Why not mutualism/individualist anarchism?

[GPDP]

Apart from "anarcho"-capitalism, there are other brands of market anarchism espoused by the likes of Proudhon and Tucker, which I'm sure ancaps are well aware of.

I know for a fact ancaps like to portray the early individualists as being their forefathers. Or at least, I hear them talk positively of them. Yet the individualists disliked capitalism, and thus argued for an anti-capitalist free market. Hence why Tucker referred to his brand of anarchism as being "anarcho-socialism."

In any case, why do you guys reject mutualism and such? It just seems to me that, while I'm not much a fan of markets in the first place, mutualism is much more in line with anarchism, both historically and ideologically, than ancapism will ever be.

By the way, mutualism is an accepted ideology here in Revleft. We just had an ancap-turned-individualist anarchist unrestricted some time ago, and we even have a mutualist in the Commie Club. If you guys stick around, you might get to meet them. :D

[Havet]

I know for a fact ancaps like to portray the early individualists as being their forefathers. Or at least, I hear them talk positively of them. Yet the individualists disliked capitalism, and thus argued for an anti-capitalist free market. Hence why Tucker referred to his brand of anarchism as being "anarcho-socialism."

i seem to recall him mentioning capitalism as a system which largely relied on force and the state. In any case, ancaps usually mention him due to his ideas on liberty and society, and some solutions he mentioned that were very close to solutions proposed by ancaps themselves.

"Tucker did not have a utopian vision of anarchy where individuals would not coerce others.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#cite_note-Yarros-16) He advocated that liberty and property be defended by private institutions. Opposing the monopoly of the state in providing security, he advocated a free market of competing defense providers, saying "defense is a service like any other service; ... it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker


In any case, why do you guys reject mutualism and such? It just seems to me that, while I'm not much a fan of markets in the first place, mutualism is much more in line with anarchism, both historically and ideologically, than ancapism will ever be.

Speaking for myself, i don't really have anything against mutualism, if you define mutualism as: "an anarchist school of thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_school_of_thought) which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon), who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production), either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)."

I have some nitpicking to do though, especially when they claim: "Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent". If there is no force behind it, and every action is voluntary, then why couldnt an individual receive an income through those methods?

However, produhon himself claimed he wasn't against it: "Though Proudhon opposed this type of income, he expressed: "... I never meant to ... forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all."" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#cite_note-5)

Mutualists also seem to support markets, so i have nothing against that: "Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market) and private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) in the product of labor."

I would even claim there isn't much differences between ancaps and mutualists, except some matters such as the LTV and some semantics here and there.


By the way, mutualism is an accepted ideology here in Revleft. We just had an ancap-turned-individualist anarchist unrestricted some time ago, and we even have a mutualist in the Commie Club. If you guys stick around, you might get to meet them. :D

According to the website, all ideologies except fascism are accepted here, except only on the OI forum.

[Nwoye]

I like Mutualism/Individualism, but I reject its radical free-marketism. Mutualism is commonly described as "free market anti-capitalism", and as such suffers from many of the same problems that capitalist free markets face. There are major issues with externalities and public goods, particularly with how defense services or fire services would be handled. But yeah I have a lot of respect for individualist (socialist) anarchists.


I have some nitpicking to do though, especially when they claim: Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent". If there is no force behind it, and every action is voluntary, then why couldnt an individual receive an income through those methods?
Proudhon (and the anarchists who follow after him) don't believe in conventional private property - they believe in possession. If youre renting out land, then someone else is obviously possessing it, not you. According to Proudhon, you don't have a legitimate claim to that land anymore. It's the same with loans or investments, as they are all examples of owning something you don't create with your labor and that you don't possess.



"Tucker did not have a utopian vision of anarchy where individuals would not coerce others.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#cite_note-Yarros-16) He advocated that liberty and property be defended by private institutions. Opposing the monopoly of the state in providing security, he advocated a free market of competing defense providers, saying "defense is a service like any other service; ... it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand.""
Remember, towards the end of his life Tucker was an egoist, in the tradition of Max Stirner. He did not believe in private property, he believed that you could use and occupy anything you could defend from aggression. So you don't have any rights to owning your house or your backyard - if the militia down the street with AK-47's can capture it, it's theirs.

[Havet]

hey sedrox, long time no see


I like Mutualism/Individualism, but I reject its radical free-marketism. Mutualism is commonly described as "free market anti-capitalism", and as such suffers from many of the same problems that capitalist free markets face. There are major issues with externalities and public goods, particularly with how defense services or fire services would be handled. But yeah I have a lot of respect for individualist (socialist) anarchists.

Let me just argue this as my new hero argues:

"externalities and public goods and monopoly tendency are not legitimate criticisms of anything. See praxeology."

Good video on the topic if you have time, from confederalsocialist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXLPEzVFIVU


Proudhon (and the anarchists who follow after him) don't believe in conventional private property - they believe in possession. If youre renting out land, then someone else is obviously possessing it, not you. According to Proudhon, you don't have a legitimate claim to that land anymore. It's the same with loans or investments, as they are all examples of owning something you don't create with your labor and that you don't possess.

Like i said, and i quoted from him, he doesnt think anyone should force another from doing that, so this is a non-issue.


Remember, towards the end of his life Tucker was an egoist, in the tradition of Max Stirner. He did not believe in private property, he believed that you could use and occupy anything you could defend from aggression. So you don't have any rights to owning your house or your backyard - if the militia down the street with AK-47's can capture it, it's theirs.

yeah i just checked that with wikipedia. Sounds creepy that he said it.

In any case, your comment does nothing to adress what he used to believe, and just states what he believed after it, whether it was right or not.

[IcarusAngel]

Egoism is a purer, easier to understand form of anarchism. It's an individualism that says the individual is always right, regardless of what anybody else things. Thus if individuals can use their power to get what they want, so much the better.

I don't agree - and this leads to the criticism that anarchism is about tribal thuggery, and so on - but it at least is a form of individualism unlike the Miseans.

"Externalities are not criticisms of anything, see praxeology" makes no sense.

Tucker taught that anarcho-socialism and real socialism have the same view of labor (Anarchist reader) in that labor is what defines ownership. He considered himself a socialist, and wrote that landed monopolies should be prevented.

I think it's clear he wasn't an anarcho-capitalist as anarcho-capitalists do not teach those things which are fundamental to the philosophy of tucker.

[Havet]

"Externalities are not criticisms of anything, see praxeology" makes no sense.ok, perhaps this is a more detailed explanation


Praxeology is a framework for modeling human action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28philosophy%29).

Explanation

Mises attempted to find the conceptual root of economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics). Like other Austrian economists, he rejected the use of observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation), saying that human actors are too complex to be reduced to their component parts and too self-conscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-conscious) not to have their behaviour affected by the very act of observation. Observation of human action, or extrapolation from historical data, would thus always be contaminated by overlooked factors in a way that the natural sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_sciences) would not be.
To counter the subjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity) nature of the results of historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History) and statistical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) analysis (see Methodenstreit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodenstreit)), Mises looked at the logical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical) structure of human action (he entitled his magnum opus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_opus) Human Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Action)). In other words, he built on the methodological aspect of Economics, the synthetic a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_a_priori).
From praxeology, Mises derived the idea that every conscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious) action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction. He noted that praxeology is not concerned with the individual's definition of end satisfaction, just the way he sought that satisfaction and that individual's increase of their satisfaction by removing sources of dissatisfaction or "uneasiness".
An acting man is defined as one capable of logical thought — to be otherwise would be to make one a mere creature who simply reacts to stimuli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulation) by instinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct). Similarly, an acting man must have a source of dissatisfaction which he believes can be changed, otherwise he cannot act.
Another conclusion that Mises reached was that decisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making) are made on an ordinal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal) basis. That is, it is impossible to carry out more than one action at once, the conscious mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind) being capable of only one decision at a time — even if those decisions can be made in rapid order. Thus man will act to remove the most pressing source of dissatisfaction first and then move to the next most pressing source of dissatisfaction. Additionally, Mises dismissed the notion that subjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective) values could be calculated mathematically; man can not treat his values with cardinal numbers, e.g., "I prefer owning a television 2.5 times as much as owning a DVD player." This is related to how the rank transform (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rank_transform&action=edit&redlink=1) in statistics discards absolute values and retains only an ordering.
As a person satisfies his first most important goal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28task%29) and after that his second most important goal, then his second most important goal is always less important than his first most important goal. Thus, the satisfaction, or utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility), that he derives from every further goal attained is less than that from the preceding goal. This assumes, of course, that the goals are independent, which is not always the case--for example, acquiring the television may enable one to pursue the goal of watching a documentary on biology, which may make one decide to study biology, which opens the goal of writing a research paper, and so on.
In human society, many actions will be trading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade) activities where one person regards a possession of another person as more desirable than one of his own possessions, and the other person has a similar higher regard for his colleague's possession than he does for his own. This assertion modifies the classical economic view about exchange, which posits that individuals exchange goods and services that they both appraise as being equal in value. This subject of praxeology is known as catallactics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics).

