Why Market Anarchists are NOT socialists

[RGacky3]

Anarchism is not a form of government, its not a societal blueprint, its a philosophy, more than that, its a collection of movements and struggles.

Anarchism is (partially) the struggle against power, and the attempt to shift power to the people from the elite.

The arguments leftists genereally have on this website against market anarchists is about societal blueprints, what our "utopia" looks like. Really though this is just a small part of what Anarchism is, a much bigger part is what we are doing to fight power and how to shift power.

Markets Anarchists believe in ONLY shifting power away from the state, while leaving corporate power intact, even state power that protects workers from corporate power (their motivations are a different issue), or that actually shifts power. When confronted with an issue Market Anarchists WILL ALWAY (almost) side with property, even though supposedly they are against state property laws, they are MORE against laws that protect workers and help the people.

If Market anarchists got their way on issues, corporate power would go up and up and up and people power would shrivel, of coarse some corporate power would leave as well, however their main base of power will stay intact and grow.

If Market Anarchists were really leftists, their focus would be on supporting unions, working class organizations, community organizations, rather than just claiming to accept them as somewhat legitimate, but really supporting property.

[Havet]

Market anarchists oppose corporations in principle, so I guess your whole thread fails.

If you've read just the slightest of theory (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html) you'd know this.

[RGacky3]

Market anarchists oppose corporations in principle, so I guess your whole thread fails.


Key word "in principle," everything they fight for however ends up streangthening corporations.

However, I did'nt say corporations, I said property, i.e. the Capitalist class.

[Havet]

Key word "in principle," everything they fight for however ends up streangthening corporations.

However, I did'nt say corporations, I said property, i.e. the Capitalist class.

Actually you said corporations (or better, corporate power):


If Market anarchists got their way on issues, corporate power would go up and up and up and people power would shrivel, of coarse some corporate power would leave as well, however their main base of power will stay intact and grow.

Tell me how can a corporation be created, or exist, or even strengthen, in a stateless society when its very existence relies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) on the State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personality)?

Anyway, read up on property (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html#secg12).

[RGacky3]

Tell me how can a corporation be created, or exist, or even strengthen, in a stateless society when its very existence relies (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) on the State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personality)?

It cannot, however, we are not just around the corner from a stateless society, now when we look at issues we have to think do this issues help workers or do they help property interests, and the stance you take on most issues tends to be the ones that do not help workers and instead help property interests, infact they shift power toward property interests.

me and you have had tons of discussions on property, that is'nt the point. The point is the stance you take on most of the issues (and other socalled "market anarchists") is in favor of corporate power (even though in the end you don't support corporations).

Its the same thing with Leninists supporting making a strong centralized state even though they claim their end goal is a stateless society.

[Havet]

It cannot, however, we are not just around the corner from a stateless society, now when we look at issues we have to think do this issues help workers or do they help property interests, and the stance you take on most issues tends to be the ones that do not help workers and instead help property interests, infact they shift power toward property interests.

Really? Care to be less abstract? Are you perhaps referring to my stance in the minimum wage and the UK Royal Mailing ?

Because i'm still awaiting replies to my arguments. How is workers having no way to support themselves a good thing, for eg?


me and you have had tons of discussions on property, that is'nt the point. The point is the stance you take on most of the issues (and other socalled "market anarchists") is in favor of corporate power (even though in the end you don't support corporations).

I'm up for debate. I think many so called "socialists" have a stance wher they advocate actions which are actually harmful to workers they are trying to defend.

[RGacky3]

Are you perhaps referring to my stance in the minimum wage and the UK Royal Mailing ?

Because i'm still awaiting replies to my arguments. How is workers having no way to support themselves a good thing, for eg?


All of those situations are under the rediculous assumption that capitalists will act less brutally if they had more power, those things and other things you support shift power toward the capitalists and away from the workers.


I'm up for debate. I think many so called "socialists" have a stance wher they advocate actions which are actually harmful to workers they are trying to defend.

The fact is, one of hte main parts of socailism is worker advocacy, meaning shifting desicion making toward the workers. You and other market anarchists, ALWAYS defend property against the state, thats what you do, that lessens worker control and raises capitalist control and also raises capitalist control over the state.

[Havet]

All of those situations are under the rediculous assumption that capitalists will act less brutally if they had more power, those things and other things you support shift power toward the capitalists and away from the workers.

What? Did you even read what I typed? I don't want to give capitalists more power. This is why if we just took the minimum wage away, it would not be enough, because capitalists would still hold an advantage over the others (through the privilege granted by government to capital).

It's right there, in my first post of the thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1559392&postcount=1) (right at the bottom).


The fact is, one of hte main parts of socailism is worker advocacy, meaning shifting desicion making toward the workers. You and other market anarchists, ALWAYS defend property against the state, thats what you do, that lessens worker control and raises capitalist control and also raises capitalist control over the state.

Where have I even said that?

Listen, I made a thread a while back (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765), which showed the opinion of this guy called Keith Preston, and basically I agree with everything in that thread. Check it out, it might help you understand some of my beliefs and arguments.

Regarding your accusations, here's a particular passage of that thread which may enlighten it.


The removal of state-imposed impediments to economic activity – taxes, regulations, prohibitions, licenses, currency monopoly, patents, subsidies – would naturally result in the dramatic expansion of the quantity and variety of businesses, partnerships and entrepreneurial associations of virtually every kind. If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills. A dramatic increase in the number of businesses and employers would mean that workers would have a much larger number of potential employers to choose from in addition to greatly expanded opportunities for self-employment. This would in turn radically increase the bargaining power of workers in terms of their dealings with employers. The cost of wage labor would increase as the market for employees became drastically more competitive. Workers in large-scale industrial operations would have the option of demanding the right of self-management if they so desired and, given the expanded availability of credit and capital, workers would be able to buy out capitalists and essentially become their own employers. So the dominant forms of economic organization in an authentic free market would be worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons. Industries that remained nominally owned by outside shareholders would largely function on a co-determined basis, that is, as partnerships between shareholders and labor with labor having the upper hand.(8 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#8)) So the traditional anarcho-syndicalist ideal of an industrial system owned and operated by the workers could, for the most part, be achieved in the context of a stateless free market.

[RGacky3]

My point is, that your MAIN goal is promoting the free market, protecting property, and stopping any regulations on the free market. You also believe that workers would do better under a free market, but everyone claims workers do better under their ideology. Your priority is the free market, NOT economic democracy.

[Havet]

My point is, that your MAIN goal is promoting the free market, protecting property, and stopping any regulations on the free market. You also believe that workers would do better under a free market, but everyone claims workers do better under their ideology. Your priority is the free market, NOT economic democracy.

Not really. Where you have freedom, you'll have free markets. But just because there is a free-market doesn't mean people are free in all aspects. Freedom to trade is just a small part of many other freedoms.

Freedom to trade is not enough to make sure people will be free to develop their being. There has to be other factors, such as equality of opportunity, mutual aid, etc.

My main goal is freedom, on all levels. I think we could solve many problems with freedom to trade, but not all. I hope this clears some things.

[Parker]

My point is, that your MAIN goal is promoting the free market, protecting property, and stopping any regulations on the free market. You also believe that workers would do better under a free market, but everyone claims workers do better under their ideology. Your priority is the free market, NOT economic democracy.

To be fair, Hayenmill is not arguing for the "free market" as we normally think of it, i.e., as unlimited corporate power. Rather, he sees "free market capitalism" as we have it now as being a product itself of state power and privilege.

If people had direct access to the means of production for themselves, they would work and trade without exploitation, and this would include worker co-operatives and property based on use rather than force (as I understand it).

I don't completely agree with the mutualist anarchists, but I do not think they are enemies of anarchism or libertarian socialism - unlike the traditional free market right, who undoubtedly are. I realise that they have been appropriated by the anarcho-capitalist brigade, but this has been through selective plundering of that history, twisting the ideas of the individualist anarchists to suit their agenda.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html

[IcarusAngel]

To be fair our "market anarchists" like hayenmill and dejavu are essentially trolls. One admits he is 'new' to market anarchism, yet creates dozens of threads that basically say the same thing, and another is a confirmed Misean. Both of them have discussed the 'choices' corporations and businesses offer people, without pointing out that these choices aren't free at all and, while perhaps better than pure slavery, are made better often by the state instead of the corporate gods.

Market anarchists and market socialists are fine. They admit that property is often hierarchical and tyrannical, and that we often need property systems that are more 'dynamic,' such as when a community is constantly deciding what uses a factory could serve. Property really only comes in the forms of 'possessions' as the classical anarchists advocated.

Also, dismantling the more cooperative and public aspects of the state (elections, recalls, health care, government research) etc. is not a viable plan.

One analogy a market anarchist used is a prisoner trying to escape - if you're a prisoner, are you going to protest against food being given to you? Because the market is such a failure many people die without market corrections. Some Libertarians want to cut the lifeline for workers, while leaving the state apparatus (the military, the corporations, the police, the laws of the judicial system) basically untouched.

Rgacky is right to question the vulgar Libertarians but there are market-socialists who are genuinely leftist and anarchist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Market Anarchy can't work. In fact, capitalism being inherently authoritarian, Anarchy is antithetical.

Besides, in a society where government is dissolved and corporations run free over the rights of workers and people those corporations form the government and are backed by the powerful Private Security Firms they can hire to be their army.

[gorillafuck]

To be fair our "market anarchists" like hayenmill and dejavu are essentially trolls.
This is one of the worst sentences to start with the phrase "to be fair".

[IcarusAngel]

I obviously meant 'to be fair to market socialism.' Many market socialists sound just like libertarian-socialists but ours sound more like a Libertarian party representative.

Many market anarchists are also familiar with the works of David Schweickart, Chomsky, Zinn, Russell whereas hayenmill doesn't even know who they are.

Sorry, their sources (rothbard, Mises, et al.) are not the best representatives of market anarchists, and many market anarchists even AGREE that dismantling the state in the Libertarian fashion is stupid.

[RGacky3]

Also, dismantling the more cooperative and public aspects of the state (elections, recalls, health care, government research) etc. is not a viable plan.



Thats the thing, you see I don't care what you say your endgame plan is, if all the things you support right now, i.e. what type of things you want to see happen immediately always benefit property and capitalists, then in my opinion your not a leftist.


My main goal is freedom, on all levels. I think we could solve many problems with freedom to trade, but not all. I hope this clears some things.

I understand, heres the problem, in a constitutional monarchy, the constitution limits the monarchs power, if you were to have absolute anarchism and freedom there would be no constitution and no monarchy. However if thats your end goal, but what you fight for right now is to end the constitution but not the monarchy, your not an anarchist, what your fighting for ends up empowerin the monarchy.

Thats how i see it with you guys and property. One major part of socialism is the fight against capitalists, property, thats THE major fight.


To be fair, Hayenmill is not arguing for the "free market" as we normally think of it, i.e., as unlimited corporate power. Rather, he sees "free market capitalism" as we have it now as being a product itself of state power and privilege.

If people had direct access to the means of production for themselves, they would work and trade without exploitation, and this would include worker co-operatives and property based on use rather than force (as I understand it).

I don't completely agree with the mutualist anarchists, but I do not think they are enemies of anarchism or libertarian socialism - unlike the traditional free market right, who undoubtedly are. I realise that they have been appropriated by the anarcho-capitalist brigade, but this has been through selective plundering of that history, twisting the ideas of the individualist anarchists to suit their agenda.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html)

I understand that, but again, I' not talking about their end goals, I'm talking about the things they suppoert right now. That being said, I don't think they are enemies either, I just don't consider them socialists.


Many market socialists sound just like libertarian-socialists but ours sound more like a Libertarian party representative.

I don't know any market anarchists except for the ones here.

[Havet]

To be fair our "market anarchists" like hayenmill and dejavu are essentially trolls. One admits he is 'new' to market anarchism, yet creates dozens of threads that basically say the same thing, and another is a confirmed Misean. Both of them have discussed the 'choices' corporations and businesses offer people, without pointing out that these choices aren't free at all and, while perhaps better than pure slavery, are made better often by the state instead of the corporate gods.

lol


Market anarchists and market socialists are fine. They admit that property is often hierarchical and tyrannical, and that we often need property systems that are more 'dynamic,' such as when a community is constantly deciding what uses a factory could serve. Property really only comes in the forms of 'possessions' as the classical anarchists advocated.

Agreed


Also, dismantling the more cooperative and public aspects of the state (elections, recalls, health care, government research) etc. is not a viable plan.

I think nobody here, except a few OIers and revisionists, really advocate dismantling anything. This is why this is a revolutionary forum. It makes as much sense dismantling the State as it does "freeing" the market. However, since we have a parliamentary democracy where those in power always get more benefits either way, doing either is a waste of time.


One analogy a market anarchist used is a prisoner trying to escape - if you're a prisoner, are you going to protest against food being given to you? Because the market is such a failure many people die without market corrections. Some Libertarians want to cut the lifeline for workers, while leaving the state apparatus (the military, the corporations, the police, the laws of the judicial system) basically untouched.

Those are the Libertarian Minarchists. Anyway, glad i'm not one of them :)

[Havet]

Many market anarchists are also familiar with the works of David Schweickart, Chomsky, Zinn, Russell whereas hayenmill doesn't even know who they are.

Well, you never bothered to tell me about them. Just because I come from a different background doesn't mean my opinions are inherently false. Also, I know who David and Chomsky are (especially Chomsky, you seem to love him, not that it matters anyway).


Sorry, their sources (rothbard, Mises, et al.) are not the best representatives of market anarchists, and many market anarchists even AGREE that dismantling the state in the Libertarian fashion is stupid.

Yeah I agree dismantling the State in the Libertarian fashion is stupid and useless. Just because I quote David Friedman sometimes doesn't mean I agree with his "reforms" of the State.

[Havet]

I understand, heres the problem, in a constitutional monarchy, the constitution limits the monarchs power, if you were to have absolute anarchism and freedom there would be no constitution and no monarchy. However if thats your end goal, but what you fight for right now is to end the constitution but not the monarchy, your not an anarchist, what your fighting for ends up empowerin the monarchy.

Ah, interesting analogy. Well I don't think I'm just fight for ending the "constitution". The reason why it may appear that I'm just fighting for ending the "constitution" is because I have good reasons to believe the "monarchy" will dissolve without the general consensus of a "constitution".

To give you a concrete example, allow me to quote my other thread, regarding the "Communalization" of big corporations, like Wal-mart.


As for the specific question asked by a reader related to the issue of how a Wal-Mart or McDonald’s might be communalized, I am skeptical as to whether or not large retail and fast food chains of the type we are currently familiar with could even exist in a genuine free market. The success of these chains results from their ability to undercut their local competitors with lower prices. But their lower prices are possible only because of the massive state subsidies to trucking, shipping, infrastructure, aviation, etc. If such corporations had to cover their own costs in these areas, they might not be able to compete with local alternatives.(12 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#12))

Barring such a scenario, however, I suspect these industries might be "communalized" through either an employee buyout or through implementation of a general strike for worker self-management. There is also the possibility of a buyout by federations of community, environmental, consumer and other types of popular organizations.

[Dejavu]

Anarchism is not a form of government, its not a societal blueprint, its a philosophy, more than that, its a collection of movements and struggles.

I take anarchism to mean no rulers and as an extension of that no unjust hierarchies.


Anarchism is (partially) the struggle against power, and the attempt to shift power to the people from the elite.


Anarchism is a liberty orientated philosophy. I agree.


The arguments leftists genereally have on this website against market anarchists is about societal blueprints, what our "utopia" looks like. Really though this is just a small part of what Anarchism is, a much bigger part is what we are doing to fight power and how to shift power.


The difference between MAs and most individualist anarchists and the revleft or dogmatically socialist anarchists is the issue of property. MAs and most individualist anarchists do not believe in the tyrannical abolishment of property rights of individuals, only the state's claim to property and property distribution.


Markets Anarchists believe in ONLY shifting power away from the state, while leaving corporate power intact, even state power that protects workers from corporate power (their motivations are a different issue), or that actually shifts power. When confronted with an issue Market Anarchists WILL ALWAY (almost) side with property, even though supposedly they are against state property laws, they are MORE against laws that protect workers and help the people.

That's not a fair representation and you know it. MAs believe that discrediting and getting rid of the state also necessarily gets rid of corporations as corporations are legal fictions created by the state. Its highly debatable whether the state actually protects workers or makes them worse off. You should look at the arguments against state sponsered unions. Morally, it is the same thing as state subsidized corporations. MAs do not accept the false dictomy that if you are not for the state then you are against workers.


If Market anarchists got their way on issues, corporate power would go up and up and up and people power would shrivel, of coarse some corporate power would leave as well, however their main base of power will stay intact and grow.


Corporations could not exist without a state unless you can show propped up corporations have nothing to do with state power.



If Market Anarchists were really leftists, their focus would be on supporting unions, working class organizations, community organizations, rather than just claiming to accept them as somewhat legitimate, but really supporting property.

MAs do support unions in the sense of voluntary and non-state sponsered unions. MAs look at statist unions as fundamentally the same thing as statist corporations and would find it contradictory to support one but not the other. They reject both.

[Jazzratt]

Anarchism is a liberty orientated philosophy. I agree.


Anarchism is a worker orientated ideology that supports the destruction of state power and market coercion not because of some idealistic philosophical attatchement to vague ideas of "liberty" but because it is of demonstrable benefit to the working class. This is why I'm never going to be seeing eye to eye with free-marketeering scum.

[Dejavu]

Anarchism is a worker orientated ideology that supports the destruction of state power and market coercion not because of some idealistic philosophical attatchement to vague ideas of "liberty" but because it is of demonstrable benefit to the working class. This is why I'm never going to be seeing eye to eye with free-marketeering scum.

Anarchism is a pro-liberty philosophy nonetheless. It is actually not an economic philosophy, it is a social and political philosophy of organization without the inclusion of rulers in these areas.

What you are describing is particularly socialism or syndicalism , not specifically anarchism.

[RGacky3]

The reason why it may appear that I'm just fighting for ending the "constitution" is because I have good reasons to believe the "monarchy" will dissolve without the general consensus of a "constitution".

