Why Free-Markets Don't Degenerate Back Into Capitalism

[Havet]

This is a response by Kevin Carson to Christian Siefkes, a German Marxist Activist. I am mainly posting this because it is a recurrent argument. Please read it before posting any response. It's not that long.

In opposing a form of socialism centered on cooperatives and non-capitalist markets, a standard argument of Marxists and other non-market socialists is that it would be unsustainable and degenerate into full-blown capitalism: “What happens to the losers?” Non-capitalist markets would eventually become capitalistic, through the normal operation of the laws of the market. Here's the argument as stated by Christian Siefkes, a German Marxist active in the P2P movement, on the Peer to Peer Research List:


Yes, they would trade, and initially their trading wouldn't be capitalistic, since labor is not available for hire. But assuming that trade/exchange is their primary way of organizing production, capitalism would
ultimately result, since some of the producers would go bankrupt, they would lose their direct access to the means of production and be forced to sell their labor power. If none of the other producers is rich enough to hire them, they would be unlucky and starve (or be forced to turn to other ways of survival such as robbery/thievery, prostitutioing—which is what we also saw as a large-scale phenomenon with the emergence of capitalism, and which we still see in so-called developing countries where there is not enough capital to hire all or most of the available labor power). But if there are other producers/people would can hire them, the seed of capitalism with it's capitalist/worker divide is laid.

Of course, the emerging class of capitalists won't be just passive bystanders watching this process happen. Since they need a sufficiently large labor force, and since independent producers are unwanted competition for them, they'll actively try to turn the latter into the former. Means for doing so are
enclosure/privatization laws that deprive the independent producers of their means of productions, technical progress that makes it harder for them to compete (esp. if expensive machines are required which they simple lack the money to buy), other laws that increase the overhead for independent producers (e.g. high bookkeeping requirements), creation of big sales points that non-capitalist producers don't have access to (department stores etc.), simple overproduction that drives small-scale producers (who can't stand huge losses) out of the market, etc. But even if they were passive bystanders (which is an unrealistic assumption), the conversion of independent producers into workers forced to sell their labor power would still take place through the simple laws of the market, which cause some producers to fail and go bankrupt.

So whenever you start with trade as the primary way of production, you'll sooner or later end up with capitalism. It's not a contradiction, it's a process.1

1 Christian Siefkes, “[p2p-research] Fwd: Launch of Abundance: The Journal of Post-Scarcity Studies, preliminary plans,”
Peer to Peer Research List, February 25, 2009 <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-February/
001555.html>.”

One answer, in the flexible production model, is that there's no reason to have any permanent losers. First of all, the overhead costs are so low that it's possible to ride out a slow period indefinitely. Second, in low-overhead flexible production, in which the basic machinery for production is widely affordable and can be easily reallocated to new products, there's really no such thing as a “business” to go out of. The lower the capitalization required for entering the market, and the lower the overhead to be borne in periods of slow business, the more the labor market takes on a networked, project-oriented character—like, e.g., peer production of software. In free software, and in any other industry where the average producer owns a full set of tools and production centers mainly on self-managed projects, the situation is likely to be characterized not so much by the entrance and exit of discrete “firms” as by a constantly shifting balance of projects, merging and forking, and with free agents constantly shifting from one to another. The same fluidity prevails, according to Piore and Sabel, in the building trades and the garment industry.2

Another point: in a society where most people own the roofs over their heads and can meet a major part of their subsistence needs through home production, workers who own the tools of their trade can afford to ride out periods of slow business, and to be somewhat choosy in waiting to contract out to the projects most suited to their preference. It's quite likely that, to the extent some form of wage employment still existed in a free economy, it would take up a much smaller share of the total economy, wage labor would be harder to find, and attracting it would require considerably higher wages; as a result, self-employment and cooperative ownership would be much more prevalent, and wage employment would be much more marginal. To the extent that wage employment continued, it would be the province of a class of itinerant laborers taking jobs of work when they needed a bit of supplementary income or to build up some savings, and then periodically retiring for long periods to a comfortable life living off their own homesteads.

This pattern—living off the common and accepting wage labor only when it was convenient—was precisely what the Enclosures were intended to stamp out. For the same reason, the standard model of “unemployment” in American-style mass-production industry is in fact quite place-bound, and largely irrelevant to flexible manufacture in European-style industrial districts. In such districts, and to a considerable extent in the American garment industry, work-sharing with reduced hours is chosen in preference to layoffs, so the dislocations from an economic downturn are far less severe. Unlike the American presumption of a fixed and permanent “shop” as the central focus of the labor movement, the industrial district assumes the solidaristic craft community as the primary long-term attachment for the individual worker, and the job site at any given time as a passing state of affairs.3

And finally, in a relocalized economy of small-scale production for local markets, where most money is circulated locally, there is apt to be far less of a tendency toward boom-bust cycles or wild fluctuations in commodity prices. Rather, there is likely to be a fairly stable long-term matching of supply to demand.

In short, the Marxist objection assumes the high-overhead industrial production model as “normal,” and judges cooperative and peer production by their ability to adapt to circumstances that almost certainly wouldn't exist

2 Piore and Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide, pp. 117-118.
3 Ibid., pp. 120-121..

Main Source: Homebrew Industrial Revolution (http://www.mutualist.org/id116.html), Chapter 4

Any thoughts?

By the way, when he talks of enclosures, I think he means this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts).


The Inclosure Acts encouraged many English country-dwellers to move to urban areas where they might typically become employed in wage labour jobs, thus becoming, in the terms of Marxist economics, the proletariat. In Marxist interpretation, the Inclosure Acts can be seen as a process of bringing (previously common and public) land and people into the sphere of capitalist social relations through political force; in Marxist terminology this process is an example of primitive accumulation of capital.[2]

2. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

[Dean]

Production capitalism depends on a working financial system, and clearly innovation in finance often accompany innovations of products and processes. There is, then, often a healthy symbiosis between the worlds of production and finance. However, at certain points in history, this relationship seems to take on a parasitic quality: the financial sector, as compared to the real economy, enters a stage of explosive and disproportionate growth and - as this bubble later bursts - the financial sector severely reduces the size and virility of its ‘host’, i.e. of the real economy (the production of goods and non-financial services). In the serious cases, the national standards of living collapse simultaneously with the collapse of the financial sector. In the United States GNP/capita did not reach its 1928 level again until the middle of WW II.
http://arno.daastol.com/biblio/bibfin.html


As a matter of fact, experience shows that it is sufficient to own 40 per cent of the shares of a company in order to direct its affairs,[4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htm#fwV22P228F02) since in practice a certain number of small, scattered shareholders find it impossible to attend general meetings, etc. The “democratisation” of the ownership of shares, from which the bourgeois sophists and opportunist so-called “Social-Democrats” expect (or say that they expect) the “democratisation of capital”, the strengthening of the role and significance of small scale production, etc., is, in fact, one of the ways of increasing the power of the financial oligarchy. Incidentally, this is why, in the more advanced, or in the older and more “experienced” capitalist countries, the law allows the issue of shares of smaller denomination. In Germany, the law does not permit the issue of shares of less than one thousand marks denomination, and the magnates of German finance look with an envious eye at Britain, where the issue of one-pound shares (= 20 marks, about 10 rubles) is permitted Siemens, one of the biggest industrialists and “financial kings” in Germany, told the Reiclistag on June 7, 1900, that “the one-pound share is the basis of British imperialism”.[5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htm#fwV22P228F03) This merchant has a much deeper and more “Marxist” understanding of imperialism than a certain disreputable writer who is held to be one of the founders of Russian Marxism[21] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htm#fwV22E088) and believes that imperialism is a bad habit of a certain nation....
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htm


Darling’s more cautious approach is, strangely perhaps, more in tune with the Marxist analysis of the crisis. This argues that it is not the financialisation of Western economies that explains the sluggish growth of recent decades; rather, it is the sluggish growth and the lack of investment opportunities for capital that explains financialisation. From this perspective, the only way capitalists could increase their wealth was through the expansion of a finance sector which, divorced from the real economy, became ever more prone to asset bubbles. Calling time on the casino economy does not mean balanced growth, it just means lower growth.

Those interested in the Marxist perspective should get hold of The Great Financial Crisis, written by John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, published by Monthly Review Press in New York. It is a fascinating read. Whether Darling has read it, I don’t know. I suspect, however, that Treasury caution when it comes to reigning in big finance has less to do with Marx and rather more to do with institutional capture.3 (http://www.monthlyreview.org/091001foster-mcchesney.php#fn3)

...
The third stage, which is usually called [I]monopoly capitalism or corporate capitalism, began in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and was consolidated in the twentieth century. It is marked by the spiraling concentration and centralization of capital, and the rise to dominance of the corporate form of business organization, along with the creation of a market for industrial securities. Industries increasingly come under the rule of a few (oligopolistic) firms that, in Joseph Schumpeter’s terms, operate “corespectively” rather than competitively with respect to price, output, and investment decisions at both the national and increasingly global levels.6 (http://www.monthlyreview.org/091001foster-mcchesney.php#fn6) In this stage, Department I continues to expand, including not just factories but a much wider infrastructure in transportation and communications (automobiles, aircraft, telecommunications, computers, etc.). But its continued expansion becomes more dependent on the expansion of Department II, which becomes increasingly developed in this stage — in an attempt to utilize the enormous productive capacity unleashed by the growth of Department I. The economic structure can thus be described as “mature” in the sense that both departments of production are now fully developed and capable of rapid expansion in response to demand. The entire system, however, increasingly operates on a short string, with growing problems of effective demand. Technological innovation has been systematized and made routine, as has scientific management of the labor process and even of consumption through modern marketing. The role of price competition in regulating the system is far reduced.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/091001foster-mcchesney.php


As usual, there are real material conditions concerning the accumulation of capital. And you still rely on a fundamental ideal - that is the notion that you can have a consistently localized, fractured economy while maintaining a constant struggle / conflict over private property.


What happens is certain standards are accepted in the furtherance of resolving these conflicts. They favor some groups (those who have lordship over important material and commodity production) and the accumulation - and spread - of capital continues to develop.


Finance capital is a necessary outcome of any advanced competitive market. Your model only works within itself; it does not relate to extant material conditions except on anecdotal or symbolic lines, and as such cannot be seen as a serious theory of market development. In fact, it is rather a theory of market stagnation and even reaction - an attempt to achieve a long-lost state of the market.


The communists have consistently tried to tie in material conditions to their development, and potential or likely developments that will stem from this. You, on the other hand, seek to justify what you already believe to be a moral imperative.


But sure - keep defending your logic, reason - after all, you're the only one who really knows what those virtues are! :laugh:

[Dermezel]

Capitalism almost always centralizes over time, so I don't know what you mean by a free market, but even a very privatized market where property rules are honored 100% is going to degenerate into monopoly and corporatism.

Here is some evidence of capital centralizing over time:



The richest 1% of adults owned 40% of the world’s total assets in the year 2000. The richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. (Source: World Institute for Development Economics Research, The World Distribution of Household Wealth (http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-report-5-12-2006.pdf), 2006).


"There were an estimated 7.7 million millionaires in the world at the end of 2003, half a million more than at the end of 2002, as stock markets and economic growth picked up and the rich took more risks with their cash.These wealthy individuals saw their riches increase by 7.7 percent to $28.8 trillion in 2003, recovering to levels seen before the global recession took hold in 2001, according to a survey on Tuesday from U.S. investment bank Merrill Lynch and technology consultancy Capgemini. And the rich are set to get richer, with their wealth forecast to grow by seven percent a year and to exceed $40.7 trillion by 2008, the survey predicted... The survey also highlighted a small, but fast-growing global group of 70,000 super rich individuals with more than $30 million in financial assets. It found that this group was growing at a faster pace than those in the $1 million-plus bracket." (World's richest worth $29 trillion in 2003 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5214919/); Survey: Wealthy now back at level before dot-com bust. MSNBC.com, June 15, 2004,)


Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/business/26TAX.html?pagewanted=print&position=), New York Times, June 26, 2003
In the late 1970s, the top one percent of the US population held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent. (Levy, Frank. The New Dollars and Dreams ).
In 1998 the top 1 percent of the population owned 38 percent of the wealth, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent (source: www.inequality.org/fatcsfr.html).


The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).


One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993).


The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all stock in 1997...
The top ten percent of households owned 82 percent of all stock-market wealth...
Only 27 percent of households held more than $10,000 in stock in 1997...
57 percent of Americans didn't own any stock at all...

The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent....

Since 1973, every group in society except the top 20 percent has seen its share of the national income decline, with the bottom 20 percent losing the most. They have just 3.6 percent of national income, down from 4.4 percent a quarter century ago.
Indeed, the top fifth now makes more than the rest of the nation combined...

Rebecca Blank, who recently left the President's Council of Economic Advisors, pointed out, ‘We've gone back to levels of income and wealth inequality that this country hasn't seen since the teens and 1920s.’" (Source: Merrill Goozner, Crash of '99?, Salon.com, Oct. 1, 1999).


The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 108).


When he was worth $40 billion, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was worth more than the bottom 110 million Americans (the bottom 40 percent of the population). By 1998, Gates was worth $59 billion; a year later, he was worth $85 billion. Gates is twice as wealthy as the second richest American, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen (worth $40 billion). (Source: open letter from Ralph Nader (December 1998), citing Edward Wolff of New York University, whose calculations included home equity, pensions and mutual funds, but excluded personal cars, based on Gates' then-current net worth of $40 billion).



In 1995, 358 billionaires were worth $760 billion, the same as the poorest 20 percent of the world’s people. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 83).


http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

[Havet]

As usual, there are real material conditions concerning the accumulation of capital.

So what? Where, in the OP, have those material conditions been "ignored"? What material conditions are you even talking about? Could you be more specific?


And you still rely on a fundamental ideal - that is the notion that you can have a consistently localized, fractured economy while maintaining a constant struggle / conflict over private property.

What struggle/conflict? Could you be more specific? I honestly don't understand what you mean, and I am interested in finding out any possible objections.


What happens is certain standards are accepted in the furtherance of resolving these conflicts. They favor some groups (those who have lordship over important material and commodity production) and the accumulation - and spread - of capital continues to develop.

Why should standards necessarily favor some groups? What sort of standards are you talking about? Do you have any examples you could show me?


Finance capital is a necessary outcome of any advanced competitive market. Your model only works within itself; it does not relate to extant material conditions except on anecdotal or symbolic lines, and as such cannot be seen as a serious theory of market development. In fact, it is rather a theory of market stagnation and even reaction - an attempt to achieve a long-lost state of the market.

I think one of the reasons we see a huge explosion in finance capital, in actual existing capitalism, is because of the size of the industries that exist. Assuming the thesis you quoted is true (that financial markets leech of industrial markets where the real goods are produced), then it follows that we won't have a huge finance capital in a more egalitarian and decentralized economy.


The communists have consistently tried to tie in material conditions to their development, and potential or likely developments that will stem from this. You, on the other hand, seek to justify what you already believe to be a moral imperative.

What communists? What material conditions? What do you believe is my moral imperative?

[Dean]

Capitalism almost always centralizes over time, so I don't know what you mean by a free market, but even a very privatized market where property rules are honored 100% is going to degenerate into monopoly and corporatism.

Here is some evidence of capital centralizing over time:




http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

Actually, the 100% without a state and the like is probably going to centralize even faster and more acutely. The company town in industrial capitalism was a direct result of this.

[Havet]

Capitalism almost always centralizes over time, so I don't know what you mean by a free market, but even a very privatized market where property rules are honored 100% is going to degenerate into monopoly and corporatism.

By free-market I mean a society in which each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade generally representing equivalent amounts of labor, and that trade being completely unrestricted by any form of central authority, subject only to spontaneous and direct ("democratic", if you will) regulation.

[Dermezel]

Actually, the 100% without a state and the like is probably going to centralize even faster and more acutely. The company town in industrial capitalism was a direct result of this.

Yeah probably. I mean imagine if we got rid of anti-trust laws.

[Dermezel]

By free-market I mean a society in which each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade generally representing equivalent amounts of labor, and that trade being completely unrestricted by any form of central authority, subject only to spontaneous and direct ("democratic", if you will) regulation.

I guess you can say that, but that's not what most people think of when they hear free market, that isn't what the dictionary says, and that's not in accord with the history of the word use.

Like maybe, as some informal rhetoric, I would say something like "Socialism is a true free market" or "socialism can make the market more free" as a strategic statement so long as I could couple it with a lengthy explanation, but in general I would not use that term because when I think of free market, I think libertarian. It's too ambiguous and confuses people.

[Havet]

I guess you can say that, but that's not what most people think of when they hear free market, that isn't what the dictionary says, and that's not in accord with the history of the word use.

Like maybe, as some informal rhetoric, I would say something like "Socialism is a true free market" or "socialism can make the market more free" as a strategic statement so long as I could couple it with a lengthy explanation, but in general I would not use that term because when I think of free market, I think libertarian. It's too ambiguous and confuses people.

Yeah, I was thinking of that too. Unfortunately, I only realized it after I made the thread title. Oh well, seems i'm in for another semantics war...

[Skooma Addict]

By free-market I mean a society in which each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade generally representing equivalent amounts of labor, and that trade being completely unrestricted by any form of central authority, subject only to spontaneous and direct ("democratic", if you will) regulation.

Not going to get into a semantics war, but you really think that a market where not everyone owns part of the means or production and trade does not represent equivalent amounts of labor (why would you even put this qualifier in?) is somehow not a free market?

[Dean]

Not going to get into a semantics war, but you really think that a market where not everyone owns part of the means or production and trade does not represent equivalent amounts of labor (why would you even put this qualifier in?) is somehow not a free market?
Because hayenmill at least recognizes that there needs to be some form of decentralization of economic power to have a "free society." I think its preposterous that such a system would sustain itself, but if it were ever realized, it would probably sustain itself for longer than your brand of free market martial law.

[Havet]

Not going to get into a semantics war, but you really think that a market where not everyone owns part of the means or production and trade does not represent equivalent amounts of labor (why would you even put this qualifier in?) is somehow not a free market?

Yup

For example, if 5 people own the whole world and engage in free exchanges of their property, it's still a free market - even though it's far from a free society. A free society probably implies a free market, but the reverse is not necessarily true. When I gave that definition of a free-market, I want to include a free society in it.

[Skooma Addict]

Yup

For example, if 5 people own the whole world and engage in free exchanges of their property, it's still a free market - even though it's far from a free society. A free society probably implies a free market, but the reverse is not necessarily true. When I gave that definition of a free-market, I want to include a free society in it.

Ah, I see what you are getting at (except for the equivalent amount of labor thing). But I don't think every person needs to own part of the means of production for it to be a free society. Some people may want to remain a laborer who does not own any means of production if it allows them to earn a higher income/reduce uncertainty for example.

[Dean]

Why would overhead stay at lower levels? All hithero examples of private property indicate an expanding form of security and finance industry in the furtherance of profit off of said capital. I see no reason why a competitive propertarian model wouldn't have high overhead.

Hayenmill, all you do is propose certain conditions which would provide for the smooth running of your society. You don't provide reasons why these conditions would come about.

