at all.

Bullshit, bring some proof then we can talk.

[trivas7]

Bullshit, bring some proof then we can talk.
From Richard A. Garner "Response to Anarchist FAQ":


Anarchism is a political theory, granted, but political theories change. In order to identify a political theory including its changes, one has to throw off historical anomalies and use an essential and objective definition: "The desire for an absence of government" is such an objective, ahistorical, definition, and such is the dictionary definition that anarcho-capitalism is consistent with.



http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/FAQquotes/Proudhon.gif



To further illustrate the difficulties of using an "historical" definition of anarchism to rule out anarcho-capitalism, we can simply point out that the same strategy can be used to rule out anarchist communism. You say that anarchists cannot be capitalists because anarchists have traditionally opposed capitalism; However, until Kropotkin and Cafiero's address to the Congress of the Jura Federation in 1880, there was no organised anarchist communist movement. In fact one of the anarchist communists at the 1880 meeting, Adhemar Schwitzguebel, said "Thus far, the communist idea has been misunderstood among the general populace where there is still a belief that it is a system devoid of liberty". Bakunin equated communism with statism, and Proudhon hated the idea, whether it was small autonomous communes or state communism, and their followers agreed.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Anarcho-capitalism is merely a system of voluntarism based around the non-aggression principle. It is very simple, and fairly broad.

If anarcho-capitalism were merely "voluntarism," the other anarchists here would have no objections. I would reconsider that statement.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

But the definition of words change. As someone mentioned, at one point anarchists were not considered socialists at all.
From Richard A. Garner "Response to Anarchist FAQ":

How is it that you've made thousands of posts but you still can't distinguish between communism and socialism?

Proudhon was mostly certainly a socialist. In fact, his socialism was even more important to him than his anarchism, as evident by his many tax reform proposals.

Words change, yes. That doesn't dispute the fact the character of "anarcho-"capitalism is rooted in slavery and theft.

[trivas7]

If anarcho-capitalism were merely "voluntarism," the other anarchists here would have no objections.
Not so, as RevLeft has a policy of anti-monetarism. Money in a voluntarist society would be perfectly fine.



Words change, yes. That doesn't dispute the fact the character of "anarcho-"capitalism is rooted in slavery and theft.
How so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F1KAXObUIM&feature=related

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not so, as RevLeft has a policy of anti-monetarism.More unsubstantiated claims. If RevLeft codified such a belief, I would be restricted, not a member of the Communist Club.


How so?How can you reference Proudhon as a critique of communists and not know his criticisms of capitalism?

[trivas7]

More unsubstantiated claims. If RevLeft codified such a belief, I would be restricted, not a member of the Communist Club.

This is the only reason anarcho-capitalists are restricted, as they, too, struggle for the abolishment of the state.

How can you reference Proudhon as a critique of communists and not know his criticisms of capitalism?
How can you not know Proudhon's critiques of communism?

Please answer the question of why anarcho-capitalism "is rooted in slavery and theft."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap0LGUt_bMU&feature=channel_page

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is the only reason anarcho-capitalists are restricted, as they, too, struggle for the abolishment of the state.Opposing the current states in power is not enough to be an anarchist. If I were to say "I oppose the state, but I don't oppose rape," anarchists would call for my restriction. "Anarcho"-capitalists make similar ludicrous statements when they defend economic authority; thus they and not mutualists deserve to be sent here.


How can you not know Proudhon's critiques of communism? I do know Proudhon's critiques of communism. Again, you were wrong to argue that anarchism was ever without socialism. Anarchism is, has been, and pending a dystopian catastrophe, always will be, socialist.


Please answer the question of why anarcho-capitalism "is rooted in slavery and theft."Easy. Read Hans Hoppe's defense of free market slavery in an anarcho-capitalist society. I remember finding it on Lew Rockwell's website a few months ago. The lack of limitations on property make "anarcho-capitalism" nothing more than feudalism reimagined. I don't even have to use the labor theory of value in my defense. Hoppe and plenty of others have gone out of their way to defend institutional slavery as capitalist-acceptable. Just need a contract!

[Havet]

Opposing the current states in power is not enough to be an anarchist. If I were to say "I oppose the state, but I don't oppose rape," anarchists would call for my restriction. "Anarcho"-capitalists make similar ludicrous statements when they defend economic authority; thus they and not mutualists deserve to be sent here.

"Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29) and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism#cite_note-2) Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public/community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism#cite_note-3) For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state)."

You guys sure like to use that rape example a lot. I wonder if you have any childhood traumas...


I do know Proudhon's critiques of communism. Again, you were wrong to argue that anarchism was ever without socialism. Anarchism is, has been, and pending a dystopian catastrophe, always will be, socialist. "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_left) ideology,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-brooks-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-9) and much of anarchist economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics) and anarchist legal philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law) reflect anti-statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism) interpretations of communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism), syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) or participatory economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics); however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) strain,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-10) with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism) and private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) (like classical mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) or today's anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) and agorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism)).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-tormey-13)"

Wikipedia anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)


Easy. Read Hans Hoppe's defense of free market slavery in an anarcho-capitalist society. I remember finding it on Lew Rockwell's website a few months ago. The lack of limitations on property make "anarcho-capitalism" nothing more than feudalism reimagined. I don't even have to use the labor theory of value in my defense. Hoppe and plenty of others have gone out of their way to defend institutional slavery as capitalist-acceptable. Just need a contract!

you expect to judge the entire libertarian position based on one idiot? That is not the only bullsht he says you know?

"In June 2005, Hoppe gave an interview in the German newspaper Junge Freiheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Freiheit), in which he characterized monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) as a lesser evil than democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), calling the latter mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule) and saying, "Liberty instead of democracy!" In the interview Hoppe also condemned the French revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution) as belonging in "the same category of vile revolutions as well as the Bolshevik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) revolution and the Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) revolution," because the French revolution led to "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War."

He is also against open borders ("Hans-Hermann Hoppe's views about immigration [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_hoppe#cite_note-8), which do not cast libertarianism as requiring open borders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_borders), have been controversial within the wider libertarian movement.")

He sounds more like an idiot conservative angry with taxes than a libertarian.

Also, while we're on slavery:

"Slavery is a form of forced labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor) in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remuneration) (such as wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages)). "

Does that look like a fckin CONTRACT to you??
Do you think there was CONSENT on both sides?
Or a VOLUNTARY ACTION for that matter?

stop strawmaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman)

[trivas7]

Again, you were wrong to argue that anarchism was ever without socialism. Anarchism is, has been, and pending a dystopian catastrophe, always will be, socialist.

Pre-industrial anarchists were essentially, like most stripes of Marxists, authoritarians. Only these are allowed in RevLeft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4AFhmXnnKE&feature=related




[...]you expect to judge the entire libertarian position based on one idiot? That is not the only bullsht he says you know?

stop strawmaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman)
Indeed, this is a straw man argument. Jack London was a white supremacist, Baikunin a conspiratorial madman.

[Octobox]

Ok but we aren't talking about greek words are we. If you want to say An Archos then go ahead. That is not the same thing as ANARCHISM. Anarchism is a political theory that has been cultivated for over a century. When we use the word "Anarchy" we aren't saying An Archos are we?

The word anarchism is older than social-anarchism. In Greece, the concept was individual-anarchism -- as the definition makes apparent.

An=No and Archos=Authority


Anarchism is a political theory that is not about "No Authority" and "No Rule". We are all for rules as long as they are come about without a hierarchy. Capitalism creates a hierarchy.

Rules without Hierarchy? I can't imagine what that'd look like in a large society. You like "rules" you don't like Hierarchy, do you like "authority?"

If you have authority then you will have hierarchy as some "comittee" members have more knowledge than others (always the case).

Anarchism is Voluntarism -- No Force -- Correct?




You can't just go about making up definitions for things willy nilly. If our language isn't structured then how do we communicate? LOL


You change the definition then you laugh at me? Hmmmm?

Octobox

[trivas7]

Why market anarchism is, in fact, anarchism:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVeDEgxR_Jg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVeDEgxR_Jg)