Log in

View Full Version : Do I resemble any existing ideology?



Anti Scene
26th February 2013, 07:27
I wanted to post my personal beliefs in the learning section, to see if members of this site can diagnose my tendency, if I even belong to one. I won't list my existing political influences in order to eliminate bias on the part of those who intend to help me in establishing a tendency closest to mine.

So here are my thoughts:

On Economics:

1. In terms of economic theory, I reject the labor theory of value as antiquated and false.

2. I view globalization as a positive thing, insofar as exchanges in the global market are pareto efficient. For example, I believe sweatshops do improve the standard of living of those who would otherwise work in underdeveloped agricultural sectors. I am concerned, however, with the very real possibility that the external environment these workers live in was largely created by global capitalism, and specifically corporations, in order to force people from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector. In other words, one way to induce people to enter the industrial sector is to destroy natural resources that the agricultural sector is reliant on to exist. I also believe the American Empire uses a variety of economic tools to enslave foreign countries to us via debt, being a new form of economic imperialism.

3. I view markets as crucial mechanisms for the allocation of scarce resources. However, I do not support socialism or capitalism as the terms are commonly used. I do support workers controlling the means of production, but I would also support workers voluntarily working for someone who privately owns the means of production. One exemption from this would be land, which I believe should be considered property based upon the principle of use. In other words, one owns the land they occupy, so long as they can demonstrate they are using and occupying the land.

4. My rejection of socialism as an absolute answer to scarcity is because I believe socialism suffers from many economic problems, just as capitalism does, such as coordination failure. I think that state socialism, in purely theoretical terms, is possible. However, I reject the state as a legitimate entity, as described in the political section below, and I also believe that power corrupts, so even though state socialism is theoretically sound, would not work in practice.

On Politics

1. I reject the state's authority on the grounds that it wields a central power that can be abused.

2. I generally reject class analysis, though I use class as a concept often in describing "them" against "them". Basically, I accept that class labels are arbitrary constructs, and only use them for ease.

3. I believe political associations should be voluntary "unions" of self-interested persons, who organize for causes perceived to be in their own self-interest, and are free to sever ties with the organization in the event that it no longer represents their interests.

On Philosophy

1. I believe there is a human nature, though it is obscured from our view due to the existence of power structures that influence or coerce us to act in ways that may or may not be in our "human nature".

2. I believe the judge of a good political system is its ability to relatively equalize power in society.

3. Rights do not exist, except as requests to others to be treated in a certain way.

4. I am a vegetarian, because I empathize with animals pain.


Any suggestions as to my tendency? Do I belong in the radical left, or elsewhere? Or no where?

The Idler
27th February 2013, 21:13
Proudhon or Henry George
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1283-july-2011/book-reviews-property-theft-marxism-and-world-politi

Anarchist free-marketeer
Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology. Ed. Iain McKay. AK Press. 2011
http://www.theoryandpractice.org.uk/wsmtemp/sites/default/files/book1.png
Proudhon came to fame in 1840 through a pamphlet What is Property? in which he declared that “property is theft”. Actually, this wasn’t as radical it might seem since what he was criticising was the private ownership of land. This was something which, later, supporters of capitalism such as JS Mill and Henry George also criticised and proposed to remedy by, respectively, land nationalisation and a single tax on rent. Proudhon didn’t even go that far; he advocated access for everyone to an equal amount of land.

Anarchists see him as their founding father as in this pamphlet he declared himself to be an “anarchist”, but by this he meant that he was opposed to government, even a democratically-constituted one, making rules about the production and distribution of wealth. He was (and remained till he died in 1865) a free marketeer, bitterly opposed to “communism” in the same terms and language as other free marketeers.

He has been called an “anarcho-capitalist” but this would be going too far as he was opposed to capitalism. “Anarchist free marketeer” would be fairer. His opposition to capitalism, however, was in the name of self-employed artisans who capitalism was reducing to working for wages for an employer. His proposed solution was that these should unite in “associations” (basically, cooperatives) which should exchange their products at their labour-time values. To this end he proposed a Bank of Exchange which would issue labour-money against products as well as providing interest-free loans to workers’ cooperatives it judged viable.

Iain McKay in his 50-page introduction puts a positive spin on this by stating that “Proudhon was an early advocate of what is now termed market socialism – an economy of competing co-operatives and self-employed workers”, adding “some incorrectly argue that market socialism is not socialist”. Some do indeed, but correctly. “Market socialism” is the economic equivalent of a square circle. But it gets worse. Proudhon envisaged his system coming into being gradually as the workers’ cooperatives, aided by free credit from his Bank of Exchange, conquered more and more sectors of the economy. He was opposed to strikes. In other words, he was a gradualist as well as a currency crank.

After being initially impressed by him (who he met and discussed with in Paris in 1844) Marx eventually realised that Proudhon, for all his insight that under the wages system the producers were exploited, was on the wrong track. When in 1846 Proudhon published his Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère. Marx wrote (in French) a reply La Misère de la philosophie, translated into English under the title The Poverty of Philosophy, the first public exposition of his views on economic matters.

Large extracts from Proudhon’s book are included in this anthology, with McKay’s sometimes tendentious footnotes. But McKay is on to a loser here. There is no way that Proudhon can be presented as a serious exponent either of the way capitalism works or even of the history of economic thought, certainly not when compared with Marx. Today, in fact, most anarchists accept Marx’s analysis of capitalism if not his politics.

Some anarchists might find this 800-page anthology useful. Those of them who are communists will discover, as they plough through his rambling writings, that Proudhon was a life-long and bitter opponent of “communism” and of the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”. If they still want to regard him as one of their founding fathers that’s their prerogative. For us he’s an anti-socialist.
ALB

bcbm
27th February 2013, 21:17
no you are a beautiful and unique snowflake

Yuppie Grinder
27th February 2013, 21:33
You're just a Mutualist-Anarchist. There were a lot of you 150 or so years ago.

hatzel
28th February 2013, 13:47
There were a lot of you 150 or so years ago.

Sounds almost like a veiled insult to me ;)1

...but yeah as your positions stand you probably won't be able to find all that much common ground with people here; you'd probably have more joy nosing around on this site (http://all-left.net/) for example. Not that I'm trying to chase you away or anything, let's make that abundantly clear :)

ellipsis
1st March 2013, 15:29
I read one point and knew you we destined for oi.

YouthLiberation
1st March 2013, 15:44
Definitly Opposing Ideologies. I think you might be an anarcho-capitalist.

betrayedRevolution
4th March 2013, 19:21
3. I believe political associations should be voluntary "unions" of self-interested persons, who organize for causes perceived to be in their own self-interest, and are free to sever ties with the organization in the event that it no longer represents their interests.

Based on this my first thought would be panarchist.

Witan
6th March 2013, 02:15
...you'd probably have more joy nosing around on this site for example.

>Libertarian Left
>Picture of Murray Rothbard

::vomits:::crying: