Freed market
economics
who stress the value of radically free markets, termed freed markets to distinguish them from the common conception which these left-libertarians believe to be riddled with capitalist and statist privileges. remove Capitalist and Statist privileges from the free markets KC possibly BT
Wikipedia LWLF. :proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical and pro-labor positions in economics; me Left Wing Laissez Faire’s freed markets taken to their logical conclusions would support anti capitalist, anti corporatist, anti hierarchical and pro-labor positions in economics + freed markets would have no corporations or a social hierarchy would retain the classical liberal ideas of self ownership and free markets
would try to get the entrepreneur as the driver of this new freed market instead of the Capitalist and state benefited Capitalist (typically one in the same) .
wage labor and the boss-worker relationship would be nearly eliminated
Wikipedia. LWLF. Kevin Carson. highly critical of intellectual property. Carson has identified the work of Benjamin Tucker, In addition to individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker's big four monopolies (land, money, tariffs and patents), he argues that the state has also transferred wealth to the wealthy by subsidizing organizational centralization in the form of transportation and communication subsidies. Carson believes that Tucker overlooked this issue due to Tucker's focus on individual market transactions whereas he also focuses on organizational issues. As such, the primary focus of his most recent work has been decentralized manufacturing and the informal and household economies.[90] The theoretical sections of Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy are also presented as an attempt to integrate marginalist critiques into the labor theory of value. me To avoid private appropriation and accumulation and free competition causing unequal wealth distribution, the state would be stopped from transferring wealth to the wealthy (which they do by subsidizing organizational centralization in the form of transportation and communication subsidies) by focusing on organizational issues, decentralized manufacturing and the informal and household economies
Gary Chartier offers an understanding of property rights as contingent yet tightly constrained social strategies, reflective of the importance of multiple, overlapping rationales for separate ownership and of natural law principles of practical reasonableness, defending robust yet non-absolute protections for these rights in a manner similar to that employed by David Hume.[96] This account is distinguished both from Lockean and neo-Lockean views which deduce property rights from the idea of self-ownership and from consequentialist accounts that might license widespread ad hoc interference with the possessions of groups and individuals.[97] Chartier uses this account to ground a clear statement of the natural law basis for the view that solidaristic wealth redistribution by individual persons is often morally required, but as a response by individuals and grass-roots networks to particular circumstances rather than as a state-driven attempt to achieve a particular distributive pattern.[98] He advances detailed arguments for workplace democracy rooted in such natural law principles as subsidiarity,[99] defending it as morally desirable and as a likely outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something to be mandated by the state.[100]
Samuel Edward Konkin III's agorism is a strand of left-wing market anarchism that has been associated with left-libertarianism[8] in the United States,[9][10][11] with counter-economics being its means.[12] Anarcho-capitalism, a form of right-libertarianism, has been occasionally referred to as free-market anarchism or market anarchism, among other names.[13][14] Anarcho-capitalists stress the legitimacy and priority of private property, without any distinction between personal property and productive property, describing it as an integral component of individual rights and a free-market economy. However, anarcho-capitalism is not considered as part of the anarchist movement because anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and anarchists reject that it is compatible with capitalism.[15][16][17][18][19][20][excessive citations] In addition, an analysis of individualist anarchists who advocated free-market anarchism shows that it is different from anarcho-capitalism and other capitalist theories due to the individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value and socialist doctrines.[21][22][23]
In this Left Wing Laissez Faire freed market, people would be paid in proportion to how much work they do and that exploitation or usury was taking place if they weren’t working.
In this part of the transition, wealth would initially be distributed equally (freed markets naturally equalize wealth),
es since this free market would be a self-managed socialist economy due to it using freed markets
In these Left Wing Laissez Faire freed markets, wealth initially would be distributed equally (freed markets naturally equalize wealth), in part via economic nationalism with the subordination of market mechanisms to the national economy concerns.
In this market, unregulated banking would cause more money to be available and this would allow proliferation of new businesses that in turn would raise labor demand for labor. People would receive equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay (interests, profits, rents and usury would disappear)
Agorism in its role in this People’s Democracy coalition, would use black markets, counter economics to threaten the state authority and state capitalist class. This is because Agorists see Capitalism as an exploitative system based on privilege backed by the State. Agorists would help abolish exploitative hierarchies to create this freed market to liberate the lower class Agorists They would help bridge the Syndicalist and Left Wing Laissez Faire (labor theory of value) parts of this People’s Democracy coalition together
Left Wing Laissez Faire . These freed markets would yield the libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society. It would also use the labor theory of value. The freed markets would be similar to Lysander Spooner’s freed markets, and eventually in the freed markets,
Bleeding heart lib mises m rothbard. Redistribution of wealth (after the initial redistribution of wealth) in this transition stage would be effected significantly more by the legal system (apart from the state) than through other methods of redistribution of wealth. So that it restores unjustly taken resources that were taken by them or their predecessors as interest. This makes assets that were stolen by the state or acquired immorally by the state’s cronies available for homesteading. That would deny the validity of privileges that were secured by the state which only serve to preserve the well connected bourgeois while causing the poor to be poor. anarchy wo bombs Through solidaristic mutual aide, and via a privilege liberated market (as mentioned above) , people would eat the rich so to speak. Mutual aide is would be used here because it treats people giving and receiving aide as equal instead of poor and non poor (so it dignifies the poor)
Eventually as we shift from Left Wing Laissez Faire (including freed markets and labor theory of value) to closer and closer to a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) we would need a decentralized planned economy to coordinate the means of production and distribution to supply and deliver goods and services that are vital throughout our society and the national economy along with shifting from money to labor vouchers and personal credit since as noted below that is what Inclusive Democracy is about.
This helps secure real freedom of choice without incurring the adverse effects associated with real markets. Inclusive Democracy uses Artificial Markets and something similar to Left Wing Laissez Faire’s labor theory of value so this transition will be smooth
The state adjacent or state would serve as a safeguard for the ownership and as the coordinator of production through a universal economic plan.
In this libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) we should reject Nationalism and through force abolish all hierarchy (thus superiority and inferiority will not exist) creating a centralized system where virtually all are the same in power, wealth, and status. An Inclusive Democracy is a democracy that id responsible for the the needs of the people
This would be a society where differences would be accepted and affirmed without any bigoted sentiments or consideration. Bigotry would not be acceptable in this libertarian-egalitarian anarchist (inclusive) society.
It believes that the combo of a strict application of natural rights, self-ownership, and totally unregulated Austrian economics in a stateless society will "eat the rich", resulting in much more equal society than a state regulated Capitalism one could offer. Market Anarchists do not like the term "Capitalism" as he uses it to refer to a corrupt market where corporate welfare and state subsidies favor big corporation at the expense of fair competition, thus generating inequality. He rather prefers the term "radically freed market." This differs from (most) Austrian-school economists' definition, who define Capitalism as a free enterprise system and tend to call said corrupt form of markets Corporatocracy, Cronyism or Crony Capitalism.
jjjjjkkk
Market Anarchism (sometimes mentioned with an additional "left wing" label in front of its name to distinguish it from Anarcho-Capitalism) is a staunchly pro market, generally culturally and economically left leaning ideology.
Although Market Anarchism is strictly Anti-Capitalist, due to the way they define Capitalism, there is no actual consensus on the status of property within Market Anarchist circles. Arguments have been made by Georgist,[1] Lockean,[2][3][4] Mutualist,[5] Neo-Lockean,[6][7] and Utilitarian[8] circles, all with different approaches to determining legitimate property claims. These different approaches are solved through deliberation mechanisms such as polycentric law, but in the end there's no unifying consensus on the topic.
Class-struggle revolutionaries believe in building independent mass movements in conflict with the state and the capitalist class. They support struggles for limited reforms because these contribute to developing large-scale movements by the working class. They also support struggles by other oppressed groupings, including women, peasants, oppressed nations, People of Color, GLBT people, etc., as well as struggles on such issues as war and climate change. They want these movements to culminate in a popular, democratic, revolution which will dismantle the state, the capitalist economy, and all forms of oppression—and replace them with a self-managed society.
This is not Kevin Carson’s strategy. In the tradition of Proudhon and Tucker, he advocates building alternate institutions, piece-by-piece replacing the statist, capitalist, society (this is mis-called a “dual power” strategy). It is “a gradualist approach to dismantling and replacing the state…with new forms of social organization.” (320) Using the existing market, they will initiate producer and consumer cooperatives, small enterprises, mutual aid institutions, do-it-yourself collectives, community gardens, credit unions, etc. These tend not to directly conflict with capitalist institutions. Mutualists should also influence the state through “pressure groups and lobbying” (320), but the main effort is the creation of alternate institutions. At some point these become strong enough to challenge the state, which “will almost certainly involve at least some violence.” (318) But he does not expect much. For some reason, he is confident that “the ruling classes…will use open, large-scale repression only as a last resort.” (318)
Tucker (and other Individualists of his influence) were agnostic to direct seizure and mainly advocated for his anti-monopolism as a means most effectively transitioning into an Anarchist society, but Tucker and people like Yarros made it clear that this was a pragmatic policy, and if necessary, would endorse violent seizure if it is most effective or the anti-monopolism wasn't enough.
This is not to say that Marxists can't be Anarchists and vice versa, as it seems Zoe Baker has shown. Kevin Carson in his latest book Exodus has also shown that there are some libertarian leanings in Marx's work, especially in some of Marx's conception of what his "State" should look like. Tucker is only really pointing to the Statist variety of Socialists (which he chooses to exemplify with Marx, the details and exceptions aren't much important for the essay).
Mutual Banks operated under legal value as opposed to actual value as described by Greene (Tucker's influence). Actual value is the intrinsic value in goods, a banking system based on this would be based on gold or silver, and money could be translated into "precious" metals. Legal value is "the legal claim which one man has upon the property in the hands of another". A banking system based on this would operate based on debts to the bank in exchange for loans.
So what the Mutual Banks were doing, in essence, is offering cheap money to people. Mutual Banking Companies, under Greene's plan, could be formed by any group of people by pledging property of some kind (for Greene, it was property in land). By pledging this property, people are able to take out money from the bank freely without interest, and may release their property from the bank if their debts are repaid.
Although Land was used for Greene in his New England scheme, different Mutual Banks can use varying forms of property to secure cheap loans, and loans given that aren't based on pledged property could be given as low as 1% from their calculations on the cost of loans (including repaying for bad loans). Different Mutual Banks would need to be altered to satisfy the needs of people based on local conditions, and this is why Proudhon's People's Bank looked different from Greene's adaptation, where the needs of workers in Paris are different from those in Massachusetts.
7) When people are able to get cheap money, there are more people that take those loans to start businesses and whatnot. The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates when they want to get the economy boosted. If more people can start businesses from free money, there will be a large demand for labor. Since the demand for labor will exceed supply, wages would rise. This would especially hold true if workers could buyout their workplaces and turn them into co-operatives, because in a labor market where co-operative production or self-employment is an option, it is hard to pay workers unfairly.
Individualists and Market Anarchists are generally more concerned with individual liberty, and are more skeptical of collective control (even in the Social Anarchist variety), and this is shown through individual ownership of property (Occupancy-and-Use norms usually). They believe this grants individuals more freedom while not inhibiting people from owning land; as Proudhon explains:
The theatre, says Cicero, is common to all; nevertheless, the place that each one occupies is called his own; that is, it is a place possessed, not a place appropriated. This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery? Not unless I have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist in different places at the same time, as is related of the magician Apollonius. (What is Property?)
Four monopolies[edit]
Part of a series on
Libertarian socialism
vte
Tucker argued that the poor condition of American workers resulted from four legal monopolies based in the authoritarianism of the state: Money monopoly, Land monopoly, Tariffs and Patents
As described by anarchist Victor Yarros who discussed Tucker's views: "all our multi-millionaires and millionaires, all our predatory capitalists owe their ill-gotten wealth to monopoly and the plunder and ruthless exploitation licensed by monopoly".[54]
For several decades, his focus became the state's economic control of how trade could take place and what currency counted as legitimate. He saw interest and profit as a form of exploitation, made possible by the banking monopoly, in turn maintained through coercion and invasion. Tucker called any such interest and profit usury and saw it as the basis of the oppression of the workers. In his words, "interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder".[55]
Tucker believed that usury was immoral, but he upheld the right of all people to engage in immoral contracts: "Liberty, therefore, must defend the right of individuals to make contracts involving usury, rum, marriage, prostitution, and many other things which are believed to be wrong in principle and opposed to human well-being. The right to do wrong involves the essence of all rights".[56] Tucker asserted that anarchism would become meaningless unless "it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market — that is, private
property".[
Comments
Post a Comment