Ain't the Free Market great?

[EthnAlln]

My title may seem to be ironic, but actually it's quite serious. My nephew sent me this link to a scene from a factory in China (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ca_1179747718&p=1). You can say it shows workers being exploited under capitalism, because it does. On the other hand, I have a feeling the same kinds of things were happening before China's "free market" reforms, only no one was allowed to film it.

[Stinger]

My title may seem to be ironic, but actually it's quite serious. My nephew sent me this link to a scene from a factory in China (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ca_1179747718&p=1). You can say it shows workers being exploited under capitalism, because it does. On the other hand, I have a feeling the same kinds of things were happening before China's "free market" reforms, only no one was allowed to film it. Yea, I'd rather work in a factory with a chance at promotion, than toil behind a water buffalo for 50 years.

[laughing dog]

Yea, I'd rather work in a factory with a chance at promotion, than toil behind a water buffalo for 50 years. Well, I'd rather be the hammer than the nail, yes I would, I surely would.

[Bonniedundee]

Yeah, there is nothing like a free market in China.

[EthnAlln]

Yeah, there is nothing like a free market in China.

That's true. That's why I put "free market" in inverted commas.

But there is something one might call "state capitalism" going on there. It's no longer a command economy; they are letting the world-wide market determine WHAT they produce. The actual production is still in the hands of a small oligarchy of robber barons, as in Russia and the US.

[Stinger]

That's true. That's why I put "free market" in inverted commas.

But there is something one might call "state capitalism" going on there. It's no longer a command economy; they are letting the world-wide market determine WHAT they produce. The actual production is still in the hands of a small oligarchy of robber barons, as in Russia and the US. Do you think that the average Chinese worker is better off today or better off 20 years ago? I would encourage people to visit China and not judge it by yesterday's standards. Go to the Olympics in 2008. They still have a lot of problems. But the growth in their living standards is incredible. Give them time: it takes incredible effort and time to correct the devastation and rot left behind by socialism.

[theyeti]

On the other hand, I have a feeling the same kinds of things were happening before China's "free market" reforms, only no one was allowed to film it.

Being allowed to film something isn't an example of the free market, it's (a degree of) political freedom. You can have political freedom without a free market and vice versa.

BTW, could anyone explain to me just what those workers are doing? It didn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

theyeti

[Brian63]

This topic sounds appropriate for our new PEST forum.

Brian
WEGP mod

[EthnAlln]

Do you think that the average Chinese worker is better off today or better off 20 years ago? I would encourage people to visit China and not judge it by yesterday's standards. Go to the Olympics in 2008. They still have a lot of problems. But the growth in their living standards is incredible. Give them time: it takes incredible effort and time to correct the devastation and rot left behind by socialism.

Much better off today, I'd say, and the freedom to travel is much better. I agree that it's going to take a long time to throw off the legacy of Maoism, and I'm glad it will apparently proceed peacefully. (Until the mainland government decides it is strong enough to take over Taiwan. That could be sticky. As in Ireland, unification might have a better chance to succeed if the people who want to rule over others who don't want to be ruled by them would just make unification a bit more attractive instead of insisting on their non-existent "right" to rule.)

[Stinger]

Much better off today, I'd say, and the freedom to travel is much better. I agree that it's going to take a long time to throw off the legacy of Maoism, and I'm glad it will apparently proceed peacefully. (Until the mainland government decides it is strong enough to take over Taiwan. That could be sticky. As in Ireland, unification might have a better chance to succeed if the people who want to rule over others who don't want to be ruled by them would just make unification a bit more attractive instead of insisting on their non-existent "right" to rule.) I follow the Taiwan issue pretty carefully. I think that it has really settled down. I don't see an imminent attack. I think that attitudes are changing a little. I hear more Chinese saying that a takeover of Taiwan probably isn't realistic. China, more than anything else, wants to be a great and prosperous nation. Invading Taiwan and possibly starting WWIII probably won't help them much.

BTW: I don't believe in a right to rule. I think that a people have a natural right to democratically determine their own government. I hope that as China becomes more democratic that they will see that invasion and the killing of hundreds of thousands in order to save face isn't really democratic
.

[RareBird]

Free market is a wonderful idea. The only problem is that it assumes everyone will be honest and play by the same rules. Well, the jury is in and guess what? If left unregulated and/or unobserved by public scrutiny, dihonesty and exploitation will eventually force the hand of eveyone. Case closed.

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you think that the average Chinese worker is better off today or better off 20 years ago? I would encourage people to visit China and not judge it by yesterday's standards. Go to the Olympics in 2008. They still have a lot of problems. But the growth in their living standards is incredible. Give them time: it takes incredible effort and time to correct the devastation and rot left behind by socialism.

I've seen a tremendous amount of change in the decade or so that I've been going there. Admittedly the only place I've been enough to see change is a place that is above average.

[Bonniedundee]

But there is something one might call "state capitalism" going on there. It's no longer a command economy; they are letting the world-wide market determine WHAT they produce. The actual production is still in the hands of a small oligarchy of robber barons, as in Russia and the US.All capitalism is state capitalism and always has been, I think they are simply allowed to get away with more overtly fascistic acts than the West at the moment.

[Bonniedundee]

Free market is a wonderful idea. The only problem is that it assumes everyone will be honest and play by the same rules. Well, the jury is in and guess what? If left unregulated and/or unobserved by public scrutiny, dihonesty and exploitation will eventually force the hand of eveyone. Case closed.The public doesn't regulate the state does.

And it is the state, as Adam Smith recalled "it is impossible for one to become excessively rich without making many other correspondingly poor." and what can make others that poor? The state.

So yo which the state to regulate what it creates and what it exists to create?

[Kat_Somm_Faen]

Kind of a pointless thread.

They are, after all, making Walmart products. Ain't "free market" just great? We will buy the cheapest crap possible even if it comes from a factory like that... Must feel good bashing the Chinese "free market" while investing in it and therefore awarding this kind of behaviour.

[untermensche]

Yea, I'd rather work in a factory with a chance at promotion, than toil behind a water buffalo for 50 years.
I'd rather live in a modern industrial Anarchist State than toil as a wage slave in hope your superior recognizes your devotion and awards you that promotion to "Second row pressman".

[countjulian]

I'd rather live in a modern industrial Anarchist State than toil as a wage slave in hope your superior recognizes your devotion and awards you that promotion to "Second row pressman".

I don't think you'd like it much on Fantasy Island. Just my opinion.

[Bonniedundee]

I don't think you'd like it much on Fantasy Island. Just my opinion.I believe this kind of stuff was the reason the forum was shut down, was there any point in you actually posting that?

[anders]

Give them time: it takes incredible effort and time to correct the devastation and rot left behind by socialism
, and the results of the exploitation of their resources from assorted "Western" powers and the Japanese.

[Nitrousoxide]

I'd rather live in a modern industrial Anarchist State than toil as a wage slave in hope your superior recognizes your devotion and awards you that promotion to "Second row pressman".

I do think that would be quite difficult seeing as "State" and "Anarchy" are mutually exclusive.

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd rather live in a modern industrial Anarchist State than toil as a wage slave in hope your superior recognizes your devotion and awards you that promotion to "Second row pressman".

"Modern industrial anarchist state" = oxymoron.

[felicitouslut]

Free market is a wonderful idea. The only problem is that it assumes everyone will be honest and play by the same rules. Well, the jury is in and guess what? If left unregulated and/or unobserved by public scrutiny, dihonesty and exploitation will eventually force the hand of eveyone. Case closed.

it also assumes people are paying attention ("caveat emptor") .. I appears to me that (state)regulation can actually conceal stuff from "public scrutiny" when Mr Emptor says "oh! that State I'm paying so much $ for is giving ABC CORP a gold star. They must be OK!" instead of asking people they know, researching on the (my own personal GOB!) internet ETC about reliable service and products and employment conditions. WTF do we PAY the state to regulate shit for, IF WE CANNOT TRUST THEM?!

[Axulus]

All capitalism is state capitalism and always has been, I think they are simply allowed to get away with more overtly fascistic acts than the West at the moment.

Can you at least concede that this "state capitalism" is better than what they had before? That the country is moving in the right direction by having growth friendly policies?

[Axulus]

Kind of a pointless thread.

They are, after all, making Walmart products. Ain't "free market" just great? We will buy the cheapest crap possible even if it comes from a factory like that... Must feel good bashing the Chinese "free market" while investing in it and therefore awarding this kind of behaviour.

Rewarding what kind of behavior? There is simply not enough infrastructure and market development to give every Chinese person a job with middle class Western standard of wages and working conditions. Would you rather see these Chinese unemployed? You have to deal with the reality of the possible alternatives.

[untermensche]

I do think that would be quite difficult seeing as "State" and "Anarchy" are mutually exclusive.
That's why I said Anarchist, not anarchy.

[Axulus]

Here is what the Chinese actually think about their current situation (likely based in part on what they experience previously.)

A poll was conducted around the world asking:
"Do you believe that globalization, especially the increasing connection of our economy with others around the world, is mostly good or mostly bad for [survey country]?

China topped the list as most favorable with 87% responding "mostly good" and 6% responding "mostly bad."

The U.S. had only a 60/35 split. Iran was surprisingly more favorable than the U.S., with a 63/31 split.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/349.php?nid=&id=&pnt=349&lb=hmpg1

[untermensche]

"Modern industrial anarchist state" = oxymoron.
You should learn a little history. And it isn't some obscure ancient history. I'm talking about 20th Century European history. Post industrial-age history.

[Loren Pechtel]

You should learn a little history. And it isn't some obscure ancient history. I'm talking about 20th Century European history. Post industrial-age history.

Anarchist societies can't support heavy industry. It requires too big an organization.

[Axulus]

You should learn a little history. And it isn't some obscure ancient history. I'm talking about 20th Century European history. Post industrial-age history.

About the only example ever pointed to is Anarchist Spain for a short period. This ignores that the means of production were already available to be taken over. Also, it is extremely lacking in actual data. The only "data" is a bunch of anecdotal stories of how wonderful it was.

How many of the citizens in anarchist Spain were employed?
What was the rate of annual production expansion?
What was the approximate annual increase in living standards? As measured by what?
Where any significant technological discoveries made by anyone who lived and worked in anarchist Spain? If so, what were they?
What were the crime levels at the time?

Of course, we have none of this data, so we have nothing to base an opinion on. Also, even if we did, the anarchists could always use the excuse that it occurred during turmoilitious times (which is indeed true). But this just reinforces my point that it doesn't allow one to form an opinion one way or the other. Indeed, it only lasted a few short years, so even if it was great for that amount of time (which we don't have the data to decide one way or the other), we have nothing to base a longer term conclusion on either.

[untermensche]

About the only example ever pointed to is Anarchist Spain for a short period. This ignores that the means of production were already available to be taken over. Also, it is extremely lacking in actual data. The only "data" is a bunch of anecdotal stories of how wonderful it was.

How many of the citizens in anarchist Spain were employed?
What was the rate of annual production expansion?
What was the approximate annual increase in living standards? As measured by what?
Where any significant technological discoveries made by anyone who lived and worked in anarchist Spain? If so, what were they?
What were the crime levels at the time?

Of course, we have none of this data, so we have nothing to base an opinion on. Also, even if we did, the anarchists could always use the excuse that it occurred during turmoilitious times (which is indeed true). But this just reinforces my point that it doesn't allow one to form an opinion one way or the other. Indeed, it only lasted a few short years, so even if it was great for that amount of time (which we don't have the data to decide one way or the other), we have nothing to base a longer term conclusion on either.
This first experiment was crushed very quickly, by some of the most brutal people the world has ever seen

And of course I am supposed to somehow think this counts against it.

Which I don't for a second.

Of course Capitalism had all those years of Feudalism and Slavery to learn it's lessons on how to manipulate and coerse the weak. To force the weak to fulfill the will of the powerful.

Anarchism would need a lot of time to break people from the brutalization of capitalism. But if it's crushed by force every time it tries to, that may never happen. As long as the powerful think they have a right to attack the weak at will, it will never happen.

[Nitrousoxide]

That's why I said Anarchist, not anarchy.

Anarchists can support the notion of a "government" but not the "State."


"State" and "Anarchy" or "Anarchism" are inconsistant, just look up the defnitions.

[Axulus]

This first experiment was crushed very quickly, by some of the most brutal people the world has ever seen

And of course I am supposed to somehow think this counts against it.

Which I don't for a second.


Not count against it, just not an example of the benefits of such a society. Nor is it an example of the downside of such a society. Once again, there is insufficient data and information about the society to determine one way or the other.


Of course Capitalism had all those years of Feudalism and Slavery to learn it's lessons on how to manipulate and coerse the weak. To force the weak to fulfill the will of the powerful.

Anarchism would need a lot of time to break people from the brutalization of capitalism. But if it's crushed by force every time it tries to, that may never happen. As long as the powerful think they have a right to attack the weak at will, it will never happen.

The problem is that there is a lot of facts that we know about human nature and the way that people make choices to indicate that Anarchism would not make for a very good society for the long run. It is like getting drunk, it feels good at first, but when you wake up in the morning you feel like shit and wonder "wtf was I thinking?"

[untermensche]

Anarchists can support the notion of a "government" but not the "State."


"State" and "Anarchy" or "Anarchism" are inconsistant, just look up the defnitions.
Spain wasn't a "State"?

[Nitrousoxide]

Spain wasn't a "State"?

A country in a full scale civil war is not a State. One of the necessary conditions for statehood is sovereignty over itself, which any nation in civil war does not have.

So, no, Spain during it's Civil war was not a State.

There were several governments within that nation, but no State.

It can be tricky but the main descriptive terms you should know are, "State, Nation, Government, and Regime."

[untermensche]

A country in a full scale civil war is not a State. One of the necessary conditions for statehood is sovereignty over itself, which any nation in civil war does not have.

So, no, Spain during it's Civil war was not a State.

There were several governments within that nation, but no State.

It can be tricky but the main descriptive terms you should know are, "State, Nation, Government, and Regime."
It was the way any Anarchist State would be. Fractured with a weak central government that could not dictate from on high.

It's called freedom.

[Stinger]

I believe this kind of stuff was the reason the forum was shut down, was there any point in you actually posting that? Well, it is a fantasy. Outside of Spain for a couple years, there's never been a successful anarch-socialist state. (And Spain is debatable.) I'd rather be a happy wage slave day anyday than some unproven theory. I still haven't heard a good reason why being a wage slave is bad.

[untermensche]

Well, it is a fantasy. Outside of Spain for a couple years, there's never been a successful anarch-socialist state. (And Spain is debatable.) I'd rather be a happy wage slave day anyday than some unproven theory. I still haven't heard a good reason why being a wage slave is bad.
Nothing unproven about it.

Many factories were far more productive under the Anarchists. They even managed to have large economies without money.

It was a time of great success after success.

THAT is why it was crushed by Germany and Italy with the help of the British and the Americans. Not because it was some failure.

[Nitrousoxide]

It was the way any Anarchist State would be. Fractured with a weak central government that could not dictate from on high.

It's called freedom.

You do love your rhetoric....

Anyway, whatever you call the area controlled by an anarchist society, a state is not what you mean.

Anarchist government works, but not state. An anarchist state about as comprehensible as a square circle.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that an anarchist state being impossible is an a priori truth, much like the phrase, "a married bachelor is impossible."



Nothing unproven about it.

Many factories were far more productive under the Anarchists. They even managed to have large economies without money.

It was a time of great success after success.

THAT is why it was crushed by Germany and Italy with the help of the British and the Americans. Not because it was some failure.

Got the numbers to show that? I remember you've posted information where people assert that this is the case, but do they have any actual evidence to support what you're saying? I mean, it's lovely that authority figures such as Orwell are supposed to be spokesmen for your cause, but I've never seen, nor heard of any hard data which corroborates his or anyone's assertions as to the paradise that 1930's Spain was supposed to be.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

That's true. That's why I put "free market" in inverted commas.
Herr Starr would be proud.

[untermensche]

You do love your rhetoric....

Anyway, whatever you call the area controlled by an anarchist society, a state is not what you mean.

Anarchist government works, but not state. An anarchist state about as comprehensible as a square circle.
If only weakly labeling something as rhetoric made it so.

It would not be a bloody capitalist state. It would be a different kind of state. You have been indoctrinated to think a state is one thing.

Good thing there's folks like me to show you a sliver of light.
Got the numbers to show that? I remember you've posted information where people assert that this is the case, but do they have any actual evidence to support what you're saying? I mean, it's lovely that authority figures such as Orwell are supposed to be spokesmen for your cause, but I've never seen, nor heard of any hard data which corroborates his or anyone's assertions as to the paradise that 1930's Spain was supposed to be.
Don't take my word for it, of course.

Check it out.

[Nitrousoxide]

If only weakly labeling something as rhetoric made it so.

It would not be a bloody capitalist state. It would be a different kind of state. You have been indoctrinated to think a state is one thing.

Good thing there's folks like me to show you a sliver of light.

You can't be serious. You must be joking.

Are you joking?




Don't take my word for it, of course.

Check it out.

You're the one suggesting your system as a viable alternative to us non-believers. The burden isn't on us to prove ourselves wrong.

[untermensche]

You can't be serious. You must be joking.

Are you joking?
Not about the idea that a state is not what you dogmatically tell me it is.
You're the one suggesting your system as a viable alternative to us non-believers. The burden isn't on us to prove ourselves wrong.
You are ignorant of the Anarchist accomplishments in Spain and act as if this is my doing.

It is not up to me to provide you with a proper education.

Do some research to see if I am telling the truth if you care.

[Loren Pechtel]

untermensche:

You're missing an important point. One of the problems with an anarchist society is it's inability to defend itself. Of course they lost!

[Norseman]

The public doesn't regulate the state does.


Niether does. It's in the interests of the corporations to control the state. If you've been following the Jack Abramoff scandal, lobbying, campaign donations, etc. it's pretty evident that, not only is this theoretically what they would do, but that in practice, the corporations do indeed regulate the state. What little regulation the state does provide either is necessary to keep people from overthrowing the status quo (i.e. the democrats initial opposition to war funding without a timetable, and then folding within a month or two), or to keep competing corporations from gaining a foothold. The public just buys whatever brand names they recognize, or occasionally what's cheapest, so they don't accomplish any regulation either. The measly little boycots people do today aren't even mildly damaging to corporations anymore.

[Bonniedundee]

Niether does. It's in the interests of the corporations to control the state.Well duh. The state obviously doesn't just act on its own malevolent accord, it is the executive committee of the ruling classes as Marx said.

However it always should be remembered that it is complex, the ruling classes aren't homogenous in their interests nor in their views on the best solutions for problems they face, and of course the state has to appease certain other special interests and even occassionally it has to appease the actual people and grassroots demands.

[premjan]

untermensche:
You're missing an important point. One of the problems with an anarchist society is it's inability to defend itself. Of course they lost!
I don't see why that is a design feature of anarchism. The original American revolution was more or less anarchist.

[Bonniedundee]

untermensche:

You're missing an important point. One of the problems with an anarchist society is it's inability to defend itself. Of course they lostRubbish, I suggest you read some Rothbard or Hoppe etc they rip public goods theory to shreds.

[Stinger]

I don't see why that is a design feature of anarchism. The original American revolution was more or less anarchist. Very good point. Contributing factors were that they had geography on their side (it took a long time for an Euro army to invade across the ocean) and Europe was very tired for their long 100 years war. However, when a threat began emerging, the federal government became much stronger, an army was raised, taxes raised to support the army and the stronger state, and America was saved. An anarchy state could never survive long; it can't adequately defend itself.

[premjan]

I don't think anarchism means no-state. Rather it tries to avoid subordination of the interests of one group to another - noncoercive social relationships in other words.

[Stinger]

I don't think anarchism means no-state. Rather it tries to avoid subordination of the interests of one group to another - noncoercive social relationships in other words. Okay. Please show me an effective anarchist army. An effective army is mostly constructed with extremely coercive social relationships! An effective army always has be led with top guys at the top with displined soliders at the bottom who do what they told to do.

[premjan]

That may be true - a hierarchical command and control may have to be coercive as there is no time to evaluate options, though I doubt it has to be. The fact that we need hierarchical armies may be seen as a weakness of our collective societies really. And hierarchical armies can make a lot of mistakes too.

[Loren Pechtel]

That may be true - a hierarchical command and control may have to be coercive as there is no time to evaluate options, though I doubt it has to be. The fact that we need hierarchical armies may be seen as a weakness of our collective societies really. And hierarchical armies can make a lot of mistakes too.

It's more than that. Military operations often involve ordering people into riskier situations than they would be willing to enter on their own accord.


Lets take a simple case that's easy to look at:

You're assaulting a fortified position with the aid of artillery. Standard military doctrine says that you need to fire the artillery to the very last instant, the last shells falling so close to your own forces that you take some casualties from it.

Suppose it's an anarchist force doing the assault. You know that the artillery is going to be going off dangerously close. Think you're going to be in the lead? Nor is anyone else--the assault force is going to slow down while the last shells are falling.

Oops--you just gave the defenders time to react and the assault likely gets chopped to ribbons.

That's assuming you even have an assault force at all. A lot of the soldiers will probably decide that being defeated is better than carrying out the assault.

[Nitrousoxide]

Not to mention that you can't let every grunt know every aspect of your plans. You think the leaks can be bad now when only a few high ups know what's going on in a war. Letting everyone know what's the plan will lead to turncoats who will sell their information for loads of money to the enemy or any POW's revealing the entire plan.

The people low on the totem poll really can't know enough to make informed decisions or to vote on the matter.

[untermensche]

untermensche:

You're missing an important point. One of the problems with an anarchist society is it's inability to defend itself. Of course they lost!
Who at that time could have defended against an attack from Germany, Italy, Britain, and the US from without, and the Soviet Union from within?

Who?

Germany alone took out France and almost Britain.

I guess the French system sucks too, since it couldn't defend against the Nazi's. What was that again? Oh yeah, capitalism.

[Axulus]

Who at that time could have defended against an attack from Germany, Italy, Britain, and the US from without, and the Soviet Union from within?

Who?

Germany alone took out France and almost Britain.

I guess the French system sucks too, since it couldn't defend against the Nazi's. What was that again? Oh yeah, capitalism.

How can an anarchist state in principle defend itself without an authoritarian chain of command?

[untermensche]

How can an anarchist state in principle defend itself without an authoritarian chain of command?
Why would it have to defend itself from peace loving capitalists who rule the world presently?

[Nitrousoxide]

Why would it have to defend itself from peace loving capitalists who rule the world presently?

You're not answering the question.

How does an anarchist society defend itself from attack from without?

[untermensche]

You're not answering the question.

How does an anarchist society defend itself from attack from without?
An attack from whom specifically? And why must they defend alone?

Unlawful invasions of nations is a matter all nations care about, and this is why the UN was created.

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would it have to defend itself from peace loving capitalists who rule the world presently?

And what about the various thugs that like eating weak neighbors?

[untermensche]

And what about the various thugs that like eating weak neighbors?
The US ran to the defense of the monarchy in Kuwait.

Nobody would dare invade another state with the US on the block.

[Nitrousoxide]

The US ran to the defense of the monarchy in Kuwait.

Nobody would dare invade another state with the US on the block.

So, what you're saying is that Anarchist societies must rely on States with the power of coercion to defend them?

I'm not seeing any way in your post by which an anarchy might defend themselves.

Are you saying that they cannot defend themselves?

[untermensche]

So, what you're saying is that Anarchist societies must rely on States with the power of coercion to defend them?

I'm not seeing any way in your post by which an anarchy might defend themselves.

Are you saying that they cannot defend themselves?
And again I ask, from what?

Switzerland cannot defend itself from Poland.

What does this say about either system?

[Stinger]

An attack from whom specifically? And why must they defend alone?

Unlawful invasions of nations is a matter all nations care about, and this is why the UN was created.
Simple thought experiment: how long would Taiwan last if they converted to anarchy tomorrow? They'd gobbled up by China within a week. So, why should they switch to your system?

[Loren Pechtel]

The US ran to the defense of the monarchy in Kuwait.

Nobody would dare invade another state with the US on the block.

In other words I'm right--an anarchist state can't defend itself.

You can't have it both ways--you don't like the US but want to be able to call them as a protector.

[Nitrousoxide]

And again I ask, from what?

Switzerland cannot defend itself from Poland.

What does this say about either system?

There's nothing inherent about Switzerland's economic or political structure which makes it impossible for it to defend itself. It can spend more money on defense if it needs, get trained and build up its military command if it didn't have the protection of the US and the rest of NATO.

An anarchist society cannot do this. In fact, I'm not sure as to how they could have a coherent foreign policy to enter into mutual protection pacts or military alliances like NATO in the first place. Without a central government with authority over its territory to enforce agreements with other States, no State will recognize whatever sort of agreement such a society might want to make.

I'm really not sure why you would expect the US would protect your nation in the first place, but just imagine that the US was not there to protect it. How would the society you envision develop, build, organize, and maintain a military needed to defend the society from outside invasion?

I can tell you how a State with a strong central government could even if it doesn’t currently have that military, but tell me how a society without a strong central government could do so.

[Norseman]

There's nothing inherent about Switzerland's economic or political structure which makes it impossible for it to defend itself. It can spend more money on defense if it needs, get trained and build up its military command if it didn't have the protection of the US and the rest of NATO.

An anarchist society cannot do this. In fact, I'm not sure as to how they could have a coherent foreign policy to enter into mutual protection pacts or military alliances like NATO in the first place. Without a central government with authority over its territory to enforce agreements with other States, no State will recognize whatever sort of agreement such a society might want to make.

I'm really not sure why you would expect the US would protect your nation in the first place, but just imagine that the US was not there to protect it. How would the society you envision develop, build, organize, and maintain a military needed to defend the society from outside invasion?

I can tell you how a State with a strong central government could even if it doesn’t currently have that military, but tell me how a society without a strong central government could do so.

The same way an anarchist society would do anything. In order for it to form in the first place, it either had to democratically become anarchist, in which case the population is, at minimum, 50% anarchist, or it has to revolutionarily become anarchist, which means the movement needs to be powerful enough to overthrow the existing government. In the first case, at least half the society will want to maintain the anarchism, and the people who really didn't like it will probably have already left. If you think Vietnam or Iraq is bad, wait until you can't make any claims that you're liberating anyone, and the majority of the population hates you. In the second case, it's much harder for revolutionaries to overthrow their own governments than it is to overthrow imposed foreign governments. Unless the attacker is like USA 2.0, and spends three times more on its military than the rest of the world combined, it's probably not going to have good odds of success.

Most regular militaries are geared towards fighting other regular militaries. They aren't typically geared towards counter-insurgency or dealing with irregular military forces in civillian areas. That's why the US military, the military which spends more than the rest of the world's militaries combined, was able to wipe out Saddam's military within a month, but has spent years trying to deal with the insurgency that followed.

[Bonniedundee]

An anarchy state could never survive long; it can't adequately defend itself.

http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=247&sortorder=issue
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/5crimjust30.html
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf
http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

Warning: Read only if you are willing to have childish notions like Public goods theory completely smashed.

[Nitrousoxide]

2 major things Euro.

1: I'm not at all convinced that I would feel the need to pay for some company defending me if I can leech off of my neighbor's benefits by way of postive externalities. If everyone surrounding me is paying for a defence company, I can just sit back and enjoy the benefits of their payments.

2: The tactics of a privately based defence force would be all wrong. Some times, you simply cannot defend a small area. If I'm paying for a defence force which sized to defend something the size of a small town and the nation's enemy funnels most of it's forces through this section of the country, this small company would not be able to handle the forces thrown at it. You need to be able to draw forces from other parts of the country or fall back, surrendering land to the enemy to fortify a further back possition. A private company would not be paid to do that, the individuals would only be paying only for their own protection, so companies in say Nebraska could not be sent to Texas to deal with an invasion by Mexicans. At least they can't if you want the company to be able to make a profit. They can't be providing positive externalites to their surrounding non-paying populations and expecting them to pay for their own security forces.

You would need massive companies which span the whole of the country so as to be able to draw troops from unthreatened areas to strenghten threatened areas. These companies would need to be of a size you seem to think are impossible to form without government intervention. So, without a government, companies of the appropriate size would not be possible and as such, the effective protection of a large area such as the US would be impossible in an anarchist society.

[coloradoatheist]

Actually I agree for a different reason. I think the only thing an anarchist society could do well is fight. People can band together and disregard rank for a common cause but once that common cause is gone something else is going to have to tie them together. The minute men in the American revolution weren't fighting for a state. However once the cause was over with they had to get together and form some govt. Anarchy Spain would have eventually done that.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

1: I'm not at all convinced that I would feel the need to pay for some company defending me if I can leech off of my neighbor's benefits by way of postive externalities. If everyone surrounding me is paying for a defence company, I can just sit back and enjoy the benefits of their payments.Well I'm sure Rothbard and Hoppe would know a few things about this.
Read Hoppe's link.


2: The tactics of a privately based defence force would be all wrong. Some times, you simply cannot defend a small area. If I'm paying for a defence force which sized to defend something the size of a small town and the nation's enemy funnels most of it's forces through this section of the country, this small company would not be able to handle the forces thrown at it. You need to be able to draw forces from other parts of the country or fall back, surrendering land to the enemy to fortify a further back possition. A private company would not be paid to do that, the individuals would only be paying only for their own protection, so companies in say Nebraska could not be sent to Texas to deal with an invasion by Mexicans. At least they can't if you want the company to be able to make a profit. They can't be providing positive externalites to their surrounding non-paying populations and expecting them to pay for their own security forces.
Firstly the state defends itself not the population so you'd be exactly as screwed with them if your accusations were true.
Secondly companies and militias can join together and band together to fight off the enemy as a rule anything that can be done by force can be done better voluntarily.

[Nitrousoxide]

Well I'm sure Rothbard and Hoppe would know a few things about this.
Read Hoppe's link.

No one's really explained how the free-rider problem won't be present, they just brush it off and then point to guerilla warfare after the territory was taken as the solution. I'm not at all impressed with this and neither should you as it does nothing to protect the existing wealth that people possess and does nothing to protect the nation from utter demolition. Even if the natives somehow manage to make life such a massive pain for the invaders, it leaves the nation in ruins which take decades to recover from.

I should also point out that one of the reasons why states have a harder time conquering new territory these days is because of the nation-state. It's nationalism that provides the catalyst which brings about most popular uprisings against imperial powers. It was especially true in India during its uprisings. Without the nation-state which exists today, we don't have this nationalism and without the nationalism, we don't get popular uprisings as easily.

Any sound plan for defense doesn't rely on loosing first and then making life a pain for the victors, it relies on stopping the opponent from victory in the first place, and I've still not seen a solution which avoids the free-rider problem which sinks any anarchist libertarian society's defense.



Firstly the state defends itself not the population so you'd be exactly as screwed with them if your accusations were true.
Secondly companies and militias can join together and band together to fight off the enemy as a rule anything that can be done by force can be done better voluntarily.

The state defends it's territories and citizens for various reasons. Depending on the structure of the government, it can be because of the popularity of defending the population as it is with Republics and Democracies, it can be to defend its useful workers like is the case with Communist or other Authoritarian nations. They still need to defend their citizens, but choices must be made and not all of them can always be protected. Like I said, sometimes you need to abandon some members of your nation to the enemy to ensure the remainder can be protected and you need to pull troops and forces from areas which aren't threatened.

The pulling of troops from non-threatened areas is perhaps the worse problem for your system as it means that there are massive positive externalities which prevent people who are receiving the benefits of the companies from needing to pay for those benefits.

If you think a bunch of small companies will do the job, these positive externalities keep people from being willing to pay for the protection as folks refuse to pay at all knowing that if their area is threatened by an enemy, surrounding forces must come to help them lest the enemy establish a foothold in the area. You really can't allow a solitary nearby town to fall because they didn't pay as the enemy can setup command and control centers and artillery which hurts the defensibility of all the surrounding population centers.

Whole swaths of land would go without buyers because they would rely on the surrounding areas to come to their aid because they would themselves be threatened if the non-paying communities fell.

We actually experience this problem in an odd way already with the UN and NATO. Both of them are primarily composed of US forces, and rather than contributing their own military forces like they are supposed to, the member nations rely on those which do pay, in both cases us, to protect them as we know that if they fall, we are threatened as well.

The exact same problem would arise in your system. There is precedent and it's the rational self-interested thing to do.

[Bonniedundee]

No one's really explained how the free-rider problem won't be present, they just brush it off and then point to guerilla warfare after the territory was taken as the solution. I'm not at all impressed with this and neither should you as it does nothing to protect the existing wealth that people possess and does nothing to protect the nation from utter demolition. Even if the natives somehow manage to make life such a massive pain for the invaders, it leaves the nation in ruins which take decades to recover from.You clearly haven't read anything I just gave you. What is the point in discussing this if you don't have the courtesy to do this?

Let me try a different tact, how do you think the state developed?

[Nitrousoxide]

I did read your Hoppe link and it really isn't all that relevent. He's talking about security forces, in particular, police forces. The police and the military are seperate goods though as one is designed to defend against individuals or fairly small sets of organized criminals. The other is a good which deals out protection from large armed groups. The main difference, and one I've been pointing out constantly is that unlike the case with police where you don't need to draw forces from other parts of the nation (in most cases), a military MUST make use of forces in nearby areas to do it's job and it must secure nearby areas to keep the area charged with it's defense safe. You need to take forces from Nebraska to deal with the problems in my Texas example. You need to ensure the security of your neighboring communities if at all possible, EVEN IF THEY DON'T PAY FOR THEIR OWN MILITARY FORCES, because them being conqured permits your enemy to have a better positon to assault your own local. This permits huge swaths of land to neglect their own military forces. They will rely instead on the fact that they are next to areas with military forces to ensure their own survival. These externalities prevent the system from, at best, being efficient. At worst, it prevents it from being able to produce a profit.

You can't deny that this sort of thing happens, I pointed to the UN and NATO as perfect examples of leaching off of a powerful body to provide for your own security.

I don't see how the state developed is at all relevent to whether your libertarian system for military defense would work or not.

[Bonniedundee]

I did read your Hoppe link and it really isn't all that relevent. He's talking about security forces, in particular, police forces. The police and the military are seperate goods though as one is designed to defend against individuals or fairly small sets of organized criminals. The other is a good which deals out protection from large armed groups. The main difference, and one I've been pointing out constantly is that unlike the case with police where you don't need to draw forces from other parts of the nation (in most cases), a military MUST make use of forces in nearby areas to do it's job and it must secure nearby areas to keep the area charged with it's defense safe. You need to take forces from Nebraska to deal with the problems in my Texas example. You need to ensure the security of your neighboring communities if at all possible, EVEN IF THEY DON'T PAY FOR THEIR OWN MILITARY FORCES, because them being conqured permits your enemy to have a better positon to assault your own local. This permits huge swaths of land to neglect their own military forces. They will rely instead on the fact that they are next to areas with military forces to ensure their own survival. These externalities prevent the system from, at best, being efficient. At worst, it prevents it from being able to produce a profit.It is very relevant you are talking about public goods theory, so is he as are all those links.
It is pretty easy to work together.
You can't deny that this sort of thing happens, I pointed to the UN and NATO as perfect examples of leaching off of a powerful body to provide for your own security.
And you can't deny that anarchist organisations have fought extremely well, probably better per man than their enemies. It took the combined forces of the Italian, German, Spanish fascists as well as the western powers and the Soviets to bring them down in Spain.
The Makhnovistas fought just as well defeating Deniken's rear guard and basically allowing the Soviets to win, it took the massive power of the Red army to defeat them.

I don't see how the state developed is at all relevent to whether your libertarian system for military defense would work or not.Because it relates to public goods theory, basically both social contract theory as well the move from monarchy to "democracy" are against public goods theory.

Your entire argument rests on the extremely dodgy concept of public goods theory.

[premjan]

It's more than that. Military operations often involve ordering people into riskier situations than they would be willing to enter on their own accord.

Lets take a simple case that's easy to look at:

You're assaulting a fortified position with the aid of artillery. Standard military doctrine says that you need to fire the artillery to the very last instant, the last shells falling so close to your own forces that you take some casualties from it.

Suppose it's an anarchist force doing the assault. You know that the artillery is going to be going off dangerously close. Think you're going to be in the lead? Nor is anyone else--the assault force is going to slow down while the last shells are falling.

Oops--you just gave the defenders time to react and the assault likely gets chopped to ribbons.

That's assuming you even have an assault force at all. A lot of the soldiers will probably decide that being defeated is better than carrying out the assault.

Of course this is an argument against fighting wars outside your own territory. On your own territory, people will be willing to risk their lives to defend it, will likely jump at the chance.

[Bonniedundee]

I don't really see the point on this debate on anarchist defence, so they may(I believe this untrue.) be less able to defend themselves, is this worth the tyranny of the state?

It reminds me of I believe Benjamin Franklin who said, those that trade freedom for security deserve neither.

An anarchist community can certainly provide as much, if not far more internal security than a statist one.

[coloradoatheist]

I don't really see the point on this debate on anarchist defence, so they may(I believe this untrue.) be less able to defend themselves, is this worth the tyranny of the state?

It reminds me of I believe Benjamin Franklin who said, those that trade freedom for security deserve neither.

An anarchist community can certainly provide as much, if not far more internal security than a statist one.


But I don't think Franklin believed in anarchy. He believed in a very limited govt. You will always live under tyranny in a decent sized community so your choices are an arbitrary tyranny which you might be able to be the tyrannical one (if you are the warlord or mafia head), a monarch which is tyrannical by his/her whims, a democracy (tyranny of the majority), or most societies now a limited democracy (tyranny of the majority, but highly restricted on its tyrannical powers).


Mike

[premjan]

Anarchy is to my mind, a logical limiting case of small government. Enough government to prevent people from coercing each other.

[Bonniedundee]

But I don't think Franklin believed in anarchy. He believed in a very limited govt. You will always live under tyranny in a decent sized community so your choices are an arbitrary tyranny which you might be able to be the tyrannical one (if you are the warlord or mafia head), a monarch which is tyrannical by his/her whims, a democracy (tyranny of the majority), or most societies now a limited democracy (tyranny of the majority, but highly restricted on its tyrannical powers).


Mike
First I was just using Franklin's quote and taking it to the logical conclusion, I wasn't interested in his personal views on government, the only founding fathers of America I really am influenced by are Jefferson and Paine.

Secondly your view on always living in tyranny is just an assertion.

And lastly our current system is no tyranny of the majority it is a tyranny of the minority ie the rich and corporations with a small amount of popular input.

[untermensche]

Anarchy is to my mind, a logical limiting case of small government. Enough government to prevent people from coercing each other.
It has nothing to do with size.

It is always about deciding the difference between legitimate power of the government and illegitimate power.

So a government that tells people what they can read, what they can say, what they can injest, who they can associate with, etc. is exercising illegitimate power.

All government action is looked at in the light of legitimacy, and not in the light of promised effects.

So when the govenment kills, commits capital punishment, this is an illegitimate action. Punishment is not a legitimate government activity. Removing those dangerous to others and working to make them less dangerous is a legitimate government activity.

[premjan]

A government that is larger than it needs to be is also illegitimate. After all, the salaries for those government employees comes from somewhere.

[coloradoatheist]

It has nothing to do with size.

It is always about deciding the difference between legitimate power of the government and illegitimate power.

So a government that tells people what they can read, what they can say, what they can injest, who they can associate with, etc. is exercising illegitimate power.

All government action is looked at in the light of legitimacy, and not in the light of promised effects.

So when the govenment kills, commits capital punishment, this is an illegitimate action. Punishment is not a legitimate government activity. Removing those dangerous to others and working to make them less dangerous is a legitimate government activity.


So I'm curious, in anarchist Spain, what did they do to people who disobeyed the laws (murder, stealing, etc)? Did they have jails, jury trials, executions?

Mike

[untermensche]

A government that is larger than it needs to be is also illegitimate. After all, the salaries for those government employees comes from somewhere.
But a government must reflect the size of the population it represents.

If the government is tasked with running a health insurance program, the size of the program, the number of people needed to manage it, is dependent on the size of the population.

So here size is not in itself a problem if the task is deemed legitimate.

But if the program is bloated with redundant managers and uneccessary layers of management then size is a problem.

[premjan]

I agree that a government needs to be a certain size, and much smaller or bigger will affect its ability to function. I imagine that anarchist societies prefer to function via judge and jury, as that is a democratic setup already.

[untermensche]

I agree that a government needs to be a certain size, and much smaller or bigger will affect its ability to function. I imagine that anarchist societies prefer to function via judge and jury, as that is a democratic setup already.
Judges would be democratic, not judge.

[premjan]

Judges would be democratic, not judge.A judge is merely a disinterested legal expert or authority. A jury which makes the actual decision is democratic.

[untermensche]

A judge is merely a disinterested legal expert or authority. A jury which makes the actual decision is democratic.
Saying one judge were final authority would not be democratic. Having the actions of individual judges examined democratically by a number of judges in a democratic body would.

[premjan]

Judges don't decide verdicts, they are merely experts on the interpretation of law. I agree that judges ought to follow a democratic or meritocratic process between themselves.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All capitalism is state capitalism and always has been, I think they are simply allowed to get away with more overtly fascistic acts than the West at the moment.

Of course, state capitalism is capitalism, keynesianism is capitalism, socialism is capitalism, monetarism is capitalism, mercantilism is capitalism, georgism is capitalism, fascism is capitalism, welfarism is capitalism, etc.

Capitalism is now defined as "economic system". What we need is a word for an economic system that in days past was defined by the word "capitalism". "Laissez faire" is often used for that purpose.

[drewjmore]

...BTW, could anyone explain to me just what those workers are doing? It didn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.
theyeti

It looks like progressive, deep draw stamping of metal pans. I have visited several plants in the north-central US that use similar techniques & methods.

OSHA would require all of them to be wearing eye & ear protection, if they wre in the states, of course.

[Bonniedundee]

Of course, state capitalism is capitalism, keynesianism is capitalism, socialism is capitalism, monetarism is capitalism, mercantilism is capitalism, georgism is capitalism, fascism is capitalism, welfarism is capitalism, etc.How can socialism be capitalism? Most of those other ones are capitalism in the old left idea of it, as the real world corporate economy.

Capitalism is now defined as "economic system". What we need is a word for an economic system that in days past was defined by the word "capitalism". "Laissez faire" is often used for that purpose.Capitalism used to mean(to the old left.) the actual economy that exists now and that has existed since it began to evolve out of feudalism in early modern times, it has never been a free market system and always marked by massive statist intervention.

We can call actual free markets, just free markets or voluntaryism or whatever.

[untermensche]

...How can socialism be capitalism?...
How can a system of government run healthcare for the elderly, a retirement insurance plan for the elderly, a system of huge government spending into advancing modern technology, basically using tax dollars to pay for massive research and development projects and then handing over the finished products to individuals to stimulate the economy and enrichen those individuals, and much more be called capitalist?

Where does the capitalism part come in?

The economy rides on the back of this government spending, not any so-called market place. The cost of the elderly is taken out of the equation to a great extent.

Why exactly would we call this capitalism?

[Bonniedundee]

Why exactly would we call this capitalism?Capitalism in the old left way means our actual economy, it doesn't mean free markets, this is a new idea coming through the old right.

[untermensche]

Capitalism in the old left way means our actual economy, it doesn't mean free markets, this is a new idea coming through the old right.
Our actual economy is a thing evolving and it evolves not based on any economic model but based on a combination of human wills. It moves according to the wills that dominate the instruments of the economy.

So again, what does capitalism have to do with anything?

[Bonniedundee]

Our actual economy is a thing evolving and it evolves not based on any economic model but based on a combination of human wills. It moves according to the wills that dominate the instruments of the economy.

So again, what does capitalism have to do with anything?Capitalism, to the old left, is our economy that is all, and our economy is not a free market.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course, state capitalism is capitalism, keynesianism is capitalism, socialism is capitalism, monetarism is capitalism, mercantilism is capitalism, georgism is capitalism, fascism is capitalism, welfarism is capitalism, etc.How can socialism be capitalism? Most of those other ones are capitalism in the old left idea of it, as the real world corporate economy.

I sarcastically said that socialism is capitalism to point out that based on your expansion of the definition of the word then the word has no meaning beyond a general term for economics. State Capitalism needs it's own name, since it isn't capitalism any more than the rest of the list (including socialism) are.

Capitalism is now defined as "economic system". What we need is a word for an economic system that in days past was defined by the word "capitalism". "Laissez faire" is often used for that purpose.Capitalism used to mean(to the old left.) the actual economy that exists now and that has existed since it began to evolve out of feudalism in early modern times, it has never been a free market system and always marked by massive statist intervention.

We can call actual free markets, just free markets or voluntaryism or whatever.

In that case, you're definition of capitalism = economic system, which is why any and every economic system (including socialism) is described by capitalism.

That's why the system that used to be referred to as capitalism (laissez faire) also needs it's own name. OTOH, State Economic System no longer needs it's own name.

So the economic systems are: Laissez Faire Capitalism, Georgism Capitalism, Keynesian Capitalism, Socialist Capitalism, Communist Capitalism, Mercantilist Capitalism, Monetarist Capitalism, etc. Since they are all economic systems, we can drop the word "capitalism" from them and stop using the word "capitalism" entirely.

Having done that, maybe it can be used to describe a specific economic system again someday. Probably not though.

[Bonniedundee]

I sarcastically said that socialism is capitalism to point out that based on your expansion of the definition of the word then the word has no meaning beyond a general term for economics. State Capitalism needs it's own name, since it isn't capitalism any more than the rest of the list (including socialism) are.This isn't my expansion of the word, it has always been the old left definition of capitalism, ie the actual statist economy we live in, it was even the mainstream definition once.
In that case, you're definition of capitalism = economic system, which is why any and every economic system (including socialism) is described by capitalism.

No it wasn't, I said all capitalism is statist so the word phrase state capitalism doesn't make sense. I was just using the old left idea of capitalism as our actual economy that grew up since the end of fuedalism.

That's why the system that used to be referred to as capitalism (laissez faire) also needs it's own name. The laissez faire was never what the old left used the word capitalism for and it is really a post WWII thing that it now means free markets, it was only the old right and the like who used it in this way before. It is not us who have done the redefining.


You seem to mistakenly believe that capitalism hasd always meant free markets, it hasn't.