Havet
24th August 2009, 21:37
This is a very interesting post from user Noor at ALL forums (http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/ancaps-t475.html). Check it out:
Mike Gogulski posted a link to this on Facebook - What about Voluntary Agreements? (http://lifeafterauthority.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/what-about-voluntary-agreements/)
And the comments--
Jason Seagraves
I think "capitalism," wage labor, and rent WOULD flourish in a free society. This author saying that "capitalists" are afraid of moves towards freedom misses the point -- anarcho-capitalists are not. Fascists aren't interested in preserving "capitalism," they're interested in preserving fascism. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the "libertarian left" -- which I originally thought I was a part of.
Jessop Breth
/cheer jason
Kyle Bennett
It comes down to one issue with the anarcho-socialists: if they are going to try to take my property by force, I will resist with force. Unless one or the other changes his mind, the result will be, eventually, blood and death. I won't be the one to change my mind.
Aside from that, this author holds the labor theory of value, and he explicitly dismisses the role of reason and capital as factors of production. So long as we can avoid conflict over the property issue, the latter questions would be answered in the marketplace.
Rob Steel
'If capitalism, wage labor, and rents would flourish in a society built upon voluntary agreements, one has to wonder why the capitalists tend to be so afraid of moves toward such a society, typically using... well, you know, to get the unruly populace back in line.'
'I guess the problem is that people often don’t go for the Officially Approved form of “freedom”, so they need to be punished. Eventually a New Capitalist Man will arise who will act according to the wisdom of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises without the fear of…well, you can imagine.'
Rob Steel
And Jason stated this well above, but the current collectivist, fascist system is NOT capitalism. Not even close. True capitalism cannot exist in a society ruled by a coercive group of thugs calling themselves "government".
Jason Seagraves
Wow, I thought I was going to be attacked for writing what I wrote. Glad to see I'm not the only one. I also was sickened by this article I read today: http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/11 ... anism.html It seems some "libertarians" have gone off the deep end into Marxoid desire to recreate human nature in the perfect "libertarian" image.
Anton Lee
I'm a voluntaryist, and I don't really care if everyone else in the world wants to be a communist or socialist or democrat or republican. . doesn't matter. What matters is them leaving me alone if I decide not to partake.
Rob Steel
Anton - I agree completely. I just want to be left alone. The marketplace will decide what works and what doesn't...
Kyle Bennett
Jason, damn, I thought that your link indicated he had put up something new. I followed that guy from the time he started that particular blog, but he just up and disappeared a while ago.
Anyway, don't dismiss him out of hand. He's definitely hard left, borderline if not fully AnSoc, but he's a pretty sophisticated thinker. There's a lot more substance to his writing than a cursory read looking for hot-button terms would indicate. I recommend reading all the articles on his blog if you get the chance. There's not a very long history there, unfortunately.
Tennyson McCalla
Anarchism is an old tradition, with adherents spread worldwide. 99% of those adherents (perhaps more, perhaps less) are social anarchists, communists, syndicalists, and primitives. The smallest fraction of the anarchist are individualists, mutualists, "capitalists", or what have you. One of the tenets of anarchism has traditionally been opposition to capitalism.
But almost no "capitalist" I know of thinks of their "capitalism" in the way that they do, so there's a conflict over terms. It makes no sense to me to continue using the term while I claiming adherence to this old, widespread, tradition of anarchism. I have my disagreements with them, as they have with each other, but my agreements with them are greater and more important.
The best thing for all anarchists to do, if they want build and maintain alliances, is to find these agreements and focus on the disagreements through a lens of them.
Armando Doreste
"On the one hand, sure this may be true. But this is what needs to be emphasized: why is it that you have to take orders from someone in order to work?"
Straw men 'r us is having a clearance.
The funny thing is, arguments like the author's are almost completely demolished by the argumenter's own hand the moment he/she decides to voluntarily ignore the fact that no one HAS to take orders to work for anyone in a voluntaryist society.
Tennyson McCalla
As a libertarian, and a believer in voluntary action's superiority to violence, I have to struggle with questions of wages, rents, profits, interests, and other things that exist in today's society.
But I'm not sure that those who only focused on those activities and events through the "Robinson Crusoe" method of a tabula rasa world, can see their existence in this world for what they are or might be.
Rob Steel
The term capitalism has been bastardized more than libertarianism...
Jason Seagraves
My take is that anarcho-capitalists are not descendant of "historical" anarchists. This should not be a controversial take. Rothbard created something new with the fusion of Austrian economics and classical liberalism. Anarchistic thinkers make interesting points, especially the American individualist anarchists, but so does Marx, etc. I only use the term "capitalism" in quotes or proceeded by anarcho. But historical anarchists, as socialists, are utopian central planners at heart, wishing to redefine man's nature into something it's not, and ascribing values where value should be neutral. I do not count myself among these people, even if we may make common cause from time to time.
Tennyson McCalla
Sure Rothbard created something new when he put together the traditions of Mises and the Austrian subjectivists/marginalists with natural law anarchism, but that doesn't mean that he himself thought that he was outside of tradition. He continuously made reference to his libertarian forebears (levellers, civil liberties heroes, figures mentioned in Conceived in Liberty, School Men, old economists, French Revolutionaries, class warfare doctrinaires, Bastiat, Molinari, etc.) The point of the libertarian left isn't to reject or accept totally either side of the name, but to fill in where those two sides lack with the inputs of the other.
«But historical anarchists, as socialists, are utopian central planners at heart…»
This is something I've never seen proven, but I've heard asserted before. Having not read all of the relevant material I can't make a determination either way but I have reason to doubt the truth of the assertion: http://tinyurl.com/lqeff2
Mike Gogulski posted a link to this on Facebook - What about Voluntary Agreements? (http://lifeafterauthority.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/what-about-voluntary-agreements/)
And the comments--
Jason Seagraves
I think "capitalism," wage labor, and rent WOULD flourish in a free society. This author saying that "capitalists" are afraid of moves towards freedom misses the point -- anarcho-capitalists are not. Fascists aren't interested in preserving "capitalism," they're interested in preserving fascism. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the "libertarian left" -- which I originally thought I was a part of.
Jessop Breth
/cheer jason
Kyle Bennett
It comes down to one issue with the anarcho-socialists: if they are going to try to take my property by force, I will resist with force. Unless one or the other changes his mind, the result will be, eventually, blood and death. I won't be the one to change my mind.
Aside from that, this author holds the labor theory of value, and he explicitly dismisses the role of reason and capital as factors of production. So long as we can avoid conflict over the property issue, the latter questions would be answered in the marketplace.
Rob Steel
'If capitalism, wage labor, and rents would flourish in a society built upon voluntary agreements, one has to wonder why the capitalists tend to be so afraid of moves toward such a society, typically using... well, you know, to get the unruly populace back in line.'
'I guess the problem is that people often don’t go for the Officially Approved form of “freedom”, so they need to be punished. Eventually a New Capitalist Man will arise who will act according to the wisdom of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises without the fear of…well, you can imagine.'
Rob Steel
And Jason stated this well above, but the current collectivist, fascist system is NOT capitalism. Not even close. True capitalism cannot exist in a society ruled by a coercive group of thugs calling themselves "government".
Jason Seagraves
Wow, I thought I was going to be attacked for writing what I wrote. Glad to see I'm not the only one. I also was sickened by this article I read today: http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/11 ... anism.html It seems some "libertarians" have gone off the deep end into Marxoid desire to recreate human nature in the perfect "libertarian" image.
Anton Lee
I'm a voluntaryist, and I don't really care if everyone else in the world wants to be a communist or socialist or democrat or republican. . doesn't matter. What matters is them leaving me alone if I decide not to partake.
Rob Steel
Anton - I agree completely. I just want to be left alone. The marketplace will decide what works and what doesn't...
Kyle Bennett
Jason, damn, I thought that your link indicated he had put up something new. I followed that guy from the time he started that particular blog, but he just up and disappeared a while ago.
Anyway, don't dismiss him out of hand. He's definitely hard left, borderline if not fully AnSoc, but he's a pretty sophisticated thinker. There's a lot more substance to his writing than a cursory read looking for hot-button terms would indicate. I recommend reading all the articles on his blog if you get the chance. There's not a very long history there, unfortunately.
Tennyson McCalla
Anarchism is an old tradition, with adherents spread worldwide. 99% of those adherents (perhaps more, perhaps less) are social anarchists, communists, syndicalists, and primitives. The smallest fraction of the anarchist are individualists, mutualists, "capitalists", or what have you. One of the tenets of anarchism has traditionally been opposition to capitalism.
But almost no "capitalist" I know of thinks of their "capitalism" in the way that they do, so there's a conflict over terms. It makes no sense to me to continue using the term while I claiming adherence to this old, widespread, tradition of anarchism. I have my disagreements with them, as they have with each other, but my agreements with them are greater and more important.
The best thing for all anarchists to do, if they want build and maintain alliances, is to find these agreements and focus on the disagreements through a lens of them.
Armando Doreste
"On the one hand, sure this may be true. But this is what needs to be emphasized: why is it that you have to take orders from someone in order to work?"
Straw men 'r us is having a clearance.
The funny thing is, arguments like the author's are almost completely demolished by the argumenter's own hand the moment he/she decides to voluntarily ignore the fact that no one HAS to take orders to work for anyone in a voluntaryist society.
Tennyson McCalla
As a libertarian, and a believer in voluntary action's superiority to violence, I have to struggle with questions of wages, rents, profits, interests, and other things that exist in today's society.
But I'm not sure that those who only focused on those activities and events through the "Robinson Crusoe" method of a tabula rasa world, can see their existence in this world for what they are or might be.
Rob Steel
The term capitalism has been bastardized more than libertarianism...
Jason Seagraves
My take is that anarcho-capitalists are not descendant of "historical" anarchists. This should not be a controversial take. Rothbard created something new with the fusion of Austrian economics and classical liberalism. Anarchistic thinkers make interesting points, especially the American individualist anarchists, but so does Marx, etc. I only use the term "capitalism" in quotes or proceeded by anarcho. But historical anarchists, as socialists, are utopian central planners at heart, wishing to redefine man's nature into something it's not, and ascribing values where value should be neutral. I do not count myself among these people, even if we may make common cause from time to time.
Tennyson McCalla
Sure Rothbard created something new when he put together the traditions of Mises and the Austrian subjectivists/marginalists with natural law anarchism, but that doesn't mean that he himself thought that he was outside of tradition. He continuously made reference to his libertarian forebears (levellers, civil liberties heroes, figures mentioned in Conceived in Liberty, School Men, old economists, French Revolutionaries, class warfare doctrinaires, Bastiat, Molinari, etc.) The point of the libertarian left isn't to reject or accept totally either side of the name, but to fill in where those two sides lack with the inputs of the other.
«But historical anarchists, as socialists, are utopian central planners at heart…»
This is something I've never seen proven, but I've heard asserted before. Having not read all of the relevant material I can't make a determination either way but I have reason to doubt the truth of the assertion: http://tinyurl.com/lqeff2