Emergence Anarcho-Capitalism

 "If everyone were permitted to freely take from one another, and everyone held this belief, then there would be little violence or poverty. It is only when one prevents someone from stealing that violence enters into the equation. No one would amass wealth as those stolen from would be free to take their possessions back. Those with less would be more willing to spend their time stealing, whereas those with more would be the first to realize that stealing was a waste of time. Once equilibrium is reached, production would continue as normal as it would take less time to produce something new than it would be to steal something only to have the person (who now has less and thus needs it more) steal it back. Of course anarcho-communists wouldn't think of it as stealing, but as sharing. Once people stop valuing their labor for what material gains it brings them, they will start valuing it for intrinsic reasons. People will view farming or construction as a means of exercise, software development and engineering as intellectual stimulation."

It is an interesting take on things. I think it will totally work , as long as humans are emotionless, personality less, mindless automatons in a communal society.

The more this thread goes on the more apparent it is that Anarchists want to mold human nature as the Socialists did with their 'ideal' communist man. The entire point of these theories to to form a social system that deals with the reality of human nature, not deny it by making everyone a piece of meat that should not care if its clothes are stolen from it's back.

"In fact, creativity flourishes more when external rewards are removed, as the following video demonstrates:  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html. To say that creative activity must be rewarded is to devalue creative activity."

Do Anarchists in general hold this position or is it your personal theory?
No one says creativity 'MUST' be rewarded. AnCaps do not care either way if someone is creative in a egalitarian sense or if they profit from their creativity in the marketplace. From what you say Anarchists do not like creativity that is rewarded.

So tell me..... who is more moral, just and ethical - those who allow a man to do as he likes with his creativity? Or those who will control a man's voluntary arrangements with others in relation to said creativity?

whereas those with more would be the first to realize that stealing was a waste of time.

...as was being productive. So the next step is to stop wasting time producing anything.

Fool on the Hill:

Socialism - A social system based on explicit recognition of another's right to unused property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between individuals.

So they are voluntarily exchanging what they could as easily and "voluntarily" take?

If everyone were permitted to freely take from one another, and everyone held this belief, then there would be little violence or poverty.

On the contrary, Austrian Economic theory and actual history have shown that there would be not much more than violence, abject poverty, and finally, death. 

Once people stop valuing their labor for what material gains it brings them, they will start valuing it for intrinsic reasons.

Here we go again. The communists, Venus, and Zeitgeist people of the world uniting to lead humanity into the post-scarcity era we all so deserve. If I didn't value my labor for material gains I'd die sitting and waiting for that roasted chicken to fly itself into my mouth. 

People will view farming or construction as a means of exercise, software development and engineering as intellectual stimulation.

And presumably there'd be no one ensuring that everyone got exactly the "excercise" they "needed"? 

In fact, creativity flourishes more when external rewards are removed, as the following video demonstrates:  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html.

Yes, Ford, Apple, and whatever gadget you're typing this from were/are merely results of Sunday morning cross-word puzzles and brain teasers. 

To say that creative activity must be rewarded is to devalue creative activity.

Nothing must be rewarded. The free market (voluntary exchange of property and labor) "rewards" those that best satisfy the needs of most. 

It is a society whose highest ideal is to be a fat, mindless consumer who never engages in any creative or productive activity but has everything brought to him.

Societies have no ideals because there's no such thing as society. How about you leave the "fat, mindless consumer" alone and mind your own business for a change? Have you stopped to think that perhaps individuals (other than yourself!) may not care to be moulded into whatever straight-jacket you've devised for them?

 

 

It is an interesting take on things. I think it will totally work , as long as humans are emotionless, personality less, mindless automatons in a communal society.

The more this thread goes on the more apparent it is that Anarchists want to mold human nature as the Socialists did with their 'ideal' communist man. The entire point of these theories to to form a social system that deals with the reality of human nature, not deny it by making everyone a piece of meat that should not care if its clothes are stolen from it's back.

They don't want to mold individuals, they want to give individuals the freedom to define oneself, to identify one's own needs and and to have the ability to fulfill them. The communist maxim is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I don't think this idea is foreign to human nature. When people are with their perceived equals, they naturally follow this. When a family or a group of freinds gather for a shared meal, they don't distribute the food according to how much each person contributed to cooking. No, they let the hungriest take the most. It also happens that those who are good at something usually enjoy doing it. A good cook is happy when he sees others enjoy his food. To say the cook should be paid is to ignore the mutual benefits that are inherant in the transaction. Think of anarcho-communism as the freest market. When all external constraints are removed, resources are allocated in the most efficient way possible, supply actually meets demand.

By accepting others unconditionally, as beings worthwhile in themselves apart from what they've done, a individuals can pursue virtually whatever they want. This is why it's better to grow up in a family than it is in an orphanage, because a family accepts you unconditionally. Collectivism actually encourages diversity and thwarts conformity. Individualists like other people because they are like themselves, because these people live up to some specific ideal that the individual holds, thus a culture of individualism is a culture of conformism.

Do Anarchists in general hold this position or is it your personal theory?
No one says creativity 'MUST' be rewarded. AnCaps do not care either way if someone is creative in a egalitarian sense or if they profit from their creativity in the marketplace. From what you say Anarchists do not like creativity that is rewarded.

I've developed this theory largely on my own--as an amalgamation of other's ideas. However, I suspect most anarcho-communists hold this belief, at least unconsciously. Mutualists and indivualist anarchists might not hold this belief. Their systems aren't really built around it anyway.

So tell me..... who is more moral, just and ethical - those who allow a man to do as he likes with his creativity? Or those who will control a man's voluntary arrangements with others in relation to said creativity?

The former. But if a musician has the right to make whatever music he likes, I also have the right to copy his music and distribute it to others freely. If he tried to enforce copyrights, that would be infringing upon my liberty, not his.

...as was being productive. So the next step is to stop wasting time producing anything.

Assuming you don't value peace or the needs of other people and would rather live in an every-man-for-himself, dog-eat-dog world.

So they are voluntarily exchanging what they could as easily and "voluntarily" take?

Voluntarily sharing, an exchange that involves giving and taking, rather than buying and selling.

Here we go again. The communists, Venus, and Zeitgeist people of the world uniting to lead humanity into the post-scarcity era we all so deserve. If I didn't value my labor for material gains I'd die sitting and waiting for that roasted chicken to fly itself into my mouth.

I shouldn't say that you wouldn't value the material gains that your labor brings, but that you wouldn't necessarily value your control over those gains. Someone else gaining from your work is a value as well.

And presumably there'd be no one ensuring that everyone got exactly the "excercise" they "needed"?

No, but there might be a bit of peer pressure. I think people prefer to do a variety of things than do the same thing everyday. Here in Chicago, we have a very small organic farm that depends largely on volunteer labor. I volunteered there once and all the yuppie volunteers were like, "this is so fun! It's so peaceful and stress relieving. I wish I could do this more often." People actually don't want to sit at a desk all day. They'd prefer to do some physical activity once in awhile. Likewise, I'm sure a factory worker would prefer to engage in some problem solving once in awhile. I've also volunteered with Habitat for Humanity. Not only did I enjoy the fact I was helping someone out, but I found learning about and participating in construction interesting in itself. Now of course if my work was helping someone increase their profits and their ability to control others, then I wouldn't have found such work interesting. Without pay, I would have felt exploited. If someone in anarcho-communist did enjoy sitting at a desk everyday, then let them do that, let them specialize in what they enjoy and are good at.

Yes, Ford, Apple, and whatever gadget you're typing this from were/are merely results of Sunday morning cross-word puzzles and brain teasers.

And I'm sure Linux, Wikipedia, and Firefox wouldn't have developed without monetary rewards either. Oh, wait, they did. And most people who've tried them think they're better than their competitors. The reason this only applies to software and not hardware is because with hardware the means of production are not commonly owned.

Nothing must be rewarded. The free market (voluntary exchange of property and labor) "rewards" those that best satisfy the needs of most.

Thus the free market (that is, the propertarian free market) seeks the lowest common denominator. Thus, it produces conformity. A profitable company convinces everyone that they have the same needs. A capitalist wishes that everyone were the same because that is what will give him the most profits.

Societies have no ideals because there's no such thing as society. How about you leave the "fat, mindless consumer" alone and mind your own business for a change? Have you stopped to think that perhaps individuals (other than yourself!) may not care to be moulded into whatever straight-jacket you've devised for them?

According to propertarianism, the individual doesn't exist either. They say the body is the property of the self. If it is the property of the self, then it is not the self. Tell me, where is the self? Egoism is self-mutilating. An egoist looks at another person and says, "this person isn't me." He look at his hand and says, "this hand isn't me." But its a hand that they can control. If his hand is only valuable because he can control it, then another person is only valuable if he or she can be controlled. An egoist looks and looks for the self but never finds it. He only finds more things that can be controlled, more thing that are valueless in themselves. Egoism is not the path to self growth, egoism is the path to self-annihilation. Only empathy engenders self-growth. To say that your needs are my needs, that your pain is my pain, that your successes are my successes, that my property is your property is the act of self-realization. The self is no longer centered in some hidden area but encompasses the world. It is the emptiness in which everything resides.

Fool on the Hill:

Voluntarily sharing, an exchange that involves giving and taking, rather than buying and selling.

So that's not an exchange then. One cannot exchange what one doesn't own. What you described is simply taking. 

I shouldn't say that you wouldn't value the material gains that your labor brings, but that you wouldn't necessarily value your control over those gains.

I wouldn't necessarily value the roasted chicken? But, I'd die without food.

Someone else gaining from your work is a value as well.

Value is (individually) subjective. How about you value whatever you value and leave others to value what they want? Sounds fair?

No, but there might be a bit of peer pressure. I think people prefer to do a variety of things than do the same thing everyday.

Again, how about you mind your own business and let everyone do the same, voluntarily so? 

And I'm sure Linux, Wikipedia, and Firefox wouldn't have developed without monetary rewards either. Oh, wait, they did. And most people who've tried them think they're better than their competitors. The reason this only applies to software and not hardware is because with hardware the means of production are not commonly owned.

As I said, the values of the rewards are (individually) subjective. What is wrong with everyone participating in voluntary exchanges that reflect their indvidual value scales? Whether you value money (property, capital, golden yachts), love, poetry, girls, fame, altruism, camaradery, or notoriety there's a market for you to get it. My point is, what other individuals value (or should value) is none of your business. 

Thus the free market (that is, the propertarian free market) seeks the lowest common denominator. Thus, it produces conformity. A profitable company convinces everyone that they have the same needs. A capitalist wishes that everyone were the same because that is what will give him the most profits.

No. The beauty of the free market is that no one has any say as to what others value or should value in order to fulfill some control freak's human engineering wet dream.

According to propertarianism, the individual doesn't exist either. They say the body is the property of the self. If it is the property of the self, then it is not the self. Tell me, where is the self? Egoism is self-mutilating. An egoist looks at another person and says, "this person isn't me." He look at his hand and says, "this hand isn't me." But its a hand that they can control. If his hand is only valuable because he can control it, then another person is only valuable if he or she can be controlled. An egoist looks and looks for the self but never finds it. He only finds more things that can be controlled, more thing that are valueless in themselves. Egoism is not the path to self growth, egoism is the path to self-annihilation. Only empathy engenders self-growth. To say that your needs are my needs, that your pain is my pain, that your successes are my successes, that my property is your property is the act of self-realization. The self is no longer centered in some hidden area but encompasses the world. It is the emptiness in which everything resides.

Good then. How about you take your self-realized collectivist path, and leave us egoists to masochistically wallow in our self-mutilation and self-annihilation? To each their own is only fair, no?

 

"According to propertarianism, the individual doesn't exist either. They say the body is the property of the self. If it is the property of the self, then it is not the self. Tell me, where is the self? Egoism is self-mutilating. An egoist looks at another person and says, "this person isn't me." He look at his hand and says, "this hand isn't me." But its a hand that they can control. If his hand is only valuable because he can control it, then another person is only valuable if he or she can be controlled. An egoist looks and looks for the self but never finds it. He only finds more things that can be controlled, more thing that are valueless in themselves. Egoism is not the path to self growth, egoism is the path to self-annihilation. Only empathy engenders self-growth. To say that your needs are my needs, that your pain is my pain, that your successes are my successes, that my property is your property is the act of self-realization. The self is no longer centered in some hidden area but encompasses the world. It is the emptiness in which everything resides."

Wow, this is full of some seriously false assumptions and strawmen. If I am you and you are me, if your pain is my pain and my pain is your pain then it's really no one's pain. It kind of cancels itself out and then, in fact, no self really exists at all there because there are no things that differentiate one person from another person. That, of course, is not to say that empathy is a bad thing or anything like that. People are naturally empathetic. It's just that your silly new age conception of it is incoherent. If you want you can read this. It might shed some light on your misconceptions.

It's hilarious really. They will argue that they support a persons creative expression in full flight, but first you must subsume your personality into the collective, only then will you be reborn as the ideal anarcho-collectivist, with an 'individuality' that is controlled and dictated by them.

You could at least respect them if they were willing to admit they were for theft, agression and violance as a means to achieving this greater good. But instead they just play semantic games, theft is not really theft, defending your property is actually initiating violance against them, e.t.c

Overlaying all their contradictions is this megalomaniac urge to control and dictate the voluntary, consenting exchanges between people that actually have nothing to do with them. It is an anti-human rejection of free will.

Whoa! I take a break for a couple days and all the sudden this divulged into nonsense! Where to begin?

"If I was able to steal someone elses property and unjustly enrich myself, then yes, I would have less overheads, better conditions, and could expand my own business and create more jobs."

This, and then the non-sequitor about incentives falling, is all very much based on capitalist property theory. If you want to argue to your point, then you cannot argue from your conclusion. Yes, this is theft under capitalist property theory. No argument there. It is not theft from an occ/use standpoint. Everything you have said has not played out in the Argentine economy.

"Are you able to actually see this? Or have you made up your mind to deny the reality of the incentive structure of how and why humans actually act, and what the economic effects will be."

I am arguing from events I have witnessed. I'm not sitting at home thinking about how things work. I am watching them happen, and none of your theory has played out.

Fool on the Hill, I'm not sure I'm with you. I'm not sure that engineers will jump up and do technical work just for shits tomorrow if we abolish the state today, and that is not a widely held Anarchist point. Not that I'm devaluing your arguments, but you're a little off topic and that stuff is for another thread.

"It's hilarious really. They will argue that they support a persons creative expression in full flight, but first you must subsume your personality into the collective, only then will you be reborn as the ideal anarcho-collectivist, with an 'individuality' that is controlled and dictated by them."

For a person that supposedly rejects group identities, on the basis of--wait, let me use your words:
"We see group identity as a surreptitiousway of one ‘group’ unjustly violating and appropriating property from individuals."
As someone who calims that your group does not acknowledge group identities, you're very quick to judge the supposed "them" based on the words of one person. I still fail to see how Anarchism (as a theorhetical framework, not as espoused by an individual here. god knows if I were to base capitalism solely on what I've seen individuals here write I'd think it's some complicated theory seeking to execute all the socialists, marxists, and commies) promotes open and blatant theft, nor do I see how it promotes groupthink, indoctrination, or repression of dissenters. Various communities throughout history have developed (sometimes in the face of authoritarian socialism) anti-authoritarian socialist economies voluntarily, letting dissenters do as they please. They have fought for themselves based on their view of legitimate property, not a right to steal.

Fool on the Hill, I'm not sure I'm with you. I'm not sure that engineers will jump up and do technical work just for shits tomorrow if we abolish the state today, and that is not a widely held Anarchist point. Not that I'm devaluing your arguments, but you're a little off topic and that stuff is for another thread.

Admittedly, I was being rather abstract, in a similar way to economists who assume such things as perfect competition in their models. But if there is value in economists forming models where there is no state interference in an economy, then it should also be valuable to look at a model where there is no interference by property owners in the market. It doesn't have to be all or nothing though. Many use laissez-faire principles derived from such a model to justify certain deregulations, while not advocating the overthrow of the state. I didn't mean to imply that it could happen overnight either.

Anyway, I think I'll bow out now. After all, you created this thread, so only you are entitled to determine how it is used. ; )

But seriously, I didn't mean to derail it. I hope no one took my comments as a personal offense.

"Anyway, I think I'll bow out now. After all, you created this thread, so only you are entitled to determine how it is used."

Not to be contrarian, but I would certainly contest that. ;) Let's not forget this is a forum for public discussion. Over moderation, frustration, and banning has driven a lot of market-minded Mutualists and left-libs away from here.

The reason I said you're off topic is because, although I wouldn't have used your examples, I started along a different train of thought. You raised a good point that dominant economic systems have an effect on how people behave. We don't just create society, but society creates us as well. But that kind of post-structuralist rambling is pretty frowned upon here, and I wanted to keep the thread going.

It seems like our friends have left us, however. They have equated capitalism with freedom, and anything that isn't capitalism is necesarrily (to them) the opposite of freedom. In a free market, people who decide to own things in common and operate with an occ/use property theory would be capitalists (despite their blatant rejection of capitalist principals) is all I've gathered from the folks who post here. Oh well.

Not to be contrarian, but I would certainly contest that. ;) Let's not forget this is a forum for public discussion. Over moderation, frustration, and banning has driven a lot of market-minded Mutualists and left-libs away from here...

I should say that I haven't had any problems with moderation here so far, and I don't hold any grudges against those who have responded to me harshly. I know what I've said has challenged commonly held assumption, so I don't expect to be embraced with open arms here. However, I didn't come here merely to proselytize, but to expose myself to other viewpoints--indeed what I consider in some ways to be the opposite of my views--in order to strenghten my beliefs or to provide an opportunity for rejecting them. Also, my family holds propertarian views, and I'd like to be able to converse with them better.

Anyway, I do have a question that might get this thread back on topic. What is the mutualist and individualist anarchist position on intellectual property rights? If they are against them, how would an artist be supported in such a society?

@pony

I don't equate capitalism as freedom. While you can have freedom without capitalism, you can't have capitalism without freedom.

I sense you are growing frustrated but much of this is likely due to semantics. Austrians have tighter definitions of many economic terms which might cause confusion.

Don't give up Pony, as you further your arduous study of AnarchoCapitalism, remain objective, keep it simple, and follow the logic from its roots up.

To get a leg up on any of your critiqcs here, you'll need to present your conclusions in a deductive manner.

The only banning you'll find here are those that are spamming, scamming, or making personal attacks with obsene language. I look forward to your future posts here on a variety of threads.

 "and none of your theory has played out."

This 'theory' is borne out empirically throughout recorded human history. Wherever you have strong property rights, humanity and standards of living flourish, wherever you have constant property rights violations (by mobs, states or despots), society devolves into harsh poverty and death.

"dominant economic systems have an effect on how people behave. We don't just create society, but society creates us as well."

Yes the old hope of Socialism, that this 'capitalist' mentality that humans have is just being forced upon us. And when a new system of living is available, humans will change into the collectivist ideal.

Collectivist's and Anarchists you represent, all seem to base their theories on how humans 'SHOULD' be, rather than on how they really are currently. Fair enough. And this is the reason why we cannot agree on even standard definitions, because the perception of base human nature is at odds.

 "What is the mutualist and individualist anarchist position on intellectual property rights?"

I cannot speak for mutualism, but anarcho-capitalism has come to the position that IP is not property at all. We see intellectual property as a form of state-monopoly capitalism, a way for various actors (usually big business) to appropriate real property via the coercive power of the State.

When An-Caps speak of property they mean PHYSICAL goods.

If I hold a banana, and you take it from me without consent, you have deprived me of my property and that is theft. I now have no banana.

But I express an idea (poem, tune), and you then use this idea for yourself, you have not deprived me of that idea. You have taken away nothing from me, I still have my idea.

The arguement of pro-ip is that if you used my 'idea' for free, I have been deprived of future earning potential and the fruits of my creativity. Most AnCaps think this is absolutely wrong and have some clear theory of what is called 'subjective value' that deals with IP and other issues.

For example, if you run a shop, you do not have a 'right' to the 'future' income stream that you get currently. Someone can open a shop next door and your income will be halved, but there is no property right violation. The 'expected' income was not a property right, but a subjective future expectation.

Similarly, you do not have a 'right' to your reputation. A reputation is what 'other' people think of you, so how can you 'own' another persons thoughts? 

Here is an extreme example - your neighbour paints their house pink. This causes the 'value' of your house to drop. There is not a property right violation according to AnCaps.... your house has not been damaged, it physical properties are exactly the same as before.

(But in the real world this mostly does not happen. When buying your house you voluntarily agreed to contractual homeowner association rules dictating which colors are allowed.)

Intellectual property is this category of subjective value property that is not real physical property.

Oh, that's interesting. I was going to ask about the ancap position as well. So would a musician just have to hope that mp3's never completely replace CD's, or rely on other sources of income such as concert tickets, merchandise, and donations?

Fool on the Hill wrote:

Much like they are today, by selling products that provoke profound personal experiences.

For bands, their most valuable product is their live shows. Unregulated selling/sharing of bootleg videos and mp3s acts as a form of free advertising for their shows.

For painters and sculptors, their most valuable product is their originals. Copies of their work, only increase the value of these originals.

It seems like our friends have left us, however. They have equated capitalism with freedom, and anything that isn't capitalism is necesarrily (to them) the opposite of freedom. In a free market, people who decide to own things in common and operate with an occ/use property theory would be capitalists (despite their blatant rejection of capitalist principals) is all I've gathered from the folks who post here. Oh well.

 

I haven't posted here so maybe I can provide a "fresh" view.

 

Correct me if I mischaracterize the previously expressed views, but from what I have read it appears as though individuals above who have self-identified as "anarcho-capitalists" see "anarcho-capitalist society" as one in which everyone is a capitalist. But a capitalist, in economic terms (if we can briefly seperate such terms from political or other terms, which may not even be legitimate), has a very specific meaning.

 

For instance:

"...capitalists advance present goods to owners of factors in return for future goods; then, later, they sell the goods which have matured to become present or less distantly future goods in exchange for present goods (money). They have advanced present goods to owners of factors and, in return, wait while these factors, which are future goods, are transformed into goods that are more nearly present than before. The capitalists' function is thus a time function, and their income is precisely an income representing the agio of present as compared to future goods. This income, then, is not derived from the concrete, heterogenous capital goods, but from the generalized investment of time. It comes from a willingness to sacrafice present goods for the purchase of future goods (the factor services). As a result of the purchases, the owners of factors obtain their money in the present for a product that matures only in the future." (Rothbard--Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market p. 374)

 

In this sense the word "capitalist" is purely arbitrary. We could substitute the word "mangoes" for capitalists and the economic meaning would be preserved. In any case, a capitalist society (whether a state exists or not) is just one in which their are individuals who perform the above role. Whatever we decide to call the function, it is one in which present goods are advanced to owners of the factors of production. In an anarchistic society, individuals are free to exchange or dispose of their property as they see fit, which includes present goods. Any time an individual performs the above function, he is a capitalist. So it is certainly possible to have a society in which there are no capitalists. Either no one performs the capitalist function voluntarity, or else they are prevented from doing so by other individuals.

 

Here is a definition of capitalism offered by another:

Consultant replied on Thu, Jun 23 2011 8:25 PM

"For ancaps, capitalism means free markets without any type of corporatism/socialism/collectivism. So if you define capitalism as corporatism (as many left anarchists do), note that this is a difference in definition."

 

And your reply:

"From the perspective of most sociologists and historians (not necessarily anarchists) the difference is capitalism's system of wage labor, (at least that is what I've gathered from my years in school, something I feel a bit more comfortable about than my familiarity with the nuance of anarchist theory). Is it that or is that not correct and why?"

 

Each of you were using capitalism to mean two different things. I think this pretty much continues throughout the thread. Quite predictably, the discussion moved towards definitions of private property, exchange, and so on. I will try to be precise in my uses of terms...

 

Property, first of all, does not need definition. You cannot dispute, for instance, that you own yourself. To do so would be contradictory and self-refuting. Thus, property unquestionably exists in your persons. If you own yourself then you also own land that you have taken from nature. That is, you are free to do as may with the land (make improvements). You can obtain land in exchange with another who has obtained his land through homestead or voluntary exchange. Similarly, you may perform certain acts upon land that is owned by another person (by easements granted by the other owner). Thus you can sell your labor in exchange for goods (barter). You can combine factors to create goods, and dispose of them as you see fit. So you can see that there are many actions which can take place once property is recognized by individuals in a society:

Homesteading wild land

Improving homesteaded land

Producing goods by combining labor and land

Trading produced goods

Using a produced good (capital good) to make another produced good, then exchanging it

 

I shouldn't go much further, as there is bound to be discussion of what I have said already.

Fool on the Hill, Intellectual property is pretty much not supported by anyone that lays a claim to the name "anarchist," aside from maybe a few, but even some anarcho-capitalists don't support it. Personally, I don't think artists should be making art in order to survive, because that's not why you're supposed to make art, but that's another topic completely. An artist could just as well make money by performing, selling CDs or records, etc. Just because everyone can get music for free, they don't always. Now, there is something to be said about protection from someone "stealing" a song (saying they wrote it when someone else did). This isn't so much theft as it is just lying, which is usually frowned upon by most people. Anywho...

"This 'theory' is borne out empirically throughout recorded human history. Wherever you have strong property rights, humanity and standards of living flourish, wherever you have constant property rights violations (by mobs, states or despots), society devolves into harsh poverty and death."

Although you seem to ignore previous points I have brought up, like how capital arose through violence and with a helping hand from the state (enclosure movement, the colonial period, etc.).

"Collectivist's and Anarchists you represent, all seem to base their theories on how humans 'SHOULD' be, rather than on how they really are currently. Fair enough. And this is the reason why we cannot agree on even standard definitions, because the perception of base human nature is at odds."

If either of us were basing things on how humans actually are, then we would both be statists, and I resent the idea that capitalism is just "the way things are." Furthermore, the examples I have given here are historical or current examples of what humans are actually doing right now. So where the idea that I'm some pipe-dreaming collectivist going on about the way things ought to be is unsupported at best and a straw man at worst. Anyway, here are the things I'm most unclear about, laid out as explicitly as I can do so right now:

Assuming that capitalism is truly the default economic logic for all individuals
Why does property require protection? If everyone was on the same page, so to speak, why would property need protection from theft or squatters? Specifically:
Why during the industrial revolution did so much land have to be auctioned off and subsidized to large buyers by the state to prevent subsistence farmers from owning land?
Why did the enclosure movement have to happen in order to remove peasants?
Why did factories have to hire private police to discourage voluntary associations amongst their workers?
Essentially, why was there such resistance during the early days of capitalism?
Why is the cooperative movement so large in Argentina, and why did syndicalism have to be violently repressed in both the US and Spain during the 30's?
Moreover, why have states formed?

There has obviously been a lot of dissenters from the philosophy of capitalism that I see espoused here and elsewhere. If it were simply the way things worked, why have such large numbers of people done differently? My answer would be that capitalism is an idea like any other. And just because it is popular now does not mean it was at all times. Just as Monarchism is no longer the prevalent system, capitalism may one day fade away as well. My answer would be that people have agency and it is people that create ideologies, not ideologies that create people.

Now, my contested definitions of capitalism:
Assuming capitalism is simply free, voluntary trade:
Why have all strands of socialism that support free, voluntary trade called themselves socialists while decrying capitalism?
Perhaps it is because of a contested definition, and within the definition provided above, they would indeed be capitalists. However, if the function of definitions is to be useful and understandable, why would "free and voluntary trade" be useful? Does it not then cast everyone who is anti-capitalist as anti-free and voluntary trade?

Assuming the definition of capitalism is "free markets without any type of corporatism/socialism/collectivism"
What, then, is socialism?

 "Although you seem to ignore previous points I have brought up, like how capital arose through violence and with a helping hand from the state (enclosure movement, the colonial period, etc.)."

I ignored it because of this.... using that logic, the very computer I am typing this on was created by capital built up in the distant past by exploitation. It is just an open door for collectivist's to claim almost all property is illegitimate and thus available to be stolen and redistributed. Where do we draw a line? It is just insanity and morally repugnant.

Now I agree there are some examples where a 'once of' transfer of land titles would be appropriate. Like South America, where the Spanish set up a feudal rentier class, a few powerful families in each country that own all the land and the peasants were never allowed to own property. But your arguements seem to morally justify theft everywhere and anywhere based on humanties past injustices.

"Assuming that capitalism is truly the default economic logic for all individuals"

Not the capitalism you refer to. I still think we are not talking about the same definition of capitalism, as Magentic pointed out.

"Why does property require protection? If everyone was on the same page, so to speak, why would property need protection from theft or squatters? Specifically:
Why during the industrial revolution did so much land have to be auctioned off and subsidized to large buyers by the state to prevent subsistence farmers from owning land?

Why did the enclosure movement have to happen in order to remove peasants?"

What do coercive State actions have to do with our version of Capitalism (ie free and voluntary exchange between individuals)?

"Why did factories have to hire private police to discourage voluntary associations amongst their workers?"

AnCaps allow the individual to do whatever he likes as long as he does not use force or violence against another or his property. Striking and worker group action is morally legit. But when you use force and violence to block access to another's property (ie a factory), then security may be required to gain clear access.

"Essentially, why was there such resistance during the early days of capitalism?"

This is the great class myth of Marxists era writings. There was resistance to Capitalism, (free and voluntary exchange between individuals) from those who wanted to keep the current status quo and the old feudalist system. In the 1800's they were known politically as 'conservatives'.

There is actually a parrallel revisionist history of the 19th century that may make sense to you. For example the rise of 'regulation' in the US during the late 19th century was not to protect the little guy from evil greedy Capitalists. Big business was under threat from the rapid technological change of the time. So they used the State's regulatory power to implement price fixing, cartels, monopololies, all which vastly raised barriers to entry for smaller competitors. Thus their large 'unearned' profits were secured.

"Why is the cooperative movement so large in Argentina, and why did syndicalism have to be violently repressed in both the US and Spain during the 30's?"

If by Syndicalism in the 30's, do you mean workers co-coperatively buying land, factories and capital for them to operate? Or seizing land and capital from unconsenting owners?

"Moreover, why have states formed?"

Its not an exact answer but you may find this worthwhile http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

I see you ignored my post, for the most part.

Assuming that capitalism is truly the default economic logic for all individuals
Why does property require protection? If everyone was on the same page, so to speak, why would property need protection from theft or squatters? Specifically:
Why during the industrial revolution did so much land have to be auctioned off and subsidized to large buyers by the state to prevent subsistence farmers from owning land?
Why did the enclosure movement have to happen in order to remove peasants?
Why did factories have to hire private police to discourage voluntary associations amongst their workers?
Essentially, why was there such resistance during the early days of capitalism?
Why is the cooperative movement so large in Argentina, and why did syndicalism have to be violently repressed in both the US and Spain during the 30's?
Moreover, why have states formed?

No, everyone is NOT on the "same page." I have been robbed at gunpoint, and I did not cheerfully hand over my money. Why does property need protection? Someone might try to steal it, an earthquake might hit, a bear could try to steal my food while I am sleeping in my tent.

Whether or not land HAD TO BE auctioned off, or whether or not the enclosure movement HAD TO HAPPEN, or whether factories HAD TO HIRE police, and so on are metaphysical, historiographic questions. Are you implying that all of the above acts did indeed have to occur, and what does that mean? Or are you merely pointing out that they did occur?

I do not understand what arguement you are making, if you are actually making an argument.

"AnCaps allow the individual to do whatever he likes as long as he does not use force or violence against another or his property. Striking and worker group action is morally legit. But when you use force and violence to block access to another's property (ie a factory), then security may be required to gain clear access."

The point I'm getting at, is that if capitalism were the default economic way of thought, why have and do so many people resist it? Also, equating the pinkertons to "security" is more than disingenuous. We're talking about labor leaders being assassinated, not being cleared away from a door way.

Back to the topic at hand, ignoring any definition of capitalism it is clear that people who have vocally oppose something they call "capitalism" have had to be repressed one way or another. My point is not that we need to steal in order to get some kind of retribution, but that the dominant economic system as we see it today clearly came about by way of force. Which brings me to another point. I don't think either of us can say that our ideas are natural or just "the way things work," because, clearly, they are not. "There is actually a parrallel revisionist history of the 19th century that may make sense to you. For example the rise of 'regulation' in the US during the late 19th century was not to protect the little guy from evil greedy Capitalists. Big business was under threat from the rapid technological change of the time. So they used the State's regulatory power to implement price fixing, cartels, monopololies, all which vastly raised barriers to entry for smaller competitors. Thus their large 'unearned' profits were secured."

You tell me about this as if I'm a Marxist. I'm well aware of the state's love affair with big business.

"If by Syndicalism in the 30's, do you mean workers co-coperatively buying land, factories and capital for them to operate? Or seizing land and capital from unconsenting owners?"

What I mean is that the IWW was one of the biggest unions in the US, and certainly the fastest growing one, so there were hundreds of thousands of people who didn't think about property or labor in the way that is supposedly the default mode of thought. Moreover, the chances of laborers actually buying land was nearly impossible with the giant big business and state land grab happening.

"Whether or not land HAD TO BE auctioned off, or whether or not the enclosure movement HAD TO HAPPEN, or whether factories HAD TO HIRE police, and so on are metaphysical, historiographic questions. Are you implying that all of the above acts did indeed have to occur, and what does that mean? Or are you merely pointing out that they did occur?"

Perhaps I should have put that they "had to happen in order for capitalists to maintain their view of property." Without the use of the state, there would be a lot more subsistence farming and cooperative factories around. Would they have to rely on defensive force? Probably. The point is, there is no default mode of thought in regards to property. There are always and have always been disputes over who owns what, who controls what, etc.

And none of this even touched a definition of capitalism, the dispute that seems to be the root of all our miscommunication. So I'm going to take a minute to layout what I've gathered here and what is unclear to me in a better way than I did above.

The (number) of definitions that I've seen most commonly in regards to capitalism are:
1. Free, voluntary trade
2. free markets without any type of corporatism/socialism/collectivism
3. Or, a respect for individual property, whereas socialism is a disregard for it

On definition 1
As I have laid out numerous times, no form of anti-authoritarian socialism has ever proposed involuntary trade and historically the few examples of these societies that existed have let dissenters do as they please. Voluntary is not adequate criteria for a definition that separates capitalism from socialism. There is, of course, the dispute over whether occupations are voluntary or involuntary. They can be viewed very much the same as defending property would be if the ground for property is occ/use. If the grounds for ownership lay within who occupies and/or uses capital, then those occupying and/or using capital would be within their rights to defend it from others laying a claim to it.

On definition 2:
Well, then, what is socialism? The second part of definition 3 flies out the window the second anyone picks up Proudhon, Tucker, or other Mutualist and Left-libertarian literature. Saying it's necessarily involuntary has proven time and time again to be ludicrous. So that definition just seems to tied up in the idea that socialism is necessary just the opposite of everything capitalism is, which is not very true at all.

On definition 3:
If I really have to go through this again I'll go crazy. Aside from it being blatantly biased and a giant straw man, it has the added virtue of being completely wrong.

Whether or not land HAD TO BE auctioned off, or whether or not the enclosure movement HAD TO HAPPEN, or whether factories HAD TO HIRE police, and so on are metaphysical, historiographic questions. Are you implying that all of the above acts did indeed have to occur, and what does that mean? Or are you merely pointing out that they did occur?

Perhaps I should have put that they "had to happen in order for capitalists to maintain their view of property." Without the use of the state, there would be a lot more subsistence farming and cooperative factories around. Would they have to rely on defensive force? Probably. The point is, there is no default mode of thought in regards to property. There are always and have always been disputes over who owns what, who controls what, etc.

 

That disputes over property arise does not mean that either party is making a legitimate claim to the disputed property. It does not imply the fault is the definition of property, as if a commonly accepted definition (akin to a commonly accepted linguistic usage or definition) would lessen the incidence or occurence of property disputes.

 

In any case, if you or someone else makes up a definition of property, and wide acceptance of that definition requires a monopoly of the legitimate use of force (that is, a state) in order for individuals in the society to abide by the definition, then the definition is really a decree. Under a natural law type of definition, the process is entirely different. Individuals observe the relations and behavior of others in society, and attach a name to certain relations and behaviors. Property in the natural sense arises because of the kind of creature man is--biologically, socially, psychologically, etc. This definition is refineable but hardly arbitrary.

Hey Birthday Pony. You probably remember me from the Left-Libertarian Forum, where I was ultimately branded a troll (I'm not). I haven't posted there in a while, and I probably should sometime soon.

Anyways, I'd like to jump into this thread. Before anything else, let me explain the cardinal rule of semantics: all definitions are inherently arbitrary. There are no "correct" or "incorrect" definitions, only different ones. With that out of the way, I can attempt to address the semantic conflict between socialist anarchists (as you call them) and anarcho-capitalists.

Basically, the semantic conflict breaks down to this question: are individuals in control of, and therefore responsible for (in a value-free sense), their actions? From what I see, anarcho-capitalists answer this question in the affirmative and socialist anarchists answer it in the negative. To illustrate, let's take an example of a homeless man who steals food (i.e. takes it without prior permission) in order to survive. An anarcho-capitalist would say that, however understandable the man's actions were, he nevertheless committed theft. However, a socialist anarchist would apparently say otherwise - he'd probably say something to the effect that the food had actually been previously stolen from the man, since he hadn't given permission to be deprived of food. According to the socialist anarchist, then, the homeless man didn't need permission to take the food (back) in the first place.

Unfortunately, and regardless of definitions, the socialist anarchist position is a distortion of reality. On the one hand, it presupposes intentionality of the man with the food to deprive the homeless man of food. (Taken to its logical conclusion, it presupposes that for all people who have food.) On the other hand, in claiming that the homeless man didn't need permission to take the food, it denies his intentionality to take it against the wishes of the other man. The personal responsibility for the action is thus shifted to someone who didn't commit the action.

As you'll probably note, this isn't so much a critique of the "anarchist" side of socialist anarchism as it is against the "socialist" side. This is because both anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists are united in their opposition to the State. On this matter there is no dispute. The real dispute isn't even between "socialism" and "capitalism", though, since members of each side typically use definitions for these that are nearly unintelligible to members of the other side. No, the real dispute lay in whether to recognize and accept personal responsibility as it actually exists. In other words, the real dispute is about whether to accept reality.

Now the question is, why would self-proclaimed "socialists" seek to deny reality? They do so to try to change reality, so that it may meet their expectations for it.

Birthday Pony:

On definition 1
As I have laid out numerous times, no form of anti-authoritarian socialism has ever proposed involuntary trade and historically the few examples of these societies that existed have let dissenters do as they please. Voluntary is not adequate criteria for a definition that separates capitalism from socialism. There is, of course, the dispute over whether occupations are voluntary or involuntary. They can be viewed very much the same as defending property would be if the ground for property is occ/use. If the grounds for ownership lay within who occupies and/or uses capital, then those occupying and/or using capital would be within their rights to defend it from others laying a claim to it.

My understanding is that the Spanish Anarchists did not allow inheritances in land (or anything else). If an individual did not want to contribute his land to a rural collective, that was fine, but the land went to the collective upon his death. The desire of the individual landowner to bequeath his land to one or more others upon his death was deemed irrelevant. Obviously, this was a de facto constraint upon his freedom to do with his land as he pleased.

---

With all due respect, your dispute with the word "capitalist" is apparently due to an abhorrence at the notion that it could be used as a label for anyone who you approve of. Likewise, you seem to abhor the notion that anyone you call a "socialist anarchist" could be said to "support capitalism". Yet if one defines "capitalism" as simply "voluntary trade", the proposition "Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported capitalism" would seem to hold true. Of course, they certainly didn't use that definition for "capitalism", but so what? If you're still going to insist that no one define "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" because of the above, then you betray your dispute with the words "capitalism" and "capitalist" as being merely aesthetic. (IIRC, I tried to explain this to Shawn P. Wilbur many times over in the Left-Libertarian Forum.)

magnetic said: "Whether or not land HAD TO BE auctioned off, or whether or not the enclosure movement HAD TO HAPPEN, or whether factories HAD TO HIRE police, and so on are metaphysical, historiographic questions. Are you implying that all of the above acts did indeed have to occur, and what does that mean? Or are you merely pointing out that they did occur?"

Okay, excuse my poor wording. My point is that these things were executed by the state, and that a particular kind of private property was protected by a body claiming the right to the legitimate use of force. My prediction is that had this not happened, there would not have been droves of people heading out to work the factories (as there were not many until these things started to happen).

"That disputes over property arise does not mean that either party is making a legitimate claim to the disputed property. It does not imply the fault is the definition of property, as if a commonly accepted definition (akin to a commonly accepted linguistic usage or definition) would lessen the incidence or occurence of property disputes."

Now you've got it!

"In any case, if you or someone else makes up a definition of property, and wide acceptance of that definition requires a monopoly of the legitimate use of force (that is, a state) in order for individuals in the society to abide by the definition, then the definition is really a decree."

And my point is that the state was heavily used to protect certain types of property during the industrial revolution, making that view of property more of a decree than a default way of looking at things.

"Under a natural law type of definition, the process is entirely different. Individuals observe the relations and behavior of others in society, and attach a name to certain relations and behaviors. Property in the natural sense arises because of the kind of creature man is--biologically, socially, psychologically, etc. This definition is refineable but hardly arbitrary."

No argument here. My point is that a good metric butt load of people didn't think that a certain definition of private property was correct, so to claim it is the default way of looking at things would be silly. I am not saying that since capitalist property isn't the default way socialist or occ/use property is. I am saying that property arises by how people view it, or in some cases are forced to view it by people with guns.

Autolykos said: "My understanding is that the Spanish Anarchists did not allow inheritances in land (or anything else). If an individual did not want to contribute his land to a rural collective, that was fine, but the land went to the collective upon his death. The desire of the individual landowner to bequeath his land to one or more others upon his death was deemed irrelevant. Obviously, this was a de facto constraint upon his freedom to do with his land as he pleased."

I'm not sure the Spanish Anarchists were even a dominant force for long enough to see that happen. Regardless, even if it did, the metaphysical questions that are tied to inheritance, like whether a dead person really has any will at all or whether or not one can in good faith make an agreement longer than their lifetime without having to resort to outside force or whether or not a dead person can "do" anything with anything, is not a topic I want to jump into right now. The point is that there was no forced collectivization. A good number of farmers weren't part of the FAI/CNT, and pretty much just went about farming as well as they could during war.

"With all due respect, your dispute with the word "capitalist" is apparently due to an abhorrence at the notion that it could be used as a label for anyone who you approve of. Likewise, you seem to abhor the notion that anyone you call a "socialist anarchist" could be said to "support capitalism". Yet if one defines "capitalism" as simply "voluntary trade", the proposition "Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported capitalism" would seem to hold true. Of course, they certainly didn't use that definition for "capitalism", but so what? If you're still going to insist that no one define "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" because of the above, then you betray your dispute with the words "capitalism" and "capitalist" as being merely aesthetic."

Language is certainly fluid, but that does not mean you can change a widely used definition at the drop of a hat and expect it to be useful, practical, or clear. We could very well say that Kropotkin, Tucker, and Proudhon were all capitalists that said they opposed something they called "capitalism," but would that do any good in really clearing up what they actually believed or said to oppose? It's just a word game at that point (not to mention bad communication), a word game that happens to cast every anarchist as a capitalist and anyone who is anti-capitalist as either stuck in some kind of perceived archaic definition or just flat out anti-anarchist. Let's say I concede that definition. What separates Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin from those who call themselves anarcho-capitalists? To me it seems to be a very specific system wage labor. Would you agree?

By the way, I never thought you were a troll and welcome you back to the Forums whenever you'd like. If there are certain folks who are uninterested in discussing things with you, then just don't discuss things with them.

Birthday Pony:

I'm not sure the Spanish Anarchists were even a dominant force for long enough to see that happen. Regardless, even if it did, the metaphysical questions that are tied to inheritance, like whether a dead person really has any will at all or whether or not one can in good faith make an agreement longer than their lifetime without having to resort to outside force or whether or not a dead person can "do" anything with anything, is not a topic I want to jump into right now. The point is that there was no forced collectivization. A good number of farmers weren't part of the FAI/CNT, and pretty much just went about farming as well as they could during war.

Based on this (under "Individualists"), those farmers who didn't join the collectives in Aragon "lost automatic inheritance rights" as a result of the cantonal-federation conference held in Caspe in February 1937. Of course, the wording is vague - what does "automatic inheritance rights" mean in this context? Were wills and the like considered "manual (or, at any rate, non-automatic) inheritance rights"?

While a dead person can't will anything, the will is written while he was still alive. I'd say that settles the question of inheritance, as long as wills are recognized as legitimate. In the case that they aren't, I see no reason why the collective has (sic) any higher claim over the land in question than anyone else - at which point it becomes a matter of "might makes right". I thought socialist anarchists were against that sort of thing.

Birthday Pony:

Language is certainly fluid, but that does not mean you can change a widely used definition at the drop of a hat and expect it to be useful, practical, or clear.

What is unuseful, impractical, or unclear about this:

1. "Capitalism" is hereby defined as "voluntary trade".

2. Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported voluntary trade.

3. Therefore, Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported capitalism.

Birthday Pony:

We could very well say that Kropotkin, Tucker, and Proudhon were all capitalists that said they opposed something they called "capitalism," but would that do any good in really clearing up what they actually believed or said to oppose?

It might do a lot of good for anarcho-capitalists!

Birthday Pony:

It's just a word game at that point (not to mention bad communication), a word game that happens to cast every anarchist as a capitalist and anyone who is anti-capitalist as either stuck in some kind of perceived archaic definition or just flat out anti-anarchist.

See, that's just it - it's always been a word game. I daresay you're proving my point for me. You simply don't like the words "capitalism" and "capitalist" - regardless of their definitions! - being associated in any way with anarchist thinkers that you approve of.

Birthday Pony:

Let's say I concede that definition. What separates Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin from those who call themselves anarcho-capitalists? To me it seems to be a very specific system [of] wage labor. Would you agree?

I'd say what separates them from anarcho-capitalists, among other things, is their theory of property.

Autolykos: "While a dead person can't will anything, the will is written while he was still alive. I'd say that settles the question of inheritance, as long as wills are recognized as legitimate. In the case that they aren't, I see no reason why the collective has (sic) any higher claim over the land in question than anyone else - at which point it becomes a matter of "might makes right". I thought socialist anarchists were against that sort of thing."

I'm not sure either way is outside the realm of "might makes right." Inheritance would have to be backed up by force as well. Moreover, there's still questions as to whether a dead person can "do" anything, and whether one can make a deal that will come into effect after their death. I can't see how that last one could be backed up at all without the use of force.

"It might do a lot of good for anarcho-capitalists!"

I respect you for your honesty.

"See, that's just it - it's always been a word game. I daresay you're proving my point for me. You simply don't like the words "capitalism" and "capitalist" - regardless of their definitions! - being associated in any way with anarchist thinkers that you approve of."

Actually, I came here looking for what and how anarcho-capitalists view the rise of anarcho-capitalism in relation to the greater anarchist movement. I don't think highly of that definition because it is not clear.

"What is unuseful, impractical, or unclear about this: 1. "Capitalism" is hereby defined as "voluntary trade". 2. Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported voluntary trade. 3. Therefore, Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported capitalism."

The part where Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin all decry capitalism and call themselves socialists. It is unuseful in that it does not demonstrate the vast amount of difference between Proudhon et al and anarcho-capitalists. It is not practical in that anyone researching anarchism would be baffled by capitalists decrying capitalism. And it is unclear when all three decry capitalism.

"I'd say what separates them from anarcho-capitalists, among other things, is their theory of property."

That's pretty agreeable. Although Tucker comes damn near capitalist interpretations of property. Capitalism seems to make specific exceptions in its property theory to allow for wage labor, rent, etc.

Anyway, I leave you tonight with words of a poster at FLL in regards to this matter:
"The particular discourse that occurs on those forums has been warped and exists because they have largely redefined basic terms and language. They may not have a "definitive" meaning to everyone, but attempting to redefine the common usage(s) of the word Capitalism breeds confusion and actually serves more as a marker that shows you as the "enemy" or "other". Your position will be declared invalid largely on the basis that you use the word in a way common to "Marxists", "Leftoids", "Socialists" or "Communists" and there is no give or take. Even where a prompt is made during a discussion to shift things to a more cooperative or constructive tone, it must be done on their terms, i.e. their definitions, jargon and terms take priority."

To say that your needs are my needs, that your pain is my pain, that your successes are my successes, that my property is your property is the act of self-realization. 

 

Funny enough, that is exactly what an egoist says.  As Stirner says "I care only for what is mine" - and that is no aesthetic or ethical outlook: egoism is an inescapable ontological reality.  This in turn will negate the majority of the words being thrown around as heuristic "glass full / half empty" tricks which are being thrown around (freedom, conformity,  etc are meaningless in these contexts)

Economics is sociological fact.  It deals with a world of facts.  It is the only language which makes sense in terms of society, it is the base to any way anything sociological can be discussed - and the word "society" is only meaningful on a universal level as a scientific word.  Furthermore the only way this makes sense is through the world of Heraclitus and perspectivism - ever moving ever changing self asserting unique facts as contextualized by the individual.  Society, value, or whatever are not things - they are things an individual creates and destroys at any given moment.  This is not controversial in academic thought. 

Furthermore, market science does not deal with the individual - it deals with co-operating society as an obvious fact.  It is cosmopolitan, technocratic, open, and pluralistic  in its very nature.  And it concerns itself with what can and can not be said about society.  What an individual ought to do is their own affair - but at best all they can do is "sell" an aesthetic (via monetary or psychic profit) within the confines of  some form of market system - assuming society still exists in any non primitive form. 

came to Anarchism and anti-authoritarianism by way of culture, my community, and life experience, not via theory; although I am trying to become a little more versed in the nuances of Anarchist theory, which brings me to my question. I'm familiar with how the majority of the Anarchist movement characterizes the emergence of anarcho-capitalism, but not sure how anarcho-capitalists themselves actually view their relation to the rest of the anarchist movement. I've heard this is the place to find ancaps so I'm just interested in what the ancaps here have to say on how anarcho-capitalism relates historically, politically, and economically to anarchist history and the current anarchist movement. 

I don't think radical free market thought has much in common with other anarchism at all.  It probably has more in common with cosmopolitan post-Keynesian market economics than any other form of leftism - as both of them at least in some sense  try to keep epistimologically clean languages while affirming the market mechanism, technocracy, division of labor,  open, progressive, and bourgoise cosmopolitan society - not by ethics or some obsurist languages but by a case of descriptive value free obvious fact.  Admittidly though, those of us who are Austrians, are in the heterodox outsider position.

I also tend to think that any political position that can be discussed must be pure theory - as we are using language in a purely theoretical vaccuum as we communicate with each other right now.  So when one defines themself as a "free market anarchist" all they are saying is that other stuff - in the long run is a form of nonsense when looking at what can actually be said about sociological fact.  If one goe into "activist" mode and starts talking about "free market anarchism" as some sort of thing-in-itself than they pretty much just defeated anything worth mentioning and put up some parody of anything that made sense by turning it into some fixed idea.

At best when one is describing their "political position" it is probably just a case of all these confusing tangled languages signaling you saying "ahh yes I figured out a puzzle within this language, and here it is".  So I would guess, perhaps a little too boldly but what the hell, anacho capitalism(or insert "less wrong" political position here)  is more of a language confused by-product of realizing what the descriptions of reality are - As opposed to the even more language confused aesthetical assertions, which in turn are language confused (or flat out quixotic falsified gibberish) by-products of language confused descriptions of reality.

 

 

 

 

Birthday Pony:

I'm not sure either way is outside the realm of "might makes right." Inheritance would have to be backed up by force as well. Moreover, there's still questions as to whether a dead person can "do" anything, and whether one can make a deal that will come into effect after their death. I can't see how that last one could be backed up at all without the use of force.

Inheritance may have to be backed up by force, sure, but it also follows logically from previously established ownership. The other way doesn't.

How are there still questions about the validity of a will? Keep in mind that a will must have an executor (a person who carries it out) in order to be valid. The executor is empowered to distribute the now-deceased's property in the manner prescribed in the will. Furthermore, the executor must agree to carry this out - that is, a will is a contract.

On another note, what's the problem with backing things up by force per se? I mean, if you really want to get down to it, our very lives are backed by force.

Birthday Pony:

"It might do a lot of good for anarcho-capitalists!"

I respect you for your honesty.

Thanks, I think? I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Birthday Pony:

Actually, I came here looking for what and how anarcho-capitalists view the rise of anarcho-capitalism in relation to the greater anarchist movement. I don't think highly of that definition because it is not clear.

How is defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" not clear? Are you also using a different definition of "clear"?

Birthday Pony:

"What is unuseful, impractical, or unclear about this: 1. "Capitalism" is hereby defined as "voluntary trade". 2. Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported voluntary trade. 3. Therefore, Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported capitalism."

The part where Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin all decry capitalism and call themselves socialists.

Okay, sorry to be blunt, but that's completely irrelevant to the syllogism I presented. Surely you can see that. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Birthday Pony:

It is unuseful in that it does not demonstrate the vast amount of difference between Proudhon et al and anarcho-capitalists.

That depends on what you mean by "vast". Certainly I'd say there are plenty of differences between Proudhon et al. and anarcho-capitalists, but I don't know whether I'd use the word "vast" to describe them.

You were earlier criticizing the logic of defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" on the basis that this would lead to the proposition "Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported capitalism" being true. I think you're finding it difficult to hold to the definition of "capitalism" as "voluntary trade", because you're so used to defining it differently. That's fine, but it does nothing to invalidate the logical conclusions of that definition. Any appeals to "usefulness", "clarity", etc. are completely irrelevant here.

Birthday Pony:

It is not practical in that anyone researching anarchism would be baffled by capitalists decrying capitalism. And it is unclear when all three decry capitalism.

Look, what they oppose is something which they label with "capitalism". Obviously that something isn't the concept of voluntary trade. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand this. Maybe you do understand it, you're just not willing to emotionally accept it.

Again, this is all the same stuff that I went around and around with you guys on in the Left-Libertarian Forum. I was left with the conclusion that you're all desperate to get the voice of real logic out of your heads when it leads you to conclusions that you simply don't like. That's called denying reality when it doesn't meet your expectations.

Birthday Pony:

That's pretty agreeable. Although Tucker comes damn near capitalist interpretations of property. Capitalism seems to make specific exceptions in its property theory to allow for wage labor, rent, etc.

Hilarious. They only look like exceptions to you because you use a different theory of property yourself! But I'd love to see what leads you to conclude that they are necessarily exceptions and not simply logical conclusions.

Birthday Pony:

Anyway, I leave you tonight with words of a poster at FLL in regards to this matter:
"The particular discourse that occurs on those forums has been warped and exists because they have largely redefined basic terms and language. They may not have a "definitive" meaning to everyone, but attempting to redefine the common usage(s) of the word Capitalism breeds confusion and actually serves more as a marker that shows you as the "enemy" or "other". Your position will be declared invalid largely on the basis that you use the word in a way common to "Marxists", "Leftoids", "Socialists" or "Communists" and there is no give or take. Even where a prompt is made during a discussion to shift things to a more cooperative or constructive tone, it must be done on their terms, i.e. their definitions, jargon and terms take priority."

Sounds like Shawn P. Wilbur, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know how many times I have to say it - language is arbitrary. Therefore words are arbitrary. No one is prima facie obligated to use certain definitions that are treated as "common". Defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" is no more and no less invalid than defining it as "a theory and resulting system of property that allows for wage labor, interest, and rent". Logic can't be disproven on the basis of appeals to usefulness, clarity, practicality, vel sim.

"On another note, what's the problem with backing things up by force per se? I mean, if you really want to get down to it, our very lives are backed by force."

I would argue the same thing. And like I said, inheritance isn't really something I want to spend a lot of time debating here and now.

"Okay, sorry to be blunt, but that's completely irrelevant to the syllogism I presented. Surely you can see that. Are you deliberately being obtuse?"

Ha!

"You were earlier criticizing the logic of defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" on the basis that this would lead to the proposition "Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported capitalism" being true. I think you're finding it difficult to hold to the definition of "capitalism" as "voluntary trade", because you're so used to defining it differently. That's fine, but it does nothing to invalidate the logical conclusions of that definition. Any appeals to "usefulness", "clarity", etc. are completely irrelevant here."

You sound like a Deconstructionist on crack, who was also reading Derrida while on crack.

"That's called denying reality when it doesn't meet your expectations."

What is real about the definition of capitalism given? The fact that a small sect of libertarians use it while the rest of the world does not?

"Hilarious. They only look like exceptions to you because you use a different theory of property yourself! But I'd love to see what leads you to conclude that they are necessarily exceptions and not simply logical conclusions."

They are logical conclusions, yes. My point is that I think property theory is a little more nuanced and variable even within socialism to really be an adequate separating factor.

"Sounds like Shawn P. Wilbur, if I'm not mistaken."

Not even close.

"language is arbitrary. Therefore words are arbitrary. No one is prima facie obligated to use certain definitions that are treated as "common". Defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" is no more and no less invalid than defining it as "a theory and resulting system of property that allows for wage labor, interest, and rent". Logic can't be disproven on the basis of appeals to usefulness, clarity, practicality, vel sim."

Sounds like someone is really into Deconstruction and post-structuralism, while ignoring the entire part about meaning production and language being a collective system.

Simply because language can and does change, and since it only points to itself instead of an outside signified, does not mean that it lacks effects. The production of meaning is a result of the arbitrary and open nature of language. When the vagueness of language is exploited meaning is produced. It should be noted, at this point, that language is primarily a tool for communication, and it is not only the speaking of but also the hearing of language that produces a meaning. Now let's turn to our example, defining the word capitalism as "voluntary trade." It should be noted that I am not arguing that it is an invalid definition or that it could not become common held and used. My concern is that definition of capitalism breeds confusion and produces a collective effect on perception. For the purpose of this discussion there is no use for that definition as it casts anti-capitalists as capitalists. How does that not breed confusion?

There is also much to be said about that definition being widely accepted and used here. What kind of light does that cast on anti-capitalists? It clearly creates a binary opposition between the ideas of capitalism and socialism in which socialism is the "other," where socialism is opposed to everything capitalism stands for. If capitalism supports voluntary trade, socialism attacks it. If capitalism supports private property, socialism attacks it. I remember seeing a poster here claim that "'true socialism' is impossible." Within the definition given here, it most certainly is. If capitalism necessarily supports voluntary trade, and socialism does not, then the type of socialism that anti-authoritarian socialists support, the kind that supports voluntary trade, is indeed impossible. It would simply be capitalism.

My concern is not my personal distaste for the word capitalism. It is that the above definition discredits self-described socialists for not using your definitions. Anyone with the nerve to continue calling themselves a socialist after encountering the definitions of it provided here would most certainly be seen as an anti-voluntary, anti-human, anti-free authoritarian, simply because of the binary opposition set up here and a refusal to acknowledge other forms and definitions of words. Language is not a tool that simply changes when one person declares it so. It must be reciprocated. It must be heard and understood as such. And it must be used as such by more than one person in order for it to really be able to produce anything meaningful. Language is a collective process, with an author and reader, speaker and audience.

Furthermore, you insist on the arbitrary nature of language, or the differánce as Derrida would say, yet you maintain that language still points to an objective reality. If I do not accept your definition of capitalism then I am the one denying reality. I do not deny for a minute that you hold your own very unique definition of capitalism. That is a reality I fully accept. What does not make sense to me is that for some reason you are allowed to make up definitions at the fall of a hat and then claim that any other definition is not supported by "reality," a realm which it would logically follow that language cannot accurately occupy if it is indeed arbitrary.

Would you like to know what else is wrong with your sloppy use of post-structuralist philosophy?

Anarcho-capitalism just isn't what you described though.  It began as continuation of the liberal tradition of minimal government and free markets.  I think there are striking resemblances between ancap and 19th century individualist anarchism, and it may very well be that Spooner has more in common with Rothbard than with Kropotkin, but its not like individual anarchists evolved into capitalists.  It was that laissez-faire liberals applied their own principals (primarily that a monoply provision of any good--including law and order--is bad)  consistently enough to reach an anti-state position. 

This is a good summation of things - I would also add much of this is all LTV econ too, so there is a lot that can be looked at in hindsight when relating things to how they formed presently.  I would also add that Liberals and socialists allike at the time were more opposed to the conservative group than at each other.

A final point: don't look at these things like linear geneologies that matter, where royalty can prove they came from the "correct" descendents.  This stuff is all ultimately irrelevant.  We live in aworld where all ideas are piecemeal.  They come, go, attach, and unattach from eachother for some reason or another.  What ever works, works - it does not matter how the "correct"/ most useful or present day idea is formed - just that it exists and is trying to compel people to it's point of view is what matters.  If these arguments rest on some divine command geneology, clearly the idea is worthless the minute you consider it worthless.

Birthday Pony:

"On another note, what's the problem with backing things up by force per se? I mean, if you really want to get down to it, our very lives are backed by force."

I would argue the same thing. And like I said, inheritance isn't really something I want to spend a lot of time debating here and now.

So if our lives are backed by force, and backing things up by force is (according to you, implicitly) an imposition upon others, then each of our very lives is an imposition on everyone else. According to you and (presumably) other socialist anarchists, we should stop backing our lives by force. Am I right?

Birthday Pony:

"Okay, sorry to be blunt, but that's completely irrelevant to the syllogism I presented. Surely you can see that. Are you deliberately being obtuse?"

Ha!

What's this supposed to mean? Do you see how it's irrelevant to my syllogism or not? Can you be honest either way?

Birthday Pony:

You sound like a Deconstructionist on crack, who was also reading Derrida while on crack.

Personal attacks are not allowed in the Mises Forum.

Birthday Pony:

"That's called denying reality when it doesn't meet your expectations."

What is real about the definition of capitalism given? The fact that a small sect of libertarians use it while the rest of the world does not?

That's a strawman of what I stated, and I think you know it. The reality I was talking about was the logical validity of the syllogism I presented. Maybe another syllogism will help drive this point home:

1. "Socialism" is defined as "voluntary trade".

2. Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported voluntary trade.

3. Therefore, Proudhon, Tucker, and Kropotkin supported socialism.

Birthday Pony:

They are logical conclusions, yes. My point is that I think property theory is a little more nuanced and variable even within socialism to really be an adequate separating factor.

So you concede that wage labor, interest, and rent are not necessarily exceptions to any/all theories of property?

Birthday Pony:

"Sounds like Shawn P. Wilbur, if I'm not mistaken."

Not even close.

... That's fine. I, for one, don't mind being mistaken.

Birthday Pony:

Sounds like someone is really into Deconstruction and post-structuralism, while ignoring the entire part about meaning production and language being a collective system.

Wrong. I haven't studed Deconstructionism or post-structuralism, so any conclusions I share with them I arrived at independently.

Birthday Pony:

Simply because language can and does change, and since it only points to itself instead of an outside signified, does not mean that it lacks effects. The production of meaning is a result of the arbitrary and open nature of language. When the vagueness of language is exploited meaning is produced. It should be noted, at this point, that language is primarily a tool for communication, and it is not only the speaking of but also the hearing of language that produces a meaning. Now let's turn to our example, defining the word capitalism as "voluntary trade." It should be noted that I am not arguing that it is an invalid definition or that it could not become common held and used. My concern is that definition of capitalism breeds confusion and produces a collective effect on perception. For the purpose of this discussion there is no use for that definition as it casts anti-capitalists as capitalists. How does that not breed confusion?

I take this to mean that you simply don't want people defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade", because 1) you support voluntary trade and don't want to be called a "supporter of capitalism", and 2) therefore you want people to define "capitalism" as something different.

Furthermore, to say that "there is no use for [the definition of "capitalism" as "voluntary trade"] as it casts anti-capitalists as capitalists" is an inherent equivocation. You're using "capitalism" in two different ways in two different parts of that statement. You also seem to be appealing to the notion that there's a particular definition of "capitalism" that is somehow "more correct" than any other - despite your apparent agreement with me that all definitions are inherently arbitrary. How do you reconcile these contradictions?

Birthday Pony:

There is also much to be said about that definition being widely accepted and used here. What kind of light does that cast on anti-capitalists? It clearly creates a binary opposition between the ideas of capitalism and socialism in which socialism is the "other," where socialism is opposed to everything capitalism stands for. If capitalism supports voluntary trade, socialism attacks it. If capitalism supports private property, socialism attacks it. I remember seeing a poster here claim that "'true socialism' is impossible." Within the definition given here, it most certainly is. If capitalism necessarily supports voluntary trade, and socialism does not, then the type of socialism that anti-authoritarian socialists support, the kind that supports voluntary trade, is indeed impossible. It would simply be capitalism.

If we keep it logical, then defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" would mean that self-styled "anti-capitalists" who nonetheless support voluntary trade must therefore not be considered "anti-capitalists" using the previously mentioned definition. Again (for the nth time), the fact that they styled themselves as "anti-capitalists" (i.e. used that label for themselves) makes no difference whatsoever. Keeping it logical, we recognize that what they call "anti-capitalist" and what we call "anti-capitalist" are necessarily two different things and leave it at that. What's the problem here?

Of course, no one is obligated to define "capitalism" as "voluntary trade". But no communication involving the word "capitalism" can then be made with those who do define it that way. In fairness, the converse is also true. So essentially, as long as we're both determined to use different definitions of "capitalism", we're at an impasse.

Birthday Pony:

My concern is not my personal distaste for the word capitalism. It is that the above definition discredits self-described socialists for not using your definitions. Anyone with the nerve to continue calling themselves a socialist after encountering the definitions of it provided here would most certainly be seen as an anti-voluntary, anti-human, anti-free authoritarian, simply because of the binary opposition set up here and a refusal to acknowledge other forms and definitions of words. Language is not a tool that simply changes when one person declares it so. It must be reciprocated. It must be heard and understood as such. And it must be used as such by more than one person in order for it to really be able to produce anything meaningful. Language is a collective process, with an author and reader, speaker and audience.

In my honest opinion, they can call themselves "socialists" all they want. If I choose to define "capitalism" as "voluntary trade", and they support voluntary trade, I'll call them supporters of capitalism - and I won't be wrong. Nevertheless, I'll be mindful of the fact that they call themselves "anti-capitalists" just the same. By the same token, however, I think they should be mindful of the fact that I'm not defining "capitalism" the same way they are. While I agree that language is a collective process, because it requires two or more people to agree on the meanings of the words used, there's no pre-standing obligation to communicate at all costs, let alone to agree that certain words have certain meanings. Hence this fixation on "one definition to rule them all" is a fool's errand, IMHO.

Birthday Pony:

Would you like to know what else is wrong with your sloppy use of post-structuralist philosophy?

All I'll say to this is that I hope it's not an attempt to intimidate me into silence.

---

At this point, I do see one point you've made in all of this - namely, that defining "capitalism" as simply "voluntary trade" erases the distinctions between socialist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, because it considers them to both be anarcho-capitalists (logically speaking). However, I see this as a completely separate point from the logical issues I've addressed above. In any case, one way to address this issue of maintaining the distinctions between the two groups, which I hinted at earlier, is to point out their different views on property. You did seem to respond positively to this approach, so I think it would be a better starting point in this discussion. On the other hand, and this might surprise you, but I personally won't insist on defining "capitalism" as simply "voluntary trade" in this thread. My issue hasn't been with the definition of "capitalism" to be used - it's been about the nature of definitions and the implications thereof.

Birthday Pony:

If capitalism necessarily supports voluntary trade, and socialism does not, then the type of socialism that anti-authoritarian socialists support, the kind that supports voluntary trade, is indeed impossible. It would simply be capitalism.

Just curious. What makes those "socialists" socialists? In the case of socialists that support voluntary trade, what exactly are they in support of voluntarily being traded?

Also, along with your criticisms of other people's definitions, it may be helpful if you gave your definitions of socialism and capitalism, if possible. (Sorry, if you've already done this and I've missed it.)

 

 

Also, as this seems to be a big red herreing that flows into a point I was trying to make:

get rid of the words voluntary and involuntary - and just concentrate on what can and can not be said, and what does and does not make sense.  That's really all that can be discussed here.  The moral and aesthetic words don't make much sense in this context - they are confusing words.

Who cares what "capitalism rally is" or what "voluntary really means" - just focus on people trying to paint descriptive pictures of reality and assume goodwill, otherwise you are going to quickly find out what it is like to be Sisyphus.

"So if our lives are backed by force, and backing things up by force is (according to you, implicitly) an imposition upon others, then each of our very lives is an imposition on everyone else. According to you and (presumably) other socialist anarchists, we should stop backing our lives by force. Am I right?"

Not in the least. All actions being somehow implicitly backed by force only demonstrates that there is no default human behavior. There are always dissenters. One cannot hide behind a method of trade being the "default," especially considering the different systems that emerge. Unless we are now defining capitalism as "whatever humans do voluntarily."

"That's a strawman of what I stated, and I think you know it. The reality I was talking about was the logical validity of the syllogism I presented."

Valid, yes (as I have conceded multiple times), sound no. The other syllogism about socialism that you've presented is also not sound, although it is logically valid. We may as well say:
Bananas are voluntary trade
Some self-styled socialists support voluntary trade
Some self-styled socialists support bananas

Logically valid, yes, true? Who fucking knows or cares?

"So you concede that wage labor, interest, and rent are not necessarily exceptions to any/all theories of property?"

Not any and all, but within the Anarchist tradition, wage labor as such, interest, and rent only exist within self-styled capitalist property theories. At the root of the premises presented by capitalists, they logically follow. Those premises are not the same as traditional anti-authoritarians.

"Personal attacks are not allowed in the Mises Forum."

That so?
"you're just not willing to emotionally accept it."
"I was left with the conclusion that you're all desperate to get the voice of real logic out of your heads when it leads you to conclusions that you simply don't like."
Spare me.

"Wrong. I haven't studed Deconstructionism or post-structuralism, so any conclusions I share with them I arrived at independently."

No wonder you say language is arbitrary yet fail to even try to follow what that implies.

"I take this to mean that you simply don't want people defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade", because 1) you support voluntary trade and don't want to be called a "supporter of capitalism", and 2) therefore you want people to define "capitalism" as something different."

No, it's because that definition is not commonly recognized and used, and aside from the people here, I don't know who would understand me more clearly if I started calling myself a capitalist. Furthermore, I have said mutliple times that I'll concede that definition for the sake of argument, what does that mean about self-styled capitalists versus self-styled socialists? You are the first person to actually move it beyond that.

"You're using "capitalism" in two different ways in two different parts of that statement. You also seem to be appealing to the notion that there's a particular definition of "capitalism" that is somehow "more correct" than any other - despite your apparent agreement with me that all definitions are inherently arbitrary. How do you reconcile these contradictions?"

First of all, if you want a post-structuralist tip, meaning is produced by the tension between contradictions inherent in language. Second of all, it is not I that produced two opposing definitions of capitalism. What I am saying is that let's go ahead and accept the definition of capitalism you have provided, how do we reconcile the inherent contradiction when those who are supposed to be capitalists decry capitalism? We would have to find out what that second definition is anyway.

"If we keep it logical, then defining "capitalism" as "voluntary trade" would mean that self-styled "anti-capitalists" who nonetheless support voluntary trade must therefore not be considered "anti-capitalists" using the previously mentioned definition. Again (for the nth time), the fact that they styled themselves as "anti-capitalists" (i.e. used that label for themselves) makes no difference whatsoever. Keeping it logical, we recognize that what they call "anti-capitalist" and what we call "anti-capitalist" are necessarily two different things and leave it at that. What's the problem here?"

...
The problem is then we need to figure out what they mean by capitalism anyway. Otherwise, we have no idea what they're going on about. What it also means, in the here and now, is that those who continue to style themselves as anti-capitalists will rightfully so first be met with hostility. Language is supposed to be a collective tool. There seems to be little to no debate about what the word "word" means, given the context, and there is no clear benefit to arguing a new definition to that word. What your proposed definition of capitalism does is provide great benefit for those who are capitalists (in the classical sense of the word) by way of casting anti-capitalists as anti-voluntarists. This is something you have addressed yourself:
"It might do a lot of good for anarcho-capitalists!"

"In my honest opinion, they can call themselves "socialists" all they want. If I choose to define "capitalism" as "voluntary trade", and they support voluntary trade, I'll call them supporters of capitalism - and I won't be wrong."

No, to you you will not be wrong. But without understanding what not only anti-capitalists but the vast majority of sociologists mean when they say "capitalism" you won't be able to effectively communicate, which you have conceded is the point of using language in the first place. Moreover, in order to understand what anti-capitalists even mean, you have to know what their definition is in the first place, and it's not even a definition of something you oppose! So why even bother with a simplistic, and unrecognized definition if not only to confuse and discredit anti-capitalists?

"Nevertheless, I'll be mindful of the fact that they call themselves "anti-capitalists" just the same. By the same token, however, I think they should be mindful of the fact that I'm not defining "capitalism" the same way they are. While I agree that language is a collective process, because it requires two or more people to agree on the meanings of the words used, there's no pre-standing obligation to communicate at all costs, let alone to agree that certain words have certain meanings. Hence this fixation on "one definition to rule them all" is a fool's errand, IMHO."

No doubt, but there are effects of language that are pretty damn clear. If the vast majority of people see wage labor and property theory as the markers of capitalism, two things that you yourself even support, why bother with this glossy definition of yours? I really mean that. Why is that definition preferable to you?

"On the other hand, and this might surprise you, but I personally won't insist on defining "capitalism" as simply "voluntary trade" in this thread. My issue hasn't been with the definition of "capitalism" to be used - it's been about the nature of definitions and the implications thereof."

The certain property theory just may be a good definition. I'd like your take on where the connection between capitalism as such is between it and the anarchist tradition, or if it is simply another word game used in order to benefit supporters of such a system.

"Just curious. What makes those "socialists" socialists? In the case of socialists that support voluntary trade, what exactly are they in support of voluntarily being traded? Also, along with your criticisms of other people's definitions, it may be helpful if you gave your definitions of socialism and capitalism, if possible. (Sorry, if you've already done this and I've missed it.)"

To address your first question, I'd say that definitions come about by active usage, ie socialists are socialists because they are calling themselves socialists and others are calling them socialists. Good definitions are generally agreeable, but there are obviously debates about them all the time since language is an active collective process and not a stable individual one.

Socialists were political philosophers concerned with "the labor problem," things like poor working conditions, low wages, and poor living conditions for workers. All this developed in response to the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism. It is an incoherent word used to denote a number of sometimes opposing philosophies, and usually has a qualifier attached to it such as democratic, Marxist, or anti-authoritarian.

I would say that capitalism is a system that supports private ownership that can stretch beyond one's use and/or occupancy of land, capital, or commodities, resulting in an ability to charge rent and interest and enabling a private owner agency over how others use their property, that is, to be brief about both definitions.

I would say that capitalism is a system that supports private ownership that can stretch beyond one's use and/or occupancy of land, capital, or commodities, resulting in an ability to charge rent and interest and enabling a private owner agency over how others use their property, that is, to be brief about both definitions. 

That's fine.  The problem with leftism is, I don't understand what they are getting at as the term "use" is an ontological subjective reality that has no logical function as a type of objective "thing in itself".  What makes it comprehensible is what can be observed by the intersubjective relations and the consequences of those actions - nothing else makes sense. 

After that we go into living breathing "practiced art" type stuff like law and custom- which really shouldn't be discussed right now.  You may very well have something with law, custom, and expectations in some type of real environment - but there is no way to formulate in a universal scientific language.

EDIT: Also not there really is not much an anarcho-capitalist can say about most of these situations.  Real life and expectations are kind of crazy like that. They can not force economics into law or custom no matter how much they want.  Arbitrary "Free Market solution" mentiond in a theoretical void in the internet can not take into account real expectations in a kaledescopic world of subjective value.

"That's fine.  The problem with leftism is, I don't understand what they are getting at as the term "use" is an ontological subjective reality that has no logical function as a type of objective "thing in itself".  What makes it comprehensible is what can be observed by the intersubjective relations and the consequences of those actions - nothing else makes sense."

That's actually what I love about occupancy and use, the lack of a hard and fast rule. It allows room for dissent, discussion, and variance while applying a generally imagineable principle.

Birthday Pony:

Socialists were political philosophers concerned with "the labor problem," things like poor working conditions, low wages, and poor living conditions for workers. All this developed in response to the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism. It is an incoherent word used to denote a number of sometimes opposing philosophies, and usually has a qualifier attached to it such as democratic, Marxist, or anti-authoritarian.

Presumably, no capitalist would be concerned with working conditions, wages, and living conditions of people other than himself (including his workers)? (Why not?) Also, presumably, no worker (or even a socialist!) would save and build capital of his own, and turn himself into a capitalist? (Why not?)

In your opinion, are there socialists that do not fit (or would disgree with) this wikipedia definition?

"Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.^[1][2] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.^[3][4]"
 

If this definition were to be found agreeable by most socialists, how is "the means of production [being] publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively" compatible with voluntary trade, or voluntary anything, for that matter? How would a socialist deal with individuals that refuse to voluntarily submit their "means of production" to the collective? In socialism, who (what body) maintains the catalogue of what is or is not a "means of production", i.e. of what can or can not be private property? Laptop, car, machine, bicycle, TWO bicycles one of which may be (horrors!) rented out?

Birthday Pony:

I would say that capitalism is a system that supports private ownership that can stretch beyond one's use and/or occupancy of land, capital, or commodities, resulting in an ability to charge rent and interest and enabling a private owner agency over how others use their property, that is, to be brief about both definitions.

Which aspects of your capitalism definition collide with voluntary trade?

"In the case of socialists that support voluntary trade, what exactly are they in support of voluntarily being traded?"