Comments on: Socialism is not merely Anti-Capitalism

By: The 5 stages of “Anarcho”-Capitalist reaction. | A Division by Zer0

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:45:31 +0000

[...] 3. Bargaining “Why don’t we put aside our differences and focus on toppling the state?”; “We would never be opposed to communes and co-operatives within Anarcho-Capitalism.”; “We’re all Libertarian socialists at the end of the day.” [...]

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:25:21 +0000

I am writing a book on the cooperative movement coming at it from a more positive, inclusive, and flexible standpoint. I lean more in a mutualist direction, but can still see some advantage in capitalism and socialism in some contexts. I do think mutualism is a separate and distinct system from both capitalism and socialism. It supports private property and free markets like a capitalist, though private property law takes a bit different form. It also supports the labor theory of value and worker control over their industries which is more in line with socialism. I at this point see all three systems as imperfect but mutualism is the best overall. My book focuses on the creation of cooperatives in all areas of life including the social, political, economic, education, and religious aspects to co-op power back to the people directly. If people banded together locally in solidarity they can lesson the "need" and "power" of the state, corporations, and all other hierarchical institutions within society. Move away from the impersonal mechanistic institutions to ones that are more organic.

By: @noor91

@noor91 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:40:35 +0000

I see. I still take things from a somewhat principled approach, since I tend to treat principles as necessary for practicability. I'm not so hardset on those though– I keep evolving.

Anyway, from talking with Aaron on this, his argument basically is that under a capitalist business, if it suffers a loss, the owner is the one who goes into debt while the workers still get their wages, and under a worker-owned socialist one the workers all share the loss if it goes bad, so some workers will choose to stay secure and go with the capitalist business. That's how he views it at least.

By: db0

db0 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:34:20 +0000

I like to take a more practical approach. I recognize that a worker can sell the products of their labour before they are produced, i.e. sell their labour-time (and freedom) to a capitalist piecemeal but I also recognize that the only way for them to accept such a scenario is if there exists an inequality between them which means that the worker is passively coerced to "volunteer" to such an exploitative relationship.

The reason I don't take your perspective is because it relies on a particular justification of ownership which is raised to an ideological standard. But since I consider all forms of ownership to be simply social constructs, I can't see it as something immutable.

By: @noor91

@noor91 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:21:06 +0000

My approach is that as a worker, you can't contract away the fact that you automatically own the products of your labor. After production you always have a right over it due to the fact that you labored on it, but you can sell it to someone else. You can't sign a contract that says someone else did it and therefore owns the final products, because you're trying to mess with the fact of reality that you did the labor.

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:03 +0000

I am not exactly certain under which circumstances you would not like to own what you work with. Can you give me an example?

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:53:49 +0000

Personally, taking a look at the organization of their ideal society, with liberty providing the basis for equality, I don't think the individualists were misusing the term.

While those early individualist socialists might have been using the term, I think it was also accurate as they were supporting a possessive system which was based fairly much on the results it would bring. The biggest change that exists in this case though is that the kind of individualism of Agorism, has also introduced private property which as I've explained eslewhere is the biggest break from socialist systems.

By: Slacker

Slacker — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:46:59 +0000

Thanks for the clarification.

I would assert that Brad isn't doing anything terribly different than the classical individualists who called themselves socialists. Seeing as how you'd probably have a problem with most of those individualist anarchists adopting the socialist label based on your own criteria, then there isn't anything particularly new about this (perhaps wrongheaded) tendency. Personally, taking a look at the organization of their ideal society, with liberty providing the basis for equality, I don't think the individualists were misusing the term.

By: Aaron Kinney

Aaron Kinney — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:01:35 +0000

"So unless your main purpose is to manage to allow all workers to own the capital and land they are working on, you are no socialist."

I've been mulling over this concept for awhile, and I haven't quite figured out what my position on it makes me label-wise…

My main purpose is to allow all workers the freedom to own the capital and land they work on, or not own it, depending on what they would prefer. (I, for example, do two kinds of work: the kind in which I most definitely DO NOT want to own the capital and land I work on, and I also do work in which I definitely DO want to own the capital and land I work on.)

Since I believe that, as a worker, there are only certain circumstances in which I want to own the capital I work with, and circumstances in which I do not wish to own it, what does that make me? Mutualist? Socialist? Capitalist? Confused retard? Genius?

By: Parker

Parker — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:31:02 +0000

oh no! sorry, I didn't mean to make fun of you at all, rather the nutty fringe that is internet "losertarianism".

I find it bizarre that some in this tendency appropriate the language of libertarian socialism, even though the ideology is based on Austrian economics, which evolved in part to combat the labour-based revolutionary and reformist movements that make up socialism.

That, and it rests on a bizarre definition of capitalism as "state driven monopolization of capital".