our misunderstood allies? .....

[Noleaders]

This is something i'd like everyones opinion on.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled"

what really struck me about this is the last part. Absence of state control. Were early capitalist theories rebellious, even anarchistic?

Im anarchist w/o adjectives, but like many of us dismissed ancap as just another system of exploitation. However having listened to their point of view im in agreement that the system we should all really be against is mercantilism, and we've never experienced true capitalism. Whenever the state intervenes with the economy it is bringing an element of mercantilism which has nothing to do with capitalism into the free market. It is also the reason for monopolies developing.
Im also convinced that atleast in theory ancap doesn't disregard the rights of the poor because in order to be rich in ancap you have to be providing a quality service to the public and at good value, and that without state intervention trade unions would have more power over workers rights basically that employment was a voluntary and co-operative action not a coercive one.

It certainly solves the problem of tyranny of the majority and essentially seems to be a system of people living their life free of intervention while not intervening with the freedom of others.
Not that i plan on calling myself ancap or that ive lost interest in collectivist anarchism but i see no reason to not include them in the anarchist spectrum.

thoughts?

[|Y|]

It's not true, though. Capital, by its very nature, requires a state to control it, to make it what it is. Sure if everyone had an equal share of all resources then there wouldn't be a necessity for police and judges. And even then, property allows people to use it against them. I tell you that you cannot own something but you can lease it from me, and if you "chose" to agree with that, then I beat you over the head with a stick if you stop paying me. If there are too many people to beat over the head with sticks I just hire policing people to do it (this is why every ideal anarcho-capitalist argument invokes "security forces").

It's hard for anarchists to agree with anarcho-capitalists, and indeed, anyone who doesn't believe in possession. Non-possessive property has far too many "gotchas" to allow it to exist in an anarchist environment. To be rich in anarcho-capitalism means you merely stop people from acquiring resources through the almighty contract. You want to bring a competitor down, you make contracts with other people that they depend on to *not do business* with them. These are called no-compete contracts, and they are very wide-spread in the capitalist world.

Many people don't know this but when Microsoft got sued over its operating system, it initially had little to do with their inclusion of Internet Explorer. They were forcing OEM suppliers to not allow other people to put their Operating System on the hard drives of their computers, particularly in the case of BeOS. BeOS was trying to give away its OS and wanted OEMs to put it along side Windows, however, the contract between Microsoft and the OEMs expressly forbid this behavior.

This is the definition of private property, to tell others what they can do with their possessions before and after the fact (in practically all rental situations the landlord reserves complete power over the tenant as it relates to the property).

[Francois Tremblay]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Are you asking if capitalism is compatible with Anarchism? The answer is pretty obviously no.

Ancaps and Misesians adopt a different view of capitalism than the rest of us, defining capitalism as voluntary exchange. This may be a more amendable definition to Anarchism (although I still wouldn't support it), but it's a moving of the goalposts. They promote voluntaryism on one hand, and then support corporatism and absentee property rights on the other.

The other side of the fallacy is those Anarchists (like Noam Chomsky) who promote government (the biggest agency of force that has ever existed) as a counterweight to corporate power.

It will not do to promote either economic or political hierarchies over the other. We must be against both or against none.

[Stealth]

Having a state is less than ideal to say the least, but having a state that recognizes corporate rights without any workers or renters rights in my opinion is worse than having a state which does recognize workers and renters rights. Its not 'great', but its better to at least advocate some rights for the common people.

I have heard the argument that having these rights breeds a false sense of security, that it instills the belief that we need the state, possibly suggesting that if we didnt have these rights then the people would rise up and become Anarchists....I call bullshit. I think we would just end up like China without rights and not any closer to liberation. Maybe if we were on the verge of overthrowing the state then worrying about state measures would be a waste of time, but we are not. We are going to be living under our current government for the time being, and there is no reason to make it harder on the working class people than it already is.


Then again, I tend to be more collectivist, and the syndicalist traditions seem a lot more willing to work on reformist measures than individualists....interestingly, they are also the only ones who ever pulled off a successful if temporary rebellion where anarchism was practiced large scale in Spain.

[Francois Tremblay]

So when has "reformism," gradualism, ever worked in the history of politics?

[Noleaders]

I agree that i would hate to be in a state that promotes corporate welfare rather than workers welfare.

But i was talking about ancap where the state doesn't do either cos it doesn't exist. The workers look after the workers rights by striking and the bosses look after their rights by servicing the public.
Also define voluntary exchange.
Is buying something not voluntary? Is working for someone in exchange for being paid not voluntary?

And i think they agree that it requires a state to have large amounts of capital. So businesses would be smaller under ancap but still businesses to me it sounds a bit like it would turn more and more into mutualism.

[Stealth]

So when has "reformism," gradualism, ever worked in the history of politics?

There are lots of examples of it achieving short term goals that improve peoples lives. It is no replacement for revolution, but there is no reason why you cant work towards both.

1. If you dont appear to be looking out for the needs of the people, they are less likely to join your cause.

2. Apathy towards domestic policy will not necessarily bring you closer to revolution.

3. Reformism can include direct action. The IWW won a lot of class victories for the working class even though they did not achieve their goal of overthrowing the wage system.

[Noleaders]

Doesn't mutualism require an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach tho?

I think we've moved off topic a bit. I was looking for a good critique of capitalism because i think anarchist socialsim is still relying on marxist critique which is now looking a little out of date
for example

the 2 antagonistic classes are giving way, movement between them is easier and they have lost their old connotations

Workers earn far more than the subsistence wages they used to and are invited to have a share of large companies profits through stockholding

more and more people are middle class rather than as marx predicted being pushed into poverty

the labour theory of value has been discredited its now widely accepted something is worse however much or little you want to pay for it

[Noleaders]

sorry *worth*

[Stealth]

Actually, workers are earning less and less adjusted for inflation, and its only expected to get worse with the economy. The golden age of capitalism was probably the 1950s. Way back when, it was entirely possible to support a family with a stay at home mom on nothing but a gas station job. Now it requires two incomes. Rent now consumes a bigger portion of the average working class paycheck than it used to (usury). The price of homes have gotten absolutely stupid....20 years of labor for a plot of land with a house on it? It doesnt take no 20 years to build. Even with the decline of home values and people declaring bankruptcy, the price of housing is still ridiculous.

There is plenty for the working class to complain about.

Still, its better than it was during the industrial revolution, and we have reformist measures, like the 40 hour work week, workers safety standards, overtime pay, health coverage for full time workers, ect, that we never would have had if people did not fight for reformist measures.

[|Y|]

So when has "reformism," gradualism, ever worked in the history of politics?

Isn't that the definition of evolution?

[Lucas]

Doesn't mutualism require an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach tho?

I think we've moved off topic a bit. I was looking for a good critique of capitalism because i think anarchist socialsim is still relying on marxist critique which is now looking a little out of date
for example

the 2 antagonistic classes are giving way, movement between them is easier and they have lost their old connotations

I think someone said in a thread a while back that class, in a more anarchistic anti-capitalist critique is your position, whether or not you own the means of production or a portion of it, etc. If you own the means of production, you greatly influence culture, you directly recieve more benefits, and you have far more power for being a member of the elite minority. However, there are other ways to achieve influence in today's societies such as through intellect and being more well-known rather than rich, and that's where the marxist critique is unfullfiling.

[Francois Tremblay]

Apathy towards domestic policy will not bring you closer to revolution, but being involved in policy WILL bring you farther away from revolution. That is an inevitable fact.

I don't think one's position on revolution, evolution, gradualism, etc... has to do with one's ideology. I used to be more on the revolution side, now I am on the evolution side, without having changed my ideology, just realizing a few things. It's mostly a separate issue, except insofar as our ethical principles are expressed in our choice of revolutionary means, or evolutionary means, or gradualist means.

[Noleaders]

Actually, workers are earning less and less adjusted for inflation, and its only expected to get worse with the economy. The golden age of capitalism was probably the 1950s. Way back when, it was entirely possible to support a family with a stay at home mom on nothing but a gas station job. Now it requires two incomes. Rent now consumes a bigger portion of the average working class paycheck than it used to (usury). The price of homes have gotten absolutely stupid....20 years of labor for a plot of land with a house on it? It doesnt take no 20 years to build. Even with the decline of home values and people declaring bankruptcy, the price of housing is still ridiculous.

There is plenty for the working class to complain about.

Capitalists would argue that this isn't important because even if theres huge inequalities if the wealth was gained legitimately it doesn't matter. Free trade is non coercive (well arguably anyway) so its legitimate.


Im trying to provoke people into giving a detailed and up to date response to capitalists

[Francois Tremblay]

Why? Why should we care? There's no point in trying to answer "up to date" objections because there'll always be new objections. People who believe in an ideal will rationalize contrary facts in any way they can. You should put information out there as much as you want, but don't expect you can or should deconvert anyone.