Emergence Anarcho-Capitalism

Economics Political Theory
161

“Not to jump into another discussion, but that’s a rather lame argument. I believe the point of preservation is to preserve. Homesteading a rainforest is not exactly perservation. If there’s anything modern day monopoly capitalism can teach us, it’s that preservation tends to be marginally profitable solely for PR reasons compared to ludicrous endeavors such as the tar sands or fracking.”

I would agree with both these sentences. Even if preservation is not “profitable” I think both left and right anarchists should be almost forced to agree that radical decentralization is the best way for a community to tell what ought and ought not be preserved. As a free marketeer, the impotant qualifier I would add right now is that everything is waaaaay to centralized in this world to start to even begin to contemplate how any of this would shape out in the long run in a more decentralized society.

“Then I have absolutely no problem. My point is that the factory owner only maintains their control by the consent of the workers and/or the threat and use of force. There is absolutely no reason to believe you own something if you yourself cannot reasonably defend it”

A good way to think about this is all that exists is due to force, regardless of the situation. There is no voluntary or involuntary, there is only assertions of atomic facts. The laws are determined by the facts, not things. Nothing can be said in a void universally about the “oughts” of factory workers or factory owners. All that can be said is the atomic facts of individual human action - “factory workers” probably falls under the category of a metaphore or a tautology with little use. Everything that exists is “reasonable”.

162

“A good way to think about this is all that exists is due to force, regardless of the situation. There is no voluntary or involuntary, there is only assertions of atomic facts. The laws are determined by the facts, not things. Nothing can be said in a void universally about the “oughts” of factory workers or factory owners. All that can be said is the atomic facts of individual human action - “factory workers” probably falls under the category of a metaphore or a tautology with little use. Everything that exists is ‘reasonable.’”

I would agree with most of this. I trend towards occupancy and use because it relies much less on “external force,” I suppose would be the phrase. That is, it does not require an auxillary force solely for the intent of defense. By “reasonably defend” I mean that barring a large group of people invading land that someone lays a claim to they can defend it. A large, organinzed take over is something anyone would have to worry about. In cases where occ/use types of owenrship have been practiced or semi-recognized have never, to my knowledge, encountered any kind of resistance outside of the state. It just seems to make more sense to me as a way people actually behave in regards to property.

163

“History, I’m afraid, is not on your side of that statement.”

The free cities of the Hanseatic trading league. Medievil Ireland, City States of Northern Italy, Flanders, early days of US.

All the above were Anarchistic by having no State or very distant State, disputes were arbitraged and settled locally and voluntarily. All had strong cultures of protection of property rights in land and physical goods. All ecnomically prospered in comparison to neighbouring ‘strong’ states which practiced continual property violations against their subjects.

So here we have many examples, some lasting hundreds of years, where the individualistic culture of strong property rights kept the leviathan State at bay from forming.

Now what examples can you show me of Stateless or minimal state Anarchism, that has persisted for any length of time with a culture of occ/use?

164

Is it possible to control the means of production “in such a way” without government involvment/intervention in the marketplace, i.e. is there a difference between anarcho-/laissez-faire capitalism and the “capitalism” we have today?

Could you elaborate?

So you think it`s alright that anyone with enough muscle/coerceive power(i.e. enough to topple whomever is defending something), to confiscate anything they want?

Cant there be some value(profit) in just leaving the wilderness to its self, i.e. without human intervention/involvement?

165

I’m not familiar with every examle you provided, but I’d like to examine the few that I am…

“…City States of Northern Italy…”

City states were Anarchistic, eh? I’d like to see some elaboration on that.

“…early days of US…”

This one I’m quite familiar with, and in order to even begin to discuss it’s merits you’d have to ignore some major violations of self-ownership and autonomy. Are you forgetting or just hoping that no one brings up that the early US economy, especially in the South, was widely dependent on slavery? And let’s not forget the contractual acrobatics associated with indentured servitude, in which indentured servants could likely die during servitude, have their time extended at any time, and were often abused and beaten much like slaves. If we can deal with that, then maybe we can start talking about if the US was remotely Anarchistic. Most historians would say it was not.

“Now what examples can you show me of Stateless or minimal state Anarchism, that has persisted for any length of time with a culture of occ/use?”

Barcelona comes to mind, not because of its longevity, but because it kept almost every promise made by the Anarchist movement while fighting a multiple front war. The reason I believe it’s a good example is that despite being under the pressure of warfare, the Anarchists in Barcelona still have incredibly few instances where they used force against themselves or dissenters if there are any. Were capitalist property rights violated? Yes. They most certainly were. But occ/use property rights were not. If you’re argument is simply that occ/use is a violation of capitalist property rights, then you’ll have no argument from me. I couldn’t agree more. But to suggest it leads to widespread theft within itself is ludicrous. By the same token I could suggest that capitalist property rights lead to widespread violation of occ/use property, but that would be pointless and confusing.

More sustainable examples include the cooperative movement in Argentina, the rise of small independent time banks (very close to mutual banking itself), the (in)famous squatters movement in NYC of the 80’s (12 of which still exist today) and across the globe in places such as Exarcheia, and Anglican adverese possession in common law. Squatting for political reasons or simply out of necessity is nothing new, and occ/use is the basis of it. It has been repressed by the state more than any other institution, yet continues to prosper as a tactic.

“Is it possible to control the means of production “in such a way” without government involvment/intervention in the marketplace, i.e. is there a difference between anarcho-/laissez-faire capitalism and the “capitalism” we have today?”

I am unsure. I use capitalism in the sense of capitalism as it exists right now. I have already explained why I don’t think capitalism as such could exist in a market free from authoritarian institutions and social relations.

“So you think it`s alright that anyone with enough muscle/coerceive power(i.e. enough to topple whomever is defending something), to confiscate anything they want?”

I am not making a value judgement as such. My argument is that capitalism as such exists through state force and tacit consent. I am not arguing that people are necessarily justified in using muscle to seize land and/or capital in every instance, but only that without state force I’m guessing they would based on examples of the past.

“Cant there be some value(profit) in just leaving the wilderness to its self, i.e. without human intervention/involvement?”

Let’s not blur the lines between value and profit, just for the sake of a clear discussion. I would argue that there is value in leaving nature as it is, but not necessarily profit in terms of cash, commodities, or capital.

166

Homesteading is simply the means of acquring ownership. Preservation is a choice made by an individual. That certain production processes yield higher profits results from the preferences of individual consumers alone, on a free market.

Preservation only makes sense if a resource is to be preserved for a future market. If we are preserving resources “for a future generation,” and that is the most moral action to take, then when that future generation arrives they must also preserve resources for a further future generation. The preservation agrument, as put forth by socialists is an argument to not use any resources ever.

167

“The preservation agrument, as put forth by socialists is an argument to not use any resources ever.”

What is the preservation argument put forth by socialists? I think you’ll find many conservation groups to be full of typically right-wing folks such as hunters that also belong to the NRA.

168

There you go. Anarchism in Barcelona, which lasted for not more than a handful of years. And small groups in Argentina fighting against the State, which is running the place like a mix between socialism and feudalism.

Is that the best you have?

My examples certainly were not perfect, to be sure, but they show the longevity of a social system that had a distant State, co-operatively local form of dispute arbitration, and respect for individual property rights.

I would say your preferred method of occ/use has been tried many times in our past but has not lasted more than a score of years or been recorded in the history books.

Why? Not liking empirical examples…

  1. The incentives to aquire property and capital via occ/use have been raised, while the incentive to work hard and forgoe consumption to create or purchase such property / capital have been lowered.

  2. A culture that condones man to apropriate property based on occ/use will lead to a change in the character structure of society, a change that accepts such property rights violations as being just.

Responding to the incentive (1) there will be ever more groups looking to aquire property and capital by just their use of it. And due to changes in social norms (2) you will soon have various groups agitating for far more property rights violations, even those directly in contradiction to the original ideals of Anarchist occ/use.

The steps from here into a full blown socialism of all property and the rise of a dictatorial elite, will be quick.

You may argue that the ideal utopian man will not act like this. But here we deal with current reality…give man an inch and he will take a mile. Condone even slight variants of property rights violations, and man will find excuse to commit ever more.

169

“Anarchism in Barcelona, which lasted for not more than a handful of years.”

Technically, it had been happening since the 1900’s and was at its peak for a handful of years.

“And small groups in Argentina fighting against the State, which is running the place like a mix between socialism and feudalism.”

What? First of all, there are probably now close to a hundred workers cooperatives in Buenos Aires. Second, where does this socialism and feudalism example come from?

