[Soixante-Retard]

libertarian was first used tby Dejacque in a letter to Proudhon to separate his anarcho-communist views from Proudhon`s mutualism, so if anybody has really claimed and popularized the word later, it`s certainly not the far left.

Semnatic change. Libertarian of Déjacque's day is different to its usage today.

Edit: I also have no idea why you use the word Corporatism to describe the current system.

Corporate welfare, subsidies, regulatory capture etc. Big businesses, especially established businesses, hate the free market, it means they have to face competition - so they'll try to use the government, the legal monopoly of force, to keep barriers to entry high so that it is impossible for competition to drive their profits to zero.

[Rei Murasame]

What you have right now is not corporatism, but liberal-capitalism in a pluralist framework - the things you are complaining about are simply its inevitable and natural outcome.

[Soixante-Retard]

^ Yes, because to you (a self-described fascist), I think, corporatism would be more akin to syndicalism.

[Happyhippo]

Semnatic change. Libertarian of Déjacque's day is different to its usage today.

Except that anarcho-communists still call themselves libertarian communists, anarcho-syndicalists still call themselves libertarian socialists etc etc all over the world. Your view is extremely US-centric.

Corporate welfare, subsidies, regulatory capture etc. Big businesses, especially established businesses, hate the free market, it means they have to face competition - so they'll try to use the government, the legal monopoly of force, to keep barriers to entry high so that it is impossible for competition to drive their profits to zero.

Corporatism is an economic system usually endorsed by fascists. What you are describing is corporatocracy.

Seriously, american political language is beyond retarded and chock full of Newspeak. That isn`t a personal insult, but it`s impossible to have a political discussion across the pond nowadays without spending a ton of posts clarifying definitions.

[Soixante-Retard]

^ Basically people who support voluntaryism really shouldn't argue then, voluntary socialism and voluntary capitalism can peacefully coexist through a free-market (which is amoral). Instead, we ought to be focusing our arguments against authoritarians. As Orwell said: "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians".

[Rei Murasame]

Well, I think it's a given that HappyHippo would argue against me because he'd perceive my corporatist ideas as being "national syndicalism", which is not really voluntary.

However, he also should oppose you even more on economic grounds, mainly because your system empowers large companies which have an ability to be as omnipotent as they like with no consensus and no worker opinion being registered in any way at all.

Propertarian libertarianism looks to be quite like a naked advocacy of total tyranny by the business class; a defence of privatised and compartmentalised tyrannies. They would do whatever they like, they'd be border-less (while imposing a border on the worker at the edge of the car park), and they'd be global in scope.

[Soixante-Retard]

Propertarian libertarianism looks to be quite like a naked advocacy of total tyranny by the business class; a defence of privatised and compartmentalised tyrannies. They would do whatever they like, they'd be border-less (while imposing a border on the worker at the edge of the car park), and they'd be global in scope.

That's funny because change the first two words to one and you'd get my view of Fascism:

"Fascism looks to be quite like a naked advocacy of total tyranny by the business class; a defence of privatised and compartmentalised tyrannies. They would do whatever they like, they'd be border-less (while imposing a border on the worker at the edge of the car park), and they'd be global in scope."


And that, Rei, is our problem; you see libertarianism as I see fascism. Now if libertarianism =/= fascism and we both accept logic, that is two contradictory statements can't both be true, then one of us is wrong and the other is right; or we're both wrong - we can't both be right.

[Rei Murasame]

Well then I'd have to ask you to make an argument as to how fascism (assume the model is 'national labour', or as you say national syndicalism) would create a privatised globalist tyranny where capital can outmanoeuvre labour. After all, usually it is your side who argue that it is bad precisely because it won't respect private business' privacy, and because it is perpetually catering to its own labourers first. Which purportedly "arrests growth".

Even in a breakdown scenario where capital starts finding ways to ignore its obligations, it would still be neither fully private nor global.

[grassroots1]

Socialist anarchism requires expropriation and democratic control of the means of production, it cannot co-exist with the exploitative system of free market capitalism.

