I kind of like the ideas of Samuel Edward Konkin. However, it is a left-learning version of Anarcho-Capitalism, and he raises some good points about sticky property..I think. I'm not sure what to think about sticky property and the rothbardian-left view of it. However, an Agorist-AnCap society would make all the socialists happy as well.
I think the Agorist movement is pretty neat.
i'm new here, so this is probably a silly question, but aren't mutualism and agorism two very different things?
Brainpolice is a mutualist.
Novus Zarathustra:I think the Agorist movement is pretty neat.
I have yet to encounter anything on agorism worth caring about.
I have Konkin listed as a voluntaryist.
I'm pretty sure he's not a mutualist. And yes, agorism is something entirely different.
Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.[1] Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank which would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate only high enough to cover the costs of administration.[2] Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value which holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".[3] Receiving anything less would be considered exploitation, theft of labor, or usury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
How about the mutualists can go be mutualisty with their labor theory of value credit banks and barter schemes, and then the other people who want to do other stuff can do that too?
NewLiberty wrote: How about the mutualists can go be mutualisty with their labor theory of value credit banks and barter schemes, and then the other people who want to do other stuff can do that too?
+1
Voluntaryism ftw.
I was mainly talking about Carlson, who takes ideas from AE and AnCom, and puts them togather in some new form of Mutualism and Agorism. Its a balanced idea, because the AnCaps are happy that they have their free markets, and the AnComs which hate free markets, property, and capitalism will be happy that the the workers and individuals get to own their productions.
If you want real freedom, don't bother with goofball movements. 'Left-libertarianism' is the most ridiculous branch of libertarianism, wherein I for some reason should give a damn because some people don't treat black people or women in accordance with what they arbitrarily deem to be 'fair'.
Insurrection is the road to power, and therefor, to real freedom.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
would the world be better off if given that most lefties would never fully 'see the light' as to say, if instead somehow they were all magically converted into 'left-libertarians' ?
Could left-libertarianism be used as a bridge to bring more lefties on board?
Its called the ROTHBARDIAN-left. It is a a left learning Libertarian ideology, that incorporates AE and AnCom. Isn't the Libertarian-left strictly for socialists/ancoms/ansyns?
@Liberte,
Left styled libertarianism is most certainly goofy and usually vague (it reeks of soical positioning hipsterdom). To me the suprise is, it seems to attract people who ought to know better (honestly, mutualism?) and justify their positions with cryptic and or condescending answers.
The real joke is agorism though, even the "right" libertarians love it. At best it is comical by being unaware of the painfully obvious for running a small business (perhaps a given to the hip activist bourgoise students and academicians), at worse it is leading people down dangerous alleys (perhaps literally) for no reason other than "the good cause". Leave it to libertarians (proving to be a most non entreprenurial bunch) to turn individualistic capitalism into a socialistic cause that can't calculate what is best for the individual.
"You're acting as though I have a position, but I have no position - stop straw manning me!" *cough* Brainpolice! *cough*
Left-libertarianism seems to me to be basically an ideological infiltration of individualist anarchism by Maoism.
Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank which would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate only high enough to cover the costs of administration.
All well and good, but where is MutualistBank supposed to get the money it's loaning out? Nobody in their right mind would lend their money to the bank at zero interest: it would have to pay interest to its depositors...if that makes up part of the "costs of administration", then MutualistBank is just AnCapBank with a different flag.
It's possible to have a market with worker-run co-ops that would be classified as socialist, not capitalist at all.
Only in the most basic sense. If the co-op members can't (a) stop working for the co-op without being forced to sell their shares, or (b) sell their shares to non-members -- i.e., if the co-op isn't really a co-op -- then yes, it would be classified as socialist, but no, there's not a real market that can solved the Mises calculation problem.
I've never, ever understood what's so damn righteous about "worker ownership" of the means of production. I'm not denying the arrangement can work, but fail to see why it's such a moral imperative for leftists.
I'm interested in what 'left libertarians' have to say but I do find they never really have anything useful to say.Most often they are vague and go on about things without relevance - ' dialectical libertarianism' anyone?- I've yet to find any substance in their ideas other rhetoric and when you find substance it's terribly misguided.Moreover a lot of the language used is sometimes vindictive and strawmanning other non 'left libertarians'.
Overall 'left libertarianism' seems a confused attempt to make libertarianism be on the same level of hipness as leftism or an attempt to smugle leftist ideas into libertarianism.I don't think it works.If all it was about was trying to make leftists see why their values are better suited to libertarianism I'd support it but it goes so far beyond that.
I want to lay out my brief review of their main ideas:-
Where they have things wrong.
Equality of authority: I've argued before that because they base their libertarianism on the 'equality of authority' (the idea that no one should be subordinated to anyone else) they must reject not only government but hierarchy,authority,wage labour,contracts ,property and property rights.Basically their foundation undercuts their libertarianism(though they could still be libertarians and oppose property morally but not wish to ban it legally).From this principle they become like certain types of left wing nihilistic anarchists.
Thick libertarianism: They seem to make out as though we care about nothing else but aggression.This isn't true though this is all libertarianism is considered with.I fail to see how they can argue that libertarianism requires anti-racism.
Counter economics: I was impressed with Konkin's counter economics until I read Rothbard's criticism's and he pretty much smashed it.Counter economics claims a black market is a free market but for a black market to exist the market must be unfree.Also Konkin claims that the whole market should become black market but that's unrealistic.Lastly Konkin claims the black market will develop institutions to suppress the state.This seems highly unlikely.
Anti-big business: When they critique corporatism I agree with them but when they attack corporations per se or wage labour per se I reject and oppose them strongly.For some strange reason they speak of ' the monopoly of capital' and claim that this 'monopoly' ensures that wage labour is slavery.
Georgism: I'm shocked that this is even considered a kind of libertarianism.They advocate a tax! Libertarians are anti-tax by definition.Also though not contrary libertarianism they oppose landlords and rents which is surely contrary to rational economics.
Mutualism:The major claim of mutualism is that what ownership of property should be designated based on use(as opposed to what they call the 'land monopoly' ).Now this might seem sensible prima facia but it's implications are absurd.If I'm off on holiday not using my house someone else can come in and homestead it and then they own it.This is genuinely what they argue for.They don't think of my example though,they apply it to absentee landlords or distant employers.Essentially it legitimises theft.Mutualism is just absurd.
Where they have things right but it's trivial (because in most cases non leftlibs have come to the same conclusions.
Use of the term Capitalism: Their right that we should be precise when we use the term 'Capitalism'.Too often it's used to imply it exists currently or has in history.But how can it have when we use it to mean voluntary economic relations or private ownership of the means of production or true private ownership of property? Government and private ownership are contradictory.Capitalism cannot exist while government does.Instead I would suggest we use the term market.
Mutual aid societies: Generally libertarians are fine with the idea of these organisations(which are essentially clus which provide private welfare and the like) but some argue against them.left libs argue for them.I see no libertarian reason to oppose them.
Pluralism under Anarchism: Sometimes non left libs are guilty of forgetting that under anarchy there would be multiple economic social orders(Capitalism,voluntary socialism, primitivism etc) and multiple ways of organising(e.g. contracts,voting etc). We have to beware of sounding like the anarchy we advocate is solely capitalism.We should try to make it clear that we would accept other social orders under anarchy as long as they were nonaggressive.We can still maintain our believe in Capitalism while advocating a plural diverse anarchism.
Non state group property: Another thing us non left libs often forget is that under anarchy all property wouldn't necessarily just be individually held.There would very likely still be non state group owned property.In some cases this might even be oppose to everyone and anyone.Leftlibs favour this and I see no reason to oppose this though I do think if there were no excluding rules then the tragedy of commons would arise most likely.
Labour unions: While I don't understand the leftlibs obsession with labour unions I do come to the conclusion from there ideas that libertarian unions are possible in theory.Imagine it ,unions which protest and lobby their employers to oppose anti-business anti-libertarian laws and programs.This isn't technically a leftlib idea,It's mine but it was inspired by their ideas.
Libertarian as benefitting the poor: leftlibs are great at showing how the state is the enemy of the poor and how libertarianism is the solution.Non left libs do it too but not to the same degree.Maybe we need to improve on this.
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.
Frankly, all the 'rule making' and idealism of 'individualist anarchist capitalists' and 'mutualists' is silly.
A free society, one in which does not corrupt social bonds centralized statism and dependency, will have to place a high premium on cooperation and understanding how to deal with human capital. Today and in the future, 'individualists' are squashed or are anomalies. There can be no individualist society; even if some societies place a greater influence on autonomy and responsibility for action. In the future, even more so. This is the same in the animal kingdom: evolutionary adaptation favors diversity and cooperation. The competitive and strength-based aspects are merely one side of the same coin.
On the other hand, many of the things Mutualists think that make capitalism or socialism incomplete theories, are true about mutualism: people could still be treated unfairly, workers could get bored, relationships could still be unfruitful, bigoted opinions (for instance religious or social ones) could still reign that make progress artificially limited. And this is why I think many people choose mutualism over capitalism, because they feel mutualism is more complete or thorough. But it is not really. Mutualism is purely economic; obviously an anarchist society must be based on greater understandings than simply economic ones. That doesn't make capitalism or mutualism better. But the same applies to both theories.
Agorism I think is not good because most people can't live the style of life where they can risk going to jail all the time.
Also, I think creating the image of the market on the margins would just further make people hate anarchism and markets. The same way many people have bigoted opinions about groups on the margins already. And so fear it and use it as an excuse to further strengthen the state. These margins and black markets are necessary to the legitimization of the state Since the state needs a reason to tote the gun. And it in turn further strengthens the stupid ideology of statism, as well. "I'm different than those jerks, I have a Real Job and do what the state says."
creating a counterculture might influence some people, but I don't see how black market activity would get better press than say Wall Street or Wal-Mart. On both ways, people don't understand the distortions that make them possible or necessary in some cases. And in both cases, state intervention makes too difficult to understand their nature. People already are scared to death of drugs to the point that they wish to ban them to get rid of the drug dealers. But who knows who they fear more between the drug dealers and the drugs.