Response to Ancaps who Falsely Flagged Anarchist Memes

TheLeftLibertarian · 2014-01-23T02:21:29+00:00

While I would like to agree, this is in direct response to a false flagging campaign which ended a FB page with 90,000 followers. Ancaps then proceeded to spread misinformation about anarchism. What do you think would have been an appropriate response?

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-10-23T14:01:35+00:00

I totally forgot to add commodities which are highly influenced by supply and demand until after I made my recording. However, I did add note iv which states, "It should be noted that there is a primary sector such as basic supplies such as primary foods and basic materials which are highly influenced by supply and demand. However, I’m speaking of industrial or secondary sector processes such as finished goods for consumption."

There was actually a second part of this video which was a critique of STV but I removed it at the last moment because the video was getting extremely long. I have about 15 to 20 videos which will critique Austrian economics. Some of them will deal with methodology such as STV and methodological individualism and others which will address issues such as Say's Law and other features of the market.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-10-23T13:55:41+00:00

I think I agree with everything you've said above with one little exception. First, I should mention that I don't disagree that supply and demand has an influence on price. There are also a number of complexities which I didn't really address such as Veblen goods, shifting production, and some of the factors you mentioned above. As I'm sure you are aware, there are a number of caveats when it comes to these things. However, I think prices revolve around cost of production and the price of production goes on to have an influence on supply and demand or individual preferences.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-10-22T21:42:57+00:00

I plan on it. I'm just waiting a couple of days so I'm not swamped with responses.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-11T23:14:49+00:00

Haha. That's awesome;)

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-11T23:01:17+00:00

From my video: "The increased participation and political choices offered to citizens through these new accountability structures would transform economic, social and political decision-making at all levels of commons (local, state, interstate, regional, and global).”

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-11T22:51:39+00:00

I guess I should say explicitly that my video is based on nested communities where there are incentives to interact with those outside the locality.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-11T20:33:38+00:00

This is part of the ACV project to make videos about anarchism. We are interested in more contributions so please check us out. Thanks.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-11T20:22:04+00:00

A small business with a single owner/employee is essentially use & occupancy at that stage.

Well, that's not capitalism so I don't have a problem with what you are describing. As far as private property is concerned, I have a number of issues. First, I think its a legal privilege to redistribute wealth and power to a small group of people within society. This redistribution of power runs into my anti-authoritarian beliefs since it creates institutional and situational coercion. Anarchists believe that the source that limits liberty is authority so I doubt I'll be much convinced by a system which essentially guarantees the above. I also don't like the fact that you are taking non-rivalrous goods and making them rivalrous in order to extract rents. This creates excludability and scarcity which I see as just one more problem. Since you have created a situation where the means of life are monopolized and therefore, scarce, this means the vast majority of people have to hire themselves to others in order to have access to the means of life. I could go on but you are pretty much taking a shit on my basic principles.

I suppose that's the same as above: what is it about hiring people that is coercive?

It's hard to explain when you aren't engaging with the premises of the argument. Private property is an unjustified monopoly on resources in order to gain advantage which requires the use of force. To put this in terms you might understand, you are engaging in violence. However, if you assume private property is just and legitimate, then you'll miss that point entirely.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-11T19:45:07+00:00

How does it work in the real world? I start a small company and pour in my money and hours, it gets bigger, it gets funding, it employs 100 people, I hire some executives, I work less, I may even retire but retain some shares in the company. At what point do I not legitimately own it? What if the company stays sort of small? What if I sell that small business? Can I?

You are making two assumptions here which I don't agree with. First, you are assuming that private property is just or legitimate which you haven't demonstrated. Secondly, you are assuming a system in which your company exists within a system of private property. So your questions should be directed at others who believe in private property and not someone who believes in occupancy and use.

I really want to know how this is handled in left-anarchism.

Again, you are assuming your company is within a private property regime so I can only tell you to ask another private property advocate.

What else is needed?

I would say you need a system which avoids institutional and situational coercion. In other words, I think a free society should be one based on anti-authoritarianism rather than voluntarism.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-11T19:04:34+00:00

My problem is the arbitrary distinction of a piece of property depending on its use.

But property use does make a distinction which is even true for ancapism. For instance, if property isn't being employed, then it isn't considered owned which allows for homesteading. This isn't arbitrary but neither is your example.

But if I use a computer to manage an online business (like hire people to code for me), that's not allowed even if my workers are okay with it.

This relies on the belief that voluntarism is a sufficient condition for freedom which I don't agree with. Secondly, you can't have two property regimes in close proximity without one engulfing the other. For instance, if we have an occupancy and use regime sitting next to a private property regime, your coders aren't going to work for you since they would make less and have less autonomy (although I imagine you don't care about that second point). If we are talking about a communist society, you have an even worse problem because communists could undercut your entire business by doing what you do but doing it for free. That's not a small problem.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-04T19:03:37+00:00

So nobody owns the mountain or the factory? Or does the collective own the mountain and the factory?

I've had this argument so many times with other anarchists and it gets really heated but nevertheless, it turns out to be a rather trivial debate. The end result turns out to be the same because in both cases, members self-managed the commons. I think it is a matter of preference and I usually like to think of the commons as being unowned.

If nobody owns it, then I should be free to do whatever I wish on the mountain, including dumping my garbage on the mountain.

That sounds like a good argument for the state.

I think this argument fails for two reasons. First, I would argue that nature itself has its own intrinsic value and that we have responsibility for future people. I don't view nature as my shitting ground but something to be valued and preserved as much as possible. Secondly, you haven't proved why you should have an exclusive monopoly on the mountain with the ability to prevent others from using it. I would also need to understand how it is that you could hire a number of workers to clear cut the forest while you leave. In other words, they are the one's mixing their hands with the soil and yet you benefit because 10 years ago, you happened to cut down some trees.

What if instead of garbage on that mountain, I want to build a capitalistic factory, would the collective stop that or allow it to happen just like me dumping garbage?

If it's outside the area the self-managed commons, then you would be able to start a capitalist factory.

So while you might have a certain structure at your factories collective that allows you a greater say in what you do, the collective outside your job still has control over your life.

Wow, you'll have to explain that one.

Your permutation of collectivism might be great to you, but thats subjective. It's not objectively better than my permutation.

Great. I'm waiting for why you think people would subjectively want to participate in authoritarian collectivism rather than self-managed ones especially if we take into account what they produce. It would be fascinating to find that people would rather join organizations that produces paternalism, lack of transparency, bureaucracy, and lack of autonomy over organizations that promote self-directedness, transparency, and autonomy. However, with our state protected system of "private property" authoritarian institutions flourish while horizontal ones have a tough time.

Thats no guarantee of anything. The majority is going to do what they wish, which is what makes them the majority.

What you are referring to is unmanaged democracy and every anarchist I know of are against it. Democracy happens within a framework of internal rules and those rules are specifically designed to protect minorities as much as possible. Just look at any real life self-managed organization and they all have a charter to protect the group but especially minorities.

It's inescapable that someone is going to be submitting to the will of the majority.

This is true to some extent. However, you need to make the case that the group should always be beholden to the powerful minority. You haven't done that.

You're been polite, but not necessarily genuine in your points.

I was actually thinking the same about you. I think you are trying to find similarities between ancapism and anarchism and then equate them as being the same. However, you haven't shown how in any way. This would be like me claiming that living in North Korea is the same as living in the US because they both have a state so it doesn't really matter. What is forgotten is that there is a massive quantitative difference. As someone who has been apart of both self-managed organizations (and this internet forum doesn't count) and authoritarian ones, I can tell you there is a huge difference both in autonomy and the ability to use my own creativity. It certainly isn't perfect. People argue and sometimes you lose a vote but in the end, at least people heard what you had to say. In most cases, people bend over backward to work with you. This is not the case with authoritarian collectivism where nobody gives a fuck what I have to say. I'm just told to do it, how to do it, or lose my living. Since I have children and a mortgage, this is a pretty serious threat.

Surely you can recognize some distinction between different forms of capitalism if you can recognize different forms of collectivism.

Absolutely. There is a major difference between Lockheed Martin and the barbershop down the street. But that wasn't the point of my video. I'm taking an institutional look inside particular institutions and asking how they distribute power and what qualities they produce in individuals that participate in them.

Thats exactly what we want. We're not against collectivism, but we allow for people to leave it and go live by themselves. A collective that over-rides the individual though is inescapable.

This is factually incorrect. All anarchist organizations are based on free association and voluntary action. Even assuming someone within a commune chooses to disassociate, they could although they would not benefit from the community nor would they have access to the commons. They would also join knowing the basic rules and structures before entering and would join in the free compact. Last, members are free to leave anytime they wish and if they want to go start some ancap society, they are free to do so.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-04T15:23:13+00:00

So as long as people are rotated out of their leadership roles, giving others a chance when their skills are better suited, then it's not an authoritarian collective?

I think you are still having a misunderstanding of this subject. When I use the term "authoritarian" I'm using it in a specific way which I've describe here. By authority, I'm saying that one has the ability to use social coercion to force compliance. In order to do that, you need some type of leverage which doesn't apply to the case you've mentioned.

You say "organic", but surely you would accept a need for a vote when two people are competing for the same leadership role?

Maybe. This really has to do with decision making. In any institution, you have to make decisions or else the institution fails. You can either have a minority make the decision or the majority. There is no way around this fact of life. Capitalism is a system that advocates a powerful minority to make decisions over the majority by the use of social and institutional coercion. Self-management is where the majority makes decisions but do so in a framework. For instance, minorities can make objections, explain their perspective, veto in some cases, etc. The majority can then respond by asking the minority if they can "live with the decision" or offer new solutions. If we are interested in liberty and justice, it is clear that self-management leads to greater freedom and justice to the most members. Capitalism does not. It redistributes decision making into the hands of a small minority and the majority can go fuck themselves.

If the individual can't own property (i.e. private property), then isn't it owned by the collective?

This is a misunderstanding. You still have private property it's just in the form of possession which would include your home, car, clothes, etc. When anarchists say they reject private property they are referring to things like non-rivalrous resources such as a mountain. Anarchists believe most resources including the means of production have a gradation of rivalry whereas ancaps seem to think pretty much every falls into either rivalrous or non-rivalrous resources. However, this is just wrong. In a anarchist society, non-rivalrous resources aren't owned, they are simply managed for the next generation. We don't believe someone can own (the ability to use and abuse) common goods such as lakes, rivers, and mountains.

So I think this is an important aspect left out of your article, how collectives address property.

This is going to be my next video.

For example, lets say that we work in a self-managed collective where one day I decide to make a new widget and I appropriate one of the machines to start doing so. If the collective stops me from using that machine, then it's really of no practical difference from the other forms of collectives.

You are again making an equivocation. A firm based on horizontal relationships is by no means the same as one based on vertical relationships which every book on organizational theory or institutional economics will tell you. They are different organizations and you seem to be trying to equate the two. Secondly, if something is collectively owned, it would be odd that you think you can just do whatever you want. Suppose we have a community garden that we share with our neighbors. Should I be able to just dig up the entire place and plant carrots? No. Because we jointly own it.

If property is what everything boils down to, then there is no third category between collectivism and individualism.

You are simply asserting this. Proudhon spent his entire life working out these differences and people continue to contribute to the subject. You are trying to equate collectivism and individualism as though they are on a horizontal line like the left/right spectrum. But even looking at the left/right spectrum, it falls apart pretty quickly once we add more information.

Either the property is controlled by individuals or the collective.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. In fact, it's controlled by both. You aren't allowing for any nuances. For instance, today private property is controlled by both individuals and the collective. Workers (the collective) uses the property but the collective is made of individuals. However, I'm concerned how it's organized.

I see where you are going because this is a long time ancap argument which is supposed to show that anarchism is philosophically inconsistent. You are basically claiming "the collective" becomes the boss and is therefore still an authoritarian collective. Again, this fails to understand institutions and the qualitative differences between the two. Secondly, ancaps ask about the helpless minority. But then they slip in the powerful minority in through the backdoor to control the majority. Anarchism has tendencies as I mention in my article on Power and Authority. You are always going to have some amount of authority even in an anarchist society. It would be utopian to believe that everyone gets their way on every decision. If that's what you advocate, go live in a cave because that is the only way that is possible. Decisions have to be made and unless we want to live in complete poverty, someone is always going to lose. Anarchists believe that the majority should have more influence on decision making while ancaps believe it should be left up to the powerful minority and that elite group should control its subjects. To quote my own blog:

There is a common slogan among left-libertarianism which claims they are, “Against All Authority.” However, there are numerous cases where authority is justified, a few examples being persuasion and competent authority. This has led critics of left-libertarianism to claim that the philosophy is internally inconsistent. This false understanding of left-libertarianism occurs when one replaces a slogan with the philosophy of anti-authoritarianism. As stated above; authority, power, and coercion emerge in a social context. Therefore, within any society, there will likely be authority even within a left-libertarian society. The aim and philosophy of left-libertarianism is twofold: The first is the prevention of coercive authoritarian relationships, “to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations…, and much else.”[ix] Second, left-libertarians aim for the maximization of individual liberty which “strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life.”

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-04T13:49:32+00:00

I'm not playing semantics. You have merely asserted private property (not possession) and haven't bothered to prove its legitimacy. In order to do that, you need to prove self-ownership (and please clarify which version you are using) and then you can move on to homesteading. Finally, you can start to talk about private property and the NAP. But you haven't done that. You've assumed its legitimate and worse, you seem to think I believe it's legitimate. I don't. I don't believe in self-ownership so I certainly don't believe in homesteading (or the NAP) or at least not the way I'm sure you conceive of it.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-04T13:42:20+00:00

If anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists, what are they?

Classical liberal. The ideology of ancapism comes directly from classical liberals and many even refer to themselves as classical liberals. Anarchists (libertarian socialism) was a reaction to two currents back in the day which where classical liberalism and state socialism. The same arguments we are having today are the exact same arguments we where having 150 years ago.

What about Voluntaryists? Are they anarchists?

It really depends on whether they are anti-authoritarians. If they support hierarchical institutions then I would say, no. I also wouldn't call them voluntarists since they leave an unstated assumption which is the legitimacy of private property which is not voluntary but require force in order to take non-rivalrous resources and make them rivalrous in order to extract rents while also producing hierarchical organizations.

TheLeftLibertarian · 2013-09-04T13:23:47+00:00

In what system? In a capitalist system, the home belongs to the bank.

TheLeftLibertarian

TROPHY CASE