for beginners. the reason why many social anarchists "lapse" into state-socialis is not because they are off-tracked by their socialism. its simply because they would prefer state-socialism to capitalism. the simple truth is that many, if not the majority of them, believe that you can have partially "benign" states. the problem is not that they are not following the golden mean but are simply using sloppy reasoning. otherwise why would goldman even consider ussr. if she believed that all state-socialist schemes are fake, she wouldnt even give them a chance. far-left parties are almost-always their buddies and right-wingers are the ones that get firebombed.
the fact is that, in theory, both market anarchists and communists would rather see a total abolition of gov't. their lapses into statist apologetic are a result of sloppy thinking. (imo all anarchists sometimes symphatise with statist elements, even carson)
another fact is that the socialists and marketeers have different ethical yardsticks and thus putting them in one gradual line is false. you must understand that orthodox anarchocomms have a different ethical worldview. they oppose profit and loss, hierarchy, competition, and commodity production. its not simply a mere preference for socialisticalness. they are surely anti-authoritarians but not genuine libertarians. imo tucker is a good example of a libertarian. their love of freedom is not based on the same solid foundations as ours. they are more close to the marxian view of freedom.
for a mutualist his system is as socialist as it can be. he doesnt half-step between communism and capitalism and come up with mutualism. a person who doesnt take his ideas to their most radical conclusions is really a hipocrate. a good example are the democratic party. they are half-assed socialists. they have the same yardsick, but out of intellectual fear chose a middle way.
What anarchist spectrum are you talking about? And I have to wonder what the purpose of this post is.
the reason why many social anarchists "lapse" into state-socialis is not because they are off-tracked by their socialism. its simply because they would prefer state-socialism to capitalism.
And what is your evidence for this claim? And why couldn't I make the same claim about anarcho-capitalists, that they would prefer state-capitalism to socialism? Either way, that has no bearing on the fundamental question, and we can reject both. Furthermore, since Hoppe thinks that monarchy is preferable to democracy, why couldn't I level a similar charge against paleo-libertarians in his vein?
the simple truth is that many, if not the majority of them, believe that you can have partially "benign" states.
Once again, what is your evidence of this claim? It's just an assertion. Likewise, why couldn't I make the same claim about anarcho-capitalists? That they tend to believe that you can have partially "benign" states so long as they are nominally "private"? Hoppe's portrayal of feudalism and monarchy, for example, is rather benign. And minarchist capitalism (as envisioned by Mises and Rand, for example) is essentially a "benign" state.
the problem is not that they are not following the golden mean but are simply using sloppy reasoning. otherwise why would goldman even consider ussr.
You must have missed the fact that she denounced them. She definitely was inconsistent though.
if she believed that all state-socialist schemes are fake, she wouldnt even give them a chance. far-left parties are almost-always their buddies and right-wingers are the ones that get firebombed.
If we're going to bring up examples of inconsistency or hypocrisy, why couldn't I make the same argument about Rothbard allying with Pat Buchanan and his switch to a "closed borders" position? Does this make everything Rothbard ever wrote wrong? No!
No disagreement here - at least I don't think.
another fact is that the socialists and marketeers have different ethical yardsticks and thus putting them in one gradual line is false.
Not entirely. I don't believe an absolute dichotomy holds at all. There isn't even uniformity internal to these camps in terms of ethical theories and frameworks, let alone an absolute dichotomy between the camps. I've found that sometimes the ethics are quite similar actually, and half the issue is semantics. On the other hand, there are definitely differences in terms of implications and foundations for ethics, even when they seem to be commonly held. But there certainly is no absolute dichotomy here.
you must understand that orthodox anarchocomms have a different ethical worldview. they oppose profit and loss, hierarchy, competition, and commodity production. its not simply a mere preference for socialisticalness.
You think I don't more or less already know this? The problem is that "anarcho-communism" is not "social anarchism", it's only one group within it.
imo tucker is a good example of a libertarian. their love of freedom is not based on the same solid foundations as ours. they are more close to the marxian view of freedom.
And yet Tucker called himself a socialist and was anti-capitalist. Tucker is not a good example to appeal to for pure "anarcho-capitalism", he actually represents individualist anarchism and a sort of bridge between the two worlds of market and social anarchism in some ways.
And I agree that the anarcho-communists in particular are way too influenced by Marxism.
its really hard for me to put my ideas in words. i wish i could do a live video chat on youtube (is that possible, i donno?). you are absolutely right on the points stated above. the same statism can be attributed to marketeers. however the issue here is not that the marketeers are not anarchist enough, the issue is pragmatics. anarchists like creating soap operas over bakunin's rivalry with marx, but really many anarchists had and have some hopes in statist labor reforms and such. im not simple making assertions. this includes berkman, goldman, kroptkin, clayre.
the fundamental issue is not that they wont take the lesser evil but that many think that that lessr evil is impossible. the issue is not "overemphasizing communism" and thus taking thus taking the rotten apple of state-socialism. even you stated that they are some die-hard anti-statist social anarchists. (cant name anyone from the top of my head - prolly sorel and bakunin.)
btw, the spectrum is the one i saw on youtube
basicly you state that socialisicalness is a preference and put all anarchists on one pH line. this is not entirely true. one can prefer living in a commune and still see nothing ethicly/legally wrong with market exchange. also agorists are "more rothbardian than rothbard", so they are not more socialistic than him.
garegin: btw, the spectrum is the one i saw on youtube basicly you state that socialisicalness is a preference and put all anarchists on one pH line. this is not entirely true. one can prefer living in a commune and still see nothing ethicly/legally wrong with market exchange. also agorists are "more rothbardian than rothbard", so they are not more socialistic than him.
My spectrum in that video didn't imply that you cannot prefer to live in a commune while simultaneously not seeing anything inherently wrong with market exchange, so I don't see what you're getting at. The point was that if their preferance for communism is turned into a normative ideal to be applied to everyone, then they risk just being Stalinists.
The term "more rothbardian than rothbard" for agorism essentially signifies being more radical than rothbard, taking the ideas to the next level. I would know - I am an agorist. The fact of the matter is that agorism is more left-libertarian friendly.
1. there is a reason why its turned into a normative ideal. that thats because they have a different yardstick.
2. if agorists are not more socialistic, why are they put on one line. a gradient implies a single variable involved. socialisticalness (commies>mutualists) is not the same as radicalness.
what makes one position left-er than the other. judging from your spectrum line its the socialisticness. pure mutual aid>syndicalism>mutualism>distributivism. each gradually concedes more to market exchange and sociaeconomic inequality. tucker's "equally rich neighbor" is less equal than the neighbor of orthodox socialists.
Brainpolice:And what is your evidence for this claim? And why couldn't I make the same claim about anarcho-capitalists, that they would prefer state-capitalism to socialism?
"State capitalism" is socialism.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, since Hoppe thinks that monarchy is preferable to democracy, why couldn't I level a similar charge against paleo-libertarians in his vein?
What does that have to do with anything? Hoppe has merely tried providing a praxeological proof as to why monarchs are likely to favour free markets than presidents or other temporary caretakers. It doesn't mean he favours either.
Brainpolice:That they tend to believe that you can have partially "benign" states so long as they are nominally "private"? Hoppe's portrayal of feudalism and monarchy, for example, is rather benign.
No, he doesn't.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
garegin:what makes one position left-er than the other. judging from your spectrum line its the socialisticness. pure mutual aid>syndicalism>mutualism>distributivism. each gradually concedes more to market exchange and sociaeconomic inequality. tucker's "equally rich neighbor" is less equal than the neighbor of orthodox socialists.
Mutual aid isn't necessarily more "socialistic" (whatever that means). Mutualism, for example, which can be pretty close to Rothbardian market anarchism, is based on the principle of mutuality. In fact, that is sometimes the only constant, given the significant variation between, say, Proudhon and Tucker or Carson.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
This is false. Hoppe explicitly denounces monarchy and feudalism, and views them both as morally evil.
Brainpolice:And minarchist capitalism (as envisioned by Mises and Rand, for example) is essentially a "benign" state.
Well, in a sense it is the most "benign" state in the way that it's the least intrusive.
Brainpolice:The fact of the matter is that agorism is more left-libertarian friendly.
An advocate of agorism or counter-economics doesn't have to be left-leaning or more friendly towards such elements. One can very well be in favour of such actions (counter-economics) and not be positive of "leftist" elements within the libertarian movement.
In this context left-libertarian refers to Roderick T. Longs definition:
"... an integration, or I’d argue, a reintegration of libertarianism with concerns that are traditionally thought of as being concerns of the left. That includes concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality."
wombatron:Mutualism, for example, which can be pretty close to Rothbardian market anarchism
Ohh yes, the philosophy for thieves (mutualism) and that of private property (anarcho-capitalism/pure liberalism) are very close...
C.H. Hellstrom: Brainpolice:The fact of the matter is that agorism is more left-libertarian friendly. An advocate of agorism or counter-economics doesn't have to be left-leaning or more friendly towards such elements. One can very well be in favour of such actions (counter-economics) and not be positive of "leftist" elements within the libertarian movement.
Not many will remember this due to partisanship, but one can hope.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
C.H. Hellstrom: wombatron:Mutualism, for example, which can be pretty close to Rothbardian market anarchism Ohh yes, the philosophy for thieves (mutualism) and that of private property (anarcho-capitalism/pure liberalism) are very close...
The only substantial difference between Carson and a Rothbardian is his view on what constitutes abandoning property. That's really about it. What's more, his stance on property partially being a social convention is hardly unique in the libertarian movement; Rasmussen and Den Uyl make a similar point in Liberty and Nature, and they are hardly left-libs!
"brainpolice's anarchist spectrum has some flaws"Wait a second, is the reason for a ton of debate on the forums because we have grown tired of trying to convince the deaf statists of the falsity of their views?
I don't get it. I don't understand the epic debates between Brainpolice and Giles that I can't understand. I thought most anarchno-capitalists agreed that government == bad and free markets == good.
I don't get why certain people disagree with brainpolice, can someone explain in simpler terms?
Schools are labour camps.
"I don't get why certain people disagree with brainpolice, can someone explain in simpler terms?"
this has nothing to do with idealogy. its simply that his youtube spectrum is flawed. i still agree with his "platform".
exactly. mutualists are stellar libertarians. unterrified liberals, one might say. anarcho-communists and their ilk are a totally different animal on the other hand. their forefathers are not the classical liberals but utopian socialists, who conflated caprise with freedom.
And why couldn't I make the same claim about anarcho-capitalists, that they would prefer state-capitalism to socialism?
Which side of the political spectrum is currently cheering on corporate bail-outs and extensive government involvement with corporations?
I'll give you a hint: it starts with an L and rhymes with "keft"
Better yet, Carson is defendind the very unions that are looking for the bailouts.
i think chomsky had broken into his house and used carson's pc.
GilesStratton: Better yet, Carson is defendind the very unions that are looking for the bailouts.
Link?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap