Right Libertarianism

Ego:

It's something that would have helped you quite a few times!

No. I stand by what I say and I mean what I mean. I at least have the balls to do that.

 

 

Ok... using that definition, posting here period is "unnecessary" self-promotion.

Brainpolice:

I'd suggest that people actually tend to have at least a moderately better understanding of what anarchism is then they do of what capitalism means. At least with anarchism, pop culture cliches of chaos and destruction aside, people vaguely know that you probably oppose the government. With the term capitalism, however, there is nearly endless confusion.

I would understand your approach if you said that capitalism is just a means of production and thus can't describe an entire free market. But saying that it merely has a bad connotation and then claiming the general perception of anarchism is better is illogical. People have their gripes with capitalism, but most fear anarchism since it is understood as lawlessness.

Paul:

Brainpolice:

Everytime you make a post like this, you ignore the content of what I'm actually defending (In this case, mutualism - which is simply free market socialism)

But it isn't "free market socialism".  There can be no such thing.  What it is is capitalism combined with a screwed up theory of value and no trace of socialism as such.

 

It's absurd to label Proudhon a "capitalist combined with a screwed up theory of value".

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

Brainpolice:

It's absurd to label Proudhon a "capitalist combined with a screwed up theory of value".

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

Socialism means "social ownership of the means of production".  But without private ownership of the means of production (that is, capitalism) there can be no free market.  Therefore "free market socialism" is nonsense.  People who call themselves "free market socialists" are in fact either confused capitalists or just wrong.   (That lack-of-private-ownership can't be "competing" with private-ownership in the free market goes without saying)

Brainpolice:

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

My knowledge of Mutualism is superficial, but whenever I've heard a Mutualist - or any left anarchist, for that matter - talk about their 'anarchistic' society, it always seems to entail communal coercion. I have never, ever, heard a left anarchist accept capitalism as a competing form of production. Sure, they don't outright say 'communal coercion', but rather cover it up under silly assumptions that people will magically adopt their way of doing business.

Paul:

Brainpolice:

It's absurd to label Proudhon a "capitalist combined with a screwed up theory of value".

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

Socialism means "social ownership of the means of production".  But without private ownership of the means of production (that is, capitalism) there can be no free market.  Therefore "free market socialism" is nonsense.  People who call themselves "free market socialists" are in fact either confused capitalists or just wrong.   (That lack-of-private-ownership can't be "competing" with private-ownership in the free market goes without saying)

 

The terms "social ownership" and "private ownership" are vague or mean nothing if we don't specify.

Why can't there be "social ownership" that is also private? Why can't there be a voluntarily aquired worker-run firm in a free market? Or a commune? Or a union? "Free market socialism" would simply be socialistic organization in competition within a free market.

I think you're stuck using the cliche false dichotomy of capitalism vs. socialism, which assumes that they are inherently incompatible in every respect. As a statist system they might be, but there is no reason why "socialism" cannot be one option in a free market.

Paul:

Brainpolice:

It's absurd to label Proudhon a "capitalist combined with a screwed up theory of value".

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

Socialism means "social ownership of the means of production".  But without private ownership of the means of production (that is, capitalism) there can be no free market.  Therefore "free market socialism" is nonsense.  People who call themselves "free market socialists" are in fact either confused capitalists or just wrong.   (That lack-of-private-ownership can't be "competing" with private-ownership in the free market goes without saying)

 

The fact of the matter is that with the semantics aside, while they may often go out of their way to deny it, many social anarchists advocate at least some limited form of private property. So long as their socialistic organizations are initially aquired through homesteading or as a product of labor, it is still private property. And while anarcho-communists claim to oppose money, their communes would actually have money substitutes.

Free market socialism is no less a contradiction in terms than anarcho-capitalism if one merely understands the context.

Paul:

Brainpolice:

It's absurd to label Proudhon a "capitalist combined with a screwed up theory of value".

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

Socialism means "social ownership of the means of production".  But without private ownership of the means of production (that is, capitalism) there can be no free market.  Therefore "free market socialism" is nonsense.  People who call themselves "free market socialists" are in fact either confused capitalists or just wrong.   (That lack-of-private-ownership can't be "competing" with private-ownership in the free market goes without saying)

I thought BP's point was that it would be coercion to force other's who voluntary form such communities that engage in socialism within a free market, that individuals should be allowed to do such.  Anarchists forcing others to be more "anarchist" would still be coercion, yes?  The only way I can see socialism within a free market dissapearing is due to competition from other competitors, or stagnation of said socialism within free market due to apparent better alternatives (which are voluntarily chosen over the previous choice).

To quote BP's past words:

"In an atmosphere of free association, noone may legitimately impose their preferential form of organization on anyone else, either directly (through rulership itself) or indirectly (through democracy). Instead, a diverse array of types of organization and an intricate pattern emerges precisely as a consequence of the lack of a singular imposed power monopoly." [organization and conflict: free association vs. politics]

 

I've found that mutualists are essentially market-anarchists who hope that the normal concept of a "market" will dissolve without a state. In all other brands of leftist anarchism, vast majority insist that property is theft; they sneer at the concept of market-anarchists being "anarchists".

Brainpolice:

Paul:

Brainpolice:

It's absurd to label Proudhon a "capitalist combined with a screwed up theory of value".

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

Socialism means "social ownership of the means of production".  But without private ownership of the means of production (that is, capitalism) there can be no free market.  Therefore "free market socialism" is nonsense.  People who call themselves "free market socialists" are in fact either confused capitalists or just wrong.   (That lack-of-private-ownership can't be "competing" with private-ownership in the free market goes without saying)

 

The fact of the matter is that with the semantics aside, while they may often go out of their way to deny it, many social anarchists advocate at least some limited form of private property. So long as their socialistic organizations are initially aquired through homesteading or as a product of labor, it is still private property. And while anarcho-communists claim to oppose money, their communes would actually have money substitutes.

Free market socialism is no less a contradiction in terms than anarcho-capitalism if one merely understands the context.

Brainpolice, are you trying to imply that communists are really pro-market? What are you hinting at?

 

The reason that property exists in all systems is because it's unavoidable. There will always be things exclusively controlled by someone, whether it's free-market capitalism or statist socialism.

Pretty sure he said "an option", I don't remember him saying anything about "communists" being pro-market.  Just like I don't remember anyone saying, "Is Ego Purposley PuttingTerms Into Another's Mouth?".

Ego:

Brainpolice:

Paul:

Brainpolice:

It's absurd to label Proudhon a "capitalist combined with a screwed up theory of value".

There can be such thing - free market socialism would simply be a socialist form of organization within a free market. There is no reason why socialistic forms of organization could not be competeting with other ones in a free market.

Socialism means "social ownership of the means of production".  But without private ownership of the means of production (that is, capitalism) there can be no free market.  Therefore "free market socialism" is nonsense.  People who call themselves "free market socialists" are in fact either confused capitalists or just wrong.   (That lack-of-private-ownership can't be "competing" with private-ownership in the free market goes without saying)

 

The fact of the matter is that with the semantics aside, while they may often go out of their way to deny it, many social anarchists advocate at least some limited form of private property. So long as their socialistic organizations are initially aquired through homesteading or as a product of labor, it is still private property. And while anarcho-communists claim to oppose money, their communes would actually have money substitutes.

Free market socialism is no less a contradiction in terms than anarcho-capitalism if one merely understands the context.

Brainpolice, are you trying to imply that communists are really pro-market? What are you hinting at?

 

The reason that property exists in all systems is because it's unavoidable. There will always be things exclusively controlled by someone, whether it's free-market capitalism or statist socialism.

 

I'm not hinting at anything. I'm quite openly stating that despite their rhetoric and what they've convinced themselves, anarcho-communists advocate some form and limited degree of private property, they just use different terms to describe it. They might make silly and arbitrary distinctions between "property" and "possessions" or between "personal property" and "private property", but it ends up that they are unknowlingly endorsing "private property" to the extent that it is reflected in what they call "possessions" and/or "personal property". They may have convinced themselves that they totally oppose private property, but they go on to propose some form of it without calling it that.

Ego:

Brainpolice, are you trying to imply that communists are really pro-market? What are you hinting at?

All forms of voluntary human interraction are pro-market. The difference between capitalists and voluntary socialists is that the capitalist believes that profit and interest are necessary and inevitable in a free market, and the socialist/mutualist/syndicalist believes that profit and interest are perversions of the market brought about by the state. Capitalism is strictly a category of economic understanding which can exist in both voluntary and involuntary forms. It is not synonymous with a free-market. Likewise, socialism is a category of economic understanding which is not equivalent to any single form of ethical or political belief.

 

Nitroadict:

I thought BP's point was that it would be coercion to force other's who voluntary form such communities that engage in socialism within a free market,

What do you mean by "engage in socialism"?  Engage in lack-of-respect-for-property-rights?  I.e., steal and trespass, etc.?  Obviously that can't be sanctioned.  But I can't imagine what else you could mean.  That's the only difference between "socialism" and "capitalism"; if they're respecting property rights they're not "engaging in socialism", they're "engaging in capitalism"!