"Spontaneous Order" of the Austrian School and Libertarian Socialism

[Doctor Hilarius]

Something I find interesting about the Austrian School is the Hayekian notion of spontaneous order, where order emerges from "chaos". This is used to justify and support the notion of anarcho-capitalism and other forms of free market capitalism.

Libertarian socialism likewise argues something similar to spontaneous order, where voluntary cooperation results in the creation of an anarchic society based on common views of community and mutual aid.

I notice that a lot of libertarian socialists argue that anarcho-capitalism or free markets in general are unsustainable because capitalism always leads to the vulture/fascist capitalism we have now in the United States. I was wondering how both ideologies can stem from a basic belief that order can be created out of chaos, yet call each other utopian. Aren't both ideologies utopian by that metric if you consider that both would be self-sustaining, self-regulating societies?

Is there something special about capitalism that effects human's innate nature (alleged innate nature) that makes them desire to live under fascism? Basically, is the libertarian socialist critique of anarcho-capitalism and the Austrian School that there is something inherent in the structure itself that isn't present in libertarian socialism that makes anarcho-capitalism unsustainable?

Do note that I am not indicting libertarian socialism here. I just am wondering what unscientific "evidence" of human nature can be provided to argue for or against libertarian socialism in relation to anarcho-capitalism. To me, it seems both are premised upon the idea that humankind organizes itself into whatever structure is mutually supported by the organizers. It seems the only difference between libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists is what kind of society they want. Arguably, if you are to accept the idea that man is able to act in order to maintain a libertarian socialist society, don't you have to accept that it actually would be possible for man to maintain an Austrian's wet dream?

[MarxArchist]

Something I find interesting about the Austrian School is....

Stopped reading right there.

[Doctor Hilarius]

The question is posed in a neutral way. If you think that I am an Austrian sympathizer simply because I didn't use enough derogatory adjectives in the post, you would be incorrect.

[MarxArchist]

The question is posed in a neutral way. If you think that I am an Austrian sympathizer simply because I didn't use enough derogatory adjectives in the post, you would be incorrect.

Capitalism (as in, a system where workers sell labor power to a capitalist who produces commodities for sale on the market) depends on property relations. Capitalism, free market or not, depends on there being a class of wage workers who can't survive without selling their labor power to a capitalist. So called anarcho capitalists think modern property relations as they exist manifested via people making and trading stuff and that modern property based market relations are voluntary and can be without the existence of a state. They regurgitate the classical liberal explanation for primitive accumulation. How do you think a class of wage workers and capitalists, in reality, came to be?

[Doctor Hilarius]

Capitalism (as in, a system where workers sell labor power to a capitalist who produces commodities for sale on the market) depends on property relations. Capitalism, free market or not, depends on there being a class of wage workers who can't survive without selling their labor power to a capitalist. So called anarcho capitalists think modern property relations as they exist manifested via people making and trading stuff and that modern property based market relations are voluntary and can be without the existence of a state. They regurgitate the classical liberal explanation for primitive accumulation. How do you think a class of wage workers and capitalists, in reality, came to be?

I agree that it is unfathomable why people would intentionally sell themselves into the slavery of the modern capitalist system, but I do not believe that history is deterministic. Simply because things are the way they are now does not mean, if repeated, it would go exactly the same.

This doesn't cut to the point of the question. I am asking how both anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists can have the same premises, yet call each others preferred societies utopian.

And again, this isn't a defense of anarcho-capitalism, but instead a line of questioning intended to either reveal an inconsistency in libertarian socialist argument, or to gain personal enlightenment as to how libertarian socialists may successfully distinguish their view of spontaneous order from that of the Austrians.

[MarxArchist]

Your thought experiment is a waste of time. Free market capitalism isn't spontaneous order. That was my point. Maybe some small scale trade between peopel who produce things with their own labor but an industrial property based market system (which free market "anarcho" capitalists advocate) cannot be "spontaneous" or voluntary. There's no comparisons to anarchism. Anarchists, or libertarian socialists (same thing), mostly advocate decentralized federalism in where the dispossessed class takes over democratically runs the means of production.

Your word play is indicative of you subscribing to free market nonsense. No, history isn't deterministic but capitalism arose the only way it could, via force/the state/state intervention and we know this by honest materialist analysis. "Free market capitalism", if it seriously did try to manifest using only "voluntary cooperation" would at most be able to function on a small village level - people living like Quakers. I'm attacking the premise that "spontaneous order" can even be applied to capitalism. It cant and hence your thought experiment is a waste of time. I don't want to hear your nonsense theories on how an industrial property based market system "could have" or "could" arise and exist voluntarily and spontaneously. It didn't, it can't and it never will. This is why idealism is utopian. This is also why it's utopian for Marxists to start planning exactly how an advanced communist society would function.

Anyway, waste of time because you're starting your silly thought experiment out by assuming free market capitalism can be spontaneous and voluntary. No no and no. Nothing to do with "anarcho" capitalism is even debatable beyond that point. Nothing. The only thing worth talking about when it comes to "anarcho" capitalism is why it can never exist other than in the heads of the hucksters who push the theory. I'll say it again, there is nothing to debate when it comes to "anarcho" capitalism other than why capitalism without a state cannot work. It's an impossibility. A joke. A waste of time discussing, unless of course, you are one which I suspect. My brief reply here was a waste of time. I may as well "debate" whether or not pink gold can flow from a unicorns rear end. Rothbard and Hayeks intellectual quackery surrounding "free market" spontaneous order is drek.

If we're talking about decentralized production under worker control as opposed to a centralized command economy that's a different story.

[Doctor Hilarius]

Your thought experiment is a waste of time. Free market capitalism isn't spontaneous order. That was my point. Maybe some small scale trade between peopel who produce things with their own labor but an industrial property based market system (which free market "anarcho" capitalists advocate) cannot be "spontaneous" or voluntary. There's no comparisons to anarchism. Anarchists, or libertarian socialists (same thing), mostly advocate decentralized federalism in where the dispossessed class takes over democratically runs the means of production.
If my thought experiment is a waste of time, you don't have to participate in it.


Your word play is indicative of you subscribing to free market nonsense.

Word play, as in, me not using ad hominem attacks against capitalists automatically makes me a capitalist sympathizer?


No, history isn't deterministic but capitalism arose the only way it could, via force/the state/state intervention and we know this by honest materialist analysis.

What is the honest materialist analysis?


"Free market capitalism", if it seriously did try to manifest using only "voluntary cooperation" would at most be able to function on a small village level - people living like Quakers. I'm attacking the premise that "spontaneous order" can even be applied to capitalism. It cant and hence your thought experiment is a waste of time. I don't want to hear your nonsense theories on how an industrial property based market system "could have" or "could" arise and exist voluntarily and spontaneously. It didn't, it can't and it never will. This is why idealism is utopian. This is also why it's utopian for Marxists to start planning exactly how an advanced communist society would function.

Thus far you haven't even posited an argument, you have just called my thought experiment stupid and proclaimed that capitalism can't exist without a state.

I am not so sure that capitalism cannot exist without a state. However, this doesn't mean I would want to live in such a society. Notice that I am not saying that anarcho-capitalists are actually anarchists, since there is more to anarchism than simply eliminating a state.

I do not believe in a static human nature (in the absence of evidence that is), so I do believe that humanity could potentially create anything, including stateless capitalism, though I would not enjoy living in such a society at all.


Anyway, waste of time because you're starting your silly thought experiment out by assuming free market capitalism can be spontaneous and voluntary. No no and no. Nothing to do with "anarcho" capitalism is even debatable beyond that point. Nothing. The only thing worth talking about when it comes to "anarcho" capitalism is why it can never exist other than in the heads of the hucksters who push the theory. I'll say it again, there is nothing to debate when it comes to "anarcho" capitalism other than why capitalism without a state cannot work. It's an impossibility. A joke. A waste of time discussing, unless of course, you are one which I suspect. My brief reply here was a waste of time. I may as well "debate" whether or not pink gold can flow from a unicorns rear end. Rothbard and Hayeks intellectual quackery surrounding "free market" spontaneous order is drek.
Again, this paragraph is vacant of anything of note. It is you using ad-hominem attacks.

