Libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism

[Sickle of Justice]

Is it theoretically possible to fuse anarchism and capitalism? most would say no. libertarian capitalism is sometimes call anarcho-capitalism, but i would say it is not a type of anarchism, as it allows and feeds heirarchical rulership. but could the two philosophies be fused in some way to create something that doesnt compromise too many principals? the best way to find out would be to examine the principals of both. are they contradictary? could some be compromised on? i am in no way an anarcho capitalist, im a staunch opposer of capitalism, but theoretically... maybe. i dont know if it would be a good ideology, but would it be able to exist?

[chimx]

I guess you could argue for Proudhonian mutalism in theory, but it is such an anachronistic ideology in a post-industrial state. Generally the history of anarchism since Proudhon has been staunchly anti-capitalist.

[Ander]

Somalia is said to be an example of anarcho-capitalism.

So I'd say the answer to your question is no.

[Rawthentic]

Not possible, because there would be no state to uphold capitalist class rule.

[Sickle of Justice]

in general there arn't examples of it, but what would the theory be behind non statist capitalism be? are you saying that whithout state there is no capitalism?

[Goatse]

I don't think capitalism is really possible without a state... but regardless, there is nothing good about anarcho-capitalism and it's not anarchist in any way other than name.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:45 pm
Somalia is said to be an example of anarcho-capitalism.

So I'd say the answer to your question is no.
This remark just drips with ignorance. It is like encountering the typical response when someone asks me if I am communist:
"Communism doesn't work, just look at Cuba or Russia"
I would abandon that type of reasoning.


But to the original question, Yes, it is possible. Just as anarcho-communism is possible, so is anarcho-capitalism. Just because we haven't really seen it implemented the way the ideology may profess does not mean that it doesn't work or can't work.

The ideology is in favor of abolishing government in order to have a "free market"; a market free of government intervention.


How is capitalism not possible without a state? That doesn't make much sense. The market continues to exist no matter what the state of the government is.Capitalism in its purest form is devoid of a state. The state only protects the interests of the ruling class through allowing it to subsist, agorists are against this. Their approach is much more egalitarian; that people should rise and fall based on their own merits.

I have nothing against agorists and I see them as allies in our struggle because ultimately, they promote liberty above all else.. If only the state could be abolished, communism and capitalism could exist harmoniously in societies because there would always be a choice in which to participate in.

[bcbm]

How is capitalism not possible without a state?

Anarchism means more than simply not having a state.

[citizen_snips]

A state would come about in no time flat. The dominant class of those who owned the property would soon realise it was necessary to keep the lower orders down. The other option would be for them to keep the workers in such contentment that they never felt the need to rise against anything. This would be unlikely to work, and very expensive, so people guided by profit would actually just invent a government and police.

Anarcho-capitalism is the most ridiculously stupid theory ever.

[Raúl Duke]

How is capitalism not possible without a state?

I don't know if capitalism needs a state or not (I am, however, opposed to the idea of anarchist capitalism. Anarchism is the end of heiracrhy, and in capitalism you still have the whole "employer-employee" relationship)...but, just to put an idea out.

Private companies can replace some of the states institutions, like:

Private armies, police, water management, electric utilities, etc.

Right now, many state institutions are being replace by private companies offering the same service, based on profit of course. (see Privatization)

So maybe capitalism can exist without a state; however, we are still going to see the oppresive features of the state like police force, soldiers, etc. These features would most likely now be used to protect unrestrictingly solely the ruling class.

Although, the state is thought to form as a "mediator of class warfare" i.e. it keeps the system runing smoothly by offering reforms, etc. Without a state, its possible to see increase examples of class warfare.

Chomsky once said that corporations were like "mini-fascists states". If there was no state than society would be control 100% (i.e. more than its now, and right now they do have a large amount of influence) by corporations ("mini-fascists states").
Wouldn't these corporation make society in the image they want it to be?

So it may be possible that capitalism can exist without the state, yet if such a society would be desirable or not is hard to guage (however, most factors seem to point out that its not desirable)

My question, wouldn't monopolies (or, what I think is more possible, big cartels and Zaibatsus) take over the market if there was no state?

[Janus]

It depends on how you define anarchism and of course this is where individual anarchists and social anarchists come into conflict. But generally, no, most anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalists to be true anarchists.

[BreadBros]

The term anarchism can entail various things, it can mean anti-statist & anti-capitalist theory, anti-hierarchical theory, mutualism, etc. However, I don't think its really compatible with capitalism. Capitalism necessarily entails hierarchy, competiton, etc. so it seems at odds even with anarchist theory that isnt focused on overthrowing capitalism.

I also dont think think capitalism can exist without a state. Wherever state capacity is weak capitalism tends to get out of control. Either the class conflict exacerbates to such a degree that social and civil disturbances begin happening and disrupting production, or the society cannabilizes itself into regression.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, BreadBros beat me to it.

Without a state, capitalism cannot maintain its class power. That would be better for us.

But its utopian to think that there can be no state in class society.

[bcbm]

But its utopian to think that there can be no state in class society.

Yup. An-caps basically want to replace the state with many, smaller micro-states, probably clustered around corporations.

[citizen_snips]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 24, 2007 03:12 am

But its utopian to think that there can be no state in class society.

Yup. An-caps basically want to replace the state with many, smaller micro-states, probably clustered around corporations.
If that's the case, and if there's any actual anarcho-capitalists here, would they like to maybe suggest how that would be a good society to live in?

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 24, 2007 03:12 am

But its utopian to think that there can be no state in class society.

Yup. An-caps basically want to replace the state with many, smaller micro-states, probably clustered around corporations.
Well then that isn't Anarcho-Capitalism, and agorists would oppose the idea.
You're not grasping the concept, Anarchism implies the abolition of government entirely. Not transforming it into mini-states as you suggest. The definition anarcho doesn't change just because a dirty bourgeois placed it before the word "capitalism".

What you would most likely see instead of corporations is small, private and commonly owned businesses.
Big corporations would be unlikely to survive because they would not have the government handing out subsidies to keep it from going out of business like you see today. Monopolies would be impossible to uphold. It would either succeed on its own because the people allow it and appreciate it, or it would fail, competition would do away with it.

[Janus]

But its utopian to think that there can be no state in class society.
Yup. An-caps basically want to replace the state with many, smaller micro-states, probably clustered around corporations.
Yes, one would ultimately arise though the anarcho-capitalists usually try to argue otherwise.


If that's the case, and if there's any actual anarcho-capitalists here, would they like to maybe suggest how that would be a good society to live in?
There was one here briefly with the username Tigerman. Look up past anarcho-cap discussions with the Search function.

[Whitten]

OK, for those who seem to think capitalism can exist in a truly stateless society, or rather that a truly stateless society can come into existence under capitalism, lets think about this.

A state is the tool by which the ruling class exerts its its rule over the other classes. If there is no state then there can, by definition, be no ruling class, as the absense of a state means there is no class exerting ditatorship upon another.

So what would happen if all world governments were to fall apart tomorow and no new states were formed? The world would rather rapidly settle into the truest form of communism (or anarchism). You may think this sounds unrealistic, or even stupid. Why would capitalists give up power just because the states disapeared? The answer is in the question, the capitalists power IS the state. Should the capitalists organise strucures to protect their property and class interests then those structures become the new state, this is not statelessness, its just an unofficial non-formal self-denying new state.

[KC]

Anarchist capitalism isn't possible because capitalism is a class society, and class society necessitates a state in order to maintain the rule of the ruling class in the face of irreconcilable class antagonisms.


But to the original question, Yes, it is possible. Just as anarcho-communism is possible, so is anarcho-capitalism. Just because we haven't really seen it implemented the way the ideology may profess does not mean that it doesn't work or can't work.

You're completely disregarding Marxist analysis. Anarcho-communism is different because communism is classless; capitalism is class society. Class society necessitates a state.



The ideology is in favor of abolishing government in order to have a "free market"; a market free of government intervention.


How is capitalism not possible without a state? That doesn't make much sense. The market continues to exist no matter what the state of the government is.Capitalism in its purest form is devoid of a state. The state only protects the interests of the ruling class through allowing it to subsist, agorists are against this. Their approach is much more egalitarian; that people should rise and fall based on their own merits.

You're again disregarding Marxist analysis of capitalist society. Capitalism necessitates a state because of the fact that the bourgeoisie needs a monopoly on power in order to maintain the conditions of its rule. A state will inevitably be created because of this.

Agorists are also wrong because of the fact that they're looking at it individually and not analyzing the system as a whole and its effects on society.



I have nothing against agorists and I see them as allies in our struggle because ultimately, they promote liberty above all else.. If only the state could be abolished, communism and capitalism could exist harmoniously in societies because there would always be a choice in which to participate in.

This is just stupid.


You're not grasping the concept, Anarchism implies the abolition of government entirely.

Anarchism implies the abolition of class society. It isn't as shortsighted as to simply "oppose the government". Anarchist Capitalists misunderstand what anarchism is.


What you would most likely see instead of corporations is small, private and commonly owned businesses.
Big corporations would be unlikely to survive because they would not have the government handing out subsidies to keep it from going out of business like you see today. Monopolies would be impossible to uphold. It would either succeed on its own because the people allow it and appreciate it, or it would fail, competition would do away with it.

This isn't how capitalism works. The accumulation of capital tends towards monopolization and an increase in competition between the remaining firms. The "altruism of consumers" is a myth. People aren't activist consumers; they buy what's cheap and what satisfies them.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:08 pm
Well then that isn't Anarcho-Capitalism, and agorists would oppose the idea.
Most an-caps I've encountered support precisely that, although they try to disguise it in different terms.



You're not grasping the concept, Anarchism implies the abolition of government entirely. Not transforming it into mini-states as you suggest. The definition anarcho doesn't change just because a dirty bourgeois placed it before the word "capitalism".

You're right, it doesn't, which is why "anarcho-capitalism" is an impossible oxymoron. Anarchism implies the destruction of all authority, which also means class society and the means through which that society is upheld- private property. Thus, there cannot be "anarcho" capitalism.


What you would most likely see instead of corporations is small, private and commonly owned businesses.

And who or what would enforce their property claims?


Big corporations would be unlikely to survive because they would not have the government handing out subsidies to keep it from going out of business like you see today. Monopolies would be impossible to uphold. It would either succeed on its own because the people allow it and appreciate it, or it would fail, competition would do away with it.

I don't think all companies are kept up through subsidies and it seems pretty likely to me that many would see benefits in forming larger corporate entities, as history seems to suggest occurs when government leaves business alone.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:42 pm
Not possible, because there would be no state to uphold capitalist class rule.
Exactly. Class rule and the state are intertwined, the states existance is based on being a front of protection and exploitation for the ruling class. The ruling class needs the state like a knight needs armor... class society depends on the existance of a state to continue exploitation.

[Rawthentic]

This is why anarchism will always fail. In post-revolution, the proletarians must create their own state to repress the counter-revolutionaries and eliminate class antagonisms.

This is supported by how we have said here how there can be no stateless society in a class one.

[Brekisonphilous]

[QUOTE]But to the original question, Yes, it is possible. Just as anarcho-communism is possible, so is anarcho-capitalism. Just because we haven't really seen it implemented the way the ideology may profess does not mean that it doesn't work or can't work.

You're completely disregarding Marxist analysis. Anarcho-communism is different because communism is classless; capitalism is class society. Class society necessitates a state.

What do you mean, "marxist analysis"? And what would that be? The same thing everyone has regurgitated in this thread?
I just wanted to throw another point of view into the argument.
The way agorists approach this issue is they say "Classes are arbitrary", which is ridiculous.



The ideology is in favor of abolishing government in order to have a "free market"; a market free of government intervention.


How is capitalism not possible without a state? That doesn't make much sense. The market continues to exist no matter what the state of the government is.Capitalism in its purest form is devoid of a state. The state only protects the interests of the ruling class through allowing it to subsist, agorists are against this. Their approach is much more egalitarian; that people should rise and fall based on their own merits.


Agorists are also wrong because of the fact that they're looking at it individually and not analyzing the system as a whole and its effects on society.

Yes, I agree.



I have nothing against agorists and I see them as allies in our struggle because ultimately, they promote liberty above all else.. If only the state could be abolished, communism and capitalism could exist harmoniously in societies because there would always be a choice in which to participate in.

This is just stupid.
And why is it so stupid? I probably sound like an agorist in this thread, but I am not. The reason why I am not against them is because I can't really argue with the fundamental idea of agorism: "Each is entitled to liberty as long as that liberty does not conflict with the liberty of another."
It is appealing in comparison to a state dominated capitalist society where everything is so centralized. This gives individuals the freedom to collectively organize and implement socialist principles into the work place. There would be much more room to work within an anarcho-capitalist society (if we had to choose one or the other, this is just a scenario, I would much rather prefer socialist revolution)



What you would most likely see instead of corporations is small, private and commonly owned businesses.
Big corporations would be unlikely to survive because they would not have the government handing out subsidies to keep it from going out of business like you see today. Monopolies would be impossible to uphold. It would either succeed on its own because the people allow it and appreciate it, or it would fail, competition would do away with it.

This isn't how capitalism works. The accumulation of capital tends towards monopolization and an increase in competition between the remaining firms. The "altruism of consumers" is a myth. People aren't activist consumers; they buy what's cheap and what satisfies them.

And how does this accumulation of capital usually occur? They benefit from the presence of the state just as you say. Without the state, this accumulation is unlikely to occur.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:36 pm
How is capitalism not possible without a state?
Who enforces private property, if there is no State?


The market continues to exist no matter what the state of the government is.

Yes? Who makes it mandatory that buyers and sellers stand for their bids?


Capitalism in its purest form is devoid of a state.

The problem is, "capitalism in its purest form" is chemically unstable and will burst into revolution in some miliseconds.

Luís Henrique

[Brekisonphilous]

Who enforces private property, if there is no State?

The owner of the property.


Yes? Who makes it mandatory that buyers and sellers stand for their bids?
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Nothing is mandatory, you either buy or sell or you don't.


The problem is, "capitalism in its purest form" is chemically unstable and will burst into revolution in some miliseconds.

Economists say similar thing about communism and anarchism, what's your point?
But I agree, it would not last.

[KC]

What do you mean, "marxist analysis"? And what would that be?

That would be a recognition that class society functions very differently than classless society, and to compare the two as you have is unmarxist and frankly completely ignorant. You have also failed to take into account an analysis of what the state is, why it arises, and who implements it.


The same thing everyone has regurgitated in this thread?

Yes and no. Most of the posters just dismissed the idea outright because they didn't feel like wasting their time.


The way agorists approach this issue is they say "Classes are arbitrary", which is ridiculous.

Ah, I apologize for being abrasive then; I thought you actually believed this garbage!


And why is it so stupid?

Because saying that communism and capitalism can live side by side is petty-bourgeois crap. It's eerily similar to the belief that "reforming capitalism" is a possible way to create a classless society. It's not based on any analysis of the development of history or how these different systems work. It's completely ignorant and completely stupid.


The reason why I am not against them is because I can't really argue with the fundamental idea of agorism: "Each is entitled to liberty as long as that liberty does not conflict with the liberty of another."

The problem with this is that humans are social, and the vast majority of actions that people make have some kind of affect on others. Where that line between what does and doesn't conflict with the liberty of others is completely arbitrary.


It is appealing in comparison to a state dominated capitalist society where everything is so centralized.

Sure, it sounds great, but the problem is that it has absolutely no basis in reality. It's not based on an analysis of the development of history or on the workings of society; in short, it's simply intellectual masturbation.


There would be much more room to work within an anarcho-capitalist society (if we had to choose one or the other, this is just a scenario, I would much rather prefer socialist revolution)

This is false because a state necessarily arises within capitalist society.


And how does this accumulation of capital usually occur? They benefit from the presence of the state just as you say. Without the state, this accumulation is unlikely to occur.

Why do you say this? Do you think that people will stop buying products from a company when they get more popular than the others? Or do they prefer to buy products from bigger companies because most people believe that products from bigger companies are more reliable and generally cheaper?

The answer to the previous questions are obvious. Once these questions are answered my assertion pretty much stands on its own.


The owner of the property.

So the bourgeoisie creates an institution which has a monopoly on violence and uses it to protect private property to maintain the conditions of its rule. That's a state.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:51 am

Who enforces private property, if there is no State?

The owner of the property.
Then my property will be proportional to the size of my guns, and to my willing to use them...



Yes? Who makes it mandatory that buyers and sellers stand for their bids?
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Nothing is mandatory, you either buy or sell or you don't.


I sell you a ton of iron; you pay me (with what currency, if there is no State?), then I don't deliver you the commodity for which you have already paid. How do we deal with this?



The problem is, "capitalism in its purest form" is chemically unstable and will burst into revolution in some miliseconds.

Economists say similar thing about communism and anarchism, what's your point?
But I agree, it would not last.

On the other hand, capitalism in its not-so-pure forms is extremely stable. So such "impurities" are an essential part of its functioning.

Luís Henrique

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 26, 2007 03:53 am

What do you mean, "marxist analysis"? And what would that be?

That would be a recognition that class society functions very differently than classless society, and to compare the two as you have is unmarxist and frankly completely ignorant. You have also failed to take into account an analysis of what the state is, why it arises, and who implements it.


The same thing everyone has regurgitated in this thread?

Yes and no. Most of the posters just dismissed the idea outright because they didn't feel like wasting their time.


The way agorists approach this issue is they say "Classes are arbitrary", which is ridiculous.

Ah, I apologize for being abrasive then; I thought you actually believed this garbage!


And why is it so stupid?

Because saying that communism and capitalism can live side by side is petty-bourgeois crap. It's eerily similar to the belief that "reforming capitalism" is a possible way to create a classless society. It's not based on any analysis of the development of history or how these different systems work. It's completely ignorant and completely stupid.


The reason why I am not against them is because I can't really argue with the fundamental idea of agorism: "Each is entitled to liberty as long as that liberty does not conflict with the liberty of another."

The problem with this is that humans are social, and the vast majority of actions that people make have some kind of affect on others. Where that line between what does and doesn't conflict with the liberty of others is completely arbitrary.


It is appealing in comparison to a state dominated capitalist society where everything is so centralized.

Sure, it sounds great, but the problem is that it has absolutely no basis in reality. It's not based on an analysis of the development of history or on the workings of society; in short, it's simply intellectual masturbation.


There would be much more room to work within an anarcho-capitalist society (if we had to choose one or the other, this is just a scenario, I would much rather prefer socialist revolution)

This is false because a state necessarily arises within capitalist society.


And how does this accumulation of capital usually occur? They benefit from the presence of the state just as you say. Without the state, this accumulation is unlikely to occur.

Why do you say this? Do you think that people will stop buying products from a company when they get more popular than the others? Or do they prefer to buy products from bigger companies because most people believe that products from bigger companies are more reliable and generally cheaper?

The answer to the previous questions are obvious. Once these questions are answered my assertion pretty much stands on its own.


The owner of the property.

So the bourgeoisie creates an institution which has a monopoly on violence and uses it to protect private property to maintain the conditions of its rule. That's a state.
Since I pretty much agree with everything you have said, I will not continue the debate. It really is a waste of time :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:51 am

Who enforces private property, if there is no State?
The owner of the property.
And what happens when two different people claim to own the same property? They fight it out, and the one with the biggest guns wins. In practice, there would be no permanent property in such a society - with enough firepower, anyone could confiscate anything (until someone comes along with even bigger guns).

Capitalism is a game with rules. One of the rules is that you are not allowed to touch the property of others without their consent. The state is used to enforce this rule. Without a state, the rule cannot be enforced, and the game can no longer be played.

Anarcho-capitalism is neither anarchist nor capitalist. It is a sure path to barbarism, or a war of all against all.

[Psy]

Okay, a Libertarian said he would get rid of welfare, school and taxes. I responded that would create a revolutionary situation and leave the system defenseless against a revolution due lack of funds for police or military (I would like a revolution but I thought I should point out the obvious), the Libertarian responded that is just Marxist nonsense.

On second thought maybe them getting in isn't such a bad thing, their no tax agenda would take down the system's defenses making revolution a cake walk :cool:

[Whitten]

The Libertarians represent the interests of a very particular strata of the middle class who would stand to benefit from the rduction in taxes, but who also are capable of affording private education and healthcare (so they wouldn't need the state kind) and are not eligable for benefits.

Both communists and the political servents of big business that run the state recognise that such a system would run counter to their interests.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:01 pm
The Libertarians represent the interests of a very particular strata of the middle class who would stand to benefit from the rduction in taxes, but who also are capable of affording private education and healthcare (so they wouldn't need the state kind) and are not eligable for benefits.

Both communists and the political servents of big business that run the state recognise that such a system would run counter to their interests.
I disagree. I think the Libertarian agenda is in line with Communist theory. As long as the government is bribing people with welfare, social security, health care, et cetera, nobody really cares about the real problem: capitalism. Pure capitalism is a prerequisite for Communism, and the closest ideology to it is Libertarianism. We're not going to have a successful revolution until the proletariat realizes how much capitalism is fucking them over.

[bezdomni]

Pure capitalism is a prerequisite for Communism, and the closest ideology to it is Libertarianism.
What the hell is "pure capitalism"? :blink:

Do you mean laizzez-faire? That's not a prerequisite for communism. Nothing is fundamentally structurally changed in society if a country has a good welfare or healthcare system. What this does mean though, at least under capitalist production, is that the country in question is not only capitalist but also imperialist.

Welfare states are completely dependent on exploitation of foreign labor.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Everyone here is forgetting that, in today's world, there is NO SUCH THING as "free market" capitalism. Like fascists, PROPERTARIANS dream of "better times" in the past, even while history has passed those times by.

Economic forces such as economies of scale trump even market forces (even though the two are mistaken to be identical in mainstream economics). :)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Even though the certain sections of the ruling class might dream of having their divine gift of "laizzez-faire", and it certainly is desirable to have unlimited exploitation without the regulating force of the state, they know that without a social safety net with the combined force of armed bodies that are deployed whenever it is necessary, their power and privileges would not be able to be retained.