“Responding to the incentive (1) there will be ever more groups looking to aquire property and capital by just their use of it. And due to changes in social norms (2) you will soon have various groups agitating for far more property rights violations, even those directly in contradiction to the original ideals of Anarchist occ/use.”

Those would be hard to answer to, that is, if they had any reflection in reality at all. Why don’t you explain how either of these played out in Barcelona or Buenos Aires, or how it has affected New York City.

I feel like we’re discussing two separate realities. I am discussing pros and cons as they actually happened or are happening whereas you are listing off what are perhaps logical conclusions to draw, but that have little to no basis in reality as it is happening now.

“My examples certainly were not perfect, to be sure, but they show the longevity of a social system that had a distant State, co-operatively local form of dispute arbitration, and respect for individual property rights.”

So you’re just ignoring slavery and indentured servitude, and the fact that women couldn’t own property in the US, and adverse possession in common law. You’ve got quite a filter there. Moreover you haven’t answered to the fact of the Italian city states being medieval communes that functioned on partial democracy and partial feudalism. Your examples are not simply imperfect, they are bogus. You’ve simply picked a few societies that had longevity on their side, and then if they had a property system you like you’ve chalked their success up to that while ignoring the glaring flaws that were intrinsic to their stability.

170

“What? First of all, there are probably now close to a hundred workers cooperatives in Buenos Aires. Second, where does this socialism and feudalism example come from?”

Im saying the State itself in those areas is run like a mixture of Socialism and Feudalism. Those co-op groups are agitating for your method of social justice WITHIN that system.
Once the State is removed, would they still abide by just apropriating land and capital from rich rentiers? Or move to a wholesale socialism of property? Or move to the anarcho-capitalist system of property rights? We do not know, and as such it is a poor example of just wishful future hopes.

“Those would be hard to answer to, that is, if they had any reflection in reality at all. Why don’t you explain how either of these played out in Barcelona or Buenos Aires, or how it has affected New York City.”

Regarding Barca and Buenos Aires, it has played out exactly as the logical deduction (2). A culture of collective Socialism regarding everyday property rights is heavily apparent in political discourse in those areas.

“So you’re just ignoring slavery and indentured servitude, and the fact that women couldn’t own property in the US, and adverse possession in common law. You’ve got quite a filter there. Moreover you haven’t answered to the fact of the Italian city states being medieval communes that…”

As I said they are not perfect examples at all. I asked you to post any examples of partial anarchistic occ/use, and you still continously refer back to a few hundres collective squat ins of factories in Argentina as your best examples.

You may actually want to brush up on the real historical rise of european capitalism, how the workers and merchants escaped the feudal landlords and moved to these free cities. A place where they could work and trade voluntarily with each other without feudal bondage, and actually own their own property without fear of having it stolen by a monarch overlord.
The anarchistic growth of these cities involved local dispute arbitration, and strong social respect for property rights, all crucial elements that led to long stability and prosperous economic growth.

Of course there was limited rights for women, and slavery, but these were products of the era, and it was the economic and social liberalization of these free societies that led to those attitudes being changed. So do not take them out of context to attack the validity of what occurred.

The lack of respect for property rights in land and capital would have stopped any of this human progress.

171

“Those co-op groups are agitating for your method of social justice WITHIN that system.”

Ah, I see. So Anarcho-capitalism within statism is acceptable, but any other form of anarchism is not. Now I get it.

"You may actually want to brush up on the real historical rise of european capitalism, how the workers and merchants escaped the feudal landlords and moved to these free cities. A place where they could work and trade voluntarily with each other without feudal bondage, and actually own their own property without fear of having it stolen by a monarch overlord.
The anarchistic growth of these cities involved local dispute arbitration, and strong social respect for property rights, all crucial elements that led to long stability and prosperous economic growth.

Of course there was limited rights for women, and slavery, but these were products of the era, and it was the economic and social liberalization of these free societies that led to those attitudes being changed. So do not take them out of context to attack the validity of what occurred.

The lack of respect for property rights in land and capital would have stopped any of this human progress."

I have never seen someone be so entirely dismissive of something like slavery. You point to the US as an example of near ideal anarchism?

Property rights in the early states included protections for slave holders. I point to a few short-lived or still young examples, yet you point to the US during a time where slaves, servants, and peasants were barely any more free than they were under feudalism as your ideal! I’ll take a handful of years before being crushed rather than a longterm society that still needs to abolish slavery.

