Has true free market capitalism ever existed?

[ZvP]

Because Libertarianism is the most popular and widely proposed alternative to the current economic system, I was wondering if it's ever existed in a true sense. If it has, what is the excuse from libertarians as to why it wasn't successful/wasn't sustained?

[ВАЛТЕР]

They seem to want capitalism without a state, yet they can't get it through their thick skulls that capitalism requires a state. The state as we know it is a capitalist construct designed to defend their markets and their property. Any benefit the working class gets from that state (free healthcare or whatever) is a result of the state being forced to do so by the working class in order to stave off a further upheaval. The only reason we work 8 hours instead of 14 is because people demanded it, not because the bosses gave a shit about the people.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It existed once in Fairyland but was quickly smashed by a workers revolution... but no, it has never existed anywhere. The "Free Market" is a contradiction in terms: one cannot have a market which is "free" and still have a functioning market for any amount of time, less much a functioning society.

[Blake's Baby]

They think that stateless market societies have existed. If my memory is correct, they believe that Iceland in the 11th century and the pioneers in the American West were examples of such societies.

[Tim Cornelis]

They think that stateless market societies have existed. If my memory is correct, they believe that Iceland in the 11th century and the pioneers in the American West were examples of such societies.

The Icelandic Free State is noted by right-wing libertarians, especially nonarchists (anarcho-capitalists), as an example of a society where markets provided security. I doubt, however, that anyone seriously claims it was stateless. The Icelandic Free State was a monarchy and a large portion of its population were slaves. The competing security providers (called "goooro" but written in non-Latin alphabetic letters if I remember correctly) existed by decree of the state and no new providers were allowed to be set up.

I believe I've heard some right-wingers refer to early American colonies as "prove that communism doesn't work." But I don't know the details or accuracy of this claim, nor even if I remember this correctly.

To answer the question of the OP, the Netherlands and Great Britain have been cited as "free market capitalism" but I don't know whether this is accurate since some call Hong Kong, Singapore, and even the United States "free market capitalism."

Modern Chile could be seen as an example of neoclassical-styled free market capitalism from 1973 till 1983. But it still had a central bank.

[l'Enfermé]

The type of free markets envisioned by the far-right "libertarians" have never existed, to exist there would have to be no state but if there's no state there would be nothing preventing them from being monopolized.

[pluckedflowers]

I think it's important to note that, even if perfectly free markets existed, they would still be subject to the same laws of motion identified by Marx. Indeed, Marx presupposes free markets in his analysis: "There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham." So libertarian isn't just utopian, it's fundamentally incoherent.

[Goblin]

It has never existed because it cant exist.

And i wouldnt say that libertarianism is popular. Its pretty much a joke outside of America.

[RedHammer]

I don't know of any historical example of true laissez-faire capitalism as envisioned by libertarians. The Iceland example, as already mentioned, was not a "true" market; and regardless, it was in the 11th century, long before industrialization and modern divisions of labor.

If a libertarian has to point to a society from the 11th century...that's just sad. And entirely irrelevant to modern economies.

The "Old West" is the closest thing I can think of, but it was hardly the image of prosperity and success.

Today, many libertarians will point to Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore as examples of the "free-market". Of course, the state has a hand in all of these. I believe in Hong Kong, the state owns all the land and only "leases" it out to people. Switzerland has a public sector (well, they all do, thereby discrediting them as true free markets).

A true "free market" will inevitably lead to concentrations of wealth, but here's the problem with libertarians: they fundamentally view the protection of libertarian ideals (i.e private property), and not the material conditions of the masses, as the measure of the success of the economic system.

There could be mass starvation and poverty, but in a libertarian's mind, "that's just part of the market". You can easily observe how capitalists rationalize suffering as "well, every system has its flaws", but when they talk about socialism, they point to bread lines and say "see? it doesn't work". What they don't mention is that before the bread lines, there was no bread. What they don't mention is the millions in the third world who starve to death or barely survive in order to support their capitalist system.

Suffering under capitalism? It's "part of the market".
Suffering under socialism? It's because it's an evil, flawed system.

[JPSartre12]

I don't know of any historical example of true laissez-faire capitalism as envisioned by libertarians. The Iceland example, as already mentioned, was not a "true" market; and regardless, it was in the 11th century, long before industrialization and modern divisions of labor.

If a libertarian has to point to a society from the 11th century...that's just sad. And entirely irrelevant to modern economies.

I think that you're right. Any ideology that's rooted in a colonial era has no place being applied nowadays, let alone one that will never work regardless of the historical moment in which it takes place.


There could be mass starvation and poverty, but in a libertarian's mind, "that's just part of the market". You can easily observe how capitalists rationalize suffering as "well, every system has its flaws", but when they talk about socialism, they point to bread lines and say "see? it doesn't work". What they don't mention is that before the bread lines, there was no bread. What they don't mention is the millions in the third world who starve to death or barely survive in order to support their capitalist system.

Suffering under capitalism? It's "part of the market".
Suffering under socialism? It's because it's an evil, flawed system

I can't seem to wrap my mind around that ^ Suffering under one system is acceptable, while it's not under another. I think that the bad rap that socialism has is mostly do the propaganda war that the West has waged for the past couple generations. The capitalist system has a vested interest in us not liking the alternative to it, and if we hate the alternative, we'll stick with what we have.

[Lynx]

Somalia has been described as the world's first Libertarian Paradise, but only in jest.

[RedHammer]

I can't seem to wrap my mind around that ^ Suffering under one system is acceptable, while it's not under another. I think that the bad rap that socialism has is mostly do the propaganda war that the West has waged for the past couple generations. The capitalist system has a vested interest in us not liking the alternative to it, and if we hate the alternative, we'll stick with what we have.

Precisely. If people applied the same standards they use to judge socialism, they'd have deemed capitalism a failure long ago. Famines, wars, rights violations, poverty, and a dearth of resources for the masses.

The only reason people think capitalism is a success is because they look at the handful of countries that benefit from colonial exploitation. Anybody who claims capitalism is a success must be ignoring the third world.


Somalia has been described as the world's first Libertarian Paradise, but only in jest.

It's such a paradise that Somalians flee to Ethiopia to get away from it.

[Psy]

The type of free markets envisioned by the far-right "libertarians" have never existed, to exist there would have to be no state but if there's no state there would be nothing preventing them from being monopolized.
The big problem is property rights comes from the bourgeoisie state, if there is no bourgeoisie state there is no property rights. One just has to look at organized crime, property has no legal owners in the criminal world and it all fall under might makes right, if a rival criminal organization sends in their hired guns then either the defending criminal organization yields their property or settles it in a blood bath and the side that still has enough firepower on the property gets to claim the property as theirs.

[RedHammer]

The big problem is property rights comes from the bourgeoisie state, if there is no bourgeoisie state there is no property rights. One just has to look at organized crime, property has no legal owners in the criminal world and it all fall under might makes right, if a rival criminal organization sends in their hired guns then either the defending criminal organization yields their property or settles it in a blood bath and the side that still has enough firepower on the property gets to claim the property as theirs.

This is true in the real world, but in the libertarian's view, property rights "come from within" or "are God-given" or "based on individual liberty".....

Or some other such rubbish, rooted in idealism.

[Art Vandelay]

The state is a product of class society; it will exist until classes don't. So basically no, a true free market capitalist state, would be impossible.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Somalia has been described as the world's first Libertarian Paradise, but only in jest.
Not quite in jest

http://mises.org/daily/2066
https://mises.org/daily/5418/

And if you feel like getting a migraine: https://mises.org/daily/1855

[right to left]

Somalia has been described as the world's first Libertarian Paradise, but only in jest.
I was waiting for someone to mention Somalia, since it has been used before as a rebuttal to the libertarian fairyland argument -- if only government would get off our backs etc.. But the logic is very simple and straightforward -- if you want limited government, how much more limited can government be than in a failed state where there is no effective government to maintain order and provide services.

The libertarians I have come across in conservative circles are best described as conservatives who want to smoke pot and have sex. In other words, they follow the line on laissez-faire economic theory but think they are hip because they reject the social restrictions of Christian fundamentalists who make up the majority of the mainstream conservatives, who support business interests that finance and control economic policy as long as the social conservatives get a ban on abortion and gay marriage!! That makes no logical sense, but social conservatives are brought in largely by their church leaders and the emotional religious appeals to vote directly against their own economic interests.

So, if libertarians in the movement don't have money, then they are true fools because they are willing to stand and fall based on the logic of libertarian economics!

As has been mentioned previously, libertarian economic theory is flawed from the outset, because it is based on the fallacy that the market will function in a rational, fair manner if unconstrained from political interference. Markets can't be rational (as we have seen especially since the deregulation of banking and finance) because the people making buying decisions aren't making them solely based on logical, practical reasons to begin with -- especially now in the modern age of consumer capitalism, where business is selling prestige and social status, rather than the specific product.

And the American libertarians, who I am most familiar with, have been indoctrinated with a flawed interpretation of American history. They have created this myth that the U.S. of A. was an open, unregulated nation until the advent of the income tax. The real truth is that their Founding Fathers had an understanding of the "Commons" or common property and services that has been largely abandoned in recent times, and they did not even want to recognize corporate entities in the first place! And when they granted corporate charters, they came with many restrictions and conditions that have been jettisoned over the years...such as periodic reviews, where the corporation's charter was subject to termination every five years if the jurisdiction granting the charter determined that the corporation was not serving a greater social purpose in the community. Back then, they had more obligations than just to their major shareholders!

The biggest roadblock to talking sense to the average libertarian is that they are stuck on the mantra that government is always the primary source of evil and must be limited as much as possible. If they continue to follow libertarian dogma, they are blind to recent history of the last few decades where corporations and their wealthy controllers and shareholders have effectively overrun democratic government in the United States and most other capitalist mixed economies. The libertarian has no answer to deal with the growth of wealth and power of private business interests except to declare that market forces and the business cycle will take care of any bad actors in a free enterprise system.
Libertarianism has provided the ideological cover for the worst aspects of capitalism (the rich used to have to feel guilty about their greed), and I think that's why this philosophy has received so much undeserved attention and credibility. If you have Charles and David Koch's money behind your libertarian notions, then you are provided a bigger stage (Cato Institute) to spread your crazy, ill-informed ideas far and wide.

[Psy]

This is true in the real world, but in the libertarian's view, property rights "come from within" or "are God-given" or "based on individual liberty".....

Or some other such rubbish, rooted in idealism.
Yet that pushing property rights into a meaningless philosophical concepts that has nothing to do with the material world. In the material world there are armed bodies that decide who owns property as if you can't control access it is not property in any practical sense and this isn't unique to capitalism this goes back to the earliest class based societies.

I mean how do libertarians think feudalism worked? How do they think the noble classes had rights to property? Why do they think the working classes allowed the nobility said property? Is the concept that the ruling classes decides what is moral for society such a hard concept for libertarians to grasp?

[Eadweard Merten]

The "Old West" is the closest thing I can think of, but it was hardly the image of prosperity and success.

Maybe Freedom and Liberty are the main goal and not economics like you dang liberals are always obsessed about!

As a Libertarian I DEMAND the right to be able to be free from the State so that I may snort coke or visit a brothel if I wish it just like my ancestors did in the Old West (I am a red-neck in Oregon)

Commies like Stalin (not exactly a 'fun-loving' kind of guy) don't want me to have that kind of Freedom.

[Jazzratt]

As a Libertarian I DEMAND the right to be able to be free from the State so that I may snort coke or visit a brothel if I wish it just like my ancestors did in the Old West (I am a red-neck in Oregon) You should probably read a book at some point. The lawlessness of the old west is often exaggerated and romanticised. Probably because it lets wankers like you rub themselves into a lather over a society that never existed.


Commies like Stalin (not exactly a 'fun-loving' kind of guy) don't want me to have that kind of Freedom. Other commies, like myself and large numbers of anarchists, really couldn't give less of a monkey's about what you drink or snort, it is absolutely no skin off of my nose. What we object to is the class relationship between capitalist owners and proletarian workers because they are both morally and economically objectionable.

[RedHammer]

Libertarianism has provided the ideological cover for the worst aspects of capitalism (the rich used to have to feel guilty about their greed), and I think that's why this philosophy has received so much undeserved attention and credibility. If you have Charles and David Koch's money behind your libertarian notions, then you are provided a bigger stage (Cato Institute) to spread your crazy, ill-informed ideas far and wide.

At the root of libertarianism is the idealistic notion that the market is a genuine meritocracy. If somebody is poor, then he must be lazy and stupid. If he is rich, then he is virtuous and productive.

Anybody who has actually taken a step out into the real world will see this as the supreme falsehood that it is, but it is a convenient belief that allows the wealthy to comfort themselves about screwing people over or ignoring the poverty of the world.

Libertarians fall into one of three camps:

1] Healthy, well-off young men who have hardly stepped into the real world, but eagerly support the idealistic meritocracy that I was talking about before, that doesn't actually exist. They conveniently ignore the fact that they are well-off to begin with.
2] Lower class people who would suffer under libertarian policies, but have been duped into believing that they deserve it (i.e the false meritocracy that doesn't actually exist).
3] Rich people who want to support an ideology that justifies their greed and destructive behavior.



I mean how do libertarians think feudalism worked? How do they think the noble classes had rights to property? Why do they think the working classes allowed the nobility said property? Is the concept that the ruling classes decides what is moral for society such a hard concept for libertarians to grasp?

Feudalism is interesting because, although it was, to a large extent, enforced with military might, it was also enforced by the prevailing beliefs that the kings had the "Divine Right"; an entire culture developed around feudalism, and legitimized the system. I daresay the majority of serfs, perhaps, genuinely agreed that the king did have the right to rule them, and by extension, his lackeys (dukes, barons, etc).


Maybe Freedom and Liberty are the main goal and not economics like you dang liberals are always obsessed about!

In the words of Lenin, "Freedom for whom? To do what?"

My conception of freedom doesn't involve exploitation.


Commies like Stalin (not exactly a 'fun-loving' kind of guy) don't want me to have that kind of Freedom.

Let's be clear about one thing: many people, including myself, may defend some of the contributions of Stalin, but that doesn't mean we support building a replica of Stalin's Russia. The unique material conditions under which it existed are gone. We want to learn from the Soviet Union, not copy it exactly.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is the contradiction of libertarianism not thus: the libertarians don't actually mind their libertarianism being 'enforced', so they don't mind expanding the state to destroy the state (a la South America in the 70s/80s and the Chicago School experiments). This lays bare their ideological bias - they will do anything see their ideology, ultra-capitalism, win, even if they have to temporarily abandon their 'principles'. The irony that the Chicago School so disturbingly gave to the world was that the economic libertarians are, in fact, the ultimate political authoritarians. They discount political democracy as a factor in liberty, and thus destroy liberty by destroying democracy...in search of this fabled 'liberty'. The mind boggles!

Funny that, don't some on the left use the same thinking? :laugh::rolleyes:

[Ocean Seal]

If anyone ever tells you that what we have now isn't true capitalism or is some statist cronyist shit, grab the nearest copy of the Wealth of Nations and open a can of whoopass on whoever said that shit. Don't ask them to read it, they have obviously chosen not to.

[RedHammer]

If anyone ever tells you that what we have now isn't true capitalism or is some statist cronyist shit, grab the nearest copy of the Wealth of Nations and open a can of whoopass on whoever said that shit. Don't ask them to read it, they have obviously chosen not to.