[Cheung Mo]

Libertarians seem to think that the best way to preserve capitalism is to destroy the very thing that saved it from being overthrown in the West: The ideas and economic models of John Maynard Keynes (which many with no conception of reality have come to consider leftist). If the bourgeoisie is unwilling to mediate between its greatest excesses and its desire for self-preservation (i.e. the ineptus behind the modern welfare state...To create a sub-class among those who are ruled whose lives are too structured by the largesse of its rulers to willingly tolerate the destruction of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), then its moment to be overthrown will come far soon than many would ever imagine.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 08:15 pm
Libertarians seem to think that the best way to preserve capitalism is to destroy the very thing that saved it from being overthrown in the West: The ideas and economic models of John Maynard Keynes (which many with no conception of reality have come to consider leftist). If the bourgeoisie is unwilling to mediate between its greatest excesses and its desire for self-preservation (i.e. the ineptus behind the modern welfare state...To create a sub-class among those who are ruled whose lives are too structured by the largesse of its rulers to willingly tolerate the destruction of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), then its moment to be overthrown will come far soon than many would ever imagine.
I would ultimately agree; it appears that social democracy and fascism are the two responses of the ruling class to a change in their conditions for the worse.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by JRR883+April 28, 2007 05:17 pm--> (JRR883 @ April 28, 2007 05:17 pm) I disagree. I think the Libertarian agenda is in line with Communist theory. As long as the government is bribing people with welfare, social security, health care, et cetera, nobody really cares about the real problem: capitalism. Pure capitalism is a prerequisite for Communism, and the closest ideology to it is Libertarianism. We're not going to have a successful revolution until the proletariat realizes how much capitalism is fucking them over. [/b]
Look, yes, it's true that the more your life sucks, the more likely you are to get radicalized. A libertarian government would fall very quickly to a proletarian revolution.

But the bourgeoisie has no intention of allowing libertarians to seize government power. Libertarians are deluded, and, if they took office, their policies would lead capitalism to collapse. The bourgeoisie knows this, but they pour huge amounts of money into libertarian think-tanks anyway. Why? Not because they want the libertarians to take over, but because they want to flood workers' minds with libertarian propaganda.

This is an essential point to remember: Libertarianism is a ghost ideology whose primary purpose is the production of capitalist propaganda. The bourgeoisie wants people to believe that libertarianism and socialism are two dangerous extremes and that a "mixed economy" (= existing forms of capitalism) is the best balance between them. Libertarian propaganda is very important in maintaining the status quo, and it must be fought relentlessly.


RedDali
I would ultimately agree; it appears that social democracy and fascism are the two responses of the ruling class to a change in their conditions for the worse.
That is true. Social democracy and fascism are the carrot and the stick.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Are they twins, as Stalin said? ;)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:38 pm
^^^ Are they twins, as Stalin said? ;)
I don't think so. They represent an underlying tendency that capital takes in a moment of political crisis, but it can not be related to fascism in any way, since social democracy can be considered a band-aid for capitalism, while fascism can be considered emergency surgery for capitalism. It is the last desperate action of the capitalist class; it is their class' 'last chance' to preserve themselves in other words. It has shown us as interpters of history that capital becomes a cagged animal that obnoxiously lashes at it's master as it is being cornered in their cage. These tendencies have different means of preservation, since with fascism, armed thugs are the force of protecting the ruling class, while with social democracy, legislation is the tool of protecting the ruling class. So we can clearly see the difference between these two, and we can most certainly not slump them into the same category.

[Demogorgon]

The kind of Libertarianism you often see on the internet is an odd beast indeed. I sometimes think it is the result of people taking a Marxists viewpoint and reversing every concusion so they cn look "radical" to anyone of a leftist outlook.

More mature versions of the idea are similarly bizzarre. THey tend to be based either on extremely odd moral theory or on economic analysis suffering from severe tunnell vision.

One thing is for sure though, if they ever got their way, thir system wouldn't last for long

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I'm observing a debate on another forum in which a good many of them are participating. I think I'm going to glean as much from this topic as I can and use it against them.

[freakazoid]

Does libertarianism have anything to do with capitalism? I thought that they just believed in a very limited government. Basically that the governments only purpose is to protect the rights that are guaranteed to the people in the Bill of Rights.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:16 am
Does libertarianism have anything to do with capitalism? I thought that they just believed in a very limited government. Basically that the governments only purpose is to protect the rights that are guaranteed to the people in the Bill of Rights.
The American view of Libertarianism is pretty much hardcore capitalism. Small government is their way of expressing a wish for an unregulated, unplanned economy.

[Cheung Mo]

But the bourgeoisie has no intention of allowing libertarians to seize government power. Libertarians are deluded, and, if they took office, their policies would lead capitalism to collapse. The bourgeoisie knows this, but they pour huge amounts of money into libertarian think-tanks anyway. Why? Not because they want the libertarians to take over, but because they want to flood workers' minds with libertarian propaganda.


And that right there is why Washington and the DEA are so adamant about going after Marc Emery, for instance. While Emery himself is a petty-bougreois minarchist and identifies as a libertarian in the American sense, his views on drug policy and his willingness to consistently mobilise capital to fight for the implementation of those policies represents a threat to the bourgeoisie as a whole in that legal cannabis and hemp would threaten the profits of a substantial proportion of the ruling class, particularly in the pharmaceutical, oil, agricultural, synthetic fiber, alcohol, and tobacco industries.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:17 am
The American view of Libertarianism is pretty much hardcore capitalism.
Not so. Capitalism without a strong bourgeois State is certainly not "hardcore".

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 29, 2007 09:34 pm
Not so. Capitalism without a strong bourgeois State is certainly not "hardcore".

Luís Henrique
But these so called "libertarians" do support a strong bourgoisie state. Hell given the chance they would stick us in the Soccer Stadiums and shoot us in imitation of their hero, Pinochet. These clowns are not anti-state. They are simply anti-welfare state.

[Question everything]

Meh, let the libertarians try to form there society, it will last twenty minutes before they realize that everybody (except them and the rich) have joined the Communist party and are knocking on they door with AK47s.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 30, 2007 12:24 am
Meh, let the libertarians try to form there society...
But the point is that they have no intention to form their own society. They serve only to produce propaganda for capitalism (in practice, libertarian propaganda is used to defend any type of capitalism, including the status quo).

Besides, libertarians have no problem with a heavily armed police and military. Libertarian fascism is a very real possibility.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 30, 2007 12:08 am--> (Edric O @ April 30, 2007 12:08 am)
Question [email protected] 30, 2007 12:24 am
Meh, let the libertarians try to form there society...
But the point is that they have no intention to form their own society. They serve only to produce propaganda for capitalism (in practice, libertarian propaganda is used to defend any type of capitalism, including the status quo).

Besides, libertarians have no problem with a heavily armed police and military. Libertarian fascism is a very real possibility. [/b]
Yeah there is the simple fact of it. Try talking to a Libertarian and you will be presented with an odd utopian vision of capitalism, but that is simply to try and make defending what we have got easier. They will argue occasionally with more pragmmatic capitalists, but that is not their primary concern. They are interested in defending capitalism of just about any stripe.

And of course asd I say, they are far from anti-state, they are simply anti-welfare state.

It is also worth noting that whenever anyone influenced by Libertarian ideas has come to power (someone like Thatcher maybe), not only have they been authoritarian in terms of social policy, but they haven't even cut taxes very much, they have simply shifted from direct to indirect taxes, placing the burden on lower earners as much as possible. It is worth noting that after Thatcher, Britain had relatively low income tax but inordinantly high sales taxes. Great for the rich, bad for everyone else.

[Psy]

When you talk to them they describe frontier capitalism of the consumer being the master of the market. This of course is a unstable state of capital markets, as young markets mature the product becomes a commodity, production then consolidates into the hands of a few producers.

In Libertarianism theory completion between producers spreads capital thus it is impossible for capital to consolidate without the help from external forces. When ever I bring up example of capital accumulating in the hands of a few powerful people, Libertarians pull out "that wasn't a truly capitalist society, in a truly capitalist society that wouldn't happen".

[freakazoid]

But the point is that they have no intention to form their own society

Actually many do. www.freestateproject.com I have disussed this before here, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59388&hl=


But these so called "libertarians" do support a strong bourgoisie state.

No. They believe in a very limited government, not strong. They are anti big government.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:03 pm
No. They believe in a very limited government, not strong. They are anti big government.
And what do you think they mean by that? Try looking past their slogans and take a look at what they really believe. It is true you get minarchists who basically favour as little government as possible, but they are a minority. Most of these "libertarians" are simply against the welfare state, but are happy to spend billions, on the military and law and order etc so long as the funding comes from regressive taxation.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 30, 2007 12:44 am--> (Demogorgon @ April 30, 2007 12:44 am)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 30, 2007 12:08 am

Question [email protected] 30, 2007 12:24 am
Meh, let the libertarians try to form there society...
But the point is that they have no intention to form their own society. They serve only to produce propaganda for capitalism (in practice, libertarian propaganda is used to defend any type of capitalism, including the status quo).

Besides, libertarians have no problem with a heavily armed police and military. Libertarian fascism is a very real possibility.
Yeah there is the simple fact of it. Try talking to a Libertarian and you will be presented with an odd utopian vision of capitalism, but that is simply to try and make defending what we have got easier. They will argue occasionally with more pragmmatic capitalists, but that is not their primary concern. They are interested in defending capitalism of just about any stripe.

And of course asd I say, they are far from anti-state, they are simply anti-welfare state.

It is also worth noting that whenever anyone influenced by Libertarian ideas has come to power (someone like Thatcher maybe), not only have they been authoritarian in terms of social policy, but they haven't even cut taxes very much, they have simply shifted from direct to indirect taxes, placing the burden on lower earners as much as possible. It is worth noting that after Thatcher, Britain had relatively low income tax but inordinantly high sales taxes. Great for the rich, bad for everyone else. [/b]
Liberatian Fascism... :wacko: these guys are even more F***ed up then I thought... and trust me that is saying alot.

Anti-welfare state- So they want old, un-employed, and disabled people to starve on the streets...!?!

[Janus]

Merged.

[freakazoid]

And what do you think they mean by that? Try looking past their slogans and take a look at what they really believe.

Well I know what I believed when I was a libertarian. And when I called myself one economics had nothing to do with my beliefs. If the working class took back control of the means of production it wouldn't go against what I had believed.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:26 pm

And what do you think they mean by that? Try looking past their slogans and take a look at what they really believe.

Well I know what I believed when I was a libertarian. And when I called myself one economics had nothing to do with my beliefs. If the working class took back control of the means of production it wouldn't go against what I had believed.
Well, with all due respect I don't think you understood what Libertarianism was. Which was probably why you were taken in I suppose

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 30, 2007 09:08 pm
Anti-welfare state- So they want old, un-employed, and disabled people to starve on the streets...!?!
Dressed up in language about personal responsibility and not forcing anybody to help anybody else against their will, yes.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 30, 2007 09:08 pm

Anti-welfare state- So they want old, un-employed, and disabled people to starve on the streets...!?!
They believe that market will provide and state unemployment is a result of laziness (basically unemployment is a lifestyle [i]choice[/i)

[Psy]

More libertarian weird logic. So once again I'm arguing with a libertarian, he agreed that there are those in the affluent capitalist class that unfairly get wealth through the state. I asked how was libertarianism going to correct this problem, he responded get rid of the state, I asked what about the wealth they already accumulated, his response was the free market would weed out the corrupt capitalists. I tried to explain those with large accumulations of wealth can easily defend their domination over their markets against upstarts but he keep saying the free market would balance everything out by itself.

Do libertarian have no real understanding of how economies work?

When I brought up workers taking the opportunity to organize for their rights he states that since workers movements have all failed in the past it will always be doomed to fail even with the lack of police and troops to counter labor movements.

[dogfromthesea]

yeah, ok everyone hates new members who dig up prehistoric threads but i found this to be an interesting discussion and have a few questions about it.

the consensus on the topic seems to be that capitalism by definitions involves a large state that will protect and satisfy the greed of its elite class and it makes sense, however, my question is: in a modern and industrialized country such as Norway or Finland where the vast majority of the workforce is engaged in a worker's union, and the government is already in the process of heavy privatization, can't the unions slowly replace the role of the government in matters of work conditions, etc. and thus ensure a fair treatment of its members, and does that really contradict the aims of socialism?

now, when i say socialism, i don't mean the collective ownership of mop or natural resources, i mean its, for lack of a better term, ethical values and aims, e.g. a classless society, an end to the exploitation of the worker.
i know many of you will say that my proposal (which isn't really my proposal at all, rather just an idea i've been thinking about) will not result in a classless society at all, ok, maybe it won't be a real classless society, but through techniques employed by worker's unions such as collective bargaining i think it would be very possible to ensure workers (who already in the countries i mentioned above enjoy a lot of privileges and high standard of life) get good treatment and a lot of power on the private sector via the unions.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Unions play an important part in ensuring basic representation, but they don't own the means of production, and as a consequence they're very much dependent on the antagonistic side continuously conceding power. That just doesn't happen.

Privatization isn't necessarily a bad thing (despite what some users like Jazzratt might assume), but when politicians use the term they're usually talking about selling off the larger state to smaller states (corporations).