“The original defnition” could be the oldest known documented source of said definition, in that case, methinks.
I don’t think that helps Niccolò’s case, though - an older source with a different definition could be discovered next week [:)]
That almost never happens. Language - as something specifically written historical thing - is well documented.
Labels are defined by their current usage; even Brainpolice acknowledges that when it comes to “anarcho-capitalist” and “capitalist”! Rightfully so, he doesn’t want to be seen as a supporter of the current system, which many self-described capitalists end up being.
I’m not sure why he doesn’t apply the same standards to “leftist anarchist”, though…
I’ve said it many times, and I’ll say it again. Google it! See what self-described leftist anarchists say about themselves! I’ll give you a hint: they are anything but libertarian; you two have to start being consistent.
“Leftist anarchist” isn’t even the proper term. To most anarchists, it’s a redundancy. You act as if “leftist anarchist” is some kind of faction in and of itself and a term that people use to describe themselves. It’s not. Hell, “anarcho-socialist” isn’t even a term people use to describe themselves, and is likewise seen as a redundancy by most anarchists. The only reason why a term such as “leftist anarchist” would even be used is to distinguish oneself from so-called and self-proclaimed “rightists” claiming the mantle of anarchism, which is a very new phenomenon.
Instead of looking up “leftist anarchist”, look up “mutualism”, “individualist anarchism”, “anarcho-syndicalism”, “libertarian socialism”, “left-libertarianism”, “geoanarchism”, “geolibertarianism” and so on. That is more specifically what I’m talking about, and any of those groups can theoretically be libertarian so long as their prefered form of organization is persued through free association (a point I have to keep repeating but doesn’t seem to register with you). Not some umbrella term like “leftist anarchist” that people don’t even really use to describe themselves.
On mutualism:
“Mutualists believe that a natural economic consequence of a truly free labor market is income to individuals being received proportionally to the amount of labor they exert. Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe these individuals are not laboring. They hold that if state intervention ceased, these types of incomes would disappear.”
In other words, technically mutualists fully support a free market. They merely are mislead by the labor of theory of value into thinking that such things would dissapear in a free market.
“Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets and private property in the product of labor.”
In short, semantics aside, mutualists support a labor theory of property and hence private property.
“Mutualists have distinguished themselves from state socialism, and don’t advocate social control over the means of production.”
More reasons for not lumping the entirety of the socialist movement in with statism.
“While still oriented towards cooperation, mutualists favor free market solutions, believing that most inequalities are the result of preferential conditions created by government intervention”.
I find nothing objectionable about this. Indeed, government intervention increases poverty.
"One area of disagreement between mutualists and anarchist communists stems from Proudhon’s advocacy of money to compensate individuals for their labor. Peter Kropotkin, like other anarchist communists, advocated the abolition of wage labor and questioned, “how can this new form of wages, the labor note, be sanctioned by those who admit that houses, fields, mills are no longer private property, that they belong to the commune or the nation?” According to George Woodcock, Kropotkin believed that a wage system in any form, whether “administered by Banks of the People or by workers’ associations through labor cheques is a form of compulsion.”
Apparently mutualism is far too market-oriented and individualistic for anarcho-communists to handle, since it is not opposed to so-called “wage slavery” in principle.
“Social control over the means of production” is the very definition of socialism. In what way are mutualists part of “the socialist movement”?
Because Socialism once merely mean an opposition to economic exploitation - something Anarchists originally took to mean capitalism (i.e. merchant capitalism, i.e. mercantilism).
I disagree with BP on that. I believe capitalism has ALWAYS meant corporatism.
That is the evolution of the word capitalism comes from merchant capitalism, which was then exploited by capitalist apologists in the term “mercantilism” to use as a whipping boy for their exploitations of the entrepreneurial competition and the workers.
Prejudiced much? Funny, I’m usually defending the US from arrogant fellow Europeans, but it seems the ignorant superciliousness exists on the other side of the Atlantic too. [^o)]
-Jon
This might be another discussion for another thread, but if I build a house, and rent it, that’s not “labouring”? How exactly is capital accumulated in a mutualist society? This seems to be anti-capitalistic, and not in Nicky’s pejorative definition either.
Does a mutualist philosophy not believe that savings are capital, acquired through productive gain/deferred consumption?
Capitalism is a system of private ownership. To distort that, and say capitalism is mercantilism, is incorrect.
In my opinion, without capitalism, you cannot have libertarianism.
Yes, but they don’t believe in using coercion to stamp out interest/rent; they think it will die naturally in a free market.
Can you direct me to more information on this irrational philosophy?
Define “private ownership”. What exactly constitutes “private ownership” and how is it justified? If private ownership is simply the product of labor and voluntary trade relations, then theoretically you’d have to consider a mutualist co-op to be “capitalist”.
Right, like you would have to consider voluntary participation in a tax scheme, libertarian. [8-)]
Oh, I was just trying to get a rise out of him. Nicky’s pretty easy to get all huffy if you press the right buttons. It’s crappy of me, I know. Oh well.
Brainpolice, why do you give “libertarian socialism” the voluntaryist-benefit-of-the-doubt but not “capitalism”?
A quick Google search for “libertarian socialism” shows most (all?) of the results in the Google search are anti-property; you can say that libertarian socialists can be voluntaryist, but so can capitalists! Why do you draw the distinction? Why don’t you care about the statist leftist connotation of “libertarian socialist” but you do care enough about the statist rightist connotation for “capitalist” (epecially considering it’s arguably smaller) to distance yourself from the term?
Jon, Baldur’s Gate II, right?
Correct.
-Jon