I'm rather fond of a line by a RevLeft member that I read in a thread, once. It went: "Saying that's corporatism, not capitalism, is like watching a street fight and saying 'that's not a real fight, one of the guys didn't fight clean'. No shit, that's what fights lead to, people fighting dirty. Corporatism is what happens when capitalism happens."

[Psy]

Feudalism is interesting because, although it was, to a large extent, enforced with military might, it was also enforced by the prevailing beliefs that the kings had the "Divine Right"; an entire culture developed around feudalism, and legitimized the system. I daresay the majority of serfs, perhaps, genuinely agreed that the king did have the right to rule them, and by extension, his lackeys (dukes, barons, etc).

The numerous peasant uprisings suggest otherwise, for example even though Hirohito was projected as a God, in Japan the communists were rapidly gaining supported till the military backlash of 1936 and after 1936 all the crushing of the Japanese communists did was create a vacuum that was filled by peasant terrorist groups and even when the Japanese Army crushed the terrorists there was still wide spread discontent even among the peasants in rural Japan.

[RedHammer]

The numerous peasant uprisings suggest otherwise, for example even though Hirohito was projected as a God, in Japan the communists were rapidly gaining supported till the military backlash of 1936 and after 1936 all the crushing of the Japanese communists did was create a vacuum that was filled by peasant terrorist groups and even when the Japanese Army crushed the terrorists there was still wide spread discontent even among the peasants in rural Japan.

Good point, but I was referring to the Middle Ages in Europe. Before Marx came around;)

[Radikal]

Maybe Freedom and Liberty are the main goal and not economics like you dang liberals are always obsessed about!

As a Libertarian I DEMAND the right to be able to be free from the State so that I may snort coke or visit a brothel if I wish it just like my ancestors did in the Old West (I am a red-neck in Oregon)

Commies like Stalin (not exactly a 'fun-loving' kind of guy) don't want me to have that kind of Freedom.

Okay, I'm not sure if you're joking, so I'll provide two answers:

Joke: lol

Non-Joke: We aren't liberals, not all leftists want to have drug prohibition, and your ancestors forced Natives on tiny, shitty reservations. So much for freedom and liberty.

[Marxaveli]

Well, Somalia is sort of close to a Libertarian Capitalist utopia (or dystopia from our perspective), though even that country has a military faction that holds it up. Of course, if you tell any Libertarian to go live there for a week, they will say no thats not true free-market Capitalism (lol), and even if they did they'd be back much quicker than that.

[Oswy]

...

Suffering under capitalism? It's "part of the market".
Suffering under socialism? It's because it's an evil, flawed system.

Yeah, the first thing I learned when debating with a libertarian was that they don't recognise exploitation unless a boss is actually holding a gun to a workers head - anything short of that is just 'the market' and people who starve through lack of work or resources are just 'unfortunate'. Even a scenario in which a worker is forced to give their boss a blowjob every morning to keep their job is not being exploited in the eyes of a libertarian (even if the alternative is starvation) it's just 'market forces'.

[Jazzratt]

Yeah, the first thing I learned when debating with a libertarian was that they don't recognise exploitation unless a boss is actually holding a gun to a workers head - anything short of that is just 'the market' and people who starve through lack of work or resources are just 'unfortunate'. Even a scenario in which a worker is forced to give their boss a blowjob every morning to keep their job is not being exploited in the eyes of a libertarian (even if the alternative is starvation) it's just 'market forces'.
I think people who have always been in a state of absolute financial security have a very difficult time realising that having your next meal not be guaranteed or being unable to keep a roof over your head in the winter or whatever is a fucking threat. Also it says something about their arrogance that their response to this kind of criticism is that the choice isn't between working or starving but between working at that work place or starving because you couldn't be arsed to find work somewhere more equitable - as if jobs grow on fucking trees and as if a workplace that is truly equitable would survive in a market interested only in profit. Bastards, bastards all of them.

[Baseball]

I think people who have always been in a state of absolute financial security have a very difficult time realising that having your next meal not be guaranteed or being unable to keep a roof over your head in the winter or whatever is a fucking threat. Also it says something about their arrogance that their response to this kind of criticism is that the choice isn't between working or starving but between working at that work place or starving because you couldn't be arsed to find work somewhere more equitable - as if jobs grow on fucking trees and as if a workplace that is truly equitable would survive in a market interested only in profit. Bastards, bastards all of them.

But as usual, such a critique is meaningless...

Does not a socialist community require, as in "mandate" as in "no-choice", work? such
Does not a socialist community require that work be productive, useful ect.? Not just busy work? Of course it does, or it should.

All the above critique of capitalism must therefore be applied to socialism. If not, then one has to examine it from that socialist angle. Hysteria and emotionalism ought not have a place with people who like to strut their "scientific" outlook.

[l'Enfermé]

But as usual, such a critique is meaningless...

Does not a socialist community require, as in "mandate" as in "no-choice", work? such
Does not a socialist community require that work be productive, useful ect.? Not just busy work? Of course it does, or it should.

All the above critique of capitalism must therefore be applied to socialism. If not, then one has to examine it from that socialist angle. Hysteria and emotionalism ought not have a place with people who like to strut their "scientific" outlook.
You're talking to an Anarchist, and like other utopians, Anarchists don't even pretend to "strut" a "scientific" outlook, such things are the business of Marxists.

Under communism, a human being works freely. Under communism, a human being isn't alienated from the means of production. Because under capitalism, a human being's livelihood, his labour power, is transformed into a commodity, the human being himself becomes a commodity. Under communism, there's no more wage-slavery. "All the above critique of capitalism must therefore be applied to socialism"...no!

[cynicles]

I remember reading someone on these forums who tried to use Native Americans as an example of free market utopia once. I lol'd hard.

[Marxaveli]

It is amazing what reactionaries spew forth nowadays. The "in" thing for them to do lately is to try and paint Hitler as a Leftist and attempt to discredit the radical left further, lol. They are so desperate to have him out of their corner, because its such a stain on them that they are now flat out resorting to historical revisionism to alleviate themselves. Historical revisionism has been a methodology of the far right for a while now, but I've never seen it so blatant.

[Baseball]

You're talking to an Anarchist, and like other utopians, Anarchists don't even pretend to "strut" a "scientific" outlook, such things are the business of Marxists.

Under communism, a human being works freely. Under communism, a human being isn't alienated from the means of production. Because under capitalism, a human being's livelihood, his labour power, is transformed into a commodity, the human being himself becomes a commodity. Under communism, there's no more wage-slavery. "All the above critique of capitalism must therefore be applied to socialism"...no!

Well, yes, it must. Still need to describe what it means to say "a human being works freely." He or she can produce anything he or she wants to produce? Really? What is the impact of that upon the community? ect ect

[o well this is ok I guess]

You're talking to an Anarchist, and like other utopians, Anarchists don't even pretend to "strut" a "scientific" outlook, such things are the business of Marxists. I don't see what is wrong with this at all

[human strike]

Because Libertarianism is the most popular and widely proposed alternative to the current economic system

Wait, what?

[rti]

Wait, what?

Well yeah there is growing trend of this one , born out of frustration with current corrupted states.

They are delusional enough to think that if states dissapear suddenly everyone will act according to free market ideology ( which is very catchy but impossible to happen )

I especially dislike this group.
Dunno why, i have a gut feeling they will be a big problem due to big group of rich people that when it comes to revolution will sponsor this ideology in order to preserve its power, status and wealth.

[Lowtech]

The human species is not yet extinct, so I would say no.

A market as the major means of resource exchange/allocation is very haphazard

[Lowtech]

Duplicate post

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Maybe Freedom and Liberty are the main goal and not economics like you dang liberals are always obsessed about!

As a Libertarian I DEMAND the right to be able to be free from the State so that I may snort coke or visit a brothel if I wish it just like my ancestors did in the Old West (I am a red-neck in Oregon)

Commies like Stalin (not exactly a 'fun-loving' kind of guy) don't want me to have that kind of Freedom.

what is this!? :laugh:

So you absolutely detest state power, but world-dominating corporate monopolies that will eventually turn ultra-reactionary are chill?