Thats essencially the opposite from Stalinists, the problem is, unless you destroy the whole thing at once, your just gonna get rid of the parts that hold back corporate power, that workers have fought for and end up streangthening the capitalists, now thats just my opinion, however, a leftist, a socialist, by definition, attacks corporate power directly.


I take anarchism to mean no rulers and as an extension of that no unjust hierarchies.

Thats not a blue print, its a philosophy, its an idea.


That's not a fair representation and you know it. MAs believe that discrediting and getting rid of the state also necessarily gets rid of corporations as corporations are legal fictions created by the state. Its highly debatable whether the state actually protects workers or makes them worse off. You should look at the arguments against state sponsered unions. Morally, it is the same thing as state subsidized corporations. MAs do not accept the false dictomy that if you are not for the state then you are against workers.


Like I said, look at the illustration of the constitutional monarchy, corporations are NOT the only way the capitalist class can rule, property laws in general are the main tool.

I am not for the state, but if the people force the the state to work for them as opposed to the capitalist, I support that. You would destroy the working classes victories if it involves the state, even if it does'nt your usually against it, in practice, what you guys generally do, is fight tooth and nail against any restriction on property power.

Libertarians and the such LOVE to fight against trade restrictions, love to fight against any protectionism, howeer when was the last time you heard a libertarian fight for illigal immigrant rights?


MAs do support unions in the sense of voluntary and non-state sponsered unions. MAs look at statist unions as fundamentally the same thing as statist corporations and would find it contradictory to support one but not the other. They reject both.

WHen was the last time libertarians actively supported unions.


What you are describing is particularly socialism or syndicalism , not specifically anarchism.

Anarchism IS a form of socialism, its allways been that way.

[Havet]

Thats essencially the opposite from Stalinists, the problem is, unless you destroy the whole thing at once, your just gonna get rid of the parts that hold back corporate power, that workers have fought for and end up streangthening the capitalists, now thats just my opinion, however, a leftist, a socialist, by definition, attacks corporate power directly.


And where haven't I suggested attacking corporate power directly? Corporate power comes from the State - through subsidizations, regulations and IP laws. You remove the State, many corporations will collapse.

However, some will still remain - the ones that didn't rely on the State so much. I'm pretty sure workers could demand an employee buyout or through implementation of a general strike for worker self-management. There is also the possibility of a buyout by federations of community, environmental, consumer and other types of popular organizations.

[Dejavu]

Edit change, stand by.

[Dejavu]

Like I said, look at the illustration of the constitutional monarchy, corporations are NOT the only way the capitalist class can rule, property laws in general are the main tool. I don't understand what you mean by the whole constitutional monarchy bit. You might want to check this (http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Jasay/jsyStt2.html#1.2%20Title%20and%20Contract) out though.

( Hayen, and maybe Olaf, you really might be interested in reading that link I just gave.)


I am not for the state, but if the people force the the state to work for them as opposed to the capitalist, I support that. You would destroy the working classes victories if it involves the state, even if it does'nt your usually against it, in practice, what you guys generally do, is fight tooth and nail against any restriction on property power.Sorry, I have to facepalm when somebody complains about unrestricted 'property power' and then concludes ' that's why we need to use the state.'


Libertarians and the such LOVE to fight against trade restrictions, love to fight against any protectionism, howeer when was the last time you heard a libertarian fight for illigal immigrant rights?LOVE? What does that mean? I have heard plenty of self-described libertarians support the notion that people should be able to go where they want, including so-called 'illegal' 'immigrants.' You are quite foolishly throwing all eggs into one basket since we all know there are socially conservative 'libertarians' in the mainstream.




WHen was the last time libertarians actively supported unions.
I can't think of when libertarians actively supported compulsory unions. That was the point I was making. I don't see libertarians opposing voluntary unions and if they did I would be indeed surprised.



Anarchism IS a form of socialism, its allways been that way.*Sigh*

[RGacky3]

And where haven't I suggested attacking corporate power directly? Corporate power comes from the State - through subsidizations, regulations and IP laws. You remove the State, many corporations will collapse.

However, some will still remain - the ones that didn't rely on the State so much. I'm pretty sure workers could demand an employee buyout or through implementation of a general strike for worker self-management. There is also the possibility of a buyout by federations of community, environmental, consumer and other types of popular organizations.

Like I said, your big thing is attacking the state, no matter what, corporate power is'nt your aim, you just claim that some big buisiness would'nt stand because of the state, but thats not leftism at all, your not a socialist.


I don't understand what you mean by the whole constitutional monarchy bit.

THe Capitalists are the monarchy, the consitution is the state, you just want to get rid of the constitution and hope the monarchy would go with it.


Sorry, I have to facepalm when somebody complains about unrestricted 'property power' and then concludes ' that's why we need to use the state.'



I never said thats why we need to use the state, but the fact is, you don't care about property power, thus you are not a socialist.


I can't think of when libertarians actively supported compulsory unions. That was the point I was making. I don't see libertarians opposing voluntary unions and if they did I would be indeed surprised.


When have libertarians supported unions ever? any type of union, or any working class organizations? Your not a socialist, because the fact is you don't care about the working class fight against the capitalists, all you care about is state power, whether it be aginst the working class (sometimes) but mainly against the capitalist class.

[Havet]

Like I said, your big thing is attacking the state, no matter what, corporate power is'nt your aim, you just claim that some big buisiness would'nt stand because of the state, but thats not leftism at all, your not a socialist.


How would I not be a socialist? I oppose the State and corporations (more precisely, I oppose inequality of opportunity based on force). Just because I have a different idea (and accurate) idea of how corporations are formed and maintained doesn't mean i'm "less socialist than you".

In fact, you're actually anti-socialist if you think private business doesn't collide with the State.

[IcarusAngel]

Corporations don't derive their power from patents and intellectual property. Corporations existed before we had strong IP and patent laws heavily enforced by government. Corporations derive their power from 'market systems,' such as capitalism. In fact, if all copyrights and IP were removed it may even make consolidation worse as then one corporation could get so big and start stealing everybody else's ideas without any threat of retaliation from another corporation. (Corporations right now often don't enforce software patents because another corporation would retaliate leading to a lengthy legal battle that is bad publicity and that neigher corporation would want. Apple and MS spent several years in court, for example.)

Capitalism gets its power from CAPITAL. It's right in the word, so it's easy for people to understand.

A socitalist society needs to eliminate:

elements such as Gold being used for money (makes no sense)
Capital
Money itself.
Price systems.
Landed property....

More and more evidence shows that this could be done.

[Dejavu]

THe Capitalists are the monarchy, the consitution is the state, you just want to get rid of the constitution and hope the monarchy would go with it.

Sorry , I don't understand your point. Either you're using a bad analogy or maybe you can clarify. I see the world a little differently. There are bad people and good people , or at least people that are not bad. The bad people like to initiate force against others to get what they want. I am for the elimination of the weapon they can use to get it. I don't claim I've come up with a scheme to eliminate bad people , just a way to make them more on par with the rest of society in terms of power.




I never said thats why we need to use the state, but the fact is, you don't care about property power, thus you are not a socialist.

What is 'property power?' Which context are you using this in?




When have libertarians supported unions ever? any type of union, or any working class organizations? Your not a socialist, because the fact is you don't care about the working class fight against the capitalists, all you care about is state power, whether it be aginst the working class (sometimes) but mainly against the capitalist class.

I think most libertarians you run into will generally support workers to freely associate and organize. Once again , the difference is between compulsory or voluntary means. Your misunderstanding of the state and its role in depriving workers more than capitalists is astounding. Where did you learn such things?

[RGacky3]

How would I not be a socialist? I oppose the State and corporations (more precisely, I oppose inequality of opportunity based on force). Just because I have a different idea (and accurate) idea of how corporations are formed and maintained doesn't mean i'm "less socialist than you".

In fact, you're actually anti-socialist if you think private business doesn't collide with the State.

You do not believe in the socialization of the economy ... You oppose the state, and some corporations, not directly, but you just think some of them will collapse because of the state, thats not socialism.

I never said private business does'nt collide with the state, but thats because of private business power, not because of state power.


There are bad people and good people , or at least people that are not bad. The bad people like to initiate force against others to get what they want. I am for the elimination of the weapon they can use to get it. I don't claim I've come up with a scheme to eliminate bad people , just a way to make them more on par with the rest of society in terms of power.

Fine thats what you believe, but that does'nt make you a socialist.


What is 'property power?' Which context are you using this in?

THe power that property owners have over non property owners, that power is simply based on the fact that they own and others don't.


I think most libertarians you run into will generally support workers to freely associate and organize. Once again , the difference is between compulsory or voluntary means.

Just because you allow unions, does'nt mean your a socialist.


Your misunderstanding of the state and its role in depriving workers more than capitalists is astounding. Where did you learn such things?

At what point did I support the state? Who are you arguing against?

[Havet]

You do not believe in the socialization of the economy ... You oppose the state, and some corporations, not directly, but you just think some of them will collapse because of the state, thats not socialism.

I never said private business does'nt collide with the state, but thats because of private business power, not because of state power.


Well I believe the economy would be "socialized" in a free market, at least under an anarcho-syndicalist perspective. Check both (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671) my threads (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) regarding that subject.

I already said I oppose corporations directly as much as I oppose the State, because the State is a tool of the corporations, and the corporations are a result of the State.

I don't think that "some" will collapse. I think that pretty much all would collapse if the State dissapeared. If not, then worker demand of the right to self-manage would take care of the rest in a genuine free market.

Corporations have only managed to get such a big private power due to the Statist special privilege granted to them, in form of special laws, limited liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability), legal fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personality), etc.

[IcarusAngel]

Private capital IS the state, or would become the state in the absence of a public government. The government merely extends their power, but those who can extend their power can also taketh away. In modern history, capital has more often than not come into the conflict with the interests of the state. And by 'modern history' I mean at least since the 1700s since private capital was being challenged.

Thus, all people who support capitalism are inherently statist, including most (if not all) free-marketeers. And it's a bad form of statism, one worse than even corporatism.

Most Libertarians want to leave some elements of the public government (the police and so on) while doing nothing to dismantle capital.

Thus, I don't use the term free-market, because it is associated with tyranny. I use 'free trade,' although that as well has been distorted. Perhaps 'free-sharing' and so on would explain that you have a right to trade with one another.

You DO NOT have the right to singularly monopolize land. By making the question more complicated than it needs be hayenmill shows he has ulterior motives for promoting capitalism (probably his only defense for supporting any efforts to weaken the tyranny of private capital would be my guess).

[IcarusAngel]

'UNDER the influence of socialism, most liberal thought in recent years has been in favour of increasing the power of the State, but more or less hostile to the power of pirvate property. On the other hand, syndicalism has been hostile both to the State and to private property. I believe that syndicalism is more nearly right than socialism in this respect, that both private property and the State, which are the two most powerful institutions of the modern world, have become harmful to life through excess of power, and that both are hastening the loss of vitality from which the civilized world increasingly suffers. The two institutions are closely connected, but for the present I wish to only consider the state..." --Bertrand Russell


There it is. Simple, clear, lucid in its presentation. Private property property and the state are two powerful institutions (governments) holding back freedom.

By overcomplicating the issue it's obvious that market anarchists just drive people away with a lot of nonsensical rhetoric that borders on post modernism.

I would keep my eye on this 'institution' of private proerty though, which has gotten far too out of hand to justify some government curtailment of the slavery.

[Skooma Addict]

'UNDER the influence of socialism, most liberal thought in recent years has been in favour of increasing the power of the State, but more or less hostile to the power of pirvate property. On the other hand, syndicalism has been hostile both to the State and to private property. I believe that syndicalism is more nearly right than socialism in this respect, that both private property and the State, which are the two most powerful institutions of the modern world, have become harmful to life through excess of power, and that both are hastening the loss of vitality from which the civilized world increasingly suffers. The two institutions are closely connected, but for the present I wish to only consider the state..." --Bertrand Russell


There it is. Simple, clear, lucid in its presentation. Private property property and the state are two powerful institutions (governments) holding back freedom.

By overcomplicating the issue it's obvious that market anarchists just drive people away with a lot of nonsensical rhetoric that borders on post modernism.

I would keep my eye on this 'institution' of private proerty though, which has gotten far too out of hand to justify some government curtailment of the slavery.


The quote you provided doesn't really prove anything. It is just the opinion of one of the most overrated philosophers in history.

Without the state, I see no reason why private property would just disappear. In fact, the state is itself a violation of private property rights.

[IcarusAngel]

Russell is presenting the history of socialism and liberalism, which is accurate. Since the 1700s many 'progressives' advocated using the state to curtail the tyranny of private property, slavery, and other slave-like institutions. Furthermore, syndicalists directly opposed both private property and the state, seeing them as intertwined. As Proudhon said, 'capital IS government.' And others saw landed monopoly as a great evil.

Since capitalism IS statism, what is actually happening is two forms of statism competing against one another. One more benevolent (social democracy) than the other.

There is nothing inaccurate about the quote posted and it has been known in social science for quite some time.

As for Russell's philosophy it would be difficult to overestimate its importantance. He and Wittgenstein made a huge paradigm shift in philosophy, away from continental philosophy and towards analytic philosphy, of A. J. Ayer, Quine, Chomsky, Fodor, Pinker, et al. and really anybody who dabbles in philosophy yet also has a scientific mind.

His work in mathematics led to the advancement of 'classes' and set theory and ultimately ended up showing all math is not reducible to logic, which, in my opinion, completely destroys any attempt to use an 'axiomatic' approach to any issue.

[Skooma Addict]

Since capitalism IS statism, what is actually happening is two forms of statism competing against one another. One more benevolent (social democracy) than the other.I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are defining capitalism differently than I am. Marx coined the term, correct? I am not sure what his definition is, but the term "capitalism" in the way I use it has nothing to do with statism. That is, it does not rely on a state for its existence, although it can exist side by side with a State.



As for Russell's philosophy it would be difficult to overestimate its importantance. He and Wittgenstein made a huge paradigm shift in philosophy, away from continental philosophy and towards analytic philosphy, of A. J. Ayer, Quine, Chomsky, Fodor, Pinker, et al. and really anybody who dabbles in philosophy yet also has a scientific mind.I don't deny that Russel was an adequate philosopher, but he is immensely overrated. When I think of the founders of Analytic Philosophy, the two names that come to mind are Frege and Moore.

Some of Russel's logic was also flawed. Read Fire, Women, and Dangerous Things to find out why. But to be fair, we really shouldn't hold this against Russel, since many other philosophers still cling to his brand (Aristotelian) of logic. For example, people still cling to the necessary/sufficient condition nonsense. Russel did have some good things to say when it came to logic, but Prototype Theory shows that he was incorrect on many points.

Quine also destroyed many of the assumptions made by analytic philosophers.

[IcarusAngel]

Frege and Moore both had shaky foundations to their philosophy. William Quine fundamentally agreed with many of Russell's assumption and said that Russell's work represented the greatest influence on his own. Modern logic rest largely upon Russell and is a big reason why set theory is taught along side even basic algebra now.

The reason Rusell is more well known than some of these other philosophers is that he also had an impact on linguistics, ethics, the cognitive revolution (see a history of the cognitive revolution), morality, and science. He also advanced the atheist/agnostic movement, and wasn't as in your face as Dawkins etc.


For example, here is Russell presenting the problem of 'physics and perception; he shows that we can look at the problem objectively, and that, when dealing with reality, there are ways that are inherently more objective than others. It clearly shows that there is no inherent logic to believing in nonsense, such as fairies or creationism etc., and these things cannot be justified logically:


Bertrand Russell (1927) Philosophy. New York, W. W. Norton

Chapter XIII Physical and Perceptual Space. pp 137-143

Perhaps there is nothing so difficult for the imagination as to teach it to feel about space as modern science compels us to think. This is the task which must be attempted in the present chapter.
We said in Chapter XII that we know about what is happening in the brain exactly what naive realism thinks it knows about what is happening in the world. This remark may have seemed cryptic; it must now be expanded and expounded.
The gist of the matter is that percepts, which we spoke about at the end of last chapter, are in our heads; that percepts are what we can know with most certainty; and that percepts contain what naive realism thinks it knows about the world.
But when I say that my percepts are in my head, I am saying something which is ambiguous until the differen kinds of space have been explained, for the statement is only true in connection with physical space. There is also a space in our percepts, and of this space the statement would not be true. When I say that there is space in our percepts, I mean nothing at all difficult to understand. I mean - to take the sense of sight, which is the most important in this connection - that in what we see at one time there is up and down, right and left, inside and outside. If we see, say, a circle on a blackboard, all these relations exist within what we see. The circle has a top half and a bottom half, a right-hand half and a left-hand half, an inside and an outside. Those relations alone are enough to make up a space of sorts. But the space of every-day life is filled out with what we derive from touch and movement - how a thing feels when we touch it, and what movements are necessary in order to grasp it. Other elements also come into the genesis of the space in which everybody believes who has not been troubled by philosophy; but it is unnecessary for our purposes to go into this question any more deeply. The point that concerns us is that a man's percepts are private to himself: what I see, no one else sees; what I hear, no one else hears; what I touch, no one else touches; and so on. True, others hear and see something very like what I hear and see, if they are suitably placed; but there are always differences. Sounds are less loud at a distance; objects change their visual appearance according to the laws of perspective. Therefore it is impossible for two people at the same time to have exactly identical percepts. It follows that the space of percepts, like the percepts, must be private; there are as many perceptual spaces as there are percipients. My percept of a table is outside my percept of my head, in my perceptual space; but it does not follow that it is outside my head as a physical object in physical space. Physical space is neutral and public: in this space, all my percepts are in my head, even the most distant star as I see it. Physical and perceptual space have relations, but they are not identical, and failure to grasp the difference between them is a potent source of confusion.
To say that you see a star when you see the light that has come from it is no more correct than to say that you see New Zealand when you see a New Zealander in London. Your perception when (as we say) you see a star is causally connected, in the first instance, with what happens in the brain, the optic nerve, and the eye, then with a light-wave which, according to physics, can be traced back to the star as its source. Your sensations will be closely similar if the light comes from a lamp at the top of a mast. The physical space in which you believe the "real" star to be is an elaborate inference; what is given is the private space in which the speck of light you see is situated. It is still an open question whether the space of sight has depth, or is merely a surface, as Berkeley contended. This does not matter for our purposes. Even if we admit that sight alone shows a difference between an object a few inches from the eyes and an object several feet distant, yet you certainly cannot, by sight alone, see that a cloud is less distant than a fixed star, though you may infer that it is, because it can hide the star. The world of astronomy, from the point of view of sight, is a surface. If you were put in a dark room with little holes cut in the ceiling in the pattern of the stars letting light come through, there would be nothing in your immediate visual data to show that you were not "seeing the stars". This illustrates what I mean by saying that what you see is not "out there" in the sense of physics.
We learn in infancy that we can sometimes touch objects we see, and sometimes not. When we cannot touch them at once, we can sometimes do so by walking to them. That is to say, we learn to correlate sensations of sight with sensations of touch, and sometimes with sensations of movement followed by sensations of touch. In this way we locate our sensations in a three-dimensional world. Those which involve sight alone we think of as "external", but there is no justification for this view. What you see when you see a star is just as internal as what you feel when you feel a headache. That is to say, it is internal from the standpoint of physical space. It is distant in your private space, because it is not associated with sensations of touch, and cannot be associated with them by means of any journey you can perform.
Your own body, as known to you through direct experience, is quite different from your own body as considered in physics. You know more about your own body than about any other through direct experience, because your own body can give you a number of sensations that no other body can, for instance all kinds of bodily pains. But you still know it only through sensations; apart from inference, it is a bundle of sensations, and therefore quite different, prima facie, from what physics calls a body.
Most of the things you see are outside what you see when (as one says) you see your own body. That is to say: you see certain other patches of colour, differently situated in visual space, and say you are seeing things outside your body. But from the point of view of physics, all that you see must count as inside your body; what goes on elsewhere can only be inferred. Thus the whole space of your sensible world with all its percepts counts as one tiny region from the point of view of physics.
There is no direct spatial relation between what one person sees and what another sees, because no two ever see exactly the same object. Each person carries about a private space of his own, which can be located in physical space by indirect methods, but which contains no place in common with another person's private space. This shows how entirely physical space is a matter of inference and construction.
To make the matter definite, let us suppose that a physiologist is observing a living brain - no longer an impossible supposition, as it would have been formerly. It is natural to suppose that what the physiologist sees is in the brain he is observing. But if we are speaking of physical space, what the physiologist sees is in his own brain. It is in no sense in the brain that he is observing, though it is in the percept of that brain, which occupies a part of the physiologist's perceptual space. Causal continuity makes the matter perfectly evident: light waves travel from the brain that is being observed to the eye of the physiologist, at which they only arrive after an interval of time, which is finite though short. The physiologist sees what he is observing only after the light waves have reached his eye; therefore the event which constitutes his seeing comes at the end of a series of events which travel from the observed brain into the brain of the physiologist. We cannot, without a preposterous kind of discontinuity, suppose that the physiologist's percept, which comes at the end of this series, is anywhere else but in the physiologist's head.
This question is very important, and must be understood if metaphysics is ever to be got straight. The traditional dualism of mind and matter, which I regard as mistaken, is intimately connected with confusions on this point. So long as we adhere to the conventional notions of mind and matter, we are condemned to a view of perception which is miraculous. We suppose that a physical process starts from a visible object, travels to the eye, there changes into another physical process, causes yet another physical process in the optic nerve, finally produces some effect in the brain, simultaneously with which we see the object from which the process started, the seeing being something "mental", totally different in character from the physical processes which precede and accompany it. This view is so queer that metaphysicians have invented all sorts of theories designed to substitute something less incredible. But nobody notices an elementary confusion.
To return to the physiologist observing another man's brain: what the physiologist sees is by no means identical with what happens in the brain he is observing, but is a somewhat remote effect. From what he sees, therefore, he cannot judge whether what is happening in the brain he is observing is, or is not, the sort of event that he would call "mental". When he says that certain physical events in the brain are accompanied by mental events, he is thinking of physical events as if they were what he sees. He does not see a mental event in the brain he is observing, and therefore, supposes that there is in that brain a physical process that he can observe and a mental process which he cannot. This is a complete mistake. In the strict sense, he cannot observe anything in the other brain, but only the percepts which he himself has when he is suitably related to that brain (eye to microscope, etc.). We first identify physical processes with our percepts, and then, since our percepts are not other people's thoughts, we argue that the physical processes in their brains are something quite different from their thoughts. In fact, everything that we can directly observe of the physical world happens inside our heads, and consists of "mental" events in at least one sense of the word "mental". It also consists of events which form part of the physical world. The development of this point of view will lead us to the conclusion that the distinction between mind and matter is illusory. The stuff of the world may be called physical or mental or both or neither, as we please; in fact, the words serve no purpose. There is only one definition of the words that is unobjectionable: "physical" is what is dealt with by physics, and "mental" is what is dealt with by psychology. When, accordingly, I speak of "physical" space, I mean the space that occurs in physics.
It is extrordinarily difficult to divest ourselves of the belief that the physical world is the world we perceive by sight and touch; even if, in our philosophic moments, we are aware that this is an error, we nevertheless fall into it again as soon as we are off our guard. The notion that what we see is "out there" in physical space is one which cannot survive while we are grasping the difference between what physics supposes to be really happening, and what our senses show us as happening; but it is sure to return and plague us when we begin to forget the argument. Only long reflection can make a radically new point of view familiar and easy.
Our illustrations hitherto have been taken from the sense of sight; let us now take one from the sense of touch. Suppose that, with your eyes shut, you let your finger-tip press against a hard table. What is really happening? The physicist says that your finger-tip and the table consist, roughly speaking, of vast numbers of electrons and protons; more correctly, each electron and proton is to be thought of as a collection of processes of radiation, but we can ignore this for our present purposes. Although you think you are touching the table, no electron or proton in your finger every really touches an electron or proton in the table, because this would develop an infinite force. When you press, repulsions are set up between parts of your finger and parts of the table. If you try to press upon a liquid or a gas, there is room in it for the parts that are repelled to get away. But if you press a hard solid, the electrons and protons that try to get away, because electrical froces from your finger repel them, are unable to do so, because they are crowded close to others which elbow them back to more or less their original position, like people in a dense crowd. Therefore the more you press the more they repel your finger. The repulsion consists of electrical forces, which set up in the nerves a current whose nature is not very definitely known. This current runs into the brain, and there has effects which, so far as the physiologist is concerned, are almost wholly conjectural. But there is one effect which is not conjectural, and that is the sensation of touch. This effect, owing to physiological inference or perhaps to a reflex, is associated by us with the finger-tip. But the sensation is the same if, by artificial means, the parts of the nerve nearer the brain are suitably stimulated - e.g. if your hand has been amputated and the right nerves are skilfully manipulated. Thus our confidence that touch affords evidence of the existence of bodies at the place which we think is being touched is quite misplaced. As a rule we are right, but we can be wrong; there is nothing of the nature of an infallible revelation about the matter. And even in the most favorable case, the perception of touch is something very different from the mad dance of electrons and protons trying to jazz out of each other's way, which is what physics maintains is really taking place at your finger-tip. Or, at least, it seems very different. But as we shall see, the knowledge we derive from physics is so abstract that we are not warranted in saying that what goes on in the physical world is, or is not, intrinsically very different from the events that we know through our own experiences.

