Emergence Anarcho-Capitalism

Economics Political Theory
61

“I am not trolling, but you have picked up on the paradoxical nature of defining capitalism as voluntary trade. Defining capitalism as “voluntary trade” leads us to this:
Capitalism is voluntary trade
All anarchists support voluntary trade (which would include socialist anarchists)
Socialist anarchists are capitalists.
Now do you see the problem with that definition?”

Dogs are animals.

All cats are animals.

Therefore, all cats are dogs.

Do you see the problem with your logic? In fact, you took it a step further. What you really said was something more like this:

Dogs are animals.

All PETA members support animals.

Therefore, all PETA members are dogs.

One thing must follow from the other, or you haven’t made an argument. Toodles.

62

“And really, an employer can only make a profit if conditions outside the workplace are such that it is reasonable for a laborer to sell their time. Given the choice, most people would rather be in the position of employers than employees”

Unless they have an easy, high-paying job.

“unless we start using gross justifications about how the working class isn’t smart enough to handle management, too scared, or too lazy.”

Who is this working class? Are managers not part of the working class? What about secretaries? Are they the working class? They usually have a lot of administrative-like duties. Are they semi-workers? We need to figure out what group of people you are talking about before we can go on to the obvious next question, which is WHO THE HELL SAYS ANY OF THAT SMART, SCARED OR LAZY CRAP? The implication you make is that employers only hire people who are incompetent or unwilling to do the job. If that is the case, then A) how the hell are they still in business, and B) is it really safe to be driving a car built by such people?

“I do not think at all that wage labor is necessarily a bloody, horrible exploitative endeavor any time it occurs. The history of capital accumulation is not, however, a peaceful one of voluntary exchange.”

Good, because there probably aren’t many examples you can cite outside of the public sector. And you are right. the history of capital accumulation is full of violence, because stealing is a way to acquire capital.

“In order for capital accumulation to really be justified, we would have to start from scratch.”

What the hell does that even mean? How is it unjustified in the first place? I mean, if you want to get technical, justification is in the eye of the beholder. And what do you mean ‘start from scratch’? At what zero-point? At whose arbitrary standard? WHERE!?

63

“Do you see the problem with your logic?”
If only it were my logic. There is a difference between capitalism is voluntary trade, dogs are animals (as in the two are synonomous), and capitalism is voluntary trade, dogs are animals (as in each is a type of the latter). In the latter example (where capitalism is a type of voluntary trade), then, yes, the logic is flawed, and voluntary trade is still and inadequate answer for the question “what is capitalism?” As far as the PETA analogy goes, I simply skipped writing a few lines for time’s sake. I could have taken the time to write out this:

Capitalists support capitalism
Capitalism is voluntary trade (as in it is the same thing)
Anarchist socialists support voluntary trade
Anarchist socialists support capitalism
Anarchist socialists are capitalists

But I had a feeling most people would be able to pick up on that. Regardless, let’s reduce our definition of capitalism to a type of voluntary trade. What distinguishes it from others?

“Who is this working class? Are managers not part of the working class? What about secretaries? Are they the working class? They usually have a lot of administrative-like duties. Are they semi-workers? We need to figure out what group of people you are talking about before we can go on to the obvious next question, which is WHO THE HELL SAYS ANY OF THAT SMART, SCARED OR LAZY CRAP? The implication you make is that employers only hire people who are incompetent or unwilling to do the job. If that is the case, then A) how the hell are they still in business, and B) is it really safe to be driving a car built by such people?”
Okay, let’s slow down. I don’t really understand where most of the above is coming from. My only implication was that employers hire people that are willing to work for them, and that they are only willing to subjugate themselves because of external conditions that bar them from starting their own business, being self-employed, or joining a cooperative. I don’t recall using the term “working class” until the “gross justifications” part of the post. The “smart, scared, or lazy crap,” has been spit around by kings of their peasants and bosses about their employees for centuries now, and I wasn’t trying to imply that anyone here believes as much. I only meant to state that the only way one could argue that people would not rather be in a position of the employer instead of employee (as in, if they could push a button and magically transcend positions in the workplace hierarchy), would be to make a judgement on their character.

"What the hell does that even mean? How is it unjustified in the first place? I mean, if you want to get technical, justification is in the eye of the beholder. And what do you mean ‘start from scratch’? At what zero-point? At whose arbitrary standard? WHERE!? "
I’m not sure where you’re coming from with this. I mean justified in the vein of legitimate property as it’s defined here (homesteading or trade). I don’t know what zero-point, but the point is that just because we do away with the state does not mean it never existed and that those who hold property if only the state were to disappear would continue to reap the benefits of the state without a dramatic change in the social, political, and economic realms.

64

Even assuming the rest of your reasoning is fine, from “all A are B” and “all C are B” does not follow “all C are A”.

A = Capitalists, B = “people who support capitalism”, C = Anarchist socialists

If you really need a counter-example, take A = men, B = humans, C = women.

65

Hey thanks for posting this Birthday Pony, I’m finding this discussion very informative.

There are huge semantical problems, when Anarchists speak of capitalism they mainly refer to state-monopoly capitalism, while AnCaps mean free-market capitalism.

And the definitions of socialist range even wider over the map.

Ignore the confusion on this thread. The starting point cannot be ‘the means of production’ or just ‘voluntary trade’. The definitions can be reduced to the most base form of physical action. To really understand the anarcho-capitalism definitions consider Hans Hoppe

Socialism - A social system based on institutionalised interference with or aggression against private property.

Capitalism - A social system based on explicit recognition of private property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between private property owners.

AnCaps adhere strictly to the natural rights position of property rights in the body (Self-Ownership) and property rights in physical objects (homesteaded goods or goods aquired through voluntary exchange).

All the above is approached through the non-aggression principle, ie aggression may only be used in ‘response’ to the ‘initiation’ of physical force against a person or their property.

Anarcho-capitalism tries to be a subjective-less or value-free system. ie deontological and rule based.

Anarcho-capitalists also have a strong definition of what ‘rights’ are. For example if you have a ‘right’ this also means other people have an ‘obligation’ to provide you that right. ie You have a right NOT to be physically assaulted - my obligation then is NOT to commit such an act. This is a negative right (implying no positive action need be taken by me).

But what if you have a ‘right’ to free health care? That means I have an ‘obligation’ to provide you with it (a positive right).

Anarcho-capitalists only believe in negative rights. Any positive right means that to fulfill such rights will require involuntary servitude or appropriation of someone’s property. One may voluntarily provide you with free health care, and that is great, but you do not have a ‘right’ to it.

So knowing the above definitions tightens things up considerably when trying to understand where AnCaps fit into the grand scheme of Anarchism. We think this…all other forms of Anarchism are at some point going to propose an aggressive act against a person or their property based on collective will, justice, equality e.t.c

I’m interested in what you think of these concepts, as the Anarchist viewpoints of AnCaps I have seen so far seem to be in relation to vague concepts of collective rights and ethics.

66

"Even assuming the rest of your reasoning is fine, from “all A are B” and “all C are B” does not follow “all C are A”.

A = Capitalists, B = “people who support capitalism”, C = Anarchist socialists

If you really need a counter-example, take A = men, B = humans, C = women."
Do you not see how either way, this leads to the same conclusion? Either my logic is flawless and we have a contradiction, which means “voluntary trade” is not adequate for defining capitalism, or voluntary trade is a broad category that encompasses both socialism and capitalism, and is still inadequate. Just as human is not adequate criteria to differentiate men from women, voluntary trade is not adequate to differentiate capitalism from socialism. You are not pointing out flaws in my logic, but the logic presented here. See?

“Socialism - A social system based on institutionalised interference with or aggression against private property.”
A very certain type of private property that is. I tend to think that capitalism’s wage labor system is the defining characteristic. Private property has been supported by certain strains of socialism, and all the talk of negative rights and respecting the institution of property can be applied just as well to Mutualism. It is capitalism that makes an exception that allows absentee landlords, the ownership of more property than one can work, and wage labor where laborers are simply a production cost. That type of property is viewed as aggression against what Mutualists believe to be private property, just as communal ownership may be aggression against what capitalists deem to be legitimate property.

