Everyone is talking about the goodness of government in here. And here I am with my hand raised as an anarchist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Libertarian socialism is what I usually use to describe my politics. Still doing plenty of research, but that seems to be the political philosophy that resonates most with me.
Anarchism is socialism, ain't nothing wrong with it! I'm not an anarchist myself, but have no problem with them :)
Maybe my interpretations were wrong, but isn't anarchism for the abolition of government and the privatization of society?
Anarchism is abolition of forced hierarchy. This means both the government, and capitalism since in capitalism you work for somebody.
Sorry, but that isn't always true. Lots of forms of anarchy. I'm a minarchist/anarcho-capitalist, and I believe in both the heavy reduction in government (the 'night-watcher state') and the inherent morality of capitalism. Also, I believe that capitalism is "voluntary hierarchy" rather than forced, which is why I think anarchy and capitalism not only can, but should coexist. Not to say there aren't lots of anarcho-socialists, but it definitely isn't a direct, 100% correlation.
Your view on capitalism seems to be completely opposed to mine. Would you mind explaining what the inherent morality of capitalism is, how it works and which empirical evidence supports that view? Also, and I'm curious about this, does your "utopia" include the existence of corporations? If so, what would keep them from forming a de facto oligarchy?
Hi deepflows, That's a tricky question. First off, no, I can't offer empirical evidence to support my view that capitalism is inherently moral. I believe that morality is a subjective measure (as evidenced by things being 'amoral' in one society and lauded in another), and I don't think that any outcome or evidence can prove one action to be truly more or less moral than another. I would describe my moral views as "self-righteous" in that I believe that each of us are truly responsible for determining what is moral and what isn't, since there is no external source of true morality. I, for example, don't believe that financial inequality is, in and of itself, a "bad" thing (and this is coming from a guy who's just barely middle class--I'm certainly not a 1%er or anywhere near that). You, however, may, in which case I could understand why you potentially would not be in favor of anarcho-capitalism. And yes, I definitely believe that utopia would involve corporations. I believe the publicly traded corporate structure has done more to allow the worker to own the means of production than any economic innovation in history. However, I'm not a true anarchist--I'm a minarchist. I believe that government should exist to:
-retaliate for violence committed outside of self-defense
-punish theft and breach of violence
-provide objective judgment and detention services
-provide large-scale public works (roads) These objective services (akin to legal insurance) would serve as a check against the power of corporations to create serfdoms. For example, I think the ability of labor to organize is absolutely vital to free markets. Oppressing unions was monstrous because it allowed one side of the equation (capital) to have pricing power, but the other side (labor) was not allowed to do so. At the same time, I think the labor's organization should be the end in itself. The government should in no way step in to support unions other than to protect them from violence at the hands of the corporation.
Thank you! I don't reject inequality as such. People should be rewarded for hard work and time spent for the wellfare of the community. I don't believe that the profit motive tends to reward the right kinds of engagement, though. Make sure everyone has food and shelter, the elderly, the young and the sick are taken care off and public infrastructure is in prime condition. Then take care of supplying luxury goods - and, quite frankly, do we really need a whole industry which doesn't actually create any real value while at the same time creating insane rewards for its participants? As I said, there can and should be some inequality in outcomes. But there also should be a limit to that inequality. Nobody needs a hundred million dollars to adequately pursue their personal happiness. I agree wholeheartedly on your point about unions. One more question, if I may: Since in a capitalis society, capital equals power: What is going to prevent the wealthy from using their economic advantage to influence the (limited) government you envision in their favor, much as we see today and have seen in the past (re: suppression of unions.) Are we going to rely on politicians to reject the profit motive which the society they operate in celebates? In case you're interested, I shared some of my concerns about capitalism in another reply in this thread.
Hi melstein, Yes. In capitalism, hierarchy is enforced through a series of voluntary subjugation in exchange for wages--i.e., the sale of labor for money. I don't believe there's anything wrong in this transaction--or, indeed, any voluntary economic transactions between two parties. This is different from government, in which hierarchy is enforced through violence or the threat of violence (i.e., you do something wrong and you go to jail). Government operates via forced hierarchy because you cannot choose to disengage--you are under the construct of law regardless of where you are or what you do. However, I can easily choose to sever completely my ties with my employer or with the corporations with whom I choose to (or not to) do business. So, my boss at work is absolutely "over me" in terms of hierarchy, but that's okay--I sell her my time in exchange for money. My state's senator is also "above me" in the hierarchy, because she has rights that I don't--insider trading rules apply differently, she can apply and receive a gun permit, etc. This is not okay, because there is nothing I can do short of fleeing my physical location to end this hierarchical relationship (even if we vote her out, another citizen will be elected).
Hi deepflows, I am not sure it's a valid question--what makes something a "rare commodity" is its relative lack of availability in a market. The very sign that makes work a "rare commodity" is that workers of a particular skillset are NOT easily replaced. In our market (U.S.), for example, we have a large population of low- and medium-skilled labor leftover from demographic shifts toward a highly skilled tech economy. That level of work may be common, while tech/STEM/trade skills may be less so. In such an instance, wages for low-skilled employees will drop as they fight for fewer jobs (since automation is reducing the manpower needed to complete any task) while wages for highly skilled employees rise as employers fight to adapt to a new economic model. If the workers are easily replaced, that skillset is prevalent, and the employer will gain pricing pressure to decrease wages until enough workers move into other fields to make replacement difficult. After that, the work will become rare, wages for that skillset will rise, and companies will have to pay more to attract labor. And then the cycle will repeat.
I'll concede that "work as a rare commodity" doesn't apply to highly skilled professionals in vital / sought after fields. The definition of "sought after field" is going to change over time, yes. You mentioned automation. I'll add rationalization (in the sociological / economical sense) to that. What you end up with is not a simple shift away from traditional jobs towards new ones. You end up with a situation where productivity is decoupled from demand for workforce (and thus, wages). A quick search produced this graphic to illustrate my point:
And yet, as far as robotics go, we are only really getting started. Sure, there's manufacturing, but other fields which were traditionally in strong demand of human labor are beginning to see change, too:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jsimms/2015/04/01/yoshiyuki-sankais-cyborgs-serve-japans-sick-and-elderly/ By now, the idea of "new jobs which we can't even imagine today" replacing those lost by automation, rationalization (inlcuding concentration of workloads on highly skilled individuals) has been pretty much proven a myth. Yeah, there are new and high-techy fields of work. They just happen to come not even close to replacing the jobs which were lost in creating these fields. How, in a system which still closely links financial wellfare to gainful employment, could we not regard work as an increasingly rare commodity? With all the implications for those in the "reserve force" and those who can be truthfully told "If you don't like the conditions, I have a hundred guys ready to replace you." This whole development could actually produce a very liberating situation. I blame (the protestant ethic and the spirit of) capitalism for making it a nightmare.