Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-04 22:43:49

Russia and China were not socialistic in any consistent sense ; the brands of "socialism" they subscribe to are self contradictory. You cannot have a classless society in the midst of tyranny, that's a contradiction in terms. Nor did these societies ever attempt classlessness ; the Bolsheviks were very straightfoward with their intention to institute what they thought of as socialism on everyone else by force, as were the Maoists. In none of these countries was there any serious mass based attempt at a classless society, rather there were factions who let themselves be led by "great leaders" who promised "socialism" once they were made rulers.

Any self consistent definition of socialism must be essentially equivilant to anarchism. A classless society where people can plan their lives without fear of reprisal by others who judge what they are doing to be worthy of punishment. See my messages above.

soph · 2003-02-05 05:33:39

No, that is communism, not socialism. Germany was socialist, and it was not classless.

Fine Josh, if you want to argue simantics, yes, not all possessions are capital. What I interpreted was that you were saying no poessessions are capital.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-05 07:33:20

I think that was fairly well substantiated.

Of course, Proudhon would argue that metaphorically, possessions stop becoming possessions when they become capital, even if you do still physically possess them (I don't see anything wrong with this- though I am sure probably will).

The second I take an heirloom and consider it worth money, the second I no longer care about it as an heirloom, and value the money above the special sentimental quality heirlooms tend to have...

Even though it's still in my hand, in my bag, whatever; in my possession, my intent is to sell it. It may as well not be my possession, because I certainly don't intend to keep it in my possession for very long.

And if you think Hitler's Germany was anything remotely like socialism, you need to reassess your understanding of Nazi Germany... it was nothing like socialism, it was more a combination of aristocracy and capitalism!

soph · 2003-02-05 14:02:59

Obviously you never lived there! Unfortunately for your argument, my grandparents did. It was nothing like capitalism. Many of the prominent industries, including the jewish-run ones, were taken over by the government. It was very socialist.

I think the claim that capital is not possessions is off. Let's take your heirloom. You weigh the value of the heirloom to its sentimental value. A possession is something you own. Capital is posessions you own, but use as assets, or liquid. They are still posessions, but serve a different purpose than your kitchen sink. Since you still own them, they are still possessions.

Bill White · 2003-02-05 14:09:55

It seems to me that many of us are using the same words to refer to very different concepts and very different economic systems. Unless we all share a common understanding of what is meant by

capitalism;
socialism;
free markets;
communism;
anarchism

etc, etc, etc,

there will be plenty of heat but no light.

Pat Galea · 2003-02-05 15:42:18

It seems to me that many of us are using the same words to refer to very different concepts and very different economic systems. Unless we all share a common understanding of what is meant by
capitalism;
socialism;
free markets;
communism;
anarchism
etc, etc, etc,
there will be plenty of heat but no light.

Darn it, you're giving away the plan!

The capitalists have hooked up this forum to a turbine, and they're using the heat to generate lots of electricity which they're selling out of a van in downtown LA.

Hey, you gotta raise money for the Mars Mission somehow!

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-05 18:57:38

Actually, I don't think this is so necessary as one might think. I think that "pure capitalism", unchecked by democracy, will lead inevitably to forms of despotism. I think socialism is not a self consistent concept unless it is essentially equivilant to anarchism, and that authoritarian socialist ideas are self contradictory. But it is not necessary that everyone use the words like this. All that matters is that we know what we are talking about.

soph · 2003-02-05 19:18:31

unregulated capitalism led to the industrial revolution in england. so i guess you could say "doses" of unregulated capitalism can be very beneficial. But i still think that regulated capitalism, not completely regulated, but with reasonable checks, is the best system, practically, and theoretically, to date.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 13:38:59

Well, that was rather annoying. My computer crashed on me and I lost a pretty lengthy post! Damnit.

I like to use Merriam-Webster for my definitions, so I don't think I 'm contridicting myself... so please, feel free to note where you think what I'm saying is conflicting.

capitalism;
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

socialism;
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

free market;
an economic market operating by free competition

communism;
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

anarchism;
a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

laissez-faire;
a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights

Now, was Nazi germany socalistic? Hardly. The Nazi Charter of Labor gave employers power over the workers. It's an aristocracy when the bosses control everything and the workers have no say (which is what you had in Nazi Germany). True, businesses were further bossed around by the Nazi Party, but this is hardly enough to call it socialism (we must not continue to erroneously equate socialism to controlling). All we had was an extended aristocracy.

Indeed, after Hitler gained power, he abolished many forms of workers rights, getting rid of bargning powers, trade unions, and making it illegal for workers to strike! All of those things are socialistic, so it's laughable to say that Hitler embraced socialism.

There are lots of things Hitler said that were against socialism. The people who dissented when Hitler came into power were the real socialists. Here's an exerpt from when the Enabling Act (which gave Hitler absolute power, basically) passed.

Nazi storm troopers chanted outside: ?Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!!?

But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.

?We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible.?

Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.

?You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!?

The vote was taken - 441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the H?rst Wessel song.

Democracy was ended. They had brought down the German Democratic Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements.

Anyone who calls Nazi Germany socialism is a fool.

Many of the prominent industries, including the jewish-run ones, were taken over by the government. It was very socialist.

Many industries in the US were taken over by the government during the world wars, that doesn't mean we embraced socalism. It was war time, governments around the world took over everything during war time. The Nazi party allowed businesses to work just like any capitalist business. The people themselves, though, weren't allowed any basic righs. No workers rights, just work, do what you're told, and get over it.

I think the claim that capital is not possessions is off.

I think it's a very adept metaphor. Obviously it's incorrect when taken literally.

A possession is something you own. Capital is posessions you own, but use as assets, or liquid.

Right. I have a safe, that safe is in my house. I can rent space in that safe out to someone (it stays in my house). So it's in my possession, even though it's capital.

But, depending on how I let someone use my possessions, I can no longer use them at the same time they are, so the metaphor makes more sense.

I have a safe, but I rent it out to someone, it stays in my possession but they change the combonation. That safe may damn well me in my possession, but I can't use it, can I? It may as well not even be in my possession. The metaphor works.

This is why Proudhon allures to usufructry and possession being mutually inclusive. The concepts are much simpler than they seem, though.

And I agree with Alexander that anarchism is the only just form of socialism. But I disagree very much that we could have it without lots of abundant resources. Unless, of course, we all become brainwashed or something. But that ain't happening.

soph · 2003-02-06 14:07:52

No, thats not so. In America, and almost all capitalist countries, we have a legal system, which protects your right to ownership. Therefore, it is your possession.

Um, government ownership and running is the same as government control. There is no difference. Germany was socialist. You are trying to pick a thread that isnt there.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 17:24:10

What's not so?

And since when was socialist indicitive of government control? I thought it was regarding the management, explicitly, of the means of production and distribution of goods?

Nazi Germans controlled the means of production and distribution ?just as much? as the US in that time in world history (remember, a war was going on). The difference being that Nazi Germany was run more like an aristocracy, whereas the US was a just a watered down plutocracy with strong democratic inclinations...

Please stop with the non-responses, they're annoying.

And stop lying. Germany was certainly not socialist.

soph · 2003-02-06 17:34:51

So you really dont have any facts to back yourself up, while I have first hand evidence.

Like i said, arguing with you is like a broken record, you quote the same person over and over, without being accountable for what you say, and never budging when youre shown to be wrong.

Reasonable debate is impossible.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 17:40:25

Um, all you have to do is ask me to substantiate my claims.

Instead, you cite your grandmother, and pretend that that is a reasonable refutation... where is your hard evidence?

What exactly do you need links for? I will Google if you don't want to.

soph · 2003-02-06 17:46:48

No, no GRANDPARENTS. and two doctors of economics, who are my parents. And cold, hard, economic fact.

Government control of production is certainly not capitalist, at least not government control on a wide scale. This is almost counter-capitalist. Adam Smith proposed some regulation, but a good dose of laissez-faire to accompany it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 17:55:26

Um, during war government control is called necessity. To the Germans, requiring certain production levels from their industries was no different than the US doing the same. It's ridiculous to pretend that war economies are indicitive of policies as a whole. The Nazi party did not embrace anything which was remotely socialistic at all.

The Cambridge dictionary has a better definition of socialism, to which Einstein ascribed to:

the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs

soph · 2003-02-06 18:00:52

Hrm, well the Nazi party was molded by hitler into a wartime party, intending to be a war party, so war wouldnt be a "special circumstance" for germany.

but, what would you call the soviet union then?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 18:20:38

Heh, I doubt Hitler would have got the support he did had he not played off of peoples fears. But I read that the Nazi party was actually a small minority, and that Hitler screwed with people to get as far as he did...

...interestingly, Hjalmar Schacht (Nazi Germany's Minister for Economic Affairs) did all the things a capitalist country would do to provide stimulas... regulated state finances, lowered interest rates, and even taxes... of course, there were public works projects too (new roads, etc), but still, the world was coming out of a depression and everyone was doing this. The similarities are there. Hjalmar Schacht quit when Hitler begain rearmament...

The Soviet Union was an aristocracy, doubtless, but it was probably socialist under the definition given by Marriem-Webster (vaguely). It certainly wouldn't qualify by Cambridge's definition, though.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 18:26:36

I think for further discussion we should adopt Cambridge's definition for socialism, though. Since Merriam-Webster's is so vague, as to not define anything with regards to structure.

soph · 2003-03-08 10:15:15

Apparently Marx didn't like Proudhon, and if you're looking for your debunking of Proudhon, Marx wrote it. I had the title-have to find it again.

Proudhon and Marx also were living, and theorizing, in a time when things like government regulation, globalization, and unionizing were not present, and not predicted-at least not by Marx or Proudhon. In fact, the "pure capitalism" that Marx uses to debunk capitalism in Das Capital is a farse-it gets rid of any possibility of moral, government, or societal intervention into the system-three very important elements. No system is applied as it is in the books, which the Marxist and similar thinkers ignored when bashing capitalism.

Basically, Marx took together a wide range of critiques of capitalism, and meshed them together. His overall system of proletariat rule factors out any rectifying actions-he was very closed minded-perhaps his greatest fault. For example, he assumed that technological advance would lead to decreased profits-shrinking labor pool need gets rid of the profit-generating source.

The problem was, that he didn't account for the jobs to build and support this new technology. Also, he said that the machines would be sold for the value they would produce. However, this is never the case-because the company that buys the machine has a special skill that takes advantage of the machine's abilities. Therefore, the producer builds it, sells it for a profit, and then the buyer uses their unique abilities to make a further profit.

For example, take a computer. Dell builds the computer, but then they sell it for a profit. If they sold it for more than say, $1500, the lay buyer wouldn't buy it. However, Joe Programmer buys this PC for $1500, programs the next Windows, and makes $50 billion. Obviously, he made a profit. Marx assumed that the vendor had the mind-reading ability to know what the "value" of the item was to the consumer.

And another note, Proudhon was only a major sensation in France. Marx overshadowed Proudhon by a long shot. And Proudhon is a pretty obscure economist-he is hardly mentioned in economics doctorate programs (throughout college), if at all. He isn't on the level of Smith, Marx, Mill, and so on.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-08 19:01:42

Yes, I've lamented before on these forums that Proudhon changed his position as he got older, and made more concessions than he should've. But I believe he died before he could rebutt Marx's last ?debunking.? One could easily formulate a reply to Marx by merely using Proudhon's past arguments. So feel free to link me.

Proudhon and Marx weren't similar thinkers. Proudhon was just a layman-type of philosopher who discovered contridictions in the justification for property. Marx, as far as I know, was, arguably, a power monger who envisioned a more ?just? form of society and thought he found contridictions in capitalism (he was wrong, of course, because capitalism was just spurring at the time- indeed, in the later years, he began to understand Proudhon's ?revolution from below? concept). In the end, it seems that Marxist line of thought, especially current day Marxism, more follows Proudhon's line of thinking.

Like I've said before, I can't say I know a lot about Marxism, though.

And your computer argument makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know what a ?lay buyer? is.

Also, Proudhon's popularity has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of his arguments. I would argue that he wasn't on the level of the others because, well, he was a guy like you or me. He was a nobody. He did quite electrify the higher ups of the time with his arguments, though. That's what matters.

I like this quote from Proudhon:

As soon as I set foot in the parliamentary Sinai, I ceased to be in touch with the masses; because I was absorbed by my legislative work, I entirely lost sight of current events . . . One must have lived in that isolator which is called the National Assembly to realise how the men who are most completely ignorant of the state of the country are almost always those who represent it . . . fear of the people is the sickness of all those who belong to authority; the people, for those in power, are the enemy.

soph · 2003-03-08 19:18:01

Marx didn't see much beyond a proletariat revolution, and I don't know what you mean by him seeing it from Proudhon-Marx had envisioned this all along.

I really don't think Marx was a power-monger--he had an endless stream of money, and yet he devoted endless time to bringing down capitalism. He and Engels could have been powerful capitalists if they had wanted to.

A "lay buyer" was my term for the average computer user (like your average soccer mom or whatever). Marx had said that new machines (i.e. technological advance) would be sold for their "value." This assumes the value is static, which I was addressing in my example. The computer is more valuable to a hotshot programmer than to you or I.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-08 19:57:12

I'm saying that some of the more libertarian aspects of Marxism were taken from anarchsim, and not initally Marxist concepts.

Here's an interesting overview of the ?spin? Marxists put on Marxism: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append31.html

I think Marx was a power monger since he couldn't grasp simple anarchistic principles when they were laid forth. The ends between Marxism and anarchism are quite similar. It's the means that each concept differs on.

soph · 2003-03-08 20:30:41

I think a main problem with these systems is what I've said before-resources will constantly have to be redistributed, because the more talented/motivated/intelligent people will always find a way to get ahead, unless they are held back.

If, then, I produce more than my neighbor, shouldn't I be allowed to keep this extra? We are to be "paid" the same (food, shelter, etc.), so would it not be unequal to produce unequal quantities/qualities and still receive the same compensation? Would it also then not be theft to take the extra and not reward my harder/better work?

Unless you limit my productivity, which is in itself unfair and counterproductive, would this not be an unbalanced system? There is a concept of economic Darwinism-the smartest, most cunning, etc. get ahead. In my view, capitalism has been in existence throughout human history-Smith was just the first to provide a detailed description just as Machiavelli and Freud commented on human nature (as they saw it).

I do see what you're saying about Marx. I wouldn't say he was a power-monger, I would say he was stubbornly fixed to his ideas. He wouldn't deviate from his set of ideas-at least until his elder years, when he began to be more of a capitalist, ironically.

soph · 2003-03-08 20:32:19

...interestingly, Hjalmar Schacht (Nazi Germany's Minister for Economic Affairs) did all the things a capitalist country would do to provide stimulas... regulated state finances, lowered interest rates, and even taxes... of course, there were public works projects too (new roads, etc), but still, the world was coming out of a depression and everyone was doing this. The similarities are there. Hjalmar Schacht quit when Hitler begain rearmament...

Isn't it rather telling, then, that Germany's rearmament was coming off of a revitalized economy? The economy was booming at that point, and only stymied as the war continued.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 06:27:07

Yeah, but then, there is only so far you can ?get ahead.?

My concepts aren't based on production capacity or anything of that nature. My concpets are based on predicting what would happen if people were allowed to use higher level technology to share and share alike, without restrictions.

If there are people who have found their little niche somewhere, and they've thrown out the idea that people should be slaves to one another and share technology, knowledge and resources, what would you do? Would you rightly leave them alone, and let them do their thing, or would you force them to become your slave or whatever, because for some reason you need to be ?more productive? (and you think that you deserve to be able to control people)?

Go back to the last page of the ?Averting Global Catastrophe? thread and justify how one can do the things I said.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-02-04 22:43:49

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#77 2003-02-05 05:33:39

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#78 2003-02-05 07:33:20

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#79 2003-02-05 14:02:59

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#80 2003-02-05 14:09:55

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#81 2003-02-05 15:42:18

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#82 2003-02-05 18:57:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#83 2003-02-05 19:18:31

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#84 2003-02-06 13:38:59

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#85 2003-02-06 14:07:52

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#86 2003-02-06 17:24:10

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#87 2003-02-06 17:34:51

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#88 2003-02-06 17:40:25

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#89 2003-02-06 17:46:48

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#90 2003-02-06 17:55:26

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#91 2003-02-06 18:00:52

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#92 2003-02-06 18:20:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#93 2003-02-06 18:26:36

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#94 2003-03-08 10:15:15

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#95 2003-03-08 19:01:42

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#96 2003-03-08 19:18:01

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#97 2003-03-08 19:57:12

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#98 2003-03-08 20:30:41

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#99 2003-03-08 20:32:19

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#100 2003-03-11 06:27:07

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Board footer