anarchism and free market?

[Black Sheep]

I see many people claiming to be both anarchists and supporters of free market.

and then my brain explodes.

How can those two stack?

[nuisance]

Absence of State is about all.

[Incendiarism]

They take an extremely simplistic view of anarchism and basically ignore the entirety of the philosophy and its history. To them anarchism merely means no government, so the communist ideas such as mutual aid are filtered to fit into their designs.

[Lamanov]

No, absence of state is not "all".

You can't really be an anarchist communist and think that market is "fine".

Market system and commodity production are incompatible with libertarian communism, and thus anarcho-syndicalism (anarcho-syndicalism indeed is a form of organization, not an ideology, but it is a means that corresponds to the ends, ends being total self-management, i.e., libertarian communism - so a/s is not without a content, as some like to believe).

Commodity production and exchange demand breaking up of human community into isolated economic cells that compete with each other in an open market, transferring competition to individuals, not completely liberated from wage labor, since they are not liberated from commodity production.

It would be senseless to destroy the state, disarm its forces, arm the proletariat, organize workers councils, professional, workplace and local, to introduce new forms of communication and decision making, etc, but to leave commodity economy - which is based on alienation of labor - in tacked.

Instead, we will federate our economic organs, tie them up through direct democracy, use our abilities to create a solid planned economy, where we will produce things because there's an actual need for them, not because someone is willing to buy them. (Discussion from here onwards: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1228007&postcount=18 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1228007&postcount=18).)

[revolution inaction]

I see many people claiming to be both anarchists and supporters of free market.

and then my brain explodes.

How can those two stack?

They are not anarchist, they think anarchism means being opposed to the state and nothing else.

[revolution inaction]

DJ-TC I think Fen Boy is saying that there objection to the state is all they have in common with anarchism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Kevin Carson talks a lot about this sort of thing. If you're really interested in how someone could claim to be both an advocate for "the market" and an advocate for libertarian socialism, you may want to give his writings a look.

[Bilan]

No, absence of state is not "all".

You can't really be an anarchist communist and think that market is "fine".


They don't claim to be anarchist communists, do they? Just anarchists.

Any rational, and actual anarchists, does not support the market, however.

[Djehuti]

I imagine something like Tolkien's Shire, an idyllic petit-bourgeoisie society. No capitalist relations (until Saruman) but no socialist relations either.

I believe that Tolkien once described himself as an anarcho-royalist, self-governed democratic petit-bourgeoisie societies protected by the good and rightful king (Aragorn) who holds everything together in harmony.

Some anarchists also advocate a market economy but with use-right instead of owner-right to land, forests, the means of production etc. But still no collective ownership and still commodity production.

But these tendencies are not very big today.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They are not anarchist, they think anarchism means being opposed to the state and nothing else.
And the idea of abolishing the state while leaving everything else intact is a ridiculous delusion. See my rebuttal of it here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-empty-t84983/index.html?t=84983).

[Incendiarism]

Holy sectarianism, batman!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Market anarchism is perfectly justifiable. Don't make the excuse of interlinking capitalism with the market just because you prefer a different socialist economy. Perfectly legitimate relationships can develop as a market influence. One example I've used recently: a karate teacher requests my watch so that he can teach me a new style of defense. There is nothing inherently wrong with that action.

Where market anarchism loses its credentials is when you invite "anarcho-capitalism" into the discussion. In anarchism you're only held to the present by your own actions. You can say you will do such and such, but nobody is going to force that future requisition upon you. Under anarcho-capitalism, a state (in the form of a company) will uphold contracts. Under a socialist market, I'm not tied down to the future, regardless of what I say or write. I can't sell myself into slavery. I can't grant you unabridged, exclusive rights to land. I can't be taken to court because you lent me money under the premise that I would pay you back in full and more (corporation). Under "anarcho-capitalism" all of these are supposed to be possible and readily true. Capitalists buy into the "might is right and property will become right" argument, not realizing that you can justify statism with the same argument.

For those saying anarchism and markets are incompatible, I have to question why you blow off Tucker and Proudhon so easily.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No, absence of state is not "all".

You can't really be an anarchist communist and think that market is "fine".

Market system and commodity production are incompatible with libertarian communism, and thus anarcho-syndicalism (anarcho-syndicalism indeed is a form of organization, not an ideology, but it is a means that corresponds to the ends, ends being total self-management, i.e., libertarian communism - so a/s is not without a content, as some like to believe).

