Octobox
18th July 2009, 18:19
Marx was correct in his coining of Capitalism as a negative because he was refering to two consumer/labor/monetary/property evils: 1) Economic-Fuedalism -which leads to- 2) Economic-Fascism (Capitalism / Corporatism).
Since he coined the word/phrase then it's his right to define it.
The biggest mistake in Free-Market Theory is to try to "hijack" Marx's word. So, why did they do this?
Economic-Individualism is a much better phrase and implies (if you accept "individualism" to mean individual-anarchism).
I cannot resolve (meditatively) the idea that property "law" over a anarchist society can exist alongside the axiom of non-violence. Nor can I work-out how any contract between individuals or groups can be maintained in the long-run (in this case years/decades) regarding land-tied property ownership or use (the latter in reference to assets that need permanent land-use -- like oil pipes or mines or heavy non-mobile machinery).
I can see how transportable property (for communists we can call it "in-use possessions") can be "traded" and kept in the long-run -- That a contract can exist wherein the defense of ones leveraged assets or other possessions that the trade rests upon can be removed; however no contract can effect the lives - free-association - use of ones own possessions out side of this mediated agreement.
Nor can a group (Anarcho-Communism) or society "own" or "control" the use of land (by law or force) in a voluntary society. In all land issues the "breaking point" is minerals, above ground water consumption, under ground water consumption, and farming practices -- all of which can effect the quality and available consumption of water/air/soil in adjacent communities.
How do we resovle the land-tied property issue in a voluntary society? If we cannot use A-Com or A-Cap as models.
The above assumes we transitioned from Corporatism (Economic-Fascism) toward Economic-Individualism (Voluntarism) and so did the rest of the world -- eliminating the ability of protracted war (all societies free and voluntary).
Since he coined the word/phrase then it's his right to define it.
The biggest mistake in Free-Market Theory is to try to "hijack" Marx's word. So, why did they do this?
Economic-Individualism is a much better phrase and implies (if you accept "individualism" to mean individual-anarchism).
I cannot resolve (meditatively) the idea that property "law" over a anarchist society can exist alongside the axiom of non-violence. Nor can I work-out how any contract between individuals or groups can be maintained in the long-run (in this case years/decades) regarding land-tied property ownership or use (the latter in reference to assets that need permanent land-use -- like oil pipes or mines or heavy non-mobile machinery).
I can see how transportable property (for communists we can call it "in-use possessions") can be "traded" and kept in the long-run -- That a contract can exist wherein the defense of ones leveraged assets or other possessions that the trade rests upon can be removed; however no contract can effect the lives - free-association - use of ones own possessions out side of this mediated agreement.
Nor can a group (Anarcho-Communism) or society "own" or "control" the use of land (by law or force) in a voluntary society. In all land issues the "breaking point" is minerals, above ground water consumption, under ground water consumption, and farming practices -- all of which can effect the quality and available consumption of water/air/soil in adjacent communities.
How do we resovle the land-tied property issue in a voluntary society? If we cannot use A-Com or A-Cap as models.
The above assumes we transitioned from Corporatism (Economic-Fascism) toward Economic-Individualism (Voluntarism) and so did the rest of the world -- eliminating the ability of protracted war (all societies free and voluntary).