Anarchy & Capitalism

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

I'll leave the Anarchists over there to explain why anarchism and capitalism aren't compatible

Someone?

[runequester]

I'm not an anarchist but I'd wager that capitalism requires hierachy, submission and exploitation to work in the abstract, and that in reality capitalism only functions through heavy state intervention.

[RGacky3]

Anarchism means without rulers, literally, and historically thats always uncluded capitalism, i.e. rulers over private property and labor.

Its never meant (other than by capitalists) no formal government institution.

[pluckedflowers]

You should probably start off by explaining what you mean by capitalism and by anarchism.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

capitalism only functions through heavy state intervention.

Your definition of Capitalism must be different to mine then. Where did you get this?



Anarchism means without rulers, literally, and historically thats always uncluded capitalism, i.e. rulers over private property and labor.

Its never meant (other than by capitalists) no formal government institution.


1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government




Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.



Origin: mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'

[Grenzer]

lol Your definition of Capitalism must be different to mine then.

I'm going to assume you're one of those "free market" absolutists. The biggest fallacy with this is that true laissez faire capitalism can never exist, and historically, it never has. Capitalism requires heavy state intervention to survive.

The libertarian/neo-liberal Free-Market absolutism is idealistic and utopian. That conception of capitalism has never existed, and probably never will.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

Capitalism requires heavy state intervention to survive.

That's a fallacy, I believe it is state interventionism that creates problems in a "capitalist" society.



The libertarian/neo-liberal Free-Market absolutism is idealistic and utopian.

Isn't Communism though?

[Tjis]

How would an anarcho-capitalist society function in absence of a body protecting property rights (also known as a state)?

[Grenzer]

How would an anarcho-capitalist society function in absence of a body protecting property rights (also known as a state)?

Theoretically the bourgeois would have to establish a private security force.

I've always found this to be one of the primary logical fallacies with Libertarianism. They claim to be against social programs because it is "unfair" for the rich to have to pay into something they get no benefit from, yet they are for programs like a police force when in fact this is something that benefits the bourgeoisie almost exclusively while being paid for mostly by the workers. Anarcho-Capitalism is just as idiotic, but more honest at least.

In practice, a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society(which is purely a fictional construction) would probably have corporations fill the same role as the state, thus being in essence the same fucking thing. So yeah.. not anarchism.

[Grenzer]

That's a fallacy, I believe it is state interventionism that creates problems in a "capitalist" society.

How is this a fallacy? Capitalism has always required state intervention to thrive, it's just a fact. Unless you are going to try to argue that capitalism has never actually existed in any current society.





Isn't Communism though?

How could it be? It's based on materialism for fuck's sake. You should try to actually read some Marx before making idiotic statements on things you know nothing about. I suggest reading this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

[runequester]

Your definition of Capitalism must be different to mine then. Where did you get this?

Reality. Look at every state in history. Unrestrained capitalism creates working and living conditions that are unbearable, as well as repeated crisis. Regulation occurs to limit the worst of these problems.

For that matter, capitalism falls apart without the government enforcing property rights and, in modern society, copyright/patent/IP rights.

[hatzel]

To be honest it doesn't really matter much whether you want to call your pipe-dreams 'stateless capitalism' or 'anarcho-capitalism' or 'goodygoddygumdropism.' Fact of the matter is anarchy/-ism as understood by anarchists is an explicitly classless/anti-hierarchical project, as much as it is anti-capitalistic. Capitalism, on the other hand, necessitates the perpetuation of class/hierarchical society and (obviously) capitalism. For that alone - totally putting aside any question of the possibility of realising 'goodygoodygumdropism' in the real world - the anarchist project is fundamentally opposed to the capitalist project, in whichever guise it may take. Furthermore, those involved in the anarchist project - sometimes called 'anarchists' - share this opposition. As could be expected. And no amount of calling your ideology 'anarcho(!!!)-capitalism' is going to overcome that chasmic divide. Remember, advocating statelessness doth not an anarchist make, as the countless Marxist anti-statists on this website will surely testify.

Apropos Marxists: the question of whether or not statelessness and capitalism can coexist needn't been asked of an 'anarchist,' despite the claims of whoever it was you quoted in your OP, as a Marxist analysis would address this very issue. As you appear to wish to equate anarchy with mere statelessness, don't shy away from asking non-anarchists for their opinion on the possible coexistence of capitalism (n.b. class-based) and statelessness (n.b. classless).

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

How could it be? It's based on materialism for fuck's sake. You should try to actually read some Marx before making idiotic statements on things you know nothing about.

I have read that Communism is the final stage of Socialism, that occurs in hundreds of years or so. If I am wrong then correct me, it does not help your cause to be so aggresive.


Capitalism has always required state intervention to thrive, it's just a fact.

Please elaborate.

[Tim Cornelis]

Unlike many, I do not believe that capitalism requires a state.

Historically the state has always been the means by which the ruling class expressed their class hegemony, therefore many on revleft conclude that it can only be a state by which class hegemony can be expressed, which is a fallacy known as a dicto simpliciter which "occurs when an acceptable exception is ignored or eliminated."

A state is a centralised body with a monopoly on violence, competitive enterprises that enforce property rights is therefore not a state.

Capitalism and anarchism are incompatible because anarchism was and is defined as "the absence of a master" by Proudhon, the first anarchist. Anarchism is thus opposed to social hierarchy, while capitalism necessitates hierarchy (wage labour)--although "anarcho-capitalists" (henceforth nonarchists) argue it is voluntary hierarchy, it is hierarchy nonetheless.

Etymologically nonarchists(/anarcho-capitalists) are not anarchist. Historically nonarchists are also not anarchist.

AS Murray Rothbard concluded:


We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

He continued:


On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist.

[Conscript]

Essentially because the class system capitalism creates necessitates a state to suppress (through force and welfarist concessions) the conflict of interests between labor and capital, and even occasionally between capitalists. At the core of this is enforcing private property rights, which will happen whether or not there is a formal national state, and that is enough to constitute a state since at the very least one of its functions is being performed.

It's my opinion that anarcho-capitalism does not actually abolish the state, but merely relegates its duties to the newly independent capitalist. The rule of law will exist, but only over the land holdings of capital. Thus the creation of a new monopoply of legitimate force over an area, a new state. I'd call it 'neo feudalism'.

[Night Ripper]

The biggest fallacy with this is that true laissez faire capitalism can never exist, and historically, it never has. Capitalism requires heavy state intervention to survive.

Capitalism requires defense of property rights. That doesn't require a state.

[runequester]

Capitalism requires defense of property rights. That doesn't require a state.

Without a state, there is nothing to actually defend property rights, save that of a local militia (which becomes an authority) or warlord (which acquires authority)

[Night Ripper]

Without a state, there is nothing to actually defend property rights, save that of a local militia (which becomes an authority) or warlord (which acquires authority)

I wouldn't call Brinks or ADT a "local militia" nor are they any kind of authority.

[runequester]

I wouldn't call Brinks or ADT a "local militia" nor are they any kind of authority.

Alarm systems are no good if the state isn't there to go arrest the people violating your property.

If the police force is completely privatised you have just created a new source of state power.

[Night Ripper]

If the police force is completely privatised you have just created a new source of state power.

No, I haven't. I can always switch police companies. I'm not forced to be a customer of anyone in particular or at all.

[runequester]

No, I haven't. I can always switch police companies. I'm not forced to be a customer of anyone in particular or at all.

How will the police company exercise authority over another citizen?

[Night Ripper]

How will the police company exercise authority over another citizen?

If you take my property, I have the right to get it back. A thief doesn't need to give me permission to exercise authority. What an absurd world we would live in if that were the case. All thieves would just decline being brought to justice. No, if you steal from me, I will take it back, myself or using hired muscle is no difference.

[Tim Cornelis]

Private defence agencies are not states. Period. In this sense nonarchism can work.

Of course it's against the interests of both the working class and bourgeoisie so it will never happen. Unless it is due to a sudden collapse of a failing state, which will lead to chaos.

[Tjis]

No, I haven't. I can always switch police companies. I'm not forced to be a customer of anyone in particular or at all.

You act as if such police companies would leave you alone if you don't pay them. But what will prevent any such 'police company' from demanding protection money and breaking your windows/bones if you don't pay up? Other, bigger, badder police companies? How is this different from the protection rackets in organized crime?

[runequester]

If you take my property, I have the right to get it back. A thief doesn't need to give me permission to exercise authority. What an absurd world we would live in if that were the case. All thieves would just decline being brought to justice. No, if you steal from me, I will take it back, myself or using hired muscle is no difference.

So we are back at the militia then.


Private defence agencies are not states. Period. In this sense nonarchism can work.

Once authority has been ceded, whether voluntarily or by force, they occupy the same position as the state does now.

[Night Ripper]

You act as if such police companies would leave you alone if you don't pay them. But what will prevent any such 'police company' from demanding protection money and breaking your windows/bones if you don't pay up? Other, bigger, badder police companies?

Yes. The assumption I'm making is that most people don't want violence in their daily lives so most people are going to be customers of "bigger, badder, police companies" that don't go around robbing people.



How is this different from the protection rackets in organized crime?

Mafia protection only buys you protection from the mafia. Buying protecting against ABC from company XYZ is not even remotely the same.

[Night Ripper]

Once authority has been ceded, whether voluntarily or by force, they occupy the same position as the state does now.

So in other words you don't understand the difference between rape and consensual sex? You may "occupy the same position" in either case but rape is evil and consenual sex isn't.

[runequester]

So in other words you don't understand the difference between rape and consensual sex? You may "occupy the same position" in either case but rape is evil and consenual sex isn't.

Absurd and you know it.

As I said, once I have ceded my authority to someone else, they are occupying the exact same position of authority as the state is.
It has no bearing whether I do so willingly (I can't defend everyone I know so I let you do it) or unwillingly (I'll defend you, but I'll also murder you if you dont pay me lots of money)

The assumption that because something is a private business, it is somehow more noble is flawed in the extreme.

[Sasha]

current day somalia....

next question

[runequester]

current day somalia....

next question

I've seen plenty of libertarians claim Somalia is an amazing place to live. Very few want to actually move away from their statist societies though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Someone?Because if you want to get rid of a state, you can't also have capitalism which relies on a state in order to exist.

[Night Ripper]

Absurd and you know it.

As I said, once I have ceded my authority to someone else, they are occupying the exact same position of authority as the state is.
It has no bearing whether I do so willingly (I can't defend everyone I know so I let you do it) or unwillingly (I'll defend you, but I'll also murder you if you dont pay me lots of money)

The assumption that because something is a private business, it is somehow more noble is flawed in the extreme.

No, it's not and I just explained why but you failed to grasp the point. Just because there is penetration doesn't mean it's all the same. It's a very big deal whether or not it was consensual or forced. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[Night Ripper]

current day somalia....

next question

They have a federal government now. You need to update your red herrings.

[Thirsty Crow]

Your definition of Capitalism must be different to mine then. Where did you get this?
I'm almost certain that this will make no sense to you, but I'll give it a try anyway.
Any definition of a mode of production (and "capitalism" refers to one of the historical modes of production, along with its social formations; if you wished to use another term, you could say that "capitalism" refers to a historical socio-economic formation) must be historicized, or in other words, you cannot base your definition on what was only a part of the history of capitalism, one regime of accumulation (and even then lassez faire wasn't a dominant regime of accumulation, which can be clearly seen from studying the divergences between Great Britain, for instance, and the newly united Germany).

Consequently, it is entirely erroneous to produce theoretical nonsense such as "mixed economy". You might talk about "mixed property structure", implying the difference between public property and individual private property, but it would be incorrect to assume that simple state ownership guarantees that productive enterprises (those which produce surplus value, or in other words, profit) do not function as capitalist enterprises. They do and they did.

[hatzel]

Once authority has been ceded, whether voluntarily or by force, they occupy the same position as the state does now.

Perhaps. Though they would not - according to Weber's definition, for example - constitute states, allowing them to exist in a (Weberian) stateless society. They would be non-state entities worthy of anarchist opposition. This is, of course, wholly consistent with anarchism, which does not limit itself simply to challenging the actions of bonafide states.

[Tjis]

Yes. The assumption I'm making is that most people don't want violence in their daily lives so most people are going to be customers of "bigger, badder, police companies" that don't go around robbing people.
Sure, just like people don't like protection rackets today. Doesn't prevent them from happening though.
What you're assuming here is that all the big police companies will be completely honest. I just don't see that happening. And here's why.
If there's no or little crime in an area, few people would buy protection. So few police companies would be able to make money.

If there's a lot of crime in an area, lots of people would be interested in buying protection. So crime is hugely profitable to police companies. But if they then actually do their job well and crime rate lowers significantly, they essentially work themselves out of business.

In other words, big police companies actually require that crime remains at high levels. It must be clear at all times that if you don't pay protection money, you'll get hurt. Police companies must protect their customers while at the same time making sure that their non-customers suffer. Whether or not they are the ones that provide the crime, from the point of view of a customer this is no different from a protection racket.



Mafia protection only buys you protection from the mafia. Buying protecting against ABC from company XYZ is not even remotely the same.
Actually, mafia protection also buys you protection against other criminal gangs. Such groups are interested in retaining their income, and if some other criminal group hurts their source of income, they will act against it.

[Night Ripper]

In other words, big police companies actually require that crime remains at high levels. It must be clear at all times that if you don't pay protection money, you'll get hurt.

People won't tolerate police that fail anymore than they will tolerate brakes that fail.

[Tjis]

People won't tolerate police that fail anymore than they will tolerate brakes that fail.

But that's the point. They don't fail. As long as you pay you are protected. But when you stop paying, bad things will happen. So in that respect, they do their work perfectly. It's just that they create their own demand.

[runequester]

No, it's not and I just explained why but you failed to grasp the point. Just because there is penetration doesn't mean it's all the same. It's a very big deal whether or not it was consensual or forced. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

You are making the usual libertarian fallacy of assuming that every choice is theoretical and happens in a vacuum.

I can't fight off a gang of hooligans on my own, hence I have no choice in obtaining police protection.

If capitalist competition has reduced my choices to only one, then I must pay them.
Given that we know from observed history that monopolies occur naturally as competition takes its toll, this is inevitable.


And if they come by my door and tell me that they are now protecting me, and I should pay, I don't have much choice in the matter either.

[Night Ripper]

But that's the point. They don't fail. As long as you pay you are protected. But when you stop paying, bad things will happen.

You mean when I stop paying for protection, I won't be protected?! I am SHOCKED!! What's your point?


It's just that they create their own demand.

The demand for police is based on the existence of criminals. How are police creating that demand? They aren't.

[Thirsty Crow]

People won't tolerate police that fail anymore than they will tolerate brakes that fail.
So that's it? You'd expect that a capitalist enterprise will work towards a significant decrease in its profits? Simply becuase unarmed people will not tolerate them doing a lousy job, which incidentally guarantees their survival on the market? And how will they exactly stop tolerating bodies of armed men?

[Ballyfornia]

current day somalia....

next question

Isn't that just as valid as saying that North Korea is communism?

Shouldn't we criticize anarcho-capitalism with the fact that companies are hierarchical(not including co-ops), It would allow the ability to destroy national parks and you could say that mafia/private militia could be introduced on a grand scale, that will lead to disaster.

There just some criticisms of the top of my head.

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh this is just getting absurd.


The demand for police is based on the existence of criminals. How are police creating that demand? They aren't.

Suppose that there is a high crime rate. There's demand for protection. But then, "the police" has the power to affect the crime rate, and thus to affect its own demand. How is that going to lead to an efficient struggle against criminality when the police enterprise should act against its own interests?

[Sasha]

They have a federal government now. You need to update your red herrings.

no they dont, they have a bunch of etheopian and western sockpuppets holed up in mogadishu. meanwhile other regions decided they had enough of this experiment in anarcho-capitalism and organised their own de-facto independent nation states in puntland and somaliland...

but offcourse it was redhearing as we can spend pages discussing this contradictio in terminis but there is no point, capitalism depends on hierarchy/class and exploitation and the only possible outcomes of removing the state without removing hierarchy/class and exploitation wil be either the forming of a new body of state (be it an actual nation state or a monopoly holding corperation) or post-apocalyptic dystopian ravaged world roamed by constant warfarine waging warlording "free enterprises".
its the contradiction of laize-fair capitalism, the only way capitalism can function "freely" if there is a governing system that prevents monopolisation.

[Night Ripper]

Given that we know from observed history that monopolies occur naturally as competition takes its toll, this is inevitable.


Just because you have a monopoly doesn't mean you can charge whatever you want or do whatever you want. Start charging ten times your old prices and suddenly you'll find that the competition can afford to enter the market and undercut you. Start giving ten times lower quality service and you'll find that the competition can afford to enter the market, provide better service and out compete you.


the only way capitalism can function "freely" if there is a governing system that prevents monopolisation.

See above. Being a monopolist through natural market forces doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

[Tjis]

You mean when I stop paying for protection, I won't be protected?! I am SHOCKED!! What's your point?
My point is that such police companies won't ever actually work at fighting criminal groups and preventing crime, because they require crime to survive as a company. At most, they'll protect their own customers. Now, how do you protect only your own customers while making sure the rest remains targeted? Either by providing the crime yourself, or by making deals with the criminal groups.



The demand for police is based on the existence of criminals. How are police creating that demand? They aren't.
See above.

[Ocean Seal]

Capitalism is a hierarchical society with rulers. Isn't your boss a dictator. Isn't the idea of a private police force essentially a state? You rule through violence, much like the state. There is in fact no difference between a state and a company. A state rules through violence or threat of violence as would a company in anarcho-capitalism. Otherwise what will you do when I steal your property?

Now to end this idealist critique anarcho-capitalism isn't rooted in materialism. The bosses want strong state management so they would never give up the state, and what does the working class care for what is essentially an ideology which stems from the petit-bourgeoisie and frustrated middle managers.

Communism is rooted in the direct material interest of the working class.

[Comrade Auldnik]

It seems like we're all expending a little too much of our energy trying to force Night Ripper to understand very basic economics. He's a rugged individualist; he can't be compelled to learn anything, man!

[Ocean Seal]

People won't tolerate police that fail anymore than they will tolerate brakes that fail.
I'm shocked at the ridiculous idealism.
Really the unarmed civilians who aren't part of a private army don't like them. Well then they can just stop paying them. That is, until the private army realizes that it can extort money because people are afraid of guns.

[Night Ripper]

At most, they'll protect their own customers. Now, how do you protect only your own customers while making sure the rest remains targeted? Either by providing the crime yourself, or by making deals with the criminal groups.

You might get away with that for a little while, until it becomes a public scandal and nobody will want to do business with you.

[Night Ripper]

That is, until the private army realizes that it can extort money because people are afraid of guns.

Until they piss off enough people and those people form a bigger army.

[Tjis]

You might get away with that for a little while, until it becomes a public scandal and nobody will want to do business with you.

Sure, lets assume people get fed up with this situation and pay a goody two shoes police company to actually beat the big bad forever, instead of just maintaining the status quo for their own profit. They come in, resolve the situation, get paid and everyone is happy.. And then most people realize that as long as anyone in the neighborhood, no matter who, pays this company, they'll be protected. So why would anyone pay them then? The result - the police company goes bankrupt and the protection rackets start again.

[Comrade Auldnik]

If I might get this straight, I'm going to try to piece together Night Ripper's ideology ...

He believes that the state can be overthrown by the people when it becomes clear to them that it has become a tool of oppression, stealing the value of their hard work away from them to give to a few non-producers.

Congratulations. You're a communist.

[Thirsty Crow]

You might get away with that for a little while, until it becomes a public scandal and nobody will want to do business with you.
This is just, well I don't now whaat it is, but sure as hell it has nothing to do with common sense or reason.

So, all the unarmed, unprotected people will stop doing business with all the protection agencies. Which, in the absence of remarkably low crime rates, sounds just about right, a veritabloe example of reasonable choice.

Now, the assumption that pretty much all the protection agencies would function along these lines is substantiated by the very nature of their job. As we've established, it's a matter of fact that to lower the crime rate significantly in a given territory, the protection agencies would in fact work against their interest, which is profit (becuase the need for protection diminishes as the criminality does too).

But then you're left with nothing other than propaganda tricks if these companies were to remain profitable. Fear campaigns of great magnitude should be conducted in order to persuade the population to keep paying. But you approaach this fantasy scenarion with the assumption that everybody will behave as a perfectly rational individual, so it's kinda hard to see how blatant lies and propaganda which doesn't relate to reality could have effect.

But then again, I'm wondering why we're indulging you in this idiotic fantasy scenario.

[runequester]

Just because you have a monopoly doesn't mean you can charge whatever you want or do whatever you want. Start charging ten times your old prices and suddenly you'll find that the competition can afford to enter the market and undercut you. Start giving ten times lower quality service and you'll find that the competition can afford to enter the market, provide better service and out compete you.



See above. Being a monopolist through natural market forces doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

Do you mind explaining for us how monopolies form in your world, and how non-government action prevented AT&T and Microsoft from controlling the market?

[Night Ripper]

Do you mind explaining for us how monopolies form in your world, and how non-government action prevented AT&T and Microsoft from controlling the market?

Did you know that having a monopoly and abusing a monoply position are two different things? And that having a monoply doesn't guarantee that you will be able to abuse it and keep it?

[runequester]

Did you know that having a monopoly and abusing a monoply position are two different things? And that having a monoply doesn't guarantee that you will be able to abuse it and keep it?

You are avoiding the question. How did non-government forces prevent the monopolies of AT&T and Microsoft.

[Nox]

In Anarcho-Capitalism, the corporations/bourgeoisie become the de facto state, and they are much worse than the worst state you could imagine.

[Revolution starts with U]

Just because you have a monopoly doesn't mean you can charge whatever you want or do whatever you want. Start charging ten times your old prices and suddenly you'll find that the competition can afford to enter the market and undercut you. Start giving ten times lower quality service and you'll find that the competition can afford to enter the market, provide better service and out compete you.



See above. Being a monopolist through natural market forces doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.
You don't listen to anything that doesn't already conform to ur beliefs, do you?
My problem w lolbertarian clowns is there want to dive fully into theory without actually checking to see how things played out historically. They are fundamentally pseudoscience... nd misesians are even anti science.
Guess what clown... ill just buy out my competition. This is how monopolies work in the real world.

You might get away with that for a little while, until it becomes a public scandal and nobody will want to do business with you.
Or I just settle with the victims nd make them sign a non disclosure.


You are avoiding the question. How did non-government forces prevent the monopolies of AT&T and Microsoft.
also, how did the government cause it?

[RGacky3]

No, I haven't. I can always switch police companies. I'm not forced to be a customer of anyone in particular or at all.

like the mafia.

[NGNM85]

"Modern Socialism developed when profound observers of social life came to see more and more dearly that political constitutions and changes in the form of government could never get to the root of the great problem that we call the social question. Its supporters recognised that an equalising of social and economic conditions for the benefit of all, despite the loveliest of theoretical assumptions. is not possible as long as people are separated into classes on the basis of their owning or not owning property, classes whose mere existence excludes in advance any thought of a genuine community. And so there developed the conviction that only by the elimination of economic monopolies and by common ownership of the means of production does a condition of social justice become feasible, a condition in which society shall become a real community, and human labour shall no longer serve the ends of exploitation but assure the wellbeing of everyone."

-Rudolf Rocker, Ideology of Anarchism

[Comrade Auldnik]

Did you know that having absolute power and abusing absolute power are two different things? And that having a position of absolute power doesn't guarantee that you will be able to abuse it and fight tooth and nail to keep it?

Are you familiar with the old robot adage "does not compute?"

[Blake's Baby]

...

Apropos Marxists: the question of whether or not statelessness and capitalism can coexist needn't been asked of an 'anarchist,' despite the claims of whoever it was you quoted in your OP, as a Marxist analysis would address this very issue. As you appear to wish to equate anarchy with mere statelessness, don't shy away from asking non-anarchists for their opinion on the possible coexistence of capitalism (n.b. class-based) and statelessness (n.b. classless).

Yeah, that would be me.

I'm quite happy with stateless communism (indeed, how could it be otherwise?) but he hadn't posted that at that point. Just the name 'Anarcho-Capitalist'. I thought I'd not fog the waters with too much Marxism 101.

Obviously, as capitalism is a class system and therefore produces a state, there can be no 'stateless capitalism'. We're all agreed, except the guy with the really butch avatar, that the state is 'men armed in defence of property relations' I think. We may not all agree on whether a majority (the working class) suppressing a minority (the bourgeoisise) until property is collectivised, is a state (I do, because I'm a marxist, most anarchists don't). But we'd all (except Anarcho-Capitalist and the butch guy) agree that afterwards, if there is no property there are no classes, and if there are no classes there is no state - the state has then in Engels' words 'withered away' and we've moved from 'the governance of peopel to the administration of things'.

[Night Ripper]

lolbertarian clowns

I stopped reading there. Work on your manners if you want me to bother reading your posts.

[Night Ripper]

You are avoiding the question. How did non-government forces prevent the monopolies of AT&T and Microsoft.

You mean the monopolies that the government created by giving AT&T the right to go on private property and run their lines or the monopoly that the government created by giving Microsoft copyright protection? Neither of those would happen in a free market.

What could happen however is that Nike shoes become really popular and all the other shoe companies die out. So what happens? Does Nike jack up their prices ten times? No, because at ten times the price, people will start looking for substitutes and other shoemakers will enter the market. Abusive monopolies can't exist for the most part. You'd have to have something really hard to duplicate and even then there is still an upper limit.

It's like the guy that said he would buy all the streets around my house and charge exorbitant fees to use them. He can try but he definitely can't charge more than the cost of a helicopter ride. :cool:

[RGacky3]

You mean the monopolies that the government created by giving AT&T the right to go on private property and run their lines or the monopoly that the government created by giving Microsoft copyright protection? Neither of those would happen in a free market.


Shit you NEED the government to even have private property, had there not been a government a huge company like AT&T would'nt even need to ask.

As far as microsoft, your right, they have copywright, so I guess your against intellectual property.


What could happen however is that Nike shoes become really popular and all the other shoe companies die out. So what happens? Does Nike jack up their prices ten times? No, because at ten times the price, people will start looking for substitutes and other shoemakers will enter the market. Abusive monopolies can't exist for the most part. You'd have to have something really hard to duplicate and even then there is still an upper limit.


Shoes are just one type of commodity, you can have mining, the airwaves, oil, railways, tons of other things that are easily monopoliable.


It's like the guy that said he would buy all the streets around my house and charge exorbitant fees to use them. He can try but he definitely can't charge more than the cost of a helicopter ride. http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchy-capitalism-t167561/revleft/smilies/001_cool.gif

And if you can't afford either ... Then screw you I suppose.

[runequester]

You mean the monopolies that the government created by giving AT&T the right to go on private property and run their lines or the monopoly that the government created by giving Microsoft copyright protection? Neither of those would happen in a free market.

Holy crap, I don't think I've ever met a libertarian who was actually against copyright.


You do realise of course that there's a hell of a lot more to Microsoft's monopoly than simple copyright?

What role did Microsoft play in OS2 failing? BEOS? Netscape?

[Comrade Auldnik]

You mean the monopolies that the government created by giving AT&T the right to go on private property and run their lines or the monopoly that the government created by giving Microsoft copyright protection? Neither of those would happen in a free market.


Words fail me.

[Night Ripper]

Holy crap, I don't think I've ever met a libertarian who was actually against copyright.

Really? You must not meet very many of us. Most of the Mises crowd I hang around with agree with Stephan Kinsella's analysis of intellectual property i.e. it's incompatible with libertarianism.


You do realise of course that there's a hell of a lot more to Microsoft's monopoly than simple copyright?

It's also software patents and intellectual property in general.

[Veovis]

In an 'anarcho-capitalist' society, what's to prevent a workers' revolution taking over without a state or national army or police force?

[Revolution starts with U]

I stopped reading there. Work on your manners if you want me to bother reading your posts.

:thumbup: nice logic clown

In reality you have no answer nd hide behind a wall of civility. I pareuse the mises forums joker. There's no more civilty there then here. Now you're just not in the echo chamber anymore

[Comrade Auldnik]

It's also software patents and intellectual property in general.

It's a little more than just that, friend. :rolleyes:

[NoMasters]

They are 100% compatible.

Whether I agree with that system is of another discussion. I am an anarcho-syndicalist.

[Comrade Auldnik]

They are 100% compatible.

I might agree with you, but for an entirely different reason: I don't have much faith in anarchist theory.

[NoMasters]

I might agree with you, but for an entirely different reason: I don't have much faith in anarchist theory.


You should try. Anarchism (left) is the best political theory. Leninists, Stalinists, or any other tyrant's philosophy like Mao or Tito or Hoxha are all repressive and murderous. They seem to not trust people enough, I guess that is why Stalin killed over 20 million people.

Faith in your case should be placed in hoping that anything other than true Marx Communism political theory, won't murder their own people relentlessly..

Anarchism doesn't allow for that to happen. It makes the neo-Communists mad. And presumably so..

[Doflamingo]

Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron because in a capitalist society it requires a specific hierarchy due to the separation of social classes.

[NoMasters]

Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron because in a capitalist society it requires a specific hierarchy due to the separation of social classes.

I am not a capitalist in anyway, but your statement is incorrect.

Theoretical capitalism according to Smith's principles, is a perfect world with perfect equality and liberty. The market itself flourishes without government intervention and people consensually trade in their self-interest, and also through that self-interest, they increase wealth for all people to the point where resources eventually stabilizes and everyone is wealthy.

Also, their self-interest motive isn't how Marxists or any leftist know as to be. Their self-interest is merely to contribute to the markets with their produce (products) and they improve the lives of others through efficiency creating more wealth, and the motive is therefore the help others, which is intrinsically valued by all.

[runequester]

Anarchism doesn't allow for that to happen. It makes the neo-Communists mad. And presumably so..

Something that has a 0% success rate historically doesn't allow for anything to happen.

[NoMasters]

Something that has a 0% success rate historically doesn't allow for anything to happen.

The first 30,000+ years of humanity?


FACEPLANT

[runequester]

The first 30,000+ years of humanity?


FACEPLANT

I'll pass on living in a tribe gathering grubs, thank you.

[NoMasters]

I'll pass on living in a tribe gathering grubs, thank you.


Anarchism is the only proven theory to work..

[Comrade Auldnik]

Anarchism is the only proven theory to work..

How about showing us a successful anarchist society? Exactly what evidence "proves" the viability of anarchism?

[Comrade Auldnik]

You should try. Anarchism (left) is the best political theory. Leninists, Stalinists, or any other tyrant's philosophy like Mao or Tito or Hoxha are all repressive and murderous. They seem to not trust people enough, I guess that is why Stalin killed over 20 million people.

Faith in your case should be placed in hoping that anything other than true Marx Communism political theory, won't murder their own people relentlessly..

Anarchism doesn't allow for that to happen. It makes the neo-Communists mad. And presumably so..

:rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

How about showing us a successful anarchist society? Exactly what evidence "proves" the viability of anarchism?

Every single anarchist society had NONE of the internal problems right wingers and authoritarians predict, and the ones that fell only fell due to outside military assualt.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Every single anarchist society had NONE of the internal problems right wingers and authoritarians predict, and the ones that fell only fell due to outside military assualt.

I was asking him to name one. I'd like for someone to name an anarchist society and briefly describe in what ways it could be considered a successful society. I don't consider the "fall" of a society to be necessarily indicative of ideological shortcoming.

[RGacky3]

Anarchist Catelonia.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Anarchist Catelonia.

I don't know much about Anarchist Catelonia. What can you tell me about it?

[NoMasters]

I don't know much about Anarchist Catelonia. What can you tell me about it?


They were a mainly anarchist society in the south part of Spain during the early 1900's. They lived under an anarchist system almost identical to anarcho-syndicalism, or left council communism as people would otherwise label them to be.

They worked and live harmonious for a short period of time because of the World War with the fascists that came shortly after.

And because of the War, the fascists, communists, and west, unilaterally destroyed the commune for their self-interests.

And let me make it clear the the communists that I am talking about, are the same authoritarian communist thugs like the Stalin regime.

[Comrade Auldnik]

They were a mainly anarchist society in the south part of Spain during the early 1900's. They lived under an anarchist system almost identical to anarcho-syndicalism, or left council communism as people would otherwise label them to be.

They worked and live harmonious for a short period of time because of the World War with the fascists that came shortly after.

And because of the War, the fascists, communists, and west, unilaterally destroyed the commune for their self-interests.

And let me make it clear the the communists that I am talking about, are the same authoritarian communist thugs like the Stalin regime.

I was hoping for more concrete examples of what ways the society could have been considered successful or harmonious. I'd also like something to link Stalinist "thugs" to the destruction of this society. Being a Stalinist, myself, you understand if I'm skeptical.

[NoMasters]

I was hoping for more concrete examples of what ways the society could have been considered successful or harmonious. I'd also like something to link Stalinist "thugs" to the destruction of this society. Being a Stalinist, myself, you understand if I'm skeptical.

Well that is for you to look up. It is really quite evident with any research that what I said is true.

And for being a Stalinist, that doesn't matter. It was Stalinist communists/funded by the USSR that destroyed that commune. Or at least were responsible just as much as the Nazis and fascists of Italy were for their destruction.

[RGacky3]

I was hoping for more concrete examples of what ways the society could have been considered successful or harmonious. I'd also like something to link Stalinist "thugs" to the destruction of this society. Being a Stalinist, myself, you understand if I'm skeptical.

Do some research into it.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Well that is for you to look up. It is really quite evident with any research that what I said is true.


Do some research into it.

It's actually not my responsibility to back up your claims for you. It is your responsibility, being in the affirmative, to back up what you're saying. I'm not going to late you lazily try to get me to not only build your argument for you, but then refute it after I'm done.


And for being a Stalinist, that doesn't matter. It was Stalinist communists/funded by the USSR that destroyed that commune. Or at least were responsible just as much as the Nazis and fascists of Italy were for their destruction.

Reiterating what you said isn't the same as substantiating the claim.

[RGacky3]

It's actually not my responsibility to back up your claims for you. It is your responsibility, being in the affirmative, to back up what you're saying. I'm not going to late you lazily try to get me to not only build your argument for you, but then refute it after I'm done.


You asked for an example of an anarchist society. I gave you an example of one, and a simple explination was written. I'm not gonna write a freaking essay on the anarchist situation in catelonia in the 30s. If you've never heard about it, go read about it.

What do you want?, Us to link you to articles? If you really want to learn something go look it up.

[Comrade Auldnik]

You asked for an example of an anarchist society. I gave you an example of one, and a simple explination was written. I'm not gonna write a freaking essay on the anarchist situation in catelonia in the 30s. If you've never heard about it, go read about it.

What do you want?, Us to link you to articles? If you really want to learn something go look it up.

You didn't really explain anything. All I got was "and they lived happily ever after until capitalism and Stalin fucked it all up." I'm asking for simple concrete examples of what made these states successful. Did they provide for the people? Do we have enough information to say that these states would have persisted barring outside interference?

If what you did was google "anarchist society" just to name-drop one, then I could understand why you find it such a chore to actually back your shit up. If you actually know anything about what you're saying, you should really not find it such a trouble to explain in a little more detail.

Honestly, grow up a little and do the work.

[NoMasters]

It's actually not my responsibility to back up your claims for you. It is your responsibility, being in the affirmative, to back up what you're saying. I'm not going to late you lazily try to get me to not only build your argument for you, but then refute it after I'm done.



Reiterating what you said isn't the same as substantiating the claim.

This would take me a few hours to write a detailed explanation.

The Spanish commune was a society based on the workers control and self-management of their factories, in which the MoP were owned by the workers themselves. This is called anarcho-syndicalism or left council communism. Think about it as a radical worker democracy. Pretty much what Marx would want after the dissolution of the state post-dictatorship of the proletariat.

This commune is closest we have ever been to true leftist principles, at least in modern history since there were anarcho-primitive communist societies like those in early South America several thousand years ago. It is the lack of power and reactionism that allowed for these societies to work in such harmony. The addition of power and reactionism is what allowed for the utter complete failure of the USSR and pre-Deng Xiaoping reformation. It is to be noted that "power corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". I am not a libertarian in anyway but that quote couldn't be more true. The USSR and PRoC state had absolute power, just like Nazi lead Germany, and that is why they were the most oppressive, murderous, tyrannical regimes hidden in secrecy. And it still exists in PRoC and the Russian Federation as we have seen the last 10 years with Putin.

The commune on the other hand held the principles of true Marxism better than any other post-revolutionary states.

When the commune was seperatist and self-sufficient the Fascists put Franco into power, with help from the Communists in the USSR, and the help from the West, notably the United Kingdom, which eventually lead to the revolution that originally was against the fascists vs. anarchists/communists and in which the anarchists nearly won had it not been the division and power hungry communists as they all were in the early 1900's.

Marx would be rolling in his grave had he seen the biggest tragedy in the Communist movements (USSR).

So when you say you are Stalinist I am not necessarily saying it is Stalin's fault, but it partly was. And I cannot tell you that you should not be a Stalinist because it is your right to believe what ever you want, but I do highly recommend you look further into Stalinism and its impact, notably the 40 million people who died under that ideology. Far more than the Nazi genocide of the Jews, Slavs, Romas, and etc.

[Comrade Auldnik]

This would take me a few hours to write a detailed explanation.

The Spanish commune was a society based on the workers control and self-management of their factories, in which the MoP were owned by the workers themselves. This is called anarcho-syndicalism or left council communism. Think about it as a radical worker democracy. Pretty much what Marx would want after the dissolution of the state post-dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well, first off, let's not talk about what Marx would've wanted after the withering away of the state. And I'm skeptical, so far, because a government clearly exists here. What seems to have withered away (or never existed to begin with) is a way to protect themselves from re-absorption by another state.


This commune is closest we have ever been to true leftist principles, at least in modern history since there were anarcho-primitive communist societies like those in early South America several thousand years ago.

Okay, again you're making these really broad claims with exactly nothing specific to back it up. I'm asking for something historical, something that describes a very concrete situation.


It is the lack of power and reactionism that allowed for these societies to work in such harmony.

You're explaining what led to the harmony, but you've yet to do much beyond simply state that there was harmony.


The addition of power and reactionism is what allowed for the utter complete failure of the USSR and pre-Deng Xiaoping reformation.

How did "power" that was somehow not there before and "reactionism" [sic] become "added" to the commune?


It is to be noted that "power corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". I am not a libertarian in anyway but that quote couldn't be more true. The USSR and PRoC state had absolute power, just like Nazi lead Germany, and that is why they were the most oppressive, murderous, tyrannical regimes hidden in secrecy. And it still exists in PRoC and the Russian Federation as we have seen the last 10 years with Putin.

These positions are so anti-historical, but what really annoys me is that they come sans any kind of substantiating element.


The commune on the other hand held the principles of true Marxism better than any other post-revolutionary states.

Again, it's not really just enough to say it's so, even if you repeat it a lot.


When the commune was seperatist and self-sufficient the Fascists put Franco into power, with help from the Communists in the USSR ...

More baseless anti-history.


... and the help from the West, notably the United Kingdom, which eventually lead to the revolution that originally was against the fascists vs. anarchists/communists and in which the anarchists nearly won had it not been the division and power hungry communists as they all were in the early 1900's.

And some more.


Marx would be rolling in his grave had he seen the biggest tragedy in the Communist movements (USSR).

More of the same "what Marx would've wanted" crap. It's not about what some venerated idol "wanted." Marxism isn't about the designs of an individual; it's about scientifically approaching the development of human society.


So when you say you are Stalinist I am not necessarily saying it is Stalin's fault, but it partly was. And I cannot tell you that you should not be a Stalinist because it is your right to believe what ever you want, but I do highly recommend you look further into Stalinism and its impact, notably the 40 million people who died under that ideology. Far more than the Nazi genocide of the Jews, Slavs, Romas, and etc.

And it's 40 million now! That would be the third different figure I've seen on this board today. This is more nonsense you've trotted out without any backing evidence, even as much as simply citing a specific, particular, concrete event.

[NoMasters]

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

"During the Civil War, the Spanish Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Communist_Party) gained considerable influence due to the Republican force's reliance on weapons, supplies and military advisers from the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the Communist party (now working as the dominant force within the PSUC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSUC)) constantly proclaimed that it was promoting "bourgeois democracy" and was fighting in defense of the Republic, not for proletarian revolution. Opposition to collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) and the camouflaging of the true nature of the Spanish revolution by the Communist party was mainly due to the fear that the establishment of a revolutionary socialist state would antagonize Western Democracies."

"In the Catalan Generalitat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalitat), power was divided between the CNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNT), PSUC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSUC) and Republican Left of Catalonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Left_of_Catalonia) (ERC). Another influential party in Barcelona was the POUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM) (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification) which espoused an anti-Stalinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinist) far left ideology, and was thus denounced by the PSUC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSUC) as Trotskyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyist) and Fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist). In turn, the POUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM) newspaper La Batalla accused the Communists of being counterrevolutionary. [55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#cite_note-54) On December 1936 the CNT and PSUC agreed to remove the POUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM) from the Catalan government. This was possibly influenced by Soviet consul Vladimir A. Antonov-Ovseenko who threatened to withdraw arm shipments."

"In the days following the fighting in Barcelona, various Communist newspapers engaged in a massive propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) campaign against the anarchists and the POUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM). Pravda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda) and the American communist Daily Worker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Worker) claimed that Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyists) and Fascists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascists) were behind the uprising. [67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#cite_note-66) The Spanish Communist party newspapers also viciously attacked the POUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM), denouncing them as traitors and fascists. The Communists, supported by the centrist faction of the PSOE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSOE) under Indalecio Prieto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indalecio_Prieto) now called for the POUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM) to be dissolved, but PM Largo Caballero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largo_Caballero) resisted this move and the Communists along with their allies in the PSOE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSOE) then left the government in protest. [68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#cite_note-67) The following crisis led to the removal of Largo Caballero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largo_Caballero) by President Azaña (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aza%C3%B1a). Azaña (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aza%C3%B1a) then appointed Juan Negrín (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Negr%C3%ADn) (a centrist socialist and ally of the Communists and the Kremlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlin)) as the new premier.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#cite_note-68) The new cabinet was dominated by the Communists, center socialists and republicans, the CNT and left wing of the PSOE were not represented. The Communist party had now come to the fore as the most influential force in the Republican government."

I really hate quoting from Wiki, but they in fact are pretty accurate on their article.

[NoMasters]

Stalin:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1A.GIF

Stop defending the biggest mass murderer in the history of man.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Stop defending the biggest mass murderer in the history of man.

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n2/stalin.htm

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/stalincr.htm

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/199410_TruthAboutStalin.html

Also, stop quoting Wikipedia. For fuck's sake, at least try to copy-paste links from the bottom of the article, like you've actually read them.

I suspect you haven't read the article, because it doesn't exactly help your case.

[NoMasters]

I learned about the Spanish revolution in a class i took called revolutions in history

[NGNM85]

Something that has a 0% success rate historically doesn't allow for anything to happen.

If the USSR was a 'success', then what does failure look like?

[Azraella]

Everyone here does realize that communism is basically anarchist, right? The only difference between Marxists and anarchists is how to get there.

Communism is stateless and classless.

And no, anarchism is completely and utterly incompatible with capitalism

[NoMasters]

Everyone here does realize that communism is basically anarchist, right? The only difference between Marxists and anarchists is how to get there.

Communism is stateless and classless.

And no, anarchism is completely and utterly incompatible with capitalism

Wrong on both accounts.

Sure they have some similarities, but anarchism is in fact the opposite of communism on "how to get there."

Anarchism is the lack of reaction, communism is a uniformed reaction. And we have seen what a reaction leads to. 100+ million deaths including Fascism, but to be sure, about 70 million were killed under the USSR and PRoC. However, this is not true communism, and I believe most people on this forum would agree. I am merely labeling what they labeled themselves as.

And anarchism IS compatible with capitalism. Why is this so hard to understand?

I am usually in agreement with your posts that I have seen on this forum, but here it seems way off.

And yes, communism and anarchism have similar endings, but anarchism can also be individualistic like that of Max Stirner. And individualist anarchism also has the same end as both communism and social anarchism, it is just a different process to get there, one I find to be undesirable, but not nearly as undesirable as communism, at least Stalinism or Maoism.

But capitalism is very in line with capitalism, in fact, true anarcho-capitalism is quite utopian in respect to Adam Smith's idea of capitalism. I am not supporting the ideology but they are compatible. Remember that Marx said that he would not "refer to capitalist theory" in order for him to critic capitalism. That "capitalist theory" is that of mostly Adam Smith and some of John Locke.

Marx, Locke, Smith all believed in the labor theory of value. Smith and Locke believed that the labor theory of value is the only measurement of what a product is worth. Adam Smith said that the value of a product relies on "the drudgery and toil one must incur in order to produce it."

You should really thoroughly read the Wealth of Nations. You will get a much better understanding of anarcho-capitalist theory, at least where they derive from.

I AM NOT SUPPORTING CAPITALISM. I wanted to say that so people know I am merely discussing the philosophy behind it, and even explaining it to those who don't seem to understand it.

[#FF0000]

And anarchism IS compatible with capitalism. Why is this so hard to understand?

No it is not because capitalism requires bosses and a class system. They are not compatible at all no matter how one wants to try and smash them together.

[NoMasters]

No it is not because capitalism requires bosses and a class system. They are not compatible at all no matter how one wants to try and smash them together.

They eventually lead to both. They are not initially the case. But they can theoretically work. Each man as an entrepreneur of his own work. No bosses, no classes. Classes can only exist if government exists.

[Doflamingo]

I am not a capitalist in anyway, but your statement is incorrect.

Theoretical capitalism according to Smith's principles, is a perfect world with perfect equality and liberty. The market itself flourishes without government intervention and people consensually trade in their self-interest, and also through that self-interest, they increase wealth for all people to the point where resources eventually stabilizes and everyone is wealthy.

Also, their self-interest motive isn't how Marxists or any leftist know as to be. Their self-interest is merely to contribute to the markets with their produce (products) and they improve the lives of others through efficiency creating more wealth, and the motive is therefore the help others, which is intrinsically valued by all.


I disagree on the account that the market cannot flourish without government intervention in a capitalist society. Also, it is impossible for everyone to be wealthy in capitalism because wealth is relative. It is impossible for everyone to be wealthy because wealth is essentially measured by how much more than the average person has.

[NoMasters]

I disagree on the account that the market cannot flourish without government intervention in a capitalist society. Also, it is impossible for everyone to be wealthy in capitalism because wealth is relative. It is impossible for everyone to be wealthy because wealth is essentially measured by how much more than the average person has.

Wealth in Smithian capitalism in relative at the beginning. But at the final stages of his economic theory, all wealth is equal, as long as liberty is equal.

That is the theory at least. I don't agree with it obviously, but he makes some compelling arguments for so.

Smith actually opposed the idea of government intervention almost altogether, similar to Hayek.

[#FF0000]

They eventually lead to both. They are not initially the case. But they can theoretically work. Each man as an entrepreneur of his own work. No bosses, no classes. Classes can only exist if government exists.

No. Government exists if class exists.

Which is, uh, kind of why capitalism needs the state in the first place.

Plus you can't have a boss-employee relationship without class being a thing.

Sorry dawg, anarchism and capitalism are not compatible.

[RGacky3]

You didn't really explain anything. All I got was "and they lived happily ever after until capitalism and Stalin fucked it all up." I'm asking for simple concrete examples of what made these states successful. Did they provide for the people? Do we have enough information to say that these states would have persisted barring outside interference?


I'll point you over to some books I read about the issue (of Anarchist catelonia)
The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939
Chomsky on Anarchism
To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936

I havn't read but heard good things about
Anarchism and Workers' Self-Management in Revolutionary Spain.

some concrete examples, the CNT-FAI took over basic administration, the workplaces were turned into cooperatives, farming was done cooperatively, mutual aid replaced markets in many places, you had workers self management in everything from barbershops, to furnature factories, to food markets to public transport.

When the civil war came along they fought with the popular front (republicans and communists), against the fascists, however over time the popular front went against the anarchists (since origionally their revolution was against them), and the communists (such as the Comintern affiliated socialist party) were patently against them, and eventually actually fought against them, their problem was CNT-FAI doing their own thing.

Now Then you have a group unsupported by the outside fighting against the Germany/Itally backed fascists AND the soviet union backed Communists.

[NoMasters]

No. Government exists if class exists.

Which is, uh, kind of why capitalism needs the state in the first place.

Plus you can't have a boss-employee relationship without class being a thing.

Sorry dawg, anarchism and capitalism are not compatible.

I know that. However class exists because of economic inequality most of the time. And in turn government is formed to protect the elite class.

But in Smithian capitalism, classes are eventually abolished in theory, thus rendering the government useless like Lenin said. If classes don't exist, government doesn't exist.

You seem to have a fairly short amount of knowledge about Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments.

"Perfect Liberty in the markets=Perfect Equality in the people" -Pretty much an easy summation of the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments

I do not support this idea because it is very easily manipulated when the morality is extracted like the Libertarians and Austrians have done. But the principles are clear.

[Tjis]

"Perfect Liberty in the markets=Perfect Equality in the people" -Pretty much an easy summation of the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments

I do not support this idea because it is very easily manipulated when the morality is extracted like the Libertarians and Austrians have done. But the principles are clear.

Is your argument that since Smith theorized it, it's true? Or are there arguments besides Smith's word that I've missed?

[NoMasters]

Is your argument that since Smith theorized it, it's true? Or are there arguments besides Smith's word that I've missed?

I would say that it is.

Marx in theory is all true. But, we haven't seen it in practice, just as we haven't seen Smith's theories in practice.

You seem to be straying away from Smith's theory vs. how people took advantage of his theory for their own self-interest.

Smith's theory≠America

Marx's theory≠USSR

Make sense?

[Tjis]

I would say that it is.

Marx in theory is all true. But, we haven't seen it in practice, just as we haven't seen Smith's theories in practice.

You seem to be straying away from Smith's theory vs. how people took advantage of his theory for their own self-interest.

Smith's theory≠America

Marx's theory≠USSR

Make sense?
Two things.
First, I've looked up the market liberty = equality quote. I think this is the one.


The whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock must, in the same neighbourhood, be either perfectly equal or continually tending to equality. If in the same neighbourhood, there was any employment evidently either more or less advantageous than the rest, so many people would crowd into it in the one case, and so many would desert it in the other, that its advantages would soon return to the level of other employments. This at least would be the case in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there was perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to chuse what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper.

What Smith is saying is that when workers are at liberty to leave their job for another, then job advantages and disadvantages will become equal throughout the entire area where this liberty exists. Smith isn't saying that this liberty will lead to equal wealth for all. Smith definitely isn't saying that this will lead to a classless society.
Incidentally, this liberty is pretty close to what exists in much of the world today.

Second, Neither Adam Smith nor Karl Marx was trying to design an economic system, to be implemented by virtuous men who would not try to ruin it with their dirty self-interests. Both were analyzing the economic life around them, and tried to describe its behaviour in rules that'd allow them to explain past developments and make predictions. This is the essence of the scientific method. Part of this same method is that when observations do not match predictions, the theory must be wrong. What you seem to be arguing though is that when capitalism doesn't match your idealist conception of Smithian capitalism, then reality is wrong, not the theory. This is like saying that Mercury's orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury) doesn't match predictions because Mercury stubbornly refuses to obey Newton.

[NoMasters]

This at least would be the case in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there was perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to chuse what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper.

Each according to his abilities? Each according to his needs?

You just proved my point. Thanks for that section.

That is so similar to Marx's idea of man being free to chose what he labors in.

A fisherman by day, a painter by night, a gardener by morning.

[NoMasters]

Two things.
First, I've looked up the market liberty = equality quote. I think this is the one.

What Smith is saying is that when workers are at liberty to leave their job for another, then job advantages and disadvantages will become equal throughout the entire area where this liberty exists. Smith isn't saying that this liberty will lead to equal wealth for all. Smith definitely isn't saying that this will lead to a classless society.
Incidentally, this liberty is pretty close to what exists in much of the world today.

Second, Neither Adam Smith nor Karl Marx was trying to design an economic system, to be implemented by virtuous men who would not try to ruin it with their dirty self-interests. Both were analyzing the economic life around them, and tried to describe its behaviour in rules that'd allow them to explain past developments and make predictions. This is the essence of the scientific method. Part of this same method is that when observations do not match predictions, the theory must be wrong. What you seem to be arguing though is that when capitalism doesn't match your idealist conception of Smithian capitalism, then reality is wrong, not the theory. This is like saying that Mercury's orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury) doesn't match predictions because Mercury stubbornly refuses to obey Newton.

So communism and almost all left movement are wrong? They all failed, especially communism. In fact, communism completely imploded on itself.

You aren't making any point here at all.

[NoMasters]

The theory is perfectly anarchist. Whether it is in practice today is of another topic. You really should understand the differences vs. Smith and what we think capitalist economists today are like the late Friedman. Smith is so different than these men. It is truly sad how these men have been taken advantage of. Especially the greatest classical economic theorist, Karl Marx.

Long live Marx.

[Tjis]

This at least would be the case in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there was perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to chuse what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper.

Each according to his abilities? Each according to his needs?

I fail to see that in the quote. Being able to leave your job for another does not mean your needs will be fulfilled as long as you work. You're free to leave your job for another in todays world as well and people still starve to death.



You just proved my point. Thanks for that section.

How does that section prove your point?



That is so similar to Marx's idea of man being free to chose what he labors in.
A fisherman by day, a painter by night, a gardener by morning.
Except that Smith didn't argue that, or at least not in the quotes so far provided. What Smith says is not that everyone should be free to choose their line of work and be sufficiently compensated for it, whatever it is. He's merely saying that if people are free to switch jobs (as in, their boss can't force them to keep working against their will, even if there are better job prospects), then eventually all these jobs that people are free to switch between will have equivalent advantages and disadvantages.
That's exactly the situation that exists today. One factory can't pay a wage of $1 if another factory around the corner is hiring people for a $5 wage. They'd lose all their workers to that other factory. Despite this we certainly don't live in a classless society.



So communism and almost all left movement are wrong? They all failed, especially communism. In fact, communism completely imploded on itself.

No. Neither capitalism nor communism is wrong or right. They're economic systems that grow out of material conditions, not the theories of a bunch of intellectuals. In my opinion, Marx' greatest contribution is recognizing exactly this. He called it historical materialism.



You aren't making any point here at all.

My point is that socio-economic systems grow out of material conditions, not ideas. Because of that, it's pointless to pretend that there exists some kind of ideal capitalism (or communism for that matter), which the great men of history just failed to implement. Marx knew this. Smith also knew this. But you seem to think that both men were in fact trying to change the world by writing some books, and would have succeeded if it weren't for those pesky selfish people.

[NoMasters]

I fail to see that in the quote. Being able to leave your job for another does not mean your needs will be fulfilled as long as you work. You're free to leave your job for another in todays world as well and people still starve to death.


How does that section prove your point?


Except that Smith didn't argue that, or at least not in the quotes so far provided. What Smith says is not that everyone should be free to choose their line of work and be sufficiently compensated for it, whatever it is. He's merely saying that if people are free to switch jobs (as in, their boss can't force them to keep working against their will, even if there are better job prospects), then eventually all these jobs that people are free to switch between will have equivalent advantages and disadvantages.
That's exactly the situation that exists today. One factory can't pay a wage of $1 if another factory around the corner is hiring people for a $5 wage. They'd lose all their workers to that other factory. Despite this we certainly don't live in a classless society.


No. Neither capitalism nor communism is wrong or right. They're economic systems that grow out of material conditions, not the theories of a bunch of intellectuals. In my opinion, Marx' greatest contribution is recognizing exactly this. He called it historical materialism.


My point is that socio-economic systems grow out of material conditions, not ideas. Because of that, it's pointless to pretend that there exists some kind of ideal capitalism (or communism for that matter), which the great men of history just failed to implement. Marx knew this. Smith also knew this. But you seem to think that both men were in fact trying to change the world by writing some books, and would have succeeded if it weren't for those pesky selfish people.


Wages for Smith don't exist when the markets are finalized. Money itself becomes rendered useless.

[Tjis]

Wages for Smith don't exist when the markets are finalized. Money itself becomes rendered useless.

A quote from one of his works would be helpful here.

[NoMasters]

A quote from one of his works would be helpful here.

It is all there in Book I. I am not going to go through finding quotes, since it is a series of arguments within 200 pages of work. He talks about how inflation comes because of government intervention and scarcity because of government.

He also talks about how if they do not intervene, inflation doesn't exist, and scarcity ceases to exist, and the cost of everything in theory is nothing. There is no inflation.

[NoMasters]

Adam Smith's economic system flourishes to perfection in anarchism. If you don't want to call his work as capitalist work, which you can for many reasons, then anarcho-capitalism cannot work.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Adam Smith's economic system flourishes to perfection in anarchism.

It's not like Adam Smith invented capitalism, but still, you need evidence to demonstrate that capitalism functions successfully within an anarchist framework.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I'll point you over to some books I read about the issue (of Anarchist catelonia)
The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939
Chomsky on Anarchism
To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936

I havn't read but heard good things about
Anarchism and Workers' Self-Management in Revolutionary Spain.

some concrete examples, the CNT-FAI took over basic administration, the workplaces were turned into cooperatives, farming was done cooperatively, mutual aid replaced markets in many places, you had workers self management in everything from barbershops, to furnature factories, to food markets to public transport.

When the civil war came along they fought with the popular front (republicans and communists), against the fascists, however over time the popular front went against the anarchists (since origionally their revolution was against them), and the communists (such as the Comintern affiliated socialist party) were patently against them, and eventually actually fought against them, their problem was CNT-FAI doing their own thing.

Now Then you have a group unsupported by the outside fighting against the Germany/Itally backed fascists AND the soviet union backed Communists.

...

...

...

I'm a little frustrated, comrade, and I'll explain why. Nothing above here fits the bill of what I was asking for. Okay, so things were self-managed by the workers. This isn't by itself a measure of success. Remember, you're talking with someone who subscribes to a different social ideology than you do. That self-management existed isn't the same as success to me. I'm wanting something like "and such-and-such a percentage of the population was employed and they had such-and-such amount to live on..." And I'm more than a little peeved that you're still asking me to do your homework for you. No, I'm not going to find a book to read just because you googled "examples of anarchism's success" and found some titles to throw at me. Do a little bit of work and actually give me a god damn quote or a paraphrase and page number if you actually read it.. Don't have the time for that? Then you don't have the time to be making claims you cannot substantiate.

[RGacky3]

So let me get this straight.

You want me to find employment numbers, GDP, and so on for Anarchist catelonia?

I READ those books, and I've been talking about anarchist catelonia on this board for a while, you hav'nt heard of it, even though every leftist worth his salt should have heard of it.

I'm not gonna start going into historical documents to try and find employment numbers for anarchist catelonia in the 1930s.

What I do know was their industrial output was higher than the rest of spain, and there was never an internal dissolussion.

[RGacky3]

BTW, Don't come here and tell me "anarchism does'nt work," a blanket ignorant statement, then when I give you an example, YOU want the whole history explained to you, and then Tell me that its MY duty to inform you.

Your the one that claimed "anarchism can't work" YOU need to do your homework before spouting such ignorance. You should be embarrassed that you would talk about anarchism and not even have heard of anarchist catelonia, have some humility and shut up about what you don't know.

[Comrade Auldnik]

So let me get this straight.

You want me to find employment numbers, GDP, and so on for Anarchist catelonia?

Why not? You know so much about it. I can find all of that for the Soviet Union. Hell, I can at least find examples of successes for the Paris Commune, one being that all were employed in some way and that education was free. Can you cite at least one little thing that says anything even remotely similar to this?


I READ those books, and I've been talking about anarchist catelonia on this board for a while, you hav'nt heard of it, even though every leftist worth his salt should have heard of it.

And yet you find it so hard just to throw some data my way. If you read and own these books, how hard is it to go one step beyond name-dropping them like all you did was google them?


I'm not gonna start going into historical documents to try and find employment numbers for anarchist catelonia in the 1930s.

And yet I could do this for the Paris Commune, the Soviet Union, Socialist Albania, etc. What's stopping you? You have all the time in the world to argue about things you apparently had time to read all up on.


What I do know was their industrial output was higher than the rest of spain, and there was never an internal dissolussion.

And now all we need is some evidence that this is true and we'll be all set, 'kay? :lol:

[RadicalRed]

Anarcho-Capitalism is tyranny at its best.

[Comrade Auldnik]

BTW, Don't come here and tell me "anarchism does'nt work," a blanket ignorant statement, then when I give you an example, YOU want any kind of concrete example whatsoever.

Nope. You're the one who claimed it can work. I demanded you back your shit up. Even if I made a negative claim, that still doesn't put on me the responsibility to find negative evidence. It's up to the affirmative.

[RGacky3]

Even if I made a negative claim, that still doesn't put on me the responsibility to find negative evidence. It's up to the affirmative.

Yes it does. If you make a claim about science, and I say "no, relativity theory shows that is false," and you've never heard of relativity theory, you better shut the hell up and look it up.

Most of what I learned about the subject is from books, but since your proud in your ignorance and DEMAND, links, here we go, spend some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
http://libcom.org/library/homage-to-catalonia-george-orwell
http://libcom.org/library/the-tragedy-of-spain-rudolf-rocker
http://libcom.org/library/statistical-information-on-socialisation-in-the-spanish-revolution
http://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-the-spanish-civil-war-and-revolution

Now stop embarrasing yourself. I suggest in the future you shut up when you don't know about something.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Yes it does. If you make a claim about science, and I say "no, relativity theory shows that is false," and you've never heard of relativity theory, you better shut the hell up and look it up.

Most of what I learned about the subject is from books, but since your proud in your ignorance and DEMAND, links, here we go, spend some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
http://libcom.org/library/homage-to-catalonia-george-orwell
http://libcom.org/library/the-tragedy-of-spain-rudolf-rocker
http://libcom.org/library/statistical-information-on-socialisation-in-the-spanish-revolution
http://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-the-spanish-civil-war-and-revolution

Now stop embarrasing yourself. I suggest in the future you shut up when you don't know about something.

So instead of using those citations in an actual argument ... you know what? No. You've been doing this crap from day 1 and I've had it up to here with you're inability to synthesize an argument from your sources.

I'm not going through your reading list because you refuse to do the work and want me to do it.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Yes it does. If you make a claim about science, and I say "no, relativity theory shows that is false," and you've never heard of relativity theory, you better shut the hell up and look it up.

This statement makes it abundantly clear that you have no idea how a debate actually works.

[RGacky3]

What the hell do you want me to argue about???

THe fact that Anarchist Catelonia did not collapse internally? And that it worked? Read the articles, I have no idea what your looking for, your just embarrassed in your ignorance.

I can't have a debate with someone over ANarchist Catelonia, without that person knowing something about anarchist catelonia.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People won't tolerate police that fail anymore than they will tolerate brakes that fail.[/QUOTE]I love your analogies because they are almost always a real life situation in which the government regulated something that you claim comes naturally from supply and demand. Car companies claimed that safety regulations would bankrupt the companies, so yes for a long time people had to tolerate (or die bleeding and broken on the highway) substandard safety measures.

They also used to have private Fire companies... but the funny thing is that fires don't honor private property distinctions and if your uninsured neighbor's house catches on fire, your insured house might go down too.




The demand for police is based on the existence of criminals. How are police creating that demand? They aren't.This is such an abstract idea.
Suppose that there is a high crime rate. There's demand for protection. But then, "the police" has the power to affect the crime rate, and thus to affect its own demand. How is that going to lead to an efficient struggle against criminality when the police enterprise should act against its own interests?Well this assumes that police actually do anything about crime rates when they hardly ever directly prevent a crime, at best they might round someone up after the fact.

But at any rate, the police have only existed for less than 200 years and private police forces like this existed in capitalism the past - they were mostly glorified hired thugs and they were mostly not hired to stop "crime" but "criminal organizing" by workers against their bosses. Municiple police were created by capital because they saw this as more "invisible" (not hired goons by a company, but "keepers of the general peace") and a way to more regularly deal with large groups of working class people hanging out in urban areas.

[Comrade Auldnik]

What the hell do you want me to argue about???

THe fact that Anarchist Catelonia did not collapse internally? And that it worked? Read the articles, I have no idea what your looking for, your just embarrassed in your ignorance.

I can't have a debate with someone over ANarchist Catelonia, without that person knowing something about anarchist catelonia.

Okay, I'm going to explain this to you for the positively, absolutely last time. If you haven't figured out what I'm looking for after you've read this, then you've effectively ended this conversation.

Dropping links does not demonstrate any kind of personal understanding of Anarchist Catalonia. Saying "it was successful because it didn't internally dissolve" doesn't show me you actually know the ways in which Catalonia was a successful society. Whether a society dissolved from the inside out is not the only measure of a society's success.

What I'm asking for is for you to do something other than to drop links. Dropping links and book titles doesn't demonstrate any kind of understanding. All it really suggests is that you have some vague idea that these links and books are connected to Catalonia.

You're the one who needs to do your homework, not me. I've actually read through your links, but having me read for you is not the same as debating me. What do these links say, for example? Just write an example of how Anarchist Catalonia functioned successfully. Did the society provide for its people? In what ways, for example, did it provide for its people? Christ, I'm teaching you how to write. I'm sorry for absolutely losing it, but this is the sorriest excuse for a debate I've ever had with someone who isn't, say, a creationist or a fascist.

[RGacky3]

If you read the links you'd know the answers to the questions.

I'm not gonna answer those questions for you, you did'nt read through the links.

Considering your the one that was in ignorance I would drop the arrogance.

explaining how anarchist catelonia worked is'nt a debate. How about this, you read though the links, teach yourself about anarchist catelonia, then tell me what you thought did'nt work about it, then we'll have a debate. If your just gonna continue this, forget it. Continue in your ignorance.