DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Why the anti-capitalism focus?

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 23 2009 18:27
Why the anti-capitalism focus?

Hi,

I've come to anarchy via Austrian Economics (reading Mises, Rothbard etc.) and the US Libertarian movement. Reading this work and others I started to see the State as an institution that can only exist with the threatened or actual use of force over the 'free' individual, something that I find immoral and wrong. Hence, I started calling myself an anarchist, to signify my anti-state position.

However, reading this : http://www.afed.org.uk/organisation/aims-and-principles.html I was slightly bemused to see that the AF seems to define things primarily in terms of a war against capitalism. But I'm struggling to understand why if you're an anarchist you would necessarily be anti-capitalist, something which has at its core the freedom for consenting individuals to trade with one an other without the interference of the state.

But perhaps the more perplexing thing is that we don't live under a capitalist regime anyway, so being anti something we don't have seems a little redundant. We have some kind of capitalist/corporatist/merchantilist/socialist and increasingly fascist hybrid, something that is a long way from laissez faire free-market capitalism.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me on what exactly is wrong with the idea of being able to trade freely with one and other?

Thanks,

mf.

bens's picture
bens
Offline
Joined: 3-02-07
Jun 23 2009 18:30

Is there a libcap.org for you maybe?

juozokas's picture
juozokas
Offline
Joined: 5-11-07
Jun 23 2009 18:45

here is your answer: i don't like working a shithouse job for most of my life to make someone else rich. being able to 'trade freely' is meaningless to me.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 23 2009 18:44
mrfoo wrote:
perhaps the more perplexing thing is that we don't live under a capitalist regime anyway

yeah, that would be pretty fucking perplexing, if it were true.
Assuming you're not here just to troll or pimp that awful Ron Paul shit, you should give this a read:
Anarchist FAQ - Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 23 2009 18:53

Hi Juozokas,

"here is your answer: i don't like working a shithouse job for most of my life to make someone else rich. being able to 'trade freely' is meaningless to me."

Two things:

1. If you don't want to work in a "shithouse job", then don't! there is no compulsion under capitalism - that would be communism.

2. Very few people take jobs to make someone else rich, they take jobs because they value the money they will get more than the time (and whatever else) they give up.

- mf.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jun 23 2009 18:57

Hi.

Basically, the perspective of both the Anarchist Federation and this site (libcom.org), is that capitalism, far from being about the free trade of individuals, is a specific form of class society. It is defined by three things: private ownership of the means of production, the production of commodities for circulation and the expansion of capital, and the fact that most creative activity is done in return for a wage, and so takes the form of wage-labour.

We think capitalism is a class society because the majority of those who live within it have nothing to sell but their ability to work for others, they are dispossed of capital and must work, steal or claim benefits to survive. The interests of those in this class and those who own or administer capital are opposed - put very crudely, people who work want to work less for more money and under better conditions, employers want the opposite. This opposition of interests is class struggle.

We also don't see capitalism and the state as being separate things in conflict with one another, but part of the same system and mutually supportive. Capitalism requires the state to uphold property rights, private ownership and to contain class struggle. The material basis of the state is capitalism, and the capital over which it has jurisdiction.

Additionally, the anarchist movement has been anti-capitalist from the very beginning, its origins are in the workers' movement and as a movement in its own right its most significant moments have been as a revolutionary force at the apex of the struggle against capitalism. The US libertarian movement is very different to the anarchist movement, which contained mass organisations calling themselves libertarian from earlier on.

Jenni's picture
Jenni
Offline
Joined: 7-08-07
Jun 23 2009 18:58
Quote:
1. If you don't want to work in a "shithouse job", then don't! there is no compulsion under capitalism - that would be communism.

omg, i hadn't thought of it like that before. people should just leave their jobs if they don't like them, because they can just get a different job they really like, or get benefits which are totally enough to live on comfortably. also unemployed people should just get a job, and homeless people should just get a house. easy!

you're either stupid or rich.

Bisc's picture
Bisc
Offline
Joined: 16-12-08
Jun 23 2009 18:59
Quote:
"that would be communism."

You better clear out of here, mate. Us pinko's don't take kindly to people equating communism to compulsory labor. angry

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jun 23 2009 19:02

Starving people; what they need to do is eat a nice pie.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jun 23 2009 19:04
mrfoo wrote:
1. If you don't want to work in a "shithouse job", then don't! there is no compulsion under capitalism - that would be communism.