You may actually want to double take at the early US economy. I went through high school, so I’ve heard your neoliberal version of history where supposedly free trade is the driving force behind everything happy and good. The fact of the matter is that the South was dependent on slave labor. Without slave labor, the southern economy would be radically different than it is now. States like Virginia were established as corporate states, aimed at making profit, and they were dependent upon cheap (or free) labor in order to prosper. The US economy and its continuation was based on respecting property rights and power relationships as they existed, not as they could be. After slavery, most African-Americans were kept economically dependent, and black farmers continue to face discrimination. One of your “imperfect” examples is one that was dependent upon a direct violation of self-ownership, the foundation of your philosophy(!).

And you want to talk about the rise of European city states? The ones that maintained lords and royal families? I will not argue that free trade didn’t occur most of the time in Medieval city states. What I will argue is that their property rights looked anything like yours. Royal families could (and did) appropriate land at any time, tax as they saw fit, and continue to do most of what they did as feudal lords.

The best examples you can offer are not even 20th century. And they’re examples in which slavery, no property rights for women, and fucking royalty were necessary for their day-to-day functions.

172

“Ah, I see. So Anarcho-capitalism within statism is acceptable, but any other form of anarchism is not. Now I get it.”

The Argentine analogy I would give is the current Tea Party movement in the USA. Much talk about freedom and justice for the individual and property rights. But if they ever collectively took power they would immediately implement something very different to what they promote.

I would not presume to point at the Tea Party movement as a great example of how freedom and individual liberty will spring up in the absence of a State, because they are obviously closet Conservative Statists. Just like the Argentine co-ops will turn out to be Socialist Statists.

“I have never seen someone be so entirely dismissive of something like slavery. You point to the US as an example of near ideal anarchism?”

Firstly, it is not my near ideal at all, and secondly, your arguements are so pathetic you must continually bring up 3 paragraphs about slavery as if it somehow invalidates the previous points. To accept the reality of slavery as being a way of life during that era is not the same as to condone it.

So get of your horse of self-rightousness.

“And you want to talk about the rise of European city states? The ones that maintained lords and royal families? I will not argue that free trade didn’t occur most of the time in Medieval city states. What I will argue is that their property rights looked anything like yours. Royal families could (and did) appropriate land at any time, tax as they saw fit, and continue to do most of what they did as feudal lords.”

The period of time we are talking about was 18-19th century. And yes free trade did NOT occur, there was a system of Mercantalism in place, with caste and craft restrictions, with labor bonded to the land.

It was in this period of repression that led to peasants looking to escape the feudal fiefdoms. People moved to where the State was minimal or nonexistant, where they could be free to own property and work for themselves instead of a lord.

I already mentioned which areas in Europe this was. This was generally not under the exploiting lords, ladies and royal families you are referring to. That is why these fringe areas prospered, because of their anarchist type of governence and freedom, while the traditional areas under strong feudal control was left far behind economically and in respect for human rights.

I presume this is all new to you, it is not the European history that is taught in school, which usually glorifies the militarism of the various royal families, and promotes all progress as being the product of the State.

173

It was in this period of repression that led to peasants looking to escape the feudal fiefdoms. People moved to where the State was minimal or nonexistant, where they could be free to own property and work for themselves instead of a lord.

Somehow I don’t see anything about the Enclosure Acts in here; a law which is generally regarded as the spark that tipped off the industrial revolution. But hey, when you accept a culture that defines history as it wishes, it is expected that you would define the Enclosure Acts as “peasants freely fleeing their oppressive states.”

174

"Somehow I don’t see anything about the Enclosure Acts in here; a law which is generally regarded as the spark that tipped off the industrial revolution. But hey, when you accept a culture that defines history as it wishes, it is expected that you would define the Enclosure Acts as “peasants freely fleeing their oppressive states.”

I have not referring to, or mentioned England at all. Your point?

175

“the exploitation of the labour of others”

Ergo, if you make it, it belongs to you.

If you are paid to make it, you’re employer has enslaved you and stolen your property.

Marx was all about logical fail wasn’t he?

176

““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.”

Proudhon’s refutation of interest is QED.