Tucker taught that anarcho-socialism and real socialism have the same view of labor (Anarchist reader) in that labor is what defines ownership. He considered himself a socialist, and wrote that landed monopolies should be prevented. so why does this matter? we all know that, its on the wikipedia definition, nobody is questioning that. What exactly are you replying to?


I think it's clear he wasn't an anarcho-capitalist as anarcho-capitalists do not teach those things which are fundamental to the philosophy of tucker.Yeah it's clear, nobody claimed he was an anarcho capitalist. Since ancap "movement" lacks any real people, they pretty much include anyone who is anti-state into their ideas, which are the same to some extent.

Ancaps and tucker particularly agree on private defense as a way to supply the demand for protection.

[Jack]

I tend to take Fontenis's position when it comes to mutualists/individualists and all other self proclaimed anarchists: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/mlc2.html

[Nwoye]

hey sedrox, long time no see
yeah its been a while. it's nice to see you unrestricted.


Let me just argue this as my new hero argues:

"externalities and public goods and monopoly tendency are not legitimate criticisms of anything. See praxeology."

Good video on the topic if you have time, from confederalsocialist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXLPEzVFIVU
i can't watch that at the moment, sorry. i'll check it out if i get the chance.




Like i said, and i quoted from him, he doesnt think anyone should force another from doing that, so this is a non-issue.
that's probably true too, i mean, he's an anarchist. but the mutualists stance makes sense, considering their view of property.

also, when proudhon says such options should be optional, he actually means it. he believed everyone should have equal access to property, meaning renting would really be useless. his outlook on positive/negative freedom mirrored that of the conventional marxists, who believed that someone choosing between labor for a capitalist and death was exploitation (or in this case, dieing in the street and renting an apartment). so in this instance, his view is fundamentally different then your conventional capitalist.


yeah i just checked that with wikipedia. Sounds creepy that he said it.

In any case, your comment does nothing to adress what he used to believe, and just states what he believed after it, whether it was right or not.
you're correct. but if we're discussing what Tucker believed regarding property it's certainly relevant.

[GPDP]

yeah its been a while. it's nice to see you unrestricted.

He was never restricted in the first place for some reason.

[Nwoye]

He was never restricted in the first place for some reason.
i'm pretty sure he was.

[GPDP]

i'm pretty sure he was.

You're thinking of Dejavu. I know for a fact hayenmill never got restricted.

[Nwoye]

You're thinking of Dejavu. I know for a fact hayenmill never got restricted.
hmph. i may be wrong. i guess i just made the assumption since he was an ancap.

[Havet]

Lol is it normal for people with different views to be restricted?

Don't they usually restrict those who talk of other ideologies on other parts of the forum?

[trivas7]

I tend to take Fontenis's position when it comes to mutualists/individualists and all other self proclaimed anarchists: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/mlc2.html
There are mutualists unrestricted on this forum. Where exactly are mutualist/indivdualist anarchists mentioned in the chapter by Fonteinis you reference (I'm lazy)?

[Jack]

There are mutualists unrestricted on this forum. Where exactly are mutualist/indivdualist anarchists mentioned in the chapter by Fonteinis you reference (I'm lazy)?

It's barely a chapter that would be in any normal book. It basically talks of how anarchism originated in the class struggle and is not some meaningless philosophy that liberals have tried to turn it into many times. It also makes a clear rejection of the Malatesta-esque synthesis between different kinds of anarchism like individualism and mutualism, because they do not originate in the class struggle they are not true anarchist philosophies.

