Libertarianism=feudalism

[L.A.P.]

Whenever I hear an Anarcho-Capitalist give me their rhetoric and I hear about privatizing everything and abolishing the state I realized something. Isn't the privatization of the state (whether they like it or not, that's what it comes down to) feudalism? In feudalism, people would have to pay a fee to live in a Manor which was owned privately by a Lord, or whatever title they had, who was the court and provided protection. Everything was provided by the private manor and people who could not pay had to sell themselves, is this not what an anarcho-capitalist society would bring us?

[Rafiq]

That's not Libertarianism.

[Obs]

That's not feudalism.

[L.A.P.]

That's not Libertarianism.

What about that isn't libertarianism?

[L.A.P.]

That's not feudalism.

What about that isn't feudalism?

[Obs]

What about that isn't feudalism?
Feudalism is an economy dominated by rents. Capitalism is an economy dominated by the extraction of surplus value from labour. What you're describing could be either, but the mode of production is unlikely to devolve into feudalism for no reason.

[Skooma Addict]

No, feudalism is not the privatization of the state.

[L.A.P.]

Feudalism is an economy dominated by rents. Capitalism is an economy dominated by the extraction of surplus value from labour. What you're describing could be either, but the mode of production is unlikely to devolve into feudalism for no reason.

I'm just pointing out the similarities and how an anarcho-capitalist society could lead to something very similar but not exact.

[L.A.P.]

No, feudalism is not the privatization of the state.

Well it isn't exactly that, but the closest thing to what you would call a state in a feudal society is by all means privately owned.

[Obs]

I'm just pointing out the similarities and how an anarcho-capitalist society could lead to something very similar but not exact.
No, you're just using words wrong.

[Misanthrope]

Capitalism cannot exist without a state. Anarcho-capitalism would be a society completely dominated corporations, the state would in essence be privatized.

[Revolution starts with U]

Youd be better served calling it neo-feudalism. It would have many things different. But you are right in defining it as leading to everyone having to pay rent to the big owner of everything in society.
Point this out to ancaps; many won't have a problem with it. They are not anti state, per se (at least no imo). They are against it not being cost-effective ;)

I have reason to believe the "non-state" could be just as bad as Hitler, as long as it were privatized, and they would fully support it as a market creation.
(The others who disagree will just use the fallacy that "if it were ancap it wouldnt be that bad" idealism.

[Cane Nero]

What about that isn't libertarianism?
My interpretation of libertarianism is about freedom. In an anarcho-capitalist society will certainly not have freedom.

But really there are anarcho-capitalist / minarchist who claim to be "libertarian. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[Dimentio]

Whenever I hear an Anarcho-Capitalist give me their rhetoric and I hear about privatizing everything and abolishing the state I realized something. Isn't the privatization of the state (whether they like it or not, that's what it comes down to) feudalism? In feudalism, people would have to pay a fee to live in a Manor which was owned privately by a Lord, or whatever title they had, who was the court and provided protection. Everything was provided by the private manor and people who could not pay had to sell themselves, is this not what an anarcho-capitalist society would bring us?

That is not (right-wing) libertarianism, but that is the logical conclusion of right-wing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. With the difference that the nobility in medieval Europe did have obligations towards the peasants too.

[Havet]

What about that isn't libertarianism?

Libertarianism, in the traditional meaning of the word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History), does not call for the privatization of the MOP into corporate hands.

[Rafiq]

What about that isn't libertarianism?


Privatizing the state.

Libertarians seek to obliterate it.

Anarcho-Capitalism does not equate to Libertarianism.

