Anarchism and Christianity
Although not religious myself, it seems right and fitting for people of faith to explore their commitment to both their faith and anarchism, how one relates to the other and so forth. So, without further ado, let me plug the Jesus Radicals and their upcoming conference:
Swords into Plowshares: Anarchism, Christianity and Principles of Peace
August 10-11, 2007
Loras College
Dubuque, Iowa
Contact: jesusradicals AT jesusradicals.comPeace is more than the absence of war. It is more than temporarily restraining physical abuse and ending only human oppression. In this fifth annual conference, we will explore our struggle for peace in all of its forms from anarchist and Christian perspectives.
Together, we will explore different facets of peacemaking — peace with creation, our neighbors and our enemies. In addition to sessions such as Practical Ecology, Contemporary Anarchisms and The Problem with Prisons, we will also have opportunities for open discussion and skill-sharing. Get detailed session and housing info, and register to attend.
These folks are from the conceptually “anti-capitalist” side of the circle-a house, but then capitalism and “a free market” aren’t the same thing, so don’t let that bother those of you who, like myself, are Rothbardians or the Konkinite sub-species of the former. Although this may seem like an oversimplification to some, a lot of the nuts and bolts of anti-statist “libertarian socialism” can be summarized in rightist language as simply building civil society — and you’ve always been in favor of that, right?
Refer also to an old favorite: Jesus Is an Anarchist
ADDENDUM: As one can see below, the comments on this post went far afield from the original topic.
I’d urge people to read the whole thread for full context, but after comment #27 from Devon:
He doesn’t hold a theory of property at all if he doesn’t think a person ceased to own something just because they’re not using it. Property by definition is owned. To own something is to have absolute control over it. True ownership has absolutely no conditions attached to it. If he doesn’t believe in ownership, then he doesn’t believe in property.
If an arbitration system does not uphold transactions “considered repugnant†then that arbitration system does not support a free market. It would be making exceptions to free market ethics.
And comment #28 in reply from me:
Dr. Reisman (or his metaphorical clone), I don’t wish to censor your comments but I also don’t care to provide you a forum for your incessant desire to argue in circles at the expense of my own time to debunk you. I’m sorry, but you “jumped the shark†when you started arguing in favor of chattel slavery. This comment thread is closed.
I received the following email from Devon:
“I wouldn’t uphold a contract for “chattel slavery.” I thought I already made it clear that I’m opposed to an absolutely free market. I would allow people to break contracts that I believe are too exploitative. This is out of self-interest, because I don’t want to be held to extremely exploitative contracts either. I’m just pointing out that to allow the breaking of contracts, even if they are exploitative, is not free market. It’s an exception to a free market. Benjamin Tucker pointed out the same thing.
Anyway, I doubt I’ll be contributing to or reading your blog anymore. Anarchism is just to silly and not worth the effort talking about. It’s not going to happen in this lifetime, and probably never, so there’s no point. I used to be an anarchist but moved on. Maybe you should do the same.
BTW I’m in no way connected with Reisman, nor am I familiar with his material. I think I may have read one essay by him, which I think was linked to on your blog actually.
So long. Please delete my account.”
First, I hope I can be forgiven for confusing devon with Dr. Reisman, although it’s not entirely clear which of the two might have been slighted more by the comparison. It’s just that their modes of argument are so eerily similar. That Reisman, as a non-anarchist advocate of “capitalism”, could easily be mistaken for an anti-market ex-anarchist who still presumably sees themself as supposedly “anti-capitalist” seems like fertile ground for intellectual exploration in the future.
With regard to the following, in particular:
“I’m just pointing out that to allow the breaking of contracts, even if they are exploitative, is not free market. It’s an exception to a free market.”
Contra Devon, repudiation of repugnant contracts (even when not overtly a direct result of coercion or fraud) in arbitration proceedings would tend to be a feature of free market law. If Tucker said otherwise, I disagree with Tucker on that point. Specifically, arbitration voluntarily paid for by both disputants would tend to generally reflect values of the community if it is to have any value (as a dispute resolution service) worth paying for. Devon thus erects a strawman by asserting that any use of discretion by arbitrators is a deviation from free market thinking. I happen to disagree with Carson on some specifics of what ought to constitute such a repugnant contract or transaction in the case of land property theory — but that’s okay. We can do that. Legal scholars will continue to disagree on theories, principles and points of application of law in the future stateless society Carson and I are both working for. The human race will also continue to muddle along just fine.
When voluntary arbitration avoids unnecessary bloodshed over disputes, it will be said to work. When it works, people will be willing to pay for it as a valuable service — and, yes, that service can include an arbitrator saying something like “this contract is pure bullshit and can not be upheld by any court pretending to a civilized standard of decency“.
As Carson noted here:
“It’s interesting that critics portray such practical discretion as backtracking or inconsistency, when no system could exist without it.”
Finally, in response to this:
“Please delete my account.”
Devon, your account has been suspended.
Share This
A free market and capitalism are not the same thing? Let’s look up capitalism in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: “An economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market.” Sure looks the same to me.
devon,
Did you actually read the link? A “free market” merely means unfettered voluntary exchange between mutually consenting parties. Freedom of exchange, freedom to make agreements, freedom to refuse.
Now, tell me again how that relates to you dictionary definition of Capitalism, which though accurate, uses the term “free market” without defining it? You are using circular reasoning - ‘capitalism is the same as free market because the dictionary says capitalism uses a free market.’
If going to a place talking about ‘Mutualism” or Rothbard is too much for your delicate psyche to handle, why not try something a little more mainstream like Dean Baker, who says the same thing:
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
Read the book, its free and maybe you’ll learn something. And maybe you won’t sound like an idiot anymore.
There should be an IQ test before you can post comments on this blog. Geesh.
As for religion and Anarchism, any religious person can be an Anarchist as long as they are against organized religion and against religious exclusivism.
Capitalism by definition is a system of private ownership without government regulation of supply and demand or prices. That’s what a free market is - the lack of coercive interference in trade, whether by the government or by the traders themselves. That’s capitalism.
I’m well aware that Kevin Carson tries to redefine capitalism, and it looks like Spangler has accepted the misinformation, but what Carson is talking about is mercantilism, not capitalism. Capitalism, again, by definition is a laissez-faire system.
Devon, defining capitalism as synonymous with lasseiz-faire inherently defines non lasseiz-faire systems as non-capitalist. By that logic, the US hasn’t been a capitalist country for a second in its entire existence. Thoughts on that conclusion?
Ahem…
Go on — call Proudhon a “capitalist”. I dare you.
b-psycho, no one in their right mind would say that the U.S. is a pure capitalist system. All educated persons acknowledge that the U.S. has a mixed economy. That means it has capitalist characteristics as well as non-capitalist characteristics. The non-capitalist elements comprise state intervention, in the form of some state owned enterprises, some centralized economic planning, some protectionism, etc. The U.S. economy merely has has more capitalistic (free-market, private ownership) characteristics than most countries. To simply look at the U.S., for example, and claim that everything that happens there is consistent with capitalism is absurd. Clearly that’s not the case.
Note that even the U.S. Department of State notes that the U.S. has a mixed economy, rather than a pure capitalist one. http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/mixedeconomy.pdf
Brad, Proudhon cannot quite by called a capitalist because he’s not a consistent supporter of private property. He doesn’t allow a free market in all capital. He won’t allow individuals to own and trade land. If someone purchases land, but doesn’t use it, he doesn’t recognize ownership of it. To have a free market, there has to be the freedom to own what one purchases. That’s essential.
You’re being pedantic. I’m well aware of my own differences with Proudhon, as well as the agreement of Rothbardian thought generally with the general thrust of the above quote, including its notable use of the term “laissez faire”. I can disagree with Proudhon and still respect that (on a conceptual level) he saw what he was talking about as laissez faire.
And, BTW, going by General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, it appears that Proudhon did, in fact, support a free market in capital. He even advocated privatization of the Bank of France by spinning it off into an independent non-profit. I defy you to show where he supported a forcible monopoly of banking.
Hmmm… Interesting. I am a pretty devout Catholic myself - few other Anarchsits seem to resonate with that - and I’ve always wondered if there were any organizations devoted to the Christian Anarchist line of thinking.
I’ll definitely check them out.
—–
Devon, I understand what you’re saying and I think a lot of it kind of hits home for most of us here - I’ve noticed that a lot of Left-Libertarians are actually more Rothbardian than Mutualist as Carson would put it - but the fact is that the way you and I would define Capitalism and the way most people we speak to would define Capitalism are two different ways of defining Capitalism. You may make this distinction as much as you like, it certainly is a valid one, but for the sake of trying to be more… accepting of other people and thus appealing to other people, I find it really isn’t worth it to go into the old Capitalist vs. Socialist debate. Others are going to use their definitions and point to America as Capitalist, you can say, no, no, that’s really not Capitalist, or you can say well… the term Capitalist from its inception has always been blurry and arbitrary. The first men to coin the phrase were Socialists after all, suffice it to say what you think Capitalism is and what we’re advocating are almost on total opposite sides of the spectrum.
Just take it into mind before you go shooting your own allies. :)
Brad, if Proudhon did not object to the land owner from having his land forcibly taken from him just because he wasn’t using it, then that’s simply not laissez-faire. Laissez-faire/free market does not mean no property protection. It means no taking of what someone purchased without his consent.
I never said that for all forms of capital Proudhon opposes a free market. I said: “He doesn’t allow a free market in all capital,” meaning there are some forms of capital he does not support a free market in. He supports a free market in financial capital, but not in natural capital (land).
Ahh, but the problem for your position is that a free market is a system of voluntary/uncoerced exchange of legitimate property. As Proudhon had a different theory of what constitutes legitimate property, he no doubt saw himself as taking a pure free market, laissez faire position. I don’t have to agree with his theory of property myself in order to recognize that.
Nicollo,
I hear you, but there is no need to redefine the meaning of “capitalism.” If people want to communicate effectively they should be using commonly accepted definitions. I don’t know what Kevin Carson’s problem is. I don’t know why he wants to create his own idiosyncratic definition of capitalism. And, I don’t know why anyone would accept it. Somebody needs to sit down with him and teach him some basic definitions and concepts. He thinks protectionism and government/business collusion is capitalism. That’s mercantilism, not capitalism.
Brad, just the fact that it was purchased or obtained without coercion make it “legitimate” property according to capitalist ethics. Proudhon does not recognize natural capital as being legitimate property even if it is obtained without coercion.
Brad, let me reword. Just the fact that a thing was purchased or obtained without coercion makes it “legitimate†property according to free market ethics. Proudhon does not recognize natural capital as being legitimate property even if it is obtained without coercion. Therefore, he’s not a free-marketer.
Moreoever, Proudhon, as well as Kevin Carson, accept land taken by force from an original appropriator (someone who did not coerce anyone to obtain the land) as legitimate property while being used. If he supports this, then there is no way he can be a free-marketer.
Rewording. Moreoever, Proudhon, as well as Kevin Carson, accept land taken by force from an original appropriator (someone who did not coerce anyone to obtain the land) as legitimate property as long as the coercer uses the land. If he supports this, then there is no way he can be a free-marketer.
Kevin Carson does not even understand the concept of a free market, much less the definition of capitalism.
re: “Just the fact that a thing was purchased or obtained without coercion makes it “legitimate†property according to free market ethics.”
Well, from my own perspective and Rothbard’s, no — because if you bought it from someone who wasn’t legitimately the owner but merely the holder of stolen goods falsely legitimized by fraudulent state granted title, you have in fact participated in the fencing of stolen goods in an ethical sense.
In point of fact, a great deal of property titles in the USA today are illegitimate for the above or related reasons. The situation in France in the mid-1800’s was far worse. From a radical Rothbardian position, one can easily see why Proudhon felt the need to try to understand the apparent dichotomy of justice and injustice bound up with the word “property” as implemented under statism. I don’t have to agree with his specific property theory in order to understand why he said both that “Property is Theft” and “Property is Freedom” — and, with the appropriate provisos explaining my different theoretical framework, agree with both of those two quotes.
Proudhon was a socialist, and he advocated laissez faire.
Since you were outed a while back as a fake an-cap, you have no business challenging Carson’s free-market credentials.
I’m well aware of Rothbardian/Lockean property ethics. Yes you’re right that it has to not be stolen property in the first place. I thought that was too obvious to need mention. But, the fact is that Proudhon supports natural capital that was not coerced from anyone, that someone is holding, being deprived of that natural capital by force. Therefore, Proudhon does not support a free market in natural capital. Proudhon is not a true free-marketer.
In what sense are you calling Proudhon a socialist?
I have all the business in the world challenging Kevin Carson’s free market credentials. The guy does not understand basic concepts and definitions.
Well, no, he disagrees with you.
And Kevin Carson’s Mutualist book is ridiculous. I don’t know how anyone can discuss “surplus value” with a straight face in this day and age.
It’s not simply that he disagrees with me. He’s wrong. In a free market, something is not considered legitimately taken, if it’s taken by force. He thinks land taking land by force from someone who has originally appropriated unowned land without force is consistent with a free market. That’s the opposite of free market.
Actually, no, he advocates a different theory of property than I do and envisions its application as resulting in an arbitration system that would not uphold transactions considered repugnant, just like any rational arbitration system would not uphold a contract in which I sold myself into chattel slavery, for example.
He doesn’t hold a theory of property at all if he doesn’t think a person ceased to own something just because they’re not using it. Property by definition is owned. To own something is to have absolute control over it. True ownership has absolutely no conditions attached to it. If he doesn’t believe in ownership, then he doesn’t believe in property.
If an arbitration system does not uphold transactions “considered repugnant” then that arbitration system does not support a free market. It would be making exceptions to free market ethics.
Dr. Reisman (or his metaphorical clone), I don’t wish to censor your comments but I also don’t care to provide you a forum for your incessant desire to argue in circles at the expense of my own time to debunk you. I’m sorry, but you “jumped the shark” when you started arguing in favor of chattel slavery. This comment thread is closed.
[…] slang, but in this case I hope you’ll let it slide. On the comments section of his blog, Brad Spangler just pwned someone real hard. Here are the two relevant comments: #4 devon Says: July 20th, 2007 at 3:17 […]