They didn’t seem terribly opposed to free market anarchy or forms of agorism, but they despise, it seems, the term “capitalism”. To them it entails more than just private property in the means of production, but requires also some public or private police force to defend that property. Also betraying a grudge and prejudice against property is the cartoon - Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people. Are we fighting over who owns and gets to define the word “Capitalism” and its implications, or are we disagreeing on the implications themselves?
Basically the delusion is that you can have socialism without a state, that capitalism is wrong because, as Marx puts it, the rich are wealthy from abusing the poor. They deny that the individual can prosper in capitalism, regardless of finanacial standing, they are certain it is only the wealthy that remain wealthy in capitalism, this is probably caused by the idea that in capitalism you must work hard, sweat, achieve and compete for gain and many anarchists, like the one who contributed to this post, probably thinks that is being abused.
Long story short, he uses capitalism as a dirty word because he has no desire to put effort into his own success, he poses capitalism as bad for individual freedom, mainly because he has no idea what capitalism is, just the leftist claims that capitalism is bad, therefore he thinks it is bad…
My take on Anarcho-Capitalism is that a private police force is not Required, rather a decent suggestion, as you can easily defend your property yourself, if you would rather delegate your energy in this fashion, and is more a part of anarchy than capitalism.
Capitalism is a system of private property ownership, nothing else, I wish there was a way to rebutt to this article on the posting itself, but it seems that it is a closed to outside opinion site…
It seems they’re saying the exact opposite - that it’s a delusion that you can have capitalism without the state.
Presumably, this is because it’s in human nature to steal/take what you need. The distinction of moral/immoral theft, I think in Any Rand’s view (ducks) is that a moral man will steal in case of emergency, but THEN pay whatever debt to the person he stole from. In contemporary society / state socialism/fascism, we have people stealing during life long emergencies with not a trace of guild or debt on their minds - only a “give back” mentality which means nothing of any substance.
I think the “socialists painted as lazy” spiel is less accurate than the “socialists painted as jealous of those who earn interest on capital” spiel. To abolish the interest rate seems a consistency between Keynes and The Anarchists… They, apparently, don’t mind doing labor, they just want to make sure everybody is doing (what they consider) labor. Question is - once all the laborers own their own tools, how do laborers acquire and build new tools? Once a new tool is built, is it not immediately property=theft=confiscated and given to whatever laborer wants it? What’s the incentive for building the machines which build the machines which build new types of tools and how are they voluntarily exchanged? Also referenced here is the idea that the “economy be controlled by ‘the producers’ (read: laborers)” - producers don’t control the economy, consumers do, Mr Proudhon…
Another precarious point of view is that a family or group working an amount of land they can reasonably handle would not be expropriated by the anarchist revolution - but who decides what “enough” or “reasonable” etc is?
I think the question can be made as simply as what distinguishes, ultimately, capital from justified possession in their view? One shovel = possession, two shovels = potential for exploitation :. worker planning ahead for a broken shovel is endangering his “right” to keep his production if exchanged for a second shovel? And another worker wishes to rent the shovel must buy the shovel but has nothing to start with. Sure an old guy might give him an old shovel out of “charity” (or duty?!) but this doesn’t work in the situation of a factory assembly line… you must first subject yourself to be exploited by union leadership through some sort of apprenticeship. I dunno.. it seems all roads lead to hell sometimes.
That is a gross misinterpretation of Capitalism, it is fueled by the belief that America was 100% capitalist, we would have to have no regulation to have capitalism, it is also based on the idea that the worker is abused into working for the “capitalist” and cannot be a capitalist himself selling his labor on a free market…
When you realize they are the same spiel you will be closer to understanding the reality of the situation…
That is Marx’s Labor Value Theory, it has proven ultimately false…
An authority that will not call the state but will have the power of the state, this is an Anarcho-Communist notion, look up Kabutz (spelling may be wrong) in Israel, they do this, but they are finding it hard to keep people in when they can be in a market without such an authority…
I note and appreciate your expression of agreement on most things above.
“When you realize they are the same spiel you will be closer to understanding the reality of the situation…”
Yet, I don’t equate envy with laziness - the lazy would stand, do nothing, and watch and bitch about the “greedy capitalist” enjoying his mojitos but otherwise, also sitting and doing nothing. These socialists’ ideal is to work hard while bitching, and having no idea the complexity of the process which precipitated the tools they were using. Again, I understand the reality of the situation, but I’m not interested in battling and refuting the pedestrian arguments put forward; rather, I’m more interested in understanding the anti-capitalist criticisms of their “best and brightest” - regardless of whether it all boils down to one base thing. And what I’m seeing is a difference in the basic ownership and definition and connotation and even denotation of capitalism. If we can’t agree on that, how do we even set up a context for debate? Private property in the means of production seems simple enough, yet even the extent that something is part of the “means of production” is up in the air: couldn’t anything be considered means of production by some extension/abstraction?
My question to you - if the crux of the “socialist” spectre boiled down to one thing, and you couldn’t choose both - would you choose laziness or jealousy? Many that i’ve met are proud to be laborers, ready to tout their “hard work” as a badge of accomplishment (nevermind if it was efficient or smart). Hard work means nothing; i can work awful hard cutting a lawn with my fingernails or even by swinging a 2x4. I think it’s jealousy.
However, I also think that fear is at the center as it is at the center of our detest for statism.
I think it was identified that the Anarcho-capitalists and the others, and indeed the entire concept of class/caste struggle is really similar no matter whom you’re talking to - the difference is how you generalize. Rothbard, I think, wrote of Political Class vs the Non- or the Governing vs the Governed. The socialists see the “Rich” as having power and thus governing. I think, at this early stage in my studies, that their failure is that they do not see that money is not the only type of Power capable of corrupting someone/something.
Yeah, I’m arguing with somebody in another forum that seriously doesn’t understand what “stealing” is. He is a huge marxist collectivists. He believes he doesn’t even talk as an individual. He believes when he talks he is talking what the collective says. When I even say to him, “Aren’t I talking to you and not somebody else.” He says, “No you are talking to many many people.” Now that’s old style Communism Party talk when the communists would go around and say they speak for the, “Party”.
It’s whacky. He said my neighbor can take my land and nobody can stop him. I said I’ll stop him. He said I’m not allowed to stop him and that there is no stealing. That’s how far he goes. I call him a criminal and then he comes back and says I’m afraid of black helicopters and need to take my meds. They are crazy folks. I live in a very small house with 1 1/2 bedrooms. We get by and don’t ask for much in life. It’s quite a simple life. So it’s not like I’m rich and he wants his share. He really denies that stealing is real and believes everybody should be able to go into everybody’s house and do what they want with everybody’s land. He says society should be like family and opening the refrigerator in anybody’s home to get something to eat. It’s nuts. I hope not too many think like this guy cause he’s really off the hook. I just told him I better never see him on my property making threats or else. I don’t know what else to say with these kind of people.
I quickly browsed wiki on Kabutz. It hinted that they were falling apart and many have actually closed up. But then it says others have reformed themselves and do not follow the more traditional approach. Only a handful of tradition approaches are still in existence. It didn’t say why they fell apart or what is better about the reformist versus the traditionalist. I don’t know if they are fully isolated or depend more and more on the outside world like in Animal Farm where more and more the goods came from outside of the farm than from inside the farm. Until it also fell apart.
Can one ever justify the right of property ownership without any arbitrary reasoning?
Total collectivism can be as rational as the freest society if you backtrack the chain of reasoning to the argument of the individuals right to own property. I, myself, had to turn to pure pragmatism to justify ownership at the end. Maybe your friend came to another conclusion [:D]
This can easily be refuted. You cannot at one time know every action that every individual is doing with every piece of capital. Therefore you cannot take-part of crop production in Iowa while dictating how logs are used in Washington. Therefore, a certain class will arise rationing out goods and take on the label of ‘representatives of the workers.’ Collectivism is utopian.
I wonder if the neighbor guy has a “lady friend”. If he has no claim to her via contract (such as marriage or an agreement to be monogamous), she is fair game, right?
I wonder if we can argue in almost a Sadian fashion, if we don’t use our gentials…are they truly ours? If are not in a constant state of sexual intercourse, do we own our orifices? The ability to allow or deny what goes in them?
Perhaps I just formulated some ground breaking defense for self-ownership.
I know it is an oxymoron, but the people who do not advocate the state but want essential need to determine what you have call themselves “anarchists” and they are inherently communist…