From The Freeman
Libertarianism is often considered to be a “right-wing” political theory. After all, libertarians favor free markets and strictly limited government, and these are things conservatives usually claim to support, too. And libertarians themselves have more readily associated and identified with the political right than with the left.
Over the past five years, however, a group of libertarian scholars and activists has been working to change this perception, arguing that our current understanding of libertarianism should be more radical than it is and more open to many of the moral and empirical concerns typically associated with the left. They have unearthed some of libertarianism’s buried intellectual roots, exposing influences in the work of thinkers who advocated radical and decentralizing changes to existing power structures.
Their main arguments, together with some key historical texts, have now been gathered in one book. It contains contributions by all of the major contemporary advocates of this position, most notably Kevin Carson, Sheldon Richman, Roderick Long, and the editors themselves. It also contains numerous older essays by some of the more significant writers who inspired the new movement, including Benjamin Tucker, Karl Hess, Roy Childs, and Murray Rothbard.
The editors of this volume describe it as an introduction to “left-wing market anarchism.” They also sometimes use the label “left-libertarianism,” though neither label is entirely satisfactory. Left-libertarians believe many of the same things that traditional libertarians believe. They have standard libertarian moral beliefs about individual self-ownership and the wrongness of aggression. And empirically, they share with traditional libertarians a confidence in the beneficial effects of free markets and spontaneous order, as well as the destructive effects of government intervention.
Two key beliefs distinguish the left-libertarian. First, left-libertarians are more sympathetic than traditional libertarians to the moral critique of capitalism made by many on the left. Left-libertarians take seriously, in a way that many traditional libertarians do not, the charge that capitalism leads to the exploitation of workers, the oppression of marginalized groups, and a concentration of wealth at the top. Unlike standard leftists, however, left-libertarians see those problems as stemming not from free markets, but from government intervention in free markets. Hence, the book’s title.
If capitalism is what we have today, then capitalism is not a free market. Libertarians who defend our current system on the assumption that it is a free market are thus making a terrible mistake—the mistake of what Kevin Carson calls “vulgar libertarianism.” Freed markets are something to be aspired to and achieved; they are not what we have now, nor are they something we had in some golden age in the past. (See Anthony Gregory’s “The Golden Age of Freedom Is Still Ahead” in the October Freeman.)
This leads to the second distinguishing feature of left-libertarianism. Left-libertarians believe that a society based on truly freed markets would be radically different from the society we live in today. It would be one in which “firms would be smaller and less hierarchical,” more local, and more likely to be employee-owned. Bosses and landlords would play a smaller role in people’s lives, and greater economic and social equality would prevail. In short, it would be a society in which many traditionally left-wing goals of equality, worker autonomy, and decentralization of power would be achieved. But with the difference, to borrow from the title of one of Chartier’s essays, that these “socialist ends” would be achieved through “market means.”
There is much that traditional libertarians should learn from in the pages of this book. Libertarianism is a revolutionary creed, and Chartier and Johnson remind us of the dangers of allowing it to be transformed into a staid apology for the status quo. At the same time, however, not all defenses of the status quo should be dismissed so quickly. Traditional libertarians have presented powerful arguments to suggest that inequality is not the problem critics from the left claim it to be, to show that sweatshop labor often provides workers in the developing world with the best available option for improving their lives, and so on.
These arguments may be flawed, but one cannot disprove them merely by showing that we do not live in a purely free market (as a number of left-libertarians have attempted to do). For while it is true that our capitalist system is not entirely free, neither is it entirely unfree. And the outcomes this system produces, such as income inequality and hierarchical firms, are the result of a complicated mix of government intervention, private injustice, and voluntary choice. Sorting this out, and deciding what justice requires of us in a partially unjust world, is difficult business. So while left-libertarians are right to point out the ways in which our current system falls short of the ideal, traditional libertarians are also right to defend the pockets of freedom that exist against critics on the left and right who misunderstand and misrepresent what that freedom means.
Nevertheless, Markets Not Capitalism is an important collection of essays that will, I can only hope, fundamentally change the way that libertarianism is perceived by the broader public, and provide new and inspiring direction for future scholarly work by libertarians in economics, philosophy, sociology, and law.
Matt Zwolinski (mzwolinski@sandiego.edu) is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego.
ABOUT
MATT ZWOLINSKI
ABOUT
GARY CHARTIER
Gary Chartier is a professor of law and business ethics and associate dean of the Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business at La Sierra University in Riverside, Calif. His book Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society will be published by Cambridge University Press.
Category:

Comments
Fuck markets, these spit
Fuck markets, these spit fucks can oppress each other after the revolution, i want to no part of it.
