John Stockwell: One of Noam Chomsky's Best Points

[gulbirk]

There is one more important factor though.

Any country (in africa) that loaned money from us is forever our slave. Their loan increase each year because of interest, and they can never pay it of because they cant create an economy or any kind of state because of the loan.

So anyhows, it would be great if western leaders could pritty much agree to be honest and go out and say that we dont give a shit about pooverty and we arent trying to solve it.

[crystalcave6]

Interesting.....

[TheEthanwashere]

Wow that's terrible...

[Keinlicht]

@TheEthanwashere It's the world we live in, get used to it

[VVillowz]

Tyranny through economic measures.

[visualkei72]

green socks.

[selfrealizedexile]

Gov'ts overthrowing gov'ts; am I supposed to shed a tear? The real problem is gov't period.

[18bites]

@selfrealizedexile

So no problem with overthrowing democratically elected governments, killing and torturing dissidents, instituting terror and ruling the masses with an iron fist for the benefit of the few and the world economic status quo??? I don't even know where the hell to begin. All gov'ts are flawed but your logic is that of an angsty 15 year old who know very very little.

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

Mmm, no angst--just emotionless logic. "Democratically-elected gov'ts" are not just; they are characterized by the mob looting whatever it can get the votes for. Just because I oppose them doesn't mean I support totalitarian states.

[18bites]

@selfrealizedexile

I fail to see the logic you profess to possess. You write that "democratically-elected govts... are characterized by the mob looting whatever it can get the votes for." I don't recall this scene in any of the elections I've participated in over the years.

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

That's because we live in an ostensible "Constitutional Republic." There are some still rarely violated explicit rights in the first several amendments. But, insofar as we have had democracy, we have had a socializing of the economy. If the public doesn't like it or is even repulsed by certain private behavior, it wants them regulated or even prohibited to comfort them. In reality, you usually have oligarchy instead of Republics or Democracies, but the point is Democracy is unjust

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

from its theoretical foundation; you have no right to my property simply because you can gather more votes than me.

[18bites]

@selfrealizedexile

Now you're emphatically supporting one's right not to be hassled in the case of being a minority in a democratic society. However, u have no problem with a superpower imposing its will on others n the hell with property and civil rights in that case. Every form of governance humans have imposed thus far has been flawed. I suppose u got a perfect just scheme in mind. Let me guess, it's LIBERTARIANISM as perceived by the devotees of Ayn Rand. A sure recipe for hell on earth.

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

I'm actually not a proponent of Objectivism or believer in Ayn Rand. She had many flaws, not the least of which was belief in gov't. I am ideologically an anarcho-capitalist. I never approved of some "superpower" (I'm guessing you mean the US and its imperialistic history throughout the 20th century?) imposing its will on something. I hold the Anarcho-Capitalist worldview because its the only one that has proven to be internally-consistent.

[18bites]

@selfrealizedexile

Just because a thesis is internally consistent does not make it desirable. The philosophy of Nietzsche is internally consistent and would be desirable if you believed yourself to be the icy Superman who has no feelings for the stupid masses. Anyone who's been 18 and angry can probably relate. The accompanying notion to anarcho-capitalism that somehow individual freedoms would ultimately be enhanced with no barriers to power consolidation seems naive to me.

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

Well, I'm glad I've at least stimulated your attention. But, let me keep it by positing to you that power is actually *most*, not *least*, decentralized in a pure capitalist system. It is through gov't where you get crony capitalism, large multi-national corporations, and the accompanying revolving door. When gov't is big, you have an incentive as a businessman to buy political influence. Gov't itself is a monopoly entity of a given landmass and its very existence depends on the

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

the continued suppression of competitor states (war). And, because it is the prime originator of consolidated power, it can only further consolidate power the more jurisdiction you grant it. Some people object to free Capitalism because they think Man is too corrupt, but it is precisely because Man is, indeed, corrupt that I propose the most decentralized system possible. If you grant all or most coercive powers to the few, ofc the evilest among us are going to find their way there.

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

People like myself who love freedom and the market naturally don't want to go into gov't. We want to invent and produce the newest gadgets and improve upon old ways to usher in a more prosperous future. We blissfully partake in the grand interconnected network of trade. It is the conniving and grasping for power over fellows who seek office. But, you know this already. I actually have greater respect for extreme far and anti-war leftists over middle-of-the-road people because I

[18bites]

@selfrealizedexile

Well, I guess if your Anarcho-Capitalist utopia ever comes into being, I'll be screwed since I don't want to play that game. In fact, the quest to gain wealth seems to be a huge factor in human corruption since wealth and power go hand in hand so I don't see how a nonexistent State or a decentralized one would take care of this problem. I am however flattered by your compliments since I don't think of myself as particularly courageous.

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

Well, it's not so much a utopian proposition so much as just a cogent theory by which we may better understand the world. I don't believe in equilibriums (and, as such, there will be no anarchistic equilibrium); man is in a constant state of flux.

You're also conflating greed which motivates aggressive crimes and greed which doesn't necessarily lead to aggressive crimes. But, the only real crime is the aggressive crime itself. We can't punish feelings or desires.

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

know you guys at least stand up for what you believe and (most of you) have the courage, integrity, and ambition to seek the truth no matter where it takes you. It is the middle-of-the-road people who stand for nothing and are always cattle victims in the grand exploitative scheme. Winning over leftists is a harder fight, but if you succeed you now have a stalwart ally with a backbone. I've convinced many a Marxist out of their fallacies. You just have to show them exactly what a

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

market is and differentiate it from the bogeyman their professors lead them to think it is. Chomsky would be one of the greatest bounties. I have great respect for his knowledge of history and his courage to wade into unpopular belief systems. He's old now so it's basically all for naught, but it'd be great if one ended up channeling his energy into something non-contradictory. The same with Buckley, imagine if someone turned him into an anarchist; they showed how his faith in the

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

ultimately serves special, imperialistic interests instead of his delusional fantasy of a benevolent protector (which, for some reason, must maintain coercive taxation). For most, the problem isn't enough historical background, but a priori theoretical rigor. What good is reading history if you don't know how to interpret it well? Anarcho-Capitalism is that indispensable lens through which one sees every element in its actual place.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile "Anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. All anarchists are socialists.  "Anarcho"-capitalism is just a little right wing free market hokum that Murray Rothbard whipped up.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

"All anarchists are socialists." You offer no justification for this statement and merely ad hominem Rothbard. Is this the same brilliant reasoning you've used to arrive at your ancom conclusions and convince others with?

Why do you even still bother respond to my old posts in here? It's like every month or so you respond to one of my old comments in a Chomsky video. We've debated in the past and you randomly comment on another of my comments like you've forgotten our discussion.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

"All anarchists are socialists." You offer no justification for this statement and merely ad hominem Rothbard. Is this the same brilliant reasoning you've used to arrive at your ancom conclusions and convince others with?

Why do you even still bother respond to my old posts in here? It's like every month or so you respond to one of my old comments in a Chomsky video. We've debated in the past and you randomly comment on another of my comments like you'veforgotten our discussion.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Yeah, "ancom." Right. "Ancaps" should keep their Scientology-esque predilections for silly abbreviated lingo to themselves.

If I asserted that turtles have shells, I would not be sarcastically attacked for "brilliant reasoning." Yet for stating that anarchists are socialists I am rebuked by Youtube Rothbardians.

I recall our discussion; I was merely correcting on this page the weird oxymoron of "anarcho"-capitalism. It is not from a grudge against you that I did so.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

'Nother lame, pointless response that went no where. You'd rather self-indulge than have anything constructive. Your loss.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile You still have not come up with an adequate argument as to how the socio-economic ideas of anti-state socialism can somehow be subverted into a capitalist ideology ("ancap" as you people call it) of Rothbard.

To do so you'd be forced to retreat to an abstract dictionary definition of "anarchy" that has no roots in history. You choose a picture in your head over the understanding of anarchism as a political theory. (cont.)

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

If you're trying to understand Anarchism through history, you're only going to get the popular conception of fire of in the streets followed by martial law. We can both say what we want of the socio-biological trappings of human nature and human society's strange desire to give power to a small, central group (tribal leader) over the collective, but that is logically independent and posterior to any abstract discussion of how a society can and should be (emergently) structured.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Just because one species might be too myopic and poorly-developed to understand and fully embrace free economics does not necessarily mean free economics is problematic. Humanity is a very different place today than in its primacy. Far away are the days of living in caves and trees, watching each other's backs when the other was sick. We've developed so disproportionately well to our environment that we've spontaneously-developed a system of prices and monetary exchange,

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

coordinated and understood by the more intelligent and farther-seeing of our species, so that we can continue to advance. Information must be stored and transfered in some new form as the society increases in number and complexity. Democracy and violence will each take a backseat to the sterile marketplace insofar as this species wishes to advance technologically. A species may not end up making that choice, suffer, and devolve for it, but this doesn't fault the new system.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

authority fallacy. When I believe something another has suggested, it's because I saw the valid reasoning in the argument. If a person does that repeatedly to me, I can hold them in higher esteem, but I still, in every case, must work their argument through my own logical faculties. So, it's not like there's a silver bullet method to taking down an ancap by caricaturing Rothbard, lol! Why don't we, instead, get into the actual meat of the disagreement.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

statements, but each's implications are fallacious arguments. You may find 124 "ex-anarcho-capitalists" or 56 "ex-Austrians," but that's not an argument. It means nothing. Until we actually get into the crux of the disagreement (Capital theory), these tactics are meaningless.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile This is precisely what I am getting at. For you, to call yourself an anarchist is a matter of semantics, pure debate over the surface meaning of a signifier. It is not a political theory or tradition for you, merely a little word to appropriate to fit in your Rothbard stuff and express your voluntarism. Which is fine for you, but the way you do so is at odds with anarchism.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Your response typically went no where and you're obviously remaining as vague as possible on just what it is you exactly believe. Let's just say there has never been an anarchist I've talked to who said "anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction" who wasn't Marxist on economics. Do you have an alternate interpretation I'm not aware of? Are you a Keynesian anarchist? A Neo-classical anarchist? C'mon, man, that's a weak defense. Even qualifying your words with "dogmatic" follower

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile In fact, my first response which began the discussion attacked the notion that "anarcho"-capitalism was actually anarchist. Your task was to make an argument to the contrary, which you continuously seem to run from in hope of attacking me on the subject of economics, trying to pin me down so you can escape the discussion altogether. When I said "dogmatic" follower I meant in regards to dialectics, labor theory of value, etc. YOu know there are analytical Marxists, etc

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

I'll answer anything. You say pure Capitalism can't be considered a form of Anarchism. Under what premises would this be a logical contradiction; how are you defining Anarchism?

The crux of your argument has been what groups have been "traditionally" affiliated with Anarchism. But, even Chomsky will tell you that's just the European tradition. At some point, you have to realize just because one variant called themselves Anarchists does not mean later variants can't exist.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile In fact, the "European tradition" is not limited to Europe. Anarchism has had a good deal of popularity in the US, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Cuba, etc.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile The later variants you speak of, whether of a capitalist or neo-fascist nature (though I doubt you support the latter; yet they exist under the same "right wing anarchism" facade), are not in any actual sense anarchist. If you familiarize with anarchism as it arose in the 19th century workers' movement, you will see that even the more bourgeois forms like Tucker and Spooner were anti-capitalist.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Defining what Anarchism is is unavoidable in this discussion. The category of Anarchism is broader than the historical manifestations you cite. Surely, we can conceive of a general category that a historical example can fit into and we couldn't necessarily conclude that that example is one and the same with the category, providing no slightly differing possibilities. The only way we could justify it being one and the same is by precisely *defining* what that category is

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile One must be careful here, however. In defining "anarchy" in its most elementary etymological formula, the notion of "no rulers" as it developed in anarchism as a *political theory* was anti-capitalist. From a cursory familiarity with a basic dictionary definition or etymology, it would indeed seem as you have argued that anarchism can simply be an abstract gesture against the state in favor of private power. But in fact the anti-capitalist nature of anarchism as it (cont.)

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

your own enterprise. Oh, wait. Those workers preferred being paid immediate wages while the Capitalist beared all the risk. It's fundamental economics to understand that not only does the Capitalist not exploit his workers, but, because of his prudent savings and capital accumulation, that society will now enjoy a higher standard of living through higher productivity. That's how Nature works; those that work hard with an eye on the future do best. But, it's not some bogeyman

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

survival-of-the-fittest jungle culture; labor will always be scarcer than capital. Through comparative advantage and higher productivity flooding the market with goods, the Capitalists make living *easier* for those more inclined to live in the short-term.

I read over your response three times to ensure I didn't miss any bit of it. It would seem you've still avoided defining what is legitimate and illegitimate property and, instead, have elected to talk about what history has

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

to say on a *philosophical* issue. That's ludicrous. That's like me refusing to comprehend what theoretical Capitalism or Democracy was supposed to be in favor of historical aberrations or misguided, misinformed, and possibly outright stupid economists, political philosophers, and disciples of Marx.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile In fact, if you read what I wrote, you would see that I gave my understanding of anarchism as a political theory-- Or more accurately, a theoretical edifice that arose on the libertarian, anti-statist left wing of the socialist movement, encompassing both social and economic terrain. If you know of any anarchist thinkers in this tradition that loved laissez-faire capitalism, do alert me. Funny thing is, there aren't any. Which is why Rothbardism is so patently.absurd.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Rothbardianism advocates is individual sovereignty and the right to the fruits of your labor through homesteading and title exchanges. This is the great scourge of which I'm to dread?

If an individual elects to work for an employer who pays in wages, praxeology tells us the individual chose the most preferable option among competing alternatives. After a century, the only theory Marxists have been able to muster for this phenomenon is that the workers "don't know what's good for

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile I am not asking you to dread your own ideology. Just stop trying to lube up anarchism with enough voluntarism to squeeze free market capitalism into it. It doesn't fit.

And here you go again on Marxism...

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron them; they're being brainwashed." And, hence, spawned forth the socializationists that fill so many of our universities' Sociology departments, constructing theories of and programs for Man's manipulatable nature--the foundation for the great evils of the 20th century.

I know you're smart enough to understand the point I made of theoretical philosophy vs. historical instantiation; so, I can only conclude you're willfully ignoring traversing the theory of Anarchism itself

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron in favor of poor ad hoc analysis where only that which you've seen is what will ever be. If I see a green VW bug drive down the road, I must conclude it is in the nature of VW bugs to be green, amirite?

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Inadequate analogy. The question is, why would a free market capitalist who holds anarchists to be "half way statists" (I believe that was your characterization) want to be associated with such creatures in the first place?

Your claim that I am "willfully ignoring traversing the theory of Anarchism" is, I guess, another attempt to fit in free market capitalism with some abstract anti-statism. But what "wide swath of writers and thinkers" were you speaking of?

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

When did I call leftist anarchists "half way statists"? Of all non-anarcho-capitalists, leftist anarchists would probably be our strongest ally, so long as you also swear off the use of violence against others and their property. If you want to set up communes on what was originally your own land with collectivized property rights contracts, be my guest. I have nothing to fear from pacifists or those who would only act in their own self-defense. When I argue with an

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Expropriation, even if pacifist in nature, will never be acceptable to capitalists, because it undermines their apparatus of profit. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming of majority of anarchists throughout history would see occupying a privately owned factory, for example, and then kicking out the boss and the managers and operating it on its own as perfectly legitimate. I have no idea why a capitalist would want to be associated with such activity.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Sorry, you did't say "half way statists," but "middle-of-the-road sheep statists." Again the sneering condescension. Not unlike Rothbard's attack on anarcho-communism. He had been trying to pass himself off as an anarchist for a bit then, BAM! The right wing superiority syndrome begins! Not only do you try to stuff yourself into a political grouping you have no place in, but suddenly all other anarchists are sheep and must adopt your politics to become truly "anarchist."

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Politically-speaking throughout his life, Rothbard was all over the place, attempting to develop coalitions. It's insufficient to point to one statement of his. I assure you if he would ever have not called himself an anarchist, it would have been for political reasons and not for any kind of philosophical significance. He used the term Anarchism and Anarcho in describing his ideology *far* too often to have one statement, which I take as expirmental on his part, brush

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Well, that he used the terms "anarchism" and "anarcho" to describe his ideas is fine. But like I said, it does not make him an anarchist, as anarchism is a political theory.

I was not making an argument about the legitimacy of the seizure of the means of production with you. I was pointing out to you that the majority of anarchists have advocated such things. Certainly I do not expect an ideological capitalist to agree!

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile To indulge your green VW bug stratagem: "We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the [right wing/free market] libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines" (Rothbard).

In other words, Rothbard himself saw the VW bug approaching. He turned "to history for enlightenment" and saw it was green! ;-)

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile (cont.) developed as a political theory and social movement (or array of movements; Bakuninist collectivist, anarcho-communist, Proudhonist mutualist, anarcho-syndicalist, etc.) was under an anti-capitalist historical context that precludes sneaking in capitalism as anarchism under an abstract "anything goes" rule, viz. a flimsy definition that ignores anarchism as a political theory with a history.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Yeah, but it'd be quite disingenuous to suggest any or at least most of these "anti-capitalists" to not just be opposing Corporatism and, instead, the true form of Capitalism. If you read anti-Capitalist writings, they often oppose it on the grounds of its relationship to the State. If any want to oppose theoretical Capitalism on the grounds of "wage slavery," that's one doctrine I can easily explode as fallacious: don't work for the 'Capitalists'--save up your own capital for

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Sure, at times capitalism is opposed for its relation to the state. But that is not the only reason it is opposed. Even someone like Spooner, who was no communist, thought wage labor was demeaning IN ITSELF. Not a capitalist. And that's the closest you can get to fitting in your Rothbard hokum.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Nah, there is a wide swath of writers and thinkers in between Spooner and Rothbard. To suggest "that's the closest you can get" to Rothbard is only highlighting your lack of exposure to market anarchism.

Why would wage labor be demeaning in itself? You're relying on your audience to already agree with you. Reality itself might be "demeaning," however way that might be seen, but the market is nothing but individuals working in tandem to make reality more preferable. All

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile You keep exaggerating the points I make. Slow down, stop trying to run with every little tidbit and focus on the argument. I was not engaging you in an argument about whether wage labor is demeaning or not, I was pointing out to you what even individualist anarchists have thought about the matter. You immediately leap on it to argue about this point on its own-- Trying to run with the thread down another alley yet again.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

anti-capitalist anarchist, I'm more curiously probing their mind to see how the hell they came to misunderstand economics, specifically Capital theory.

Eh, Rothbard was a rather eccentric man. I think, if someone who was honest evaluated his behavior, they'd conclude he was unnecessarily combative and vindictive with people. Any cursory study of his biography would reveal he explored and employed all kinds of political strategies throughout his life. He'd ally with an obscure

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Maybe Rothbard's eccentricity is what brought him to refer to himself as an "anarchist" in the first place? Perhaps when he recognized that it was totally inaccurate to refer to his position as anarchist he was being less eccentric and more reasonable, displaying more fidelity to anarchism as a political theory. I mean, the idea of a "right wing anarchism" must have seemed absurd even to him in some respects.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron it all away.

A capitalist wouldn't want to have his workers kick him out of his factory. If I contract with you to rent my bicycle, it doesn't magically become yours through "homesteading" after an arbitrary amount of time. That would be a violation of property rights and if the workers didn't relent the issue, they'd be forcibly removed by a PDA and possibly even shot if they continued to resist or threaten the enforcement agents. Under these grounds, I can rationally accept

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

a leftist anarchist claiming that property anarchism is a logical contradiction and then we could go on to debate the issue of property itself. But, utilizing semantics is so fruitless.

Nah, Rothbard was eccentric when dealing with certain groups of people, not during logical ratiocination. In the latter, he was exceptionally lucid and cogent.

I said "middle-of-the-road sheep statists" in discussing those who favorably consent to the State and its machinations.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

group on the left here and a borderline racist, xenophobic group over here. He'd be their ally for a few years or more and then write a scathing condemnation of them later in theatrical language. You have to understand, there was Rothbard's ideas, many of which will remain relevant for several centuries, and then there was Rothbard the ego. The point I'm coming to is the statements you cite I read as just another one of his political schemes where he thought semantics might aid

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

him. Anyways, if this conversation will ever come to a close it is here and now. Your argument thus far has amounted to shallow semantics where we're arguing over what one person is allowed to call an idea and not the ideas themselves. If this isn't the definition of intellectual futility, I don't know one.

I'm shocked you have to actually ask me how many writers and thinkers one can fit between Spooner and Rothbard. Just look at the Mises faculty and you'll already

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile No, it is not a matter of "intellectual futility" but of merely being accurate about a political theory. Anarchism cannot simply be characterized as an abstract anti-statism, as it is a political theory embedded in history. Rothbard himself grasped this. Him and all his followers remain in their own right wing camp of "anarcho"-capitalism, whether it be on the internet or in some free market think tank-- Viz., wholly separated from anarchism.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

be in the dozens--Block, Hoppe, Roderick Long, Robert Murphy, in addition to outside of it, Molinari, Friedman, etc.The four Mises people alone have comparably small, but non-trivial disagreements among each other and with Rothbard on how they theorize the courts would and should organize and what to do with certain kinds of contract enforcements. In any event, it's hard to forsee what exactly a market would create in such areas and I think most of their disagreementswouldevaporate.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile When you meant writers and thinkers between Spooner and Rothbard, I assumed you meant anarchists. Sure, Molinari is part of the laissez faire capitalist tradition, to this I would add Bastiat also. Rothbard fits in well among these figures. But this is not the anarchist tradition; Molinari was not an anarchist. And neither was Rothbard, who, as I pointed out, even admitted as much.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile This "anarchism" of the self-declared "ancaps" is in this sense not very different from the neo-fascists who, declaring themselves "National Anarchists", remain in their own even smaller ideological grouping. Both are right wing attempts to associate themselves with ideas from the history of leftism, both are attempts to exploit the revolutionary content of anarchism-- a wholly left wing political theory and tradition-- to soak up a little radical authenticity.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile "Market anarchism" as you conceive of it is a contradiction in terms. There have been actual anarchists that were not market abolitionists, such as Proudhon.  But keep in mind with Proudhon we are dealing with a socialist, the first major work of anarchism being What Is Property? If market anarchism has a meaning, it must refer to such mutualist arrangements.. (cont)

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

I should also mention there are differing views among ancaps of how to eliminate the State (I have an entirely different view on the matter; I'm more of an ideological anarchist and not one who looks at it as something that can be "tried" or "put upon" a society as an "experiment" as I don't believe it works that way. That's a whole metaphysical discussion unto itself right there, but one of great value.), and, indeed, across all of Anarchism.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile (cont.) When right wing free marketeers introduce words like "market anarchist" and "collectivist" into their fake "anarchist" discourse, it is indeed confusing to actual anarchists who have some familiarity with the thinkers of anarchism.  Collectivist in anarchist discourse generally refers to Bakunin's ideas on economic arrangements, etc. In fact, if it were not for this immense self-regard and indifference for anarchist thought, "ancaps" would probably be respected more.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

theoretically. So, you see one can't rest solely on history without some kind of theoretical foundation acting as the means of interpretation. I understand you think what I call "left-wing anarchism" to be one and the same as Anarchism. But, for you to justify that, you must go on to explain why property is anti-thetical to Anarchism. If you could do that, everything else would logically follow.

I, personally, define Anarchism to be an absence of a coercive, political state.

[selfrealizedexile]

@selfrealizedexile

Or at least how Capital isn't legitimate property.*

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile I already stated that anarchism is not merely a word bereft of a theoretical foundation, and that this approach is what differentiates anarchists from right wing anti-statists. The socio-economic theories from the anti-state tendencies in socialism, i.e. the libertarian anti-capitalist tradition, ranging from Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin to individualist anarchists like Tucker, etc. All these were anti-capitalist in essence, opposed to wage labor as dehumanizing.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Anarchism defined as simply the absence of a coercive political state is misleading; it is simply seizing on one feature of anarchism-- anti-statism-- to fit in something foreign to anarchism, viz. capitalism (albeit with a little pro-private property voluntarism).

It is precisely that history and anarchism as a body of political and economic theories are linked that capitalism is not anarchist merely by declaring itself abstractly "against the state."

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

is a blatant defensive ploy to attempt to cover your tracks.  "Well, I like the rhetoric, but if you want to pin me down on technical Marxism, I'm not gonna be beholden to it."

Your argument against Rothbard is as irrelevant as it is baseless.

Anyways, we didn't begin this discussion nor our first over pretending to know what Rothbard "really was"--we began it over your objection to Anarcho-Capitalism, the notion of a total, pure free market. If you're at odds with this, you're

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Why is my argument against Rothbard irrelevant? In replying to my comments I was hoping you would begin to address this and make arguments against it. Instead you hop over it and try to bust out the economics as an escape hatch.

My objection wasn't to "anarcho"-capitalism in general, but to the fact that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism. If you had been reading my comments on not just skimming for some kernel of the labor theory of value to leap on, you'd know that.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

at odds with a truly free economy, which is nothing more than people voluntarily contracting and trading with each other. When someone objects to that, it's like saying "I don't understand Econ 101 and/or Capital theory."

If you weren't trying so hard to maintain an air of insulation on this matter or to me, you'd have clarified your position a long time ago. But, your actions have demonstrated you'll sooner prefer to disagree for rhetoric's sake than have an honest exchange.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

This isn't necessarily a slight against all you leftist anarchists as I know some who are really good, honest people who wouldn't have a conversation simply to attempt to (unsuccessfully) lord over someone. Insofar as they're interested in economics, I end up convincing them out of their positions. They started on the left because of their abhorrence to Corporatism which they mistook for Capitalism.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile "Leftist anarchists" is redundant; anarchism is a left wing political tradition. "Right wing" anarchists (of the capitalist and neo-fascist variety) are not actually anarchists.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile The "disagreement" is not one between anarchists; Rothbard wasn't an anarchist. As I have pointed out, even he denied he was such, because he realized the tradition was totally at odds with his politics. The fact that he tried to stuff himself into anarchism anyways just shows that the founder of "anarcho"-capitalism was at odds with anarchism as a political theory, and merely adopted it for its strategic, rhetorical value.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

One of said leftist anarchists I could get into a legitimate, productive conversation with is Noam Chomsky. I have great respect for the man's character itself. If you listen to him being interviewed by a hostile interviewer, he usually maintains his composure and politeness. He would actually get into the details. I'd mention theory, he'd mention history and we'd go straight to the foundation of the philosophy of logic and empiricism before his argument would fail.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Sure, but what if in your little fantasy scenario of rigorously destroying Chomsky, he caught you on the fact that "anarcho"-capitalism has nothing to do with the anarchist tradition? Then you would be rather screwed; you might try to move the goal posts, toss out a few snares and booby traps and try to push the discussion as far away from the actual matter at hand as possible, viz. do exactly what you have done in our little exchange.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile (cont) As you may have read this elsewhere, I will not paste the entire quote, but Rothbard himself came to the conclusion that he was NOT an anarchist: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical" (Rothbard).

So even Rothbard was quite aware that he was not an anarchist. He merely liked the word and sought to appropriate it for the right wing after.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Eh, that's just a mischaracterization of his position, deliberately put out of context by ancoms like 1001nights. It's kind of childish and irrelevant whether it's accurate of Rothbard or not (which I'm as sure as I can be about the mental disposition of another person that it's not accurate) because Rothbard was great for the logical strength of his arguments, the validity of the ideas themselves. I don't worship any man, nor defer my own reasoning in favor of an appeal to

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile There is a good blog post by an ex-"ancap" that decided to stop trying to call himself an anarchist, basically because it made people think he was an actual anarchist. Google it, it's called "Why I Abandoned 'anarchism' and you Should Too."

It is good because it shows that "ancaps" calling themselves anarchists isn't just annoying to actual anarchists, but that it is also harmful to right wing free market types too because it confuses people.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Far steeper to an outsider's understanding of Anarcho-Capitalism than semantics is the belief in free money, security, and law. I don't think I'll be losing sleep over what a couple middle-of-the-road sheep statists think.

Looking for an "ex-such and such" is a very weak ploy, too. It's akin to "I found a soldier against the Iraq War" (i.e. instant credibility)! And another respond in kind "but, I found a soldier asking you to just let the win!" Both may be factual statements,

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile When I pointed to the ex-"ancap" blog I was not advancing an argument. I was merely showing you something that might interest you as a right wing person doing anarcho-RPG. Note that the blogger did not reject his political views, but merely saw that trying to pass himself off as an anarchist was counterproductive, as it associated him "collectivists" and so on. So it is not like I was trying to show you some ex-free market guy that went socialist or whatever!

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

Until you anti-capitalists actually defend Marx's Interest rate and Capital theory from the Austrian's refutation. You're just spinning your wheels, only holding yourself back, no constructive process. I'd love to be shown how Capitalism is actually exploitative. Open my eyes. Please.

But, you won't do that. You'll ad hominem me in your next reply. It speaks volumes of your intellectual credibility.

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile Classic dodge, me lad; I assert that "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron, and in response you piggyback on an Austrian attack on Marxian theory which I made no mention of in my original comment. Yet you talk of intellectual credibility.

[selfrealizedexile]

@agapeiron

So calling Bohm-Bawerk's refutation of Marx's exploitation theory a classic dodge makes you not have to actually go into the details of defending Marx's position from it? How is this not intellectual cowardice?

"From this criticism it follows that, according to Böhm-Bawerk, the whole value of a product is not produced by the worker, but that labour can only be paid at the present value of any foreseeable output."

Anarchism ain't a fashion statement, kid;you must actually defend it

[agapeiron]

@selfrealizedexile You can call it "cowardice" if you like, but I have nowhere stated that I am a dogmatic follower of Marxian economics, then I don't see why you posed the question in the first place. By that logic you could hurl any intellectual skirmish at me and call me an intellectual coward for wondering why you're attacking something I did not claim.

Where in the anarchist rules book, kid, does it say you must accept the Marxian conception of exploitation?

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

Marx's worldview of a classist society and Chomsky's application of it throughout American history were both correct in many ways, but both made fatal errors in Capital theory and, thus, gravely misunderstood Capitalism. They conflated imperialism and theft with free trade and profit motive.

War is, indeed, always imperialistic; I thought Chomsky tore apart Buckley in their debate. You see, Anarcho-Capitalism takes the best of both worlds. It brings to bear the anarchist

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

realization that war is the health of the State and that the State is inherently exploitative, creating two classes--the taxed producers and the slavemasters. But, this is done by force and, thus, the only escape is a voluntary system. This is the genesis and nature of a market. It is all that we Capitalists mean. I realize you and others might not be pleased with existence, even if minimal, of scamming, but your alternative is the birth of the State which is orders of magnitude

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

worse. What's more, there are market incentives to minimize and punish scamming, whereas gov't will only further expand and legitimize such misbehavior; indeed, gov't itself is a scam and can only naturally and constructively enhance the former.

In the end, I'm not threatened by anarcho-communists. I view them as allies so long as they only exercise self-defense at most and aren't the insurrectionist kind. Most proponents of Anarcho-Communism, like Chomsky, would either see their

[selfrealizedexile]

@18bites

folly when the system becomes exercised in a total anarchist system (local knowledge problem, constant and equal influence regardless of effectiveness), defecting to the market side of anarchism from the democratic side, or they would simply continue to exercise their niche Socialistic consumer preference (this is also called charity) that Anarcho-Capitalism entitles them.

[wlwak]

It doesn;'t have to be socialist for US aggressors to undermine a country. It merely needs to be independent. The US wants the resources of nations and if it doesn't get them, it undermines those nations. Whether they are right wing dictatorships or left wing democracies.

American psychos don't care about justice right wing or left wing.....they care only about owning the wealth of the world. By any means necessary whilst still being allowed to profess democratic credentials to the world.

[Kalydosos]

@wlwak Absolutely correct!

[BusterXXXL]

@wlwak All the rightwing dictators so far have been former CIA-plants. Noriega, Hussein. In Latin-America the US long endorsed right wing dictators, because they would sell their nations ressources cheaper, than democracies woud do. The act of nationalization of any industries on the other hand is seen as a crime against american citizens property rightx.

So left is not equal to right at all.