NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey again. This is a thread for the other question I had with regards to my original Why socialism if fundamentally unsound (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545282) thread.

A lot of guys talked about how statism isn't an absolute socialist practice, but what's the different between having a political governing body and any other managing institution such as a union, common market, church, or even a business or civil committee? Regardless of which institution is involved, its still an institution which is granted authority to allocate resources. Furthermore, just because the institution isn't recognized as having sovereignty over an area and its population doesn't mean its exempt from political activism. All people have their own interests (be them honorable of corrupt, self-centered or collective) so every person who is involved is going to negotiate in order to insure that those interests get taken care of.

"A state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area. It usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory, though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it. In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police."

If there's no monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, there's no state.

Regardless of which institution is involved, its still an institution which is granted authority to allocate resources.


Yes, but some institutions centralize power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) to an exclusive elite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_communism), while others decentralize power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) to the general whole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management).

Any kind of "socialism" worthy of the name belongs to the latter group. Statist perversions belong to the former.

Proudhonian contractualism?

Proudhonian contractualism?

Some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) linkage (http://www.mutualist.org/)

Some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) linkage (http://www.mutualist.org/)

Just don't read what it says about economics. The basic ethics aren't bad, but the economics employed are arcane and well-refuted.

Just don't read what it says about economics. The basic ethics aren't bad, but the economics employed are arcane and well-refuted.

"Some mutualists have abandoned the labor theory of value, and prefer to avoid the term 'socialist.' But they still retain some cultural attitudes, for the most part, that set them off from the libertarian right. Most of them view mutualism as an alternative to capitalism, and believe that capitalism as it exists is a statist system with exploitative features."

http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html

Probably not one's only complaint, but a major one I suspect. At any rate, I thought mutualism was basically anarcho-capitalism, or so I've been told. I could personally care less about "economics," as those issues are resolved automatically by proper political arrangements.

Socialism is statism by it's very nature, although it's not the statism you probably are thinking of, you're probably thinking of the kind of statism which tries to preserve the state at all costs and makes no attempt to build socialism (to diminish the state and move to communism). Socialism is defined as a statist period transition, the common logic is that communism cannot be achieved straight after the revolution because reactionary contradictions and attitudes still exist in the populace, so this transition is needed to weed out these contradictions (classes) through class struggle. Seriously Daktoria, I know you are trying to revive you're previous dead criticism of socialism, but in order to criticize socialism you have to know what it is friend. I refer you to my definition on the other thread:

Socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. In this stage contradictions (reactionism) still exist in society, but socialism is typified by a progression in building socialism. Marxist theory essentially points out that during this period bourgeois elements will try to turn the socialist movement back to the capitalist road, and that through a process of 'Criticism and Self Criticism' these elements are weeded out of various stratas of society. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is the same as socialism, Marx never differentiated the two, socialism is therefore when the working class sets up their own dictatorship, just as the bourgeois had set up their own dictatorship in the past. This 'worker state' would then guide the 'working class' through building socialism until all contradiction and class in society whithered away (including the dictatorship of the proletariat itself) and communism was achieved.

Now if you're European that might be an excuse, socialism become something of a buzzword in Europe, and you had everyone from Mussolini to Bismark calling themselves 'socialists' of some kinda, albeit I believe it is possible to be a socialist without being a communist; that is to say that you want to remain in the contradiction of statism indefinitely with no progression to communism, but why anyone would want this bewilders me greatly.

Socialism is statism by it's very nature


If, and only if, we are intellectually dishonest enough to ignore the entirety of socialist thought and theory before Karl Marx.

If, and only if, we are intellectually dishonest enough to ignore the entirety of socialist thought and theory before Karl Marx.
What theory, there was none before Marx, just an assortment of buzzwords and a useful tact of put 'ism' on the end of social to make ourselves look like you're a community-minded individual. I mean I seriously loling at the attempt of certain reationary defeatist/capitulationist leftists (and those capitalists pretending to be 'socialists') to totally disregard Marx and the progression of Marxist thought through Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hoxha. It seems that the revisionist 'leftists' have gotten so disheartened by the 'fall' of revisionist USSR that they have become nothing but anti-Marxist bourgeois apologists. You want to find a true Marxist, ask them two questions:

1) Do you believe capitalism must be overthrown by revolution or do you believe it can be reformed or regulated?

2) Do you believe class struggle is needed to build socialism into communism?

Probably not one's only complaint, but a major one I suspect. At any rate, I thought mutualism was basically anarcho-capitalism, or so I've been told. I could personally care less about "economics," as those issues are resolved automatically by proper political arrangements.

Mutualism without the LTV is no different from anarcho-capitalism, as many anarcho-capitalists have accepted Marxist historical analysis and have accepted that capitalism as it exists today is a matter of state interference. They just call it political capitalism or something of the sort and do not abandon the word "capitalism".

Mutualism without the LTV is no different from anarcho-capitalism


I can't speak for others, obviously, but my own position is not so much a rejection of the LVT, bur rather a rejection of the socialist and capitalist positions which hold the LVT or subjective theory of value exclusively. Neither one makes any sense without the other. The attempt to distinguish and seperate the two theories is essentially the root cause of class warfare and thus the origination of the state (the primary weapon in said war).


...as many anarcho-capitalists have accepted Marxist historical analysis


This needs further explaination, as I'm having a hard time seeing an anarcho-capitalist accepting the historical inevitability of communism.


...and have accepted that capitalism as it exists today is a matter of state interference.


Such an acceptance proves only that one has eyes, not necessarily that one is a mutualist, capitalist, socialist, or any other -ist.


They just call it political capitalism or something of the sort and do not abandon the word "capitalism".

I would, however, expect a mutualist (or any other socialist) to argue that the employer/employee social hierarchy makes such "political capitalism" extremely likely, if not inevitable. This is the key difference between a mutualist and an anarcho-capitalist. The first seeks to end "political capitalism" at the root, by eliminating the class distinction between owner and employee. The second somehow thinks it can eliminate the disease simply by eliminating a symptom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), rather than the actual cause.

TLO, although I don't know any anarcho-capitalists personally, but accepting material dialectics is simply accepting that contradictions (classes etc) exist in society and that these class contradictions will conflict with each other. Class warfare is simply either the dictatorship of the bourgeois ruling and the working class resisting, or the other way around, Marx just stated that when the workers form their own state does building socialism begin, but that during this contradictive period the bourgeois would continue to try re-establish their dictatorship by taking over the worker movement, revisionism etc etc.

What theory, there was none before Marx, just an assortment of buzzwords and a useful tact of put 'ism' on the end of social to make ourselves look like you're a community-minded individual.


Well, my assertion that statist "socialism" began with Marx is actually false. I forgot about Henri de Saint-Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy%2C_comte_de_Saint-Simon).

However, one cannot ignore Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon), and Mikhail Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin). To assert that these were not socialists is to assert only the purest of absurdity.


You want to find a true Marxist


At issue is not "who is a true Marxist." Instead, the question is "what is a socialist." Parade all the pure Marxists one wants, they are still not the entirety of socialist theory or ideology.

TLO, although I don't know any anarcho-capitalists personally, but accepting material dialectics is simply accepting that contradictions (classes etc) exist in society and that these class contradictions will conflict with each other.


My understanding of the Marxist conception of such is that the process is driven by technological innovation/invention, eventually leading to such that will enable the social revolution that results in communism.


Class warfare is simply either the dictatorship of the bourgeois ruling and the working class resisting, or the other way around...


This is why I question whether anarcho-capitalists actually accept such Marxist doctrine. Class warfare is only the trading back and forth of periods of dictatorship. If the anarcho-capitalist seeks dictatorship, he is no more an advocate of liberty than the typical statist "socialist."

I can't speak for others, obviously, but my own position is not so much a rejection of the LVT, bur rather a rejection of the socialist and capitalist positions which hold the LVT or subjective theory of value exclusively. Neither one makes any sense without the other. The attempt to distinguish and seperate the two theories is essentially the root cause of class warfare and thus the origination of the state (the primary weapon in said war).

The subjective theory of value includes the labor theory of value. In fact, it is a general principle of the STV that prices will tend towards cost.

It is not so much that the LTV is wrong (although it doesn't answer some economic questions), rather that it is simply unnecessary.

And class warfare existed long before economic analysis.

This needs further explaination, as I'm having a hard time seeing an anarcho-capitalist accepting the historical inevitability of communism.

You are correct that they don't accept dialectical materialism.

Listen (it is a full lecture) (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/marxism/Hoppe.mp3)

I would, however, expect a mutualist (or any other socialist) to argue that the employer/employee social hierarchy makes such "political capitalism" extremely likely, if not inevitable. This is the key difference between a mutualist and an anarcho-capitalist. The first seeks to end "political capitalism" at the root, by eliminating the class distinction between owner and employee. The second somehow thinks it can eliminate the disease simply by eliminating a symptom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), rather than the actual cause.

No, the mutualist, like the ancap, believes that the end of state monopoly will eliminate this class distinction. The mutualist has no disagreement with wage labor and employment, s/he only thinks that the worker is relegated to this position by way of these monopolies (money, land, IP).

The ancap takes the idea of time preference and extends it to show that not only is employment morally acceptable, but it can come about from legitimate, free human values.

In other words, the mutualist says the state gives the employer usury abilities over the employee; the ancap takes it a step further and says that one may actually enjoy being employed.

Well, my assertion that statist "socialism" began with Marx is actually false. I forgot about Henri de Saint-Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy%2C_comte_de_Saint-Simon).

However, one cannot ignore Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon), and Mikhail Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin). To assert that these were not socialists is to assert only the purest of absurdity.



At issue is not "who is a true Marxist." Instead, the question is "what is a socialist." Parade all the pure Marxists one wants, they are still not the entirety of socialist theory or ideology.

So you reject Marxism specifically but embrace all other quasi-vague examples of 'socialism', rejecting Marx not only displays you're astounding ignorance (willful) of his contribution to socialism and communism, but also an obvious cynical political opportunism in 'rejecting' Marx so as to appeal to the mainstream bourgeois left-liberal line, typically revisionist opportunism at it's lowest...

So you reject Marxism specifically but embrace all other quasi-vague examples of 'socialism', rejecting Marx not only displays you're astounding ignorance (willful) of his contribution to socialism and communism, but also an obvious cynical political opportunism in 'rejecting' Marx so as to appeal to the mainstream bourgeois left-liberal line, typically revisionist opportunism at it's lowest...

Do you know how many very important socialists who predated Marx also rejected Marx outright?

It is not so much that the LTV is wrong (although it doesn't answer some economic questions), rather that it is simply unnecessary.


This is not the impression I got from those I have encountered in the past claiming to defend anarcho-capitalism. Although it is probably extremely likely that they were not defending anarcho-capitalism so much as they were engaging in rabid anti-collectivism.


And class warfare existed long before economic analysis.


Of course. All phenomena exist before we understand how or why they exist.


No, the mutualist, like the ancap, believes that the end of state monopoly will eliminate this class distinction.


If this is true, they've got it exactly backwards. I hope it's not true, because otherwise I am yet again without an ideological home.


The mutualist has no disagreement with wage labor and employment


Of course not. One cannot abolish labor, TANSTAAFL after all. One can, however, abolish the political distinction between employer and employee.

...rejecting Marx not only displays you're astounding ignorance (willful) of his contribution to socialism and communism


Quite the contrary. Marx provided the seeds of the statist perversion that eventually resulted in the monstrosities that were Stalinism, Maoism, and other related ideologies. Thus, his contribution ultimately served the vital role of demonstrating outright the extreme danger of the statist route.

This is, of course, an extremely important contribution that should motivate all contemporary socialists to return to their ideology's voluntarist and anti-statist roots.

Quite the contrary. Marx provided the seeds of the statist perversion that eventually resulted in the monstrosities that were Stalinism, Maoism, and other related ideologies. Thus, his contribution ultimately served the vital role of demonstrating outright the extreme danger of the statist route.

This is, of course, an extremely important contribution that should motivate all contemporary socialists to return to their ideology's voluntarist and anti-statist roots.

More Trot and bourgeois garbage, Marxism-Leninism is hated by it's opponents because it's practical and pragmatic in building socialism, it's not like the unrealistic teenage utopianism of the modern 'left' and it's spiritual-ideological roots. They put all emphasis on grand ideals but with no theory for implementing them or for combating the contradictions in society which would see their ideology become reactionary without a socialist transition. This is why you'll never see a anarcho-syndicalist or whatever as a government in a country, their ideology is so far-fetched and downright impossible that it will never happen, and they know it, they know it so they sit in their own little factions and intellectually 'critique' the 'authoritarians' or whatever their naive brains can think up. They will never try to practically build their ideology, for them it's an 'all or nothing' silliness which ensures their ideology will never get any further than their own isolated minority 'freak' circle-groups.

It's the alliance between the cynical revisionists and the naive hopeless Utopians that makes a majority strong worker socialist movement harder to build socialism in one country.

So yeah, you pathetic left communists and Utopians can keep criticizing real socialist movements from behind you're petty bourgeois intellectualism all you like, but we will actually try and practically build socialism.

Marxism-Leninism is hated by it's opponents because it's practical and pragmatic in building socialism


Which is why the Soviet Union is dead and the best remaining example is Cuba.

It's no so much that it is hated, as it is just a miserable failure (not to mention a moral/ethical black hole). As such, we turn to other forms that have not yet proven themselves as such.


This is why you'll never see a anarcho-syndicalist or whatever as a government in a country


Because anarcho-anything doesn't seek to establish or maintain government to begin with?

"This is why you'll never see dry water or hot ice or whatever..."


So yeah, you pathetic left communists and Utopians can keep criticizing real socialist movements from behind you're petty bourgeois intellectualism all you like, but we will actually try and practically build socialism.


Of course, the statist capitalist right has no one else to thank more than the proponents of Marxist-Leninism. The chief "advocate" of "socialism" was for half a century so busy killing and starving its own citizens that the statist capitalist right had no meaningful opponent. Thus, neither do the remaining advocates of socialism have anyone else to thank for multiplying the difficulty of the task before them by so many orders of magnitude.

Ahhh yes, the collapse of the USSR, the great reactionary 'trump card', one showing makes the common Utopian teen run in fear with such nonsense as 'it wasn't socialist', and 'it was never really tried'.

The first modern revisionism originated after 1953, particularly at the infamous 20th CPSU Congress with Khrushchev and this is not only a phenomena of 1980’s – the Gorbachev era. Revisionism is the denial of the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, plus the opposition to any class struggle. Revisionism spreads illusions about imperialism and obstructed the people’s revolutionary struggle for social and national liberation in every way. In order to achieve these aims, these revisionists started to attack the leader (J.V. Stalin) trying to impair his authority and damage his prestige.

It was in 1956 that things reached a very critical stage. Khrushchev made his infamous speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU – thus heralding the open revisionist campaign and this caused revisionism in many parties of the world and the planned attempt by these hidden revisionists to destroy the communist parties from within.

We ML'ists must fight left opportunism as well as modern revisionism. Left opportunism fails to take into account the changed realities and dogmatically seek isolated propositions of Marxism-Leninism. This leads people to extreme action under super-revolutionary slogans. They also divorce the party from the working masses, split the revolutionary forces and thus prevent a concentrated attack on the principal enemy.

I never bother myself with opportunistic political point-scoring, just in repudiating the ideo-spiritual dogmatism of the Left and their impossible dreaming, which in reality is a disguise to criticize legitimate socialist movements and engage in the most revisionist and opportunistic acts of reactionism against the worker's cause.

A true Marxist is someone absolutely unflinching in his class struggle against the bourgeois contradictions in society, and who will not give ground to the capitalists.

You are correct that they don't accept dialectical materialism.

Listen (it is a full lecture) (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/marxism/Hoppe.mp3)


The lecturer states that the reason why the worker "chooses" to enter into an employment relationship where he or she does not receive the full value of their labor (that is, his or her wages are less than the price of the product, enabling the employer to collect a surplus or profit) is because he or she prefers a smaller wage now, as opposed to the full value of his labor later (as through the extra effort of some kind of self-employment).

But, of course, the reason why the employee "chooses" this is because the employee does not have access to the same kind and amount of resources that the employer does. Thus, the employee must "choose" this arrangement exactly because he or she won't produce any wage or income at all otherwise. Must choose is no choice at all.

There seems to be an assumption that both employer and employee approach the relationship from an equal playing field, which is absurd in itself, and strange in that the lecturer seems to already acknowledge that much existent wealth is the result of exploitation.

Their interests are "harmonious" only if we begin in a situation where the employee is not dependent on receiving wages for his or her survival. Otherwise, the employee's "choice" is the result of compulsion. No, it is not the fault of the capitalist that I will starve if I cannot eat, but that is not an excuse for tacit exploitation of that natural requirement.

This apparent assumption of a level playing field is also problematic concerning the repeated mention of "homesteading." The problem with the concept of "homesteading" is the assumption that land or other resources are without owner and thus free for the taking. Unfortunately, the historical record shows that "homesteaded" lands were usually with owner and under use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_people), even if the Euro-centric Lockean standards of "industriousness" and "rationality" did not recognize them as such. Frankly, I'm lead to the conclusion that such empty unclaimed land simply never existed, or if it did exist, it accounts for only an extremely tiny amount of the land and wealth currently claimed by capitalist economics.

Indeed, the economic growth and prosperity of Western Europe and the United States, that the lecturer cites, is not the result of growing class consciousness among the exploited as claimed. Basic History 101 shows that this economic growth is the direct result of the exploitation by "homesteading" of the lands of the pre-European peoples of the American contenents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears) and of the exploitation and enslavement of the peoples of the African continent (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Slave_ship_diagram.png). "Homesteading" has been, in actual practice, nothing more than a happy euphemism. Happy for some, anyway.

The idea that the perpetrators of this exploitation are somehow exploited themselves is patently absurd. "Nothing has been taken away from anybody in this process..." Bullshit.

In short, the "clean capitalism" that is the basis for the argument, while theoretically possible, in reality never existed. If the historical generation of wealth did occur according to "homesteading" of totally unused and unclaimed land, and by equal opportunity, this "clean capitalism" might have been possible. But it didn't. And the resulting vast inequalities in wealth have produced an employee/employer relationship that is highly exploitative in that some have vast supplies of wealth to fall back on while others do not and are thus compelled to "choose" to sell their labor in order to survive.

And socially owned means of production require state action if and only if we make the unnecessary assumption that "socially owned" means "owned by everyone in a given society." However, if we follow the prescription of anarchist and much of socialist thought, decentralization is a necessary part of social ownership and no such state action is required.

I won't even go into great detail about this notion of "private law," as the results of such a monstrosity should be obvious. Instead of having to deal with one entity asserting authority over me, I have to deal with the competing claims of all of those who claim sovereign authority over me should I happen to accidentally step on their private territory. Millions of kings. Huzzah.

-Snip-

Your rhetoric is pretty. Too bad your cause is dead.

1) Do you believe capitalism must be overthrown by revolution or do you believe it can be reformed or regulated?Neither. A revolution is a cycle, and as the IWW slogan says, "capitalism cannot be reformed".

2) Do you believe class struggle is needed to build socialism into communism?I don't believe a step of "socialism" is necessary.

I don't believe a step of "socialism" is necessary.
So, if hypothetically myself and my friends get some guns and overthrow the government tonight, and the next day we declare a total stateless communist society, do you think it would work or do you think it would collapse because of contradictions in society?

So, if hypothetically myself and my friends get some guns and overthrow the government tonight, and the next day we declare a total stateless communist society, do you think it would work or do you think it would collapse because of contradictions in society?It would collapse because through using the tactic of violent revolution, you ultimately betray your own ideals.

It would collapse because through using the tactic of violent revolution, you ultimately betray your own ideals.

Oh I should have guessed, the useless impracticality and naivety of 'idealism', from how you people talk none of us should even try to change society, we should just say 'revolution will come inevitably' sit back down on the couch and take another handful of chips. Sorry but where I come from that's not principle but an excuse to sit on you're hands and do nothing, the same way bourgeois intellectuals at uni talk about 'evolutionary communism' and are not involved politically at except inside their tiny study circles, what's the use? What will take do to aid the movement?

So thank you very much, but if I wanted an excuse to do nothing I'd already have it, Trots and anarchists love to nitpick but hate to act or bridge out to make their movement anything other than the exclusive clique it really is. Sorry but I have no patience for champagne socialists or other fools.

Oh I should have guessed, the useless impracticality and naivety of 'idealism', from how you people talk none of us should even try to change society,Not all changes to society are positive changes, and it is silly to assert that a change without ideals would be a positive change.

we should just say 'revolution will come inevitably'We should stop worrying about revolution as a tactic.

sit back down on the couch and take another handful of chips. Sorry but where I come from that's not principle but an excuse to sit on you're hands and do nothing, the same way bourgeois intellectuals at uni talk about 'evolutionary communism' and are not involved politically at except inside their tiny study circles, what's the use? What will take do to aid the movement?

So thank you very much, but if I wanted an excuse to do nothing I'd already have it, Trots and anarchists love to nitpick but hate to act or bridge out to make their movement anything other than the exclusive clique it really is. Sorry but I have no patience for champagne socialists or other fools.False dichotomy. Simply because I (or we) accept the fact that violent revolution will never achieve the ends it sets out to create doesn't mean that there aren't other methods that can and will work.

The lecturer states that the reason why the worker "chooses" to enter into an employment relationship where he or she does not receive the full value of their labor (that is, his or her wages are less than the price of the product, enabling the employer to collect a surplus or profit) is because he or she prefers a smaller wage now, as opposed to the full value of his labor later (as through the extra effort of some kind of self-employment).

But, of course, the reason why the employee "chooses" this is because the employee does not have access to the same kind and amount of resources that the employer does. Thus, the employee must "choose" this arrangement exactly because he or she won't produce any wage or income at all otherwise. Must choose is no choice at all.

There seems to be an assumption that both employer and employee approach the relationship from an equal playing field, which is absurd in itself, and strange in that the lecturer seems to already acknowledge that much existent wealth is the result of exploitation.

Their interests are "harmonious" only if we begin in a situation where the employee is not dependent on receiving wages for his or her survival. Otherwise, the employee's "choice" is the result of compulsion. No, it is not the fault of the capitalist that I will starve if I cannot eat, but that is not an excuse for tacit exploitation of that natural requirement.

This apparent assumption of a level playing field is also problematic concerning the repeated mention of "homesteading." The problem with the concept of "homesteading" is the assumption that land or other resources are without owner and thus free for the taking. Unfortunately, the historical record shows that "homesteaded" lands were usually with owner and under use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_people), even if the Euro-centric Lockean standards of "industriousness" and "rationality" did not recognize them as such. Frankly, I'm lead to the conclusion that such empty unclaimed land simply never existed, or if it did exist, it accounts for only an extremely tiny amount of the land and wealth currently claimed by capitalist economics.

Indeed, the economic growth and prosperity of Western Europe and the United States, that the lecturer cites, is not the result of growing class consciousness among the exploited as claimed. Basic History 101 shows that this economic growth is the direct result of the exploitation by "homesteading" of the lands of the pre-European peoples of the American contenents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears) and of the exploitation and enslavement of the peoples of the African continent (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Slave_ship_diagram.png). "Homesteading" has been, in actual practice, nothing more than a happy euphemism. Happy for some, anyway.

The idea that the perpetrators of this exploitation are somehow exploited themselves is patently absurd. "Nothing has been taken away from anybody in this process..." Bullshit.

In short, the "clean capitalism" that is the basis for the argument, while theoretically possible, in reality never existed. If the historical generation of wealth did occur according to "homesteading" of totally unused and unclaimed land, and by equal opportunity, this "clean capitalism" might have been possible. But it didn't. And the resulting vast inequalities in wealth have produced an employee/employer relationship that is highly exploitative in that some have vast supplies of wealth to fall back on while others do not and are thus compelled to "choose" to sell their labor in order to survive.

There is no assumption of level playing field (as you noted, he accepts that existent wealth is largely due to exploitation). What he is stating is that capitalism arises from a level playing field as the owners of capital are risk takers, offering lesser value now in return for greater value later.

And the homesteading that you are referring to such as the trail of tears is not the homesteading that Hoppe refers to. And if we accept his definition of legitimate property, we can see that there is a great deal of illegitimately owned property just waiting for bootstrapping agorists to homestead for their own.

And socially owned means of production require state action if and only if we make the unnecessary assumption that "socially owned" means "owned by everyone in a given society." However, if we follow the prescription of anarchist and much of socialist thought, decentralization is a necessary part of social ownership and no such state action is required.

This is a little jumbled and I cannot make sense of it.

I won't even go into great detail about this notion of "private law," as the results of such a monstrosity should be obvious. Instead of having to deal with one entity asserting authority over me, I have to deal with the competing claims of all of those who claim sovereign authority over me should I happen to accidentally step on their private territory. Millions of kings. Huzzah.

I think you need to read up on private defense, but what would be the alternative to private defense?

This is not the impression I got from those I have encountered in the past claiming to defend anarcho-capitalism. Although it is probably extremely likely that they were not defending anarcho-capitalism so much as they were engaging in rabid anti-collectivism.

Any system which tries to apply some intrinsic value to a good is completely wrong, and Marx tried this with the LTV. The LTV is wrong, but it is no coincidence that it fooled Smith and Ricardo, it can deliver credible results.

If this is true, they've got it exactly backwards. I hope it's not true, because otherwise I am yet again without an ideological home.

How is this class distinction removed without elimination of state monopoly?

What is your blueprint?