Commodity production and exchange demand breaking up of human community into isolated economic cells that compete with each other in an open market, transferring competition to individuals, not completely liberated from wage labor, since they are not liberated from commodity production.

It would be senseless to destroy the state, disarm its forces, arm the proletariat, organize workers councils, professional, workplace and local, to introduce new forms of communication and decision making, etc, but to leave commodity economy - which is based on alienation of labor - in tacked.

Instead, we will federate our economic organs, tie them up through direct democracy, use our abilities to create a solid planned economy, where we will produce things because there's an actual need for them, not because someone is willing to buy them. (Discussion from here onwards: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1228007&postcount=18 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1228007&postcount=18).)


Democracy may be the main mode of production, but there is no way in hell you're going to get rid of the market for everything, nor should it be our concern so long as the only thing that makes the market relationship occur is a difference in skill or labor.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Market anarchism is perfectly justifiable. Don't make the excuse of interlinking capitalism with the market just because you prefer a different socialist economy. Perfectly legitimate relationships can develop as a market influence. One example I've used recently: a karate teacher requests my watch so that he can teach me a new style of defense. There is nothing inherently wrong with that action.

Where market anarchism loses its credentials is when you invite "anarcho-capitalism" into the discussion. In anarchism you're only held to the present by your own actions. You can say you will do such and such, but nobody is going to force that future requisition upon you. Under anarcho-capitalism, a state (in the form of a company) will uphold contracts. Under a socialist market, I'm not tied down to the future, regardless of what I say or write. I can't sell myself into slavery. I can't grant you unabridged, exclusive rights to land. I can't be taken to court because you lent me money under the premise that I would pay you back in full and more (corporation). Under "anarcho-capitalism" all of these are supposed to be possible and readily true. Capitalists buy into the "might is right and property will become right" argument, not realizing that you can justify statism with the same argument.

For those saying anarchism and markets are incompatible, I have to question why you blow off Tucker and Proudhon so easily.



That was a pretty amazing summary right there.

[revolution inaction]

And the idea of abolishing the state while leaving everything else intact is a ridiculous delusion. See my rebuttal of it here.

Yes obviously I didn't think I needed to say something so obvious, no really anarchist wants to abolish the state and nothing else.

[apathy maybe]

I see many people claiming to be both anarchists and supporters of free market.

and then my brain explodes.

How can those two stack?

Anarchism is a desire for a free, hierarchy less society.

A "free market" is a system of exchanging resources in a fair manner (note we don't have a free market at present).

I can't see any contradiction between those two things.

-----

You have to remember (as pointed out by GeneCosta), that market does not equate to capitalism. The present capitalist system is one example of a market. An example which requires the state to operate. It rests upon assumptions of "property rights" that include unlimited accumulation of property Moreover, it includes the concept of "profit" (including rent, interest etc.).
However, markets have been in existence for thousands of years.

An anarchist system of "market", would more then likely rest upon limited "property rights" (usage), and would not include any notion of profit (or rent, interest etc.).

Market anarchism? So long as the market doesn't contradict with the anarchism (which an "anarcho"-capitalist market would), then there is no contradiction.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that the market will always be with us, to some extent. It has been with us for all of time, either totally free (in primitive times) or heavily restricted. We used to think that Native Americans lived hand-to-mouth as individuals desperately trying to secure what they needed to survive; in fact, this was not so. In light of anthropological evidence we now know that massive trade networks spanned across North America, usually based on some form of gift economy. So "the market" was around long before capitalism.

Worship of "the market" alone is worthless, though. The market, like technology, is a tool that can be used for either good or evil...it's not an inherently "good" or "evil" institution on its own, although it can be quite volatile, which is why the state and the capitalist economy seeks to keep it in check whenever possible. As a way to satisfy human needs, though, it is quite useful. Communities post-capitalism will most likely decide for themselves how much of the market they want to utilize and how much of the market they wish to restrict, but to say that we will rid ourselves entirely of something as nebulous as "the market" is inane.

[chegitz guevara]

It would be senseless to destroy the state, disarm its forces, arm the proletariat, organize workers councils, professional, workplace and local, to introduce new forms of communication and decision making, etc, but to leave commodity economy - which is based on alienation of labor - in tacked.

Without a state, how would you prevent it?

[Led Zeppelin]

I think that the market will always be with us, to some extent. It has been with us for all of time, either totally free (in primitive times) or heavily restricted. We used to think that Native Americans lived hand-to-mouth as individuals desperately trying to secure what they needed to survive; in fact, this was not so. In light of anthropological evidence we now know that massive trade networks spanned across North America, usually based on some form of gift economy. So "the market" was around long before capitalism.

Yes, a certain form of a "market" was around long before capitalism, with the rise of private property, but before that there was an even longer time where there was no form of "market" at all, there was only communal property.

So the market was based on certain material conditions, and that can be reduced to the existence of scarcity, or the extraction of surplus value from labour, and the natural outcome of that; the existence of private property.


Worship of "the market" alone is worthless, though. The market, like technology, is a tool that can be used for either good or evil...it's not an inherently "good" or "evil" institution on its own, although it can be quite volatile, which is why the state and the capitalist economy seeks to keep it in check whenever possible. As a way to satisfy human needs, though, it is quite useful. Communities post-capitalism will most likely decide for themselves how much of the market they want to utilize and how much of the market they wish to restrict, but to say that we will rid ourselves entirely of something as nebulous as "the market" is inane.

Given what I just said above, it would be strange to think that a form of market would exist when the material conditions for it no longer exist.

When there is no more scarcity, and there is as a result of that no class-society or private property, a market would be totally useless to have, it would therefore not exist.

[revolution inaction]

Without a state, how would you prevent it?

A state is an instrument of minority rule, it is of no use after a revolution where the workers are in control, except if you want to crush the revolution, the state is vary good for that :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Scarcity will always exist in some manner or another. The market may slip into the back burner when scarcity is overcome for large and medium scale production, but there are handcraft goods that need to be first acquired before being replicated. And I don't think anyone here wants the community to barge in and take an old lady's stitched blanket just to replicate it. :laugh:

[Led Zeppelin]

Scarcity will always exist in some manner or another. The market may slip into the back burner when scarcity is overcome for large and medium scale production, but there are handcraft goods that need to be first acquired before being replicated. And I don't think anyone here wants the community to barge in and take an old lady's stitched blanket just to replicate it. :laugh:

Human needs are asymptotic: they approach infinity along the boundries of their material means. So if we can't afford a private plane, we don't want one; if we can, there's a more than decent chance that we will.

In other words, just because we don't have the means to give everyone a private jet doesn't mean that scarcity is not eliminated for the majority of basic and tertiary needs, like blankets.

So what then do you propose? A market for private jets whereby one person who mysteriously was able to own one can sell it to another? Well that would be kind of hard since there is no means to "sell" anything with since money no longer exists. Oh, well, I guess we could just let private property exist in that field of production.

Be serious here.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In other words, just because we don't have the means to give everyone a private jet doesn't mean that scarcity is not eliminated for the majority of basic and tertiary needs, like blankets.

Nor was I arguing such a point. Some people have a great deal of respect for handcrafted items, as illustrated in the current market where such products retain a pretty decent market share because they're advertised separately. Perhaps an old lady makes a blanket with a witty joke stitched along the seem. I, wanting a handmade blanket just for bragging purposes, visit her house and offer up a private currency (backed with titanium). If she accepts, a market transaction has just occurred.


Well that would be kind of hard since there is no means to "sell" anything with since money no longer exists.

Private money can and does exist. It may be rendered near obsolete, but the market, like bartering, would still be around.

[Black Sheep]

Ok help me out here: give me a definition plz for
market, free market, anarcho-capitalism, mutualism (i always thought it was a system of exchange of products needed)


I imagine something like Tolkien's Shire, an idyllic petit-bourgeoisie society. No capitalist relations (until Saruman) but no socialist relations either.
The shire elected a mayor.:cool:

[Led Zeppelin]

Nor was I arguing such a point. Some people have a great deal of respect for handcrafted items, as illustrated in the current market where such products retain a pretty decent market share because they're advertised separately. Perhaps an old lady makes a blanket with a witty joke stitched along the seem. I, wanting a handmade blanket just for bragging purposes, visit her house and offer up a private currency (backed with titanium). If she accepts, a market transaction has just occurred.

Private money can and does exist. It may be rendered near obsolete, but the market, like bartering, would still be around.

Money does not have any meaning if it is not accepted as a means of exchange in society.

To get back to your example; that old lady must be senile to exchange her handmade blanket for something that is of no use to her like a self-made currency. However, if she exchanges her personal property, that is, the handmade blanket, for another person's personal property, then that makes sense, but that has nothing to do with having a market.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

A state is an instrument of minority rule, it is of no use after a revolution where the workers are in control, except if you want to crush the revolution, the state is vary good for that :)
Historically, the state has been an instrument of minority rule. However, the size of this minority varied across different time periods and geographical areas. Sometimes it was a tiny minority, sometimes it was a large one.

Now, what makes you think that the group of people whose interests are protected by the state cannot be expanded until it becomes a majority?


Anarchism is a desire for a free, hierarchy less society.

A "free market" is a system of exchanging resources in a fair manner (note we don't have a free market at present).
That is true if and only if all the people who participate in this free market hold an equal amount of power and property.

If one of the market participants is more powerful or wealthy than the others, then the free market favours him, and it is no longer a fair system.

So yes, you could have "market anarchism," but only if you could somehow invent a market system in which everyone holds more-or-less equal amounts of wealth and the market's natural tendency to create a gap between rich and poor magically vanishes.

Good luck with that.


You have to remember (as pointed out by GeneCosta), that market does not equate to capitalism. The present capitalist system is one example of a market. An example which requires the state to operate. It rests upon assumptions of "property rights" that include unlimited accumulation of property Moreover, it includes the concept of "profit" (including rent, interest etc.).
However, markets have been in existence for thousands of years.
Yes, markets have been in existence for thousands of years, as a common element of all class societies. The special feature of capitalism is not that it has markets - feudalism had markets too. The special feature of capitalism is that it has labour markets and markets for the means of production.

Eliminating the markets for labour and the means of production would abolish capitalism. But this action, by itself, would not create the "free, hierarchy less society" you desire. Not as long as the rest of the economy remains dominated by markets, because all markets always produce hierarchy. It won't necessarily be a capitalist hierarchy, but it will be a hierarchy nonetheless.


An anarchist system of "market", would more then likely rest upon limited "property rights" (usage), and would not include any notion of profit (or rent, interest etc.).
So... who gets to decide how land is used? In capitalism, this decision is made through the rents charged by landowners (the land is used by whoever can afford to pay the rent). In socialism, the decision would be made by a democratic state. In communism, it would be made through direct democracy. How is the decision made in "market anarchism?" It seems you either have to use the capitalist way, which has both markets and landowners, or the socialist/communist way, which has neither markets nor landowners. I can't imagine any land distribution system that involves markets but not landowners.

And the same applies to all the means of production. Can you sell a factory on the market? Then some private individual or group must own it.

Markets and private property go hand in hand. How could you sell something you don't own?

[nuisance]

No, absence of state is not "all".

As RadicalGraffiti pointed out, I was saying that, that is all they have incommon.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ok help me out here: give me a definition plz for
market, free market, anarcho-capitalism, mutualism (i always thought it was a system of exchange of products needed)
Market: A physical or virtual place where people exchange property.

Free market: A market in which there are no rules limiting the kinds of things that might be exchanged or the conditions attached to the various exchanges, and where every buyer has a near-limitless variety of sellers to choose from and every seller has a near-limitless supply of potential buyers. Free markets almost never exist in practice.

Anarcho-capitalism: The ideology that believes it is possible and desirable to abolish the state while keeping the capitalist economic system intact. Anarcho-capitalists want to replace the state with a collection of private protection agencies that compete in a free market to provide services such as justice or protection from crime. Opponents of anarcho-capitalism argue that these "private protection agencies" are basically the same thing as the mafia, and the idea of buying and selling "justice" on the market is a sick joke. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the tiniest weird ideological sects in the world; it exists almost exclusively on the internet, and has no political organizations whatsoever.

Mutualism: Hmm, I have no idea about this one.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Here, I'll help you out.

Mutualism: A system formulated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in Europe and Josiah Warren in the United States, involving a series of "people's banks" and labor credit.

[revolution inaction]

Historically, the state has been an instrument of minority rule. However, the size of this minority varied across different time periods and geographical areas. Sometimes it was a tiny minority, sometimes it was a large one.

Now, what makes you think that the group of people whose interests are protected by the state cannot be expanded until it becomes a majority?

I define the state as being an instrument of minority rule, so some thing that is not an instrument of minority rule would not be a state.
But also the state now and as it always has been is a set of top down institutions, structured so a small number of people can control how it operates, it is completely unsuited to being run by the majority.

For the majority to control the running of society requires a completely different set of organisations, which even when they perform smiler functions, would be controlled in a way so different to any state that has ever existed that to use the same word is ridicules.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Money does not have any meaning if it is not accepted as a means of exchange in society.

To get back to your example; that old lady must be senile to exchange her handmade blanket for something that is of no use to her like a self-made currency. However, if she exchanges her personal property, that is, the handmade blanket, for another person's personal property, then that makes sense, but that has nothing to do with having a market.

This is getting ridiculous. Money doesn't have any meaning if it's not accepted as a means of exchange by any two individuals. Gold often acted as a medium of exchange on a global scale even though it was seen as an abnormality in the Americans. Perhaps not everyone will see purpose in trading over titanium, but two individuals may, and if that's true then so be it. You're arguing that it's stupid from your own perspective. That doesn't mean it won't happen, nor is it exploitive. On a personal level I don't believe markets will be all that prevalent in a post-capitalist society. But will we be gone of them? Absolutely not. It's not really that big of a concern outside of statist socialists who live under the misconception that the market is evil.

[apathy maybe]

@Led, regarding scarcity. I agree that in a situation where technology provides universal duplicators that can duplicate anything, or create new items based on blueprints, that a "market" would not be likely to exist in any meaningful sense.

However, until that point, exchange between two persons of scarce (probably hand-made) goods will continue.


To get back to your example; that old lady must be senile to exchange her handmade blanket for something that is of no use to her like a self-made currency. However, if she exchanges her personal property, that is, the handmade blanket, for another person's personal property, then that makes sense, but that has nothing to do with having a market.
Exchange between two persons is not a market. However, if exchange happens regularly, between different persons, then you could say it is a market.


That is true if and only if all the people who participate in this free market hold an equal amount of power and property.

If one of the market participants is more powerful or wealthy than the others, then the free market favours him, and it is no longer a fair system.

So yes, you could have "market anarchism," but only if you could somehow invent a market system in which everyone holds more-or-less equal amounts of wealth and the market's natural tendency to create a gap between rich and poor magically vanishes.

Good luck with that.
Your criticism is quite valid. This is why real "market" anarchists (individuals and mutualists, not capitalists or other crazies advocating unlimited property accumulation) limit "property". Again, as you say "usage" has potential problems. However, it is my opinion (just like our opinion that communism could work) that the community would be able to solve problems related to what is being used, and what isn't. (I started a thread awhile back regarding unused land, such as natural reserves etc., asking what stops people from using this. I answered my own question later in the thread, by saying that it is owned by the community.)

So, in an anarchist system with a market, there probably would be discrepancies between "wealth" levels (not that the concept of wealth would be really meaningful). This would be due to a couple of factors, not least that some people are going to be willing to work more then others.

But, it is my opinion that this discrepancy would not be so massive as to undermine the entire system.

Besides, as I've mentioned somewhere, individualists focus more on freedom, rather then equality. So, slight differences in equality of resource control don't matter so much, so long as all are equally free. (It has been argued, and I don't 100% agree with this, that without "property" (control over resources), you cannot be truely free. If you are dependant on someone else, then you can't be free.)

So yeah, your criticisms have validity, but don't forget that these ideas have been around for at least 100 years, and actually more like 168 if you go back to Proudhon. Your criticisms have been raised, and addressed, many times by various people.

[Led Zeppelin]

This is getting ridiculous. Money doesn't have any meaning if it's not accepted as a means of exchange by any two individuals.
It's getting ridiculous because your argument is ridiculous.

Why the hell would I accept your self-made money for something I own as personal property when that money is useless to me because I can't do anything with it, since it is not accepted as a means of exchange by society?

What possible value could that have to me?


Gold often acted as a medium of exchange on a global scale even though it was seen as an abnormality in the Americans. Perhaps not everyone will see purpose in trading over titanium, but two individuals may, and if that's true then so be it. You're arguing that it's stupid from your own perspective. That doesn't mean it won't happen, nor is it exploitive. On a personal level I don't believe markets will be all that prevalent in a post-capitalist society. But will we be gone of them? Absolutely not. It's not really that big of a concern outside of statist socialists who live under the misconception that the market is evil.

