Ya sorry. It seems more pertinent to address the other more hostile posts. And then the other posts are forgotten lol.
That’s the point, in a private enterprise system society wouldn’t be directed by anyone. The outcome is systemic, not intentional. Nobody has control over it. Who determines the price of iron? Who decides how many eggs are produced for London this month? Nobody. There is no planner, nobody at the helm.
It is true, as I said, that direct control is not taken in an anarchist propertarian system (tho statist capitalism still has its controls, that much can’t be denied), the economy is still mostly guided by the fancies of a privelaged few. Let us say there are 30 people in a given market with their own companies joshiying back and forth over prices, etc. These 30 people are most likely going to the same country clubs, golfing together, eating together, their children went to the same schools, etc.
“You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests coincide” ~George Carlin
(As EiK walks away you see the faint movment of a fist clench as he quietly celebrates to himself while attempting to give off, publicly, the aura of a humble gentleman )
It is true, as I said, that direct control is not taken in an anarchist propertarian system (tho statist capitalism still has its controls, that much can’t be denied), the economy is still mostly guided by the fancies of a privelaged few. Let us say there are 30 people in a given market with their own companies joshiying back and forth over prices, etc. These 30 people are most likely going to the same country clubs, golfing together, eating together, their children went to the same schools, etc.
“You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests coincide” ~George Carlin
It’s like you formally have to agree with the theory, but you still want the conclusion to be something else. If markets aren’t run by anyone, then they aren’t be run by a privileged few. You are trying to have it both ways. If you say that capitalists, in a theoretical free market, would naturally collude and cartelize, then you are not agreeing that markets organize systemically without anyone guiding them.
I think you are assuming a lack of centralized control = a lack of control. That is my point. Whether or not the control is centralized, it is still held in the hands of a select few, rather than the people at large.
That’s the contention, yes. I’m not assuming anything though, I am looking at the evidence. Businesses don’t naturally collude to the detriment of the consumer. It just doesn’t work. If there was an informal agreement to keep up prices, any new producer would make a killing, and even if the market is protected by barriers to entry any member of the cartel would have a incentive to betray the cartel to make a huge profit. History has just shown that that’s what happens. Free markets are not run by a group of powerful businessmen. It’s intuitive to conceptualize free markets as run by big business, but that’s not how it works. I just don’t think you can ever concede that point because your entire argument rests on it. Although I admit I didn’t read read much of this thread and don’t know what your greater argument is.
as just shown that that’s what happens. Free markets are not run by a group of powerful businessmen. It’s intuitive to conceptualize free markets as run by big business, but that’s not how it works.
I’m not so sure history has. Business’ collude all the time… are you talking about free markets as in the ancap conceptualization, or “free” markets as they have existed in history? I think history has pointed to ever greater collusion and control, needing drastic reform/revolution to break up said barriers.
Take for example the media industry. All those different channels, recording companies, movie studios, etc are owned by 3 to 5 companies. Those companies own many other companies in unrelated industries. The board members serve on the boards of companies with board members from those other companies.
You don’t need formal collusion when interest collide for control to be consolidated in few hands. You say it’s systemic. I say there is truth to that, but there is still direct control placed on the economy, largely by a group of people who share the same desires.
(The nature of power to consolidate is only one of many premises on why I don’t support the propertarian system)
The argument that libertarian socialism is a contradictio in terminis has its basis in the non agression principle.
By the non-agression principle, the libertarian propertarians argue that coercion or force is unacceptable unless used in defence of one’s own body or one’s own property.
However for socialists, the acquisition of use rights is in accordance with the principle that property is produced, enhanced or maintained by labour.
As long as I’m making an empirical argument I have to stick with existing capitalism, since ancap is theory and you could simply disagree with my theories. As such it’s not a disagreement that could be resolved empirically, since everything in existing capitalism could be blamed on both government intervention and excessively free markets. So there’s really no argument I can make. All I can say is that if capitalism worked as you say, it wouldn’t function at all. If it wasn’t self-correcting there couldn’t be millions of exchanges each day without is all bogging down into a mess of cartels, corruption and monopolies. Society could never have reached the complexity of today. Governments make no effort to break up most industries, yet the vast majority of industries are not cartels. If markets naturally consolidate, why aren’t they consolidated?
What are the other reasons you don’t support property rights? Would you impose abscence of property rights or can I be allowed to have them? If there are no private property rights, who would decide to build the factories?
Obviously if our idealistic concept of Capitalism was realized, why would we be here wasting our time? Would this website even exist?
Furthermore your actually making a concious attempt to avoid convergence of terms, and further prolongue the act of talking past each other. As was stated before countless times, myself and others, reject the definition of Capitalism that you hold. We call that State Capitalism, and or Fascism. It does not follow from the voluntary exchange framework.
If you continue to argue against the word capitalism, and not the underlying meaning I’ve presented, all you’ve done is turned this argument into one of semantics. A semantics argument will get no where. This is a pretty standard approach of the marxian left, who never actually wants to address the issues head on.
Furthermore by continuing to take issue with just the word, you succsfully evade the need to actually address the alleged faulty logic behind capitalism.
Your still getting stuck on semantics. Your paying unecessary detail to a words and semantics argument. You know what ancaps mean when they refer to themselves as ancaps. Despite the fact that Anarchy has a long history of other meanings, you know very well that Ancaps are not socialist for example. It’s disengenuous of you to continue to focus on these non-important trivial nuances. All the while avoiding the real debate.
Of coarse. Voluntary exchange cannot be completely removed. However this would even be true in a Socialist Society. It’s a praxeological concept. What you’ve done is created a false dellima, that any country that calls itself “Capitalistic” is somehow responsible for all of the non-capitalistic practices it performs. Then assigning those practices as a part of the Capitalistic framework.
If I took your argument, and pointed it back at you. I could say that Socialism has an inherent tendency at genocide, when looking at history. I could then say something like, your disconnected from reality if you deny this! Look at Nazi Germany!
But the whole assertion is one gigantic fallacy of composition. I’ve pointed this out to you twice now.
I am not sure what you mean by “Absolute Property rights”. A system of property rights can emerge dynamically on the market(from a series of voluntary exchange).
It’s great that you are for free exchange(We have a common ground to build from). Do you realize that when you argue with people here about the flaws of Capitalism, your actually arguing against a consertative’s understanding of Capitalism? A largely rejected definition of Capitalism here? IE your constructing a strawman. Either aware of it or not, it’s dishonest and it’s one of the reasons why your debates never find closure. You accuse me of re-defining terms to suit my argument. Well its not just me, but a vast audience on this website. What exactly did you expect on an Austrio-libertarian website?
You talk past others, and others talk past you, because of your inability to get past the semantics of it all and come to agreement on terms. Something that is absolutely necessary for our debates to progress in a productive manner.
I’ve asked you two or three times now to explain to me how these people “gain power”. And once the position of power is gained, how do they keep from losing it.
Markets have shown that people are made millionaires by best serving the satisfaction of consumers, likewise those millionaires can lose their earned wealth, by poorly managing the satisfaction of consumers. You cannot ignore that. Businesss are at the mercy of consumers. This is what we call consumer sovereignty. There are plenty of business’s who fail every year.
First off, reality does not define what the term is. Most mainstream economists agree that we have a mixed economy. This is the current state of affairs as far as reality is concerned. Are you now going to tell me that a socialized mixed economy is also a part of the definition of Capitalism? Are you going to tell me having a socialized post-office is a part of the definition of Capitalism simply because we currently have one? Are you goign to tell me that democracy is a part of Capitalism simply because Democracy co-exists(and in conflict with) capitalism? Or do you not see your flaw with this method of reasoning.
Secondly, I asked you to point out how my question was loaded. A loaded question makes an assumption in the premise. I asked you to point out the assumption. You said what I was assuming was disconnected from reality.
A) I never assumed this, and my question is not loaded. I never assumed that my definition of Capitalism was currently realized.
B) If my concept of Capitalism was currently reality, this website wouldn’t be here now would it?
So where is the loaded question again? Or will you finally address my question. Where in the frame work of “voluntary exchange” does tyranny come into the picture?
History is subject to the subjective interpretation of individuals. As I said here, what you call a historic example of the failures of Capitalism, we could just as easily call the historical examples of the failure of Socialism. Capitalism is simply an economic system. It by itself neitehr encourages or discourages violence. Your attempt to assign all the historical examples of violence as being the fault of capitalism is simply wrong.
The existence of violence does not hinge apon the existence of Capitalism. Removing capitalism will not remove violence. I surely hope you do not continue to believe this. At least if you do, don’t try and argue in favor of that belief. It’s another one of those logical fallacies we keep talking about…
I’m not calling them irrefutable. I am asking you to expose the fallacies in them. But if we cannot agree on terms, this discussion will never go any where. Honestly I am going out of my way to find some common ground with you.
So since you semantically have an issues with the word “Capitalism”, which is only a word, lets use. “Voluntary Exchange” instead.
Are you assuming everyone here is an expert on the topic? And knowing that they are not, your going to use their misguided information against others? Do you think thats an acurate, honest, way of refuting our concept of Capitalism, err excuse me, voluntary exchange?
Furthermore does the validity of Capitalism rest apon business cycle theory? And finally, I encourage you to start a new thread. Providing examples of business cycles that occured, where the primary medium of exchange did not dramatically fluctuate prior to the cycle.
I don’t understand what this means.
Human beings must occupy scarce resources over time in attempt to obtain satisfaction. Do you deny this?
Who occupies the same single scarce resource, when multiple parties are interested in it? Two people cannot occupy the same scarce resource at the same time. How do you address this? And how is your system of addressing this not just another spin-off of property. ANd if it is found to be just a spin-off of property, then it’s further proof that your just getting hung up on semantics.
I’ve actually met anti-capitalists before. Who hated capitalism and property. They being mislead by another school of thought in their recent past. Discussing with them though I have amazingly found, to my surprise, that they do endorse property and capitalism, but only when the names of those concepts are different.
When you describe capitalism of this type, consisting of Noble elites, aristocracy’s, and various beuracratic institutions. Your describing someone else’s capitalism which has no formal audience here on this forum. People have corrected you on this dozen’s of times.
Also your continuing to
Appeal to tradition
fallacy of composition
Your assigning historical political proceedings as an inherent attribute of Capitalism. It’s going to be difficult but we have to move past this.
No thats not correct. Again I’m not going to spell it out for you. State Capitalism is not recognized as an acceptable form of Capitalism here. In fact State Capitalism suffers from the exact same flaws(economically speaking) as Socialism. The problem being a negative effect on economic calculation.
Well then you’ll have to start building your reasoning absent logical fallacies. Sorry if I am being annoying at calling everything a Logica fallacy, but I’m not going to pretend to give a fallacious line of reasoning any merit.
Just as a bank robber embraces his hostages. State Capitalism, as stated for the umpteenth time, is not recognized as a legitimate form of capitalism here. So when you call us fascistic, saying that parts of our system bring about fascism, your not really addressing anyone’s views on this site.
I’m not even sure what this site rant is about. Again my challenge to you is to answer the below.
What exactly in voluntary exchange is inherently tyrranical? Or starting from the premise of Voluntary Exchange, at what point in time do things become tyrannical.
This is just an example of us again getting hung up on words. Lets move past “Capitalism” and focus on “Voluntary Exchange”. Since you already agreed to it. I am willing to go out of my way to work around any semantic deficiencies found, just so we can have some common ground to build ffrom. Otherwise, in all of the thousands of words you and I have typed, we’ve gone literaly no where in our discussion.
Because, again, it’s a logical fallacy.. IT’s a complete non-sequitur. An equivilent argument would be me showing a statistical coorelation of nation-wide homocides during the Bush administration. Claiming that the Bush administration inherently leads to increase homocides. This is what happens when you blindly want to use “History and objective facts” to shape your world view. Absent any logic, reasoning, and theory.
Just as I stated before, for every incident you claim as being the fault of Capitalism, people here could just as easily claim it as the fault of some socialist agenda. But both would be wrong. The truth is people are people and some behave poorly, regardless of the economic system in place. History is written in bias, and read in bias.
This does not make sense. One does not need purchasing power to pirate or steal. In fact in the example you provided(which actually is up for debate any ways), the piracy took place before the purchasing power was develeoped.
I am asking you, who gave Steve Jobs this purchasing power. Apple didn’t steal it’s net worth in value from Xerox. Someone willingly gave Apple it’s wealth, who did this?
Besides I think you are confusing your tech history, Xerox was the original creator of Ethernet, a project which was abandoned for fear that people might stop using paper.
Also there is plenty of debate in the intillectual property realm for your argument alone to be put to the question. Do you have any more concrete examples with which to defend your point of view?
As far as I can tell, consumers fronted the means for Apple to reach the point it’s obtained today. The practice of giving up purchasing power in exchange for the gadgets they offer. There are plenty of other companies out there attempting to do the same, and failing. If Capitalism was tyrannical in it’s nature as you suggest, it would seem to me that those other companies could just force their way to the top. But as we can objectively observe, consumer’s are not interested, and those companies remain stuck at a lower status.
Lets expand on this. First off Apple, and many other more intelligent firms, create only a limited supply of the original product. Depending on how fast that product moves originally will give them an indicator as to whether or not there is additional demand. Apple is usually pretty good at building a safe amount of units to match demand. I mean you don’t see Apple laptops and desktops laying around in excess in the streets. So I am not sure why you think there is mal-investment.
I want to get to the second half of this statement as well. First off it’s not clear at all that Apple has wasted any resources in the first place, so I don’t know why you mentioned that. But more importantly, if everyone who wanted this produt submited a request prior to it’s manufacturing(Which would be an extremely costly thing to do) would they still not need to use some form of purchasing power? Or would Apple just spend all the time and energy into making these units only to give them out for free. Now if thats the case, whats to stop from everyone on earth from requesting a unit?
Are you familiar with the calculation problem?
Look there is no need for you to “/roll eyes”. Your arguments foundation rests apon an assertion that your interpretation of history is more accurate then the next man’s. And that your interpretation links all these bad things to Capitalism. Austrian Economics rejects the practice of Traditionalism, and historicism, when analyzing economics. Mises talks about this extensively in the early chapters of HA.
Please read HA Page 47 through 51. It’s only a few pages but it sums things up nicely.
This is an important point I make. If you concede that violence would still exist, even absent capitalism, then you cannot associate historical examples of theft, pillaging, and robbery as being the fault of Capitalism.
Well I certainly hope he’s not a business man. I doubt people would be interested in purchasing from a thief.
Still, I’d like to hear your alternative. What you’ve pointed out is a flaw of man kind, not a flaw of any economic system. Violence will happen regardless of the system. How will your system be economically superior, while addressing such occassions of violence more justly.
So then it follows that all these historical examples of thievery and violence is not the fault of Capitalism. Before society’s had a medium of exchange, before purchasing power even existed, you had the conditions you warn about. THere is always wealth disparity, some will have the capital means to do things where others do not.
In a capitalistic society these deeds can become more transparent, and business’s, at the mercy of consumers, will be molded and shaped accordingly.
In all of these pages, and all of this mostly besides the point discussion. You’ve still yet to explain to me.
If we start off with voluntary exchange, and logically build from there. At what point in time do things become tyrrannical? At what point in time do we need to “intervene” to prevent this alleged tyranny? If you endorse voluntary exchange, how will you prevent the realization of another medium of exchange?
Side Rant Capitalism is Inherently Statist (Double Standard)
Many a anarcho-socialists have argued that Capitalism simply cannot exist without a state. They want to argue this point, but never want to explain logically why this must be true. As such debates and arguments get hung up on definitions.
Whats really bothersome to me is these arguments typically come from anti-statist socialists. The irony is, a big chunk of the Ancap community would argue that Socialism is impossibly realized absent a state.
Whats happening here in this case is each party talking past each other. So Epicurus, if you fall in this camp. I’d like you to consider the double standard.
If I am to admit, that somehow you think socialism could exist absent a state, then I ask for an equal acceptance of my argument. That the fundamentals of capitalism, the definitions of which, do not imply a state. So in an effort to move the discussion forward I ask that you acknowledge the fact that when myself, and others here, are referring to Capitalism, we are not referring to State Capitalism.
The respect will be reciprocal. While I may not understand it, I’ll agree to acknowledge your belief that Socialism is not entirely dependant on the presence of a state(Which I believe would require some extremely extensive explanation).
So just consider that, in the charitable spirit of progressing the discussion forward, and not beome stagnat on words. Lets avoid the double standards. I’ll accept that you believe socialism could be realized absent a state, and in return please accept that I believe Capitalism can be realized without a state.
Hopefully we can stop focusing on State Capitalism, and your arguments, likewise will stop focusing on state capitalism.
One last thing, I will say that many of your criticism of state capitalism would probably be accepted here as valid criticisms. If only you your language was better understood. What I mean is, if you said that you thought State Capitalism was inherently tyrannical, many here would likely agree with you. It could be away of avoid page long, petty, debates over definitions.
What are the other reasons you don’t support property rights? Would you impose abscence of property rights or can I be allowed to have them?
I personally would enable the producers with use rights (as opposed to property rights) on the provisio that their labour enhances the means of production in one way or another; general ownership is that of the community.
If there are no private property rights, who would decide to build the factories?
This is the incentive argument; community banks would provide investment funds (non-circulatory credits/labour vouchers) for syndicates and communes. Keep in mind that all these are under general ownership of the community and citizens will generally want enterprise to do well for their own sakes. Confederations of syndicates are accountable for in one way or another since they must be in charge of distributing investment funds to ensure production meets demand.
No, it’s not. The argument is that it would have to be authoritarian. Who decides to build factories? If the plurality of a “community” would impose their will on everyone else, it would essentially be central planning with very small states.
I couldn’t find anything about non-circulatory credits, but the idea of labor vouchers completely ignores economic calculation.
The calculation problem rests on the argument that value cannot be assigned to products for comparison in the mode of production under a bureacratic Stalinistic regime, which, it can’t. However where the community is autonomous and self-regulatory (libsoc), the value is assigned according to the socially necessary labour time, absolute costs and other variables embodied in the commodity.
All I can say is that if capitalism worked as you say, it wouldn’t function at all. If it wasn’t self-correcting there couldn’t be millions of exchanges each day without is all bogging down into a mess of cartels, corruption and monopolies. Society could never have reached the complexity of today. Governments make no effort to break up most industries, yet the vast majority of industries are not cartels. If markets naturally consolidate, why aren’t they consolidated?
Teddy Roosevelt
Honestly I just can’t make sense of this in a historical context. I have already cited the “trust-buster,” but there is also government’s complete control of certain industries you are leaving out, and the illegality of other industries you are talking about. I have also cited the case of america’s (the world’s) 3-5 biggest media companies virtually control the media industry and exercise a large amount of control in other unrelated industries.
Even with the self-correction, the system does always eventually boggle down. And it usually has taken some dramatic revolutionary (worker struggles of the mid-late 19th ce) or reformist (statist intervention; trust-busting, the FED, etc) intervention to keep the market “free.”
What are the other reasons you don’t support property rights? Would you impose abscence of property rights or can I be allowed to have them? If there are no private property rights, who would decide to build the factories?
I wouldn’t impose anything. But I would push for the community to recognize the illegality of private property.
Depending on the type of monetary system there are various ways to match capital to a person’s idea. Some have said labor vouchers (but come on, labor vouchers… that’s really just money). There could be a city council type board one has to submit to. It could be up to the entrpreneur to petition other factories to invest in his new idea. Even today for an entrepreneur, if you weren’t born with the money, you have to find a way to get it. The process isn’t much different, barring the ability of ultimate decisions over capital resting in one or a few hands.
*Can someone please tell me how the hell you incorporate quotes in your answers on here after clicking the reply button?
No, it’s not. The argument is that it would have to be authoritarian. Who decides to build factories? If the plurality of a “community” would impose their will on everyone else, it would essentially be central planning with very small states.
I felt the argument that there would be no incentive to build the means of production was partly relevant. Propertarians overuse the economic calculation debate (which I just dealt with, see post below your’s). There’s no reason why the decision making bodies can’t be recallable delegates or citizens can’t each have important roles in the community; roles can also be rotated on a regular basis. The other important thing is that while ownership is of the general community, syndicates would mostly be self-managed. They don’t have to distribute their goods to the community but can expect no aliquot of the general produce if they do not.
I couldn’t find anything about non-circulatory credits, but the idea of labor vouchers completely ignores economic calculation.
The core of the calculation argument is that price values are necessary for comparison in the mode of production; I am saying that socially necessary labour time, absolute costs and other variables (e.g. supply and demand) may be used in the calculation of the commodity. This is possible granted with the provisio of internal regulation on a smaller scaled basis.
What’s stopping you from voluntarily coordinating with like minds and implementing these schemes today? Honest question.
The issue of the stock market and investment. Namely that to start up a cooperative it requires a wealthy group of highly incentivised and class conscious producers to invest. To expand the project requires investment in capital; under such a scenario the project is no longer a cooperative. So private property is stopping me from implementing such schemes (plus the fact I personally am too lazy for that).
But I would push for the community to recognize the illegality of private property
Private property need not be illegal on the basis that it automatically becomes under the legitimate ownership of those who produce and enhance it via labour.
Filc that’s a lengthy post, and I will respond to it. I also offered more than just semantical arguments which, through my reading of your first few paragraphs you have once again failed to notice (maybe you do later, idk). But…
I think the heart of the debate IS the semantics employed here. Your rhetoric is pretty and appealing, but only because you have defined it as such. Were the terms allowed to be used the way they are supposed to, I think people would have a vastly different idea for what the ultimate aims of ancap are.