It was written in 1954 by an Algerian/French anarchist, I've only read like 2 chapters of it so far.

[Jack]

Lol is it normal for people with different views to be restricted?

Don't they usually restrict those who talk of other ideologies on other parts of the forum?

Not those that just talk of them or analyze them or even say they agree with them on some points. But this is a forum for Leftists, having an OI and resticting people makes sure it stays that way, so the entire forum doesn't turn into one big debate and troll fest.

[Havet]

Not those that just talk of them or analyze them or even say they agree with them on some points. But this is a forum for Leftists, having an OI and resticting people makes sure it stays that way, so the entire forum doesn't turn into one big debate and troll fest.

yeah i don't mind you guys just having a subforum for opposing ideologies, but i was just wandering why everyone keeps saying to me: "what, you aren't restricted yet?!", as if i've done something that i shouldn't

[Havet]

i can't watch that at the moment, sorry. i'll check it out if i get the chance.

You really should, it basically explains praxeology in a far more understandeable way than wikipedia.



but the mutualists stance makes sense, considering their view of property.

It makes sense, assuming their view of property is true, that is, assuming their premise it right.


also, when proudhon says such options should be optional, he actually means it. he believed everyone should have equal access to property, meaning renting would really be useless. his outlook on positive/negative freedom mirrored that of the conventional marxists, who believed that someone choosing between labor for a capitalist and death was exploitation (or in this case, dieing in the street and renting an apartment). so in this instance, his view is fundamentally different then your conventional capitalist.

i actually think positive freedom is self-defeating, while negative freedom is the most logical definition of freedom.

By the way, here's an excerpt ive been trying to find for some time, and finally managed to get it, regarding a chat between an individual anarchist and a "free communist" (aka anarcho-communist)


See the selection from John Henry MacKay’s novel, The Anarchists, reprinted in Leonard Krimmerman and Lewis Perry, eds., Patterns of Anarchy (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1966), in which an individualist anarchist presses upon a communist anarchist the following question: "Would you, in the system of society which you call ‘free Communism’ prevent individuals from exchanging their labor among themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further: Would you prevent them from occupying land for the purpose of personal use?"

The novel continues: "[the] question was not to be escaped. If he answered ‘Yes!’ he admitted that society had the right of control over the individual and threw overboard the autonomy of the individual which he had always zealously defended;

if on the other hand, he answered ‘No!’ he admitted the right of private property which he had just denied so emphatically. . . .

[Nwoye]

Lol is it normal for people with different views to be restricted?

Don't they usually restrict those who talk of other ideologies on other parts of the forum?
well they usually restrict people of other ideologies so as to avoid people posting threads in theory or history like "zomg communism fails, look at north korea nom nom nom" every three days. i personally don't think you should be restricted, cuz you haven't done this and have only been really critical of leftism in OI. i just assumed you had been.

[Nwoye]

You really should, it basically explains praxeology in a far more understandeable way than wikipedia.
it does do a much better job then wikipedia, particularly with regards to how it is important in libertarian political philosophy (how it can be applied). as for your original statement ("externalities and public goods and monopoly tendency are not legitimate criticisms of anything. See praxeology.") i don't see how praxeology somehow magically solves these problems. could you expand on that?


It makes sense, assuming their view of property is true, that is, assuming their premise it right.of course.


i actually think positive freedom is self-defeating, while negative freedom is the most logical definition of freedom. in real world application, the distinction between the two is usually very small, and they usually compliment or necessitate one another.

for example, if you are walking somewhere (lets assume public property), your freedom to go wherever you want is a negative freedom/liberty. but the only way you can even exercise that freedom, is by first exercising the positive freedom of having the ability to walk (positive freedom being the power and resources to fulfill ones potential/desires). now we see here that they are both necessary to our example, and that the distinction between exhibiting positive and negative liberty is very small. now we could take understanding to two conclusions: 1) positive/negative liberty are useless terms, and we should simply focus on liberty (autonomy) in general, or 2) positive freedom is more important, as it is a requirement for achieving positive liberty.

in my opinion, this applies equally well to more important matters such as property, where (as we've discussed before) to exhibit any sort of liberty or autonomy or freedom over the self, we must have property.


By the way, here's an excerpt ive been trying to find for some time, and finally managed to get it, regarding a chat between an individual anarchist and a "free communist" (aka anarcho-communist)the second question is not important, as possessing property for personal use is not private property. a communist would simply state that as long as everyone had access to property and there was no absentee ownership then it was legitimate.

the first one is much more interesting though.
"Would you, in the system of society which you call ‘free Communism’ prevent individuals from exchanging their labor among themselves by means of their own medium of exchange?"
i actually asked a similar question to AugustWest, in a thread in learning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/q-augustwest-general-t109718/index.html) if you're interested.

anyway, i don't see the contradiction with conventional communism here. allowing this transaction doesn't necessarily entail private property under the marxist (typical leftist) definition. also, keep in mind that the leftists economic stance is one against capital accumulation (the M-C-M cycle), and capitalism as a distinct socio-economic system - not necessarily one against people trading their labor with one another.

[Ele'ill]

Lol is it normal for people with different views to be restricted?

Don't they usually restrict those who talk of other ideologies on other parts of the forum?



'Were you the only ones on that train? Overwatch stopped our train in the woods and took my husband for questioning. They said he would be on the next train, I am not sure when that was. They are being nice and letting me wait though.'

[yuon]

It's barely a chapter that would be in any normal book. It basically talks of how anarchism originated in the class struggle and is not some meaningless philosophy that liberals have tried to turn it into many times. It also makes a clear rejection of the Malatesta-esque synthesis between different kinds of anarchism like individualism and mutualism, because they do not originate in the class struggle they are not true anarchist philosophies.
Strange, I've always (since I understood anarchism at least) held the position that anarchism is and always has been "some meaningless philosophy". It is nothing more than a philosophy of freedom. You and others who try and force it into a "class struggle" box, when it is so much more, do yourselfs, and anarchism a disservice.

Anarchism is merely an idea, a cry against oppression, a cry against hierarchy. How it manifests it self, individualism, mutualism, and communism, class struggle, pacifist, feminist etc., is what is interesting. But to claim that only "class struggle" anarchism is actually anarchism is to reject history, not to mention a good lot of people who are on our side. A mutualist was the first to claim the word "anarchist", and individualists have been using the word for almost as long as collectivists. (The journal "Liberty" was published from 1881.)

Besides which, mutalists can be "class struggleist", and communists can be pacifists, so what does that mean for your carefully made little box?

Anyway, what is anarchism? Is it a rejection of hierarchy, and a promotion of "class struggle"? What's a definition that you would agree with? Because simply saying class struggle is absurd, and rejects so many types of anarchism that most anarchists would accept as legitimate (even if they might think that they are wrong).

'Were you the only ones on that train? Overwatch stopped our train in the woods and took my husband for questioning. They said he would be on the next train, I am not sure when that was. They are being nice and letting me wait though.'
What on earth is that all about? Are you trying to compare posting on a message board to some surreal fiction? (I guess that what you posted is from a story, as otherwise I don't know what it is.)

[Ele'ill]

What on earth is that all about? Are you trying to compare posting on a message board to some surreal fiction? (I guess that what you posted is from a story, as otherwise I don't know what it is.)


'This is the freeman, the reckoning of the combine has come.'

'Let this war end in either total victory or our extinction. No further compromise shall we allow.'

"Far distant eyes look out through yours."


'Do you have a friend or relative who make a valuable addition to the Black Mesa team? Immediate openings are available in the areas of "Materials Handling" and "Low Clearance Security." Please contact Black Mesa personnel for further information. If you have an associate with a background in the areas of "Theoretical Physics," "Biotechnology," or other high-tech disciplines, please contact our civilian recruitment division. The Black Mesa Research Facility is an equal-opportunity employer. A reminder to all Black Mesa personnel: Regular radiation and biohazard screenings are a requirement of continued employment in the Black Mesa Research Facility. Missing a scheduled urinalisys or radiation check-up is grounds for immediate termination. If you feel you have been exposed to radioactive or other hazardous materials in the course of your duties, contact your radiation safety officer immediately. Work safe, work smart. Your future depends on it. Now arriving at Sector C Test Labs and Control Facilities.'

