saltyd Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 First of all, I wanted to clear up what I think is an error in your explanation of how Blackwater (or I guess we're supposed to call it Xe now) functions. I don't remember the exact words that were used, but you characterized Blackwater as a monstrosity that only exists because of state support. That isn't true. They also work in the private sector, most notably on targetting anti-Monsanto activists for surveillance. In the absence of a state Blackwater would continue to function as they do now, with even less scrutiny because the contracts with them would be private information. Secondly, I was hoping you could comment on your show about what I think is one of the major flaws of market "anarchism," which is the failure to discuss how private property was obtained in the first place. Forgive me if you've already done this, because I haven't listened to every episode. I understand that "anarcho-capitalists" (which I'm putting in quotes to avoid the unproductive discussion about whether or not the term "anarchist" applies) regard property as sacred. But this view doesn't take into account the fact that the distribution of property around the world is a result of centuries of state intervention. The state (along with its private armies of landowners) has used every kind of violence imaginable to concentrate property in the hands of a wealthy elite. To simply say, "Hey, you have to respect property rights," ignores all of this history. The Homestead Act of 1862 gave U.S. citizens 162 acres of free land to farm as they saw fit, irregardless of the fact that they had no right to it. Today a lot of their descendents in places like South Dakota still own this land that has been passed down and expanded on for generations. Do their property rights take precedence over the Lakotas? And, of course, after World War 2 the GI bill gave returning veterans low-interest loans for buying homes in the suburbs. But because of restrictive covenants black veterans couldn't use these loans in the same way that their white counterparts had. This was one of the major factors that shaped housing patterns that continue to this day. Today you have the same thing going on even more blatantly in Colombia where paramilitaries hired by U.S. corporations are pushing people off their land to make way for palm oil plantations or Chiquita. While these groups of thugs work with the state, the state is hardly neccessary for them to survive. The state is just the middleman, and if the entire Colombian government were to disappear overnight the situation would continue. Anarchism takes a stance against capitalist private property for exactly these reasons. To call a society "free" without abolishing both hierarchy and private property is an exercise in wishful thinking. While anarchism seeks to eliminate all forms of opression, "anarcho-capitalism" just seeks to privatize them.
Guest darkskyabove Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 Now that you've made your list of sweeping, generalized, pronouncements upon what is wrong with "anarcho-captitalism", perhaps you'd care to explain your views of how everyone's supposed to do it right. Some "free" advice: research before climbing up on the soap box. Specifically, the definition of "anarchy", not what some people in the street claim that it means. And yes, these issues have been pounded back and forth numerous times on this forum.
STer Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 Salty, We've been discussing some of your concerns about land distribution and the passing down of wealth in this thread. Who's Money Is It? Read through the thread and you'll see. I think this question is one of the most important as it goes right to the heart of defining what is and is not aggression when it comes to the Non-Aggression Principle.
saltyd Posted May 18, 2013 Author Posted May 18, 2013 It's true that the dictionary definitions of "anarchism" that you'll find only mention the philosophy as having to do with the abolition of the state. But is a one or two line definition from a dictionary really sufficient to sum up a political theory? All anarchists from Proudhon on down have written about their opposition to the state, hierarchy, and private property (not personal property, which is different). They pretty much held all three of them with equal contempt. The first person to come along and use the term "anarchism" to define a kind of capitalism was Rothbard in the 50's. The trend that he started ignores the entire history of anarchism that took place before him. I haven't read all of the old threads on the forum because my account was just recently approved and I was just responding to one podcast in particular.
Guest darkskyabove Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 Apologies for being a bit too chastising. The definition I was pointing to is for anarchy: which simply means, without rulers. Not without rules, not without property, not without sense. Just no rulers. You are very correct that a line in a dictionary is suspect. I would contend that most of what I've read is also suspect. One of the best things I've found on this forum is the diversity of viewpoints. You'll find someone to dissect your position, no matter what the position is. STer is correct, the other thread has been thrashing the property rights issue back and forth fairly deeply. Anyway, welcome aboard!
Recommended Posts