[Havet]

Hayenmill, all you do is propose certain conditions which would provide for the smooth running of your society. You don't provide reasons why these conditions would come about.

I have (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671) done (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) so (http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125) already.

Besides, there are more reasons written in this very thread. Those reasons are the arguments that explain how these conditions would come about.

[Skooma Addict]

Why would overhead stay at lower levels? All hithero examples of private property indicate an expanding form of security and finance industry in the furtherance of profit off of said capital. I see no reason why a competitive propertarian model wouldn't have high overhead.

That would depend on the industry and the circmumstances. Some industries have lower overhead than others. Also, high overhead does not mean the industry is unproftable, so I don't see what the problem is.

[Dean]

I have (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671) done (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) so (http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125) already.

Besides, there are more reasons written in this very thread. Those reasons are the arguments that explain how these conditions would come about.
Mmm. I've read each one, and the format is consistent:

"If we can meet the following conditions in a stable paradigm, we will have a stable society of conflicting interests."

Rather, what I am asking for is the following:

"These specific systemic characteristics will arise out of these extant economic tendencies and will be maintained by these specific tendencies of the above."

What you are proposing, and repeating ad nauseum, is a moralist paradigm which you find meets your value system. As such you, are consistently concerned with proving an ideal rather than understanding extant material conditions.

Every one of your theories deals with the non-existent free-market paradigm, and all of your criticism of economic tendencies boils down to a dogmatic rejection of the state and a cynical posturing wherein the state is blamed for all excesses and misfortunes of our present system.

You justify this by defining the state as "all coercion which grants 'artificial' privilege." Well, privilege is not some socially valuable asset just because it is "real" as opposed to "artificial," and of course this obsession with "artificial" privilege is nothing more than moralistic posturing.

There is no systemic characteristic that sets the guiding interests (and therefore actions) of the state apart from other for-profit industries. If you believed in a rigorous economic criticism of the present systems, it would become immediately clear that all economic hegemony utilizes force, force is always a dictating and inevitable factor in competition over propertyand state-induced force is by its nature a capitalist enterprise which seeks to develop favorable relationships with other power bases.

Your system is explicitly defined by a constant competition for the same property, and as such when force is inevitably introduced, there is no onus on society to step in and defend the victims. This is because the milieu is one of consistent, universal competition and there is no clear benefit for stepping in. By supporting the availability of centralized economic systems (especially by endorsing accumulated currency as a "justifiable expression of labor") you are endorsing the exact same kind of economic hegemony which always arises out of competitive systems. That is, a constant accumulation of capital by empowered firms, which only uses force when necessary.

If by some miracle, your decentralized competitive system fails to be forceful, it will instead accumulate capital by empowering firms which more efficiently take in profit. Force will necessarily follow, as the exploitation of labor takes on an increasingly clear manifestation.

The sad thing is, I know you don't really believe that your system will work. Rather, from your edifice, it must work, since it is your moral doctrine rather than a reasonable theory of social organization.


That would depend on the industry and the circmumstances. Some industries have lower overhead than others. Also, high overhead does not mean the industry is unproftable, so I don't see what the problem is.
The problem is that hayenmill is proposing that overhead with be minimal in his paradigm. Neither profitability nor values are even the point here. So, your wishy-washy stance here only serves to empower my edifice.

Really, why is it that you fail to assess the issues in every response you make? You're one of the most obtuse people I've ever seen on revleft.

[Skooma Addict]

The problem is that hayenmill is proposing that overhead with be minimal in his paradigm. Neither profitability nor values are even the point here. So, your wishy-washy stance here only serves to empower my edifice.

Really, why is it that you fail to assess the issues in every response you make? You're one of the most obtuse people I've ever seen on revleft.I thought you were responding to me when you asked....

"Why would overhead stay at lower levels? All hithero examples of private property indicate an expanding form of security and finance industry in the furtherance of profit off of said capital. I see no reason why a competitive propertarian model wouldn't have high overhead."

If you were, then I didn't fail to address any "issue."

[Dean]

I thought you were responding to me when you asked....

"Why would overhead stay at lower levels? All hithero examples of private property indicate an expanding form of security and finance industry in the furtherance of profit off of said capital. I see no reason why a competitive propertarian model wouldn't have high overhead."

If you were, then I didn't fail to address any "issue."

That's fair. I was responding to hayenmill. :)

[Havet]

Mmm. I've read each one, and the format is consistent:

"If we can meet the following conditions in a stable paradigm, we will have a stable society of conflicting interests."

Do you expect, ever, to have a society where there aren't any conflicting interests?


Rather, what I am asking for is the following:

"These specific systemic characteristics will arise out of these extant economic tendencies and will be maintained by these specific tendencies of the above."

What characteristics? What economic tendencies? What do you offer as proof of cause-effect relation?


What you are proposing, and repeating ad nauseum, is a moralist paradigm which you find meets your value system. As such you, are consistently concerned with proving an ideal rather than understanding extant material conditions.

What moral paradigm am I proposing?

Where have I ignored material conditions?


Every one of your theories deals with the non-existent free-market paradigm, and all of your criticism of economic tendencies boils down to a dogmatic rejection of the state and a cynical posturing wherein the state is blamed for all excesses and misfortunes of our present system.

What is the "free-market paradigm"?

Why do you think my rejection of the State is dogmatic?

Where have I stated that the State is the sole responsible for all the excesses and misfortunes of our present system? I have only ever claimed that it was the greatest cause, not the only one.


You justify this by defining the state as "all coercion which grants 'artificial' privilege." Well, privilege is not some socially valuable asset just because it is "real" as opposed to "artificial," and of course this obsession with "artificial" privilege is nothing more than moralistic posturing.

I have never defined a State like that. I have always defined a State as:

"A person or group of people who acquire ownership without going by the traditional intersubjective criteria for ownership in a certain community"


There is no systemic characteristic that sets the guiding interests (and therefore actions) of the state apart from other for-profit industries. If you believed in a rigorous economic criticism of the present systems, it would become immediately clear that all economic hegemony utilizes force, force is always a dictating and inevitable factor in competition over propertyand state-induced force is by its nature a capitalist enterprise which seeks to develop favorable relationships with other power bases.

Of course force is the basis of the current society. Force is used to protect private property, whether legitimate (according to most libertarians) or not (according to all/most communists).

I never proposed to establish property relations by force in a community where such relations did not exist. I always proposed voluntary acceptance and rational understanding.


Your system is explicitly defined by a constant competition for the same property, and as such when force is inevitably introduced, there is no onus on society to step in and defend the victims. This is because the milieu is one of consistent, universal competition and there is no clear benefit for stepping in. By supporting the availability of centralized economic systems (especially by endorsing accumulated currency as a "justifiable expression of labor") you are endorsing the exact same kind of economic hegemony which always arises out of competitive systems. That is, a constant accumulation of capital by empowered firms, which only uses force when necessary.

Why do you assume that because there is much competition then there is no clear benefit for one to step in?

Why do more and more wine producers keep entering the wine market (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_id=352276), for example? Clearly they have no incentive to come in, as the competition is so "cut-throat", right?


If by some miracle, your decentralized competitive system fails to be forceful, it will instead accumulate capital by empowering firms which more efficiently take in profit. Force will necessarily follow, as the exploitation of labor takes on an increasingly clear manifestation.

Why would it be necessary for a decentralized competitive system to be forceful? Forceful, in what exactly?


The problem is that hayenmill is proposing that overhead with be minimal in his paradigm. Neither profitability nor values are even the point here. So, your wishy-washy stance here only serves to empower my edifice.


Would you care to point out examples of how profitability or values were ignored by me in any real world example?

[Dean]

What characteristics? What economic tendencies? What do you offer as proof of cause-effect relation?

That's right, keep running away. Ask 20 questions without addressing the criticism directly. Not only have you been inconsistent in defining features of your argument, but you continue down this philosophical linguist path where we are dealing with real economic systems.

Your "proof" is a slough of amorphous, meaningless ideals. You pretend to have no idea what people's criticism is in order to lead them down a rabbit hole of self-reference and redefinition.

You're huddled in your own pretentious ghetto of ideas, and its become clear that you have no intention to take anybody else seriously, rather asking rudimentary questions in order to muddle the discussion.

But I will continue to provide brief criticisms in your new threads, in order to make it clear how utterly preposterous your claims are to passing observers. I just won't take your silly bait any longer in order to run through your list of meaningless, avoidant questions.

[Havet]

That's right, keep running away. Ask 20 questions without addressing the criticism directly. Not only have you been inconsistent in defining features of your argument, but you continue down this philosophical linguist path where we are dealing with real economic systems.

Your "proof" is a slough of amorphous, meaningless ideals. You pretend to have no idea what people's criticism is in order to lead them down a rabbit hole of self-reference and redefinition.

You're huddled in your own pretentious ghetto of ideas, and its become clear that you have no intention to take anybody else seriously, rather asking rudimentary questions in order to muddle the discussion.

But I will continue to provide brief criticisms in your new threads, in order to make it clear how utterly preposterous your claims are to passing observers. I just won't take your silly bait any longer in order to run through your list of meaningless, avoidant questions.

I don't understand. You make criticisms which I don't understand (but want to!), and pretend that I'm running away so you don't have to address them? Is that what you do around here? You're disgusting.

[Dean]

I don't understand. You make criticisms which I don't understand (but want to!), and pretend that I'm running away so you don't have to address them? Is that what you do around here? You're disgusting.
This isn't a daycare center. There's definitely a reason why I seem to comprehend 99% of what you say, but you seem to comprehend only about 20% of what I say. And I know it's not because you're "stupid" or anything.

[Havet]

This isn't a daycare center. There's definitely a reason why I seem to comprehend 99% of what you say, but you seem to comprehend only about 20% of what I say. And I know it's not because you're "stupid" or anything.

It's because you can't seem to get your point across. And I don't think you completely understand what I say, if anything, by the way you reply back.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

It's because you can't seem to get your point across. And I don't think you completely understand what I say, if anything, by the way you reply back.

I understand Dean perfectly, and I would bet my life savings that 99 percent of the human race as well. If you want to permit a small experiment, we can ask anyone reading this thread to state whether they understand Dean or not.

[RGacky3]

I understand Dean perfectly, and I would bet my life savings that 99 percent of the human race as well. If you want to permit a small experiment, we can ask anyone reading this thread to state whether they understand Dean or not.

I completely understand Dean, his frustrations are ones that I have dealt with before as well, its sometimes impossible to have honest discussions with some people.


I have never defined a State like that. I have always defined a State as:

"A person or group of people who acquire ownership without going by the traditional intersubjective criteria for ownership in a certain community"

Wait ... So a thief is a State????

[Havet]

Wait ... So a thief is a State????

According to that definition: yes.

[Dean]

According to that definition: yes.
Hah! More delusion. This is why you're an idealist hack who only uses economics to try to prove your own ridiculous morality.

[RGacky3]

According to that definition: yes.

Well then I'm going to redefine "the State" as "anything that humans wear on their feet."

Shoes are states.

I'm also going to Define "Markets" as "entities that grow abnormaly on human flesh caused by a virus."

Markets are warts.

Your being a moron.

[Havet]

Well then I'm going to redefine "the State" as "anything that humans wear on their feet."

Shoes are states.

I'm also going to Define "Markets" as "entities that grow abnormaly on human flesh caused by a virus."

Markets are warts.

Your being a moron.

So how would you define a state?

Bear in mind I took my definition from a Revleft's Theory Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1480146#post1480146).

Nwoye proceeds to support that definition in the arguments below:

The Alternative Definition: A State is a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership.

The assumption behind this definition is really that there are no “natural rights” that justify property, or ownership in any form. In reality, standards for obtaining property – like “finders keepers”, or possession and use - are determined by implicit agreements among people and communities. Today, these agreements are for the most part forced upon citizens by the state via property law. Now one could argue this view of property, but that’s a subject for another thread. The point of this definition is that a state is any entity which exercises ownership over property without fulfilling the common and agreed upon methods. For example, in the United States, the common conception of property is finders-keepers, or a Neo-Lockean interpretation of natural rights. A state would be any entity who can obtain property without having, what is considered, a natural right to that property. What qualifies the United Kingdom or the U.S. as states is that they exercise ownership (which, as expanded upon above, is the same as a monopoly of the use of force) over a geographical area, without having any commonly accepted claim to ownership over that area. The usefulness of this definition, is that it draws a line of distinction between someone defending their property (not a state), and someone forcefully taking another persons legitimate property (statist behavior).

As for the example above, if a militia defends the land they occupy, they are not exercising ownership over something they don’t have a claim to; they’re just protecting their own property. In my opinion, one of the biggest questions an anarchist has to answer is whether or not they would go around violently seizing private property, and whether or not such an action would make them a state. Under conventional definitions, it would. Under this definition however, it could be argued that the private property was a claim to property not operating under the conventional implicit agreement (which in an anarchic society would probably be possession), and was therefore a state. So in fact, the anarchists were just rectifying a wrong (statist activity), and were not contradicting their ideology.

To sum up, the Marxist definition and the traditional definition of a state are inadequate (while the former is useful and historically accurate), and the alternative listed above provides the clearest and most coherent description of a state. This is of course up for discussion, so what are your thoughts?

[RGacky3]

So how would you define a state?

Bear in mind I took my definition from a Revleft's Theory Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1480146#post1480146).

Nwoye proceeds to support that definition in the arguments below:

I would define it in a way that conforms to the traditional and commonly accepted view of States, which does not include thieves.

[Havet]

I would define it in a way that conforms to the traditional and commonly accepted view of States, which does not include thieves.

And those views have been criticized as being flawed:

The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

Although the Marxist argument is both helpful for developing theory and historically accurate, it’s really useless for what we’re trying to figure out here. The Marxist definition is really answering the questions of, “What has been the historical role of the State?” and “How does the State typically do?”. What we’re looking for here, is “what differentiates statist activity from non-statist activity?” If we’re trying to answer the question of, “does violently seizing private property and redistributing it make our anarchist commune a state?” or “does defense from outside aggression make us a state?” or “does taxation make us a state?” then Lenin’s definition is worthless. In those situations, we’re acting just like a modern or historical state would, by enforcing our will (or protecting it) over a geographic area and a population, but we’re not necessarily acting as an organ of class rule, nor are we exhibiting the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. While the state is a product of class antagonisms, and while it could wither away as those antagonisms do the same, it’s not answering our question.

While Engel’s historical analysis of the State and Lenin’s theoretical application of that analysis is applicable to many situations, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of what constitutes a state.

The Traditional Definition: A State is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area.

While this definition sounds originally appealing, it’s applicability into theory is not great. For example, what differentiates a state under this definition and a landowner? Specifically in an anarchist society, where there is no overriding source of sovereignty that grants authority to landowners through property titles. In an anarchic society (particularly a market anarchist one, where defense was handled privately), a man defending his property from invaders (even legitimately) is engaging in statist behavior, as they are rejecting the aggressors claim to the use of force over the disputed object (claiming a monopoly). Ownership is nothing but claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over a specific object (remember Proudhon’s equation of property with despotism?). When one asserts that they own something they are claiming the right to destroy it, alter it, consume it, trade it, and give it away, and simultaneously that no one else may do the same. To apply this to a genuine communist society, a militia defending a community from outside aggression is claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over that area, by asserting (and backing up with violence) that the aggressors may not impose their will over that area. That being said, even anarchists would support such a measure, and someone defending their property (even collectively) doesn’t make sense as a state in the traditional sense, so I don’t feel like this definition is all that useful.

This definition – developed by Weber and adopted as the primary definition of a state by sociologists – is basically useless for our purposes, as it indiscriminately describes a vast array of situations, which in reality share little in common. To hell with it.

Please read my links the next time. I'm not in the mood to teach basic discussion behaviour.

[RGacky3]

Definitions are what words are commonly and traditionally understood to mean, sorry you can't just redefine things to fit your own theory.

About the landowner, landowners do not have a monopoly on force on their own property, the state does, and the state defends their property, if there was a situation without a formal government, where landowners staked out their land and had a monopoly on force on that land, yes, they would be states, even if that goes against your claim to be an anarchist.

[Dean]

Please read my links the next time. I'm not in the mood to teach basic discussion behaviour.

You're such an arrogant creep. Neither of those definitions in any way live up to your rather confused, obtuse definition of "thieves" as state structures.

Quit smoking whatever mutualist hash they offer around your parts, its making your insanity and disconnect from contemporary economic life worse every day.

[Havet]

Definitions are what words are commonly and traditionally understood to mean, sorry you can't just redefine things to fit your own theory.

It was not I who redefined it. I merely proposed a definition according to what I had seen in a discussion about a youtube video pertaining this matter. Then Nwoye (by that time his username was Sedrox) proposed his analysis of three definitions. He got quite a lot of thanks and agreements by non-restricted revleft users, so I do not see why you are disagreeing without even arguing. If you have any questions study the thread first before posting them here.


About the landowner, landowners do not have a monopoly on force on their own property, the state does, and the state defends their property, if there was a situation without a formal government, where landowners staked out their land and had a monopoly on force on that land, yes, they would be states, even if that goes against your claim to be an anarchist.

You've said exactly what it was said in the other thread. No quarrel here.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Hayet, please don't take this the wrong way, but could you actually provide some answers to Dean's criticisms?

You said you don't understand them, which surely makes any kind of defense you put up pretty superfluous until you do?

[Havet]

Hayet, please don't take this the wrong way, but could you actually provide some answers to Dean's criticisms?

You said you don't understand them, which surely makes any kind of defense you put up pretty superfluous until you do?

I will once he is open minded enough to stop ad hominem'ing me, as post number 34 confirms.

[Dean]

I will once he is open minded enough to stop ad hominem'ing me, as post number 34 confirms.

The arguments have already been presented. I have not used your own insanity to support my claims, only lamented it in the context. So the "ad hominem" complaint isn't valid. If I had said "Since you're crazy, Mutualism isn't a viable system" you'd have me. But I didn't.

In fact, your presence is probably the most insulting, arrogant and contemptuous of all of the OIers here. Every time someone contradicts you, your post is as limited as possible, and merely attempts vulgar attacks on your opponents - that is, to decry some definition or other formality while consistently ignoring the real meat of the issues. This shows an incredible contempt for those you argue with, and serves to muddy and stifle discussion - not expand understanding.

One of the best examples of this is your consistent rejection of any critical analysis and study of security systems in the market. The fact is that this is critical to any real understanding of post-state economics, because the state-
-exists (according to you) as "any theft," which you define as entities which "acquire ownership without going by the traditional intersubjective criteria for ownership in a certain community"
-this theft occurs primarily via force, either in the case of the state, private militias (such as in Colombia) or "gangsterism."

It's like assessing the following (think: Cargill=police; McDonald's=our economic society):
Cargill is a key producer of eggs for McDonald's
Cargill's assets will be liquidated because they have unfair power over McDonald's

To which I might say, "the future of McDonald's is intimately related to the future of Cargill's egg production capability (that is who purchases them)."

And you might say "I would like a post-Cargill state-of-things but I'm not interested in the future of McDonalds."


Shit, you oughta be a motivational speaker. If I were to believe you, anything is possible, regardless of things like incentive and profit in a market.