Some questions about STUFF

[Cyberwave]

I've been arguing a lot with a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, mutualist, whatever the hell she calls herself at this point. I have to say she is the most respectful and open minded one I have ever met, but many times thing just boil down to "the state" or "wrongful definitions of capitalism." So from these debates I've spawned a few questions.

1. Is the state truly naturally occurring for capitalism? I mean, as far as I'm concerned there will always be a level of coercion, but does it necessarily equate to statism? And so furthermore, how would I truly counter the arguments that coercion wouldn't somehow exist in "anarcho-capitalist society," or that imperialism wouldn't happen either?

2. To what extent did Marx "mis-define" capitalism? I hear a lot of libertarians now complaining that Marx and Marxists often confused mercantilism, corporatism, statism, and others for capitalism and that Marx left his own definition of capitalism rather "open."

3. Where can I get some good sources that value is not subjective? I have a few, but can't really find any mature, well written ones.

I'll think of some more. But in the meantime, anyone have some good websites that deal with this kind of stuff?

[mikelepore]

The state doesn't arise out of capitalism, or even out of any ancient form of class rule. The state was created because society became too large and complicated for family and tribal rules alone to take care of all situations. It became necessary to write down a list of common rules and procedures. However, the presence of a ruling class tends to take over that process. There will be a common organization of society in any case, but if there is a ruling class then it has a tendency to grab control of the social structure. Historically, this happened almost immediately, because when nomadic people decided to settle down in a permanent location where they could take up farming and animal herding, it was very soon afterward that they discovered the idea of taking prisoners and putting them to work. In this way, the transition from the city-state to the enforcement of slavery was a rapid one. The anarchist makes the mistake of focusing on the evil of the political organization itself, when it's actually the practice of slavery in all its variations that has caused the social perversion. Now it is necessary for the working class has to use the political process to win control of the state, making it possible to remove all recognized authority for the variations of slavery.

_______________________________________________

"The state presents itself to us as the first ideological power over man. Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent vis-a-vis society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class." -- Engels, from "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy", 1886.

[Os Cangaceiros]

1. Is the state truly naturally occurring for capitalism? I mean, as far as I'm concerned there will always be a level of coercion, but does it necessarily equate to statism? And so furthermore, how would I truly counter the arguments that coercion wouldn't somehow exist in "anarcho-capitalist society," or that imperialism wouldn't happen either?

Insofar as capitalism needs the state to exist, yes.


2. To what extent did Marx "mis-define" capitalism? I hear a lot of libertarians now complaining that Marx and Marxists often confused mercantilism, corporatism, statism, and others for capitalism and that Marx left his own definition of capitalism rather "open."

There's obviously a pretty big difference between "actually existing capitalism" and the idealist conception of capitalism and the markets. Although the same could also be said of socialism, of course.


3. Where can I get some good sources that value is not subjective? I have a few, but can't really find any mature, well written ones.

You might want to look at what Kevin Carson has wrote, or perhaps Harry Cleaver. I don't know about any others, though. The LTV is pretty passe within the economics community, at this point.

[ContrarianLemming]

1. Is the state truly naturally occurring for capitalism? I mean, as far as I'm concerned there will always be a level of coercion, but does it necessarily equate to statism? And so furthermore, how would I truly counter the arguments that coercion wouldn't somehow exist in "anarcho-capitalist society," or that imperialism wouldn't happen either?

more then one question here.
the state was created to protect capitalism, nothing is natural in this regard, but it always happened. The state is organized protection of property from the majority.

Yes coercion exists in anarcho capitalism, because capitalism is inherently coercive, forcing people to be put in a position where they must rent themselves to a capitalist, free to be used and abused.


2. To what extent did Marx "mis-define" capitalism? I hear a lot of libertarians now complaining that Marx and Marxists often confused mercantilism, corporatism, statism, and others for capitalism and that Marx left his own definition of capitalism rather "open."

It's more likely that when a marxist gives a definition, they simply don't like it and claim it has nothing to do with them.

[mikelepore]

The so-called Libertarians always claim that capitalism is a set of principles, which, if it were true, would give meaning to some distinction between genuine capitalism and fraudulent capitalism. However, capitalism isn't a set of principles. Capitalism is just the old practice of hiring people to make something that you can sell, and, if you can fetch such a price that you will have some money left over after you pay for your costs of production, then you can pocket the difference. This practice has no principles, other than to do whatever you can get away with. The corrupt and bureaucratic corporation that bribes politicians is capitalism. The company that manufactured the poison gas for Auschwitz was capitalism. The drug pusher preying on children is capitalism. There are no morals other than the obsession will getting away with a pile of money. To say of some dishonest practitioners that theirs isn't "true" capitalism is nonsense.

Socialism is different in this regard. The idea of socialism was conceived by people who had meetings to draft plans to replace capitalist social relationships by democratic control of the means of production. Therefore the distinction between genuine socialism and fraudulent socialism is meaningful. If capitalist social relationships haven't been eliminated then it's not socialism, and if a system is not democratic then it's not socialism.