If you mean Libertarian Capitalism, it's contradiction in terms, therefore cannot exist.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I get what the OP is trying to say (and its a point I have raised myself). If we have a society based purely upon voluntarism (without egalitarianism to compliment it) then people will "voluntarily" (when driven to the choice by starvation) sign contracts with landlords. There will be an obvious class divide between the landlords and their voluntary tenants. Overtime it is possible that this will develop (or regress) into a system of feudalism where tenants eventually become serfs who are bound to the land by birth or some sort of contract owned by their landlords. Of course, this is one of the many reasons why we argue that "Libertarian" Capitalism is a contradiction in terms (but let us not turn this into a petty discussion on semantics, Chapayev/Havet - the self-identifying "Libertarians" of the US are of the capitalist variety).

The typical laissez-faire response to this, of course, would be that without major subsidies from a monopoly on coercion (i.e. the state in its present day form), it would be too expensive for landlords to purchase significant areas of land. Furthermore, if it was suspected that a person had the intent of recreating feudalism, the price of land would increase. Competition between a multitude of landlords with no or an insignificant effect upon the market would push living standards up for tenants. There would be no need for them to voluntarily enter slave contracts.

Of course, this ignores all reality; firms do not just struggle to provide cheap prices and high standards for consumers - they aim to set the market standard. Alternatively they can collaborate with other firms and so forth until the capitalists are in a decently strong enough position to stab each other in the backs. The economics of this goes much deeper of course but I am merely trying to initiate conversation for the benefit of the OP.

[Palingenisis]

Personally I would be tempted to rank feudalists above your average libertarian.

Generally they dont dream about being able to sell heroin to school kids or open kiddie brothels.

[Rafiq]

You're an idiot. That's simply not true.

[L.A.P.]

Privatizing the state.

Libertarians seek to obliterate it.
.

I realize that but in all reality that's what it comes down to when abolishing the state while having a capitalist economy; privatizing the state.

[ComradeMan]

Personally I would be tempted to rank feudalists above your average libertarian.

Generally they dont dream about being able to sell heroin to school kids or open kiddie brothels.

Yeah because opium abuse did not exist in feudal China, the Roman Empire and pre-capitalist societies- oh, and neither did brothels and prostitution. Yeah... Vladimir the Impaler was really progressive as was Richard the Lionheart... yeah.

What an idiot.

[PoliticalNightmare]

You're an idiot. That's simply not true.

Ok perhaps it was an exaggeration to state that "the self-identifying "Libertarians" of the US are of the capitalist variety" but it would be a denial to state that there isn't a fairly large capitalist "Libertarian" undercurrent (particularly in the US). In any case, though we may disagree with them on fundamental issues, including the exact definition of the word "Libertarian", we can see what they mean - a "small" state that does not intervene in the market or the social realms (but is prepared to protect private property by coercive means). Call them conservative if you will but this ignores their underlying liberal social beliefs. I personally just want to be able to identify their beliefs with an appropriate label for the sake of simplicity rather than engage in futile and petty semantic discussion over etymology but if that makes me an idiot, then so be it.

[trivas7]

Whenever I hear an Anarcho-Capitalist give me their rhetoric and I hear about privatizing everything and abolishing the state I realized something. Isn't the privatization of the state (whether they like it or not, that's what it comes down to) feudalism?
OTC, state socialism as practiced in the 20th century is what most resembles feudalism. As the socialist economist Michael Kalecki remarked to a journalist's question re Poland's progress from capitalism to socialism said: "Yes, we have successfully abolished capitalism; all we have to do now is to abolish feudalism."

[Rafiq]

I realize that but in all reality that's wh
at it comes down to when abolishing the state while having a capitalist economy; privatizing the state.

Right, which is why libertarian capitalism is contradiction in terms. Libertarianism does not endorse capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Ok perhaps it was an exaggeration to state that "the self-identifying "Libertarians" of the US are of the capitalist variety" but it would be a denial to state that there isn't a fairly large capitalist "Libertarian" undercurrent (particularly in the US). In any case, though we may disagree with them on fundamental issues, including the exact definition of the word "Libertarian", we can see what they mean - a "small" state that does not intervene in the market or the social realms (but is prepared to protect private property by coercive means). Call them conservative if you will but this ignores their underlying liberal social beliefs. I personally just want to be able to identify their beliefs with an appropriate label for the sake of simplicity rather than engage in futile and petty semantic discussion over etymology but if that makes me an idiot, then so be it.

