Stateless Capitalism

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If that's what people want to do then why stop them? I could see if they were forcing people to be Catholic or Muslim.

The problem arises when people chose to allow themselves to be led by these pricks... Yes, it was their choice.
But allowing capitalism (or statism, in your case) to take place is also a choice, is it not. That doesn't mean that we ought to not fight it, does it?


Thank you.

You're welcome. I appreciate and admire your self-control in not flaming back.


Why is that? What do 'real' capitalists think?

Real capitalists appreciate the function served by the bourgeois state of protecting their right to capital.

[TTe5]

The problem arises when people chose to allow themselves to be led by these pricks... Yes, it was their choice.

That is called forcing people to do what we think is best for them. Like drug laws.


But allowing capitalism (or statism, in your case) to take place is also a choice, is it not. That doesn't mean that we ought to not fight it, does it?

I am lost on your reference to statism. I am actually against the state, (I do not wish to offend you) which is something that Marxists/communists are not.


Real capitalists appreciate the function served by the bourgeois state of protecting their right to capital.

The state is a coercive force that distorts the market. It uses (in the words of Murray Rothbard) 'unfree' and 'invasive' actions that are not part of the market. They 'protect' property rights by invading others property rights. I would think that any real capitalist would be against the state.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That is called forcing people to do what we think is best for them. Like drug laws.

Are you not a proponent of fighting against the institution of the state? Is it not a choice of the masses to allow a state to be established in their society? Following your logic, would this not also constitute as "forcing people to do what we think is best for them"?


I am lost on your reference to statism. I am actually against the state, (I do not wish to offend you) which is something that Marxists/communists are not.

I realize this. Try re-reading my previous post.
Although to clarify, we do view the state as an organ of oppression, albeit necessary oppression. See below.


The state is a coercive force that distorts the market. It uses (in the words of Murray Rothbard) 'unfree' and 'invasive' actions that are not part of the market. They 'protect' property rights by invading others property rights. I would think that any real capitalist would be against the state.

However, the state also serves to protect the institution of capitalism. Despite what land they may appropriate from private citizens and what taxes they may charge, and what social services they may provide, both the facade that the state is a democratic entity and its assumed position as an armed bulwark of private ownership serve to protect capitalism.

Don't you think that George Bush and his family are capitalists? Dick Cheney? Etc?
I'm fairly certain they see the benefit in using the state to protect their assets.

[TTe5]

Are you not a proponent of fighting against the institution of the state? Is it not a choice of the masses to allow a state to be established in their society? Following your logic, would this not also constitute as "forcing people to do what we think is best for them"?

Yes, I am. But I would rather to fight it by education and spreading ideas. There can be no change unless the people want it.


However, the state also serves to protect the institution of capitalism. Despite what land they may appropriate from private citizens and what taxes they may charge, and what social services they may provide, both the facade that the state is a democratic entity and its assumed position as an armed bulwark of private ownership serve to protect capitalism.

The state is used to protect the institution of capitalism when it benefits the 'heavy-hitters' like Exxon or George Bush. It steals and coerce's the masses (including businesses) to prop up their power and to help out a handful of corporations and individuals. It has no interest in the free-market. The only thing it protects is itself.


Don't you think that George Bush and his family are capitalists? Dick Cheney? Etc?

They are when it suits them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, I am. But I would rather to fight it by education and spreading ideas. There can be no change unless the people want it.

And when the people decree that they no longer want a state, won't a few people perhaps resist this idea? And wasn't this "tyranny of the majority against the minority" exactly what you were condemning in your opening post?


The state is used to protect the institution of capitalism when it benefits the 'heavy-hitters' like Exxon or George Bush. It steals and coerce's the masses (including businesses) to prop up their power and to help out a handful of corporations and individuals. It has no interest in the free-market. The only thing it protects is itself.

Then why is it written in the constitution that it protects private property?


They are when it suits them.

Capitalism is the political outlook of maintaining privately owning capital. They are capitalists, regardless of "when it suits them"... whatever that means.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:27 AM


No, it is direct democracy. People vote directly on issues concerning the means of production and social policy. If there was true direct democracy in every facet of life then there would be no State.


Again, says who? Your personal definition?

There are no positive prescriptions for communism in Marx's writings. To the extent that communism has a definition, it is a purely negative one, the absence of the commodity-form and the state.

Arguing that communism is the sum total aggregate of particular features, as you do (in this case, arguing that direct democracy is a central component of it) is a straw-man argument.

You're trying to extrapolate a vision of a future society on the basis of static definitons.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:25 PM

Real capitalists appreciate the function served by the bourgeois state of protecting their right to capital.

The state is a coercive force that distorts the market. It uses (in the words of Murray Rothbard) 'unfree' and 'invasive' actions that are not part of the market. They 'protect' property rights by invading others property rights. I would think that any real capitalist would be against the state.
it's true, a lot of capitalists are against the state because it regulates trade, and therefore places restrictions on the exchange of capital across the world.

however, communists/anarchists etc aren't just against the state - we're also against all forms of hierarchy, the state being only one manifestation of that. capitalism relies on hierarchies in order to survive, and exploits people at the bottom in order to generate profit for those at the top, and thus we oppose it.

and on that, a lot of conservatives/neo-conservatives also oppose the state and encourage people to circumvent the state when possible. but they promote other hierarchical institutions such as the Church and the patriarchal family over the state... again perpetuating inequality and oppression.

[TTe5]

And when the people decree that they no longer want a state, won't a few people perhaps resist this idea? And wasn't this "tyranny of the majority against the minority" exactly what you were condemning in your opening post?

Sort of. My vision of an anarcho-capitalist society is different than a communist/anarchist society. You can argue that anything is the tyranny of the majority against the minority. One example could be stopping Nazi's from exterminating Jews. We all know it is terrible and ruthless but you could also say 'well a few Nazi's still want to exterminate Jews and the majority is stopping them'. You have to use logic when thinking about that.


Then why is it written in the constitution that it protects private property?

It is also written in the constitution that the state has a monoply on coercion and force (the police, military) and the right to legally steal from people (taxes).

Also, you are forgetting that it is written in the constitution that the state can confiscate your property at any time if they 'need' it (eminent domain). And a recent Supreme Court ruling (Kelo vs. New London) allows a private company to take someone elses private property if they will bring 'economic development' to an area. This was ruled under the eminent domain clause in the Fifth Amendment (which I mentioned above).

The state has no respect for private property.


Capitalism is the political outlook of maintaining privately owning capital. They are capitalists, regardless of "when it suits them"... whatever that means.

It means they use the free-market when it suits them and if they are going to lose money and/or power they will circumvent the free-market using the state.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:56 PM


The state has no respect for private property.




This is partially correct.

Contra the traditional orthodox Social Democratic and Leninist understanding of the state as a mere executive committee of the ruling class, the function of the state in a capitalist society is to secure the framework under which commodity production and exchange can occur.

Because the imperatives of valorisation are structurally without limit, the state in capitalist society assumes the role of providing a stable space within which inter-capitalist competition can occur. One aspect of this is the repressive function of the state, placing limits upon the activity of individual capitals when the immediate interests of those specific aggregates of capital threaten the functioning of the system as a whole. Another aspect is infrastructural, providing a military, police, roads, and other institutions which are vital to the smooth functioning of a society of generalized commodity production, but which themselves cannot be subsumed to the principles of valorisation.

A capitalism without the state is structurally impossible. The dynamic of mediating production through the mechanisms of the market and commodity exchange would quickly break down without a contractual framework and enforcement mechanisms. "Private property," on the other hand, could conceivably continue to exist absent a state apparatus, but it would have nothing to do with private property as the concept is understood in market societies. Perhaps some variant of feudal social relations is most likely under such circumstances.

[TTe5]

Contra the traditional orthodox Social Democratic and Leninist understanding of the state as a mere executive committee of the ruling class, the function of the state in a capitalist society is to secure the framework under which commodity production and exchange can occur.

Production and exchange can exist indepently of a state.


A capitalism without the state is structurally impossible.

Not true. The market can provide all goods and services. Good examples of this are Kowloon Walled City and some aspects of medieval Iceland.


The dynamic of mediating production through the mechanisms of the market and commodity exchange would quickly break down without a contractual framework and enforcement mechanisms.

Why would that happen?


"Private property," on the other hand, could conceivably continue to exist absent a state apparatus, but it would have nothing to do with private property as the concept is understood in market societies. Perhaps some variant of feudal social relations is most likely under such circumstances.

No. Private property would actually be more well defined than in modern day capitalist nation states. A free, anarcho-capitalist society imply's a firm set of private property rights - self-ownership and the ownership of natural resources found and transformed by your labor. This will be accomplished by market processes and use of logic/reason.

I do not support a lot of what is called 'private property' today. A lot of it was stolen, some used trickery to get their property, and is all somehow connected to the state by use of coercion.

[TTe5]

Again, says who? Your personal definition?

Logic.


There are no positive prescriptions for communism in Marx's writings. To the extent that communism has a definition, it is a purely negative one, the absence of the commodity-form and the state.

Yes, I know. I used to be a Marxist.

How would this society function? Who will make the decisions? Not capitalists or government officials - everyone will. How will their will be implemented? By voting. It isn't hard to deduce.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Sort of. My vision of an anarcho-capitalist society is different than a communist/anarchist society. You can argue that anything is the tyranny of the majority against the minority. One example could be stopping Nazi's from exterminating Jews. We all know it is terrible and ruthless but you could also say 'well a few Nazi's still want to exterminate Jews and the majority is stopping them'. You have to use logic when thinking about that.

You were the one who began the thread claiming that it would be an attack upon personal liberty for the majority to deny the minority of something like religion.
I countered this by saying that following that logic, then abolishing the state is also an attack upon the liberty of a minority to have a state.


It is also written in the constitution that the state has a monoply on coercion and force (the police, military) and the right to legally steal from people (taxes).

Also, you are forgetting that it is written in the constitution that the state can confiscate your property at any time if they 'need' it (eminent domain). And a recent Supreme Court ruling (Kelo vs. New London) allows a private company to take someone elses private property if they will bring 'economic development' to an area. This was ruled under the eminent domain clause in the Fifth Amendment (which I mentioned above).

The state has no respect for private property.

The state has taken upon itself certain duties which require it to sometimes expropriate property for the public, whom it claims to represent. This doesn't mean that the state has no respect for private property. If that were the case, I highly doubt the US government would have gone to such great lengths to protect the American private sector abroad.


It means they use the free-market when it suits them and if they are going to lose money and/or power they will circumvent the free-market using the state.

Save this arguments for capitalist statists who care. :)

[TTe5]

You were the one who began the thread claiming that it would be an attack upon personal liberty for the majority to deny the minority of something like religion.
I countered this by saying that following that logic, then abolishing the state is also an attack upon the liberty of a minority to have a state.

Yes, when it threatens liberty. The state threatens liberty - end of story.


The state has taken upon itself certain duties which require it to sometimes expropriate property for the public, whom it claims to represent. This doesn't mean that the state has no respect for private property. If that were the case, I highly doubt the US government would have gone to such great lengths to protect the American private sector abroad.

Yes, it does. If the state really respected private property then it wouldn't do the aforementioned actions. The state only respects private property when it is in their best interest. It doesn't protect the American private sector abroad - only a select few corporations. The state uses these corporations to further solidify their power. These corporations are also a threat to liberty.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, when it threatens liberty. The state threatens liberty - end of story.

Religion threatens liberty too!


Yes, it does. If the state really respected private property then it wouldn't do the aforementioned actions. The state only respects private property when it is in their best interest. It doesn't protect the American private sector abroad - only a select few corporations. The state uses these corporations to further solidify their power. These corporations are also a threat to liberty.

If the corporations are a threat to liberty independently of the state, then how do you suggest we limit their power without a state?

[TTe5]

Religion threatens liberty too!

Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on force. The state does.


If the corporations are a threat to liberty independently of the state, then how do you suggest we limit their power without a state?

The only reason some corporations are a threat to liberty is because of the state. The state gives a select few corporations hand outs and uses their monopoly on force to help corporations. The problem is solved once the state is taken out of the equation.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by TTe5+--> (TTe5)
RedStar1916
If we get rid of the state right now, first of all the corporations, having no state to keep them in check, will move to claim complete control over society, by force if necessary.

Not true. But don't start debating me on this point - if you want you can make a seperate topic.[/b]

Please explain how my statement is untrue. You have expressed the view in the "Future of the Human Race" thread that any institution (for in the end that's all a state is) which has an abundance of power will simply amass and accumulate that power, and refuse to let it go. Well, surely you cannot deny the the corporations have a massive amount of power in capitalist society, and should the state be removed today, they would in fact represent the dominant institution in society?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on force. The state does.

So you only find it suitable that the people as a majority abolish the state because it holds a monopoly on power? What about murder? Would it be tyrannical for the masses to oppress the murderous minority by baning murder?


The only reason some corporations are a threat to liberty is because of the state. The state gives a select few corporations hand outs and uses their monopoly on force to help corporations. The problem is solved once the state is taken out of the equation.

You wish.
But whatever. Let's focus on the above issue which is what this topic is about.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I can do that for you, RS.


If we get rid of the state right now, first of all the corporations, having no state to keep them in check, will move to claim complete control over society, by force if necessary.

The bourgeois state exists as a political arm of the bourgeoisie... not as a deterrent to it's power. The state appears to keep them "in check" because it offers the masses certain limited justices against the tyranny of capitalism... but intelligent capitalists realize that the fuction served by the state is necessary to allow capitalism to continue existing.

[MrDoom]

Capitalism can exist without a state much in the same way that I can exist without oxygen.

[TTe5]

Please explain how my statement is untrue. You have expressed the view in the "Future of the Human Race" thread that any institution (for in the end that's all a state is) which has an abundance of power will simply amass and accumulate that power, and refuse to let it go. Well, surely you cannot deny the the corporations have a massive amount of power in capitalist society, and should the state be removed today, they would in fact represent the dominant institution in society?

Easy. With that state gone there will be a truly free market. This means unfettered competition. Competition will allow other corporations or businesses to counter-act the power of other corporations or businesses. In a true free-market there will be no monopolies. It would be a free society where all action is voluntary and everyone enters into agreements contractually.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:41 PM

Please explain how my statement is untrue. You have expressed the view in the "Future of the Human Race" thread that any institution (for in the end that's all a state is) which has an abundance of power will simply amass and accumulate that power, and refuse to let it go. Well, surely you cannot deny the the corporations have a massive amount of power in capitalist society, and should the state be removed today, they would in fact represent the dominant institution in society?

Easy. With that state gone there will be a truly free market. This means unfettered competition. Competition will allow other corporations or businesses to counter-act the power of other corporations or businesses. In a true free-market there will be no monopolies. It would be a free society where all action is voluntary and everyone enters into agreements contractually.
Your logic is rather completely fucked up; seeing as there is a current state of oligopolies with corporations, if the state was removed without changing this what will happen...?

Further, you want to see free market, look to current Russia. It's a free market: the gangsters have all the power. It's easier to simply blow up your competitor than really compete with them!

It worked this way in the "Old West" in the U$; competitors simply shot each other rather than competing.

Speak about optimized allocation of resources! :rolleyes:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The bourgeois state exists as a political arm of the bourgeoisie... not as a deterrent to it's power. The state appears to keep them "in check" because it offers the masses certain limited justices against the tyranny of capitalism... but intelligent capitalists realize that the fuction served by the state is necessary to allow capitalism to continue existing.
That's ridiculous. The bourgeoisie (a word which I will use here to describe the corporations) and the state are, whether you want to admit it or not, two seperate institutions, in First World democracies anyway. Complete corporate control of society is obviously detrimental to the wellbeing of said society, who as a result choose to elect a state to regulate the bourgeoisie and its influence over society. Yes, there may be some political parties and governments that actually increase the power of the bourgeoisie, such as the Republican Party in the US, however most democratically elected governments, although they may support some corporate exapansion, exist to oppose the notion of rule by the corporations. In order to sustain their existance they must be seen to be doing something to this end, namely the establishment of minimum wage laws, tax-and-transfer systems and of course, imposing law and order. All three of these things limit the profitability of big business and the profits of the bourgeoisie.


Easy. With that state gone there will be a truly free market. This means unfettered competition. Competition will allow other corporations or businesses to counter-act the power of other corporations or businesses. In a true free-market there will be no monopolies. It would be a free society where all action is voluntary and everyone enters into agreements contractually.
Em no, competition will not allow "other" corporations or businesses to counter-act the power of other corporations or businesses, in fact if anything does anything to counter-act these things, it is the state. When the state is removed there will be nothing to halt the domination of a few major corporations through monopolies or hostile take-overs, or maybe even through armed force since there will be nothing to stop this.

Furthermore, it is absurd to say that in such a society all action would be voluntary; people would be forced to either do what is ordered of them by the bourgeoisie, or die of poverty and starvation.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:54 PM

Logic.

Mere assertion isn't logic, as much as you might wish it is.



Yes, I know. I used to be a Marxist.

Good for you. I'm not. Marxism is an ideology. Part of the problem, etc.


How would this society function? Who will make the decisions?

cf. previous statement concerning cookshops for the future.


everyone will.

According to who? Did the communism-fairy visit you and leave a working blueprint for communism under your pillow?


By voting. It isn't hard to deduce.

That isn't deduction, that's mere projection, and a rather unimaginative case of it at that. Universal suffrage is not an ontological constant. You're projecting a rather specific instance of human social organization forwards and backwards in time. Or do you think primitive-communist hunter gatherer societies had highly formalized majoritarian voting procedure?

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:24 PM

Production and exchange can exist indepently of a state.

I didn't say production and exchange. I referred to commodity production and commodity exchange. That's actually a rather significant distinction. For someone who claims to be an ex-Marxist, you obviously didn't study your copy of Capital very closely.

In fact, if you're not familiar with the concept of "commodity" in the Marxian sense, any discussion you try to have with Marxists and Marxians will be on the basis of insufficient knowledge on your part. It's like trying to use Swahili with a speaker of Chinese.


Not true. The market can provide all goods and services.

Not if a profit can't be made. Infrastructure is a notoriously difficult sphere to capitalize. Why would anybody consciously offer a good or service if they stand to take a loss on it?


Why would that happen?

What is to stop somebody from expropriating your property by force?


No. Private property would actually be more well defined than in modern day capitalist nation states. A free, anarcho-capitalist society imply's a firm set of private property rights - self-ownership and the ownership of natural resources found and transformed by your labor. This will be accomplished by market processes and use of logic/reason.

A firm set of private property "rights"? You're even using phraseology which is deeply bound up with the emergence of the state-form! (The German word Recht is the word for both "right" and "law").

Who guarantees those private property rights? A sovereign is necessary to guarantee your rights, or there is nothing to prevent somebody from expropriating your property by armed force.


I do not support a lot of what is called 'private property' today. A lot of it was stolen, some used trickery to get their property, and is all somehow connected to the state by use of coercion.

That's real world capitalism for you. The modern commodity-form exists because of state intervention, not in spite of it. cf. history of the enclosures in England.

[TTe5]

So you only find it suitable that the people as a majority abolish the state because it holds a monopoly on power? What about murder? Would it be tyrannical for the masses to oppress the murderous minority by baning murder?

Murder is a violation of someone else's freedom. Murder is tyrannical in and of itself.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Wait a minuet-- you said there will be no monopolies? Well it's the monopolies that regulate prices and conditions, because those who have the best gain the most capital.

If you don't have a state you'll need a monopoly to mint money! Unless you want to go back to bartering without regulation and not know what the value of your exchanges are. On top of that you may have to make multiple exchanges with other tinpot small business men until you finally get what you desire.

People won't get along under some peace agreement because capitalism requires competition.

[TTe5]

Your logic is rather completely fucked up; seeing as there is a current state of oligopolies with corporations, if the state was removed without changing this what will happen...?

Why do think that is? It is caused by the state, not the other way around.


Further, you want to see free market, look to current Russia. It's a free market: the gangsters have all the power. It's easier to simply blow up your competitor than really compete with them!

No. The old Soviet government was sold away at below market prices by the new Russian government. The Russian government is corrupted by these said corporations. There is nothing free about the 'free-market' in Russia.

[ComradeRed]

Why do think that is? It is caused by the state, not the other way around. Haven't you ever heard of a "plutocracy"?

Capitalism creates a class of rich and poor, that's an undeniable fact. If there is no "official" state, one would be made by this dichotomy definitionally.


No. The old Soviet government was sold away at below market prices by the new Russian government. The Russian government is corrupted by these said corporations. There is nothing free about the 'free-market' in Russia. Such innocence.

[TTe5]

Em no, competition will not allow "other" corporations or businesses to counter-act the power of other corporations or businesses, in fact if anything does anything to counter-act these things, it is the state. When the state is removed there will be nothing to halt the domination of a few major corporations through monopolies or hostile take-overs, or maybe even through armed force since there will be nothing to stop this.

The only reason there are such dominating corporations today is the fact that the state grants them this status by putting regulations in place, buying their services, or intervening with force in the free market.

All monopolies were a result of state intervention in the economy. Armed force would be against anarcho-capitalist ideals. But, if a corporation did decide to use coercion the other business or corporation would hire a defense company to defend itself. This will all cost a lot of money and it would be more beneficial for both corporations to work together/compete in the market place than to use armed force.


Furthermore, it is absurd to say that in such a society all action would be voluntary; people would be forced to either do what is ordered of them by the bourgeoisie, or die of poverty and starvation.

Why wouldn't it be? If you didn't like the company you worked at before you could go work at another one or start your own. Everything would be contractual - you have the freedom of choice, unlike a communist society. If I didn't like to work at commune X's workplaces and use commune X's products it wouldn't really matter because I would have no choice but to.

There would be no state or group of people to force you to do something. In an earlier thread I was talking about how the majority of people (in a communist society) could decide that they didn't like me and could kick me out of a commune. In an anarcho-capitalist society this would be impossible. There would be no group or state to coerce me into doing something I didn't want to do.

This is sort-of off topic, but I'm always amazed at the idea that you can not work and still get something. Why should someone who works and someone who does not work get cared for in the same way? It is obvious that the person who did not do any work should receive nothing. But, according to communist theory they should get the same quality house, clothes, etc. Are there any possible moral or philosophical grounds for this?

[TTe5]

Haven't you ever heard of a "plutocracy"?

Capitalism creates a class of rich and poor, that's an undeniable fact. If there is no "official" state, one would be made by this dichotomy definitionally.

No, there would be no state at all. There would be corporations and private businesses competing against each other. A state would imply that a central authority make decisions for the citizens it controls. This is pretty much the opposite of anarcho-capitalism.

In an anarcho-capitalist society a person would only be 'poor' because they do not work hard. Capitalism wouldn't make that person poor, it would give him the chance and choice to become rich and/or well-off - it would also give me the chance to be poor if he does not want to work hard. The choice is up to the person (this is called freedom) - not up to some power that's out of ordinary people's reach.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Plutocracies rule in the exact same vein as any bourgeois government... and that is exactly what arises when there is no institutionolized government in place to "control capitalism."


That's ridiculous. The bourgeoisie (a word which I will use here to describe the corporations) and the state are, whether you want to admit it or not, two seperate institutions, in First World democracies anyway. Complete corporate control of society is obviously detrimental to the wellbeing of said society, who as a result choose to elect a state to regulate the bourgeoisie and its influence over society. Yes, there may be some political parties and governments that actually increase the power of the bourgeoisie, such as the Republican Party in the US, however most democratically elected governments, although they may support some corporate exapansion, exist to oppose the notion of rule by the corporations. In order to sustain their existance they must be seen to be doing something to this end, namely the establishment of minimum wage laws, tax-and-transfer systems and of course, imposing law and order. All three of these things limit the profitability of big business and the profits of the bourgeoisie.

What brainwashed ignorance!
Following this premise, we don't even need a revolution, since the current government has no concrete ties to the bourgeoisie. We can replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class without bothering with forming a new government. Super!

[Janus]

In an anarcho-capitalist society a person would only be 'poor' because they do not work hard
They can also become poor after they are robbed since there is no longer a state to protect private property and maintain order.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

All monopolies were a result of state intervention in the economy. Armed force would be against anarcho-capitalist ideals. But, if a corporation did decide to use coercion the other business or corporation would hire a defense company to defend itself. This will all cost a lot of money and it would be more beneficial for both corporations to work together/compete in the market place than to use armed force.
Okay, so you're saying that instead of one particular company dominating the market, all the companies and corporations wil merge into one giant conglomerate with all the power, in order to increase profits.



Why wouldn't it be? If you didn't like the company you worked at before you could go work at another one or start your own. Everything would be contractual - you have the freedom of choice, unlike a communist society. If I didn't like to work at commune X's workplaces and use commune X's products it wouldn't really matter because I would have no choice but to.
But according to your post, all these different companies would represent one entity, and since that entity was formed based on the idea of increasing profits it stands to reason that fulfilling this aim would be the enity's main priority. So the companies would work together to increase the overall profits of the enity, much to the despair of the worker.


What brainwashed ignorance!
Following this premise, we don't even need a revolution, since the current government has no concrete ties to the bourgeoisie. We can replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class without bothering with forming a new government. Super!
*Hmph* And to think I spent 5 minutes typing that post, and that's the kind of response I get. I take offense.

Of course we need a revolution, when did I even imply we didn't?

The current government has ties to the bourgeoisie in that (a) the government relies on the bourgeoisie to sustain society through the creation and distribution of goods, and (b) the government exists primarily to regulate the excesses of the bourgeoisie. The problem with today's state is that, being composed of members of a capitalist society, the government does not claim control of industry, rather it just sits back and stops the problem from reaching boiling point (or at least slows down the rate at which said problem approaches boiling point). The job of a Communist revolution would be to place the workers in control of the government, the one institution with sufficient power to claim control of industry, and then utilize this power in the nationalization of industry and the redistribution of goods according to Socialist ideals.

[negative potential]

Our "anarcho"-capitalist seems to be scrupulously avoiding having to deal with my points in this post here: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292168208 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56175&view=findpost&p=1292168208)

If so, that doesn't seem to bode well for the persuasive capabilities of "anarcho"-capitalists.

[negative potential]

And one other point I would add to that post:

What entity serves as a guarantor of currency in an anarcho-capitalist society? Or would we all be using sea shells or cigarettes?

What is striking to me about anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy is the bizarre anachronism of much of it, i.e. taking manifestions of social organization that only emerge with the modern state form, such as commodity production and exchange, and extrapolating them into an ahistorical time and place, but disconnected from the initial pre-conditions upon which their existence is contingent.

The success of anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy is contingent entirely upon the historical ignorance of its adherents, their utter unfamiliarity with the fact of how unique and recent a phenomenon in human history capitalism really is. Compounding this historical ignorance is a tendency to project elements of capitalist society backwards onto forms of social organization and production which are entirely distinct from capitalism, but which may display superficial similarities.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:15 AM
The current government has ties to the bourgeoisie in that (a) the government relies on the bourgeoisie to sustain society through the creation and distribution of goods, and (b) the government exists primarily to regulate the excesses of the bourgeoisie. The problem with today's state is that, being composed of members of a capitalist society, the government does not claim control of industry, rather it just sits back and stops the problem from reaching boiling point (or at least slows down the rate at which said problem approaches boiling point). The job of a Communist revolution would be to place the workers in control of the government, the one institution with sufficient power to claim control of industry, and then utilize this power in the nationalization of industry and the redistribution of goods according to Socialist ideals.
This is such a tremendous load of crap that I'm at a loss for words! Or perhaps it's that I'm totally hungover from last night.

The problem with today's government is that it's intrinsically tied to the bourgeoisie. To say that the problem of the government is that it doesn't do enough "against" free-market capitalism sounds like something you read from the fucking Democratic Party's agenda.

To "regulate the excesses of the bourgeoisie"?!

The government is the bourgeoisie. Who do you think wrote all the books on classical liberalism and established every capitalist republic? Answer: the bourgeoisie.

[negative potential]

Arguing with anarcho-capitalists can be a stimulating intellectual exercise and a way of keeping one's argumentative capacities fit, but we shouldn't attach too much importance to it.

Anarco-capitalism is in no danger of taking off as an ideology with any sort of substantial following. Real capitalists, i.e. the kind that actually exist on this earth in this universe, would scoff at the notion of dispensing with the state. Not only is the emergence of the modern nation-state concurrent with the emergence of generalized commodity-production and the existence of the latter conditional upon the existence of the former (cf. the enclosures in england, expropriation of the european peasantry, the herding of the newly-created wage laboring strata into state-supported workhouses, etc.), contemporary capitalism would be non-existent without the institutional framework the state provides (enforcement of contract, military and police, transportation infrastructure, etc. etc.)

Most supporters of anarcho-capitalism as an ideology tend to be idealistic cranks. We should engage in debate with them in order to sharpen our own understanding of capitalism and the state, but we shouldn't act as if such an ideology stands poised to win influence among actual capitalists.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Sep 17 2006, 04:15 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Sep 17 2006, 04:15 PM)

To "regulate the excesses of the bourgeoisie"?!

[/b]

Actually, that is not a bad description of one of the functions of the state. Never assume that capitalists are a homogenous unity with identitical interests. Different aggregates of capital compete against each other. One function of the state is to ensure that this competitive dynamic does not threaten the stability of the capitalist system as a whole.

I think Michael Heinrich puts it well in the article posted here:

http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?s...de=nested&tid=9 (http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/07/28/1916205&mode=nested&tid=9)


Michael Heinrich


a national economy has as its precondition the demarcation from other national economies (mediated through the state). Without the world market, a national economy cannot be properly analyzed. In Capital, we do not already encounter the analysis of a national economy, but (with the analyzed “ideal average”) rather the categorical preconditions for researching a national economy and the world market..

In the Marxist tradition, this theoretical hole is often filled by the theory of imperialism. However, Lenin’s theory of imperialism in particular falls far behind the insights of the Marxian critique of political economy. The inadequacies of the theory of monopoly capitalism were already hinted at above. Complementary to those is an economically foreshortened theory of the state, which is still popular today in various guises: the state is reduced to the status of being the “instrument” of the “monopolies”, whose international economic interests must be imposed or secured. Obscured by this simple view of the state as an “instrument” is the fact that common capitalist interests (other than the common interest of retention of the capitalist mode of production) are in no way already pre-existent and simply waiting on the opportunity to be implemented. They have to be defined and implemented, they have to gain support, they need social hegemony – processes, in which the state plays a decisive role, but not as a mere “instrument”.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's a pretty basic principle of Marxism that the capitalist class as a whole shares political, social, and economic interests. Sure... there may be some conflicting points of view and competition, but that hardly negates the fact that the government is bourgeois and not a public establishment functioning as a regulator of bourgeois tyranny... if that were the case, it would be a short step away from actually stopping bourgeois tyranny... so what the fucks the point of overthrowing it, if it's already working for us?

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:54 PM
It's a pretty basic principle of Marxism that the capitalist class as a whole shares political, social, and economic interests.



The only "political, social, and economic interest" that the capitalist class shares as a whole is the maintenance of the capitalist system. Beyond that, individual sectors of capital, individual capitalists, and the interests of various capitalist industries all come into conflict with each other, not to even speak of the conflicts existing between different national capitals and different national ruling classes.

To take a very simple example, just follow current debates concerning intellectual property rights. Software manufacturers, the film and music industry, and the publishing industry have a vested interest in protecting copyrighted works from privacy. This stands in direct conflict with those sectors of the electronics industry which manufacture the devices and recording media that make such piracy possible.

Or to take an even simpler example, just take note of the fact that various national capitals go to war with each other.

I am not interested in "basic principles of Marxism," I am interested in what Marx himself actually had to say about capitalism. The distortions and simplifications of his epigones are not of the slightest interest to me, especially when they don't have the slightest thing to do with empirical reality.

Marx saw capitalism as an unstable system rife with contradiction. This dynamic element is rooted in what Marx described as the dual nature of the commodity as both an exchange value and a use value. This core contradiction in the nature of the commodity-form has repercussions throughout every level of the capitalist mode of production.

The problem is that too many Marxists hardly even bother to read what Marx actually wrote in his most important works, the three volumes of Capital and the Grundrisse. To the extent that the read Marx at all, they usually read the less important and less mature texts, like the Communist Manifesto.

If capitalists were a monolithic bloc with uniformly common interests, the system itself would be much more stable, and the task of abolishing it so much more futile.

[Cryotank Screams]

I for one think that anarcho-capitalism, is counter-revolutionary, and just plain foolish because even though you have taken the State out of the equation, still businesses would grow larger and larger until they gain oppressive control, and sense there is no regulation, there would be no one to stop it, or they would become a monopoly, and again there would be no way to stop it; in short capitalism never works in any system.

[Tungsten]

RedZeppelin

The government is the bourgeoisie. Who do you think wrote all the books on classical liberalism and established every capitalist republic? Answer: the bourgeoisie.
So you think Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat and all the other people who wrote books on classic liberalism were in cahoots with their respective governments?

Sure... there may be some conflicting points of view and competition, but that hardly negates the fact that the government is bourgeois and not a public establishment functioning as a regulator of bourgeois tyranny
There is indeed a hegemonic class in power. They adhere to no particular ideology, but socialism would only give them more power to abuse.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:25 PM
The state is a coercive force that distorts the market. It uses (in the words of Murray Rothbard) 'unfree' and 'invasive' actions that are not part of the market. They 'protect' property rights by invading others property rights. I would think that any real capitalist would be against the state.
as a capitalist i don't understand this at all.

[TTe5]

Okay, so you're saying that instead of one particular company dominating the market, all the companies and corporations wil merge into one giant conglomerate with all the power, in order to increase profits.

No, not at all. That would be socialism.


But according to your post, all these different companies would represent one entity, and since that entity was formed based on the idea of increasing profits it stands to reason that fulfilling this aim would be the enity's main priority. So the companies would work together to increase the overall profits of the enity, much to the despair of the worker.

They wouldn't work together in the sense you're thinking of. They will work together by doing business together - they will still be competing. Why would all companies and corporations merge together? That would actually minimize the profits of most other corporations and businesses.

[TTe5]

What entity serves as a guarantor of currency in an anarcho-capitalist society? Or would we all be using sea shells or cigarettes?

Any socially agreed upon commodity. Gold would be a good example.

It would be more sophisticated than people just giving each other gold nuggets. I would imagine that most people would you use electronic ways to transfer money, like debit cards. Their money would just be gold and not some worthless piece of paper.


What is striking to me about anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy is the bizarre anachronism of much of it, i.e. taking manifestions of social organization that only emerge with the modern state form, such as commodity production and exchange, and extrapolating them into an ahistorical time and place, but disconnected from the initial pre-conditions upon which their existence is contingent.

The historical conditions in which capitalism emerged has no bearing upon whether or not anarcho-capitalism would succeed.


The success of anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy is contingent entirely upon the historical ignorance of its adherents, their utter unfamiliarity with the fact of how unique and recent a phenomenon in human history capitalism really is.

Again, this doesn't actually prove or disprove anything about anarcho-capitalism. We all know how and why capitalism emerged from feudalism.

Your post didn't really address any specific problems with anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy.

[TTe5]

Our "anarcho"-capitalist seems to be scrupulously avoiding having to deal with my points in this post here: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292168208 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56175&view=findpost&p=1292168208)

If so, that doesn't seem to bode well for the persuasive capabilities of "anarcho"-capitalists.

No, I just didn't see it. It's kind of hard to respond to eight different people at once. I would appreciate it if you refrained from attacking my intellectual capacity. Thank you.

[TTe5]

I didn't say production and exchange. I referred to commodity production and commodity exchange. That's actually a rather significant distinction. For someone who claims to be an ex-Marxist, you obviously didn't study your copy of Capital very closely.

Let me rephrase my question. Why couldn't commodity production and commodity exchange exist independently of the state?


Not if a profit can't be made. Infrastructure is a notoriously difficult sphere to capitalize. Why would anybody consciously offer a good or service if they stand to take a loss on it?

It happens all the time - it's called taking a risk.


What is to stop somebody from expropriating your property by force?

Private security forces, your own self-defense, etc.


A firm set of private property "rights"? You're even using phraseology which is deeply bound up with the emergence of the state-form! (The German word Recht is the word for both "right" and "law").

Yes, a firm set of property rights. It doesn't matter what the etymology of the word 'right' is. Rights are not specific to the emergence of the state - they're natural.


Who guarantees those private property rights?

A strong property right in yourself and in the resources that you transform with your labor is a building block to private property rights in a free, anarcho-capitalist society. Ignoring the fact that, for the most part, society would respect private property in an anarcho-capitalist society you would guarantee your rights by self-defense and non-aggression.


A sovereign is necessary to guarantee your rights, or there is nothing to prevent somebody from expropriating your property by armed force.

Yes, there are. I already mentioned private security firms or your own self-defense.


That's real world capitalism for you. The modern commodity-form exists because of state intervention, not in spite of it. cf. history of the enclosures in England.

That has no bearing upon anarcho-capitalism. Anyway, not all modern day commodity-form exists because of state intervention - most does.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This is such a tremendous load of crap that I'm at a loss for words! Or perhaps it's that I'm totally hungover from last night.
Drink is bad, m'kay


The problem with today's government is that it's intrinsically tied to the bourgeoisie. To say that the problem of the government is that it doesn't do enough "against" free-market capitalism sounds like something you read from the fucking Democratic Party's agenda.
What the fuck?? I don't even know where to begin. How about here: no fucking shit that the problem with today's government is its ties to the bourgeoisie I completely agree with this statement, in that the state relies on the destructive nature of the bourgeoisie to sustain its existence. Therefore, in order for the state to exist in today's political and economic climate, the bourgeoisie must also exist. I am saying that it is our job as Communists to use the power of the state to wrest power from the hands of the bourgeoisie and place it in the hands of the people. If we destroy the state, we will destroy the main weapon at our disposal in the fight for Socialism.



The government is the bourgeoisie. Who do you think wrote all the books on classical liberalism and established every capitalist republic? Answer: the bourgeoisie.
Okay, my turn: Who do you think would profit from the removal of minimum wage laws, anti-mercenary laws, and tax-and-transfer systems? The bourgeoisie. Who do you think imposes these laws? The government. :o

EDIT: Also, why is this thread so fucked up? I started it for one, not RedZep, and there are a load of posts that precede my original post that weren't there yesterday.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by TTe5[email protected] 17 2006, 09:38 PM

Let me rephrase my question. Why couldn't commodity production and commodity exchange exist independently of the state?

For reasons already mentioned. The smooth functioning of the market demands a sovereign to guarantee currency, provide a military and repressive apparatus, enforce contractual obligations, and provide infrastructure (i.e. those sectors which are difficult to operate according to the logic of profit maximization: roads, schools, municipal services, etc.)


It happens all the time - it's called taking a risk.

Taking a risk involves a form of venture capitalism. That is different from operating an enterprise which is a certain loss-maker from the perspective of profit maximization. Assuming one would privatize the road system, for example, one could make a profit, but only by ensuring that one has a monopoly of the market. The sector itself is not a surplus-value producing industry, because it cannot operate according to principles of competition. Any profit generated is shaved off from other value producing sectors.

In the real world, there exists competition for telecommunication service providers, but only because there is a government in place that demanded that the Telcos allow their cable to be used by competitors. In a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society, those wires would belong to one firm and one firm only. They would be under no obligation to share their cables with other firms simply be virtue of an ideological commitment to competition.



Private security forces, your own self-defense, etc.


Sounds like feudalism. If people are busy fending off potential enemies, that would not provide a smoothly functioning framework for a market economy. It seems to me that as far as wealth generation is concerned, direct expropriation by force would be the easier option for any enterprising individual.



Rights are not specific to the emergence of the state - they're natural.

They are? Says who? God?

It's amazing to me that in the 21st Century, with all that is known about evolutionary biology and the theory of natural selection, that anyone can argue from a "natural rights" position. Rights do not exist in the animal kingdom. To the extent that rights exist, they are a consensual agreement between individuals. Modern rights, as the etymology of the term suggests, are a result of the emergence of the state-form.



That has no bearing upon anarcho-capitalism. Anyway, not all modern day commodity-form exists because of state intervention - most does.

It has every bearing upon anarcho-capitalism. To the extent that anarcho-capitalism aspires to be anything other than a crank utopia, a strong sense of the historical conditions that led to the emergence of capitalism is necessary. To simply pick out the features of capitalism that you like, and disassociate them from their historical and social context, is wishful thinking in the extreme.

[negative potential]

Your post didn't really address any specific problems with anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy.

Sure it does. The general problem with anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy is the problem inherent to any utopian social vision, a failure to take account of social reality.

The specific problem with the anarcho-capitalist utopian vision is the desire to extricate certain features of capitalism from the social context which is integral to its existence. As long as we're doing that sort of thing, I'd like to wish for food without the risk of obesity, sex without the risk of venereal disease, recreational drug use without the risk of addiction, etc. etc.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:09 PM
as a capitalist i don't understand this at all.


Don't worry, I'm sure most real capitalists wouldn't know where to begin with a bizarre utopian vision like anarcho-capitalism either.