|
Anarcho-Collectivism versus
Anarcho-Capitalism Debate
Image: From "Anarchy" Gallery from RadicalGraphics.org
|
"All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, 'This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products,' any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, 'This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every brick you build.'"
--Peter Kropotkin, 1892,
"The Conquest of Bread," Chapter 1, Part III
"...the socialist argument is insufficient for proving exploitation. It lacks an explanation of why workers voluntarily exchanging labor time for wages is exploitative. Bohm-Bawerk of the Austrian school of economics showed long ago (1884 in "Exploitation Theories") that profit from wages could be explained by interest on advanced pay, i.e. workers getting paid prior to their produce being sold."
--Hogeye Bill,
Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #01-#02
|
|
|
Summary: In an open letter, Punkerslut criticizes the Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ for its lack of economic insight. Hogeye Bill replies that Capitalism and Capitalists can only create monopoly by working with the state.
|
|
"In Anarcho-Capitalism, I may have my liberty from oppressive governments, and theoretically I'll have my freedom from a violent, Capitalist class. But what can freedom amount to, when all the land is owned by a few, and none of them will allow you to work the lands?"
|
|
"Some people want to be ruled, and it would be against our principles to force them to be free. I propose a more realistic goal: that people who want to be free can be free."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #03-#04
|
|
|
Summary: Punkerslut argues that technologically and industrially, the Capitalist has the natural upper hand in economy. Hogeye Bill responds that this type of trend is rapidly changing and becoming obsolete.
|
|
"The most effective methods of production are the most technologically advanced, and they are only available to very wealthy firms. I don't see an economy of multitude of small-shopkeepers ever returning..."
|
|
"But the very large firms often do not want to use the most advanced tech. Many are committed to one size fits all mass production, monoculture agriculture, etc. They do what profits them most in light of special privilege and subsidies by State."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #05-#06
|
|
|
Summary: Punkerslut covers the economics of Capitalism, drawing on a wide variety of economists, and tries to show that private possession of society's wealth is against everyone's interest. But Hogeye Bill responds that Capitalism's dependence on the state is why it has become such a dominant market force.
|
|
"To be an owner of Capital is to have all of your interests directed against the majority of people. By excluding the majority of people, and including a very few, the Anarcho-Capitalist Revolution certainly fails to be Anarchist."
|
|
"All your examples of 'successful' general strikes seem to have resulted in an increase in the power of the State. Did any succeed is abolishing the State, or even setting up parallel structures independent of the State? No."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #07-#08
|
|
|
Summary: The Capitalist does rely on the state, but does not need to, because they possess all of society's wealth. Hoeye Bill counters that this chain of events can only be triggered by the state, and it is unnatural to humanity.
|
|
"There is no point in injuring or outlawing competition when the vast amount of lands, mines, natural resources, and the like, are in the hands of an extreme few. Who's going to compete with a farm that owns all the land? Very few."
|
|
"... that situation only comes about due to State aggression favoring the eventual owners. And generally that situation can only be maintained by continuing aggression by the State."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #09-#10
|
|
|
Summary: Punkerslut says that the people have always been dominated by powerful cultural, economic, or social interests, and so, they need an equality to be protected from such powers. But Hogeye Bill says that such a class analyisis is inaccurate, and it's just as logical to separate classes as it is to separate races.
|
|
"When people cooperate, one of them needs to be able to withdraw and cause some kind of harm to the other; if people do not have this way to self-manage their relationships, then one party will obviously get the upper hand over the other one."
|
|
"Looking at monarchy vs. democracy in Europe (or anywhere for the last couple of centuries), the European monarchies had mainly localized wars that were basically property disputes with little killing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #11-#12
|
|
|
Summary: Punkerslut still works out the economics, bringing in Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, as well as citing statistics about price-fixing and cartels. Hogeye Bill denies the charges and claims that we shouldn't trust the variety of sources that claim thats cartels occured.
|
|
"Every Capitalist, by their very definition, is in possession of productive wealth; by principles of economics, they each try to defend their mode of income, just as a worker would. But unlike the worker, a Capitalist protecting their income means cutting wages, or support for a cartel, or government, that rigs prices and guarantees markets."
|
|
"It seems that our main disagreement is in our prediction of what a stateless society would be like. I think it would be great, and that massive accumulations of wealth would be rare and innocuous. You seem to think that in a stateless society large accumulations would still occur almost always and be a big problem."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #13-#14
|
|
|
Summary: Punkerslut argues that where cartels have existed, they were brought about either by the state or by the natural market form. Hogeye Bill responds that monopolies are almost all aided by the state and that abolishing government means abolishing cartels.
|
|
"I've provided quotes by Adam Smith, Josiah Child, and Thomas Malthus, as well as linking to the book where I provided a couple hundred citations by equally respected economists. My argument has always been that profit is consuming the labor of others without contributing."
|
|
"To me, authority (at least the bad kind) necessarily involves aggression. Economic 'authority' is an oxymoron. The economic means is the opposite of the political means (in Franz Oppenheimer's terminology.)..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts #15-#16
|
|
|
Summary: Punkerslut explains the economics again, about self-interest and distribution, and how the Capitalist can only survive by taking wages from the worker. But Hogeye Bill responds that illegal markets prove that cartels are unsuccesful and that workers have been greatly benefited by Macintosh computers.
|
|
"To be employed means to be splitting part of your wealth with your employer; to be taxed by merchant, middleman, industrialist, and the state for the right to work. All of those parasites must consume as much as possible..."
|
|
"No, I don't think that e.g. capitalist Steve Wozniak, with his capital pilfered from Hewlett-Packard, had interests directly opposed to workers. On the contrary, he was a great benefactor to workers with his invention."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post #17
|
|
|
Summary: After Hogeye Bill concludes his response, Punkerslut states that all economics is based on class distinctions. Without being able to distinguish between classes, one is not able to logically or accurately explain economic behavior in Capitalism.
|
|
"You have not been able to explain why all of economics has been based on classist distinctions, on the analyzing of behavior of one class versus another. You should just condemn economics altogether, if you're going to condemn me for making an economic class distinction in creating economic judgments."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
|
Summary: A brief description of the contents of each of the letters for the debate.
|
|
|
|
