@MsSexySocialist You are approaching Anarchism from the Egalitarian viewpoint. We approach Anarchism from the Libertarian viewpoint. Collectivism is Statism and Leftist Anarchists are Collectivists. I think letting go of the immorality and impossibility of Socialism would be helpful for you to see why we are so confident this system can work.
@MsSexySocialist Is your point that capitalism has historically been wedded to the state, or that its very function requires the state? If so, then you ought to at least appreciate the distinction implied in that term "anarcho-capitalism". Or at least acknowledge it. Otherwise you seem to imply that there is no such thing as a market, not just that you don't like it.
1. "Anarchism" both as a philosophical and a political movement has always been resolutely anti-capitalist as its very etymology means "no rule/rulers" - with capitalism (in every form) perpetuates. And yes, I acknowledge that ancap is different to state-capitalism.
2. While what we now call "capitalism has always been pegged to the state, "anarcho"-capitalism itself just decentralizes & recreates the functions of the state in private defense agencies
@MsSexySocialist 1. Going by the etymology of the world, you're right - no rule/rulers. But then you smuggle your political opinion into the issue by claiming that capitalism 'perpetuates' rule/rulers. By "ruler", we are talking about someone with a self-granted legal right to ultimate decision-making for all his/her subjects. You would agree, surely, that no-one should be forced into any association (political, religious etc) against their will?
I would define a "ruler" as one in whom power and decision-making authority is concentrated. It makes no difference whether that power was "legally acquired" or not. Especially when such legal frameworks are determined by those in power in the first place.
I agree complete that "no-one should be forced into any association" but what ancap fails to recognize is that aside from direct inactional coercion which forces people into associations . . .
. . . against their will, there also exists the equally important factor of systemic coercion that comes about due to the concentration/centralization of power at the institutional level
Poverty, debt, lack of capital, and inequality of bargaining power for example all systemically force people into the institution of wage-labor as the effective choice to pursue independent labor (self-employment or democratic enterprise) does not exist for those without access to capital
@MsSexySocialist Decision-making being "concentrated" implies exclusivity/monopoly, so I agree with you again. That is, we probably both think that the law ought to apply to every individual equally, with no special privilege or immunity for particular persons.
@MsSexySocialist Poverty, unfortunately, is the natural state of mankind. Without the accumulation of capital and without relatively free trade we would still be living in mud huts. Do you ever wonder why the poorest wage-slave in Europe enjoys a standard of living which Henry VIII could not have hoped for? Does it not strike you as somewhat baffling?
Historical distortions about the development of human civilization aside, the accumulation of capital is one thing, who and how many own and control it is quite another.
Your second comment says nothing about the problem I addressed inherent to anarcho-capitalism; that it still centralizes ownership and control of the means of production (and hence all economic activity) in the hands of a small elite while the rest of the populace ends up subordinated to them.
@MsSexySocialist In this pure capitalist society we are talking about there would be, by definition, no legal impediment to becoming a producer. It is not the "rest of the populace" that becomes subordinate, it is the producers who are subordinate to the choices of the masses. If the political means of obtaining wealth (favourable legislation, licensing etc) are abolished then wealth can only be obtained through production of the most needed goods and services.
@oldoddjobs You favour a legal code which would prohibit private production. Who would enforce it? Who would shut down the private factories? Who would arrest the consenting adults engaging in voluntary capitalistic acts with one another? On whose authority does victimless, peaceful cooperation based on mutual self-interest become forbidden? Private services are the very essence of DEcentralisation.
In your "pure capitalist society" all means of production (MOP) are privately owned and thereby controlled primarily by a small elite of plutocrats.
More wealth/capital = inequality of bargaining power between employers and employees. Meaning people without easy access to capital end up without the effective choice of pursuing work independent from working for others (wage-labor).
It leaves the vast majority of people without control over their work lives.
@MsSexySocialist - PART 1: Anarcho Capitalists or Market Anarchists believe in the abolition of the state and a totally free market (i.e. pure capitalism). The term "anarcho capitalist" was coined by Murray Rothbard to differentiate from the anti-capitalist anarchists that believed in the abolition of the state but still wanted some sort of structure to police and control business...all of which is an absurd and even schizophrenic contradiction.
It is not anti-hierarchy, it isn't even really anti-statist. The "private defense agencies" you propose decentralizing the state into just perpetuate all of its worst functions. They are themselves just de facto states to which one becomes a customer instead of a citizen.
And please tell me what this "sort of structure to police and control business" is? And quote just one anarchist supporting this.
@MsSexySocialist - Anarcho Capitalism believe in the total abolition of the state so it is most definitely anti-state. I didn't say anything about "private defense agencies" but I'm okay with anything as long as its voluntary and peaceful (i.e. does NOT violate the Non-Aggression Principle). Yes, I'd much rather be a customer with the freedom to choose a different private defense service than to be forced at the point of a gun to have things the way they are now.
@MsSexySocialist - As far as leftist anarchists not believing in the free market... All the stuff I've read from left or social anarchists is extremely anti-capitalist. Again though, I consider capitalism to be the same as pure capitalism (i.e. free market) so do differentiate between it and crony capitalism/fascism/ corporatism which are all the same thing and require the existence of the state.
It is an oxymoron for the reasons I have stated above.
Anarchism is by definition anti-capitalist because capitalism by definition is a form of "archy".
It concentrates economic decision-making and authority in the hands of a small few private business-owners - this ownership of course can not itself be maintained without some external force (state or state-like PDA)
Being opposed to the existence of the state is not sufficient to qualify as anarchism, if it was . . .
The origin of the word "anarchy" from dictionary.refererence.[com]...
1530–40; (< Middle French anarchie or Medieval Latin anarchia ) < Greek, anarchía lawlessness, literally, lack of a leader, equivalent to ánarch ( os ) leaderless
@MsSexySocialist - The origin of the word "anarchy" from etymonline.[com]...
anarchy
1530s, from Fr. anarchie or directly from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
Yes, I pointed out the etymology of the term myself in the top comment box above as "no rule/rulers" (not "no state" as is commonly believed).
This is part of why "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.
Capitalism is "the market economy with private ownership and control of the means of production". Meaning the very tools and institutions used to produce are all in the hands of a small elite of private owners (rulers); whom the majority are subordinated to.
@MsSexySocialist - As revealed in my 2 previous posts, there is nothing in the origin of the word "anarchy" that says it is anti-free market.
YOU SAID: "It concentrates economic decision-making and authority in the hands of a small few private business-owners - this ownership of course can not itself be maintained without some external force."
IT IS ALREADY LIKE THAT thanks to the state. Only the state can create a true monopoly.
[continued] . . . then Marxists would qualify as anarchist as they too seek a stateless society as a long-term goal.
And again, it doesn't matter what you personally "consider" pure capitalism to be, it has never existed.
To say it somehow exists in an embryonic form in black market transactions is like saying libertarian socialism already exists in every self-managed cooperative.
No working model of such a system has ever existed and is thus based . . . [continued]
@MsSexySocialist - Before humans flew an airplane, would you have been one of those that said: If man was meant to fly he'd have wings? There were those that believed that then just like those that still believe in the necessity of a criminal organization known as the state. Just because there has never been something as radical as real freedom where interactions are carried out voluntarily and peacefully, then why would you assume that there should never be?
I was making the point that it wouldn't be a desirable thing to have - and that most people would fight against having it forced upon them.
It also doesn't offer "interactions ... carried out voluntarily and peacefully" as a small elite of plutocrats control everything and make sure all interactions are carried out on their terms while those without access to capital are subordinated to their whims.
@MsSexySocialist - PART 2: Leftwing statists confuse the free market, or pure capitalism, with crony capitalism, or fascism (Mussolini preferred the term "corporatism") where there is no real delineation between the state and corporations. This form of statism via crony capitalism/corporatism/fascism is cemented into use by having the money supply controlled and manipulated by a central bank (the Federal Reserve in the US). Left statists also co-opted the term "liberal" from classical liberals.
"Pure capitalism" has never existed. There has never been a single market economy with private ownership of the means of production that WASN'T also a statist economy.
@MsSexySocialist - Pure capitalism does exist & always will, hence the "black market" and "working under the table." I agree we've never had pure capitalism on a mass scale due to the existence of the state, but just because states have always been there to kill, maim, and destroy is a pretty good argument for something new. Socialism, or any form of government, doesn't work without killing or jailing people. Its time for something truly radical like free minds and free markets.
It gives a good and thorough Q & A style intro to libertarian socialist principles (your false description of what "socialism" is betrays a lack of basic understanding) and has a section on why anarcho-capitalism is:
1. A contradiction in terms. And
2. Would never work and could only ever be implemented through violence.
An-cap would entail the destruction of civil society which people would NEVER renounce voluntarily; hence an-cap requires force.
@MsSexySocialist - Anarcho Capitalism or Market Capitalism means an absence of state where individuals are sovereign unto themselves and of course have property rights. How could that be an oxymoron?
Yup, young anarchocapitalist here, limited government is better than an expansionary government, but government necessarily expands; it's part of its nature. Even if we can pull government back by electing people such as Ron Paul, government will expand again in the future unless we can at some point completely rid ourselves of it.
@RKAddict101 - I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul being president even though he is the first worthwhile individual to run in my entire life. I agree 100% that the nature of the state is only to expand, but at least a term or two of a Ron Paul presidency would mean a reprieve from war, thus saving millions of lives. On the other hand, another 4 more years of a failed Obomber admin would probably bring millions more over to freedom.
@MsSexySocialist You are approaching Anarchism from the Egalitarian viewpoint. We approach Anarchism from the Libertarian viewpoint. Collectivism is Statism and Leftist Anarchists are Collectivists. I think letting go of the immorality and impossibility of Socialism would be helpful for you to see why we are so confident this system can work.
CloverfieldMonster95 5 days ago
"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism - the term itself is an oxymoron.
Sorry.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist Is your point that capitalism has historically been wedded to the state, or that its very function requires the state? If so, then you ought to at least appreciate the distinction implied in that term "anarcho-capitalism". Or at least acknowledge it. Otherwise you seem to imply that there is no such thing as a market, not just that you don't like it.
oldoddjobs 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@oldoddjobs
My point is twofold,
1. "Anarchism" both as a philosophical and a political movement has always been resolutely anti-capitalist as its very etymology means "no rule/rulers" - with capitalism (in every form) perpetuates. And yes, I acknowledge that ancap is different to state-capitalism.
2. While what we now call "capitalism has always been pegged to the state, "anarcho"-capitalism itself just decentralizes & recreates the functions of the state in private defense agencies
MsSexySocialist 4 weeks ago 8
@MsSexySocialist 1. Going by the etymology of the world, you're right - no rule/rulers. But then you smuggle your political opinion into the issue by claiming that capitalism 'perpetuates' rule/rulers. By "ruler", we are talking about someone with a self-granted legal right to ultimate decision-making for all his/her subjects. You would agree, surely, that no-one should be forced into any association (political, religious etc) against their will?
2. I agree with your second point entirely!
oldoddjobs 3 weeks ago
@oldoddjobs
I would define a "ruler" as one in whom power and decision-making authority is concentrated. It makes no difference whether that power was "legally acquired" or not. Especially when such legal frameworks are determined by those in power in the first place.
I agree complete that "no-one should be forced into any association" but what ancap fails to recognize is that aside from direct inactional coercion which forces people into associations . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 weeks ago
@oldoddjobs
. . . against their will, there also exists the equally important factor of systemic coercion that comes about due to the concentration/centralization of power at the institutional level
Poverty, debt, lack of capital, and inequality of bargaining power for example all systemically force people into the institution of wage-labor as the effective choice to pursue independent labor (self-employment or democratic enterprise) does not exist for those without access to capital
MsSexySocialist 3 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Decision-making being "concentrated" implies exclusivity/monopoly, so I agree with you again. That is, we probably both think that the law ought to apply to every individual equally, with no special privilege or immunity for particular persons.
oldoddjobs 3 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Poverty, unfortunately, is the natural state of mankind. Without the accumulation of capital and without relatively free trade we would still be living in mud huts. Do you ever wonder why the poorest wage-slave in Europe enjoys a standard of living which Henry VIII could not have hoped for? Does it not strike you as somewhat baffling?
oldoddjobs 3 weeks ago
@oldoddjobs
Historical distortions about the development of human civilization aside, the accumulation of capital is one thing, who and how many own and control it is quite another.
Your second comment says nothing about the problem I addressed inherent to anarcho-capitalism; that it still centralizes ownership and control of the means of production (and hence all economic activity) in the hands of a small elite while the rest of the populace ends up subordinated to them.
MsSexySocialist 3 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist In this pure capitalist society we are talking about there would be, by definition, no legal impediment to becoming a producer. It is not the "rest of the populace" that becomes subordinate, it is the producers who are subordinate to the choices of the masses. If the political means of obtaining wealth (favourable legislation, licensing etc) are abolished then wealth can only be obtained through production of the most needed goods and services.
oldoddjobs 3 weeks ago
@oldoddjobs You favour a legal code which would prohibit private production. Who would enforce it? Who would shut down the private factories? Who would arrest the consenting adults engaging in voluntary capitalistic acts with one another? On whose authority does victimless, peaceful cooperation based on mutual self-interest become forbidden? Private services are the very essence of DEcentralisation.
oldoddjobs 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldoddjobs
"You favour a legal code which would prohibit private production"
Evidence? I recall saying no such thing.
So the rest of your second comment is totally baseless and arguing against a straw man.
MsSexySocialist 3 weeks ago
@oldoddjobs
In your "pure capitalist society" all means of production (MOP) are privately owned and thereby controlled primarily by a small elite of plutocrats.
More wealth/capital = inequality of bargaining power between employers and employees. Meaning people without easy access to capital end up without the effective choice of pursuing work independent from working for others (wage-labor).
It leaves the vast majority of people without control over their work lives.
MsSexySocialist 3 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist - PART 1: Anarcho Capitalists or Market Anarchists believe in the abolition of the state and a totally free market (i.e. pure capitalism). The term "anarcho capitalist" was coined by Murray Rothbard to differentiate from the anti-capitalist anarchists that believed in the abolition of the state but still wanted some sort of structure to police and control business...all of which is an absurd and even schizophrenic contradiction.
magentawave 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@magentawave
I repeat, "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron.
It is not anti-hierarchy, it isn't even really anti-statist. The "private defense agencies" you propose decentralizing the state into just perpetuate all of its worst functions. They are themselves just de facto states to which one becomes a customer instead of a citizen.
And please tell me what this "sort of structure to police and control business" is? And quote just one anarchist supporting this.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist - Anarcho Capitalism believe in the total abolition of the state so it is most definitely anti-state. I didn't say anything about "private defense agencies" but I'm okay with anything as long as its voluntary and peaceful (i.e. does NOT violate the Non-Aggression Principle). Yes, I'd much rather be a customer with the freedom to choose a different private defense service than to be forced at the point of a gun to have things the way they are now.
magentawave 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist - As far as leftist anarchists not believing in the free market... All the stuff I've read from left or social anarchists is extremely anti-capitalist. Again though, I consider capitalism to be the same as pure capitalism (i.e. free market) so do differentiate between it and crony capitalism/fascism/ corporatism which are all the same thing and require the existence of the state.
magentawave 1 week ago
@magentawave
It is an oxymoron for the reasons I have stated above.
Anarchism is by definition anti-capitalist because capitalism by definition is a form of "archy".
It concentrates economic decision-making and authority in the hands of a small few private business-owners - this ownership of course can not itself be maintained without some external force (state or state-like PDA)
Being opposed to the existence of the state is not sufficient to qualify as anarchism, if it was . . .
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist -
The origin of the word "anarchy" from dictionary.refererence.[com]...
1530–40; (< Middle French anarchie or Medieval Latin anarchia ) < Greek, anarchía lawlessness, literally, lack of a leader, equivalent to ánarch ( os ) leaderless
magentawave 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist - The origin of the word "anarchy" from etymonline.[com]...
anarchy
1530s, from Fr. anarchie or directly from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
magentawave 1 week ago
@magentawave
Yes, I pointed out the etymology of the term myself in the top comment box above as "no rule/rulers" (not "no state" as is commonly believed).
This is part of why "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.
Capitalism is "the market economy with private ownership and control of the means of production". Meaning the very tools and institutions used to produce are all in the hands of a small elite of private owners (rulers); whom the majority are subordinated to.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsSexySocialist - As revealed in my 2 previous posts, there is nothing in the origin of the word "anarchy" that says it is anti-free market.
YOU SAID: "It concentrates economic decision-making and authority in the hands of a small few private business-owners - this ownership of course can not itself be maintained without some external force."
IT IS ALREADY LIKE THAT thanks to the state. Only the state can create a true monopoly.
But the real question is...
How sexy are you anyway? :-)
magentawave 1 week ago
@magentawave
[continued] . . . then Marxists would qualify as anarchist as they too seek a stateless society as a long-term goal.
And again, it doesn't matter what you personally "consider" pure capitalism to be, it has never existed.
To say it somehow exists in an embryonic form in black market transactions is like saying libertarian socialism already exists in every self-managed cooperative.
No working model of such a system has ever existed and is thus based . . . [continued]
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist - Before humans flew an airplane, would you have been one of those that said: If man was meant to fly he'd have wings? There were those that believed that then just like those that still believe in the necessity of a criminal organization known as the state. Just because there has never been something as radical as real freedom where interactions are carried out voluntarily and peacefully, then why would you assume that there should never be?
magentawave 1 week ago
@magentawave
I didn't say it "could never be".
I was making the point that it wouldn't be a desirable thing to have - and that most people would fight against having it forced upon them.
It also doesn't offer "interactions ... carried out voluntarily and peacefully" as a small elite of plutocrats control everything and make sure all interactions are carried out on their terms while those without access to capital are subordinated to their whims.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist - PART 2: Leftwing statists confuse the free market, or pure capitalism, with crony capitalism, or fascism (Mussolini preferred the term "corporatism") where there is no real delineation between the state and corporations. This form of statism via crony capitalism/corporatism/fascism is cemented into use by having the money supply controlled and manipulated by a central bank (the Federal Reserve in the US). Left statists also co-opted the term "liberal" from classical liberals.
magentawave 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@magentawave
"Pure capitalism" has never existed. There has never been a single market economy with private ownership of the means of production that WASN'T also a statist economy.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist - Pure capitalism does exist & always will, hence the "black market" and "working under the table." I agree we've never had pure capitalism on a mass scale due to the existence of the state, but just because states have always been there to kill, maim, and destroy is a pretty good argument for something new. Socialism, or any form of government, doesn't work without killing or jailing people. Its time for something truly radical like free minds and free markets.
magentawave 1 week ago
@magentawave
[continued] . . . on a floating abstraction; the "free market" that will somehow come into place and magically solve all problems.
You don't seem to have read much actual anarchist writing. I'd recommend the Anarchist FAQ; which is available free online.
[continued]
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@magentawave (final)
[continued]
It gives a good and thorough Q & A style intro to libertarian socialist principles (your false description of what "socialism" is betrays a lack of basic understanding) and has a section on why anarcho-capitalism is:
1. A contradiction in terms. And
2. Would never work and could only ever be implemented through violence.
An-cap would entail the destruction of civil society which people would NEVER renounce voluntarily; hence an-cap requires force.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist - Anarcho Capitalism or Market Capitalism means an absence of state where individuals are sovereign unto themselves and of course have property rights. How could that be an oxymoron?
magentawave 1 week ago
"History of anarchism"? Who does Rockwell think he's trolling?
juliaisafilmbuff123 4 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I dout Lew chose the title.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
Lew looks great! He must be following the Primal Blueprint...
zzzoo2 4 months ago
Yup, young anarchocapitalist here, limited government is better than an expansionary government, but government necessarily expands; it's part of its nature. Even if we can pull government back by electing people such as Ron Paul, government will expand again in the future unless we can at some point completely rid ourselves of it.
RKAddict101 4 months ago 8
@RKAddict101 - I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul being president even though he is the first worthwhile individual to run in my entire life. I agree 100% that the nature of the state is only to expand, but at least a term or two of a Ron Paul presidency would mean a reprieve from war, thus saving millions of lives. On the other hand, another 4 more years of a failed Obomber admin would probably bring millions more over to freedom.
magentawave 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
"You forgot Poland"
GompCelticPL 4 months ago
Always good to hear Lew & Jeff
ILiveInMyParadise 4 months ago
Great interview, Jeff!!!!
freeat12five 4 months ago
Watch all the episodes and learn what you can do. You have everything to lose if you don't IMO.
nrgrus 4 months ago