NationStates Jolt Archive

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site? I am an anarcho communist.

more than one would expect

Welcome!
Anarcho-Communism is sweet. Kropotkin was a genius.

Communism inherently requires a government to mandate distribution of property and wealth. How the hell can you be a communist anarchist?

Awesome! I actually found a site with a lot of free Kropotkin (I hope this isn't considered spam) www.sniggle.net/anarchism.php also Goldman and Bakunin. Nice to see some other anarchists though!

There's a few.

I'm rather a fan of a utilitarian approach, with a liberal-state preference. So, I'm not in that camp.

Anarcho-capitalism is much better. foolish commie Anarchs

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site?

Lots... and lots... and more....

*waves*

Communism inherently requires a government to mandate distribution of property and wealth. How the hell can you be a communist anarchist?

Pure Communism is a stateless, classless society. Anarcho Communism entails the abolishment of currency. Instead favoring a gift economy. The community, union, block, street, town, whatever it may be decides how to govern itself, as does the individual. Private property is abolished.

Anarcho-capitalism is much better. foolish commie Anarchs

because unregulated militias with guns getting paid for "protection" is so much better than unregulated militias with guns taking your shit because there's no such thing as currency.

Actually, you're fairly fucked either way.

Pure Communism is a stateless, classless society. Anarcho Communism entails the abolishment of currency. Instead favoring a gift economy. The community, union, block, street, town, whatever it may be decides how to govern itself, as does the individual. Private property is abolished.

I know the buzzwords, but they're nonsense. A society that is both stateless and classless is impossible to maintain. It requires equality without means to enforce that equality. It's the unrealistic dream of those that believe it's possible for us to go "ok, everybody, be nice to each other starting....now" and expecting it to work.

Awesome! I actually found a site with a lot of free Kropotkin (I hope this isn't considered spam) www.sniggle.net/anarchism.php also Goldman and Bakunin.

Free Kropotkin doesn't exactly surprise me.

Pay-per-view Kropotkin, now. That would be unusual. :tongue:

Communism inherently requires a government to mandate distribution of property and wealth.

Well, any property arrangement, communism included, "inherently requires" a system of recognized social rules.

But it does not follow that communism requires a class of rulers invested with exclusive power, or a system of enforcement comparable to the one that presently exists.

How the hell can you be a communist anarchist?

Considering that most communists of any variety look toward an ultimately stateless future, I'd suggest that the problem here is not with the political position itself, but with your flawed understanding of communism, anarchism, or both.

I like to befriend anarchists and I like to watch them on TV and film.

because unregulated militias with guns getting paid for "protection" is so much better than unregulated militias with guns taking your shit because there's no such thing as currency.

Actually, you're fairly fucked either way.

you just hire the other one to protect you. Actually you buy into various insurance programs which because it is cheaper to protect then pay out entitles the bearer to protection.
Also its the only form of Anarchy that has had a stable historical government. In both Pre-Christian Ireland and Pre-Christian Iceland.

Considering that most communists of any variety look toward an ultimately stateless future, I'd suggest that the problem here is not with the political position itself, but with your flawed understanding of communism, anarchism, or both.

I'm well aware of the meaning of both terms. I posit that it's less my flawed understanding of the terms, and rather their flawed understanding of reality.

What an "anarcho communist" advocates, in the end, is, essentially, dry water. A series of realities that are mutually exclusive.

Фкпр! Шь ф Сщььгтшые!

Neo Art (quoting didn't work) I reccomend you read some Kropotkin, or possibly some Bakunin, I posted the wedsite already where you could get free essays and books by them.

It requires equality without means to enforce that equality.

If you try to establish yourself as ruler, economic or political, we defend ourselves.

It's the unrealistic dream of those that believe it's possible for us to go "ok, everybody, be nice to each other starting....now" and expecting it to work.

What nonsense. If we believed that, why object to capitalism or the state? Would we not trust the powerful to treat the powerless nicely?

Sure, anarchists (and leftists broadly) tend to think that many of the ways humans abuse and mistreat each other are bound up with broader social problems... but that is a far cry from this straw man of believing in a universal psychological miracle.

What an "anarcho communist" advocates, in the end, is, essentially, dry water. A series of realities that are mutually exclusive.

One term refers to the form of government, the other to the form of ownership. (Or neither of either) ... so to be "mutually exclusive" property would need to be incompatible with government.

Nope, it doesn't seem to be. Oh, and there is such a thing as dry water. It's called "ice."

Neo Art (quoting didn't work) I reccomend you read some Kropotkin, or possibly some Bakunin, I posted the wedsite already where you could get free essays and books by them.

Neo Art just loves to argue off the top of his head. Argue with him if you want to ... or not if you don't.

Perhaps you pressed the "multi-quote" button by mistake? It doesn't do anything until you use a quote button on some other post, then you get both quoted in one reply.

I'm well aware of the meaning of both terms.

Yet your interpretations of the terms suggest that a position routinely held by people who actually hold by the ideologies in question is an outright logical contradiction.

In the absence of really compelling evidence to the contrary, this suggests pretty clearly who is the confused one.

Neo Art just loves to argue off the top of his head. Argue with him if you want to ... or not if you don't.

Perhaps you pressed the "multi-quote" button by mistake? It doesn't do anything until you use a quote button on some other post, then you get both quoted in one reply.

Alright, it works now, thanks.

One term refers to the form of government, the other to the form of ownership. (Or neither of either) ... so to be "mutually exclusive" property would need to be incompatible with government.

"communism" does not refer, merely, to the absence of private property, but the absence of economic class, as well. Creation of a class society is inevitable without a central authority.

Oh, and there is such a thing as dry water. It's called "ice."

Incorrect. "ice" is chemical compound hydrogen oxide in its solid state. "water" is the same compound in its liquid state. For what it's worth "vapor" is the name of that compound in gaseous state.

Yet your interpretations of the terms suggest that a position routinely held by people who actually hold by the ideologies in question is an outright logical contradiction.

The fact that someone really believes something to be true, doesn't make it true. The fact that people believe anarcho communism to be a viable political theory doesn't make it so. No matter how sincere they are in their beliefs.

If wishes were ponies, and all that jazz.

"communism" does not refer, merely, to the absence of private property, but the absence of economic class, as well. Creation of a class society is inevitable without a central authority.



Incorrect. "ice" is chemical compound hydrogen oxide in its solid state. "water" is the same compound in its liquid state. For what it's worth "vapor" is the name of that compound in gaseous state.

With the absence of private property, class divisions are nearly impossible.

by the way, even if you wish to content that "vapor" and "ice" are just solid and gas forms of water, as an umbrella term, the word "dry" means, by definition "the absence of water".

Depending on what definition of "water" you use, ice can be considered water in its SOLID state. But I never said that "solid water" is a contradiction. I said "dry water" was.

Since dry literally means "the absence of water" then ice is not "dry water". That's an oxymoron. It might be "solid water", but that doesn't make it dry.

With the absence of private property, class divisions are nearly impossible.

with the absence of a central governmental authority, the existence of private property is nearly inevitable. The very fundamental concept of "private property" is just property that I can, by some force or authority, remove you from. If I fence off an area of land, and post guards with guns to shoot everyone who enters, it may not be private de jure but it's private de facto, as I have the means and methods necessary to prevent you from entering it, and thus retain its exclusive use to myself.

And when I get enough men with guns, and enough land that they protect, the difference between force and law becomes non existant.

with the absence of a central governmental authority, the existence of private property is nearly inevitable.

I would remove the "nearly".

"communism" does not refer, merely, to the absence of private property, but the absence of economic class, as well. Creation of a class society is inevitable without a central authority.

And with a central authority? Don't you then have a ruling class?

In any case, the onus is on you to show that the communism and anarchy are incompatible ... because that's what you said.

I see no reason to refute this claim, since you will then move on to "but it's not communism unless it accept x other claim of Marx." It's just a cheap trick.

Incorrect. "ice" is chemical compound hydrogen oxide in its solid state. "water" is the same compound in its liquid state. For what it's worth "vapor" is the name of that compound in gaseous state.

Liquid water. Water ice. Water vapour. All the same substance, in different phases. One can be changed to the other without adding or removing anything, simply by changing the temperature and pressure. And no, temperature and pressure are not substances.

with the absence of a central governmental authority, the existence of private property is nearly inevitable.

With the absence of a central government, there is nothing backing private property, whether it be land, workshop, or intellectual. A book called The Dispossed posed problems like that.

Liquid water. Water ice. Water vapour. All the same substance, in different phases. One can be changed to the other without adding or removing anything, simply by changing the temperature and pressure. And no, temperature and pressure are not substances.

as I said, even if we accept that definition, that only makes ice SOLID water. Not "dry water". Dry means "without water".

hence "dry ice" is DRY ICE because there's no fucking water in it, just compressed carbon dioxide.

With the absence of a central government, there is nothing backing private property, whether it be land, workshop, or intellectual. A book called The Dispossed posed problems like that.

Incorrect. There remains one thing that backs private property: naked force. If a man with a shotgun says "this is mine", only someone else with a shotgun can oppose his will.

With the absence of a central government, there is nothing backing private property.

Sure there is.

Guns.

Or people with pointy sticks

or whatever means that one can use to exert force upon a fellow man.

as I said, even if we accept that definition, that only makes ice SOLID water. Not "dry water". Dry means "without water".

hence "dry ice" is DRY ICE because there's no fucking water in it, just compressed carbon dioxide.



Well, I could believe you, but your an intellectual, and the Republican Party tells me you cant be trusted.

So, Im jut going to believe that dry ice is dry because God said so.

What cause would a person have to draw a line in the sand and claim it as his own if he must then work it and protect it night an day by himself? With the common ownership of land there is no need, and in fact it is unwise, to cling to a false sense of property. If we look ath Catalonia, during the Spanish Civil War, we can see that production on collectivised land was higher than the production of the individualists.

What cause would a person have to draw a line in the sand and claim it as his own

Greed. When you figure a way to remove that from the human condition, then your system might begin to look viable.

Until then, it's a pipe dream.

Communism inherently requires a government to mandate distribution of property and wealth. How the hell can you be a communist anarchist?
Mandated distribution of property and wealth automatically makes a system not communism. It violates the basic concept, "to each to his needs" - if there is a need to mandate, the needs are not satisfied.

Such a system can be what we call commies, but it's not communism, it's at most socialism.

Mandated distribution of property and wealth automatically makes a system not communism. It violates the basic concept, "to each to his needs" - if there is a need to mandate, the needs are not satisfied.

Such a system can be what we call commies, but it's not communism, it's at most socialism.

the system of "to each according to his needs" requires a system in place to make sure things are distributed along those lines. The belief that each will take only what he needs, of his own volition, without an authority to mandate that he take no more, is, as I said, a pipe dream.

Creation of a class society is inevitable without a central authority.

Nonsense. Class societies depend on recognized, enforceable private property rights, over things or over people. Furthermore, generally this property extends beyond that which is directly "personal", the sorts of things we might expect a person to be able to defend on his or her own. They do not spring up automatically, but instead through organized force.

It might be possible to have class society "without a central authority", but only through the free choice of whatever decentralized political structures an anarchist society decides to adopt. Not through the fiat of private individuals.

The fact that someone really believes something to be true, doesn't make it true.

Obviously not. But generally if a lot of people, some of whom are evidently not complete fools, believe something to be true, there's probably some real merit to the position... and if our understanding of the issue makes the position out to be obviously and irrefutably absurd on its face, the problem is with our understanding, not with the position itself.

This is a general rule of respect and humility. There are a few exceptions, particularly with prejudices heavily supported by social convention and tradition, but I hardly think anarchism or communism falls into that category.

with the absence of a central governmental authority, the existence of private property is nearly inevitable.

The obvious counterexample to this statement of yours is pre-agricultural foragers, who did/do not have "private property" in the sense for which communists are concerned.

The question of how to maintain such a thing in a post-industrial economy is the real challenge... but it's one about which you have to actually make an argument, not just assertions.

as I said, even if we accept that definition, that only makes ice SOLID water. Not "dry water". Dry means "without water".

hence "dry ice" is DRY ICE because there's no fucking water in it, just compressed carbon dioxide.

Nice little chemistry hijack we have going here.

Dry means "without liquid" really.

Let's look at a dictionary already:


Dry
1. free from moisture or excess moisture; not moist; not wet: a dry towel; dry air.
2. having or characterized by little or no rain: a dry climate; the dry season.
3. characterized by absence, deficiency, or failure of natural or ordinary moisture.
4. not under, in, or on water: It was good to be on dry land.
5. not now containing or yielding water or other liquid; depleted or empty of liquid: The well is dry.
etc.


So the salient point seems to be what is meant by "moisture."

moist
–adjective -er, -est.
1. moderately or slightly wet; damp.
2. (of the eyes) tearful.
3. accompanied by or connected with liquid or moisture.
4. (of the air) having high humidity.

mois·ture /ˈmɔɪstʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mois-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. condensed or diffused liquid, esp. water: moisture in the air.
2. a small quantity of liquid, esp. water; enough liquid to moisten.

So there you have it. Dry water is water which is not liquid.

I guess you'd rather talk about anarcho-communism, which doesn't interest me that much, so I'll leave it here I think.

Greed. When you figure a way to remove that from the human condition, then your system might begin to look viable.

Until then, it's a pipe dream.

Indeed. The fundamental problem with anarchism is that it counts on everyone being terribly nice all the time. As soon as just one person decides to be an asshole, then other people necessarily either give in and let the asshole take power or fight the asshole, thereby taking power themselves - and suddenly, it's not really anarchy anymore.

the system of "to each according to his needs" requires a system in place to make sure things are distributed along those lines. The belief that each will take only what he needs, of his own volition, without an authority to mandate that he take no more, is, as I said, a pipe dream.

In anarcho communism the individual dictates what he needs, no external force does it for him. Alright, say a workshop produced chairs that are now sitting in a warehouse, are you going to take 20 chairs? No, your going to take what you need. Now extend this to other supplies ect.

What cause would a person have to draw a line in the sand and claim it as his own if he must then work it and protect it night an day by himself? With the common ownership of land there is no need, and in fact it is unwise, to cling to a false sense of property. If we look ath Catalonia, during the Spanish Civil War, we can see that production on collectivised land was higher than the production of the individualists.

You're right, but for the wrong reasons.

The Catalonian collectives were made by people who were A) good farmers to begin with and B) reasonably well educated. They utilized modern farming methods, including nitrate fertilizers and weed killers.

The "traditional" farmers tended to be less well educated and hidebound, basically doing things the same way they had since the Napoleonic Wars.

Consider also the attempts to "repopulate" the agricultural areas around Madrid, mainly with city people. They had the advantages of the collectives, but didn't have the knowledge to put it to use, and most of the farms failed.

you just hire the other one to protect you. Actually you buy into various insurance programs which because it is cheaper to protect then pay out entitles the bearer to protection.
Also its the only form of Anarchy that has had a stable historical government. In both Pre-Christian Ireland and Pre-Christian Iceland.
Both warrior cultures, weren't they? Lots of little anarcho-communes raiding the shit out of each other. Fun stuff. :D

Incorrect. There remains one thing that backs private property: naked force. If a man with a shotgun says "this is mine", only someone else with a shotgun can oppose his will.

One can steal only at gunpoint?

If only "naked force" protects property ... why do you have a lock on your door?

The fundamental problem with anarchism is that it counts on everyone being terribly nice all the time.

funny, it seems to us that that is amongst the fundamental problems with the state.

Nonsense. Class societies depend on recognized, enforceable private property rights, over things or over people. Furthermore, generally this property extends beyond that which is directly "personal", the sorts of things we might expect a person to be able to defend on his or her own. They do not spring up automatically, but instead through organized force.

Organized force, exactly. What makes you so sure that force would not so organize? In fact, modern history suggests that this is exactly what would happen.

The obvious counterexample to this statement of yours is pre-agricultural foragers, who did/do not have "private property" in the sense for which communists are concerned.

And what happened to them all, I wonder?

The question of how to maintain such a thing in a post-industrial economy is the real challenge... but it's one about which you have to actually make an argument, not just assertions.

Modern history is my argument. The inevitable gathering of individuals for the purpose of exerting force upon others is the inevitable conclusion of human society. People who will place private interests above societal concerns will inevitably emerge, inevitably gather, and inevitably attempt to use force to take what they want.

At which point, there are two options. Capitulation, or counter force. At which point we end up in an arms race, the side winning being the one who is most successful at exerting force to put forth their position. And when you have large groups of people using force in order to bring about their goals, that starts to look a lot like a government authority.

There are two options, and only two options, in an anarchistic state. Either be swept away by those who will use force against you, or rally to use force against them. Either way, you've just stopped the existence of that anarchy.

With the absence of private property, class divisions are nearly impossible.
Class is a measure of social status. Property is not the only thing humans can use to measure status. As soon as individuals develop a sense of relative and unequal social status, class divisions may occur, with or without property.

One can steal only at gunpoint?

If only "naked force" protects property ... why do you have a lock on your door?

ONLY naked force? No, not at all, but naked force is the final method of stopping theft. A locked door may provide some sense of preventative measures, and in some cases it may be enough. But it's not always preventative.

funny, it seems to us that that is amongst the fundamental problems with the state.

...howso? It would seem the existence of things like, you know, laws rather strongly implies that people might not always be perfect angels without laws.

At which point, there are two options. Capitulation, or counter force. At which point we end up in an arms race, the side winning being the one who is most successful at exerting force to put forth their position. And when you have large groups of people using force in order to bring about their goals, that starts to look a lot like a government authority.

There are two options, and only two options, in an anarchistic state. Either be swept away by those who will use force against you, or rally to use force against them. Either way, you've just stopped the existence of that anarchy.

is your claim that using organized force is inherently anti-anarchist?

funny, it seems to us that that is amongst the fundamental problems with the state.

actually, the problem with the state is that it requires everyone to be constantly afraid of a superior force.

However it's a lot easier to make people afraid of men in uniforms shooting them to death or locking them in a room, then it is to make them nice, just because.

Nonsense. Class societies depend on recognized, enforceable private property rights, over things or over people. Furthermore, generally this property extends beyond that which is directly "personal", the sorts of things we might expect a person to be able to defend on his or her own. They do not spring up automatically, but instead through organized force.

It might be possible to have class society "without a central authority", but only through the free choice of whatever decentralized political structures an anarchist society decides to adopt. Not through the fiat of private individuals.

Except, of course, that every time we have had such conditions since we left the primitive hunter-gatherer existence, a class society has sprung into existence - mostly through one guy convincing a bunch of other guys to follow him, and telling everyone else: "I am now the boss. Obey or die."

At that point you have two classes - the Boss and his men, and everyone else - ENTIRELY through the fiat of private individuals.

It's the basic failure of anarchism - by doing away with the power of force for the established regime, you become vulnerable to force wielded by another.

...howso? It would seem the existence of things like, you know, laws rather strongly implies that people might not always be perfect angels without laws.

If we cannot trust men to govern themselves, how can we trust them to govern others?

So there you have it. Dry water is water which is not liquid.

Then why does my ass get wet when I sit on a block of ice?

One can steal only at gunpoint?

If only "naked force" protects property ... why do you have a lock on your door?

Is not the placing of a lock an act of force?

the system of "to each according to his needs" requires a system in place to make sure things are distributed along those lines. The belief that each will take only what he needs, of his own volition, without an authority to mandate that he take no more, is, as I said, a pipe dream.

Not at all.

All it requires is the means for instantaneous, unanimous, emotionally detached and perfectly calculated agreement on the distribution of all resources by such means that there will arise no disagreement which might need some form of hierarchical moderation.

Everybody just has to act in voluntary perpetual continuous concert without any stringent means of perserving it.

I see humans do that all day.

You're just a jewttorney who is addicted to the foulness of the law.

Indeed. The fundamental problem with anarchism is that it counts on everyone being terribly nice all the time. As soon as just one person decides to be an asshole, then other people necessarily either give in and let the asshole take power or fight the asshole, thereby taking power themselves - and suddenly, it's not really anarchy anymore.

That power, though, is directed only at the asshole. It does not need to be applied by those other people against each other.

In all seriousness, I don't think it's a practical idea for the whole world -- there are too many assholes, so this case-by-case application of power becomes an institution. Law-enforcement, essentially. But we see it working in small groups -- the group is quite happy to go back to collective power once the asshole has been expelled.

is your claim that using organized force is inherently anti-anarchist?

not exactly. It is my claim that organized force is inevitable. And when organized force exists, it is inevitable that one or two things will happen. Either:

1) an opposing organized force will rise to stop it, creating a growth of constant one upmanship, in which, in the presence of opposing forces, others rise, grow, conglomerate, align, ally, realign, oppose, and generally form into factions, each trying to exert control over there sphere of influence, both as a protective measure, and an aggressive measure. At which point, the organized forces basically start looking a LOT like governments

2) the organized force meets with no real resistance, and thus conquers, and exerts is will upon the conquered, in which point it starts to look a lot like a government

Using organized force is not inherently anti anarchistic, however the inevitable conclusion of that organization is.

...howso? It would seem the existence of things like, you know, laws rather strongly implies that people might not always be perfect angels without laws.

assuming people are not so nice, in what way does it make any sense at all to let some of those not so nice people have vast amounts of power over you?

Not at all.

All it requires is the means for instantaneous, unanimous, emotionally detached and perfectly calculated agreement on the distribution of all resources by such means that there will arise no disagreement which might need some form of hierarchical moderation.

Everybody just has to act in voluntary perpetual continuous concert without any stringent means of perserving it.

Oh. Right. Of course. What was I thinking?

That power, though, is directed only at the asshole. It does not need to be applied by those other people against each other.

In all seriousness, I don't think it's a practical idea for the whole world -- there are too many assholes, so this case-by-case application of power becomes an institution. Law-enforcement, essentially. But we see it working in small groups -- the group is quite happy to go back to collective power once the asshole has been expelled.

In small groups, anarchism has some value. But once you get past the point where everybody knows everybody (1000-2000 people) breakdown becomes inevitable.

Is not the placing of a lock an act of force?

No. It's a preventative against force. It makes the use of force (eg holding up the resident) more difficult.

I suppose you mean that by trying to deny someone else access to the inside of 'your' house, you are removing something from them which they would otherwise have. But I don't see the force involved.

assuming people are not so nice, in what way does it make any sense at all to let some of those not so nice people have vastly amounts of power over you?

It makes very little sense what so ever. It requires a blind hope that those not so nice people will not decide to do horribly unnice things to you.

But at very least, some system that exists in some degree to put at least a little fear in them should they try is better than no system at all, in which nothing stops them at all.

And that's the point. All human society exists to prevent bad people from doing bad things to you. That's the point of society. That's why it exists, to prevent the life that is "nasty poor brutish and short". Government is a horrible institution, one that requires us to pray that those above us will not decide to hurt us. It's the worst situation there is, except for the one where there's nothing stopping someone from hurting us at all.

If we cannot trust men to govern themselves, how can we trust them to govern others?
We cannot.

That's why ancient history is full of tyrannies and modern history is full of tyrannies, revolutions, and experiments in legal checks upon power.

No. It's a preventative against force. It makes the use of force (eg holding up the resident) more difficult.

The locked door provides a force to the one trying to walk through the doorway, does it not?

Anarchy is great if you love prepetual gang warfare.

No. It's a preventative against force. It makes the use of force (eg holding up the resident) more difficult.

I suppose you mean that by trying to deny someone else access to the inside of 'your' house, you are removing something from them which they would otherwise have. But I don't see the force involved.

I know some libertarians who would disagree with you...but as it happens, I actually don't. However, once people start locking things away, the difference between "what I have under lock and key" and "personal property" becomes rather moot.

That power, though, is directed only at the asshole. It does not need to be applied by those other people against each other.

Until the asshole gathers other assholes together so that they can beat down the force opposing them and continue being assholes to each other.

At which point, the force opposing them needs to get even BIGGER. But then that bigger force starts to scare other people, who start to see them as a bunch of assholes themselves, so now THEY begin to gather to stop the assholes stopping the assholes, and...well...

In all seriousness, I don't think it's a practical idea for the whole world -- there are too many assholes, so this case-by-case application of power becomes an institution. Law-enforcement, essentially. But we see it working in small groups -- the group is quite happy to go back to collective power once the asshole has been expelled.

Oh, certainly. I don't dispute that one can get together, say, five people and have them all be perfectly willing to be nice to each other all the time, just because they want to. The possibility that one can get together thousands or millions of people and pull that off, though, is pretty much nil.

the system of "to each according to his needs" requires a system in place to make sure things are distributed along those lines.
This is called socialism. "To each a fair share".


The belief that each will take only what he needs, of his own volition, without an authority to mandate that he take no more, is, as I said, a pipe dream.
Actually, I do it in regards to software. I only take what I need, of my own volition, without any authority to mandate that I take no more.

1) an opposing organized force will rise to stop it, creating a growth of constant one upmanship, in which, in the presence of opposing forces, others rise, grow, conglomerate, align, ally, realign, oppose, and generally form into factions, each trying to exert control over there sphere of influence, both as a protective measure, and an aggressive measure. At which point, the organized forces basically start looking a LOT like governments

so then the claim is that force organized more hierarchically necessarily beats force organized less hierarchically? because if organized force isn't inherently anti-anarchist, it follows that it is at least possible to have an anarchist society capable of defending itself while remaining anarchist.

I know some libertarians who would disagree with you...but as it happens, I actually don't. However, once people start locking things away, the difference between "what I have under lock and key" and "personal property" becomes rather moot.

it becomes non existent. Personal property exists, as a concept, only to include that which is mind for which exists some method to prevent you from taking it.

From a practical standpoint, if you can be stopped from taking it from me, it's mine. If you can't, it's not. That's why we FORMED governments in the first place, to have a central authority to stop people from breaking into my house and taking my stuff, and punish those who try, so I can sleep at night, and not remain ever vigilant of people who want to break into my house and take my stuff.

It's the worst situation there is, except for the one where there's nothing stopping someone from hurting us at all.

well, good thing anarchism doesn't propose anything like that then, eh?

so then the claim is that force organized more hierarchically necessarily beats force organized less hierarchically? because if organized force isn't inherently anti-anarchist, it follows that it is at least possible to have an anarchist society capable of defending itself while remaining anarchist.

In theory you can have an organized force that's not heirarchical. A sort of "gentleman's militia" that functions like an ant hive, responding to threats but remaining internally level. But pressures from the outside mirror pressures from the inside, and if this organized but not heirarchical force grows to the point sufficient to defend itself, it grows to the point where internal pressures start organizing itself into mini heirarchies within itself.

well, good thing anarchism doesn't propose anything like that then, eh?

What it proposes is, inherently, the same. A lose confederation of peoples all remaining at an equal level. It's a nice "protect the herd" mentality, but I fear people don't work that way in any numbers large neough for such a society to be self protecting.

Once it gets big enough to be self sustaining, it's too big to remain anarchical.

In small groups, anarchism has some value. But once you get past the point where everybody knows everybody (1000-2000 people) breakdown becomes inevitable.
That number might work for an agricultural commune with steady surplus food production. According to several articles on hunter-gatherer societies, which I've read randomly over the years, the breakdown point is at 250 individuals. Apparently, it is very difficult for a hunter-gatherer group to provide enough food to support more than 250 people in a territory that can be maintained and protected by a single group. So, when they go above 250, H-G groups splinter into smaller groups. H-G groups are perhaps the most perfectly anarcho-communist systems, but they can only function at such small, localized levels. Oh, and the anarchist utopias only exist within the H-G group's territory. Around the edges, where they overlap with the territories of competing groups, the problems of competition for control over scarce resources come into play, with all the requirements for a property-based mindset that may entail

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site? I am an anarcho communist.

LOL! :D
Are there any racist at Stormfront? Any conservatives at Free Republic? :p

more than one would expect

Indeed.

On the subject of stateless societies, there have been historical examples of societies that are so nearly stateless and classless as to be, for purposes of this discussion, to functionally be so. However, they've all been anomalous, small, and, for the most part, short lived.

The longest extant mostly stateless and classless society would be the San people of the Kalahari (correct me if I'm wrong there Free, since you were the one who convinced me). Even San society isn't purely egalitarian. And the variance, interestingly, may be due to variance in food supply.
http://books.google.com/books?id=n1tqi8Tux-kC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=san+egalitarian&source=web&ots=WgfzYZhfQq&sig=TmWeU0ACepcHY3drGpPOi6Zd3gs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result#PPA110,M1[/SIZE]

Actually, I do it in regards to software. I only take what I need, of my own volition, without any authority to mandate that I take no more.

That's nice. Now try to get a million of you all to agree to that.

Organized force, exactly. What makes you so sure that force would not so organize?

What makes you so sure that "force would not so organize" against the capitalist liberal democratic state?

Any political system can be overthrown by force. That's trivially true.

And what happened to them all, I wonder?

There are a few still left, but most of them were destroyed by external force, not internal instability.

Modern history is my argument. The inevitable gathering of individuals for the purpose of exerting force upon others is the inevitable conclusion of human society. People who will place private interests above societal concerns will inevitably emerge, inevitably gather, and inevitably attempt to use force to take what they want.

"Inevitability" is a very hard thing to prove. In any case, even granting all of these premises, they prove little about anarchism... any more than the emergence of criminal gangs who don't care for private property rights prove the inherent instability of capitalism.

I happen to think that anarchist communism offers the best prospects for meeting human needs in a way that discourages socially harmful aggression, but I don't even need to make that argument. Anarchists are for the most part not reluctant to defend equality and freedom; we are not pacifists who reject force as such. What we object to is force held in the hands of a ruling political class, force used to enforce rules of property that entrench the power of a ruling economic class.

Our problem is not with rules, but with rulers.

And when you have large groups of people using force in order to bring about their goals, that starts to look a lot like a government authority.

And that's why some anarchist theorists have argued that anarchism is not so much an objection to government as such as it is to a particular kind of exclusive government, as opposed to collective self-government in a way that is (reasonably) direct, decentralized, and "bottom-up."

But this is a semantic dispute, and irrelevant to the substantive issues.

Either way, you've just stopped the existence of that anarchy.

Anarchy indicates "no rulers"... and in defending ourselves against the attempts of others to establish themselves as rulers, we have not ended anarchy, but rather defended it.

Class is a measure of social status..

Wrong definition of "class." People advocating a classless society don't doubt that people will categorize themselves under any social system. What we object to most fundamentally is class distinctions that manifest themselves in inequalities in power... and intertwined with that, ones that result in distributions of material wealth that are grossly inequitable, that result in extreme prosperity for some coupled with misery for many.

On the subject of stateless societies, there have been historical examples of societies that are so nearly stateless and classless as to be, for purposes of this discussion, to functionally be so. However, they've all been anomalous, small, and, for the most part, short lived.

The bolded part is the most important one.

And the fatal flaw of the anarchist argument. Every anarchist has their little pocket civilization they like to pull out, their little example of the anarchist utopia accordingly working. "oh yeah, mister smart guy?" they proclaim so smugly, "what about the....whatever they are? Huh? HUH? They did it! How did they manage if it's so impossible, HUH????"

The counter answer to all of that, every single example, is the same.

Where are they now?

Dead, conquered, or assimilated.

That's nice. Now try to get a million of you all to agree to that.
Already! And much more than a million. Why would anyone possibly take software they don't need?

Why would anyone possibly take software they don't need?

why do you need software at all?

"Wait, You Guys Are ANARCHISTS?" (http://www.libr8.org/about/wait-en.html)

For those too lazy to bother with books, or the Anarchist FAQ.

Anarchy is great if you love prepetual gang warfare.
^^ This.

Oh, certainly. I don't dispute that one can get together, say, five people and have them all be perfectly willing to be nice to each other all the time, just because they want to. The possibility that one can get together thousands or millions of people and pull that off, though, is pretty much nil.
That only works if the five people are not related to each other.

In theory you can have an organized force that's not heirarchical. A sort of "gentleman's militia" that functions like an ant hive, responding to threats but remaining internally level. But pressures from the outside mirror pressures from the inside, and if this organized but not heirarchical force grows to the point sufficient to defend itself, it grows to the point where internal pressures start organizing itself into mini heirarchies within itself.
Actually, I've seen fairly mindblowing documentaries about ants that indicate that they are organized hierarchically.

why do you need software at all?
I want it. If I want it, then having it can improve my quality of life. Therefore, I need it.

I want it. If I want it, I need it.

^^ Why anarcho-communism does not work.

I want it. If I want it, then having it can improve my quality of life. Therefore, I need it.

^^ Still why it doesn't work.

well, good thing anarchism doesn't propose anything like that then, eh?

And under anarchy, people will only do what the ideology proposes, without fail.

Not because they have to.





They just will.

I want it. If I want it, then having it can improve my quality of life. Therefore, I need it.

that's....a very wrong of "need" there. A "want" is not a need. improving your quality of life is not an imperative to survival.

Thus, by your own definition, you take, not what you need, but what you want. Thus you admit, absent the authority to stop you, you simply take what you want, until you don't want anymore.

Congratulations, by using yourself as an example, you just disproved your entire premise.

assuming people are not so nice, in what way does it make any sense at all to let some of those not so nice people have vast amounts of power over you?

When its much better for there to be no restraining power on anybody, so those not so nice people I meet on the street can do whatever they can to me...

...until the perfectly just hivemind, without procedure or codified rules, avenges me.

seriously, did Vault 10 just advocate in favor of anarchy by stating that there's no system in place to stop him from taking software more than he needs, and he only takes what he needs, thus it works, then defines need as "I want it"?

SERIOUSLY?

That number might work for an agricultural commune with steady surplus food production. According to several articles on hunter-gatherer societies, which I've read randomly over the years, the breakdown point is at 250 individuals. Apparently, it is very difficult for a hunter-gatherer group to provide enough food to support more than 250 people in a territory that can be maintained and protected by a single group. So, when they go above 250, H-G groups splinter into smaller groups. H-G groups are perhaps the most perfectly anarcho-communist systems, but they can only function at such small, localized levels. Oh, and the anarchist utopias only exist within the H-G group's territory. Around the edges, where they overlap with the territories of competing groups, the problems of competition for control over scarce resources come into play, with all the requirements for a property-based mindset that may entail

You're dead on. H-G societies are inherently inefficient food producers, and require large areas to support small populations.

The number I quoted was indeed for established agricultural and minor urban (village/small town) centres.

^^ Why anarcho-communism does not work.
But it does. I only download what software I need, and don't take what I don't.
The only regulating authority is my ISP, but with my connection and unlimited traffic it rarely takes more than minutes and doesn't bear any additional cost, so it can be said there's no real authority.

Societies break, their rules fail to function, people cluster together, people forget their original goals, chaos happens, and peoples behaviors don't always follow the pure rationality that would be required in a self-governing, gift-economy society. I think any anarchic society would, inevitably, fall victim to the same sorts of cycles that affect other societies.

But it does. I only download what software I need, and don't take what I don't.

Is there any software that you want, but don't take?

Our problem is not with rules, but with rulers.



And that's why some anarchist theorists have argued that anarchism is not so much an objection to government as such as it is to a particular kind of exclusive government, as opposed to collective self-government in a way that is (reasonably) direct, decentralized, and "bottom-up."


This sounds more like "a desire for more balanced, equitable, participatory government" then like "anarchy".

Wrong definition of "class." People advocating a classless society don't doubt that people will categorize themselves under any social system. What we object to most fundamentally is class distinctions that manifest themselves in inequalities in power... and intertwined with that, ones that result in distributions of material wealth that are grossly inequitable, that result in extreme prosperity for some coupled with misery for many.
That is precisely what I am talking about. Any division of people into "better" or "lesser" or "higher" or "lower" status relative to each other, will grant social power to the higher ups over the lower downs. Distribute your material wealth as evenly as you like, and you will still see the same thing only focused on something other than material wealth.

We're primates, after all. Different from baboons, but not all that different. Not really.

Baboons don't own private property, by the way, but they sure as hell can be assholes to each other, and they sure as hell display behaviors very similar to a social class system.

that's....a very wrong of "need" there. A "want" is not a need. improving your quality of life is not an imperative to survival.
Here we have a flawed position. The only economy that provides "only needs" in your interpretation is slavery. In modern interpretations, military socialism.

All others, particularly communism and capitalism, treat wants as needs.


Thus, by your own definition, you take, not what you need, but what you want. Thus you admit, absent the authority to stop you, you simply take what you want, until you don't want anymore. I want it => I need it.

Yes. That's what I do, with software. I take what I want until I don't want anymore. And it works.

seriously, did Vault 10 just advocate in favor of anarchy by stating that there's no system in place to stop him from taking software more than he needs, and he only takes what he needs, thus it works, then defines need as "I want it"?

SERIOUSLY?

You, as usual, demonstrate limited vision.

This simply requires that no plurality of people ever want the same finite things.

Stop Jewing this conversation.

Wrong definition of "class." People advocating a classless society don't doubt that people will categorize themselves under any social system. What we object to most fundamentally is class distinctions that manifest themselves in inequalities in power... and intertwined with that, ones that result in distributions of material wealth that are grossly inequitable, that result in extreme prosperity for some coupled with misery for many.

You presume that social hierarchies will not result in power hierarchies. I think that's an unfounded proposition. Any institution, hierarchy, or or dynamic that places people into "higher" and "lower" positions, grants the higher ups power over the lower downs.

You presume you can have social imbalance without power imbalance. I think such a presumption is unfounded.

Is there any software that you want, but don't take?

No.




Not in the existence, at least; there is software I want and don't have, but it's not written [yet]. For some, I hope it will be, for some, I'm taking part in it, for some, well, not every want or need can be satisfied.

Yes. That's what I do, with software. I take what I want until I don't want anymore. And it works.

Try doing that with limited resources, against people who want it too.

But it does. I only download what software I need, and don't take what I don't.
The only regulating authority is my ISP, but with my connection and unlimited traffic it rarely takes more than minutes and doesn't bear any additional cost, so it can be said there's no real authority.

When you download software, does it become unavailable to anyone else to download? No? Then guess what? You're example is not comparable to social distribution of actually limited resources such as food, water, living space, money, etc.

Sure, it's easy to get people to avoid greed when they know that any time their needs change or expand, they'll be able to go back to the same source and get what they need whenever they happen to need it. But what about if there was a very good chance that, when you go back, someone will have emptied that source out?

No.




Not in the existence, at least; there is software I want there to be, but it's not written [yet].

Now, what do you think would happen if software, instead of being copied, could only be held by one person at one time. Instead of you and me both copying the same thing, either you can have it, or I can have it.

Now what happens if you and me both want the same one? And what happens if I happen to be stronger than you, and have a gun?

Try doing that with limited resources, against people who want it too.
Bastard, you beat me to it. :D

This sounds more like "a desire for more balanced, equitable, participatory government" then like "anarchy".

that's more or less what the term means, given a certain fuzziness about 'government'

In theory you can have an organized force that's not heirarchical. A sort of "gentleman's militia" that functions like an ant hive, responding to threats but remaining internally level. But pressures from the outside mirror pressures from the inside, and if this organized but not heirarchical force grows to the point sufficient to defend itself, it grows to the point where internal pressures start organizing itself into mini heirarchies within itself.

I might add, even the most egalitarian of military formations, the Swiss Mercenary Pike and Halberd infantry, developed definite internal and external hierarchies.

Where are they now?

Yes, anarchists are quite aware of the capacity of states to brutally destroy their competition.

But we do not stop there. We are willing to contemplate interpretations that are less absolutist than yours. For instance, the few anarchist societies that we have seen surface in a modern industrial context have indeed been destroyed by external force, but not due to circumstances neatly traceable to their system of political organization. The Spanish anarchists lost, but then, so did the Republican government as a whole. The Ukrainian anarchists were defeated too, but so were all the other political factions that weren't Bolshevik.

Furthermore, the reason we bring up examples of anarchist societies that have existed is generally to prove that anarchist societies can function internally--they are not fundamentally antagonistic to human nature in the way that is a sometimes suggested. Obviously dealing with external threats is a concern as well, but it is one that can be addressed in any number of ways--say, through an increased disinclination toward unprovoked aggression on the part of the world's powerful states (a development already in progress.)

You presume that social hierarchies will not result in power hierarchies. I think that's an unfounded proposition. Any institution, hierarchy, or or dynamic that places people into "higher" and "lower" positions, grants the higher ups power over the lower downs.

You presume you can have social imbalance without power imbalance. I think such a presumption is unfounded.

Read up on cognitive science, Neo.

There is nothing in the peer-reviewed literature that indicates that there is an intrinsic propensity among humans to gravitate habitually towards unspoken tiers that have a basis in social stratification and commeasurately extrapolate to other aspects of interaction.

Even if there were such an effect, we could just...you know, stop doing it. Everybody. Tomorrow.

Jew.

I want it => I need it.

Yes. That's what I do, with software. I take what I want until I don't want anymore. And it works.

Well, Vault 10, I need all your money. I'll just take it then, okay?

Now, what do you think would happen if software, instead of being copied, could only be held by one person at one time. Instead of you and me both copying the same thing, either you can have it, or I can have it.
Nothing, because it would be contrary to the very definition of software, thus software would not exist.


Well, Vault 10, I need all your money. I'll just take it then, okay?
Sure, as long as it's copy-able software money. I'll even give it to you.



VAULT 10'S VIRTUAL MONEYS

http://www.2bangkok.com/2bangkok/thaimediaproject/thaimoney.jpg

me...

I'm an anarcho-communist.

ana-caps are not real anarchists...

whatever :p

Yes, anarchists are quite aware of the capacity of states to brutally destroy their competition.

But we do not stop there. We are willing to contemplate interpretations that are less absolutist than yours. For instance, the few anarchist societies that we have seen surface in a modern industrial context have indeed been destroyed by external force, but not due to circumstances neatly traceable to their system of political organization. The Spanish anarchists lost, but then, so did the Republican government as a whole. The Ukrainian anarchists were defeated too, but so were all the other political factions that weren't Bolshevik.

Furthermore, the reason we bring up examples of anarchist societies that have existed is generally to prove that anarchist societies can function internally--they are not fundamentally antagonistic to human nature in the way that is a sometimes suggested. Obviously dealing with external threats is a concern as well, but it is one that can be addressed in any number of ways--say, through an increased disinclination toward unprovoked aggression on the part of the world's powerful states (a development already in progress.)

I think the problem is that for an anarchist state to exist, it must strike a precarious balance. Large enough to defend against hostile externalities, but small enough not to splinter from the weight of internalities.

I don't think such a balance is achievable.

that's more or less what the term means, given a certain fuzziness about 'government'

I looked it up, I'm honestly getting something very different. You can certainly have your own definition, but the dictionary might not be with you on this one.

Anarchy:

1 Absence of any form of political authority.
2 Political disorder and confusion.
3 Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


Again, you can certainly point to different definitions, and if you see it differently, I'll try to remember in the future your use of the term.

Hammurab, I believe the use of "Jew" as a perjorative is against the rules of this board.

Greed. When you figure a way to remove that from the human condition, then your system might begin to look viable.

Until then, it's a pipe dream.

It's doable long term, at a price, if you can keep to the places nobody wants.

And the San aren't all assimilated - yet - but that is indeed the biggest cause of the falls of these groups.

Hammurab, I believe the use of "Jew" as a perjorative is against the rules of this board.

Why do you assume my use is pejorative?

Neo Art is my Jewtornney, he bills me $450 an hour, and I chose him particularly for his Jewitude. Ask him.

God (pick one) damn you, Neo Art! Stop posting the exact same arguments I do at the same time I do! Get out of my head!!! (Where did I leave those trepanning instruments?)

It's doable long term, at a price, if you can keep to the places nobody wants.


Theoretically, though you may run into the nasty problem of keeping everyone alive. If you can grow shit on it, people tend to want it.

Even if there were such an effect, we could just...you know, stop doing it. Everybody. Tomorrow.


Not...really...

People are molded by the total of all their parts. Their genes, their upbringing, their life experiences, their environment...all of these factors influence how we think and act...heck, most of the time people are not even conscious enough of themselves to be able to recognize how they act.

And Jew? Seriously? Do you think this is, like, the thirties, or something?

God (pick one) damn you, Neo Art! Stop posting the exact same arguments I do at the same time I do! Get out of my head!!! (Where did I leave those trepanning instruments?)

but I LIKE it in here. It's pretty and has all my favorite authors! But, I will say this. I now know not to go into the room labeled "private thoughts". You know I love you Mur but..you're one fucked up lady, you know that?

Seriously, I didn't even know you could use a cactus like that.

When you download software, does it become unavailable to anyone else to download? No? Then guess what? You're example is not comparable to social distribution of actually limited resources such as food, water, living space, money, etc.
Actually, it's very comparable. Downloaded software is a limited resource, too - there's a limited capacity of Ethernet lines to ISP, his fiber optic cables, datacenters, finally the distribution servers.

It's just that we have enough of this resource for everybody, so everyone can take what he wants without creating shortage.

Why do you assume my use is pejorative?

Neo Art is my Jewtornney, he bills me $450 an hour, and I chose him particularly for his Jewitude. Ask him.

Okay, cool, not a problem then.

That number might work for an agricultural commune with steady surplus food production. According to several articles on hunter-gatherer societies, which I've read randomly over the years, the breakdown point is at 250 individuals. Apparently, it is very difficult for a hunter-gatherer group to provide enough food to support more than 250 people in a territory that can be maintained and protected by a single group. So, when they go above 250, H-G groups splinter into smaller groups. H-G groups are perhaps the most perfectly anarcho-communist systems, but they can only function at such small, localized levels. Oh, and the anarchist utopias only exist within the H-G group's territory. Around the edges, where they overlap with the territories of competing groups, the problems of competition for control over scarce resources come into play, with all the requirements for a property-based mindset that may entail

That's interesting.

I want to point out the bolded passage. Essentially, they have a working system ... and when it stops working they don't, necessarily, move into a heirarchical system. Instead, their group becomes two groups with the same system which works the way it did before. (Unless, I guess, they're trying to live off the same limited resources and come into conflict as groups.)

=================

That is precisely what I am talking about. Any division of people into "better" or "lesser" or "higher" or "lower" status relative to each other, will grant social power to the higher ups over the lower downs. Distribute your material wealth as evenly as you like, and you will still see the same thing only focused on something other than material wealth.

We're primates, after all. Different from baboons, but not all that different. Not really.

Baboons don't own private property, by the way, but they sure as hell can be assholes to each other, and they sure as hell display behaviors very similar to a social class system.

That's a good post too.

Even magically granting a culture of income equality, as long as there is a division of labour, people will form into classes which have common interests at variance with some other class.

Why do you assume my use is pejorative?

Neo Art is my Jewtornney, he bills me $450 an hour, and I chose him particularly for his Jewitude. Ask him.

I hear if you're really nice to him, he might lower that rate to $400. Wear something pretty. ;)

Any division of people into "better" or "lesser" or "higher" or "lower" status relative to each other, will grant social power to the higher ups over the lower downs.

Maybe. But any system of categorization is likely to be much more pluralistic in a society without "class" in any material sense... and thus much less oppressive.

And anarchists are concerned about social power, too, which can be and concretely has been challenged. Racism? Sexism? Homophobia? None of them are as strong as they were fifty, a hundred, two hundred years ago.

We're primates, after all.

But we also have strong tendencies toward equality (how else do you explain the numerous social movements demanding, and attaining to one degree or another, exactly that?)... and whether they stem from "nature" proper or just from our capacity for free will and rationality is immaterial in this context.

If you mean to say that we will never absolutely abolish inequity in power, you're right, of course, but so what? We will never abolish injustice as such either; that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose it where it appears, or go with social structures that do their best to minimize it.

I looked it up, I'm honestly getting something very different. You can certainly have your own definition, but the dictionary might not be with you on this one.

yeah, see, we're talking about the political theory, anarchism. and in any case, dictionaries aren't the best place to check for anything beyond the most superficial look at that sort of thing.

S's earlier link was good, but if you want to get the full, overwhelming experience, the faq is a fucking beast
http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/

It's doable long term, at a price, if you can keep to the places nobody wants.

And the San aren't all assimilated - yet - but that is indeed the biggest cause of the falls of these groups.
The places nobody wants are generally the places where there's nothing to eat. This is the primary cause of conflicts between H-G groups -- being forced to move to follow their food supply and coming into competition with other groups -- and for the assimilation of H-G groups into agricultural/urbanized groups -- and for the existence of agriculture and urbanization in the first place.

Not...really...

People are molded by the total of all their parts. Their genes, their upbringing, their life experiences, their environment...all of these factors influence how we think and act...heck, most of the time people are not even conscious enough of themselves to be able to recognize how they act.

And Jew? Seriously? Do you think this is, like, the thirties, or something?

Oh, sure we could.

What's to overcome, uncounted generations of naturally selected proclivity for hierarchical dynamic and millions of years of neurological conditioning for social competition?

Stop being so negative.

And Neo Art is a Jew. He admits to it, openly.

Seriously, one time he made me cut the sciatic nerve out of rabbit while we were camping.

That's interesting.

I want to point out the bolded passage. Essentially, they have a working system ... and when it stops working they don't, necessarily, move into a heirarchical system. Instead, their group becomes two groups with the same system which works the way it did before. (Unless, I guess, they're trying to live off the same limited resources and come into conflict as groups)


Note the bold. The theory that everyone, voluntarily, will take only what they need and not more, works in a system where sparsity doesn't exist. Sure, when resources are not limited, anarchy works fine. But in environments where they ARE limited (read: the world) problems become apparent.

yeah, see, we're talking about the political theory, anarchism. and in any case, dictionaries aren't the best place to check for anything beyond the most superficial look at that sort of thing.

S's earlier link was good, but if you want to get the full, overwhelming experience, the faq is a fucking beast
http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/

If you want the movement to speak to more people, a name that is less attached to the common usage might be helpful.

Unless marketing principles are anathemic to the cause.

The places nobody wants are generally the places where there's nothing to eat. This is the primary cause of conflicts between H-G groups -- being forced to move to follow their food supply and coming into competition with other groups -- and for the assimilation of H-G groups into agricultural/urbanized groups -- and for the existence of agriculture and urbanization in the first place.

.....sorry (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14057555&postcount=120)

but I LIKE it in here. It's pretty and has all my favorite authors! But, I will say this. I now know not to go into the room labeled "private thoughts". You know I love you Mur but..you're one fucked up lady, you know that?

Seriously, I didn't even know you could use a cactus like that.
Blame it on my restrictive upbringing. ;)

What's to overcome, uncounted generations of naturally selected proclivity for hierarchical dynamic

The funny thing is, the societies based most purely on our "naturally selected proclivit" also seem to be the [I]most egalitarian.

Blame it on my restrictive upbringing. ;)

the girls with the conservative upbringing are always the kinkiest.

Actually, it's very comparable. Downloaded software is a limited resource, too - there's a limited capacity of Ethernet lines to ISP, his fiber optic cables, datacenters, finally the distribution servers.

Huh? The whole example was cockeyed. Taking the software does not deny someone else the exact same software. Introducing other factors like the limited capacity of the internet (which are billed regardless of whether he 'steals' software or uses that capacity to get legally-free software) really misses the point.

It's just that we have enough of this resource for everybody, so everyone can take what he wants without creating shortage.

No, software is a limited resource. There will exist software next year which does not exist now. That's a limitation.

You don't "take" software. You make a copy of it, and the copy is the same thing, precisely, as the original. It's very different from taking a fish from the river.

Maybe. But any system of categorization is likely to be much more pluralistic in a society without "class" in any material sense... and thus much less oppressive.

And anarchists are concerned about social power, too, which can be and concretely has been challenged. Racism? Sexism? Homophobia? None of them are as strong as they were fifty, a hundred, two hundred years ago.



But we also have strong tendencies toward equality (how else do you explain the numerous social movements demanding, and attaining to one degree or another, exactly that?)... and whether they stem from "nature" proper or just from our capacity for free will and rationality is immaterial in this context.

If you mean to say that we will never absolutely abolish inequity in power, you're right, of course, but so what? We will never abolish injustice as such either; that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose it where it appears, or go with social structures that do their best to minimize it.

Our "tendency towards equality" is a purely recent phenomenon. Prior to the 16th century the idea of treating everyone the same would have been deemed laughable. The closest anyone came before that was the Roman concept of "equality before the law" - and even that only applied to free males. For the thousands of years prior, hierarchies were assumed.

Actually, it's very comparable. Downloaded software is a limited resource, too - there's a limited capacity of Ethernet lines to ISP, his fiber optic cables, datacenters, finally the distribution servers.

It's just that we have enough of this resource for everybody, so everyone can take what he wants without creating shortage.
Then it's NOT comparable.

(This is #1 of the countdown, V10.)

the girls with the conservative upbringing are always the kinkiest.

This former Catholic schoolgirl has no idea what you are talking about.

Note the bold. The theory that everyone, voluntarily, will take only what they need and not more, works in a system where sparsity [scarcity?] doesn't exist. Sure, when resources are not limited, anarchy works fine. But in environments where they ARE limited (read: the world) problems become apparent.

Are you bearing in mind the post I replied to, or just speaking generally?

That's interesting.

I want to point out the bolded passage. Essentially, they have a working system ... and when it stops working they don't, necessarily, move into a heirarchical system. Instead, their group becomes two groups with the same system which works the way it did before. (Unless, I guess, they're trying to live off the same limited resources and come into conflict as groups.)
Asked and answered.

=================



That's a good post too.

Even magically granting a culture of income equality, as long as there is a division of labour, people will form into classes which have common interests at variance with some other class.
I don't think it even requires a division of labor. Make the division be a purely aesthetic one, if you like, and I think you'd see the same class structures eventually emerge. Anything that makes one kind of person more desirable/admirable/wantable than another is going to give those people a greater ability to get away with lording it over others within the group.

This former Catholic schoolgirl has no idea what you are talking about.

Former Catholic? Or former schoolgirl?

Hrmph, both of course. I'm just not feeling very helpful today ...

Stop Jewing this conversation.

The fact that some regular posters recognize your style as satirical doesn't mean the casual reader gets it. Knock off the passive ethnic flaming, Hammurab. I don't really care whether you mean it or not.

Our "tendency towards equality" is a purely recent phenomenon.

Even granting this (very questionable) premise... so what?

The closest anyone came before that was the Roman concept of "equality before the law" - and even that only applied to free males.[/I]

And plenty of egalitarians these days aren't willing to follow their ideas to their full conclusions when it comes to non-humans. So? If equality were automatic, we wouldn't need to have people advocating anarchism--we'd have it already.

I've never said that human beings are necessarily, overwhelmingly predisposed to equality. But such an ideal quite obviously has appeal to us--appeal that can be counteracted by other forces, but appeal nonetheless.

Our "tendency towards equality" is a purely recent phenomenon. Prior to the 16th century the idea of treating everyone the same would have been deemed laughable. The closest anyone came before that was the Roman concept of "equality before the law" - and even that only applied to free males. For the thousands of years prior, hierarchies were assumed.

except, of course, if you expand your search to all of the societies in the world, at which point you would find that the tendency towards equality has existed continuously from the beginning of our species, and at least a couple before. the san have already been mentioned, and there are others, around the world. always have been, and there were a lot more of them until very recently.

but in any case, it certainly exists - it is possible for us to feel it and act on it. and that is really what is needed.

Hell, we could go all the way to the idea of reciprocal obligation: treat others the way you want to be treated.

That's a fundamentally egalitarian idea, and it has a pretty impressive cross-cultural presence.

Huh? The whole example was cockeyed. Taking the software does not deny someone else the exact same software. Introducing other factors like the limited capacity of the internet (which are billed regardless of whether he 'steals' software or uses that capacity to get legally-free software) really misses the point.
Well, it shifts the point, I'd rather say. The point about "not the exact same" is the same with industry, which can change the output. We discover that there is another limitation. (Actually, if everyone started downloading at once, it would come into play)

And yes, I'm talking about legally free software, let's restrict the discussion to it.


No, software is a limited resource. There will exist software next year which does not exist now. That's a limitation.
Qualitative, not quantitative. Quantitatively, each piece of software is available in quantities limited only by the distribution network.

This is still a limitation, but the limit is way above the demand.

...Today. I still remember times when it wasn't, and you had to dial a BBS, have your daily limit of time and downloads on it, increase it by posting, winning in games or making friends with the SysOp.


You don't "take" software. You make a copy of it, and the copy is the same thing, precisely, as the original. It's very different from taking a fish from the river.
Only quantitatively. Fish, too, make copies of themselves all the time.
And if there are just a few fishermen with fishing rods on a large river, they never take enough of it to matter even a bit, so for them, fish is no different from Internet capacity for us.

Even granting this (very questionable) premise... so what?



And plenty of egalitarians these days aren't willing to follow their ideas to their full conclusions when it comes to non-humans. So? If equality were automatic, we wouldn't need to have people advocating anarchism--we'd have it already.

I've never said that human beings are necessarily, overwhelmingly predisposed to equality. But such an ideal quite obviously has appeal to us--appeal that can be counteracted by other forces, but appeal nonetheless.

Merely pointing out that a drive towards equality is by no means inherent in the human condition, but only a current cause celebre. Make no mistake, I like equality and freedom as much as the next man - possibly moreso, since I've been to and seen what happens in places that make no pretence regarding such. But I don't mistake it as "natural" or 'inevitable".

Maybe. But any system of categorization is likely to be much more pluralistic in a society without "class" in any material sense... and thus much less oppressive.
Oho, you think so? Based on what?

And anarchists are concerned about social power, too, which can be and concretely has been challenged. Racism? Sexism? Homophobia? None of them are as strong as they were fifty, a hundred, two hundred years ago.
And you give anarchists credit for that? I don't.

But we also have strong tendencies toward equality (how else do you explain the numerous social movements demanding, and attaining to one degree or another, exactly that?)... and whether they stem from "nature" proper or just from our capacity for free will and rationality is immaterial in this context.
Free will and rationality are parts of being human and, therefore, are "nature" too. And I think you are ascribing a kind of notion of "equality" to all those movements that they may not actually all share in reality. Few people on this forum are more vehemently egalitarian than me, but I have no illusions about human beings, nor do I necessarily believe that some of our natural tendencies are inherently bad. I firmly believe that any normal, healthy human impulse can be turned to the good if it is understood properly and applied with the appropriate intent, including our tendency towards differentiated social organizations (which can be both hierarchical and equal, btw).

I listen to people like anarchists talk about their theories, and its all very nice, but to me it's just pie in the sky. I am only interested in what IS, and in how to make what I desire (a just and equal society) BE, in reality. Denying or supressing natural human impulses will not accomplish that -- history proves it -- so I am inclined to reject theories that would require such denial or supression.

If you mean to say that we will never absolutely abolish inequity in power, you're right, of course, but so what? We will never abolish injustice as such either; that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose it where it appears, or go with social structures that do their best to minimize it.
Who said anything about not combatting injustice or inequity? I just disagree with you on whether your chosen system works to accomplish that.

Merely pointing out that a drive towards equality is by no means inherent in the human condition, but only a current cause celebre.

"Inherent in the human condition" is not the same thing as "natural." The record of civilization proves that it is quite possible for human beings to behave in ways that are extremely unnatural, under the right pressures--one aspect of our nature is that we are susceptible to conditioning.

.....sorry (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14057555&postcount=120)
....murder.

I don't think it even requires a division of labor. Make the division be a purely aesthetic one, if you like, and I think you'd see the same class structures eventually emerge. Anything that makes one kind of person more desirable/admirable/wantable than another is going to give those people a greater ability to get away with lording it over others within the group.

When I said "form classes with common interests" I did not necessarily mean to gang together and get what they want at the expense of some other class. My point is subtler than that: one class has a different way of valuing the same thing than some other class.

For instance, if you steal my best jumper because you are cold, I'm outraged at first but aren't going to take many risks or make a lot of effort to get it back. If you steal my best computer because yours broke, I am going to go to considerable lengths to get it back.

In both cases, I want to see you punished on principle. But quite aside from that, one of those things is much closer to my heart than the other, because I interact with the world using it, and use it for creative work. If I was an office-worker, and dressing well was more important to what I do every day ... I might well see it the other way around.

Now, I see that lack of agreement on what constitutes value as being a big part of class difference ... and a source of class conflict. That's conflict quite apart from competition for scarce resources, or competition for social status.

If you want the movement to speak to more people, a name that is less attached to the common usage might be helpful.

Unless marketing principles are anathemic to the cause.

well, it's really in response to us that the current common usage came into use - specifically in response to the whole propaganda o' the deed fad. presumably, if we became a significant source of worry again, whatever we called ourselves would just gain a similar bad connotation. plus, we've already got one of the most recognizable brands out there. we ain't giving that up - shit, we fight cappies for it.

(though, in fairness, we did originally take the name in a sort of contrarian way anyways)

I think of an anarchist utopia as the horizon - the more we move toward it, the farhter it recedes. But moving toward it is a goal in itself. Plenty of non-anarchists have done things that have improved society in anarchist ways but there is always so much more to be done?

And the goal state of Communism according to Marx, is the withering away of the state. Well that's anarchism! When will the state wither away? How will it?
"The power lies in the question." (Eli Weisel - Night)

....murder.

hot.

pie in the sky

btw, we claim the invention of that term too

"Inherent in the human condition" is not the same thing as "natural." The record of civilization proves that it is quite possible for human beings to behave in ways that are extremely unnatural, under the right pressures--one aspect of our nature is that we are susceptible to conditioning.

Agreed. But it is also quite possible for such conditioning to break down - and historically, it tends to. By far the largest number of societies we know of in human history have been hierarchical - to the point where non-heirarchies are all but non-existent in comparison, What you have described as a "tendency towards equality may well be no more than a temporary aberration.

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site? I am an anarcho communist.

There are bound to be some.

Hell, we even had someone who claimed to be an anarcho-primitivist for a while.

When I said "form classes with common interests" I did not necessarily mean to gang together and get what they want at the expense of some other class. My point is subtler than that: one class has a different way of valuing the same thing than some other class.

For instance, if you steal my best jumper because you are cold, I'm outraged at first but aren't going to take many risks or make a lot of effort to get it back. If you steal my best computer because yours broke, I am going to go to considerable lengths to get it back.

In both cases, I want to see you punished on principle. But quite aside from that, one of those things is much closer to my heart than the other, because I interact with the world using it, and use it for creative work. If I was an office-worker, and dressing well was more important to what I do every day ... I might well see it the other way around.

Now, I see that lack of agreement on what constitutes value as being a big part of class difference ... and a source of class conflict. That's conflict quite apart from competition for scarce resources, or competition for social status.
I do not see competition for resources, competition for social status, and lack of agreement on what constitutes value as being separate issues.

Hell, we even had someone who claimed to be an anarcho-primitivist for a while.

several sympathizers, actually

btw, we claim the invention of that term too
OK, there ya go then. :D

By far the largest number of societies we know of in human history have been hierarchical

source?

Oho, you think so? Based on what?

Because material power is "objective" in a sense that social value systems are not. Everyone needs to eat, and everyone dies if someone shoots them in the head, but just because someone measures the worth of other human beings in terms of physical strength doesn't mean a physical weakling like me has to pay any attention. I might have my own ways of marking social hierarchies, but they will be quite different--hence pluralism.

And you give anarchists credit for that? I don't.

We have certainly played a part, but that is beside the point. The question is not, "Have anarchists been responsible for every advance of equality that has occurred so far?" The question is, "Can equality be advanced further, as anarchists advocate?"

Free will and rationality are parts of being human and, therefore, are "nature" too.

I agree, but for a number of reasons that aren't relevant here I think there's a useful distinction to be made between them and our biological inclinations.

And I think you are ascribing a kind of notion of "equality" to all those movements that they may not actually all share in reality. Few people on this forum are more vehemently egalitarian than me, but I have no illusions about human beings, nor do I necessarily believe that some of our natural tendencies are inherently bad. I firmly believe that any normal, healthy human impulse can be turned to the good if it is understood properly and applied with the appropriate intent, including our tendency towards differentiated social organizations (which can be both hierarchical and equal, btw).

Right. So why were you so ardently insisting on a natural tendency toward inequality in power?

Denying or supressing natural human impulses will not accomplish that -- history proves it -- so I am inclined to reject theories that would require such denial or supression.

"Denying or supressing natural human impulses" is something that all modern societies do, and on a massive scale. That's not necessarily a good thing--I tend to think it's pretty awful--but it's also a fact of life. Freud got a lot of things wrong, but that's one thing he got pretty solidly right.

More to the point, I don't see how anarchism in the context of a modern society is any more repressive of natural impulses than any other social system for a "modern" society.

Bed time.

I'd like to thank the OP for a decent thread, and welcome him/her to NSG, only I see he/she's no longer on. :D

Well, it shifts the point, I'd rather say. The point about "not the exact same" is the same with industry, which can change the output.

Well, I'd say DRM is a pretty clear attempt to recast copyable software as unique products which only one person can own.

...Today. I still remember times when it wasn't, and you had to dial a BBS, have your daily limit of time and downloads on it, increase it by posting, winning in games or making friends with the SysOp.

Yes. And people who took without giving were known as "leachers."

Perhaps that was a remnant of the academic culture which was one of the parents of the 'net. Or perhaps it was just a de-facto economy, required by scarcity. I wouldn't dare exclude either ...

Only quantitatively. Fish, too, make copies of themselves all the time.
And if there are just a few fishermen with fishing rods on a large river, they never take enough of it to matter even a bit, so for them, fish is no different from Internet capacity for us.

Well, OK. I think the whole question would be more easily deal with using a material example.

There was some reason for using software as the 'commodity' ...?

several sympathizers, actually

One particularly did not acquit himself very well in debate. But then, it is hard for someone who professes to be an anarcho-primitivist to do so on an online forum.

I sometimes sympathize with anarchists, but revolutionary types sometimes grate on me. If we need a revolution so bad, one of them should go out there and start one.

OK, there ya go then. :D

true story. it's from a joe hill song (the preacher and the slave), and it refers to what religion is selling.

you will eat, bye and bye,
in that glorious land above the sky;
work and pray, live on hay,
you'll get pie in the sky when you die.

Bed time.

I'd like to thank the OP for a decent thread

It has goforwardness, no?

I'd like to thank Neo Art for using the f-word in a reply to me. It's been a while ... ;)

source?

Ah, the total scope of human history..? Even 90% of "stone age" tribes have at least the basic hierarchy of "Chief" and "not Chief". (Jared Diamond, Guns Germs and Steel and The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee.) As for non-"stone age", I'd be surprised at ANY that weren't before 15th Century.

*snip*

*knows all the words to this song, and can sing it (badly)*

OK, one more:
Because material power is "objective" in a sense that social value systems are not. Everyone needs to eat, and everyone dies if someone shoots them in the head, but just because someone measures the worth of other human beings in terms of physical strength doesn't mean a physical weakling like me has to pay any attention. I might have my own ways of marking social hierarchies, but they will be quite different--hence pluralism.
So you base it on a supposition?

We have certainly played a part, but that is beside the point. The question is not, "Have anarchists been responsible for every advance of equality that has occurred so far?" The question is, "Can equality be advanced further, as anarchists advocate?"
Well, of course it can. However, not by anarchism, in my opinion. Not because anarchism is not egalitarian, but because anarchist systems never last long enough to have a lasting effect.

I agree, but for a number of reasons that aren't relevant here I think there's a useful distinction to be made between them and our biological inclinations.
Without asking you to go into those reasons, I will suggest that I am likely to disagree with you on that. Let's take that as given and move on.

Right. So why were you so ardently insisting on a natural tendency toward inequality in power?
Because it exists.

"Denying or supressing natural human impulses" is something that all modern societies do, and on a massive scale. That's not necessarily a good thing--I tend to think it's pretty awful--but it's also a fact of life. Freud got a lot of things wrong, but that's one thing he got pretty solidly right.

More to the point, I don't see how anarchism in the context of a modern society is any more repressive of natural impulses than any other social system for a "modern" society.
Read Hammurab's satirical posts for a clue as to how anarchism denies/supresses natural impulses. And it doesn't have to be more repressive than other systems. It just has to be repressive in a manner that causes it to fail the way it typically does.

A domani.

Even 90% of "stone age" tribes have at least the basic hierarchy of "Chief" and "not Chief".

but does that term mean what you think it does?

but does that term mean what you think it does?

Given that Diamond is pretty careful regarding his terminology, yeah, pretty much. He distinguishes quite carefully between a "Big Man", who is like everybody else and just makes a few decisions (non-hierarchical) and a "Chief", who is separate, wealthier and rules by fiat rather than acclaim or wealth.

It just has to be repressive in a manner that causes it to fail the way it typically does.

so anarchism is repressive in a way that causes it to be in a position to actually accomplish things at the precise historical moment when fascism and bolshevism came onto the scene? or were you thinking of some other way that it 'typically' fails?

So you base it on a supposition?

Well, in a sense, like any other judgment as to what will happen... but not a baseless one, I think.

After all, those social power structures that are strongest do tend to be intertwined pretty closely with material wealth and power. The ones that do not, like hierarchies in physical strength or athletic ability, tend for the most part to lose their power beyond middle school or so.

Not because anarchism is not egalitarian, but because anarchist systems never last long enough to have a lasting effect.

What in particular about anarchism do you think makes anarchist societies so unstable? There are any number of explanations for the historical record that do not require such a conclusion, as I've noted elsewhere in this thread.

Because it exists.

But you've just stated that natural human impulses of that sort can be sublimated in ways that are socially beneficial... so how do they pose a fundamental problem for the aim of a classless (that is, egalitarian) society?

Read Hammurab's satirical posts for a clue as to how anarchism denies/supresses natural impulses.

I have. His posts either consist of straw men (anarchists think everyone will magically decide to be nice) or the same argument you've advanced (and I've responded to) here, that there are natural tendencies to inequality.

Given that Diamond is pretty careful regarding his terminology, yeah, pretty much. He distinguishes quite carefully between a "Big Man", who is like everybody else and just makes a few decisions (non-hierarchical) and a "Chief", who is separate, wealthier and rules by fiat rather than acclaim or wealth.

ok, so if we are using it in the technical sense, justify that 90% number. and how are you dividing up the bands into societies?

"Every man for himself" is a bad strategy. As well as selfish motivations, the urge to co-operate for mutual advantage benefits the individual.

Well, I'd say DRM is a pretty clear attempt to recast copyable software as unique products which only one person can own.
Sort of. And copy protection is often an attempt to make it less soft - bind it to a disc, for instance, or to a LPT/COM/USB-key as it was done earlier, or to hardware.

But unless it's hardware-bound, it's still copyable in unlimited quantities, there's just a limit that it can only be done by the owner-licensed distributor.
[ BTW, a similar example to this is brand name clothing. A $3,000 brand-name jacket is no harder to copy than a $300 no-name, its value lies largely in the "soft", i.e. designer component, and outright brand. ]


Yes. And people who took without giving were known as "leachers."

Perhaps that was a remnant of the academic culture which was one of the parents of the 'net. Or perhaps it was just a de-facto economy, required by scarcity. I wouldn't dare exclude either ...
So see, we're getting on to something here.

BTW, I've been a SysOp myself for a while. Yeah, we had to have a de-facto economy then, with user levels, DL balance, and all that stuff.
Gradually, the supply grew much faster than demand, and this economy became unnecessary. It's still present on private torrent trackers, but in a very relaxed form. And it only applies to "big price" items, weighing gigabytes; for a few megs, it's easier to just let a server handle it all.

Server capacity is still a limited resource... Just not as much as not to give out lots of downloads for free, in a communistic manner. And it's becoming less and less limited, especially since the invention of BitTorrent that distributes server duties. So, in the world of software, there's an entire communism economy at work, parallel to the capitalist system of paid software and paid downloads. Often, the reason is that the cost of creating a copy fell far below the cost of selling it.


But it's software world. What about hardware?
The same growth, actually, has been going on with the economy since the hunter-gatherer societies. We have more and more surplus. And thus, the economy progressed, from slavery, through feudalism, to capitalism, to, today, social-capitalism.
It's not some inherent necessity, or need, or even "human nature" which forces us to have capitalism. It's just shortage of supply.
When the supply is far below demand, there's not enough disposable goods to trade monetarily. When the supply is above demand, there's no need to trade. When they're comparable, trade is the most efficient system. That's why capitalism is the system of today.

But as in the software world it is starting to be replaced or at least paralleled by another system, so in the real world it can be. We're simply not grown up enough for anarcho-communism.

On the subject of the "tendency to inequality."

People have power over each other, if only the power of persuasion.

As social animals, I think we also have the power of approval over others. Of course, we have psychological defences against the disapproval of others, but our influence over each other is far more clearly seen when it's the grudging approval of a rival.

Perhaps this is a countervailing force, which accounts for why the "tendency to inequality" does not run amok. When inequality is too great, the loser is so barely human that oppressing them further just isn't interesting any more -- their approval or disapproval no longer affects the oppressor.

And here's where capitalism comes in. Not so much in the sense "a system mediated by money" but in the corrolary within our sense of self-worth: that a person's worth is measured by what they own. By their wealth.

If I can take your house off you, sell it and buy myself a some new tackle for the yacht, without ever seeing you or even your house ... it doesn't matter to me how miserable that makes you. I don't have to measure my own increase in happiness against your own decrease in same ... I just look at my shiny new tackle and think how great I am. "I earned that."

Thus, I see an Ascetic ethos as rather essential to any working anarchy, whether it be ecologically motivated, artistically motivated (things as art, not as prizes) or even religiously motivated. A will to frugality, if you like.

There are many many steps to take (generation by generation perhaps) before the individual ethics of enough people are up to living without government. Getting rid of the bullies is just one way of seeing it; we could as well put the blame on those who are comfortable being ruled.

What is the philosophical base on which you build your idea of anarcho-communism? How do undesirable jobs get done if no one is compelled to or rewarded for doing them? How is production adjusted to meet the needs of consumers?

Anarcho-capitalism is based on the idea of property rights. natural resources are converted to products through labor. the one who labors to produce has legal title to his product. He may exchange his products for the goods or services of others, either directly or through a medium of exchange (money) and all trade is based on the concept of mutually-beneficial exchanges. If a good or service is in high demand, the price will be high and others will try to provide that good or service because the reward is high. As supply meets demand, the price falls. If a good or service is in high supply and there is little demand, those who provide that good or service are compelled to find a more desirable good or service they can provide for a better price. Thus, despite the market fluctuations, there is supposed to be a constant shift in the direction of equilibrium due to the 'invisible hand' of the market. What mechanism can anarcho-communism use to meet the same ends, or do you assume that desire for more than subsistence will fade away in some utopian future?

For the record, I am not an anarchist. I am a Constitutionalist Libertarian Minarchist Capitalist, or something along those lines if I must try to label myself. As such, I have no desire to live in a communist society. This leads to another question: What about those who do not wish to live in such a society for whatever reason? Do you think it may be necessary to kill all who disagree, that they will realize that your view is correct, or can they be left alone to act as they see fit so long as they leave the anarcho-commies alone?

Sort of. And copy protection is often an attempt to make it less soft - bind it to a disc, for instance, or to a LPT/COM/USB-key as it was done earlier, or to hardware.

But unless it's hardware-bound, it's still copyable in unlimited quantities, there's just a limit that it can only be done by the owner-licensed distributor.

Yes. Perhaps they have to sell 10,000 copies to cover the cost of developing the software. So they try to make it impossible for A, who really wants the software, to get a copy without paying.

But the manufacturer cannot distinguish A, who will pay if they have to, and B, who will use the software only if they can get it for free. Hence, free (usually feature-limited) versions ... for those B's who find they are prepared to pay after all, whose needs change, or who get richer and become A's. Or perhaps just to keep completely free alternatives out of "their" market.

Now, I'm a big fan of free software ... but I have to admit that without the prospect of being paid to write software, there would be a lot less impetus for coders to write free software. A big part of that is establishing their reputation in a very competitive market where they have very little chance of developing their own commercial project.

[ BTW, a similar example to this is brand name clothing. A $3,000 brand-name jacket is no harder to copy than a $300 no-name, its value lies largely in the "soft", i.e. designer component, and outright brand. ]

I would say it's entirely symbolic. I could buy a pirate copy which no-one else can tell is not a real Armani (at least, not without examining it minutely) but I would know it was not "worth" $3,000. I'd feel like a faker, even if no-one else could tell.

BTW, I've been a SysOp myself for a while. Yeah, we had to have a de-facto economy then, with user levels, DL balance, and all that stuff.
Gradually, the supply grew much faster than demand, and this economy became unnecessary. It's still present on private torrent trackers, but in a very relaxed form. And it only applies to "big price" items, weighing gigabytes; for a few megs, it's easier to just let a server handle it all.

Server capacity is still a limited resource... Just not as much as not to give out lots of downloads for free, in a communistic manner. And it's becoming less and less limited, especially since the invention of BitTorrent that distributes server duties. So, in the world of software, there's an entire communism economy at work, parallel to the capitalist system of paid software and paid downloads. Often, the reason is that the cost of creating a copy fell far below the cost of selling it.

Creating the software takes someone's time, though. I do wonder if the free software movement is really "free creativity" or if it's more a matter of getting in on an endlessly growing market. Get loyal users, establish a reputation, with the free stuff ... because you only need a tiny proportion of the market when who will pay when you go commercial.

Interested in your thoughts on that one.

But it's software world. What about hardware?

Bigger market, cheaper 'puters. Moore's Law has also got us to the point where a very cheap old computer is good for most things.

You could also say that voluntary industry standards (IEEE) are a sort of open-source model for hardware too. There's still competition in how to implement functions, but monopolies are impractical because it all needs to be compatible.

The same growth, actually, has been going on with the economy since the hunter-gatherer societies. We have more and more surplus. And thus, the economy progressed, from slavery, through feudalism, to capitalism, to, today, social-capitalism.
It's not some inherent necessity, or need, or even "human nature" which forces us to have capitalism. It's just shortage of supply.

In my preceding post, I mentioned the Ascetic ethos. This doesn't mean starving, it doesn't mean being cold at night or suffering preventable illness ... it can only develop on a sound (and technological) base of [u]everyone's[/i] survival needs being met unconditionally.

That would be pie-in-the-sky socialism even a century ago, but it's within sight now. Within decades, given population stability which is also within sight. But as long as the standards of "enough to get by" keep increasing among us rich of the world, and the costs of it are hidden by offshoring the pollution and the crap jobs ... no. There will always be poverty -- in absolute terms (hunger and sickness) and even more so in relative terms (perceived poverty).

I'm no Primitivist. I'm damn glad I'm not a peasant, and I'm glad I'm not a miner in the Industrial Revolution. Abundance of the things we need to live is bloody great ... but we do need to get away from that trajectory of using more and more for diminishing returns of happiness.

When the supply is far below demand, there's not enough disposable goods to trade monetarily. When the supply is above demand, there's no need to trade. When they're comparable, trade is the most efficient system.

I'm not sure that's correct. When supply is far below demand, prices are high for small quantities: a seller's market. It might be a small market, but it's very lucrative.

The rest is OK. Perhaps broadband is a bit like the Wild West, a whole lot of grazing land and so few neighbours you don't even need to build a fence.

That's why capitalism is the system of today.

And that's why I see changing the ethos of "more is better" as being essential to moving beyond capitalism. If demand increases per affluent consumer, to keep up with increasing supply (from technological improvement) then it is still necessary to trade scarce supply.

And that's quite apart from the certain growth in the number of consumers who are "affluent" in the sense that their ethics of ownership actually matter. Whose spending is largely discretionary.

But as in the software world it is starting to be replaced or at least paralleled by another system, so in the real world it can be. We're simply not grown up enough for anarcho-communism.

Heh, yes. My head almost explodes when I try to imagine the future fifty years hence. The future is so difficult to forsee ... and this is not a tragedy, but an opportunity.

What is the philosophical base on which you build your idea of anarcho-communism? How do undesirable jobs get done if no one is compelled to or rewarded for doing them?
I'm not an anarcho-communist (actually, more like between a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist), but I'll reply...

They are eliminated as much as possible. Those that left, are done by those with enough sense of responsibility that someone has to do it.

How is production adjusted to meet the needs of consumers?
Possibly, production is rather performed by the consumer, as in copying software, only here you program the nanomachines (in sci-fi - even partial communism can't be seriously talked about until 2150-2200 AD). Possibly, it's adjusted just as it is in capitalism, according to the demand.


What mechanism can anarcho-communism use to meet the same ends, or do you assume that desire for more than subsistence will fade away in some utopian future?
It's not about the desire, it's about the capability to provide more than the substinence, and more than the average needs.



What about those who do not wish to live in such a society for whatever reason?
Well, there's always the Second and the Third worlds.

But the manufacturer cannot distinguish A, who will pay if they have to, and B, who will use the software only if they can get it for free. Hence, free (usually feature-limited) versions ... for those B's who find they are prepared to pay after all, whose needs change, or who get richer and become A's. Or perhaps just to keep completely free alternatives out of "their" market.
And this is an inefficiency - wasted labor. It's one part of every economic system, efficiency. Every system has some wasted labor, the more advanced it is, the less.


I'm not sure that's correct. When supply is far below demand, prices are high for small quantities: a seller's market. It might be a small market, but it's very lucrative.
Only as long as it's just for some optional products. When supply of everything is well below demand, including necessities, capitalism fails. It happened tens, maybe hundreds of times. Capitalism is a system for managing surplus, not deficit.

A simple abstract example, if a person needs 10 Food Cans to survive, and 95% earn 11+ Cans, capitalism works. Bottom 5% die, other 95% live. But if the median income is 10 Cans, then it means 50% have to die - at the same time that the top-earners have more Cans than they can eat without getting morbidly obese. Can these rich explain "small lucrative market" to the dying ones? I'm afraid they won't understand.
Death of 50% in the end hurts everyone, even the top earners. This looks especially outrageous when compared to a socialist system which would force everyone to work and give everyone 10 Cans, thus letting everyone to live.

So there's time for capitalism, and there's time for other systems.


Creating the software takes someone's time, though. I do wonder if the free software movement is really "free creativity" or if it's more a matter of getting in on an endlessly growing market. Get loyal users, establish a reputation, with the free stuff ... because you only need a tiny proportion of the market when who will pay when you go commercial.
Interested in your thoughts on that one.
Both parts exist, and there's also a very influential third one. For instance, many Linux and other open-source software developers are paid for their work. They develop modifications required by the company that hired them. But, due to the GNU license, these modifications are also released under GNU, and are available to any other company.

Couldn't the company try to avoid it and get extra money from selling these modifications? Well, yes, with other software. But then it wouldn't have free access to others' work. In both GNU and capitalist systems, products of labor would eventually be exchanged - but the open-source distribution system eliminates the waste of labor associated with transactions, and with not using a modification due to cost. It simply ends up cheaper to overlook the equality or inequality of contributions and make it free for all.

Then, there's also another part, the fully non-commercial one. Many people there can never possibly hope to sell the product, from kids editing Wikipedia to open-source computer game development.



...And something global comes out here, too.

All economic systems are in part about making everyone work. Provide incentives. The result is labor, measured in amount and efficiency, or output.

Slave labor is the most inefficient. The incentive is not being beaten.
Slaves don't care about the results of their labor, and they have to be overseen and controlled. They have near-zero morale, so it's very poor quality labor, and they only work as much as forced to.

Feudalism involves forced labor, but with some flexibility. The incentive is staying in good regard and keeping your land without issues.
Morale gets higher. And on their land, the peasants keep what they produce, so they work more efficiently and put in more voluntary effort. Output is higher.

Capitalism has only economic labor enforcement. The incentive is money, extra things you can buy.
With abundance, you'd expect everyone to work strictly 8 hours a day or less, but... they don't. There's incentive to do better work, to do more work. People overtime to 9-10 hours a day, and they put in effort to make their work look good.

But what if an employed programmer also runs an open-source project? Then he works for the greater good 12 hours a day, plus a bit on weekends. And the incentive is the work itself.
So that open-source time is the most productive. He's not just working to look good and get a bonus, he's working to make his project better. The highest in morale and labor quality.

Now, for a moment, let's imagine extending that. So that he spends all his time on the project. So what do we get?
We get people working 10-14 hours a day, not needing to commute. And the incentive is the enjoyment from the work and its results, well, and somewhat respect for good work. And there's no needless managers, secretaries, LP, all the other useless workers, and even no need to build offices - so everyone participates in the actual production. Morale is excellent, the labor is of the highest quality, efficiency is near perfect.

So, isn't open source awesome? People work more hours, work better, and feel better at the same time. If everyone works like that, it's not doubling, perhaps not even tripling of effective GDP, but a whole new level of prosperity.

Simple as it is, Open Source Freeware is the ultimate in the evolution of economic systems. Maximum possible morale, maximum efficient hours, lowest possible waste, everyone's happy with their job.
Perfect? Not so fast. If you offered the open-source concept to slaves in Egypt, it wouldn't work. Breaking stones, hardly anyone's idea of fun. Well, I find chopping firewood fun, but only as exercise; doing it all day, not fun.
So such a system takes first reaching a level of development when most of the jobs left are enjoyable ones. That's what it's all about. With rock-crushing jobs, even capitalism wouldn't work out, people would work just enough to feed themselves. With moderately-unpleasant jobs, it works. And at the highest level of development, work becomes an incentive in itself.



However, it's also important to note that even in these glimpses of a more advanced society seen in open-source, we're just tourists. The same third-generation immigration-assimilation rule applies to economic systems. Our children will live in open-source world, but they'll still be using commercial software just fine. Our grandchildren will see it as a thing of the past, but still understand it with the old mentality. And only their children - or our grand-grandchildren - will finally fully assimilate into the new system.

And that's just software. Only around the time of our children, when we're out of power, can the same attitude be extended to material products, and only our grandchildren will be able to develop an actual socioeconomic shift. So it's all not near future in any way. It takes an entirely different mentality, and a few generations of it being adopted, to change the system.



And that's why I see changing the ethos of "more is better" as being essential to moving beyond capitalism. If demand increases per affluent consumer, to keep up with increasing supply (from technological improvement) then it is still necessary to trade scarce supply.
Yes. The capitalist policy of rewarding good work with higher consumption limits, as fair as it is, also backfires in use of those limits above necessity. But not everything is so bad. We're living in the times of late capitalism, not that it's on the way out, but at least conspicuous consumption, after it became available to everyone, went down. People are starting to recognize their needs.


For instance, let's take an item far removed from software - expensive, hard to produce, fully material. Cars.

For a while, it used to be the rule that as if you are richer, you should buy bigger and more expensive cars. Often, for no objective reason at all.

Let's face it, in practice leather interior sucks. The seats squeak, leather dashboard looks outright ridiculous and is easily damaged - scratched, cut or stained. And cloth seats are more comfortable. "Luxury" is more often conspicuous spending than real improvement. Now, to brands... There's no need for a regular person to own a car which isn't a Toyota or a Honda, because they offer all the comfort one reasonably needs and don't break down, and having your car break down easily beats the small advantages another brand might have.

And size-wise, I don't get why people need these huge gas-guzzling big-engined "luxury" cars, where the seats are too large for any human, where they never floor the pedal anyway, where they always drive alone. Maybe they find it fun, but but it's not for me. I don't need a huge gas-guzzler, and if I'm driving alone, I certainly don't need a bus. I'm fine with a small, functional, nimble car. That's why I'm shopping for a Porsche 911 now.

OK - now you have something to say. "Oh yeah, how economical, Mr.Modesty, you don't need that!"... Well, I do - I enjoy performance driving and amateur racing, so I need it. But I wouldn't be able to explain it to an owner of a large Lincoln, who drives his family in it, just as he can't explain to me the advantage of four doors.
I know tens of people who wouldn't change their Camrys for a 911 - they don't need the powerful engine or the twitchy handling, all they need is four doors and a comfortable acceleration. And that includes people who would be able to afford a better car than I can. They drive cheaper cars, because it's what they need.

And I'm not special in some way too. Even in performance, I too have limits to my needs. Objectively, I need a plain baseline 911 now, that's it. But I'll probably have to get a Turbo, to have reserve for the time when I learn to drive a plain 911 - hello capitalism inefficiency. However, I most certainly don't need a Formula 1 car, where I'd crash or break my neck from its cornering. I don't need a McLaren F1, it's too fast and perfected. I probably don't even need a Carrera GT, I don't like big engines. I don't need a Lambo, they're impossible to drive around towns. I don't need a Ferrari, they're not as fun to drive as Porsches, and they're not remotely as durable. Et cetera.



So there's a limit to what we need. With regular road cars, most people are almost able to meet it, and many people can exceed it. So we're... no, we aren't yet close. But, at least, we can see the finish line now, even if it's behind this recession hill and some others. Capitalistic development is relatively near (just a century or two) to achieving its goal of providing for not only the essential needs, but all objective needs or wants.

What's after the finish line? Well, if you can buy everything you need with a part-time job, no need to do a full-time one. The only way further productivity growth can be created is through people working just for the sake of it.

The only way Anarchy could exist as a viable, long-term system, would be for each individual to have the power to, and the will to use the power to, destroy every other individual. Anything less, and the potential for two or more persons to unite to force their will on another would rapidly lead to a breakdown of the system.

ok, so if we are using it in the technical sense, justify that 90% number. and how are you dividing up the bands into societies?

Basis of similarity. If two bands have the same traditions and systems, and share a language, they should be considered part of the same society. High variance in traditions, systems or language separates societies.

The 90% number is straight from Guns, Germs and Steel. With only a very few exceptions, such as the San, African, South American and North American tribes, when contacted, were Chiefdoms. Roughly half of the New Guinean and Micronesian peoples were also, as were all of the Polynesians. Asia, North Africa and Europe had largely gone beyond the tribal stages entirely, and historically, even when they WERE tribal, were Chiefdoms, as far back as we have any record.

Only in Australia did the "egalitarian" Big Man system predominate, and even there Chiefdoms were not unknown. Now, recall that I said this was about KNOWN societies. Presumably, at some stage the Big Man form was the only one there was; but we simply don't know how or if those societies functioned.

I am an arachno-syndicalist - I get together with dyslexic people who like spiders.

Communism inherently requires a government to mandate distribution of property and wealth. How the hell can you be a communist anarchist?There is a difference between a government and a state. Anarchists oppose the state, not government. In short, anarchism is 'no rulers', not 'no rules'.
It would be a bit silly to oppose all government anyway, given that, for instance, any family unit has its own form of government.

Incorrect. There remains one thing that backs private property: naked force. If a man with a shotgun says "this is mine", only someone else with a shotgun can oppose his will.If this is the definition of private property, then how does property differ from possession?

In theory you can have an organized force that's not heirarchical. A sort of "gentleman's militia" that functions like an ant hive, responding to threats but remaining internally level. But pressures from the outside mirror pressures from the inside, and if this organized but not heirarchical force grows to the point sufficient to defend itself, it grows to the point where internal pressures start organizing itself into mini heirarchies within itself.I'm not certain that hierarchy is the best term to use, necessarily, but I will leave this for now.

The bolded part is the most important one.

And the fatal flaw of the anarchist argument. Every anarchist has their little pocket civilization they like to pull out, their little example of the anarchist utopia accordingly working. "oh yeah, mister smart guy?" they proclaim so smugly, "what about the....whatever they are? Huh? HUH? They did it! How did they manage if it's so impossible, HUH????"

The counter answer to all of that, every single example, is the same.

Where are they now?

Dead, conquered, or assimilated.I see.
How many republics have we had historically that are dead, conquered, or assimilated?

It's not some inherent necessity, or need, or even "human nature" which forces us to have capitalism. It's just shortage of supply.
When the supply is far below demand, there's not enough disposable goods to trade monetarily. When the supply is above demand, there's no need to trade. When they're comparable, trade is the most efficient system. That's why capitalism is the system of today.Why must a shortage of supply lead to capitalism, or to trade?

What is the philosophical base on which you build your idea of anarcho-communism?Equality, in general.

How do undesirable jobs get done if no one is compelled to or rewarded for doing them?They are either automated, shared by all or most, or they don't get done.

How is production adjusted to meet the needs of consumers?This would depend, but the first step is measuring the needs (and abilities) of consumers in the first place.

The only way Anarchy could exist as a viable, long-term system, would be for each individual to have the power to, and the will to use the power to, destroy every other individual.

There have been some silly things posted in this thread, but I think that takes the turkey.

I am an arachno-syndicalist - I get together with dyslexic people who like spiders.

Nice pun! Yours?

If this is the definition of private property, then how does property differ from possession?



In an anarchic situation, I don't see that there is a difference.

In an anarchic situation, I don't see that there is a difference.

Nope there wouldn't be.

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site? I am an anarcho communist.

*pushes you into mud for the good of the community*

so anarchism is repressive in a way that causes it to be in a position to actually accomplish things at the precise historical moment when fascism and bolshevism came onto the scene? or were you thinking of some other way that it 'typically' fails?
I was thinking of different way that it "typically fails" -- namely that anarchist systems typically collapse into hierarchical governmental systems with unequal resource distribution in a relatively short time, even without fascism and bolshevism.

Well, in a sense, like any other judgment as to what will happen... but not a baseless one, I think.
I disagree. I do not see a rational basis for the supposition behind anarcho-communism.

After all, those social power structures that are strongest do tend to be intertwined pretty closely with material wealth and power. The ones that do not, like hierarchies in physical strength or athletic ability, tend for the most part to lose their power beyond middle school or so.
I see no basis for this assertion, either.

What in particular about anarchism do you think makes anarchist societies so unstable? There are any number of explanations for the historical record that do not require such a conclusion, as I've noted elsewhere in this thread.
I thnk anarchist societies fail every single time they grow beyond 250 individuals because it is just plain too fucking inconvenient to live that way in a large group. It is a house of cards social structure, with nothing to hold it together but the constant attention of its participants. But the larger the population, the more complex and demanding of time and energy other aspects of life become, and people just plain do not have the time to spend maintaining and propping up the system that is supposed to facilitate those things. As soon as an anarchist system exceeds a certain size, the people in it spend more time supporting it than it spends supporting them. Result = that system either morphs into a different kind of system, or it gets replaced by a different kind of system. Every single time.

Within a modern city of a couple million people, you could conceivably maintain individual and independent anarchist communes of 100-250 people within individual apartment buildings or neighborhood blocks, but on the level of larger units, such as districts, boroughs, or the city as a whole, there is no way. No way anarchism could work to keep the city running and no way the population would tolerate it/cooperate with it. Anarchism is just not equipped to do shit, coordinate systems, manage resources, or move people and stuff around on such a scale.

Your mini-utopias could function very nicely as inner-city "bedroom communities" but their members would necessarily have to participate in the non-anarchistic systems that run the city as a whole as soon as they do anything that transcends the borders of their commune's territory, so that they can coordinate efforts with other communes around town. Just look at the borders of the territories of hunting-gathering groups for evidence of this.


But you've just stated that natural human impulses of that sort can be sublimated in ways that are socially beneficial... so how do they pose a fundamental problem for the aim of a classless (that is, egalitarian) society?
They don't. Your method of constructing society does because it fails to utilize them properly.

I have. His posts either consist of straw men (anarchists think everyone will magically decide to be nice) or the same argument you've advanced (and I've responded to) here, that there are natural tendencies to inequality.
You say that he is putting up a strawman when he says that anarchism requires everyone to be magically nice and cooperative, but you have not suggested any other way to cause people to cooperate with anarchist systems without creating a governmental system based on the kind of distribution of power that you call unequal.

In an anarchic situation, I don't see that there is a difference.But there is a difference. A possession is something you have. Property is something you have the right to. You don't necessarily have to have something to have property rights over it.

With all due respect to the communists, how can you claim that any rights exist when you say that there are no property rights? All rights are based on some concept of property, beginning with the individual's ownership of himself. Tyranny is the claim of one person to own the physical being of another, or to own the time of another. Under a communist society, isn't everyone in theory the property of everyone else? This is the question of equality as I understand it: When the Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self - evident, that all men are created equal...", it is saying that no man has the right to claim any level of ownership over another. Any other idea is absurd because there is no equality in ability, intellect, ambition, morality, or any other aspect when any two people are compared. It seems that communism will only work in an utterly homogeneous environment, and the communist idea of equality is that all must be identical because that is the only measute by which the communist can assure equality under his system.

On the subject of the "tendency to inequality."

People have power over each other, if only the power of persuasion.

As social animals, I think we also have the power of approval over others. Of course, we have psychological defences against the disapproval of others, but our influence over each other is far more clearly seen when it's the grudging approval of a rival.

Perhaps this is a countervailing force, which accounts for why the "tendency to inequality" does not run amok. When inequality is too great, the loser is so barely human that oppressing them further just isn't interesting any more -- their approval or disapproval no longer affects the oppressor.

And here's where capitalism comes in. Not so much in the sense "a system mediated by money" but in the corrolary within our sense of self-worth: that a person's worth is measured by what they own. By their wealth.

If I can take your house off you, sell it and buy myself a some new tackle for the yacht, without ever seeing you or even your house ... it doesn't matter to me how miserable that makes you. I don't have to measure my own increase in happiness against your own decrease in same ... I just look at my shiny new tackle and think how great I am. "I earned that."

Thus, I see an Ascetic ethos as rather essential to any working anarchy, whether it be ecologically motivated, artistically motivated (things as art, not as prizes) or even religiously motivated. A will to frugality, if you like.

There are many many steps to take (generation by generation perhaps) before the individual ethics of enough people are up to living without government. Getting rid of the bullies is just one way of seeing it; we could as well put the blame on those who are comfortable being ruled.
Without quibbling over little details, I do agree with this overall argument. I agree with the suggestion that anarchism requires an "ascetic ethos" or a "will to frugality." I think that's a very good way of putting it.

It is a part of what I was getting at when I said that anarchism requires denial/supression of natural human impulses. Ascetism is counter-intuitive and counter-instinctive. It goes against basic survival instincts and, therefore, is not natural to human beings. A system that requires people to repress a basic survival instinct is just not sustainable in any practical way.

Likewise, the urge to seek protection by a strong authority ("those who are comfortable being ruled"), bullying, competitiveness, etc, are all natural impulses that radically vary in degree from person to person. Demanding that all give them up to the same extent in order to conform to an anarchistic social system is another way of denying human nature, as well as human individuation.

Anarchism does not work because it seeks to alter human nature, not work with it. It seeks to ignore or abandon or cut out whole parts of human nature, rather than figure out how to incorporate them for good effect.

Being an anarcho-communist easy, since there's not too much you can argue against. Although the moral and philosophical arguments for anarcho-communism are quite clear cut, the actual economic arguments for its viability are extremely vague, and whenever you point out a problem it's very easy to come up with a qualification like "oh then the system will have to be more complex then" etc... There are very few properly set out arguments for its economic viability, like how voluntary associations can provide enough for a large population and how to allocate resources and enforce law without a ruling class. It's largely negative, focusing on the faults of capitalism and the need for equality, rather than how communism could actually work.

Anarchism does not work because it seeks to alter human nature

Well many Marxists don't have a problem with this and aren't quiet about it, they believe that human nature is malleable, as in it adapts to the environment if you will, in this case the economic environment.

With all due respect to the communists, how can you claim that any rights exist when you say that there are no property rights? All rights are based on some concept of property,False. Rights are based upon the social contract, as the social contract is the sole source of rights.

beginning with the individual's ownership of himself.There's scant evidence to show that ownership is a valid concept.

Under a communist society, isn't everyone in theory the property of everyone else?No, at least it's unlikely. It could say this in the social contract, but there's no reason for anyone to commit to this.

This is the question of equality as I understand it: When the Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self - evident, that all men are created equal...", it is saying that no man has the right to claim any level of ownership over another.Perhaps, but the Declaration of Independence isn't the social contract the U.S. uses (fortunately) - the Constitution is.

Any other idea is absurd because there is no equality in ability, intellect, ambition, morality, or any other aspect when any two people are compared. It seems that communism will only work in an utterly homogeneous environment, and the communist idea of equality is that all must be identical because that is the only measute by which the communist can assure equality under his system.This is the problem. You are trying to measure the unmeasurable.

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site?
Hello.



With all due respect to the communists, how can you claim that any rights exist when you say that there are no property rights?
Most don't.

Marx was firmly against rights, as according to him, they do little to combat inequality. "Human emancipation, not political emancipation", and all that.

False. Rights are based upon the social contract, as the social contract is the sole source of rights.


Which means that there's no reason to object to government. All you need is a government which allows complete freedom of association and freedom of movement and you can set up as many communes and voluntary associations as you like to allocate resources, all with their own social contracts.

Well many Marxists don't have a problem with this and aren't quiet about it, they believe that human nature is malleable, as in it adapts to the environment if you will, in this case the economic environment.
I don't believe we are actually discussing Marxism, but even so, I believe modern history has proven that idea to be wrong.

I don't believe we are actually discussing Marxism

True, but anarcho-communists tend to agree with what Marx said there.


, but even so, I believe modern history has proven that idea to be wrong.

Perhaps, but they (at least seemingly) have ancient history on their side.

True, but anarcho-communists tend to agree with what Marx said there.



Perhaps, but they (at least seemingly) have ancient history on their side.
I don't think so. And if you read the rest of the thread*, you'll see that we've touched upon pretty much the whole gamut of history in the discussion so far.


*Yes, I know, hate to keep saying that, but come on, really, this time.

Which means that there's no reason to object to government. All you need is a government which allows complete freedom of association and freedom of movement and you can set up as many communes and voluntary associations as you like to allocate resources, all with their own social contracts.
Capitalism of course being the optimal system to govern the relationships between these different associations since, as some people noted, you don't have to concern yourself with the other person's needs, interests or values to trade with them, as long as you see eye to eye on the one issue the trade is concerned with.

So really I think a sufficiently minarchist capitalist government could within itself sustain any number or combination of anarchist communes, living on private property free from outside interference, choosing their own level of autonomy and, should they choose more interaction, without the need to find common ground that would compromise either side's ideal social contract.

Capitalism of course being the optimal system to govern the relationships between these different associations since, as some people noted, you don't have to concern yourself with the other person's needs, interests or values to trade with them, as long as you see eye to eye on the one issue the trade is concerned with.

So really I think a sufficiently minarchist capitalist government could within itself sustain any number or combination of anarchist communes, living on private property free from outside interference, choosing their own level of autonomy and, should they choose more interaction, without the need to find common ground that would compromise either side's ideal social contract.

Surely then, this is the system of government a gradual process type communist should want to support, rather than a highly regulated market, since it allows a complete transition into communism, if everyone should want to choose to be part of a commune, since I believe that being forced to abide by the commune is counter to some communist ideals.

Here's an Australian @ site: www.takver.com

As for Marxism being wrong Muravyets, some of his theories may be wrong and some may be right. I think that he underestimated Capitalism's flexibility - it's currently well in the ascendancy. However, his view on Historical Materialism is very interesting and is yet to be disproven (as our societies evolve).
His central tenet was that each society contains within it the contradictions that give rise to the next "superior" society. I can hear a bit of shuffling. You're not happy with the notion of superiority that Marx espoused. But let's put that aside for now - the Feudalism of the Middle Ages with its iron age technology and kingdoms and powerful religions contained the seed of Capitalism. As cities developed, so did technology and Knowledge and from within cities came the prototype bourgeoisie. Banking and industry grew and with the invention of printing, Capitalism in Western Europe took off. By the Industrial revolution Capitalism was (and is) the dominant paradigm. Within the womb of Capitalism was the proletariat. Workers ran Capitalism and workers discovered their power to work collectively for the common good. Marx saw the workers struggle as leading inexorably to socialism. This is where workers would own and control the means of production.
Now why hasn't that happened yet? There are many reasons. One is the problem of Marxist ideology itself where Marxist vanguard parties would turn into dictatorships - and when a party holds absolute power it is corrupted absolutely. Russia and China experienced great progress and great disasters but the workers never held real power for any great length of time.
In the West, workers would organise win a few struggles and then settle for a raised standard of living until the system would become dysfunctional and workers would have to reassert their rights again. Two World wars and a Great Depression and we are still no closer to owning and controlling the means of production. That doesn't mean there is no path to it - but those who see this as a desirable goal need to realise it economically. How can we take ove rthe means of production, distribution and exchange?
By a variety of means.
A slow, gradual but sure approach is to completely reject the wrong turn of vanguardism and "think globally; act locally" - build economic structures that are democratic and run and owned by the people that work them (The 3 Cs - collectives, co-ops and communes). Industries where workers have shares and have a say in the running of things is a good place to start.
For those who work in a bureaucracy or for a company, there is worker participation with the goal of worker control. This has to become the norm for workers to develop the consciousness to one day say, "We can be our own bosses!"
What about revolutionary societies where workers simply occupy industries and run them for themselves? The CNT syndicates in the Spanish Civil War demonstrated that it could be done - they surived for a few years despite incredible odds. Recently in Argentina workers took over certain factories when Argentina's economy collapsed and the bosses fled the country with all the banks' reserves of US dollars. Some of those factories are still operating under worker control. (See the Canadian film on it, "The Take" by Naomi Klein.
Finally, Marx saw that the contradictions of Socialism would result in Communism which meant "a withering away of the state". Ironic , isn't it, that for most people, the word 'Communism ' today means the exact opposite?

Here's an Australian @ site: www.takver.com

As for Marxism being wrong Muravyets, some of his theories may be wrong and some may be right. <snip what I'm sure was a fascinating post>
I did not say that Marxism was wrong.

I said that the idea that human nature is malleable and can be altered by exposure to economic/social models seems to have been proven wrong by events of history.

I do not believe, however, that that one idea constitutes the whole of Marxism. (EDIT: Actually, I'm just taking H's word for it that it is a part of Marxism at all. I'm sure he has no reason to make that up, but I'm equally sure there are Marx readers who would disagree with him. Whatever. I'm not discussing Marx.)

I express no opinion about Marxism as a whole.

But there is a difference. A possession is something you have. Property is something you have the right to. You don't necessarily have to have something to have property rights over it.

Except in an Anarchist society you have the right to nowt except that which you can own, and keep.

i think anarchism is a pretty cool guy. eh doesn't have a government and doesn't afraid of anything.

I said that the idea that human nature is malleable and can be altered by exposure to economic/social models seems to have been proven wrong by events of history.

surely you would agree that the various drives and natural inclinations and propensities in people are reordered and played out differently in different contexts, right? i mean, it seems crazy to suggest otherwise to me. shit, your claim would appear to mean that we should expect the conditions of a middle class suburb of chicago would be just as likely to create suicide bombers as the conditions in palestine.

Now, recall that I said this was about KNOWN societies. Presumably, at some stage the Big Man form was the only one there was; but we simply don't know how or if those societies functioned.

the big man societies are actually a later development too, typically tied to the rise of horticulture.

but anyway, i suppose if you are taking 'known' in the sense of 'europeans having met them' to be the key, then you have something of a point. however, we do know that foraging societies existed everywhere and were the only type of societies around for 90+% of human history (and were the numerically predominant type for most of the rest). we also know that when we look at the present and recent examples of such societies across a wide range of environments and such, they share a significant number of general features, including a rather radical egalitarianism. thus it seems like we would need some good argument for believing that all those societies that we didn't meet didn't also partake in this very robust cross-cultural generalization from the ones we did. so far, i haven't seen one.

given that, it seems absurd to think that the "tendency towards equality may well be no more than a temporary aberration". the vast bulk of human societies presumably actually enacted that tendency. not to mention the fact that that tendency has repeatedly shown itself throughout the history of non-egalitarian societies in revolts and rebellions aiming at such. rather than the tendency being a temporary aberration, it appears to be a very deep passion; one that can be thwarted in its goals in certain contexts, but which continues to reassert itself over and over again, making and defending gains whenever conditions allow.

surely you would agree that the various drives and natural inclinations and propensities in people are reordered and played out differently in different contexts, right? i mean, it seems crazy to suggest otherwise to me. shit, your claim would appear to mean that we should expect the conditions of a middle class suburb of chicago would be just as likely to create suicide bombers as the conditions in palestine.
That's not what I meant. Thanks for asking me what I meant, and then telling me what my claim was. Cutting one half of the debate out certainly makes the process go faster.

What I meant was the the impulse to behave in a certain way does not disappear from human nature just because of social/economic context. It might get expressed in different ways, but it doesn't disappear. As evidence I point you to all the bombers and other violent individuals who do not come from Palestine.

My complaint against anarchism is that it does require certain aspects of human nature to either never be expressed or to disappear from human nature, and that's just not realistic.

the big man societies are actually a later development too, typically tied to the rise of horticulture.
What evidence do you have to support a claim that pre-agricultural societies did not utilize a "big man" leadership/power system?

Since in the rest of your post, you criticized people for making assumptions about societies "we've never met," I assume you have examples of such ancient pre-agricultural societies to show us, right?

Or is this just another of the unfounded suppositions that anarchist theory depends on?

more than one would expect

Indeed, considering that this is Nation STATES.

Indeed, considering that this is Nation STATES.

Blast from the past! Long time no see here. :)

*waves a black flag*

F.A.B. (Federation of Anarchists in Bulgaria) Supporter here. Always have been.

I'm too anarchist to call myself an anarchist.

Which means that there's no reason to object to government. All you need is a government which allows complete freedom of association and freedom of movement and you can set up as many communes and voluntary associations as you like to allocate resources, all with their own social contracts.Do you mean government, or the state? Anarchists object to the state. At the very least, we would object to the state because states typically monopolize a certain territory and set rules for interacting with people outside of that territory, which would interfere with voluntary associations.
That being just one of many reasons to oppose the state.

Except in an Anarchist society you have the right to nowt except that which you can own, and keep.Um...no.

Capitalism of course being the optimal system to govern the relationships between these different associations since, as some people noted, you don't have to concern yourself with the other person's needs, interests or values to trade with them, as long as you see eye to eye on the one issue the trade is concerned with.Why would a lack of concern be the optimal system?

What evidence do you have to support a claim that pre-agricultural societies did not utilize a "big man" leadership/power system?

the term 'big man' was solidly brought in to anthropology by marshall sahlins in reference to the horticulturalists of melanesia whose organization was different from the standard polynesian chiefdoms (in which power was vaguely feudalistic) and different from that of hunters and gatherers (in which power mostly amounts to convincing people that something is a good idea). that's just sort of the point of the term.

anyway, one of the key points to the big man's power is his ability to accumulate goods to be given away as he sees fit and to use those give-aways to create personal obligations to him. the absence of this sort of thing is one of the robust cross-cultural generalizations we see in foraging peoples - they operate on generalized reciprocity, rather than balanced or negative reciprocity (within the group - everybody uses these with out-groups) and semi-centralized redistribution aimed at increasing the personal power of the redistributor.

i could dig up some specific cites if you like (start with sahlin's "poor man, rich man, big-man, chief" in comparative studies in society and history, vol. 5 no. 3), but, iirc, wiki covers most of this. it's kind of just some background anthropology.

That's not what I meant. Thanks for asking me what I meant, and then telling me what my claim was. Cutting one half of the debate out certainly makes the process go faster.

um, welcome to argument making?

My complaint against anarchism is that it does require certain aspects of human nature to either never be expressed or to disappear from human nature, and that's just not realistic.

and what aspects are those? it seems to me that S was making an argument to the contrary in this very thread.

I'm an anarchist who hates anarchists. I have time for Free Soviets.

That's not what I meant. Thanks for asking me what I meant, and then telling me what my claim was. Cutting one half of the debate out certainly makes the process go faster.
Och, stop playing the victim so.

FS clearly said "your claim would appear to mean...". No-one's shoving words into your mouth, or "cutting one half of the debate out".



I'm an anarchist who hates anarchists. I have time for Free Soviets.

Indeed, considering that this is Nation STATES.
Jeez, it's a big NS anarchist reunion.

I was bored the other day and realised I hadn't logged on here in a while.

I'm an anarchist who hates anarchists

i've actually been a member of a group that called itself that

On myspace? I was in that group.

Jeez, it's a big NS anarchist reunion.

looks like everyone's anarcho-arachno senses were tingling

On myspace? I was in that group.

stop stalking me

I was so in that group before you were. RIP ATHA. :(

Do you mean government, or the state? Anarchists object to the state. At the very least, we would object to the state because states typically monopolize a certain territory and set rules for interacting with people outside of that territory, which would interfere with voluntary associations.


Keyword there- typically. Are you saying that it's impossible for it to not do that? And surely it would only interfere with VA's if they were seeking to trade with other territories rather than internally, but don't anarcho-communists believe that their model is viable without trade with other nations? I can't remember if they do now.

I'm too anarchist to call myself an anarchist.

Neesika is hard-fucking-core, yo.

I'm an anarchist who hates anarchists. I have time for Free Soviets.

Like NEFAC!

It's a great big NS anarchist family reunion! Yay!

Anarcho-syndicalist here. I felt this strange, spider like sensation compelling me to come to the NSG forums. My anarcho-arachno senses have served me well.

With all due respect to the communists, how can you claim that any rights exist when you say that there are no property rights? [...]
Because there are other rights, such as to freedom, life, etc.

And instead of property rights, i.e. the right to bar access, there's rather the right of access.


Under a communist society, isn't everyone in theory the property of everyone else?
In totalitarian-communism (which includes mini-societies such as families - real families, not individualist "We do sex and drop my tax" marriages), sort of yes.
In anarcho-communism, of course no. It doesn't give anyone more control over others.


no man has the right to claim any level of ownership over another. Which is not self-obvious - in slavery, there is ownership of others. It was retained in feudalism. It was only mostly (parents, spouses) abolished in capitalism.

Communism takes this idea one step further, to that no man has the right to claim ownership over others' products of labor.

People today generally imagine communism no better than cavemen would imagine our society - like today with all price stickers suddenly were changed to 0 - a ridiculous concept.
If anything, to have even a remote image, we should rather look to the Internet communities as an example of possible communism. Start with communism model satisfying the needs for software and expand it from there. Built from the ground up, not by conversion.


It seems that communism will only work in an utterly homogeneous environment, and the communist idea of equality is that all must be identical because that is the only measute by which the communist can assure equality under his system.
You are confusing communism and socialism. That's common, since USSR "commies" always had socialism with elements of capitalism, never communism. But it's not communism - communism in no way asserts or assures equality of abilities and needs.

because unregulated militias with guns getting paid for "protection" is so much better than unregulated militias with guns taking your shit because there's no such thing as currency.

Actually, you're fairly fucked either way.

My new hero.

Neesika is hard-fucking-core, yo.

You know it, biznatch!

Why would a lack of concern be the optimal system?
I think he meant that capitalism can work even with people who don't give a damn about others.

Every system has certain requirements to its members, the more advanced the system, the more demanding. Slavery, for instance, works even with people openly hating each other. Capitalism wouldn't. But capitalism works with indifferent people. Any better system requires people who have positive concern for each other.

However, we've grown a bit above capitalist requirements by now. For instance, if you see an injured man bleeding, you'll probably call an ambulance, even if he doesn't have a wallet and can't compensate you for rendering this service.
This communist addition, the mutual help mechanism saves us a lot of money, actually - we don't have to keep dedicated paid employees to perform the service of looking out for clients unable to request help.

I disagree. I do not see a rational basis for the supposition behind anarcho-communism.

I see no basis for this assertion, either.

I can't speak for your sight. I can respond to arguments, though.

It is a house of cards social structure, with nothing to hold it together but the constant attention of its participants.

Why?

Result = that system either morphs into a different kind of system, or it gets replaced by a different kind of system. Every single time.

So when has this actually happened? Do you have examples?

Within a modern city of a couple million people, you could conceivably maintain individual and independent anarchist communes of 100-250 people within individual apartment buildings or neighborhood blocks, but on the level of larger units, such as districts, boroughs, or the city as a whole, there is no way.

This is a difficult problem for anarchists... but while any political system capable of handling matters for large societies is likely to be indirectly democratic in a way we find problematic, there are still options available for doing it in a way that is roughly compatible with anarchism.

For one, anarchists would try to minimize the matters that must be handled by the central city authority: many functions of city government can probably be decentralized, many "externalities" of human behavior that have major effects on the personal level don't have much of an effect between whole human communities.

For another, anarchists would try to approach the question of building a central authority (when necessary) from the bottom up, rather than the top down: while today local governments are generally created by governments on a higher level (US federalism being a partial exception), anarchists would federate on the basis of decentralized communes.

Anarchy, like any political ideal, can only be approximated and worked toward in reality, not achieved in perfection.

You say that he is putting up a strawman when he says that anarchism requires everyone to be magically nice and cooperative, but you have not suggested any other way to cause people to cooperate with anarchist systems without creating a governmental system based on the kind of distribution of power that you call unequal.

Well, I'm not convinced that there's a problem to be solved here. How exactly does guaranteeing cooperation cause a "distribution of power that [I] call unequal"?

the term 'big man' was solidly brought in to anthropology by marshall sahlins in reference to the horticulturalists of melanesia whose organization was different from the standard polynesian chiefdoms (in which power was vaguely feudalistic) and different from that of hunters and gatherers (in which power mostly amounts to convincing people that something is a good idea). that's just sort of the point of the term.
So in other words, you're just fucking with jargon in an attempt to avoid answering the question?

Because the "they didn't use that kind of power system because they weren't the subjects of Marshall Sahlin's books" argument sounds like bullshit.

It also sounds like you don't have any examples of the kinds of power structures used by ancient pre-agriculture societies, probably because you don't know jackshit about them.

anyway, one of the key points to the big man's power is his ability to accumulate goods to be given away as he sees fit and to use those give-aways to create personal obligations to him. the absence of this sort of thing is one of the robust cross-cultural generalizations we see in foraging peoples - they operate on generalized reciprocity, rather than balanced or negative reciprocity (within the group - everybody uses these with out-groups) and semi-centralized redistribution aimed at increasing the personal power of the redistributor.

i could dig up some specific cites if you like (start with sahlin's "poor man, rich man, big-man, chief" in comparative studies in society and history, vol. 5 no. 3), but, iirc, wiki covers most of this. it's kind of just some background anthropology.
Don't bother. I googled Sahlin to check precisely how you are misusing his terminology.

Indeed, as the poet said, "a little learning is a dangerous thing," especially in those who "read but with a lust to misapply."

um, welcome to argument making?
If you're asking me if what you are doing is argument making, the answer is no.

and what aspects are those? it seems to me that S was making an argument to the contrary in this very thread.
RTFT.

What is the philosophical base on which you build your idea of anarcho-communism?

For me, strangely enough, fairly mainstream liberal moral-political theories... Kant and Rousseau in particular, at least as their ideas have been extended by left-liberals into the context of modern industrial capitalism.

How do undesirable jobs get done if no one is compelled to or rewarded for doing them?

Rather than allocating them to the most desperate economic class, they could be shared, or automated, or allocated to those directly involved in the activities that require them... people could clean up their own trash, for instance.

How is production adjusted to meet the needs of consumers?

Communication. ;)

It's a fact of human nature that we can be brought to engage in productive activity for all kinds of reasons--boredom, altruism, social pressure, competition, material gain, enjoyment, etc.--and not all of them necessitate class society.

The more difficult challenge is to find motives for productive activity that are both egalitarian and non-alienating, such that labor can become, in Marx's words, "life's prime want" and not something compelled by economic necessity or cultural forces. The difficulty of this problem, I would argue, is tied to the nature of our economy and not to human nature as such, but solving it by radically changing our system of production (say, by abolishing the division of labor) would require rather significant sacrifices that most people are disinclined to make.

This leads to another question: What about those who do not wish to live in such a society for whatever reason? Do you think it may be necessary to kill all who disagree, that they will realize that your view is correct, or can they be left alone to act as they see fit so long as they leave the anarcho-commies alone?

They can be left alone.

With all due respect to the communists, how can you claim that any rights exist when you say that there are no property rights?

"How can you claim that any animal exists when you say that there are no pink unicorns?"

All rights are based on some concept of property, beginning with the individual's ownership of himself.

Wrong use of "property."

The kind of property communists are concerned with is property over the means of production: ownership of land and capital. We don't particularly object to personal property (your clothing, your furniture, and so forth), and we certainly don't intend to put you yourself under communal ownership.

Under a communist society, isn't everyone in theory the property of everyone else?

No.

This is the question of equality as I understand it: When the Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self - evident, that all men are created equal...", it is saying that no man has the right to claim any level of ownership over another.

Political equality of this sort--no one is another's master--is certainly one element of it. I'm not convinced it's the only element, though.

Any other idea is absurd because there is no equality in ability, intellect, ambition, morality, or any other aspect when any two people are compared.

Right, and communists don't claim there is. However, there is at least one other sense of equality that you have not considered: equality of consideration, which manifests itself politically in equality under law. Communists argue that such a principle tends against class society: if we really believe that the law should treat all citizens equally, it's hard to see why the law should enshrine an economic system that distributes wealth (and ultimately power) in a grossly inequitable manner.

We did not make this idea up through our perverse distortion of what equality under law means. Indeed, we can find this precise idea in Rousseau, who was no communist:

"Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to-keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much."

It seems that communism will only work in an utterly homogeneous environment, and the communist idea of equality is that all must be identical because that is the only measute by which the communist can assure equality under his system.

Why do you think so?

Keyword there- typically. Are you saying that it's impossible for it to not do that? And surely it would only interfere with VA's if they were seeking to trade with other territories rather than internally, but don't anarcho-communists believe that their model is viable without trade with other nations? I can't remember if they do now.I can't see a state not having some type of border control for long. Certainly none today do.
As far as trading with other territories, anarcho-communism could be sustainable without it, but there's no reason to necessarily prohibit it.

I think he meant that capitalism can work even with people who don't give a damn about others.Sure, but why would this be the optimal way of doing something?

I can't speak for your sight. I can respond to arguments, though.
I'm not offering an argument about those points. I am merey telling you why I reject them -- because I see no rational basis for them.


Why?
You tell me. You're the anarchist. Why did you guys choose to build such a system?


So when has this actually happened? Do you have examples?
Links to examples? Not at the moment. I'm not sure what keywords to use to search for that. But I am thinking of every single hunter-gatherer society that has grown in population to the point of having to farm food rather than find it, and has morphed from an anarchistic commune type of social structure to a hierarchically organized one, with or without known foreign influence, pretty much through all of recorded/reported history.

As for anarchistic communal systems being replaced by other systems, you only have to look at any hunter-gatherer or communal farm-based culture that has or is currently being subsumed into an urbanized agriculturalized society for economic reasons (rather than by force of arms).

This is a difficult problem for anarchists... but while any political system capable of handling matters for large societies is likely to be indirectly democratic in a way we find problematic, there are still options available for doing it in a way that is roughly compatible with anarchism.

For one, anarchists would try to minimize the matters that must be handled by the central city authority: many functions of city government can probably be decentralized, many "externalities" of human behavior that have major effects on the personal level don't have much of an effect between whole human communities.

For another, anarchists would try to approach the question of building a central authority (when necessary) from the bottom up, rather than the top down: while today local governments are generally created by governments on a higher level (US federalism being a partial exception), anarchists would federate on the basis of decentralized communes.

Anarchy, like any political ideal, can only be approximated and worked toward in reality, not achieved in perfection.
Which is precisely what annoys me about all this theory-talk. Y'all just love to twiddle over those perfect ideal theories, defending them from all challenges, but never acknowledging until moments like this that, in practical terms, they are not applicable as they are but must be altered to fit reality. All I hear is arguments about how anarchism is the most perfect social system because it does this, that, and the other, when in fact, in real life, it does not do those things except within very narrow limitations, and it must be altered and compromised in many ways to make it fit into the larger context of reality. But that doesn't stop many anarchists from heaping condescension and attacks on those who focus on anarchism's limitations, as if we're just too stupid or too greedy or too misled to get how perfect your system is.

Well, I'm not convinced that there's a problem to be solved here. How exactly does guaranteeing cooperation cause a "distribution of power that [I] call unequal"?
The problem is that you have never given any hint of HOW you would guarantee cooperation WITHOUT using measures that give that result -- i.e. force of law or arms.

Any anti capitalist anarchists on this site? I am an anarcho communist.

I am increasingly becoming Christian anarchist.

Фкпр! Шь ф Сщььгтшые!

Oh crap!

So in other words, you're just fucking with jargon in an attempt to avoid answering the question?

no, i'm clarifying what the jargon means. which is why it was sort of an aside before going on to more important matters in my original reply. big man systems form an intermediate type between radically egalitarian foraging societies and significantly more entrenched systems of command like chiefdoms (though not on some scale of progress or evolution, just in terms of certain relevant features)


also, why are you always so whiny when people argue with you?

Here's how I view things:

1. Both left-wing and right-wing anarchism require people to agree with the ideology to not result in violent chaos.
2. Right-wing anarchism, despite the corrupt nature of arbitration and many forms of contracts, would be more practical and better working because people are naturally selfish.
3. Left-wing anarchism requires people to be naturally selfLESS, otherwise we'd have private property again.
4. Left-wing anarchism focuses too much on "the group". Left-wing anarchists always say that the democracy is optional, but that's not going to stop non-violent rejection of unliked people from "groups" critical for survival. Then the "group" will get angry when the unliked person tries to "steal" food from their group because the person has been rejected by enough groups, possibly leading to the violence all anarchists reject. This is probably my biggest problem with left-wing anarchism, and why I'd prefer right-wing anarchism if I had to choose.

You tell me. You're the anarchist. Why did you guys choose to build such a system?

Obviously because we don't agree with your analysis of how that system would work.

:rolleyes:

But I am thinking of every single hunter-gatherer society that has grown in population to the point of having to farm food rather than find it, and has morphed from an anarchistic commune type of social structure to a hierarchically organized one, with or without known foreign influence, pretty much through all of recorded/reported history.

Here, you're wrong, on several grounds.

First, population growth tends to follow, not precede, agriculture.

Second, agricultural societies do tend to be more hierarchical, but it does not follow that this is due to coordination problems. Agriculture is almost a necessary condition for human hierarchies of power: it tends toward sedentary living and private property, toward division of labor with the associated specialization and dependence, and toward the existence of a surplus food product that can support a ruling class and the enforcers of its will.

Third, "hunter-gatherer" societies can and have survived, and as a matter of fact do survive, when they are not subject to foreign influence.

As for anarchistic communal systems being replaced by other systems, you only have to look at any hunter-gatherer or communal farm-based culture that has or is currently being subsumed into an urbanized agriculturalized society for economic reasons (rather than by force of arms).

Historically, mostly this has been done by force. (As a matter of fact, relatively anarchist Native American societies were quite attractive to many early settlers in North America.) At this stage, such societies have generally been pushed to the margins to the point that it's hardly fair to cite their assimilation as indicative of intrinsic defects.

Y'all just love to twiddle over those perfect ideal theories, defending them from all challenges, but never acknowledging until moments like this that, in practical terms, they are not applicable as they are but must be altered to fit reality.

You're contradicting yourself. If I were inclined to defend "those perfect ideal theories... from all challenges", why would I acknowledge the need for any compromises at all?

Have you considered that perhaps some of us have actually thought extensively about what we think and say, and recognize the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the political theories we advocate?

For some reason, these stringent standards are generally only applied to opponents of the status quo. Most people don't object to an advocate of capitalism arguing in favor of a degree of welfare programs, or to an advocate of democracy opposing the direct election of, say, Supreme Court justices. But when an anarchist notes that some political power may have to be delegated, or a communist defends the use of limited financial incentives, it apparently spells the doom of the theory as a whole.

The problem is that you have never given any hint of HOW you would guarantee cooperation WITHOUT using measures that give that result -- i.e. force of law or arms.

I've already stated that I have no objection either to the existence of social rules or to the use of force as such.