4 ms·

The reason I stated that the term is meaningless is precisely because I have read about it. In regards to capitalism, there is a different discussion altogethe

The reason I stated that the term is meaningless is precisely because I have read about it. In regards to capitalism, there is a different discussion altogether. Very simply stated: capitalism is not a prescriptive ideology, it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." While a central authority to enforce that people don't steal is a mechanism to stabilize a system of any kind, including capitalism, it is by no means necessary for a capitalist system to exist. The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. I choose to work as an engineer for my current employer for the rate that they offered, and that is a procedural state that we've both consented to. No central authority is required to enforce this. If they don't pay me, I'll leave. If I'm not good at my job, they won't pay me. If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together, the lack of prescriptive mandate present in capitalism is precisely what allows them to do so. You can structure your arrangements with other individuals exactly as you see fit, and the degree to which you are limited in your capacity to do so is what a capitalist would argue is the degree to which your system falls short of being a capitalist system. For such a system to be easily associated with a term that claims to mean "without rule" is pretty understandable. It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." No. Both economists (even "bourgeois" ones) and sociologists disagree with this as a definition of capitalism. Please read up on the history of capitalism, which is a specific mode of production which arose in Western Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism. >The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. Why would it be the "best way"? In fact, it seems like a very strongly ideological way which starts by conceiving society as merely an accumulation of individuals who then begin networking, rather than individuals which arise out of an already networked society. This is wonderfully convenient for the subjectivist-individualist viewpoint. On the point of consent, simply because one consents it does not mean that what is happening is morally right - indeed many slaves consented. Frederic Lordon in Marx and Spinoza on Desire elaborates the meaninglessness of consent when it comes to what we need to live and survive. >If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plight of the anarchists - not only is it an individualized situation which could not possibly extend to everyone, but it also insists that localised groups must still engage in the system of capital accumulation, at the very least to pay taxes. In anarcho-capitalist society they'd probably have to pay to rent land too. >It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules. Rules are not rulers.
- ralusek 8y ago
  I've argued with you on here before, and I have to say that you rely heavily on the generalized rhetorical appeal to authority of "read up on this." That point aside, to take your point that "People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism." People were also successfully having babies before we knew how sperm fertilized eggs. Of course free exchange of resources existed before the formal definition of capitalism, the free exchange of resources is the foundation for society, but you're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market. If you wanted to argue against a capitalist on the basis of whatever academic definition you're going off of, and that isn't what you effectively mean by the term, then you are very likely to be arguing about incongruent concepts altogether. And if you simply cannot accept my definition of capitalism, then please substitute the term with "laissez-faire free markets" wherever you see it in my argument, and please make your arguments accordingly.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >You're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market. This seems like you're being willfully ignorant of what capitalism actually means and using "academic" as a pejorative, as if for some reason actually gaining knowledge about the topic shouldn't be considered valid knowledge. Would you say the same thing about how mathematicians define "real numbers"? That it is merely an academic exercise? It is a term of art in economics and sociology, it does not describe merely a system of free exchange in general. Capitalism includes the concept of free exchange but it is not defined only as such. It's also not even used in the way you're using it, as an ideological descriptor - a capitalist is a very particular kind of person, in particular one who owns capital. It is not equivalent to "socialist" in this regard. The arguments against capitalism generally also apply to "laissez-faire free markets", but other than that, a "laissez-faire free market" could not exist without capital due to the development of technology in the modern world.

claudiawerner 8y ago

>it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." No. Both economists (even "bourgeois" ones) and sociologists disagree with this as a definition of capitalism. Please read up on the history of capitalism, which is a specific mode of production which arose in Western Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism. >The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. Why would it be the "best way"? In fact, it seems like a very strongly ideological way which starts by conceiving society as merely an accumulation of individuals who then begin networking, rather than individuals which arise out of an already networked society. This is wonderfully convenient for the subjectivist-individualist viewpoint. On the point of consent, simply because one consents it does not mean that what is happening is morally right - indeed many slaves consented. Frederic Lordon in Marx and Spinoza on Desire elaborates the meaninglessness of consent when it comes to what we need to live and survive. >If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plight of the anarchists - not only is it an individualized situation which could not possibly extend to everyone, but it also insists that localised groups must still engage in the system of capital accumulation, at the very least to pay taxes. In anarcho-capitalist society they'd probably have to pay to rent land too. >It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules. Rules are not rulers.

ralusek 8y ago
I've argued with you on here before, and I have to say that you rely heavily on the generalized rhetorical appeal to authority of "read up on this." That point aside, to take your point that "People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism." People were also successfully having babies before we knew how sperm fertilized eggs. Of course free exchange of resources existed before the formal definition of capitalism, the free exchange of resources is the foundation for society, but you're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market. If you wanted to argue against a capitalist on the basis of whatever academic definition you're going off of, and that isn't what you effectively mean by the term, then you are very likely to be arguing about incongruent concepts altogether. And if you simply cannot accept my definition of capitalism, then please substitute the term with "laissez-faire free markets" wherever you see it in my argument, and please make your arguments accordingly.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >You're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market. This seems like you're being willfully ignorant of what capitalism actually means and using "academic" as a pejorative, as if for some reason actually gaining knowledge about the topic shouldn't be considered valid knowledge. Would you say the same thing about how mathematicians define "real numbers"? That it is merely an academic exercise? It is a term of art in economics and sociology, it does not describe merely a system of free exchange in general. Capitalism includes the concept of free exchange but it is not defined only as such. It's also not even used in the way you're using it, as an ideological descriptor - a capitalist is a very particular kind of person, in particular one who owns capital. It is not equivalent to "socialist" in this regard. The arguments against capitalism generally also apply to "laissez-faire free markets", but other than that, a "laissez-faire free market" could not exist without capital due to the development of technology in the modern world.