“All the above is approached through the non-aggression principle, ie aggression may only be used in ‘response’ to the ‘initiation’ of physical force against a person or their property.”
This is also the starting point of socialist thought. That property has been stolen from the laborer, subsistence farmer, renter, indigenous, etc., and if you look at the history of capitalism (things like the enclosure movement, the extraction of resources during the colonial period), it’s extremely hard to argue that claim. Moreover, now that capital and property have been acquired by violence, the maintenance of said property rests upon the threat of violence (if you squat this abandoned house, then the police will kick you out; if you eat food from my tree, the police will arrest you; if you stay on this land, the army will place you into reservations).

In a very individualist turn, private property in socialist thought rests upon the individual’s capacity to defend and maintain the land by themselves. For instance, I’m reasonably sure I could defend and maintain my house without having to resort to an external force (or without obliging others to protect it for me, regardless of how they are compensated). In an instance where more than one person works land or some sort of capital, then it belongs to them roughly proportional to the work they do. This even makes sense within the paradigm of homesteading. If more than one individual mixes their labor with land, then more than one should control it, no? How the two or more parties decide to proceed with decisions involving the land is up to them. Some people like democracy, I’ve always been a fan of informal consensus when it comes to collective projects.

Anarchism has never been about a disrespect or aggression against property, but a defense against aggression against property and those who work it. Proudhon even said, “the possessions of the rich are stolen property.” Theft and what is legitimate property have always been something of a starting point for anarchists.

67

voluntary trade is a broad category that encompasses both socialism and capitalism, and is still inadequate

Ugh, you proved your complicated posts were inconsistent, congratulations.

Back to the topic, the big difference between anarcho socialists and anarcho capitalists is that while capitalists embrace voluntary trade unconditionally, socialists allow it only until they like the results. The moment they spot some imaginary unfairness, they will jump and twist your arm EVEN if you were conducting a fully voluntary exchange. It’s like “you can have the car in any color provided it is black”.

68

You know, you could have just said, “I have no interesting or thoughtful ideas to add to this discussion and know very little to nothing about anti-authoritarian socialism.” Saves us both time. You get time preference, right?

69

“A very certain type of private property that is. I tend to think that capitalism’s wage labor system is the defining characteristic. Private property has been supported by certain strains of socialism, and all the talk of negative rights and respecting the institution of property can be applied just as well to Mutualism. It is capitalism that makes an exception that allows absentee landlords, the ownership of more property than one can work, and wage labor where laborers are simply a production cost.”

Are you saying that generally anarchists support private property as far as labor exchange, but when it comes to property titles such as land e.t.c they are re-distributive? Or land in excess of what one can use personally?

The definition of Socialism I used does not take into account values and justice, it is just a definition of the physical action inherent to Socialism.

“This is also the starting point of socialist thought. That property has been stolen from the laborer, subsistence farmer, renter, indigenous, etc., and if you look at the history of capitalism (things like the enclosure movement, the extraction of resources during the colonial period), it’s extremely hard to argue that claim. Moreover, now that capital and property have been acquired by violence, the maintenance of said property rests upon the threat of violence”

Thanks for this. Here lies the great philosophical divide in clarity.

So if I use my labor in exchange for some commodities (money), and transfer title of that money for a house that I keep empty, I am aggressing against you? And maintaining my property is actually a threat of violence against you?

This is just illogical mental gymnastics, an open door to justify any sort of violence and aggression against anyone and anything based on whims feelings and thoughts. That is why those with egalitarian envy and propensity towards domination over their fellow man are so drawn to Socialism.

btw I understand the point of stolen land from indigenous people, such as Palestinians who are actually still alive, but you have to draw the line. If you justify violence and aggression based on the fact that in distant history this piece of land was stolen somehow, then we all may as well just take to the streets with a hatchet.

And who is to be compensated? Am I to be compensated for actions taken against my great, great grandfather? It is this very concept that people go to war over vague links to ones ancestral land or feelings of social justice.

I’m not saying this is your position, and I can see Anarchists have very clear rules of what they consider to be just, but you just said that property was at some ‘stolen’ from farmers, renter, indigenous people e.t.c

Can you not see this entire concept is just the path to war and death, nothing more? Anarcho-capitalism gives very clear rules on property titles. A prosperous and safe society is what naturally evolves from adhering to these property rights.

And this is the other important difference - AnCaps do not recognize ‘groups’ such as farmers, renters, labourers e.t.c only individuals and individual rights. We see group identity as a surreptitiousway of one ‘group’ unjustly violating and appropriating property from individuals. Universal equality for all, not different rules.

70

“Are you saying that generally anarchists support private property as far as labor exchange, but when it comes to property titles such as land e.t.c they are re-distributive? Or land in excess of what one can use personally?”

In general, anarchists support private property in terms of what is being used or in some instances what is kept and maintained by an individual or group while not being used to extract profit from external use. There is no “redistribution” or anything of that matter. What is “private property” depends on who is using it, generally speaking.

“So if I use my labor in exchange for some commodities (money), and transfer title of that money for a house that I keep empty, I am aggressing against you? And maintaining my property is actually a threat of violence against you?”

There are a number of things to consider in this example. The most obvious being how you expect to keep and maintain an abandoned, or absentee, property without depending upon force. It would be disingenuous to suppose that force is a last resort in this case. As someone who lives in an area with a lot of empty buildings, I can fairly say that even with the threat of force, it’s incredibly hard to keep squatters out of a building. So from the get go, this type of ownership does not resort to force if need be, but relies on force in order to exist. So while it is not a direct aggression against me, it rests upon the threat of aggression. This type of property cannot be maintained without outsourcing defense to a third party.

Next there is what the effect of holding absentee land or real estate has on the local market. You have, even in a marginal case, control of rent and to some extent property values. The concern of socialists has not been how to justify or numb the effects of rent, interest, or control, but to minimize or abolish them altogether. The obvious question is why would someone hold absentee land other than as a way to exert control over the real estate market?

71

“In general, anarchists support private property in terms of what is being used or in some instances what is kept and maintained by an individual or group while not being used to extract profit from external use. There is no “redistribution” or anything of that matter. What is “private property” depends on who is using it, generally speaking.”

I see. What happens if an individual buys a new house, but decides to rent out their old house to another under a voluntary agreement to recieve physical goods, ie money?

Under Anarchism does this mean he is extracting profit and thus not allowed? And what actions are then taken to rectify this situation.

72

“I see. What happens if an individual buys a new house, but decides to rent out their old house to another under a voluntary agreement to recieve physical goods, ie money?”

Generally speaking, this arrangement is frowned upon, but perhaps not always. The relationship between the home owner and the old house matters quite a bit. If the home owner is the person doing the bulk of the maintenance work on the house and keeping it up, they still have a very legitimate claim to that house. The rent paid in this case is simply to cover maintenance and work, not just the existence of capital.

Now the important thing to note, is that this is not disallowed as there is no sovereign entity to disallow anything. But let’s get to what the consequences would be…

“Under Anarchism does this mean he is extracting profit and thus not allowed? And what actions are then taken to rectify this situation.”

The relationship between the homeowner and the home is the deciding factor in whether or not there is profit, but that’s not the important part.

Rather than “under Anarchism” where some body comes and crushes arrangements from above, in a case with typical anarchist property relations this renter/homeowner relationship would not be disallowed, but in the case of rent strike, renters would have a pretty good case for why the property is theirs or why they shouldn’t pay rent (depending of course on the relationship between the home owner and the home). The point is not to disallow arrangements everyone is happy with, but to help explain why folks who can’t pay their rent continue to squat their apartments or foreclosures, and why they should have a claim to their property.

73

So, anyone showing up anywere or holding/controlling anything at any point in time has a “valid” claim to such location/property and socialists are concerned about making everyone happy? Presumably there’s a Central Committee optimally allocating such happiness? Or would it be achieved via a decentralized socialistic free-for-all? Sounds intriguing.

74

I now understand the theory a lot more. There is no ‘State’ that will come along and appropriate property from people like under the various forms of Socialism. It is more a ‘hands on’ approach to property titles, where what a person is currently using, living or working with can be under dispute as to it’s ownership.

Is there a defining line as to what consitutes exploitation in this theory or is it more vague?

But you certainly cannot you claim there is no redistribution of anything. In these cases there is an involuntary transfer (theft) of property titles, whether land or other goods, based on the whims of percieved social justice.

Putting aside value and moral judgements, what do Anarchists see the economic effects will be? Do they think that society will be more productive and prosperous (like Socialists do) or do they accept a poorer more humble standard of living as the price to pay for Anarchism?

75

“Is there a defining line as to what consitutes exploitation in this theory or is it more vague?”

Exploitation is a very tricky word. There is no objective measurement of it, as far as I know, in almost any theory. I try to avoid the word exploitation as it carries with it the image of abused laborers and renters waiting in line for soup, which can be distracting from what the point actually is.

The point is that laborers et al simply allow people to extract profit from what is theirs, and it is only through their consent, vocal or otherwise, that capitalists and governments continue to exist.

“But you certainly cannot you claim there is no redistribution of anything. In these cases there is an involuntary transfer (theft) of property titles, whether land or other goods, based on the whims of percieved social justice.”

Sure, but if we go by those terms then it’s pretty hard to say capitalism doesn’t involve redistribution as well. Just as there a plenty of landlords that let their property fester and become overtaken by squatters, there are plenty of people who “go quietly” when it comes to eviction. But there are also people who openly resist eviction and do not consent in anyway to the entire ordeal. Just like workers may withdraw their consent from a labor contract and begin to sell what they produce directly. The voluntaryness of the situation is a bunk point because there will always be some instance where people disagree on what is fair, or what the contract stated, or what was agreed upon. And a whole number of solutions can be granted legitimacy.

“Putting aside value and moral judgements, what do Anarchists see the economic effects will be? Do they think that society will be more productive and prosperous (like Socialists do) or do they accept a poorer more humble standard of living as the price to pay for Anarchism?”

Depends on the Anarchist. Most of the individualist anarchists did not really care for large industry and production and were content to have owner-occupied subsistence farming and artisan economies. The anarchists across Europe in the 30’s and in Latin America now have continued to produce in worker managed factories with less overhead costs, more jobs, and better conditions. I think it would most likely make a few people less rich and most people richer or have no effect at all. From there whether or not one wants to live like a small time artisan or a large-scale producer/consumer is up to them.

76

“The point is that (people) simply allow people to extract profit from what is theirs…”

Like when a firm pays their employees, the firm is allowing these people to extract profit from what is theirs?

“Just like workers may withdraw their consent from a labor contract and begin to sell what they produce directly.”

So these workers can sell and produce high order goods like an automobile, refrigerator, or stove? Why do they work in a corporate owned sweaty factory then?

“Most of the individualist anarchists did not really care for large industry and production and were content to have owner-occupied subsistence farming and artisan economies.”

Were these individualist anarchists forcibly removed from their farms and workshops or did they fade away like in Utopia, Ohio?

"The anarchists across Europe in the 30’s and in Latin America now have continued to produce in worker managed factories with less overhead costs, more jobs, and better conditions. "

Give me a free factory and starting inventory and we’ll all be rockin and rollin at least untill the factory wears out.

77

“So these workers can sell and produce high order goods like an automobile, refrigerator, or stove? Why do they work in a corporate owned sweaty factory then?”

Then can and they do in many cases. There are some famous factory expropriations in Argentina that are continuing right now. Why they don’t every where probably has to do with a lot of things, not wanting to confront the law for one. When your choices are simply to keep your head down and work for a wage versus attempt to expropriate a factory and risk jail time, a beat down from the police, or possibly death it’s no wonder why most people don’t. But those that have done so are doing quite well. Perfect or utopian? No. Better than before? Yes.

“Were these individualist anarchists forcibly removed from their farms and workshops or did they fade away like in Utopia, Ohio?”

In many instances, yes. There was the enclosure movement in England, the state sponsored and subsidized land grab in the states, and multiple lockouts and enclosures during the first Great Depression at the hand of banks and the state.

“Give me a free factory and starting inventory and we’ll all be rockin and rollin at least untill the factory wears out.”

Wouldn’t we all love a free factory and starting inventory? Of course, to claim that the workers such as those in Argentina got their factories for “free” would be a little disingenuous. If you ignore the years of work they put into them, all the legal battles they faced, the purchase of raw materials from other cooperatives (that’s right, they purchased their inventory), and the constant maintenance and repair that any real estate requires, then maybe we can say it’s “free.” However, all that work compared to some money shuffling hands between the IMF and the state or a factory owner makes the latter look a little more “free” than the former.

78

So armed robbery is ok with you?

79

“The anarchists across Europe in the 30’s and in Latin America now have continued to produce in worker managed factories with less overhead costs, more jobs, and better conditions. I think it would most likely make a few people less rich and most people richer or have no effect at all.”

If I was able to steal someone elses property and unjustly enrich myself, then yes, I would have less overheads, better conditions, and could expand my own business and create more jobs.

Whats you are missing is ‘that which is what is not seen’. You only see the narrow aspect of a few people benefiting at the expense of a rich capitalist. What you ignore is the overall economic effect of such acts.

The economic effect of Anarchism is this… With a culture of violation and appropriation of property the time preference of individuals changes. There becomes less incentive to invest, produce and contract, because the returns on such activities have been lowered. There is then less production, less investment, less contracting. The end result is more poverty and an overall fall in the standard of living.

If you like the hard subsistance lifestyle, this is fine, but do not expect to easily afford TV’s, washing machines, a new stainless steel fireplace or any good than involves heavy industry or a long chain of production. Simply because the incentive of entrepreneurs to produce such complex goods have now been lowered, thus such goods will become much more scarce, expensive and unnafforable to buy, relative to standard income.

200 years ago it took 6 months of labor to buy a pair of leather boots, but now it only takes 1 day of labor to purchase those same boots. The reason why the cost was so high relative to labor back then was the lack of industry, factories, capital and investment.

The economic effects of institutionalized property theft that Anarchism proposes will eventually lead to scarcity of production and a higher amount of labor required to purchase everyday goods.

Are you able to actually see this? Or have you made up your mind to deny the reality of the incentive structure of how and why humans actually act, and what the economic effects will be.

80

Socialism - A social system based on institutionalised interference with or aggression against private property.

Capitalism - A social system based on explicit recognition of private property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between private property owners.

You could reverse this:

Socialism - A social system based on explicit recognition of another’s right to unused property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between individuals.

Capitalism - A social system based on institutionalised protection of private property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between private property owners.

If everyone were permitted to freely take from one another, and everyone held this belief, then there would be little violence or poverty. It is only when one prevents someone from stealing that violence enters into the equation. No one would amass wealth as those stolen from would be free to take their possessions back. Those with less would be more willing to spend their time stealing, whereas those with more would be the first to realize that stealing was a waste of time. Once equilibrium is reached, production would continue as normal as it would take less time to produce something new than it would be to steal something only to have the person (who now has less and thus needs it more) steal it back. Of course anarcho-communists wouldn’t think of it as stealing, but as sharing. Once people stop valuing their labor for what material gains it brings them, they will start valuing it for intrinsic reasons. People will view farming or construction as a means of exercise, software development and engineering as intellectual stimulation. In fact, creativity flourishes more when external rewards are removed, as the following video demonstrates: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html. To say that creative activity must be rewarded is to devalue creative activity. You only reward people for doing things they don’t want to do otherwise. A society that rewards creativity is a society that wants to receive the fruits of creativity without engaging in creativity. It is a society whose highest ideal is to be a fat, mindless consumer who never engages in any creative or productive activity but has everything brought to him. It is a society that sees work as nothing but an unfortunate task that must be done to acheive this ideal.