Libertarian my ass!

[Mike Christ]

ITT, we discuss the English language and how it's always trying to start shit.

[myrkul]

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

The anarcho-syndicalist.

I bet he'd kill for a sandwich.

Nope, taking compensation for work is slavery. But he might do it for the joy of it. Work, after all, is it's own reward.

[Richy_T]

The thing is, capitalism isn't really an ideology as such, it's just a formalization of the way the world works. You work, you create goods, you exchange goods, you have capitalism.

Anarchism, being the lack of an over-arching control, cannot oppose capitalism any more than it can oppose the laws of gravity or, (perhaps more aptly) fluid dynamics. The only way to suppress capitalism is by imposing control from above. Anti-capitalism is antithetical to anarchism.

[Rampion]

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.  

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.

But it's not - we've already established that you can simply work for only yourself - if you're willing to subsist on what you can produce yourself.

Yes, you can - but you won't argue that capitalism is not based on consumption of self-production. For most of people, breaking with capitalism and just live on what they produce themselves would mean breaking with society... And anarchism is not an every man for himself, primitivist philosophy, but rather the opposite (again: see Kropotkin's works)

If "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, wouldn't anarcho-syndicalism be redundant? (perhaps this is showing that the political system - or lack thereof - is separate from the economic system) I'd also like to point out that Anarcho-capitalism does not forbid mutual aid, but that anarcho-syndicalism would forbid trade. Which system is more free?

Anarchosyndicalism (also known by some thinkers as "anarchism without adjectives") is the specific description of work organization in an anarchist society, wich by philosophical and historical definition would be non-capitalist and would have no state. The prefix anarcho- serves the puropouse of separating it from the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories.

In any case, an anarchist system would never forbid trade. Anarchist thinkers consider mutualism/cooperativism as the natural way of organizing society, but by definition they would never forbid private propriety, trade, or even capitalist entities. One of the core points of anarchism is: free association, and this "no-forbid" theory is why even a lot of anarchists think its a plain and simple utopia, because somehow successful systems impose themselves with some sort of coercition.

EXAMPLE: Anarchist society would have no army: thus it couldn't be protected by enemies, thus will never succeed and always be defeated.

[Mike Christ]

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

[Rampion]

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

Anarchism is against any type of coercive force, and anarchist theorists pointed capitalism as one of the strongest coercive forces in society in their very first works, which you should read if you sympatize with "libertarians" or "anarchists".

Then you can have your own meaning for anarchism, or for any other word: but sticking to the facts, Anarchism was founded by Bakunit et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement. An anarcho-capitalist is like a nazi-jew.

[myrkul]

Anarchism was founded by Bakunin et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement.

The first anarchists were anarchosyndicalists. That does not mean that anarchism is anacrchosyndicalism.

So, let me posit a situation, and see how you deal with it:

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

[herzmeister]

Discussed already here.

Nice docu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH43YHaUGyQ

My views, as I wrote elsewhere:

The term "Socialism" in its original form means: Workers have to be in control of the means of production. That essentially means flat hierarchies, and fully transparent and "fair" businesses. This is no contradiction at all to a free market. That's why much of today's political discussion is based on false dichotomies.

I however don't subscribe to those who want to abolish competition and demand "solidarity". If worker collective A can't get their shit done and produce much crappier shoes than collective B, well then they will eventually be out of business and have to look for something new. You'd need a world-wide planned economy to prevent that, and I'm not for such a thing, even if it's supposedly implemented "democratically". To close the loop to Austrian economics, well the market does not care if the decisions in a business are made at the top by the managers, or crowd-sourced and agreed on by the whole staff.

[Richy_T]

I however don't subscribe to those who want to abolish competition and demand "solidarity". If worker collective A can't get their shit done and produce much crappier shoes than collective B, well then they will eventually be out of business and have to look for something new. You'd need a world-wide planned economy to prevent that, and I'm not for such a thing, even if it's supposedly implemented "democratically". To close the loop to Austrian economics, well the market does not care if the decisions in a business are made at the top by the managers, or crowd-sourced and agreed on by the whole staff.

In fact, if collectives are so much better, they should be able to outshine all the inefficient top-down owned businesses and put them all out of business. Not happening and you can't claim it's all because of fatcat capitalists controlling the economy.

[Rampion]

Anarchism was founded by Bakunin et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement.

The first anarchists were anarchosyndicalists. That does not mean that anarchism is anacrchosyndicalism.

I strongly disagree. Anarchism is a a) free-association, b) anti-capitalist and c) anti-state philosophy. Anarchism was born opposed to social darwinists who defended the capitalist competitive free market as the "perfect" and "natural way" to organize the economy. The fundational works of anarchism are a reply to XIX century liberals who started to defend that competition in capitalist free market replicated nature and its "fight for survival" (see "The Fight for Existance" by Thomas H. Huxley, which motivated "The Mutual Aid" by Kropotkin), and thus capitalism was the perfect and natural way to organize economy.

As I explained earlier, free market capitalists and anarchist have a commong origin, the pre-capitalist liberals - but the fundamental difference between them was not "state or not state", but the way in which to organize economy.

If you take "anti-capitalist" out from the equation you won't have anarchism - you may have a sort of extreme minarchy, ultra-liberalism, or call it whatever you want: but you will have something else, not anarchism. These are the facts, and I'm sure you will agree with me if you read the works of the anarchist thinkers.

[myrkul]

If you take "anti-capitalist" out from the equation you won't have anarchism - you may have a sort of extreme minarchy, ultra-liberalism, or call it whatever you want: but you will have something else, not anarchism. These are the facts, and I'm sure you will agree with me if you read the works of the anarchist thinkers.

What makes you think I haven't?

You avoided answering my question.

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

[Richy_T]

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

The tractor maker gives you a tractor because building tractors is its own reward.
The steel maker gives him the steel because working around dangerously hot molten metal is its own reward.
The miner give the ore to the smelter because crawling around in holes in the ground is its own reward.

Anyone who believes this shit should schedule a road trip and go on a mine tour.

[benjamindees]

If Europeans had wealth similar to Americans, you would be "capitalist" libertarians as well.  As it stands, you are collectivist libertarians due to centuries of serfdom and overpopulation.

[myrkul]

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

The tractor maker gives you a tractor because building tractors is its own reward.
The steel maker gives him the steel because working around dangerously hot molten metal is its own reward.
The miner give the ore to the smelter because crawling around in holes in the ground is its own reward.

Well, yes... I had taken that as granted. I was just curious if I had somehow enslaved the tractor manufacturer, or if he had somehow enslaved me.

[Rampion]

If you take "anti-capitalist" out from the equation you won't have anarchism - you may have a sort of extreme minarchy, ultra-liberalism, or call it whatever you want: but you will have something else, not anarchism. These are the facts, and I'm sure you will agree with me if you read the works of the anarchist thinkers.

What makes you think I haven't?

You avoided answering my question.

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

This insitence of stating that anti-capitalism is not inherent to anarchism makes me think you did not read/understand the works of Malatesta, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. If you did, you would have understood that they created their theory as a reaction and in opposition to the capitalists free market theorists.

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

[Richy_T]

Well, perhaps you are confusing things by bringing in "anarchism" then. We could concentrate on "libertarianism" but I have to confess that I'm not that familiar with the origins. I suspect the rise in adoption of the term has more to do with the stealing of the label "liberal" by those who are anything-but than seeking back into the far past. I often see the term "classical liberal" used as a synonym.

I guess an important thing to bear in mind is that the past 100 years or so have seen the rise of the state to overbearing stature. That has skewed the field quite a lot.

[Rampion]

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

The tractor maker gives you a tractor because building tractors is its own reward.
The steel maker gives him the steel because working around dangerously hot molten metal is its own reward.
The miner give the ore to the smelter because crawling around in holes in the ground is its own reward.

Anyone who believes this shit should schedule a road trip and go on a mine tour.

Well, traditional anarchists deal in two ways for the "bad jobs" (crawling in holes) that nobody would like to do:

1) Some anarchists, let's say the "purist", say that unpleasant but necessary jobs would be shared by all members of the community, always voluntarily. For example: you would go to mine yourself for a week because it's a service for your community, and you would be happy to do that.
2) Some others say that those works would be associated with a higher reward to the individuals performing this jobs.

Then you have the capitalist way to deal with unpleasant jobs: you will always have someone hungry enough do that job, because crawaling in holes is the only way he has to feed himself

Normally anarchists are for 1), and they explain why this works and why this type of mutual aid is natural to humanity through studies on both animals and pre-private property communities, etc. Of course reading is advised, and if you decide that this is utter bullshit and that type of society is pure utopia, that no human would do something "because its a service for the community", no problem: that was not the point of my post.

[Severian]

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Can you come by and paint my house? You'll find it very rewarding.

[myrkul]

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.

If you want to bitch about people using libertarian in a meaning other than it's original, perhaps you should look in a mirror, first:

The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.

[Rampion]

Well, perhaps you are confusing things by bringing in "anarchism" then. We could concentrate on "libertarianism" but I have to confess that I'm not that familiar with the origins. I suspect the rise in adoption of the term has more to do with the stealing of the label "liberal" by those who are anything-but than seeking back into the far past. I often see the term "classical liberal" used as a synonym.

I guess an important thing to bear in mind is that the past 100 years or so have seen the rise of the state to overbearing stature. That has skewed the field quite a lot.

I will explain you the origin of the word libertarian: it was used for the first time by Illustration free-thinkers in France, as a philosophic position agains determinism, which was a philosophy that said that everything that happens is related in a sort of cause-effect relationship. It had no economic or political meaning.

Then, around 1850, it was used for the first time by Joseph Déjacque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque) in reply to Joseph-Pierre Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) as a synonim of anarchist - and from there expanded as an euphemism for the anarchist term.

Thus, the modern US definition of libertarian as a "radical free market, anti-state capitalist" is rather funny.