NO. FUCK ALL OF THIS
NO. FUCK ALL OF THIS GODDAMMIT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POQNih-b8PA
"sweatshop labor often
"sweatshop labor often provides workers in the developing world with the best available option for improving their lives, and so on. "
why the fuck is this here?
WHY THE FUCK IS THIS ON ANARCHIST NEWS IT IS NOT NEWS NOR DOES IT RELATE TO ANARCHISTS!
also c4ss is trying to do a thing early this year in the bay to spread their message among anarchists, let's fuck em up.
Center for a Stateless
Center for a Stateless Society has been trying this crap for too long. They have people like Roedrick Long, who is a senior scholar with capitalists Ludwig Von Mises Institute and is an editor for Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (?) !!!!!!!
What do they study...why are poor people not innovative ? Why Christian Bale's character from "American Psycho" is the ultimate businessman and Hero ???
These people are not anarchists. Here we are having debates about syndicalism, communism, insurrectionary, green, indvidualist, primitive, etc...and these capitalists just ooze it their slimy gold shit all over anarchist discussions.
Right Wing Nationalist
Right Wing Nationalist Capitalist Authoritarian bullshit !!!!!!!
The article comes from "The Freeman," which is edited by Max Borders. He wrote a book called "Superwealth," which advocates that people should stop demonizing the wealthy and has a positive review from Rand Paul, as in statist bureaucrat politician Rand Paul. This isn't even anti-state or about "freedom."
http://superwealthbook.com/
This is pure right wing nationalist capitalism...Milton Friedman, William Buckley, Hayek, Von Mises, old white guy, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, etc. are where this article is coming from.
Seventh-Day Anarchist ??????
Seventh-Day Anarchist ??????
"Gary Chartier is a professor of law and business ethics and associate dean of the Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business at La Sierra University in Riverside, Calif."
La Sierra University is a Seventh Day Adventist college that holds to a conservative right wing agenda mixed with this "free market" bull crap that Chartier is writing about...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Sierra_University
Chartier probably wants the State out of the way, so his fellow Seventh Day Adventist and similar organized religion authoritarians can run things.
A red flag is raised every
A red flag is raised every time some idiot claims to be a right wing libertarian. Fuck all those capitalist pigs perverting language.
socialism, capitalism,
socialism, capitalism, anarchism, libertarianism are all terms that describe different views on how ‘the individual’ relates to ‘the collective’. as such, they are all ‘anthropocentric’ and therefore ‘dualist’ views.
the dualist view, which predominates in the globally dominant Western culture, assumes an absolute ‘break’ between ‘one individual’ and ‘another individual’. that is, the dualist view implies that ‘individuals’ inhabit absolute space and absolute time and that ‘dynamics’ arise from ‘what individuals as things-in-themselves do’. [there is a denial of the physical reality as given by modern physics wherein space is a relational energy-charged spatial-plenum, implying interdependent connectedness of any/all pluralities within it]
the non-dualist view is radically different in that it assumes interdependent connectedness of the global human collective. the non-dualist view predominates in anarcha-indigenism such as the decolonization movements of aboriginals, Zapatistas etc. that is, the non-dualist view DOES NOT see the individuals within a collective as local, independently-existing material systems with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviours that act/interact within an absolute space and absolute time reference frame AS IS THE UNSTATED ASSUMPTION IN THE ARTICLE.
this ‘desire’ to be freed from being the pawn of some supreme central authority splits into two different understandings;
(1.) non-dualist: - organizing coherence is immanent in nature. we are included within a continually transforming relational space. our human role in ‘organizing’ is thus to cultivate and sustain balance in the relational dynamics which are the ‘base case’.
(2.) dualist: - humans are local, independently existing material system that move about and interact in a passive space. our human role in ‘organizing’ is thus to develop rules that will allow productive and peaceful interactions.
the dualist view sees the need for a ‘theory’ of interactions amongst people to ensure peaceful and productive interations while the non-dualist view sees no need for theory, but for a process [i.e. the peace-making circle or learning circle] to cultivate and sustain balance and harmony in the ongoing transformation of relational space in which humans are included.
note that the ‘dualist view’ does not see humans as included in anything but passive space, so that the ‘organizing’ effort must be a deliberate effort on the part of the collection of independent ‘individuals’. in contrast, the non-dualist view sees humans as included in the ongoing organizing that is ‘nature’. of course there is a radical difference in worldview here, wherein non-dualists understand that ‘man belongs to the earth’ [nature engenders and nurtures man] while dualists believe that ‘the earth belongs to man’ [the earth is man’s oyster, but man must ‘take care of nature’].
schroedinger, a non-dualist discusses how quantum physics leads one to understand that ‘man belongs to the universe’ in ‘What is Life’; i.e. non-dualism is not only a philosophy that is embraced by aboriginals, but also by many modern physicists.
