3 ms·

It's common to equate capitalism (which is the economic reality) with free market (or economic liberalism, which is the underlying ideology, and never completel

by js8 4y ago

It's common to equate capitalism (which is the economic reality) with free market (or economic liberalism, which is the underlying ideology, and never completely true in practice). Typical definition of capitalism is that it is a system where (a) significant amount of capital is privately owned and (b) significant amount of labor is traded in a free market (in other words, labor is a commodity).

int_19h 4y ago
It is this first bit; specifically the part where enough of the capital is privately owned that there's a significant class of people who have no choice but paying most of the wealth that they produce as rent to the owners. That's the power imbalance that unavoidably created a hierarchy, and why left anarchists deem capitalism incompatible with the core tenets of anarchism. Free markets are a different story, since they do not require capital to be privately owned to exist and function. Left-wing free-market anarchism is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
- js8 4y ago
  True, but you could also argue that limiting the condition (b) rather than (a) is also a way to address the power imbalance. Things like social programs, basic income, unions and cooperatives try to address (b) instead of (a).
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Sure, and that's how you end up with authoritarian strains of socialism.
    - js8 4y ago
      I don't think it's necessarily true, I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. I also think there is a value difference between socialism and democracy (decisions are made society-wide, by equal citizens participation) on one side and conservativism and authoritarianism on the other (decisions are made society-wide, by selected authorities/elites), even though from a liberal viewpoint (decisions are made individually by affected individuals where possible) they might seem similar (because in both the decisions are made society-wide). Measures against (a) or (b) can be designed and implemented both in democratic or authoritarian way. And in fact, basic income is on the liberal-socialist, aka "anarchist", spectrum rather than on socialist-conservative, aka "communist", spectrum. (Both spectra offer different solutions than the current liberal-conservative, aka "capitalist", spectrum.)
      - int_19h 4y ago
        > I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. Not really. It's really the other way around - the existence of private capital requires the state to enforce it. The only thing that makes, say, a privately owned factory actually "owned" is the fact that the owner can get the police to evict anyone trying to use it without the authorization, and drag any such miscreants to the courts. If society simply refuses to recognize private ownership of capital, and, as a consequence, refuses to enforce ownership claims, how is that authoritarian? There's strictly less use of force involved. I would also argue that "democratic" and "authoritarian" are not actually opposites - it's entirely possible for a democratic majority to use authoritarian measures to keep the minority in check.
bee_rider 4y ago
I agree that it is common (I listed it as the second option for that reason), but I think it is not very precise, which is why I brought it up. In particular — humans tend to cooperate, know we work better when we specialize, and have a natural sense of fairness (sometimes inaccurate!) so I can definitely see trade and markets happening under basically any system. I mean it has proven impossible to stop trade, if it isn’t in the open you’ll immediately get black markets. But I can’t see a community collectively and voluntarily agreeing to respect property claims if they grow to the point that they are inconvenient.

by js8 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

It is this first bit; specifically the part where enough of the capital is privately owned that there's a significant class of people who have no choice but paying most of the wealth that they produce as rent to the owners. That's the power imbalance that unavoidably created a hierarchy, and why left anarchists deem capitalism incompatible with the core tenets of anarchism. Free markets are a different story, since they do not require capital to be privately owned to exist and function. Left-wing free-market anarchism is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

js8 4y ago
True, but you could also argue that limiting the condition (b) rather than (a) is also a way to address the power imbalance. Things like social programs, basic income, unions and cooperatives try to address (b) instead of (a).
- int_19h 4y ago
  Sure, and that's how you end up with authoritarian strains of socialism.
  - js8 4y ago
    I don't think it's necessarily true, I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. I also think there is a value difference between socialism and democracy (decisions are made society-wide, by equal citizens participation) on one side and conservativism and authoritarianism on the other (decisions are made society-wide, by selected authorities/elites), even though from a liberal viewpoint (decisions are made individually by affected individuals where possible) they might seem similar (because in both the decisions are made society-wide). Measures against (a) or (b) can be designed and implemented both in democratic or authoritarian way. And in fact, basic income is on the liberal-socialist, aka "anarchist", spectrum rather than on socialist-conservative, aka "communist", spectrum. (Both spectra offer different solutions than the current liberal-conservative, aka "capitalist", spectrum.)
    - int_19h 4y ago
      > I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. Not really. It's really the other way around - the existence of private capital requires the state to enforce it. The only thing that makes, say, a privately owned factory actually "owned" is the fact that the owner can get the police to evict anyone trying to use it without the authorization, and drag any such miscreants to the courts. If society simply refuses to recognize private ownership of capital, and, as a consequence, refuses to enforce ownership claims, how is that authoritarian? There's strictly less use of force involved. I would also argue that "democratic" and "authoritarian" are not actually opposites - it's entirely possible for a democratic majority to use authoritarian measures to keep the minority in check.

bee_rider 4y ago

I agree that it is common (I listed it as the second option for that reason), but I think it is not very precise, which is why I brought it up. In particular — humans tend to cooperate, know we work better when we specialize, and have a natural sense of fairness (sometimes inaccurate!) so I can definitely see trade and markets happening under basically any system. I mean it has proven impossible to stop trade, if it isn’t in the open you’ll immediately get black markets. But I can’t see a community collectively and voluntarily agreeing to respect property claims if they grow to the point that they are inconvenient.