Libertarian my ass!

[Rampion]

Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work.

So you are a capitalist!

As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind?

You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used.

If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that.

About being a capitalist: when working at a factory, deciding how to organize the work (how many hours, what to do with production, etc.) and owning the factory is very different, both from a philosophical and a practical point of view.

About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free

Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?

[myrkul]

Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work.

So you are a capitalist!

As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind?

You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used.

If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that.

About being a capitalist: when working at a factory, deciding how to organize the work (how many hours, what to do with production, etc.) and owning the factory is very different, both from a philosophical and a practical point of view.

Ah. And do you think that that factory was magically granted to the owner? Perhaps some king ordered the peasants to build it, and then gifted the finished product to him? No, he worked his way up to being able to purchase a factory.

About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free

Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?

I do. I've highlighted it for you. A factory owner is not the only consumer of labor - even in a relatively small area. If you don't agree, work elsewhere, or go into business for your self, and produce whatever you want. If people want it, you may even end up with a factory of your own. Read up on the history of Apple, (and Microsoft, come to that) to see what I mean.

[Rampion]

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position.

I think both of you share a definition of "capitalism" that I find hard to grasp. If one or both of you could explain it, I'd be very appreciative.

Well, I've been trying to explain it in a very prolific way. I will try to make it very simple:

If you don't want to starve, you need tomake money

Make money = accumulate capital

More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules)

Now I will recommend you to read "The Capital", by Karl Marx, where he explains why more capital = more power in thousands of pages. I assume you did not read it, or you would understand "our definition" of capitalism. Then you can take a shit on it, but I'm afraid that even Wikipedia will agree that the modern definition of capitalism was set by Marx in his work.

[myrkul]

If you don't want to starve, you need tomake money

Make money = accumulate capital

More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules)

OK, this is something I can work with. Let's simplify and clarify it a bit more.

If you don't want to starve, you need to accumulate capital.

More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules as to what people do with your capital)

Better. I don't think even Marx would disagree so far.

Now, what is capital? It's not just money. As I see it, there are three broad categories: time, matter, and space, with money being a convenient way of exchanging, and quantifying the value of, units of capital. As such, money is not capital, but rather, an abstraction of capital.

Now, that in order to avoid starvation you need to accumulate capital is a patently obvious fact of nature. Your body needs additional fuel to continue functioning. As it happens, there are numerous ways to go about doing this. Everybody has a rather large (but indeterminate) stock of at least one type of capital: time. It's this capital that we trade for all other capital, either directly, or indirectly. The best part is, it's granted to us more or less equally. We all also have been granted a limited amount of matter. This matter is a bit of a mixed blessing, as while it allows us to accumulate other matter, as well as space, it requires additional matter, lest we run out of time. Likewise, this matter has been granted more or less equally to all.

So, we all have a limited, but indeterminate amount of time, and we all have more or less the same amount of matter, at least to start. Some of us have been lucky, and we were granted additional matter, or perhaps space, or perhaps a large amount of abstract capital. One of the most important facts to remember about capitalism, however, is that poorly managed capital goes away. One could have a fortune in abstract capital, and massive amounts of space and matter, but if one does not apply ones' self to the proper "care and feeding" of this capital, one will eventually eat through it - quite literally, in many cases.

So we could change the first statement to read:

If you don't want to starve, you need to wisely trade time for material capital.

I'm still fairly certain Marx would agree.

Another thing to remember is that you don't get to set the rules on what other people do with their capital. This includes their time. If someone is working at my factory, it is because it is more profitable for them to trade their time to me for abstract capital - which they can then use to trade for the matter to keep their matter going - than it would be for them to expend that time directly producing the matter to keep their matter going. If it were not, that's what they would be doing. So, greedy capitalist that I am, I want to keep them working in my factory. To do so, I not only have to compete with their directly expending the time to produce their own food, but also other workplaces which would like to buy their time. If they are particularly good at what they do, they might be able to get quite good rates for that time, and if I don't give them enough, they will most certainly go elsewhere. Thus, by working for me, they get a better life than they could get sustenance farming, and at least as good a life as they could get anywhere else.

At least, under pure, non-state, capitalism. Adding in the force of the state allows me to pay politicians to pass laws which limit the ability of my competitors to compete, restrict the number of competitors, and prevent my employees from striking out on their own.

[Rampion]

About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free

Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?

I do. I've highlighted it for you. A factory owner is not the only consumer of labor - even in a relatively small area. If you don't agree, work elsewhere, or go into business for your self, and produce whatever you want. If people want it, you may even end up with a factory of your own. Read up on the history of Apple, (and Microsoft, come to that) to see what I mean.

I can grant you that, but:

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.

[myrkul]

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?

Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that.

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?

Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average.

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.

I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member.

[Rampion]

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?

Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that.

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?

Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average.

Are you telling me that Apple is using Foxconn because they are better than Americans doing what they do, that cheap labor is out of the equation, and that in fact Apple is actively working in order to raise the wealth of Foxconn's employees? Would they work with Foxconn if workers wages were equal in China and in the US?

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.

I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member.

So Apple is not there because of cheap labour, but as a service to the poor Chinese ruined by state communism?

Anyhow: I think we moved way off topic my friend.

[myrkul]

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?

Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that.

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?

Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average.

Are you telling me that Apple is using Foxconn because they are better than Americans doing what they do, that cheap labor is out of the equation, and that in fact Apple is actively working in order to raise the wealth of Foxconn's employees? Would they work with Foxconn if workers wages were equal in China and in the US?

Of course not. They're using Foxconn because it's cheaper than manufacturing it in America. That's the best thing about capitalism. As Adam Smith put it,

Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

The improvement of the Foxconn worker's quality of life over that of the average Chinese is merely a side-effect of Apple's seeking the best prices for it's manufacturing. But it's an entirely predictable side-effect, for the reasons I explained above.

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.

I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member.

So Apple is not there because of cheap labour, but as a service to the poor Chinese ruined by state communism?

Nope, just there for the cheap labor. Of course, the cheap labor is available due to the impoverishing of the people by the Chinese State.

And yes, we've wandered a bit afield. But it's your thread, and if you're willing, I'd like to continue showing you how American Libertarianism is just as much about personal freedom as is your traditional European anarchism.

[Richy_T]

I think it helps to not think of the worker as beholden to the big, evil, fat-cat factory owner, dependent on the largesse of said owner to provide rags and gruel for his family and rather as a free agent, entering a voluntary contract to exchange labor for payment at a mutually agreed rate.

Of course, if the voluntary contract is not there, there is an issue. If the worker is unable to acquire capital, be it money, land or factory of their own through overriding restrictions, be it serfdom, legislation, taxation or whatever, that is an issue. But that is typically an issue with the political system in place, not with capitalism in and of itself.

I think the issue here is that there are terms which have a prima facie meaning, "anarchism" and "capitalism" and Rampion is attempting, to attach additional prejudicial, and in the case of "capitalism", pejorative meanings based on the writings of people with an agenda.

Now, personally, I'm not a fan of the word "capitalism" in any case but this distortion of the meaning of words by the left grows tiresome.

[herzmeister]

But that is typically an issue with the political system in place

yup, often ignored.

Good article:
The Invention of Capitalism: How a Self-Sufficient Peasantry was Whipped Into Industrial Wage Slaves

Again, control of land. No self-sufficiency for the plebs. The word "Poacher" has negative connotations until today.

[myrkul]

But that is typically an issue with the political system in place

yup, often ignored.

Good article:
The Invention of Capitalism: How a Self-Sufficient Peasantry was Whipped Into Industrial Wage Slaves

Again, control of land. No self-sufficiency for the plebs. The word "Poacher" has negative connotations until today.

State Capitalism: in the end, just as bad as State Communism. I never denied that.

[MonadTran]

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

Anarchism, by definition, is "without a ruler". A ruler is someone who forces his will onto other people.

You are free to be against capitalist free market, I am free to be for capitalist free market, my employer is free to be for capitalist free market too.

Now, if I am for capitalist free market, and my employer is for capitalist free market, we don't frickin' need to ask your permission to start our tiny little capitalist enterprise. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it, but if you try to impose your likes and dislikes on us against our will, you are imposing yourself as a ruler over us. Expect resistance.

[Jocky]

To be honest, I never listsen when people use the term libertarian. Yesterday it was a lowlife that doesn't wanna pay tax, today it's Bitcoiners and tomorrow their muslims. Just say what you have to say and leave the names for namecoin users.

[myrkul]

To be honest, I never listsen when people use the term libertarian. Yesterday it was a lowlife that doesn't wanna pay tax, today it's Bitcoiners and tomorrow their muslims. Just say what you have to say and leave the names for namecoin users.

I don't want to pay taxes. Does that make me a lowlife, or was this a lowlife who also did not want to pay taxes?

[jackofspades]

Great Idea for a thread! Im sure there are a ton of Libertarians on here
I am a proud Libertarian and I have heard that the average BTC user is as well.

I have some friends IRL (some familiar with BTC some not) who whether they consider
themselves libertarians or not, definitely feel the same way on many topics.

Interesting history from the original poster as well.

Shout out to all libertarians!!!

[Rampion]

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

Anarchism, by definition, is "without a ruler". A ruler is someone who forces his will onto other people.

You are free to be against capitalist free market, I am free to be for capitalist free market, my employer is free to be for capitalist free market too.

Now, if I am for capitalist free market, and my employer is for capitalist free market, we don't frickin' need to ask your permission to start our tiny little capitalist enterprise. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it, but if you try to impose your likes and dislikes on us against our will, you are imposing yourself as a ruler over us. Expect resistance.

Of course. And nobody frickin' needs to ask your permission to elect a ruler for them, don't they? The crucial point is not forcing each other.

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.

That's the very simple explanation. If you want the long one, I can recommend you some of the works that set the basis of anarchism, both in a political and economical sense.

[Richy_T]

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.

See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

[Rampion]

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.

See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

Someone could argue that government doesn't literally rule, as it's people who freely choose to elect their government, thus being their own ruler. And you are also free to to move to a wild and uncivilized area (plenty of islands in the world), where no tax-man will ever reach you. Again, your are free to be your own ruler.

Would you consider this as valid logic? I bet not. Well, money rules de facto - the richest set the rules. You are free to work to become richer and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it? Same logic for the gov: you are free to present yourself to any publicly elected position and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it?

Edit: changed some working mistake

[Richy_T]

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.

See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

Someone could argue that government doesn't literally rule, as it's people who freely choose to elect their government, thus being their own ruler. And you are also free to to move to a wild and uncivilized area (plenty of islands in the world), where no tax-man will ever reach you. Again, your are free to be your own ruler.

Would you consider this as valid logic? I bet not. Well, money rules the facto - the richest set the rules. You are free to work to become richer and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it? Same logic for the gov: you are free to present yourself to to any publicly elected position and set your own rules, but what if you are interested in it?

There's the clue: "Government" -> "Govern"

[myrkul]

Would you consider this as valid logic? I bet not. Well, money rules de facto - the richest set the rules.

Here's the crucial question: For whom do the richest set the rules?

Another question: Absent the force of the State, how does one become rich?

One more: Absent the force of the State, how does one stay rich?