the article above ‘skips’ discussion of dualism and non-dualism and implicitly assumes the dualist view wherein individual men are understood to be local, independently-existing ‘organisms’ [local machines with inputs and outputs]; ... a starting point that means that ‘organizing’ has to be something ‘deliberately coordinated’ and ‘intentional’, so as to get these independent machines ‘working together’. in the non-dualist view, nature is a dynamic unity in which organizing is inherent. the need is therefore not ‘deliberate organizing’, but instead to let one’s behaviour serve the sustaining of balance and harmony in the continually re-organizing dynamic unity that is nature.
the article thus reduces the discussion to different schemes for ‘deliberate organizing’ [anthropocentrism] by a notional collection of local independent organisms [machines]. two choices of how to deliberately organize come to mind;
(A) the dualist-A option of a top-down management hierarchy [authoritarianism]
(B) the dualist-B option of ground level/'worker' organizing councils [libertarianism].
in both of these options, since the notion is that each individual is fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour [there is no interdependent connectedness in the social dynamic, as there is in non-dualism], the justice system for sorting out problems can presume that a given ‘result’ can be traced back to a particular individual ‘causal agent’ action. that is, the standard Western justice system comes naturally bundled in with both of these dualist options.
a second observation is that both options assume that ‘production’ is a ‘result’ that can be tracked back to a particular individual ‘causal agent’ productive action. this gives rise to the notion of a ‘market’ which is seen as the sum of the individual production ‘results’ [individual ‘productive achievements’] and associated production-consumption trading transactions. once again, this view of ‘market’ is anthropocentric; e.g. the earth, air, sun and water are non-contributors in this ‘market’ organization.
there is no discussion in the article in regard to the assumption that ‘production’ can be attributed back to particular individuals [e.g. the plantation owner takes credit for HIS production], even though this is foundational to Ayn Rand’s ‘objectivism’, a belief in the existence of a material world independent of [split apart from] the human mind. in this view, the INDIVIDUAL human mind gets credit for organizing the material resources of land/soil, irrigation, fertilization and seeding and thus ‘the production’ of foodcrops [the earth belongs to man, man does not belong to the earth].
“Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement. Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism” --- wikipedia
colonizer-culture individuals, thanks to technology and their cultural ethic of acquiring and keeping far more ‘possessions’ than they personally required, produced far more than ‘indigenous aboriginals’ on Turtle Island, and the value of the individual, in the colonizer culture, is equated to the amount of his production [whether he achieves it with a thousand aboriginal slaves or whatever]. there is NO sense here, as in non-dualism, that we are ‘all in this together’ as in a common relational living space [strands in a common web-of-life]. the equating of the value of an individual with the quantity of ‘his’ production is a feature of ‘objectivism’. this question of ‘values’ and whether to attach them to ‘individual productivity’ [a nonsense term in the non-dualist view] continues to confuse ‘what is libertarianism’;
“Objectivism's rejection of the primitive: -Jennifer Burns in her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, notes how Rand's position that "Native Americans were savages", and that as a result "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights", was one of the views that "particularly outraged libertarians." Burns also notes how Rand's position that "Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism", was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand's fan base.”
in non-dualism, the relational web is the relational web [‘mitakuye oyasin’, we are all related, all strands in a common relational web of interdependent connectedness] regardless of whether an individual becomes a paraplegic or suffers from a birth defect or from being female in gender that attenuates the individual’s associated APPARENT material productivity [as seen through dualist viewing lenses]
so, in all this talk about ‘the market’ which seems to take for granted that we all understand what ‘market’ is, what is the ‘market’ and how does it relate to the ‘individual’ and to the ‘collective’ and to ‘organization’ therein?
“A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, wage rates, interest rates — along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods — are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies.”
this is an entirely ‘anthropocentric’ definition of ‘market’, as befits the ‘dualist’ anthropocentric/objectivist view. there is no sense, here, of the ‘land’ organizing ‘the people’ as in the growing interest in ‘sustainability’ and the indigenous notion of man sustaining a balanced and harmonious relationship with the land [nature] that includes and nourishes him.
that is, ‘libertarianism’ in its dualist form is ‘anthropocentrism’. as proudhon, a ‘libertarian socialist’/'anarchist' stated;
“We are socialists... under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership... We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations... We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
proudhon is arguing over ‘which humans should own the land’, and not whether ‘humans should own the land’, and he is also specifying which humans [the workers] should be in charge of ‘organizing’ the anthropocentric market processes.
“He [Proudhon] argued that while society owned the means of production or land, users would control and run them (under supervision from society), with the "organising of regulating societies" in order to "regulate the market" ---wikipedia
conclusion:
zwolinski's analysis of ‘libertarianism’ stays within the anthropocentrist, dualist world-view, and thus excludes consideration of non-dualist libertarianism as in ‘anarcha-indigenism’ which is the most globally pervasive and resistant ‘strain’ of libertarianism. zwolinkski's analysis ignores the moves towards widespread recognition of the need to live in balance with nature, and thus for humans to let nature rise up again to a leadership position in ‘organizing’ the world dynamic, including ‘markets’. who exactly is it that ‘produces’ foodcrops? ‘humans’ you say? [to answer 'yes' and ignore sun, soil, water, atmosphere, would define you as a ‘dualist’ since it implies mutual exclusive splitting of inhabitant from habitat, and thus of 'mind' from 'matter']
the ‘commoditizing of land’ as a ‘capital resource’ or ‘human social resource’ rather than something we humans are included in, is foundational to the ‘secularized theological concept’ of ‘sovereigntism’ and to the dualist notion of mutual exclusivity of people and their dynamics from the land and its dynamics, in contradiction to mach’s principle; “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”.
colonizer treaties with indigenous aboriginals haven’t been worth the paper they’re written for a very good reason; the physical reality of machean physics, as in the above principle. the ownership granted to settlers on properties that surround the treaty-lands, settler’s whose civil rights protect their freedom to develop their ‘own commoditized land tracts’ freely as they choose in the pursuit of their own independent pursuit of happiness, ... at the same time condition the general [imaginary-line-boundary ignoring] flow of air, water, bacteria, insects, game, fish, birds of the ‘habitat’ that are at the same time conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants of the treaty-lands.
evidently, man is included in the land, and shifting the ownership of the land to ‘human society’ and away from private land owning monopolies, is yet more anthropocentric mental masturbation of the dualist, objectivist variety.
matt zwolinski, the author of this article on ‘libertarianism’ and many of the writers he cites, are caught up in their own world of ‘dualism’, an anthropocentric world that is common to Ayn Rand’s objectivist world. it ignores the more globally active social uprising in the modern world, the non-dualist decolonization or ‘anarcha-indigenist’ movement.
the only difference in the various strains of dualist, anthropocentrist objectivism that zwolinski constrains his discussion to, is a morality-and-ethics-dependent shift in human ownership and management of the land that ‘humans sit on top of’ rather than ‘are included in’. as libertarian socialist/anarchist pierre-joseph proudhon stated;
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.—P.-J. Proudhon, "What Is Government?"
fine, within the narrow realm of dualist, anthropocentrist, objectivist views on ‘how to organize’ the notional ‘local, independently-existing material systems’ known as ‘human organisms’ that move about and interact in a notional absolute [fixed, empty and infinite] space and absolute time operating theatre [as is implicitly bundled into the european/newtonian-science language games], we have a continuing ‘tug-of-war’ between the authoritarians and the libertarians.
entirely out of view, in this dualist, anthropocentrist, objectivist focus, is the up-rising non-dualist, nature-centrist, asubjectival anarcha-indigenist movement, which has much in common with views of libertarians like proudhon which regard everyone as ‘indigenous’; e.g;
“Proudhon argued that under mutualism "[t]here will no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of birth. Man, of whatever race or colour he may be, is an inhabitant of the universe; citizenship is everywhere an acquired right.”
however, anarcha-indigenism comes without the dualist, anthropocentrist, objectivist trappings that permeate the bulk of Western libertarian philosophical investigations such as zwolinski constrains his discussion to in this article.
Ann Rayn is a complete dunce,
Ann Rayn is a complete dunce, who cares if she influences some libertarians she also influences tonnes of capitalists.... and also Proudhon was a notorious sexist who was denounced by the true anarchist Dejacque and Proudhon also sold out his arguably "anarchist" ideals before he died....
holy fuck!!! you call that a
holy fuck!!! you call that a conclusion?
i was going to say that.
i was going to say that.
can someone start "hiding"
can someone start "hiding" emile's comments? he's gone on (and on) for a few years now and i am tired of it. i'm sure many others are done with him as well. if someone really wants to read emile's views on everything, which ultimately comes down to the 3 or 4 writers he likes, they should be directed to his website.
i know y'all controlling this site really want to protect your emile's identity, but anybody with a few brain cells can do a google search and find out as much as they want about this guy. it's not a secret, but i understand emile and you few running the show here think the rest of us hardly have enough brain cells to know how to type, so...
inb4 liberal shitbag
inb4 liberal shitbag demanding his view be validated by enforcement.
This is the most idiotic
This is the most idiotic fucking bullshit.
SOOOOOO I see myself as a
SOOOOOO I see myself as a libertarian socialist BECAUSE I believe that creating a nation whose dominant business model is worker owned cooperative IS the most probable means to ending capitalism/state in the sense that capitalism means SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP / hierarchy. I have no faith that the people are going to rise up -- perhaps I'm wrong but the so called coming insurrection will never actually come (I'm not saying anything negative about affinity groups and what precedes the insurrection). Therefore I believe that if we are to achieve ANARCHY/TRUE COMMUNISM it is most likely going to happen by establishing worker cooperatives and SHOW people that there is a better system than the only one they think exists. If worker owned/managed cooperatives began growing at a quick rate I'd also like to see the reduction of many laws (here is where I'm a libertarian/anarchist) laws like property tax -- by ending property tax people don't have to work after they acquire land. According to my logic an economy characterized by worker owned/managed cooperative would dramatically affect the culture leading to new community life in other word restoring the commons. I'M NOT AGAINST REVOLUTION BUT THE CHANCES OF IT HAPPENING based on that past 200 years are very small IMO. Therefore my goal is not free markets, but I see free markets as a means to getting to a point where we no longer think about markets or trade we just live as anarchist-communists.
Thankfully there will be
Thankfully there will be anarchists to burn down your utopia.
no one's asking you to live
no one's asking you to live in utopia -- it's called voluntary association, duhhhh
and the oppressed will burn
and the oppressed will burn it too.
how can you be oppressed in a
how can you be oppressed in a society based on voluntary association?
it comes down to 'ownership'
it comes down to 'ownership' of the land and property and the 'might makes right'/'if you dont like it, leave it' mentality. all kinds of problematic.
well in that case Ill be
well in that case Ill be right along side the oppressed with a zippo
<3
<3
....then why aren't the
....then why aren't the oppressed burning it all down now?
and I welcome the tearing
and I welcome the tearing down of my utopia, ill be right by ya tearing it down. <3
that is my kind of bro, bro.
that is my kind of bro, bro.
Someone with an actionable
Someone with an actionable strategy that doesn't result in us all immediately being arrested and instead gradually builds power until it becomes too strong to easily crush?? GET HIM!
:) LET'S FUCKING DO
:) LET'S FUCKING DO ITTTTTTTTT
" If worker owned/managed
" If worker owned/managed cooperatives began growing at a quick rate I'd also like to see the reduction of many laws (here is where I'm a libertarian/anarchist) laws like property tax -- by ending property tax people don't have to work after they acquire land"
here is where we will piss of the state and possibly be confronted with revolution.
Maybe we can get the anti
Maybe we can get the anti-government capitalists to do this part.
Ok - ill take the bait and
Ok - ill take the bait and respond for a second, not so much to the original article, but to this slightly confused comment (hearing a socialist talk admiringly about free markets is just funny and distorted, like a notre dame football fan claiming their sure victory against all odds...So i wont bother so much with the weird semantic games that "libertarians" like to play, and focus rather on content...)
Im gonna go out on a limb here, and say that many of the anarchist friends i have have had some degree of experience working in some kind of cooperatively run capitalist enterprise. A small infoshop or radical bookstore, a land or housing project, a band, a bike store, etc. These experiences can teach us a great deal about how to run a project cooperatively, but they teach even more about what it means to try to "build the new world in the shell of the old."
I live at a cooperatively owned and run apartment complex, inhabited by a number of anarchists and others who are semi radical. Our rent is about 200 dollars below market value for the area, thanks to not having a true landlord and sharing upkeap tasks among ourselves. We meet once a month to decide various things that need to be done, to talk about money coming in and paying the mortgage (or more specifically, paying the nonprofit that owes money to the bank for the buildings, a massive sum of money we will never realistically be able to pay back.) We also decide who gets to move in, and if people have to move out.
It's not a bad setup as far as housing goes - we have a big garden with chickens and i love most of my neighbors. But to propose projects like these as a form of anarchist or libertarian or anti capitalist practice is ludicrous, and my experience here has only confirmed this position even further.
What ends up happening is that instead of there being one landlord, we have 20 or so mini-landlords via assembly. Evictions still have to happen when people cant find enough work to pay rent, but instead of this resulting in a collective conflict between tenants and landlord that, in an anarchist framework, could be used to develop revolutionary practices and analysis, and increase solidarity between neighbors, what results is antipathy and anger BETWEEN tenants, as some develop reactionary attitudes like, "Well i paid my rent, i dont see what their problem is, they're going to ruin this for all of us." etc. etc.
In addition to fostering these kinds of conservative and non neighborly attitudes, it makes you have to think like a landlord. There is nothing positive about this in any way, its not a process of proving to other people that cooperative forms can function. If anything ive seen anarchist comrades say things that should NEVER come out of their mouths, about rent, about banks, about property. What it has proved to us, if i can speak for many of my neighbors, is that cooperatively run capitalist enterprises recreate virtually all of the endemic economic and social ills of the capitalist marketplace, excluding perhaps the one "positive" aspect, that being a tension between bosses and workers that can at least be used a fuel for practices of solidarity, mutual aid, and attack among the oppressed.
Expounding further, In the age of social media and participatory advertising, facebook , crowdsourcing, and the internet and the like, it should be pretty obvious that cooperative forms of creating capitalist value DO NOT present a meaningful alternative. Cooperative capitalism is the perfect form of 21st capitalism, par excellence, not an alternative but a temporally perfect expression of power and control and exploitation spread "horizontally" out across the metropolis, the world where everything, even my fucking relationship with my neighbors, can be perverted entirely by the market. There is no "outside" of capitalism here, much less an alternative to be found in the "collective" management of resources, debts, rents, and labor power, all of which are still bought and sold on the open, capitalist market.
As long as banks, rent, value, money, labor costs, exist, cooperatively run, worker managed capitalist enterprises are a distraction at best. There's a reason we are anti capitalists: its because we know and understand how these realities manipulate and distort our ability to live lives based around solidarity and mutual aid. This doesn t change when we meet up "collectively" to figure out how to pay the bank this month, or which books we can afford to order, or whatever.
Im not arguing that cooperative forms of social life are hopeless, im arguing such UNDER CAPITALISM. Cooperative activities only have a revolutionary meaning and substance when done from within the context of a rebellion against capital and state. It is this rebellion, this conflict, which gives our daily social practices an anarchist substance. With the ball and chain of rent removed, the relationships which create an occupied building, a squatted garden, a giant occupied apartment building, can truly become something different. Ive seen this first hand. We cannot build a "city on the hill" , a shining example of anarchy for others to look at and aspire to, from within the frameworks offered by capitalism and the state. We have learned this lesson enough already - we dont need to open another broke failing pizza collective or bookstore to learn it again. If such projects provide something else useful to advance the anarchist project in their town- a place to meet, a place to scheme, etc. - then they may be useful. But their use does not lie in spreading the illusion and false peace of cooperative economics.
As for your loss of faith, as it were, that insurrection and revolution is possible, i can only ask that you read some international news from the last two years. Ive seen regimes toppled, millions of lives changed, "hope" rekindled. Revolution isnt just possible, its an inevitability. The task at hand is to make it ongoing, and anarchist in content and form (not necessarily name....). I hope you regain some sense of rage, get out of the cooperative businessman/woman mindset, and join us.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
2. Imagine if there was no state, would your critique that cooperatively run anything would recreate capitalistic relationships? According to my thought process it wouldn't because there would be no arguements over rent, property, etc. BECAUSE those are created by the existence of the state. Building a worker owned/managed cooperative free market economy isn't the end, it is the means to get to the end. By reducing inequality dramatically we can seek to end the state be ending laws -- if the state doesn't allow this to happen we have created a true revolutionary moment -- unlike the ideas that float around "when the cost of food & rent goes up people will reveolt." that's bullshit -- people will adapt and hope that a brighter future is right around the corner.
3. Again, I'm not arguing that libertarin free market socialism is the goal, I'm arguging it is the means to seeing the end of capitalism and the state. Don't say "oh this is just evolved form of capitalism" It's not, it's the crumbling of capitalism -- if it happens.
4. Imagine if banks, hospitals, police departments, schools, everything was worker owned and managed -- (i'm not arguing for these things) what would the world look like? Would the environment be more protected? Would children be less indoctrinated with myths and absolutist narratives? Would the media be so conservative? Would there be as many laws? Would we be at war with the world? Would we have standardized tests? Would school be a manufacturing plant? Would we be eating at McDonalds or at community dinners? THINK BRO! A libertarian cooperative movement is not the GOAL, I'm proposing that it is the means to ACHIEVE THE GOAL -- stateless and anti-capitalist society.
5. Staring a cooperative isn't just about bolstering thte anarchist philosophy, it is also a means to alleviating the alienation and exploitation of the working poor.
6. You've seen regimes topped? You forgot to mention that they were replaced with new regimes controlled by the world hegemonic power. I support your rage, I'm right by you, but I can't sit by hoping that tomorrow or next month or two years ppl will grow a spine and a brain and wake up. AND IF IT DOES a cooperative movement/culture will help prevent the next authoritative regime from seizing power -- we have to show people that projects, endeavors, etc. can be done outside of the capitalist model. I hope that you'll join me while I join you.
Well, i gave a concrete
Well, i gave a concrete example of how a cooperatively managed capitalist enterprise (that im a part of) wasnt accomplishing the things youre suggesting it will. Though im not sure you actually read my comment - this reads more like another abstract endorsement of forming cooperatives that legally function within the capitalist/state framework, without particularly explaining how the existence of such endeavors gets us any closer to social revolution. Id suggest responding to the specific dynamics and problems i raise in my critique - the reification of capitalist values within the cooperative format, competition, issues around debt, rents, labor value, etc.
You ask me to imagine if EVERYTHING was run in a self-managed fashion.....For sure, that would be great. But this is a tautology - youre saying, "Imagine this cool non capitalist world. Look, therefore it would nt be capitalist!" The issue is that i don t believe cooperative capitalism offers a way out of capitalism FROM HERE. Thats it. I dont think that legally operating collectively run businesses within the capitalist economy gets us particularly closer to anarchy, or communism, if you like.
Im not saying that cooperative social structures cannot be inspiring. Most of the inspiring examples of cooperative self-management that i know of, which substantively contribute to revolutionary momentum and increased proletarian control over everyday life, tend to be either illegalist or at least conflict-oriented. I think the reasons for this are fairly self explanatory, given that the anarchist project is not merely an economic struggle but also a social war against the State form. But some examples: Peasant agrarian collectives and experiments in liberatarian communism in spain, the MTDs in argentina post 2001 crisis, the French Commune of 1871, Ukrainian rural and urban collectivisation during Mahkno's time, large scale land expropriation and collectively managed farming in Brazil, and a thousand other examples - these are united not just by their cooperative structures but by their opposition to moneyed economies and importantly, a direct and explicit opposition to private property laws. It is this practical stance that frees them from the moneyed economy, from paying rents to landlords, debts to banks, etc. , and in turn frees them to actually experiment with new forms of labor and production and social life that are not constrained by competition on a capitalist market. Perhaps most importantly, the mass character of these "cooperative ventures" is/was made directly possible by the fact that the resources were taken WITHOUT PAYMENT - i.e. through popular acts of occupation or expropriation (i obviously wouldnt include acts of "expropriation" by a State, as that is by definition not popular and goes against any kind of libertarian principle...). This is the crucial part becuase such massive experiments in collective life could never be possible if the land was bought from the landowners, factory owners, etc. who originally owned it. Hence the relatively small nature of most legal and capitalist cooperative ventures in comparison with the massive and popular character of the examples described above. To put it more simply - us broke-ass folks dont have the money to "buy back" the resources capitalists have stolen from us one tiny lil cooperative bookstore at a time. And fuck doing that anyway! That shit belongs to everyone.
On the note cooperatives helping us to "achieve the goal: "Experiments" in cooperative businesses hardly tend to be experimental at all - outside of certain collective decisionmaking structures, which at times in my experience can feel little different than (and are often, tellingly, called!) a corporate board meeting, they tend to use the same kinds of business models and profit driven logic of their more traditional competitors. The reason for this isnt ideological, its chiefly economic : put out on the open market with the other non-cooperative businesses, they must make the same "sacrifices" as the shop next door to pay the rent, keep labor costs down, etc. etc. etc.
So, again, using actual specific examples, outside of a vague sense that "given nice examples people will see that cooperativism is possible" - how does building cooperative capitalist enterprises now get us closer to social revolution? For that matter, how does it even "lessen inequality," as you say, when it is admittedly driven by the same economic imperatives as its "noncooperative" competitors? The cooperative apartments i live at (again, lets use specific examples from experience) hardly offer a way out of inequality - three different households are facing possible eviction at this moment. You ask me to imagine a totally cooperative future? Sure. But NOT a future where the cooperative apartment tenants have to evict themselves to pay off their debt to the cooperative bank, which loans cash to the cooperative pizza shop to be able to keep paying their bored alienated workers two dollars higher than the shitty wage they worked before this cooperative "revolution." Fuck money, fuck banks, and fuck working at shitty jobs that are just the phantom replacement of my life in this current economy. We are anarchists - we have better imagination than that. I want a new world, not a "cooperative" version of this one.
for anarchy, attack, and greens that cook for at least 4 hours in hamhock...
ok i have work right now so
ok i have work right now so ill respond in depth later, but if your interpretation is based on your experience that does not mean everyone will have the same experience -- your interpretation creates a tautology. I was inspired by seeing a cooperative in SF -- something I would not have encountered in the subrubs where I'm from -- when I tell my friends about worker owned/managed cooperatives their minds are blown and they quickly see the benefits of it -- even if cooperatives have their problems, showing ppl alternatives exist and the current system allows us from receiving all their benefits adds to the incentive to revolt. I'll respond later.
America done ruined the word
America done ruined the word Libertarian for me, and no amount of ink is gonna get it back.
As Mr. Graeber points out, MARKETS began with slave markets.
Come here and pull my finger.
TO ME, it's either we attack
TO ME, it's either we attack capitalism through not-so-perfect means or we wait around for the masses to wake up -- which imo aint gonna happen.
I am proud of my anti
I am proud of my anti-libertard polemics ( as may be seen at cypherpunks list archives 2001-2 ) And take some modest credit for stopping the gross theft of the word 'anarchist' by these scumbags.
Professor rat
You haven't done anything.
You haven't done anything.
communist middle finger fuck
communist middle finger fuck the world. get this bullshit out of here. has nothing to do with anarchism
Honk if you think Rothbardian
Honk if you think Rothbardian economics are based on deceptive rhetoric and propagated by middle classes naive aspirations of moving up the ladder some day.
Honk honk
Honk honk
honk honk honk
honk honk honk
Honk - BEEP BEEP
Honk - BEEP BEEP
Wish they would just be honest and call themselves cryptofascists or something like that. Or join the Republican party. Anything but nonsense like that article.
these anarcho douchbags need
these anarcho douchbags need to stop its getting sad
If these right wing
If these right wing libertarian wingnuts somehow won and succeeded in reducing government, crazy intrusive policing and surveillance, etc., wouldn't that put us all in a better position to realize anarchy? A capital L Libertarian world sounds awful, but it would probably be racked with crisis and unstability aka it might "create the conditions in which" blah blah blah insurrection and whatever. Like, seriously though. That's why this article seems relevant to me at least.
Ill go one step further, and
Ill go one step further, and say that maybe the regimes of austerity around the world IS the instability created by Libertarian economists, that the rest of us ARE taking advantage to foment anarchy. The different being of course, that these regimes immediately drop their libertarian rhetoric when it comes to security, policing, prisons, etc....
On the libertarians, though, really, my question to these nutjobs is always: "Cool, so who's gonna protect all your stockpiled excess resources when theres no pigs? Cus first thing im gonna do is come take all the shit you don t need and give away to my neighbors and friends and shit, have a huge party, and then the next morning after a couple mimosas to take the edge off, start the FUCKING COMMUNE with YOUR shit."
And then they usually respond, "Ummmmmmmm.....my own private army that ill hire." Or somethign along those lines.
And then im like, "Oh a standing army. Cool. Kinda like a state?"
And they re like, "Sort of."
And then I m like, "Ah, well, we're back where we started mister capitalist."
Except usually the kinds of nerds i have this conversation with dont actually have a lot of money and shit, cus actual rich people usually KNOW they need cops and politicians, so they dont put up the pretense. So this person is usually just fronting on some theoretical shit, cus they spend too much time on the internets.
'Cus first thing im gonna do
'Cus first thing im gonna do is come take all the shit you don t need and give away to my neighbors and friends and shit, have a huge party, and then the next morning after a couple mimosas to take the edge off, start the FUCKING COMMUNE with YOUR shit.'
^^^
my first argument to anyone advocating any form of liberalism (you can change the title from liberalism, but if you believe in enforcing 'rules' you're a filthy fucking liberal) except i advocate less mimosa and more napalm.
The right wing civil
The right wing civil libertarians I've known all hate cops, namely the federal ones (FBI, ATF, ICE), but they hate the locals nosing into their shit, too. I imagine that the security model for all their property would be that of gated communities, in addition to the community of armed inhabitants themselves. As far as dangerous leftist radicals go, they probably wouldn't give a shit so long as they stayed away and kept to themselves in their own state or land or whatever and tended to their chickens and vegetable gardens. Kind of like how Libertarians are anti-war. p.s. they all also hate courts and probably especially grand juries.
i think its less about how
i think its less about how would they live their lives, and more about their positions on resource accumulation and capital development sans a centralized state. I dont care what politics a person espouses if they mind their own on their own lil plot - shit, the most militant of spanish peasant collectives still let individual peasants farm their own subsistence shit if they wanted to be that way - but the issue comes in when they attempt to "own" resources that the community holds in common, and exploit others for a wage to work on them. In other words, when they start to practice something like capitalism. The system is by definition coercive - people dont voluntarily give up communal access to things like health, food, water, sociality, liberty, clothing, etc. in exchange for a wage economy. Basic studies of the histories of primitive accumulation are clear on this.
So sure - if someone wants to wingnut out as a libertarian loony in their gated minicastle - fine. Shit i might do the same thing. But this doesnt legitimize a process of post revolutionary primitive accumulation, or the privatization of commonly held resources, nor does it legitimiize the formation of mini states of professional soldiers for the purpose of protecting such accumulation.
*sigh* Only in america would
*sigh* Only in america would something like this come out.
At least it is to the left of anarcho-capitalists...kinda.
Add new comment