I've already posted on why social anarchism is extremely impractical, in the economic sense. But it's also destined to be authoritarian.
Whenever I hear social anarchists describe their preferred institutions, my blood curdles. I am deeply suspicious of all this talk of "democracy," "libertarian municipalism," "delegates," "federation," and most of all, "voting." I do not have one scintilla of trust in any of this "social democracy" gunk, which always somehow manages to be very state-like in practice..
The social anarchists have done little to reassure us that their system would be truly libertarian. Many of them ally with Leninists or Democratic Socialists, and view scum such as Che Guevara as "comrades." A number of them are lean heavily Marxist. Most of them support far greater state control over the economy than what we have now, endorsing socialized health care, public schools, powerful unions, and other statist institutions.
Rarely, if ever, do they condemn state-socialism. Oh sure, they'll pay lip service to opposing it (at least when the Leninists let them off their leashes). But do they? I don't think they do. They certainly don't ever act like they do. They don't seem to oppose government at all, except in the rare instances that it protects individual rights.
The basic problem is that while the "community" may own the means of production in theory, it always amounts to a small group of elites controlling and planning the economy in practice. The reason for this is that it's ludicrous to think that the individual would actually have a "say" under a system specifically designed for collective mob rule. Rothbard was right when he said:
"But more deep than that is the fact that Karl [Hess] after having been an anarcho-capitalist for some time shifted over to become an anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist. I don't really see any basis for collaboration between the two groups, because even if we are both against the existing state, they would very quickly come up with another state. I don't think you can be an anarcho-communist or an anarcho-syndicalist. You know if the commune runs everything, and decides for everything, whether it is a neighborhood commune or a mass country commune – it really does not matter in this case, somebody's got to make the communal decision. You can't tell me that you'll have participatory democracy and that everybody is going to equally participate. There is obviously going to be a small group, the officiating board or the statistical administrative board or whatever they want to call it, whatever it's going to be, it's going to be the same damn group making decisions for everybody. In other words, it's going to be a coercive decision for the collective property. It will be another state again, as far as I can see. So I really can't see any basis for collaboration. That is really part of a broader analysis of the communist versus the individualist position."
The idea that you could organize any kind of significant economy and give every single individual within it an equal say is 100% impossible. There is no way it can be done. Any system that says otherwise is a fraud.
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Impossibility Of Any Form Of Planned Economy
The statist Left has long supported a planned economy run by a centralized state. As we're all aware, the project has failed miserably and produced massive tyranny everywhere it's ever been tried, without any exceptions.
The anarchist Left supports a planned economy as well, but with a few tweaks. First, they want it to be more decentralized. (How this is going to work with the "confederation of Communes" or whatever they want is anyone's guess.) They also picture it being "voluntary" and more democratic, with everyone having an opportunity to participate. This, they seem to believe, will iron out the wrinkles in the central-planning slacks.
But this is still basically impossible. Why?
Every single day of our lives, we make numerous, spontaneous economic decisions. In a given day we might choose to fill up with gas, buy a Coke at a vending machine, replace a light bulb, whatever. As anyone with experience in marketing research knows, most people cannot come close to accurately predicting the economic decisions they will make (how much they'll spend and on what), even in the very near future.
Think of all the different things you might buy in just a single trip to the grocery store: eggs, hamburger meat, tooth paste, shoe laces, shampoo, deodorant, aspirin, head phones, whatever. Think of all the different, often far-away places each of these items came from, as well as how they were made and distributed. Then think about all the diferent, far-away places the producers had to buy the materials from, just to produce those items (and so on).
Despite the different origins and producers of each item, they are all just sitting there, immediately available for you to consume at this location, at a second's notice. It is hard to realize just how convenient and efficient all of this is, until it's gone.
When you check out of the grocery store, you don't have to argue with every other stranger shopping there over who deserves to get what, or why. You don't have to defend your choices. You don't have to worry about how many groceries other people are buying, or whether they're freeloading. You rarely have to worry about what you need not being available, because supply and demand are taken into account. Again, the ease and convenience of this is taken for granted by most on the left.
And of course, you don't have to directly haggle with the people who produced each individual good you're buying.
Under a planned economy, even a "voluntary" one, all of this goes out the window, and we're left with an unworkable nightmare.
The complicated, rapidly changing and widespread nature of an entire economy simply cannot be planned, especially not through "voting" or "workers' councils." (Sure, there have been small communes, but most of them have been failures and all of them have had to leech off of the capitalist system for survival.) To think otherwise is utopian and downright religious...certainly not scientific in any sense of the word. Capitalistic businesses exist on every corner of practically every country--we know that they work. Anarcho-leftie societies do not exist anywhere, because they can't possibly sustain any large, free, heterogeneous group of people.
What market anarchists understand is that wishing for a certain society doesn't make it possible. While I don't like quoting Ayn Rand, she was right when she said, "facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." Socialism and planned economies will always fail miserably, regardless of how many brainy intellectuals, do-gooders, or crackpot theorists wish otherwise. This is a matter of simple science.
The next time you're at the grocery store, be thankful you're not under a planned economy.
The anarchist Left supports a planned economy as well, but with a few tweaks. First, they want it to be more decentralized. (How this is going to work with the "confederation of Communes" or whatever they want is anyone's guess.) They also picture it being "voluntary" and more democratic, with everyone having an opportunity to participate. This, they seem to believe, will iron out the wrinkles in the central-planning slacks.
But this is still basically impossible. Why?
Every single day of our lives, we make numerous, spontaneous economic decisions. In a given day we might choose to fill up with gas, buy a Coke at a vending machine, replace a light bulb, whatever. As anyone with experience in marketing research knows, most people cannot come close to accurately predicting the economic decisions they will make (how much they'll spend and on what), even in the very near future.
Think of all the different things you might buy in just a single trip to the grocery store: eggs, hamburger meat, tooth paste, shoe laces, shampoo, deodorant, aspirin, head phones, whatever. Think of all the different, often far-away places each of these items came from, as well as how they were made and distributed. Then think about all the diferent, far-away places the producers had to buy the materials from, just to produce those items (and so on).
Despite the different origins and producers of each item, they are all just sitting there, immediately available for you to consume at this location, at a second's notice. It is hard to realize just how convenient and efficient all of this is, until it's gone.
When you check out of the grocery store, you don't have to argue with every other stranger shopping there over who deserves to get what, or why. You don't have to defend your choices. You don't have to worry about how many groceries other people are buying, or whether they're freeloading. You rarely have to worry about what you need not being available, because supply and demand are taken into account. Again, the ease and convenience of this is taken for granted by most on the left.
And of course, you don't have to directly haggle with the people who produced each individual good you're buying.
Under a planned economy, even a "voluntary" one, all of this goes out the window, and we're left with an unworkable nightmare.
The complicated, rapidly changing and widespread nature of an entire economy simply cannot be planned, especially not through "voting" or "workers' councils." (Sure, there have been small communes, but most of them have been failures and all of them have had to leech off of the capitalist system for survival.) To think otherwise is utopian and downright religious...certainly not scientific in any sense of the word. Capitalistic businesses exist on every corner of practically every country--we know that they work. Anarcho-leftie societies do not exist anywhere, because they can't possibly sustain any large, free, heterogeneous group of people.
What market anarchists understand is that wishing for a certain society doesn't make it possible. While I don't like quoting Ayn Rand, she was right when she said, "facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." Socialism and planned economies will always fail miserably, regardless of how many brainy intellectuals, do-gooders, or crackpot theorists wish otherwise. This is a matter of simple science.
The next time you're at the grocery store, be thankful you're not under a planned economy.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Block and Huebert's Horrid Article On Long
I don't agree with everything Roderick Long wrote in his Cato Unbound article, but Block and Huebert's response to it is just plain awful.
They begin the article by claiming "There is no such thing as corporate power." Ain't that a relief?
Long writes that "Corporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace."
But what does he mean by "corporate power"? A corporation is merely a group of individuals who have entered into a particular type of business relationship. The corporate form allows them to be known collectively by their business's name instead of their own names. And it allows them to enter into contracts under which they limit their own liability – something which is perfectly legitimate under libertarianism. (Objectivist historian Robert Hessen has made this point well in his book, In Defense of the Corporation, and see our article, "Defending Corporations," forthcoming in the Cumberland Law Review.)
The corporation, therefore, has no power to speak of.
Instead, only the state has power.
Any idiot can tell you "corporate power" means. In a nutshell, it's the ability of corporations to make people accept shitty jobs and products.
Yes, only the state has (coercive) power. But it is that power that leads to corporations having power. That's all that Long was pointing out, so they seem to be admitting he's right.
There is nothing special or different about government privileges for corporations – so why does Long single them out?
Yes, there's nothing at all especially significant about the about Blackwater, Halliburton, the corporatist Fed, etc. Move along, folks! Nothing to see here. Oh, and try not to wince while taking it up the ass.
They deny that there's anything at all suspicious about Wal-Mart getting huge tax breaks that other companies don't get.
It might be otherwise if corporations avoided taxes while actively urging the government to tax its competitors – but Long doesn't mention that.
Of course not! For they would never, ever lobby for that kind of thing.
Right?
At the outset, we will concede that Wal-Mart has been guilty of some serious wrongdoing over the course of its existence. For example, it sometimes has used eminent domain to take land for its stores, which is inexcusable. Also, it for a time favored the minimum wage law. See here Lew Rockwell’s incisive critique of Wal-Mart’s fall from grace in this regard.
Yes, Wal-Mart has indeed been responsible for "some" serious wrongdoing. They receive an obscene amount of subsidies, steal other people's land, and have a thing for slave labor. An April 2005 Strike-the-Root article chronicled some of Wal-Mart's lust for statism, concluding:
...it seems Wal-Mart, with its blatant government coercion, pork, and bribes, has little or nothing to do with the free market, but could be the poster child for state capitalism.
What is so funny is that Block and Huebert link to Rockwell's article on how Wal-Mart supported a minimum wage increase to wipe out smaller competitors through state violence. But not long before this, they implied Wal-Mart would be unlikely to "[urge] the government to tax its competitors."
Now, it's undeniable that most of the people who hate Wal-Mart are a bunch of whiners who hate success, and that it definitely took a large degree of skill for it to get the point it's at now. And when I need a bunch of cheap crap, it's the first place I'll stop. But to cherish it as some heroic exemplar of the "free market" is worse than a joke.
Look, when (some) left-libertarians make asinine predictions or embrace Luddism (consciously or not), there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. I do it all the time, often just to see if any of them will respond in an entertaining fashion. But this article goes overboard and confirms a lot of the worst stereotypes about "right-libertarians."
They begin the article by claiming "There is no such thing as corporate power." Ain't that a relief?
Long writes that "Corporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace."
But what does he mean by "corporate power"? A corporation is merely a group of individuals who have entered into a particular type of business relationship. The corporate form allows them to be known collectively by their business's name instead of their own names. And it allows them to enter into contracts under which they limit their own liability – something which is perfectly legitimate under libertarianism. (Objectivist historian Robert Hessen has made this point well in his book, In Defense of the Corporation, and see our article, "Defending Corporations," forthcoming in the Cumberland Law Review.)
The corporation, therefore, has no power to speak of.
Instead, only the state has power.
Any idiot can tell you "corporate power" means. In a nutshell, it's the ability of corporations to make people accept shitty jobs and products.
Yes, only the state has (coercive) power. But it is that power that leads to corporations having power. That's all that Long was pointing out, so they seem to be admitting he's right.
There is nothing special or different about government privileges for corporations – so why does Long single them out?
Yes, there's nothing at all especially significant about the about Blackwater, Halliburton, the corporatist Fed, etc. Move along, folks! Nothing to see here. Oh, and try not to wince while taking it up the ass.
They deny that there's anything at all suspicious about Wal-Mart getting huge tax breaks that other companies don't get.
It might be otherwise if corporations avoided taxes while actively urging the government to tax its competitors – but Long doesn't mention that.
Of course not! For they would never, ever lobby for that kind of thing.
Right?
At the outset, we will concede that Wal-Mart has been guilty of some serious wrongdoing over the course of its existence. For example, it sometimes has used eminent domain to take land for its stores, which is inexcusable. Also, it for a time favored the minimum wage law. See here Lew Rockwell’s incisive critique of Wal-Mart’s fall from grace in this regard.
Yes, Wal-Mart has indeed been responsible for "some" serious wrongdoing. They receive an obscene amount of subsidies, steal other people's land, and have a thing for slave labor. An April 2005 Strike-the-Root article chronicled some of Wal-Mart's lust for statism, concluding:
...it seems Wal-Mart, with its blatant government coercion, pork, and bribes, has little or nothing to do with the free market, but could be the poster child for state capitalism.
What is so funny is that Block and Huebert link to Rockwell's article on how Wal-Mart supported a minimum wage increase to wipe out smaller competitors through state violence. But not long before this, they implied Wal-Mart would be unlikely to "[urge] the government to tax its competitors."
Now, it's undeniable that most of the people who hate Wal-Mart are a bunch of whiners who hate success, and that it definitely took a large degree of skill for it to get the point it's at now. And when I need a bunch of cheap crap, it's the first place I'll stop. But to cherish it as some heroic exemplar of the "free market" is worse than a joke.
Look, when (some) left-libertarians make asinine predictions or embrace Luddism (consciously or not), there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. I do it all the time, often just to see if any of them will respond in an entertaining fashion. But this article goes overboard and confirms a lot of the worst stereotypes about "right-libertarians."
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Mike Huben's Totalitarian, Horrifying Vision
If I had a nickel for every time a statist, right-winger, or milquetoast liberal linked me to Mike Huben's torturously boring Critiques of Libertarianism, I would be even more wealthy than the plutocrats Huben shills for.
Libertarians, according to Huben, are wrong. On literally everything. In his warped mind, there isn't a single issue on which libertarians are right, or even partially right. A quick perusal through his site makes that pretty clear. Huben is a hysterical and uncritical cheerleader for every police-state measure in the book: the war on drugs, gun control, corporate welfare, legislation of morality, socialized medicine, the abolition of free trade, and so on.
Eventually, one has to stop looking at his site and ask, "Ok, so you believe libertarians are 100% completely wrong on absolutely everything. What would your ideal society look like, then?"
Criticizing stuff is easy; solutions tend to be the tricky part (especially for third-rate thinkers like Huben). Unsurprisingly, he does not put forth many positive views of his own for other people to criticize. That doesn't mean we can't look at his views and ask: what would a Mike Huben society look like?
A Mike Huben society would be a brutal dictatorship, pure and simple. It would be run strictly from the top down (by Huben himself, of course). Civil liberties would not exist. Free speech would not exist. Liberty would not exist. You would wake up in the morning, get in a bread line, and try not to make eye contact with the trigger-happy guards spying from the watch towers. Every tiny moment of your life would be watched, regulated, and micromanaged at gun point. You would be asked for "your papers" at the appropriate check points. "Back talk" would get you a one-way ticket to the nearest Huben-approved gulag or concentration camp. Hitler and Stalin? Pikers. Amateurs. Too libertarian for Huben.
Does that really sound like an appealing society to live in? It sure doesn't to me. But then again, I'm not a big fan of totalitarianism.
Libertarians, according to Huben, are wrong. On literally everything. In his warped mind, there isn't a single issue on which libertarians are right, or even partially right. A quick perusal through his site makes that pretty clear. Huben is a hysterical and uncritical cheerleader for every police-state measure in the book: the war on drugs, gun control, corporate welfare, legislation of morality, socialized medicine, the abolition of free trade, and so on.
Eventually, one has to stop looking at his site and ask, "Ok, so you believe libertarians are 100% completely wrong on absolutely everything. What would your ideal society look like, then?"
Criticizing stuff is easy; solutions tend to be the tricky part (especially for third-rate thinkers like Huben). Unsurprisingly, he does not put forth many positive views of his own for other people to criticize. That doesn't mean we can't look at his views and ask: what would a Mike Huben society look like?
A Mike Huben society would be a brutal dictatorship, pure and simple. It would be run strictly from the top down (by Huben himself, of course). Civil liberties would not exist. Free speech would not exist. Liberty would not exist. You would wake up in the morning, get in a bread line, and try not to make eye contact with the trigger-happy guards spying from the watch towers. Every tiny moment of your life would be watched, regulated, and micromanaged at gun point. You would be asked for "your papers" at the appropriate check points. "Back talk" would get you a one-way ticket to the nearest Huben-approved gulag or concentration camp. Hitler and Stalin? Pikers. Amateurs. Too libertarian for Huben.
Does that really sound like an appealing society to live in? It sure doesn't to me. But then again, I'm not a big fan of totalitarianism.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Hierarchy vs. the Alternatives: A Response to Francois Tremblay
So Francois Tremblay has a new post up called Why hierarchies are immoral. To his credit, he at least attempts to define and explain "hierarchy," which virtually no left-anarchist ever attempts to do.
He still doesn't make much of a compelling case. Like most leftists, he is big on criticism but not so big on solutions. However, the act of criticizing something is pointless without offering actual alternatives. Francois never really discusses what the alternatives would be to the hierarchies he loathes, so we will discuss them here.
He starts off on the right track:
Government is the most acknowledged and the most demonstrative hierarchy. With pomp and circumstance, we elect presidents, prime minister, or crown kings, but we know that most of the power is vested in gigantic bureaucracies and agencies fighting a tug-of-war for resources and laws. The ordinary citizen-subject, who is subject to whoever wins, is the inferior. The aim of governments is the monopolization of a greater and greater amount of political power.
So far, so good. But as Walter Block has pointed out, the hierarchy of the state is different from the hierarchy of other institutions.
Libertarians oppose the initiation of coercion or the threat thereof, not hierarchy. Yes, all groups that violate the non-aggression axiom of libertarians are hierarchical. Governments, gangs, rapists, impose their will, by force, on their victims. They give orders. And yes, in all hierarchies, people at the top of the food chain give orders to those below them. But the difference, and this is crucial, is that the recipients of orders in the latter case have agreed to accept them, but this does not at all apply in the former case.
When the rapist orders the victim to carry out his commands, this is illegitimate hierarchy. When the conductor orders the cellist to do so, this is an aspect of legitimate hierarchy.
Bah! Time to overthrow the conductor and seize the means of production (that baton belongs us all, dammit)!
Ok, time to get serious again. What happens when you condemn all hierarchy, instead of just coercive hierarchy? Answer: batshit insanity. We can see this when we take a good look at what the alternatives would be to the hierarchical institutions Francois wants done away with.
We'll start with Francois' dismissal of capitalism.
Capitalism is the less acknowledged but just as important (if not more important) hierarchy. Here there is a clear distinction between the exploitative class of corporate managers and investors on the one hand, and their employee-subjects on the other hand, and also with the group of consumers (who are victims of the by-products of the activities of production). The aim of the capitalist hierarchies, generally big corporations, is profit.
So what is the alternative to capitalism? In the comment section, Kent McMaginal asks the question:
How could a large company (not a “corporation”) function if there is no one “in charge”?
I would never start a company and hire anyone if I couldn’t insist upon them doing the work they were hired to do. Or if they could decide they owned the company just because they worked there. That would pretty much limit companies to one person each.
So the first alternative is a luddite, primitivist economy--presumably with some form of state apparatus to ensure that it remains an impoverished hell-hole.
The only other alternative is communism, where a dictator (or "anarcho"-communist council, which is the same thing) would plan the economy at gun point. This is about as hierarchical as things get.
These are the alternatives to the "hierarchy" of capitalism. Any takers? I didn't think so.
Of course, I dispute the whole "capitalism is hierarchical control" argument in the first place. A poster at ASC explained this better than I can:
EVERYONE is self employed. Everyone who does something for which they receive monetary compensation is self-employed. Self-employed means offering your services to clients willing to pay, and getting a fee based on mutual agreement. When a "self-employed" plumber fixes your toilet for a fee, that act is fundamentally the same as when a "wage slave" offers his skills to a "boss" for a fee, aka a wage. He "bills" the boss an amount referred to as the wage. Put most succinctly: the rich have clients, the poor have bosses. It's the same damn thing.
Barry Loberfield also discusses this in his article, The Coercive Anarchism of Noam Chomsky.
He still doesn't make much of a compelling case. Like most leftists, he is big on criticism but not so big on solutions. However, the act of criticizing something is pointless without offering actual alternatives. Francois never really discusses what the alternatives would be to the hierarchies he loathes, so we will discuss them here.
He starts off on the right track:
Government is the most acknowledged and the most demonstrative hierarchy. With pomp and circumstance, we elect presidents, prime minister, or crown kings, but we know that most of the power is vested in gigantic bureaucracies and agencies fighting a tug-of-war for resources and laws. The ordinary citizen-subject, who is subject to whoever wins, is the inferior. The aim of governments is the monopolization of a greater and greater amount of political power.
So far, so good. But as Walter Block has pointed out, the hierarchy of the state is different from the hierarchy of other institutions.
Libertarians oppose the initiation of coercion or the threat thereof, not hierarchy. Yes, all groups that violate the non-aggression axiom of libertarians are hierarchical. Governments, gangs, rapists, impose their will, by force, on their victims. They give orders. And yes, in all hierarchies, people at the top of the food chain give orders to those below them. But the difference, and this is crucial, is that the recipients of orders in the latter case have agreed to accept them, but this does not at all apply in the former case.
When the rapist orders the victim to carry out his commands, this is illegitimate hierarchy. When the conductor orders the cellist to do so, this is an aspect of legitimate hierarchy.
Bah! Time to overthrow the conductor and seize the means of production (that baton belongs us all, dammit)!
Ok, time to get serious again. What happens when you condemn all hierarchy, instead of just coercive hierarchy? Answer: batshit insanity. We can see this when we take a good look at what the alternatives would be to the hierarchical institutions Francois wants done away with.
We'll start with Francois' dismissal of capitalism.
Capitalism is the less acknowledged but just as important (if not more important) hierarchy. Here there is a clear distinction between the exploitative class of corporate managers and investors on the one hand, and their employee-subjects on the other hand, and also with the group of consumers (who are victims of the by-products of the activities of production). The aim of the capitalist hierarchies, generally big corporations, is profit.
So what is the alternative to capitalism? In the comment section, Kent McMaginal asks the question:
How could a large company (not a “corporation”) function if there is no one “in charge”?
I would never start a company and hire anyone if I couldn’t insist upon them doing the work they were hired to do. Or if they could decide they owned the company just because they worked there. That would pretty much limit companies to one person each.
So the first alternative is a luddite, primitivist economy--presumably with some form of state apparatus to ensure that it remains an impoverished hell-hole.
The only other alternative is communism, where a dictator (or "anarcho"-communist council, which is the same thing) would plan the economy at gun point. This is about as hierarchical as things get.
These are the alternatives to the "hierarchy" of capitalism. Any takers? I didn't think so.
Of course, I dispute the whole "capitalism is hierarchical control" argument in the first place. A poster at ASC explained this better than I can:
EVERYONE is self employed. Everyone who does something for which they receive monetary compensation is self-employed. Self-employed means offering your services to clients willing to pay, and getting a fee based on mutual agreement. When a "self-employed" plumber fixes your toilet for a fee, that act is fundamentally the same as when a "wage slave" offers his skills to a "boss" for a fee, aka a wage. He "bills" the boss an amount referred to as the wage. Put most succinctly: the rich have clients, the poor have bosses. It's the same damn thing.
Barry Loberfield also discusses this in his article, The Coercive Anarchism of Noam Chomsky.
Let's move on to the other hierarchies Francois opposes.
Religions and cults are another major category of hierarchies. Although they are of course different, I classify them in the same group because their aims (primarily, thought control) and structures (authorities which are deemed “closer to God” or otherwise more holy) are generally similar.
As big of an atheist as I am, the solution to this is pretty simple: don't go to church!
Now, if Francois truly believes that hierarchy is immoral, he must believe it is morally justified to coercively prohibit these hierarchical institutions from forming. So I challenge him to:
1) Demand the compulsory abolition of churches (along with all the other hierarchies he opposes), and
2) Explain how this will be done without some form of hierarchical authority.
Parenting
Ok, so Francois is apparently against parenting. What is the alternative, then?
Are children going to be raised by wolves? I assume that would also be "hierarchy," so Francois would oppose that too.
Should parents drop their newborns off in a random place to let them fend for themselves, instead of raising them? Most would consider that to be child abuse. Child abuse is a big reason why some people oppose families, so that doesn't make much sense either.
schools
Schools would also not exist in the Tremblayan order (not much would, after all).
What would this mean? We would have a society of uneducated idiots and morons. We would not have doctors, engineers, scientists, or anyone else necessary for civlization.
We would starve to death. Pointlessly.
Let's be clear...
None of this is meant to imply that hierarchy is always a good thing. Many hierarchical institutions violate liberty.
But once you start on a crusade against all hierarchy (instead of coercive hierarchy), you are naturally going to have to oppose everyone and everything. I touched on this in a previous post:
...without the use of threat or coercion, nobody really is being "ruled" or "dominated." If your "submission" to an authority figure is voluntary, then it ceases to be domination.
Should libertarians battle S&M sex games, along with the state? How about asshole football coaches (some of the most authoritarian people on the planet)? Should libertarians fight against teachers, parents, and sports referees? Should we lead the fight against online message board moderators?
Consider the alternatives, and the whole thing reduces to absurdity.
Friday, September 26, 2008
My Debate (Well, Sort Of) With SilentRadical
This is an older debate I had over left-anarchism and market anarchism, and I felt I'd post it just for the hell of it. Much of it takes place in the comment sections to these posts. (Obviously, I've dropped the left-Rothbardian label since, because I think it has been perverted.)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Saturday, September 6, 2008
"Why are you so obsessed with economics? Isn't there more to life?"
The question is one that social anarchists commonly hurl at market anarchists: "Isn't there more to life than economics? Why do you care so much about it?"
The fact of the matter is that human beings cannot survive without a viable economic system. It is a life or death matter. What are some of the possible consequences of having a flawed economic system? Mass starvation, waste of resources, bread lines, unemployment, worthless money, fear, panic, chaos, and even civil warfare.
Economics determines nearly everything, including whether you get to put food in your mouth tomorrow. It is not something that can be toyed with at whim, or sculpted according to one's delusions or "feelings." A system that is not based on sensible economics is not one that will last. It is VERY dangerous to not take economics seriously.
Social "anarchists" can sneer all they want. They can revolt against reality all they want. But they have no idea how good they really have it. Most of them are spoiled brats and know-nothings who will never have to know the horrors of living under a system without some degree of capitalism. They take it for granted that they're able to make a quick drive to the store when they need something, instead of having to plan it out months in advance in some anarcho-syndickalips council.
Sometimes starvation and suffering are the only ways to change the minds of people who are willfully ignorant. But in my opinion, few people become radical lefties because they actually give a rat's ass about the poor or working class. (In fact, they mock and viciously ridicule them on a regular basis, calling them "rednecks," "retards," "hicks," "small town scum," "trailer trash," and so on.)
They want to be in the Cool Club so they can pretend to be smarter than the rest of us. This is common in social "anarchist" circles. They want to hold esoteric beliefs and act like they know something the rest of us don't (when they don't). They think they're awfully clever and enjoy watching us try to figure out what the hell is going their heads. "A bunch of vacuous drivel" is the answer, most of the time. As long as they can feel wise for knowing The Truth, that's all that matters to them.
They are starved for attention, and want to get "street cred" for being in the Cool Club (the leftist club). They have the need to be part of the protestors, academics, and critics of "big business." Because it's hip as fuck!
Or at least they think it's hip. It's really just lame, cliched, and idiotic. Their whole crusade is just so obvious and childish that it's laughable. I don't think any more highly of someone because he or she is a radical leftist. In fact, I tend to think such a person is either delusional or going through some stupid phase he'll be embarrassed about when he gets older.
So they aren't interested in "what works" or "what's sane." They just want to be left-wing because it "feels good." And who would want to worry about reality when they can just believe a bunch of horseshit that makes them feel good?
The fact of the matter is that human beings cannot survive without a viable economic system. It is a life or death matter. What are some of the possible consequences of having a flawed economic system? Mass starvation, waste of resources, bread lines, unemployment, worthless money, fear, panic, chaos, and even civil warfare.
Economics determines nearly everything, including whether you get to put food in your mouth tomorrow. It is not something that can be toyed with at whim, or sculpted according to one's delusions or "feelings." A system that is not based on sensible economics is not one that will last. It is VERY dangerous to not take economics seriously.
Social "anarchists" can sneer all they want. They can revolt against reality all they want. But they have no idea how good they really have it. Most of them are spoiled brats and know-nothings who will never have to know the horrors of living under a system without some degree of capitalism. They take it for granted that they're able to make a quick drive to the store when they need something, instead of having to plan it out months in advance in some anarcho-syndickalips council.
Sometimes starvation and suffering are the only ways to change the minds of people who are willfully ignorant. But in my opinion, few people become radical lefties because they actually give a rat's ass about the poor or working class. (In fact, they mock and viciously ridicule them on a regular basis, calling them "rednecks," "retards," "hicks," "small town scum," "trailer trash," and so on.)
They want to be in the Cool Club so they can pretend to be smarter than the rest of us. This is common in social "anarchist" circles. They want to hold esoteric beliefs and act like they know something the rest of us don't (when they don't). They think they're awfully clever and enjoy watching us try to figure out what the hell is going their heads. "A bunch of vacuous drivel" is the answer, most of the time. As long as they can feel wise for knowing The Truth, that's all that matters to them.
They are starved for attention, and want to get "street cred" for being in the Cool Club (the leftist club). They have the need to be part of the protestors, academics, and critics of "big business." Because it's hip as fuck!
Or at least they think it's hip. It's really just lame, cliched, and idiotic. Their whole crusade is just so obvious and childish that it's laughable. I don't think any more highly of someone because he or she is a radical leftist. In fact, I tend to think such a person is either delusional or going through some stupid phase he'll be embarrassed about when he gets older.
So they aren't interested in "what works" or "what's sane." They just want to be left-wing because it "feels good." And who would want to worry about reality when they can just believe a bunch of horseshit that makes them feel good?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Through Thick and Thin
So it turns out that Charles Johnson has written a very good article on thick and thin libertarians. For the record, I agree with most of Johnson's personal views, but think he fails to make a case that libertarians should battle all of these other things along with statism.
He argues for a thick libertarianism that opposes
authoritarianism, not only as enforced by governments
but also as expressed in culture, business, the family, and
civil society.
His argument is basically that libertarians should oppose all forms of authoritarianism, even those based on voluntary association, because they encourage statism.
Whatever reasons you may have for
rejecting the arrogant claims of power-hungry politicians
and bureaucrats—say, for example, the Jeffersonian
notion that all men and women are born equal in political
authority and that no one has a natural right to rule
or dominate other people’s affairs—probably serve just
as well for reasons to reject other kinds of authoritarian
pretension, even if they are not expressed by means of
coercive government action.
The problem I have with Johnson's argument is that without the use of threat or coercion, nobody really is being "ruled" or "dominated." If your "submission" to an authority figure is voluntary, then it ceases to be domination.
Should libertarians battle S&M sex games, along with the state? How about asshole football coaches (some of the most authoritarian people on the planet)? Should libertarians fight against teachers, parents, and sports referees? Should we lead the fight against online message board moderators?
Every job in a free market economy involves "submission" to a consumer or client. Should we battle that too, along with the state? Where does it end?
Even in a completely free
society, everyone could, in principle, still voluntarily
agree to bow and scrape and speak only when spoken
to in the presence of the (mutually agreed-on) town
chief, or unthinkingly agree to obey
whatever restrictions and regulations
he tells them to follow in their own
business or personal lives, or agree to
give him as much in voluntary “taxes”
on their income or property as he
might ask. So long as the expectation
of submission and the demands for
wealth to be rendered were backed
up only by verbal harangues, cultural
glorifications of the wise and virtuous
authorities, social ostracism of
“unruly” dissenters, and so on, these
demands would violate no one’s individual
rights to liberty or property.
He's right. They wouldn't (in fact, it sounds a lot like any arrangement with a landlord). So why does it matter? I'm an atheist, but I don't have any problem not going to church, despite the level of social pressure that exists. If you're not forced to participate, what's it to ya?
Will it make people more likely to accept statism/coercion? I don't see why it would, unless there is coercion involved. One can accept submission to someone else without accepting coercion (as Johnson himself admits). So why would it necessarily make people accept statism?
He asks us to
think of the feminist criticism of the traditional division
between the “private” and the “political” sphere, and of
those who divide the spheres in such a way that pervasive,
systemic violence and coercion within families turn
out to be justified, or excused, or simply ignored as
something “private” and therefore less than a serious
form of violent oppression.
Of course, no libertarian believes that violence in families is a "private" matter. It is aggression, obviously. So what's Johnson's point? Is this supposed to make thick libertarianism somehow different from ordinary libertarianism? Because it sounds a lot like plain libertarianism to me.
Now, I'm not against the idea that the non-aggression principle itself is insufficient to run society. For instance, I think that if everyone in a libertarian society decided to shoot heroin, throw orgies, and perform Satanic rituals with voluntary victims all day long, the society would become chaotic. It would also encourage people to create a nanny state to preserve order.
But without coercion as a guide, it is awfully vague what counts as an "authoritarian" institution, and Johnson's article seems to lead to the "modal libertarian" type of thinking discussed by Rothbard, in which one just blindly revolts against everyone and everything, while the state becomes less and less of a concern. This type of thinking is prevalent at sites like Infoshop and RevLeft.
Another problem is the more "thick" you make your libertarianism, the less people will come on board. Hell, just look at Objectivism. It's very thick, and it's a freakin' death cult as a result. 'Nuff said? You run the risk of alienating more people than you convert, which defeats the entire point of having a 'thick' libertarianism in the first place.
If it gets less people to accept libertarianism, how can it be a boon to libertarianism?
I am a big fan of Charles Johnson's work but ambivalent about this whole thick-libertarianism thing..
He argues for a thick libertarianism that opposes
authoritarianism, not only as enforced by governments
but also as expressed in culture, business, the family, and
civil society.
His argument is basically that libertarians should oppose all forms of authoritarianism, even those based on voluntary association, because they encourage statism.
Whatever reasons you may have for
rejecting the arrogant claims of power-hungry politicians
and bureaucrats—say, for example, the Jeffersonian
notion that all men and women are born equal in political
authority and that no one has a natural right to rule
or dominate other people’s affairs—probably serve just
as well for reasons to reject other kinds of authoritarian
pretension, even if they are not expressed by means of
coercive government action.
The problem I have with Johnson's argument is that without the use of threat or coercion, nobody really is being "ruled" or "dominated." If your "submission" to an authority figure is voluntary, then it ceases to be domination.
Should libertarians battle S&M sex games, along with the state? How about asshole football coaches (some of the most authoritarian people on the planet)? Should libertarians fight against teachers, parents, and sports referees? Should we lead the fight against online message board moderators?
Every job in a free market economy involves "submission" to a consumer or client. Should we battle that too, along with the state? Where does it end?
Even in a completely free
society, everyone could, in principle, still voluntarily
agree to bow and scrape and speak only when spoken
to in the presence of the (mutually agreed-on) town
chief, or unthinkingly agree to obey
whatever restrictions and regulations
he tells them to follow in their own
business or personal lives, or agree to
give him as much in voluntary “taxes”
on their income or property as he
might ask. So long as the expectation
of submission and the demands for
wealth to be rendered were backed
up only by verbal harangues, cultural
glorifications of the wise and virtuous
authorities, social ostracism of
“unruly” dissenters, and so on, these
demands would violate no one’s individual
rights to liberty or property.
He's right. They wouldn't (in fact, it sounds a lot like any arrangement with a landlord). So why does it matter? I'm an atheist, but I don't have any problem not going to church, despite the level of social pressure that exists. If you're not forced to participate, what's it to ya?
Will it make people more likely to accept statism/coercion? I don't see why it would, unless there is coercion involved. One can accept submission to someone else without accepting coercion (as Johnson himself admits). So why would it necessarily make people accept statism?
He asks us to
think of the feminist criticism of the traditional division
between the “private” and the “political” sphere, and of
those who divide the spheres in such a way that pervasive,
systemic violence and coercion within families turn
out to be justified, or excused, or simply ignored as
something “private” and therefore less than a serious
form of violent oppression.
Of course, no libertarian believes that violence in families is a "private" matter. It is aggression, obviously. So what's Johnson's point? Is this supposed to make thick libertarianism somehow different from ordinary libertarianism? Because it sounds a lot like plain libertarianism to me.
Now, I'm not against the idea that the non-aggression principle itself is insufficient to run society. For instance, I think that if everyone in a libertarian society decided to shoot heroin, throw orgies, and perform Satanic rituals with voluntary victims all day long, the society would become chaotic. It would also encourage people to create a nanny state to preserve order.
But without coercion as a guide, it is awfully vague what counts as an "authoritarian" institution, and Johnson's article seems to lead to the "modal libertarian" type of thinking discussed by Rothbard, in which one just blindly revolts against everyone and everything, while the state becomes less and less of a concern. This type of thinking is prevalent at sites like Infoshop and RevLeft.
Another problem is the more "thick" you make your libertarianism, the less people will come on board. Hell, just look at Objectivism. It's very thick, and it's a freakin' death cult as a result. 'Nuff said? You run the risk of alienating more people than you convert, which defeats the entire point of having a 'thick' libertarianism in the first place.
If it gets less people to accept libertarianism, how can it be a boon to libertarianism?
I am a big fan of Charles Johnson's work but ambivalent about this whole thick-libertarianism thing..
Friday, August 29, 2008
Why "Gradualism" and "Pragmatism" Are Completely Worthless
Last night on Glenn Beck's program (don't worry, I only watched the YouTube--no way in hell I'm giving that putz higher ratings), Bob Barr, the "Libertarian" Party's candidate for dictator ("President") more or less declared war on the entire world. See here and here. He did so in the name of...you guessed it!..."pragmatism." "Evil doers" abroad will feel our wrath, said Barr.
What is an "evil doer?" Anyone who doesn't enjoy being gang raped by the US, Israel, or Georgia? Sometimes I wonder why I even bother...
Barr has often spoken of himself as a realist. Wayne Allyn Root, the "Libertarian" Party's candidate for Vice Dictator, has also spoken positively of realism and gradualism. Both have condemned "extremism."
What does "gradualism" amount to in practice? Begging on your knees like a fucking pathetic baby to implement tiny, pitiful, meaningless changes that will quickly be reversed (assuming that they are even put into place, which they won't be).
"Gradualism" simply doesn't achieve jack shit. Never has, never will. Can you imagine how successful the American revolutionaries would have been if they had called for a "gradualist" program of reducing the Crown's power by .001% per year? It's such a freaking pathetic joke that it's hysterical--especially to the ruling classes. "Sure, we'll cut your taxes by .01% per year! Oops, looks like we just raised them through the roof again. Maybe next year, chump." It's like dangling a lollipop in front of a kid, then moving it away when they try to grab it. Funny stuff! For the ruling class, it's just plain cute.
"We can't just get rid of half the government tomorrow!" cries the hysterical Beck (I'm paraphrasing). Well, just when the fuck can we get rid of it!? Should it be there or not? If not, then why the hell shouldn't we just get rid of it?
Imagine getting a headache (you probably already have one if you're a regular reader of this blog). You say to yourself, "I have an ibuprofen pill right here. My head hurts. When I take the pill, the pain will be gone. But I can't just get rid of the headache, just like that! That would be unrealistic! I had better just keep the headache."
That would be extremely stupid. But apparently, that is how Beck gets rid of his headaches. Anything else would be too "drastic" or "radical."
Gradualism is also worthless because nobody is motivated to work for small, measly changes that are ended in the blink of an eye. Again, would the American revolutionaries have been willing to fight and die for a microscopic decrease in taxes?
There is nothing more unrealistic than "realism" and "gradualism." Until libertarians learn to stop pussyfooting around, we'll never get anywhere. Really guys, it's a joke. What will all the gradualism and reformism get Barr and the "Libertarian" party? A lost election, and an even more thuggish usurper ("president") than the last gaining power. A real success, that "gradualism" is. Let's hear it for gradualism and realism! Woot!
What is an "evil doer?" Anyone who doesn't enjoy being gang raped by the US, Israel, or Georgia? Sometimes I wonder why I even bother...
Barr has often spoken of himself as a realist. Wayne Allyn Root, the "Libertarian" Party's candidate for Vice Dictator, has also spoken positively of realism and gradualism. Both have condemned "extremism."
What does "gradualism" amount to in practice? Begging on your knees like a fucking pathetic baby to implement tiny, pitiful, meaningless changes that will quickly be reversed (assuming that they are even put into place, which they won't be).
"Gradualism" simply doesn't achieve jack shit. Never has, never will. Can you imagine how successful the American revolutionaries would have been if they had called for a "gradualist" program of reducing the Crown's power by .001% per year? It's such a freaking pathetic joke that it's hysterical--especially to the ruling classes. "Sure, we'll cut your taxes by .01% per year! Oops, looks like we just raised them through the roof again. Maybe next year, chump." It's like dangling a lollipop in front of a kid, then moving it away when they try to grab it. Funny stuff! For the ruling class, it's just plain cute.
"We can't just get rid of half the government tomorrow!" cries the hysterical Beck (I'm paraphrasing). Well, just when the fuck can we get rid of it!? Should it be there or not? If not, then why the hell shouldn't we just get rid of it?
Imagine getting a headache (you probably already have one if you're a regular reader of this blog). You say to yourself, "I have an ibuprofen pill right here. My head hurts. When I take the pill, the pain will be gone. But I can't just get rid of the headache, just like that! That would be unrealistic! I had better just keep the headache."
That would be extremely stupid. But apparently, that is how Beck gets rid of his headaches. Anything else would be too "drastic" or "radical."
Gradualism is also worthless because nobody is motivated to work for small, measly changes that are ended in the blink of an eye. Again, would the American revolutionaries have been willing to fight and die for a microscopic decrease in taxes?
There is nothing more unrealistic than "realism" and "gradualism." Until libertarians learn to stop pussyfooting around, we'll never get anywhere. Really guys, it's a joke. What will all the gradualism and reformism get Barr and the "Libertarian" party? A lost election, and an even more thuggish usurper ("president") than the last gaining power. A real success, that "gradualism" is. Let's hear it for gradualism and realism! Woot!
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Why I Am Not a Mutualist
Mutualism, particularly its Tuckerite branch, has fascinated me since my discovery of it several years ago. Why is it so fascinating to me? Because it is widely regarded by scholars as a leftist branch of free-market libertarianism. It’s genuinely left-wing…but it’s still free market libertarianism/anarchism. Who the hell doesn’t want to jump on that bandwagon? Where do I sign up?
Unfortunately, the more I looked into and thought about it, the more I began to realize why Rothbard created anarcho-capitalism in the first place. Mutualism is a confusing, dated, convoluted mess of a political philosophy with very dubious positions on economics. (I'm not going to spend much time on the labor theory of value, since it has been done elsewhere.)
“Syndical Syndrom:” Rothbard’s Critique of Mutualism
Most market anarchists are familiar with Rothbard’s critique of some Mutualist ideas in The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist’s View. Less are aware of his critique in Syndical Syndrom, which in my opinion is a far better article. Excerpt:
In free-market capitalism, there have never been
any restrictions on workers banding together in producers'
coops to own their own capital equipment. And yet, in the
free economy, producers' coops have been notorious by
their non-existence, or rapid failure in competition with
'capitalist" firms. The reason is that, unknown to the
economically ignorant syndicalists, the capitalists perform
an extremely important service to the workers, as a
result of which most people prefer to be hired by capitalists
rather than be self or cooperatively employed. The
two basic functions are those of the "capitalist" per se
and those of the "entrepreneur". As a capitalist, the employer
saves money from his possible consumption, and
invests the money in paying workers their income in advance
of sale of product. In an automobile factory, the
capitalist pays workers their weekly wages now; in a producers'
cooperative factory, the workers would have to go
without income for months or years, until their product is
finally sold to the consumers. The capitalist earning of
"interest" for this advance payment is precisely equivalent
to the creditor who earns interest by lending someone
money now while being repaid at some point in the future.
In both cases, "interest" is earned as payment for savings
and time preference for income now rather than waiting
for the future.
The second service performed by the employer is to
assume the significant risks of entrepreneurship. A producers'
cooperative firm invests resources in a product,
and then hopes to sell that product to the consumers at a
net profit. But suppose that the efficiency and the foresight
of the workers is minimal; suppose, in short, that
they produce an Edsel that fails to sell? If they do, their
income is negative rather than positive, and they lose
capital assets which they can scarcely afford. In the
capitalist economy, the employer assumes these capital
risks, and only he therefore is subject to monetary losses
if his product is inefficiently produced or if he cannot achieve
satisfactory sales.
Most workers are unwilling or unable to assume these
risks of entrepreneurship, and therefore they greet the
employer's willingness to do so, as well as to pay them
in advance of sales, with sighs of relief. Or would if they
understood the process. We can confidently predict that
if Yugoslavia ever allows full-scale capitalist employment
(as it does now for small-scale enterprise) that its
producers' coops will rapidly give way to orthodox "capitalist"
modes of production - to the benefit of all concerned.
These are striking blows, IMO, to the mutualist position on rent, interest, and profit. How exactly are people going to survive when they have to wait YEARS to get paid? How many people have the money to invest in, say, a new airline, even if they wanted to? Without profit, I don't even see how modern retailers or wholesalers could exist. The mutualist answer to this argument has been mostly unimpressive. Kevin Carson's response:
Time preference is not a constant. It is skewed much more to the present for a laborer without independent access to the means of production, or to subsistence or security. Even the vulgar political economists recognized that the degree of poverty among the laboring classes determined their level of wages, and hence the level of profit.
Ok, fair enough, so state intervention and social standing are obviously going to impact one's time preference to some extent. But does anyone seriously believe that interest and profit are going to fall to zero!? Or that everyone is going to happily wait for months or years to get paid?
Even modern anti-capitalist individualist anarchists are a little queasy about these positions:
Benjamin Tucker, a 19th Century individualist anarchist, and perhaps the most famous individualist anarchist of all, at one point, thought that not only ownership of land, but also all rent, business profits, and interest were wrong, and their victims should never be compelled to pay any of these, unless it was their choosing. He even thought that workers, renters, and lendees, who had once voluntarily agreed to respect these capitalist institutions, should later be able to go back and seek compensation for the wrongs done to them.
Today, with more developed economic theory, this doesn't seem to make so much sense -- if you prohibit all rent, profit, and interest, what will most likely happen is nobody will rent, lend, or make capital investments, and the poor will simply not be able to obtain housing, money, or physical capital to work with.
Another critique of the Mutualist position echoes Rothbard:
In a given anarcho-socialist business, production is owned entirely by those who worked upon the capital (for they own the capital,) and is presumably sold in some form of market.
Given that no one would give capital to an anarcho-socialist business for free, and given that no one can invest in an anarcho-socialist business for they can gain no return, therefore to gain employment workers must be forced to contribute capital. Which means that workers without capital are in an irresolvable situation, for they can neither gain employment nor capital, unless some charitable person were to grant them capital for free. A loan of capital to the worker is out of the question, for consider; the creditor purchases capital upon which the worker is employed, the creditor takes some of the production in return, which is no different from capitalist investment!, and this holds true even if the loan is issued by their future co-workers.
All workers must invest capital, and their remuneration must be commensurate with the amount that they invest; for any other would be grossly unfair. Workers however do different types of work, for different durations, requiring different skills. remuneration must also be commensurate with the type of work they do. Given that the remuneration, or ownership of production if you like, is dependent upon the level of investment and of work, both of which vary, why not allow people to invest and do no work, as per capitalism? And this brings to light the false distinction, for anarcho-socialism contains the capitalist element of capitalism, just that investors must work on their capital, which seems to me -- utterly stupid. Any level set by law which determines whether an individual investor is really ‘a worker’ or ‘an evil capitalist’ will be an arbitrary ratio between the level of investment and the level of work contributed. Now, the judgment by members of a business as whether to employ an additional co-worker will depend not only on the skills of the particular worker, the amount of remuneration relative to their contributed work that they desire and the business can afford, but also the amount of capital which this particular worker can and wishes to contribute. Given that this is specific to the worker, and given that each business will have different needs for capital, there will be no market-price for any type of labor, and so no reliable guide.
By forbidding all investment where the capitalist does not also work on the capital, businesses can only gain investment by employing more people, and individuals cannot invest unless they work, which means they also cannot distribute risk in their investments.
Unlike in the capitalist system, workers must work without pay until the product is sold.
The results of an anarcho-socialist system are inevitable; substantially reduced investment, increased poverty.
Assume though that an anarcho-socialist system were viable, and that one day a former worker decides to invest his/her earnings, except that he/she does not wish to work upon capital. Consider though that he/she offers employment to someone working elsewhere in a similar line of work for an anarcho-socialist business, and that the offer includes; immediate pay, no requirement of investment and therefore no risk, and a higher wage, and that the product is sold at a lower price to consumers. This would be forbidden. Yet... what is so wrong about it that it requires legislation?
To be fair, I don't believe Kevin Carson or other Mutualists would "forbid" this. Yet, this just leads to the next part of my critique:
Mutualism and Wage Labor: The Contradiction That Just Won't Go Away
Confusingly, many Mutualists support/supported wage labor, despite their opposition to profit. Huh!? That's right.
As Tucker put it,
...the minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labor, and then, when there will be nothing but labor with which to buy labor, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a laborer exchanging with fellow-laborers. Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism.
He also believed that...
When interest, rent, and profit disappear under the influence of free money, free land, and free trade, it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wage for their labor which free competition determines. Therefore they need not become their own employers.
Your average reader (whether a follower of Rothbard or Kropotkin or Marx) is now confused shitless. How, exactly, are you going to have wage labor without profit? Why in the world would you bother paying someone wages if you aren't hoping to see a return? It would defeat the entire point. A number of mutualists themselves (at least some on message boards and blogs) seem to think this is a contradiction.
The answer is even more confusing. Tucker wanted wages to absorb profits. In other words, he wanted wages to rise to the laborer's "full product." Don't worry, I don't understand it either.
Nobody in the real world is going to put that much effort and risk into a project, just to let some schmuck off the street get the profits. Again, that would defeat the entire point of hiring someone.
If there is an answer to this contradiction, I haven't heard it.
"Occupancy and Use"? Maybe in the 19th Century.
Mutualists believe private property in land should be run on an "occupancy and use" basis. The problems with this are enormous.
If we followed this "occupancy and use" thing consistently, we would no longer have hotels, college dorms, or even parking spaces. Life would become extremely inconvenient. All companies that expanded beyond one building would not be able to operate. How a highway road would operate without being owned by someone is anyone's guess. And god help you if you want to go on a vacation (or not own a home).
D. Burton (again) is also skeptical of how well this would work today.
..individualist anarchists have traditionally opposed the unlimited ownership of land, especially absentee ownership, for the purpose of passively collecting rent. In the 19th Century, the main idea was some kind of squatter sovereignty, in which individuals only had a right to land while they were using it. Any unused land was free for someone else to claim. That made a lot of sense in the frontier-type situation of 19th Century America. Today, there is a lot more complex and innovative though to deal with space constraints and environmental issues.
Out With The Old, In With The New
Most individualist anarchists today disagree with mutualism, but still find much to admire in it. I will admit that I greatly enjoy reading what Kevin Carson has to say, and that Tucker is one of my favorite anarchists. I may not always agree with their views, but I still find mutualism and old-school individualist anarchism to be quite fascinating.
To conclude, I'm going to cut and paste what I said in an earlier post:
Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, influenced by Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, retains most of their spirit but omits their silly ideas and errors (such as the labor theory of value, which nobody believes in anymore). In my opinion, it is simply a modernized form of market anarchism with the crap cut out. Does that put it outside of historical/classical anarchism a bit? Yes. Who cares?
Unfortunately, the more I looked into and thought about it, the more I began to realize why Rothbard created anarcho-capitalism in the first place. Mutualism is a confusing, dated, convoluted mess of a political philosophy with very dubious positions on economics. (I'm not going to spend much time on the labor theory of value, since it has been done elsewhere.)
“Syndical Syndrom:” Rothbard’s Critique of Mutualism
Most market anarchists are familiar with Rothbard’s critique of some Mutualist ideas in The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist’s View. Less are aware of his critique in Syndical Syndrom, which in my opinion is a far better article. Excerpt:
In free-market capitalism, there have never been
any restrictions on workers banding together in producers'
coops to own their own capital equipment. And yet, in the
free economy, producers' coops have been notorious by
their non-existence, or rapid failure in competition with
'capitalist" firms. The reason is that, unknown to the
economically ignorant syndicalists, the capitalists perform
an extremely important service to the workers, as a
result of which most people prefer to be hired by capitalists
rather than be self or cooperatively employed. The
two basic functions are those of the "capitalist" per se
and those of the "entrepreneur". As a capitalist, the employer
saves money from his possible consumption, and
invests the money in paying workers their income in advance
of sale of product. In an automobile factory, the
capitalist pays workers their weekly wages now; in a producers'
cooperative factory, the workers would have to go
without income for months or years, until their product is
finally sold to the consumers. The capitalist earning of
"interest" for this advance payment is precisely equivalent
to the creditor who earns interest by lending someone
money now while being repaid at some point in the future.
In both cases, "interest" is earned as payment for savings
and time preference for income now rather than waiting
for the future.
The second service performed by the employer is to
assume the significant risks of entrepreneurship. A producers'
cooperative firm invests resources in a product,
and then hopes to sell that product to the consumers at a
net profit. But suppose that the efficiency and the foresight
of the workers is minimal; suppose, in short, that
they produce an Edsel that fails to sell? If they do, their
income is negative rather than positive, and they lose
capital assets which they can scarcely afford. In the
capitalist economy, the employer assumes these capital
risks, and only he therefore is subject to monetary losses
if his product is inefficiently produced or if he cannot achieve
satisfactory sales.
Most workers are unwilling or unable to assume these
risks of entrepreneurship, and therefore they greet the
employer's willingness to do so, as well as to pay them
in advance of sales, with sighs of relief. Or would if they
understood the process. We can confidently predict that
if Yugoslavia ever allows full-scale capitalist employment
(as it does now for small-scale enterprise) that its
producers' coops will rapidly give way to orthodox "capitalist"
modes of production - to the benefit of all concerned.
These are striking blows, IMO, to the mutualist position on rent, interest, and profit. How exactly are people going to survive when they have to wait YEARS to get paid? How many people have the money to invest in, say, a new airline, even if they wanted to? Without profit, I don't even see how modern retailers or wholesalers could exist. The mutualist answer to this argument has been mostly unimpressive. Kevin Carson's response:
Time preference is not a constant. It is skewed much more to the present for a laborer without independent access to the means of production, or to subsistence or security. Even the vulgar political economists recognized that the degree of poverty among the laboring classes determined their level of wages, and hence the level of profit.
Ok, fair enough, so state intervention and social standing are obviously going to impact one's time preference to some extent. But does anyone seriously believe that interest and profit are going to fall to zero!? Or that everyone is going to happily wait for months or years to get paid?
Even modern anti-capitalist individualist anarchists are a little queasy about these positions:
Benjamin Tucker, a 19th Century individualist anarchist, and perhaps the most famous individualist anarchist of all, at one point, thought that not only ownership of land, but also all rent, business profits, and interest were wrong, and their victims should never be compelled to pay any of these, unless it was their choosing. He even thought that workers, renters, and lendees, who had once voluntarily agreed to respect these capitalist institutions, should later be able to go back and seek compensation for the wrongs done to them.
Today, with more developed economic theory, this doesn't seem to make so much sense -- if you prohibit all rent, profit, and interest, what will most likely happen is nobody will rent, lend, or make capital investments, and the poor will simply not be able to obtain housing, money, or physical capital to work with.
Another critique of the Mutualist position echoes Rothbard:
In a given anarcho-socialist business, production is owned entirely by those who worked upon the capital (for they own the capital,) and is presumably sold in some form of market.
Given that no one would give capital to an anarcho-socialist business for free, and given that no one can invest in an anarcho-socialist business for they can gain no return, therefore to gain employment workers must be forced to contribute capital. Which means that workers without capital are in an irresolvable situation, for they can neither gain employment nor capital, unless some charitable person were to grant them capital for free. A loan of capital to the worker is out of the question, for consider; the creditor purchases capital upon which the worker is employed, the creditor takes some of the production in return, which is no different from capitalist investment!, and this holds true even if the loan is issued by their future co-workers.
All workers must invest capital, and their remuneration must be commensurate with the amount that they invest; for any other would be grossly unfair. Workers however do different types of work, for different durations, requiring different skills. remuneration must also be commensurate with the type of work they do. Given that the remuneration, or ownership of production if you like, is dependent upon the level of investment and of work, both of which vary, why not allow people to invest and do no work, as per capitalism? And this brings to light the false distinction, for anarcho-socialism contains the capitalist element of capitalism, just that investors must work on their capital, which seems to me -- utterly stupid. Any level set by law which determines whether an individual investor is really ‘a worker’ or ‘an evil capitalist’ will be an arbitrary ratio between the level of investment and the level of work contributed. Now, the judgment by members of a business as whether to employ an additional co-worker will depend not only on the skills of the particular worker, the amount of remuneration relative to their contributed work that they desire and the business can afford, but also the amount of capital which this particular worker can and wishes to contribute. Given that this is specific to the worker, and given that each business will have different needs for capital, there will be no market-price for any type of labor, and so no reliable guide.
By forbidding all investment where the capitalist does not also work on the capital, businesses can only gain investment by employing more people, and individuals cannot invest unless they work, which means they also cannot distribute risk in their investments.
Unlike in the capitalist system, workers must work without pay until the product is sold.
The results of an anarcho-socialist system are inevitable; substantially reduced investment, increased poverty.
Assume though that an anarcho-socialist system were viable, and that one day a former worker decides to invest his/her earnings, except that he/she does not wish to work upon capital. Consider though that he/she offers employment to someone working elsewhere in a similar line of work for an anarcho-socialist business, and that the offer includes; immediate pay, no requirement of investment and therefore no risk, and a higher wage, and that the product is sold at a lower price to consumers. This would be forbidden. Yet... what is so wrong about it that it requires legislation?
To be fair, I don't believe Kevin Carson or other Mutualists would "forbid" this. Yet, this just leads to the next part of my critique:
Mutualism and Wage Labor: The Contradiction That Just Won't Go Away
Confusingly, many Mutualists support/supported wage labor, despite their opposition to profit. Huh!? That's right.
As Tucker put it,
...the minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labor, and then, when there will be nothing but labor with which to buy labor, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a laborer exchanging with fellow-laborers. Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism.
He also believed that...
When interest, rent, and profit disappear under the influence of free money, free land, and free trade, it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wage for their labor which free competition determines. Therefore they need not become their own employers.
Your average reader (whether a follower of Rothbard or Kropotkin or Marx) is now confused shitless. How, exactly, are you going to have wage labor without profit? Why in the world would you bother paying someone wages if you aren't hoping to see a return? It would defeat the entire point. A number of mutualists themselves (at least some on message boards and blogs) seem to think this is a contradiction.
The answer is even more confusing. Tucker wanted wages to absorb profits. In other words, he wanted wages to rise to the laborer's "full product." Don't worry, I don't understand it either.
Nobody in the real world is going to put that much effort and risk into a project, just to let some schmuck off the street get the profits. Again, that would defeat the entire point of hiring someone.
If there is an answer to this contradiction, I haven't heard it.
"Occupancy and Use"? Maybe in the 19th Century.
Mutualists believe private property in land should be run on an "occupancy and use" basis. The problems with this are enormous.
If we followed this "occupancy and use" thing consistently, we would no longer have hotels, college dorms, or even parking spaces. Life would become extremely inconvenient. All companies that expanded beyond one building would not be able to operate. How a highway road would operate without being owned by someone is anyone's guess. And god help you if you want to go on a vacation (or not own a home).
D. Burton (again) is also skeptical of how well this would work today.
..individualist anarchists have traditionally opposed the unlimited ownership of land, especially absentee ownership, for the purpose of passively collecting rent. In the 19th Century, the main idea was some kind of squatter sovereignty, in which individuals only had a right to land while they were using it. Any unused land was free for someone else to claim. That made a lot of sense in the frontier-type situation of 19th Century America. Today, there is a lot more complex and innovative though to deal with space constraints and environmental issues.
Out With The Old, In With The New
Most individualist anarchists today disagree with mutualism, but still find much to admire in it. I will admit that I greatly enjoy reading what Kevin Carson has to say, and that Tucker is one of my favorite anarchists. I may not always agree with their views, but I still find mutualism and old-school individualist anarchism to be quite fascinating.
To conclude, I'm going to cut and paste what I said in an earlier post:
Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, influenced by Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, retains most of their spirit but omits their silly ideas and errors (such as the labor theory of value, which nobody believes in anymore). In my opinion, it is simply a modernized form of market anarchism with the crap cut out. Does that put it outside of historical/classical anarchism a bit? Yes. Who cares?
Monday, August 18, 2008
A Critique of “Left-Libertarianism”
It seems that an increasing number of market anarchists out there are calling themselves “left-libertarians.” Their commentary can be found in the so-called Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, and information on why they have chosen this label can be found on the Alliance of the Libertarian Left website. In this post, I hope to counter and refute some of their common arguments for this label.
Before I begin, I need to give my own interpretation of the left-right spectrum. Obviously, there is a lot of grey area, meaning that plenty of people are going to ask me, “But what about [insert person/ideology that doesn’t fit well]?” I will do my best anyway.
The “left” has generally stood for egalitarianism, collectivism, and democracy.
The “right” has generally stood for individualism, free markets, and private property.
Yes, there are other attributes that usually go along with both sides, but these are the core ones. Fascism and Mutualism both muddy the waters a bit, but they are the exceptions to the rule. And obviously, it goes without saying that politicians of both the left and right don’t actually believe in any of the principles I’ve connected with their side. But this is about as good a definition of the left-right spectrum as one can come up with. So let’s get on with the arguments from the “left-libertarians.”
Market anarchism is historically left-wing, because of classical individualist anarchism. Therefore, we should consider ourselves left-wing as well.
What made the classical individualist anarchists “left-wing?” Their belief in the labor theory of value and the Marxist exploitation theory. They held that profits are theft from the workers, rent is theft from the tenants and so on. This is the only thing that made individualist anarchism “left-wing.” That being said, it is a lesser known “leftist” philosophy: a rarity, and a bit of a political enigma. (How the hell can you buy into the socialist exploitation theory but still endorse the free market?)
Modern market anarchists--anarcho-capitalists--don’t believe profit, interest, or rent are exploitative. In other words, modern market anarchists reject the only belief that made classical individualist anarchists (just barely) left-wing. Many, if not most, radical leftists do/would not accept individualist anarchists as “leftists.”
We should call ourselves “left-libertarians” to show our leftist stands on cultural issues.
While the left and right are usually affiliated with different stands on culture, I do not think cultural preferences are enough to determine where someone lies on the political spectrum. I consider economics to be the single most important factor, as do most people. A racist, misogynistic, ultra-patriotic socialist is still a left-winger (e.g., Proudhon). A pro-choice, pro-gay, secular conservative is still a right-winger (e.g., Andrew Sullivan).
We should call ourselves “left-libertarians” to show we are open to an “alliance” with the left.
Creating an alliance with the left is a godawful idea. Why? For several reasons:
1) They believe that private property should be abolished. Is it not pretty stupid to create an alliance with folks who are dead-set against the foundation of your political philosophy? Rothbard found this one out the hard way.
2) All leftists, especially the leftist anarchists, support drastically expanding the state’s power and stomping on the free market, in the name of “social justice.” In fact, it barely even makes sense that I made a whole new point for this, since it flows logically from point #1.
3) Like it or not, most libertarians are converted from the political right. How do I know? Common sense and personal experience. Lefties are a bunch of brain-dead, hysterical thugs who will never give up their futile class-war, free-everything bullshit.
We should call ourselves “left-libertarians” to show that we oppose the current system, including its unjust property titles.
Sure, we oppose the current system--as do Nazis, Leninists, etc.--and its many unjust property titles. Here we will assume, for the sake of argument, that it is humanly possible to rectify every unjust property title (in reality, it isn’t).
“Left-libertarians” tend to assume that once the unjust property titles are smoked out, the result will be large-scale redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. They overlook the fact that much of the wealth would in fact be taken from the poor and given to the rich (Which group is always having its wealth constantly redistributed to the other, by the state? In every country?).
In some cases, the poor would get more wealth, and in others, the rich would get more wealth. Wealth would be shifted around, but it would not necessarily result in a more egalitarian society.
This is all really a semantic dispute. Left-wing anarchists secretly support the free market and private property. Sure, they may demand the abolition of the free market and private property. But that is only because they define the free market as an un-free market and private property as statist property.
Honestly, this has to be the single most retarded argument made by “left-libertarians.” Left-wing anarchists define private property in the exact same way that market anarchists do. They also define the free market the exact same way that market anarchists do. Nobody with even a basic, slapdash knowledge of their literature, FAQs, or history would say otherwise. This is most definitely not some tiny debate over “semantics.”
Mutualists are not the same as anarcho-capitalists either. They oppose interest, rent, and profit. Again, this is not a “semantic dispute.” It is a difference in ideology, and a gigantic one.
Don’t use the word “capitalism.” It just causes confusion!
The only “confusion” being created is by “left-libertarians.” Capitalism is consistently defined as private ownership of the means of production in a free market (or some variation of that). And yes, that is exactly what left-anarchists are railing against when they rail against “capitalism.” They aren’t talking about state-capitalism, you idiots. Get over it.
Conclusion
If anarcho-capitalism is anywhere on the political spectrum, it's the Old Right (or libertarian Right).
Left-libertarianism is a bunch of crap. The name doesn’t even make sense, because “left-libertarian” is a synonym for “libertarian socialist.” I get the feeling that they just want to be “hip” or something.
In conclusion, the whole thing is silly.
Before I begin, I need to give my own interpretation of the left-right spectrum. Obviously, there is a lot of grey area, meaning that plenty of people are going to ask me, “But what about [insert person/ideology that doesn’t fit well]?” I will do my best anyway.
The “left” has generally stood for egalitarianism, collectivism, and democracy.
The “right” has generally stood for individualism, free markets, and private property.
Yes, there are other attributes that usually go along with both sides, but these are the core ones. Fascism and Mutualism both muddy the waters a bit, but they are the exceptions to the rule. And obviously, it goes without saying that politicians of both the left and right don’t actually believe in any of the principles I’ve connected with their side. But this is about as good a definition of the left-right spectrum as one can come up with. So let’s get on with the arguments from the “left-libertarians.”
Market anarchism is historically left-wing, because of classical individualist anarchism. Therefore, we should consider ourselves left-wing as well.
What made the classical individualist anarchists “left-wing?” Their belief in the labor theory of value and the Marxist exploitation theory. They held that profits are theft from the workers, rent is theft from the tenants and so on. This is the only thing that made individualist anarchism “left-wing.” That being said, it is a lesser known “leftist” philosophy: a rarity, and a bit of a political enigma. (How the hell can you buy into the socialist exploitation theory but still endorse the free market?)
Modern market anarchists--anarcho-capitalists--don’t believe profit, interest, or rent are exploitative. In other words, modern market anarchists reject the only belief that made classical individualist anarchists (just barely) left-wing. Many, if not most, radical leftists do/would not accept individualist anarchists as “leftists.”
We should call ourselves “left-libertarians” to show our leftist stands on cultural issues.
While the left and right are usually affiliated with different stands on culture, I do not think cultural preferences are enough to determine where someone lies on the political spectrum. I consider economics to be the single most important factor, as do most people. A racist, misogynistic, ultra-patriotic socialist is still a left-winger (e.g., Proudhon). A pro-choice, pro-gay, secular conservative is still a right-winger (e.g., Andrew Sullivan).
We should call ourselves “left-libertarians” to show we are open to an “alliance” with the left.
Creating an alliance with the left is a godawful idea. Why? For several reasons:
1) They believe that private property should be abolished. Is it not pretty stupid to create an alliance with folks who are dead-set against the foundation of your political philosophy? Rothbard found this one out the hard way.
2) All leftists, especially the leftist anarchists, support drastically expanding the state’s power and stomping on the free market, in the name of “social justice.” In fact, it barely even makes sense that I made a whole new point for this, since it flows logically from point #1.
3) Like it or not, most libertarians are converted from the political right. How do I know? Common sense and personal experience. Lefties are a bunch of brain-dead, hysterical thugs who will never give up their futile class-war, free-everything bullshit.
We should call ourselves “left-libertarians” to show that we oppose the current system, including its unjust property titles.
Sure, we oppose the current system--as do Nazis, Leninists, etc.--and its many unjust property titles. Here we will assume, for the sake of argument, that it is humanly possible to rectify every unjust property title (in reality, it isn’t).
“Left-libertarians” tend to assume that once the unjust property titles are smoked out, the result will be large-scale redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. They overlook the fact that much of the wealth would in fact be taken from the poor and given to the rich (Which group is always having its wealth constantly redistributed to the other, by the state? In every country?).
In some cases, the poor would get more wealth, and in others, the rich would get more wealth. Wealth would be shifted around, but it would not necessarily result in a more egalitarian society.
This is all really a semantic dispute. Left-wing anarchists secretly support the free market and private property. Sure, they may demand the abolition of the free market and private property. But that is only because they define the free market as an un-free market and private property as statist property.
Honestly, this has to be the single most retarded argument made by “left-libertarians.” Left-wing anarchists define private property in the exact same way that market anarchists do. They also define the free market the exact same way that market anarchists do. Nobody with even a basic, slapdash knowledge of their literature, FAQs, or history would say otherwise. This is most definitely not some tiny debate over “semantics.”
Mutualists are not the same as anarcho-capitalists either. They oppose interest, rent, and profit. Again, this is not a “semantic dispute.” It is a difference in ideology, and a gigantic one.
Don’t use the word “capitalism.” It just causes confusion!
The only “confusion” being created is by “left-libertarians.” Capitalism is consistently defined as private ownership of the means of production in a free market (or some variation of that). And yes, that is exactly what left-anarchists are railing against when they rail against “capitalism.” They aren’t talking about state-capitalism, you idiots. Get over it.
Conclusion
If anarcho-capitalism is anywhere on the political spectrum, it's the Old Right (or libertarian Right).
Left-libertarianism is a bunch of crap. The name doesn’t even make sense, because “left-libertarian” is a synonym for “libertarian socialist.” I get the feeling that they just want to be “hip” or something.
In conclusion, the whole thing is silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
%20torture(1).jpg)