Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism

[deadlizard]

There isn't really an official definition of capitalism,

Thanks for playing

an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

but it is essentially a system of hierarchy. It allows for the existence of employers, landlords, and usurers who rule over employees, tenants, and borrowers.

sounds like you're confusing capitalism with corporatism.

[1714129659]

1714129659

[1714129659]

1714129659

[1714129659]

1714129659

[1714129659]

1714129659

[kiba]

but it is essentially a system of hierarchy. It allows for the existence of employers, landlords, and usurers who rule over employees, tenants, and borrowers.

sounds like you're confusing capitalism with corporatism.

More like he hates the idea of leaders, employers, landlords, and tenants.

But even the bitcoin project is a hierarchy.

Satoshi is our benevolent dictator. Gavin is the lead developer. I am a global moderator. Theymos is an administrator.

FatherMcGruder have a really bad case of hating neutral things.

[­­­Atlas_]

We should recognize that the position of leader isn't necessarily a position of power. The leader is just another job. His specialization just happens to be the coordination of several specialiaztions to achieve the ends the venture desires. Coordinating people and their roles is a skill and necessary most of the time, unless all roles agree on and wish to achieve the same end result.

The workers as a whole can reject the director's vision at any time, assuming they have other means to achieve their desired ends which will in most cases require stable vision.

That's what the leader/director/employer does: provides stable vision that isn't subject to constant change from a collective of multiple whims and desires. Without stability there is no efficiency and the end will never be reached.

[FatherMcGruder]

Thanks for playing

an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

Your definition doesn't refute my description.

sounds like you're confusing capitalism with corporatism.

Corporations aren't compatible with your definition of capitalism?

More like he hates the idea of leaders, employers, landlords, and tenants.

But even the bitcoin project is a hierarchy.

Satoshi is our benevolent dictator. Gavin is the lead developer. I am a global moderator. Theymos is an administrator.

FatherMcGruder have a really bad case of hating neutral things.

This forum does indeed have a hierarchy. The users did not choose the moderators and both the moderators and operators can unilaterally make decisions that can affect the users. As long as it remains open source, or at least free of copyright restrictions, development of Bitcoin software is free of hierarchy. Lead developers will have no power to prevent other programmers from doing whatever they want with it.

[LMGTFY]

but it is essentially a system of hierarchy. It allows for the existence of employers, landlords, and usurers who rule over employees, tenants, and borrowers.

sounds like you're confusing capitalism with corporatism.

More like he hates the idea of leaders, employers, landlords, and tenants.

But even the bitcoin project is a hierarchy.

Satoshi is our benevolent dictator. Gavin is the lead developer. I am a global moderator. Theymos is an administrator.

FatherMcGruder have a really bad case of hating neutral things.

Well, it's not unreasonable for an anarchist to dislike rulers, the clue being in the name: Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler").

Whether Satoshi, Gavin, kiba or Theymos are "rulers" is an interesting question. The application itself is hosted on Github and is, I assume, open to anyone to commit to, and it's entirely possible for people to fork from it anyway (I believe genjix has done so, for example). I don't regard Gavin or Satoshi as "rulers", nor do I regard either of them as being able to "rule" me in any way (sorry, Gavin! Sorry, Satoshi!)

Is this forum anarchic? Probably not, and it probably couldn't be no matter how much we wanted it to be. It's hosted in the US, and the hosts are subject to US law: there are limits to what they can reasonably permit, to what we should reasonably expect them to permit. Does this matter? Probably not much. Sure, lots of decisions about the application and protocol are made here, but, again, the ability to fork mitigates this.

[­­­Atlas_]

Satoshi, Gavin, Kiba, etc. guide the direction of the content of this forum and the Bitcoin forum.

They are leaders but what they implement is voluntarily accepted.

[LMGTFY]

Satoshi, Gavin, Kiba, etc. guide the direction of the content of this forum and the Bitcoin forum.

They are leaders but what they implement is voluntarily accepted.

My thinking on this forum has little to do with kiba, Theymos, et al, but with "banning" etc. Of necessity (to protect forum members from arrest etc) certain activities are banned. There are rules that are enforced by rulers. I'm not saying that's undesirable (I can't see any way to avoid it while remaining hosted in the US or similar state), just that it precludes this forum from being an example of an anarchy.

[­­­Atlas_]

Anarchy has already been tried. Obviously it didn't last long. I don't know why we need any further examples unless there has really been a change.

[LMGTFY]

Anarchy has already been tried. Obviously it didn't last long. I don't know why we need any further examples unless there has really been a change.

OK, let me rephrase that. This forum is (of necessity) hierarchical. The project as a whole is not (and, as an added extra, I'm not sure it would matter even if it was).

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Anarchy has already been tried. Obviously it didn't last long. I don't know why we need any further examples unless there has really been a change.

The examples of anarcho-capitalism that have existed ended for reasons not related to anarchy, but external forces.

In the Icelandic Commonwealth, it was due to the church implementing their own policies which made it no longer an anarchy, and even then the anarchic system supported the country and kept it from falling into chaos for almost 300 years.

In the American Old West, the United States Government came in and shut everyone down (though to be fair, they had laid claim to the land first)

[LMGTFY]

Anarchy has already been tried. Obviously it didn't last long. I don't know why we need any further examples unless there has really been a change.

The examples of anarcho-capitalism that have existed ended for reasons not related to anarchy, but external forces.

In the Icelandic Commonwealth, it was due to the church implementing their own policies which made it no longer an anarchy, and even then the anarchic system supported the country and kept it from falling into chaos for almost 300 years.

In the American Old West, the United States Government came in and shut everyone down (though to be fair, they had laid claim to the land first)

I'm not sure I'd categorise the Icelandic Commonwealth as an anarchy: it was, IIRC, a system of chiefs forming into a parliament. I'd agree with the Old West, however.

I find the "external forces" part interesting: in the (anarcho-capitalist) Old West the US Government arguably represented one form of capitalism. In (anarcho-communist) Ukraine in the 1920s and Catalonia in the 1930s the government of the Soviet Union represented one form of communism, and crushed anarchist forms of communism. I wonder... we should create an anarcho-pacifist state, and wait for the other pacifists to fight us :-)

[MoonShadow]

Anarchy has already been tried. Obviously it didn't last long. I don't know why we need any further examples unless there has really been a change.

The examples of anarcho-capitalism that have existed ended for reasons not related to anarchy, but external forces.

And that is exactly why I consider anarchy of any form to be an unstable political condition, and therefore not something to be strived for, as it results in the weakening of the social cohesion that comes with national identity.  I can think of no case that an archarcy (or anything close to that) survived a serious external challenge to that status quo, for no other reason than those inhabitants with the greatest resources to contribute to the collective defense often found it in their own best interests to simply pick up and vacate before the new power made good on his claims.  An anarchist state, by it's very definition, does not foster a national identity or sense of national loyality with it's citizens.  This is why they are often defacto anarchies by transitional happenstance, and not outright design.

Anarchy isn't to be strived for, not because it can't be a great society for the present inhabitants, but because the form of governance that follows is rarely better than a stable republic could have been.  This is exactly the reason that the framers of the Constitution sought to move away from the Articles of Confederation under the threat that the British Monarcy would attempt to reassert authority, which they eventually tried in the War of 1812.  That was a close call, and could have turned out completely differently if the one or more of the less affected states had declared neutrality and refused to contribute to the war effort; which is something that could have happened under the Articles.

[MoonShadow]

Hey, Father; would you mind attempting to define "capitalism" in your own words?  It's really hard to debate with someone speaking another language.

There isn't really an official definition of capitalism, but it is essentially a system of hierarchy. It allows for the existence of employers, landlords, and usurers who rule over employees, tenants, and borrowers.

Both fascism and communism as political ideologies would qualify as capitalist under such a definition. 

This is in line with the political defintion of "capitalism", but not the economic one, which is notablely different.

[FatherMcGruder]

Both fascism and communism as political ideologies would qualify as capitalist under such a definition.

Both societies are capitalist. It's probably hardest to see the capitalism under communism, but it's easy when you realize that the state is the only legal capitalist in such a society.

This is in line with the political defintion of "capitalism", but not the economic one, which is notablely different.

Is it? A landlord has whatever monopoly of force the state allows him over his land. Without this larger state, he must establish the monopoly, and therefore create a state, himself. This arrangement seems nice until the landlords start hiring mercenaries, and then we have the beginnings of a larger state. Basically, landlords cannot exist without states. The same goes for employers and usurers.

[­­­Atlas_]

I have a monopoly over the cells that make my body. What are you going to do about it? I'm coercing you. I'm denying you my body.

Cry some more.

[MoonShadow]

Both fascism and communism as political ideologies would qualify as capitalist under such a definition.

Both societies are capitalist. It's probably hardest to see the capitalism under communism, but it's easy when you realize that the state is the only legal capitalist in such a society.

This is in line with the political defintion of "capitalism", but not the economic one, which is notablely different.

Is it? A landlord has whatever monopoly of force the state allows him over his land. Without this larger state, he must establish the monopoly, and therefore create a state, himself. This arrangement seems nice until the landlords start hiring mercenaries, and then we have the beginnings of a larger state. Basically, landlords cannot exist without states. The same goes for employers and usurers.

Landlords and employers can both exist sans a state, and have historicly.  I'm not sure what you mean by usurers, but if you mean money-lenders, then they have existed without state support as well.

Regardless, this thread highlights the problems with debates among lay thinkers using technical jargon.  Your defintion of capitalism is too broad to even have a conversation about the merits or faults of such an idea.

[FatherMcGruder]

I have a monopoly over the cells that make my body. What are you going to do about it? I'm coercing you. I'm denying you my body.

I am in no need of your cells, so no, you aren't coercing me. If I did and you used that fact to take advantage of me, that'd be coercion.

Cry some more.

You must be referring to Kiba. 

Landlords and employers can both exist sans a state, and have historicly.  I'm not sure what you mean by usurers, but if you mean money-lenders, then they have existed without state support as well.

Regardless, this thread highlights the problems with debates among lay thinkers using technical jargon.  Your defintion of capitalism is too broad to even have a conversation about the merits or faults of such an idea.

In the absence of a larger state, landlords would have to establish a monopoly of force over territory to evict tenants who don't pay up. Employers and usurers would have to do the same with capital. If you don't like the state for maintaining monopolies of force over territory (and capital), you shouldn't tolerate employers, landlords, and usurers.

[Anonymous]

No-one pays tax to bitcoin.org and there is no fear that they will send their goons around to stick you in the rape cage for not following their rules.
 

[MoonShadow]

In the absence of a larger state, landlords would have to establish a monopoly of force over territory to evict tenants who don't pay up.

Not necessarily a monopoly, although that is likely to occur, and it may be difficult to tell any practical difference between such a collective force structure and a state.

Employers and usurers would have to do the same with capital.

No they don't.  At least not without the aid of a state, and they do still exist in the absence of state support.

Just look at the drug cartels in Mexico.  Do they need state support for an employee structure?  Do they need state support for financing?

 If you don't like the state for maintaining monopolies of force over territory (and capital), you shouldn't tolerate employers, landlords, and usurers.

I never said anything about tolerating them.  I said that they exist.  Just because you (or I) might not agree that human societies should function this way, it's an objective fact that they are and arrived this way in a straight forward (and probably entirely natural) way.

[FatherMcGruder]

No they don't.  At least not without the aid of a state, and they do still exist in the absence of state support.

Just look at the drug cartels in Mexico.  Do they need state support for an employee structure?  Do they need state support for financing?

Ah, but the Mexican cartels are states. People don't normally use that word for them because it gets confusing, but it's true. Businesses pay taxes to the cartels in exchange for protection. In a lot of cases, one can't even do business without permission from a cartel, similar to registering a business with an official state. Perhaps it’s better to think of government as organized crime, an entirely capitalistic organization.[/quote]

I never said anything about tolerating them.  I said that they exist.  Just because you (or I) might not agree that human societies should function this way, it's an objective fact that they are and arrived this way in a straight forward (and probably entirely natural) way.

If you believe that then must also believe that government is inevitable.