The popular view on the word doesn't mean much.

Most people in the U.S. think communism = rule of one guy

[Decolonize The Left]

Right, which is why libertarian capitalism is contradiction in terms. Libertarianism does not endorse capitalism.

It depends on what you mean by the word. Technically speaking, "libertarianism" is simply a philosophical point of individual freedom and liberty, it doesn't deal with economics at all. This is why "libertarian socialism" is basically anarcho-communism, but in different terms. The term itself is rather meaningless, as you need to couple the philosophical point with an economic position in order to achieve a political position. So you can't just be a "libertarian" in this sense as you have nothing to say on how people make, consume, and distribute things. For if you were to say "they do this however they want," then someone asks you how you want to do it and you give them an answer, now you've taken an economic position on the production and distribution of goods and services and are no longer simply a "libertarian."

Yet in contemporary society, "libertarianism" isn't what I described above. It's a convoluted and contradictory ideology rooted in attempting to couple individual liberty with free-market capitalism (which, to any keen observer, is not only impossible, but self-contradictory). Many individuals in this thread have been speaking of this use of the term. And on this point, given that free-market capitalism necessarily curbs individual liberty (in the sense that one cannot do as they please as they must sell their labor for subsistence), the whole ideology turns out to be a bunch of idealistic contradictory nonsense.

- August

[ComradeMan]

It depends on what you mean by the word. Technically speaking, "libertarianism" is simply a philosophical point of individual freedom and liberty, it doesn't deal with economics at all. This is why "libertarian socialism" is basically anarcho-communism, - August

I think there may be a problem of word usage here. I think I also asked the question a while back because "right-libertarian" was not something I had heard of it- perhaps in Europe it's used more for libertarian-socialism. I think Chapayev may be thinking of it in the left sense alone.

[Demogorgon]

There is a great deal of oversimplification here, but to heavily simplify myself an anarcho-capitalist (distinct from all Libertarianism) situation would devolve into something resembling feudalism. Some anarcho-capitalists even welcome this. You see them sometimes on Mises.org.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The popular view on the word doesn't mean much.

Most people in the U.S. think communism = rule of one guy

Point is not to be pedantic: the OP meant that laissez-faire economics and neoliberalism taken to the extreme where the state is privatised would result in feudalism. Can we not discuss this point rather than let the thread derail into a mindnumbingly boring conversation about the exact definition of the word (which has been given a number of different applications and has been used in about a thousand different contexts with both leftist and rightist movements associated with the word) "Libertarian". *Yawn*...how boring.

[Revolution starts with U]

It actually originated in a debate over free will, w the FW side taking the title "libertarian" to identify themselves.

[Skooma Addict]

Nobody knows what statelessness would look like. Maybe it would degrade to feudalism, and maybe it wouldn't.

[Nolan]

OTC, state socialism as practiced in the 20th century is what most resembles feudalism. As the socialist economist Michael Kalecki remarked to a journalist's question re Poland's progress from capitalism to socialism said: "Yes, we have successfully abolished capitalism; all we have to do now is to abolish feudalism."

I seriously doubt that means what you're reading into it. Lenin and Stalin had to deal with feudalism as well.

[L.A.P.]

Are we done arguing about the etymology of the word "libertarianism" and actually discuss if a stateless capitalist society would turn into something very similar to feudal society?

[Os Cangaceiros]

"stateless capitalist society"

There's a concept that'll make your head hurt...

[Magón]

Can we have like a internationally wide consensus, that "Anarcho-Captialism" should be changed to what it really is, and just call it Free Market Capitalism?

[Nolan]

Wow what a silly thesis.

edit: oh I already posted in this thread.

[Rafiq]

I am sick of this rubbish called "Free Market Capitalism"

Contradiction in terms.

Let's just call Anarcho Capitalists what they really are, Reactionarys.

[Magón]

I am sick of this rubbish called "Free Market Capitalism"

Contradiction in terms.

Let's just call Anarcho Capitalists what they really are, Reactionarys.

HEY! . . . We'll compromise. From here on in, "Anarcho-Capitalists" and "Free Market Capitalists" will be known as "Free Market Capitalist Reactionaries"! :cool:

Good compromise.

[L.A.P.]

JUST GET TO THE FUCKING POINT!:cursing:

[RGacky3]

Some people are so Anal about words, you KNOW what he means by feaudalism, and you KNOW what he means by libertarianism, you don't need to be a dick about the exact definitions.

[Skooma Addict]

Are we done arguing about the etymology of the word "libertarianism" and actually discuss if a stateless capitalist society would turn into something very similar to feudal society?

It might and it might not. Same with any other form of statelessness.

[Havet]

Some people are so Anal about words, you KNOW what he means by feaudalism, and you KNOW what he means by libertarianism, you don't need to be a dick about the exact definitions.

I call this prejudiced language. What's wrong about anal that you have to use it in a deameaning manner?

[Rafiq]

HEY! . . . We'll compromise. From here on in, "Anarcho-Capitalists" and "Free Market Capitalists" will be known as "Free Market Capitalist Reactionaries"! :cool:

Good compromise.

No, just reactionaries.

[Magón]

No, just reactionaries.

You're bad at compromising.

[Rafiq]

You're bad at compromising.

:confused:

Why?

What do you call someone who calls for the abolishment of the state, but the conservation of Private capital?

Certainly they aren't Anarchists, because Anarchists are against heirachy, which would exist with private capital, and certainly they aren't Libertarians, who are against Authoritarian means of order, which would be explicit under Private tyranny.

And, they aren't "Free Marketters" either, are they, since the market cannot be free with private tyranny.

So what do we call them?

Reactionaries.

[ComradeMan]

:confused:

Why? What do you call someone who calls for the abolishment of the state, but the conservation of Private capital?

What do you call someone who neither abolished the state nor private property...?

Stalin?

:lol:

[SamV]

Don't forget capitalism actually ended feudalism since that was a time period where economic freedom was greatly needed.

[Rafiq]

What do you call someone who neither abolished the state nor private property...?

Stalin?

:lol:

We call them conservatives.

But in Stalin's case, we call him a reactionary, since, as I'm aware of, he obliterated Russian aspects of Socialism (Progress) and went backwards, therefore, he is a reactionary.

[Magón]

:confused:

Why?

What do you call someone who calls for the abolishment of the state, but the conservation of Private capital?

Like I already said, they're Free Market Capitalists.


Certainly they aren't Anarchists, because Anarchists are against heirachy, which would exist with private capital, and certainly they aren't Libertarians, who are against Authoritarian means of order, which would be explicit under Private tyranny.

Yeah, we already know they're not actually Anarchists.


And, they aren't "Free Marketters" either, are they, since the market cannot be free with private tyranny.

To them, Free Market is their ability to go about their ways in a market system that has no interference from State/Government people, etc. They're free to go about how they do business in the market, no matter what others are doing. That's what makes them Free Market Capitalists, and why Free Market is latched onto the Capitalist part.

Not to drag this out too far, but I think the first sentence of the Wikipedia page for Free Market does a good job of summing it up quickly, and why "Anarcho-Captialists" should really be called Free Market Capitalist. The Reactionary part doesn't even have to be in there since if you ask anyone on the radical Left spectrum, what they think of Free Market Capitalists, they'll say they're reactionary.

I was originally trying to point out that that is why they should be called Free Market Capitalists, instead of people getting confused as they do, and ask questions like, "Why do Anarchists hate Anarcho-Capitalists," etc.


So what do we call them?

Free Market Capitalists

[La Comédie Noire]

I get what you're driving at, many independent capitalists with their own private armed forces like petty nobles squabbling over fiefdoms.

People just like to be smart asses for the thankage.

[ComradeMan]

I get what you're driving at, many independent capitalists with their own private armed forces like petty nobles squabbling over fiefdoms.

People just like to be smart asses for the thankage.

Tzu Lu said: "The ruler of Wei is anticipating your assistance in the administration of his state. What will be your top priority?"
Confucius said, "There must be a correction of terminology."
Tzu Lu said, "Are you serious? Why is this so important?"
Confucius said, "You are really simple, aren't you? A Superior Man is cautious about jumping to conclusions about that which he does not know. If terminology is not corrected, then what is said cannot be followed. If what is said cannot be followed, then work cannot be accomplished. If work cannot be accomplished, then ritual and music cannot be developed. If ritual and music cannot be developed, then criminal punishments will not be appropriate. If criminal punishments are not appropriate, the people cannot make a move. Therefore, the Superior Man needs to have his terminology applicable to real language, and his speech must accord with his actions. The speech of the Superior Man cannot be indefinite."
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jendres/lunyu/

[Skooma Addict]

No, just reactionaries.

If you call everyone who isn't a socialist a reactionary then the term is completely pointless.

[Rafiq]

If you call everyone who isn't a socialist a reactionary then the term is completely pointless.

No.

Reactionaries want to go backward in progress.

Conservatives want to stay where we are.

Liberals want to slightly change.

[Frosty Weasel]

Libertarianism was originally associated with French Anarchists. The man who came up with name, Sylvain Maréchal, was more closely aligned with Anarcho-Communism more than anything.

American Libertarianism is nothing more than a middle class reaction to the perceived attacks on their individual freedoms (technically true), growing government control over the economy (In reality it's business manipulating the government), and increased globalization that threatens their Christian Anglo-German society.

Please make the distinction.

[Skooma Addict]

No.

Reactionaries want to go backward in progress.

Conservatives want to stay where we are.

Liberals want to slightly change.

I thought a "reactionary" was someone who wanted to go to a previous state of affairs. Your definition is too subjective. I could call socialism "reactionary" then.

[Rafiq]

I thought a "reactionary" was someone who wanted to go to a previous state of affairs. Your definition is too subjective. I could call socialism "reactionary" then.

Well yes pretty much.

Capitalists are not reactionary because we aren't under Socialism yet, we are still under Capitalism, therefore they are conservative.

[Skooma Addict]

Well yes pretty much.

Capitalists are not reactionary because we aren't under Socialism yet, we are still under Capitalism, therefore they are conservative.

So then anarcho-capitalists are not reactionaries, correct?

[Rafiq]

So then anarcho-capitalists are not reactionaries, correct?

They are, since they call for the state to be abolish under Capitalism.

Today, with capitalism and the State, we get bits of public benefit, without the state, we get no public benefit (Speaking under Capitalist context).

Abolishing it and keeping Capitalism is reactionary.

[Skooma Addict]

They are, since they call for the state to be abolish under Capitalism.

Today, with capitalism and the State, we get bits of public benefit, without the state, we get no public benefit (Speaking under Capitalist context).

Abolishing it and keeping Capitalism is reactionary.

But anarcho-capitalism has never existed, thus anarcho-capitalists do not want to return to a previous state of affairs, and so anarcho-capitalists are not reactionaries.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I think the OP would be best off just starting another thread asking how (and if), specifically a privatised state would transcend into feudalism.

The pedantics on this thread are mind bogglingly stupid.

[Rafiq]

But anarcho-capitalism has never existed, thus anarcho-capitalists do not want to return to a previous state of affairs, and so anarcho-capitalists are not reactionaries.

Somewhere in history, it has existed, though probably not the complex Capitalism we know today.

