From what I can tell, many socialists feel that the federal reserve is part of the capitalist system. It may have been set up by capitalists, but that does not make it a capitalist institution. Besides, what is a central bank but a mechanism for controlling markets, that is markets in money. Now (this may not be entirely new and maybe someone already clearly stated this) I believe that the financial crisis in 2008 really stemmed from the failure of socialist economic calculation. Part of my hypothesis is that it was not greed at all. It was ignorance, in a way. There was so much credit and money around that no one knew what to do with it, and probably there was nothing to do with it. In other words, the markets were so distorted and signals from the market could not even be read that the central bank, federal reserve, completely and utterly failed. It failed for reasons that apparently Mises pointed out decades ago. I don't know the really technical aspects of the calculation debate, but it seems to me that the crux of it is that a centrally planned economy will, eventually, fail no matter what because it cannot take into account all of the variables. I think that this probably represents a good historical experiment for economics. Maybe some of that history has already been written I'm not sure. What do people think and are there any books concerning this topic specifically that anyone has read?
Similing Dave,
That Peter Schiff video was great. Almost unbelievable to watch. Any other videos of him that would recommend?
He has a few websites.
1. On this page are two long ones that I like. Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One is him speaking by invitation of the Mises Institute. And Nov 2006 Mortgage Bankers Speech, where he lays it all out.
2. He has a youtube channel with 10 minute videos on current events, The Schiff Report Looks like you can get them at http://www.europac.net/media as well.
3. He also has a two hour radio show 5 days a week. Schiffradio.com. I like to go to that site about 3 pm eastern time, when you can download the show commercial free. He is on vacation till thursday or friday, with someone else filling in for him.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
If you fail to delineate between offensive and defensive use of "coercion", sure. And in your opinion was franco using 'offensive' or 'defensive' coercion?
If you fail to delineate between offensive and defensive use of "coercion", sure.
And in your opinion was franco using 'offensive' or 'defensive' coercion?
Relevance? Is a woman fending off a rapist from making use of her body using "offensive" or "defensive" coercion? After all, her body is not her own property, it belongs to the "people"...
Not in any way. You are intiating aggressive force by partitioning off a piece of land and claiming it as yours and only yours. You're a criminal in my eyes. I will be confiscating your property and returning it to it's legitimate controllers in defense of the community.
A community being nothing but a collection of individuals. How did their claim over what was in its original form unowned obtain, such that they can disenfranchise those who do establish a link between the resource and themselves?
Evidence?
Want me to fetch a few to put forth their viewpoints here? It's based on arguments I've had with their lot in the past.
Perhaps we should revisit the thread on Pinochet?
To what end?
Or better yet 2 more recent threads; the one's dealing with libertarians accepting welfare and working for state institutions. Because there are plenty of ancaps in all 3 of those threads saying they are perfectly fine using the state to destroy the state.
I fail to see the relevance.
Methodological individualism much? Who are these "most socialists" and "most ancaps?"
Where did I use the words "most"?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
If I were a large property holder, probably defensive. Were a poor worker or a small resources-less community, probably offensive.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Laotzu del Zinn,
"Evidence?"
Well, Karl Marx discusses a stage before full communism known as crude communism (perhaps more accuratlely describe as "socialism") where the workers take control of the state apparatus to, among other things, nationalize all privately-owned property. After reaching the apex of crude communism human society would then enter the last and final stage of history, full communism (or "anarcho-communism") where the state no longer exists and production is coordinated via communes. From my experience most anarcho-communists advocate some sort of transition phase similar to the one described by Marx.
People going about seizing property and then claiming that they aren't coercing people is paradoxical.
"Perhaps we should revisit the thread on Pinochet?"
If it is true that anarcho-capitalists on this forum were advocating for a political regime similar to the one seen in Pincohet's Chile, then that is truly bizzare.
"Or better yet 2 more recent threads; the one's dealing with libertarians accepting welfare and working for state institutions."
I would agree with Liberty student's diagnosis of supposed libertarian's who accept government money or government positions as being hypocrites. I fail to see how this somehow invalidates anarcho-capitalism, as this isn't a flaw in the ideology but rather a flaw in the adherents.
"Methodological individualism much? Who are these "most socialists" and "most ancaps?"
You expose your ignorance of a priori logical deduction in that sentence. How is it violating methodoligcal individualism to make the correct observation that many anarcho-communists advocate statist measures to achieve their poltiical, social, and economic goals?
Laotzu del Zinn:Because there are plenty of ancaps in all 3 of those threads saying they are perfectly fine using the state to destroy the state.
Woah there. Just because someone says they are an ancap as they run for President and launch wars and propose regulation, doesn't mean any of that is actually ancap. We have to separate what people claim they are for, and what they actually do. If you're against welfare but you take welfare, something is rotten in Denmark.
Laotzu del Zinn:Methodological individualism much?
I never thought I would see the day.
Hmm somehow this turned into a debate about property? What is with socialists and property? I wasn't really talking about predicting the bust, although that's important. I was talking about examining the history of the federal reserve, showing how it is either a socialistic or fascistic (or both) institution, and how completely it has failed. I think it is possible to do this and to show the failure of centralized planning, central authority, and ultimately socialism.
For those who might have some qualm with the way I'm using the word "socialism", could you please define it for us as you understand it and then maybe we can all agree on its meaning so we can actually talk about it instead of changing the definition as it suits our needs.
Laotzu del Zinn:Just say "you can't. That is a stupidly simple analysis." Stalin, Hitler, Ceaser, and George Washington cannot all be lumped into one simple category, especially not "socialist."
Well, I can tell you for nothing that George Washington was nowhere near as insane as the other three.
Were you a socialst for like 2 weeks before you gave it up? Are you relying fully on revleft and/or Mises.org for you definition of socialism?
I read a shit load actually.
And I'll just back up this statement by saying that I was never really and truly a 'socialist'. If I had really known enough to be one, there is no way I could support such a tyrannical, bloody mess.
Where is the commune's monopoly on violence? Im not even a an-commy and I can see this analysis falls short of "mini statism."
How is a worker owned franchise "interventionism." Syndacalists still have to trade on the open market. The franchise is merely owned by the workers through the union, rather than by the investors through the board. It seems to me you understood nothing about what you forsook.
They also engage in unionism which (in certain cases) uses government force to obtain their means and ends. Seizing capital from investors is the initiation of force.
I don't oppose all aspects of unionism. Sometimes a union helps a worker determine his true market value before he accepts employment and help prevent him from being 'exploited'. Strikes are technically speaking voluntary and non-coercive, provided union leaders do not use violence against their members (as is often the case).
Tyranny is good if it's against the poeple I don't like? You're gross.
They committed severe atrocities unlike many of the people Stalin killed: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm . But so did Franco and I damn well hate him.
Having said that, I still respect certain elements of the movement. My CP is a picture of a woman operating for the CNT-FAI. I have nothing against co-operative labour. But should I force everyone else to join co-ops and communes? Or should I organise my own co-op/commune and invite/try and persuade other people to join up? Should I seize capital from investors or business men to start up a co-op? Or should I earn the capital myself?
These are questions you ought to ask yourself as well. I know I thought about them quite deeply. And in the end it drove me away from such a murderous ideology.
This analsyis is just as true for capitalism. You wil lhave to force/coerce me to respect your property just as the communist has to coerce you to respect communal property. You cannot escape this fact.
From my experience most anarcho-communists advocate some sort of transition phase similar to the one described by Marx.
What? No they don't. And you have the audacity to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? The main difference between Marxism and AnCom is the transition phase. Both are fundamentally insane ideologies though it must be stated.
Phaedros:Hmm somehow this turned into a debate about property?
Sorry my bad; I had only meant to make a quick interjection. FYI, I think the fed is progressive/Keynesianist more than anything.
If Laotzu wants to continue this discussion he can start a new thread or PM m; I won't reply here.
That's pretty much the response I've gotten out of them when debating them. If an anarcho-capitalist thinks the state can be the prelude to an anarchist future, they're just as equally deluded.
That said, this is veering off topic so I'll say no more on it.
Are you sure those are anarchists, and not just communists? There's a long standing split between the two on the means of revolution, tho they generally agree on the ends sought.
Many anarchists may be economic marxists, but it wouldn't even make sense to be a political marxiss and an anarchist.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Im not going to explain it to you.
"Are you sure those are anarchists, and not just communists? There's a long standing split between the two on the means of revolution, tho they generally agree on the ends sought."
Yes, those are anarchists. Karl Marx was an anarchist, and most current-day Marxists are anarcho-communists and seek to achieve their utopia via the means I detailed above.
The split you speak of is between Fabian incrementalists and revolutionaries. The primary difference between the two is how much blood is spilt during the transitionary phases to full communism.
"Many anarchists may be economic marxists, but it wouldn't even make sense to be a political marxiss and an anarchist."
To be an economic Marxist but not be a political Marxist is like being a chemist but rejecting the existence of the atom. You cannot divorce the two. Marxian economics is based entirely on Marxian class theory, which describes the struggle between the bourgoise and the proletariat. You couldn't establish a peaceful communist society alongside an anarcho-capitalist society because, according to Marxian class theory, the capitalists would just invade your commune and enslave all the workers again. If you reject the notion that the capitalist-exploiting class must first be eliminated before you can establish full communism then you should stop calling yourself a Marxist for the same reason the man who doesn't believe in the atom should stop calling himself a chemist.
"Im not going to explain it to you."
Perhaps because I haven't violated methodological individualism in any of my statements.
I'd be happy to continue this conversation in another thread; I think we've derailed this one enough.
"What? No they don't. And you have the audacity to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? The main difference between Marxism and AnCom is the transition phase. Both are fundamentally insane ideologies though it must be stated."
I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what Epicurus is saying. I never said that you didn't know what you were talking about; my comment was addressed to him, not to you.
And for the record, Marxism is anarcho-communism. It's very plainly layed out in The Communist Manifesto. Most anarcho-communists that I've encountered (note how I said "from my experience") are of the Marxist variety. While I imagine that there are other scientific socialists or utopian socialists that advocate anarchy, I don't think that it's unfair to say that Marx is the dominant philosopher of anarcho-communism.
Relevance? Is a woman fending off a rapist from making use of her body using "offensive" or "defensive" coercion?
She's defending herself. Obviously. So are you going to answer my question about Franco?
After all, her body is not her own property, it belongs to the "people"...
No idea what on earth you are talking about here.
I'd consider him an aggressor.
"I'd consider him an aggressor."
Ok, thanks. That's reassuring. The thread about unions left me thinking that LvMI posters where inclined to engage in apologetics for 'right' wing statists as long as their target was the 'left'. A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant - left or right.