Well you see this assumes a world where we freely wander in and out of the jobs we want. The reality is we usually take jobs out a material need - i have hated all the jobs I have done, however unemployment is a much more unpleasant prospect. One job I would rather do is incredibly difficult to get into, and has an intake of about 30 nationally per year. There clearly is compulsion - you work or you rot on the dole (which is my current condition, and one I didn't 'choose'.)

Moreover, you have no control of the conditions of the work you do beyond what you can force on the employer, you have no control over your conditions on the dole. Most importantly you have no control over the overall conditions of your life. This is why the anarchist movement has historically opposed capitalism.

Quote:
2. Very few people take jobs to make someone else rich, they take jobs because they value the money they will get more than the time (and whatever else) they give up.

The reason people take up jobs is to get the money they need to live on. The purpose of the work is usually to expand capital, which is not owned by the people doing the work, or to maintain the overall form of social organisation.

juozokas's picture
juozokas
Offline
Joined: 5-11-07
Jun 23 2009 19:05

gotta get me some of them sweet wares and then its off to do some trading (freely mind you)

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 23 2009 19:06
Vlad336 wrote:
mrfoo wrote:
perhaps the more perplexing thing is that we don't live under a capitalist regime anyway

yeah, that would be pretty fucking perplexing, if it were true.
Assuming you're not here just to troll or pimp that awful Ron Paul shit, you should give this a read:
Anarchist FAQ - Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

Thanks for the link, reading the first section it seems I've run afoul of the dictionary being wrong. I had no idea that being an anarchist required being an anti-capitalist.

As for us living under a capitalist society, exhibit A would be our monetary and financial system, what would normally be assumed to be at the core of a capitalist society operates far from any semblance of a 'free-market'. The state centrally plans how much money should be created (with the recent disastrous consequences) and legally mandates its use. How is that capitalist?

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jun 23 2009 19:11
mrfoo wrote:
But perhaps the more perplexing thing is that we don't live under a capitalist regime anyway, so being anti something we don't have seems a little redundant.
mrfoo wrote:
1. If you don't want to work in a "shithouse job", then don't! there is no compulsion under capitalism - that would be communism.

?

juozokas's picture
juozokas
Offline
Joined: 5-11-07
Jun 23 2009 19:22

1. i don't, i am unemployed which is even worse. what would you have me do?
2. my dad drove cabs and trucks most of his life to make ends meet - something he absolutely hated. i am pretty sure if the option was there he would have been doing something else but i'll tell him about your philosophy tomorrow

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 23 2009 19:23
Jenni wrote:
Quote:
1. If you don't want to work in a "shithouse job", then don't! there is no compulsion under capitalism - that would be communism.

omg, i hadn't thought of it like that before. people should just leave their jobs if they don't like them, because they can just get a different job they really like, or get benefits which are totally enough to live on comfortably. also unemployed people should just get a job, and homeless people should just get a house. easy!

you're either stupid or rich.

I didn't suggest people *should* leave their jobs if they don't like them, just that they are free to do so if they value the alternative more.

Are you suggesting that there is some magical world where everyone is happy in their job all the time? How does your alternative economic system ensure the perfect match between a workers desires and the job they do better than their own self interest and motivation?

I had assumed you would be against state provided benefits, no?

juozokas's picture
juozokas
Offline
Joined: 5-11-07
Jun 23 2009 19:29

this is a no flaming forum

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 23 2009 19:37
mrfoo wrote:
The state centrally plans how much money should be created (with the recent disastrous consequences) and legally mandates its use. How is that capitalist?

You're right, it totally isn't. REAL capitalism is when there is no state and everyone is free to trade and engage and in the pursuit of happieness and all that shit, without the State telling them what to do. That is why Somalia is such an anarcho-capitalist heaven.

juozokas's picture
juozokas
Offline
Joined: 5-11-07
Jun 23 2009 19:43
mrfoo wrote:
Jenni wrote:
Quote:
1. If you don't want to work in a "shithouse job", then don't! there is no compulsion under capitalism - that would be communism.

omg, i hadn't thought of it like that before. people should just leave their jobs if they don't like them, because they can just get a different job they really like, or get benefits which are totally enough to live on comfortably. also unemployed people should just get a job, and homeless people should just get a house. easy!

you're either stupid or rich.

I didn't suggest people *should* leave their jobs if they don't like them, just that they are free to do so if they value the alternative more.

Are you suggesting that there is some magical world where everyone is happy in their job all the time? How does your alternative economic system ensure the perfect match between a workers desires and the job they do better than their own self interest and motivation?