Gold was accepted as a medium of exchange by a lot of societies and therefore had a value (and still does), why do you think people were looking for gold, just for fun or to give it to one of their friends because it was shiny-looking? What kind of example is that to prove your point?

A better example would be rocks, just average rocks that you find laying around on the street. They are not accepted as means of exchange by any society, can you think of an individual who would trade something they own for those rocks? Well, yeah, if they considered it a means of exchange subjectively, but no sane person would because; 1. They can pick up rocks like that whenever they want, and 2. Because rocks are of no use to them to begin with, they have no value.

It's such an anamoly that you are arguing, and then to call that a "market" is just absurd.


Exchange between two persons is not a market. However, if exchange happens regularly, between different persons, then you could say it is a market.

Thank you, at least you understand that exchange between two people does not constitute a "market".

Hand-made goods would probably be exchanged for other hand-made goods, since they can't be exchanged for anything else, given the fact that scarcity is already eliminated regarding other goods, and no sane person would accept a self-made form of currency which has no value in society.

I wouldn't call that a market though. I exchange my school-books on a yearly basis to get new ones, but I wouldn't call that a market-system at work, nor would I call it a market-system when I give gifts to friends to get a feeling of affection in return or to be kind, which is the only self-made currency with actual value. :p

[apathy maybe]

Hand-made goods would probably be exchanged for other hand-made goods, since they can't be exchanged for anything else, given the fact that scarcity is already eliminated regarding other goods, and no sane person would accept a self-made form of currency which has no value in society.

I wouldn't call that a market though. I exchange my school-books on a yearly basis to get new ones, but I wouldn't call that a market-system at work, nor would I call it a market-system when I give gifts to friends to get a feeling of affection in return or to be kind, which is the only self-made currency with actual value.
Meh, we just have different definitions of "market'. Barter is still a market.

(And yes, gift exchange isn't a market.)

But you can see, that any "market" that exists is going to be irrelevant for most things/people, and thus is not going to matter. And so, if it does exist, it won't need to be shut down (not to mention, if it does get shut down, the system stops being anarchistic).

[trivas7]

Scarcity will always exist in some manner or another.
I don't believe this; we have the technological know-how (and material resources) to abolish poverty and hunger on a world-wide scale within a generation. What we don't have is the political will to do so.

[XII Bones IIX]

Anarchism is a desire for a free, hierarchy less society.

A "free market" is a system of exchanging resources in a fair manner (note we don't have a free market at present).

I can't see any contradiction between those two things.

-----

You have to remember (as pointed out by GeneCosta), that market does not equate to capitalism. The present capitalist system is one example of a market. An example which requires the state to operate. It rests upon assumptions of "property rights" that include unlimited accumulation of property Moreover, it includes the concept of "profit" (including rent, interest etc.).
However, markets have been in existence for thousands of years.

An anarchist system of "market", would more then likely rest upon limited "property rights" (usage), and would not include any notion of profit (or rent, interest etc.).

Market anarchism? So long as the market doesn't contradict with the anarchism (which an "anarcho"-capitalist market would), then there is no contradiction.

Truly as an Anarchist I agree with the majority of the ideals behind a free market. However that doesn't make me less of an Anarchist. Free market would be ideal in any society however the capitalist society we're dominated in makes it pretty hard to get that rolling. But supporting a free market doesn't make an Anarchist less of an Anarchist but if an Anarchist doesn't understand the basis of Anarchism AND free market then their lost.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't believe this; we have the technological know-how (and material resources) to abolish poverty and hunger on a world-wide scale within a generation. What we don't have is the political will to do so.

Abolishing poverty and hunger does not equate to ridding ourselves of scarcity. In the foreseeable future do you see spacecrafts becoming regular possessions? How many people would love their own personal spacecraft? Congratulations; you've just encountered scarcity.



Why the hell would I accept your self-made money for something I own as personal property when that money is useless to me because I can't do anything with it, since it is not accepted as a means of exchange by society?

What possible value could that have to me?Money doesn't have to be self-made. I already pointed out that gold was a means of exchange for millions of people, and continues to be so even without the institutionalization of it. Most people in possession of gold don't necessarily have a purpose for holding it outside of generating purchasing power.
You have a very obtuse view of the world if you think something that can't be replicated won't be used as a means of exchange for people who otherwise wouldn't touch it.


Gold was accepted as a medium of exchange by a lot of societies and therefore had a value (and still does), why do you think people were looking for gold, just for fun or to give it to one of their friends because it was shiny-looking? What kind of example is that to prove your point?Thank you for proving yourself wrong. Gold, and anything back with gold, developed naturally. Your talk of society is ambiguous at best. As I already pointed out only two or three people are needed for a means of exchange to exist.


Thank you, at least you understand that exchange between two people does not constitute a "market".As do I, as evident with my earlier comment about the market and bartering. You're the one making false distinctions. Money can be a commodity in itself. You don't seem to grasp that notion.

[trivas7]

Abolishing poverty and hunger does not equate to ridding ourselves of scarcity. In the foreseeable future do you see spacecrafts becoming regular possessions? How many people would love their own personal spacecraft? Congratulations; you've just encountered scarcity.

Then how your use of the term 'scarcity' differs from the desire for conspicuous luxury is beyond me. I, for one, don't want my own personal spacecraft, thank you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Then how your use of the term 'scarcity' differs from the desire for conspicuous luxury is beyond me. I, for one, don't want my own personal spacecraft, thank you.

Your personal desires are very generous, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. I and a few thousand (possibly million) other people would love to possess a personal spacecraft. This is an extreme case of scarcity in action. I too like the ideas behind technocracy- and communist-anarchism, but there's no way in hell either (or a combination of the two) are going to snub out a market. Economic systems have almost always been simultaneous, with a prevailing mode of production.

[Led Zeppelin]

Money doesn't have to be self-made. I already pointed out that gold was a means of exchange for millions of people, and continues to be so even without the institutionalization of it. Most people in possession of gold don't necessarily have a purpose for holding it outside of generating purchasing power.
You have a very obtuse view of the world if you think something that can't be replicated won't be used as a means of exchange for people who otherwise wouldn't touch it.

You really don't get it do you? Gold was a means of exchange because it had value, people have gold because it has value, and it has value because people want it, therefore it has a use-value in society.

Rocks laying around in the street do not have a use-value, but according to you I would be able to exchange them for something because I give it value myself.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Do you know anything about economics at all?


Thank you for proving yourself wrong. Gold, and anything back with gold, developed naturally. Your talk of society is ambiguous at best. As I already pointed out only two or three people are needed for a means of exchange to exist.

You don't have to thank me for proving myself wrong, because it was you who I proved wrong, and I do that with pleasure.

"Gold, and anything back with gold, developed naturally"? What the hell does that even mean? People wanted gold because it looked cool? And then you go on to say that my point of view is ambiguous? Give me a break.

Gold had a value in certain societies because it was considered useful by the people in those societies, therefore it had a use-value. For example, this use-value of gold was much more important in western-European societies than in Central and South-American societies, therefore it was much more important for western-Europeans to have gold than it was for Central and South-American civilizations to have them. To the latter it was indeed just something "cool and shiney", to the former it was actually a means of accumulating wealth....because it had a higher use-value.

See how all of this is linked? That's called economics.


As do I, as evident with my earlier comment about the market and bartering. You're the one making false distinctions. Money can be a commodity in itself. You don't seem to grasp that notion.

Money can be a commodity in itself, have value by itself, and exist above society, as long as two people agree that the self-made money is "accepted"? Ok, whatever you say...

And actually you don't believe that exchange between two people does not constitute a "market". You said earlier that an own lady "selling" a handmade blanket for a self-made currency entails having a form of market, which is fine if you want to reduce the term market to such a triviality, but to me it just seems pointless.


I and a few thousand (possibly million) other people would love to possess a personal spacecraft.

As I said before:

Human needs are asymptotic: they approach infinity along the boundries of their material means. So if we can't afford a private plane, we don't want one; if we can, there's a more than decent chance that we will.

[trivas7]

Your personal desires are very generous, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. I and a few thousand (possibly million) other people would love to possess a personal spacecraft. This is an extreme case of scarcity in action. I too like the ideas behind technocracy- and communist-anarchism, but there's no way in hell either (or a combination of the two) are going to snub out a market. Economic systems have almost always been simultaneous, with a prevailing mode of production.

I frankly don't understand what you're arguing. Markets aren't an obstacle to a communist mode of production, capital is.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Rocks laying around in the street do not have a use-value, but according to you I would be able to exchange them for something because I give it value myself.That's quite possibly one the worst straw men arguments yet. I clearly stated there must be no less than two or three people who value the means of exchange. Perhaps next time you should read what I write instead of rushing to attack my words.


People wanted gold because it looked cool?Partially. More because of its rarity. Gold was practically useless until computer technology took off. It was a decoration metal.


Human needs are asymptotic: they approach infinity along the boundries of their material means. So if we can't afford a private plane, we don't want one; if we can, there's a more than decent chance that we will.I can assure you I can't afford a spacecraft, but I want one - badly. For all the criticisms you levy at me towards the subject of a market, your definition of scarcity is pretty weak in its own rights.


And actually you don't believe that exchange between two people does not constitute a "market". You said earlier that an own lady "selling" a handmade blanket for a self-made currency entails having a form of market, which is fine if you want to reduce the term market to such a triviality, but to me it just seems pointless.That is a market. Your statement about it being a trivial definition is ludicrous at best.


Gold had a value in certain societies because it was considered useful by the people in those societies, therefore it had a use-value. For example, this use-value of gold was much more important in western-European societies than in Central and South-American societies, therefore it was much more important for western-Europeans to have gold than it was for Central and South-American civilizations to have them. To the latter it was indeed just something "cool and shiney", to the former it was actually a means of accumulating wealth....because it had a higher use-value.This is blatantly false (and irrelevant). Gold's main application before the invention of computer chips was decoration, either in the form of architecture or jewelery. Even so, gold is not superb in strength, nor malleability, nor shine when compared to other, more prevalent elements.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I frankly don't understand what you're arguing. Markets aren't an obstacle to a communist mode of production

Obviously. That was my argument. LZ dissented on that opinion.

[Led Zeppelin]

That's quite possibly one the worst straw men arguments yet. I clearly stated there must be no less than two or three people who value the means of exchange. Perhaps next time you should read what I write instead of rushing to attack my words.

You like using the term straw men a lot don't you? Do you even know what it means?

That analogy was accurate because it explains how absurd your point of view is. You did clearly state that more than one person has to value that means of exchange, but you didn't explain why a sane person would value a means of exchange that is only accepted as one by one other person.

So, why would a sane person accept rocks laying on a street as a means of exchange, when one other person does? Why would they want to exchange their personal property for something like that when it has no value outside of themselves and that one other person?

Now keep in mind that I did keep open the possibility of this happening, crazy people will also live under a communist economic system. But the triviality of it is such that to call it a market is just inane, to use your own word.


Partially. More because of its rarity. Gold was practically useless until computer technology took off. It was a decoration metal.

Gold was practically useless until computer technology took off? So I guess the conquistadors and the miners moving westwards in the US to find gold were just going after something that was useless, just for the fun of it I suppose?

Please be serious.


I can assure you I can't afford a spacecraft, but I want one - badly. For all the criticisms you levy at me towards the subject of a market, your definition of scarcity is pretty weak in its own rights.

You don't get it. You may want a spacecraft, but since you do not have the material means of having one, you can live a pretty comfortable and easy existence without having one. Or are you saying that your life is miserable because you can't have a spacecraft?

Are you saying that all those people who "want" to live in a mansion, have a private jet and a yacht etc. are all miserable because they don't have it?

No, of course not.

That is what is meant by human needs being asymptotic. The fact that you believe that society cannot be truly communist or free of scarcity unless everyone has a spacecraft just proves how ridiculous your view on scarcity is, not mine.


That is a market. Your statement about it being a trivial definition is ludicrous at best.

Yeah, totally. It's a market-system at work when I trade in my books on a yearly basis to get new ones, or when some kid sells lemonade for a form a currency that he can do nothing with.

Actual trade of personal property would happen. That old lady would probably trade that self-made blanket for some other hand-made good which has a use-value to her, just like I traded pokemon cards with my friends.

If you want to call that a market-system at work, go ahead, make an absurdity of the term. Just don't get mad when I am not willing to go along with you.


This is blatantly false (and irrelevant). Gold's main application before the invention of computer chips was decoration, either in the form of architecture or jewelery. Even so, gold is not superb in strength, nor malleability, nor shine when compared to other, more prevalent elements.

Yes, you're right, it's just blatantly false that gold had a use-value in certain societies before computer technology developed. Which is why those societies went hunting after gold all over the globe - killing and enslaving other peoples in the process - because it had no value to them!

Makes perfect sense! :rolleyes: