From: mlorrey@datamann.com
Date: Tue Oct 22 2002 - 17:17:45 MDT
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
X-Mailer: YaBB
[quote from: ags on 2002-10-22 at 11:56:57]
\"If it is a socialist state it exists, like National Socialist Germany
or Communist Russia to allow a few thugs to lord it over and terrorize the
rest of the citizenry. In addition the state serves to allow a few mooches
to get something for nothing.\"
Well, I don't think that, assuming a few things, it is really possible to
talk about a socialist state at all, I don't think that is a concept which
is self consistent. Because a state, at least in the normal sense of the
word, implies authoritarian organization, people coercing other people to
get what they want done (isn't that what the usual meaning is?).
If everyone is free to work or not work, your entire 'socialist' society
is going to have to choose between famine and tyranny (as every socialist
society to date has had to choose). Given this choice it is mandatory for
any socialist system to function for any length of time that there is no
individual freedom to not work, just as in any free market system.
Socialism,
however, is supposedly a classless system of organization, which is in
contradiction with the idea of a state.
On the contrary, socialism enforces a minimum of two classes on any society:
either a) thugs that make others work, and b) workers, or else a) workers and
b) non-workers. Demonstrate any socialist society where this is not true.
Now, is it possible to have a
capitalist state?
The original US government, if you ignore the special case of slavery of
africans, which was a preexisting burden of the British feudal system and not
created by the US government, treated the economy in a very hands-off fashion,
letting the free market operate pretty much on its own, while the various
states and the Continental government all set their own monetary policies that
influenced the markets to some extent.
The medieval Icelandic culture is a well known example of an
anarcho-capitalist state, where the economy was free market, and
government was rather minimalist/consensual (the AllThing) which used
preist/umpires/judges to ajudicate disagreements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"But similiary, Anarchism necessities that you can not
choose to engage in capitalism"
Well, what do you mean by engage in capitalism? If you mean the
monopolization of resources, that doesn't just affect you, if affects the
people who need the resources that you are monopolizing by force. Like, if
in a communal society I decide that a particular plot of land is off limits
to anyone who does not obey a command of mine, as I could do if that land
were private property, that doesn't just affect me. (2)
It is a reather common socialist claim that owning property is 'monopolizing
by force', but in typical socialist fashion, it uses a demogogic twisting of
the definition of 'monopoly'. A monopoly means that one entity has near total
control of a market for a specific product or resource. If one person owned
almost ALL of the land, that would be a monopoly. If one person owns several
acres of land, and millions of other people also own various amounts of land,
there is no 'monopoly' on the market for land. While if I own a specific plot
of land may exclude someone else from using that particular plot, it does not
exclude them from using some other, unclaimed plot. It also does not exclude
them from offering me fair market value in exchange for a) exclusive use of
that plot of land (i.e. deeded sale), or b) temporary partial use of the land
(i.e. rent/lease).
Socialists who claim that 'property is theft' are generally of the sort who
seem to think that a) they don't need to work for their own living, b) others
owe them the resources they need to survive, and c) it's not okay for others
to prevent, with force, them from taking it, but d) it is okay for them to
take it by force because they are just reestablishing an equal distribution of
goods.
"How about, instead, a system where you can choose to work OR not work?"
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by work-- do you mean work for money, or
work in the more general sense, like work on a physics project? If you mean
the former, then I don't see how that is possible (see above). If you mean
the latter, then I agree. (3)
That you can't see that the two are identical speaks volumes.
"There is no such thing as a life without a collar and a leash, as nature
imposes her own collars and leashes upon us."
That is true, but, as Bakunin said once, I don't see how it makes sense to
talk about the inherent bonds of nature as some sort of restriction--these
are rather the essential parts of existance itself. (4)
Even when the restrictions that nature places upon you result in free market
mechanisms being more Objectively True than non-free markets?
"If anarchism requires that to be free you must be free of the need to
'work' but one must 'work' to stay alive, how is an anarchist society even
logically possible?"
Well, I don't think that anyone supposes that food is going to pop up from
nowhere-- I think what anarchists are saying about not having to work means
not having to work in the capitalist sense. I mean, if there is abundant
food right there in front of you, but you can't have it because someone is
going to throw you in jail if you take it, and you have to obey some command
of the owner in order to have it... that's what they mean. If there is no
food at all, or all the food that exists is needed, that's different. (5)
There is no difference between having to work in the capitalist sense and
having to work in the socialist sense. To claim otherwise is pure lunacy.
If I have abundant food that you are standing right in front of, you have
no idea or appreciation for the fact that a) I may need all of that food to
survive, b) my selling that food for a profit is the only means for me to
aquire goods produced by others and to save for old age when I am unable to
work. You think that just because there is a pile of food in front of me that
I could not possibly eat at one sitting that I therefore have 'more than my
fair share'.
"What if everyone chooses not to work?"
Then I guess everyone dies, but it is up to them. I mean, if there is no
food at all, just hypothetically, and you want to get some, so you go out
and make just enough for yourself, then I don't think anybody has any
legitimate right to take it away from you. (6)
Except that under your socialism, they do have that right.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Any employer that abuses his workers will soon find the good ones have
left him and been welcomed with open arms elsewhere."
Well, first of all, changing jobs isn't easy-- there is a lot of work you
have to go through in order to do that, generally, especially if you don't
have certain credentials. However, what if all the jobs you can find are
worse, at the same level, or only marginally better than the job you have?
(7)
What if the sky turns yellow? So what? We should all hope to get jobs that
are only marginally better than the ones we have now, because that means that
later on down the road, we get another one that is marginally better than that
one, and so on, and we move up the socioeconomic ladder. If you don't keep up
with maintaining and improving your skills, and your current job decreases
in demand among employers, do you think you should still get paid the same
amount?
I mean, generally, the capitalist system inherently promotes exploitation of
the weak. That's because the strong, or those whose control of resources is
backed up by force, have very little to lose if someone decides to leave
them-- that is why unions are needed, and even then on a personal level, a
bankruptcy will generally not affect an employer very much, he'll still have
a well to do living standard. On the other hand, the person working for him
may be reduced to absolutely horrible conditions or even killed by
starvation, in the extreme case, if they do not find work. (8)
neither capitalism, libertarianism, nor anarcho-capitalism are inherently
against unions. There are libertarian union members here on this list, who
also happen to be capitalists in that they own stock in various companies
they are not employed by. I expect to become a union member myself in a
couple months, and I'm a libertarian and a capitalist. Your understanding of
capitalism is very poor.
"Quite. I wonder how is it that socialist "anarchists" can claim that
true anarchism is socialist when the single common characteristic of
every commune that ever existed is a tendency to become tyrannized by
control freaks."
But then it would no longer be a commune-- I mean, that's inherent to the
definition of commune, no single person or group has control. See (1). (9)
On the contrary, as I have participated in temporary communes myself in the
past, I can clearly state that in even the most consensual commune, there will
ALWAYS be one or more individuals who are master manipulators and control
freaks who wind up dominating things. They generally take on roles such as
'facilitator' etc who claim to help foster consensus, but generally are
experts at manipulating groups into doing what the 'facilitators' want while
thinking it's their own ideas.
"I would posit that it is because non-free market based systems of
economic distribution are so unwieldy that they require tyrannical
control mechanisms to strongly dictate rules of distribution to avoid
communal dissolution and strife"
I don't really see why this is. In fact, I think it is precisely because of
the inherent force and inequalities used to maintain a "free market system"
that most if not all tyrannical controls exist in our society all. Of
course, the US is not a "free market system" in any sense of the phrase.
(10)
There are no force and inequalities needed to maintain a free market system,
unless you seem to think that because I, a shoe cobbler, have ten pairs of
shoes, but no corn, while you, a farmer, have none, while you do have a
thousand bushels of corn, that we are living in an 'unequal' society. While
the US is not a pure free market today, it is the most free of any major
nation, and it was in its past far more of a free market.
The fact is that 95% of businesses in the US are small businesses, generally
are unincoporated, and employ over half the workforce. These small busineses
range from sole proprietorships with one owner/employee up to as many as 50
employees.
"The mere fact that the socialist 'anarchists' had to write a propaganda
piece calling itself "THE anarchist FAQ"
Here, go to www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html and read the three paragraphs
which start with this sentence...
"We are sure that many anarchists will not agree 100% with what we have
written in the FAQ..."
That pretty much states the essence of any reply I could make to this.
No, it isn't, because I, as an anarchist, disagree with the claim in the faq
that 'anarchism is socialist'. You disagree with me, and therefore the faq is
wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Since capitalism is based on a chaotic free market"
Assuming I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly about chaos... no
system which may be said to be successful is based on a such a thing... the
very definition of chaos implies disorganization, and disorganization
implies destruction (the levels of each being roughly correlated).
No, chaos does NOT imply disorganization, nor does disorganization imply
destruction. Like your conflation of capitalism concepts with corporation
concepts, you are inherently WRONG here.
Chaos mathematics, which rule chaotic systems, demonstrates that chaos
operates by relatively simple rules, and therefore chaos has organization,
however difficult it is to discern from mere observation of seemingly random
noise.
Disorganization is a lack of structure, ergo, if we use latin,
an-archy. Therefore, a free market is anarchy. Chaos seems disorganized to the
uninitiated and unobservant, to the blind man trying to describe the elephant.
In fact, free markets arise as a form of 'spontaneous order'.
Organization does not, I think, require force in any normal sense of the
word, only people who are committed to working together. And of course it is
possible to cooperate voluntarily, for how else could, say, this
organization exist? (12)
Free markets cannot exist without people who are committed to working
together, voluntarily.
---- This message was posted by Mike Lorrey to the Extropians 2002 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=53521>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:43 MST