[Jack]

Strange, I've always (since I understood anarchism at least) held the position that anarchism is and always has been "some meaningless philosophy". It is nothing more than a philosophy of freedom. You and others who try and force it into a "class struggle" box, when it is so much more, do yourselfs, and anarchism a disservice.

Anarchism is merely an idea, a cry against oppression, a cry against hierarchy. How it manifests it self, individualism, mutualism, and communism, class struggle, pacifist, feminist etc., is what is interesting. But to claim that only "class struggle" anarchism is actually anarchism is to reject history, not to mention a good lot of people who are on our side. A mutualist was the first to claim the word "anarchist", and individualists have been using the word for almost as long as collectivists. (The journal "Liberty" was published from 1881.)

Besides which, mutalists can be "class struggleist", and communists can be pacifists, so what does that mean for your carefully made little box?

Anyway, what is anarchism? Is it a rejection of hierarchy, and a promotion of "class struggle"? What's a definition that you would agree with? Because simply saying class struggle is absurd, and rejects so many types of anarchism that most anarchists would accept as legitimate (even if they might think that they are wrong).

Hey look everyone! I found a liberal that just proved my point!

Individualist "anarchists" have never been a movement, and have always been just a philisophical idea for the well fed. Your post just proves my point.

[Ele'ill]

Hey look everyone! I found a liberal that just proved my point!

Individualist "anarchists" have never been a movement, and have always been just a philisophical idea for the well fed. Your post just proves my point.

There are no anarchist movements.



Strange, I've always (since I understood anarchism at least) held the position that anarchism is and always has been "some meaningless philosophy". It is nothing more than a philosophy of freedom. You and others who try and force it into a "class struggle" box, when it is so much more, do yourselfs, and anarchism a disservice.

Anarchism is merely an idea, a cry against oppression, a cry against hierarchy. How it manifests it self, individualism, mutualism, and communism, class struggle, pacifist, feminist etc., is what is interesting. But to claim that only "class struggle" anarchism is actually anarchism is to reject history, not to mention a good lot of people who are on our side. A mutualist was the first to claim the word "anarchist", and individualists have been using the word for almost as long as collectivists. (The journal "Liberty" was published from 1881.)

Besides which, mutalists can be "class struggleist", and communists can be pacifists, so what does that mean for your carefully made little box?

Anyway, what is anarchism? Is it a rejection of hierarchy, and a promotion of "class struggle"? What's a definition that you would agree with? Because simply saying class struggle is absurd, and rejects so many types of anarchism that most anarchists would accept as legitimate (even if they might think that they are wrong).

Jack has already been down this road before and failed at proving his or her point. There were a couple threads running several months ago about this stuff. I agree with you.

The 'Lifestylists' are doing more for anarchism than the arrogant 'class struggle' couch potatoes are and the class struggle folks are in a better position to do something meaningful.

[Jack]

There are no anarchist movements.




Jack has already been down this road before and failed at proving his or her point. There were a couple threads running several months ago about this stuff. I agree with you.

The 'Lifestylists' are doing more for anarchism than the arrogant 'class struggle' couch potatoes are and the class struggle folks are in a better position to do something meaningful.

No.

No.

And no.

[Ele'ill]

No.

No.

And no.


Oh, this changes everything.

[Havet]

it does do a much better job then wikipedia, particularly with regards to how it is important in libertarian political philosophy (how it can be applied). as for your original statement ("externalities and public goods and monopoly tendency are not legitimate criticisms of anything. See praxeology.") i don't see how praxeology somehow magically solves these problems. could you expand on that?

First of all, i thought we had already discussed the matter of externalities in another thread. Do you have a new criticism to make of it?

praxeology doesn't of course magically solve this, but it gives a clearer of identifying the agents of actions and why they are acting.

