LibertarianSocialist

1. Except in a fixed price market. Ltv attempts to approximate theoretical equilibrium price, the main distinction is markets can distort this. A state which fixes prices artificially consequently has a distorted equilibrium level. 2. The ltv posits that price will equalize with cost in a theoretical free market. They are In theory the same. Only if we incorporate the distorting elements of the consumers personal value (with all their trappings) will price be removed from this. 3. I thought you were trying to pin down a fundamental of human nature? All really existing markets involve a degree of coercion. In light of this you must concede that the "state of the consumer" is manipulated by ulterior factors. Therefore we must acknowledge that value as we know it will never equal true value because nothing outside theory is perfectly equal. For you value calculations to be correct we have to assume that coercion is inevitable and it's extent unknowable. Therefore only artificial value, and not true value is knowable. 6. Market price is not important, it will be distorted. The true cost of production is the minimum amount a product can be sold on the (perfect) market. Assuming the fairy-tale of perfect competition, prices must reach this point. Sales volume (demand) is variable, price is not. Any price increases are a consequence of higher costs (eg. shorter production runs) or cartelization /sticky supply. If I produce a chair, I know how much its cost, and so value, is (so much wood, time, training etc.). This is clearly defined by the ltv. This must be the price of the product. Any value held by consumers that differs from this is due to market distortions, even if as simple as the fact people are not perfectly identical. Ltv makes no attempt to perfectly represent true value, however, given the tendency of price variable markets to distort true value on account of their inability to separate true costs from artificial, it is felt such a crude approximation is preferable to a system that permits coercive profiteering. In the end, we can probably say ltv is incomplete (by design), and that your theory would be ideal IF people were autonomous individuals not coerced by their environs.

It's been done before, Keynesianism was just that. Unfortunately it works too good. Capitalism is not meant to be efficient, it's meant to be exploitative. Keynes' policies led to a generalized "crisis of democracy", and consequently the rise of neoliberalism that is pwning us to this day. Anything short of a complete social revolution will leave us yo-yoing between these two points of instability. Not very appealing.

As stated in a previous post (perhaps not here, I apologize if so), communism is voluntary, socialism is not. Communism is not mandatory whereas some for of socialism is. Both socialism and capitalism are involuntary and exclusive ideologies, though capitalism has no justification. Private property is an exclusive concept, one which socialists feel is invalid on the grounds that latter generations cannot consent (eg. Lockean proviso). This proviso essentially invalidates anything but an equal distribution of wealth, for example possession (usufruct) based property. Socialism is justified on the ground that people should not be bound to rules and decisions taken before their ability to consent, and that coercion invalidates consent (ie. artificial scarcity from property monopoly). Or in the least those laws are invalid if they would have been better off without them. This leads to one conclusion, any accumulation of wealth not directly created by the individual concerned (social and natural wealth) ought to be enjoyed equally by all. Libertarian socialism is not forced collectivism, it is the belief that all men are born equal and have the inalienable right to a life of equal opportunity, not dictated by the decisions of past generations, and of access to the earth's natural resources, whom no one can rightfully own. It is only where individuals use the accumulation of wealth as a weapon (as they will in an unequal society) that socialists object. Joining a game of monopoly near the end is no fun, I assure you, and hardly fair for the player coming late. Left-wing market anarchism looks like this. Communism would likely be a voluntary evolution of this, In which individuals may regress at any time. Y'all should watch some of Kevin Carson's interviews on youtube. Maybe you wouldn't hate socialism so much.

This is a reply to Thomasio's post above. Your statement about taxing individuals past a certain number of hours worked is problematic. Why do you expect the state, an organizational body facilitating the rule of a minority elite, to enact such laws in clear opposition to its own interests? The role of unemployment and the forced overwork of others have clear motivations in the capitalist mode of production. To state we only need to enact laws to ensure full employment ignores who currently controls the legal system, and their clear interest in upholding the status quo. It's not that the state lacks the technical ability to do so, it's that it has no desire to do so.

Sorry, what I meant by price was rather worth. Labour+pre-existing inputs equals theoretical worth -not that I think this is in anyway calculable. Need can be conceptualized as an imaginary currency where anyone is free to simply decide to have as much as they wish, obviously such a subjective and limitless currency cannot perform those functions of money as today ie. a store of wealth. The point of distribution according to need is that it is opinion based. Communists argue the futility of an objective standard of need or contribution. Keep in mind communism is voluntary, their is no one forcing individuals to accept a communist system, they have the right to refuse to surrender the fruits of their labour. Needs are not decided by "an individual communist" for others, nor even a central committee, needs are decided directly by the individual themselves. Didn't the article discuss why supporting individuals who wanted yachts was voluntary? There is no obligation to support such people. I read part of the anti-capitalistic mentality. Reads like a fairy tale. There is a very good reason Austrian economics isn't used outside of the realm of capitalist apologetics, justification and propaganda. It isn't used because it doesn't reflect actually existing capitalism. It is meant to be a fairy-tale, a fake story to justify a horrible system. Why else would It be almost entirely axiom-led, rather than say, empirically. If you want to know why I hate capitalism read: Chapter Eight - Crisis Tendencies in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, or just examine any period of recorded history. https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=eDhyVbg5obSbBZyIgJAP&url=http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/MPE.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHOaCBFdO4ZMm4u3ey0_g5QclDKdA

Ancoms, as I do, do believe all worth comes from either human or natural inputs, but they also preach individual contribution is unknowable, therefore so is remuneration based on this. By reality do you mean the current social situation? I would say all social systems are artificial constructs aimed at shaping society through the bolstering of certain aspects of man's behaviour. Or by reality do you mean those behaviours which man is most inclined naturally? In this sense socialism could be perceived as a move away from the "reality" of tooth and nail competition, to the embrace of a more artificially moral social system. But to claim either socialism or capitalism are "reality" is absurd. For one, any form of property rights are an absurdity outside human rationalization. My fish example was not an argument against how markets indicate efficiency, but rather that the ltv allows for such indications too. Whether relative value is the impetus behind labour is not important. Ltv is simply the means by which the producers price is set, it has no bearing on the worth the consumer places on the product. It is very much an incomplete and artificial price system. Having said that, so are free markets. Capitalistic free markets have numerous artificial features which cause prices to be removed from worth. The communist view that worth is independent of price and that no price is calculable is probably correct. It is from this inability to calculate value that pricing systems are devised as approximations, the question is, which system best represents true worth? And which is most desirable to humanity? The state is not the only barrier to entry. Inequality is a barrier to entry. Workers and Capitalists alike endeavour to maintain or advance their social standing. People with anything to lose will not simply let others join them because it's "just" or "the law", but will fight to maintain their competitive advantage, their privileged positions, in any way possible.

I must admit firstly that I have watched only videos 1,3,and 4. Moreover my defenses will be directed to video 3 concerned with the Labour theory of value. It should be noted that as a communist I do not support the ltv, regarding individual labour input incalculable, and also reject any form of market economy on the grounds that coercive profiteering (profit) is inextricable from market prices. Having said this mutualism and the pre-communist period of anarchosyndicalism utilize the ltv, and it is these I will try to defend. The claim about communists arguing that all value is derived from labour is not true. Obviously such things as natural resources have had inputs outside human labour, the earth and it's resources have not been formed from a blank slate by humans. Socialism preaches the equal access to all natural & preexisting wealth, for example earth's natural resources and the labour contributions of past generations. Therefore the ltv states that while these contribute to overall worth, they are not variables as labour is (due to being avaliable in theory to all), and so should not be remunerated in the current. The ltv still utilizes a system of relative value discrimination by the consumer. If the man with a net catches 5 fish while the other catches 4, each charging the same, consumers will gladly buy from the former. What this means is that he won't have a unfair ability to drive up his profits through competitive advantage, he can work more hours yes, but socialism ensures any artificial barriers to competition are removed (ie. Capital based efficiency). A system of profits not based on remuneration for labour enables coercive profiteering due to artificial manipulations of the market ie. Artificial scarcity induced profit, rent, capitalist surplus labour extraction, usury. Marginal revenue does not equalize with marginal cost in the real world as numerous social conflicts arise out of such profit squeezes. In the real worth shtf when the privilege of the ruling elite is challenged. Please feel free to criticize or whatever, I probably have left a few ends untied.

Homo economicus, that creature of insatiable need, where else did he come but from the loin of that depraved beast, capitalism? For all his efforts, for all his slave toil, is he happy? Whose insatiable appetite comes not from within, but is rather thrust upon him by his fellows as he does upon them. If economic standing has shown its limit to the provision of well-being, why then accumulate any more? What matters the tycoon if he doubles the portfolio of possessions he will never see, riches he will never use? To this must be conceded that man's highest goal under capitalism is not the provision of need, but something else altogether. Past (and often concurrently) the provision of basic necessity, man's driving force under capitalism becomes the ever upward seeking of status. Conspicuous consumption, leisure and domination become the driving force of man's existence. What then can come of this but the vast immolation of human labour to the gods of ego and idleness? Where the "gangster" foregoes his real needs for the gold chains which only serve to represent his slavery to the opinion of others, where the egoism of the CEO foregoes the needs of his workers so to buy a bigger yacht than his competitor, only to lay idle nine-tenths of the year. It is this, and not the provision of any real need which serves as impetus for the preening farce that is capitalism. What then of the man of leisure and exorbitance under communism? Surely he would be reduced to what he is, a man of glutton, idleness and selfish vice, his fortunes showing themselves for what they are, as theft of the toil of others, rather than of "personal initiative and capitalist virtue". He will be ridiculed, shunned and excluded, and soon enough no man would labour to help him, if they had not already institutionalised him as a predatory element. Of the man not yet consumed by the beast of hierarchical egoism, what of him? What reason does he have to live then BUT to provide for his REAL needs? And in a system of post-scarcity, where goods are made solely for personal utility, and not as clandestine shackles to be worn by others, surely labour will become one of life's great pleasures, as will the altruistic production for others past his own immediate needs. Of what corruption and of what communist societies do you speak? Perhaps you may wish to learn more of anarchic (is there any other?) communism, or at least give a more clear real world example. The anarchist faq, atleast in part, is a must read: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html#seci46 Theory of the leisure class discusses status-driven conspicuous consumption, leisure & domination as the driving force behind much of capitalism: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

Thomasio, It seems you are set on the idea that the half of the world with productive capacity is hell bent on producing for everyone? Is this just within the context of our current society? Surely any reasonable man would prefer to share his labour burden, I find it hard to believe that Chinese workers would voluntary choose to produce all our stuff if they didn't have too. All I am saying that you have reached what I believe is a false conclusion of human nature (outside a system of for-profit market economics). If this is merely a stance taken within the context of capitalism I understand.

Why is a monetary price a necessity of market exchange? Worth is a concept totally independent of price. Money is an object in its own, with its own worth. It simply functions as a standard, an aid to comparison by virtue of relative value. All objects have perceived worth outside their monetary value. Hence when buying a good you look at its price and then compare it, by vague estimate, to the true measure of price, labour input, and then evaluate your own subjective value. How otherwise would we know if we are getting played, or the deal of the century, based on money value alone? There exists many flaws in the calculation of monetary cost, a perfect example being cost externalization. The externalization of costs (via things like carbon emmissions, environmental disaster, depressed wages, work health 4 safety violations, nearly all forms of cost cutting) result in a dollar value that is sometimes terrifically unrelated to the true cost (to society) of production. I know you guys are going to say "but that's corporatism!", evidence please, because it sounds like capitalism, and I can argue the inability of a propertarian society to address externalisation if you wish, elsewhere. You also make the assumption demand can't exist outside a monetary based market system. As stated before money price is a thing independent of both true price (labour input) and subjective value. Profit based market demand can only meet demand where backed by coin, therefore it is quite possible to see ships dumping their cargo outside impoverished nations for lack of money-backed demand. Are we to assume they simply have no need? The solution of communism is to use human need as the means of currency, unlimited to all, and so removing the schism between monetary and human demand.

The anarchist regions were certainly not a continuation of workers former social roles in the context of wartime pressures. The revolution entailed a complete social revolution, seeking nothing less than the complete abolition of capitalism, how is this reactionary? If you read up about the spanish civil war (and WW2), you will see that the coercive war climate was one of the greater barriers to social revolution. It directly facilitated the rise of counter-revolutionary forces, including bolshevism and fascism, as false solutions to capitalist oppression (hence why they both used the terms socialism, communism and syndicalism so frequently, even in their names). Do I know for certain communism would work on the level of a whole society for any reasonable duration? No I don't. It has yet to prove itself outside of the few years it survived. This is why communism can only be embraced voluntarily as a natural evolution of socialism, also you can't force a population to adopt and maintain a communist society, you can only remove the barriers to its embrace. Exactly what aspects of anarchist communism were facilitated or made possible by the coercive war climate? Was it the voluntary nature? The dismantling of illegitimate and coercive power structures? The increase in aggregate liberty? The increases in productivity and prosperity? Perhaps the voluntary and decentralized democracy? To all those examples of forced expropriation you will give, the anarchists justify this on the grounds that such possessions were attained illegitimately. Illegitimate power structures were also destroyed by force, but removing such structures is hardly "oppression". Social Revolution MANDATES force and conflict, the question is, is this legitimate? Rather than arguing that socialism is wrong because it involves violent coercion, argue that such use is illegitimate. Furthermore, wouldn't an ancap act similarly? The large number of independent producers living parallel to the collectivizations shows how accommodating it was. I dismissed the New Harmony example as a strawman. It is only one example of a socialist community and equating its failure to the impossibility of socialism is akin to proving the impossibility of capitalism on the failure of any of the numerous company towns. Furthermore, New Harmony was an example of authoritarian socialism, which I will never defend, as I find it unsustainable and undesirable. Owen ended up stifling the commune through his paternalism. He sought to model those individuals within his community under some ideal of character by means of authoritarian control, enacting strict codes of conduct and forcing everyone to live in one large building. Josiah Warren, an individualist anarchist who participated in the community, himself came to the conclusion that its failure was in large part due to restrictions on personal ownership and the individuality this allows -a stance that should be emphasised is in no way incompatible with libertarian forms of socialism or communism. Lastly, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a state capitalist system, in fairness you do acknowledge this. This is entirely unrelated to the gift economy of real communism. In this is the free gifting of goods in a voluntary, autonomous fashion, unreliant on any state intervention, and using a non-monetary market of human need instead of a profit-driven monetary one. Furthermore, there exists many types of socialism which embrace profit-driven monetary market exchange, including mutualism and syndicalism.

Likely it'd be a whole host of factors. Just take a look at the crisis of the third century and the collapse of the Roman empire.