I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I identify myself as a post-left anarchist without adjectives, and I have an interest in existentialism, post-structuralism and egoism.


If we're talking about decentralized production under worker control as opposed to a centralized command economy that's a different story.

[Orange Juche]

Stopped reading right there.

It's not a symptom of an educated mind to only read those analyses which are reaffirming.

[MarxArchist]

It's not a symptom of an educated mind to only read those analyses which are reaffirming.

So now I've wasted years reading Rothbard, Mises, Rand, Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, Menger etc and I don't understand their silly theory of spontaneous order (mostly from Hayek but Smith's "invisible hand" and silly notion of primitive accumulation was the theoretical foundation as was classical liberal free market theory in general and other enlightenment figures such as Hume). My educated mind see's the folly in Adam Smiths "invisible hand" nonsense and all free market theory based on it. The market has always had state intervention because it was/is necessary. There has been nothing spontaneous about it's beginnings nor it's subsequent functioning and no amount of free market theory can wish away the realities of capitalism. There is a certain "anarchism" in capitalist production but spontaneous order in the deeper sense which Hayek used it (to attack any and all state intervention) it is not. As I said, capitalism couldn't arise without state intervention and it couldn't continue to exist without state intervention. Hayek wasn't only attacking planned economies he was also attacking historical materialism.

State intervention is necessary. If you want to debate why I'll go ahead and debunk "anarcho" capitalism for you (using historical materialism to do so). I wouldn't think I'd have to do that on a communist website. Funny how Hayek, the lead proponent of spontaneous order, supported fascism to lay the foundations of the market system (globally). If you'd like we can get into detailed analysis concerning why classical free market theorists had to throw their ideology aside in favor of state intervention in the market as the global industrial capitalist system was arising. Shall we waste our time with this? I'd suggest you start by reading The Great Transformation, familiarize yourself with Marx's primitive accumulation and then educate yourself on why state intervention in the market was/is necessary for certain planned production (infrastructure), why war is necessary, why social programs are necessary, why the Federal Reserve was created (to try to stop crisis) etc. Everything which has to do with state intervention is blamed, by free market theorists, on "statism". That if the "free market" was just left alone this 'spontaneous order' would tend to all. "Constructed order" or put more simply "statism" (as used by them) is blamed for all the of contradictions which are a part of the capitalist system itself. Hayek's Constitution of Liberty" is a joke to anyone who understands historical materialism, primitive accumulation, why there's crisis within capitalism and why laissez-faire capitalism is an impossibility.

If you agree with the OP that "history could have worked out different and free market capitalism could have arisen and it could actually function in reality" then I think it's you who's operating from a foundation of ignorance. None of it is worth debating because free market capitalism or anarcho capitalism is an impossibility. There must be state intervention for capitalism to exist.

On the other hand if we're talking about how only the 'anarchy" of the market can provide for the needs of all we can get back to why there's crisis. Heck, we can bring up why Marx critisized the 'anarchy' of the market in general. We can talk about why we have taxes and government built roads etc. The free market advocates blame the federal reserve for disturbing the 'spontaneous order' of the market. They'll blame state intervention via Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae for also causing the crisis. They think roads can be privatized, schools etc. Anyway Hayeks theory of spontaneous order isnt just an attack on historical materialism it's also an attack on Marx's base/superstructure theory. Do YOU know what you're about to defend?

Anarcho capitalism can't exist though so even having a discussion on Hayeks use of the term spontaneous order and the theoretical social and economic implications of his theory is a waste of time. This is my point. The fundamental question becomes can "anarcho" capitalism actually exist and Hayeks use of the term has little to do with libertarian socialism outside of libertarian socialists being against a centralized command economy. Workers taking over production and democratically producing things in a decentralized fashion doesn't mean anarchists embrace "anarchy" in production of the sort capitalism facilitates. Ya dig?

[liberlict]

What's the point in posting this queston here? Unless you wanna have a circle jerk among your fellow revleftists there is no point in posting this in the 'opposing ideologies' part of revleft. http://mises.org/community/forums/ They will be able to give you a proper account of their ideas there i'd imagine.

[Orange Juche]

So now I've wasted years reading Rothbard, Mises, Rand, Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, Menger etc and I don't understand their silly theory of spontaneous order (mostly from Hayek but Smith's "invisible hand" and silly notion of primitive accumulation was the theoretical foundation as was classical liberal free market theory in general and other enlightenment figures such as Hume). My educated mind see's the folly in Adam Smiths "invisible hand" nonsense and all free market theory based on it. The market has always had state intervention because it was/is necessary. There has been nothing spontaneous about it's beginnings nor it's subsequent functioning and no amount of free market theory can wish away the realities of capitalism. There is a certain "anarchism" in capitalist production but spontaneous order in the deeper sense which Hayek used it (to attack any and all state intervention) it is not. As I said, capitalism couldn't arise without state intervention and it couldn't continue to exist without state intervention. Hayek wasn't only attacking planned economies he was also attacking historical materialism.

State intervention is necessary. If you want to debate why I'll go ahead and debunk "anarcho" capitalism for you (using historical materialism to do so). I wouldn't think I'd have to do that on a communist website. Funny how Hayek, the lead proponent of spontaneous order, supported fascism to lay the foundations of the market system (globally). If you'd like we can get into detailed analysis concerning why classical free market theorists had to throw their ideology aside in favor of state intervention in the market as the global industrial capitalist system was arising. Shall we waste our time with this? I'd suggest you start by reading The Great Transformation, familiarize yourself with Marx's primitive accumulation and then educate yourself on why state intervention in the market was/is necessary for certain planned production (infrastructure), why war is necessary, why social programs are necessary, why the Federal Reserve was created (to try to stop crisis) etc. Everything which has to do with state intervention is blamed, by free market theorists, on "statism". That if the "free market" was just left alone this 'spontaneous order' would tend to all. "Constructed order" or put more simply "statism" (as used by them) is blamed for all the of contradictions which are a part of the capitalist system itself. Hayek's Constitution of Liberty" is a joke to anyone who understands historical materialism, primitive accumulation, why there's crisis within capitalism and why laissez-faire capitalism is an impossibility.

If you agree with the OP that "history could have worked out different and free market capitalism could have arisen and it could actually function in reality" then I think it's you who's operating from a foundation of ignorance. None of it is worth debating because free market capitalism or anarcho capitalism is an impossibility. There must be state intervention for capitalism to exist.

On the other hand if we're talking about how only the 'anarchy" of the market can provide for the needs of all we can get back to why there's crisis. Heck, we can bring up why Marx critisized the 'anarchy' of the market in general. We can talk about why we have taxes and government built roads etc. The free market advocates blame the federal reserve for disturbing the 'spontaneous order' of the market. They'll blame state intervention via Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae for also causing the crisis. They think roads can be privatized, schools etc. Anyway Hayeks theory of spontaneous order isnt just an attack on historical materialism it's also an attack on Marx's base/superstructure theory. Do YOU know what you're about to defend?

Anarcho capitalism can't exist though so even having a discussion on Hayeks use of the term spontaneous order and the theoretical social and economic implications of his theory is a waste of time. This is my point. The fundamental question becomes can "anarcho" capitalism actually exist and Hayeks use of the term has little to do with libertarian socialism outside of libertarian socialists being against a centralized command economy. Workers taking over production and democratically producing things in a decentralized fashion doesn't mean anarchists embrace "anarchy" in production of the sort capitalism facilitates. Ya dig?

All I was saying was, responding to "Something I find interesting about the Austrian School is...." with the fact that you won't read any further based on those 9 specific words is unnecessarily stubborn, rude, and kind of an ignorant thing to do on a discussion forum.

Then you went off on a long tangent not related to the fact that this is what I was pointing out. Which, by the way, my tendency says "Non Doctrinaire Communist" so I don't know why you're preaching to me as if I were an "anarcho"-capitalist, which I most definitely am not.

Nowhere, and in no way did I indicate agreement with the OP. It just makes us look shitty and stubborn when in the middle of a discussion with people we'd like to have on our side we are insanely condescending and we just cut off.

[MarxArchist]

All I was saying was, responding to "Something I find interesting about the Austrian School is...." with the fact that you won't read any further based on those 9 specific words is unnecessarily stubborn, rude,


I get that way with anarcho capitalist theory because I equate it with a sort of modern pseudo neo-fascism (in an economic sense- the brutality being hidden behind economic theory and not so much oppressive in racial terms but in class terms). I'm aware it was dismissive and was going to come back and give a reply before the OP replied to my dismissive comment. You're right and thank you :)

[Doctor Hilarius]

So now I've wasted years reading Rothbard, Mises, Rand, Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, Menger etc and I don't understand their silly theory of spontaneous order (mostly from Hayek but Smith's "invisible hand" and silly notion of primitive accumulation was the theoretical foundation as was classical liberal free market theory in general and other enlightenment figures such as Hume). My educated mind see's the folly in Adam Smiths "invisible hand" nonsense and all free market theory based on it. The market has always had state intervention because it was/is necessary. There has been nothing spontaneous about it's beginnings nor it's subsequent functioning and no amount of free market theory can wish away the realities of capitalism. There is a certain "anarchism" in capitalist production but spontaneous order in the deeper sense which Hayek used it (to attack any and all state intervention) it is not. As I said, capitalism couldn't arise without state intervention and it couldn't continue to exist without state intervention. Hayek wasn't only attacking planned economies he was also attacking historical materialism.

State intervention is necessary. If you want to debate why I'll go ahead and debunk "anarcho" capitalism for you (using historical materialism to do so). I wouldn't think I'd have to do that on a communist website. Funny how Hayek, the lead proponent of spontaneous order, supported fascism to lay the foundations of the market system (globally). If you'd like we can get into detailed analysis concerning why classical free market theorists had to throw their ideology aside in favor of state intervention in the market as the global industrial capitalist system was arising. Shall we waste our time with this? I'd suggest you start by reading The Great Transformation, familiarize yourself with Marx's primitive accumulation and then educate yourself on why state intervention in the market was/is necessary for certain planned production (infrastructure), why war is necessary, why social programs are necessary, why the Federal Reserve was created (to try to stop crisis) etc. Everything which has to do with state intervention is blamed, by free market theorists, on "statism". That if the "free market" was just left alone this 'spontaneous order' would tend to all. "Constructed order" or put more simply "statism" (as used by them) is blamed for all the of contradictions which are a part of the capitalist system itself. Hayek's Constitution of Liberty" is a joke to anyone who understands historical materialism, primitive accumulation, why there's crisis within capitalism and why laissez-faire capitalism is an impossibility.

If you agree with the OP that "history could have worked out different and free market capitalism could have arisen and it could actually function in reality" then I think it's you who's operating from a foundation of ignorance. None of it is worth debating because free market capitalism or anarcho capitalism is an impossibility. There must be state intervention for capitalism to exist.

On the other hand if we're talking about how only the 'anarchy" of the market can provide for the needs of all we can get back to why there's crisis. Heck, we can bring up why Marx critisized the 'anarchy' of the market in general. We can talk about why we have taxes and government built roads etc. The free market advocates blame the federal reserve for disturbing the 'spontaneous order' of the market. They'll blame state intervention via Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae for also causing the crisis. They think roads can be privatized, schools etc. Anyway Hayeks theory of spontaneous order isnt just an attack on historical materialism it's also an attack on Marx's base/superstructure theory. Do YOU know what you're about to defend?

Anarcho capitalism can't exist though so even having a discussion on Hayeks use of the term spontaneous order and the theoretical social and economic implications of his theory is a waste of time. This is my point. The fundamental question becomes can "anarcho" capitalism actually exist and Hayeks use of the term has little to do with libertarian socialism outside of libertarian socialists being against a centralized command economy. Workers taking over production and democratically producing things in a decentralized fashion doesn't mean anarchists embrace "anarchy" in production of the sort capitalism facilitates. Ya dig?

I respect this post and despite it being laden with adhoms, I think you have good points, though I do not know if I agree with the materialist analysis (I haven't studied it at length).

I have a question now, though, which is where your conception of human nature fits into your analysis. I don't know if you have a deterministic view of history or not. In any event, proclaiming a system impossible implies that you believe it is outside the limits of humanly possibility. I want to inquire what exactly these limiting factors are.

So far you have demonstrated that in our history, such a system was not feasibly possible. I agree with this before this discussion even began, you need not convince me of this.

So what are these limiting factors? And are these limiting factors exclusive to anarcho-capitalism? After all, the very concept of monopoly and its realization in the world demonstrates the cooperative possibilities of man, although in this case it is demonstrated through capitalism rather than toward a socialistic ideal. If a monopoly can be formed for naked self-interest, then couldn't a monopoly be formed for another goal? Say, the dicatorship of the proletariat as the benevolent monopolists of the state?

Sorry, this turned stream of consciousness fast. I hope you understand my question.

EDIT:

To zero in on what I mean, history is a series of contingencies. Looking back through our history, it is easy to say anarcho-capitalism was not feasible (through materialistic analysis and otherwise)

However, given an alternate history of man where the contingencies were different, couldn't anarcho-capitalism be feasible? If not, what are the limiting factors, and why are these limiting factors mutually exclusive with the realization of libertarian socialism?

If these limiting factors are, in fact, not mutually exclusive with libertarian socialism, then could we cede that anarcho-capitalism is a possibility, factoring in future historical contingencies? If not, then we will cede that libertarian socialism is not a possibility. That is, of course, unless somebody distinguishes the premises of the two.

[Doctor Hilarius]

What's the point in posting this queston here? Unless you wanna have a circle jerk among your fellow revleftists there is no point in posting this in the 'opposing ideologies' part of revleft. They will be able to give you a proper account of their ideas there i'd imagine.

It is in opposing ideologies because in many ways this is an attempt to interrogate the left rather than the Mises crowd. I am very much interested in identifying the weaknesses of the left in an effort to strengthen it or reveal the characteristics that need to be reconsidered.

If the left continually decries capitalism but does not interrogate itself, it will die.

[liberlict]

Stopped reading right there.


So now I've wasted years reading Rothbard, Mises, Rand, Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, Menger etc

Wow, you think reading the Austrians is beneath you and yet you have wasted time "reading Rothbard, Mises, Rand, Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, Menger etc". You must be a masochist? ;)1

[MarxArchist]

Wow, you think reading the Austrians is beneath you and yet you have wasted time "reading Rothbard, Mises, Rand, Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, Menger etc". You must be a masochist? ;)1

The only motivation one can have when discussing free market theory is masochism. Like discussing Christianity in a serious fashion. It's absurd. Lets debate whether or not dinosaurs existed 5000 years ago! Let's not as it can be shown this is clearly not the case as it can be shown free market capitalism/anarcho capitalism is an impossibility. For a time I felt like the Richard Dawkins of "free market" criticism. At this point in my life just the mention of it sounds absurd. I hear "Rothbard" and I think of Mr Magoo riding his horse blindly and backwards though life. While wearing a bow tie of course.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/8ibbhS5dlCA/hqdefault.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/MurrayBW.jpg/220px-MurrayBW.jpg


Quincy Magoo (or simply Mr. Magoo) is a cartoon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animated_cartoon) character created at the UPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Productions_of_America) animation studio in 1949. Voiced by Jim Backus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Backus), Quincy Magoo is a wealthy, short-statured retiree who gets into a series of comical situations as a result of his nearsightedness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia), compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem

[liberlict]

The only motivation one can have when discussing free market theory is masochism. Like discussing Christianity in a serious fashion. It's absurd. Lets debate whether or not dinosaurs existed 5000 years ago! Let's not as it can be shown this is clearly not the case as it can be shown free market capitalism/anarcho capitalism is an impossibility. For a time I felt like the Richard Dawkins of "free market" criticism. At this point in my life just the mention of it sounds absurd. I hear "Rothbard" and I think of Mr Magoo riding his horse blindly and backwards though life. While wearing a bow tie of course.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/8ibbhS5dlCA/hqdefault.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/MurrayBW.jpg/220px-MurrayBW.jpg

Lol. Yeah I don't think equating free market theory to flatearthism/no dinosaurs/creationism is very rational. But I will commend you for being a very amusing individual. Murrray Rothbard was a character.

[G4b3n]

Anarcho capitalism will never exist. Simply because it is impossible. It is essentially advocating bourgeois society with no bourgeoisie. The state is a tool of the ruling class, that much is clear and is regarded as true among most rational political annalists, not just orthodox Marxists. To abolish the state you must first attack class society, otherwise you are simply attacking a physical and abstract tool of class society. As we know, "Anarcho" capitalists don't wish to abolish class society. This is why it is nothing more than a laughable petty bourgeois wet dream.

I am a libertarian socialist. What I advocate for is the local organization of communities and the democratic control over production and distribution directly by workers via these local syndicates. I bitterly oppose all forms of centralized planning, i.e, command economies.

[MarxArchist]

Lol. Yeah I don't think equating free market theory to flatearthism/no dinosaurs/creationism is very rational. But I will commend you for being a very amusing individual. Murrray Rothbard was a character.

Sure it's rational. It's all idealism. Mystical and magical. Bourgeois economics as a whole are complete nonsense (take a read) http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC1.html but these people take it to a whole new level, it's pure ideology with absolutely ZERO basis in reality. They're idealists because of the fact there is absolutely no material basis for their views. As Christians have faith in god Austrians have faith in the free market. It's pure dogma, like religion, which irks me when they accuse Marxists of this. This is the entire point of late Marx's materialist analysis, of his break with idealism (not because of anarcho capitalists but to not be idealist/utopian). Unfortunately some actual real anarchists are idealists. That's another story though.

So the comparison is rational my friend. Nice try at insulting me though. It was amusing.

[liberlict]

Sure it's rational. It's all idealism. Mystical and magical. Bourgeois economics as a whole are complete nonsense (take a read) http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC1.html but these people take it to a whole new level, it's pure ideology with absolutely ZERO basis in reality. They're idealists because of the fact there is absolutely no material basis for their views. As Christians have faith in god Austrians have faith in the free market. It's pure dogma, like religion, which irks me when they accuse Marxists of this. This is the entire point of late Marx's materialist analysis, of his break with idealism (not because of anarcho capitalists but to not be idealist/utopian). Unfortunately some actual real anarchists are idealists. That's another story though.

So the comparison is rational my friend. Nice try at insulting me though. It was amusing.

This article makes good points in that the project to make economics 'scientific' is futile and abortive. I wasn't aware that this mission is native to free-market theorists, though? In fact, I thought Marx was the only one naive enough to claim a 'science' out of a social science?

Ludwig von Mises framed his economics oround methodological individualism--the only assumption he makes is that humans act. How they might act are questions outside of what can be meaningfully estimated; at least not with any kind of scientific rigor. His is about as unassuming of a methodology you can get. If you know of a more rigorous way of approaching economics, I would like to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
You might want to quarell with Mises's conlusions, but I don't think there is much to fault in regards to his methodology. If a 'scientific' approach to economics is what you desire, his is the best you will get (which he freely admitted is not a science). Marxists like to entertain themselves with social-constructionist bullshit like 'class' and 'bourgeois'. Mises didn't. He didn't assume anything, his only axiom was that humans act. That's it.

So I think you and I might agree about the childishness of calling economics a science. I think you might be on the wrong path vis a vis trying to exorcise the lack of rigor from the discipline, though.

[Doctor Hilarius]

Sure it's rational. It's all idealism. Mystical and magical. Bourgeois economics as a whole are complete nonsense (take a read) but these people take it to a whole new level, it's pure ideology with absolutely ZERO basis in reality. They're idealists because of the fact there is absolutely no material basis for their views. As Christians have faith in god Austrians have faith in the free market. It's pure dogma, like religion, which irks me when they accuse Marxists of this. This is the entire point of late Marx's materialist analysis, of his break with idealism (not because of anarcho capitalists but to not be idealist/utopian). Unfortunately some actual real anarchists are idealists. That's another story though.

So the comparison is rational my friend. Nice try at insulting me though. It was amusing.

I am an economics major in college, with an emphasis on economic history.

There is certainly a lot wrong with economics, but economics is as varied as anything else. I would say that neoclassical economics seems to be relatively good at modeling human behavior within the system we live.

However, many of the assumptions of neoclassical economics have been shown to be false (shown through behavioral economics mostly). However, economists will tell you this is no surprise, and that the assumptions of economics are not intended to be wholly accurate, but instead provide a stable base from which models can be built (some of which seem to have high degrees of predictive power, though this could be debated).

There is also a lot in neoclassical economics that the left should look at. One of my main criticisms of the contemporary left is that they let neoclassical economists browbeat them into the dirt while the classical left clung to their labor theories of value etc. The left should look at people like economist John Roemer for inspiration.

In short, neoclassical economics seems relatively effective at modeling human behavior in the current neoliberal system, the only question is whether its assumptions can extend to encompass an ever changing global society, as well as non-essentialist views of human nature etc.

[blake 3:17]

@Doctor H -- you should take a look at Hilary Wainwright's Arguments for a New Left
-- it's the only serious attempt I've seen by a Leftist to explore Hayek in any creative way. She puts a strong emphasis on informal knowledge, something the Marxist Left in general is absolutely terrible on.

[MarxArchist]

I am an economics major in college, with an emphasis on economic history.

There is certainly a lot wrong with economics, but economics is as varied as anything else. I would say that neoclassical economics seems to be relatively good at modeling human behavior within the system we live.

However, many of the assumptions of neoclassical economics have been shown to be false (shown through behavioral economics mostly). However, economists will tell you this is no surprise, and that the assumptions of economics are not intended to be wholly accurate, but instead provide a stable base from which models can be built (some of which seem to have high degrees of predictive power, though this could be debated).

There is also a lot in neoclassical economics that the left should look at. One of my main criticisms of the contemporary left is that they let neoclassical economists browbeat them into the dirt while the classical left clung to their labor theories of value etc. The left should look at people like economist John Roemer for inspiration.

In short, neoclassical economics seems relatively effective at modeling human behavior in the current neoliberal system, the only question is whether its assumptions can extend to encompass an ever changing global society, as well as non-essentialist views of human nature etc.

So you think anarcho capitalism is possible (your focus is economic history from who's perspective?)and the Labor Theory Of Value is bunk. Of course you were an economics major, I'm sorry you wasted your education on bourgeois economics. I wasted mine on literature. Tell me, do you think an anarcho capitalist society and a communist society can co-exist?

[Luís Henrique]

Is there something special about capitalism that effects human's innate nature (alleged innate nature) that makes them desire to live under fascism? Basically, is the libertarian socialist critique of anarcho-capitalism and the Austrian School that there is something inherent in the structure itself that isn't present in libertarian socialism that makes anarcho-capitalism unsustainable?

The existence of property and social classes. "Anarcho-capitalism" is impossible because property is not a natural relation between an owner and his possession, but a social relation between owners and non-owners. The class division between owners and non-owners can only be maintained by policing the latter, which requires a police, which requires a State.

Luís Henrique

[MarxArchist]

This article makes good points in that the project to make economics 'scientific' is futile and abortive. I wasn't aware that this mission is native to free-market theorists, though? In fact, I thought Marx was the only one naive enough to claim a 'science' out of a social science?

Ludwig von Mises framed his economics oround methodological individualism--the only assumption he makes is that humans act. How they might act are questions outside of what can be meaningfully estimated; at least not with any kind of scientific rigor. His is about as unassuming of a methodology you can get. If you know of a more rigorous way of approaching economics, I would like to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
You might want to quarell with Mises's conlusions, but I don't think there is much to fault in regards to his methodology. If a 'scientific' approach to economics is what you desire, his is the best you will get (which he freely admitted is not a science). Marxists like to entertain themselves with social-constructionist bullshit like 'class' and 'bourgeois'. Mises didn't. He didn't assume anything, his only axiom was that humans act. That's it.

So I think you and I might agree about the childishness of calling economics a science. I think you might be on the wrong path vis a vis trying to exorcise the lack of rigor from the discipline, though.

Is this Karl Poppers ghost?

[liberlict]

Is this Karl Poppers ghost?

Ha. No it's not. But is there a problem with Popper? I give him props for a commitment to the primacy of empirical evidence.