I disagree. Limited government and capitalism are great places to start. Radicalism appeals to a small minority. The real work, the long hard, unglamorous work is shifting the middle closer to liberty. People chew before they swallow. Give it to them in bite sizes.
All I can say is, I claim confession and true belief by any means… yep, I’m one of those Austrians the Catoites warned you about! [:O]
-Jon
Yes, because capitalism to a socialist does not at all appear radical.
[8-)]
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
- Sun Tzu
I would read “the communist manifesto” if you haven’t. You should have solid working knowledge of the book, the strengths and flaws.
This is very wise advice. If you want to gain extra “good will” points from socialists, quote from the Communist Manifesto. It can really show them that you have considered the alternatives to your position and you will seem less like a simple partisan.
Ditto, great quote.
Thanks everyone for the advice. I’ll let you know if anything fruitful comes of the discussion.
I dug up my old copy of the Communist Manifesto to better familiarize myself with their point of view. However ironic this may sound, that book was required reading on the first day of the first lecture of my college career, so its been awhile. Oh, how far I have ventured off since then.
Hi everyone,
I’m new on this board.
My will to reply was motivated by the thread title. To my opinion, if you want an oldschool communist (ie Marxist) not to look down on anarchy then I think you shouldn’t mix ideology and so-called gouvernance form or society (anarchy/communist state) and economic matters (free market/planned economy). Even if marxism was born from economics studies, the term defines the society, the utopia and the means of reaching the ideal of worker class based society by proclaiming the proletarian dictatorship. If its convictions are mainly leading him to think that the perfect society is this one then tell him about Mikhail Bakounine who belonged to the 1st International, who was called anarchist but yet embraced or should I say didn’t misregard this ideal but thought that if revolution there is (Marxism doesn’t have meanings in reforms and progressive changes) then it 's not necessary to go through the step “dictatorship” for that society to exist. And even then, when the revolution would have succeeded the fundation of a communist state is not essential for the communist society to exist. I won’t teach you nothing about that I guess but the only difference between communism and anarcho-communism (Bakounine being the father of this branch) is the form, the question of state/non-state the communist society should wear but they merely share the same goal. If this guy is a true marxist, the only way to have a healthy talk with him is to make him admit that anarchy is a good idea, maybe not the best one without talking about the whole ideology thing, without even questionning socialism.
Anyway, I’d just like to write some comments. And this is just about the ideas some of you seems to share here, I mean anarcho-capitalism. I don’t know if it’s the right place to do this but who cares, not me obviously but no offense. I’m just wandering if you guys are really anarchists. I mean do you really share an ideology which is based on liberty, self-determination which is the backbone of anarchy by defending liberalism and saying that the society will progressively change from it to reach anarchy. I mean is really everybody’s freedom your concern? Or do you just take anarchy cause it means no state, no one above anyone? Once again no offense, I claim myself to be an anarchist but I’ve never really focused on anarcho-capitalism and what I may ask or say is just naive but for me, anarchy and capitalism in term of free-trade are antinomic. To my point I’d say that free-trade is one form of state as is god/governement/politic party…It is and is meant to be above all men and you never reach liberty through slavery. The only reason why it could be associated to a so-called anarchism is because states, nations and governements are brakes for liberal economy. But an ungoverned society formed through free-market is not anarchy it can only be some form of corporatism or whatever but with a master who would have taken the place of the former one. Anarchy is in all it’s form a “ni Dieu ni maître” idea. If it’s not the case what you’re fighting for have forgotten individuals and freedom on the road. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your ideas but that how I understand it right now. For me anarcho-capitalism is what caused the formation of the word “libertarianism” in opposition to liberalism.
If you are anarchists I think you will understand the difference in point of view or misunderstanding without being pissed off. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have misunderstood the idea and I’d wish you good luck with your fight even if I hope not to see its achievement.
Be sure to read Hoppe’s essay on Austrian and Marxist class analysis; explain why the problem with Marxism is not so much in the premises as in the conclusions (e.g. LTV, man as a purely political animal, &c.).
From personal experience: I’m guessing that when you get to ‘private property’ on Charles Anthony’s list, your interlocutor will attempt to distinguish between private property (something like a factory) and personal property (something like a car which is deemed ownable because it is “necessary”).
And of course they will insist that in capitalism workers are exploited, albeit invisibly, and that the term necesarily means something other than voluntary exchange between individuals for mutual benefit. (No extraneous opinion needed, Niccolo).
How can free trade between individuals be anything but anarchic? Some forms of anarcho-capitalism are anti-state (e.g. Hoppe’s), others go deeper than that (e.g. Roderick Long’s.) Given that no one will be forced to go with either model, both are equally respectful of liberty. The idea that everyone must be banned from engaging in free trade is about as antithetical to liberty as things can get, Marxist proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding.
