Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Aim of Anarchism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:10:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labour, and then, when there will be nothing but labour with which to buy labour, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers.

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. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." - Benjamin Tucker
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit. If it is forbidden to specialize in earning such nonwage forms of compensation, it is inefficient.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:25:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit. If it is forbidden to specialize in earning such nonwage forms of compensation, it is inefficient.:

THIS ^

Sums it up.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:28:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 10:10:29 AM, Reasoning wrote:

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. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." - Benjamin Tucker

Yeah, Anarcho-Socialism, NOT Anarchy.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 11:12:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let us make a spectrum of anarchism, since anarchism pretty much side-steps the normal paradigm and needs an entire one to its own. I really don't understand the different sorts of anarchism that well and how we all differ...

My first idea would be to put me at one extreme and Sieben for the other, representing what role capitalism would play. I would be for a complete vacuum while Sieben employs it all full strength. Reasoning would then mark the midpoint in between (non-capitalistic free market?). Perhaps another axis would become necessary, possibly allowing for some kind of non-governmental authority with pigs.
no comment
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 11:34:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Non-capitalistic free-market"? This is a contradiction in terms. Same with the whole idea of having an unfree market in anarchy; if there is no authority structure, there can be no control over the market. Any trade that exists is free.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.

If it is forbidden to specialize in earning such nonwage forms of compensation, it is inefficient.

All that is forbidden is the violation of the Law of Equal Liberty.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 11:56:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 10:28:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:10:29 AM, Reasoning wrote:

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. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." - Benjamin Tucker

Yeah, Anarcho-Socialism, NOT Anarchy.

Anarchism is a form of Socialism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 12:01:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:12:49 AM, Caramel wrote:
Let us make a spectrum of anarchism, since anarchism pretty much side-steps the normal paradigm and needs an entire one to its own. I really don't understand the different sorts of anarchism that well and how we all differ...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

My first idea would be to put me at one extreme and Sieben for the other, representing what role capitalism would play. I would be for a complete vacuum while Sieben employs it all full strength. Reasoning would then mark the midpoint in between (non-capitalistic free market?).

Sieben is a Anarcho-Cpaitalist, I am a Mutualist and you appear to be an Anarcho-Communist. The most famous proponents of that philosophy are Kropotkin and Most.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 12:02:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:34:48 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
"Non-capitalistic free-market"? This is a contradiction in terms. Same with the whole idea of having an unfree market in anarchy; if there is no authority structure, there can be no control over the market. Any trade that exists is free.

Free Market Capitalism is a contradiction in terms.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 12:11:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 12:02:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:34:48 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
"Non-capitalistic free-market"? This is a contradiction in terms. Same with the whole idea of having an unfree market in anarchy; if there is no authority structure, there can be no control over the market. Any trade that exists is free.

your mom...

Yes, well, that's beside the point.

Definitions:

Free-market
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Capitalism
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I notice something interesting, going down the list of definitions. Capitalism seems to be the way people operate in a free martket, even though it is only implied in the first few definitions; but part-way down the page, I find this:
"An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption. ( Compare socialism and communism.) "

One is a prerequisite for the other; there can be no contradiction here.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 12:58:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.

What about when you're not at equilibrium?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:03:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:56:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:28:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:10:29 AM, Reasoning wrote:

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. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." - Benjamin Tucker

Yeah, Anarcho-Socialism, NOT Anarchy.

Anarchism is a form of Socialism.

Ancap is a subset of Anarchism, which is a subset of Socialism....

Does not follow.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:09:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 12:02:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:34:48 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
"Non-capitalistic free-market"? This is a contradiction in terms. Same with the whole idea of having an unfree market in anarchy; if there is no authority structure, there can be no control over the market. Any trade that exists is free.

Free Market Capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

This.
President of DDO
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:27:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:56:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Anarchism is a form of Socialism.

Anarchism is a political philosophy, socialism an economic one. Perhaps you should stick to quoting educated people; you betray your ignorance when you speak for yourself.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:35:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 1:27:01 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:56:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Anarchism is a form of Socialism.

Anarchism is a political philosophy, socialism an economic one. Perhaps you should stick to quoting educated people; you betray your ignorance when you speak for yourself.

Ho ho! Your old 18th century definitions are no match for my m-w new age dictionary!
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:38:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.
So you're relying on a mythical place to disappear things. (and the former is known as plunder, not profit).
Unfortunately for you, even if you make profit disappear, that doesn't solve the problem of incentive.


If it is forbidden to specialize in earning such nonwage forms of compensation, it is inefficient.

All that is forbidden is the violation of the Law of Equal Liberty.
Then your forbiddings will not achieve your aims, if by that you mean the nonaggression principle.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:40:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ragnar, the clash with Reasoning is not over "incentive". He's saying everyone should get paid their labor's worth.

The capitalist beef with him is on what he thinks about profit that occurs anyway outside of equilibrium, and what he thinks about homesteading.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:41:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 10:10:29 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"The minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labour, and then, when there will be nothing but labour with which to buy labour, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers.

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. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." - Benjamin Tucker

Disabled, elderly, victims of crime, victims of natural disasters, children, etc. we just leave them to whoever wants to give them money right?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:56:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
David D Friedman:

"Liberal political rhetoric often assumes that the existence of any bad outcomes--someone who is poor, some child who is not educated--is a strong argument for government intervention to fix the problem. Implicit in that is the utopian assumption that if only we had the right institutions, nothing really bad would ever happen. Most libertarians take it for granted that even under the best of institutions, some bad outcomes will happen--although, of course, they expect fewer bad outcomes to happen under their preferred institutions. That is the point of the phrase "Utopia is not an option,""
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:57:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 1:41:44 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:10:29 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"The minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labour, and then, when there will be nothing but labour with which to buy labour, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers.

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. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." - Benjamin Tucker

Disabled, elderly, victims of crime, victims of natural disasters, children, etc. we just leave them to whoever wants to give them money right?

On THAT he is not alone.

(though elderly have had a chance to save, and potential victims of crime will have the option to purchase police protection to deter criminals, and potential "victims" of nature can purchase insurance, and children can work when laws against it are abolished, or get loans from businesses for education if they do well on the loanmonger's test of their potential to be a good investment. :P ).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:00:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 1:41:44 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Disabled, elderly, victims of crime, victims of natural disasters, children, etc. we just leave them to whoever wants to give them money right?

Some anarchists don't believe in currency at all... dunno if Reasoning is one of those.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:25:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 12:58:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.

What about when you're not at equilibrium?

The market tends toward equilibrium. When the market is not in equilibrium, there are profit opportunities. When there are profit opportunities, competitors enter the market and increase supply, driving down prices and thereby profits until the profits vanish.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:32:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 1:35:09 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 1:27:01 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:56:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Anarchism is a form of Socialism.

Anarchism is a political philosophy, socialism an economic one. Perhaps you should stick to quoting educated people; you betray your ignorance when you speak for yourself.

Ho ho! Your old 18th century definitions are no match for my m-w new age dictionary!

This made me lol.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:38:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:25:56 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:58:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.

What about when you're not at equilibrium?

The market tends toward equilibrium. When the market is not in equilibrium, there are profit opportunities. When there are profit opportunities, competitors enter the market and increase supply, driving down prices and thereby profits until the profits vanish.

How is this different from Rothbardian anarchism
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:43:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:38:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:25:56 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:58:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.

What about when you're not at equilibrium?

The market tends toward equilibrium. When the market is not in equilibrium, there are profit opportunities. When there are profit opportunities, competitors enter the market and increase supply, driving down prices and thereby profits until the profits vanish.

How is this different from Rothbardian anarchism

It isn't.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:50:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:49:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
Why you call it socialism then

http://fair-use.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:52:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:43:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:38:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:25:56 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:58:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.

What about when you're not at equilibrium?

The market tends toward equilibrium. When the market is not in equilibrium, there are profit opportunities. When there are profit opportunities, competitors enter the market and increase supply, driving down prices and thereby profits until the profits vanish.

How is this different from Rothbardian anarchism

It isn't.

So you agree with Rothbard on land ownership now?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:54:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:52:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:43:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:38:59 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:25:56 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:58:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:55:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/15/2010 10:16:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but to make EVERY man dependent upon wages
If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay wages to make a profit.

Profit is derived either from privilege, which anarchism abolishes, or from the entrepreneurial function, which disappears in equilibrium.

What about when you're not at equilibrium?

The market tends toward equilibrium. When the market is not in equilibrium, there are profit opportunities. When there are profit opportunities, competitors enter the market and increase supply, driving down prices and thereby profits until the profits vanish.

How is this different from Rothbardian anarchism

It isn't.

So you agree with Rothbard on land ownership now?

I never said that. I said that the function of profit is the same.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran