By all means show me how the Boshevik revolution wasn’t influenced by Marxism. By all means do tell who you follow in terms of socialist theory. I’ve read a work by nearly all. If it is in the 20th century then by and large it is essentially Marxism with variations, that is why there is Marxism-Lenninism, Maoism, Stalinism. But let’s hear about you. Are you an Owenite? Fourierite? Oh please be a follower of him, I would love nothing more then that. You seem hesitant towards planning so you obviously aren’t a follower of Saint-Simon. I doubt you are knowledgable enough on the obscure socialists like Mably, Morelly and Babeuf. Let me guess, you are probably a Proudhonist.
Well Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Since public ownership of the means of production has existed since the basis of this government then at the very most we have a mixed economy and some of the most destructive tools that have been used by the government, [ ie. the military, atomic bombs, trade embargoes which starve populations ] have all been through the public means of production, the State. Doesn’t it seem strange that you want to eliminate the state yet keep the very tools it uses that cause perhaps the most destruction? It doesn’t seem like you are really interested in allowing people to live free, prosperous lives. Just seems like you want to be the one pointing the gun. But I digress, I’m sure you’re a nice guy who would never want that.
And similarly, the authoritarian social relations necessitated by the capitalist labor market render it incompatible with liberty or libertarianism.
The division between “social” and “economic” affairs is an artificial one.
They have the only legitimate one, actually. Socialists’ usage of the the term “libertarian” actually predates capitalist use of the term that renders “libertarian socialism” a seeming oxymoron in America. For example, the term “libertarian” was first used in print in an 1857 letter by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque, who later published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social from 1858 to 1861. The later French anarchists Sebastian Faure and Louise Michel then founded Le Libertaire in 1895, which ought to illustrate the term’s early usage by anarcho-socialists, largely in an attempt to circumvent anti-anarchist laws. Conversely, the U.S. “Libertarian” Party has only existed since 1971, which means that socialist usage of the term predates its misappropriation by American capitalists by more than a century. As noted by Murray Bookchin, the current American definition of “libertarianism” is merely “the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for ‘pure capitalism’ and ‘free trade.’ This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit.”
Capitalism is a socioeconomic system characterized by the private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, and the existence of wage labor.
However, my interest in focusing on practical matters instead of textbook abstractions like “free market” capitalism compels me to look at what capitalism actually is and has historically been.
I would be glad to, but you have not described the “challenge” in sufficient detail and have indicated that you’re prepared to dismiss any commentary I might offer as a “strawman,”
You seem quite determined to charge off-topic, so I suppose I’ll appease you. Of this topic (whether Leninism is “Marxist” or “socialist”), we must first note that the self-descriptions of authoritarian political regimes ought not be blindly trusted, and we should instead examine whether their deeds are consistent with their words. For example, though China is called a “people’s republic,” internal domestic conditions indicate that authoritarianism and dictatorship characterize Chinese society rather than people’s republicanism. On that basis, we can conclude that China is not a “people’s republic,” unless we wish to twist the definition of the term in an Orwellian way so as to accommodate dictatorship. Similarly, there is no basis for claiming that an authoritarian dictatorship has any relationship to “a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community” unless we wish to change the definition of the term “socialism” in an Orwellian way so as to accommodate dictatorship.
Now, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as envisioned by Marx was a tool to be utilized while there was direct and legitimate conflict between the proletarian and the capitalist classes, and was not conceptualized as a decades-long establishment of party rule. In his response to Bakunin’s aforementioned manuscript (which he [Marx] wrote in his personal notes, and did not publish himself), he wrote this of the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat:
This hardly provides support for the prospect of a permanent establishment of harsh authoritarian rule by party leaders that can hardly be accurately identified as the “proletariat.” The reality that the Leninist strategy of “vanguardism” was not able to establish a legitimate socialist republic even if it had been a legitimate representation of Marx’s ideas about the dictatorship of the proletariat’s functions in class conflict was thus noted by Peter Kropotkin in his aforementioned 1921 letter to Lenin:
Considering Marx’s comment in his response to Bakunin that “the thing starts with self-government of the township” (after he observed the success of the Paris Commune), it seems likely that he would agree with the comment about local institutions and local forces rather than Lenin’s support for the establishment of a party of “professional revolutionaries” to establish an authoritarian regime even after capitalism was eliminated in the USSR.
Kropotkin.
I sincerely doubt that.
Governmental ownership of the means of production would not constitute “public” ownership even if it was existent, as there is a divergence between government officials and the general population, as any so-called “anarchist” should realize. Therefore, government actions will be at least partially detached from public interests. But more than that, government ownership is not present; the capitalist economy is characterized by private ownership with the government’s presence for stabilization and efficiency purposes. This is the only form of capitalism that has ever existed outside of the textbook.
The first two are obvious enough; the third can be reasonably inferred. You should be thankful that I agree that capitalism (what you dub “corporatism”) isn’t characterized by free markets. Don’t you find that a rather frustrating popular misconception?
Leviathan: Please define capitalism or the discussion can go nowhere. If you define it as anything other than voluntary, mutually consensual exchange, I don’t think you’ll find much opposition here.
EDIT:
Then your position that “capitalism requires the state” isn’t necessarily in opposition to the Austrian position. The “capitalism” of anarcho-capitalism just means free markets. In my opinion, “capitalism” in this usage is therefore redundant, and you may consider the “communism” of anarcho-communism to be redundant as well. If so, we are allies as far as our desire for elimination of the monopoly on force, so there’s no need to argue.
So when you’re railing against the Fed and muttering that we need to end this bastard corporatism and turn to free markets, and someone walks up to you and tells you that “free markets brought us into this,” you don’t find that frustrating?
Glad you’re a coolheaded sort of fellow, then.
Already have. “Capitalism is a socioeconomic system characterized by the private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, and the existence of wage labor.”
Don’t deactivate the saber so quickly, young Padawan. It is also my contention that because of the reliance of capitalism (as defined) on the state, any attempt to implement laissez-faire “free market” capitalist structure will inevitably degenerate into something approximating Anglo-Saxon capitalism (and cause substantial inefficiency and inequality as it does), regardless of the intentions of its advocates.
Why do you assume that relationships that establish hierarchy in some form then render both individuals incapable of enacting liberty? Have you ever had a teacher?
No its is an existing distinction unless you look at family, friends and acquittances as economic actors which would be awfully strange.
Ah, I see we have been reading wikipedia or Anarchist FAQ. The first libertarian that I speak of is Lao Tzu, the Taoist sage of ancient China who set about a philosophy of allowing people to operate in their own capacity without interference by the heads of government. I don’t really recall Lao Tzu saying ‘plan without state.’ Certainly someone who believed in a laissez-faire free will society. I mean if you really want to get technical the first anarchist was also Chinese. Chuang Tzu who like Lao Tzu believed in a laissez-faire society. So honestly, I don’t get why you would call yourself an anarchist since what you seem to be proposing goes against the very first theorists of this doctrine. I mean if we are going to play that game then lets play it.
of course. the free market is here now and is extorted and violently raided upon and if i include indirect forces then voluntary exchanges have physical aggression initiated against such choice exchanges all the time as much as i can empirically gather.
I skimmed the first page. If there’s something specific please refer me to it. It doesn’t say anything significant other than there are rules and expectations in the market. That by definition is called culture.
By use of Aristotlean logic the free market is possible because it is involuntary actions that are impossible based on human action. People are coerced into doing what they will not incline to choose under more peaceful, less threatening circumstances, but an individual always has a choice even if that means, sadly, death. People are deliberate creatures and that’s a fact.
since you might be asking for my honest opinion - no. i find it stupid, but i’ve already conceded that even if i’m the last believer in peace on earth then so be it and then i die.
What does this mean, exactly? Is it referring to a teacher in the sense of a formal schoolteacher, so as to argue that their hierarchy over schoolchildren is desirable and appropriate, or is it referring to a teacher in the sense of any person with knowledge greater than yours who imparts it to you in some way? Both are anti-anarchist fallacies, but they require different responses. Which will it be?
I’m sure they’re economic actors to some degree simply as a result of their engagement in marginal analysis in relationships, but regardless, you’ve conflated social and personal affairs. What’s better to say is that the division between “political” and “economic” affairs is an artificial one, as they’re both issues of social management.
“Reading”? “Helped write” is closer to it.
For your insinuations of unoriginal thought, that seems pretty effectively lifted from Rothbard’s Libertarianism in Ancient China. Regardless, in looking to the proper definitions of terms, we must first understand their origins, and thus comprehend that the first self-described anarchist was Proudhon, and the first self-described libertarian was Dejacque. Of course, if we based our understandings on this alone, we could exclude some from the libertarian and anarchist traditions who ought to be fairly included in them (such as Thomas Jefferson, William Godwin, etc.), but if we realize that those sufficiently close to self-described anarchists and libertarians ought to be incorporated even if they don’t use the term themselves, the problem is minimized. Of course, we also must be on watch towards those who would mendaciously misappropriate this terminology for themselves as an attempt to deceive freedom-loving people, which is why I and so many others are hostile towards the association of them with capitalism.
I am not so sure we disagree. If we clarify what you mean by “private,” “market exchange,” and “wage labor” in your definition, we may reach agreement. If
“private” means not owned by the state
“market exchange” means voluntary, consensual exchange of goods
“wage labor” means voluntary consensual exchange of labor for compensation
then I assert that capitalism (your definition, but with the above interpretation) doesn’t require the state. If we differ on any of those definitions, then we are talking past each other.
The fact that you used the word “implement” here makes me think we are talking about entirely different things. Any structure that needs to be implemented (i.e., top-down) does require the state. To ensure that there are no socialist or communist enclaves in a given geographical area, for example, would require a state. Voluntary, consensual exchange is all that is meant by capitalism, at least in my case.(Yes, it’s a poor word for this purpose, so I usually avoid it. As I said, I think it’s unnecessary, redundant - and of course misleading.)
If you would critique those who wish to implement a certain concrete social structure, I would do so right along with you - such a position cannot be consistently advocated outside a statist/monopoly context.
Absolutely we do. If you desire a plan in which the means of production are owned by the public then you will either end up having utopian communalism in which you have no way of establishing the ability to dictate how resources are used without one or several individuals coming up with a system that they to some degree arbitrarily impose upon others or you just go for the representatives of the ‘people’ in which you are back to having hierarchical structures which are supposedly bad according to your theory.
Such is the meddling of class consciousness with Hegelian belief that the state is the ultimate foundation of the will. If the proletariat have achieved the ability to be in power and retain that power then their will is being exercised upon the masses thereby formulating the final stage of consciousness and achieving absolute being. Being timeless and immortal.
To say Marx supported local forces to bring about the revolution would be disingenuous. Marx specifically stated that socialism comes with the inexorability of the laws of nature. It is inevitable because it arises out of the forces of production and the immersion that it causes to all workers everywhere. The Communist is the vanguard of the worker class because it recognizes this premise. And honestly, you need to read more Marx if we are going to be talking about him. He is not a utopian in the sense that he realizes that the dictatorship of the proletariat is going to be a period of bloody revolution against the supposed oppressors of the working class.
Gah, so boring.
Why?
Well ok, if that is how you want to treat it. I mean there is such things as ‘public ownership.’ I recognize that I can’t borrow a US army tank though.
…Have you seen our latest federal budget?
Government stabilization is an oxymoron and so is efficiency. What you are defining now is a ‘mixed economy’ in which government ownership and intervention are apart of the market along with public ownership.
Private ownership in this context refers to the ownership and monopolistic/oligopolistic control of productive resources by individuals or firms. Since anarchism is built upon non-state public ownership and there are reasons for believing that state and public ownership are incompatible, in fact, your definition seems flawed.
Markets in the context of the capitalist economy have never been characterized by voluntary and consensual exchange. The labor market in particular is characterized by a mixture of exchange and coercion.
Similarly, wage labor has never been voluntary/consensual in nature in the context of the capitalist economy, but instead characterized by power and coercion. So wage labor is work in a coercive labor market for a wage that is subject to the extraction of surplus value by the capital class.
Disagreement is at the core of debate, of course. If we disagree, that doesn’t mean that the task is abandoned as a futile semantics debate if one person has substantive evidence that his or her definitions are preferable and can clearly argue as to why that is. I believe I can.
“Implement” merely means “to bring about; to put into practice.” I’m referring to any act that causes laissez-faire conditions to be realized, such as the abolition of all state regulation of economic structure.
It would, but socialism and communism both require the public ownership and management of the means of production, so it’s difficult to understand how there would be socialist or communist “enclaves.”
Then your position is that capitalism has never existed, as I always point out in these semantics debates.
But since my position is that the realization of laissez-faire structure would result in exacerbation of existing inefficiencies/inequalities and the reversion to statism after social disorder became the norm, there is no agreement.
You were stating that authoritarian structures are always involuntary and always restrict liberty. Getting passed the premise that these are voluntary agreements when not coerced into, why do you always assume them to be negative?
There is a difference between politics and economics as pointed out by Aristotle in his book on Ethics. Namely that politics is the searching for a system in which humankind benefits. Economics is merely the science of explaining the nature and reason by which people trade or exchange
.
No actually it is actually from his work on the history of economic thought but really ‘lifting’? The dissemination of achieved information concerning a topic is now considered ‘lifting’?
Oh so you think a political theory only begins its origins when it is defined? Honestly, how silly. This seems like nothing more then an attempt to wiggle out of a corner. The origins of a theory begin with the first person to propound it not the first person to come up with a groovy name.
Ah so do you see this as a misappropriation of the term ‘anarchist’ and ‘libertarian’?
So your foundation is two fold, firstly that because historically there have been no voluntaryist societies there can never be any, and secondly that capitalism in inherently totalitarian.
Voluntaryism has only been around as a fully developed ideology by a famous economist for about 50 years now, so it is similar to me saying 25 years before the Spanish civil war that any type of socialist anarchism is impossible. Historical evidence also does not show anything conclusively per se, if I had said that there would be no such thing as, say, a television in the year 1700 because for the last few millenia there had hitherto been none then I would have been very wrong.
Capitalism isn’t totalitarian, what is totalitarian is a mob going in and seizing property and then stopping all forms of large free exchange and running everything based upon further mob rule. Capitalism is a purely voluntary ideal, socialism and anarchism are not.
And can you set something straight for me? How is it that you intend not to have a monopoly of coercive violence if you have your little council deciding everything? Isn’t that a monopoly? Indeed a monopoly on every possible aspect over economic life? You intend to stop me pursuing my individual happiness through independently providing goods and services and you state that your doctrine isn’t totalitarian.
Can you give me any further reasons, thought through logically, why a voluntaryist society couldn’t work rather than just using supposedly conclusive historical evidence?
Leviathan, I hope you don’t find my lack of reply on your other intelligent comments disrespectful, but I am going to take a shortcut by agreeing with your main point: Capitalism as you’ve defined it does require the state, and capitalism as I’ve defined it has never existed and probably never can exist. We are not disagreeing on that, and it’s clear that the appearance of disagreement on those two points arose from semantics. Your comment that the mods are statists really depends on each mods’ definition of capitalism and whether it is something they envision as needing to be implemented or something that will arise naturally in the absence of a monopoly on force. (I do disagree with you on the labor theory of value, but I don’t see any reason to argue about that now.)
My only “political” position is that I am against monopolies on force. If you agree, then we are effectively allies, because once there is no monopoly on force I have no way to implement any kind of capitalism on you, and you have no way to implement any kind of communism on me. Once monopoly on force is eliminated, maybe society will organize itself more to your or my liking or prediction, but that is neither here nor there at the moment.
Both, and then explain how a “government” like FIA, FIFA, NFL, etc. would not arise in communism. Remember: those are governing bodies of sports. So, one would then see, that there would be no sports in communism.
Oh, you mean what you’ve done is called mercantilism, fascism, and interventionism as “capitalism” and then set about attacking your strawman. How typical.
Where people were murdered for using money. Yes, we know you’re going to cry and whine about that. Too bad. That’s the historical fact. Don’t like it? Not our problem.