-Jon
Corporatism, IMHO, is the collusion/collaboration between government and businesses to create and/or enforce monopolies and coercion for goods and/or services. In anarchy, there is no overarching government body. In a true free market, all exchanges are voluntary. Regardless of intention, ie whether government and business collusion/collaboration is mandated for the benefit of the people or the benefit of the businesses, corporatism will perpetuate any given problem it deems to solve.
What is the difference between Hoppe’s and Long’s positions of anarcho-capitalism in a nutshell?
Limited government is the worst place to start, because it starts with an injustice. Justice and freedom are the only place to start, and capitalism naturally emerges from that.
It may help you to know that “we” generally do not consider modern international commerce to be true free trade.
True free trade is free of government privilege or any other coercion. Therefore, “free trade” is just a synonym for an anarchist transaction. It just stands to reason that there will not be restrictions between geographic areas if everybody is anarchist.
If your socialist brings up “free trade” then add it to the list of definitions.
Thanks Charles Anthony for this really simple but yet meaningfull answer. Indeed it was this point that I didn’t got. Now I may say that I could only agree with such form of exchange in a freed society…I mean: what means “free” if you impose anything and tribalism or microanarchy is called to extintion as 60’s-70’s experiments showed. Furthermore, I’m nothing but defending economy plannification as in communism even if, in the case you have to stuck with a government, it seems to show some advantages. I am living in France and here some forms of state controlled services existsand if it is well conducted it seems to be more benefic for people than what you can find in USA for instance. The only thing that bothers me is taking free trade as the key for building an anarchic society where I consider it should only stand as consequence and even then, collectivism is not that antithetic.
-
I don’t consider radicalism as appealling to a small minority, it’s true if you are marxist-leninist or trotskist but in general, radical anarchist ideas don’t see the revolution as a minority action over masses but more like a minority liberating themselves whatever the majority opinion is, even more with modernized anarchist idea like Hakim Bey’s TAZ. Revolution is not meant to last or propagate it is meant to be. The anarchy struggle is not a class struggle and therefore it is not a struggle so that anarchists lead the way it is just a liberation.
-
Limited government may be a great place to start but not if capitalism is strong. You can’t weaken a government if major trusts have already done it cause they have substituted repressive laws by theirs. The only way for me that you can achieve anarchy by reformation is through anarcho syndicalism and direct action and direct democracy but not by contributing to a system overflown by liberalism and in some way attending the big green ticket. “People chew before they swallow. Give it to them in bite sizes.” Sure but it’s better if bites taste like said on the menu and if the chef gives the recipe.
Hoppe is more socially conservative, and sees inequality as both inevitable and to a degree desirable, given the differences in the abilities of man. Long believes libertarianism requires more than just the NAP, but also a commitment to things such as feminism, worker empowerment &c. Basically Long is a leftist market anarchist, Hoppe is more of a conservative variety, and the way they present their ideas reflects this. This shouldn’t be taken as an absolute, as many of Hoppe’s ideas for instance are radical and would differ substantially from the status quo (e.g. Hoppe considers many of the present-day rich to be unworthy of their wealth.) It’s a matter of degree, really.
-Jon
Fascinating. Hoppe’s papers are making more sense given that he sees inequality as inevitable. His papers do reflect a form of respecting emergant elitism. I am curious to learn more on Long’s positions. Any suggestions for reading?
I don’t know if you could call it elitism. Perhaps you could call it anti-elitist elitism? When Hoppe makes mention of an elite, he means something more along the lines of an upstanding middle class family, for instance, rather than a Trump or a Hilton. This differs greatly from what is currently perceived as such. Elitism is a word for it, but I don’t think it quite captures the meaning he intends to convey. The current system is elitist in the extreme. As for Long, I’d suggest asking Geoffrey for some papers.
-Jon
Long’s Speech “Left and Right: 40 Years Later” is very informative on this matter.
That is a far better term, quite similar to Hoppe’s anti-intellectual intellectual.
Vienna,
I’ve often found the best way to prepare for a debate is to become as familiar as possible with the possible arguments and points the other party might use. You’ll need to have strong arguments in order to deal with someone who is familiar with the strengths of socialism. Socialism is about equality, which is a very popular ideal. While the market can create equality, it also can create very difficult situations for people who aren’t as economcically stable and can prop up unfairly those who are economically very comfortable. Socialism seeks to level the playing field to some degree by ensuring that people can dig themselves out of their holes and preventing the more econically powerful from victimizing the poor (among other things).
Consider the following argument:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/2498706-post48.html
This is an example of a very reasonable and strong argument for some government oversight. You should be prepared to address the points brought up in it.
I hope you both learn something from each other and come away more aware and with more broad perceptions of the world. That’s the sign of a good debate.