[Frosty Weasel]

But anarcho-capitalism has never existed, thus anarcho-capitalists do not want to return to a previous state of affairs, and so anarcho-capitalists are not reactionaries.

And yet why do I keep reading of the glorious examples of the American pioneer days as prime examples of the successes of Anarcho-Capitalism on websites tailored to such nonsense?

[Skooma Addict]

And yet why do I keep reading of the glorious examples of the American pioneer days as prime examples of the successes of Anarcho-Capitalism on websites tailored to such nonsense?

I don't know what websites you are talking about. But anyways, Anarcho-capitalism has never existed in America.

[Frosty Weasel]

I don't know what websites you are talking about. But anyways, Anarcho-capitalism has never existed in America.

Not according to the unofficial bastion of Internet American-style Libertarianism.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Honestly if you are really an Anarcho-Capitalist go be a drug dealer or a pimp in inner city Chicago.

Actually that's a pretty good example of why Anarcho-Capitalism isn't going to work.

[Robert]

Some anarcho-capitalists even welcome this. You see them sometimes on Mises.org.
Not according to the unofficial bastion of Internet American-style Libertarianism.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)More evidence that the only people who actually read Misean materials are ...

leftists.

You guys are like fundamentalist preachers sneaking into adult bookstores.

[Frosty Weasel]

More evidence that the only people who actually read Misean materials are ...

leftists. I'm not even going to respond to this, you're not intelligent in any sense.


You guys are like fundamentalist preachers sneaking into adult bookstores.Where the hell are you bro?

[Robert]

Where the hell are you bro?

Far, far away from that Misean website you like to visit, bro.

[Skooma Addict]

Honestly if you are really an Anarcho-Capitalist go be a drug dealer or a pimp in inner city Chicago.

Actually that's a pretty good example of why Anarcho-Capitalism isn't going to work.

You chose the two absolute worst industries to prove your point. Prostitution and drugs are extremely hampered/regulated markets.

[Frosty Weasel]

Far, far away from that Misean website you like to visit, bro.No, why the hell are you here if you compared me going to a prominent Anarcho-Capitalist website to priests going to adult bookstores? By your argument you're doing the same.


You chose the two absolute worst industries to prove your point. Prostitution and drugs are extremely hampered/regulated markets. Point was still proven.

[Robert]

No, why the hell are you here if you compared me going to a prominent Anarcho-Capitalist website to priests going to adult bookstores?Here? On Revleft? I find the debate stimulating and I think most leftists are smart and good hearted and they challenge my "liberal" views. Plus they may be right about the inevitability of socialist revolution. If so, I want in on the ground floor so I don't get shot.:lol:

Look, you (not just you) have an obsession with "Miseans", a completely marginalized, harmless group of amateur economists. No one I know -- no one -- ever even thinks about them, much less bothers to trash them with such vehemence! But you seem to study their views closely. Which signals respect on some level.

If so, it's very weird for you to malign them with such zeal. Just one man's opinion. Bro.

[Frosty Weasel]

But you seem to study their views closely. Which signals respect on some level.
I've studied Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion too, but I don't respect the people who wrote them.

[Palingenisis]

Look, you (not just you) have an obsession with "Miseans", a completely marginalized, harmless group of amateur economists. No one I know -- no one -- ever even thinks about them, much less bothers to trash them with such vehemence! But you seem to study their views closely. Which signals respect on some level.


Given that Ron Paul who is a fellow traveler of theirs was a nominee for the Republican Presidential candidate would suggest that they are not completely marginalized at all at least in the USA.

[Skooma Addict]

Point was still proven.

No it wasn't. You chose two heavily regulated industries.

[Revolution starts with U]

They're not regulated markets. They are illegal markets... big difference
(red, brown, black markets, etc)
As far as the day to day affairs go (when the dealer isn't arrested) it makes a fine example of an stateless capitalist market.