Anarchism is not the exchange of economic power for the power of brute force, it is the negation of all systems of power over the individual which infringe on his liberty and well-being (the limit being the liberty and well-being of others). This is achieved through the dismantling of all unjustified hierarchical power structures. Half the population do not own anything and a rendered powerless due to our current social system, capitalism, where private property allows the co-opting of the real power base, each individual. You see, all strength lies in the working class, the producers. The king is only strong because his soldiers have consented for him to co-opt their power. So too is true of the capitalists and the state. Social revolution allows the realization that only the producers class creates wealth, holds power. The statesman, the landlord, the manager, all are unable to produce anything at all, and their little pieces of paper and laws, which formerly entitled them to so much of the producers wealth, show themselves for what they are, completely irrelevant. This is not to say a social revolution will succeed, they have failed many times before. The problem when dismantling all power structures is to not allow another to take its place, as happened in the Russian revolution under bolshevism. I agree that capitalism will likely be around until the end of time. For a revolution to be successful then it must abolish all forms of inequality and privilege. Of these the most important are political & legal, economic, and coercive force (military, police etc.). The political and legal aspects are controlled through a decentralized system of local, voluntary, egalitarian grass roots democratic organisations, commonly referred to in anarchist societies as community and worker self-management. Economic aspects are ensured by the abolishment of private property to be replaced by a system of social and personal property based on usage rights (usufruct). This ensures the access of all to the means of production. Communism, as a voluntarily chosen evolution of socialism, ensures all men are able to freely satisfy their need, no matter their productivity, by taking freely from humanities wealth. Either are workable solutions. Usage rights ensure newcomers have as much power as the current owners which they join. Communities control the means of force as they do the other aspects of society, democratically, through non hierarchical organisation of volunteer militias and juries. The idea of protective borders is a big one, of which has caused me real trouble regarding a market-based socialist society. Weaker economies (and class components) given power back in their hands will naturally protect themselves. But we cannot expect stronger economies or classes to refrain from preying on weaker economies or classes. Even a system of socialist production on the market could resurrect class distinctions between countries. The Israeli Kibbutz are perhaps a fairly good example of socialist* protectionism turning into predatory capitalism once in a favourable position of market power. I would say socialism requires protectionism, for itself, and others. Communism surely would, lol. Probably the best way to understand how these concepts have worked in the real world is to look at the best example of anarchism to date, the Spanish Revolution. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936 Indeed during this, the workers syndicates simply lowered hours worked per person to achieve full employment. You see, the function of unemployment is to lower wages (hence maximise profits) through artificial job scarcity. Full employment causes a crisis of profits for the capitalist. No capitalist profit motive, no unemployment. (Workers cooperatives within capitalism may also maximize individual profit at the expense of newcomers by essentially becoming worker-capitalists, though the incentive is not as high).

I recognise crony capitalism as just another "flavour" of capitalism, as fascism, bolshevism and feudalism are all capitalist. My arguments about capitalism generally refer to market based capitalism of all types though, unless specified otherwise. I am not a marxist although my economic critique of capitalism is heavily influenced by him. Furthermore, Marx's criticisms are relevant (at least in most) to all forms of market capitalism as they share a common core. The original video posits that democracy is failing currently, ergo within the framework of crony capitalism. Simply stating an anarchic capitalist society would not have such flaws in no way answers the fact that he is ascribing the failure of society wrongly to democracy. Democracy in no ways requires a state, and pure democracy is incompatible with it. We may be playing semantics here so I will not fault you for your statement, which was likely correct under your definition. The state is an organisational body designed to enable the governance of a constituent body or area by a ruling elite through the use of coercive force. Democracy is the egalitarian self-managment of individuals in a non-heirarchical manner, some may also use coercive force (mob rule). Obviously you can have elements of the both at once as we do now. Decentralized and voluntary democracy, as is advocated by anarchists as grass-roots community and worker self management, is completely stateless and minimally coercive. When I say democracy is not failing (it is) it is not because of its own inherent flaws, it is due to pressure by the ruling classes to disassemble its last (pitiful and distorted) vestiges. Lastly, given my definition of the state, what is the distinction of a state and a capitalist holding in ancapistan (apart from scale)? Surely the company town differs little from the tyrants village? Each represent a monopoly of coercive force over a given territory by nature of their perceived legitimacy. Each represent a hierarchical structure of top-down command, in each the citizens are as free (or unfree, depending on the law) to move to others should they reject the conditions of rule. Am I mistaken in this last or do men still have some vestiges of inalienable rights not superseded by the rights of property? If it is a question of perceived legitimacy, aren't we just making a nation of miniature (though justified) states? What also of the role of warfare and oppression in competitive advantage? If warfare is as profitable (for the few, anyway, capitalism is not concerned with the interests of the many) as it has proven itself historically, would it not become necessary (or atleast desirable) to gain a competitive edge? Imperialism (or atleast violent class oppression) seems inevitable in any hierarchical society. What are the barriers to such action?

I should have clarified that anarchism rejects all UNJUSTIFIED authority, including hierarchical. What I mean by this is authority derived from authoritarian power structures rather than real authority. The doctor may be more qualified than me, but does he hold authority over me? I voluntarily choose to accept his authority, but is this the same authority of the statesman? The statesman imposes by force his authority, by virtue of his hierarchical position of power. Any authority objected too must bear the burden of proof, of which may be asked for by an independent jury. Another important issue that forms even a schism within anarchism is the dependency of the less able, for example your teacher-child relation. Not being able to provide ones own needs ensures an imbalance of power. An-coms therefore stress the right of each to take according to his needs as distinct from contribution, whereas other anarchists stress remuneration based on deed. I would state that all forms of hierarchical are illegitimate on the grounds that they are a result of coercion. Their are some that are more coercive than others, of course. Will we ever be free of coercion, no. But it would be morally best to remove as many forms of coercion as possible, no? As stated, private property ensures the unequal distribution of wealth, for example, as land is finite, to take more essentially deprives the next man (atleast where land has been fully colonized). This inequality of land allows for coercion, therefore enabling coercive hierarchies of power. I am not saying people ALWAYS take advantage of others for personal gain, indeed socialism, and especially communism is founded on the idea that man has an inherent capability to be altruistic. What I argue is that the need for capitalist profit seeking and accumulation mandates selfishness. One can argue businesses must provide "needed services" and so are altruistic, but is this always true? The provision of services meets one goal, to increase profitability. The externalization of costs to society (bailouts, environmental disaster, consumer base erosion) are examples of selfish profit seeking. So too is things like planned obsolescence, ingenuine marketing and artificially created market demand. Surely these cannot be considered altruistic, and all (barring bailouts which is just a symptom) are caused by market forces. The distribution of property is decided by those affected. Given the anarchist belief that all wealth is social and that each man has a right to own property only in measure with his fellow man, personal property, democratically decided and based on usufruct, is the only valid solution. Distribution is entirely plastic. Where there is an abundance of natural resources, density will be higher as each man asserts his usage rights. The density of an area likely, though not necessarily, finding equilibrium in opportunity elsewhere. Anarchists argue for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. It is the opportunity of man to meet his needs, whatever they may be that we seek. It is true that people want different things, some would even gamble it all away. But would a man who spent all his time gambling or burning those socially owned goods for his amusement be left unchecked? Surely he would have the right to do what he would with those things he produced solely by his own labour, but where he harms others he would be punished, though such a man would likely receive therapy as clearly infirm. It is only rational that men would wish to keep all the fruits of their labour, or atleast where traded the equivalent of them. If by the end of all these "supposedly equal" exchanges he has less than when he started, surely he has been robbed, or is an altruist. Should we claim as just, impoverishment on either ground? On the nature of the subjective value of labour, is it right for a man to sell for more a product because another's need is greater? (Or buy for less to sell for more.) Surely it is coercive to profit off his desperation. The man who accepts a wage for his daily bread does so out of such desperation, not because his subjective value is greater. If he did not need to eat he would not accept anything but the full fruit of his labour, and certainly not one hours bread for two hours labour. Justifying robbery through subjective value is coercive profiteering, and certainly not consensual. A more moderate example for my desert scenario would be land prices. More people, higher prices. See the latifundia of ancient Rome, peasant farmers where directly harmed by the more successful slave-operations which eventually displaced them. Those patricians where surely responsible in part for the poverty of the farmers? They did not directly harm them, but they deprived them of land in a way that was greatly harmful nevertheless. My argument has everything to do with philosophy. And it is the propertarian society which wants something for nothing. The only just aquisition is that of usufruct because it requires labour. Propertarian conceptions of property ignore the lockean proviso and the fact that following generations could not possibly consent to the original aqcuisition. It functionally enables the owners to extract surplus value from the propertyless underclass through coercive artificial scarcity. It is in essence a system that justifies taking something for nothing. I am aware of the constraints made by the state on private property, though it is still functionally private in enough regards to qualify. The "tragedy of the commons" as I understand it is the depletion of resources as each individual of a common land seeks to maximise his own profit at the cost of all, ie. overgrazing. This is rather an indictment of capitalistic practice. Can you not see the parallels with the current ecological destruction? The necessity of cost externalisation within competitive advantage? The incentive of short-term profit over sustainable income? And this has been fun, I like this site, way better than a sympathetic site, too much of a circle jerk you know?

Hey Thomasio, you grinding through the moderator approvals too? First off, let me state that I am an anarchist and therefore a socialist, and not a propertarian. Hence my views are not in line with the others here. I feel like you already have a good understanding of the issues at play and of the various proposals to deal with them and their likely outcomes, am I correct? Nevertheless, I would like to clarify what socialism and communism are. Socialism is not state wealth redistribution, nor was Russia communist. Both are state capitalism, that is the holding of wealth by a minority (government in Russia's case), though the former (what we have) is a hybrid state/market capitalist economy, whereas Russia was pure state capitalism. Lenin himself admits Russia was state capitalism. Are you aware of the various crises of capitalism (over-accumulation, under-consumption, capitalist business cycle, the profit motive and profit-driven unemployment etc.)? All are fruitful areas for understanding the period of instability we are going through, and of which I can elaborate on if you wish. The views held on this forum are very much in line with the libertarians of which they are Austrian bed-buddies, albeit the libertarians seek to uphold those state functions that serve to maintain a class society (military, police, law), whereas the an*-caps seek to give those functions into the hands of democratically unaccountable private tyrannies (corporations). Is it possible to organise the world by free market principles? In a capitalist society, no, mutualism, perhaps. Capitalism is a absurd ideology whose contradictions lead to its own collapse. As a system that mandates continual capital accumulation, it eventually consumes itself as the winners of capitalist accumulation destroy the real foundation of society, the working class. Inequality followed by economic collapse then a massive destruction of capital is an inevitability. This will likely play out one of three ways, the collapse of the Roman empire, another world war, or social revolution. The former two will merely reset the clock of capital accumulation, it is this last that holds any meaningful chance for a solution. Pickety's Capital in the 21st Century talks about "conventional" ways of reversing inequality, through taxation or inflationary redistribution. These are misguided in that they neglect, as you point out, that those with an interest in maintaining the status quo are those in power. Regardless, read that book, it is amazing, best book I have read in years. Buy gold if you want to win in the system. In the face of inflation during crisis of the third century, only real capital survived due to its inherent worth outside a monetary system of international trade. Hence why feudalism took hold in the latifundia. However what's a fortune worth in a world destroyed by war, poverty and an environmental crisis? It seems crazy that the world is being thrown into poverty and war and misery simply because we produce to much stuff, have to many things! But that is the fact of the matter. The solution however is simple. All men should enjoy the fruits of the earth and of man's vast legacy on it, whom no one man can lay claim. Whose right to provide for himself, and only himself, should be inviolate. A system where work is not undertaken with the necessity of crippling and extorting the next man, but rather uplifting him in mutual aid. In this only anarchism will do. I am myself keen to see a propertarian response to your or my posts.

You may wish to ask yourself whether such an issue would also exist under a propertarian (ancap) system, through the examination of the motive forces for such a situation. Capitalism of all kinds is marked by two significant features, private ownership of wealth (land, capital, etc.) and usage of wealth to generate (take from others, consensually or no) more wealth (rent, profit, taxation, extortion etc.). Capitalist accumulation inevitably results in a degree of wealth concentration (just or no), and its need for the accumulation of capital necessitates the formation of hierarchical organisation (consensual or no) in the pursuit of this. This is often achieved through the extraction of surplus labour from the producers in society by the owners of capital. Such theft of the fruits of labour is undesirable to all men and so must be achieved through coercion. Such coercion may be achieved through a variety of means. The most insidious (and so most desirable and prevalent) means is through the artificial creation of scarcity via private property. Imagine a wealthy landlord, to work a small portion of his land which would otherwise go unused is considered a violation of his rights. Why? Has he been deprived by your usage? No. He has only been deprived of the ability to make a profit off YOUR labour. The only means by which a society can free itself of authoritarian power structures is to remove those means of coercion and inequality. Only through such a society which frees itself of the ability of men to profit at their brothers expense, and which rejects all means of coercion of that most sacred of things, the individual, can we have a truly free society. Only through the abolishment of unequal power & wealth may society see the ending of heirarchy. In this only the free association of sovereign owner-producers will suffice. I would like to recommend you simply knuckle down and climb the ladder, but is this desirable or even feasible? Surely no society should be run by the philosophy of masters and slaves, that it is just to be dominated and dominate in turn, what would Molneux say of this in the home? Why then accept it as a bedrock of a social system? Furthermore the odds are stacked against you, a glance at social mobility affirms this. One of the crowning successes of capitalism is that it fosters the belief that hard work will ensure success. Where is this supposed meritocracy, where capital itself lays golden eggs? Unless the ownership of capital is a personal merit in itself.

Communism has been proven to be quite a stable system in practice, and if not in the very long run, socialism surely is. Evidence can be seen of this in the Spanish Revolution, where several million practiced a range of anarchist systems from mutualism to syndicalism to full communism, and did so for three years until their violent defeat at the hands of Conservatives, Fascist forces and Bolshevism. During this period all evidence points to (often significant) increases in prosperity, well-being and liberty, all in the context of a brutal war against Franco. My arguments being based on the definition of communism as a voluntary, stateless, classless, moneyless, gift economy arranged by the guiding principle of each according to his ability to each according to his need. And socialism as a system in which the means of production and distribution are owned socially, with producers given the full fruit of their labour under usufruct. As well as social ownership of all systems of power eg. political. As to the idea that objectivity is necessary to coordinate a communist society is not true. All communists recognise the subjective nature of equality, value and social contribution, indeed our very philosophy is built around the impossibility of making such assessments objectively. Labour cannot be organized without mass violence? Please elaborate. Democracy is not failing, the reverse is true. Democracy can only exist in a society of reasonable equality, there can be no doubt that politics nowadays is dominated by the wealth elite, who have furthered their interests to the detriment of society. It is not Democracy that is failing but Capitalism. For elaboration on this last see the relevant parts of: studies in mutualist political economy. https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=LFBgVbHoB9Xt8AX_64LgCQ&url=http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/MPE.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHOaCBFdO4ZMm4u3ey0_g5QclDKdA

Anarchism is a rejection of all forms of hierarchical organisation on the grounds that any privileged groups or individuals will inevitably further their own interests at the expense of others. We reject the concept of private property on the ground that it allows for a minority of individuals to lay claim to property well in excess of what he would receive were each man given an equal portion. Given resource scarcity, private ownership inevitably results in some owning property at the expense of others, functionally enabling an exploitative class based system with all its trappings. Much of my argument against private property revolves around the Lockean Proviso. What I mean by coercion is all those ulterior factors that influence the decision to consent to or reject a proposal. Why I emphasise this is because it represents an important ethical concept. If a man has laid claim to an oasis in a vast desert, and I come to him dying of thirst, and he only agrees to sell me water if I promise the rest of my life to him in servitude, surely he is acting immorally, even if the gun at my head is not his, but rather my own needs, which are prevented from being met by his existence nevertheless. These are extreme scenarios to be sure, but represent exaggerations of very real dilemmas faced everyday under a system of private property. I do have issue with the argument about evolution/creationism in that property rights are an exclusive ideology. You either have private property or you don't. Making the assumption (emphasis on assumption) that the lockean proviso invalidates property as harmful to those without property, we must concede that they are forced into a harmful (to them) ideology. The ownership of capital is generally always desirable otherwise mankind would not be one giant edifice to its acquisition. Certainly to say that individuals should not be entitled to their fair share of the worlds limited wealth on the grounds that they would either not want it or do better if someone else owned it reeks of authoritarianism. I have much to elaborate but will go now, neighbour kid wants me to play tennis with him, and is sweeping my house in impatience, lol.

Not forgetting the lockean proviso, which in many ways invalidates anything but a socialist conception of property.

Hey guys, anarchist of the old kind here, first post. My question is, how would a propertarian society deal with the concept of coercion within the framework of the nap? Say a child had been orphaned in a freak accident, with no known relatives, and was forced to seek employment on terms reflecting their precarious position, would this be considered consensual despite a good deal of coercion being involved? Furthermore, should an individual choose to reject in their lifetime, as many anarchists do, the concept of private property on the grounds that they could not consent to the original appropriations due to them having occurred before their birth, but are nevertheless expected to suffer them, surely this legal imposition is a violation of the nap? This argument being centered around the lockean proviso.