[SolarCross]

An-caps are 21st century communists.
I just had this odd ball thought, see what you think.
Early communists (pre-marxian) such as the diggers and ranters of civil war England were interested in the common ownership of land. At that time the important "means of production" was land because agriculture was the main economic activity.
Communists of the 19th and 20th century were interested in the common ownership of industrial processes. At that time the important "means of production" were mines and factories.
In the 21st century the important means of production is knowledge and information. And who in this age advocates common ownership of this means of production? Answer: an-caps! Are an-caps then 21st century communists?

Discuss.

[Sithsaber]

No. They are the bastardization of the anarchists from a century ago and isolationist late 19th century industrial capitalists. Nothing more.

[Paradigm]

There's actually an interesting contradiction in regard to the issue of intellectual property and the an-cap/libertarian attitude toward LTV. They hold up the idea that value is subjective and something is worth however much someone is willing to pay for it, yet when it comes to intellectual property, they seem to think of it as fundamentally different than a physical product someone has made with their labor. Such physical products are counted as having real value for which its creator is entitled to compensation, but the creator of an idea should just share it freely without expecting compensation. It's almost as if physical labor has some kind of intrinsic value.

[Soix]

Paradigm, I haven't, yet, come across a libertarian or an-cap that considers intellectual property as property, per se. This might be of interest to you.

[mikema63]

He is commenting on the fact, not disputing it.

It is interesting I suppose but the entire argument isn't that someone who produces an idea did or did not do any labor. The argument is that the use of an idea doesn't exclude someone else from doing so, unlike a piece of capital.

[Kman]

Such physical products are counted as having real value for which its creator is entitled to compensation

Nobody is entitled compensation for anything, people are entitled to their freedom, they are entitled property rights of things they make themselves or otherwise gain via voluntary trade. People dont create ideas in other peoples heads nor do they own items that other people copy off their item, copyrights are not property rights, they are a grant of monopoly that violates individual freedom and natural law. If I invent some sort of gadget for catching mice for example then it should not mean a goddamn thing that some other guy half-way around the world invented the same thing 3 years earlier, just because he had a good idea does not mean he can tell me what to produce and order me to give him money.

[Eran]

Indeed. It is mistake to think that people are entitled to the value of their property. If that was the case, I could prohibit you from taking steps (e.g. opening a competing store across the street) that have the effect of lowering the value of my property.

Clearly, this isn't the libertarian position (though in many instances it is effectively the statist position today).

[SolarCross]

People dont create ideas in other peoples heads nor do they own items that other people copy off their item, copyrights are not property rights, they are a grant of monopoly that violates individual freedom and natural law.

The diggers and ranters might have said "People don't create land, God did. The monarchy and aristocrats have a land monopoly that violates individual freedom and God's law."
In the 19th century communists might have said "The workers create factories and mines, finance capitalists just use their money printing monopoly to enslave the workers."
There is an element of truth to those arguments just as there is to yours.

It is true that there is a limited supply of land but it is a large supply that is made artificially scarce through state monopoly.
It is true that there is limited supply of labour and raw materials but the potentially infinite supply of money that is used to facilitate transactions is kept in the hands of a few through state monopoly.
The an-cap argument for the abolishment of intellectual property rights is not so very different.

[Red Barn]

I don't see how one can discuss intellectual property "rights" exclusive of context.

In an economy dominated by corporate structures and wage labor, for instance, the abolition of intellectual property rights would, among other things, make it much more difficult for individuals to escape the overarching network of corporate control.



As Anticlimacus has pointed out a million times already, this apparent inability to address context (at all!) is one of the most glaring weaknesses in the whole catalog of An-Cap talking points.

[SolarCross]

Redbarn - I would argue that "corporate control" and "wage labour" are not the problem per se. Syndicalism would be corporate control too, just the corporations would be called committees, syndicates and co-opertives albiet they would probably have some internal democratic processes. Syndicalism would also have labour for reward (wage labour) but the worker would have less choice as to what they did with the reward. The problem is really that we all have to operate under a defacto policy monopoly which crucially includes a monopoly over money printing. Why don't the workers make their own factories and so on? It isn't because of wage labour and corporate control, it is because if they want money they have to get it from a monopoly provider that puts them last on the list.

[Red Barn]

But that's not the question, is it?

You asked us to discuss whether the An-Cap goal of abolishing private intellectual property is, like the communist goal of abolishing physical private property, an attempt to undermine existing hierarchies of power.

My answer is no, and I've given you a concrete reason why not.

Do you have an argument to counter this point, or no?

[SolarCross]

Redbarn - I am certain that an-caps do have an interest in undermining existing hierarchies of power as much as any good communist. The understanding of the nature of power and the tactics for tackling it differ but the motivation is the same. On the specific call for an information commons I think it is motivated by the same interest but like the communists of yesteryear the actual policy proposed is flawed. The diggers were wrong to call for a commons of land when the problem was not private property of land it was land monopoly. The 19th century communists were wrong to call for a commons for industry when the problem was not private ownership of industry it was money issuance monopoly. And so in turn the an-caps are wrong calling for a commons of information when the problem is not intellectual property but it is intellectual property being administered by a monopoly. Or so I think at the moment.

[Red Barn]

But capitalism itself, without intervention, will naturally lead to monopolies and near-monopolies over time - be they physical or intellectual.

A state of affairs in which independent software designers lose control over their own products, writers lose control of their own novels, and inventors are unable to either sell or produce their own inventions, would just hasten this process.

Are you sure An-Caps honestly want to overcome existing hierarchies?

Frankly, Taxi, I very much doubt it.

[SolarCross]

Redbarn -

But capitalism itself, without intervention, will naturally lead to monopolies and near-monopolies over time - be they physical or intellectual.

Substitute the word "capitalism" for market economy and you will immediately see the falsity of that assertion. Can we substitute "capitalism" for "market economy"? If we are talking about an-caps / libertarians / agorists then absolutely we can because that is exactly what they mean when they use the term. Real monopolies can only be imposed by violence, absent the threat of violence no monopoly can survive for long unless everyone is super happy with the monopoly in which case what is the problem?

A state of affairs in which independent software designers lose control over their own products, writers lose control of their own novels, and inventors are unable to either sell or produce their own inventions, would just hasten this process.

I worry about this also, which is why I have my doubts about an information commons, but see my worry would be no less if we were talking about a commons of land or industry and for the same reasons; small operators would be disadvantaged. An-caps like the diggers and commies have a good cause but a poor solution.

So yes I am sure they mean well, in fact I am surer of that than I am of most socialists that I have encountered.

[Eran]

In an economy dominated by corporate structures and wage labor, for instance, the abolition of intellectual property rights would, among other things, make it much more difficult for individuals to escape the overarching network of corporate control.

Why?

[anticlimacus]

Why?

Because this is precisely what capitalist markets have tended to do. In fact, the freer the markets the more inequality and the more concentration of wealth coupled with slower growth. This is simply the plain facts and it is proven time and again, but denied by the faithful ideologues.

Real monopolies can only be imposed by violence, absent the threat of violence no monopoly can survive for long unless everyone is super happy with the monopoly in which case what is the problem?

What makes you think that collusion and private armies organized among big capital will not be a major threat of violence? You really think the NAP will hold them back? Or will it just be a mere rationalization of their violence and control?

Ancaps need to understand that simply getting rid of the state is not going to lead to freedom. The modern state has been just as much a product of capitalism as has capitalism been a product of it. The real aim of anarchism is overcoming both capitalism and the state. Otherwise talk of freedom or of a commons of intellectual ideas or whatever fancy catch phrase you throw out is either a fantasy or simply missing the bigger picture.

[SolarCross]

What makes you think that collusion and private armies organized among big capital will not be a major threat of violence? You really think the NAP will hold them back? Or will it just be a mere rationalization of their violence and control?

Ancaps need to understand that simply getting rid of the state is not going to lead to freedom. The modern state has been just as much a product of capitalism as has capitalism been a product of it. The real aim of anarchism is overcoming both capitalism and the state. Otherwise talk of freedom or of a commons of intellectual ideas or whatever fancy catch phrase you throw out is either a fantasy or simply missing the bigger picture.

I don't know what your meaning is when you use the word "capitalism", but I guess it is something other than "market economy". Perhaps you could give a quick definition of "capitalism" just so we all know what special and unusual meaning you are using?

The state is the opposite of a market economy. There are only 3 possibilities:
1. State + market economy,
2. Totalitarian State economy,
3. Market economy without the state.
We are at 1. An-caps and myself want 3. You apparently don't want either 1 or 3 so that leaves 2. Well good luck with that, it didn't work out so well in the DPRK, or Bolshevik Russia.

[anticlimacus]

I don't know what your meaning is when you use the word "capitalism", but I guess it is something other than "market economy". Perhaps you could give a quick definition of "capitalism" just so we all know what special and unusual meaning you are using?

The state is the opposite of a market economy. There are only 3 possibilities:
1. State + market economy,
2. Totalitarian State economy,
3. Market economy without the state.
We are at 1. An-caps and myself want 3. You apparently don't want either 1 or 3 so that leaves 2. Well good luck with that, it didn't work out so well in the DPRK, or Bolshevik Russia.

Plain and simple: capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, backed by legal force. What you want is no state, period. This is not anarchism, because you are perfectly fine with the authoritarian relations that develop due to the separation between capital and labor: boss and worker, owner and non-owner. Now I realize you say you want a "market economy" (how this is substantively different from capitalism, I don't know). However, the only thing you push for in practice is the abrogation of the capitalist state. What you fail to realize is that this does nothing to the reigning order of things, and is exactly why anarchists have never done this. Instead what anarchists have done is try to overthrow the entire order of capitalism, and this has meant working from the ground up: uniting communities and creating cooperative production. Therefore, the primary focus has been against capitalist production (strikes, direct action, sit downs, etc.)--and the state has simply always come to the aid of capitalists. Overcoming capitalism is naturally overcoming the modern state. I have mentioned this several times. It seems that all you want to do is destroy the state. What does that accomplish, by itself, except afford power to those who control capital? Quite in contrast to what traditional anarchists have fought for tooth and nail on the ground, you don't want to deconstruct capitalism. You want to deconstruct the only public access within capitalism: the state. You might therefore see why most anarchists look at you as a horrible bastard of what many anarchists have fought and been killed for.

Anarchists want to transcend all authoritarian relations, including those of capitalist economies. As a syndicalist we seek the communal ownership of the means of production within decentralized syndicates, tied to local communities, while also being federated. But you already know this, Tax.

[Red Barn]

Substitute the word "capitalism" for market economy and you will immediately see the falsity of that assertion.

But "capitalism" and "market economy" aren't synonymous terms.

Capitalism is one kind of market economy, sure, but it's not the only kind. A market economy in which the MoP are collectively held by the resident workers, for instance, would be a type of market socialism. (Mutualism, the earliest form of Anarchism, is an economic model of this type. It posits worker ownership, free markets, and no centralized state.)

What makes capitalism special, and why my objection applies to it specifically, is that it requires private ownership of the MoP, and therefor makes wage labor the dominant means of subsistence for the majority of workers.

[Someone5]

Taxizen, why are you so insistent on trying to turn anarcho-capitalism into communism? This is like the third time you've been posting on this board about "communism 2.0" or whatever. I understand you were trying (unsuccessfully) to earn some money through crowdfunding, but surely that has run its course by now?