You’re conflating state socialism with voluntary socialism in the same way many of those who oppose state capitalism conflate it with the free market. Rule by the workers, in the voluntary socialist sense, means the same thing that self-ownership and homesteading do in the free market. Socialist anarchism and market anarchism are synonymous, as they are both based on the right of individuals to control their own lives and labor products. Socialist statism and capitalist statism are likewise synonymous, as all individuals and their labor products are subject to the absolute and arbitrary rule of the political class who control the state. The differences between the various anarchisms are superficial, as are the differences between the various statisms. Capitalism and socialism are thus antagonyms and anti-concepts; they are completely meaningless without context, and still mean little with it. The real conflict is between anarchism and statism, each without adjectives, each without the superficialities and rhetoric that confuse the issue. If individuals are free to manage their own lives and labor products in any way they wish, without outside interference, then there is anarchism; if not, then there is statism. I really don’t give a damn what adjectives are attached to either.
Voluntary socialists don’t understand economics - if they did they would be libertarians. I have nothing against real voluntarists, but I don’t think that they can be considered allies, except in some limited sense. Also. I’ve talked to some ‘anarcho-comunists’ who had a lot of weird ideas on how to run things…I’ve got the impression they wanted to impose socialism, while at the same time claim it was ‘voluntarty’…
So? Differing philosophies present an intractable problem, differing economic preferences do not.
Libertarianism isn’t defined by certain personal economic preferences, it’s defined by an opposition to the initiation or threat of force against the persons or property of other individuals.
That’s a rather strange position, considering that voluntaryism and libertarianism are synonymous. You cannot be a libertarian whilst supporting coercion; that is the defining characteristic of libertarianism. It is also the defining characteristic of voluntaryism, and of anarchism. They’re all the same thing.
“Anarcho”-communists aren’t really anarchists, unless they support voluntary communes as in the model of the Israeli kibbutzim. Though it’s quite common, it is a grave mistake to confuse a philosophy with the views of those who label themselves as its supporters. Hitler and Stalin could’ve called themselves anarchists and it wouldn’t have changed anything about anarchism, it would’ve just meant that they were liars, or very confused as to the meaning of anarchism. This is why it is important to make a distinction between “Libertarians” and libertarians; the former are members of a political party, the latter are those who practice and support libertarianism. The two are in fact mutually exclusive; one cannot be both a “Libertarian” and a libertarian.
Right. They are anti-concepts that distract us from the true conflict at hand.
Lacking understanding of something is not just a preference. It is a philosophical problem.
Sorry, I didn’t word that one rightly. What I meant is I have nothing against ‘lefty’ voluntarists. But their position doesn’t make much sense to me. I believe that small l libertarianism includes what you call a ‘preference’ for a definite economic system : free enterprise on a global scale - I suppose I don’t need to make I clear I don’t want to impose such a system, but I believe it’s something that would happen naturally if the NAP was applied consistently.
I disagree. Obviously, the state and public moral acceptance of its ability to initiate violence presents the largest obstacle to libertarianism. "L"iberatarians seem to present a contradictory stance; they participate in the processes of the state and seek to gain its power. Many do not even want true libertarianism, only less taxes or less drug war, etc; and would hold some ideal view of society still involving some degree of state force.
However, "L"ibertarians may also be libertarians, in that they believe gaining state control and reducing its power through the established political system, with the goal of demonstrating to the general public how a more libertarian society is better, with the ultimate goal of peacefully establishing anarchy.
I participate in "L"ibertarianism, but don’t see the LP as the ultimate political solution. I do think it’s the most publicly tolerable means of peacefully acheiving anarchy, serving as a stepping stone.
People making poor decisions in a free market is not a philosophical problem, it’s a personal one.
That’s a personal belief and preference, not a philosophical constraint. If everyone but us austrolibertarians wished to form voluntary communes, worker syndicates, or mutualist communities, that would be a matter of personal choice; the NAP would not be violated by people choosing to collectively homestead and manage their own property, or by people choosing to use the labor theory of value as a basis for determining “fairness” when engaging in trades with others. Consistent application of the NAP would lead to a free market of economic preferences. Those who prefer to form communes or syndicates would be free to do so, those who choose to use the LTV when trading would be free to do so, no one would be obligated to do things our way beyond simple adherence to the NAP. If it’s your preference to form and do business with large for-profit companies, that’s fine, but that doesn’t in any way obligate me to do things the same way. Personally I’d prefer it if there were mostly small businesses and self-employment with large businesses being a rarity and, having read Kevin Carson’s “Economic Calculation in the Corporate Commonwealth”, I’m confident that a free market would produce such a situation, but if the world ends up being mostly communes, or mostly big businesses, that’s fine so long as the NAP is still followed.
They still wish to use political means to acheive their desired ends. That is unlibertarian.
Using political means to abolish political means is nonsensical. The only rational and consistent way to bring about a society based solely on the economic means is through the use of the economic means. In other words, agorism.
Rich333, you believe that using force in self-defense is justified, correct?
Agorism is not opposed to force in self defense. It’s not pacifism as far as I know.
Its opposed to initiation of force, not use.
If that’s the crux of the disagreement, then there really is not disagreement on my part. I share your view entirely - voluntary works fine on a very limited scale, but because it is economically untenable it cannot exist on a large scale. A broadly implemented anarcho-socialist/communist/syndicalist system would, I think, devolve into state socialism or evolve into a capitalist society.
I see both sides of the LP question, but today I’m in a mood to argue for the LP. Here’s the thing. There are real people out there, suffering real consequences under a real state. In the long run, the LP is no solution, and isn’t even a step towards a solution. In the short run, winning political battles can result in less state action in one sphere or another, and prevent real people from being victimized.
I think it is a personal philosophical problem. What I mean is, if a person has a wrong theory about something, then she has a ‘philosophical’ problem. That’s all. I’ll also add I’m not that comfortable with people who have odd ideas about economics. I took a look at Proudhon’s “What’s property” some time ago and it didn’t make much sense to me, but I confess I’m a bit fuzzy about the book’s contents now. Perhaps I’ll read it again. Although I remeber he had some weird ideas about banking…
Proudhon’s statements in that work are often taken out of content by most socialists and most free market capitalists alike. Socialists often like to construe Proudhon as opposing all private property, which isn’t true according to a proper interpretation of him and especially in light of Proudhon’s more pro-market statements towards the end of his life. It’s also important to note that Proudhon’s views are significantly different from that of Marx, and Marx once called him a “petty burgeousie socialist”. You’ll also find that more communist and collectivist anarchists such as Kropotkin denounced Proudhon as too individualistic and propertarian. Proudhon pre-dates the rise of communist anarchism. Capitalists tend to see the words “property is theft” and analyze at as if it was a literal or absolute statement, and quite correctly conclude that it is self-contradictary. But they often fail to see the context of the statement, especially in light of the equally forceful pronouncements that “property is impossible” and “property is liberty”.
The political means can have decisively economic consequences on politicians.
That being said, the LP is comically inept and is not going to be our Sinn Fein under its current constitution.