ACism: paralleling the evils of state control?

[zasterguava]

I just read an interesting article by Murray Bookchin that gives credit to Marx for his position on the free market, which he quotes as being the following:

[ QUOTE ]
The free market inevitably yields the oligarchic and monopolistic corporate market with entrepreneurial manipulations that in every way parallel state controls

[/ QUOTE ]

This articulates effectively my concerns (I will elaborate later) with ACism; to my understanding a stateless society that pertains to a capitalist free-market.

I think most of us here share common ground in our disdain towards extrinsic wills dictating, controlling and manipulating our lives, namely that of the state. As such, what reassurance could one provide that ACism would not be replacing one existing mode of tyranny, control and injustice (state power) with similar such attacks on our freedoms and liberty due to the implications of a free-market (highlighted by Marx as giving way to parallels with state control) with the added clause that it is to be void of regulation and obligation amongst its beneficiaries e.g. the proprietors, owners and masters who would have free reign over (effectively enslaved?) portion of the population whom are unable to benefit from the 'wonders' of voluntary exchange and owner/worker relationships or more likely are not granted the oppurtunity by the manipulation and cunningness of those with the effective power. Thoughts, rebuttals, insults and words of agreement welcome!

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most of us here share common ground in our disdain towards extrinsic wills dictating, controlling and manipulating our lives, namely that of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed!

[ QUOTE ]
As such, what reassurance could one provide that ACism would not be replacing one existing mode of tyranny, control and injustice (state power) with similar such attacks on our freedoms and liberty due to the implications of a free-market (highlighted by Marx as giving way to parallels with state control) with the added clause that it is to be void of regulation and obligation amongst its beneficiaries e.g. the proprietors, owners and masters who would have free reign over (effectively enslaved?) portion of the population whom are unable to benefit from the 'wonders' of voluntary exchange and owner/worker relationships or more likely are not granted the oppurtunity by the manipulation and cunningness of those with the effective power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously if Marx is correct about the inevitablity of the free market leading to oppression, exploitation, etc., then we would have good reason to reject it (unless every other option was worse; it's worth noting, I think, that state communism was extremely tyrannical, exploitative, oppressive, etc.--perhaps Marx needs his radar adjusted...)

That said, I find Marx's claim both historically and theoretically dubious. Historically, *capitalism* (in the sense of state capitalism) may have yielded the "oligarchic and and monopolistic corporate market", but it certainly wasn't free markets (Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism, for instance, details the way in which federal regulation in the so-called "progressive" era led to the monopolization and cartelization of industry and big business that more or less remains today).
Theoretically, I find Marx's claim implausible since a) monopolies can only really exist when there are forcible barriers to entry in a given market (also noting that cartels are both theoretically and historically unstable), and b) governmental regulation tends to hurt consumers and help business by eliminating ways by which companies can compete against each other (and hence differentiate themselves and appeal to varied consumer demand).
I am not sure why you (or perhaps this is Marx?) are assuming that there must, naturally, be a class division between 'owners' and 'non-owners', or 'employers' and 'employees', etc. This sounds to me like you are conflating theoretical free-market 'capitalism' with actually existing state capitalism. State capitalism, to be sure, creates great disparities in wealth and power; but it is certainly unclear that this is the result of free trade and private ownership, and not of State intervening on the behalf of the wealthier class. I think that there are good reasons (again, both theoretical and historical) for thinking that free markets will not inevitably lead to oligarchy and class division, and that it is instead the State that is mainly responsible for this (this isn't to say that there is nothing to fear from private wealth and business in a free market, just that State power and 'Coprorate' power depend on each other and help prop each other up, so by eliminating the State we eliminate most of the potential of abuse by people with lots of $$ or land). In any case, I tend to think that the vast majority of people will be 'owners' (of 'capital', other than their labor) in a free society, and that the traditional emploer/employee elationship will be far different, since workers will much more easily be able to form collectives, and those that choose to work for others will of course have the option of unionization (or of simply working as an independent contractor).

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
As such, what reassurance could one provide that ACism would not be replacing one existing mode of tyranny, control and injustice (state power) with similar such attacks on our freedoms and liberty due to the implications of a free-market

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of gun freedom as a microcosm for what you're asking. What reassurance do you have that the guy walking down the street won't shoot you? At first it seems almost like you're taking a leap of faith, cause we're so used to things being a certain way. And the truth is sometimes he will shoot you. But in general, the freedom to carry arms results in more efficient protection than anything a group of elected human beings could offer via restriction of action.

The times where the free interaction hurts you is simply a representation of the ugly side of human nature. But attempting to eliminate the ugly side of human nature by adding centralized restrictions will always make things worse.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
The free market inevitably yields the oligarchic and monopolistic corporate market with entrepreneurial manipulations that in every way parallel state controls

[/ QUOTE ]
What reasoning does he use?

[Copernicus]

Reasoning in an AC thread? If von Mises isn't held to reasoning for his axioms and leaps, why should Marx be?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasoning in an AC thread? If von Mises isn't held to reasoning for his axioms and leaps, why should Marx be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Borodog for mod!

[DrunkHamster]

Copernicus,

precisely which of von Mises' axioms do you take issue with, and why? I'm not an ACer, just interested.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Copernicus,

precisely which of von Mises' axioms do you take issue with, and why? I'm not an ACer, just interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the ACists will claim that everything can be derived from "self-ownership". That in and of itself is debatable, since at the very least that can be considered an oxy-moron. However, most of my issues relate to dogma such as "monopolies can only arise in a state", "the free market is the perfect solution to everything". You can compile a pretty exhaustive list of them by searching on borodog. The majority of his AC posts contain one or more leaps that don't have any empirical or logical support. (You can skip the lindy hop posts)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasoning in an AC thread? If von Mises isn't held to reasoning for his axioms and leaps, why should Marx be?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is impossible to reason your way to an axiom.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Copernicus,

precisely which of von Mises' axioms do you take issue with, and why? I'm not an ACer, just interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the ACists will claim that everything can be derived from "self-ownership". That in and of itself is debatable, since at the very least that can be considered an oxy-moron. However, most of my issues relate to dogma such as "monopolies can only arise in a state", "the free market is the perfect solution to everything". You can compile a pretty exhaustive list of them by searching on borodog. The majority of his AC posts contain one or more leaps that don't have any empirical or logical support. (You can skip the lindy hop posts)

[/ QUOTE ]

The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident, and the fact that literally every psychology professor I ever had at my state-funded college agreed with it makes me not inclined to argue it.

The other things, like self-ownership (and to a much greater extent, state monopolies) are deduced a priori from the axiom of human action. They're certainly open to debate, but it's not fair to view them as isolated, dogmatic axioms when they're deduced by more fundamental logical elements. "Property" isn't so much a dogmatic, moral mandate in Austrian theory; it's a strategy to maximize subjective human well-being.

You've been debating Austrian theory on this forum for over a year now, Copernicus. The axiom of human action is the core element to anarcho-capitalist thought. It's what borodog would teach on day one of his AC 101 class. If you don't know this yet, perhaps it's time to either read something about Austrian thought without automatically trying to attack it, or just stop.