Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Converting mutualists and other socialists to anarcho-capitlalism and voluntaryism

rated by 0 users
This post has 16 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875
Freedom4Me73986 Posted: Mon, Dec 26 2011 5:30 PM

If you were debating a mutualist or other "market socialist" how would you convince them that the anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist position is right and their position is wrong? Not just capitalism and property but in general.

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Mon, Dec 26 2011 7:49 PM

If you don't know why they are wrong, how do you if ancap is right?

How could there be a preference in your mind?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

I don't think the OP said he didn't know. I'll tell you that it's very difficult, aside from that I don't know.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Lots of youtube videos (hour+ for best results), constant talk of gold and the collapse of civilization, and be sure to let them know socialism is the cirppling of any and all things good or holy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 286
Points 5,555

Freedom4Me73986:

If you were debating a mutualist or other "market socialist" how would you convince them that the anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist position is right and their position is wrong? Not just capitalism and property but in general.

 

I have to admit I am confused by your question. The only difference between the form of market-anarchism advocated by mutualists and the one advocated by anarcho-'capitalists' is property norms, everything else is semantics - there are no other 'general differences'.

By trying to converting them to 'capitalism' you are setting yourself up for failure. Mutualists simply define capitalism differently, why argue over semantics? If anything the mutualists are right on this one both historically and strategically. Capitalism was used by Marx to define the economic system that existed in the 19th century, which as we all know was far from a free market. And today most people use a Marxist definition of capitalism rather than a misesian one - everyone except for non-left libertarians believe we have capitalism now.  

Property rights are at least worth having a discussion over. I enjoyed Roderick Long's critique of Carsons mutualist theory of property. However, I think the differences mutualism and neo-Lockeanism need to separated from the differences between thick and thin libertarianism and the differences between Austrian economics and the LTV stuff Carson talks about. 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Tue, Dec 27 2011 8:19 AM

I suggest you don't waste your time converting some other flavor of anarchist to AnCap. I've come to this conclusion because it's much easier to convert statists, because they're constantly entangled in a web of false history and logical fallacies, which makes your job easier.

Plus, I could see a world where there are different pockets of people who live in different societies - AnCap, AnSynd, Mutualist, etc. Since we're anarchists and reasonable people, the possible tensions would in some way be worked out. In case this can't happen, AnCap is obviously superior anyway, so it would win in a war (though I do not advocate such a war by any means).

The only thing I worry about is new people being born in each society who might not like the "social contract" of that society, but I do think that this too would be worked out reasonably.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

"The only difference between the form of market-anarchism advocated by mutualists and the one advocated by anarcho-'capitalists' is property norms, everything else is semantics - there are no other 'general differences'."

I'd say that's a pretty glossy view of Mutualism. Trade unions and federation is pretty central to it beyond property conventions. Not to mention its rooted in some tradition of LTV.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 286
Points 5,555

Birthday Pony:

evilsceptic:

"The only difference between the form of market-anarchism advocated by mutualists and the one advocated by anarcho-'capitalists' is property norms, everything else is semantics - there are no other 'general differences'."

I'd say that's a pretty glossy view of Mutualism. Trade unions and federation is pretty central to it beyond property conventions. Not to mention its rooted in some tradition of LTV.

Unions are totally compatible with Lockean property rights, and the LTV is not required for mutualism. Like I said, the differences mutualism and neo-Lockeanism need to separated from the differences between Austrian and Carsonian (I'm coining the term) economics and cultural differences between libertarians.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Reducing Mutualism to Kevin Carson is, just like the first statement, a pretty glossy view of it. Mutualism is a movement as old as anarchism. Trade unions are not just compatible with it, they are central to it. And LTV of some flavor is a pretty universal aspect as well, even in Carson's Mutualism.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Dec 27 2011 4:55 PM

Birthday Pony:
Mutualism is a movement as old as anarchism.

Irrelevant.

Birthday Pony:
Trade unions are not just compatible with it, they are central to it.

Please explain.

Birthday Pony:
And LTV of some flavor is a pretty universal aspect as well, even in Carson's Mutualism.

From what I understand, this statement can only make sense if, by "LTV of some flavor", you mean "any theory of value that uses the word 'labor' somewhere".

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

"Irrelevant."

Sorry to waste your time. I was just explaining that Mutualism goes far beyond Carsonian Mutualism and to equate it to any one person's view is glossing over a whole lot of history. I find it relevant, seeing as how my point was that Mutualism is more than Carson's views.

"Please explain."

The basis of Mutualist theory since Proudhon has been cooperation of laborers through trade unions in the case of large scale production. Possession as the basis of ownership not only implies but empowers the idea of woker control in the workplace. From there it necessarily reverses or destroys a number of social relations in production. It's not just a simple case of different words.

"From what I understand, this statement can only make sense if, by "LTV of some flavor", you mean "any theory of value that uses the word 'labor' somewhere"."

