Giant_Joe: "Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism." Capitalism in the general mainstream use of the word is used when referring to trade of privately owned goods as well as everything else that can happen when goods are privately owned, with regards to economics. Jack, you're not going to get a marxist to use terms as we define them here. Good luck though. :p
"Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism." Capitalism in the general mainstream use of the word is used when referring to trade of privately owned goods as well as everything else that can happen when goods are privately owned, with regards to economics.
"Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism."
Capitalism in the general mainstream use of the word is used when referring to trade of privately owned goods as well as everything else that can happen when goods are privately owned, with regards to economics.
Jack, you're not going to get a marxist to use terms as we define them here.
Good luck though. :p
1. That's an ahistorical definition.
2. Did you just call me a marxist(again like LS did that one time)? - care to explain why and step out of the 'an'-cap blinders? And you guys wonder why people don't listen to you and bash you as reactionaries? because you pretty much are.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
z1235: Scott F:Capitalism is a historic concept.It refers to the status quo which is often called corporatism but also traditionally refers to profit,interest and wage labour etc ... No because historically capitalism is/was synonymous with statism. ... Well it may not be called private property (depending on definitions) but it could be said to be what is traded and yes it is traded voluntarily. OK, let's forget definitions. Absent the state, would you have anything against property (goods, commodities, machines, money, etc.) and labor (services) being privately owned and voluntarily exchanged between people? Z.
Scott F:Capitalism is a historic concept.It refers to the status quo which is often called corporatism but also traditionally refers to profit,interest and wage labour etc ... No because historically capitalism is/was synonymous with statism. ... Well it may not be called private property (depending on definitions) but it could be said to be what is traded and yes it is traded voluntarily.
...
No because historically capitalism is/was synonymous with statism.
Well it may not be called private property (depending on definitions) but it could be said to be what is traded and yes it is traded voluntarily.
OK, let's forget definitions. Absent the state, would you have anything against property (goods, commodities, machines, money, etc.) and labor (services) being privately owned and voluntarily exchanged between people?
Z.
Definitions are important but okay. Morally and in right terms I would not though again I'm tending to some towards occupancy and use theory and so am tending to think owning lots of land is not very necessary.
I'm not sure what your getting at. Why the 'privately' owned? as if collective ownership is not private? in which case it seems An-cap denies collective ownership. Furthermore I know what your going to say. Your going to say market absence the state is a free market and a free market is capitalism.The problem is that they are not synonymous ,Mises et al to the contrary.That's why other anarchists find the phrase "anarcho-capitalism" hilarious.To them it sounds like " anarcho-statism".
Private ownership because that is the definition of capitalism.
capitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of capital." (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)
That is as opposed to public ownership. A form of collective ownership can be considered to be private, but not the communist or socialist type of collective ownership. A group of individuals or an organisation can own something privately together. But if everyone owns everything else that everyone else owns in a communist town, then that is not private ownership because no one person or group of people exclusively owns the object.
The only reasons why people equate a state and capitalism together is because we have pretty much always had a form of government in history and we have also pretty much always had a form of capitalism. But capitalism does not have anything to do with the state. Even in the marxist definition of the term capitalism.
I would like to see you toil away at a collective piece of land only for me to come over and reap the fruits of your labour and to turn around to you and say, owning land is not necessary, thank you for your hard work.
"Why the 'privately' owned? as if collective ownership is not private?"
@Scott Hm. I don't understand how this "pivate collective ownership" plays out in real life. This sounds so contradicting and produces knots in my head. To make it clearer I want to replace following terms: Instead of private I will say singular Instead of property I will say control
So finally you are saying that collective control is singular control. I thought they are opposed to each other.
Can you explain following hypothetical situation to me? There is a small field, and 3 people control it collectively. Unfortunately all 3 want to do 3 different things with it. John wants a swimming pool. Bill wants to make a parking lot, and Tina wants to grow strawberries.
How do they resolve this issue within your general framework?
Did you just call me a marxist(again like LS did that one time)?
He might have. But yes, I did.
care to explain why and step out of the 'an'-cap blinders?
Do you go to someone's house and tell them how to eat? Do I go to another country and tell it's people how to use their words? It's not "an-cap blinders", it's just how words are used around here. Get used to it or get lost.
Care to take off the Marxist blinders while you're here, and use words like "marcantilism" and "corporatism" so that we're all on the same page? We have different words to mean different things so that we don't lump different things together and give them the same name and commit logical fallicies. We're not big fans of equivocation. Please, just stop it. Try to get along with people here instead of being uncompromisingly adversarial. If you want to get anywhere with people, you'll have to agree on terms. Might as well respect the way the house uses words. You'll be able to actually start making some progress after that.
I'd gladly change my use of words if I were to go onto a forum that used words differently. People are different in different places and use different words to mean different things. Can you understand this concept, and will you respect it in good faith?
This is presuming that progress is actually the purpose of this thread, rather than the periodic leftist trolling. Most people are much more comfortable arguing over words than over ideas.
z1235: Scott F:History mainly.The institutions and practices we have today came from somewhere and what we often think of as capitalism seems pretty much entangled with statism. "Has any social phenomenon (system, philosophy) historically existed outside the realm of (or dis-entagled from) a state?" Yes ,many .Anarchism being a good example.My point is not that they are related.My point is they are inseperable.
Scott F:History mainly.The institutions and practices we have today came from somewhere and what we often think of as capitalism seems pretty much entangled with statism.
"Has any social phenomenon (system, philosophy) historically existed outside the realm of (or dis-entagled from) a state?"
Yes ,many .Anarchism being a good example.My point is not that they are related.My point is they are inseperable.
Jack Roberts: Private ownership because that is the definition of capitalism. capitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of capital." (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)" Not an extensive definition.A terrible definition ,actually since it does not capture the essence. "A form of collective ownership can be considered to be private, but not the communist or socialist type of collective ownership." I fail to see the false dichotomous difference proposed. " and we have also pretty much always had a form of capitalism." According to An-caps, we haven't.So who's equivocating now? "But capitalism does not have anything to do with the state. Even in the marxist definition of the term capitalism." 1. I disagree. 2. Anti-capitalism is not necessarily marxist nor is the definition I'm using marxist but anarchist. "I would like to see you toil away at a collective piece of land only for me to come over and reap the fruits of your labour and to turn around to you and say, owning land is not necessary, thank you for your hard work." Straw man.
capitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of capital." (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)"
Not an extensive definition.A terrible definition ,actually since it does not capture the essence.
"A form of collective ownership can be considered to be private, but not the communist or socialist type of collective ownership."
I fail to see the false dichotomous difference proposed.
" and we have also pretty much always had a form of capitalism."
According to An-caps, we haven't.So who's equivocating now?
"But capitalism does not have anything to do with the state. Even in the marxist definition of the term capitalism."
1. I disagree.
2. Anti-capitalism is not necessarily marxist nor is the definition I'm using marxist but anarchist.
"I would like to see you toil away at a collective piece of land only for me to come over and reap the fruits of your labour and to turn around to you and say, owning land is not necessary, thank you for your hard work."
Straw man.
Giant_Joe: Did you just call me a marxist(again like LS did that one time)? "He might have. But yes, I did." He did.Search communism minus marching bands.The level of stupidity here is astounding.Criticism outside a narrow band is marxism.Great way to straw man anarchist tradition.An-caps are not anarchists just statist with carefully concealed prejudices. care to explain why and step out of the 'an'-cap blinders? " Do I go to another country and tell it's people how to use their words?" The analogy doesn't fit.Furthermore your basically say if we use it then it's correct.Which is typical of An-cap strategy- ahistorical use of anarchism,ahistorical use of capitalism ,whitewash tucker/spooner et al and conflate every criticism into marxism.Wow. "Care to take off the Marxist blinders while you're here," I'm not a marxist.Individualism anarchism would always have opposed An-cap. "and use words like "marcantilism" and "corporatism" so that we're all on the same page?" Those terms are specific but essentially synonymous with capitalism. "Might as well respect the way the house uses words. You'll be able to actually start making some progress after that." Sounds like the typical propertarian authoritarian attitude. "I'd gladly change my use of words if I were to go onto a forum that used words differently" So you'd come to the forums of lib left and rail against capitalism?
"He might have. But yes, I did."
He did.Search communism minus marching bands.The level of stupidity here is astounding.Criticism outside a narrow band is marxism.Great way to straw man anarchist tradition.An-caps are not anarchists just statist with carefully concealed prejudices.
" Do I go to another country and tell it's people how to use their words?"
The analogy doesn't fit.Furthermore your basically say if we use it then it's correct.Which is typical of An-cap strategy- ahistorical use of anarchism,ahistorical use of capitalism ,whitewash tucker/spooner et al and conflate every criticism into marxism.Wow.
"Care to take off the Marxist blinders while you're here,"
I'm not a marxist.Individualism anarchism would always have opposed An-cap.
"and use words like "marcantilism" and "corporatism" so that we're all on the same page?"
Those terms are specific but essentially synonymous with capitalism.
"Might as well respect the way the house uses words. You'll be able to actually start making some progress after that."
Sounds like the typical propertarian authoritarian attitude.
"I'd gladly change my use of words if I were to go onto a forum that used words differently"
skylien: "Why the 'privately' owned? as if collective ownership is not private?" @Scott Hm. I don't understand how this "pivate collective ownership" plays out in real life. This sounds so contradicting and produces knots in my head. To make it clearer I want to replace following terms: Instead of private I will say singular Instead of property I will say control "So finally you are saying that collective control is singular control. I thought they are opposed to each other." That's the dichotomy I'm rejecting. Can you explain following hypothetical situation to me? There is a small field, and 3 people control it collectively. Unfortunately all 3 want to do 3 different things with it. John wants a swimming pool. Bill wants to make a parking lot, and Tina wants to grow strawberries. "How do they resolve this issue within your general framework?" They have to work out a system whereby they could do so.It's indeed possible under collective ownership.This is a complete straw man.
"So finally you are saying that collective control is singular control. I thought they are opposed to each other."
That's the dichotomy I'm rejecting.
"How do they resolve this issue within your general framework?"
They have to work out a system whereby they could do so.It's indeed possible under collective ownership.This is a complete straw man.
"Has any social phenomenon (system, philosophy) historically existed outside the realm of (or dis-entagled from) a state?" Yes ,many .Anarchism being a good example.My point is not that they are related.My point is they are inseperable.
What exactly are you arguing is inseperable ? If your argument is because we have always had a state, therefore we can not have an economic system that involves private ownership without a state, which therefore means that capitalism and the state are inseperable. Which means that your counter argument to, communism and anarchism being incompatible is that capitalism and the state are inseperable. That argument actually (if correct) does not even disprove that communism and anarchism are incompatible.
"But capitalism does not have anything to do with the state. Even in the marxist definition of the term capitalism." 1. I disagree. 2. Anti-capitalism is not necessarily marxist nor is the definition I'm using marxist but anarchist. "I would like to see you toil away at a collective piece of land only for me to come over and reap the fruits of your labour and to turn around to you and say, owning land is not necessary, thank you for your hard work." Straw man.
I never said anything about anti-capitalism and your irrelevant answer and misinterpretations of what i said could equate to a straw man, ironically you choose to label my dose of realism to your ideology, a straw man.
@Scott
" "So finally you are saying that collective control is singular control. I thought they are opposed to each other."
That's the dichotomy I'm rejecting."
If their is no dichotomy, then why arguing against singular control (private property) in the first place, while collective control is ok ?
"They have to work out a system whereby they could do so."
I thought you have already a system! Or do you only set some rules you deem morally right, and then the people have to try to find ways how they can cooperate while not violating your rules ? (Within this scenario I give you the benefit of the doubt that the people would magically really try to follow your rules).
" It's indeed possible under collective ownership.This is a complete straw man."
Where did you see a straw man? Only an argument can be a straw man, but actually I didn't make an argument! I merely asked a question, because I do not understand how it works out! So please help me by telling me a way how it would be possible that they could resolve this situation in a reasonable way without force (Preconditioned that they don't just change their mind out of nothing) ? This should not take lots of words.
@anyone
Was I impolite, imprecise, or so stupid that it is understandable that Scott dodges my questions?
I am quite disappointed. One dodge and now plain ignoring… This question, you may not believe it, is honestly meant! I cannot figure this out on my own, which is precisely the reason why I cannot advocate syndicalism/left anarchism etc myself. There are other issues as well but this would at least be a good start. How can you expect that your political theory can be dominant one day if you cannot answer such simple questions?
I guess I’ll have to try my luck at RevLeft. Anyone knows other blogs or forums where I could try?
"Radical leftists... can you find me one who doesn't answer in giant blocky paragraph form?"
Can you prove that every argument someone makes about their view can be done with snappy, one-sentence retorts?
I have a fundamental confusion with the term anrachocommunist. The term reeks of oxymoron to me. Communism *cannot* exist without a central authority or at the very least, a complete erosion of individual rights.
AnCap does not preclude forms of cooperation which do not involve currency or medium exchange. The system is implicitly Voluntaryist, as the legitimacy of aggressive coersion is removed. An AnCap society would deal with a violent aggressor the same way an Anarchocommunist one would. Do you understand how an AnarchoCommuist society would deal with such a threat?