When Socialism Had A Free Market Ideal Too It!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    This piece by Kevin Carson poses some interesting thought along that line of thinking and a wider implication of de-fanging the state itself.
  2. steward71

    steward71 Active Member

    So please explain to me what you are trying to say with this, Do you support what he is stating and what he is supporting. He states he for socialism.
  3. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I've come to the conclusion that he has no political convictions of any sort. Wkmac just likes playing devils advocate on here and he does play it well.
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Yes he did and Kevin Carson also openly and very frankly calls himself "anti-capitalist" also. Kevin's personal blog even incorporates the term anti-capitalist into it's title. But who were some of the men he also named in his piece that he called socialist as well?

    Franz Oppenheimer, the man who wrote the anti-state classic "The State" was a socialist in the 19th century traditional sense but far from what we think and think we know of the term in the late 20th and now early 21th century sense. This quote from Oppenheimer's book, The State, from chapter 1 may give you some sense of his socialist leanings.

    Did you catch that about Marx, "Marx's splendid theory" as Oppenheimer put it? Now Oppenheimer went on to condemn much of Marx means but Oppenheimer was able to appreciate Marx's class analysis and how state privilege is the source of such interventions to even exist. This he wrote his important work "The State" and it's so important that the Austrian Economic Free Market Think Tank Mises Institute has the book on pdf for open source reading. In fact, I took the quote you read direct from the Mises Institute's website in which chapter 1 of "The State" was excerpted. And the great free market economist Murray Rothbard at Mises also spoke very highly of Oppenheimer. Rothbard's analysis although brief is very true and IMO Oppenheimer's "The State" is a must read if you believe in anything from a limited state or to a no state society along with voluntary free markets.

    Lysander Spooner, now here's one of my heroes dating back to the 1980's when I discovered him. As I was discovering my then anti-federalist leanings, I came across his work "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority". Spooner was an abolitionist and lawyer from Boston Mass. and he wrote a series of political tracts on the authority of gov't to wage war to force a people to remain bound to it. These tracts were later assembled into book form. Here's tract #1 as an example. Spooner in some sense should be a hero to UPSers because he opened up a private mail service to challenge the authority of the Federal gov't to control and maintain that sphere of monopoly. He did loose in the end but he still felt on the footing of law that he was right. Spooner was a socialist in the definition of the day but he was also opposed to the State and it's powerful authoritarian and regulatory means.

    Ralph Borsodi is a 20th century agrarian theorist and a hero of mine from the 70's. Some of his books are "This Ugly Civilization" and "The Distribution Age" and that last book, if you are a UPSer would be like a christian reading Satan's bible. LOL! But having been written over 80 years ago and having 80 years of data, his analysis turns out to be stunning when you understand he made it in 1927' looking at current market and political forces of his day. Borsodi in some sense is the Luddite but his Exeter Experiment with inflation free currency was fantastic and those who oppose fiat money should see Borsodi's in that area a "must study." I've posted this elsewhere here but for you I'll post it again.

    Ponder where we are today economically and ponder the real value of the dollar in true purchasing power when Borsodi said those words and now consider them in this day when you also consider the true value and purchasing power of the dollar now. Just a note of where I learned of Borsodi? Mother Earth News and yes I still read it!:wink2:

    Benjamin Tucker. A socialist yes but in Tucker lay many of the roots and foundations of what we call libertarianism and anarchism in the American tradition. Even the strains of the limited state in modern conservatism has roots to Tuckerist ideals if one ventures back through the icons of the old right such as Garet Garrett. Tucker called his way of thinking, "unterrified Jeffersonianism" and I quite agree with him on that point.

    In 1892', Tucker wrote a piece entitled "Why I Am An Anarchist" and what he sez IMO is worth of not in the framework of using the term socialist.

    Now I bolded and underlined a specific sentence to make a point on Tucker worth noting. Tucker called himself an anarchist but he never ran from the word socialist either but let's make note of his point above when he talks about State Socialism. Archistic Socialists is another way of saying state socialist because the word archistic comes from the word archy which in the greek origins means "ruler". In otherwords, Tucker was condemning the ideal of "ruler socialism" or heirarchy meaning ruled from above. Anarchy or anarchism is the ideal of "No Rulers" Archy meaning rulers, the prefix An meaning the word "No". The ideal in the corrupted political class of today would be that socialism would have no freedom component to it and that capitalism would be all about a freedom component to it. Kevin's point was in essence, "Think Again!" And in that historical context, I would completely agree with Kevin that we should think again and in the ideal of Benjamin Tucker, we should be completely "Unterrified Jeffersonians!"

    Whether you do read all of this or not is purely up to you but the point was to show that many in the 19th century who called themselves socialists and some of those who do the same in our modern times are in fact much farther against the State and it's regulatory arm than those of the minarchist or limited state variety and that more often than not these same modern day "socialist" are for a more robust and truly free market than the "Archistic Capitalists" who think they have that free market all cornered to themselves. Very far from it!

    Gary Chartier also wrote this piece on capitialism and the various defintions ascribed to the term. Both Gary and Kevin in the case of capitalism hold very similar views and in the question of capitalism, Gary better defines the subject matter and goes from there to show the conflict and opposition.


    I may or I may not be "playing devil's advocate" as you put it but to figure out which, you'll have to do the homework.
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Social Cooperation

    Competition and Cooperation



  6. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.