Infoshop.org so-called "anarchist" FAQ

[BobRobertson]

I was recently directed to "Infoshop.org" and told to not comment about being an anarchist until I had read their FAQ.

So I went and read some, searched some, and realized that this so-called FAQ is rife with half-truths and even out-right misrepresentations of anyone who would believe in private property.

Note the first sentence of this section, http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC2

"For anarchists, capitalism is marked by the exploitation of labour by capital."

Well, no. "Anarchists" do not all see the relationship of "labor" and "capital" as exploitative. I see it as cooperative, mutually beneficial contracts which provide both parties with benefits and responsibilities.

The Infoshop.org section on Austrian economics also specifically misrepresents Austrian economics, arguing against things that the Austrian methodology never included, or, for example, "cannot deal with the fact that an economy is the sum of individual actions."

But, duh, that is EXACTLY the basis of Austrian economic principles! That individuals act!

So I went back to this person, a YouTube commentor who has been telling me how wrong I am for years with this as the sole backing of her assertions, and informed her of how I did not see how any mutually agreed to contract could be called "exploitative". Nor how any "FAQ" that had such easily demonstrated errors and distortions could be trusted to get anything else right.

Her reply was to tell me that all contracts are invalid, because they're all exploitative.

An "anarchist" who would prevent people from interacting in voluntary ways?

How can that be an anarchist?

[helio]

taken from the FAQ...

This means that when a worker "sells his labour to an employee . . . some part of the value of his produce will be unjustly taken by the employer."

So when someone agrees that someone else can have something, some part of what is given will be stolen?

So, giving is the same as stealing. Got it.

[Script]

Her reply was to tell me that all contracts are invalid, because they're all exploitative.

An "anarchist" who would prevent people from interacting in voluntary ways?

How can that be an anarchist?

It cannot. All anarcho-socialism is based on the philosophies of Karl Marx and his class anlaysis, which have been so thoroughly refuted that I am flabbergasted that anyone still believes in them. Bohm-Bawerk destroyed the labour theory of value (upon which this theory of exploitation rests) along with Ricardo and I think Jevons as well. But then Mises' works on socialism, specifically his epic "Human Action", put to final rest the errant theories of Marx and have never been refuted or answered by the socialists.

[Chris]

The problem with so-called "anarcho-socialism" is it never worked, Marx refuted it himself. Read his correspondence letters between him and Proudhon. They are very telling, Marx wanted to use violence, Proudhon would not. Marx knew the public would not accept his great idea, so he would have to force it. He just knew better than the rest of them. Marx forgot to account for the pesky human emotion called envy. To be a Marxist is to be anti-human.

Mises just hammered home the logical nail in Marx's philosophical coffin.

[haxor]

I cringe when i see the name: Marx

[macsnafu]

Their so-called anarchist FAQ is a real mess--it's left-anarchist, and tries hard to deny the anarchism of ancap.

[assasin7]

The problem with so-called "anarcho-socialism" is it never worked, Marx refuted it himself. Read his correspondence letters between him and Proudhon. They are very telling, Marx wanted to use violence, Proudhon would not. Marx knew the public would not accept his great idea, so he would have to force it. He just knew better than the rest of them. Marx forgot to account for the pesky human emotion called envy. To be a Marxist is to be anti-human.

Mises just hammered home the logical nail in Marx's philosophical coffin.

Proudhon was a socialist, and was a member of the Council of the Commune De Paris, a violent socialist uprising in Paris, that lasted for 4 months before being crushed by the French army. It could have lasted much longer if it had had more time to prepare for the invasion, and might have even become the French government (though not state)

[State-God]

The problem with so-called "anarcho-socialism" is it never worked, Marx refuted it himself. Read his correspondence letters between him and Proudhon. They are very telling, Marx wanted to use violence, Proudhon would not. Marx knew the public would not accept his great idea, so he would have to force it. He just knew better than the rest of them. Marx forgot to account for the pesky human emotion called envy. To be a Marxist is to be anti-human.

Mises just hammered home the logical nail in Marx's philosophical coffin.

Proudhon was a socialist, and was a member of the Council of the Commune De Paris, a violent socialist uprising in Paris, that lasted for 4 months before being crushed by the French army. It could have lasted much longer if it had had more time to prepare for the invasion, and might have even become the French government (though not state)

Interesting, was this post-WW1? I already vaguely knew there were several failed socialist uprisings in Western Europe (I knew about the failed Communist revolution in Bavaria), but didn't know that France had one.

Also, what do you mean by it being the government but not the state?

Also also, I don't think he was saying that Proudhon wasn't a socialist; just that he didn't believe in the state-enforced application of socialism that Marx called for.

[assasin7]

It's the dif between an OWS GA and the city council between the Argentine Neighborhood Assembly Federation and the Argentine Parliament.

Considering that proudhon died before WW1 it would be hard for him to do it post WW2

[RJ Miller]

The problem with so-called "anarcho-socialism" is it never worked, Marx refuted it himself. Read his correspondence letters between him and Proudhon. They are very telling, Marx wanted to use violence, Proudhon would not. Marx knew the public would not accept his great idea, so he would have to force it. He just knew better than the rest of them. Marx forgot to account for the pesky human emotion called envy. To be a Marxist is to be anti-human.

Mises just hammered home the logical nail in Marx's philosophical coffin.

I think you summed it up quite nicely. My suspicion about the support for collectivist anarchism is that most of it is driven by wayward sociology departments who prey on the intellectually vulnerable and not by individuals weighing it against other systems.

Recently I starting doing a couple posts (the second of which is almost done) that critique a popular left-anarchist book entitled, "Anarchism: Arguments for and Against."

What struck me as most odd about the book was the notion that "property" is tantamount to theft - and I cannot say there is any better example of the fallacy of self-exclusion that that.

An anarchist with Libertarian persuasion is willing to let anarcho-socialism exist under voluntary conditions - but not vice versa. In that sense, left-anarchism is not anarchy at all.

[BobRobertson]

What struck me as most odd about the book was the notion that "property" is tantamount to theft - and I cannot say there is any better example of the fallacy of self-exclusion that that.

It seems as if the anti-property types can't get their minds past Feudalism. The "land owners" exploit workers by forcing them to work the land (factory, mine, etc) and taking their produce, leaving the serf only enough to live on.

Sadly, they don't even understand Feudalism. It's like they took it from a comic book and never bothered to take a closer look.

An anarchist with Libertarian persuasion is willing to let anarcho-socialism exist under voluntary conditions - but not vice versa. In that sense, left-anarchism is not anarchy at all.

Exactly what I back the Venus Project / Zeitgeist / Resource Based Economy assholes into the corner with every time they try to tell me how money and private property are creating artificial scarcity.

[RJ Miller]

The Venus Project is probably one of the most glib things I have ever seen... Specifically in terms of how a so-called "resource-based" economy is supposed to work.

Ultimately I think the questions of how someone acquires property and what incentive there is to generate new wealth define free markets above all other systems. I see nothing authoritarian about letting people make exchanges in goods or services when two parties agree it will make them better off.

[LaszloZapacik]

Proudhon was a socialist, and was a member of the Council of the Commune De Paris, a violent socialist uprising in Paris, that lasted for 4 months before being crushed by the French army. It could have lasted much longer if it had had more time to prepare for the invasion, and might have even become the French government (though not state)

Proudhon wasn't on the Commune Council, he died in 1865, whereas the Commune was in 1871.

[LaszloZapacik]

What struck me as most odd about the book was the notion that "property" is tantamount to theft - and I cannot say there is any better example of the fallacy of self-exclusion that that.

Proudhon and others did note how oddly contradictory the notion of property is.

To cut a long story short, they're talking about the social relations of property.

An anarchist with Libertarian persuasion is willing to let anarcho-socialism exist under voluntary conditions - but not vice versa. In that sense, left-anarchism is not anarchy at all.

That's a bit like saying a state can let a stateless society exist but not vice versa.

[RJ Miller]

Proudhon and others did note how oddly contradictory the notion of property is.

To cut a long story short, they're talking about the social relations of property.

You completely missed my point entirely - namely the fact that claiming property is theft commits the fallacy of self exclusion (theft is meaningless if you do not treat property as valid to begin with).

That's a bit like saying a state can let a stateless society exist but not vice versa.

I can think of no comparison that would be more faulty in this context; governments are unwilling to let their citizenry opt out without having to change residency altogether. The same is not the case with voluntaryism.

To revisit what I previously said: No socialist is willing to let people opt out of their system without having to change locations. The opposite is true for Market Anarchists - you are free to set up your own communes so long as you do not force others to take part in them who would rather not.