Libertarian my ass!

[nexus6]

Documentary:

Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)

Considered a jewel amongst historians and rebel hearts, this documentary made in 1997 about the 1936 Spanish Revolution blends historical accounts of the development of the anarchist movement with first-hand testimonies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

[TeeBone]

LoL at the OP getting all hung up over a word. As if anarchism never existed in any form prior to the 19th century.

i dont get caught up on labels, words get flipped left and right over the years. It's like how conservatives in US were the most anti-war political group 70 yrs ago, but "conservatives" today have never met a war they didnt like.

Personally, when im asked, hey whats your political orientation ?
-Leave me alone. Dont want your services.

What economic system do you prefer ?
-Dont attack me, and i promise i wont attack you.

Easy enough..

[MonadTran]

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.

Oh, OK. If some people freely choose to elect their government, they are not being ruled, that's right. Just have to make a clear distinction between some people and all people here.

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?

Money is a thing. It has no will, and, therefore, cannot impose its will onto other people. Those complaining about money, are actually complaining about other people:
1. They'd like to get some stuff from other people.
2. They are not willing to give anything in return.
3. They cannot ask nicely enough.
4. They don't get any stuff, so they complain to the powerful - hey, guys, get that stuff from somebody and give it to me!

There may be some exceptions. Like, people who really, genuinely believe that there should be no private property, and all private property is theft. If you are such a person, you can advertise it here, I am sure a few people wouldn't mind to take some of the stuff you are using, and maybe have a party in the house you live in

[Rampion]

There may be some exceptions. Like, people who really, genuinely believe that there should be no private property, and all private property is theft. If you are such a person, you can advertise it here, I am sure a few people wouldn't mind to take some of the stuff you are using, and maybe have a party in the house you live in

I think you are making an unfortunate but common mistake. Anti-capitalist thinkers (anarchists, communists, etc.) do not discuss that your house belongs to you. Your house, your clothing, your daughter's toys, your furniture... were never discussed from a Marxist point of view. These are considered personal property, which is somewhat related to the "natural rights" every human has according to Rousseau's theory... When different movements that embraced Marx economical analysis (among which anarchists) speak about the abolition of the private property, they are referring to productive property or means of production.

Anarchist theory (or anarcho-syndycalist theory, as my friend myrkul would say) has very deep roots in the economical analysis, as Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon believed that a man's freedom (or lack of freedom) is profoundly related to his relationship with work, and therefore related to how economy is structured.

[myrkul]

There may be some exceptions. Like, people who really, genuinely believe that there should be no private property, and all private property is theft. If you are such a person, you can advertise it here, I am sure a few people wouldn't mind to take some of the stuff you are using, and maybe have a party in the house you live in

I think you are making an unfortunate but common mistake. Anti-capitalist thinkers (anarchists, communists, etc.) do not discuss that your house belongs to you. Your house, your clothing, your daughter's toys, your furniture... were never discussed from a Marxist point of view. These are considered personal property, which is somewhat related to the "natural rights" every human has according to Rousseau's theory... When different movements that embraced Marx economical analysis (among which anarchists) speak about the abolition of the private property, they are referring to productive property or means of production.

And if I run a business out of my garage, does it cease being my personal property?

Anarchist theory (or anarcho-syndycalist theory, as my friend myrkul would say) has very deep roots in the economical analysis, as Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon believed that a man's freedom (or lack of freedom) is profoundly related to his relationship with work, and therefore related to how economy is structured.

Well, working for ones' self beats working for someone else, but we can't all hack the risk that entrepreneurship entails.

[MonadTran]

Anti-capitalist thinkers (anarchists, communists, etc.) do not discuss that your house belongs to you. Your house, your clothing, your daughter's toys, your furniture... were never discussed from a Marxist point of view. These are considered personal property, which is somewhat related to the "natural rights" every human has according to Rousseau's theory... When different movements that embraced Marx economical analysis (among which anarchists) speak about the abolition of the private property, they are referring to productive property or means of production.

The distinction between "personal property" and "productive property" is very vague in today's world.
Say, I could have a guitar in my personal property, but once I start playing in a restaurant in exchange for free drinks, it no longer belongs to me, and anyone can take it.
Or, I own a house and go to work every day, but one day, I get ill, and work from home, from my personal laptop. Now, suddenly, my personal laptop becomes a collective property, and anybody has the right to come and work in my house.

What's more, I don't see how, and in what quantities, the means of production would be created, in such a non-capitalist world. Who would have an incentive to create the means of production for the collective? Suppose somebody would want to do that, just to help the collective, how would you make sure there is no over-production of means of production?

Everything has its costs. If super-powerful 1024-core workstations were given away for free, I would use one for work without hesitation, 'cause it's soo cool, and fast. But if I am cited the price of 1000 bitcoins for that workstation - well, maybe I don't need it that much? Maybe I should be fine with a 20-bitcoin workstation, with fewer cores? That is a central argument in Austrian theory, AFAIK. When any kind of stuff is free, means of production or no means of production, you have no means of knowing how hard it is to produce, so you tend to over-consume. Maybe under-consume, if you prefer doing things on your own, without using the modern tools.

[Aristotle]

Well, most of these arguments are basically semantics. But, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and anarchy is a society without hierarchy. So yeah, I'd agree that they aren't compatible using these definitions.

On the other hand, there's the anarcho-capitalists, who only see government power as bad, and corporate power as ok.

Personally, if I had to pick one of these ideal societies, I'd probably pick libertarian socialism. Though, one thing I don't like about liberalism/libertarianism is that they assume "god given rights," and idealize the "natural state of man." Nature is all about power, it's ruthless, and "private property" is only what you can physically defend.

[myrkul]

Well, most of these arguments are basically semantics. But, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and anarchy is a society without hierarchy. So yeah, I'd agree that they aren't compatible using these definitions.

Anarchism is society without rulers. Even in Anarcho-syndicalism, there would be leaders. The core idea is that anyone who follows, does so of their own volition.

On the other hand, there's the anarcho-capitalists, who only see government power as bad, and corporate power as ok.

It's not quite that simple. "Corporations" are a creation of the government, and wouldn't exist without it. A better simplification would be: "Government power bad, economic power OK."

Personally, if I had to pick one of these ideal societies, I'd probably pick libertarian socialism. Though, one thing I don't like about liberalism/libertarianism is that they assume "god given rights," and idealize the "natural state of man." Nature is all about power, it's ruthless, and "private property" is only what you can physically defend.

That's one perspective, but another is that rights are the result of an agreement between two people. You get those rights that you grant others. If you grant others the right to life by not trying to kill them, you, in turn, have that right. If you refuse to acknowledge it's validity for others, you discard that right for yourself.

[mai77]

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that.

I would not, see: http://www.picturehost.eu/uploads/f95db2c1eda17ce22a37fd1f695c6121_swas%20hit.jpg

it's quite real. 

[Luckybit]

It's funny how US people take concepts born in Europe to turn them upside-down.

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians" free market capitalists of the likes of Ron Paul, most of the times without even knowing the origins of this word.

Libertarian comes from latin word "libertas" = freedom (libertá in italian; libertad in spanish; liberté in french; etc.)

The term "libertarian" was used for the first time by the free thinkers of the Illustration: at the beginning it was only a metaphysical and philosophic concept opposed to the determinist philosophy. Nothing to do with politics or economics.

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.

If you want to understand deeply why anarchism is against capitalism, and why anarchists are for a cooperativist and mutualist types of economy (but against totalitarian communism), please read:

• God and the State, by Bakunin
• The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin
• What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear )
• Anarcho-syndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker

Even more specifically: the libertarian revolution was made by the workers of the region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938:

• isolated from the republican state that ruled Spain
• exchanging goods and services for other goods and services (yes, almost without any money)
• without police, judges or any institutions
• and as a side note, without any crimes in 7/8 years (because you know that 99,99% of the crimes are related to private property, don't you?)

All this until they were crushed by the fascist counter-revolution.

You can read a detailed report of how they lived in: Anarchosyndicalism, libertarian communism and the state: the CNT in Zaragoza and Aragón, 1930-1937, by Kelsey Graham. Online you will easily find a PDF of this book and the others mentioned earlier.

These guys were "the libertarians", and they would hang themselves if they'd hear a free market capitalist calling himself a libertarian. Just call him an ultra-liberal, an ultra-capitalist, a free market capitalist or an anti-state capitalist: that'd more precise.

And now, do you want to understand quickly why Anarchists (or libertarians) are AGAINST capitalism? Because they are against any kind of coercive power, and CAPITALISM is coercive by nature. "Free market" is not free at all for an anarchist, because its freedom gives you two choices only:

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

This is why somebody calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist" or a "capitalist libertarian" is a joke. It's a like a "nazi-jew" or a "capitalist free market communist". I mean, it's an OXYMORON, full stop.

Anarchism isn't specifically against the freemarket but it's safe to say that anarchism is the root of libertarianism.

[Mike Christ]

The anarchism commonly referred to here is anarchism of government, not anarchism of economy.  AFAIK (someone point me in the right direction if I'm wrong), there are many forms of economy when paired to anarchism, but the only one which seems to work without government intervention is capitalism, 100% free market.  I know there's anarcho-communism, but I don't see how that could ever possibly work.  Communism requires a strong tie to the nation and an unnatural willingness to work for the good of all mankind, essentially, being a cog in a machine, but this seems to be the seedling which begets a large national government.  In other words, communism = sheeple, and sheeple love big government to make all decisions while they toil away.  The smallest government will always become the largest.  There's no way to store one's wealth; you could work a lot, or you could work a little, but the work you put in isn't always shown.  Plus, having to distribute your work is a pain to part with, knowing the people it will go to may or may not be working.  It works great if everyone's on board, but there's no backlash if you're not.  Capitalism, OTOH, allows you to store your work and save it for later; if you stop working, it's because you did the work required to do so.  If somebody says they don't want to chip in, they shouldn't be rewarded with socialism; instead, they'd rely on family, and it then becomes a private problem, AS IT SHOULD BE A PRIVATE PROBLEM.  Nothing against those who legitimately can't work, but the individual should not be a public matter.  Capitalism in itself has no room for socialism; the moment such a system was introduced, capitalism ceased to exist in its natural form.

However, the big but:  Neither of these systems know what to do when work becomes automated.  Curious; if corporatism wasn't a thing, and big government was gone, where does that leave machinery?  To some extent, it makes our jobs easier.  To the greatest extent, it eliminates the need for us to work.  I think of slave labor back in the 1800's; except now, the slave is hyper-efficient, runs on electricity, can't rebel, and has no emotion.

[myrkul]

Neither of these systems know what to do when work becomes automated.

No, they both know what to do.

Capitalism:


Communism:


Both systems work equally well, when everything is automated.

[Mike Christ]

Both systems work equally well, when everything is automated.

I'd love for this to be the case   I'm just curious how it could work.  Would either forms of economy cease to be?  I'd imagine, in the case of capitalism, someone would attempt to grab a hold of the machines, but upon realizing nobody has any money because nobody is working, he would not be able to profit.

I'm only reminded of the RBE at this point. 

[myrkul]

Both systems work equally well, when everything is automated.

I'd love for this to be the case   I'm just curious how it could work.  Would either forms of economy cease to be?  I'd imagine, in the case of capitalism, someone would attempt to grab a hold of the machines, but upon realizing nobody has any money because nobody is working, he would not be able to profit.

I'm only reminded of the RBE at this point. 

Yeah, basically. If every human need is satisfied automatically, all that's left are the wants. These could be taken care of capitalism style, people supplying wants in exchange for money to buy their wants (or direct tit-for-tat), or communism style, people supplying wants because they want to. To me, capitalism seems like a better self-correcting method to ensure the connection of people who want things with people who want to supply those things, but not everyone agrees.

[ArmoredDragon]

Communism was designed from the ground up to ultimately have zero dependence upon government, and in fact believed that the government would eventually just fade away. That doesn't work in reality though.

Communism relies upon people just working unquestionably for "the greater good". The modern US is actually a good example of why communism couldn't ever work. Right now just about every American wants to be a lawyer, doctor, physicist, etc. Trouble is, you still need plumbers, janitors, pig farmers, and garbage men. These aren't glorious jobs, but SOMEBODY has to do them. We have all manner of people with massive amounts of student debt yet no prospects for employment for this exact reason. It's common among them to blame the wealthy because they don't understand that nobody is going to pay you to do something that there is no need for you to do. But anyways, without a job they are stuck with two choices: the dole system, or go work for minimum wage as a waiter or something similar. In the end, they do fill a demand, just not the demand that they had in mind, but they'd probably find that they'd earn more as say a garbage man (I know one who makes $50,000 a year) but they tell themselves that they are above that kind of work, instead opting for $24,000 a year busing tables.

Communism just assumes that somebody will want to fill the void according to their ability, but as I described above, it doesn't work out that way. Each time a group tries to start a commune, they eventually realize this, and it invariably comes down to a central group telling each individual person what job they will have, how many hours they will work, quotas, etc. Invariably it turns into slavery. Keep in mind that large governments aren't the only ones who have tried to establish communism. Even within the US and Europe, it was rather common for a group of people to get this idea that they'll all give up all of their material possessions, money, etc to the group, and then they all form a commune. Even wealthy people did this. However they all eventually met the same fate for this exact reason. Groups like the Icarians for example had such hard times with productivity that they would forbid talking of any kind while working, as well as other strict rules and working conditions. And the workers literally worked for free in spite of these miserable jobs.

Socialism in my opinion isn't much better as it tries to find a middle ground between these. Socialism has a half-capitalist system with strict government controls, meanwhile it encourages the use of dole systems to try to make sure everybody is equal. You inevitably end up with those who can choose to not work at all, and other than being frowned upon, there is no repercussion against it. Somebody somewhere has to pay for it though, resources are scarce and can't be made out of thin air.

[herzmeister]

I know there's anarcho-communism, but I don't see how that could ever possibly work.

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).


Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)


but they were betrayed by state communists and republicans likewise.

[Mike Christ]

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).


Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)


but they were betrayed by state communists and republicans likewise.

I suppose I should watch this movie before making any more assertions

[myrkul]

Even here in the US, communism was tried and eventually abandoned:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard130.html

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).

OK, how about Ireland, then? (though Iceland is an excellent example)

[ArmoredDragon]

Even here in the US, communism was tried and eventually abandoned:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard130.html

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).

OK, how about Ireland, then? (though Iceland is an excellent example)

Communism was tried multiple times in the US actually. Go read up on groups such as the Icarians. One of their settlements even had an entire town constructed and handed to them for free (see Nauvoo Illinois) and they still ended up with a failed economy.

[myrkul]

Communism was tried multiple times in the US actually. Go read up on groups such as the Icarians. One of their settlements even had an entire town constructed and handed to them for free (see Nauvoo Illinois) and they still ended up with a failed economy.

Huh. I did not know about that.