I'd be more than happy to abandon the labels "anarchist" and "capitalist" too much bad history and disputes. Hell, take "libertarian" too.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Angurse: I'd be more than happy to abandon the labels "anarchist" and "capitalist" too much bad history and disputes. Hell, take "libertarian" to.
I'd be more than happy to abandon the labels "anarchist" and "capitalist" too much bad history and disputes. Hell, take "libertarian" to.
I am calling myself a voluntarist now. I can't see how that can be corrupted. It should be good for 30 or 40 years.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
ThorsMitersaw:You need to understand that there exist a multitude of definitions for capitalism and socialism which entail several political, economic, and social factors in different combination. The ambiguity of the terms makes them useless. It is like speaking to word liberlaism to the average person and expecting them to associate you with Jefferson and not Pelosi.
It is this very behavior however that is so disturbing. The pervasive propaganda of changing foundational definitions across various philosphies. For example, the replacement of Fascism with Capitalism where fascism should be used. The tactic occurs in two steps.
A) The removal of the original inflammatory word or tactical and intentional removal of it's understanding and meaning. The words meaning becomes vague over time or forgotten. For example, the lack of understanding of fascism.
B) The second phase uses a related key words from the opponents ideology. It is replaced with the once retired inflammatory term and all the original inflammatory associations are then tied to the new word. The end result is that the word Capitalism is looked upon with the same negative merit as Fascism, however in both cases the general public has no idea what either of them means.
This tactical indoctrination is paramount to their cause and is highly effective as it permeates into the mainstream media where the general public feeds for stimuli. The semantical attack is a cunning one in my opinion. It leads me to believe that the opposition is not a mindless zombie of collective enemies, as Ayn Rand may have thought, but a clever collective group of people who know precisely what they are doing. These people whom hate property, freedom.
With this known I cannot simply let the enemy steal our words and their meaning without reprimand. If we surrender to semantics with the notion of "This is just how it's going to be" then we premptivly build an obstacle for a concise understanding of Freedom to future individuals of interest. More and more words become entirely defined in situational context based on whatever arbitrary views carried by the argumenter. The words are no longer argued based on their original meaning. This mis-leads the masses, misdirects the truth, and makes arguments much harder to comprehend in general. We will constantly be changing our rhetoric in attempt to counter theirs. Our arguments will no longer focus on freedom but become a part of the fallacious cyclical arguments of right and left. We will get pulled into the same false dichotomy of the current establishment. By that I mean, whatever is Left must be right, and whatever isn't right must be wrong or vice versa.
Instead, I have specifically decided to take a stand and address every person I encounter who incorrectly identify's bailouts, legislation, and government/corporate partnerships as being a form of capitalism. We have already lost the word liberalism to people who overall hate the idea of liberty. I can't think of a more modern example for the concept of Doublespeech.
If we are not careful we will loose the word Capitalism in the same way. In war losses will always occur but that does not mean we should give in. Capitalism is freedom, and I intend to teach it as such.
Statism is a religion.
the problem is that only people who associate capitalism with freedom are right-wingers and libertarians. its like saying swastika and then explaining that swastika has nothing to do with nazis.
Whats ironic about this is the "Right's" own inconsistencies are key contributors to the destruction of the meaning of capitalism. The very party which attempts to defend it. And for all the wonder in the world I wonder if the right defends fascism using the word capitalism instead as I described above.
if socialism yielded high living standarts, then the right would praise that. after all, very few of them are principled free marketeers. they are basicly defending the system
garegin:the problem is that only people who associate capitalism with freedom
The actual defense of freedom and the claim to defend as such are entirely different. I know of no true right wingers that are really for freedom. Most are for perpetual oppression of the state by various means and many are for oppression of our state into foreign nations as well.
filc:Capitalism is freedom, and I intend to teach it as such.
I am increasingly thinking this to be incorrect. The word capitalism, in its beginnings, was used to describe a system within society in which property rights were violated in favor of a plutocratic class of wealthy land owners and tradesmen. We would likely call this mercantilism or corporatism. It seems to me that most persons throughout time have used capitalism to describe a system in which the rich are made rich, richer, and their ill gotten wealth protected, through state action.
To make things clear, I am not too fond of socialism either. Brad SPangler has tried to rename anarcho-capitalism as stygmergic socialism based upon Benjamin Tucker's work comparing and contrasting anarchism and socialism. But Tucker himself admits even in the 19th century that the word socialism is ambiguous and vague. So why endear ones self to it?
I say to hell with both of the words.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
ThorsMitersaw:I say to hell with both of the words.
I'm down with that homie.
liberty student:I am calling myself a voluntarist now. I can't see how that can be corrupted. It should be good for 30 or 40 years.
Don't mention that to any anarcho-communists. You might as well be a fascist as long as you believe in property rights.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
David Z:Don't mention that to any anarcho-communists. You might as well be a fascist as long as you believe in property rights.
I know. I spent a little time on Rev Left. The people who threaten and insult the most, are generally the less intelligent ones. Hmmm, I wonder if that applies to anti-propertarian mutualists....
whipitgood: I take it this is just a semantics issue, but he seems to be really torturing the word socialism to make it mean free market.
If you haven't caught it yet, go read all of Brainpolice's Anarcho-capitalism is Not a Form of Libertarian Socialism. It was excellent.
One could say that "we all believe in non-aggression, so the distinctions are moot", but even non-aggression is going to be defined partially based on what property norm one assumes ahead of time.
David Z:If you haven't caught it yet, go read all of Brainpolice's Anarcho-capitalism is Not a Form of Libertarian Socialism. It was excellent.
It's much better than his usual fare.
wow i think BP finally saw the light that socialists are not just libertarians with different preferences. of course there is a difference of opinion as when socialists say that they "oppose" capitalism. oppose legally, morally, ethically, by personal preference?
garegin:wow i think BP finally saw the light that socialists are not just libertarians with different preferences.
I think he moderated his usual argument, I'm not so sure he has changed his positions in any meaningful way.
i think the heart of the matter is that some people find the worker non-ownership of means of production as repulsive and then try to twist the NAP or libertarianism to fit their views. then they make up stories of mushrooming of many small-businesses and reduction of big corporations's size. the bottom line is that modern production cannot have only freelancers and private contractors. you need workers in a single enterprise. and under "capitalism" that enterprise is owned by entrepreneurs, not the workers. many left-libs don't like that. but even in their world of small businesses- those small businesses are still capitalist in nature. its the same entrepreneur-worker model, only on a small scale.
garegin:the bottom line is that modern production cannot have only freelancers and private contractors.
I tend to agree with this statement, except we need to recognize that the entire structure of production has been grossly distorted for centuries. Who among us has any idea what a really free (or even marginally more free) market would've turned out in stead?
garegin:you need workers in a single enterprise. and under "capitalism" that enterprise is owned by entrepreneurs, not the workers. many left-libs don't like that.
That the workers need to come together under a single enterprise... Yes perhaps (see above). But "capitalist ownership" (IDK what else to call it) is by no means a necessary condition for the existence of such enterprises, at least I do not think that the one implies the other, or vice versa.
David Z:That the workers need to come together under a single enterprise... Yes perhaps (see above). But "capitalist ownership" (IDK what else to call it) is by no means a necessary condition for the existence of such enterprises, at least I do not think that the one implies the other, or vice versa.
the problem is that very few people in the co-op movement want to have "worker's capitalism". a vast majority of them are socialists. but your point is a very good one. a single enterprise need'nt be headed by entrepeneurs. however, my hunch is that many worker's don't want the headache of capital allocation and maganement. even many small businesses that have no state involvement are not worker headed, leading me to think that statism is not the reason for that. saying that, i'm not an economist, so i dont know about the possible structure that the markets would be in a free condition.
garegin:i'm not an economist, so i dont know about the possible structure that the markets would be in a free condition.
Nobody does, which is one reason why I'm not persuaded by all the vitriol coming from the anarcho-left.
I happen to be sympathetic to arguments suggesting that something resembling entrepreneurial capitalism would be prevalent, but that competing modes would also exist and probably in good number, too. For the record, I do not think competing modes of allocation/structure are evil, immoral, or authoritarian. The communists can not offer that same good faith.
Because of this problem, I don't use the words "socialism" and "capitalism" anymore. I use "collectivism", "statism", "free market" , "liberty", etc.
Carson et al make a very sensible agument for their attempt to revive other meanings of "socialism" but I disagree on practical grounds. It's just too confusing for the average person. Other than that, I think they are right to want to approach the radical left in spreading libertarianism/ individualist anarchism, because there are so many shared concerns, such as rising from poverty to prosperity, civil liberties, peace, an environment livable to humans, etc. The differences lie in the ideas on how to achieve those things. That is easier to overcome than a difference in objectives.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap