NationStates Jolt Archive

My understanding is only the means of production must be collectively owned (which again seems like a restriction of freedoms)

Which freedoms? The freedom of right bastards to steal things from the earth and pretend that they own it because they deserve them, although they dont have any way to proove it? The freedom of exploiting people just because of the situation in that they were born? What's next? Will you capitalist allow the freedom of killing any bird that flies over a house just because its private property? You are ridicoulous, selfish and you have no accurate way to proove someone deservers to take something and claim it's theirs.

Which freedoms? The freedom of right bastards to steal things from the earth and pretend that they own it because they deserve them, although they dont have any way to proove it?
Actually, is fairly simple. Ownership is obtained by a claim to something that is legitimated by society. THis can be done in many ways. ANarcho-capitalists believe in a currency with real (rather than symbolic) value, such as a dollar based strictly on gold. Thus when you work and obtain money, you can, if you so desire, turn it in for gold. This is 'proof' of the value of the currency. It should also be acknowledged that while anarcho-socialists believe in collective ownership of the means of production, a certain level of pirvate property is necessary; and, of course, collective ownership is still ownership.

The freedom of exploiting people just because of the situation in that they were born?
They don't have to work if they don't want to. This is also true in anarcho-socialism. Presumably an individual who refuses to work will not be fed.

What's next? Will you capitalist allow the freedom of killing any bird that flies over a house just because its private property?

Uh... yeah, but an anarcho-socialist would allow the freedom of killy any bird, any where, regardless of property. Anarchy implies total liberty (presumably bound by certain rights, i.e. right to life).
You are ridicoulous, selfish and you have no accurate way to proove someone deservers to take something and claim it's theirs.

Ad hominem.

EDIT- I'm also not an anarcho-capitalist... I think anarchism in general is ill-conceived.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Whats the difference between a socialist collective and a huge monopolistic corporation that rules everything?

In a socialist collective, there's no hierarchy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Of course their isn't. :wink:
You want to deny it?

I think anarchism in general is ill-conceived.
What would you prefer then? And how would that be better?

Which is the difference between them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

You should add Revolushia to your list of Anarchist nations. He's too young to be there yet, but he's going for it.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Which freedoms? The freedom of right bastards to steal things from the earth and pretend that they own it because they deserve them, although they dont have any way to proove it?
Actually, is fairly simple. Ownership is obtained by a claim to something that is legitimated by society. THis can be done in many ways. ANarcho-capitalists believe in a currency with real (rather than symbolic) value, such as a dollar based strictly on gold. Thus when you work and obtain money, you can, if you so desire, turn it in for gold. This is 'proof' of the value of the currency. It should also be acknowledged that while anarcho-socialists believe in collective ownership of the means of production, a certain level of pirvate property is necessary; and, of course, collective ownership is still ownership.
If ownership is obtained by a claim to something that is legitimated by society, then it is a purely conventional 'right' rather than a natural one. I hope you'll agree with that.

Given that, there is no absolute fact about whether anyone owns anything or not, just a quasi-fact within the definitions of a society, such as a state society with law that defines legal ownership.

Now Isla was talking about (a) taking things from the Earth and saying you own them, and (b) saying you deserve to own them - and you haven't answered either of those issues.

What is the ownership status of things in nature? Nobody owns it particularly? Then when does somebody start owning something? When the society says they do? And how do they *deserve* it - just from the fact that they've grabbed it? So this will encourage everybody to grab as much of nature as they can, yes?

Now, where does this 'gold' come from, for which you can redeem your paper money in the society you are talking about - from nature, yes? Who owns the gold? Why them? A state, a corporation? If a state it's no more anarcho-capitalist than socialist. If a corporation, isn't that an automatic domination of the whole economy by one private business?

And how does this gold have 'real value'? What value does gold have - surely it has practical value... and monetary value. In which case gold doesn't have any more 'real value' than any other commodity. What would you do with it when you cash in your chips?

In an anarcho-socialist society, there is no 'property' in the conventional sense - literally, the sense created by legal convention within a state. There is only individual 'possession' of personal effects, such as toothbrushes and trousers, and collective ownership of collective concerns, like the "means of production" (factories, farms etc.).

And one might ask, why would any individual want to 'own' any more than what they need as personal effects - such as roadways, factories, large areas of land that could be used by others. Is it to profit from those others? In which case why should the others tolerate it?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Who says you need a state to decide everything?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Trying to raise an issue here, but I don't have access to the source I need for it...

Does anyone have an 'eLibrary' account?

that's no flaw on our part. we're going to ban fascism too, while 'anarcho'-capitalism encourages it.

How does anarcho-capitalism encourage facism? That's a contradiction in terms. If a facist state were to arise, it would no longer been anarcho-capitalism.

maybe not fascism in its entirety, but it is definitely corporatist; anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian with the 'captains of industry' essentially owning the state. now it won't be called the state, but you'll have what amounts to a couple of privatized states running around enforcing their laws. those laws will be made by the owners - i don't buy a word about "market forces" creating the law, not when there are a few powerful people who own the factories, the land, the cops, and the courts. under 'anarcho'-capitalism political power will not be dissolved, it will be completely in the hands of the rich without even the sham democratic safeguards of today.

beyond that, there is nothing quite so authoritarian as the internal structure of a corporation, which will be the main political and economic power structures around under 'anarcho'-capitalism.

Besides, where do you get off banning facism? If a facist organization is freely and consensually entered into, and does not exert coercive power on others, you have absolutely no basis to ban it.

same way i get off banning capitalism. there's freedom, and then there's license. freedom is not being able to do anything you want. there is no right to be a fascist dictator and there is no right to privately own the means of production and distribution. a 'freedom' that allows unfreedom isn't.

Exactly. Hierarchy is the complete opposite of anarchism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

anarcho socialism is contradictory, because it would need a state authority to run it. You say that the property is everyone's; but who will enforce that? Who will distribute the food among the people? Who will make sure things run smoothly?

no, it will not require the state. the state is an instrument of minority rule, allowing a tiny number of people to rule over everyone else. that is what it has been since the state first shows up around 5,000 years ago. the system of organization proposed by anarchism is fundamentally different because there will be no ruling elite, no rulers and ruled. everyone will directly be part of the collective decision making process and political power will be much more decentralized and grounded in the community.

Hey, add my region onto teh refions list, it's called 'Anarchy Island'
You should add Revolushia to your list of Anarchist nations. He's too young to be there yet, but he's going for it.
Add my nation! Add me!
Done, done, and done...

Zachnia, sorry for the delay...

Burning Hate, I hope you have Revolushia's permission for me to add his name, like he's a puppet of yours or you know his mind...

Pinochio, I've added you since you're keen but since you aren't and don't identify as anarchist I've put "[Minarchist]" after your name...


A reminder to everyone else, if you want your anarchist nation, region, forum, website, book or whatever to be added to the first post of the thread, just tell me... preferably by telegram then I can't ignore it... There are lots of anarchist nations not on the list, which is their choice... there are also lots of anarchist/related websites not there, simply because I don't know about them and haven't searched methodically... Also I was thinking we could add a book list. I actually don't know many anarchist books. Perhaps there is a nice easy copyable list online somewhere... or someone can post one.

Also I was thinking we could add a book list. I actually don't know many anarchist books. Perhaps there is a nice easy copyable list online somewhere... or someone can post one.

the official anarchist booklist of books currently sitting in my room
anarchism - daniel guerin
no gods, no masters: books 1&2 - daniel geurin, ed.
people without government: an anthropology of anarchism - howard barclay
god and the state - michael bakunin
anarchism and other essays - emma goldman
running on emptiness - john zerzan
mutual aid: a factor of evolution - petr kropotkin
the anarchist collectives - sam dolgoff
the anarchists in the russian revolution - paul avrich, ed.
anarchists and communists in brazil 1900-1935 - john dulles

non-anarchist but related:
homage to catalonia - george orwell
under the black flag: the romance and reality of life among the pirates - david cordingly
the cambridge encyclopedia of human evolution
anthropology - carol ember and melvin ember
the social animal - elliot aronson
the gift - marcel mauss
no logo - naomi klein

anarcho socialism is contradictory, because it would need a state authority to run it. You say that the property is everyone's; but who will enforce that? Who will distribute the food among the people? Who will make sure things run smoothly?The common wealth would of course be run by a federalized direct democracy.

Workers' cooperatives and consumer/producer cooperatives.

If ownership is obtained by a claim to something that is legitimated by society, then it is a purely conventional 'right' rather than a natural one. I hope you'll agree with that.

I'd argue that the very concept of 'natural right' is constructed, and consequently it is a 'conventional right'. I'm not sure there is a difference.


Given that, there is no absolute fact about whether anyone owns anything or not, just a quasi-fact within the definitions of a society, such as a state society with law that defines legal ownership.

It is, in a sense, outside of legality. It is quite clear at this point 'who owns what'- they have clear, contracted rights over their possesion. While the legitimacy of this aquisition is in question (though I will certainly endeavour to answer this below) their current ownership is fairly indisputable, given the current societal construction of ownership.


What is the ownership status of things in nature? Nobody owns it particularly? Then when does somebody start owning something? When the society says they do? And how do they *deserve* it - just from the fact that they've grabbed it? So this will encourage everybody to grab as much of nature as they can, yes?

Yes. And why not? I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I can understand the rational. At this point, this is effectively a moot point- virtually all natural resources are owned in some way. In the sense that Rousseau makes it, as soon as an individual/organization declares something their proper and others assent to this declaration it becomes their property.


Now, where does this 'gold' come from, for which you can redeem your paper money in the society you are talking about - from nature, yes? Who owns the gold? Why them? A state, a corporation? If a state it's no more anarcho-capitalist than socialist. If a corporation, isn't that an automatic domination of the whole economy by one private business?
Gold was merely the example. My point was that an anarcho-capitalist will demand a currency based on real, not imagined, value: a value that is constant, relatively unchangeable and transferrable. The 'gold' will NOT be owned by government or organization, but by the individual him/herself.

And how does this gold have 'real value'? What value does gold have - surely it has practical value... and monetary value. In which case gold doesn't have any more 'real value' than any other commodity. What would you do with it when you cash in your chips?

err... I'd hope you'd understand the value of an intermediate currency in facillitating barter transactions. If not, I'll explain it.

In an anarcho-socialist society, there is no 'property' in the conventional sense - literally, the sense created by legal convention within a state. There is only individual 'possession' of personal effects, such as toothbrushes and trousers, and collective ownership of collective concerns, like the "means of production" (factories, farms etc.).

Property as a concept obviously still remains. The means of production is still the property of the collective (who may or may not exploit it; implying one way or another negates the concept of collective freedom to decesion making). Thus property excepts on the personal level (trousers and the like) and the community level- this certainly does NOT ensure global egality.

And one might ask, why would any individual want to 'own' any more than what they need as personal effects - such as roadways, factories, large areas of land that could be used by others. Is it to profit from those others? In which case why should the others tolerate it?

One would want recompension for increased levels of utility. If one person produces more than another, clearly they must be rewarded in some sense; otherwise they have no reason to strive for success above the norm.

In regards to your question 'What would be better?', I would argue liberal egalitarianism, as envisioned by J. Rawls, can best meet the twin challenges of relative equality and personal freedom.

maybe not fascism in its entirety, but it is definitely corporatist; anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian with the 'captains of industry' essentially owning the state. now it won't be called the state, but you'll have what amounts to a couple of privatized states running around enforcing their laws. those laws will be made by the owners - i don't buy a word about "market forces" creating the law, not when there are a few powerful people who own the factories, the land, the cops, and the courts. under 'anarcho'-capitalism political power will not be dissolved, it will be completely in the hands of the rich without even the sham democratic safeguards of today.
So? Under anarcho-capitalism, no one will be limited by the laws erected by 'capitalists' unless they voluntarily consent to this authority. This is the key to anarcho-capitlalist theory- consent. Noone has legitimate authority over you unless you consent to it. If you don't consent, no authortiy. If you do consent (regardless of the influences which may initiate this consent, given they aren't the direct coercion of others) you are responsible for fufilling your contract.

beyond that, there is nothing quite so authoritarian as the internal structure of a corporation, which will be the main political and economic power structures around under 'anarcho'-capitalism.
Except for the mob rule which necessarily rules anarchism (any drive for consensus is fallacious- there is no reason to believe concensus will occur. Minorities will NOT have a say in the direction of the anarcho-commune.)

same way i get off banning capitalism. there's freedom, and then there's license. freedom is not being able to do anything you want. there is no right to be a fascist dictator and there is no right to privately own the means of production and distribution. a 'freedom' that allows unfreedom isn't.

Your opinion. But most people would believe otherwise. I can legitiamtely make myself a slave if no one forces me too. Suggesting otherwise limits the personal freedoms which we all (not just anarchists) do/should hold dear. You don't know what's best any more than the next person. Consequently, we should all make up our own minds even if these means a voluntary restriction of freedom. There certainly IS a right to be a facist dictator if everyone you try and rule over volutarily accepts it.

IMO, neither anarcho socialism nor anarcho-capitalism are particularly compelling. Both necessitate the forfeiture of either relative equality or personal freedom. This is why I feel a liberal egalitarian model is far more successful in remedying both of these problems.

everyone who has ever wanted to tell someone else what to do has had at that moment a vested intrest in perpetuating the myth that organizatin can only be virticle. it is an easy myth to become emotionaly attatched to and one that i suppose dies pretty hard.

anyone who has never participated in a situation that was organized nonvirticly, can perhapse be forgiven the error of assuming one cannot exist. yet any sufficiently objective observation of the real universe will reveal far more numerous instances of organization being horizontal then virticle.

indigenous populations everywhere got along just fine for tens of thousands of years without standing governments or need of them.

if people were truely equal in the sense of no one having more means of instilling fear in another then anyone else would hierarchies themselves survive?

is such a condition attainable?

what i do know is that established higherachies seem to be absolutely terrified that it might be. the effort and resources they pour into keeping a majority of people convinced it is not certainly seems suspicious at the very least.

human beings are capable of self dicipline. what has been demonstrated is not the lack of this capacity but that concomitant with gregariousness is a degree of gullability.

it is not the ability of nonhierarchies to function that is the greatest challange but finding a way to protect and preserve them from being over run by powerful but short sighted higherarchies.

the question of which is more survivably fit is far from settled either way.

there is however a larger context that both monitary and other forms of economic fanatacism premeditatedly overlook and that is the surrounding reality outside of and beyone human society itself, of which we are but one fully and integraly imbedded part.

theories of symbolic value have done a poor job of representing real costs and bennifits, let alone acknowledging that they themselves are subject to the same question.

i guess i'm talking about two things and rambling. but these two things, each having been pretended to be approaced scientificly though in reality only to the degree of quasi objectively proving one or another pet emotional attatchment.

why are my own thoughts rambling? perhapse because this disscussion itself tends to become somewhat rambling as each new voice enters the symphoney.

the performance of a jazz ensamble is a good example of nonvirticle organization, whatever virticle organization of the music, parts and players, my or may not exist outside of and behind the performance itself.

the whole becomes cohierent by all the players really listning and paying attention not only to what they them selves are doing and needing to do but to what each other are doing and recognizing how each needs to adjust their own performance to each and every other on an ongoing real time basis throughout it.

modern progressive fussion jazz is but one example of something that could not exist without the existence of NONhierarchal organization and an illustration of it in action.

and of course traditional indigenous societies, many even most if not neccessarily all, are another.

san francisco in the days immediatly fallowing the loma priata quake and as mentioned barcelona during a time when no government had asserted itself over another or at that moment means to

the last three are examples of functional nonorganization. the jazz ensamble is in a sense an example functional nonhierarchal organization, though again of course not universaly.

people who voluntarily aggree to cooperate with one another have time and time again demonstrated an ability to do so.

=^^=
.../\...

If ownership is obtained by a claim to something that is legitimated by society, then it is a purely conventional 'right' rather than a natural one. I hope you'll agree with that.
I'd argue that the very concept of 'natural right' is constructed, and consequently it is a 'conventional right'. I'm not sure there is a difference.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. The *concept* of natural right is constructed, because all concepts are constructed. But natural right as imagined by the concept is supposed to be non-constructed, quite independent of our creation. What is it you don't understand about that?

anarcho socialism is contradictory, because it would need a state authority to run it.

Answers to your three questions:

You say that the property is everyone's; but who will enforce that?
The people.

Who will distribute the food among the people?
The people.

Who will make sure things run smoothly?
The people.

Who will distribute the food among the people? Who will make sure things run smoothly?

When you host a dinner party, do you call in a cop to distribute the food?

Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to the basic principle of anarchism - "Property is theft".

Again, this is an entirely self-serving definition. Anarcho socialism holds that property is theft, but this is not necessarily true for all anarchists.

Wrong, the phrase comes from Proudhon, who was the first political anarchist (predated by anti-authoritarian Christian groups and the individualist anarchism of Goodwin). And he was a collectivist and not a socialist.

Anarchism should be best described as an absence of central government; this is the most accurate and entails the fewest debateable points.

Wrong again, anarchism is most accurately described as the absence of authority. To retain capitalism, you retain ownership of capital, which is a form of authority.

Moreover, anarcho-socialism DOES NOT necessarily make 'all property theft. My understanding is only the means of production must be collectively owned (which again seems like a restriction of freedoms) and collective ownership is still ownership. Moreover, if Jack and Bill each get 5 loaves of bread, clearly Jack has a legitimated ownership over his bread; otherwise, it would be perfectly fine for Bill to take Jack's 5, and have all 10.

Again, wrong, read "Property" by Proudhon. Capital is based on theft. The earliest organised society were based on equal or collective ownership. For the first "capitalist" to gain enough capital to rent it to others, they needed to steal it, ie. claim that they owned it.

Anarchism is not opposed to the state because the state is the root of oppression, the state is a symptom of the domination of capital. The state exists to defend the interests of the capital owning class, thus it is not the main issue.
Sure, in your opinion. I disagree. Note labour laws, weekends, social welfare, etc...

It's not "my opinion", it's the basis of the theory.

To say that anarcho-capitalism can co-exist with anarcho-socialism/communism/collectivism is a pointless argument, as it's unlikely that people would want to pay for something that is freely distributed elsewhere.
It's not freely distributed. It is received in exchange for work, just like capitalism. If I refuse to work, I will not eat, regardless of the economic system.

Great, you obviously know nothing about it at all. The economy of need is based on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". However, the two are not related as they are now. Free distribution is a given, work is not a condition.


Anarcho-capitalism, as a term, is a conscious and deliberate denigration of anarchism, it's the capitalist's equivalent of Lenin's "bourgeois individualist". So-called "anarcho-capitalism" is libertarianism - pro-capitalist, anti-authoritarianism.

Again, only in your opinion. It seems like a much more accurate and salient term than libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism has a clear and accurate meaning.

One that contradicts the basic principle of anarchism - "Property is theft". What you are talking about is not anarchism of any kind, it's simple, straightforward libertarianism. Back in the first two decades of the 20th Century Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman worked side by side with libertarian groups. The libertarians agreed with them on issues of freedom and reduction/abolition of government, but disagreed on the issue of capitalism. They didn't decide that they were "a different kind of anarchist", they kept their own ideological description.

Vas.

So? Under anarcho-capitalism, no one will be limited by the laws erected by 'capitalists' unless they voluntarily consent to this authority. This is the key to anarcho-capitlalist theory- consent. Noone has legitimate authority over you unless you consent to it. If you don't consent, no authortiy. If you do consent (regardless of the influences which may initiate this consent, given they aren't the direct coercion of others) you are responsible for fufilling your contract.

Hello, my name is Bob and I'll be your oppressor today. I thank you for allowing me to continue to own this factory farm through your revolution. So, you now want food? Please sign this contract consenting to be my personal slave in perpetuity. Thank you.

A contract between unequal parties isn't capitalism, it's highway robbery (perhaps without the highway). The poor party is motivated by need, the rich party is motivated by the search for profit. Thus, the rich party exploits the poor party. Exploitation is theft.

Vas.

People are not truly free unless they are also econmically free. Besides, it it ever actually got bad, the people whould just rise up. There would be no corrupt government to support the businesses.

anarcho socialism is contradictory, because it would need a state authority to run it.

Answers to your three questions:

You say that the property is everyone's; but who will enforce that?
The people.

Who will distribute the food among the people?
The people.

Who will make sure things run smoothly?
The people.

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

Under anarcho-capitalism, no one will be limited by the laws erected by 'capitalists' unless they voluntarily consent to this authority. This is the key to anarcho-capitlalist theory- consent. Noone has legitimate authority over you unless you consent to it. If you don't consent, no authortiy. If you do consent (regardless of the influences which may initiate this consent, given they aren't the direct coercion of others) you are responsible for fufilling your contract.

The thing is, coercion and arm-twisting *is* how anti-corporatists view what goes on in corporations NOW and only seeing this "throffer" (combination of 'threat' and 'offer' - *technical* term for carrot-and-stick created by Hillel Steiner) situation getting WORSE under "globilization" which moves closer and closer to the world envisioned in "Jennifer Government."

Quote:
beyond that, there is nothing quite so authoritarian as the internal structure of a corporation, which will be the main political and economic power structures around under 'anarcho'-capitalism.

Except for the mob rule which necessarily rules anarchism (any drive for consensus is fallacious- there is no reason to believe concensus will occur. Minorities will NOT have a say in the direction of the anarcho-commune.)

The term 'minority' can't/won't apply to anyone for all or most issues all or most of the time...*democracy* was created in ancient Greece and in America with the idea that more than half the people were right more than half the time.

Quote:
same way i get off banning capitalism. there's freedom, and then there's license. freedom is not being able to do anything you want. there is no right to be a fascist dictator and there is no right to privately own the means of production and distribution. a 'freedom' that allows unfreedom isn't.


Your opinion. But most people would believe otherwise. I can legitiamtely make myself a slave if no one forces me too. Suggesting otherwise limits the personal freedoms which we all (not just anarchists) do/should hold dear. You don't know what's best any more than the next person. Consequently, we should all make up our own minds even if these means a voluntary restriction of freedom. There certainly IS a right to be a facist dictator if everyone you try and rule over volutarily accepts it.


Freedom in anarchism follows the idea of "Your rights (freedoms) end where others' begin".

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

If they don't want to participate, they can leave.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Also I was thinking we could add a book list. I actually don't know many anarchist books. Perhaps there is a nice easy copyable list online somewhere... or someone can post one.

the official anarchist booklist of books currently sitting in my room
anarchism - daniel guerin
no gods, no masters: books 1&2 - daniel geurin, ed.
people without government: an anthropology of anarchism - howard barclay
god and the state - michael bakunin
anarchism and other essays - emma goldman
running on emptiness - john zerzan
mutual aid: a factor of evolution - petr kropotkin
the anarchist collectives - sam dolgoff
the anarchists in the russian revolution - paul avrich, ed.
anarchists and communists in brazil 1900-1935 - john dulles

non-anarchist but related:
homage to catalonia - george orwell
under the black flag: the romance and reality of life among the pirates - david cordingly
the cambridge encyclopedia of human evolution
anthropology - carol ember and melvin ember
the social animal - elliot aronson
the gift - marcel mauss
no logo - naomi klein

Isn't there a book by P. Kropotkin called 'Fields, Factories, and Workshops' (or something like that)? It's supposed to mention in more depth Kropotkin's vision of anarchist society (whereas Bakunin never offered more than bits and pieces of his vision at a time).

To say that anarcho-capitalism can co-exist with anarcho-socialism/communism/collectivism is a pointless argument, as it's unlikely that people would want to pay for something that is freely distributed elsewhere.
It's not freely distributed. It is received in exchange for work, just like capitalism. If I refuse to work, I will not eat, regardless of the economic system.

Here you are clearly wrong about collectivist anarchism; read "The Dispossed" (or at least skim through it) for a better view of distribution, democracy, community, and change in collectivist anarchism.

anarcho socialism is contradictory, because it would need a state authority to run it.

Answers to your three questions:

You say that the property is everyone's; but who will enforce that?
The people.

Who will distribute the food among the people?
The people.

Who will make sure things run smoothly?
The people.

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

erm, have ever read anything about Israeli kibbutzs (how DO you spell that?) from 1948 till about 1975? They were functioning examples of collectivist anarchism. They were created as settlement outposts near the beginning of the foundation of Israel, to make sure Israel had a physical civilian presence near it's borders, to prevent foreigners from moving in.

breakfast...

Let's not confuse Self-Government with Anarchy. Anarchy is a brief period of unrest between the fall and creation of another government in a region. "Anarchy" as a government Cannot exist.

Quote:
beyond that, there is nothing quite so authoritarian as the internal structure of a corporation, which will be the main political and economic power structures around under 'anarcho'-capitalism.

Except for the mob rule which necessarily rules anarchism (any drive for consensus is fallacious- there is no reason to believe concensus will occur. Minorities will NOT have a say in the direction of the anarcho-commune.)

The term 'minority' can't/won't apply to anyone for all or most issues all or most of the time...*democracy* was created in ancient Greece and in America with the idea that more than half the people were right more than half the time.

Technically it isn't that 'more than half the people were right' - instead it is that the largest vocal minority are right. Lets say there is a presidential election: half the people don't vote, 19% vote for A, 18% vote for B and 13% vote for C. Who is right? - the 19% that voted for A. Such is democracy.

For example: JFk, despite being hailed as massively popualr was elected with 49.75% of 62.8% turnout: in other words 31.24% of the total electorate.

(trivia: the word 'democracy' comes from the greek 'demos' meaning people, and the word 'crass' meaning stupid)*



*this is patently untrue.

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

If they don't want to participate, they can leave.



and will you, personally, be willing to risk your life to force these civilians and their families to leave their homes? no? well guess what, nobody else will be either. there's something about ejecting civilians and their children merely because of their ideology that most honorable people dislike...i can't imagine why...

but you missed my point: the majority of people DON'T WANT THE SYSTEM YOU ARE PROPOSING. so if "the people" are really in charge, rather than an oppressive state which forces Communist values upon the people, there will be no communalism.

also, try reading Aristotle's critique of pure democracy...he's got a very concise analysis of why pure democracy can never succeed.

Quote:
beyond that, there is nothing quite so authoritarian as the internal structure of a corporation, which will be the main political and economic power structures around under 'anarcho'-capitalism.

Except for the mob rule which necessarily rules anarchism (any drive for consensus is fallacious- there is no reason to believe concensus will occur. Minorities will NOT have a say in the direction of the anarcho-commune.)

The term 'minority' can't/won't apply to anyone for all or most issues all or most of the time...*democracy* was created in ancient Greece and in America with the idea that more than half the people were right more than half the time.

Technically it isn't that 'more than half the people were right' - instead it is that the largest vocal minority are right. Lets say there is a presidential election: half the people don't vote, 19% vote for A, 18% vote for B and 13% vote for C. Who is right? - the 19% that voted for A. Such is democracy.

For example: JFk, despite being hailed as massively popualr was elected with 49.75% of 62.8% turnout: in other words 31.24% of the total electorate.

(trivia: the word 'democracy' comes from the greek 'demos' meaning people, and the word 'crass' meaning stupid)*



*this is patently untrue.

That is why, in anarchism - democracy in its purest form - people need to see or recognize that they have an obligation or responsibility to each other to take part in the decision making process, debate, or discussion.

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

If they don't want to participate, they can leave.



and will you, personally, be willing to risk your life to force these civilians and their families to leave their homes? no? well guess what, nobody else will be either. there's something about ejecting civilians and their children merely because of their ideology that most honorable people dislike...i can't imagine why...

They aren't being forced from their homes!!! Where the f--- did you get that idea?

How do the means of communication ('communication is only possible between equals') fit into anarchism?

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

If they don't want to participate, they can leave.



and will you, personally, be willing to risk your life to force these civilians and their families to leave their homes? no? well guess what, nobody else will be either. there's something about ejecting civilians and their children merely because of their ideology that most honorable people dislike...i can't imagine why...

They aren't being forced from their homes!!! Where the f--- did you get that idea?

um, "if they don't want to participate they can leave." well, what if they don't want to participate and yet they don't want to leave? are you going to steal from them, impose your beliefs by force, or eject them from your country by force?

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

If they don't want to participate, they can leave.



and will you, personally, be willing to risk your life to force these civilians and their families to leave their homes? no? well guess what, nobody else will be either. there's something about ejecting civilians and their children merely because of their ideology that most honorable people dislike...i can't imagine why...

They aren't being forced from their homes!!! Where the f--- did you get that idea?

um, "if they don't want to participate they can leave." well, what if they don't want to participate and yet they don't want to leave? are you going to steal from them, impose your beliefs by force, or eject them from your country by force?

Then they can stay as long as they don't impose their system on us!

You miss the irony in your statement, don't you? *We*, anarchists DO NOT WANT *your* system/*the* system/the status quo - what does it do to us??? It tries to force us to leave its realm of power and jurisdiction by coercion, force, and authority - government, the police, the military, etc

okay, THE STATEMENT SAID "IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE THEY CAN LEAVE." that doesn't imply to me that they are free to stay if they don't want to participate...it says that they can live by your rules or get out. so QUIT BACKPEDALING.

okay. as long as you don't use any of the benefits of our system then feel free to live as you chose...just be aware that your children may not attend our schools, you may not call our police when you need protection, your homes will not be protected by our emergency services, you may not drive on our roads or use our mass transit, you may not have your home heated or cooled or powered by our fascilities, etc. etc. etc.

if you don't want to live under the "oppression" of capitalism then prove it by giving up everything that comes with capitalism...the good as well as the bad. show that you have the strength of your convictions, rather than being merely another bourgeios hypocrite who whines about inequality while indulging in all the side effects of that "oppression."

Please :roll:

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.

Please :roll:

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.
yes, by workers in a CAPITALIST society, and without the "plutocracy" you wouldn't have had the funding, training, or jobs for those worker. take Econ 101, it helps when you actually understand the economy before you try to become a Communist.

...persuading people to anarchism will take a long time...leading by example will be the fastest solution; anarchists need a large swath of territory (like the size of Montana or Wyoming? or maybe, 40-60 years from now, somewhere on Mars?) that they can call their own, show the world what they've done and let the facts speak for themselves...

Or something like that.

It ain't gonna happen in the next 20 minutes, or hours, or weeks...

What's your next point?

Please :roll:

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.
yes, by workers in a CAPITALIST society, and without the "plutocracy" you wouldn't have had the funding, training, or jobs for those worker. take Econ 101, it helps when you actually understand the economy before you try to become a Communist.

It doesn't have to be that way.

- Mentioning police as a 'means of protection' when SPEAKING TO ANARCHISTS was major mistake on your part.



the backpedaling is pretty damn explicit, i don't know how you expect me to make it any clearer to you. and most of your arguments have already been address, you simply didn't listen, so i'll just focus on the one above:

i was merely saying that if you don't want to be "oppressed" by capitalism then you shouldn't expect any of the benefits. so when you are robbed or beaten or a loved one is harmed, don't expect any assistance from the system you hate. i am fully aware of the cowardly opinion most anarchists hold about the police.




Please

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.

yes, by workers in a CAPITALIST society, and without the "plutocracy" you wouldn't have had the funding, training, or jobs for those worker. take Econ 101, it helps when you actually understand the economy before you try to become a Communist.

It doesn't have to be that way.



then make it another way. if you really believe it can be otherwise then prove it, and stop benefitting from the system you claim to hate.

- Mentioning police as a 'means of protection' when SPEAKING TO ANARCHISTS was major mistake on your part.



i was merely saying that if you don't want to be "oppressed" by capitalism then you shouldn't expect any of the benefits. so when you are robbed or beaten or a loved one is harmed, don't expect any assistance from the system you hate.

Especially when it's often the system that caused it to happen in the first place.

...stop benefitting from the system you claim to hate...

Would you care to explain how I benefit from the system I *claim* ( :roll: ) to hate?

- Mentioning police as a 'means of protection' when SPEAKING TO ANARCHISTS was major mistake on your part.



i was merely saying that if you don't want to be "oppressed" by capitalism then you shouldn't expect any of the benefits. so when you are robbed or beaten or a loved one is harmed, don't expect any assistance from the system you hate.

Especially when it's often the system that caused it to happen in the first place.

that is irrelevant to my point. (it's also highly debatable, but since it doesn't matter what you believe on that front i'm not going to bother arguing with you.)

MY ASS it's irrelevant.

...stop benefitting from the system you claim to hate...

Would you care to explain how I benefit from the system I *claim* ( :roll: ) to hate?

i could point out the countless services and luxuries you enjoy because of capitalism, including your education, your quality of life, the computer you are typing at, any of the personal posetions you own, or any number of social and economic benefits you reap on a daily basis, but i will instead simply refer you to the works of Karl Marx (specifically Das Kapital and On The Jewish Question) for an analysis of your hypocritical and bourgeois nature. though i warn you, On The Jewish Question in particular is a very difficult piece, and will take quite some time to fully understand. you have to watch for Marx's shifts of voice as he goes from his position to Bauer's and back.

MY ASS it's irrelevant.

you sure like that word, don't you? that's cute, my little brother swears like that when he is angry, too.

...stop benefitting from the system you claim to hate...

Would you care to explain how I benefit from the system I *claim* ( :roll: ) to hate?

i could point out the countless services and luxuries you enjoy because of capitalism, including your education, your quality of life, the computer you are typing at, any of the personal posetions you own, or any number of social and economic benefits you reap on a daily basis, but i will instead simply refer you to the works of Karl Marx (specifically Das Kapital and On The Jewish Question) for an analysis of your hypocritical and bourgeois nature. though i warn you, On The Jewish Question in particular is a very difficult piece, and will take quite some time to fully understand. you have to watch for Marx's shifts of voice as he goes from his position to Bauer's and back.

How do you know that the innovation of which you speak couldn't have happened under anarchism, or under any number of systems, for that matter? Would you kindly explain how you can forsee the future, or possibile futures?

MY ASS it's irrelevant.

you sure like that word, don't you? that's cute, my little brother swears like that when he is angry, too.

You sure like flaimbaiting people and always having the right answer, don't you? That's not cute, it makes you a jerk.

...stop benefitting from the system you claim to hate...

Would you care to explain how I benefit from the system I *claim* ( :roll: ) to hate?

i could point out the countless services and luxuries you enjoy because of capitalism, including your education, your quality of life, the computer you are typing at, any of the personal posetions you own, or any number of social and economic benefits you reap on a daily basis, but i will instead simply refer you to the works of Karl Marx (specifically Das Kapital and On The Jewish Question) for an analysis of your hypocritical and bourgeois nature. though i warn you, On The Jewish Question in particular is a very difficult piece, and will take quite some time to fully understand. you have to watch for Marx's shifts of voice as he goes from his position to Bauer's and back.

How do you know that the innovation of which you speak couldn't have happened under anarchism, or under any number of systems, for that matter?

it hasn't. if you want a logical proof of why, read Aristotle. as for predicting the future, i don't claim that i can...read Marx, read Aristotle, read Weber, read Nietzsche. LEARN about what you are preaching.

MY ASS it's irrelevant.

you sure like that word, don't you? that's cute, my little brother swears like that when he is angry, too.

You sure like flaimbaiting people and always having the right answer, don't you? That's not cute, it makes you a jerk.
awww!! *tickles AC under the chin* you are just so adorable i could snuggle you all day long!

"You cannot understand a man's actions unless you understand his beliefs"
-Winston Churchill

Please, learn about the beliefs of those YOU preach to; perhaps I will make an effort to understand yours.

MY ASS it's irrelevant.

you sure like that word, don't you? that's cute, my little brother swears like that when he is angry, too.

You sure like flaimbaiting people and always having the right answer, don't you? That's not cute, it makes you a jerk.

Dont you dare call Bottle a jerk!

She is a very intelligent young lady...with very defined views...this does not make her a jerk...she just knows what she believes in...and can out debate most...

*winks at Bottle and leaves the thread*

MY ASS it's irrelevant.

you sure like that word, don't you? that's cute, my little brother swears like that when he is angry, too.

You sure like flaimbaiting people and always having the right answer, don't you? That's not cute, it makes you a jerk.

Dont you dare call Bottle a jerk!

I just did. :shock:

Just remember that bottle doesn't have much sympathy for the handicapped, the poor, etc. She believes that only certain people have actually earned the right to live or something. You can't expect her to understand how your beliefs work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

"You cannot understand a man's actions unless you understand his beliefs"
-Winston Churchill

Please, learn about the beliefs of those YOU preach to; perhaps I will make an effort to understand yours.

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism. i have studied the critiques and defenses of Communism by such political philosophers as Weber, Freud, Koch, Strauss, and Rawls. i've learned a great deal more about Communism, Anarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy, and Republics than you appear to have. try again, cutiepie!

Just remember that bottle doesn't have much sympathy for the handicapped, the poor, etc. She believes that only certain people have actually earned the right to live or something. You can't expect her to understand how your beliefs work. :roll:

Just remember that bottle doesn't have much sympathy for the handicapped, the poor, etc. She believes that only certain people have actually earned the right to live or something. You can't expect her to understand how your beliefs work.


:roll:



i second that eye roll, given that i grew up poor and my only sibling is handicapped. but Letila suffers from a form of hysterical blindness that prevents him from being able to read material which contradicts his opinions, so we should be charitable in view of his disability.

personaly i seriously question that "econ 101" understands anything other then the movement of little green pieces of paper.
as for "makining it some other way" it is extremely likely that we will all be doing exactly that, whether we want to or not, when the oil really does run out.

i have often wondered if those who rail against anarchy have ever honsetly speculated as to what life would actualy be like if there were no laws and people did not take the abscence of them as a hint to beat each other over the head, as it is indeed highly unlikly that a mojority would, as indeed such experiences of it as have occured have shown that they would most likely not.

the most probable difficulty would be that a lot of people would get kind of hungry for a while. but if there were nothing to prevent people from building whatever they wanted to with what they knew how, but with only whatever materials they could get their hands on,

to begin with we'd probably build small because it would be hard to get enough of us togather to work on any one thing. difficult but not quite impossible. (origens of the luau). but build interesting because it would all be as individual as each builder building it.

if governments and highway trust funds and the interstate power grid all sort of collapsed of their own weight; if the compulsion to keep them going wasn't there and fanatics DIDN'T burn the libraries and university engineering labs; just let them lie fallow for any interepid soul who might be inspired to happen by and put them to good use.

every economic theory i have ever heard of is predicated on familiar assumptions being widely known and accepted. what if they weren't?

what if everyone wasn't interested in moving little green pieces of paper arround and gratuitously accumulating?

i'm not. and if i'm not can i be the only one who isn't? clearly this very discussion itself would seem to suggest that each of us who have arrived at this conclusion are not alone.

and if a simple majority or even a signifigant minority were to loose interest in doing so, wouldn't the whole monaterist house of cards colapse?

current ecomomic theories have been arround no more then a few centuries longer then any one person lives. some at lest, of us do appearently realize this.

nations and nearly an entire world have 'bet the farm' that gratuitous greed would be eternaly self perpetuating. but what if it isn't?

what if 'productivity' isn't the 'holy grail' either? some of us secretly know it isn't

but what then? sheep would rather cling to familiar assumptions if they were eating them alive then face a warm fuzzy and truely welcoming unknown

but is it truely unknown? doesn't EVERYONE dream? appearantly not.

sooner or later enough of us will at the same time, and really that's all it will take, just long enough for the walls to fall and the sleepers begin to awaike

it is the same little secret everyone knows and tries to pretend not to. everyone except us 'wild' few society condems for showing it what it doesn't want to see. that it's been deceiving itself to no effective purpose but to perpetuate its own delusions

out of fear they condem us, call us mad, shun us, or at least try to pretend they don't see, try to pretend we arn't here at all.

but we are, and always have been here all along

if simple honesty is not enough to make the walls fall why then is it so widely feared?

does an honest being need fear his own dreams that intend harm toward none?

if there is a distinction between pseudo-conservatism and masochism it is one that remains unclear to me.

=^^=
.../\...

Then why do you place much of your recent emphasis on Marx and state communism when this thread is about anarcho-communism.

Then why do you place much of your recent emphasis on Marx and state communism when this thread is about anarcho-communism.

:roll: if you had actually READ Marx you would know that it is his critique of Capitalism and his analysis of your bourgeios ideals which are relavent to this discussion.

MY ASS it's irrelevant.

you sure like that word, don't you? that's cute, my little brother swears like that when he is angry, too.

You sure like flaimbaiting people and always having the right answer, don't you? That's not cute, it makes you a jerk.

Dont you dare call Bottle a jerk!

She is a very intelligent young lady...with very defined views...this does not make her a jerk...she just knows what she believes in...and can out debate most...

*winks at Bottle and leaves the thread*

thanks, Beeks baby :). you know i feel the same about you. well, except for the "young lady" part...:P

I really HAVE read 'Das Kapital' as well as 'The Communist Manifesto' and can tell you that much of it was exagerated then, that some/much of it hasn't come to be true and that the system it purports to be a replacement for capitalism is just as bad or worse!

hey who would help me if i declared war on a totally over ruling country?

thanks, Beeks baby :). you know i feel the same about you. well, except for the "young lady" part...:P

:oops: Thanks...

Then why do you place much of your recent emphasis on Marx and state communism when this thread is about anarcho-communism.

:roll: if you had actually READ Marx you would know that it is his critique of Capitalism and his analysis of your bourgeios ideals which are relavent to this discussion.

You are leaving out authority and its relevance to this discussion (authority> as an issue than capitalism).

What're these 'bourgeios ideals' you talk about? Would you give me some definitive examples?

I really HAVE read 'Das Kapital' as well as 'The Communist Manifesto' and can tell you that much of it was exagerated then, that some/much of it hasn't come to be true and that the system it purports to be a replacement for capitalism is just as bad or worse!

then you haven't read them very well. if you had, you would know that the tyranny of the proletariat was to exist only as a stepping block until the realization of the VERY SYSTEM YOU ARE ADVOCATING.

oh, and i actually just finished a very interested paper on how the exploitation of natural resources may be the key reason why Marx's prediction of the empoverishment of the working class has not yet come to exist under Capitalism. just thought i would share that, because it was a fun paper to write.

hey who would help me if i declared war on a totally over ruling country?

Why would you declare war on this country and how relevant is this to the discussion?

*sigh* bored now. i am going to go play in some of the other threads for a while, be back later.

I really HAVE read 'Das Kapital' as well as 'The Communist Manifesto' and can tell you that much of it was exagerated then, that some/much of it hasn't come to be true and that the system it purports to be a replacement for capitalism is just as bad or worse!

then you haven't read them very well. if you had, you would know that the tyranny of the proletariat was to exist only as a stepping block until the realization of the VERY SYSTEM YOU ARE ADVOCATING.

Anarchists, beginning with Bakunnin (who was at odds with Marx almost from the very beginning because of this) have fundamentally disagreed with statist socialists and communists over the 'gradual withering away of the state' mentioned in the Communist Manifesto!

is debate an end in and of itself?

there is no form of fanatacism
that will save anyone
from any other form of fanatacism

=^^=
.../\...

No, but what would you do atm?

hey who would help me if i declared war on a totally over ruling country?

Why would you declare war on this country and how relevant is this to the discussion?

Your an idiot i was talking hypothetically!

I know; either way, it doesn't matter.

What reason would you have to attack *any* country?

Because you're semi-serious, because you're just playing around, or because you're trying to make a bad joke?

I have an anarchic nation. Add me to the anarchic nations list.

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism.

Oh really? I thought he founded Marxism (or those who came after him founded Marxism in his name).

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism.

Oh really? I thought he founded Marxism (or, more technically - those who came after him founded Marxism in his name).

maybe not fascism in its entirety, but it is definitely corporatist; anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian with the 'captains of industry' essentially owning the state. now it won't be called the state, but you'll have what amounts to a couple of privatized states running around enforcing their laws. those laws will be made by the owners - i don't buy a word about "market forces" creating the law, not when there are a few powerful people who own the factories, the land, the cops, and the courts. under 'anarcho'-capitalism political power will not be dissolved, it will be completely in the hands of the rich without even the sham democratic safeguards of today.
So? Under anarcho-capitalism, no one will be limited by the laws erected by 'capitalists' unless they voluntarily consent to this authority. This is the key to anarcho-capitlalist theory- consent. Noone has legitimate authority over you unless you consent to it. If you don't consent, no authortiy. If you do consent (regardless of the influences which may initiate this consent, given they aren't the direct coercion of others) you are responsible for fufilling your contract.

(rant against anarcho-cappies ahead)

so you get to choose what law applies to you when you are driving down the privately owned road on your way to the privately owned workplace? of course not - while driving on the road you have to obey a set of laws chosen by the owner that you must 'consent to' in order to use the roads. and just what percentage of the population will own their own roads? i'll tell you; about the same percentage of the population that owns their own factories. speaking of which, when you are working somewhere not only will you have no say over the working conditions, work rules, and the running of the business, but you will also have no say over the law itself because you will have to submit to the bosses' law as a condition of getting the privilege of working on the bosses'' property. but at least you will be king of your own home. unless you rent. oh, and somehow i suspect that the banks will write in which set of laws you must obey as a condition of getting a loan. but once you've paid off the bank you'll live like a god-king. unless you want water and power and heat, in which case you will have to submit to the conditions set by the tiny number of people who will own the utility companies. which means that you will spend your life having to play by rules made entirely by a tiny minority of people without any input from you. on the up side you might get to choose between the coca-cola legal system and the pepsi legal system in some cases, if you are lucky. hooray for freedom.

beyond that, there is nothing quite so authoritarian as the internal structure of a corporation, which will be the main political and economic power structures around under 'anarcho'-capitalism.
Except for the mob rule which necessarily rules anarchism (any drive for consensus is fallacious- there is no reason to believe concensus will occur. Minorities will NOT have a say in the direction of the anarcho-commune.)

i disagree with your characterization of anarchism as mob rule. there are a number of proposed forms for organizing and running collectives and federations - and very few of them involve pitchforks or torches, at least not on a regular basis. but even if it was mob rule, i would take that over absolute rule by the rich any day.

that really doesn't matter because every structure i have ever heard of for anarchist organization has had protections for minority opinion built in. these come in many forms and at many different levels (like a 'minority veto' or the right to withhold support from certain actions). the fundamental protection comes from free association. minorities do not have to go along with things the totally disagree with. a non-anarchist majoritarian system will have problems with tyranny by majority because it will not have true freedom of association. a non-democratic system will of necessity be a tyranny by a minority because almost everybody will be locked out of the decision making process that creates the rules they have to live by. anarchism avoids both of these problems through its twin organizational pillars of direct democracy and free association.

then you haven't read them very well. if you had, you would know that the tyranny of the proletariat was to exist only as a stepping block until the realization of the VERY SYSTEM YOU ARE ADVOCATING.


"He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."


This is about as close as Marx gets to describing the nature of society once the state has withered away - due to the problems inherent in making decisions for future generations he is unable to further detail what the new society must be like after the dictatorship of the proletariat. Whether it actually describes an anarchist society or not is very open to debate - true, it paints a picture pf the world where Marx's root cause of oppression (the division of labour) is ended, but that doesn't really come to terms with fundamental anarchist concerns.

...persuading people to anarchism will take a long time...leading by example will be the fastest solution; anarchists need a large swath of territory (like the size of Montana or Wyoming? or maybe, 40-60 years from now, somewhere on Mars?) that they can call their own, show the world what they've done and let the facts speak for themselves...

Or something like that.

Personally I think it is a bad idea to try and dominate a single territory in a statist manner: why not overlay anarchist organisations on top of and in place of existing state operations. Anarchists don't need territory, they need social systems. See the works of Virilio ('On Dromology') or Deleuze & Guattari ('A Thousand Plateaus') for an explanation of the drawbacks in attempting to institute a bunker mantality and hold the terrain, instead of controlling the roads (ie. the social relationships of exchange)


erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.

When one moves away from the naive assumption that one society must be organised in the same way that another is, just because they occupy the same geographical space, then there is no reason to force people to 'obey' an anarchist society. They can live out their lives according to the rule of the state, and we shall live our lives according to other norms, and there is no neccessary need for conflict.

:?: I'd like to know how Communism and Anarchy are alike cuz I see them as exact opposite How about you? Lobe and Peace!

Please :roll:

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.
yes, by workers in a CAPITALIST society, and without the "plutocracy" you wouldn't have had the funding, training, or jobs for those worker. You could well use the same bankruopt arguments to justify slavery. "If you don't like Master, than STOP EATING!"

Capitalism does not create the infastructure of society, it merely ensures that a monied minority reaps the benifits of the labor of the masses.

There are certain Anarchists who do advocate 'dropping out', but I beleive that it is more important to work towards change within society.

Dropping out is the real hipocracy.

Wrong, the phrase comes from Proudhon, who was the first political anarchist (predated by anti-authoritarian Christian groups and the individualist anarchism of Goodwin). And he was a collectivist and not a socialist.

You misunderstand the way in which I'm using the term socialism here; I meant it in the sense of 'public ownership of the means of production' (which I think is the most concise and accurate definition of this term). All anarcho-collectivists, communal anarchists, syndicalist, etc. believe in the public ownership of the means of production; consequently, it is not innacurate to characterize them all as socialist.

Wrong again, anarchism is most accurately described as the absence of authority. To retain capitalism, you retain ownership of capital, which is a form of authority.

There's still authority in anarcho-socialism; coercive tactics MUST be used to 'liberate' the means of production, at the very least. I would also certainly deny that capital = authority. At its most pure, capital represents a specific level of 'work'- it exists only to render voluntary transactions between individuals more efficient. Capital is a neutral concept; it can be used for or against authority. I would also suspect anarcho-socialism would require some form of capital if only to allow ease of trade between collectives/communes/unions.

Again, wrong, read "Property" by Proudhon. Capital is based on theft. The earliest organised society were based on equal or collective ownership.
Nice idea. But... not only is it fundementally unsound as an anthropolgical concept, it actually runs contrary to what evidence we have of the 'earlist organised societies', and even of that which we observe in advanced primates (primates make property claims over prime foraging spots, both as communities and individuals). So while this idea is certainly important to your theory, it seems both contrived and an extreme contortion of evidence.

And again, collective ownership is still ownership.

For the first "capitalist" to gain enough capital to rent it to others, they needed to steal it, ie. claim that they owned it.
Right, but if everyone legitimates this claim, it certainly isn't theft. If Jim, Bob and Bill decide they're gonna split the valley into thirds, and each cultivate their respective third, if Jim works harder and has more melons, is he stealing them from Bill? This concept is unsound.

It's not "my opinion", it's the basis of the theory.


You haven't shown any evidence. At this point, you've only presented opinion; and not particularly compelling opinion at that.
Great, you obviously know nothing about it at all. The economy of need is based on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". However, the two are not related as they are now. Free distribution is a given, work is not a condition.
TRust me, I've read Marx ad nauseum. I've done some reading on anarchism, but I've never found it very compelling.

This point is clearly flawed. An economy of need is necessarily self-defeating; you can't reasonably expect me to believe you will magically defeat laziness. This also shows why some people may be attracted to a capitalist system- if everyone you work with is lazy, and produces only half of what you do, but revceives the same in return, you clearly have an incentive to go somewhere else to work. How are you going to ensure 'from each according to their ability' without resorting to authoritarian structure?

bump

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism.

Oh really? I thought he founded Marxism (or, more technically - those who came after him founded Marxism in his name).
:roll: the modern political theory known as Communism was constructed originally by Marx. new branches of this philosophy have since developed, and so the term "Marxism" is appropriate for referring exclusively to Communists who have not broken significantly with Marx.

"We're an anarcho-syndacist commune."
-Pesant, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Anarchy is BS. Get over it.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Under anarcho-capitalism, no one will be limited by the laws erected by 'capitalists' unless they voluntarily consent to this authority. This is the key to anarcho-capitlalist theory- consent. Noone has legitimate authority over you unless you consent to it. If you don't consent, no authortiy. If you do consent (regardless of the influences which may initiate this consent, given they aren't the direct coercion of others) you are responsible for fufilling your contract.

The thing is, coercion and arm-twisting *is* how anti-corporatists view what goes on in corporations NOW and only seeing this "throffer" (combination of 'threat' and 'offer' - *technical* term for carrot-and-stick created by Hillel Steiner) situation getting WORSE under "globilization" which moves closer and closer to the world envisioned in "Jennifer Government."

Exactly, which is the number one critique of any utopian capitalist ideology, plus ca change...

Please :roll:

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.
yes, by workers in a CAPITALIST society, and without the "plutocracy" you wouldn't have had the funding, training, or jobs for those worker. take Econ 101, it helps when you actually understand the economy before you try to become a Communist.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Exactly, take for example the 8-hour day. The main campaign in favour of it, which is the origin of the political Mayday, was by Russian anarchists, who'd formed their ideas in Tzarist Russia before moving to the USA.

D.

Please :roll:

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.
yes, by workers in a CAPITALIST society, and without the "plutocracy" you wouldn't have had the funding, training, or jobs for those worker. take Econ 101, it helps when you actually understand the economy before you try to become a Communist.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Exactly, take for example the 8-hour day. The main campaign in favour of it, which is the origin of the political Mayday, was by Russian anarchists, who'd formed their ideas in Tzarist Russia before moving to the USA.

D.

"We're an anarcho-syndacist commune."
-Pesant, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Anarchy is BS. Get over it.

a well reasoned argument if i ever saw one.

i do like the monty python bit. it has a not bad for a short explanation of things coming from (i assume) non-anarchists.

ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society!
If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism.

Oh really? I thought he founded Marxism (or, more technically - those who came after him founded Marxism in his name).
:roll: the modern political theory known as Communism was constructed originally by Marx. new branches of this philosophy have since developed, and so the term "Marxism" is appropriate for referring exclusively to Communists who have not broken significantly with Marx.

Yes, but the historical tradition was not founded by him, and that tradition continues today. When Marx and Engels wrote that "A spectre is haunting Europe" they were not summoning up that spectre - they were describing the movement which pre-existed both them and the Communist Manifesto.

You seem to be disallowing that there can exist a tradition of communism which did not fall for Marx and his dialectic.

"You cannot understand a man's actions unless you understand his beliefs"
-Winston Churchill

Please, learn about the beliefs of those YOU preach to; perhaps I will make an effort to understand yours.

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism. i have studied the critiques and defenses of Communism by such political philosophers as Weber, Freud, Koch, Strauss, and Rawls. i've learned a great deal more about Communism, Anarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy, and Republics than you appear to have. try again, cutiepie!

Sorry doll, but you can't comment on AnarchISM until you've at least read some Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin. You can't learn much about an ideology from its critics, of which Marx was most definitely one - he had Bakunin and his supporters expelled from the First International.

Vas.

Then why do you place much of your recent emphasis on Marx and state communism when this thread is about anarcho-communism.

:roll: if you had actually READ Marx you would know that it is his critique of Capitalism and his analysis of your bourgeios ideals which are relavent to this discussion.

If you had actually READ Bakunin or Kropotkin, you would know that Marx's critique is NOT accepted exclusively by most anarchists. There are some good things in it, much as there are some good things in the work of Max Stirner. But neither are anarchist writings.

D.

...you can't comment on AnarchISM until you've at least read some Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin...

Cough. Does praxis have no value? ie. experience of working in anarchist collectives.

Are you really telling all these interested people that they have no right to comment until they go away and get an education and then read mouldering texts?

Drop the elitist paraphenalia.

You misunderstand the way in which I'm using the term socialism here; I meant it in the sense of 'public ownership of the means of production' (which I think is the most concise and accurate definition of this term). All anarcho-collectivists, communal anarchists, syndicalist, etc. believe in the public ownership of the means of production; consequently, it is not innacurate to characterize them all as socialist.

Oh yes it is in the case of Proudhon, which you'd know if read "Property". He was in favour of individual ownership of that which the individual uses and opposed simply capital - that which is rented to others. His collectivism was NOT socialist.

There's still authority in anarcho-socialism; coercive tactics MUST be used to 'liberate' the means of production, at the very least. I would also certainly deny that capital = authority. At its most pure, capital represents a specific level of 'work'- it exists only to render voluntary transactions between individuals more efficient. Capital is a neutral concept; it can be used for or against authority.

OK, there is the genesis of a point there. In anarchism, the "authority" is general, it is of the people, if you define authority as being in charge. Anarchism is opposed to hierarchical authority.

I would also suspect anarcho-socialism would require some form of capital if only to allow ease of trade between collectives/communes/unions.

Not if they were all anarchist collectives/etc. One commune has a surplus and would give it to another commune if it was required. But not in trade, thus not capital. Even if there wasn't a surplus, one commune might see a greater benefit to both co-operating with another commune and giving materials. As such, you would then create a greater commune, these are not permanent institutions.

Nice idea. But... not only is it fundementally unsound as an anthropolgical concept, it actually runs contrary to what evidence we have of the 'earlist organised societies', and even of that which we observe in advanced primates (primates make property claims over prime foraging spots, both as communities and individuals). So while this idea is certainly important to your theory, it seems both contrived and an extreme contortion of evidence.

Firstly, the earliest human groups were nomadic. Secondly, before humans got there, nobody owned it. Someone took control, the origin of capital. When one person took control and charged for its use, capital was born.

And again, collective ownership is still ownership.

Not disputing that. Capital is not the same as ownership, capital is that which is not used but rented.

Right, but if everyone legitimates this claim, it certainly isn't theft. If Jim, Bob and Bill decide they're gonna split the valley into thirds, and each cultivate their respective third, if Jim works harder and has more melons, is he stealing them from Bill? This concept is unsound.

That's not capital. However, when Bill needs more land and Jim rents it to him, then it is capital.

You haven't shown any evidence. At this point, you've only presented opinion; and not particularly compelling opinion at that.

Sorry? It's not opinion that anarchism is based originally on the theories of Proudhon. It's not dogmatic, but if it's not anti-capitalist, it's not anarchist.

TRust me, I've read Marx ad nauseum. I've done some reading on anarchism, but I've never found it very compelling.

So fucking what? Kropotkin was not a Marxist, his variation on the economy of need is an anarchist version, not a Marxist version.

This point is clearly flawed. An economy of need is necessarily self-defeating; you can't reasonably expect me to believe you will magically defeat laziness. This also shows why some people may be attracted to a capitalist system- if everyone you work with is lazy, and produces only half of what you do, but revceives the same in return, you clearly have an incentive to go somewhere else to work. How are you going to ensure 'from each according to their ability' without resorting to authoritarian structure?

Firstly, most "laziness" is not innate, but is simply misapplication of human resources. Wage slavery requires people to work because they have to, not because they want to. Most "lazy" people would not be lazy if they could do something they enjoyed. Give people work they enjoy and believe in and they will generally work incredibly hard for it. Add in a social aspect, where they benefit not just themselves, but their entire community and receive the admiration of their fellows.

And please do not throw up the rubbish about dirty jobs, there are two arguments about those:
1. "Dirty" jobs can be made clean by the application of processes that are not economically viable in the current system, such as recylcling and composting.
2. "Dirty" jobs are usually necessary jobs, and they will be done. No-one wants to wade through shit.

Vas.

...you can't comment on AnarchISM until you've at least read some Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin...

Cough. Does praxis have no value? ie. experience of working in anarchist collectives.

Are you really telling all these interested people that they have no right to comment until they go away and get an education and then read mouldering texts?

Drop the elitist paraphenalia.

Apologies. You can't comment on the theories of anarchism unless you've read some of them. I was giving out about someone critiquing anarchism based on what they've read by Marx. Of course practical knowledge is useful, though I would still say that reading some of the "mouldering" texts is useful.

Vas.

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism.

Oh really? I thought he founded Marxism (or, more technically - those who came after him founded Marxism in his name).
:roll: the modern political theory known as Communism was constructed originally by Marx. new branches of this philosophy have since developed, and so the term "Marxism" is appropriate for referring exclusively to Communists who have not broken significantly with Marx.

Fourier, Owen and St. Simone were the first socialists. Marx invented so-called "scientific socialism". Communism, as such, is simply a form of social organisation and not an ideology, thus you have Marxist communism, anarchist communism, etc.

D.

what is the difference between anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndacism and anarhco collectivism.

Anarcho-socialism, or more correctly anarchist communism, is the theory of anarchism based on communes where everything is in common ownership. Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of pre-revolutionary organisation in the workplace leading to workers control of the means of production, leading to anarchist communism in general. Anarchist collectivism is where society is based on individual ownership (not of capital as defined by that which is owned by one person and rented by another) and co-operation between them.

:?: I'd like to know how Communism and Anarchy are alike cuz I see them as exact opposite How about you? Lobe and Peace!

Communism is a form of social organisation without a political element, anarchism is a political ideology. I'm presuming the Communism you mean is the USSR form. Setting aside the point that the USSR had about as much to do with communism as the Pope has to do with Islam, it was officially a state communist system. Anarchist Communism is communism without hierarchy or government, State Communism is communism with a government.

Vas.

Oh yes it is in the case of Proudhon, which you'd know if read "Property".
Enough with the ad hominems, enough with trying to be an expert. I'm not going to come after you for not havinga clear grasp of economics, or not understanding liberalism. Have I researched anarchism? Yes. Am I going to read everything on and about a theory which I find ludicrous to the extreme? No. So quit it, ok?


He was in favour of individual ownership of that which the individual uses and opposed simply capital - that which is rented to others. His collectivism was NOT socialist.

Who decides what an individual needs/ is using? Besides, if I build a rake, and I'm not using it, why shouldn't I charge someone else to do so? I took the time and made the effort building this tool. Not only will the use of it devalue it necessarily, I clearly have a smaller incentive to continuing to build rakes if everyone else will be taking them and wearing them out without due compensation. Moreover, it is impossible to determine how much someone 'needs' an item: worth cannot be determined absolutely (this is why market is very allocatively efficient)

OK, there is the genesis of a point there. In anarchism, the "authority" is general, it is of the people, if you define authority as being in charge. Anarchism is opposed to hierarchical authority.

Why should the people automatically be in charge? What if I don't WANT to be ruled by the people- what if I don't want to participate in the commune?

Not if they were all anarchist collectives/etc. One commune has a surplus and would give it to another commune if it was required. But not in trade, thus not capital. Even if there wasn't a surplus, one commune might see a greater benefit to both co-operating with another commune and giving materials. As such, you would then create a greater commune, these are not permanent institutions.

Now why would one commune wish to give it's surplus away? Even given a total lack of luxuries, this surplus still represents a level of leisure time- If I have an extra 5 loaves of bread, I can give them away and receive nothing, or I can save them and not work tommorow. There is a clear incentive here REGARDLESS of the existence of capital/luxury.

Firstly, the earliest human groups were nomadic.

So? They still had property. Nomadic groups in Canada had clear concepts of property, both personal and collective, well before contact with Europeans. They even had concepts of 'land ownership'- prize hunting grounds were defended and highly valued. Hierarchical power structures DID exist, to varying degrees.
Secondly, before humans got there, nobody owned it. Someone took control, the origin of capital. When one person took control and charged for its use, capital was born.
So what? I spend a good deal of time building a spear. If I lend it to Carl over there to go hunting with, it'll possibly break, and will definitely wear. I clearly need an incentive.
Not disputing that. Capital is not the same as ownership, capital is that which is not used but rented.

THis is also a fairly contentious definition. I'd define capital as any factor of production, including goods and services. This is certainly how capitalists would define it.
That's not capital. However, when Bill needs more land and Jim rents it to him, then it is capital.

Why? The other options would be Jim giving the land to Bill, making the consequence of Jim's increased level of labour less land, selling all excess product (which has the same consequence as rent anyways) or letting the land lay fallow, reducing the total level of output. Especially given the fact that long term land use results in devaluation, clearly Jim should receive some compensation.

So f--- what? Kropotkin was not a Marxist, his variation on the economy of need is an anarchist version, not a Marxist version.

As I said, I've certainly done reading on anarchism. I brought up Marx because you quoted him. No need to get upset. :roll:

Firstly, most "laziness" is not innate, but is simply misapplication of human resources.
I disagree. Different people place different levels of worth on leisure time. Those that place a very high vallue on it, for whatever reason, are less likely to work, especially without incentive.

Wage slavery requires people to work because they have to, not because they want to.
If they don't want to work, they don't have to. HOwever, I'm not responsible for your desicion to not work. THere's also nothing preventing you from forming an anarcho-commune (there are many throughout the world).
Most "lazy" people would not be lazy if they could do something they enjoyed. Give people work they enjoy and believe in and they will generally work incredibly hard for it. Add in a social aspect, where they benefit not just themselves, but their entire community and receive the admiration of their fellows.
Right, but all these things are also true within a capitalist system. There is nothing stopping any of us from working within our communities, and many of us do. What exactly do you think 'lazy' people want to do now? There are very few jobs that are inherently 'enjoyable', regardless of the system.
Even jobs that are relatively pleasant are generally inferior to leisure time; most jobs certainly are. Since resources are distributed evely regardless of work, I have a descion between working or playing. Regardless of how painless or relatively pleasant work is, on an individual level I'd rather play.

the official anarchist booklist [size=5]

Isn't there a book by P. Kropotkin called 'Fields, Factories, and Workshops' (or something like that)? It's supposed to mention in more depth Kropotkin's vision of anarchist society

That's a bit dated, even the updated version is. However, "The Conquest of Bread", though also dated (and containing some very out of date ideas about society), is the clearest outline of his anarchist communism ideas.

I'd also add Alexander Berkman's "ABCs of anarchism" to the list as the best introduction to it all.

(whereas Bakunin never offered more than bits and pieces of his vision at a time).

Yeah, he spent too much time scrapping and not enough time writing :-)

And again, collective ownership is still ownership.

This what i call dictionary-fokking.

In the case where person X can take Y from person Z without being seen as a thief, the owner has such power over his/her "ownership" that others do have such power too when they'd like to. In such case it matters not wether Z is a person, X a person, a company, a collective or whatever.

BSDL is still copyrighted. Big deal. The liberties it provides are the same as PD whereas one is copyrighted, and one doesn't have a copyright.

Who owns the earth currently?

I'd also add Alexander Berkman's "ABCs of anarchism" to the list as the best introduction to it all.

I also recommend the above. It is also sometimes published as "What Is Communist Anarchism?" Like anything it should be read questioningly.

Must go and re-read it one of these days...

Who owns the earth currently?

The Illuminati?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Ya see, it's really annoying for real anarchists when people come up with oxymoronic variations on the concept. Anarchism means anti-capitalist and anti-authority. If you're not anti-capitalist, then you're not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism really means "not really an anarchist", as does your definition of "minarchist". Libertarians are anti-authority, pro-capitalist, which state communists are pro-authority and anti-capitalist. Anarchism shares elements with both, but is also diametrically opposed to both on another level.

Vas.
This is, in my opinion, a very self serving definition of 'Anarchism'. In order to maximize accuracy, I think it is necessary to simply define anarchism as any political theory with a complete decentralization of 'governing' power. Anarchism does not tell us anything (and really shouldn't tell us anything) about the economic or social makeup of society; clearly these societies will be formed through mutual consent based on priorities and none of us should try and predict how they will actually work. I suspect that were government to be disolved, there would be both socialist anarchist communities and capitalist anarchist communities (and syndicalist as well). Anti-Captialist anarchist should properly define themselves as 'anarcho-socialists', while capitalist anarchists should define themselves (and largely do define themselves) as 'anarcho-capitalists'.
It's a definition of anarchism which goes back to the origins of anarchism, and has been used by anarchists ever since. More recently some people have thought like you do and wanted to redefine 'anarchism' to exclude opposition to and reform of capitalism. That really is a *re*definition tho. And since those of us who call ourselves anarchists really do want to get rid of capitalism as well as the state, we don't since why we should go along with it.

Incidentally, what definitions employed by political proponents are not self-serving? What are advocates for a political theory doing but serving their own cause?

As far as we are concerned, the "arch" of "anarchism" means "rule" and "authority", not just the state, and that includes the ruling and dominance involved in capitalist companies. That is the usage and interpretation which anarchists have had since the mid-19th century.

Furthermore, I think that anarcho-socialism contains a flaw which anarcho-capitalism does not; socialism necessitates coercive power of either reeducation or redistribution; in a functioning anarcho-socialist world, capitalism would be outlawed. However, anarcho-capitalism can quite easily encompasses anarcho-socialist groups within it.
Firstly, I don't think an anarcho-capitalist society would tolerate socialist groups within it, because they are a threat to the maintenance of the capitalist structure, since they offer a fairer, exploitation-free economic status to workers.

Secondly, anarcho-socialism need not involve coercion, if everyone agrees. If you say not everyone will agree... then we'll have to convince them. Or there will be a compromise solution, which may involve allowing some non-anarchic areas for people who want them. Or maybe there *will* be coercion, in the form of revolution, and that's just tough.

Ya see, it's really annoying for real anarchists when people come up with oxymoronic variations on the concept. Anarchism means anti-capitalist and anti-authority. If you're not anti-capitalist, then you're not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism really means "not really an anarchist", as does your definition of "minarchist". Libertarians are anti-authority, pro-capitalist, which state communists are pro-authority and anti-capitalist. Anarchism shares elements with both, but is also diametrically opposed to both on another level.
Vas.
Anarcho-capatalism seems more anarchic than anarcho communism. And how would anarcho-communism work, if it requires the individual submitting to the collective? That would not be anarchic.
Anarcho-communism does not involve 'submitting' to a collective. Everything is voluntary.

Anarcho-capitalism is not more anarchic; it involves the "rule" of bosses over workers. Workers don't have the power within the system to renegotiate work conditions, reward, etc., which they do in a collective.

Furthermore, I think that anarcho-socialism contains a flaw which anarcho-capitalism does not; socialism necessitates coercive power of either reeducation or redistribution; in a functioning anarcho-socialist world, capitalism would be outlawed. However, anarcho-capitalism can quite easily encompasses anarcho-socialist groups within it.
Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to the basic principle of anarchism - "Property is theft". Anarchism is not opposed to the state because the state is the root of oppression, the state is a symptom of the domination of capital. The state exists to defend the interests of the capital owning class, thus it is not the main issue.
I don't think we need to see it quite that way... I don't. For one thing, the state pre-existed capitalism. There were previous economic structures such as the slave state and feudal state which were still states.

However, perhaps you see the situation as Marx did, where the economic structure determines the political structure. I don't go along with that, I think the political structure of the state has its own rationale and self-support within the system. Thus, it is as much an issue as capitalism.

Without capitalism, there would be no need for the state. The main flaw with state communism is that does not remian communism, it has always degenerated into state capitalism.
I think to be more accurate, "state communism", as in the Soviet or Chinese Communist empires, was never true 'communism', since that would involve genuine popular control of the economy with no state, which never materialised. Since 'socialism' in the Marxist sense means the stage after the revolution when redistribution is happening, leading to the communist society, and that didn't happen, those states couldn't even really be called 'socialist'. Instead, they were "state capitalist" - capitalist, like other capitalist countries, in which there is economic hierarchy with elite decision-makers and mass dictated-to workers... but where the employer, rather than private individuals, is the employer.

Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to the basic principle of anarchism - "Property is theft".
Again, this is an entirely self-serving definition. Anarcho socialism holds that property is theft, but this is not necessarily true for all anarchists.
Answer to this is pretty much as to your earlier post, which I posted above.

Anarchism should be best described as an absence of central government; this is the most accurate and entails the fewest debateable points.
I don't know what you mean by "most accurate" when that assumes exactly what you are supposed to be arguing for. Again I refer you to the well-established practice of anarchists including capitalism as half of what they are opposed to, and their interpretation of "-arch-" accordingly.

Moreover, anarcho-socialism DOES NOT necessarily make 'all property theft. My understanding is only the means of production must be collectively owned (which again seems like a restriction of freedoms) and collective ownership is still ownership. Moreover, if Jack and Bill each get 5 loaves of bread, clearly Jack has a legitimated ownership over his bread; otherwise, it would be perfectly fine for Bill to take Jack's 5, and have all 10.
I agree that anarchism isn't all about "property is theft", but it certainly is about redistributiung what is currently private 'property' which is not necessary for the use of the owner and but is held in a way to the detriment of the rest of people. Examples are large tracts of land, mines, farms, factories, mass transport, etc. That is the point. Where there is an area of work that is collectively organised - and often it has to be, even if by the state or a private employer, e.g. factories - it makes no sense in an egalitarian society to concentrate ownership or control in the hands of one or a few, but to share it collectively.

And this is hardly a restriction of freedom. Perhaps you are imagining each individual could own their own factory, in which only they work? And that if society is organised differently, that is *prevention* of that right? A capitalist structure is not economic freedom. It's economic privatisation and individualisation of economic control and profit. That's not the same thing. Sure, in a capitalist society you have the 'freedom' to set up your own business, etc. etc., but you most likely also need employees, and what about *their* freedom to run their own business? If everyone fulfilled their 'freedom' in a capitalist society to run their own business there would be no employees, everyone would work alone, and there would be no collective work such as farming, factory working, bin collection, road-building, etc.

As for Jack and Bill's bread, there is still 'possession' in an anarchy, which is not the same as legal 'property' in a state. There is no legal status to possession, since there is no law at all, and no police or courts to enforce property 'rights'. Instead who has what possession is something that must be agreed amicably by negotiation between members of the anarchy... just like everything else that may be uncertain and subject to disagreement and conflict. In which case, it would not be OK within the anarchic society for Bill to take Jack's 5 loaves, even tho Jack has no legal status of ownership.

Anarchism is not opposed to the state because the state is the root of oppression, the state is a symptom of the domination of capital. The state exists to defend the interests of the capital owning class, thus it is not the main issue.
Sure, in your opinion. I disagree. Note labour laws, weekends, social welfare, etc...
Again I agree that the state does not exist just to support capitalism, but I do think that as long as a society is basically capitalist the state will not challenge that effectively. What you are referring to is evidence that in a capitalist state, especially a democracy, it is possible to gain some concessions for workers. This is mitigation, not radical reorganisation of the economy as anarchism wants.

To say that anarcho-capitalism can co-exist with anarcho-socialism/communism/collectivism is a pointless argument, as it's unlikely that people would want to pay for something that is freely distributed elsewhere.
It's not freely distributed. It is received in exchange for work, just like capitalism. If I refuse to work, I will not eat, regardless of the economic system.
Again, I think a working anarchy will have to tie rewards to contribution, nothing else would be practical. But still there would be a major clash between anarcho-capitalist and -socialist societies because the socialist example would appeal to workers who would understand they didn't need to work under the exploitative conditions they did in the capitalist society. To rewrite what Dischordiac said, it's unlikely people would want to work for low wages in circumstances they can't negotiate and in which they are dictated to when elsewhere they could share proceeds equally with all other workers, have a hand in decision-making and can negotiate all conditions of work.

Anarcho-capitalism, as a term, is a conscious and deliberate denigration of anarchism, it's the capitalist's equivalent of Lenin's "bourgeois individualist". So-called "anarcho-capitalism" is libertarianism - pro-capitalist, anti-authoritarianism.
Again, only in your opinion. It seems like a much more accurate and salient term than libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism has a clear and accurate meaning.
I agree that "libertarian" is a misleading term, and in fact it was used of left-wing libertarianism - forms of anarchism - in the late 19th century, for instance in France. However, while anarcho-capitalism has a fairly clear meaning, its inclusion of the "anarcho-" term is problematic for the reasons we've given, it redefines anarch- from its earlier meaning which included capitalism in the set of things it opposed. Again you are begging the question in saying it is "accurate".

Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to the basic principle of anarchism - "Property is theft". Anarchism is not opposed to the state because the state is the root of oppression, the state is a symptom of the domination of capital. The state exists to defend the interests of the capital owning class, thus it is not the main issue.
I don't think we need to see it quite that way... I don't. For one thing, the state pre-existed capitalism. There were previous economic structures such as the slave state and feudal state which were still states.

Due to the lateness of my posting yesterday, I accidentally wrote capital when I meant property. The state exists to defend the interests of the property owning class and always has done. Feudal states were created to defend the interests of the feudal lords, modern states were created to defend the interests of the bourgeois classes against the feudalists.

However, perhaps you see the situation as Marx did, where the economic structure determines the political structure. I don't go along with that, I think the political structure of the state has its own rationale and self-support within the system. Thus, it is as much an issue as capitalism.

Not simply Marx, but also Kropotkin. And yes, I do hold that the state is determined by the form of property ownership, whether it's the bourgeoisie in representative democracy or the "party" in state communist societies.

I think to be more accurate, "state communism", as in the Soviet or Chinese Communist empires, was never true 'communism', since that would involve genuine popular control of the economy with no state, which never materialised. Since 'socialism' in the Marxist sense means the stage after the revolution when redistribution is happening, leading to the communist society, and that didn't happen, those states couldn't even really be called 'socialist'. Instead, they were "state capitalist" - capitalist, like other capitalist countries, in which there is economic hierarchy with elite decision-makers and mass dictated-to workers... but where the employer, rather than private individuals, is the employer.

True, I made that point elsewhere. However, I would point out that that is exactly what Bakunin and Kropotkin said would happen under a state socialist system, that, without removing the state and simply replacing it, it would still defend property and would degenerate, as it has in every case.

Vas.

The freedom of exploiting people just because of the situation in that they were born?
They don't have to work if they don't want to. This is also true in anarcho-socialism. Presumably an individual who refuses to work will not be fed.

So you're saying exploitation of workers - such as near-slave labour, long hours, unhealthy conditions, risk of injury, competition between workers being encouraged, no maternity/pension/similar benefits, no job security - is OK if the alternative is them starving to death?

Really?

You are right that you don't have to work in a socialist anarchy. IMO that would mean you shouldn't get any reward, or at least as much. Of course some people can't work, at least strenuous physical work, but that's a different situation. Of course also some people will not want to be part of the whole anarchic structure, and would want to live on their own. That's OK, and I believe an anarchy should respect their wishes and not try to coerce or hurt them. they would just have to look to land and resource use.

However the fact of the matter is if you want to benefit economically without hurting others a socialist anarchy is your best bet. You have the opportunity to work *with* lots of other people, instead of against them in competition, so you get the benefit of many minds and hands and don;t have to waste energy and opportunities in pointless rivalry. There is no-one above you in an economic hierarchy to tell you what to do, make you work in ways you don't want to, and take most of the benefits of your labour.

You just won't have the 'freedom' to exploit others, that's all.

What's next? Will you capitalist allow the freedom of killing any bird that flies over a house just because its private property?
Uh... yeah, but an anarcho-socialist would allow the freedom of killy any bird, any where, regardless of property. Anarchy implies total liberty (presumably bound by certain rights, i.e. right to life).
Total liberty in terms of no authority and law, so there would be no *official* force like police, army, prosecution service, courts, legislators, to stop people killing any bird. But if someone acted detrimentally to the environment or human settlement it would be frowned on by a lot of the rest of the society, and sanctions would be applied. The least that people could do is withdraw co-operation, shun, ostracise. Beyond that they could actually apply force if it was serious enough.

You are right that there doesn't seem to be much difference between the example Isla uses and the equivalent in an anarcho-socialist society. But he mentioned the private property aspect, and that's the significant difference. In a socialist anarchy there is no private property, and people wouldn't have a special right to shoot a bird just because it was "on their land". Their treatment of a bird flying overhead would be just as a bird elsewhere in nature.

You are ridicoulous, selfish and you have no accurate way to proove someone deservers to take something and claim it's theirs.
Ad hominem.
Not entirely... I think it's correct that you have no clear basis on which to determine ownership in an anarcho-capitalist system.

anarcho socialism is contradictory, because it would need a state authority to run it. You say that the property is everyone's; but who will enforce that? Who will distribute the food among the people? Who will make sure things run smoothly?
BWO answers it in basic below the post I'm quoting, but I just wanted to say... there is a common perception that having a state adds something to organisation that would be done by people without a state. Think about it... what is a state? Is it like a god, a superhero, a magical or hi-tech tool? No! It's just a structure of organisation, involving authority, which is a hierarchy of power and a privileging of will, as opposed to an anarchy, which is a different structure involving equality, negotiation as equals, federation, mutual aid etc. A state is not some magical extra that does work and organisation in ways an anarchy does not. Guess what...

in a state, it's still people that do the organising

It's people in positions of power - politicians, representatives, sovereigns, heads of state, ministers, civil servants, etc. - that actually do the organising. With regard to economic matters, in a capitalist structure, it's people: employers, directors, managers. These same people would be there in an anarchy too. If people can organise matters in a state structure, why can't they do so in an anarchic one?

I think people believe authority is needed to have clear expression of will, or else everyone would be competing to influence how things are organised. But even if a state allows that, are the particular people who get to rule the kind of people who ought to be allowed to? It seems to us anarchists that the sort of people who aim to get into top positions of states or companies are people who want power for themselves, not organise life for everyone else's benefit.

Also I was thinking we could add a book list. I actually don't know many anarchist books. Perhaps there is a nice easy copyable list online somewhere... or someone can post one.
the official anarchist booklist of books currently sitting in my room
anarchism - daniel guerin
no gods, no masters: books 1&2 - daniel geurin, ed.
people without government: an anthropology of anarchism - howard barclay
god and the state - michael bakunin
anarchism and other essays - emma goldman
running on emptiness - john zerzan
mutual aid: a factor of evolution - petr kropotkin
the anarchist collectives - sam dolgoff
the anarchists in the russian revolution - paul avrich, ed.
anarchists and communists in brazil 1900-1935 - john dulles

non-anarchist but related:
homage to catalonia - george orwell
under the black flag: the romance and reality of life among the pirates - david cordingly
the cambridge encyclopedia of human evolution
anthropology - carol ember and melvin ember
the social animal - elliot aronson
the gift - marcel mauss
no logo - naomi klein
OK - just posted that on the first post! Thanks Free Soviets.

Anarchism seems to be popular in debates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Given that, there is no absolute fact about whether anyone owns anything or not, just a quasi-fact within the definitions of a society, such as a state society with law that defines legal ownership.
It is, in a sense, outside of legality. It is quite clear at this point 'who owns what'- they have clear, contracted rights over their possesion. While the legitimacy of this aquisition is in question (though I will certainly endeavour to answer this below) their current ownership is fairly indisputable, given the current societal construction of ownership.
I have no idea how you can be saying these things, I am wondering if we are from the same planet. How is property outside of legality? What are the clear contracted rights? I suppose it is true that the law has defined property fairly well, but that leaves aside the legitimacy question, which to me is the main point.

To defend my original quote - what depends on opinion and convention is not a real fact. Thus, it may be clear who owns a particular object according to the law that holds sway in a certain area. However, a different ideology (propertarian, not anarchist) might say someone else owns it according to their lights. What's the truth? I say it's neither, nor any other. There is no fact about who owns it, except relative to a given assessment of ownership. In a propertarian society that would be somebody or some institution, and would be defined according to the law; in an anarchist society it may be possessed by an individual or by a commune, collective etc.

Well, I'll be damned. Most threads on anarchism/syndicalism in game forums like this often end up in BS, but this looks really good.

I was going to suggest www.profaneexistence.com for a link, but I see you already got that going. For those who don't know it, it is a kickass magazine along with many resources and links on anarcho-punk/ska/folk/thrash bands and DIY activism/vegans.

Libertad, anarchia total. The struggle continues, friends ;)

Oh, and if the person who started the thread cares to add it, I have an anarchist/syndicalist nation: Neo-Anarchos. Currently it is the "Federate Antifascist Commune of", because of the nation's past. Thought it might interest y'all.

/Tias, AC and NA's player

What is the ownership status of things in nature? Nobody owns it particularly? Then when does somebody start owning something? When the society says they do? And how do they *deserve* it - just from the fact that they've grabbed it? So this will encourage everybody to grab as much of nature as they can, yes?
Yes. And why not? I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I can understand the rational. At this point, this is effectively a moot point- virtually all natural resources are owned in some way. In the sense that Rousseau makes it, as soon as an individual/organization declares something their proper and others assent to this declaration it becomes their property.
Why not? Because then loads of people 'own' bits of nature, instead of respecting it and considering it common, or even existing in its own right. Because if they 'own' it they can stop other people travelling on it or benefitting from it even if they realy need to. Because not everyone will get some, and some children won't inherit, and this will lead to starvation, conflict, resentment, social classes, exploitation. Because nature will be damaged - people will be encouraged to treat their plot of land in purely selfish terms, irrespective of what is going on on other surrounding plots, leading to things like deforestation and desertification, pollution, flooding etc. Because people will try and grab as much as possible to then exploit it at the expense of everyone else.

We have actually seen many of these things in the propertarian societies we have already had, tho they have been state societies. The worst examples have been the colonisation of the Americas, including the dispropriation and marginalisation of the Natives, who didn't see the land as sometrhing they could 'own', the Spanish rape of South America, the Brazilian hand-out of massive tracts of land to a tiny elite (marginalising millions of landless poor), the British in Australia, Russians in Siberia, etc...

[ADDITION] All natural resources are owned in some way according to present legal definitions, which would just disappear when an anarchy is formed.

I can't see how Rousseau' opinion is relevant here - but at any rate, we anarchists would definitely disagree with it. Altho the proviso that other people agree with the declaration is a good one, it still involves arbitrary appropriation, and the massive potential for personal control of a lot more than necessary personal possessions.

the official anarchist booklist of books currently sitting in my room
...
OK - just posted that on the first post! Thanks Free Soviets.

no problem. i might have some more down in the basement too.
oh yeah, and since we've got a minarchist on the list of anarchist nations i guess i should get added too. and the anticapitalist alliance (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=anticapitalist_alliance) might be worthwhile to add for regions, even though it isn't just anarchists.

Enough with the ad hominems, enough with trying to be an expert. I'm not going to come after you for not havinga clear grasp of economics, or not understanding liberalism. Have I researched anarchism? Yes. Am I going to read everything on and about a theory which I find ludicrous to the extreme? No. So quit it, ok?

Sorry? I mentioned Proudhon and "Property is theft" to illustrate how anarcho-capitalism is at odds with the basis of anarchism.


Who decides what an individual needs/ is using? Besides, if I build a rake, and I'm not using it, why shouldn't I charge someone else to do so? I took the time and made the effort building this tool. Not only will the use of it devalue it necessarily, I clearly have a smaller incentive to continuing to build rakes if everyone else will be taking them and wearing them out without due compensation. Moreover, it is impossible to determine how much someone 'needs' an item: worth cannot be determined absolutely (this is why market is very allocatively efficient)

I obviously disagree. Firstly, let me point out that Proudhon's collectivism is not followed much anymore, it has largely been replaced with versions of anarchist communism. Secondly, your outline here takes for granted that the social organisation of anarchism, where the person who makes the rake will not want to give it freely, would negate anarchism. If anarchism exists, this would not be true. It this were true, anarchism would not exist.

Why should the people automatically be in charge?

Because that's anarchism. Sheesh, it's a stupid question. The principle of anarchism is that the people are in charge, if they're not, it's not anarchism.

What if I don't WANT to be ruled by the people- what if I don't want to participate in the commune?

Firstly, the people being in charge meas that no-one is ruled by others, it's not a dictatorship of the majority. In a system of voluntary co-operation, there would be no pressure on you to do what you don't want to do. You co-operate if you wish, you don't if you don't.

Now why would one commune wish to give it's surplus away? Even given a total lack of luxuries, this surplus still represents a level of leisure time- If I have an extra 5 loaves of bread, I can give them away and receive nothing, or I can save them and not work tommorow. There is a clear incentive here REGARDLESS of the existence of capital/luxury.

Because they're anarchist communes.

So? They still had property. Nomadic groups in Canada had clear concepts of property, both personal and collective, well before contact with Europeans. They even had concepts of 'land ownership'- prize hunting grounds were defended and highly valued. Hierarchical power structures DID exist, to varying degrees.

Property in anarchist analysis is not that which you own and use (apologies for my erroneous use of the world capital when I meant property before). If a group declared ownership of that which they used, that's not the issue. Once they allowed another group to use it, but demanded a share of their booty, then it was theft.

So what? I spend a good deal of time building a spear. If I lend it to Carl over there to go hunting with, it'll possibly break, and will definitely wear. I clearly need an incentive.

And obviously you think greed rather than social organisation is a greater incentive. I disagree.

Not disputing that. Capital is not the same as ownership, capital is that which is not used but rented.

THis is also a fairly contentious definition. I'd define capital as any factor of production, including goods and services. This is certainly how capitalists would define it.

My bad, I meant property (as distinct from personal possessions).

That's not capital. However, when Bill needs more land and Jim rents it to him, then it is capital.

Why? The other options would be Jim giving the land to Bill, making the consequence of Jim's increased level of labour less land, selling all excess product (which has the same consequence as rent anyways) or letting the land lay fallow, reducing the total level of output. Especially given the fact that long term land use results in devaluation, clearly Jim should receive some compensation.

Et voila is the critique of both Proudhon's collectivism and anarcho-capitalism. Communal organisation rids us of this question. Bill and Jim work together on the combined land and share that which they grow. The may diversify, once they find that one thing grows better on one side of the valley and other things grow better elsewhere, rather than competing growing the same thing.

So f--- what? Kropotkin was not a Marxist, his variation on the economy of need is an anarchist version, not a Marxist version.

As I said, I've certainly done reading on anarchism. I brought up Marx because you quoted him. No need to get upset. :roll:

No, I didn't, I mentioned the basic principle of communism, which predates Marx and Kropotkin and was a factor of Christian communes for centuries.

Firstly, most "laziness" is not innate, but is simply misapplication of human resources.
I disagree. Different people place different levels of worth on leisure time. Those that place a very high vallue on it, for whatever reason, are less likely to work, especially without incentive.

Rubbish. The incentive is within the labour. If there's not enough food, that's an incentive to help prepare the ground with others and grow food. If there are not enough clothes, that's an incentive to help make them. If there's not enough dwellings, that's an incentive to help build them. A communal system would mean that the lack of effort by one would lead to a lessening in the life of all, including the lazy one.

If they don't want to work, they don't have to. HOwever, I'm not responsible for your desicion to not work. THere's also nothing preventing you from forming an anarcho-commune (there are many throughout the world).

As pointed out by others, there are some anarchists who drop out and some who remain to change the system from within. I'm one of the latter and I'm a professional human rights campaigner and union activist, which is my contribution.

Right, but all these things are also true within a capitalist system.

Yup, they're called "bosses".

There is nothing stopping any of us from working within our communities, and many of us do. What exactly do you think 'lazy' people want to do now? There are very few jobs that are inherently 'enjoyable', regardless of the system.

Very wrong. There are numerous people who find gardening and growing food, or making clothes, or building things enjoyable, more than enough for their "leisure" work to be turned into productive work. There are also numerous people who dedicate themselves to improving the appearance of their surroundings, often voluntarily. Many of the less enjoyable jobs would disappear in a non-monetary economy and people would be free to engage in things they enjoy.

Even jobs that are relatively pleasant are generally inferior to leisure time; most jobs certainly are. Since resources are distributed evely regardless of work, I have a descion between working or playing. Regardless of how painless or relatively pleasant work is, on an individual level I'd rather play.

To recap: As I've pointed out earlier, many people dedicate their leisure time to work that could be productive. Also, the incentive to work is in the product of the work itself. Finally, some work needs to be done or there are consequences that would infringe upon your ability to play. Who would play football on a pitch with foot-high grass for example. Currently these tasks are left to others, within a communal system, you would have to do much of this work yourself.

This aside, the reduction in the pointless tasks that make up the capitalist system, from banking to the institutional legal system, would mean that far less work would be required from everyone. And, the more people co-operate, the more efficient even this work would be. Thus, your argument is spurious - you reject a system where you would gain more (due to equal distribution) from working less in favour of a system where you have to work more to profit others (whether governments through tax or lazy capitalists through paying for the resources they own). It's a ridiculous position.

Vas.

I'd also add Alexander Berkman's "ABCs of anarchism" to the list as the best introduction to it all.

I also recommend the above. It is also sometimes published as "What Is Communist Anarchism?"

Not quite, "ABCs of Anarchism" and "What is Communist Anarchism" are two halves of the greater work "What is Anarchism".

Vas.

To suggest a few more:

General
Anarcho-Syndicalism - www.anarchosyndicalism.org/

Books
Black Rose Books - http://www.web.net/blackrosebooks/
Freedom Press - http://vega.soi.city.ac.uk/~louise/freehome.html

Activist
Indymedia - http://www.indymedia.org
EZLN/Zapatistas - http://www.ezln.org/

Other radical
Robert Anton Wilson - http://www.rawilson.com

Punk
Chumbawamba - http://www.chumba.com/

Books

Berkman, Alexander - What is Anarchism (ABCs of Anarchism + What is Anarchist Communism)
Kropotkin, Piotr - The Conquest of Bread

Non-anarchist but related:

Heinlein, Robert A - Stranger in a Strange Land
McCleod - The Stone Canal
Palast, Greg - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Wilson, Robert Anton - The Illuminatus Trilogy

Oh, and please add Dischordiac as an anarchist "nation".

McCleod - The Stone Canal

aw yeah, ken macleod. apparently what happens when you have a trot who starts reading stuff from the american libertarian party is that you wind up with some form of libertarian socialist - who can write stories from all sorts of radical perspectives.

a conversation that takes place on a planet thousands of light-years away from (and thousands of years in the future) earth between 3 people, only one of which has ever been to earth. it's in "dark light"
.
"Bad news. What about the Party branch?"
Endecott's sandy eyebrows twitch, very slightly.
"They're solid. Most of them."
"What party?" Annie asks suspiciously.
"Uh, later," says Matt. He has an absurd flash-forward of her taking Endecott to task over Kronstadt, Makhno, the Barcelona Telephone Exchange...

Free Soviets>> Calling Chumbawamba punk is stretching it extremely... I'd call it Anarchist Pop. I mean, most of it is catchy folk/rockish roll music.

As for anarchist/anti-fascist punk rock there are a lot of good oldies, as well as some of the more contemporary bands:
Dead Kennedys
Anti-Flag
Propagandhi
Napalm Death
Against All Authority

...To name a few.

/Tias, AC's player.

OK: added Neo-Anarchos, Free Soviets and Dischordiac as nations, Anticapitalist Alliance as a region, and all of Dischordiac's suggestions for books and websites. Thanks Dischordiac.

Free Soviets>> Calling Chumbawamba punk is stretching it extremely... I'd call it Anarchist Pop. I mean, most of it is catchy folk/rockish roll music.

Well, some of the best punk was pure pop, what else would you call the Undertones or the Buzzcocks? Soundwise, the Chumbas range from chaotic punk rock (the first two albums) to techno (the soundtrack to Revengers Tragedy) or folk (English rebel songs), but, in ethos, they're pure punk rock. Punk isn't really a sound, but an attitude, and the Chumbas have that in spades.

And before anyone tries with the "sell out argument", there's little as punk rock as getting EMI to fund the Liverpool dockers (through the income for Tubthumper) or Latin American car companies to fund anti-car campaigns by allowing them to use your songs in their ads but dictating where they pay the proceeds. And Alice is a dear.

Vas.

OK: added Neo-Anarchos, Free Soviets and Dischordiac as nations, Anticapitalist Alliance as a region, and all of Dischordiac's suggestions for books and websites. Thanks Dischordiac.

The peoples of Dischordiac are always happy to help the cause. Here's a few more:

Anti-War
Disobedience against war - http://riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/
Stop the war coalition - http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

Anti-capitalist
World Social Forum - http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/

Activist
AlterNet - http://www.alternet.org/
CND - http://www.cnduk.org/
Landless Workers' Movement (MST) - http://www.mstbrazil.org/
Peoples' Global Action - http://www.agp.org/
Reclaim the Streets - http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/
Schnews - http://www.schnews.org.uk/
Ya Basta! - http://www.yabasta.it/
Z Communications - http://www.zmag.org/

I might suggest merging the Anti-capitalist and Activist sections as there's much crossover between the two.

Dischordiac>> Debating bands who "sell out" are IMHO pointless when not talking about the very blatant cases(such as NOFX). I mean, why bother? Going with that sort of thing, all the greatest punk bands of the first wave were sellouts(Sex Pistols, for example).

As for Chumbawamba, well... They said it best themselves ;) "Rich pop stars make good socialists".

Now, as for PUNK, it's nothing but a 4 letter work. Some punks would stubbornly claim that only select genres with select sounds are punk rock, others would claim that only punk rock with a certain political view is punk, and others still(such as yourself) would say that punk is an attitude and not a genre.

I, being the crusty piece of shit that I am, would claim that punk is a fucking way of life, and that - as you say - is more of an attitude in music than a certain genre of music itself. Thus, I consider a lot of ska, rock'n'roll and folk bands punk in spirit, if not in genre.

/Rant.

Well, I digressify ;) Great work you peeps are doing, I'll add some links when I get around to it!

Tias.

...

As far as we are concerned, the "arch" of "anarchism" means "rule" and "authority", not just the state, and that includes the ruling and dominance involved in capitalist companies. That is the usage and interpretation which anarchists have had since the mid-19th century.

yup yup. i think i said this somewhere else, but one of the main problems with 'anarcho'-cappies is that their idea of authority begins and ends with the modern welfare state. which totally ignores the other sectors of community life - religion, economics, personal relationships, etc. we are consistent anti-authoritarians. we don't want to be consistent "allow-some-to-exploit-others-because-they-must-be-free-to-do-so"ians.

Your outline here takes for granted that the social organisation of anarchism, where the person who makes the rake will not want to give it freely, would negate anarchism. If anarchism exists, this would not be true. It this were true, anarchism would not exist.

This may be correct, if we take your version of 'anarchism' as the correct definition. However, I think this is an extremely difficult statement.
1- How do you know how people will behave without authority (especially those that have not volutarily entered into the anarchist framework)?
2- How are you going to ensure he wants to give away his rake? Education? By educating people in such a way as to make your model correct is, effectively, coercive; education should be a personal/family choice, not that of the collective. Under capitalism, you could have any form of education you wanted. Under anarcho-communism, you could only have one. This again speaks wonders about the freedom involved.


Because that's anarchism. Sheesh, it's a stupid question. The principle of anarchism is that the people are in charge, if they're not, it's not anarchism.
Let me rephrase. Why should the commune have authority over those that do not identify with the commune? That is to say, why should those who DO NOT support your model be forced to?

It is possible to argue they will not be forced to accept this model; however, at this point you are not advocating anarcho-communist social order, but one that is simply without authority (allowing each to decide for themselves how they will organize)

Firstly, the people being in charge meas that no-one is ruled by others, it's not a dictatorship of the majority. In a system of voluntary co-operation, there would be no pressure on you to do what you don't want to do. You co-operate if you wish, you don't if you don't.
See my point directly above.

Now why would one commune wish to give it's surplus away? Even given a total lack of luxuries, this surplus still represents a level of leisure time- If I have an extra 5 loaves of bread, I can give them away and receive nothing, or I can save them and not work tommorow. There is a clear incentive here REGARDLESS of the existence of capital/luxury.

Because they're anarchist communes.
So... magic? Mystical spiritual transformation?

Property in anarchist analysis is not that which you own and use (apologies for my erroneous use of the world capital when I meant property before). If a group declared ownership of that which they used, that's not the issue. Once they allowed another group to use it, but demanded a share of their booty, then it was theft.

That makes no sense, especially in regards to depreciation (which is what virtually EVERYTHING does). Moreover, you're just arbitrarily drawing lines between legitimate property and illegitimate property.

So what? I spend a good deal of time building a spear. If I lend it to Carl over there to go hunting with, it'll possibly break, and will definitely wear. I clearly need an incentive.

And obviously you think greed rather than social organisation is a greater incentive. I disagree.
That's your perogative; however, greed IS found in virtually every culture (at least to the extent that wealth is valued in and of itself; this is pretty much a fact, anthropologically speaking). Consequently, my opinion seems more parsimonious than your own.

Et voila is the critique of both Proudhon's collectivism and anarcho-capitalism. Communal organisation rids us of this question. Bill and Jim work together on the combined land and share that which they grow. The may diversify, once they find that one thing grows better on one side of the valley and other things grow better elsewhere, rather than competing growing the same thing.

This doesn't solve the problem at all! If Bill and Jim work together, and Jim produces 7 melons while Bill produces 3, yet they both receive the compensation, clearly there's a problem here. Jim has a very, very large incentive to strike out on his own. This also competely ignores issues of taste (Jim recieves 2 utils from each melon, while Bill recieves 4 utils: thus while Jim produced 7 melons, he recieves only 10 utils; meanwhile, Bill produces 3 melons, yet receives 20 utils!).

I disagree. Different people place different levels of worth on leisure time. Those that place a very high value on it, for whatever reason, are less likely to work, especially without incentive.

Rubbish. The incentive is within the labour. If there's not enough food, that's an incentive to help prepare the ground with others and grow food. If there are not enough clothes, that's an incentive to help make them. If there's not enough dwellings, that's an incentive to help build them. A communal system would mean that the lack of effort by one would lead to a lessening in the life of all, including the lazy one.
[/quote

Not rubbish at all. If we assume leisure is a normal good (in an economic sense), depending on the value Bill puts on it, he may be willing to forfeit a small ammount of the communities average revenue in order to maximize his own total utility (that is to say, on an individual level, Bill's laziness, while hurting everyone, actually leads to an increase in his individual happiness). The problem here is that while clearly the entire community has a reason to work together, there is a very strong 'cheating' incentive. And this is all taking for granted that anyone would WANT to participate in the first place!

Very wrong. There are numerous people who find gardening and growing food, or making clothes, or building things enjoyable, more than enough for their "leisure" work to be turned into productive work. There are also numerous people who dedicate themselves to improving the appearance of their surroundings, often voluntarily. Many of the less enjoyable jobs would disappear in a non-monetary economy and people would be free to engage in things they enjoy.
I quite agree. And I welcome those people to enter into communal society if they so desire. I'm not one of those people. I enjoy many things in my leisure time, few of which constitute to any degree something sufficiently constructive as to be my career in this communal society. I don't like farming, gardening or agriculture.. I'm neutral towards carpentry. I've done physical labour, industrial work, many of the things we would need to do in an anarchist society. And I don't recieve any particular pleasure from them. I would much prefer participating in (more or less) the society we live in right now- I tolerate my work, enjoy my schooling, and enjoy my leisure time. My largest objection is while I would allow you to live your life as you wish, you would not grant me the same courtesy.


Even jobs that are relatively pleasant are generally inferior to leisure time; most jobs certainly are. Since resources are distributed evely regardless of work, I have a descion between working or playing. Regardless of how painless or relatively pleasant work is, on an individual level I'd rather play.

To recap: As I've pointed out earlier, many people dedicate their leisure time to work that could be productive. Also, the incentive to work is in the product of the work itself.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm certainly not convinced there are sufficient people with sufficient desire to 'get things done' voluntarily. I certainly wouldn't.

Finally, some work needs to be done or there are consequences that would infringe upon your ability to play. Who would play football on a pitch with foot-high grass for example. Currently these tasks are left to others, within a communal system, you would have to do much of this work yourself.
Not necessarily I have little to no incentive in cutting the grass if I know dozens of others have the same desire. Free-rider problem.

This aside, the reduction in the pointless tasks that make up the capitalist system, from banking to the institutional legal system, would mean that far less work would be required from everyone.
I disagree quite heartily. An insitutional legal system is still going to be necessary (I would think; unless you argue crime will disappear, which I think is somewhat foolish) if you desire a system of retribution that is, at the very least, fair and unbiased. Without some legal system, you certainly risk arbitrary laws/law making. If you wish to preserve minority rights (which I believe you asserted, though it may have been someone else) clearly a law system is necessary. Moreover, the 'inefficiencies' present in the banking system will, IMO be more than made up by the inefficiencies of a planned economy, not to mention those inherent in a system of 'uncompensated trade'.

And, the more people co-operate, the more efficient even this work would be. Thus, your argument is spurious - you reject a system where you would gain more (due to equal distribution) from working less in favour of a system where you have to work more to profit others (whether governments through tax or lazy capitalists through paying for the resources they own). It's a ridiculous position.


First off, given equal distribution, I would probably earn less, especially in the long run. As a Western university graduate, I certainly am better off in a capitalist system than in one in which wealth is distributed equally (as are you, by a massive degree). My position is also based on a few different premises than your own: rights are at the forefront, followed by egalitarian principles. Finally, all the 'lazy capitalists' I know achieved their wealth through hard work and shrewd investment. It certainly wasn't a gift, nor was it theft. As far as I'm concerned, they earned it.

It's a definition of anarchism which goes back to the origins of anarchism, and has been used by anarchists ever since. More recently some people have thought like you do and wanted to redefine 'anarchism' to exclude opposition to and reform of capitalism. That really is a *re*definition tho. And since those of us who call ourselves anarchists really do want to get rid of capitalism as well as the state, we don't since why we should go along with it.

Incidentally, what definitions employed by political proponents are not self-serving? What are advocates for a political theory doing but serving their own cause?

As far as we are concerned, the "arch" of "anarchism" means "rule" and "authority", not just the state, and that includes the ruling and dominance involved in capitalist companies. That is the usage and interpretation which anarchists have had since the mid-19th century.
Monarchy- Rule of one
Oligarchy- Rule of few
Democracy- rule of the demos (basically the people)
Anarchy- rule of none.

You may not like that anarcho-capitalists have 'taken' this word, but they are perfectly justified in doing so. I don't like that the American left is termed liberal, when it does not really fit in with Liberal (big L ;) ) ideology, but I'm not going to be upset about it, nor claim they are 'abusing' the term in some way.

Firstly, I don't think an anarcho-capitalist society would tolerate socialist groups within it, because they are a threat to the maintenance of the capitalist structure, since they offer a fairer, exploitation-free economic status to workers.

Anarcho-capitalists would absolutely tolerate socialist groups. The bottom line for anarchocapitalists is that there can be no binding contract excent that which emerges through explicit consent. Communes are perfectly fine, so long as everybody WANTS to be there. Moreover, anarcho-capitalists would no doubt have faith in the market to ensure they would show higher average living standards.

Secondly, anarcho-socialism need not involve coercion, if everyone agrees. If you say not everyone will agree... then we'll have to convince them. Or there will be a compromise solution, which may involve allowing some non-anarchic areas for people who want them. Or maybe there *will* be coercion, in the form of revolution, and that's just tough.

Not everyone will agree. There are two possible consequences, which you have correctly identified:

1) Mixed system, in which case it's a 'pure' (that is to say, not socialist or actively capitalist) anarchist movement, concerned only with the abolishment of state coercive power.
2) Coercive power will emerge, which is fundementally at odds with a doctrine of anti-heirarchical consensual living.

So you're saying exploitation of workers - such as near-slave labour, long hours, unhealthy conditions, risk of injury, competition between workers being encouraged, no maternity/pension/similar benefits, no job security - is OK if the alternative is them starving to death?

Really?

No, but I certainly don't think anarchism is the answer. I think I've explained by theoretical stance to you before (liberal egalitarian). I think elimination of trade and movement barriers will go a long way to remedying many of these problems, equalizing incomes and ensuring higher average standards of living. Many of the conditions you describe are NOT due to free capitalism, but to tariff and immigration controls. Once capital and labour markers balances out (which they will, if liberalization continues) you will see many of these problems disappear. Coupled with limited redistribution and ensured basic standards of living, I believe it is possible to preserve rights (Including property rights) while stimulating a meritocratic, equal opportunity society.

You are right that you don't have to work in a socialist anarchy. IMO that would mean you shouldn't get any reward, or at least as much. Of course some people can't work, at least strenuous physical work, but that's a different situation.
Liberal egalitarian capitalism would also provide for these people.

You have the opportunity to work *with* lots of other people, instead of against them in competition, so you get the benefit of many minds and hands and don;t have to waste energy and opportunities in pointless rivalry.
Rivalry and competition spur on efficiency. Look at computer hardware- it gets drastically cheaper ever year as companies compete for market share.
There is no-one above you in an economic hierarchy to tell you what to do, make you work in ways you don't want to, and take most of the benefits of your labour.
This is such a bogus concept. There is limited truth to this in a global contezt (though again I think elimination of factor movement barriers is a very good answer), but in our society NO ONE is forcing you to work. I make minimum wage. This is exactly what I'm worth right now- I'd probably work for a little less, to be honest. I'm not being exploited- I could quit any time I wanted to.

Right... that's about all I'm gonna respond to right now- I'll get to the rest later if I get a chance. ;) I have 3 exams in the next 2 days, so it's gonna be a little hectic.

I'd also add Alexander Berkman's "ABCs of anarchism" to the list as the best introduction to it all.

I also recommend the above. It is also sometimes published as "What Is Communist Anarchism?"

Not quite, "ABCs of Anarchism" and "What is Communist Anarchism" are two halves of the greater work "What is Anarchism".

Vas.

Well, according to the Publisher's note in my 1968 Freedom Press edition of 'ABC of Anarchism':

'Berkman's original work was issued in America in 1929 under the title "What Is Communist Anarchism?" It contained three parts headed "Now", "Anarchism" and "The Social Revolution". The book was reissued in 1963 by the Frie Arbeiter Stimme in NY with a new title "Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism". The present edition contains parts two and three of the original work: on grounds of expense Part One has been omitted...'

But enough pedantry...

What keeps anarcho-capitalism from being anarchism is that the existance of corporations and wealth creates hierarchy. That's why it's not anarchism. I think the experts can explain it better than I can.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Anarchy is defined as nothing more than a lack of a State.

Thus, Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of Anarchy.

Furthermore, Anarcho-Capitalism does not have a true hierarchy because it contains class mobility.

This may be correct, if we take your version of 'anarchism' as the correct definition. However, I think this is an extremely difficult statement.
1- How do you know how people will behave without authority (especially those that have not volutarily entered into the anarchist framework)?

Based on my knowledge of how most people act. [ooc]As a union official, I know how well most people work together sans authority. In fact, as an Irish person, I know how many people act despite authority and how authority often influences negatively. Social influences, such as the response of those around you are a stronger force than offical authority. As for those who have not entered voluntarily, they're free to do whatever they like. The prediction of anarchists is that most people will voluntary take part (as they did in Catalonia until the greater force of arms of Franco's forces destroyed it).

2- How are you going to ensure he wants to give away his rake? Education? By educating people in such a way as to make your model correct is, effectively, coercive; education should be a personal/family choice, not that of the collective. Under capitalism, you could have any form of education you wanted. Under anarcho-communism, you could only have one. This again speaks wonders about the freedom involved.

We don't want his rake if he doesn't want to give it. We'll make another one.

Let me rephrase. Why should the commune have authority over those that do not identify with the commune? That is to say, why should those who DO NOT support your model be forced to?

Whatever they want, it's voluntary co-operation. People are free not to take part, much as they are now. The difference is that the system now forces people to take part. And, with a widespread anarchist system, it's most likely that most people would take part for their own advancement. Given the choice between wage slavery and a system of free distribution...

It is possible to argue they will not be forced to accept this model; however, at this point you are not advocating anarcho-communist social order, but one that is simply without authority (allowing each to decide for themselves how they will organize)

Exactly. The prediction is that it will become the dominant model. We'll see.

Because they're anarchist communes.
So... magic? Mystical spiritual transformation?

Your point is "what will happen in an anarchist commune if people don't act like anarchists", right? My answer is that, if people don't act like anarchists, it won't be an anarchist commune. If it happens, your point is moot.

Property in anarchist analysis is not that which you own and use (apologies for my erroneous use of the world capital when I meant property before). If a group declared ownership of that which they used, that's not the issue. Once they allowed another group to use it, but demanded a share of their booty, then it was theft.

That makes no sense, especially in regards to depreciation (which is what virtually EVERYTHING does). Moreover, you're just arbitrarily drawing lines between legitimate property and illegitimate property.[/quote]

It's not an "arbitrary" line, it's an ideological line. Anarchist theory defines between possessions, that which you use, and property, that which you rent.

And obviously you think greed rather than social organisation is a greater incentive. I disagree.
That's your perogative; however, greed IS found in virtually every culture (at least to the extent that wealth is valued in and of itself; this is pretty much a fact, anthropologically speaking). Consequently, my opinion seems more parsimonious than your own.

I never said greed doesn't exist, but so does mutual aid. As an anarchist, I hold that mutual aid is a greater incentive, you as a non-anarchist disagree. That's why I'm an anarchist and you're not (not even if you stick capitalist after it).

This doesn't solve the problem at all! If Bill and Jim work together, and Jim produces 7 melons while Bill produces 3, yet they both receive the compensation, clearly there's a problem here. Jim has a very, very large incentive to strike out on his own.

If they work together, then there isn't that division of "who produces what". Co-operative labour means that you can't measure exactly who produces most. And co-operation is more productive than solo work, maybe Jim can produce 7 melons and Bill produces 3, but together they produce 15. This is why we co-operate as humans.

Not rubbish at all. If we assume leisure is a normal good (in an economic sense), depending on the value Bill puts on it, he may be willing to forfeit a small ammount of the communities average revenue in order to maximize his own total utility (that is to say, on an individual level, Bill's laziness, while hurting everyone, actually leads to an increase in his individual happiness). The problem here is that while clearly the entire community has a reason to work together, there is a very strong 'cheating' incentive. And this is all taking for granted that anyone would WANT to participate in the first place!

This is an issue now, taxes fund social welfare. Lazy people can be a drain. But the point that "laziness" isn't fundamental, it's about the inability of some people to find something that they enjoy. If you've ever been out of work, you'll know how frustrating it can be (as I have learnt). Humans like to be productive, it's hard coded into us. The capitalist social structure often excludes people from finding meaningful work and causes "laziness".

I quite agree. And I welcome those people to enter into communal society if they so desire. I'm not one of those people. I enjoy many things in my leisure time, few of which constitute to any degree something sufficiently constructive as to be my career in this communal society. I don't like farming, gardening or agriculture.. I'm neutral towards carpentry. I've done physical labour, industrial work, many of the things we would need to do in an anarchist society. And I don't recieve any particular pleasure from them. I would much prefer participating in (more or less) the society we live in right now- I tolerate my work, enjoy my schooling, and enjoy my leisure time. My largest objection is while I would allow you to live your life as you wish, you would not grant me the same courtesy.

I have no problem granting you this courtesy. However, the problem you may face is that you, without taking part in what might become the dominant system, would lose out because much of that which you enjoy is a product of capitalist exploitation. However, by taking part you would - have less work to have to tolerate and may find work you enjoy more, receive more schooling and recieve it for free and have more leisure time with perhaps greater access to those things you wish to fill it with (an end to a monetary system would mean an end to intellectual property and greater access to music, written work, film, etc).


Maybe, maybe not. I'm certainly not convinced there are sufficient people with sufficient desire to 'get things done' voluntarily. I certainly wouldn't.

Have you never cleared the drains because it needed to be done? Do you bring out the rubbish because it needs to be done? In your schooling, do you carry out tasks you dislike because they work towards the greater end? You do work you say you tolerate, is this because of the money you receive, or is it so that you can buy things with that money? If the latter, in an anarchist system, all that's removed is the money part. Your labour could contribute to producing that which you now buy, thus the incentive to doing it would be access to that product. It's not that'd you be denied it if you didn't work, it's that, without working, it might not be produced.


Not necessarily I have little to no incentive in cutting the grass if I know dozens of others have the same desire. Free-rider problem.

It's a question of scale. If the free-rider problem is widespread, then the grass will not get cut, then the free-riders would have to do it themselves if they wanted it done, thus negating the free-rider problem. Free-riders would only be a problem if their lack of participation reduced the number of resources available, if not, then it's not a problem.

I disagree quite heartily. An insitutional legal system is still going to be necessary (I would think; unless you argue crime will disappear, which I think is somewhat foolish) if you desire a system of retribution that is, at the very least, fair and unbiased. Without some legal system, you certainly risk arbitrary laws/law making. If you wish to preserve minority rights (which I believe you asserted, though it may have been someone else) clearly a law system is necessary.

I said institutionalised, meaning professional lawyers and judges, not, necessarily, a common law system worked by the people themselves. And many crimes are nonsense anyway, created by law itself to perpetuate the system. Remove economic inequalities and prohibition and the crime rate will fall.

Moreover, the 'inefficiencies' present in the banking system will, IMO be more than made up by the inefficiencies of a planned economy, not to mention those inherent in a system of 'uncompensated trade'.

Free distribution != uncompensated trade. Something is made, it's distributed, not for reward, but for the betterment of the society. It's a characteristic of the current system, where teachers and nurses and doctors work for far less money than they'd receive doing something else, sometimes not enough money to live fully in the system, because they want to. I've turned down a job that would have paid me more and ended up out of work for 10 months on principle and now do a job I enjoy and does some good for less money than I would have received. I'm not unique, in fact, I feel I'm common if a bit more pigheaded than many people. Lessen the penalty for following your principles and more people would do it.

First off, given equal distribution, I would probably earn less, especially in the long run. As a Western university graduate, I certainly am better off in a capitalist system than in one in which wealth is distributed equally (as are you, by a massive degree). My position is also based on a few different premises than your own: rights are at the forefront, followed by egalitarian principles.

I disagree, economic inequalities are inefficient. How many great writers never receive an education that allows them to write? How many great doctors die in poverty, never having the opportunity to go to medical school? How many inventors are killed in wars? The list goes on. Ecomonic redistribution would only require reducing the wealth of the uber-rich minority to increase the wealth of the majority. Economic development worldwide would probably reduce the rate of population growth and probably lead to negative growth as we have in Europe.

Finally, all the 'lazy capitalists' I know achieved their wealth through hard work and shrewd investment. It certainly wasn't a gift, nor was it theft. As far as I'm concerned, they earned it.

Firstly, investment is parasitic and is theft, it is profiting from others' work and not actually working. Secondly, how many of these capitalists started out with benefits. It's easier to make money when you have money. For every Bill Gates there are hundreds of Paris Hiltons.

Vas.

Anarchy is defined as nothing more than a lack of a State.

Thus, Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of Anarchy.

Furthermore, Anarcho-Capitalism does not have a true hierarchy because it contains class mobility.

God damn it, how many times do we have to say this. Anarchism, the ideology, is based on the principle of "Property is theft".

Thus, no form of capitalism can be part of anarchism.

Finally, by having rich people and poor people, anarcho-capitalism contains an economic hierarchy, which means it's an oxymoron. Rich people have control over poor people by dint of their control of capital. They own property, which in anarchism is seen as theft.

Vas.

Anarchy is defined as nothing more than a lack of a State.

Thus, Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of Anarchy.

possibly true, but only if you define your terms very carefully and not in the way that anarchists do. one the thing that is absolutely clear is that 'anarcho'-capitalists are not anarchists and do not promote anarchism. because anarchists are people who are part of the anarchist movement - people who want anarchism. and anarchism is the political and social theory based on opposition to authority and hierarchy, particularly that of capitalism, organized religion, and the state (though not limited to those).

'anarcho'-cappies barely even oppose the state; they'd be happy as long as the state isn't a welfare state. for example, people like david friedman seem to like the system in saga era iceland. but i've read the sagas and iceland clearly had rulers and ruled, even if it lacked a unified centralized state.

Furthermore, Anarcho-Capitalism does not have a true hierarchy because it contains class mobility.

jebus, that's one of the dumbest things i've ever heard.

just because you can change ranks in the army, that doesn't mean that the privates have the same power, authority, and privilege as the generals.
fuck i can't even think of a hierarchy that has no possibility for people to move up or down.

You simply can't have hierarchy and still be anarchist. That's what they are trying to explain. By definition, there is no hierarchy in anarchism. That is one of the major points. A class system is still a class system, even if you can move in it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

You simply can't have hierarchy and still be anarchist. That's what they are trying to explain. By definition, there is no hierarchy in anarchism. That is one of the major points. A class system is still a class system, even if you can move in it.

So then our goal is an end to heirarchy. That's of course not everyone's goal, but for some reason a non-heirarchical society has been deemed best for everyone. The number one position on Anarchism is that no one should be forced to do anything beyond what they choose to do. This leads to a pacifistic system and to an inability to act by logical steps. Of course we can say that for the good of all people we must act, and break our ideals in a way we consider small to create a system in which the ideals we value most highly can be fostered. Unfortunately in the process we destory all reasonable basis for argument. We must destory force with force, and thereby we only perpetuate the system of death for death placing ourselves on the giving end instead of the recieving end. The destruction of social heirarchy is entirely impossible without the destruction of fundamental differences between people. Unless all people are entirely average, as no person is, heirarchy of some sort will exist. The heirarchy may be different in the minds of each person, but those differences are inconsequential because the mind or group of minds that control the greatest power will impose, inexorably, their will and ideal and heirarchy onto others around them. If those with the most power believe heirarchical standing should be decided based on hair color then those with the "desired" hair color will be at the top of the heirarchy and those with the "undesired" hair color will be at the bottom. In Nazi Germany the group of minds with the most power placed Aryans at the top of the heirarchy and semitics at the bottom. The differences in perception and heirarchical placement led to a war and the deaths of millions of innocent and semi-innocents as well as a few very guilty men. Any societal or perceptive difference between people creates a heirarchy within each observer, there is no escaping this fact. It is not necessarily a bad thing however. It allows for a far greater overall efficiency of operation. The respect that a person gains by achieving in valued ways transfers authority onto them based on their expertise in a given field. This natural respect and trust based heirarchy streamlines the process of decision making and scientific research. Of course, as with every system, it has its flaws. The system is rigid and does not allow for those of lower rungs to contradict those on higher rungs and be believed. This pyramidal social structure is very natural and very efficient, but is dangerous in its unchanging nature. A small group of perceptively equal individuals can be far more effective, though less efficient, than a large pyramid/heirarchical group, but people who are perceptively equal are few and far between.

In short, heirarchy is the natural result of value system and the natural and incontrovertible differences between people. It cannot be destroyed no matter the effort input unless all organism are destroyed save one, so that a true and meaningful average uniformity can be established.

You simply can't have hierarchy and still be anarchist. That's what they are trying to explain. By definition, there is no hierarchy in anarchism. That is one of the major points. A class system is still a class system, even if you can move in it.



If class movement is unrestrained, and obtainable purely by personal effort and achievement, based on meritocratic principles, then I have absolutely no problem with hierachy. If the opportunity to excell is equally available for everyone, we have no reason to give special treatment to those who choose not to excell. This is a major principle in my (and many Liberals) value systems; it is a cornerstone of liberal egalitarianism.

Is the opportunity to excel truly equally divided if ANY hierarchy is present? I disagree.

But then, certain forms of excellence cannot be undertaken in anarchism either. You cannot 'excel' if that involves opressing or discriminating against others.

If the opportunity to excell is equally available for everyone, we have no reason to give special treatment to those who choose not to excell.

So, in order to maintain a level playing field of opportunity to excell I take it that parents will not be able to leave inheritances for their children, and that all children will be educated in fucntionally identical 'state'* operated schools and raised in fucntionally identical 'state' operated nurseries? That is the problem with meritocracy: it claims to provide a level playing field, but within a generation it becomes a cross country run across mountainous terrain.


*Or corporate run, whatever.

You simply can't have hierarchy and still be anarchist. That's what they are trying to explain. By definition, there is no hierarchy in anarchism. That is one of the major points. A class system is still a class system, even if you can move in it.



If class movement is unrestrained, and obtainable purely by personal effort and achievement, based on meritocratic principles, then I have absolutely no problem with hierachy. If the opportunity to excell is equally available for everyone, we have no reason to give special treatment to those who choose not to excell. This is a major principle in my (and many Liberals) value systems; it is a cornerstone of liberal egalitarianism.

That's your view, which is fine, but IT'S NOT ANY KIND OF ANARCHISM. OK? Why, exactly, do you feel the need to co-opt a term with a particular meaning - anarchist/anarcho - and apply it to something completely different?

Vas.

STANDING (i.e. 'perminanent') hierarchies are NOT a NATURAL resault of anything

that inequalities exist within virtualy every narrowly definded context is natural enough certainly, and attempting to eliminate THAT would be beating our heads against a wall. granted.

this is not a thing however that requires organization and coordination to be heierarchal.
nor does any other natural thing do so. at least not in sentient humans.

and examples of nonhierarchal coordination exist elswhere as well

consider the so called star fish

a highly successful preditor with a total lack of anything remotely resembling a central nervous system let alone a brain.

=^^=
.../\...

Now, where does this 'gold' come from, for which you can redeem your paper money in the society you are talking about - from nature, yes? Who owns the gold? Why them? A state, a corporation? If a state it's no more anarcho-capitalist than socialist. If a corporation, isn't that an automatic domination of the whole economy by one private business?
Gold was merely the example. My point was that an anarcho-capitalist will demand a currency based on real, not imagined, value: a value that is constant, relatively unchangeable and transferrable. The 'gold' will NOT be owned by government or organization, but by the individual him/herself.

And how does this gold have 'real value'? What value does gold have - surely it has practical value... and monetary value. In which case gold doesn't have any more 'real value' than any other commodity. What would you do with it when you cash in your chips?
err... I'd hope you'd understand the value of an intermediate currency in facillitating barter transactions. If not, I'll explain it.
Yes, I think you'll need to... I have learnt a little about the banking system and understand something of the difference between currency produced by fiat and currency backed by gold. But still gold only has 'value' because it valued, by humans: i.e. it is wanted and desired. This kind of value is based on subjective conditions: how people feel about something. The other kind of value is more objective: based on what is useful to people, e.g. gold has some uses as a metal with certain properties, as a material. Still, those usefulnesses are in turn dependent on human desires, for whatever goods or processes gold is a useful material for.

Gold has no more *inherent* value than pieces of green paper. It's all placed in it by people, according to certain patterns of attitude.

I understand that you only meant gold as an example, but I don't understand what sort of thing you're talking about exactly, that has 'real value' (whatever that is), constant, relatively unchangeable, transferrable, and by the individual him/herself. It can't be food because that would go off (not constant). It can't be a house because that wouldn't be easily transferrable and wouldn't be unchangeable. It can't be something insubstantial because that wouldn't have 'real value'. Etc.

In an anarcho-socialist society, there is no 'property' in the conventional sense - literally, the sense created by legal convention within a state. There is only individual 'possession' of personal effects, such as toothbrushes and trousers, and collective ownership of collective concerns, like the "means of production" (factories, farms etc.).
Property as a concept obviously still remains. The means of production is still the property of the collective (who may or may not exploit it; implying one way or another negates the concept of collective freedom to decesion making). Thus property excepts on the personal level (trousers and the like) and the community level- this certainly does NOT ensure global egality.
Property as a concept only remains in the sense of 'possession', even in the case of collectively owned things. For instance, a collective working in a factory have the 'rights' to the factory as long as they are using it, but it might be transferred to a different collective if that was decided to be a good idea.

I don't quite get what you mean by "who may or may not exploit it; implying one way or another negates the concept of collective freedom to decesion making". Firstly, what do you mean by 'exploit' - just 'use' or 'take advantage of' in a negative way? Secondly, what is it you're saying about implication and collective freedom?

As for global equality, we won't ever have global 'equality' in the sense of exactly the same economic condition in all places for all people. There are lots of different climates, terrains, vegetation, concentrations and levels of population, etc., which apart from anything else will determine different levels and states of material condition. In effect, some parts of the world will be 'richer' in food/housing provision, standard of living, psychological conditions of surroundings etc.

That is unavoidable, but it is not the economic inequality in current society or any other form of economic hierarchy. In these systems, there are specific levels of role within the organisation of the economy, such as employer and employee. Secondly, there is specific exploitation not only of a working class in the same area, but of other areas of the world, such as the West's exploitation of the Third World. They would of course not exist in an anarchic world, and there wouldn't be the economic and political structure to allow it.

And one might ask, why would any individual want to 'own' any more than what they need as personal effects - such as roadways, factories, large areas of land that could be used by others. Is it to profit from those others? In which case why should the others tolerate it?
One would want recompension for increased levels of utility. If one person produces more than another, clearly they must be rewarded in some sense; otherwise they have no reason to strive for success above the norm.

In regards to your question 'What would be better?', I would argue liberal egalitarianism, as envisioned by J. Rawls, can best meet the twin challenges of relative equality and personal freedom.
Firstly, why should they want to strive for 'success above the norm' anyway? What is such success? Why should the rest of the community care to help them? Secondly, even if someone produces more than others, is that extra actually needed or desired? If not, why should that excess be rewarded? In other words, how is increased production necessarily increased utility? Thirdly, from that, it would be better to organise increased production that actually is needed between people in general, rather than rely on one person who could benefit at others' expense.

Furthermore, just because someone wants to live in a slightly bigger house, or eat nicer food (not such bad desires, in themselves), doesn't mean they should be allowed to own things like roads, factories, whole farms, that other people work on, and which would put them in a superior position and enable them to exploit people.

I have heard of Rawls and his theories, altho I haven't read it and don't know the details. I presume it is (a) authoritarian, at least to the effect of having a state, even if a minimal and democratic one, and (b) inegalitarian in having economic hierarchy, even if there is some potential towards some equality.

Furthermore, just because someone wants to live in a slightly bigger house, or eat nicer food (not such bad desires, in themselves), doesn't mean they should be allowed to own things like roads, factories, whole farms, that other people work on, and which would put them in a superior position and enable them to exploit people.

And, of course, we have the question of whether people will want to live in a slightly bigger house. It's easy now, you can hire cleaners and kitchen staff, whatever, but, as can be seen in the decline of the "great" houses in the UK or the US South, greater economic equality reduced the availability of servants and sent the houses into decline. Without the availability of cheap labour to exploit, the desire to live beyond your needs would decline because it would simply be too much effort. A family of three would be very unlikely to live in a five bedroom house if they have to clean it all themselves.

As for "nicer" food, not only is that a matter of taste (personally, I'd prefer a Big Mac to fish eggs), but also a question of whether it is available. Fancy restaurants and the likes are of as debatable value as gold is, do people pay ridiculous amounts of money because the food is actually nicer, or do people say the food is nicer because it costs ridiculous amounts of money? In an anarchist society, there would be far more of a levelling effect, with the strong likelihood of a general improvement in the quality of food, but also a reduction in wasteful food production techniques. Communal cooking, in fact, would probably produce a vastly improved quality of food in general, with more time available for people to cook and skills being shared.

Vas.

maybe not fascism in its entirety, but it is definitely corporatist; anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian with the 'captains of industry' essentially owning the state. now it won't be called the state, but you'll have what amounts to a couple of privatized states running around enforcing their laws. those laws will be made by the owners - i don't buy a word about "market forces" creating the law, not when there are a few powerful people who own the factories, the land, the cops, and the courts. under 'anarcho'-capitalism political power will not be dissolved, it will be completely in the hands of the rich without even the sham democratic safeguards of today.
So? Under anarcho-capitalism, no one will be limited by the laws erected by 'capitalists' unless they voluntarily consent to this authority. This is the key to anarcho-capitlalist theory- consent. Noone has legitimate authority over you unless you consent to it. If you don't consent, no authortiy. If you do consent (regardless of the influences which may initiate this consent, given they aren't the direct coercion of others) you are responsible for fufilling your contract.
So basically according to your definition "anarcho" doesn't even mean "no authority", never mind "no rule"? Just "no state"?

Secondly, if this authority really is subject to your consent, how is it really authority? Authority in a state context is characterised by absolute power with prerogative, not temporary agreed-upon superiority.

Thirdly, what does "you are responsible for fufilling your contract" mean? What if you do not? You won't be hassled by a state because there isn't one. Will you be hassled by the corporation or agents they hire for the purpose? In which case they infringe your liberty. That then becomes coercion. If there is to be no enforcement of contract there could be a great deal of reneging, on anyone's account. The system would break down then.

In a collectivist system it is all based on negotiations between the genuine interests and desires of all people involved. It's all voluntary at all times, and people have the right (ability) to welch if they feel like it. Frequent abandonment of agreements would create the same problems in that sort of economy, but because the whole distribution of work and decision-making is according to people's real desires it is in the interests of all involved to cut it down as much as possible. Thus people have a very positive motivation to ensure they make sensible arrangements and try to stick to them, as well as to build as much flexibility into the system.

Fourthly and probably most importantly... the problem with state authority for anarchists is that it gives decision-making power to an elite alone, in a hierarchy over others, rather than to people generally. This would still be there in the system you describe, just in the hands of business leaders. It is no good talking about "voluntarily consent to this authority" and "If you don't consent, no authortiy": in this system economic leaders would have power, plain and simple, which they would not in an egalitarian society. That power they would use to steer social situations to their own advantage, which would mean influencing anybody supposedly 'free' to not consent to employment to have to do so. Just the economy and employment being sewn up by a small group of employers would be enough to force individuals to sign up, and then with a captive labour market the employers can lower work/employment standards, just as in statist capitalist society. All with your precious "freedom not to contract" and "responsibility to fulfill contract once agreed" intact. Very much against the interests of workers.

And those workers would definitely be needed in this system.

You say "regardless of the influences which may initiate this consent, given they aren't the direct coercion of others", so evidently influencing social circumstances to influence individual powerless people to have to work in conditions beyond their control is OK by you as long as nobody is physically coming into their cottage and twisting their arm. This just shows that you don't have the same values as anarchists. Again, we aren't against coercion because it's direct. We're against it because it's a way of people to impose their will on, or manipulate, others. The influence you are talking about is indirect, but still such manipulation and imposition. I can't see how it can be considered 'moral', or part of a system that is in the interests of all people. It's pretty clearly not, and encourages selfishness, polarisation of wealth and power levels, etc.

beyond that, there is nothing quite so authoritarian as the internal structure of a corporation, which will be the main political and economic power structures around under 'anarcho'-capitalism.
Except for the mob rule which necessarily rules anarchism (any drive for consensus is fallacious- there is no reason to believe concensus will occur. Minorities will NOT have a say in the direction of the anarcho-commune.)
Not only does this assume something false about anarchism and attack a straw man, but also completely fails to answer the charge against anarcho-capitalism. It is obvious that any capitalist structure, being essentially hierarchical, necessarily involves authority. That is the crux of anarchists' inclusion of capitalism in all the authority they are against, along with the state.

Secondly, of course anarchism will not involve mob rule. It will involve individual power to decide their circumstances, except inasmuch as they therein bump into other people and their business ("My freedom ends where yours begins" - Kropotkin), wherein they have to negotiate, within a community structure in which inter-individual relations are organised, except inasmuch as that community therein bumps into other communities and their business, wherein they have to negotiate, within a federation structure in which inter-community relations are organised, except inasmuch as that federation bumps into other federations and their business, wherein they have to negotiate, within a federation of federations structure in which inter-federation relations are organised... etc.

When you say "Minorities will NOT have a say in the direction of the anarcho-commune", what kind of minorities do you mean? Gay people? The left-handed?

same way i get off banning capitalism. there's freedom, and then there's license. freedom is not being able to do anything you want. there is no right to be a fascist dictator and there is no right to privately own the means of production and distribution. a 'freedom' that allows unfreedom isn't.
Your opinion. But most people would believe otherwise. I can legitiamtely make myself a slave if no one forces me too. Suggesting otherwise limits the personal freedoms which we all (not just anarchists) do/should hold dear. You don't know what's best any more than the next person. Consequently, we should all make up our own minds even if these means a voluntary restriction of freedom. There certainly IS a right to be a facist dictator if everyone you try and rule over volutarily accepts it.

IMO, neither anarcho socialism nor anarcho-capitalism are particularly compelling. Both necessitate the forfeiture of either relative equality or personal freedom. This is why I feel a liberal egalitarian model is far more successful in remedying both of these problems.
If everyone you try to rule over voluntary accepts it you are not a real fascist dictator. You may want to be, you may like pretending you are, you may imagine you really are, but you're not. This is because the crucial element, actual effective power over other people whether they like it or not, is absent. The 'power' you have is not "whether other people like it or not", but only "when and because they like it". That's not really dictatorial power over people.

Similarly, you are not really a slave if you are not actually owned. This is what it's like in BDSM: they pretend to be master and slave, but the crucial aspect is that even the slave/bottom is always free to act otherwise and hence not really owned and controlled.

As I said above, "if this authority really is subject to your consent, how is it really authority? Authority in a state context is characterised by absolute power with prerogative, not temporary agreed-upon superiority."

I agree that we don't know what's best for other people better than those people. The reason I don't want to live in a capitalist society any more than a state one is because that reflects my feelings, desires and values. I don't expect other people to feel the same way. However, I obviously can't be an anarchy of one. We anarchists need to prevail upon everyone else, at least enough to have a viable international self-supporting anarchy that won't be threatened by any remaining authoritarian society. But such prevailing can't be forcing or manipulating; not only would that be against our ethics and principles but also counterproductive. So it's a matter of convincing in enough numbers, by campaigning, argument, example, action.

Now maybe some people will want to get rid of the state but not capitalism. Fine... as long as we socialist anarchists still get to have our socialist anarchy, and again with sufficient security not to be invaded. We do honestly think tho that our way of life is more in the interests of workers in a capitalist 'anarchy' than that kind of life, whatever they think. And we think that given enough time and observation they will see that too. And it's because of this that we believe that those who want to be the elite of an anarcho-capitalist society will find a socialist anarchy a threat, and may take measures to suppress it; and it's because of that that we believe we have to campaign against anarcho-capitalism as much as statist capitalism. Mutual tolerance is very nice in theory but unrealistic in practice, it seems to me.

this is not a thing however that requires organization and coordination to be heierarchal.
nor does any other natural thing do so. at least not in sentient humans.


Similarly within the brain there are multiple areas which govern specific functions, but there is no central 'boss' part of the brain: we are in a constant state of schizophrenia* as multiple forces combine to steer us.




*schizophrenia as used by Deleuze & Guattari in the psychopathologically incorrect meaning of 'multiple selves'

People are not truly free unless they are also econmically free.
I agree so much... we must make sure we get rid of capitalism, to prevent the property-owning capitalist class dictating economic conditions to the mass of workers.

Besides, it it ever actually got bad, the people whould just rise up. There would be no corrupt government to support the businesses.
:?: :?: "There would be no corrupt government to support the businesses."? ... Oh! *shock* You were thinking of an anarcho-capitalist society with businesses?! *shock*

...then how come you can talk about being economically free???

anarcho socialism is contradictory, because it would need a state authority to run it.
Answers to your three questions:
You say that the property is everyone's; but who will enforce that?
The people.
Who will distribute the food among the people?
The people.
Who will make sure things run smoothly?
The people.
erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.
I don't quite get this... firstly we are talking about an anarchy where people *do* want to participate. And it's not "obeying", there's nobody to obey, and nobody who wants to. The system enforced by the totalitarian regimes in the so-called 'Communist' states wasn't real communism of course (real communism is an anarchy). I can't see how you can say it is "healthy and entirely right" that people look after their own interests before those of society when they are "put in charge", but then in an anarchy nobody is "put in charge", nobody is "in charge", anyway. In an anarchy it's in everyone's interests to negotiate and relate to others, balancing their interests with others, so that they get what they want from others and the general collective, because they will endanger it if they are entirely selfish and presumptuous. Co-operation is necessary, and so appropriate use of communal possessions like "means of production" is necessary, to allow and ensure co-operative work.

Let's not confuse Self-Government with Anarchy.
Agreed... whatever "self-government" is, it's not anarchy, because it is still some form of "government".

Is "self-government" even possible? Is it some kind of game you play with yourself, schizophrenically, acting the governor and treating yourself as the governed?

Anarchy is a brief period of unrest between the fall and creation of another government in a region.
Anarchy is an organised society of social order, not unrest, in its own right, not between governments.

"Anarchy" as a government Cannot exist.
Correct. Anarchy doesn't involve or require government.

The term 'minority' can't/won't apply to anyone for all or most issues all or most of the time...*democracy* was created in ancient Greece and in America with the idea that more than half the people were right more than half the time.
Technically it isn't that 'more than half the people were right' - instead it is that the largest vocal minority are right. Lets say there is a presidential election: half the people don't vote, 19% vote for A, 18% vote for B and 13% vote for C. Who is right? - the 19% that voted for A. Such is democracy.

For example: JFk, despite being hailed as massively popualr was elected with 49.75% of 62.8% turnout: in other words 31.24% of the total electorate.
Here are the ways in which 'democracy' is not 'democracy' (wherein 'democracy' = the current Western model of liberal modified dictatorship and 'democracy' = "the people have the power"):

1. It involves elected 'representation' rather than direct power
2. The 'representative' won't have or represent exactly your view but rather their own which at best may reflect your views a little
3. The representatives aren't even acting alone with individual integrity, but are members of "parties", which muddle their opinions and opportunity to represent your view
4. You aren't guaranteed there will be someone standing to represent anything like your view
5. Election of reps is only every 4 or 5 years or whatever, rather than more often or whenever you change your mind
6. Once reps are elected, and a government formed, they have enduring 'authority', rather than being recalled whenever people want them to be
7. Not all "the people" are in the electorate. Kids, mentally ill, criminals, have no vote.
8. Not everyone votes in any given election.
9. Of the votes cast, the rep is chosen from the largest vote share... which often won't be a majority, even tho it's supposed to be in some way.

This is not 'democracy' = "the people have the power". This is "some of the people have the power to vote every few years for a representative who will push something approaching their view (assuming there is anyone like that standing in the election) as long as the party to which they belong allows it, with the possibility that that candidate will get more votes than any other, even if fewer than half of all votes and even if a minority desire in the population overall". That really is just not democracy.

(trivia: the word 'democracy' comes from the greek 'demos' meaning people, and the word 'crass' meaning stupid)*

*this is patently untrue.
I thought it was "demo-crazy" - a demonstration of insanity?

Libertrian Socialist vs Anrcho Captialist....I can't decide with one I like more

erm, what about the huge chunk of "the people" who wouldn't be interested in obeying this sort of system? you realize there is a reason why a huge and totalitarian state is needed to enforce Communism, right? because people DON'T WANT TO DO IT. when "the people" are put in charge they look out for their interests first and those of the society second...that's healthy and entirely right, but it doesn't fit well with communal property systems.
If they don't want to participate, they can leave.
and will you, personally, be willing to risk your life to force these civilians and their families to leave their homes? no? well guess what, nobody else will be either. there's something about ejecting civilians and their children merely because of their ideology that most honorable people dislike...i can't imagine why...

but you missed my point: the majority of people DON'T WANT THE SYSTEM YOU ARE PROPOSING. so if "the people" are really in charge, rather than an oppressive state which forces Communist values upon the people, there will be no communalism.

also, try reading Aristotle's critique of pure democracy...he's got a very concise analysis of why pure democracy can never succeed.
Basically, you can't force freedom on people. Therefore anarchy won't happen unless people really want it. Maybe we will get a situation of partial anarchy in the world, as we have been discussing. However, there may be a revolutionary situation in various countries, and if there is anarchists will just have to sort themselves out as best they and try to dissolve state and capital power near where they are and create libertarian-egalitarian collective organisation.

As for people who don't want to live under it, are they people with a privilege who would lose it - in which case we wouldn't really giver a toss - or people who we judge would do better under an anarchy but don't want it? If the latter, I think you have to work around people. Eventually I think the established structures of power will begin collapsing because they are out of date and inreasingly unworkable. They won't give up power voluntarily, but it'll be a lot easier justifying creating an anarchic organisation in the midst of the chaos to people who are not convinced anarchists, because the authoritarian system they are attached to will be showing its failure and need to be replaced.

What did Aristotle say?

Libertrian Socialist vs Anrcho Captialist....I can't decide with one I like more
What sort of society would you like to live in? What sort of life-conditions would you like to live under?

hi·er·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rärk, hrär-)
n. pl. hi·er·ar·chies

1. A body of persons having authority.

2. Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status.

3. The group so categorized.

4. A series in which each element is graded or ranked: put honesty first in her hierarchy of values.

5. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above.

6. Religious rule by a group of ranked clergy.
One of the divisions of angels.

Thus, Anarcho-Capitalism does not have a hierarchy in the sense of the first definition. If you use hte second, then every society must have a hierarchy; otherwise, everyone would have to perform the same tasks, and the society would utterly fail.

2. Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status.

3. The group so categorized.

Thus, Anarcho-Capitalism does not have a hierarchy in the sense of the first definition. If you use hte second, then every society must have a hierarchy; otherwise, everyone would have to perform the same tasks, and the society would utterly fail.

Sheesh, quit with the dictionary quotes, puleez. Dictionaries are based on language AS USED. Thus, in current social organisations, categorizations of people according to their abilities is connected to status. Doctors are higher than nurses, psychicians are higher than nurses and doctors, specialists are highest of all. Secondly, in wage slavery, you ARE your job, I'm a journalist, other people ARE doctors or teachers. Permanent divisions of labour mean that people have less ability to BE something else than their main job.

In an anarchist system, being non-hierarchical, jobs would simply be that which needs to be done. Is a doctor more necessary than a nurse? No, without nurses, doctors would not be able to do their jobs as well. Thus, different categories of roles would not imply a hierarchy. Secondly, divisons of labour would be far less permanent. There would, of course, be divisions based on talent and ability, but these wouldn't be absolute. A doctor could also be a farmer as long as his particular skills as a doctor are not necessary at the time. More widespread education would most likely throw up far more skilled individuals, as most skills are 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Technological developments would also reduce the burden of labour if the resources now wasted on military and pointless tasks like banking or investment, were invested in social improvement systems.

Vas.

What did Aristotle say?

a few interesting things surrounded by a bunch of crap. on the subject of the aristotle's politics he has these little nuggets of wisdom,

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

Neither must we suppose that any one of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the state, and are each of them a part of the state...

but on the plus side he does have this to say,

There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it.

i don't remember where exaclty he talks about democracy (there are like 8 books of aristotle's "politics") but i do remember that he considers the corrupted form of rule by the people (which i think he calls "polity") to be democracy. and he thinks that the problem with just allowing the masses to rule is that then the poor, who always make up the vast majority, will simply redistribute the property of the wealthy to themselves. and probably something about virtue and honor and the good and whatever being ruined because of this.

hi·er·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rärk, hrär-)
n. pl. hi·er·ar·chies

1. A body of persons having authority.

2. Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status.

3. The group so categorized.

4. A series in which each element is graded or ranked: put honesty first in her hierarchy of values.

5. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above.

6. Religious rule by a group of ranked clergy.
One of the divisions of angels.

Thus, Anarcho-Capitalism does not have a hierarchy in the sense of the first definition. If you use hte second, then every society must have a hierarchy; otherwise, everyone would have to perform the same tasks, and the society would utterly fail.

um, that dictionary seems to miss the central modern sense of hierarchy. when we talk about the military hierarchy or the corporate hierarchy or the government hierarchy, we are talking about superiors and subordinates. which is definition 5 minus the word clergy. the term itself comes from the church, specifically the ranking of angels - which got transferred to the earthly structure of pope on down. this was then transfered to all rankings of authority or dominance. for example, my copy of the oxford english dictionary has four definitions for hierarchy. the first three come from late middle english (1350-1469) and deal with angels and the church. the fourth and final definition comes from the early 17th century and it reads,

A body of people, animals, or things ranked (in grades, orders, or classes) one above the other, esp. with respect to authority or dominance

but of course you knew this and were just trying to figure out a way to get out of the corner you backed into when you claimed that a system that has order givers and order followers has no 'true' hierarchy.

It seems to us anarchists that the sort of people who aim to get into top positions of states or companies are people who want power for themselves, not organise life for everyone else's benefit.

Here I have to disagree. I see anarchism as a means to prevent the *potential* abuse of authority that is inherent in a state (it's the reason there are "checks and balances" built into the system, which don't always work or don't apply to places it's needed).

I'm not sure who said it, but I've heard it said before, "Absolute power attracts the absolutely corrupted" (as opposed to "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Well, I'll be damned. Most threads on anarchism/syndicalism in game forums like this often end up in BS, but this looks really good...

/Tias, AC and NA's player

:shock:

Beg pardon, but there's another "AC"

To suggest a few more:

General
Anarcho-Syndicalism - www.anarchosyndicalism.org/

Books
Black Rose Books - http://www.web.net/blackrosebooks/
Freedom Press - http://vega.soi.city.ac.uk/~louise/freehome.html

Activist
Indymedia - http://www.indymedia.org
EZLN/Zapatistas - http://www.ezln.org/

Other radical
Robert Anton Wilson - http://www.rawilson.com

Punk
Chumbawamba - http://www.chumba.com/

Books

Berkman, Alexander - What is Anarchism (ABCs of Anarchism + What is Anarchist Communism)
Kropotkin, Piotr - The Conquest of Bread

Non-anarchist but related:

Heinlein, Robert A - Stranger in a Strange Land
McCleod - The Stone Canal
Palast, Greg - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Wilson, Robert Anton - The Illuminatus Trilogy

Oh, and please add Dischordiac as an anarchist "nation".

Two books to add are "Roads to Freedom" and "Liberty, Community, and Anarchy".

Because that's anarchism. Sheesh, it's a stupid question. The principle of anarchism is that the people are in charge, if they're not, it's not anarchism.

Let me rephrase. Why should the commune have authority over those that do not identify with the commune? That is to say, why should those who DO NOT support your model be forced to?


The commune/collective DOESN'T have authority over those that do not identify with the collective/commune!

Those that DO NOT support our model AREN'T forced to!

The collectives/communes come after "the revolution" or the change of organization, in case you are confused...

Your outline here takes for granted that the social organisation of anarchism, where the person who makes the rake will not want to give it freely, would negate anarchism. If anarchism exists, this would not be true. It this were true, anarchism would not exist.

This may be correct, if we take your version of 'anarchism' as the correct definition. However, I think this is an extremely difficult statement...

...2- How are you going to ensure he wants to give away his rake? Education? By educating people in such a way as to make your model correct is, effectively, coercive; education should be a personal/family choice, not that of the collective. Under capitalism, you could have any form of education you wanted. Under anarcho-communism, you could only have one. This again speaks wonders about the freedom involved.

It's not *his* version of 'anarchism', it's one of the ORIGINAL versions/definitions of anarchism (the version/definition of 'anarchism' that he's/we're using was :!: created :!: by people who created the word 'anarch/y/ism/ist').

As for your second point, you're ASSuming the principles and ideas of anarchism are thrust upon society and its members RIGHT NOW, with no process of widespread public understanding, debate, or persuasion (or the lack thereof of any of the three).

So what? I spend a good deal of time building a spear. If I lend it to Carl over there to go hunting with, it'll possibly break, and will definitely wear. I clearly need an incentive.

And obviously you think greed rather than social organisation is a greater incentive. I disagree.

That's your perogative; however, greed IS found in virtually every culture (at least to the extent that wealth is valued in and of itself; this is pretty much a fact, anthropologically speaking). Consequently, my opinion seems more parsimonious than your own.

Capitalism's base word is 'capital'. 'Capital', is defined as land, machines, money, etc , is it not? The purpose of aquiring capital in the system is to ensure your livelihood; (roughly) #1 that your basic needs are seen after #2 Extra capital in case of disaster or emergency #3 Luxuries which have ONLY (or mostly) *social value*, which is damn near always overlooked - in addition, one could accumulate enough capital so as to never have to work or do anything productive again; you have free time and leisure (both with little or no economic value and all or mostly social value) to do what you want

Capitalism makes no value or mention of social organization or social value at all (seeing as it ('social value') is not something one can definitively measure and one certainly can't trade it), and almost totally ignores it, whereas collectivist/communist Anarchism (I'm not too sure of the difference, though I'd be glad to learn of one) focuses on it.

It seems to me you do not understand how much [collectivist/communist] anarchists place in 'social value'.

Et voila is the critique of both Proudhon's collectivism and anarcho-capitalism. Communal organisation rids us of this question. Bill and Jim work together on the combined land and share that which they grow. The may diversify, once they find that one thing grows better on one side of the valley and other things grow better elsewhere, rather than competing growing the same thing.

This doesn't solve the problem at all! If Bill and Jim work together, and Jim produces 7 melons while Bill produces 3, yet they both receive the compensation, clearly there's a problem here. Jim has a very, very large incentive to strike out on his own. This also competely ignores issues of taste (Jim recieves 2 utils from each melon, while Bill recieves 4 utils: thus while Jim produced 7 melons, he recieves only 10 utils; meanwhile, Bill produces 3 melons, yet receives 20 utils!).

Number One, anarchism's prime value is social, not economic: Jim and Bill are probably friends (seeing as in the example and here, they work on nearby or the same plot), as such what does it matter that Jim produces more melons or that Bill gets more 'utils'? In an anarchist society (which Jim and Bill are lving in), they share, because there are MORE IMPORTANT THINGS than economic value!

Again, social value is prime in anarchism, and minimized in capitalism!

Greetings anarchists!

Has anyone read the book "Demanding the Impossible: a History of Anarchism"? I think it is really good and would like to discuss the very positive view given of Nietzsche by the author. The man is my favourite philosopher and I had always seen him as having a philosophy so individualist that it is "anarchist" in the sense of having no state or politics [although he was no communitarian and saw it as crushing individuality, thus putting him at odds with a lot of anarchists]. I was pleased to read that someone else shares this view and has published it to the world.

What do you people think? Do any of you see the anarchist in Nietzsche? Btw the misogyny of the man was noted by the author as his one "unforgiveable error" [or something like that], so let's ignore his rather tongue-in-cheek comments about whipping women.

Very wrong. There are numerous people who find gardening and growing food, or making clothes, or building things enjoyable, more than enough for their "leisure" work to be turned into productive work. There are also numerous people who dedicate themselves to improving the appearance of their surroundings, often voluntarily. Many of the less enjoyable jobs would disappear in a non-monetary economy and people would be free to engage in things they enjoy.

I quite agree. And I welcome those people to enter into communal society if they so desire. I'm not one of those people. I enjoy many things in my leisure time, few of which constitute to any degree something sufficiently constructive as to be my career in this communal society. I don't like farming, gardening or agriculture.. I'm neutral towards carpentry. I've done physical labour, industrial work, many of the things we would need to do in an anarchist society. And I don't recieve any particular pleasure from them. I would much prefer participating in (more or less) the society we live in right now- I tolerate my work, enjoy my schooling, and enjoy my leisure time. My largest objection is while I would allow you to live your life as you wish, you would not grant me the same courtesy.

On the contrary! You would recieve what has been called 'a vagabond's wage' (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) by one or two anarchist authors that I am aware of; surely some of what you do in your leisure could be considered productive, couldn't it? What career path are you studying towards (if you don't mind sharing, for the sake of discussion)?

but in our society NO ONE is forcing you to work.

Half-truth.

No *person* is forcing you to work; circumstances, systems, and patterns beyond, for the most part (at this stage of your life, anyway), your control...you don't work, you can't either #1 pay for basic nessesities to continue living (I suppose you COULD do something to get into the American prison system; they don't make you pay for that, but that has negative SOCIAL VALUE (a social cost)) or #2 raise enough to get out of the system and then be able to provide for yourself (some form of agriculture), and even then, you are very likely to make occaisonal forays into* "the system" that you got out of, in order to maintain your [partial] existence out of it.

*as for why people don't do this; both high SOCIAL *and* economic cost

I make minimum wage. This is exactly what I'm worth right now- I'd probably work for a little less, to be honest. I'm not being exploited- I could quit any time I wanted to.

You're right - you *could* quit any time you wanted to, only because you have other options available to you - friends, family, etc. as a means of financial support or assistance

You only accept your minimum wage because you're getting an education for a HIGHER paying job in the future.

Anarchy is defined as nothing more than a lack of a State.

Thus, Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of Anarchy.

Furthermore, Anarcho-Capitalism does not have a true hierarchy because it contains class mobility.

*Technically*, yes 'Anarchy means nothing more than a lack of state', HOWEVER the terms anarch/y/ist/ism were created by those who would be called "left-libertarian" on a 2 axis political scale (left-right and authoritarian-libertarian see www.politicalcompass.org) to mean 'no authority'.

The biggest roadblock would be the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations. How will you deal with them?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Greetings anarchists!

Has anyone read the book "Demanding the Impossible: a History of Anarchism"? I think it is really good and would like to discuss the very positive view given of Nietzsche by the author. The man is my favourite philosopher and I had always seen him as having a philosophy so individualist that it is "anarchist" in the sense of having no state or politics [although he was no communitarian and saw it as crushing individuality, thus putting him at odds with a lot of anarchists]. I was pleased to read that someone else shares this view and has published it to the world.

What do you people think? Do any of you see the anarchist in Nietzsche? Btw the misogyny of the man was noted by the author as his one "unforgiveable error" [or something like that], so let's ignore his rather tongue-in-cheek comments about whipping women.

haven't read that book, mainly because i haven't seen it anywhere - it has been on my list of books to read for a while now. and i can totally see the anarchist in nietzsche, at least at times. i wrote a short paper on the subject once. i'll have to see if i can find it.

Whipping women? :shock:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Right...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Whipping women? :shock:


"When you go to woman, bring your whip" - one of the aphorisms in Beyond Good & Evil. Nietzsche is more fun than a proverbial barrel of monkeys.

An...interesting man.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

The biggest roadblock would be the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations. How will you deal with them?

yeah the religious hierarchies are one of our old enemies. luckily for us, they are getting more and more discredited and losing their power and authority. i would like for everyone to give up their authoritarian gods and will try to convince them to do so. but ultimately, from a tactical perspective, i think we will need more libertarian understandings of religion to overtake the hierarchical authoritarian ones among the general population. that's where religious anarchists come in - and hopefully the muslim anarchists (yes, there are some) can pull together a convincing and compelling libertarian form of islam that can get the whole religion out of its current state of reactionary and authoritarian fundamentalism. and the christian anarchists could be particularly useful in a place like the us, which is stuck in its own bit of fundamentalism. we want as many people on our side as possible, and if we have to get them through appealling to god, so be it.

in this regard, i don't want a repeat of spain. there was no reason to burn perfectly good buildings to the ground just because they used to belong to the fascist-backing catholic church. and it only served to drive the non-atheists into the arms of the reactionaries.

The biggest roadblock would be the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations. How will you deal with them?

yeah the religious hierarchies are one of our old enemies.

Yet also the origin of anarchism. Anarchism is rooted in non-conformist Christian churches, who believed so strongly in the divine hierarchy that they rejected earthly hierarchies. "No masters but God" became "No Gods, no masters", particularly with Bakunin, but important Christian anarchists include Proudhon and Tolstoy.

Vas.

okay. as long as you don't use any of the benefits of our system then feel free to live as you chose...just be aware that your children may not attend our schools, you may not call our police when you need protection, your homes will not be protected by our emergency services, you may not drive on our roads or use our mass transit, you may not have your home heated or cooled or powered by our fascilities, etc. etc. etc.

if you don't want to live under the "oppression" of capitalism then prove it by giving up everything that comes with capitalism...the good as well as the bad. show that you have the strength of your convictions, rather than being merely another bourgeios hypocrite who whines about inequality while indulging in all the side effects of that "oppression."
I can't tell if you're being serious here Bottle - it seems you were just trying to make AC think - but the gist of your argument seems to be that if you're in one kind of political/economic structure you don't have the right to campaign for a change to something else, because you're part of the present one.

...Hidden premise or two?

Where do you get your "you may not" from? Who are you to say what we may or may not do?

Please :roll:

Are you really suggesting that we leave the infastructure to the plutocracy? One of the major points of the social revolution is to give the workers control of their labor. All of the things that you mentioned were not built by 'capitalism' but by the workers.
yes, by workers in a CAPITALIST society, and without the "plutocracy" you wouldn't have had the funding, training, or jobs for those worker. take Econ 101, it helps when you actually understand the economy before you try to become a Communist.
Well for one thing what passes for 'economics' is capitalist economics, i.e. how economics works in a capitalist society. If you're trying to point to how economics works in a capitalist society to show that capitalism is the only workable economy you're begging the question.

Without the workers, and their preparedness to put their labour to the great visions of capitalists none of them would have come to anything.

i was merely saying that if you don't want to be "oppressed" by capitalism then you shouldn't expect any of the benefits. so when you are robbed or beaten or a loved one is harmed, don't expect any assistance from the system you hate. i am fully aware of the cowardly opinion most anarchists hold about the police.
Why shouldn't we expect any benefits from capitalism? It has been imposed on us, we have not been consulted in its application to the world, it was here when we were born. No-one has come to us and said "OK, you know there is a capitalist system, well would you like to continue with it or would you like something else? If you'd like to continue with it, please commit yourself to it with all that it involves; if you'd like something else you have an opportunity to get together with them and organise something else."

We do not owe capitalism anything because we have never agreed to it voluntarily. If you don't accept that sort of criterion you are opening up the potential to being manipulated into doing anything anyone with sufficient power can engineer you into doing. If you were one of the Jews in the concentration camps who were 'employed' to do the dirty work, you had the choice of doing it or dying. If you agreed to it, you would be given a little food and shelter - and you would have no chance to escape. If you did as you were being manipulated to do, and took the food and shelter, did you 'owe' something to the regime there?

Or would it perfectly right to do that, to survive, and bide your time till a liberation or look for a way to overthrow the Nazis?

It doesn't have to be that way.
then make it another way.
What do you think we're trying to do???

if you really believe it can be otherwise then prove it,
We would have the chance to itf an anarchy could be set up...

and stop benefitting from the system you claim to hate.
Why? Why not suck its blood for all it's worth? Use its resources and energies against it? That's what it means to do to us. And you apparently think that's OK.

i could point out the countless services and luxuries you enjoy because of capitalism, including your education, your quality of life, the computer you are typing at, any of the personal posetions you own, or any number of social and economic benefits you reap on a daily basis, but i will instead simply refer you to the works of Karl Marx (specifically Das Kapital and On The Jewish Question) for an analysis of your hypocritical and bourgeois nature. though i warn you, On The Jewish Question in particular is a very difficult piece, and will take quite some time to fully understand. you have to watch for Marx's shifts of voice as he goes from his position to Bauer's and back.
Clearly capitalism has been a factor in the production of all those things, and clearly a whole load of other things have too, beginning with the labour of the workers that capitalism oppresses and which anarchism, unlike you, aims to liberate.

I don't know why you bring in Marx - do you agree with him or not? You've said elsewhere that communism isn't possible (people don't want it). Where do you get off calling people 'bourgeois' like a doctrinaire Marxist? Are you from a middle-class background? Then you're 'bourgeois'. Are you a supporter of capitalism? Then you're 'bourgeois'. Are you someone who has a different opinion or perspective that *this* ideology (whatever it is) needs to marginalise and demonise? Then you're 'bourgeois'.

Also, if you have a point to make make it yourself, rather than saying "go away and read this". Especially Marx, he's irritating, boring, turgid, dogmatic, authoritarian, a distraction, hypocritical, and way self-important, not to mention bourgeois.

How do you know that the innovation of which you speak couldn't have happened under anarchism, or under any number of systems, for that matter?
it hasn't. if you want a logical proof of why, read Aristotle. as for predicting the future, i don't claim that i can...read Marx, read Aristotle, read Weber, read Nietzsche. LEARN about what you are preaching.
Hey, if I want a logical proof of why, you provide it. If you are trying to put forward a point, back it up - don't say "I am right, read all these authors for evidence". Why should we go to all that trouble? We have no reason to believe what you say, the onus is on you to justiofy it. You are way not so important, nor your argument, for us to be obliged or motivated to chase these things up thru all your stated authors because you are so presumptuous and lazy as to dogmatically diss us in this thread and then fob us off with a list of supposed experts in print.

As for "LEARN about what you are preaching."... (a) :?: learn about anarchism? Us? (b) Look in the mirror!

MY ASS it's irrelevant.
you sure like that word, don't you? that's cute, my little brother swears like that when he is angry, too.
You sure like flaimbaiting people and always having the right answer, don't you? That's not cute, it makes you a jerk.
Dont you dare call Bottle a jerk!

She is a very intelligent young lady...with very defined views...this does not make her a jerk...she just knows what she believes in...and can out debate most...

*winks at Bottle and leaves the thread*
She's certainly intelligent, well-read, able to articulate arguments, but she can also be dogmatic, high-handed, knowall, and she has a Devil's Advocate tendency a lot of the time. (I know I do too.) She can certainly act like a jerk in a given thread, and the fact that you've become friendly to her doesn't make the way she treats other people OK.

"You cannot understand a man's actions unless you understand his beliefs"
-Winston Churchill

Please, learn about the beliefs of those YOU preach to; perhaps I will make an effort to understand yours.
hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism. i have studied the critiques and defenses of Communism by such political philosophers as Weber, Freud, Koch, Strauss, and Rawls. i've learned a great deal more about Communism, Anarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy, and Republics than you appear to have. try again, cutiepie!
Errr try again, yourself, cutiepie, yourself[b]. We are talking about the beliefs of anarchists, and you mention 5 works of Marx, Weber, Freud, Koch, Strauss, and Rawls? [b]Try reading some anarchism. If you want to understand anarchism. How off base are you? Communism, OK, but don't you understand anarcho-communism is different from Marxist communism? And that hardly anybody ever notices it never mind critiques it, people like Freud, Rawls, Karl Popper? Their interest in Marxism communism is sparked by apparent success and popularity, rather than comprehensive ideological comparison.

Just remember that bottle doesn't have much sympathy for the handicapped, the poor, etc. She believes that only certain people have actually earned the right to live or something. You can't expect her to understand how your beliefs work.
:roll:
:roll:

Then why do you place much of your recent emphasis on Marx and state communism when this thread is about anarcho-communism.
:roll: if you had actually READ Marx you would know that it is his critique of Capitalism and his analysis of your bourgeios ideals which are relavent to this discussion.
Firstly, how is AC bourgeois?

Secondly, maybe something Marx says is relevant - then quote/explain to it here.

Thirdly - I doubt it. I think the anarchist critique of Marxism trumps any Marxist critique of anarchism soveral times over. Certainly the idea that a workers' movement - and anarchism was a *genuine* workers' movement, while Marx was not a worker and his movement was not a workers' movement - would be 'bourgeois' is fatuous.

I really HAVE read 'Das Kapital' as well as 'The Communist Manifesto' and can tell you that much of it was exagerated then, that some/much of it hasn't come to be true and that the system it purports to be a replacement for capitalism is just as bad or worse!
then you haven't read them very well. if you had, you would know that the tyranny of the proletariat was to exist only as a stepping block until the realization of the VERY SYSTEM YOU ARE ADVOCATING.
:roll: "If you don't agree with my interpretation of a text, it must mean you haven't read it properly. Because only my interpretation could possibly be correct." :roll: You would very well as a fundamentalist literalist Christian, Bottle.

Secondly, yeah Marx supposedly believed the revolution, having spawned the dictatorship of the proletariat, would then lead to a genuine;y 'communist' society, i.e. a stateless one... and that shows just what a dreamer he was, doesn't it? And look how much misery has been generated as a result, as people - so many oppressed working-class people - have believed him and his doctrinaire followers, and obeyed supposedly 'proletarian' dictatorships in Russia, China, etc.

What is your point about this? Marx supposedly ultimately wanted a similar situation to an anarchy... and? He was totally wrong in his idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat. That's what anarchists have always believed... obviously?

oh, and i actually just finished a very interested paper on how the exploitation of natural resources may be the key reason why Marx's prediction of the empoverishment of the working class has not yet come to exist under Capitalism. just thought i would share that, because it was a fun paper to write.
(Hmm. There should a 'supercilious' smiley.)

Ohhhh? You've just written a very 'interested' paper? Then the paper has a quality we don't share in relation to your views. :wink: It was a "fun" paper to write? Is there some reason why we should care?

I have an anarchic nation. Add me to the anarchic nations list.
Hmm, I'll consider it, but how come you're Iron Fist Socialist and your motto is "We control your life!"?

:?: I'd like to know how Communism and Anarchy are alike cuz I see them as exact opposite How about you? Lobe and Peace!
They are alike in the following way: the original meaning of "communism" was belief in a collective organisation of the economy. A lot of forms of anarchism follow such a collective economy (some don't). In particular, there is "anarcho-communism". Some other socialists, such as Marxists, are also communists, or pro-communists, in that they want a communist society ultimately. But Marxism believes there must be a dictatorial system first, taking over from the previous state by a revolution. The supposedly Marxist, supposedly communist states of the Soviet Union, China etc. were not genuinely 'communist' in the original sense - having a collectively organised economy - because they had an economy organised by the dictatorial state. This could be called 'socialism', but it is actually 'state capitalism', where the state is the employer. Those states were only called 'Communist' because they were ruled by Communist parties - parties following Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism, that involved the *ideal* of a communist society in their ideology, but never actually delivered it. They got stuck in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Of course the dictators were proletarian, but rather an elite, just as in a liberal/conservative/capitalist country.

So, Soviet/Chinese 'Communism' is very far from anarchism because it involves totalitarian dictatorship, while anarchism is totally libertarian and anti-authority. But, original communism is at the heart of a lot of anarchism. Basically the difference between original communism and the totalitarian 'Communism' of the 'Communist' countries is provided by Marx' and Marxists' fantasy that it is possible to create a dictatorship that will voluntarily submit its power and 'wither away' into collectively distributed control. It's not anarchists' fault, it's Marxists'.

Then why do you place much of your recent emphasis on Marx and state communism when this thread is about anarcho-communism.
:roll: if you had actually READ Marx you would know that it is his critique of Capitalism and his analysis of your bourgeios ideals which are relavent to this discussion.
Firstly, how is AC bourgeois?

It is funny really, seeing as the bourgeoisie is the property owning class and anarchists are opposed to owning property.

Vas.

Again, wrong, read "Property" by Proudhon. Capital is based on theft. The earliest organised society were based on equal or collective ownership.
Nice idea. But... not only is it fundementally unsound as an anthropolgical concept, it actually runs contrary to what evidence we have of the 'earlist organised societies', and even of that which we observe in advanced primates (primates make property claims over prime foraging spots, both as communities and individuals). So while this idea is certainly important to your theory, it seems both contrived and an extreme contortion of evidence.
I agree that earlier human societies invovled hierarchy, but I do think they involved considerable sharing as well, certainly more than later propertarian cultures. I agree that primates show lots of evidence of domination, pecking order - the alpha male - but they could hardly make property claims. That involves a sense of abstraction they don't have. They simply presume dominance over certain areas, and defend them. There is no concept of 'property', just a certain treatment of an area, and other primates, in a certain way.

And again, collective ownership is still ownership.
But not necessarily property.

For the first "capitalist" to gain enough capital to rent it to others, they needed to steal it, ie. claim that they owned it.
Right, but if everyone legitimates this claim, it certainly isn't theft. If Jim, Bob and Bill decide they're gonna split the valley into thirds, and each cultivate their respective third, if Jim works harder and has more melons, is he stealing them from Bill? This concept is unsound.
No, Jim isn't 'stealing' the melons he's grown from anyone. Altho it's debatable whether in anarchist terms the melons are property, rather than possession. It perhaps depends what the arrangements are for disposing of the melons. Your example also assumes that thye three are growing their melons separately, rather than as part of a collective. There could even be an intermediate state between totally separate and totally collective.

I don't believe property is theft. I think that theft is the removal of possession from someone who has it, and if property is that then property is the removal of possession from everybody, which would imply that everyone possesses everything, which I think is not and can not be the case. I believe property is arrogation. Property, as opposed to possession of personal effects, is the taking to oneself, the exclusivisation, of what is otherwise nobody's in particular. There is no reason why everyone else should put up with it if one individual/group decided to take and exclusively control some area of land/resources, it is against everyone's interest. It is in everyone's interests to prevent/stop anyone else arrogating land, resources, products, processes, and using them to exploit/hold down/restrict other people.

The economy of need is based on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". However, the two are not related as they are now. Free distribution is a given, work is not a condition.
This point is clearly flawed. An economy of need is necessarily self-defeating; you can't reasonably expect me to believe you will magically defeat laziness. This also shows why some people may be attracted to a capitalist system- if everyone you work with is lazy, and produces only half of what you do, but receives the same in return, you clearly have an incentive to go somewhere else to work. How are you going to ensure 'from each according to their ability' without resorting to authoritarian structure?
I don't exactly believe in "to each according to their need" either. On the other hand I don't entirely believe in "to each only according to their contribution, let people stave if they don't work very hard". It's this sort of point that makes me feel I can't commit to being a communist anarchist. But I'm certainly not an individualist or anarcho-capitalist either.

We cannot magically defeat laziness. Or illness, stupidity, mental problems. We need to find incentive, but we also need to look beyond rewarding luck and superior ability at the expense of those who don't have it but may be as committed to contributing, maybe at a less able level.

okay. as long as you don't use any of the benefits of our system then feel free to live as you chose...just be aware that your children may not attend our schools, you may not call our police when you need protection, your homes will not be protected by our emergency services, you may not drive on our roads or use our mass transit, you may not have your home heated or cooled or powered by our fascilities, etc. etc. etc.

if you don't want to live under the "oppression" of capitalism then prove it by giving up everything that comes with capitalism...the good as well as the bad. show that you have the strength of your convictions, rather than being merely another bourgeios hypocrite who whines about inequality while indulging in all the side effects of that "oppression."
I can't tell if you're being serious here Bottle - it seems you were just trying to make AC think - but the gist of your argument seems to be that if you're in one kind of political/economic structure you don't have the right to campaign for a change to something else, because you're part of the present one.

...Hidden premise or two?

Where do you get your "you may not" from? Who are you to say what we may or may not do?

to clarify: the sentences include the premise "...or else be an admitted hypocrite." if somebody is going to blame the evils of the world on 'capitalist oppression' while enjoying all the luxuries of that same capitalism then he/she is a hypocrite and stands on weakened logical ground. when i said "you may not" it also carried that adendum, "...unless you are okay with being a hypocrite."

you certainly may live within one system and work to change it toward your ideals...that's the American way, after all. but you may not go on rants about how everything bad is the fault of capitalism and your system could generate all the good things (it just hasn't so far, ever, at all) and blah blah blah while sitting in your capitalist home, eating food produced by capitalist agriculture, typing on a computer designed and manufactured through the engines of capitalism, and probably sipping a soda which represents some of the biggest tycoons of capitalism, without people like me thinking you are just a tad bit funny. if you really believe capitalism is wrong then stop supporting it and benefitting from it.

hmm, i've 5 major works by Marx, who founded Communism.
Oh really? I thought he founded Marxism (or, more technically - those who came after him founded Marxism in his name).
:roll: the modern political theory known as Communism was constructed originally by Marx. new branches of this philosophy have since developed, and so the term "Marxism" is appropriate for referring exclusively to Communists who have not broken significantly with Marx.
:roll: Marx didn't *found* communism. He seems to have been the one who created the idea, altho I don't know this (is there any evidence?). But 'founding' makes it sound like a single consistent movement. It's not. It's a doctrine, an aspect of theory/ideology, which has been shared by various socialist movements. It is a part of them, rather than them being a part of it.

Secondly, 'Marxism' isn't just a form of communism. There is a lot more to Marxism than communism. You must be aware of that since you've studied him so much. In effect, communism is an *aspect* of Marxism, as well as an aspect of anarcho-communism. And Marxist communism is a variety of communism.

Marx however definitely *did* found Marxism (altho as BWO suggests, he did not intend to found his own 'ism' exactly; nevertheless he effectively did).

"We're an anarcho-syndacist commune."
-Pesant, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Anarchy is BS. Get over it.
1. Spelling: "We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."
-Peasant, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

2. :o *gasp* :shock: You're so right! Anarchy is BS! You've swept away all my complex arguments with that incisive analysis! I must adopt a new political belief... perhaps Sneerism, ot Ignorantism? Dismissivism?

what is the difference between anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndacism and anarhco collectivism.
anarcho-socialism

Technically all anarchists are socialists - at least that's what we're arguing. :wink: You'll find a few people who disagree, who believe 'anarchism' is neither left/right essentially just against the state. However the meaning of "anarchism" as "against all forms of rule or superiority over people", including capitalism, was the one used from the beginning of the word, in the mid-19th century, and has been used by anarchists consistently that way ever since. The idea of anarcho-capitalism has only been mooted, mostly in a right-wing-biased American context, in the latter 20th century.

anarcho-syndacism

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism that is definitely socialist, usually communist, that believes in using trade unions as the means of creating the revolutionary conditions for creating an anarchy. It is therefore not a form of anarchy, but a form of strategy for acheieving an anarchy.

anarhco collectivism

Anarcho-collectivism is sometimes considered an intermediate economic state between individualist and communist. The former involves maximal individual separation within the economy, the latter minimal that and maximal sharing. Collectivism would involve a mixture of both individual leeway and communal arrangement. I believe Bakunin supported this idea.

And please do not throw up the rubbish about dirty jobs, there are two arguments about those:
1. "Dirty" jobs can be made clean by the application of processes that are not economically viable in the current system, such as recylcling and composting.
2. "Dirty" jobs are usually necessary jobs, and they will be done. No-one wants to wade through shit.
An addition:

3. "Dirty" jobs can be shared out amongst *everybody*. In a situation where you don't have to collect the bins and dump them in a landfill, you may be quite prepared to consume conspicuously with no thought of the cleaning up job or environmental consequences. It's one hell of a motivation to be sparing, economical and ecological if you have to handle your own 'waste' right thru to its conclusion. :wink:

Marx didn't *found* communism. He seems to have been the one who created the idea, altho I don't know this (is there any evidence?).

Despite the argument that Derrida puts forward in 'Spectres Of Marx',* Marx and Engels were not calling into being the spectre of Communism when they stated that 'A Spectre is haunting Europe'. The spectre already existed. What Marx and Engels did was to atttempt to tie together different threads of communist history and codify them within a Hegelian structure. To assert that Marx invented communism is to ignore the long history of radical communist ideas that preceded him. He did not invent the idea, he changed it into a mechanical ideology. If you wanted we could begin with the early Christians, (for example, Clement of Alexandria, 150-215, "I know that God has given us the sue of goods, but only as far as is necessary; and He has determined that the use be common. It is absurd and disgraceful for one to live magnificently and luxuriously when so many are hungry.") and work our way on from there. What Marx sought to do, or claimed to do (but was it was in fact a sleight of hand), was to give the communist yearnings then abroad in Europe a scientific background and analysis.

Where anarcho-communism differs from Marxism is that it generally rejects: the Hegelian framework which underpins Marxs, thus the inevitability of the triumph of the proletariat, thus the historical justification for the Dictatorship of the proletariat. Without the metaphysics which lie behind Marxism one is left with a very different model of communist practice. Marx in essence denies the freedom of mankind and reduces the human being to a puppet under the command of materialist/ecconomic concerns. Dialectical materialism: I spit on your zombie.


*Footnote: Derrida actually claims that the action of asserting "A spectre is haunting Europe" was a double action, a double articulation, if you will, one that will both recognise the existence of the incorporeal body of the ghost of communist thought and invoke it, giving it solid form.

&&&&

Personally, I find a lot of the discussion going on here interesting, but largely irrelevant. It is focusing on, to twist Joe Hill's words, 'Pie In The Sky'. I have less immediate interest in the way any future anarchist society is to be organised than in the way in which we as anarchists can organise ourselves at present. To ignore our own present living conditions and operations of anarchist practice at the expense of long discourse over the way we shall structure the 'Kingdom of Heaven on Earth' (should we ever get there) is to fall into the old traps of self-sacrifice and self-denial which Nietzsche, for one, railed against at great length. There has been enough self-abnegation already.

So, my suggestion is to turn discussion towards contemporary anarchist practice within the current capitalist system: collectivism, affinity groups, consensus decision making, education for non-hierarchical operations, and the other panoply of options available to us. Are the anarchists taking part in this thread all just voices in the wilderness, or are they working with current groups and organisations?

2. "Dirty" jobs are usually necessary jobs, and they will be done. No-one wants to wade through shit.
An addition:

3. "Dirty" jobs can be shared out amongst *everybody*. In a situation where you don't have to collect the bins and dump them in a landfill, you may be quite prepared to consume conspicuously with no thought of the cleaning up job or environmental consequences. It's one hell of a motivation to be sparing, economical and ecological if you have to handle your own 'waste' right thru to its conclusion. :wink:

Speaking as someone who has done the dirty jobs - yes, I have waded ankle-deep through overflowing toilets in an anarchist collective - they are not such a big deal. The choice is simple: do I want to tackle the dirty job now when it is minor and have it over and done with, or do I want to leave it till the problem gets worse and the shit starts rising around my waist and the waists of the other people here?

Secondly, different people have different ideas of what a 'dirty' job is: I would much rather deal with blocked toilets and malfunctioning plumbing than sit down and deal with reams of paperwork.

"No Gods, no masters"

"No Dogs, No Masters".*









*It is a longstanding joke where I come from. Everytime someone says 'No Gods, No Masters' someone else says, 'No Dogs, No Masters'. Anyhow...

Are the anarchists taking part in this thread all just voices in the wilderness, or are they working with current groups and organisations?

Of course I am, I'm the spokesperson for a "nation" of 206 million free individuals founded on the principles of anarchism and Discordianism :wink:

Heh, in real life, I'm a professional journalist working as the editor of news.amnesty (http://news.amnesty.org), highlighting human rights abuses and campaign successes around the world. I'm also a union activist who tries to apply anti-hierarchical practices to my union work and in the workplace. I've been involved in anti-racism campaigns in the past (less of an issue now in London than it was in Dublin). And finally, I engage in online debates about anarchism and politics in general with the hopes that the interest of people reading might be sparked (and, in a number of cases, I know this has happened).

Vas.

Speaking as someone who has done the dirty jobs - yes, I have waded ankle-deep through overflowing toilets in an anarchist collective - they are not such a big deal. The choice is simple: do I want to tackle the dirty job now when it is minor and have it over and done with, or do I want to leave it till the problem gets worse and the shit starts rising around my waist and the waists of the other people here?

Oh I know the feeling, when I was younger, my family lived in a house in a semi-rural area and we had our own water supply and sewage system. And when it broke... out with the wellies and the shovel.

Vas.

This aside, the reduction in the pointless tasks that make up the capitalist system, from banking to the institutional legal system, would mean that far less work would be required from everyone. And, the more people co-operate, the more efficient even this work would be. Thus, your argument is spurious - you reject a system where you would gain more (due to equal distribution) from working less in favour of a system where you have to work more to profit others (whether governments through tax or lazy capitalists through paying for the resources they own). It's a ridiculous position.
Yes, this a point I'd like to make very strongly. The amount of overall work would go down in an anarchy, from a capitalist state, other things being equal. There would be a whole load of pen-pushing that wouldn't go on, for a start. Imagine no lawyers... apart from the inherent benefits of that, the people who are lawyers now would be doing something useful instead.

And besides the reassignment of people from exploitative/authoritarian jobs, as I've said with the elimination of capitalist competition and rivalry there would no reduplication of effort. Where work is collectively organised, people can co-operate on matters of common interest and purpose. So instead of 5 different companies all trying to come up with 'better' products of the same kind, all using gimmicks and marketing, those people who wanted to come up with something different would put their heads together, work together, and do it jointly with less effort, duplication and wastage.

There *is* an issue about how an anarchy would facilitate people's individuality - their originality, brilliance, special skills, vision, ingenuity. Anarchism tends to focus on the negative qualities of individuality: private ownership, selfishness, monarchy, the elite as opposed to the mass. However even if they are prepared to live in an egalitarian collectivist culture, most people are concerned that their individual value be recognised and given space within the society, including the economy. A common argument against anarchism is that people are not given an opportunity to make the best of themselves or an incentive to strive.

In a separate post at some point I'll make a list of current jobs that would just disappear in an anarchy.

Here's a few more:
...
I might suggest merging the Anti-capitalist and Activist sections as there's much crossover between the two.
Yes, I've had trouble deciding which category a lot of them should be in; I think what I'll do is do a big active search sometime soon and collect lots of links and names and then I'll split a few of the categories up and make it clearer.

AlterNet - http://www.alternet.org/

I used to subsctibe to them; I got annoyed by how tame they were in their left-wingness. A lot of the views expressed were not very enlightened at all; and others were way too PC. They're certainly not very anarchist-left, more 'liberal'/Democrat-left.

So many misconceptions. It's a good thing you know your stuff, SA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

So many misconceptions. It's a good thing you know your stuff, SA.
Cheers Letila. Here's an off-the-cuff list of Jobs That Become Redundant in an Anarchy:

Royal family
Politician
Civil servant
Judge/Magistrate
Lawyer
Police
Armed Forces
Employer
Company director
Company manager

Especial the royal family. They don't even have a real purpose to begin with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Are the anarchists taking part in this thread all just voices in the wilderness, or are they working with current groups and organisations?

i'm kinda stuck off in the wilderness of wisconsin. i'm semi-involved with a group of other anarchists and general radicals who mainly work on putting out a zine every few months. the problem with them, besides the strictly campus orientation of the group and its ideas (which i notice mostly because i've been graduated for awhile), is that they took the 'spontaneous order' idea a bit far and expect things to just sort of happen - and then they get frustrated when things don't. other than that i do some stuff with indymedia, general propagandizing, etc.

so i've been thinking that what we really need is a general anarchist network - not as a political party type organization, but just so we all can have closer ties with each other. better communication and a better sense of belonging, so even when you are all by yourself you aren't alone. our biggest problems are our disconnectedness and the fairly significant barriers of entry for new people; there isn't really an easy and standing way for people to involve themselves in the wider anarchist movement unless they already know somebody.

...it seems you were just trying to make AC think...

:x

You implying that I don't?

j/k :wink:

Are the anarchists taking part in this thread all just voices in the wilderness, or are they working with current groups and organisations?

i'm kinda stuck off in the wilderness of wisconsin. i'm semi-involved with a group of other anarchists and general radicals who mainly work on putting out a zine every few months. the problem with them, besides the strictly campus orientation of the group and its ideas (which i notice mostly because i've been graduated for awhile), is that they took the 'spontaneous order' idea a bit far and expect things to just sort of happen - and then they get frustrated when things don't. other than that i do some stuff with indymedia, general propagandizing, etc...

It's a small world after all. :shock:

North Shore of Milwaukee...

Being 13, there aren't a whole lot of opportunities for me (in terms of what I can do of 'practical' value). What's the name of your 'zine?

It's a small world after all. :shock:

North Shore of Milwaukee...

Being 13, there aren't a whole lot of opportunities for me (in terms of what I can do of 'practical' value). What's the name of your 'zine?

well well, small world indeed. i'm up in stevens point.

the name of the zine is "the paper brick". hopefully i can get the rest of the group into organization enough so that we can get this thing out more often. this whole "wait for it to magically write itself" thing bugs the hell out of me. especially because by not having an open structure with divided duties, the group has essentially turned into the private informal dictatorship of the 4 people who started the whole thing.

Here's a question that I thought of this morning while watching the glorious self-organisation of the peoples of Dischordiac.

"Would anarchism have been as important as it was and continues to be without Kropotkin?"

From a personal perspective, I'm not sure. Proudhon was hugely influential, but not just on anarchists. Marx used his ideas as much as Bakunin. Bakunin's impact in his own time was not what it might have been largely because of his co-operation with other groups whose success eclipsed him. He didn't leave behind much written work, and even that which is available is only so because the movement that came after made such an effort to collect it.

Kropotkin's influence can not be over-estimated. He personally played a huge part in spreading anarchist ideas through Russia at the point when the country was most open to new ideas. His personal position allowed him a level of freedom to act many others didn't get, avoiding prosecution and imprisonment for longer than most. His written works are extensive and still largely define the movement today, but have also been taken seriously by those outside the movement. Due to his scientific work outside of anarchism, he was regarded as an expert and his anarchist writings respected - this is illustrated clearly by the fact that he wrote the entry on anarchism in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I'm not trying to imply that we are, in any way, "Kropotkinists" and that anarchism is a cult of personality, but what do others think? Would anarchism have foundered in the face of the triumph of state socialism without Kropotkin? Would it ever have become the force it is now, and, even if it did still exist, would it look the same? Or, on the other hand, do you think anarchism is an expression of something fundamental in humanity and if Kropotkin hadn't happened, someone else would have?

Vas.

bump

Another link:
Activist
http://www.nologo.org/

(and then, if you're in the mood, click on Contacts for more links).

Vas.

How close is my nation to anarchism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

One cannot really judge from the cookie cutter descriptions of NationStates.

closer than mine... free soviets is depressed at the dramtic downturn according to the un report on political freedom. just a few weeks ago we were 500th or so in the world. now we're at 8,337. and its all because of that damn gold mining issue - who would have guessed that refusing to just give capitalist property rights on a gold find to the first scuba diver who gets there would hurt your political freedoms?

How close is my nation to anarchism?

Describe it - do you have direct or representative democracy? Do you have an institutionalised legal system or a system of common law based on voluntary agreement? Do you have a capitalist or communist non-monetary economic system? Do you have a standing hierarchical army, voluntary militias or no structured millitary capabilities at all? Do you have a police force?

Vas.

Most people, including dictionaries, define "anarchism" simply as "belief that government should be disposed of".

Is this a good definition? Would you define socialism, conservatism, fascism in just a few words like that? If that was the criteria for anarchism, then Friedrich Nietzsche would be an anarchist. All criminals would be anarchists.

Should it be made to include the morals of equality, democracy, anti-sexism, peace that anarchists usually subscribe to? How can these morals be enforced without some form of authority? We would then have socialism, would we not? What would happen when with the tyranny of the majority? If we had democracy here in Britain, there would be no more immigration, capital punishment for a wide range of crimes, little care for the environment - all things anarchists seem to disapprove of. In certain parts of Britain I know - such as around Wakefield and Barnsley in Yorkshire - majorities would be in favour of criminalising homosexuality or putting women back in the kitchen. Are not the anarchists being rather optimistic about the good nature of most people?

I personally think the Nietzsche-type anarchism [or egoism at the least] is a lot more practical than some of these forms of anarchism advocated that seem either too much like socialism or too idealistic.

Describe it - do you have direct or representative democracy? Do you have an institutionalised legal system or a system of common law based on voluntary agreement? Do you have a capitalist or communist non-monetary economic system? Do you have a standing hierarchical army, voluntary militias or no structured millitary capabilities at all? Do you have a police force?

There doesn't seem to be a private sector and thus no capitalism. The military consists of around 40 starships which pretty much constitute a voluntary militia as there isn't a government branch devoted to them. I'd say the political freedoms are high enough that government has really faded away. There's no security cameras and there hasn't been for a while, so I think police are non-existant. I've never given much thought to this sort of thing. Letila was around 150th in the political freedoms report, so that's pretty good. I'd say it's anarchist.

As a side note: Have humans always been as hierarchial as they are now or was there ever a time when hierarchies weren't really present?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

As a side note: Have humans always been as hierarchial as they are now or was there ever a time when hierarchies weren't really present?

as far as the anthropological and archaeological evidence goes, hierarchy seems to be a rather recent development. humans mainly lived in more-or-less egalitarian societies up until 10 or 15,000 years ago or so. states and chiefdoms (and the political, social, and economic hierarchy that they entail) seem to arise with agriculture.

as far as the anthropological and archaeological evidence goes, hierarchy seems to be a rather recent development. humans mainly lived in more-or-less egalitarian societies up until 10 or 15,000 years ago or so. states and chiefdoms (and the political, social, and economic hierarchy that they entail) seem to arise with agriculture.

So we used to be essentially anarchist before agriculture?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

So we used to be essentially anarchist before agriculture?

in a sense, though it might be better to say anarchical. they weren't acting out an ideology, just living as they always had and in a way that made sense. there's not much to rule over when you don't have any people producing more than they need.

in a sense, though it might be better to say anarchical. they weren't acting out an ideology, just living as they always had and in a way that made sense. there's not much to rule over when you don't have any people producing more than they need.

So hierarchy develops from when too much is made? I'm guessing that led to some people getting wealthy and powerful by taking advantage of this extra stuff. How will we avoid that problem in our system?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

one way to get arround the slimyness of the english language is to use nonambiuous terms
this is why i prefer concepts like nonhierarchal organization to the ambiguous common usage of the term anarchy

i would rather be not understood at all then to be misconstrued by someone immagining that they do

i know a lot of people find that wierd and it is certainly not my
intent to offend any of them. but some things are more important then
anyone's perceptions of myself as a person.

the kind of world we all have to live in
the causes and consiquences of it
are among them

=^^=
.../\...

I see, Carlemnaria. How will we deal with over production?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Ummm...Storing it and saving it for rainy days and shortages?

Not a bad idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

So hierarchy develops from when too much is made? I'm guessing that led to some people getting wealthy and powerful by taking advantage of this extra stuff. How will we avoid that problem in our system?

what seems to have happened, as far as i can tell, is that with surplus food that could be stored it became feasible to have some people rule others and have the others do all of the work. in a hunter/gatherer economic system people live in super-abundance; there is way more food around than anyone could eat - but it can't be stored. argiculture allows for food storage, which made it possible to have a ruling class that did no food gathering/production of their own but could make others do it for them. also, farming by necessity means working a piece of land all year and for many years. which means that when the warlord and his army comes around you either fight them, pay him off (tax), or run away and give up all of your land and security and the only lifestyle you know. people made the obvious choice. you try enslaving a hunter/gatherer and they will just run away as soon as they get a chance, because they don't have to stay there to live.

so a few people got wealthy and powerful by organizing to monopolize the surplus food production. they organized armies to "protect" the farmers and took the surplus food for themselves and to sell to the other non-farming workers who they needed around to make monuments to themselves. and they way to avoid this is to organize the distribution of food and other wealth ourselves and not allow an elite to do it 'for us'. and to make sure that the organized force of violence, if there is one, is our's and not working for some elite (which is another problem with "anarcho"-capitalism, btw).

So what will prevent this from happening in our case?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Hmm...maybe rexresearch.com has something that could solve the problem...

*4 Years and 7 zillion reams of paper later...*

Actually, a technological solution would be *something* that makes *some product* (most likely energy or food, as those are among the two most general products/resources) cheaply, quickly, and with minimal investment - Energy already has such a solution, at least ZPE that I know of and can confirm through multiple sources; rexresearch has dozens - as for food, the amalgamation of articles on how electricity affects the growth of crops might be a starter (I think that electricity, "organic" growing processes, and some totally new, totally genetically-engineered type of plant or foodstuff offer a future.

How does that stop people from trying to acquire wealth?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg