Pages:
Author

Topic: I made this video on the ostracism happening against Bitcoin libertarians - page 3. (Read 3463 times)

legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".


This is nonsense - how is capitalism coercive?

In very basic terms: Coercive hierarchical structures are inherent to capitalism. Individuals who do not own any means of production are forced to sell their labor as a condition for survival to those who do own means of production, triggering a "wage slavery" mechanism. You need to employ your time as your employer wants, otherwise you might starve.

As a side note, capitalism is based on a competitivity principle which is opposed to the "mutual aid" principle professed by anarchists (Kropotkin).

To make a long story short, anarchist thinkers share Marx's view on capitalism, and about this specific (coercion) point:

Quote
In pre-capitalist economies, exploitation of the worker was achieved via physical coercion. In the capitalist mode of production, that result is more subtly achieved; because the worker does not own the means of production, he or she must voluntarily enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to earn the necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is voluntary in that he or she chooses which capitalist to work for. However, the worker must work or starve. Thus, exploitation is inevitable, and the "voluntary" nature of a worker participating in a capitalist society is illusory.

Alienation is the estrangement of people from their humanity, which is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and control what they do during their worktime, and so generate alienated labourers. In Marx's view, alienation is an objective characterization of the worker's situation in capitalism – his or her self-awareness of this condition is not prerequisite.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Amazing thread this is. As a non American, I've always been attracted to the "social consciousness" or "peer responsibility" (in lack of a better word) amongst libertarians and ANCAP'ers here and from other historical sources.

However pointing out those "left wing" virtues kind of offend Americans identifying them self as libertarians?

I'm not talking about socialism or communism, but even Adam Smith wrote about the need for a social security ad  responsibility towards the poor. He sold it as a security for the rich for not being robbed by the mob, but he truly believed that the privilege of wealth carried a responsibility to maintain a certain amount of fairness for the all social classes.

Funny that pioneers in any ideology has this concept of fairness equality in the law and openness and the opposition is not other ideologies  but the seated power in control.

Maybe the concept of conflict between political ideologies is an outdated one, as in reality the struggle is between the right to pursue knowledge, assemble freely and own a reasonable amount of property, and the opposition is the real power in charge, having opposite interests, and at best, is trying to capitalise on ideals corrupting them in the process.

States only agenda is to get bigger, stronger and richer, in a world of finite resources. If libertarianism, in it's core, is anti centralisation, it must be anti state too, in the sense that representative democracy or parliamentarism is elitist and un-democratic. Likewise libertarianism would have the same view on centralised cornered financial power (unregulated capitalism) as being un-democratic and suppressive.

So maybe the paradox is how we govern our selves without being governed? It's a hard nut, the Greek mythological ideals were,... well myths, never really achievable in real society, and they tried a lot of different things.




hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
This is nonsense - how is capitalism coercive?

When monopolies and cartels form.

Small example:  It used to be common practice for a highly valuable engineers to jump between tech companies, by finding the company that was willing to pay him or her the most for their services.

It seems that the largest tech companies (the ones that had the ability to pay the most for this specialized form of labor) formed a cartel to drive down these wages.

http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

All the anarchism founders were anti-capitalists - in fact anarchism was born precisely as a reaction to the rise of capitalism in the first half of 1800. On the contrary, the vast majority of "US libertarians" are totally pro-capitalism and simply ignore the work of the founders of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin et al.), while tending to glorify Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" which, by the way, is pure and simply a ridiculous oxymoron.

It should also be said that anarchists were against "private property", but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An anarchist would never accept any ruler/boss, regardless of that ruler/boss being "public" (the government) or "private" (the guy paying your wage - "wage slavery" is a no-no in anarchism). In fact, one of the core principle sof anarchism is workers themselves controlling the product of their labor and self-managing factories, farms, etc. If you are working a piece of land, then you own it, and nobody can decide for you what to do with the fruit of your work.

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

Nicely described and accurate. You obviously have a genuine understanding of political science.
member
Activity: 63
Merit: 10

The video goes by too quickly - hard to read any long quotes. The quotes need to be simplified, read to the listener, or there need to be longer delays.

hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".


This is nonsense - how is capitalism coercive?
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500

All the anarchism founders were anti-capitalists - in fact anarchism was born precisely as a reaction to the rise of capitalism in the first half of 1800. On the contrary, the vast majority of "US libertarians" are totally pro-capitalism and simply ignore the work of the founders of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin et al.), while tending to glorify Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" which, by the way, is pure and simply a ridiculous oxymoron.

It should also be said that anarchists were against "private property", but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An anarchist would never accept any ruler/boss, regardless of that ruler/boss being "public" (the government) or "private" (the guy paying your wage - "wage slavery" is a no-no in anarchism). In fact, one of the core principle sof anarchism is workers themselves controlling the product of their labor and self-managing factories, farms, etc. If you are working a piece of land, then you own it, and nobody can decide for you what to do with the fruit of your work.

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".



Yes - thats precisely my understanding of the differeneces - you made a good explanation and post.

legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

All the anarchism founders were anti-capitalists - in fact anarchism was born precisely as a reaction to the rise of capitalism in the first half of 1800. On the contrary, the vast majority of "US libertarians" are totally pro-capitalism and simply ignore the work of the founders of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin et al.), while tending to glorify Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" which, by the way, is pure and simply a ridiculous oxymoron.

It should also be said that anarchists were against "private property", but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An anarchist would never accept any ruler/boss, regardless of that ruler/boss being "public" (the government) or "private" (the guy paying your wage - "wage slavery" is a no-no in anarchism). In fact, one of the core principle sof anarchism is workers themselves controlling the product of their labor and self-managing factories, farms, etc. If you are working a piece of land, then you own it, and nobody can decide for you what to do with the fruit of your work.

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
You may want to consider slowing down the slides a bit.  It requires incredible speed reading skills to catch everything.   Wink

I applaud Libertarians or anyone for that matter, building infrastructure around Bitcoin, that serves their specific ideals and principles best.  However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is not a Libertarian thing, or a conservative or liberal thing or a Christian or atheist thing.  It's a humanity thing and no one group has more say than another on what Bitcoin is or should be.  
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.
Pages:
Jump to: