Why do I feel like you’ve missed the point?
I didn’t really want to or care to get “the” point. I was just pointing that out.
If I concede to the definition of capitalism that seems to be the popular one here, then I must accept a contradiction. Socialist anarchists support voluntary trade, and if capitalism is voluntary trade, then socialists support capitalism. How is that definition useful, or am I missing something?
Socialists don’t accept voluntary trade. They can’t because then there would be some perceived inequality that arises (that is, according to them).
I’m not sure what connection is between those two things.
Proudhon, Tucker, and even some syndicalists for that matter, did not oppose inequal compensation for labor, if that’s what perceived inequality you mean. I don’t understand what is involuntary about social anarchist theory.
The connection is that as soon as there is some perceived inequality that occurs collectivists and socialists will call for some third party to rectify the situation. I had a lot more typed up but my browser crashed so so much for that.
I’m still not getting it, and it may very well be my fault, but that just seems like a whole lot of vague speculation. What do you mean by perceived inequality? What perceived inequality? Most socialists did not endorse 100% labor compensation equality, nor did they equate equality to sameness. What “third party?” The state? They’re anarchists, and absolutely no anarchist theory has ever endorsed or supported the state. Socialist anarchists have a history of not cooperating with the state while authoritarian socialists did.
What is the essential difference you see between anarcho-capitalists and social anarchists or collectivist anarchists?
What was their interpretation?
You seem to believe that anarchist socialists did not disapprove of private property. Ok then what’s the problem?
You say inequality is also not a problem for socialists of any stripe or at least of all stripes (not really true but ok). Again, then what’s the problem?
The essential difference that I can pick out is that anarcho-capitalists begin at the rational starting point of the individual whereas social anarchists stress the collective over the individual. Logically, then, actions in a socialist “anarchist” society will not always be voluntary as the “commune” is held up above the individual.
Anarcho-capitalists don’t have a problem with natural hierarchy, only the artificial political one.
Socialist anarchists have a problem with both natural and artificial hierarchy, hence there childish focus on cooperation, communes and other egalitarian solutions.
Than they get mad when in a free market less egalitarian shareholder structures outcompete them in serving the people’s needs and wants.
Rather than making an effort to understand the time value of money and the capital structure in an economy, they smoke some more pot, destroy a shop window or start arguing on a message board that anarcho-capitalists don’t understand where they are coming from because some dude somewhere, sometime had a different meaning for some terms they use.
You can’t change nature honey. Get over it.
You say nuance I say distorted. ie Marx had a distorted view of property. Capitalism and socialism both acknowledge public and private property as being one being owned by the state and another being owned by a private party. Property theory (or better, property rights) is quite clear from an an-cap perspective, even within a system with a state.
If capitalism is not loosely defined as voluntary trade then you must concede that it has to be defined as involuntary because there is no other option, but of course capitalism is not involuntary trade. The actual definition of capitalism; An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. Involuntary trade would be trade that is done against the will or done without the conscious control of one of more parties involved. Involuntary trade could be called theft or taxation or in some cases blackmail. Once trade becomes involuntary then it no longer can be considered capitalism or a free market.
Like I said “socialist anarchist” are incompatible because socialism requires involuntary trade or coercion as its main function. Socialism definition (standard dictionary definition, not an cap definition) A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. This means in real terms that a third party (like a government) will have to own and regulate a service or “good” (production, distribution, and exchange) of another party. Which amounts to involuntary trade. Which means that socialism and anarchism are incompatible because anarchism is about voluntary trade and non coercion, ie no third party be it the government or the “community” has a right to own and regulate the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Well it was kind of a trick question because the natural economic state is capitalist or free markets. Of course “modern capitalist interpretation” has developed the definitions and theories around property, labour but the very basic nature of capitalism has not changed since the days of primitive man ie. They had a sense of property rights, they knew what they owned and what they did not and what was not owned. They knew that if they hunted and got some meat that they owned it. Which in principle is still the same today.
Hi,
I’m new here. I too am more familiar with the socialist anarchist tradition than with the capitalist one. So I’m finding this thread interesting.
Maybe I can clear up a few definitional differences. Socialist anarchists do not consider state owned property to be “commonly owned.” While such property is nominally owned and managed “in the interests of the public,” it may in fact be that only a few individuals exert any control over it. Thus, anarchists often refer to countries such as the USSR as state capitialist. Such countries are run like a giant corporation for the profit of those who actually own the country (i.e. the state bureaucrats).
Ivan Illich classified institutions by their placement on a left-right continuum. On the right, he put what he called “manipulative institutions.” These include the military, schools, and automobile manufacturers. The clients of such institutions must operate within them according to the dictates of the owner, and the institutions are organized as hierarchical bureaucracies. On the left, he place what he called “convivial instutions.” At the left extreme are sidewalks, parks, and telephone lines. The clients of such institutions have freedom to use these as they see fit.
Anarchists generally equate these left institutions with their view of socialism. A modern institution close to socialism would be Wikipedia. It’s an institution run collectively by its users. The users actually participate in regulating and creating content for it. And they all stand on a roughly equal plane. Their influence is determined by how much time they put into it. By contrast, a “public” school is run much more in the manner of serving private interests. The teachers and administrators have near total control over how the institution is to be used. They teach children to be submissive to authority, competitive with their peers, and to see reality as something which they must conform to–basically all the features that a profit-oriented culture would demand from its people.
There’s so much logical fallacy, projection, and flat out ignorance of socialist anarchist theory flying around I’m almost overwhelmed (almost). I honestly have no idea where the idea of socialist anarchists placing the “commune” (as if all socialists are communists) over the individual comes from, especially considering that the individualists were socialists.
And for the sake of argument, let’s pretend like socialists as a whole do favor the commune over the individual. If all individuals are involved voluntarily and of their own will do so, what’s the problem? I don’t understand how a choice an individual makes like favoring one thing over another implies force or coercion. Use carrots for example. Even if the vast majority of people favor carrots over apples, that doesn’t imply that they would force the few apple lovers into eating carrots instead. That just doesn’t make any logical sense.
The fact that socialists were not against and in some cases supported private property (a much different variety from the capitalist concept of it, however), just goes to show that the presence or absence of an idea of private property is not enough to differentiate socialists from capitalists. Property is much more complex than all or nothing.
“Capitalism and socialism both acknowledge public and private property as being one being owned by the state and another being owned by a private party.”
That is just not true at all. Read What is Property?, The Conquest of Bread, or anything by Tucker. All three are socialist books or works. All three have slightly different views of property. And none of them follow that definition at all.
My argument is not that capitalism is involuntary trade, but that voluntary trade is not an adequate feature of capitalism, nor is a take on private property. I have my own ideas about what is, but like I said, my opinions on the matter have been heavily informed by socialists. So I came here to see what you all thought was the definitive feature of capitalism. All I’ve received has been definitions that are so broad they would encompass socialists into capitalism or logically flawed.
Now, let me try again with an example we have been using. Some socialists (usually communists) have pointed to hunter/gatherer societies as an example of a primitive communism, yet here I’m hearing that it was actually capitalism. The only reason I have been given why is that there was voluntary trade. My point is that socialist anarchists, by virtue of pointing to hunter/gatherers as an example, clearly support voluntary trade. That is why I don’t think that is an adequate definition!
As an after thought that I just had as to why I might not be clear, when I say socialism I by no means mean state ownership of the means of production or anything like that. I use it as those who call themselves socialists have used it, as a philosophy aimed at solving the so-called “labour problem,” which encompassed many different, sometimes opposing, philosophies. So socialist anarchists do not support state ownership of everything (since they’re, you know, anarchists) and none of their theory has ever supported that.
What is the “labor problem”?
Ironically, the founder of wikipedia was a student of Mark Thornton’s (an anarcho-capitalist) and was very influenced by Hayek’s ideas on spontaneous order.
EDIT: Jimmy Wales also identifies himself as an Objectivist and libertarian. So… that makes your comment even more ironic.
Socialist anarachists often divide property into capital (those used for production) and possessions (those used for consumption). From my understanding*, individualist anarachists and mutualists support the private ownership of possessions. They believe, however, that capital must be commonly owned among those who use it for production. This means that a family who owns a farm can work that farm themselves, claim the produce they grew as their own, and then sell the produce on the market. However, if they want to get someone else to help them with the work, they would have to accept that person as a co-owner rather than paying him or her a wage. One of the primary goals of socialism is to eliminate wages, rents, and interests.
Anarcho-communists take it a step further and support the common ownership of possessions–at least when such possessions are not in use.
*I’m not really an expert on the subject yet, so I may be misrepresenting their position.
The problem is that Socialism does not allow for voluntary involvement. Socialism that is voluntary is no longer socialism. As the nature of socialism is about collectivising services and “goods”. Socialism’s idea of voluntary is; we will take the money whether you make use of the goods and services or not. To me that is not voluntary, voluntary to me means voluntary payment.
Property is not that complex, especially regarding the difference between public and private property within the current system. The sentence you quoted was not meant to be a definition of property. I was only pointing out that there was not much confusion when it comes to the different types of property within the current system.
Hunter/gatherer societies had none of the tenets of communism. Unless you go as far as to say that a family sharing their wealth is communist. The textbook book version of communism was definitely different than how communism ended up to be. Communism is against private property. That would mean that hunter/gatherer had no concept of individually owned property.
I never technically said that hunter/gatherers lived in a capitalist society. That might give people the idea that primitive people were making profits with money. But at some point they would have traded some meat for some berries and thought that they had made a profit. But other times they might have shared their produce with other people, but that was not communism. Sharing your produce with other people and communism are different things.
“Socialism’s idea of voluntary is; we will take the money whether you make use of the goods and services or not. To me that is not voluntary, voluntary to me means voluntary payment.”
Which socialist anarchist advocated that? I defy you to find one who did.
“I never technically said that hunter/gatherers lived in a capitalist society. That might give people the idea that primitive people were making profits with money. But at some point they would have traded some meat for some berries and thought that they had made a profit. But other times they might have shared their produce with other people, but that was not communism. Sharing your produce with other people and communism are different things.”
That’s very reasonable. I wouldn’t call a hunter/gatherer society an example of socialism either. My point is that it’s not just capitalism or socialism, and the fact that capitalists here have claimed hunter/gatherers to be capitalistic and socialists elsewhere have claimed that they were socialistic just goes to show that both are having some trouble defining their systems.
“Property is not that complex”
Oh, but it is. It may surprise you to know that the advocacy of factory occupations follows very similar logic to capitalist advocacy of private ownership. The main difference is in regard to what kind of property is deemed legitimate. If occupancy and use are the qualities of legitimate property, the rest simply follows pretty simply:
Workers own the factory (by virtue of occ/use)
The so-called factory owner has made aggression upon their property
The workers are in their rights to expel him or her from the property