177

So you are referring to individual acts in which people independently escaped their oppressors within the statist system? I don’t see how squatting is any less credible in that instance, since it has a long history, and there are squats far past their salad days across the globe. Your conclusions about Argentine coops are nothing more than baseless assumptions seeing as how the coop movement is also at the forefront of the anti-voting movement and almost exclusively gets repressed by the state, as opposed to the Tea Party who has yet to do anything outside of fundraising and protesting, and is obedient to the state.

Moreover, you have yet to show that the peasants that fled their feudal lords respected property beyond occ/use. Artisans owned their means of production. Peasants worked the land they lived on. They were fleeing lords of the land. How does that add up?

178

The argument I was just paraphrasing. Maybe you didn’t read the post.

Umm, I guess this is a marketing victory for the conservation groups?

179

What I’m saying is I didn’t know that there was a unified socialist position on conservation, and that, whatever that argument is, a lot of (perhaps even mostly in some groups) right-wing folks seem to agree.

180

While thinking of the ‘Enclosure Acts’, how about another piece of British feudalist exploitation, the ‘Statute of Artificers’

C****ONTROLS U****NDER E****LIZABETH

A few case studies will illustrate the nature of mercantilism, the reasons for mercantilist decrees, and some of the consequences that they brought to the economy.

One important part of mercantilist policy was wage controls. In the fourteenth century, the Black Death killed one-third of the laboring population of England, and naturally brought sharp advances in wage rates. Wage controls came in as wage-ceilings, in desperate attempts by the ruling classes to coerce wage rates below their market rates. And since the vast bulk of employed laborers were agricultural workers, this was clearly legislation for the benefit of the feudal landlords and to the detriment of the workers.

TEXTILES VS. A****GRICULTURE

The result was a persistent shortage of agricultural and other unskilled laborers for centuries, a shortage mitigated by the fact that the English government did not try to enforce the laws very rigorously. When Queen Elizabeth tried to enforce the wage controls strictly, the agricultural labor shortage was aggravated, and the landlords found their statutory privileges defeated by the more subtle laws of the market. Consequently, Elizabeth passed, in 1563, the famous Statute of Artificers, imposing comprehensive labor control.

Attempting to circumvent the shortage caused by previous interventions, the statute installed forced labor on the land. It provided that: (1) whoever had worked on the land until the age of 12 be compelled to remain there and not leave for work at any other trade; (2) all craftsmen, servants, and apprentices who had no great reputation in their fields be forced to harvest wheat; and (3) unemployed persons were compelled to work as agricultural laborers. In addition, the statute prohibited any worker from quitting his job unless he had a license proving that he had already been hired by another employer. And, furthermore, justices of the peace were ordered to set maximum wage rates, geared to changes in the cost of living.

The statute also acted to restrict the growth of the woolen textile industry; this benefited two groups: the landlords, who would no longer lose laborers to industry and suffer the pressure of paying higher wage rates, and the textile industry itself, which received the privilege of keeping out the competition of new firms or new craftsmen. The coerced immobility of labor, however, led to suffering for all workers, including textile craftsmen; and to remedy the latter, Queen Elizabeth imposed a minimum wage law for textile craftsmen, thundering all the while that the wicked clothing manufacturers were responsible for the craftsmen’s plight. Fortunately, textile employers and workers persisted in agreeing on terms of employment below the artificially-set wage rate, and heavy textile unemployment did not yet arise.

E****NFORCING B****AD L****AWS

The programs of wage controls could not cause undue dislocations until they were stringently enforced, and this came to pass under King James I, the first Stuart king of England. Upon assuming the throne in 1603, James decided to enforce the Elizabethan control program with great stringency, including extremely heavy penalties against employers. Rigorous enforcement was imposed on minimum wage controls for textile craftsmen, and on maximum wage decrees for agricultural laborers and servants.

The consequences were the inevitable result of tampering with the laws of the market: chronic severe unemployment throughout the textile industry, coupled with a chronic severe shortage of agricultural labor. Misery and discontent spread throughout the land. Citizens were fined for paying their servants more than ceiling wages, and servants fined for accepting the pay. James, and his son Charles I, decided to stem the tide of unemployment in textiles by compelling employers to remain in business even when they were losing money. But even though many employers were jailed for infractions, such Draconian measures could not keep the textile industry from depression, stagnation, and unemployment. Certainly the consequences of the policy of wage controls was one of the reasons for the overthrow of the Stuart tyranny in the mid-seventeenth century.

Murray N. Rothbard