Well Conza is over the top but that’s his thing. I don’t think it reflects the entire forum by any stretch of the imagination.
No of course not, even though you inferred it was prevalent on the forum.
I don’t think what people do on other websites really has any bearing on what goes on here.
Again, not my problem (or the problem of anyone here not associated with that site) to bear.
I can’t speak for either of them. They aren’t around to speak for themselves.
Was anything he write about anarcho-communism false, or do you just not like his tone? I’m trying to figure out if your issue is one of truthfulness or aesthetics.
I take it as another indication of arrogance that Internet Austrians think anarchism defeated with no substantive literature against it among their works solely because of an unsourced diatribe of Murray Rothbard, some criticism of Chomsky’s economics by James Ostrowski, and a rebutted essay by Bryan Caplan, who is a known anti-Austrian. Rothbard’s quoted comment is an example of the rude arrogance that I find unappealing.
My own view is that there was some degree of unjust violence connected to the social revolution, but that it was a natural consequence of decades of oppression by capitalists and the fervor of a wartime environment. These weren’t your friendly little office supervisors and business owners of today; these were industrialist despots of an earlier era that were targeted. But some instances of murder do not stain the entire revolution if they remain an exception to a general rule rather than a rule itself, and are simply an unavoidable circumstance of human imperfection. Regardless, let’s not stray too far off-topic.
In its entirety, the rebuttal seems to me sound.
Anarchists regard Western market capitalism and its derivatives and Soviet state capitalism and its derivatives as similar in their hierarchical and authoritarian nature. They are both based on the existence of an elite upper class that owns and controls the means of production, so though they’re technically different modes of production, they retain similar hierarchical structures.
Well, it went so far as to have him banned from the RPF, but regardless, I see the same arrogance elsewhere. And someone just countered your remark that no one would be bitter or frustrated because of the RevLeft comments by noting that he wanted to “breath fire” when he read advocacy of the LTV that he disliked.
I’m speaking of a movement-wide arrogance. This forum will naturally draw attention because of its prominent role, but it’s hardly limited to this forum.
Well, it happens to be true that what he wrote about anarchism was generally false (except for his one-time acknowledgment of his non-anarchism and that of “anarcho”-capitalism), but to note that anyone who advocated anarchist communism specifically was undoubtedly economically ignorant was an indication of snobbish arrogance.
Well often times folks who aren’t willing to compromise in order to go along to get along are considered to have a superiority complex. If someone is among a group of people, and 10/11 say that the state paying for roads is a good thing but 1/11 says no; that 1/11 will likely be labeled as contrarian, selfish etc. And frankly being accused of having an attitude of superiority should be worn as a badge of honor; it means your opponent has run out of ammo and has been forced to resort to the populist ‘he’s not a man of the people’ nonsense.
I don’t know the specific context of Conza’s ban there, but that’s not relevant to what happens here. RPF for sure is not Austrian or libertarian, the moderators there are very much pro-state, pro-status quo.
Is that what I wrote?
What movement? It is like herding cats around here. Even the moderator staff gets into it with one another from time to time over ideological issues.
This notion of a movement, any “movement” for that matter has little appeal to me.. I certainly see little evidence of it here.
show me an anarcho-communist ‘economist’ who writes knowledgeably about Subjective Value Theory, Praxeology, and Catallitics and I will begin to take them seriously.
How? The history of Spain has nothing to do with economics, pointing out the non-relation between the two seems like a first priority. I think you have a problem with internet-Ancaps. Using Bryan Caplan, “a known anti-Austrian” as an example seems to strengthen my point.
Prove all 5,000 of them industrial despots of an earlier era. I don’t see why the murder of people in special conditions is permissible or overlookable, even one innocent person for that matter isn’t something to overlook, namely I’m a voluntaryist.
It’s ok. The author shows a clear bias and is really just chasing anarcho-capitalism (which is to be expected given who the author is) and not sticking to showing the glory or horror that was “anarchist” Spain. And I could really care less about how “you can call it anarchy if you narrowly define state.” I’ve read Bolloton’s “Spanish Civil War” and he makes it clear that in the case of Spanish “anarchy” it hardly means liberty.
First of all, western market capitalism is state capitalism. Second, that doesn’t really respond to the point.
I personally think you’re going to get arrogance from a lot of different schools. No school has the arrogance market cornered. Same thing for angry people. They’re all over the place.
If you’ve got a bunch of smart people who think they’re right and who take their own ideas personally, you can bet some of them are going to be very cross when someone comes along and tells them they might be wrong.
The Austro-Marxists weren’t Austrian economists in the sense we’re familiar with; they were the cream of the Marxian crop (if that means anything at all). All my professors say I’m following the wrong Austrian school.
Yeah, but they rejected dialectical materialism and fused Kantian philosophy with dialectical idealism. It included people like Baur and Adler. They’re pretty much the roots of the English Labour party, the Nordic model, the french regulation school, and other socialist institutions. For the most part they were sociologists and philosophers more than economists, but they were (and still are) highly respected. Morons like Schumpeter praised them.
I’m still flabbergasted as to how you can have anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialism. The terms seem entirely oxymoronic to me. As if somehow people will just magically, and fully of glee, submit themselves into serfdom of an organized body without force, and that it will not somehow just be another state. Hence the term anarcho seems contradictory.
I haven’t met any angry Austrians. I’m probably as angry as it gets due to what happened to me as a kid, which is not very angry compared to the communists that I’ve met.
Haha, what? Good joke. Make it funny next time. [H] I’d ask for evidence of the views you proclaimed I hold above, but you haven’t got any - so don’t worry.
Regardless, you think people from the new age Venus project, those who believe in technocracy / anarcho-communism & a post scarcity world… you think they should be taken seriously? lol.
I got banned because I wouldn’t let a moderator called LE [conservative constitution fundamentalist], get away with obfuscation & lies. I used the socratic method - walked her through the logic, and when it got to the clincher, the obvious - she refused to answer and tried to ignore the questions. I merely continued to point this out, when she used fallacy after fallacy to try avoid the unavoidable. I got banned for it. There was uproar from other users, it got emotional for her, very unprofessional. Anyway their loss, I moved on and so should you. Was for the best, much more productive now. lol Who are you anyway? And why is this even worth bringing up.
Re McKibbin’s quote of bloomj31, “persoally I think you’re going to get arrogance from a lot of idfferent schools.”
True Believers tend to come off as being arrogant. Austrianism is, as I have learned, a way of life that people are to come to voluntarily, and not through any kind of coercive measures, to include the creation of particular institutional structures through any political process–even a democratic one. However arrogant Austrians may seem to be, they are merely defending their way of life; to their eternal credit, any thought of forcing it on anyone is a violation of their most fundamental tenet. (I was taken aback by the vociferousness of their responses to my post, “Improving Capitalism–a Lot.”)