What are your opinions on Kevin Carson's market mutualism?

[heiss93]

This is a pretty good summary of market anti-capitalism: http://www.mutualist.org/id5.html
http://www.mutualist.org/id20.html

While he does draw on Anarcho-capitalist sources such as Mises and Rothbard, he also claims that mutualism would look more like Proudhan than Ayn Rand.

To simplify Carson argues that capitalism as we know it is entirely due to the state, and if the state were abolished we could still have a voluntary market without hierarchy. This is not in conflict with Right-Libertarianism as Robert Nozick claims that a minarchist utopia, could theoretically end up being populated entirely with egalitarian communes so long as they were voluntary.

For my part as a Leninist I support the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the abolition of private property, BUT while I do not agree that socialist calculation is impossible, I think the market could be an efficient way to allocate resources within a socialist state and I would look to Lenin's NEP, Tito's Worker's Self-Management, and China's Socialist Market Economy as examples.

[Zanthorus]

While he does make a convincing case that many of the worst excesses of the current system are not due to the market but to state violence and privilege he fails to deflect against several criticisms, namely:

1. It could be argued that violence is needed to install the market process itself and that if we went back in time and managed to prevent the violent excesses that led to the current system, primitive communism could have stayed as the dominant economic system.

2. He doesn't provide convincing economic arguments to the effect that the market process works against privilege, just showing how the process has worked through violence in the past provides no gaurantee that absence of violence could prevent privilege in the future.

3. It could be argued that private property is itself a form of privilege.

4. It could be argued that the violence inherent in the system is just a result of having a ruling class and that in a stateless market system, if a new ruling class developed through the workings of the market, it would begin to use violence to assert its rule (The state, after all is ideally designed to oppress lower classes).

5. He makes lots of arguments to the effect that open source technology is currently far enough developed that we could live with very small localised production and diseconomies of scale would prevent the development of globalised corporations. However their are plenty of things that do require mass transportation and will tend toward needing large organisations, especially resources that predominate only in specific areas of the world.

Not to mention his praxis is terrible. He's basically rehashed all the old utopian socialist ideas with some libertarian sprinkle on top and the attempts he makes to incorporate the past struggles of the working class are fleeting and oversimplified.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Its yawnsville.

Why someone on the "left" has decided to bring back what essentially amounts to Proudhon with "modern" economic terminology is beyond me.

It suffers from the same criticism's that Marx made of Proudhon 150 years ago.

[Havet]

It could be argued that violence is needed to install the market process itself


Is violence not needed to install communism, as well? Or are you not a revolutionary, "comrade"?

[Zanthorus]

Is violence not needed to install communism, as well? Or are you not a revolutionary, "comrade"?

It's one thing to use revolutionary violence to counter a system which is founded on violence. It's quite another to use violence in order to privilege yourself.

See also: My sig.

[Havet]

It's one thing to use revolutionary violence to counter a system which is founded on violence.

Then every system is, by definition, founded on violence because the first act to install a new system requires violence! (a revolution)


It's quite another to use violence in order to privilege yourself.

Regardless, it's still violence. I think you may be confusing violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence) with aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression).

[Zanthorus]

Then every system is, by definition, founded on violence because the first act to install a new system requires violence! (a revolution)

But not every system is founded on revolutionary violence. Only the systems that arose after primitive communism.


Regardless, it's still violence. I think you may be confusing violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence) with aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression).

Well I don't really care about semantics. I think I've made myself clear enough.

[Agnapostate]

While I find the conflation of capitalism with markets objectionable and regard the market socialist tradition as a vibrant and worthy leftist one, I personally favor decentrally planned socialism, which many market socialists seem to think impossible (consider the widespread criticism of participatory economics from their number, for example). I don't "reciprocate," as I regard market socialism as feasible, vastly superior to capitalism, and a necessary transitory economic system in the politically stable first world, but I still regard it as inferior to decentralized participatory planning. It remains the case, however, that there have been brilliant criticisms of capitalism from the likes of Carson, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Jaroslav Vanek, David Ellerman, David Schweickart, Theodore Burczak, etc. And the massive amount of economic brainpower there does admittedly make me worry about the lack of sophisticated economic analysis underlying anarchist communism in comparison to market socialism.

[IcarusAngel]

market socialism is fine as long as people realize there needs to be restrictions on markets and property from time to time, such as exploitative property.

[RGacky3]

Is violence not needed to install communism, as well? Or are you not a revolutionary, "comrade"?

No, its not, the same way violence is not needed to overthrow a king, he just needs tos renounce his kingship and stop enforcing his kingship, the thing is thats not going to happen, he'll use violence to enforce it, and if you want to call defence against that violence, so be it.

Violence is not needed to install communism, but the ruling class will probably use violence to counter it, and by the ruling class I mean the Capitalist class.

[Havet]

No, its not, the same way violence is not needed to overthrow a king, he just needs tos renounce his kingship and stop enforcing his kingship, the thing is thats not going to happen, he'll use violence to enforce it, and if you want to call defence against that violence, so be it.

Violence is not needed to install communism, but the ruling class will probably use violence to counter it, and by the ruling class I mean the Capitalist class.

Doesn't change a thing. No matter what you call or in what context, its still violence. You are confusing aggression with violence. The status quo ruling class requires aggression to enforce their system. A defense against it would not be aggression (it would be self-defense) but it would be violence (violent acts).

Since we can't expect to ruling class to give up their power, how exactly will ANYTHING change? That's right, through action, through violence.

[Zanthorus]

And the massive amount of economic brainpower there does admittedly make me worry about the lack of sophisticated economic analysis underlying anarchist communism in comparison to market socialism.

I think partly because for the past couple of centuries most of economics has been an attempt to explain how the market system works and at least in part to act as a cover to show that capitalism is "realistic" or the only sound system while simultaneously sneaking in all manner of value judgements. So far the only attempts to compare various systems outside of capitalism and state-capitalism have been outside the mainstream of economics.

Although there is some good economics work out there that could be used as a platform for anarcho-communist economics like Elinor Ostrom's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom) work.

[Agnapostate]

market socialism is fine as long as people realize there needs to be restrictions on markets and property from time to time, such as exploitative property.

I wouldn't call that a "restriction." In fact, I'd call it an elimination of restrictions.


I think partly because for the past couple of centuries most of economics has been an attempt to explain how the market system works and at least in part to act as a cover to show that capitalism is "realistic" or the only sound system while simultaneously sneaking in all manner of value judgements. So far the only attempts to compare various systems outside of capitalism and state-capitalism have been outside the mainstream of economics.

Perhaps. But market socialism is decidedly opposed to capitalism (and Marxist economics is a well-developed tradition). It's simply another instance of anarchism lacking a similarly well-developed intellectual tradition, which can be linked to its nature as based on revolutionary practice rather than theoretical discussion.

[RGacky3]

Doesn't change a thing. No matter what you call or in what context, its still violence. You are confusing aggression with violence. The status quo ruling class requires aggression to enforce their system. A defense against it would not be aggression (it would be self-defense) but it would be violence (violent acts).

Since we can't expect to ruling class to give up their power, how exactly will ANYTHING change? That's right, through action, through violence.

Ok, I suppose your right, well then change it too aggression. Capitalism is based entirely on aggression (by Capitalism that includes a free market)

[Os Cangaceiros]

In brief: Carson is an interesting figure who brings up some extremely important points about the correlation between the free market and state coercion (really, I can't stress how important it is to challenge the notion of capitalist freedom in the war of ideas...part of the reason that capitalism is so accepted is that people feel that the "free market" is really free, when even a cursory look at primitive accumulation and more recent history shows otherwise). However, I do feel that he's a bit of an idealist when it comes to his view of the market, and I think that sometimes he strays dangerously close to "medieval anarchism".

[Havet]

Ok, I suppose your right, well then change it too aggression. Capitalism is based entirely on aggression (by Capitalism that includes a free market)

Sure, free-market capitalism relies on aggression. But free-market anti-capitalism does not.

[Agnapostate]

Sure, free-market capitalism relies on aggression.

Actually, free-market capitalism doesn't rely on aggression. And if my aunt had testicles, I'd call her my uncle. It's simply that both have roughly the same practical application.

[Havet]

Actually, free-market capitalism doesn't rely on aggression. And if my aunt had testicles, I'd call her my uncle. It's simply that both have roughly the same practical application.

Just because it doesnt have the same practical application doesnt mean its not based on aggression. How do you enforce private property rights in free-market capitalism? That's right, through the "night-watchman state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state)"

[Agnapostate]

Just because it doesnt have the same practical application doesnt mean its not based on aggression. How do you enforce private property rights in free-market capitalism? That's right, through the "night-watchman state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state)"

If the "night-watchman state" were to legitimately protect private property rights that were themselves based on a lack of coercive influence (which is conceivably possible, if their distribution was sufficiently egalitarian, though that would constitute effective public ownership), then this might constitute the antithesis of aggression. It's not a conceivable or realistic possibility.

It's somewhat amusing that you and I've taken these respective positions, though.

[Havet]

If the "night-watchman state" were to legitimately protect private property rights that were themselves based on a lack of coercive influence (which is conceivably possible, if their distribution was sufficiently egalitarian, though that would constitute effective public ownership), then this might constitute the antithesis of aggression. It's not a conceivable or realistic possibility.

I guess we better start simple. How do you define aggression?


It's somewhat amusing that you and I've taken these respective positions, though.

How do you mean?

[Agnapostate]

I guess we better start simple. How do you define aggression?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression


1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2 : the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression


aggression refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause pain or harm.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aggression


1. The act of initiating hostilities (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hostility) or invasion (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invasion).
2. The practice or habit of launching attacks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attack).
3. Hostile or destructive (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destructive) behavior or actions.

Is there not a common element in these various definitions that allows us to find consensus? Aggression is hostile, predatory behavior intended to cause pain or harm, though not necessarily entailing the usage of outright physical force. Were private property rights to be legitimate liberty-enhancers, the existence of a night-watchman state to protect them would not constitute a maximization of aggression but a minimization of it, as the "aggression" imposed on those who would violate such rights would generally be of lesser consequence than the "aggression" permitted to exist through their routine violation.


How do you mean?

Well, you're quite clearly the free market supporter who strays closer to the alleged "gray edges" of anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism than I do, in which Carson finds common ground with the likes of Long and Spangler.

[Havet]

Were private property rights to be legitimate liberty-enhancers, the existence of a night-watchman state to protect them would not constitute a maximization of aggression but a minimization of it, as the "aggression" imposed on those who would violate such rights would generally be of lesser consequence than the "aggression" permitted to exist through their routine violation.

But just because there is a "minimum" aggression (I think IcarusAngel would disagree with this very much) doesn't mean there isn't any aggression. It never ceases to exist. It is always a requirement.

[Agnapostate]

But just because there is a "minimum" aggression (I think IcarusAngel would disagree with this very much) doesn't mean there isn't any aggression. It never ceases to exist. It is always a requirement.

Yes, and as mentioned, conception and birth itself is not a voluntary process and causes substantial suffering for those with negative lives, doesn't it? But it's a matter of breaking eggs to make an omelet, as the saying goes. The principle of using minimal aggression to deter more substantive aggression is a commonly accepted ethical principle, and is the basis behind the ideological justification for the existence of law enforcement personnel - the police forcibly capture and imprison violent criminals on the basis that they are ultimately minimizing coercion by not granting them the ability to aggress against others. The deontologist may find fault with that; the consequentialist does not.

[heiss93]

I consider myself pretty strongly anti-libertarian, and as an American I see firsthand the toxic combination of social liberalism with economic conservatism. Someone on Kasama, suggested that leftist could ally with libertarians from the individualist anarchist tradition. And I responded that we socialists have far more in common with the aims of big government liberals than libertarians. Since then I have read a lot of ancap works, in a know thy enemy sort of way.

But Rothbard, the founder of Anarcho-Capitalism was relatively progressive during his alliance with the New Left in the 1960s, in between his alliances with William Buckley in the 50s and Pat Buchanan in the 90s. Some Ancaps who take their doctrine seriously have anti-imperialist positions on foreign policy.

Kevin Carson draws on the work of Rothbard and other Right-libertarians in creating a leftist system of market mutualism.

Before I embraced scientific socialism, I had a vague anarcho-syndicalist utopia in mind, although I didn't use those terms. My position was that state ownership of production was simply another form of hierarchy. Also I wasn't necessarily against market competition per se. I was radically democratic and believed that firms should be run as democracies. So my vision was that a bunch of democratic factories would all compete with each other for customers, the same way that democratic nations still compete with fellow democracies. Capitalists will point out that there is no right to democratize someones private property. And I agree, which is why even market socialism needs the complete abolition of private property and the dictatorship of the proletarian. So from there I evolved towards orthodox Marxism-Leninism. I was initially very enthusiastic about the Dengist model. I still support the CPC, but I now see the market as a necessary evil for third world socialism as opposed to an ideal model.

This work http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics.htm offers one possible model for a market worker's democracy.

The New Left Was Great (Before It Collapsed)
http://mises.org/story/2762

Rothbard offers a more balanced account of the left-right divide, from a libertarian perspective, than the idiotic Nolan political compass leftism=statism idea which lumps Hitler, Mussolini, Bush eugenics and the Prohibition movement together as "leftist".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html

Thus, with liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a party of hope in the Western world, no longer a “Left” movement to lead a struggle against the state and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means.