NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard Letila frequently exclaim that in Anarcho-Communism the community decides what to produce and where it is allocated.

However doesn't this mean that the labourer is forced by the community to produce certain goods whether he wants to or not?

How does this work without coercion?

I have heard Letila frequently exclaim that in Anarcho-Communism the community decides what to produce and where it is allocated.

However doesn't this mean that the labourer is forced by the community to produce certain goods whether he wants to or not?

How does this work without coercion?
They ask each other really nicely for about a week and then just start making them do stuff just like the Spanish "Anarchists"...

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm

Bryan Caplan
Suppose that there were a standard capitalist economy in which a class of wealthy capitalists owned the means of production and hired the rest of the population as wage laborers. Through extraordinary effort, the workers in each factory save enough money to buy out their employers. The capitalists' shares of stock change hands, so that the workers of each firm now own and control their workplace. Question: Is this still a "capitalist society"? Of course; there is still private property in the means of production, it simply has different owners than before. The economy functions the same as it always did: the workers at each firm do their best to enrich themselves by selling desired products to consumers; there is inequality due to both ability and luck; firms compete for customers. Nothing changes but the recipient of the dividends.

This simple thought experiment reveals the dilemma of the anarcho- socialist. If the workers seize control of their plants and run them as they wish, capitalism remains. The only way to suppress what socialists most despise about capitalism - greed, inequality, and competition - is to force the worker-owners to do something they are unlikely to do voluntarily. To do so requires a state, an organization with sufficient firepower to impose unselfishness, equality, and coordination upon recalcitrant workers. One can call the state a council, a committee, a union, or by any other euphemism, but the simple truth remains: socialism requires a state.

See above...

I have heard Letila frequently exclaim that in Anarcho-Communism the community decides what to produce and where it is allocated.

However doesn't this mean that the labourer is forced by the community to produce certain goods whether he wants to or not?

How does this work without coercion?
Subliminal messaging?

THANK YOU! this is exactly what i have been trying to get Letila to answer for months, and you are summing it all up so nicely.

THANK YOU! this is exactly what i have been trying to get Letila to answer for months, and you are summing it all up so nicely.

Yes, because a bunch of non-anarchists are going to give you a proper answer.

1. Libertovania's amazing prediction has long been a central question in anarcho-syndicalism and the importance of social movements as well as workplace development.

2. The fundamental point is that an anarchist society cannot be enforced, because if anyone tried to, it would cease to be an anarchist society. It is only be people accepting that anarchism is the best option and working co-operatively that an anarchist society will come about, if they don't, then it won't be an anarchist society.

So, how do we build an anarchist society? From the bottom up, by persuading enough people that it's worth trying.

Vas.

Yes, because a bunch of non-anarchists are going to give you a proper answer.

1. Libertovania's amazing prediction has long been a central question in anarcho-syndicalism and the importance of social movements as well as workplace development.

2. The fundamental point is that an anarchist society cannot be enforced, because if anyone tried to, it would cease to be an anarchist society. It is only be people accepting that anarchism is the best option and working co-operatively that an anarchist society will come about, if they don't, then it won't be an anarchist society.

So, how do we build an anarchist society? From the bottom up, by persuading enough people that it's worth trying.

Vas.
well, that's essentially what i have been saying all along, but Letila insists i am wrong. Letila also won't answer my question of what happens to disenters in his proposed society...he claims they will simply be ostracized by everybody until they conform, but when i ask how that is different from coersion he simply mutters about the evils of capitalism and changes the subject. basically, my understanding is that disenters in his society would not be allowed to exist, and would be starved to death by their neighbors until they comply...i'm still not seeing how that system is more free than our system is today.

2. The fundamental point is that an anarchist society cannot be enforced, because if anyone tried to, it would cease to be an anarchist society. It is only be people accepting that anarchism is the best option and working co-operatively that an anarchist society will come about, if they don't, then it won't be an anarchist society.
So as soon as one person reneges from a 'collective' decision, the society stops becoming anarchistic?

How can liberty be maximised if everyone constantly has to be co-operating and comprimising to peer-pressure?

Is it not possible to have anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism (or -syndicalism, -socialism, -whateverism) operate side by side? In a truly anarchic society, would not both exist? If a stateless society is to peaceably exist without force or coercion then the individuals and groups in that society must surely have mutual respect, in which case the full body of anarchist thought may be represented across the society, surely?

Sorry, I'm not sure that's entirely on-topic.

This is what I have always said. That it is up to the community to choose how it runs itself. To force it to be any form would be coercion.

well, that's essentially what i have been saying all along, but Letila insists i am wrong. Letila also won't answer my question of what happens to disenters in his proposed society...he claims they will simply be ostracized by everybody until they conform, but when i ask how that is different from coersion he simply mutters about the evils of capitalism and changes the subject. basically, my understanding is that disenters in his society would not be allowed to exist, and would be starved to death by their neighbors until they comply...i'm still not seeing how that system is more free than our system is today.

No, that would never happen. Free distribution is not based on political ideology, so no-one would have to starve to death. There are isolated extremes where they might (I'm imagining two skeletons in a restaurant because the waiter stopped coming, or a member of the royal family starving to death because the servants disappeared), but they're not realistic.

Social exclusion is a different issue, yes, they might be excluded somewhat, but only in the sense that people tend to exclude someone who deliberately works against them. If someone did benefit from free food and clothes and everything else, but refused to share what they produced themselves, people wouldn't be happy, much like they aren't if it happens now.

If someone came to a dinner party in your house with a bottle of wine, ate your food, but drank the entire bottle themselves, refusing anyone else a glass, they'd soon find themselves excluded. Or if they did share the bottle, but bitched and moaned about it the whole time. Or, more bizarrely, they refused to come to the party, preferring to sit at home and starve. This isn't a political issue, it's a human one.

Humans do not choose the system they live in day to day, they adapt to it. Change the system, people will adapt, as they always have and always will. If anarchy existed tomorrow, the vast majority of people would be confused for a bit, possibly gorge for a bit, and then they'd get on with their lives in the new system, not opposing it, not necessarily fighting for it, but just living it.

Vas.

I think that anarchy on a practical, individual level, would be even more brutal that capitalism is. Capitalism is in fact, to my mind, a fairly sophisticated form of anarchy, where "biker gangs" (corporations) are able to exert huge amounts of power over individuals. At this point, Letila will probably tell me that I clearly have no understanding over what anarchy really is as a political ideology, but this is my current understanding. Personally, I don't really see it as being any better that I'm coerced by a powerful collective societarial majority, than if I am controlled and coerced by a small, powerful collective on individuals.

So as soon as one person reneges from a 'collective' decision, the society stops becoming anarchistic?

No, that's not what I said. An anarchist society is based on voluntary association. The collective decision is only binding if those involved wish to abide by it. If the majority wants to build a road in one direction, while a small group wants to build a bridge, the small group has a choice:
1. Co-operate with the majority to build the road, meaning it will be done faster, asking for agreement that the bridge will be next on the list of priorities.
2. Go off on their own to build the bridge, reducing the workforce for both project, but meaning the bridge might be built quicker.

Both are perfectly valid options.

How can liberty be maximised if everyone constantly has to be co-operating and comprimising to peer-pressure?

They don't, if those in one society disagree consistently with the others, they can work to change it (as anarchists do now), or they can join another one. Same options as now, except with no borders, no wage slavery, no coercion.

Vas.

Is it not possible to have anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism (or -syndicalism, -socialism, -whateverism) operate side by side? In a truly anarchic society, would not both exist? If a stateless society is to peaceably exist without force or coercion then the individuals and groups in that society must surely have mutual respect, in which case the full body of anarchist thought may be represented across the society, surely?


The point is that anarcho-capitalist thought is NOT anarchist thought, as anarchism is fundamentally anti-capitalist. Capitalism is based on hierarchy, it is the root of the state.

As yourself this, two villages, side by side. In one, an open anarcho-communist society with free distribution. Everyone works together co-operatively. In the second, an "anarcho-capitalist" society with one large factory and a boss who owns all the houses and the factory and lives in luxury in his mansion on the hill and never works a day, while everyone else lives in slum accomodation working in his factory.

What would happen? Either everyone in village two would leave for village one, adding to their co-operative and boosting production, or there would be a revolution in village two. The example of anarcho-communism would immediately destroy any attempts at creating an "anarcho-capitalist" society for the simple reason that most people would resist paying for that which they can get for free elsewhere. They'll resist wage slavery in favour of a more balanced work life with less hours. The only option for the capitalist would be to force the workers to stay - creating borders and police to control workers, thus re-establishing the state.

Vas.

I think that anarchy on a practical, individual level, would be even more brutal that capitalism is. Capitalism is in fact, to my mind, a fairly sophisticated form of anarchy, where "biker gangs" (corporations) are able to exert huge amounts of power over individuals. At this point, Letila will probably tell me that I clearly have no understanding over what anarchy really is as a political ideology, but this is my current understanding. Personally, I don't really see it as being any better that I'm coerced by a powerful collective societarial majority, than if I am controlled and coerced by a small, powerful collective on individuals.

One question, how, without a state, without a police force, without an army, without borders, could a minority coerce the majority in an anarchist society? Capitalism is the exact opposite of anarchy - it's hierarchical (bosses rule workers), it's coercive (break the rules and you can be fired or arrested) and it's supported by the coercive power of the state (anti-union laws, etc). Anarchy is voluntary association within a non-hierarchical society.

Vas.

Direct democracy (or consensus) is not the same thing as a state.

One person's liberty always comes at the expense of another person's. My right to say something comes at the expense of your right to not hear it, etc. It is about deciding what is most important to you. As an anarchist, I feel that an equitable distribution of liberty is most important to me.

Direct democracy (or consensus) is not the same thing as a state.

Just a slight quibble, but direct democracy and consensus are not the same (Bookchin's written quite a bit about how this has destroyed movements). Consensus requires the majority to compromise to satisfy the stubborn minority. Democracy means majority rules. Once realistic and sufficient attempts to reach consensus have been made, democracy is needed if they fail.

Vas.

However doesn't this mean that the labourer is forced by the community to produce certain goods whether he wants to or not?

How does this work without coercion?

It's simple, really, they choose to because it will earn them the respect of the community and encourage others to share their products with them.

It's simple, really, they choose to because it will earn them the respect of the community and encourage others to share their products with them.
Peer pressure = social coercion.

Peer pressure = social coercion.

Maybe so, but it's better than the threat of starvation in capitalism. No political/economic system is perfect, but capitalism is truly terrible.

Serious question here: how would an anarchic society deal with parasitism? Assume that there was a member who would not be bothered by peer pressure or appeals to his sense of fairness and decided to leech off the society. How would the society as a whole deal with such a person?

Oh, I know that direct democracy and consensus aren't the same. I just mentioned both of them because they are two examples that fit the topic.

Maybe so, but it's better than the threat of starvation in capitalism. No political/economic system is perfect, but capitalism is truly terrible.
It is the same thing.

Don't work in your system. = Get excluded from the society, starve.

Don't work in the free market, starve.

Serious question here: how would an anarchic society deal with parasitism? Assume that there was a member who would not be bothered by peer pressure or appeals to his sense of fairness and decided to leech off the society. How would the society as a whole deal with such a person?
Depends on how charitable the society feels. Although I have heard a few Anarchists claim that the amount of parasites a community can support is a measure of its wealth.

One question, how, without a state, without a police force, without an army, without borders, could a minority coerce the majority in an anarchist society? Capitalism is the exact opposite of anarchy - it's hierarchical (bosses rule workers), it's coercive (break the rules and you can be fired or arrested) and it's supported by the coercive power of the state (anti-union laws, etc). Anarchy is voluntary association within a non-hierarchical society.

Vas.

as mao said

power comes from the barrel of a gun

the strong oppress the weak

its only govt that protects us

as mao said

power comes from the barrel of a gun

the strong oppress the weak

its only govt that protects us

Bullshit. We are just as capable of protecting ourselves without the state.

Depends on how charitable the society feels. Although I have heard a few Anarchists claim that the amount of parasites a community can support is a measure of its wealth.
It just seems to me that the ultimate problem with anarchism is that once someone decides not to go along with the system, whether from inside or outside, the system falls apart. In other words, it doesn't fail well. The key with any system isn't to keep it from failing--failures will happen--the key is to try to have redundant systems in place to take care of failures so the entire system doesn't collapse. Anarchism doesn't seem to have many backups to me--that's why I'm asking about them.

as mao said

power comes from the barrel of a gun

the strong oppress the weak

its only govt that protects us

Mao's reign showed quite clearly that it is the govenrment using guns to have power over us.

It is the same thing.

Don't work in your system. = Get excluded from the society, starve.

Don't work in the free market, starve.

Actually, if you get kicked out, you can simply use some means of production not owned by the society. An anarcho-communist society only owns that the members use. If you are deemed parasitic and kicked out, you can always find farmland or make things to sell.

It just seems to me that the ultimate problem with anarchism is that once someone decides not to go along with the system, whether from inside or outside, the system falls apart. In other words, it doesn't fail well. The key with any system isn't to keep it from failing--failures will happen--the key is to try to have redundant systems in place to take care of failures so the entire system doesn't collapse. Anarchism doesn't seem to have many backups to me--that's why I'm asking about them.

Actually, they can just quit being members if they don't like it.

It just seems to me that the ultimate problem with anarchism is that once someone decides not to go along with the system, whether from inside or outside, the system falls apart. In other words, it doesn't fail well. The key with any system isn't to keep it from failing--failures will happen--the key is to try to have redundant systems in place to take care of failures so the entire system doesn't collapse. Anarchism doesn't seem to have many backups to me--that's why I'm asking about them.
To be honest, I think that the deliberately anti-social represent a far more bigger issue that the parasites.

Actually, if you get kicked out, you can simply use some means of production not owned by the society. An anarcho-communist society only owns that the members use. If you are deemed parasitic and kicked out, you can always find farmland or make things to sell.
Isn't this the same in the free market?

You're probably right about anti-socialism as a greater threat, Conceptualists. What I still haven't heard from anyone, however, is how an anarchic society would deal with such threats from within or from the outside without completely destroying the very nature of the society.

You're probably right about anti-socialism as a greater threat, Conceptualists. What I still haven't heard from anyone, however, is how an anarchic society would deal with such threats from within or from the outside without completely destroying the very nature of the society.
You mean like invasions?

I assume you mean that the militancy caused by it will return the society to a heirarchical mode.

To be honest, I have not idea. But many anarchist communes were born out of war, so I don't see why they shouldn't survive it.

Peer pressure = social coercion.

Not necessarily, peer pressure can simply be by influence, rather than overt threat (which is necessary for coercion). You can be a good Christian because you believe in the word of Jesus, or you can be a good Christian because you're afraid of going to hell. Both are forms of peer pressure, but only the latter is coercive.

Vas.

Isn't this the same in the free market?

No, because you're unlikely to find farmland that isn't owned by someone.

Vas.

You're probably right about anti-socialism as a greater threat, Conceptualists. What I still haven't heard from anyone, however, is how an anarchic society would deal with such threats from within or from the outside without completely destroying the very nature of the society.

That is the rub, previous largescale anarchist societies (particularly the Ukraine and Catalonia) were destroyed by external forces - that said, the Red Army and the Axis forces were the grande mal forces of the last century. Really, though, it is an issue - non-hierarchical societies don't produce good armies. However, the world is becoming a less violent place (although it doesn't quite seem so). If a European country, for example, decided to try an anarchist set-up, it's unlikely anyone would invade. Look at Chavez - thirty years ago, he'd already be dead. So, as long as things keep going the way they're going, it's less of an issue - the Chiapas communes have survived for 10 years.

Vas.

Not necessarily, peer pressure can simply be by influence, rather than overt threat (which is necessary for coercion). You can be a good Christian because you believe in the word of Jesus, or you can be a good Christian because you're afraid of going to hell. Both are forms of peer pressure, but only the latter is coercive.

Vas.

I do not see how believing the word of Jesus is peer pressure. However the point of me getting it is moot. But still Letila claimed that public opinion will force people to be productive, and the tone suggested that it fell into the latter category, rather then the benign former.

As Godwin said, public opinion can provide a force ''not less irresistible than whips and chains.'' In my eyes the tyranny of the community (exercised though public opinion) is just as bad as that of the government's.

No, because you're unlikely to find farmland that isn't owned by someone

And why would farmland be easier to find in an Anarcho-communism?

Also that only addressed one part of my point. ;)

Oh, I know that direct democracy and consensus aren't the same. I just mentioned both of them because they are two examples that fit the topic.
Ah yes, but we must be clear for our audience - the lurkers we may influence.

Vas.

I do not see how believing the word of Jesus is peer pressure. However the point of me getting it is moot. But still Letila claimed that public opinion will force people to be productive, and the tone suggested that it fell into the latter category, rather then the benign former.

As Godwin said, public opinion can provide a force ''not less irresistible than whips and chains.'' In my eyes the tyranny of the community (exercised though public opinion) is just as bad as that of the government's.

I don't think it would come to that, though. It goes both ways, peer pressure can hurt those who don't work, but social esteem would reward those who are the most productive and share the most.

And why would farmland be easier to find in an Anarcho-communism?

Because if the members of the society didn't use it, they wouldn't own it.

As for defending against outside forces, that is a problem. Afterall, it is unlikely anarchists would stand much of a chance against nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if an anarchist society lasts long enough and receives enough attention, it may very well encourage others to consider anarchism. This would certainly hamper other countries attempts to invade since they would have their own anarchists to deal with.

I don't think it would come to that, though. It goes both ways, peer pressure can hurt those who don't work, but social esteem would reward those who are the most productive and share the most.

That is still coercion. It is like a capitalist claiming that in the current world, starvation will hurt those who work, but material possessions would reward workers.

Because if the members of the society didn't use it, they wouldn't own it.

Same as in the Social Libertarian vision I have. Therefore, how is your system superior to mine?

Maybe so, but it's better than the threat of starvation in capitalism. No political/economic system is perfect, but capitalism is truly terrible.

Its the same thing.

Whether you starve in a capitalist system or in an anarchist commune, you've still starved.

All I see is that the parasites and those people who refuse to conform will be expelled from the communes/communities. Sure they can subsist on their own, but I always thought that the human experience was meant to be communal?

What is to stop those expelled from forming their communities and seeking to conquer the rest? There is no way that the anarcho-whatever communes could ever stand up to such eventualities.


Conceptualist, your right on!:)

Conceptualist, your right on!:)
In all my months at NationStates, no one has ever said that.
Thanks. :D

I do not see how believing the word of Jesus is peer pressure.

If you regard Jesus as a peer, it would be (in the sense of influence rather than coerciou).

However the point of me getting it is moot. But still Letila claimed that public opinion will force people to be productive, and the tone suggested that it fell into the latter category, rather then the benign former.

Not that I can speak for Letila, but it may simply be a bad choice of words. Public opinion can act negatively, it's the classic carrot and stick argument. If the community shows its gratitude to those that provide for it, those who slack off may feel left out. Being excluded from a social group can be extremely forceful, but I wouldn't regard it as coercive.

As Godwin said, public opinion can provide a force ''not less irresistible than whips and chains.'' In my eyes the tyranny of the community (exercised though public opinion) is just as bad as that of the government's.

Yes, it can be, but such public opinion is normally led. Contrary to popular thinking, the mob isn't the mindless activity of the mass of people, rather the mindless following of the loudest voices. Any anarchist society would have to guard against self-appointed leaders and work to motivate everyone to be their own leaders. Leaders and followers are often not natural, but products of a system that generates leaders and lackeys.

And why would farmland be easier to find in an Anarcho-communism?

It's not that it would be easier to find, it's that, if it was unused, it would be easy to take over and use. In a market system, you couldn't take over and use unused land because it's someone's property.

Vas.

Its the same thing.

Whether you starve in a capitalist system or in an anarchist commune, you've still starved.

Except you're unlikely to starve in any form of anarchist society, as everyone would be provided with the essentials. Humanism is at the core of anarchism, as is an opposition to wage slavery, thus it would be completely opposed to anarchist principles to refuse someone food if they wouldn't work. Rather than trying to retype the rest of this, I'll just give the link to the anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci414, which says it rather well.

Vas.

Maybe so, but it's better than the threat of starvation in capitalism. No political/economic system is perfect, but capitalism is truly terrible.


Yes, of course -- there are no social programs to prevent starvation and homelessness. Why, just last night, a band of starving children camped on my front step....



Please.

All I see is that the parasites and those people who refuse to conform will be expelled from the communes/communities. Sure they can subsist on their own, but I always thought that the human experience was meant to be communal?

But if they don't want to live communally, then they won't.

Conceptualists, what is social libertarianism? Somewhere between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism?

It's good to know that anarchists are just as liable to be splitters as the left!

Conceptualists, what is social libertarianism? Somewhere between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism?

It's good to know that anarchists are just as liable to be splitters as the left!
Essentially, yes. A term I made up because I bounce between Anarcho-communism to Anarcho-Capitalism on a daily basis (but always tending towards the free market).

I don't have enough faith in human nature to fully sign up to the anarchist/libertarian vision. It is ultimately the best way for us to live, in my opinion, but we've got some time until we're ready for it.

Your view makes sense. After all, what does it matter what form of anarchism people adopt so long as they are free? Like I said before, there shouldn't be aproblem with the various strands of anarchy living in parallel.

I don't think any society can exist without coercion. It's the strength of the coercion that perhaps is more significant.

I don't have enough faith in human nature to fully sign up to the anarchist/libertarian vision. It is ultimately the best way for us to live, in my opinion, but we've got some time until we're ready for it.

Your view makes sense. After all, what does it matter what form of anarchism people adopt so long as they are free? Like I said before, there shouldn't be aproblem with the various strands of anarchy living in parallel.

I don't think any society can exist without coercion. It's the strength of the coercion that perhaps is more significant.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't rely on humans being good. It works better than a state given any particular level of "evil".

Now back to coercion. Coercion, to libertarians, is agressing against another's person or property (or threatening to). We also don't regard defending yourself or your property as agression. Thus threatening to fire someone isn't coercion. If it was then so would be threatening to leave your wife OR EXPULSION FROM A COMMUNE.

This is a contradiction no "real" Anarchist has addressed to my satisfaction. Until they can explain this to me I will not have any respect for them intellectually. So, come on lads. I'm sure you have an answer. No wriggling away this time. Spit it out.

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't rely on humans being good. It works better than a state given any particular level of "evil".

Now back to coercion. Coercion, to libertarians, is agressing against another's person or property (or threatening to). We also don't regard defending yourself or your property as agression. Thus threatening to fire someone isn't coercion. If it was then so would be threatening to leave your wife OR EXPULSION FROM A COMMUNE.

This is a contradiction no "real" Anarchist has addressed to my satisfaction. Until they can explain this to me I will not have any respect for them intellectually. So, come on lads. I'm sure you have an answer. No wriggling away this time. Spit it out.

I'm not a ''real'' Anarchist but.

Threatening to fire someone will stop them being economically useful. But in an Anarcho-communism, if the individual is expelled from a commune then they can find some unused land to farm and still be economically useful.(btw, I do not believe this, but am basing it apon other posts)

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't rely on humans being good. It works better than a state given any particular level of "evil".

In fact, any form of capitalism relies on humans being greedy, competitive and willing to exploit their fellow man.

Now back to coercion. Coercion, to libertarians, is agressing against another's person or property (or threatening to). We also don't regard defending yourself or your property as agression.

That's what makes you NOT AN ANARCHIST. It's quite simple, you can be a laissez faire capitalist all you like, just stop calling yourself an anarchist because you patently are not. Anarchists regard the use of violence to protect illegitimate property as coercion.

Thus threatening to fire someone isn't coercion.

Because you accept the right to property and the right of an individual to control the means of production, giving them the ability to fire someone. I've pointed out before that, in a welfare system, threatening to fire someone is far less coercive than in less developed systems where being fired means starvation. If the choice is between submitting to the rule of the bosses or starving, that's coercion. If the choice is between submitting to the rule of the bosses or going on welfare, that's less coercive (though, the social position against people on welfare does add it's own coercive edge to the process).

If it was then so would be threatening to leave your wife

I agree that, in certain situations, threatening to leave your wife is coercive. In modern society where the economic power of men is far greater than that of women, there is an element of coercion involved here, there is a threat - If I leave, you'll be poor. As above, this is ameliorated by welfare, but it remains coercive. In a non-monetary communal system, this element of coercion ceases and the issue becomes purely personal. It is not coercion for one person to deny another their company as long as there are no economic implications, it's simple human relations.

OR EXPULSION FROM A COMMUNE.

This is a contradiction no "real" Anarchist has addressed to my satisfaction. Until they can explain this to me I will not have any respect for them intellectually. So, come on lads. I'm sure you have an answer. No wriggling away this time. Spit it out.

It is, quite simply, a difference of perspective. As a non-anarchist, you see individual rights, including those to exploit others as being primary. As an anarchist, the rights of all, individually and collectively, are most important, requiring a complex balancing act. Individualism will always mean that individuals exploit others, voluntary association and co-operation means that people have to work together if they want the fruits of co-operative labour. If someone refuses to co-operate, the do not deserve the fruits of co-operative labour - that would be exploitation by the individual of the co-operative. However, as no anarchist would deny an individual the right to go and work on their own, there is no coercive element. In an anarchist system, you'd have a choice - you can choose to work with us and benefit from the fruits of all our labour, or you can choose to work on your own and benefit from the fruits of your own labour. If either doesn't work out, you're free to change your mind. No harm, no foul. If you're asked to leave the commune because you don't work well with others, you can return if things don't work out on your own. You can pop in and out of the commune, you can form a mini-commune with some people of like mind. It's FREE association, no coercive element at all, simply a stand against exploitation.

Vas.

Essentially, yes. A term I made up because I bounce between Anarcho-communism to Anarcho-Capitalism on a daily basis (but always tending towards the free market).

Heh, how exactly is it different from libertarian socialism (Chomsky) or left libertarianism (Bookchin)?

Vas.

It's good to know that anarchists are just as liable to be splitters as the left!

Anarchists are part of the left, Marxists don't own it. And yes, anarchists are probably more liable to be splitters, in that the have different viewpoints and positions, but they are generally more likely to find ways to work together. As anarchists do not stand in elections, they do not need the broad party base political parties have. As a result, there tend to be more small anarchist groups than other ideologies, with federations or umbrella organisations bringing them together. Also, anarchism has far more solo travellers than most ideologies, as tactics do not necessarily require anarchists to work together as a vanguard. An alternative view is that anarchists should work in other organisations spreading anarchist ideas among those who are not (yet) anarchists, organisations like unions or community groups. This is my personal path, though I have worked with more organised anarchist groups at times on specific issues or campaigns.

Vas.

I agree that, in certain situations, threatening to leave your wife is coercive.

That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. I feel I should give you an award or something. You've really demonstrated what a ludicrous farce "anarcho"-socialism is.

That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. I feel I should give you an award or something. You've really demonstrated what a ludicrous farce "anarcho"-socialism is.

So, it's not coercive for a husband to say - "Do what I say or I'll leave you. I'll take the house and the kids and kick you out on the streets, bitch." This is exactly what happens in many countries, though the media is particularly focussed on white women who marry Muslim men. That is coercion.

Vas.

So, it's not coercive for a husband to say - "Do what I say or I'll leave you. I'll take the house and the kids and kick you out on the streets, bitch." This is exactly what happens in many countries, though the media is particularly focussed on white women who marry Muslim men. That is coercion.

I wasn't talking about "some countries" where the wife has equal rights to the property (and I'm not talking about kids here, kids aren't property of their parents). That would be coercive because he's stealing her share of the property. I mean the threat of leaving a partner (and obviously not paying their bills any more etc) is, by the same "argument" that firing someone is "coercive", an act of coercion. This is a ridiculous argument. Why do you want to limit freedom of (dis)association just because an exchange of goods/services is taking place.

Another thing you would have to regard as coercive is to change dentist, since you're clearly "threatening him with starvation" if you stop paying for his services. What a farce!

Heh, how exactly is it different from libertarian socialism (Chomsky) or left libertarianism (Bookchin)?

Vas.
Basically it is split from libertarian socialism because I do not nessasarily think that property is theft (although I agree some of it is).

But the main difference is that both these concepts have been well worked out by very intelligent people. My 'social libertarianism' is a chaotic mess by comparison with a term I made up attached on to it. Simply because using the 'A' word in modern company doesn't help at all, due to all the negative connotations of the word.

Except you're unlikely to starve in any form of anarchist society, as everyone would be provided with the essentials. Humanism is at the core of anarchism, as is an opposition to wage slavery, thus it would be completely opposed to anarchist principles to refuse someone food if they wouldn't work. Rather than trying to retype the rest of this, I'll just give the link to the anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci414, which says it rather well.

Vas.

If the FAQ is what anarchism is about then count me in, I don't feel like working so I'll be more than happy to live off what the community will provide me. But then I noticed this part:

"So, in most, if not all, anarchist communities, individuals have two options, either they can join a commune and work together as equals, or they can work as an individual or independent co-operative and exchange the product of their labour with others. If an individual joins a commune and does not carry their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them to, then that person will possibly be expelled and given enough land, tools or means of production to work alone. Of course, if a person is depressed, run down or otherwise finding it hard to join in communal responsibilities then their friends and fellow workers would do everything in their power to help and be flexible in their approach to the problem."

So I would be expelled. So what is it social coercion or humanism? If the latter I should be allowed to free load that is my natural predisposition.

Regarding my comment about splitters and the left... firstly, I'm widely regarded as left-wing and I'm no Marxist. Secondly, anarchism is NOT an exclusively left-wing ideology. Anarcho-capitalism is a valid term for an established branch of individualist anarchism. Not all anarchists believe that property is theft. Anarchy at its simplest is the absence of a ruler - this does not necessarily exclude an anarchist society from accepting individual property ownership, hence the disagreement.

So, I maintain my 'splitters' comment - just look at you lot!

Conceptualists - I really must read some of Chomsky's stuff on this. He may welll be close to my views (and far more articulate about them). Any recommendations?

I wasn't talking about "some countries" where the wife has equal rights to the property (and I'm not talking about kids here, kids aren't property of their parents). That would be coercive because he's stealing her share of the property.

Jesus H Christ, you deliberately snipped the context of my original statement and then fire back my own argument.

I mean the threat of leaving a partner (and obviously not paying their bills any more etc) is, by the same "argument" that firing someone is "coercive", an act of coercion. This is a ridiculous argument. Why do you want to limit freedom of (dis)association just because an exchange of goods/services is taking place.

When there are negative economic implications, a threat is, by definition, coercive. And it's not firing someone, per se, it's the use of the threat of firing someone to make them do what you want them to do. Firing someone is not coercive because it is an act in and of itself, rather than a threat aimed at dictating another's behaviour.

Another thing you would have to regard as coercive is to change dentist, since you're clearly "threatening him with starvation" if you stop paying for his services. What a farce!

No, threatening your dentist that you will change if he doesn't do something or another is an attempt to coerce him. He may not bow to the coercion. And, I will openly acknowledge that, in the capitalist system, the left engages in coercion. Unions, in capitalist companies, are fundamentally based on coercion, give us what we want or we'll strike. Negotiations are simply two bodies attempting to coerce each other calling the other's bluff.

Vas.

Anarcho-capitalism is a valid term for an established branch of individualist anarchism.

No it isn't. Anarchism is anti-capitalist. So-called "anarcho-capitalists" are laissez faire capitalists engaged in a linguistic trick - destroy your enemy by co-opting their name.

Vas.

No, threatening your dentist that you will change if he doesn't do something or another is an attempt to coerce him. He may not bow to the coercion. And, I will openly acknowledge that, in the capitalist system, the left engages in coercion. Unions, in capitalist companies, are fundamentally based on coercion, give us what we want or we'll strike. Negotiations are simply two bodies attempting to coerce each other calling the other's bluff.

Like check your teeth?

Conceptualists - I really must read some of Chomsky's stuff on this. He may welll be close to my views (and far more articulate about them). Any recommendations?
I'm not sure if I am the best to ask. But Manufacturing Consent and Understanding Power could be good places to start. Also I recommend "Introdicing Chomsky"

Thanks, Con.

Dischordia, I agree with some of the points you make but your understanding of anarchy at its fundamental level is woeful. Individualist anarchism has been around for centuries. I accept that this is largely an issue of semantics but nonetheless I maintain that your definition of anarchism is too restrictive.

Thanks, Con.

Dischordia, I agree with some of the points you make but your understanding of anarchy at its fundamental level is woeful. Individualist anarchism has been around for centuries. I accept that this is largely an issue of semantics but nonetheless I maintain that your definition of anarchism is too restrictive.

Hold on there, individualist anarchism (from Godwin through Stirner and Tucker and others) is NOT the same as anarcho-capitalism, individualist anarchists were universally anti-capitalist. Don't be so arrogant as to assume I don't know what I'm talking about, but I've got to go to work, so I'll provide you a link that puts my point:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html

Vas.

If you want Noam Chomsky's views, you can also buy a spoken word CD instead of reading (sometimes that's more convenient) or a Jello Biafra *plug* spoken word album. The two are similar, though I admit that Noam is probably more impressive as he has the better education.

If you want Noam Chomsky's views, you can also buy a spoken word CD instead of reading (sometimes that's more convenient) or a Jello Biafra *plug* spoken word album. The two are similar, though I admit that Noam is probably more impressive as he has the better education.

Biafra's funnier, though.

Vas.

Hold on there, individualist anarchism (from Godwin through Stirner and Tucker and others) is NOT the same as anarcho-capitalism, individualist anarchists were universally anti-capitalist. Don't be so arrogant as to assume I don't know what I'm talking about, but I've got to go to work, so I'll provide you a link that puts my point:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html

Vas.
Apologies for the tone of my previous comment. Interesting stuff on that link. I'll keep reading up.

Best wishes.

Hold on there, individualist anarchism (from Godwin through Stirner and Tucker and others) is NOT the same as anarcho-capitalism, individualist anarchists were universally anti-capitalist. Don't be so arrogant as to assume I don't know what I'm talking about, but I've got to go to work, so I'll provide you a link that puts my point:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html

Lysander Spooner had more in common with (a) Murray Rothbard or (b) Mikhail Bakunin?

There were anti-state free market proponents contemporary with the Ansoc ltd "big guns". Herbert Spencer, Henry David Thoreau and Gustav de Molinari were all 19th century as were Proudhon, Bakunin and Spooner, Tucker. Together they represent a continuum of property theories ranging from communal to "sticky" property.

Quoth Spooner: " Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law at a very early age. Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary control or domination over another; that one child ***must not, either by force, deceit, or stealth, obtain possession of anything that belongs to another;*** that if one child commits any of these wrongs against another, it is not only ****the right of the injured child to resist, and, if need be, punish the wrongdoer, and compel him to make reparation****, but that it is also the right, and the moral duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs. These are fundamental principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man with man. Yet children learn them earlier than they learn that three and three are six, or five and five ten. Their childish plays, even, could not be carried on without a constant regard to them; and it is equally impossible for persons of any age to live together in peace on any other conditions. "

How does this compare with Bakunin? How does it compare with Rothbard?

Lysander Spooner had more in common with (a) Murray Rothbard or (b) Mikhail Bakunin?

No-one will deny that there are two often contradictory trends in anarchism - the politicals (communist/collectivist/syndicalist) and the individualist. However, the basic point is that both were a) opposed to the state to a greater or lesser degree, and b) opposed to capitalism and priviledge.

How does this compare with Bakunin? How does it compare with Rothbard?

Let's look at a similar connondrum - Presbyterianism - an anti-authoritarian and progressive religious group. How does this compare with the Catholic Church? How does it compare with the Humanist Association?

I think you'll find that it has more in common with the latter. So, does that mean that the Humanism is Christian because it's closer to Presbyterianism than Presbyterianism is to Catholicism?

Rothbard has taken elements of Individualist anarchism (more Tucker than Spooner, actually), but has removed the most important part - opposition to Christianity; much like Humanism has taken elements of non-conformist Christianity, but has removed the most important part - belief in God.

Vas.

No-one will deny that there are two often contradictory trends in anarchism - the politicals (communist/collectivist/syndicalist) and the individualist. However, the basic point is that both were a) opposed to the state to a greater or lesser degree, and b) opposed to capitalism and priviledge.

So? a) Ancaps and other individual anarchists oppose the state, b) both oppose communism and priviledge.

Rothbard has taken elements of Individualist anarchism (more Tucker than Spooner, actually), but has removed the most important part - opposition to Christianity; much like Humanism has taken elements of non-conformist Christianity, but has removed the most important part - belief in God.

I always felt the most important part of anarchism was opposing the state. In fact, I'd take that as the defining quality.

I always felt the most important part of anarchism was opposing the state. In fact, I'd take that as the defining quality.

Unfortunately for you, the history of anarchism, political and individualist, disagrees. The important part of anarchism is opposing hierarchy, whether the state or in business. No leaders, not simply no government.

Vas.

So? a) Ancaps and other individual anarchists oppose the state, b) both oppose communism and priviledge.

So Humanism is Christian, then?

D.

Unfortunately for you, the history of anarchism, political and individualist, disagrees. The important part of anarchism is opposing hierarchy, whether the state or in business. No leaders, not simply no government.
But voluntarily doing what someone tells you is not hierarchy. Leadership where people voluntarily follow is good.

But voluntarily doing what someone tells you is not hierarchy. Leadership where people voluntarily follow is good.

Define voluntarily.

Vas.

Define voluntarily.

Uncoerced. And let's not start that again!

Actually let's

When there are negative economic implications, a threat is, by definition, coercive. And it's not firing someone, per se, it's the use of the threat of firing someone to make them do what you want them to do. Firing someone is not coercive because it is an act in and of itself, rather than a threat aimed at dictating another's behaviour.

So, threatening to expel someone from a commune is coercive, by your definition?

Actually let's

So, threatening to expel someone from a commune is coercive, by your definition?

I'm not Dischordia, but I think that that particular definition that he used is a poor one, not because he's wrong, but that it was simply a bad choice of words. "Negative economic consequences" is vague, it would take more than that. I think what he meant is "life-threatening consquences". I could explain how threatening to fire someone can be life-threatening, but not threatening to expel someone if you'd like, but I think we've been through that already.

So, threatening to expel someone from a commune is coercive, by your definition?

You can survive easily outside the commune. It requires a lot of work, but you can find land or resources and make products to sell. In capitalism, all property is already owned and thus you can't.

You can survive easily outside the commune. It requires a lot of work, but you can find land or resources and make products to sell. In capitalism, all property is already owned and thus you can't.

HUH?
how do people start businesses every day in the US? even poor people start businesses. property changes hands every day
id much rather take my chances after being fired than try to scratch out a new living on unproductive land

unless you are going to kill off 90% of all humanity before bringing in anarchy there will be no land to move to. everything will already be being done in a fully functioning economy. you would not find good unused land or untapped resources to start your new endeavor from. how could a single person compete with the collectives?

People start businesses every day in the U.S. with money, or they get loans. A recently fired person generally has no money, and has difficulty getting a loan, if it's possible.
The people in the communes only take what they're using. After all, they can only work so much land.

HUH?
how do people start businesses every day in the US? even poor people start businesses. property changes hands every day

Funny how unemployment remains then, if it is so easy for people to start successful businesses.

i didnt say it was easy
just like you didnt say it would be easy to make a living outside the collective

I'm not Dischordia, but I think that that particular definition that he used is a poor one, not because he's wrong, but that it was simply a bad choice of words. "Negative economic consequences" is vague, it would take more than that. I think what he meant is "life-threatening consquences". I could explain how threatening to fire someone can be life-threatening, but not threatening to expel someone if you'd like, but I think we've been through that already.

Coercion is the use of a threat to makes someone do something they don't want to do. Union strikes are coercive, just as threatening to sack someone if they want to unionise is coercive. Negative economic consequences are enough depending on the circumstances. There are, obviously, levels of coercion, threatening the contents of your wallet is less powerful than threatening your life, and, of course, justifiable coercion - the threat of being sacked in the case of sexual harassment, for example. However, it is still coercive to threaten someone's economic position to make them do what you want them to. Blackmail is coercive, yes?

Vas.

Coercion is the use of a threat to makes someone do something they don't want to do. Union strikes are coercive, just as threatening to sack someone if they want to unionise is coercive. Negative economic consequences are enough depending on the circumstances. There are, obviously, levels of coercion, threatening the contents of your wallet is less powerful than threatening your life, and, of course, justifiable coercion - the threat of being sacked in the case of sexual harassment, for example. However, it is still coercive to threaten someone's economic position to make them do what you want them to. Blackmail is coercive, yes?

So then threatening to expel someone from a commune is just as "coercive" as threatening to fire them. Can you not see this glaring contradiction?

Blackmail is not coercive. It's a simple trade, silence for cash. If I catch you cheating on your wife I'm within my rights to tell everyone. It's better for BOTH of us if you pay me to keep quiet. If you'd rather not pay and take the consequences nobody forces you to. It isn't particularly moral but I wouldn't call it coercive.

I'm not Dischordia, but I think that that particular definition that he used is a poor one, not because he's wrong, but that it was simply a bad choice of words. "Negative economic consequences" is vague, it would take more than that. I think what he meant is "life-threatening consquences". I could explain how threatening to fire someone can be life-threatening, but not threatening to expel someone if you'd like, but I think we've been through that already.
Beating you up isn't life threatening but it is coercive. Not throwing a drowning man a lifejacket is life threatening but not coercive.

You can survive easily outside the commune. It requires a lot of work, but you can find land or resources and make products to sell. In capitalism, all property is already owned and thus you can't.
As if the communes wouldn't have claimed all the land!

Land is not necessarily all owned in capitalism. There's no contradiction between capitalism and unowned land. The moon is unowned, for instance. All land happens to be owned in real life and is as likely to be all claimed in your anarcho-piratism as in libertarianism.

Not necessarily, peer pressure can simply be by influence, rather than overt threat (which is necessary for coercion). You can be a good Christian because you believe in the word of Jesus, or you can be a good Christian because you're afraid of going to hell. Both are forms of peer pressure, but only the latter is coercive.

Vas.

Because im not gonna bother and read the rest, Coercion is "the act or practice of coercing"; and Coerce is "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel."

As if the communes wouldn't have claimed all the land!

Land is not necessarily all owned in capitalism. There's no contradiction between capitalism and unowned land. The moon is unowned, for instance. All land happens to be owned in real life and is as likely to be all claimed in your anarcho-piratism as in libertarianism.

Yup, however, the fundamental difference is that, in communism, it's in common ownership, in libertarianism it's in private ownership. Access to and membership of the communes is open and voluntary, that is not the case in private ownership. Quite simply, if I wanted to work, but not join the commune completely, I could: a. make a proposal with the commune about the use of unused land "claimed" by the commune, which they would accept on the conditions that the land was truly unused (building a house on grazing land would depend on how much other grazing land there was, for example), b. co-operate with members of the commune on a project, the product of which would be fairly divided between the commune and myself, c. find a piece of unclaimed, unused land, which would be plentiful - the end of private property would end state-held land and massive estates and work it myself, possibly even creating a new commune.

And the reclaimng of the mass of state-held and private held land would not need to be "pirated", it would simply fall into disuse with the departure of people who work it. The end of wage slavery would end the ability of the state or private individuals to exploit others to maintain their monopolisation of land.

As for the moon, it is, in fact, being "claimed" by just your kind of person - http://www.asi.org/adb/03/05/lunar-property.html.

Vas.

Because im not gonna bother and read the rest, Coercion is "the act or practice of coercing"; and Coerce is "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel."

Thank you for your completely unhelpful and worthless contribution. Having personally posted the dictionary definition already, I fail to see what led you to do the same.

If you actually think that this, in some way, contradicts what I've written, I recommend you do some work on your comprehension skills. "Peer pressure" is not, necessarily, pressure at all. Dressing the same as your peers may be because you like what impression they make on others (simple influence) or because you are bullied for dressing differently (aggression). The former is not coercive, the latter is.

Vas.

Yup, however, the fundamental difference is that, in communism, it's in common ownership, in libertarianism it's in private ownership. Access to and membership of the communes is open and voluntary, that is not the case in private ownership. Quite simply, if I wanted to work, but not join the commune completely, I could: a. make a proposal with the commune about the use of unused land "claimed" by the commune, which they would accept on the conditions that the land was truly unused (building a house on grazing land would depend on how much other grazing land there was, for example), b. co-operate with members of the commune on a project, the product of which would be fairly divided between the commune and myself, c. find a piece of unclaimed, unused land, which would be plentiful - the end of private property would end state-held land and massive estates and work it myself, possibly even creating a new commune.

And the reclaimng of the mass of state-held and private held land would not need to be "pirated", it would simply fall into disuse with the departure of people who work it. The end of wage slavery would end the ability of the state or private individuals to exploit others to maintain their monopolisation of land.

As for the moon, it is, in fact, being "claimed" by just your kind of person - http://www.asi.org/adb/03/05/lunar-property.html.

Vas.
"It is very possible that property rights in space will be established. Ultimately, by going there and claiming land and improving it, we establish the right to property using de facto mechanisms that are widely recognized by common law."

Sounds fine by me. I said the moon was unowned, not unownable.

Is access to communes open and voluntary? I was under the impression (from Letila) that communes could exclude the lazy and the wicked. If I am excluded (a) and (b) are irrelevant and (c) is just untrue. No land that one could make a living from would go unclaimed by any commune for very long.

Well?

"It is very possible that property rights in space will be established. Ultimately, by going there and claiming land and improving it, we establish the right to property using de facto mechanisms that are widely recognized by common law."

Sounds fine by me. I said the moon was unowned, not unownable.

Debatable, there are those who claim to have already staked a claim. But it doesn't surprise me that you're in favour of it, which is where our disagreement lies (and what makes you not an anarchist).

Is access to communes open and voluntary? I was under the impression (from Letila) that communes could exclude the lazy and the wicked. If I am excluded (a) and (b) are irrelevant and (c) is just untrue.


Communes would, of course, be "open and voluntary" being exclusively based on free association. The question of "exclusion" is an extension of that - the freedom to associate obviously includes the freedom not to associate. A free commune implies acceptance of majority rule, to be a member of the commune would mean accepting the right of the commune to make decision you might not like (and could either accept or reject, the latter meaning you were no longer part of the commune).

No land that one could make a living from would go unclaimed by any commune for very long.

Rubbish. You're stuck in the mindset of a capitalist, a commune is not a corporation, it's not something looking to gobble up land and to produce more than it needs - it's a co-operative excercise with internal and external co-operation.

Basically, your argument here is a classic case of projection, you're criticising communes on the basis of what you know the very thing you propose would act like. A system of unrestrained capitalism would leave nothing for anyone to make a living from. Communism, based on the principle of voluntary co-operation, would automatically make sure it was possible for someone to make a living outside of the commune.

Vas.

Debatable, there are those who claim to have already staked a claim. But it doesn't surprise me that you're in favour of it, which is where our disagreement lies (and what makes you not an anarchist).

You get a little cooler every time you say that.


Communes would, of course, be "open and voluntary" being exclusively based on free association. The question of "exclusion" is an extension of that - the freedom to associate obviously includes the freedom not to associate.

I'm glad to see you're beginning to accept that idea. Now can we finally admit that exclusion from a commune is the same as exclusion from a job? And don't plead "negative economic impact" as this applies to communal exclusion too as I'm sure you realise since you keep avoiding the issue.

A free commune implies acceptance of majority rule

*Gasp* I thought "an-archy" was no rulers! Now it's majority rule. The contradictions keep on coming!


to be a member of the commune would mean accepting the right of the commune to make decision you might not like (and could either accept or reject, the latter meaning you were no longer part of the commune).

Much like having a job then.



Rubbish. You're stuck in the mindset of a capitalist, a commune is not a corporation, it's not something looking to gobble up land and to produce more than it needs

Or even that much, most likely. Why would people stop wanting more material comfort just because they live in a commune? Stop comparing capitalism with devils to communism with angels, it doesn't work like that.



- it's a co-operative excercise with internal and external co-operation.

Much like a corporation then.



Basically, your argument here is a classic case of projection, you're criticising communes on the basis of what you know the very thing you propose would act like. A system of unrestrained capitalism would leave nothing for anyone to make a living from. Communism, based on the principle of voluntary co-operation, would automatically make sure it was possible for someone to make a living outside of the commune.

Of course it wouldn't. All land would be claimed by communes (asserting property rights in capital!) and to claim anything else is just wishful self-delusion.

They're not so much coerced by others as by the need to survive, like in prehistoric times.

You'd need rules to have such "open" communes that decide matters by discussing it openly and coming to a solution that's best for the community as a whole.

This never works because of the simple fact that people are selfish assholes. You'd need coercion to maintain those rules. Otherwise there would be slavery, taking stuff from weaker communes etc.

Capitalism doesn't make humans into selfish bastards, it's that selfishness which creates capitalism.

people are selfish assholes.
They aren't really. People do spend most of their time trying to make themselves and their family happy but this is good and necessary. A world based on unlimited mutual sacrifice wouldn't be a very nice place at all. People have a limited capacity for benevolence towards the unfortunate but this is always second to providing for themselves and their family. This isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

They aren't really. People do spend most of their time trying to make themselves and their family happy but this is good and necessary. A world based on unlimited mutual sacrifice wouldn't be a very nice place at all. People have a limited capacity for benevolence towards the unfortunate but this is always second to providing for themselves and their family. This isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

Sacrifice? SACRIFICE? Christ, you have no understanding of human nature, do you? Seeing as you support getting rid of everything but bosses, then all people have to sacrifice is their bosses. And most people would do that quite gladly (many literally). Working co-operatively for an equal share of product of your work is not a sacrifice, giving most of it up to pay shareholders and greedy bosses is.

"The worker of the world has nothing to lose, but their chains, workers of the world unite. " - Karl Marx (he may have been a state socialist, but he had some good lines).

Vas.

You'd need rules to have such "open" communes that decide matters by discussing it openly and coming to a solution that's best for the community as a whole.

This never works because of the simple fact that people are selfish assholes. You'd need coercion to maintain those rules. Otherwise there would be slavery, taking stuff from weaker communes etc.

Capitalism doesn't make humans into selfish bastards, it's that selfishness which creates capitalism.

Yes, because it quite obviously grew out of such an egalitarian and utopian system. Oh, hang on, no it didn't, it grew out of monarchism.

Most people are co-operative and unselfish nearly all the time. Human relations and society depend on most people being co-operative and unselfish nearly all the time. Capitalism, however, actually stands against human relations and society by promoting competition and selfishness. And look at the results - study after study shows that people in high-paid, high-stress jobs are considerably less happy than people with low-paid jobs, lots of friends and time to spend with their families. Capitalism is protected and perpetuated by a minority that benefits and simply accepted by most of the rest (who think that there's no alternative).

Vas.

Most people are co-operative and unselfish nearly all the time. Human relations and society depend on most people being co-operative and unselfish nearly all the time. Capitalism, however, actually stands against human relations and society by promoting competition and selfishness. And look at the results - study after study shows that people in high-paid, high-stress jobs are considerably less happy than people with low-paid jobs, lots of friends and time to spend with their families. Capitalism is protected and perpetuated by a minority that benefits and simply accepted by most of the rest (who think that there's no alternative).

Most activity in capitalism is cooperative: worker-emplyer, consumer-producer, contractor-customer. Also, in communism there is competition, or will all votes in the commune by unanimous? Will all cars be the same or will different communes make different cars and *gasp* compete in some way?Wherever there is disagreements over ends or the means to be used to achieve them there will be a form of competition.

The opposition of capitalist competition and communist cooperation is a disingenious but meaningless distinction, good for propaganda but not for clarity. The only reason "competition" is stressed in capitalism is as economic jargon for explaining why the market produces quality products at low cost

Perhaps people with unfulfilled personal lives focus on their careers. Seems the likely explaination to me.

Most activity in capitalism is cooperative: worker-emplyer, consumer-producer, contractor-customer. Also, in communism there is competition, or will all votes in the commune by unanimous? Will all cars be the same or will different communes make different cars and *gasp* compete in some way?Wherever there is disagreements over ends or the means to be used to achieve them there will be a form of competition.

Just because there will be competition in a communist society based on co-operation is a very different thing to co-operation existing in a system based on competition.

The opposition of capitalist competition and communist cooperation is a disingenious but meaningless distinction, good for propaganda but not for clarity. The only reason "competition" is stressed in capitalism is as economic jargon for explaining why the market produces quality products at low cost

Capitalist competition is about producing things at the least cost for the most profit. It undermines worker's rights, the environment and seldom produces the best product. Lowest common denominator tends to be the rule. Competition in a society without profit as a motive, but meeting the needs and wants of the society, would be to produce the best and, quite often, the best option would be to stop competing and start co-operating. That's rarely an option between competing companies unless they go as far as a merger.

Perhaps people with unfulfilled personal lives focus on their careers. Seems the likely explaination to me.

No, because it tends to be a class issue, those with professional class jobs are expected to work longer hours and are less satisfied. Those with working class, blue collar, jobs tend to be more satisfied. The former tend to be defined by their work, the latter defined by what they do outside work.

The class division here (which you probably reject) is coded into language - one is a journalist, a doctor or a lawyer, while one works in a factory, construction or a shop. The professional class is defined by their job, the working class just does work.

Vas.

Maybe so, but it's better than the threat of starvation in capitalism. No political/economic system is perfect, but capitalism is truly terrible.

Really, then why is it so popular if it is "truly terrible"? How come the decay of the communist bloc was not the other way around in 1989-1991? The fact of the matter is that capitalism essentially works in real life, while most other forms of economics that would work on paper (communism, anarco-communism) do not function in the real world as they go against human nature. Capitalism is driven by the will of human beings for success (some would call it greed) and this drive to survive or prosper is in line with human nature, thus capitalism functions on a national economy. Though you hear the lassiez-faire capitalism horror stories, west virginia coal towns, chicago stockyards, etc... you also realize that the industrial heads made their money usually by working up from nothing as well (Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan). Anyway, you cannot depend on the government to manage the economy, as government is inherently inefficient and would only damage growth. Anarcho-communism seems to be along the lines of the old style peasant villages in 19th century Russia, or medieval Europe, where government power came along in the form of the army conscripting people from time to time or occasionally trying to enforce power, but overall basically leaving the village alone to act in their own affairs. The problem is, that society depends on uneducated individuals whose whole conception of the world revolves around the village, rarely leaving it, and often not having any will to leave it, thus they see the peak of existance as having a prosperous harvest, and marrying the children off.

It undermines worker's rights, the environment and seldom produces the best product. Lowest common denominator tends to be the rule. Competition in a society without profit as a motive, but meeting the needs and wants of the society, would be to produce the best and, quite often, the best option would be to stop competing and start co-operating. That's rarely an option between competing companies unless they go as far as a merger.
Please read a good economics textbook. Your wrongness pains me.

Really, then why is it so popular if it is "truly terrible"? How come the decay of the communist bloc was not the other way around in 1989-1991? The fact of the matter is that capitalism essentially works in real life, while most other forms of economics that would work on paper (communism, anarco-communism) do not function in the real world as they go against human nature. Capitalism is driven by the will of human beings for success (some would call it greed) and this drive to survive or prosper is in line with human nature, thus capitalism functions on a national economy. Though you hear the lassiez-faire capitalism horror stories, west virginia coal towns, chicago stockyards, etc... you also realize that the industrial heads made their money usually by working up from nothing as well (Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan). Anyway, you cannot depend on the government to manage the economy, as government is inherently inefficient and would only damage growth. Anarcho-communism seems to be along the lines of the old style peasant villages in 19th century Russia, or medieval Europe, where government power came along in the form of the army conscripting people from time to time or occasionally trying to enforce power, but overall basically leaving the village alone to act in their own affairs. The problem is, that society depends on uneducated individuals whose whole conception of the world revolves around the village, rarely leaving it, and often not having any will to leave it, thus they see the peak of existance as having a prosperous harvest, and marrying the children off.

I'm not going to get into the whole "communist-bloc" portion of your reply, but I will point out that Andrew Carnegie is hardly a person to be emulated.

Eh, the man gave 80% of his fortune to charity anyway...he made his money and voluntarily gave most of it away...thats not too bad.

Please read a good economics textbook. Your wrongness pains me.

I'm glad I cause you pain.

Vas.