I had assumed you would be against state provided benefits, no?

well, the story goes that once capitalism had developed the means of production enough to eliminate scarcity, and technological advances meant that most production can be automated, the working class (the people who actually do productive labour and reproduce capitalism every day) will organise to replace it with something better that is in their interests. classes and waged labour will be abolished, as will private property, production will be allocated according to human needs and wants rather than for the market,... yadayada. people would be able to work less, work would be hopefully more enjoyable and 'personal' again, freeing up a lot more time to pursue our desires, hopefully we would have more things...

i don't see it happening anytime soon either but this is a forum where we can discuss this magical world (communism)

no i'm not against state benefits

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 23 2009 19:47
mrfoo wrote:
Thanks for the link, reading the first section it seems I've run afoul of the dictionary being wrong. I had no idea that being an anarchist required being an anti-capitalist.

As for us living under a capitalist society, exhibit A would be our monetary and financial system, what would normally be assumed to be at the core of a capitalist society operates far from any semblance of a 'free-market'. The state centrally plans how much money should be created (with the recent disastrous consequences) and legally mandates its use. How is that capitalist?

I think you're coming from the viewpoint that there could be a fair world where everybody traded etc with no compulsion to do anything. Capitalist society requires a state because it is ultimately self destructive. To stop collapse it needs the state to do things such as force it to feed and educate the next generation of workers. It also requires a state to ensure that the conditions of the poorer ections do not lead to riot and rebellion (or at least not dangerous ones). You could argue that this society is not a 'pure' capitalist one because it has other elements within it but I think the other elements you have mentioned are currents within capitalism (that also in their turn need to be restrained when they cause problems.)

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jun 23 2009 20:09
Quote:
I didn't suggest people *should* leave their jobs if they don't like them, just that they are free to do so if they value the alternative more.

what alternative would that be?

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 23 2009 20:29

Hi Django,

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the Anarchist Federation's position, I didn't realise that the AF's 'Forum' linked to the 'libertarian communism' forums, or that anarchism implied anit-capitalism. But then, this is what I was hoping to learn more about when posting here in the first place.

I have a few questions on the areas you covered, they're not meant in a confrontational manner.

Django wrote:
Basically, the perspective of both the Anarchist Federation and this site (libcom.org), is that capitalism, far from being about the free trade of individuals, is a specific form of class society.

What exactly is meant by 'class society', and what mechanism of capitalism enforces and mandates it?

Quote:
It is defined by three things: private ownership of the means of production, the production of commodities for circulation and the expansion of capital, and the fact that most creative activity is done in return for a wage, and so takes the form of wage-labour.

1. By 'wage' do you mean anything other than just 'money'? Money is just a convenient means of exchange, isn't it conceptually no different than being paid in any other commodity? Be that reciprocal labour agreement, food, etc. as such is there something more preferable than money to be compensated in for creative activities?

2. The non-private ownership of production implies the public ownership of production (socialism?), how is this managed and enforced in non-authoritarian basis? Am I right in thinking anarchists are against collective force over the individual?

Quote:
We think capitalism is a class society because the majority of those who live within it have nothing to sell but their ability to work for others, they are dispossed of capital and must work, steal or claim benefits to survive.

Is there something inherently wrong with working for others? Ultimately aren't the people I presume would be seen as at the top of the class hierarchy dependant on those at the bottom for their continued success? The only thing that would keep them in their position as stewards/owners of capital is their ability to utilise that capital more efficiently than anyone else.

Tescos are successful not because they force people to shop there, but because people see it in their interest to shop there, aren't they are subservient to the customer?

Quote:
The interests of those in this class and those who own or administer capital are opposed - put very crudely, people who work want to work less for more money and under better conditions, employers want the opposite. This opposition of interests is class struggle.

Isn't this true of any 'trade'. A worker trades his time and skills for money from an employer because he values the money he receives more than the time he gives up, he exploits the employers need for labour for his financial gain.

In turn the employer exploits the workers need for money for his gain, but this is true of any trade, I can't see how this will be anything different in any other economic system, unless trade is to be outlawed and you have to produce everything yourself.

How is the employers exploitation of the workers need for money morally any different from the workers exploitation of the employers need for labour?

Do you see the relationship between a shopkeeper or farmer and their customers as a class struggle also?

Quote:
We also don't see capitalism and the state as being separate things in conflict with one another, but part of the same system and mutually supportive.

How does that fit in with non-capitalist states? I don't think recent acts by the government, such as nationalisation, bailouts etc. can been seen to be supportive of capitalism. Capitalism would have let them fail. Taking money from productive companies and giving them to failed companies is not in support of capitalism.

Neither is their constant meddling with money production, causing the detrimental boom and bust cycles.

Quote:
Capitalism requires the state to uphold property rights, private ownership and to contain class struggle. The material basis of the state is capitalism, and the capital over which it has jurisdiction.

Upholding property rights is a function of law, how is that different to any other law under an anarchist society? The (as they call themselves) anarcho-capitalists believe that law and order is possible without the state/central authority, is that true of (proper) anarchists too?

Quote:
Additionally, the anarchist movement has been anti-capitalist from the very beginning, its origins are in the workers' movement and as a movement in its own right its most significant moments have been as a revolutionary force at the apex of the struggle against capitalism. The US libertarian movement is very different to the anarchist movement, which contained mass organisations calling themselves libertarian from earlier on.

Thanks, that's interesting I didn't realise that at all.

Under non-state capitalism what would there be to stop alternative forms of economic arrangement taking place? If people wanted to setup communes or get together and agree to share everything equally then surely they would be able to do so?

Cheers,

mf.

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 23 2009 21:09
juozokas wrote:
1. i don't, i am unemployed which is even worse. what would you have me do?
2. my dad drove cabs and trucks most of his life to make ends meet - something he absolutely hated. i am pretty sure if the option was there he would have been doing something else but i'll tell him about your philosophy tomorrow

I don't mean this in an inflammatory way, but I presume you're not suggesting that when your Dad was working there were no other jobs in existence than driving cabs and trucks? Did someone stop him from gaining new skills or doing something else?

I'm not saying training/educating yourself is easy, but ultimately the responsibility lies with you, not businesses, the government or anyone else.

That aside, how do different economic systems alter peoples desire to do shit jobs? Toilet cleaners are needed in all economic and political systems.

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 23 2009 21:20
Vlad336 wrote:
mrfoo wrote:
The state centrally plans how much money should be created (with the recent disastrous consequences) and legally mandates its use. How is that capitalist?

You're right, it totally isn't. REAL capitalism is when there is no state and everyone is free to trade and engage and in the pursuit of happieness and all that shit, without the State telling them what to do. That is why Somalia is such an anarcho-capitalist heaven.

Sarcasm and straw men aside, do you believe we have a free-market monetary system or not?

The fact is that the government has a monopoly on the creation of money, interest rates are set at their decree, they cause boom and bust with their socialist management of the money supply. Worst of all they are the cause of inflation, the silent transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy and financially and politically connected.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jun 23 2009 21:33

There is no such thing as 'socialist management of the money supply'. Talk about straw men.

Socialism is the abolition of money, wages, nations and classes. There are no 'socialist economic policies' or 'non-capitalist nations'. There are merely two tactics for capitalism - Keynesianism and Monetarism. What you refer to as 'capitalism' is Monetarist capitalism. What you refer to as 'socialism' is Keynesian capitalism. These are merely strategies, not different systems. Until it abolishes money, states and class domination there is no "socialism".

Why do you suddenly change from talking about capitalism to talking about 'free market' capitalism'? I would suggest that it's because you know full well that non-'free market'/neo-liberal capitalism is still capitalism.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Jun 23 2009 21:45

mrfoo,

most likely you're just a troll, but on the off chance that you aren't, a quick note about semantics:

as Django correctly points out above, those of us populating this forum regard capitalism as an economic system characterized by the production of goods for exchange as commodities, private ownership of the means of production, the commodity-form of human labor, and accumulation of capital as the goal of production.

If you want to say that isn't "really" capitalism, because of some missing component required to satisfy your definition of capitalism, you're just engaging in trivial semantic games.

In Great Britain, a "boot" is what Americans refer to as the "trunk" of a car. And yet, a "boot" is also a type of footwear. And let's not even get started on the transatlantic misunderstandings that ensue due to the different meanings of the word "fanny". See the point? Words are a useful shorthand for concepts, but just which words are used to describe which concepts is subject to variation.

If the majority of people on this board have a definition of "capitalism" that differs from yours, it is rather beside the point to come trolling along and argue that you don't approve of our word usage to describe the system we oppose. To have a meaningful conversation, you could argue in defense of the system, or express your opposition to it, but semantic quibbling is absolutely trivial. We oppose this system for what it is, not because of whatever word one uses to describe it.

Sean68
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Jun 23 2009 22:19

Admin; pointless trolling deleted - if you don't have a point, don't bother.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jun 24 2009 01:32
Angelus Novus wrote:
mrfoo,

most likely you're just a troll, but on the off chance that you aren't, a quick note about semantics:

as Django correctly points out above, those of us populating this forum regard capitalism as an economic system characterized by the production of goods for exchange as commodities, private ownership of the means of production, the commodity-form of human labor, and accumulation of capital as the goal of production.

If you want to say that isn't "really" capitalism, because of some missing component required to satisfy your definition of capitalism, you're just engaging in trivial semantic games.

he's not a troll. i know this because i came in a libcommish direction from right-libertarianism myself, and while i disagree with mrfoo's position, it follows from austrianism. and the comments here about semantics and definitions could be turned right around. the big opinion difference, whether implicitly or explicitly stated, is about the degree of personal autonomy provided by laissez-faire. he thinks it's maximized, we think it's very highly restricted

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 24 2009 07:30
slothjabber wrote:
There is no such thing as 'socialist management of the money supply'. Talk about straw men.

Socialism is the abolition of money, wages, nations and classes.

Maybe we've hit the problem of definitions again. I was taking socialism to mean the state/public ownership and control of the means of production. I had no idea that socialism involved the abolition of money, what does it use instead? Barter?

Quote:
There are no 'socialist economic policies' or 'non-capitalist nations'.

So you're claiming that all nations are capitalist, I'm not sure Hugo Chavez for one would agree with you.

Quote:
There are merely two tactics for capitalism - Keynesianism and Monetarism. What you refer to as 'capitalism' is Monetarist capitalism.

Not at all, the monetarists still think that money is some how special and different from any other product or commodity and therefore must be centrally managed by the state. They just differ in their approach to its management.

Quote:
What you refer to as 'socialism' is Keynesian capitalism. These are merely strategies, not different systems. Until it abolishes money, states and class domination there is no "socialism".

How can you abolish 'money'? As a concept It's just a means of exchange, how would you efficiently exchange goods with one and other, store value etc., in a socialist society?

Quote:
Why do you suddenly change from talking about capitalism to talking about 'free market' capitalism'? I would suggest that it's because you know full well that non-'free market'/neo-liberal capitalism is still capitalism.

I thought that capitalism was also otherwise known as the 'market economy', and I'm using the prefix 'free' to indicate the removal of influence and control of the state.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Jun 24 2009 08:00
petey wrote:
he's not a troll. i know this because i came in a libcommish direction from right-libertarianism myself

This is a non sequitur. Just because you are a former propertarian who has become a communist does not mean that every propertarian who posts on a communist forum is doing so in good faith.

Quote:
the big opinion difference, whether implicitly or explicitly stated, is about the degree of personal autonomy provided by laissez-faire.

That would at least be a substantive discussion, if the original poster had written something in those terms. Instead, he wrote this:

Quote:
But perhaps the more perplexing thing is that we don't live under a capitalist regime anyway, so being anti something we don't have seems a little redundant.

In other words, the original poster thinks that communists are opposed to a word, rather than the concrete social relationships that they describe with that word. The only two conclusions I can draw from this are:

1) he's just a propertarian trolling on a communist forum, trying to prove to us that our definition of "capitalism" doesn't match his definition of "capitalism". This is about as meaningful a conversation as trying to convince English speakers that their word "boot" to describe a type of footwear is incorrect, because in German "das Boot" refers to a vehicle that floats on water.

2) Or he's just an incredibly naive idealist who thinks that words refer to absolute Platonic entities, rather than merely being a convenient shorthand for referring to concrete entities.

I'm not even adverse to propertarians posting on Libcom to argue for their "ideal" society, though I suspect the moderators have a low tolerance for that sort of thing, since there are probably an abundance of forums on the internet better suited for that. But the originator of this thread simply wants to engage in semantic games. If it looks like a troll and acts like a troll...

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Jun 24 2009 08:08

Let me illustrate the troll-like nature of the original post with another example.

Imagine going onto a discussion forum devoted to discussion of American "football", the game where they attempt to carry an oblong ball in their hands across a field into the opposing teams end zone.

Now imagine your first post to the forum involves stating that you don't understand why the posters keep referring to their game as "football", since the "correct" definition of "football" is obviously a game where the players use their feet to propel a round ball into a net on the opposing team's side of the field.

In other words, it's not even a discussion about anything substantive. It would be one thing to claim that one version of "football" is "better" or more "fun" than the other. That might still be trolling if the intent is simply to irritate, but it would be substantive trolling. But quibbling about the use of the word football is trolling pure and simple.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jun 24 2009 09:07

EDIT: Ah well, possibly all redundant, I do tend to agree with the idea that if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll... On the other hand, the OP may not be a conscious troll; perhaps they are just naive, and arrogant enough to assume that we are all going to go "ah of course! All these years we thought the problem was capitalism and the class systtem, but now the scales have been lifted from our eyes we can see that we need more capitalism not less!".

mrfoo wrote:
... I was taking socialism to mean the state/public ownership and control of the means of production. I had no idea that socialism involved the abolition of money, what does it use instead? Barter?

"After you've cured cancer, what will you replace it with?"

There is no "instead". Are you honestly telling me you've never heard "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

On the state, Engels said the state is "armed men organised in defence of private property". Now I'm not sure what your beef with the state is, whether it's the "armed" bit (I doubt it, if you're an American libertarian), or the "men" bit (ditto), or the "organised" bit, which seems a little more likely, or the "defence" bit, which seems doubtful, or the "private property" which given what you said before doesn't seem credible.

But as class-struggle Anarchists and Communists, most of the posters on LibCom (the forum of Libertarian Communism is what it stands for unless I've been doing it wrong all these years) would see the problems as being both the armed organisation and the defence of private property. Capitalism and the state go hand in hand.

The state ownership of the means of production is no different to the private ownership of the means of production. Joint stock companies rendered the 'individual capitalist' pretty much an anachronism 130 years ago. It doesn't matter whether the collective nartional capitalist is in a private or a state corporation.

Quote:
... you're claiming that all nations are capitalist, I'm not sure Hugo Chavez for one would agree with you...

And I'm supposed to give a monkey's what Hugo Chavez says? How is that relevent? I can call myself The Pope, does that mean I am? Socialism means no countries, no leader, no money, no working class. Has Venezuela been abolished? Has Chavez decreed his own Presidential non-existence? Has the working class in Venezuela been delivered of its exploitation by Venezuelan national capital and acheived a free-access society of abundance?

Venezuela is a prison camp where capitalism and the exploitation of the proletariat are alive and well, just like every capitalist country. Rhetoric and red flags don't change that.

Quote:
... monetarists still think that money is some how special and different from any other product or commodity and therefore must be centrally managed by the state. They just differ in their approach to its management....

Kinda my point. There is no 'economic management' in socialism because there is no 'economy', no money no commodities... are you getting it? If you want to 'manage' the economy you're a capitalist. If you want to abolish the economy (along with the state, exploitation, commodity production, money) you're a socialist.

Quote:
...
How can you abolish 'money'? As a concept It's just a means of exchange, how would you efficiently exchange goods with one and other, store value etc., in a socialist society? ...

What does "efficiently exchange" mean? There is no "exchange" in socialism. Therefore there is no "means of exchange". There are only goods - social goods, manifested in products that store socially-useful labour. "Value" is not stored, "value" is only "value" if it used.

Quote:
...
I thought that capitalism was also otherwise known as the 'market economy', and I'm using the prefix 'free' to indicate the removal of influence and control of the state.

Capitalism doesn't need the 'free market', who told you it did? What you are talking about is laissez-faire capitalism, free market capitalism, neo-liberal capitalism. There are many forms of capitalism, more than are dreamt of in you philosophy Horatio. Mercantile capitalism developed through the Crown Monopolies. But no, that's not capitalism is it, it's "socialism" for you because of the nasty ol' state intervention.

Starting a war to protect trade interests? That must socialism too. Having an army run by the state? Socialism. NASA? Socialism. In fact, everything that the state does is socialist, according to your bizarre definition. You're honestly not going to get far on a Libertarian Communist forum with that line of reasoning. We know that socialism is the abolition of all nations, all economies, all classes, all money.

Capitalism is commodity production for a profit. Selling to the government, or being owned by the government, or the government setting bank rates (they don't, in Britain, I believe, the Bank of England has the power to do that itself - so Britain with its welfare services etc is less "socialist" by your definition than the US, which is something of a surprise) - all these things matter not one jot.

Money invested in commodity production; commodities which are sold to be turned into money; money which, hopefully for the one doing the selling, is more than the original amount, re-invested in commodity production; at what point in that cycle does the money ask "hang on, am I being used by a private corporation or by the state? I need to know if I'm 'socialist money' you know"?

In short: if there is a working class, working for employers who can be a private corporation or a state corporation, to produce commodities that are sold in an internal or world market, with state subsidies or not, to generate money - that's capitalism.