Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 17:18:48

Laws that allow squatters in to sqat only a day after someone left on vacation are ridiculous. I don't see what's inherent to possession that makes squatting and stealing others possessions easier or more desirable. I would rather blame the economic conditions of a reigion for that.

If houses are hard to come by, obviously someone is going to take your house any chance they get. This is why, again, I add that resource distribution would have to be more even. High level technology and so on. Blah blah.

soph · 2003-01-13 17:25:49

Either you are deliberately missing the point, or im not expressing it well enough.

I wasnt talking about a server. If there is a pound of silicon for every person, only someone with computer manufacturing expertise could make a microchip, even if everyone else had the machinery. Therefore, only he would get the profit.

I get it, it doesnt support you, so its wrong?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 18:01:30

Exactly soph, I know this. But that doesn't fit the criteria for heavy resource distribution. If resources were distributed evenly, lots of people could make computer chips. Understand?

Let me rephrase the argument. As resources and capital, and the technology to use those resources and capital, become more abundent, the profitability of a system approaches zero.

And again, if everyone has a pound of silicon but not everyone can have access to the chip manufacturing facilities, then the resources aren't distributed evenly, or even much at all, since only one person out of everyone has access.

soph · 2003-01-13 18:07:02

Theres a small problem. I may be good at math, but not good at say, writing. Or my sight not be very good. So, I might choose to do something that suits my talents.

Even if resources were distributed evenly, the smartest, most adaptable, etc. person would be able to take the most advantage of his resources. Your system doesnt factor in human differences, which are very real.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 18:11:55

So what? As long as the resources are abundant, no one can leverage those resources. And even if they do, they would be quickly ignored.

Think about it this way. There are lots of Mars sites online. They're all equally capable of being Mars sites. Some are more appealing to others, some are less. If someone were to ban everyone from their Mars site, but a select few, that Mars site would stagnate, the community would disappear, people would dissassociate.

soph · 2003-01-13 18:19:41

No, but somebody could find a way to use those resources better, process them faster, etc. Or a person could be incapable of using those resources.

Also, try distributing a large amount of resources to a large number of people. the inefficiency increases as the size of the population increases.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 18:36:45

Sure, people can and would be able to process the resources better, but then others could use their techniques. In anarchy everything is open and free. Patents are non-existant.

And not necessarily. You'd have more people working on the resources in parallel. Instead of having three or four chip making places, you could have three or four thousand. One for every large city.

soph · 2003-01-13 18:39:02

So somebody else can get credit for your work?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 23:36:31

Copyright and patents aren't about getting credit, they're about making money. Patents were intended so that peoples ideas and inventions couldn't be lost (but turned into this way of forcing people to pay for a specific idea). Copyright was to insure that you could make money off your specific art.

You could have credit-right, if you so pleased.

?Josh Cryer, the inventor of the Venusian blimp.?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 23:42:44

Oh, heh, I once said that ?most authors don't have anything interesting to say, so they need copyright to make what they say remotely important.?

And it's true.

Bill White · 2003-01-14 10:55:54

So what? As long as the resources are abundant, no one can leverage those resources

Unless or until resources are (infinitely) abundant, a system property rights is necessary for economic development. Do you want everyone having an equal piece of a smaller pie or can you tolerate your neighbor having more than you so you can get more for yourself?

Prudence counsels a meaure of generosity - Henry Ford paying workers $5 per day so they can afford his cars - open source software is similiar in concept. Marx predicted capitalists would be too pig headed and short sighted to be generous with workers (the "contradiction" of capitalism). Many are, but not all. The owners of the game "Doom" have earned more money by letting the code go public domain - smart business to be sure but hardly a renunciation of the "idea" of property.

Open source vs Microsoft is NOT a referendum on the "idea" of property. It is whether property owners are too pig headed to focus on growing the pie rather than fighting over slices. Its about whether Marx is right about the inherent contradictiosn of capitalism or can enlightened capitalists relinquish short term property rights to garner even more wealth down the road.

Free Adobe PDF readers (given away to encourage sales of the full system) are another simple example. Capitalist critics of the RIAA do not oppose the idea of property - rather they say that even more money can be earned by acepting P2P and Napster like activities.

I agree that *IF* there were no scarcity then there would be no need for property rights - indeed - *IF* there were infinite abundance then any system of property rights would be profoundly irrational. But until we have infinite abundance, to abolish property rights hurts everyone.

Do not forget where the idea came from - at least in English history. Once upon a time the King owned everything. No one else could own anything. All property was derived from the sovereign and the sovereign could take back at a whim because he was God's servant and to oppose the King was to oppose God.

The idea that anyone and everyone could own property started with the nobility then extended to merchants then to all free men then to all men regardless of color and finally came to include women maybe less than 100 years ago. Its the "idea" of property rights allowed an expansion of freedom.

Property rights are a two edged sword. A tool created to expand human freedom can be and has been used by corporate masters to deny freedom. Orwell's Animal Farm captures the dynamic quite well.

However, if you find George Orwell persuasive -which I do - absent infinite abundance the doctrines of anarchy themselves provide good camoflauge for deceitful people (not you Josh) who wish to abolish property in name so in practice the State can again own all property. And the citizens are only allowed to possess property at the whim of the State. Just like the pre-Magna Carta kings of England.

IF the anarcist factions forcibly abolish property THEN they are merely the "more equal" pigs portrayed by Orwell in Animal Farm.

That said - *IF* - I was genuinely convinced that 100% of humanity was prepared "to sell all that they own and give to the poor" I might be willing to give anarchy a chance. I would much prefer to live in a world where 100% of us were fully committed to a motto of "All for One and One for All" - - but such a world does not exist.

Even if 99% of humanity agreed to abandon property then what would happen is that the 1% remaining will set themselves up as masters of the rest of us.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-16 01:21:42

Unless or until resources are (infinitely) abundant, a system property rights is necessary for economic development.

Exactly! That's basically the whole freaking crux of the argument. If you search for posts by me, and the word ?capital,? you'll see that I've said again and again that this change of economics couldn't happen without abundant resources (infinite isn't necessary since there is a finite population mind you).

Do you want everyone having an equal piece of a smaller pie or can you tolerate your neighbor having more than you so you can get more for yourself?

The question is, does this work in practice? Do any third world countries progress for accepting this system? Look at Chile, sure, their GDP jumped 10% for several years in a row (Bush Sr. even praised Chile on several ocassions). On the surface this is great. But what was happen at the societal level? Well, Penochet was murdering people, forcing them to work for little wage, denying basic human rights, and so on. He had a wonderful little military state going on. Chile was ?tolerating their neighbor (the US) having more so that they could get more for themselves,? and it led to catastrophe. Unlike a lot of people, I don't determine the ?value? of a system by how great its GDP is. I think such an approach is very immoral.

Marx predicted capitalists would be too pig headed and short sighted to be generous with workers (the "contradiction" of capitalism).

Well, I should point out that I'm no follower of Marx. But that statement sounds cute, and I think that the same is true for consumers. Capitalists will be too pig headed and short sighted to be generous with consumers. Indeed, you say this yourself, with your mention of capitalist critics of the RIAA!

And actually, now that I think about it, that's really where I'm coming from here. This isn't about workers going crazy and getting tired of their bosses, in some really neat revolution (I never really accepted that theory anyway, because if that was going to happen it would have happened long ago!), this is about consumers having more products which are cheaper to get!

I don't think the end result is requiring that resources be infinite. We're on a finite planet, after all... such would be the impossible. Resources just need to be so utterly abundant that individuals can prevent others from acquiring ?too much.? I don't think this is impossible, since I continue to find it difficult to believe that people would become slaves to whoever appropriated a lot, without brainwashing or blackmail or something. And then, they could always go to the anarchist-police or whatever, and get their stuff back...

But of course Bill, as usual, I tend to agree with what you say. Now... where's that clark fellow? :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-16 02:11:32

Proudhon talks about patents:

In our day, if a man had invented arithmetic, algebra, or the decimal system, he would have obtained no patent; but Bareme would have had a right of property in his Computations. Pascal, for his theory of the weight of the atmosphere, would not have been patented; instead of him, a glazier would have obtained the privilege of the barometer. I quote M. Arago:

After two thousand years it occurred to one of our fellow-countrymen that the screw of Archimedes, which is used to raise water, might be employed in forcing down gases; it suffices, without making any change, to turn it from right to left, instead of turning it, as when raising water, from left to right. Large volumes of gas, charged with foreign substances, are thus forced into water to a great depth; the gas is purified in rising again. I maintain that there was an invention; that the person who saw a way to make the screw of Archimedes a blowing machine was entitled to a patent.

What is more extraordinary is that Archimedes himself would thus be obliged to buy the right to use his screw; and M. Arago considers that just.

It is useless to multiply these examples: what the law meant to monopolize is, as I said just now, not the idea, but the fact; not the invention, but the occupancy. As if the idea were not the category which includes all the facts that express it; as if a method, a system, were not a generalization of experiences, and consequently that which properly constitutes the fruit of genius,--invention! Here legislation is more than anti-economic, it borders on the silly. Therefore I am entitled to ask the legislator why, in spite of free competition, which is nothing but the right to apply a theory, a principle, a method, a non-appropriable system, he forbids in certain cases this same competition, this right to apply a principle?" It is no longer possible," says M. Renouard, with strong reason, "to stifle competitors by combining in corporations and guilds; the loss is supplied by patents." Why has the legislator given hands to this conspiracy of monopolies, to this interdict upon theories belonging to all?

soph · 2003-01-16 05:30:20

Its a whole bunch of fluff.

As ive said, a physical good is not the same as research. A good should be patented, research should not.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-16 07:06:37

What about research into physical goods?

soph · 2003-01-16 07:43:01

the research should not be patented, but the resulting structure should be. That way, another company could use the research to build something else, maybe unrelated, maybe related but with a different design. So much research is done for one application that could be used for multitudes of unrelated applications.

Say a company does R&D on a fusion spaceship. A power company could use that research to build a better plant, and another space ship company could expand on that design to make it more efficient, smaller, bigger, etc. So long as its not a copy, it would not violate the patent.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-04 11:02:43

Well, there are a couple of things I'd like to say about anarchism and liberty.

First of all, capitalism is not a libertarian system--in fact, it is a very unlibertarian system, and one which, unchecked by popular control, will lead to fascist type systems. In capitalism, what you are supposed to be concerned with is bringing resources under your control. You are not supposed to be concerned with anyone else ; if you are, you'll go out of buisness. Now, normally, it is assumed that to be capitalistic there should be certain restraints on the profit motive: you should not, for example, be allowed to kill someone if they do not work for you. However, this constitutes a restraint on the profit motive. Are we then to conclude that pure capitalism actually has regulation built in? Some would say this, and in a sense they are right--it depends on the language we use. But in a more consistent sense, "pure capitalism"--that is, a system where the profit motive drives all, is simply warlordism and utter tyranny. This is not difficult to see.

Some have claimed that capitalism is individualistic. Well, what is individualism? There are two different conceptions of individualism that I know about, one of which is essentially doublespeak. The first is "rugged individualism", that is, the idea that anyone can make it as long as they're willing to be tough and work hard. What this basically means, in the context of reality, is that as long as you submit to (wage)slavery, that is, rent yourself to someone else for a while, you'll be able to be a master later on. Essentially, it means that in order to be successful or have a decent life, you need to please other people. That's "individualism". There is another conception of individualism, however. This is that people ought to be able to act out thier lives in ways which are not coerced or planned by others. Now clearly capitalism is a major violation of this idea: workers do not plan thier actions, thier actions are dictated by the boss.

What kind of a sytem is really individualistic? Well, it's one which material resources are not handed out on the basis of the whim of some individual, and individual who, by consequence, is more powerful than everyone else. If that individual disagrees with what you're doing in life, he can just say, I'm not giving you anything until you conform to my demands. Returning to the original question, the solution has to be to create a system where resources are not distributed according to individual whim, but rather by need. Then there is no coercion: people can plan thier lives and do what they feel is important, without having the judgement of someone else hanging over thier head. Now they may have reality hanging over thier head, but it isn't passed through the prism of somebody else's judgement about it. This is why I disagree with Josh's statement that:

this change of economics couldn't happen without abundant resources

I think it could happen with basically any amount of resources. The traditional idea of what happens in a need based system is that everyone deliberately does nothing and uses up all the resources and basically just cause society to go down in flames. Well, I think that's ridiculous: I think that human beings are smart enough to not do that, and I think there's actually a lot of evidence for that, if you're willing to cut through all the propaganda (like the idea, say, that the fall of the USSR "proves" that a need based system can't work, as if the USSR was ever even intended to be a need based system, rather than generally its opposite).

Pat Galea · 2003-02-04 12:34:51

I dunno where you learned about capitalism, but your description bears no resemblance at all to the concept I associate with that term.

In capitalism, what you are supposed to be concerned with is bringing resources under your control. You are not supposed to be concerned with anyone else ; if you are, you'll go out of buisness.

The name 'capitalism' is given to a system in which property is privately owned ('ownership' meaning that you may use and dispose of your property as you see fit).

It says nothing at all about what you are 'supposed' to do. You may assume any ideals you want, anything from total ascetism to lusting after untold riches. All these are compatible with capitalism.

Be concerned with other people if you want. Don't give a crap if you don't want. That decision is one that you make independent of the existence of capitalism.

Now, normally, it is assumed that to be capitalistic there should be certain restraints on the profit motive: you should not, for example, be allowed to kill someone if they do not work for you.

Uhh... more to the point, you're not allowed to kill anyone, regardless of whether they work for you or not! (Self-defense excepted, of course.)

However, this constitutes a restraint on the profit motive.

No; in a capitalist system, you are allowed to use your property as you see fit. The corollary to this is that you are not allowed to use other people's property (including their bodies) unless you obtain their agreement. (This follows because if you were allowed to use their property against their will, then they would not be able to exercise their own property right.)

There's no restraint of anything involved here. Just a consistent application of the principle. Killing someone or stealing their property is inherently anti-capitalist.

Are we then to conclude that pure capitalism actually has regulation built in? Some would say this, and in a sense they are right--it depends on the language we use. But in a more consistent sense, "pure capitalism"--that is, a system where the profit motive drives all, is simply warlordism and utter tyranny. This is not difficult to see.

These 'restrictions' on certain actions (killing, theft) are not 'tacked-on' to capitalism. They're not regulations that must be added in order to rein in the 'capitalist excesses'.

They are part and parcel of the consistent application of property rights. You simply cannot simultaneously advocate the principle of private property and permit killing and theft. That would require the ability to sustain a contradiction, and the last time I checked, the universe still won't permit that.

As to the 'warlordism' and 'tyranny' claim, that's a bit outside the scope of a short analysis. In brief, I think that it's a lot easier for people in a capitalist system to stave off these threats than in any other system I've ever heard of.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-04 14:19:27

Hmm, captialism is an economic discriptor, not a political discriptor, so it could come in many various forms. But doutless, it's easy to assess that unregulated capitalism turns into despotic tyranny by its very nature.

What's sad, is that often times, people who argue the case for capitalism, equate possessions with capital

Let's quote Proudhon about property. I would like people here to, well, try to refute his arguments.

There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, NAKED PROPERTY. 2. POSSESSION. "Possession," says Duranton, "is a matter of fact, not of right." Toullier: "Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact." The tenant, the farmer, the commandite', the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.

This double definition of property--domain and possession --is of the highest importance; and it must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend what is to follow.

From the distinction between possession and property arise two sorts of rights: the jus in re, the right in a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and the jus ad rem, the right TO a thing, which gives me a claim to become a proprietor. Thus the right of the partners to a marriage over each other's person is the jus in re; that of two who are betrothed is only the jus ad rem. In the first, possession and property are united; the second includes only naked property. With me who, as a laborer, have a right to the possession of the products of Nature and my own industry,--and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them,--it is by virtue of the jus ad rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re.

Further, Proudhon explains the difference between property and possession:

Originally, the word PROPERTY was synonymous with PROPER or INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use, inert (if I may say so) as it was with regard to the other usufructuaries, became active and paramount,--that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbor's labor,--then property changed its nature, and its idea became complex. The legists knew this very well, but instead of opposing, as they ought, this accumulation of profits, they accepted and sanctioned the whole. And as the right of farm-rent necessarily implies the right of use,--in other words, as the right to cultivate land by the labor of a slave supposes one's power to cultivate it himself, according to the principle that the greater includes the less,-- the name property was reserved to designate this double right, and that of possession was adopted to designate the right of use.

Whence property came to be called the perfect right, the right of domain, the eminent right, the heroic or _quiritaire_ right,--in Latin, _jus perfectum, jus optimum, jus quiritarium, jus dominii_,--while possession became assimilated to farm-rent.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-04 16:56:38

It says nothing at all about what you are 'supposed' to do.

Well, the people who control society, the people who own it, the wealthy, they didn't just get there by chance, they got there because they were good at getting money. Now, how do you get money in a capitalist system? Well, you offer something to people who already have money that they can give you. In otherwords, you please them, and rent yourself to them in exchange for money.

At the other extreme, we have people who just refuse to listen to anybody: they don't what they're told by powerful individuals, they don't obey. What happens to them in a capitalist system? Well, it depends on what kind of a system we're dealing with, but one of two things: they either go homeless and beg, or, in less charitable (or, equivilantly, more brutal) societies, they die. Now some people say, if they aren't willing to listen to powerful individuals, and do what powerful individuals say, then they aren't contributing to society, and if people don't contribute to society then they don't deserve to get anything back. That's perverse logic, because powerful individuals have no right to determine whether what a person is doing is important or not important. Only the person in question should have that right. If you don't believe that, then as far as I can see, you have no legitimate claim to being a libertarian, and are simply an open advocator of power elitism.

soph · 2003-02-04 20:12:59

But doutless, it's easy to assess that unregulated capitalism turns into despotic tyranny by its very nature.
What's sad, is that often times, people who argue the case for capitalism, equate possessions with capital

I doubt it, and possessions can be capital. Proudhon is no god of economics.

Office equipment is capital. A computer is capital. Having just consulted two economics doctorates, i can say this with certainty. And having heard it from three different classes in business and economics.

Doubtless? Well, lets just say I doubt it. No capitalist country has turned into a tyranny yet. For the capitalist example in recent years, i hold up either Russia or China. Russia went from a tyranny to a democracy. their economic weakening was due to a poorly executed economic transition, but capitalism is steadily improving their economy.

china, as they have increasingly become a capitalist economy, has become far more prosperous. the economic freedom brought by capitalism is apparent in dress and so on. I would even go so far as to say hat capitalism may facilitate democracy. this is certainly not tyranny in action.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-04 21:31:38

Um, well, I wasn't saying possessions ?can't be? capital... so please don't put words in my mouth (soemthing you seem to be doing quite a lot lately). The point of my statement is that a lot of times, capital exists in things which you don't possess.

I have a car. I drive my car. I do things with my car. That car is my possession (as long as I don't have a lease on it- otherwise obviously it's someone elses capital). I rent that car, that car becomes capital, and whenever someone rents it, and drives off without me, is no longer my possession.

When people say that capitalism is ?owning? things, they are not usually talking about capital, they are talking about things which you tend, to you know, not rent out to people and so on. I have a house, I live in that house, that house is my possession. The second I rent that house, it becomes capital, sure, but can I still live there and possess it? In most cases, no, unless I live in the basement or whatever.

People say that capitalism is ?doing what you want with your property? but neglect to mention that a majority of people don't actually own their property, but rather lease it. So in reality, that house probably isn't mine, because I'm probably paying some bank or landlord to let me live there. The only way I own that house is if I inherited it or if I'm rich (or old- having paid for years on it, and not having mortgaged it during economic trials).

And you seem to again have reading comprehension problems, I didn't say that capitalist countries in general turned into tyrannies, I was talking specifically about unregulated capitalism, so your whole reply is meaningless. Capitalism, in nice regulated doses, is undeniably good for economy. Of course, it can only go on so long, even in its regulated form, before it begins to fail.

soph · 2003-02-04 21:35:43

Such as the 250 years it has gone on in the US, as compared to an 80 year socialist stint in the Soviet Union?

No, your post lacks water. You can get hostile all you want and take on an accusatory tone. This doesnt lend credence to your argument. History has shown that switiching over to capitalism has greater long and short term benefits than socialism. to say otherwise is to ignore the real world!

soph · 2003-02-04 21:40:14

What's sad, is that often times, people who argue the case for capitalism, equate possessions with capital

reading comprehension. ah yes. this is implying that possessions are not capital. you are bringing in things now that werent there. if you wish to communicate a point, do it fully, and not after the fact by slamming the person who took your words as they were.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-04 22:04:31

Show me a case where laissez-faire (ie, unregulated) capitalism is successful in the real world, and I will kindly conceed.

I'm not getting hostile, you're just avoiding the central point of my post, and making stuff up, trying to change my position. Either you can't read, or you're geniunely trolling.

this is implying that possessions are not capital

Um, sure, okay. If you want to take a literal interpretation, and neglect colloquialism for the sake of being ?right.? But I clarified the point, and it is completely reasonable (and obvious to anyone who isn't anal, who attempts to argue to be right all the time even when the facts are in clear opposition) that I meant that capital is not always possessions.

But in any case, you can't equate (that is, make synonymous) possessions with capital, since capital can be non-possessions. They are not synonymous, regardless of how you want to interpret what I said (and either way, it doesn't make you right).

Not all possessions are captial. I doubt very seriously those doctorates you consulted would disagree with this.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-01-13 17:18:48

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#52 2003-01-13 17:25:49

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#53 2003-01-13 18:01:30

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#54 2003-01-13 18:07:02

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#55 2003-01-13 18:11:55

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#56 2003-01-13 18:19:41

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#57 2003-01-13 18:36:45

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#58 2003-01-13 18:39:02

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#59 2003-01-13 23:36:31

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#60 2003-01-13 23:42:44

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#61 2003-01-14 10:55:54

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#62 2003-01-16 01:21:42

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#63 2003-01-16 02:11:32

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#64 2003-01-16 05:30:20

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#65 2003-01-16 07:06:37

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#66 2003-01-16 07:43:01

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#67 2003-02-04 11:02:43

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#68 2003-02-04 12:34:51

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#69 2003-02-04 14:19:27

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#70 2003-02-04 16:56:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#71 2003-02-04 20:12:59

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#72 2003-02-04 21:31:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#73 2003-02-04 21:35:43

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#74 2003-02-04 21:40:14

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#75 2003-02-04 22:04:31

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Board footer