Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Get rid of the corporate form, by all means, and the size of some companies will become prohibitively costly. But what would be a crying shame is eradicating the possibility of economies of scale.

    Seeing as you have been known on occasion to quote the Spanish Anarchist movement as an exemplary illustration of what libertarian socialism would look like, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about this.
    Finally someone who recognises that the Anarchists were often quite brutal and who doesn't have a fairytale view of them.

    The anti-clerical violence of the radical leftist Republicans was digusting.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    haha andy beat me to it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Seeing as you have been known on occasion to quote the Spanish Anarchist movement as an exemplary illustration of what libertarian socialism would look like, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about this.
    I was wondering how long it would be before someone dug this up. Alot of it is simply a terrible misunderstanding of what left anarchism is about (e.g. complaining that anarchist communes set up schools and hospitals, and got rid of middle men in the collectivisation process; anarchist sources tend to cite both of these as good things). Basically, Caplan doesn't know much about anarcho-syndicalism. There then (somewhat incoherently) follows a list of the critiques that anarcho-syndicalists make of what happened after the revolution.

    On executions: I think you do have to remember there was a war on, there was a lot of mistrust towards people on the right before the revolution (the anarchist revolution wasn't spontaneous; there had been years of low-level conflict beforehand) and with Franco marching in Catalonia people were bound to be jumpy about those who would side with Franco. And bluntly, in an area with several million inhabitants, in the middle of a revolution and a civil war, 5,000 deaths in the grand scheme of things just isn't that bad. If only the other sides in the conflict had only killed numbers that low.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    You are, of course, assuming that employers (or people in general) act rationally and in their best interests. Unfortunately this is far from reality
    Well, if employers do not act rationally and in their best interests they will lose business and labour to those who do, removing them from the market anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    I was wondering how long it would be before someone dug this up. Alot of it is simply a terrible misunderstanding of what left anarchism is about (e.g. complaining that anarchist communes set up schools and hospitals, and got rid of middle men in the collectivisation process; anarchist sources tend to cite both of these as good things). Basically, Caplan doesn't know much about anarcho-syndicalism. There then (somewhat incoherently) follows a list of the critiques that anarcho-syndicalists make of what happened after the revolution.
    I'm extremely puzzled as to why you say Caplan complains that anarchist communes set up schools and hospitals; there is not a single instance of the word 'hospital' in the piece, and he doesn't criticize them on setting up schools so much as closing them down. I genuinely don't see that your response answers a single thing he actually says, to be honest.

    What he does say is that they set up a de facto state, and this is not so easily dismissed: his telling of the dilemma which socialist anarchists face, namely, between capitalist anarchism or socialist statism, is basically what I've been trying to say to all you left anarchists for years - if you allow worker ownership, you will get inequality between and within communes. If not, you need some kind of state to carry out large scale central planning. It's interesting that the real life example you all like to point to shows so markedly this dynamic.

    This is also a very nice point, quite along the lines of what I was saying in the other thread:

    "The real socialist complaint against capitalism is not that capitalism exploits workers, but that it prevents exploitation of workers. It prevents able workers from being exploited for the benefit of less able workers, the elderly, and children."

    On executions: I think you do have to remember there was a war on, there was a lot of mistrust towards people on the right before the revolution (the anarchist revolution wasn't spontaneous; there had been years of low-level conflict beforehand) and with Franco marching in Catalonia people were bound to be jumpy about those who would side with Franco. And bluntly, in an area with several million inhabitants, in the middle of a revolution and a civil war, 5,000 deaths in the grand scheme of things just isn't that bad. If only the other sides in the conflict had only killed numbers that low.
    Lol, this is quite ironic. Consider that Pinochet, for all his faults, 'only' killed 3500 people, and the kinds of double standards at play here become quite apparent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder why so many people utterly detest libertarianism...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    All the more reason why we shouldn't put some people in positions of massively concentrated power...
    Hence ideally we should have a system of separated powers with a system of checks and balances.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well, if employers do not act rationally and in their best interests they will lose business and labour to those who do, removing them from the market anyway.
    Unless of course no-one acts rationally, in which case the market balances out.

    The fact that jobs exist where employers care little for the welfare of their employees, save for what the government forces them to do is empirical evidence enough.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Subscribed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Hence ideally we should have a system of separated powers with a system of checks and balances.
    Ideally we should all have girlfriends who look like Scarlett Johansson (or boyfriends who look like Brad Pitt if you're that way inclined), but we live, alas, in the real world. I take the United States to be a demonstration of the difficulty (impossibility, really) of achieving true separation of powers and limited government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Libertarianism (i.e. right-libertarianism) is an attempt to philosophically defend the advantages of the wealthy by objecting to any restraint on their liberties and by disingenuously presenting such defence as if promoting everyone's liberties. For all their specious arguments and appeals to essays written by their saints, it is a philosophy which in practice defends and expands the exercisable liberty of the wealthy while limiting the exercisable liberty of, and imposing the wealthy's demands upon, the remainder.

    WOW, you are one bright individual! I agree with what you are saying, but stress, this is RIGHT-libertarianism.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    "The real socialist complaint against capitalism is not that capitalism exploits workers, but that it prevents exploitation of workers. It prevents able workers from being exploited for the benefit of less able workers, the elderly, and children."


    These 'able workers' you are talking about, if you were to look at modern society would be the Bankers and Lawyer types. Don't try and brand them as if they are salt of the earth types who just put more effort in than other people.

    I think the main socialist complaint against Capitalism is that in a society so rich, such as our or own, the wealth is concentrated in a tiny majority who are then able to project their will over the rest of the population. That is just a valid example of tyranny as when carried out by the state, something Libertarians often fail to realise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    These 'able workers' you are talking about, if you were to look at modern society would be the Bankers and Lawyer types. Don't try and brand them as if they are salt of the earth types who just put more effort in than other people.

    I think the main socialist complaint against Capitalism is that in a society so rich, such as our or own, the wealth is concentrated in a tiny majority who are then able to project their will over the rest of the population. That is just a valid example of tyranny as when carried out by the state, something Libertarians often fail to realise.
    Absolutely!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    The fact that jobs exist where employers care little for the welfare of their employees, save for what the government forces them to do is empirical evidence enough.
    Or maybe it's just that the Government has introduced so much regulation, that it has removed the responsibility that was upon the employer to look after his employees. Leading to to the existence of jobs where employers care little for the welfare of their employees, save for what the Government forces them to do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    These 'able workers' you are talking about, if you were to look at modern society would be the Bankers and Lawyer types. Don't try and brand them as if they are salt of the earth types who just put more effort in than other people.

    I think the main socialist complaint against Capitalism is that in a society so rich, such as our or own, the wealth is concentrated in a tiny majority who are then able to project their will over the rest of the population. That is just a valid example of tyranny as when carried out by the state, something Libertarians often fail to realise.
    I never said that they put in more effort than other people, and, seeing as I don't even believe that they put more effort in, I'd be quite grateful if you didn't attribute that view to me. What I did say was that they are being exploited; this is nothing to do with the amount of effort they put in, but, rather, by having a significant proportion of the product of their labour confiscated from them. Even Marxists should be able to see the problem here.

    As for your second paragraph, I don't think it's right. Wealth only helps people into being able to 'project their will' over others insofar as it translates into access to government power. Seeing as libertarians want to minimize that government power, your attack misses the mark. The richest man in the world does not have the kind of power over me that the lowliest police officer does, which I think is well worth bearing in mind when talking about economic power and political power as comparable.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Or maybe it's just that the Government has introduced so much regulation, that it has removed the responsibility that was upon the employer to look after his employees. Leading to to the existence of jobs where employers care little for the welfare of their employees, save for what the Government forces them to do.
    'Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone'
    -John Maynard Keynes

    Companies answer to shareholders who demand profits over anything else. It is simply naive to think that without being forced too they would set employee welfare as one of their main targets.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marchgirl91)
    WOW, you are one bright individual! I agree with what you are saying, but stress, this is RIGHT-libertarianism.
    Which, of course, Oswy has yet to define what this "right-libertarianism" is, and who is exemplary of being a defender of it. Rothbard is typically thought of as a "right winger," despite the fact that he condemned big business and proposed workers take over industry. His more radical followers, like Samual Edward Konkin III, on the other hand, oppose the mainstream libertarian movement, and instead form the "Movement of the Libertarian Left." In the mean time, in philosophy departments "left libertarianism" will be associated with people such as Michael Otsuka and Hillel Steiner, despite Steiner supporting positions essentially these same as those of the young Herbert Spencer in Spencer's Social Statics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    'Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone'
    -John Maynard Keynes

    Companies answer to shareholders who demand profits over anything else. It is simply naive to think that without being forced too they would set employee welfare as one of their main targets.
    Unless that is what makes them a more competitive employer than other firms in their industry. In that case profits would increase if the did.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)

    As for your second paragraph, I don't think it's right. Wealth only helps people into being able to 'project their will' over others insofar as it translates into access to government power. Seeing as libertarians want to minimize that government power, your attack misses the mark. The richest man in the world does not have the kind of power over me that the lowliest police officer does, which I think is well worth bearing in mind when talking about economic power and political power as comparable.
    I'm not necessarily attacking Libertarianism in this regard if it was introduced in it's purest form. I am stating that in a time when corporations have an absolutely huge amount of influence over the actions of Government, it is flawed to state that these institutions don't have great power over the individual.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Or maybe it's just that the Government has introduced so much regulation, that it has removed the responsibility that was upon the employer to look after his employees. Leading to to the existence of jobs where employers care little for the welfare of their employees, save for what the Government forces them to do.
    By that measure, you'd expect to see employers caring for their employees when there is no government intervention. If we look at, say, the Victorian era we can see that this is obviously not the case (with the exception of a few individuals e.g. Titus Salt).

    Empirically, there is no evidence to suggest what you're claiming.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.