Forums of the Libertarian Left

[bjj_anarchist]

My name is Benji. A description of my views would probably be a Rothbardian who is interested in agorism. Glad to be here and I'm looking forward to the discussions!

After reading a bunch of the posts on this board I'm a little confused about the attacks on anarcho-capitalism as I consider myself to be one. I hate labels...but apparently I need to know how to define myself better.

My views: I am entirely opposed to ANY government, period. People are entitled to property that they mix their labor with. Whatever one gains through voluntary exchange of their labor and goods (truly free market free of coercion) is entirely theirs to keep. Am I wrong to call myself an anarcho-capitalist? (I don't use capitalism in the sense that it is perceived to be today which is not capitalism at all but corporatism--which requires the state...which I'm against.)

[praxthym]

After reading a bunch of the posts on this board I'm a little confused about the attacks on anarcho-capitalism as I consider myself to be one. I hate labels...but apparently I need to know how to define myself better.

Hello! I wouldn't worry about the attacks, it's all just a part of the conflation debate. A lot of them just don't like the word "capitalism", yet there are plenty that would label them capitalists anyway.

[Noor]

Welcome to the board!

[manbear2pig]

Welcome!

After reading a bunch of the posts on this board I'm a little confused about the attacks on anarcho-capitalism as I consider myself to be one. I hate labels...but apparently I need to know how to define myself better.

This is the right place to be! You're right about labels though.

My views: I am entirely opposed to ANY government, period. People are entitled to property that they mix their labor with. Whatever one gains through voluntary exchange of their labor and goods (truly free market free of coercion) is entirely theirs to keep. Am I wrong to call myself an anarcho-capitalist?

You'll find different ways of thinking about this, but speaking from the more extremely anti-capitalist (?) realm here, I believe that universalizing the idea of homesteading to all productive labor actually leads to socialism in the generic sense -- that is, the end of non-labor income. I think the key to making sense out of the semantical confusion with "capitalism" is that the state-enabled/enforced accumulation by the few of the product of other people's labor is the historical hallmark of capitalism(and economic hierarchy generally), and that stands in direct opposition to personal accumulation of labor-property, making the latter impossible for the majority of people. So if we had a system where there was no government and no coercion, it would look so different from what is generally thought of as capitalism there would (based on this definition) be no reason to think of it as capitalism, even if currency and markets continued to exist(some people define capitalism this way, but I don't think that's very accurate). Proudhon's What is Property? makes for a good read on this, if you haven't read it already. This concept, imo, creates sort of a baseline for anarchism, as it does not preclude markets, exchange, etc.

[RoyceChristian]

Welcome to the forum. It's probably one of the better places to wind up on the interwebs as there's a mix of people with different views on everything. Well, generally there is.

After reading a bunch of the posts on this board I'm a little confused about the attacks on anarcho-capitalism as I consider myself to be one. I hate labels...but apparently I need to know how to define myself better.

For me, the word capitalism is corporatism. It denotes the system we have today; a system of privilege created and maintained by coercive government. This is how I use the term, while I recognise others do not. The reason why I define it this way is because this is how the rest of the world uses the term and it is useless and futile to redefine a term to fit my ideology and then claim the rest of the world is wrong. It creates problems in communication and when communication breaks down, you can no longer reach them.

What you define as capitalism, I define as the free market. I also identify as a socialist, a market Anarchist and something between an Agorist and Mutualist. As such I reject the label Anarcho-Capitalism on these grounds. I also reject the ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism as a body of thought too closely aligned with conservativism, Hoppe and too focussed on Party Politics to achieve change; in the same way that Libertarian Communism may be differentiated from Marxism. At the same time, I would point out this does not mean I reject Rothbard as a thinker or an influence on my thought, I just don't limit myself in regard to influences. He has his strengths and his weaknesses.

[Brainpolice]

There is certainly an extent to which the usage of the term "capitalism" reduces to a semantic/communication issue, in which people simply define their terms differently. Part of the reason why I no longer use the term "capitalism" in the way that anarcho-capitalists tend to is because the use of the term "capitalism" to be synonamous with "stateless society" is a definition that everyone *but* anarcho-capitalists do not use, and therefore it seems to create more confusion than clarity to insist on using a definition of "capitalism" that is completely different than how 99.99% of everyone else (including most self-proclaimed "capitalists") use it. Hence, I see a certain sensibility in making a distinction between the concepts of "capitalism" or "state-capitalism" and "free market", and in establishing the meaning of "free market" in a way that is more open to unconventional interpretations of what is compatible with it.

[bjj_anarchist]

So I guess it all comes down to definitions. I think I will continue to use the word in its true dictionary sense: "an economic system characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined by competition in a free market." Nothing suggests any government intervention. Maybe I should use the term "free market capitalism" even though to me that is redundant. I guess the opposite would be "managed market capitalism" or "state capitalism"?

[RoyceChristian]

So I guess it all comes down to definitions.

More accurately, it's the context you use your language in. In a forum that's heavily AnCap influence such as anti-state.com, using "Capitalism" in such a manner is fine, because that's the common usage and every one understands it as such. Communicating here, it's better to say 'free market' because people will understand what you're trying to say, without you having to lay down your definition every time. When and if you ever talk to a bunch of syndicalists, it's probably better to avoid both and explain things in terms 'people' as in that context, language shouldn't be so economics heavy. After all, 'the market will take care of the problem,' translates pretty well to, 'the people concerned with the problem will solve it in the way that suits them best, without you having to force them to.' Pretty much you're saying the same thing, in different ways, to different people and you save yourself the problem of getting lost in translation.

[Noleaders]

After reading a bunch of the posts on this board I'm a little confused about the attacks on anarcho-capitalism as I consider myself to be one. I hate labels...but apparently I need to know how to define myself better.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism in the sense you use it, but there is in actualy existing capitalism which creates a set of implicit assumptions and renders capitalism, like socialism, a pretty redundant word IMO that only leads to semantic squabbling.

"Free market anti capitalism" is essentially rhetorical. It separates us from vulgar libertarians.

I also reject the ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism as a body of thought too closely aligned with conservativism, Hoppe and too focussed on Party Politics to achieve change

haha i like the fact hoppe gets a catagory all for himself

[Noleaders]

Oh and i almost forgot, welcome

[buddhadada]

Welcome!

Me, I don't use "capitalism" nor "socialism"--both are too loaded.

[Brainpolice]

"haha i like the fact hoppe gets a catagory all for himself"

Well yea, I call it "Hoppeanism", which is basically paleo-libertarianism to the max.

[Noleaders]

I know, i just find it vaguely amusing when a thinker comes up with something that earns themself, as opposed to their theory, a place in a list of problems.
Kinda like an article i read where ayn rand was considered her own catagory of historian

[AlaskanAnarchist]

I think I will continue to use the word in its true dictionary sense: "an economic system characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined by competition in a free market." Nothing suggests any government intervention.

But do you think that's what just about anybody but us anarchists means when they talk about capitalism? Assuming you're from the US (quite an assumption, I know), I think if you talked to just about any liberal or conservative about what a free market actually is, they'd say the United States is one.

[ctmummey]

yeah i hear you. we might as well abandon free market too the way its used!

[RoyceChristian]

But free market, unlike Capitalism, has a fighting chance. The very words used to create the phrase, when broken down to their common meanings and understandings create a meaning that is different to how it is being used by your average NeoLiberal. Capitalism, by contrast, cannot be, as it is a label that has become associated with certain ideas and systems.

[wombatron]

Welcome!

[bjj_anarchist]

I think I will continue to use the word in its true dictionary sense: "an economic system characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined by competition in a free market." Nothing suggests any government intervention.

But do you think that's what just about anybody but us anarchists means when they talk about capitalism? Assuming you're from the US (quite an assumption, I know), I think if you talked to just about any liberal or conservative about what a free market actually is, they'd say the United States is one.

You are correct. Most people don't know what free market capitalism is. They believe it to be the managed market corporatism we have now. But when talking with people (especially those who claim to support free market capitalism but are really statists) I have found it to be useful to show them why they don't actually support what they think they do. This usually leads to a discussion on the evils of the state in general...which is what I want. If however I discuss true free markets with them by using anti-capitalistic language they immediately shut me off bc they truly believe in a free market but don't understand how the state undermines the market.

[Brainpolice]

Not to downplay the linguistic or semantic issue involved, but there is a sense in which at least some of us can be construed as "anti-capitalists", even in the strictly economic sense of "private ownership of the means of production" or a certain conception of "private property" as a normative ethic. In particular, geoists and mutualists tend to have certain reservations about absolutism in land property in a way that actually does conflict at least with the views of some of the more hardline anarcho-capitalists. Furthermore, left-libertarian market anarchists tend to at least be more open to non-"private" ownership of the means of production, not in the sense of state ownership, but in the sense of worker's control of industry and a certain sense of "voluntary commons". So I think it may be somewhat misleading to construe left-libertarians as merely being run-of-the-mill anarcho-capitalists who just happen to not like the word "capitalism", even if one semantically insists that "voluntary socialism" is "still capitalism".

Some would argue that "actually existing capitalism", which means both the "early capitalism" of the industrial revolution and modern states in which the means of production mostly are nominally "private" either in spite of or precisely because of the existance of the state, is inherently dependant on state power - or even that a dominantly "capitalist" owned workplace is undesirable for reasons independant of anti-statism. In this sense, the ALL is not exactly a group of standard anarcho-capitalists. Construed broadly, it generally ranges between market anarchists with "leftist" sympathies on certain issues to libertarian socialists. From my observations, however, most of the people here have some sort of "hybrid" position that is neither hardline anarcho-capitalism or hardline libertarian socialism, and the ALL is still sort of in the process of defining itself (although certain fairly solid tendencies have emerged).

[bjj_anarchist]

Not to downplay the linguistic or semantic issue involved, but there is a sense in which at least some of us can be construed as "anti-capitalists", even in the strictly economic sense of "private ownership of the means of production" or a certain conception of "private property" as a normative ethic. In particular, geoists and mutualists tend to have certain reservations about absolutism in land property in a way that actually does conflict at least with the views of some of the more hardline anarcho-capitalists. Furthermore, left-libertarian market anarchists tend to at least be more open to non-"private" ownership of the means of production, not in the sense of state ownership, but in the sense of worker's control of industry and a certain sense of "voluntary commons". So I think it may be somewhat misleading to construe left-libertarians as merely being run-of-the-mill anarcho-capitalists who just happen to not like the word "capitalism", even if one semantically insists that "voluntary socialism" is "still capitalism".

Some would argue that "actually existing capitalism", which means both the "early capitalism" of the industrial revolution and modern states in which the means of production mostly are nominally "private" either in spite of or precisely because of the existance of the state, is inherently dependant on state power - or even that a dominantly "capitalist" owned workplace is undesirable for reasons independant of anti-statism. In this sense, the ALL is not exactly a group of standard anarcho-capitalists. Construed broadly, it generally ranges between market anarchists with "leftist" sympathies on certain issues to libertarian socialists. From my observations, however, most of the people here have some sort of "hybrid" position that is neither hardline anarcho-capitalism or hardline libertarian socialism, and the ALL is still sort of in the process of defining itself (although certain fairly solid tendencies have emerged).

This is helpful. I think the phrase you used of "voluntary commons" sounds like co-ownership. This is fine of course so long as it is not forced. Let me ask everyone a question here. Suppose we are all on a new planet with un-worked land. Say I till and cultivate a big garden. By my labor I have made this mine. Now what if I hire (by voluntary contract) people to collect the harvest and pay them wages? Is this ok to left-libertarians? What if it was an iron ore mine I discovered? Could I still hire people to work my mine and pay them wages? Or does it somehow become their joint property? Surely not...I hope.

[Noleaders]

This is helpful. I think the phrase you used of "voluntary commons" sounds like co-ownership. This is fine of course so long as it is not forced. Let me ask everyone a question here. Suppose we are all on a new planet with un-worked land. Say I till and cultivate a big garden. By my labor I have made this mine. Now what if I hire (by voluntary contract) people to collect the harvest and pay them wages? Is this ok to left-libertarians? What if it was an iron ore mine I discovered? Could I still hire people to work my mine and pay them wages? Or does it somehow become their joint property? Surely not...I hope.

Yes voluntary commons refers to co-ownership formed voluntarily. I dont think anyone here would argue that you couldn't hire wage labourers however some may argue that if you abandon your land it should be returned to the commons for homesteading, provided you are compensated for your efforts in developing the land.

[bjj_anarchist]

This is helpful. I think the phrase you used of "voluntary commons" sounds like co-ownership. This is fine of course so long as it is not forced. Let me ask everyone a question here. Suppose we are all on a new planet with un-worked land. Say I till and cultivate a big garden. By my labor I have made this mine. Now what if I hire (by voluntary contract) people to collect the harvest and pay them wages? Is this ok to left-libertarians? What if it was an iron ore mine I discovered? Could I still hire people to work my mine and pay them wages? Or does it somehow become their joint property? Surely not...I hope.

Yes voluntary commons refers to co-ownership formed voluntarily. I dont think anyone here would argue that you couldn't hire wage labourers however some may argue that if you abandon your land it should be returned to the commons for homesteading, provided you are compensated for your efforts in developing the land.

Okay, thanks. My problem with returning land that you have abandoned to the commons and compensating you for your efforts is...who is going to determine these things? Who says if it is abandoned? Who says what is just compensation? Somebody with power apparently...that's kind of what we are against, right? Sounds like a job for a government.

[Noleaders]

This is helpful. I think the phrase you used of "voluntary commons" sounds like co-ownership. This is fine of course so long as it is not forced. Let me ask everyone a question here. Suppose we are all on a new planet with un-worked land. Say I till and cultivate a big garden. By my labor I have made this mine. Now what if I hire (by voluntary contract) people to collect the harvest and pay them wages? Is this ok to left-libertarians? What if it was an iron ore mine I discovered? Could I still hire people to work my mine and pay them wages? Or does it somehow become their joint property? Surely not...I hope.

Yes voluntary commons refers to co-ownership formed voluntarily. I dont think anyone here would argue that you couldn't hire wage labourers however some may argue that if you abandon your land it should be returned to the commons for homesteading, provided you are compensated for your efforts in developing the land.

Okay, thanks. My problem with returning land that you have abandoned to the commons and compensating you for your efforts is...who is going to determine these things? Who says if it is abandoned? Who says what is just compensation? Somebody with power apparently...that's kind of what we are against, right? Sounds like a job for a government.

These things would be determined by customary law in a similar manner as any other dispute would be.

[RoyceChristian]

...provided you are compensated for your efforts in developing the land.

How do you figure this? If you have improved the land by adding fixtures, improving the quality of soil, or allowing access to a particular resource and then you abandon the land, it seems to me that those improvements and fixtures are abandoned with the land. The question is how that abandonment takes place according to the custom (occ/use, open declaration etc).

[neverfox]

This is helpful. I think the phrase you used of "voluntary commons" sounds like co-ownership. This is fine of course so long as it is not forced. Let me ask everyone a question here. Suppose we are all on a new planet with un-worked land. Say I till and cultivate a big garden. By my labor I have made this mine. Now what if I hire (by voluntary contract) people to collect the harvest and pay them wages? Is this ok to left-libertarians? What if it was an iron ore mine I discovered? Could I still hire people to work my mine and pay them wages? Or does it somehow become their joint property? Surely not...I hope.

Well, I have a somewhat different answer than most to this and, by virtue of that, a different definition of capitalism. I disagree that "ownership of the means of production" is the issue at all in determining who obtains the 'fruits' of the productive process. This leads me to reject the definition you gave earlier for capitalism. The reason is not that it is not good as far as it goes (private property and all that) but it starts out by placing ownership as the key feature of production and I think that puts it on shaky ground. Socialism (in its popular "Wikipedia" meaning) does this same thing: they are obsessed with the means of production concept also but just switch it from private to public or collective ownership. But the link between who owns the means determining who owns the product is a myth. It doesn't even hold up in our current system if looked at empirically. Simply consider the case where capital is rented for use in a productive process: the captial is owned by someone who isn't part of the firm and no one seem to think of them as having any claim to the profits of the enterprise. Voila - ownership of the means has nothing to do with it; it's about who is responsible for using up the inputs in the process. This is the legal party that already owns or rents all the inputs and as a result they will appropriate the profits (or rather the property that will become profit or loss when sold, since only property can be appropriated). Also, here I use appropriation not in its negative since of taking someone else's property but in the more general and traditional sense of the creation of a new property right, e.g. homesteading is a form of appropriating.

So to answer your question, I don't believe that labor is a form of property that can be rented out. And frankly, people who disagree with me in the whole, agree with me on this (including Kinsella, Halliday, Long etc.) What do I mean by that? I don't mean that a person can't agree to take money for doing what another asks of them but I'm speaking of the legal overlay or interpretation of what the contract means in property theoretic terms. I only mean that there is not an exchange of use right from the laborer to the wage-payer; it's instead unilateral (money on condition of action, not money in exchange for some abstract input called "labor"). Because of this, the wage-payer can't fully claim to be the entire legal party that is responsible for owning or renting all the inputs, because they can't claim to have rented the labor in any sense that has merit in contract theory. This best they can claim is that they paid someone to cooperate with them, a glorified bribe with none the negative connotation. This means that all laborers, managers, everybody that works in a firm can best be viewed as a large cooperating body of individuals. The only way to prevent this would be to give the laborer sufficient autonomy (owning their own inputs, not limiting their other contracts, letting them manage their own backoffice) to convince conventional legal entities that they are not part of the firm but are selling their product in a separate business. Boundaries will be fuzzy but would likely cause a great deal of what we call employment to become partnership simply by the force of property and contract theory properly applied. As for people who don't want to be partners, it becomes a matter of opt-in vs opt-out, which is an important distinction; knowledge of your rights is power. Also, there are a great numbers of ways to insure and indemnify risk while keeping all of the autonomy. If employers realized that they were even slightly vulnerable to being overruled if they didn't follow good faith practices would make a tremendous difference in society. But none of this should be construed as reflecting anything about bossism or division of labor or specialization or hierarchy any of those often-too-fuzzy lefty buzz words. It's about property rights in the previously unowned new "product" first and foremost (not property in the inputs; that stays with the owner of course). The product is just the residual property rights that the firm could claim to own after paying all rents and interest and excluding all previous ownership rights.

So no, the mine doesn't become their property. But you (if you managed the work) and they would appropriate the profits generated from mining and you in your separate role as capital owner could earn a rent from the "firm". Different roles, different hats. So, of course you can hire people. That's freedom isn't it. But a truly consistent free market legal order should be more consistent in how such an arrangement is interpreted in terms of property rights. So to get to how this affects my definition of capitalism: it is a system that assumes (and institutionalizes that assumption in the state legal order) that capital owners have the legally defensible claim to the product of a productive enterprise and that paying wages is equivalent to renting labor as if it were a use title. Basically, I see it as a system that touts property rights but then acts entirely inconsistently when it comes to employment of labor. It's basically anti-property to be blunt.

One argument given against this view is that you can't claim that new property is really created to be appropriated by the responsible firm members, that it is simply a rearrangement of matter already owned by someone else (the capitalist) and thus ownership of the product is derived from this. In other words, there is no new property created to be appropriated. The objection to this is that it can't account for cases where a) the capital contributed (in part) is not physically part of the product, e.g. a machine or tool, yet still earns the capitalist an "in" or b) cases where the product isn't physical at all. I think a good theory has to account for all possibilities without batting an eye.

Whew...sorry for rambling. And Welcome!