What you have right now is not corporatism, but liberal-capitalism in a pluralist framework - the things you are complaining about are simply its inevitable and natural outcome.

The lack of pluralism is the reason we have a corporatocracy. I don't agree that corporatocracy is the inevitable result of liberal democracy. I think this is a problem particular to individual liberal democracies that can be solved or at least made better through targeted reforms.

[Soixante-Retard]

For Rei: I'll allow Ludwig von Mises to explain it better than I could.

[Rei Murasame]

I've seen that before, but that doesn't align with what you are actually now accusing us of. Mises seems to be accusing us of the opposite of what you are accusing us of.

His claim is:

There is no doubt that any attempt to realize the corporativist utopia would in a very short time lead to violent conflicts, if the government did not interfere when the vital industries abused their privileged position. What the doctrinaires envisage only as an exceptional measure—the interference of the government—will become the rule. Guild socialism and corporativism will turn into full government control of all production activities. They will develop into that system of Prussian Zwangswirtschaft [compulsory economy - permanent state of exception] which they were designed to avoid.

He is claiming that if capital or labour happen to persistently sabotage negotiations, that it will collapse into total rule by autonomous state bureaucracy, which would not be the privatised border-less tyranny that you are accusing us of now, but a quite different type of problem.

It's also a problem that we acknowledge is possible, since the power to strangle resources is what gives the guilds their power, and is what allows them to take the government away from liberals in the first place.

This is a feature, not a flaw, the potential for conflict is part of the balance of powers, so we also are open to the possibility that guilds might need to actually shut down a fascist government, and we are also open to the possibility that a fascist government may need to mediate to prevent a shutdown.

[Soixante-Retard]

I've seen that before, but that doesn't align with what you are actually now accusing us of. Mises seems to be accusing us of the opposite of what you are accusing us of.

His claim is:
Mises wrote:
There is no doubt that any attempt to realize the corporativist utopia would in a very short time lead to violent conflicts, if the government did not interfere when the vital industries abused their privileged position. What the doctrinaires envisage only as an exceptional measure—the interference of the government—will become the rule. Guild socialism and corporativism will turn into full government control of all production activities. They will develop into that system of Prussian Zwangswirtschaft which they were designed to avoid.

No, Mises is saying exactly what I'm accusing you of - namely corporativism is government control of the "means of production", through the tax/subsidy system, with the veneer of private ownership. Basically, businessesman and politicians become one to protect themselves at the expense of everyone else.

That is, "Fascism looks to be quite like a naked advocacy of total tyranny by the business class; a defence of privatised and compartmentalised tyrannies. They would do whatever they like, they'd be border-less (while imposing a border on the worker at the edge of the car park), and they'd be global in scope."

Because they have the okay from government. One could conclude that they are the government (but not literally- they are, of course, distinct).

[Rei Murasame]

Even if it broke down to that point, how would that be private and borderless? Mises even asserts that there would be conflict, so I guess it's "do whatever they like until the workers get sick enough of it to start violence".

What you all are calling the flaw is actually the feature.

[grassroots1]

What mises describes I see as today's united states, and I actually agree with his assessment of what corporatism would ultimately look like. That's why a truly pluralistic liberal democracy is the only feasible option. The 'anarchy' of free enterprise is its own form of tyranny, and corporatism is blatant and unapologetic tyranny, which, like all tyrannies, one can expect to stagnate and eventually collapse under its own weight. This does seem to be what's happening in the inflexible context of American politics...

[Rei Murasame]

It really depends on what you care about the most and what you are willing to risk.

Corporatists are willing to accept the risk of the worst-case possibility that Zwangswirtschaft could arise and get locked-in, or that conversely guilds might decapitate the state (I've even said as much myself in the past), for the same reasons that Thomas Jefferson was willing to accept that the liberal system might degenerate to a scenario where it would need to "be refreshed through the blood of patriots and tyrants".

Which it has numerous times in history, and I don't see liberals complaining about it, they still love their liberalism.

____________________
EDIT:

I don't agree that corporatocracy is the inevitable result of liberal democracy. I think this is a problem particular to individual liberal democracies that can be solved or at least made better through targeted reforms.

Targeted reforms carried out by who? You oppose socialist expropriation, and you oppose corporatist resource-strangling, because you are not willing to accept the risks involved in either of them.

Therefore you have no methodology for getting a systemic change, other than to ask liberal politicians for reforms, but liberal politicians are owned by the companies who you are trying to carry out these reforms against (there's your pluralism system in play, pluralism means unlimited lobbying for all, liberal-capitalism means that workers won't be involved in that lobbying). And then in addition to that, it is at the point where you liberals cannot actually take Thomas Jefferson's advice and proceed straight to armed insurrection and win either (since the US military is no longer you the citizen but rather it is a standing army separate from you), so it means that you really have in 2012 objectively taken a stance that is describable as begging for reforms with fingers crossed.

[mikema63]

i have no idea how to respond to the sheer volume this thread has gained since i was last here, i will however concede to HH that jobs wasn't a perfect example but i dont really have any perfect examples, to rei this girl was not coerced by you or even your ancestors she is an individual while her situation cannot be considered justifiable it doesn't destroy libertarianism as you seem to think, and to grassroots i am an anarchist and i think that your belief in government as the only effective regulator and in a representative democracy will not and cannot work out if you have specific points you wish to discus about the economic problems and the other points you had then a thread in the economics forum would be appropriate and would separate it from the rest of this mess of a thread.

[grassroots1]

i think that your belief in government as the only effective regulator and in a representative democracy will not and cannot work

You say you are an anarchist, which means you reject authority. Well take a look at the forms of business I showed you in the post above and tell me if it doesn't look like authority.

Rei,

How does a corporatist plan to change things?

I believe there should be a real grassroots populist movement against our system that has come to so strongly favor business interests. But ultimately I believe in democracy and the basic principles that our country was founded on, like the freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the freedom to assemble, etc. I believe in the democratic model and I think it has flaws in its current form but can be improved.

[mikema63]

You say you are an anarchist, which means you reject authority. Well take a look at the forms of business I showed you in the post above and tell me if it doesn't look like authority.

in so far that their size and scope is enabled by government yes, but even at their size i do have other choices and i can eat without ever buying from them. the thing is that as big and powerful as they are they cannot control me or influence me, they do not have authority over my life except where they have access to force through the government.

[Eran]

Well, sucks to be her then, doesn't it - because that's exactly what she can't do.

I guess. Unfortunately, we cannot right every historic wrong. That doesn't mean we should abandon the concepts of right and wrong though - rather it means we should be ever more careful not to create new wrongs that history will find hard to make right.

you libertarians take it a step further and declare that it shouldn't even be seen as a legitimate historical narrative, and that I shouldn't even take her reaction seriously.

We libertarians don't pass judgement on legitimacy of historic narrative, or on how seriously one person should take another. We recognize historic evils and regret that they cannot all be made right. We reject the notion that historic evils justify modern-day evils not targeting those responsible for the historic ones.

I think that my ideology is more appealing than libertarianism is on this issue (obviously) because we have a multi-generational outlook, and we at least give our competitors the dignity of acknowledging that our past is relevant, even if we acknowledge it only to say that "it is unfortunate that it had to be like that".

The difference between us is NOT that you acknowledge the past while we reject it. Rather, the difference is that you use national groups as atomic entities for moral considerations, while we look through to individual members of those groups.

Thus we recognize history, but claim that only individual, not group history is relevant.

Tell me Rei, would you justify the actions of a Jew who goes about murdering random Germans on the ground that Germans killed millions of Jews? If not, can you articulate why such action is not consistent with your ideology?

I guess I'm saying that the OP completely collapses libertarianism onto itself, and what it collapses into is the view of life which does take into account the fact that government is force and that 'previous accumulation' matters.

It's a good thing I rejected the OP then...

If I understand correctly, you feel that history is relevant, and government's legitimate role is to correct historic wrongs.
1. Am I right?
2. Do you seriously expect government to realistically right more wrongs than it creates?


With respect to historic accumulation, I am yet to see you refer to my point, namely that most wealth is recently-created, and that historic wealth is gradually losing relevance as the global economy continues to grow. As long as we make sure no new injustices are added to the old, the world will become more just over time, almost irrespective of the initial starting point.

Nor am I treating current property titles as sacrosanct. I just reject the use of historic injustices as an excuse for new ones.

You say you are an anarchist, which means you reject authority.

No, it doesn't mean that. Both literally and in common use, anarchists reject government, but not necessarily all authority. In fact, no sensible anarchists truly reject authority. Rather, some left anarchists would like to place authority with various workers' councils or other democratic forums. Those forums, while democratic, still retain authority over their members.

[grassroots1]

in so far that their size and scope is enabled by government yes, but even at their size i do have other choices and i can eat without ever buying from them. the thing is that as big and powerful as they are they cannot control me or influence me, they do not have authority over my life except where they have access to force through the government.

You have few choices other than those companies in the graphic I posted when it comes to where you get your food, and the price goes up if you want healthier food produced sustainably or organically. That limits where one can actually get food other than from these few companies. You may have the luxury of being able to spend more to obtain healthier food. Many do not.

Again, the exampels I've provided show how a company, an oligarchy, a trust, a monopoly can have direct control over the lives of individuals without government intervention. In the case of coal company towns, businesses would hire their own security and only when strikes became threatening to the interests of the company would they call in the National Guard. Ludlow massacre:

Over millions of years, as the Rocky Mountains uplifted, powerful tectonic forces heaved veins of coal close to the surface of the land, leaving significant and relatively accessible reserves. In 1867, these coal deposits caught the attention of William Jackson Palmer, then leading a survey team planning the route of the Kansas Pacific Railway. The rapid expansion of rail transport in the United States made coal a highly valued commodity, and it was rapidly commercialized.

At its peak in 1910, the coal mining industry of Colorado employed 15,864 people, accounting for 10 percent of those employed in the state.[7] Colorado's coal industry was dominated by a handful of operators. The largest, Colorado Fuel and Iron, was the largest coal operator in the west, as well as one of the nation's most powerful corporations, at one point employing 7,050 individuals and controlling 71,837 acres (290.71 km2) of coal land.[8] CF&I was purchased by John D. Rockefeller in 1902, and nine years later he turned his controlling interest in the company to his son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who managed the company from his offices at 26 Broadway in New York.[9]

Mining was dangerous and difficult work. Colliers in Colorado were at constant risk for explosion, suffocation, and collapsing mine walls. In 1912, the death rate in Colorado's mines was 7.055 per 1,000 employees, compared to a national rate of 3.15.[10] In 1914, the United States House Committee on Mines and Mining reported that "Colorado has good mining laws and such that ought to afford protection to the miners as to safety in the mine if they were enforced, yet in this State the percentage of fatalities is larger than any other, showing there is undoubtedly something wrong in reference to the management of its coal mines."[11] Miners were generally paid according to tonnage of coal produced, while so-called "dead work", such as shoring up unstable roofs, was often unpaid.[11] According to historian Thomas G. Andrews, the tonnage system drove many poor and ambitious colliers to gamble with their lives by neglecting precautions and taking on risk, with consequences that were often fatal.[12] Between 1884 and 1912, mining accidents claimed the lives of more than 1,700 Coloradans.[13] In 1913 alone, "104 men would die in Colorado’s mines, and 6 in the mine workings on the surface, in accidents that widowed 51 and left 108 children fatherless."[14]

Colliers had little opportunity to air their grievances. Many colliers resided in company towns, in which all land, real estate, and amenities were owned by the mine operator, and which were expressly designed to inculcate loyalty and squelch dissent.[15] Welfare Capitalists believed that anger and unrest among the workers could be placated by raising colliers' standard of living, while subsuming it under company management. Company towns indeed brought tangible improvements to the lives of many colliers and their families, including larger houses, better medical care, and broader access to education.[16] However, ownership of the towns provided companies considerable control over all aspects of workers' lives, and this power was not always used to augment public welfare. Historian Philip S. Foner has described company towns as "feudal domain[s], with the company acting as lord and master. ... The 'law' consisted of the company rules. Curfews were imposed. Company guards - brutal thugs armed with machine guns and rifles loaded with soft-point bullets - would not admit any 'suspicious' stranger into the camp and would not permit any miner to leave." Furthermore, miners who raised the ire of the company were liable to find themselves and their families summarily evicted from their homes.[17]

...

On the morning of April 20, the day after Easter was celebrated by the many Greek immigrants at Ludlow, three Guardsmen appeared at the camp ordering the release of a man they claimed was being held against his will. This request prompted the camp leader, Louis Tikas, to meet with a local militia commander at the train station in Ludlow village, a half mile (0.8 km) from the colony. While this meeting was progressing, two companies of militia installed a machine gun on a ridge near the camp and took a position along a rail route about half a mile south of Ludlow. Anticipating trouble, Tikas ran back to the camp. The miners, fearing for the safety of their families, set out to flank the militia positions. A firefight soon broke out.





Karl Linderfelt, center. Photo caption reads: "OFFICERS OF THE COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD From left to right: Captain R. J. Linderfelt, Lieut. T. C. Linderfelt, Lieut. K. E. Linderfelt, (who faced the charge of assault upon Louis Tikas, the dead strike leader), Lieut. G.S. Lawrence and Major Patrick Hamrock. The last three were in the Ludlow battle of April 20, 1914."
The fighting raged for the entire day. The militia was reinforced by non-uniformed mine guards later in the afternoon. At dusk, a passing freight train stopped on the tracks in front of the Guards' machine gun placements, allowing many of the miners and their families to escape to an outcrop of hills to the east called the "Black Hills." By 7:00 p.m., the camp was in flames, and the militia descended on it and began to search and loot the camp. Louis Tikas had remained in the camp the entire day and was still there when the fire started. Tikas and two other men were captured by the militia. Tikas and Lt. Karl Linderfelt, commander of one of two Guard companies, had confronted each other several times in the previous months. While two militiamen held Tikas, Linderfelt broke a rifle butt over his head. Tikas and the other two captured miners were later found shot dead. Tikas had been shot in the back.[19] Their bodies lay along the Colorado and Southern Railway tracks for three days in full view of passing trains. The militia officers refused to allow them to be moved until a local of a railway union demanded the bodies be taken away for burial.

During the battle, four women and eleven children had been hiding in a pit beneath one tent, where they were trapped when the tent above them was set on fire. Two of the women and all of the children suffocated. These deaths became a rallying cry for the UMWA, who called the incident the "Ludlow Massacre."[20]

In addition to the fire victims, Louis Tikas and the other men who were shot to death, three company guards and one militiaman were killed in the day's fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

There is nothing that keeps the same thing from occurring today except our ability to prevent monopolization and combination through the tool of government. Nonetheless combination and consolidation of wealth continue, we are left with fewer and fewer choices, and thus we are left with less control over our own lives. If you are truly an anarchist in opposition to unjust authority, I would consider these facts. If you want more information I recommend Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States as an overview of the American labor movement, and Standing at Armageddon for another indepth look at the labor movement in the Gilded Age.

No, it doesn't mean that. Both literally and in common use, anarchists reject government, but not necessarily all authority. In fact, no sensible anarchists truly reject authority. Rather, some left anarchists would like to place authority with various workers' councils or other democratic forums. Those forums, while democratic, still retain authority over their members.

In common use it's often used as a blanket rejection of any form of authority, but yes I generally agree with you. It's an opposition to unjust and undemocratic authority. Right libertarianism is backwards in this sense however, and that is the argument I'm making with mikema, because concentrated capital is its own form of unjust and undemocratic authority. Ironically in pursuing freedom they would guarantee slavery...