I'm not even going to bother explaining to you the problems with your inconsistent conceptualisation of reality after reading that nonsensical, in vitro crap about freedom and economics being disconnected. Keep living the dream, mate. Just remember that there's always a bucket of water to wake you up.:thumbup1:

P.S. Your ancestors slaughtered, raped and pillaged millions of native Americans in the Old west, not to mention the fact most of them had slaves. Not a very nice thing to reminisce, and in quite a different direction to your idealist hack-conservatism (Unless of course, you would enjoy living in a world like Ethiopia :lol:).

[rti]

what is this!? :laugh:

Dangerous delusion



So you absolutely detest state power, but world-dominating corporate monopolies that will eventually turn ultra-reactionary are chill?

No, he believes that market forces will prevent those from ever happening or he will become rich and powerful so potential problems will not affect him.



P.S. Your ancestors slaughtered, raped and pillaged millions of native Americans in the Old west, not to mention the fact most of them had slaves. Not a very nice thing to reminisce, and in quite a different direction to your idealist hack-conservatism (Unless of course, you would enjoy living in a world like Ethiopia :lol:).
Not only that they were literally tripping over resources sticking out of the ground like copper.

[Lokomotive293]

Because Libertarianism is the most popular and widely proposed alternative to the current economic system, I was wondering if it's ever existed in a true sense. If it has, what is the excuse from libertarians as to why it wasn't successful/wasn't sustained?

I would say "libertarianism" is an ideology that grows out of the petty-bourgeois desire to return to some (highly idealized and utopian) form of pre-Imperialist capitalism, which is of course neither possible nor desirable.
However, I've also met "libertarians" who just use the label to cover their right-wing, anti-semitic, racist, near-fascist views.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Feudalism is interesting because, although it was, to a large extent, enforced with military might, it was also enforced by the prevailing beliefs that the kings had the "Divine Right"; an entire culture developed around feudalism, and legitimized the system. I daresay the majority of serfs, perhaps, genuinely agreed that the king did have the right to rule them, and by extension, his lackeys (dukes, barons, etc).

It's true that there were uprisings as well as direct repression, but I think mostly you are correct that like our own system, the direct repression is a backup and hegemony is the preferred method. It's hard to create surplus profits during class struggle and upheavals, and it's hard to collect food or labor from your serfs if they are burning down your manor or you are slaughtering them and your lands go barren for lack of labor.

I think this is also why feudalism was so socially ridged: the mantra of feudal Europe was "everything is always the same, the social order is designed by God from Pope to king down through the caste hierarchies then male over female, human over animal this animal over that one and animals over fish and fish over plants. This is why the Church was so dogmatic and was the source of information: God wants things this way. This is why cathedrals were so ornate: look at the power and stability! The system also de-incentivised uprisings through its own structures since families farmed their own plots and could keep or sell/trade any surplus left over after their own sustenance as well as any tithing or taxes were met.

Modern new world slavery, as another system of direct exploitation, was also like this. Revolts rocked the system a lot, but if we had a time machine and went back, for the most part it wouldn't have been like modern movies where people are getting whipped every minute they don't do something fast enough... they just accepted that this was the way the world was... didn't have to like it, but other options are just as hard - run away, but where and you might die, rebel - if it fails you might die.

When the civil war started there were massive desertions of some plantations - not because people suddenly realized that the system was shit, but because they saw an opportunity and a weakness in both direct repression by the slave-owners (with people gone to fight) as well as hegemonically (as in: "holy shit" our rulers might be overthrown by someone else, they aren't as invincible and everlasting as I imagined).


In the words of Lenin, "Freedom for whom? To do what?"

My conception of freedom doesn't involve exploitation.Damn, I was going to use that quote. Here's another (a quote from Marx) that I like to throw at Libertarians: "The [Paris] Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism."