I take it as read, that no politician is worthy of anything more than scorn and derision, that the whole lot of them represent a system of power and privilege that amounts to legalized thievery on a massive scale. Now, with all of that said, Republicans — for their mind-boggling ability to detach themselves from reality — may hold the prize for “most out of touch.”
In an execrably ridiculous Washington Post opinion piece (“Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.” November 28), the man who worked as the Romney campaign’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, points out that his guy “carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.”
Given that fact, Stevens argues, “any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.” Stevens’s argument reflects another witless remark from the Romney side months ago, Romney’s 47 percent gaffe, the political lessons of which are obviously lost on Republicans (not that that’s a bad thing).
The campaign, through its candidate, was saying that poor people vote for Democrats because they’re dependent on the government. Now, Stevens suggests that people who work hard and make good money support Republican policies. The irony, of course, is one that market anarchists continually point out in the face of this kind of imbecilic insult to the working poor — it’s that the Republicans’ (and Democrats’ incidentally) version of “free enterprise” is a stacked deck that systematically disadvantages labor in favor of capital.
State privilege surrounds big business, protecting it from competition and throwing workers at the mercy of bosses who can pay them pennies on the produced dollar in wages. The rich can recline and skim off the top of labor’s hard work, because land grants, subsidies (direct and indirect), government contracts and costly regulatory obligations blend to protect elite economic interests from competition.
The pomposity of insinuating that Republicans are just fine without the votes of those unwashed masses making under 50k is amazing to behold. Stevens would benefit from holding the economic system of “Republican ideals” up against a legitimate — and now, of course, strictly hypothetical — freed market, especially when the median personal income in this country is about $40,000.
If he did so, it might become clear to him (though one has reason to doubt it) that, as Ezra Heywood said, “Rich people have been the subjects of charity long enough.” Market anarchists would remove the privileges for powerful and influential forces within the economy and thus dissolve the capitalist system in favor of real free competition and markets. Voluntary exchange and cooperation, when delivered from the fetters of what anarchists once called “class legislation,” are not only innocuous, but are a great blessing.
Republicans, Democrats and the rest of the political system’s constituent parts serve those abusive privileges — that’s their jobon a fundamental level. Instead of granting them deference or even attention, we ought to get down to the business of creating the society we want to live in on a mutual basis, with our friends and neighbors, discarding practical politics for awhile, even forever.
Translations for this article:
- Spanish, Privilegio y pomposidad en la política.
This is a well written article that I agree entirely with.
It would be nice to get out of the practical politics in favour of building up our own lives, family, and community but I expect that even if we want to leave the powers at be alone; they won't leave us alone. Politics is unfortunately going to be necessary.
Thanks for the article.
I am continually put off by the articles and comments here that pit capitalism against the voluntary, free market. The voluntary, free market is what capitalism is. What you call capitalism sounds more to me like corporatism. I'm very much in favor of free markets, so saying that free markets are better than capitalism is just confusing.
Why not do both? As far as politics go, it should only take the form of pressure from the outside.
Capitalism is not free markets. Free markets are a system of voluntary exchange without any external intrusion. Capitalism is a mode of production within a market, which may or may not be free. The capitalist mode of production is characterized by private ownership of the means of production as well as the extraction of value from the labor of the worker by bosses and private owners. Contrasted with socialism which is a mode of production where the worker receives the full value of his output.
" The voluntary, free market is what capitalism is. "
But when has capitalism–actual existing capitalism, not conservative/ right-libertarian fantasy capitalism–ever looked like this? It hasn't, Steven. Capitalism and capitalists have always been propped up by myriad forms of state intervention. And without state protection of capitalist private property (ie. means of production, massive tracts of unoccupied, bank-owned land, etc), I find it unlikely that capitalism would exist to any large extent.
Furthermore, what parts of theoretical free market capitalism do you consider voluntary? I mean, this image the right promotes of equals trading amongst themselves in sweet harmony is just ludicrous. Is wage labor voluntary? "Follow my rules–ethical or not–and deal with my constant surveillance and brow-beating or face termination, poverty, eviction, malnourishment, etc." It takes a "special" kind of logic (or brainwashing by bosses and neo-classical economists) to call this arrangement voluntary Most non-salaried employees do not have anything approaching equal bargaining power with their employer. And I could make similar arguments about the landlord-tenant relationship, of course.
To summarize, Steven, "free market capitalism" has not existed and is essentially the unicorn of economic concepts. And even without state intervention, capitalism with its emphasis on wage labor (AKA "wage slavery") would still promote subservience to and dependence on an employer. Hence, I think voluntary capitalism is basically an oxymoron. Now voluntary socialism is another matter entirely and is quite promising. And that, my friend, is why I am a libertarian socialist, which is not an oxymoron, no matter what those other "libertarians" tell you.
I hope you are not so put off by my arguments here that you will not try to learn something from them.
The people at C4SS try to be friendly towards AnCaps by saying that they aren't capitalists because the survival of capitalism without statism to uphold it is unimaginable. But the reality is that they aren't really anarchists.
They cannot be anarchists as long as they accept an economic system that's hierarchical, exploitative, and puts one human being in a position of authority above another — even if they reject the state.
Really, most people in the Mises crowd are just apologists for big business.
Which, in the final analysis, is quite tragic.
Truly people to pity, not hate.
My biggest problem with AnCaps is that they invent all these ill-supported notions to justify capitalism but don't even bother to follow them to their logical conclusion. Self-ownership, the non-aggression axiom, and voluntaryism all lead to libertarian socialism when you follow them consistently.
Well said, Alberto. I regard the libertarian right (historically speaking, even calling them libertarians is a bit of a stretch) as strategic allies in some areas. They are generally quite good on civil liberties issues (on the drug war they are often better than liberals and Leftists), they are usually against excessive militarism and, if they are consistent, they are good critics of corporate welfare and over-regulation that may hamper self-employment.
When it comes to issues in the workplace (labor v. management), however, they cannot be trusted. They have chosen their side in the struggle between the working class and the employing class, so they should just admit it and be good liberals (or conservatives?) I suppose. And I am not sure it is in the best interests of C4SS, which advertises itself as left-libertarian or individualist anarchist, to cozy up too much to the Austrians.
But I don't mean to promote excessive sectarianism here. In my initial post, I referred to myself as a libertarian socialist. Now some purists might balk at that if I also added that I am agnostic on the prospects of literal anarchy (statelessness), since libertarian socialism was usually synonymous with anarchism (especially in Europe). If so, democratic socialist would be fine with me as well. I don't care that much. From my personal research I have determined that excessive labeling and hyphenating is one of the most irritating aspects of the anarchist movement, so I don't want to promote too much of it. Nonetheless, anarchists DO have a damn good reason to resist the "anarcho"-capitalists. Labels may not be that important, but misuse of historical terms in this case appears to be an attempt at manipulation and/or propaganda.
As an anarchist, I'm happy to coexist with syndicalists, primitivists, communists, other mutualists, et al. And I would be equally willing to coexist with somebody whose idea of freedom includes wage slavery and class domination under capitalism, although as I had previously mentioned, I think these are very unlikely to exist in the absence of the state.
My biggest problem with the 'libertarian' is the lack of consistency in applying even the postulates of their own ideology. They define 'force' broadly enough to mean trespassing or theft but not the extraction of surplus from worker to boss. They think self-ownership justifies the subordination of working people but not the right of the worker to the fruit of his labor. These notions are deeply flawed in and of themselves, however, it is an act of intellectual laziness to not even bother to follow them to their logical conclusion.
As for whether or not they make useful allies, I'd say that there are people within most ideological camps who could easily become left-libertarians — exempting perhaps, the social conservatives because their sense of entitlement towards constraining the life of others makes any discussion downright impossible.
Coming from liberalism, however, I'd say that it's easier to reach them with libertarianism once you make it clear that capitalism itself is the problem and that far from attempting to rectify perceived misdeeds of the market mechanism, the state makes policies that maximize the wealth of mega-corporations and large estates at the expense of everybody else.
actually not!!! in a free market people will orangnize themselves according to their rational-self interest. We (ancaps) are for free markets period. Free markets as all know is just individuals freely trading value. How we do it, capitalistic or socialistic in nature doesnt matter, just as long it is voluntary. And in free society regardless of whether is mutualism, capitalism or communism, ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION, EXCHANGE OF VALUE, AND EVEN OWNERSHIP(INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE) WILL BE PRIVATE ANYWAYS.
Or, when not purposeful evil, then an evil resulting from honest ignorance.
" just as long it is voluntary"
And as I inferred above, your definition of voluntary and my definition of voluntary are probably very different. This leads to what is likely an irreconcilable difference between the socialist and the capitalist. This does not mean that I condone violence to force people to form collectives, however. People just need to be aware of alternatives to wage labor and legislative barriers to co-ops and/or self employment need to be repealed. Then we will see how many workers still choose to work for, rather than with, others (or for themselves).
" will orangnize themselves according to their rational-self interest"
Regarding this point, I wonder if you are only referring to the "rational self interest" of the employer or if you also include the rational self interest of the worker(s). This is where Right-libertarians often display their slimiest hypocrisy.
As an "ancap," you already know that it is in the rational self interest of the employer to keep wages down, to encourage "off the books" overtime and to hire a lot of part time workers to avoid paying benefits. With this in mind, isn't it in the rational self interest of workers to demand higher wages, less hours and a less authoritarian workplace? Or do "ancap's" only appreciate the rational self interest of the boss and the management crew?
The use of the term capitalism to mean 'free markets' is redundant. Free markets are a system of voluntary exchange without external intrusion. So, an anarcho-syndicalist society where workers determine the amount of production or an anarcho-communist gift economy are free markets. If free markets are what capitalism essentially is, does it not then follow that communists and anarcho-syndicalists are capitalists? Obviously not.
As a mutualist, I'm in favor of freed markets where self-managed firms compete to bring goods and services to consumers. As I had said previously, capitalism is a mode of production in which the boss or private owner extorts surplus from his subordinates under threat of starvation.
You can be an anarchist, but if you describe yourself thusly, you cannot be a capitalist. Likewise, if you think that capitalism is compatible for a libertarian society, then you aren't an anarchist because anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy and authoritarian relationships and capitalism, even in its impossible 'free-market' variety, has BOTH.
Property will not always be private. Without a state, absentee owners cannot extort rent for the use of capital or land that they do not occupy, use, or possess. Collective ownership is still based on occupancy, use, and possession.
A movement that used to, even if not perfectly, pride itself in consistency.
I dont get it. If your definition of voluntary is not forcing individuals to do anything against there will or individuals basically following the N.A.P, then whats the difference?
Rational self interest of all actors in the free markets. Your statements about the employee-employer are disingenious cause you know (well i assume by your posts) that those inequalities in the work place are the result of state intervention.
"…Contrasted with socialism which is a mode of production where the worker receives the full value of his output."
The problem of course, is that with procuction and exchange being "owned" by the State bureaucracies and officialdom, in the name of the workers, of course, the "value" of a worker's output is almost nonexistent!