Capitalism Refuted?

So your answer is to merely conflate two senses of property and pretend this applies to the libertarian view?

mr1001nights:

That assertion about anarcho-syndicalism is pure propaganda.

Is it not true that anarcho-syndicalists used force in Spain in the areas they occupied to enforce their beliefs against market exchange?

It is capitalists who will shoot you or force you to starve unless you subordinate yourself to their illegitimate power.

Nope. I am sure that you are aware of Gustave de Molinari, due to his popularity in all circles of anarchism. He showed in his The Production of Security how a free market would provide superior defense for the poor and rich alike. Benjamin Tucker, a mutualist, wrote about how the poor would be able to defend themselves better in a free market anarchy. They would easily be able to form militias and peoples' protection services if they so wished. Modern anarchist theorist, Roderick Long, has also refuted the notion that the rich would have more of an upper hand in a free market society in his working paper Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections:

(7) Organized Crime Will Take Over
One objection is that under anarchy organized crime will take over. Well, it might. But
is it likely? Organized crime gets its power because it specializes in things that are
illegal – things like drugs and prostitution and so forth. During the years when alcohol
was prohibited, organized crime specialized in the alcohol trade. Nowadays, they’re not
so big in the alcohol trade. So the power of organized crime to a large extent depends on
the power of government. It’s sort of a parasite on government’s activities. Governments
by banning things create black markets. Black markets are dangerous things to be in
because you have to worry both about the government and about other dodgy people
who are going into the black market field. Organized crime specializes in that. So,
organized crime I think would be weaker, not stronger, in a libertarian system.
(8) The Rich Will Rule
Another worry is that the rich would rule. After all, won’t justice just go to the highest
bidder in that case, if you turn legal services into an economic good? That’s a common
objection. Interestingly, it’s a particularly common objection among Randians, who
suddenly become very concerned about the poor impoverished masses. But under which
system are the rich more powerful? Under the current system or under anarchy?
Certainly, you’ve always got some sort of advantage if you’re rich. It’s good to be rich.
You’re always in a better position to bribe people if you’re rich than if you’re not; that’s
true. But, under the current system, the power of the rich is magnified. Suppose that I’m
an evil rich person, and I want to get the government to do something-or-other that costs
a million dollars. Do I have to bribe some bureaucrat a million dollars to get it done?
No, because I’m not asking him to do it with his own money. Obviously, if I were
asking him to do it with his own money, I couldn’t get him to spend a million dollars by
bribing him any less than a million. It would have to be at least a million dollars and one
cent. But people who control tax money that they don’t themselves personally own, and
therefore can’t do whatever they want with, the bureaucrat can’t just pocket the million
and go home (although it can get surprisingly close to that). All I have to do is bribe him
a few thousand, and he can direct this million dollars in tax money to my favorite
project or whatever, and thus the power of my bribe money is multiplied.
Whereas, if you were the head of some private protection agency and I’m trying to get
you to do something that costs a million dollars, I’d have to bribe you more than a
million. So, the power of the rich is actually less under this system. And, of course, any
court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor
people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires
against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time.
They’d only want to deal with it when they’re dealing with people poorer, not people
richer. The reputation effects – I don’t think this would be too popular an outfit.
Worries about poor victims who can’t afford legal services, or victims who die without
heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) – in the
case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You’re too poor to
purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to
compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the
claim, to someone else. Actually, it’s kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee
basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die
without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to
compensation, and that can be homesteaded.

You really should read Long's entire paper if you want an insight into free market anarchism.

Anarchism is based on the reduction of hierarchy and the placing of the burden of proof on authority.

Yes, and the ultimate reduction of hierarchy is government. The only way to eliminate government is to create a voluntary society - not a society where you have "workers' militias" bossing people around.

"Free market" advocates have no such concern for hierarchy.

False. We have concern for the hierarchy of society vs. government. Classical liberals have written extensively about the TRUE class struggle: rulers vs. the ruled.

In fact, their whole system is based on bosses.

Except for communes, collectives, self-employment, individual/family businesses, worker run factories...

As for the notion that in your "free market society" there "would be plenty of land that they could homestead and live a life on their own" it ignores that land is finite, and in a system based on private ownership and 7 billion human beings, that means excluding many of such ownership.

Again, read up on Tucker and primitive land accumulation and absentee landlordism. A big fault within our state capitalist system is that all land is bought and sold - even abandoned plots that are not homesteaded.

Those people then will have to become wage slaves

Even in today's corporatist society, you can easily work on your own. Small businesses, for example, form the bulk of the U.S. economy. Now imagine what would happen if we removed all of those harmful regualtions and licensing laws which prevent the poorest from competing.

having to work for a boss under threat of poverty, starvation or social stigma.

When bosses compete - you win. Even if it were hard not to work for bosses, employers would have to compete for workers. This is why living standards for everyone have consistently risen in the capitalist West. Businessmen have to compete for workers just like they compete for customers. When the amount of capital increases, worker productivity increases, allowing businessmen to raise wages to match marginal productivity in order to outcompete other businessmen for workers.

A society based on bosses, like the one you advocate is inimical to "workingman associations". This is due to something that you guys ignore: class interests

A society based on rulers, like the one you advocate is inimal to "wage slaves." This is due to something you guys ignore: class interests (rulers vs. ruled).

mr1001nights:

3. the "benefit" in the sense that otherwise they face starvation, poverty or social stigma i.e. in the sense that someone getting hit with a hammer would benefit if someone instead offers to hit him with a stick. It's a coercive set of choices

 

mr1001nights:

1. Capitalists and their state (or private thugs like Blackwater, the Pinkertons etc) will shoot workers if they try to exert worker's control of the workplace and the economy,

No-one here supports statism. However if one attempts to seize property by force, they are the agressors, yes.

mr1001nights:

 or gain unconditional access to food and shelter.

Resources are scarce, no?

mr1001nights:

Capitalist control of the means of production entails coercion, because it results in many people having to work for a boss under threat of starvation.

No it does not. You are altering the use of the word coersion.

mr1001nights:

As my video shows, working to gain one's sustenance in nature is not the same as having to work for a boss.

Actually, you just asserted this, but you did not go into any detail, IIRC.

mr1001nights:

2. Market system is based on greed, bosses and hierarchy

It's based on volutary exchange to the benefit of both traders.

I

mr1001nights:

3. the "benefit" in the sense that otherwise they face starvation, poverty or social stigma i.e. in the sense that someone getting hit with a hammer would benefit if someone instead offers to hit him with a stick. It's a coercive set of choices

Again, misuse of the term coersion. The capitalist holds neither the hammer or the stick.

Taras Smereka:

I see, you pulled that 98% number right out of your ass

Do not have a source for it off the top of my head, but I am sure you can find one with a bit of searching. It is night time in the western hemisphere, just go outside and look up and tell me what you see

Doesn't matter, the word he should have used was scarce.  Also, we could speak of land in the economic sense which is a much wider concept.

mr1001nights:

1. Capitalists and their state (or private thugs like Blackwater, the Pinkertons etc) will shoot workers if they try to exert worker's control of the workplace and the economy, or gain unconditional access to food and shelter. Capitalist control of the means of production entails coercion, because it results in many people having to work for a boss under threat of starvation. As my video shows, working to gain one's sustenance in nature is not the same as having to work for a boss.

First, if the workers try to grab the property of the capitalist, isn't that coercion?  Second, what if I choose to instead work in a voluntary commune (which would be perfectly fine in an arachnocapitalist society) instead of working for a boss, or I choose to start my own company?  Third, what is the difference you imply with your last sentence?  To me, it looks like the same old issue of scarcity.

mr1001nights:

2. Market system is based on greed, bosses and hierarchy

I agree with greed, in the sense that man acts to better himself, but a free market can, theoretically, exist without bosses and hierarchy.  I would put that it is based off of no coercion and voluntary interaction.

mr1001nights:

3. the "benefit" in the sense that otherwise they face starvation, poverty or social stigma i.e. in the sense that someone getting hit with a hammer would benefit if someone instead offers to hit him with a stick. It's a coercive set of choices

Wait, by your logic, people are "forced" to feed themselves, because if they don't, they die.

Also, what do you propose?  Using coercion to feed the needy?

mr1001nights:

You have it backwards buddy, it is coercion that maintains capitalist property (as opposed to the non-exploitative property I favor). Your whole system is based on coercion and would quickly lead to a state. The very origin of the state lies in disparities of wealth 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAgJs9anhw8

 

Thanks Champ, now could you do me a favor and address the other posts which you ignored. Preferably not erecting anything made out of straw, bs, fallacies and fiction this time.

- Adding to the list:

What caused the current economic crisis? Do you have any idea about the Austrian Theory of the Business cycle? If so, please elaborate.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 

 

Which Magic, the Gathering card will you play next?

I have a few issues with some of what you said, but instead of giving one lined answers, & pleas to stop "trolling", I will try and answer them:

mr1001nights:

It is capitalists who will shoot you or force you to starve unless you subordinate yourself to their illegitimate power.

And what type of behavior does this demonstrate?  Statist behavior.  Coercive behavior. 

I cannot believe that any anarchist that engages with a voluntary action with another anarchist, one that may or may not involve an exchange of money, items (barter), labor (you paint my house, I paint yours, etc.), is instantly the capitalist that you exemplify as the one who will shoot you or starve you unless you subordinate yourself to their illegitimate power. 

What if Anarchists are into S&M?  What if an Anarchist couple consensually engage in S&M, wherein there is certainly an exchange of authority for the sake of sexual pleasure, which may or may not be equivalent. 

The male may want to be handcuffed to a bed & whipped with a blindfold, temporarily surrendering his person to his significant other, who is enforcing "coercive" force upon him. 

Reciprocally, the female may want her significant other to engage in role-playing a rape fantasy, where she temporarily gives up her power to her significant other, whom is "coercing" her.  

If you can demonstrate that the capitalist has a monopoly on coercive, statist behavior, over all others, whether they be capitalist, socialist, communist, anarchist, etc., then perhaps you  are on to something. 

Last time I checked however, coercive behavior is not unique to a certain class, race, age, or group of individuals.  The human capacity for coercion is always there, even in anarchist circles, where exercising one's social influence & authority over the dialogue could very well be interpreted as "forceful", "involuntary", and "coercive", especially in the case of vanguardism, whether it intentionally occurs or not.

mr1001nights:

Anarchism is based on the reduction of hierarchy and the placing of the burden of proof on authority.

Anarchism is not also uniformly defined, it is not uniformly practiced, it is not uniformly understood to be "x" and "y", thus why even exempting anarcho-capitalists or market-anarchists, you still have plenty of debate within other circles such as anarcho-syndacalism, anarcho-primatism, anrcho-pacficism, and so forth. 

All the flavors of anarchism have differing means & ideas regarding what could be anarchistic core concepts, such as dealing with either reduction of abolition of hirearchy.  On that matter, what is the Anarchistic solution to solving the inherent hirearchy of the family? 

Will Anarchism endorse genetific modification (assuming that Anarchism is not inherently from a luddite perspective, as some anarcho-primativists might think) to eliminate or reduce the amount of hirearchy required (currently) by our biology? 

Will Anarchism replace the mother & the father of children, & not just the mother of liberty?

These are legitmate questions that so far, I have not seen Anarchism really sovle yet.  If an anarchist rationalizedd family hirearchy, than I hardly see how one can say that this anarchist seriously is for abolition of hirearchy in reality, & as a concept itself.

mr1001nights:

"Free market" advocates have no such concern for hierarchy.

In fact, their whole system is based on bosses. As for the notion that in your "free market society" there "would be plenty of land that they could homestead and live a life on their own" it ignores that land is finite, and in a system based on private ownership and 7 billion human beings, that means excluding many of such ownership.

Those people then will have to become wage slaves--having to work for a boss under threat of poverty, starvation or social stigma. A society based on bosses, like the one you advocate is inimical to "workingman associations".

This is due to something that you guys ignore: class interests

First of all, you must understand this before you continue generalizations:

This forum is not uniform in it's members ideaologies & beliefs.  There are similarities, but the following can be found here:  libertarianism, austrianism (not exactly the same as lbiertarianism, please see Walter Block's "Radical Austrianism, Radical Libertarianism" for more), voluntaryism, anarcho-captialism, market-anarchism, manorialism, left-libertarianism, right-libertarianism, utilitarianism, objectivism, & so on. 

As such, all have varying perspectives on the matter of hirearchy & authority.  You are dealing with a multitude of perspectives, all of which vary in sympathy both for and against your position. 

You are forgetting, tragedically, that there are also different perspectives on what the free-market *is*. 

Some believe we are already in the free-market, but are moving away from that recently.  This is of course, assumes that the State is a legitimate entity that can exist within the free-market, & many anarchists, especially ones that are previously leftist, get hung-up on this vast misconception that buys into the loaded rhetoric of the fascist statist-right & the neoconservatives, but as well as the socialist-left & the neoliberals. 

You will find mainly minarchists, mini-statists (they are actually not the same thing, despite similar wording), vulgar-libertarians (vulgar because they excuse the State's existience & esentially act as pro-corporate, smaller government Utilitarians to "counter" the Statists Majoritiy Parties), & perhaps Statists posing as libertarians and.or anarchists (infiltertrators, curious lurkers online, etc.) beleiving in the above perspective.

Others believes that the free-market never truly existed in the first place, as there has always been a State entity and/or government to make it's existience truly elusive & impossible, as long as The State exists. 

Common ground can be found with anarchists here, however, many anarchists still have a hang-up with the existience of the free-market (and thus, free-market capitalism), due to the ability of individuals within the free-market to continue utilizing hirearchy, despite it being fully voluntary, and despite it being reinforced by services & individuals who wish for the free-market to remain a free-market that is voluntary. 

I bring up voluntary, because despite anarchistic hang-ups with libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists about whether or not anarchists would be able to exist without being persecuted, the fear is not entirley warrented. 

A great deal of libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, & market-anarchists do not object to non-capitalistic methods of economic activity, such as voluntary socialism. 

The key to it being that it is all strictly voluntary, the key to it being that the voluntary socialists do not decide to force people who do not wish to be in their commune, or to fund their acitvites, to do so, & therefore violating individual freedom. 

I highly recommend you read up on voluntaryism, anarcho-pacificism, & autarchism, to understand where I am coming from with all of this, which is I do not think when you use "free-market", and when I, or others here, use "free-market, that we are all using the same definitions & semantics.

As for class interests, I highly recommend what Hans Herman Hoppe said regarding "class consciousness" here: http://blogofbile.com/2008/10/29/what-is-exploitation-who-exploits-whom/. 

I also think Agorism would help reagrding class interests, as well as the concept of libertarian populism by Roderick Long, which you can find info here with this blog post "Toward A Libertarian Theory of Class" http://wconger.blogspot.com/2008/11/toward-libertarian-theory-of-class.html. 

Quite the opposite of your last line in your critique, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, market-anarchism, etc. do not ignore class interests, they just do not implicitly agree with your opinion regarding class interests. 

If you require a majority to agree with you on anything, perhaps you should be re-thinking your affiliation with Anarchism? 

Saiphes:

always? use of force is acceptible as a response to initiation of force.  The button: You've demonstrated that you will initiate force.

Saves other people from what? How do you know that what the someone you're forcing wasn't going to save them in some other way? How do you know they aren't in the middle of saving someone else?  Who are you to define their values for them as to whom to save, and what methods to use, etc?  The rich guy giving to the poor?  Could be his favorite charity is wildlife in alaska or that he doesn't consider people in the US poor and instead donates to african causes... Could be the money you're taking from him to give to the poor was going to be part of a water purification investment that would decrease the cost of water to 3rd world nations by a factor of 10. 

You are morally wrong for forcing your values on him, and you are ignoring Hazlitt's one lesson as well - "What good things are you precluding by your intervention?"

I guess I concede to this.

mr1001nights:

You have it backwards buddy, it is coercion that maintains capitalist property (as opposed to the non-exploitative property I favor). Your whole system is based on coercion and would quickly lead to a state. The very origin of the state lies in disparities of wealth 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAgJs9anhw8

Would you agree that anarchism is about maximum freedom and liberty? If we agree on this definition, then we must agree that there must be some bounds on these freedoms and liberties - violating the freedoms and liberties of others. But how do we know what is violating others freedom or not? This is where the concept of self ownership comes in. Just read Rothbard on this issue.

Anarchists, I believe, use the notion of "coercion" in a completely backwards way. Their definiton of coercion is: if I prevent you from doing whatever you will with the fruits of my labour ("property") then I am coercing you.

It seems to me that anyone who comes to this logical conclusion might want to try and retrace his steps so that he may figure out where he went wrong, instead of doggedly defending that conclusion.

Capitalists and their state (or private thugs like Blackwater, the Pinkertons etc) will shoot workers if they try to exert worker's control of the workplace

This stuff is too funny.  So a bunch of assembly line workers and janitors are going to toss out the specialists and experienced people, in order to "take control" of important business decisions and departments they know nothing about and aren't qualified to handle.

Brilliant.

I wonder how long mr1001nights wiil stick around. Always like to hear oppossing viewpoints, and 1001nights is one of the most outspoken critics of Market Anarchism that I have encountered so far. Anyway it will definitely be interesting to the end result of his visit here. I mean, I would have never guessed that he would have dropped by here. Hope we can all get along and learn some new things.

Nick. B:

I wonder how long mr1001nights wiil stick around. Always like to hear oppossing viewpoints, and 1001nights is one of the most outspoken critics of Market Anarchism that I have encountered so far.

I also like to hear opposing viewpoints - to keep my mind on its toes.

But mr1001 has hardly got radical stuff. He's spitting the same Marxist garbage over and over again.

He doesn't understand what capitalism is.

Mr 1001nights,

I don't think you understand capitalism. But although capitalism is extremely defendable, and well, just a great and wonderful thing, I'll attack you on another point:

You have comprehensively ignored everyone who has pointed out that, like in my sig, workers are free to form collectives in "our" society. In a free society, they can work waged labour, they can set up their own business or factory or whatever, if they accumulate enough capital, they can go join a workers' collective, they can start one of their own. Basically, they are free to do whatever.

And don't talk bollocks about security firms being only for the rich. Look at the biggest companies in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

Of the top twenty five, twenty five serve primarily the poor and middle classes. 

Nick Ricci:

Anarchists, I believe, use the notion of "coercion" in a completely backwards way. Their definiton of coercion is: if I prevent you from doing whatever you will with the fruits of my labour ("property") then I am coercing you.

That's not the free market anarchist definition. Coercion is when I use violence or threat of violence to extort or steal from you/your property.

Refutations of Anarcho-Syndicalism:

Chomsky's Economics by James Ostrowski

Syndicalist Syndrome

The Coercive Anarchism of Chomsky by Barry Loberfield

The Syndicalist Idea, from Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises

The Anarcho-Statists of Spain by Bryan Caplan

Are Libertarians "Anarchists?" By Murray Rothbard

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists by Murray Rothbard

A Crusoe Social Philosophy by Murray Rothbard

Centralist and Syndicalist Socialism by Ludwig von Mises

The Market for Labor by Dennis Bechara

krazy kaju:

Nick Ricci:

Anarchists, I believe, use the notion of "coercion" in a completely backwards way. Their definiton of coercion is: if I prevent you from doing whatever you will with the fruits of my labour ("property") then I am coercing you.

That's not the free market anarchist definition. Coercion is when I use violence or threat of violence to extort or steal from you/your property.

I think he just means syndicalists, or anarcho-collectivists in general.

Woah. Mr1001bolsheviks (my youtube arch-enemy) actually came onto the Mises Forums? Ha!

krazy kaju:

Anyway, now that we're no longer debating his troll status, let's return to the discussion.

mr1001nights, do you know that within a system of free market anarchism, workers would have the right to organize syndicalist businesses and societies for themselves?

Trust me, I already pointed this out to him on youtube a year ago, and he never compromised. He even advocated initiating force to stop someone from entering into a wage labor contract ("freeing" the worker's against their will?).

My fellow comrade, don't you know that the people are too stupid to do what is in their own self interest? This is why we need enlightened workers' vanguard militias to enforce communistic virtue and piety! After all, t3h real anarchism is all about forcing people to not work for those coercive bosses!

krazy kaju:

My fellow comrade, don't you know that the people are too stupid to do what is in their own self interest? This is why we need enlightened workers' vanguard militias to enforce communistic virtue and piety! After all, t3h real anarchism is all about forcing people to not work for those coercive bosses!

Ironically, the vangaurd worker's militia becomes the new boss (or bosses) when it's done like that.

Meet the new boss---same as the old boss.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Meet the new boss---same as the old boss.

Or arguably worse - or just MORE bosses!

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Meet the new boss---same as the old boss.

Ironically, mr1001nights is proposing bosses by saying we should forcibly abolish them.

Oh, but his bosses would be angels rather than mere humans, utterly free of economic motivation. They are preemptively absolved of all the violence they might do to those who wish to voluntarily exchange with other people.

I am glad that some here have the stomach to watch this video and respond. I tried. I really tried, but I only made it to 03:22. I couldn't watch it, because it is very nearly exactly the garbage I used to believe about capitalism... before I grew up, and became informed.

I skipped ahead to point 20 because I wanted to see your answer. Is it hypocrital for a man to oppose slavery but use the fruits of slavery? YES!!! So I can oppose animal cruely and wear fur coats?