What I'm reffering to is that, until Carson, Mutualism's theory of value has taken place in the context of a discourse that places the laborer as the full owner of a product until its sale or distribution elsewhere. That Mutualism has been a part of a long historical and philosophical discourse about empowering labor's ability to control capital.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Dec 27 2011 5:41 PM

Birthday Pony:
Sorry to waste your time. I was just explaining that Mutualism goes far beyond Carsonian Mutualism and to equate it to any one person's view is glossing over a whole lot of history. I find it relevant, seeing as how my point was that Mutualism is more than Carson's views.

Ah, sorry - you're right. I didn't read the context closely enough. I stand corrected.

Birthday Pony:
The basis of Mutualist theory since Proudhon has been cooperation of laborers through trade unions in the case of large scale production. Possession as the basis of ownership not only implies but empowers the idea of woker control in the workplace. From there it necessarily reverses or destroys a number of social relations in production. It's not just a simple case of different words.

Thanks. I guess the question I have now is, which is believed to be necessary for which? Is ownership based only on possession and use believed to be necessary for worker control in the workplace, or is worker control in the workplace believed to be necessary for ownership based only on possession and use?

Birthday Pony:
What I'm reffering to is that, until Carson, Mutualism's theory of value has taken place in the context of a discourse that places the laborer as the full owner of a product until its sale or distribution elsewhere. That Mutualism has been a part of a long historical and philosophical discourse about empowering labor's ability to control capital.

Okay, I stand corrected again.

Anyway, the above seems to imply that the possession-and-use theory of ownership is necessary for worker control in the workplace, not the other way around. If so, then this seems to prove Evilsceptic's point, which is that the primary, fundamental difference between anarcho-capitalism and mutualism is their different theories of ownership.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

I would say Mutualism posits both as equally important. Worker control is already attainable, in fact its a point ancaps always bring up in debates, and occ/use doesn't imply unionism (although it does necessitate some sort of worker control).

My point is that while the ownership schemes are a big difference, there's a lot more to each theory that separates them, methologies, certain points of emphasis, etc. A Mutualist that drops occ/use is more likely to end up a Tuckerite anarchist than AnCap. The conversion from ancap to anarchist or anarchist to ancap requires a shift in methodology and a general worldview. Just as Tucker demonstrates, one can have an ownership scheme that isn't possession or communist and still believe that labor is the owner of their product until distribution of some sort (market, gift, ritual offerings).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 286
Points 5,555

Birthday Pony:

Reducing Mutualism to Kevin Carson is, just like the first statement, a pretty glossy view of it.

I wasn't. I probably shouldn't have used Carsons economics as an example because I suppose it made it seem like I was marginalising Proudhon and co. 

Birthday Pony:

Trade unions are not just compatible with it, they are central to it.

And I just don't see anything wrong with unions. 

Birthday Pony:

LTV of some flavor is a pretty universal aspect as well, even in Carson's Mutualism.

The LTV is tied to mutualism not because it is necessary for mutualism but because at the time mutualism was being formulated the LTV was the theory of value being used by economists. Had mutualism been a larger movement, like liberalism, it might have moved with the change in economic consensus. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

That you see Mutualism and AnCap as compatible is cool, and shouldn't really bother me. It's a nice sentiment.

I take the failed ALL, the turn by people like Brain Police and the somewhat jaded view of Shawn Wilbur, as evidence that the two theories are not as compatible as one would think.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Dec 28 2011 9:39 PM

They don't have to be applied at the same time in the same place... As I said, geographic separation might fix things. Either way, if one system works while the other doesn't, then the inferior system will fall out of favor. Plus, remember - Principles AnCaps wouldn't take the land of a commune, because they would see the individuals as the owners.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590

Birthday Pony:
I would say Mutualism posits both as equally important. Worker control is already attainable, in fact its a point ancaps always bring up in debates, and occ/use doesn't imply unionism (although it does necessitate some sort of worker control).

"Importance" is not what I was talking about. And I was wrong earlier - adhering to the occupation-and-use theory of ownership is not necessary to establish "worker control". Anarcho-capitalism would certainly allow for a kind of worker control in the sense of joint or collective ownership. What adhering to the occupation-and-use theory of ownership does is consider employer-employee relationships illegitimate, so that - from a moral/legal standpoint - workers must have control of their workplaces. I think that's the real point of these things - to (try to) prevent wage labor from existing anywhere.

Birthday Pony:
My point is that while the ownership schemes are a big difference, there's a lot more to each theory that separates them, methologies, certain points of emphasis, etc. A Mutualist that drops occ/use is more likely to end up a Tuckerite anarchist than AnCap. The conversion from ancap to anarchist or anarchist to ancap requires a shift in methodology and a general worldview. Just as Tucker demonstrates, one can have an ownership scheme that isn't possession or communist and still believe that labor is the owner of their product until distribution of some sort (market, gift, ritual offerings).

Actually, it seems pretty simple to me. Mutualists, anarcho-communists, and even left-libertarians don't desire freedom (including free markets) as an end in itself. They desire other things that they think freedom will give them.

But can you explain what you see as the differences in "methodology" and "points of emphasis"? It might help me in my analysis. :)

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (17 items) | RSS