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

What does Chomsky mean by this?

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 20 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
SkepticalMetal posted on Tue, Oct 16 2012 3:24 PM

I thought the guy was anti-capitalist all around. What's this about?

  • | Post Points: 20

All Replies

Top 75 Contributor
1,612 Posts
Points 29,515

Chomsky also once said that Rothbard's world would devolve into everyone suing each other over everything.  At least here he admits that we've never had anything even close to capitalism and even says why.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

I find it strange how healthcare could exist in a libertarian socialist society. No private sector, no government coercion. Okay, so what happens?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,612 Posts
Points 29,515

the ends of ancaps and ansynds is the same, voluntarism.  In the end it is a state of mind not an economic system.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

So are you not an Ancap?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760

Ancap is a fancy word for voluntaryist.

In other words, all anarcho capitalists are voluntaryists but not all voluntaryists are capitalists (some are ancoms or ansyns).

I think chomsky here is recognizing the difference between "capitalism" (state regulations, interventionism, corporatism, etc, what the masses think it is), and Capitalism (what it truly is supposed to be, free markets, free trade).

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

I still don't fully understand how anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are compatible with Voluntaryism. How could you have "to each according to yadayadayada" without coercion?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
A train wreck is also a train (that happens to be wrecked)
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

Um...clarification, plz?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760

I was assuming that ansyns and ancoms would not use aggression.

But if they do, then they arent voluntaryists.

I thought the mindset was that if communism was so superior then it need not be coerced.

But if it is, then it isnt voluntary.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

Yes but the point of their entire philosophy is to structure society to their liking. These societies are both anti-capitalist. While this is wildly open to interperetation, I will assume they are referencing their hostile view towards the free-market. If I decided to pull a Lysander Spooner and create, say, a mail company, I guess under the "anarcho-comsyn law" that would not be permitted.

Certainly not my view of Voluntaryism.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
I just meant that anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are both train wrecks, voluntaryist or not. But its possible for them to be voluntaryist, it would be more successful than coerced.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

Oh, I see. Could you explain why they are train wrecks? I'm actually considering reading work by Peter Kropotkin.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
Because people are diverse and multivarious, posessing exponentially different amounts of wealth, and so on. If I am really good at welding ship hulls together, it does not necessarily follow that I am good at managing a ship factory or investing in the shipbuilding industry, so why would we choose to inseperably bundle management and investment tasks with labor? People can still choose to form worker-managed and worker-owned enterprises, but they wont-because most workers wouldnt choose to invest their capital in a factory. Which is why they dont do it very much nowadays, its just not how people typically do things. Nothing wrong with it, just generally less efficient. Its like riding a horse and buggy to work.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

Hmm. Based on what you said, sounds like Valve Corporation is an example of the anarcho-communist working system.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS