[p2p-research] The difference between anarchism and libertarianism

[Stefan Merten]

Hi Smári!

5 days ago Smári McCarthy wrote:
> Forgive the length of this rant, and please refrain from drawing
> conclusions before the end of it:

Indeed this was necessary. Your rant started out nicely but IMHO ended
poorly.

> I have frequently been asked what the difference is between
> libertarianism and anarchism, in light of the fact that anarchists have
> adopted the moral that libertarians have claimed ownership of, that
> individual freedom is only limited by the equal freedom of others.

I agree with your description. But I expected that you describe an
anarchist alternative to libertarians instead of changing to their
side.

> This tiny detail, property, is enough to have the propertarian unravel
> all her beliefs and build around herself a powerful system of coercion
> which is very easy to use for oligarchical purposes. Taxation, trade
> barriers and an unfree market are natural consequences of having such
> power hanging over us. But this they accept anyway, because in the world
> of the propertarians, property is more important than freedom.

Or in my words: The abstract system is more important than the humans.
Exactly what we have in capitalism...

> In light of recent events it is dilligent to ask of currency: is it
> scarce? Yes. Is it rival? Yes. Need this be the case?
> 
> This last question is important not least because it is so rarely asked.
> The monetary system has been constructed around the belief that all
> things are scarce and that all things are rival.

Well, I'd go one step further: Money *encodes* scarcity (where
scarcity means a man-made limitation). If you want to end up at
commons (i.e. absense of scarcity) you have simply no more use for
money.

> Because of this, the
> monetary system is incapable of properly estimating the value of things
> that are abundant or social.

Yes. If it encodes scarcity it can not encode non-scarcity.

> At some point the lords realized that these
> commons were quite valuable, and suddenly realized that which has come
> to be known as the tragedy of the commons.

Well, the "tragedy" of the commons is of course capitalist propaganda.
This is pretty obvious. It was not a tragedy but the appropriation at
the beginning of an era.

> Usury, or interest, creates an interesting situation in the monetary
> system.

Here your analysis starts to get wrong. Interest does not create a
situation in the monetary system but is created by a monetary system.

> Simple: We stop assuming that everything is scarce, and that all things
> are rival.

But then: What do we need money for at all?

> First, we stop accepting centralization of the means of production, and
> allow everybody to create credit, the value of which is determined by
> their merit.

And merit is of course scarce. So you are introducing a new scarcity
in the attempt to remove scarcity. This makes no sense. But it
reflects how much your thinking is still bound to a scarcity based
system. I wholeheartedly suggest that you just look at peer
production. Scarcity is no part of peer production. And thus money is
not missing.

> By using computers we can make this fast, simple and safe.

By using computers you move the authorities into the machine. Code is
law - already forgotten? You can not remove authorities by moving them
into a computer program.

>  œôòüAbundant cheap credit would drastically alter the balance of power
> between capital and labor, and returns on labor would replace returns on
> capital as the dominant form of economic activity.œôòý - Kevin Carson,
> Mutualist Political Economy

What I never understood: When I can create as much money as I want -
which above is already impossible by the merit thing - for what do I
need money then at all?

Money is either scarce or it makes no sense. It follows that if you
want to overcome scarcity money makes no sense.

> With
> strong encryption these statements will be nigh impossible to forge.

You are moving the policemen into the computer. Probably you also like
DRM methods - they are doing the same.

> Property is weaker now than often before, as it goes against the
> morality of those who have nothing.

I'm sorry, but morality was always the same largely. So there is no
change here.

> The monetary system is weak now, because it was designed around
> assumptions that no longer apply.

Well, when I look at the rate with which monetary systems are proposed
I can not really see that the monetary system is weak. In the
contrary: At the point in history where money really becomes
superfluos people are so shocked by this vision that they do
*everything* to save their old certainties. Sorry, but this is too
conservative for me.

> Centralization is not the future, scarcity is not the future, property
> is not the future.

And money is not the future. Under these conditions it just makes no
sense.

> Anarchism is the future: freedom for all to live in
> equality and cooperation.

No. Anarchism is a concept related to capitalism. For instance
equality is a fundamental value in capitalist societies. Equality is a
concept to deal with scarcity and limitations. The future is peer
production. Equality will simply be no topic any more in peer
production.

I can only appeal to all of you that you open your eyes and really
*watch* these things which happen all around us. And open you mind and
overcome this outdated thinking in money / scarcity categories.


						Grüße

						Stefan