anarcho-capitalism vs primitive communism vs anarcho-communism: or who could tell the difference even if anyone did care. The word corporation derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a body of people. By the time of Justinian (reigned 527–565), Roman Law recognized a range of corporate entities under the names universitas, corpus or collegium. These included the state itself (the populus Romanus), municipalities, and such private associations as sponsors of a religious cult, burial clubs, political groups, and guilds of craftsmen or traders. Such bodies commonly had the right to own property and make contracts, to receive gifts and legacies, to sue and be sued, and, in general, to perform legal acts through representatives Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[11] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. In medieval times traders would do business through common law constructs, such as partnerships. Whenever people acted together with a view to profit, the law deemed that a partnership arose en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation From Latin corporatus, past participle of corporare (“to make into a body”), which in turn was formed from corpus (“body”). See also corpse. Adjective corporate Of or relating to a corporation. Formed into a corporation; incorporated. Unified into one body; collective. Noun corporation (plural corporations) A group of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corporate https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corporation the much debated philosophy of so-called anarcho-capitalism seems from personal observation to revolve a great deal around the above term. the corporation. and in fact much of the so-called anarcho-capitalist literature does in fact tend to regard the role of the corporation in any anarchist society which might be deemed anarcho-capitalist. as an entity which may own and manage property. this it is claimed separates anarcho-capitalism from other older forms of anarchism, which share the qualities of promoting individualism, and more individualistic ideas of property. mutualism for example has its usufruct theory of property wherein legitimate ownership of property is based entirely in use and occupation thereof. here we find little difference with anarcho-capitalism since anarcho-capitalism tends to emphasize lockean property rights where rightful ownership is originally acquired by use and occupation. a central question in the debate concerning anarcho-capitalism is whether or not the acceptance among anarcho-capitalists of the notion of corporate property and corporate rights precludes anarcho-capitalism (hereafter referred to as ancappism and its adherents ancaps.) from consideration among the ranks of anarchist philosophies which are many and varied as it is. the apparent reason that this recognition and discussion of corporatism in ancappism is used as an excuse to exclude all ancaps from that big happy anarchist family is the fear that corporations without a state to keep them in check would grow in size and power until they replaced the state themselves. this combined with a misunderstanding of the actual position of ancappism regarding the corporation and private property. i do not however see this as a valid argument. and the first reason is that the corporation it is not unique to ancappism. nor is it unique to modern capitalism. nor is it a creation of the state. and finally neither is ancappism the white eyed cheering on of the corporation in all conditions. to define the term corporation i quoted the articles concerning corporation from both wikipedia and wiktionary. the simplest definition of a corporation being Any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body. that from the disambiguation page for the term corporation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_(disambiguation) having for the purposes of this post defined a corporation as Any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body. it may become apparent to the reader that such a definition includes an extremely broad range of organizations. however for the purposes of any discussion involving ancappism it is of no small benefit to all parties involved to understand that this for the most part is what ancaps mean when they refer to corporations. in the debate over whether ancaps are real anarchists or not. this simple definition of what a corporation is redirects quite a lot of accusations made against ancappism right back at the accusers. when proudhon says We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers associations... We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond he describes corporatism. when engels says To my mind, the so-called ‘socialist society’ is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. It’s crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production. To begin this reorganization tomorrow, but performing it gradually, seems to me quite feasible. That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they’re not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies. he describes corporatism when marx says that communism simply stated is the abolition of private property. he describes the most rigid and absolute sort of corporatism. now to address the position of the ancap regarding corporatism we shall quote none other than the great bard himself.... rothbard. I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights. --Society Without A State in The Libertarian Forum (1975) now such a statement does not require much analysis i would think but bearing in mind the audience of this post i will provide some just in case. now whereas the modern socialist (i specify modern socialist since the likes of tucker or greene or warren if they could might rise from the dead an confront me personally if i were to lump them in with the likes of todays communists) seems all too happy not only to build corporations, and to tend and care for them, and grow them into mighty corporate states. as long as the actual word corporate is never used for such a project. and as long as no lengthy comparison is made between their fine and good socialist corporatism, and the dark evil fascist corporatism. with the elder statesmen of socialism this is not the case. in fact tucker himself has said just as it has been said that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism. hence when we read the opinion of the granddaddy ancap of them all, murray rothbard, on anarchism. we find him in perfect agreement with the likes of a dirty socialist. and what is more their agreement does not end there. for we find that tucker has also said Education is a slow process, and may not come too quickly. Anarchists who endeavor to hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolution make a sad mistake indeed. They help to so force the march of events that the people will not have time to find out, by the study of their experience, that their troubles have been due to the rejection of competition. by god! if such were a windmill don quixote would throw down his lance! here we have an ancap heretofore forever banished from so much as casting a wayward glance at anarchy. in a perfect accord with a tried and true native born socialist and anarchist. rothbard on the one hand rejects the state based on expropriation from the worker via taxation and coercive exclusion of competition. and on the other hand tucker warns vigorously against the rejection of competition and the taking up of revolutionary state socialism. now let every true anarchist among you smooth down his beard. take up his pipe. and put that in there and smoke it. of course i am aware i have wasted the effort of some 30 or 40 minutes labour. since such like as those who delight in going around telling other people what to do and making judgements on who is or isnt an anarchist are by and large illiterate. this can can be deduced easily from the sheer volume of arguments supported by links to youtube videos rather than the actual documents those videos refer to. but i had that time to waste and could think of no greater waste of effort upon which to spend that time and so here we have the result. but nonetheless inb4 tl;dr
Posted on: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:27:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015