http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/quotes/russell.html

I was unaware that analytic philosophy had been 'discredited.'

What philosophers do you read?

As for capitalism - we are talking about its use of private property in an inherently unjust way, so it applies to all versions of capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

Frege and Moore both had shaky foundations to their philosophy. William Quine fundamentally agreed with many of Russell's assumption and said that Russell's work represented the greatest influence on his own. Modern logic rest largely upon Russell and is a big reason why set theory is taught along side even basic algebra now.
I haven't read enough on Frege or Moore to know how solid their foundations were. I do know that Frege was a huge influence on both Russell and Moore. Quine does agree with Russell on many points, but he still nonetheless gave good criticisms of logical positivism. Much of modern logic is flawed though. Most people haven't even progressed past Aristotle when it comes to logic. I don't want you to get the wrong idea though. I do think Russell was a good Philosopher. Although don't read his book on the History of Philosophy because it is terrible.


The reason Rusell is more well known than some of these other philosophers is that he also had an impact on linguistics, ethics, the cognitive revolution (see a history of the cognitive revolution), morality, and science. He also advanced the atheist/agnostic movement, and wasn't as in your face as Dawkins etc.I think a lot of it also had to do with the fact that he was a very popular cultural figure. But everything you said is correct. Although his attempts to discredit Nietzsche (who I disagree with) just by engaging in mindless ad hominems kind of puts a stain on Russel's reputation.


I was unaware that analytic philosophy had been 'discredited.'

What philosophers do you read? I don't think contemporary analytic philosophy has been discredited, but it isn't flawless either.

I enjoy reading Wittgenstein, Roderick Long, Saul Kripke, and all the oldies such as Aristotle and Kant. Also anything on the Philosophy of the Mind. I tried reading Hegel, but like most people, I could not understand a thing he was saying.


As for capitalism - we are talking about its use of private property in an inherently unjust way, so it applies to all versions of capitalismI wouldn't say that Capitalism is Statism. By that I mean that the enforcement of private property would continue without a State. It does not require a state in order to be maintained. I am not sure what is inherently unjust about private property.

Edit: What philosophers do you read by the way?

[IcarusAngel]

If leftists are ever to successfully show that property is inherently unfair and an unjust way to restribute resources it would discredit nearly every right theory. This is why I think leftists should focus on this and many of them did, including Marx and many of the anarchist writers in my opinion.

I'll just leave that issue at that point for now.

The Liberals criticized property but saw a need for a capitalism. So obviously many Libertarians support them to some extent but they often forget the libearls had very good criticisms of excessive property as well.


Edit: What philosophers do you read by the way?

Most of my knowledge of philosophy comes from scholars commenting on the work of other philosophers. However, I have the Discourses from Cambridge Press from Rousseau, and Locke's work. I have many of the 'classics' online. So, Aristotle (Politics), Plato, Rousseau, Locke, von Humboldt, Smith, and Chomsky directly. I read Willard Quine, Russell, etc. And then Kant, Hobbes, and some others indirectly, like in an IR course. I mostly read political science such as Ferguson, Morgenthau and many other realists, Keohane, Rogers, MacDonald, Hermann, Lindblom (specifically market as a prison essay), Zinn, Parenti. I like modern political philosophy because it is often more direct and can be easily adapted to an argument.

I do not as yet have the mathematical and logic training to even begin to study Russell's advanced work and the syntax is odd and the notation outdated in "Logic and Knowledge," "Principa Mathematica" etc. although I like Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (which is recommended by the MAA). I don't have enough knowledge of linguistics to study Chomsky's work, either. (Chomsky and Russell are a lot alike in that their heavily political work is understandable by all and yet their academic work is for the elite.) Thus, I get my knowledge of their works from other authors (like Neil Smith) who have tried to explain it to the layman. However, I did study both of them in Discrete Mathematics and Chomsky in a computer science course. I have quite a bit of both of their political work, however.

[Havet]

Thus, I don't use the term free-market, because it is associated with tyranny. I use 'free trade,' although that as well has been distorted. Perhaps 'free-sharing' and so on would explain that you have a right to trade with one another.

Sounds fair


You DO NOT have the right to singularly monopolize land. By making the question more complicated than it needs be hayenmill shows he has ulterior motives for promoting capitalism (probably his only defense for supporting any efforts to weaken the tyranny of private capital would be my guess).

There is a difference between making the question more complicated than it needs to be and oversimplifying the question, which is what you usually do.

I've said it before and i'll say it again:


I oppose all kinds of centralization of wealth and resources, whether they are public or private, whether they occur by force or naturally. In that sense I am an anarchist, and not a capitalist.

[Green Dragon]

\\
Without the state, I see no reason why private property would just disappear. In fact, the state is itself a violation of private property rights.

The argument of the socialists is that the state enforces those private property rights. What keeps the tresspassers out of your backyrd, or the workers from
gaining full value for their labor?, they muse.

Of course, they create their own duck, but then deny it is a duck.