In any case, here are some "articles" on the matter:


The conventional argument for government provision of defense is that military
expenditures exhibit large positive externalities. As the Coase Theorem demonstrates, in
a world of zero transactions costs, individuals could sign binding contracts and achieve
an efficient level of defense expenditures without coercion. The present paper shows that
the institutions of insurance and call options could allow private markets in the real world
to approximate the zero transactions cost outcome.http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

Id like you to re-raise your arguments and their implications so i can more easily address them.



for example, if you are walking somewhere (lets assume public property), your freedom to go wherever you want is a negative freedom/liberty. but the only way you can even exercise that freedom, is by first exercising the positive freedom of having the ability to walk (positive freedom being the power and resources to fulfill ones potential/desires). now we see here that they are both necessary to our example, and that the distinction between exhibiting positive and negative liberty is very small. now we could take understanding to two conclusions: 1) positive/negative liberty are useless terms, and we should simply focus on liberty (autonomy) in general, or 2) positive freedom is more important, as it is a requirement for achieving positive liberty. Positive freedom requires that persons be guaranteed positive outcomes which often requires the coercion of others to provide it. Meaning, positive rights "impose on others positive obligations to which they did not consent and which cannot be traced to any voluntary act".

In this case, in order for me to exercise the positive freedom of walking in that public property, someone had to bear the cost (at gunpoint, since it is public property funded by tax) of me being allowed to go there.

However, i think you are misunderstanding negative freedom.

"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'."

Restrictions on negative liberty are imposed by a person, not by natural causes or incapacity. Helvetius expresses the point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment ... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale."

Yet, it could be argued that one is not free to go on holiday if one cannot afford it. In order for the freedom to go on holiday to be universal, proponents of positive liberty argue that those who own planes and other means with which to go on holiday must be forced to provide the means for everyone to go on holiday, no matter what. Those who prefer negative liberty like Nozick argue that just because no-one can stop you going on holiday does not mean they have to help you: otherwise they would be enslaved.

Therefore negative freedom is freedom from being murdered, enslaved or stolen, which means you are free to do all the rest, although just because you can't do it at the time doesn't eman someone should provide for it, because otherwise they would be enslaved to you (i usually reach this logical conclusion when discussing wage slavery with some people here, although they prefer to ignore my arguments...)


the second question is not important, as possessing property for personal use is not private property. a communist would simply state that as long as everyone had access to property and there was no absentee ownership then it was legitimate. do you agree with that communist stance?


the first one is much more interesting though.
"Would you, in the system of society which you call ‘free Communism’ prevent individuals from exchanging their labor among themselves by means of their own medium of exchange?"
i actually asked a similar question to AugustWest, in a thread in learning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/q-augustwest-general-t109718/index.html) if you're interested. Yeah i've read most of it. It seems he tried to escape the logical consequence of your arguments for too long. he kept repeating one could not labor alone so therefore he couldn't own the products of his labor.


anyway, i don't see the contradiction with conventional communism here. allowing this transaction doesn't necessarily entail private property under the marxist (typical leftist) definition. also, keep in mind that the leftists economic stance is one against capital accumulation (the M-C-M cycle), and capitalism as a distinct socio-economic system - not necessarily one against people trading their labor with one another.If people cannot have private property (i'm using this in any definition, land, objects, machines, etc) under marxist definition, then they no not own private property, therefore they ccannot trade their labor with one another because "it belongs to society"

[Nwoye]

First of all, i thought we had already discussed the matter of externalities in another thread. Do you have a new criticism to make of it?

praxeology doesn't of course magically solve this, but it gives a clearer of identifying the agents of actions and why they are acting.

In any case, here are some "articles" on the matter:

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

Id like you to re-raise your arguments and their implications so i can more easily address them.
I recently had a discussion about this with a voluntaryist on another forum. I hope you don't mind if I reproduce some of the argument here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/EXTBENE.jpg/300px-EXTBENE.jpg

In this example, social demand represents a communities demand for a police service - this service being one which produces positive externalities, as it benefits the community as a whole to have one person on the street buying a defense service. Now I understand that value is subjective (another argument for another time), but at some level, benefit is a tangible thing. If there are two options - being robbed or not being robbed - I am objectively benefited in the latter situation, even if it came as a result of a service which I don't particularly care for. [the person I was debating insisted that externalities didn't exist or weren't important cuz value was subjective. not important here]

The private demand in this example represents the demand of the single individual, considering the benefit he himself would receive from having such service. This is contrasted against the cost or supply curve, which represents the cost of the defense service. Now if the individual only considers his own well being (which mainstream economics says he will) then he will choose the exchange which will result in an economic equilibrium below pareto optimal. That means less defense service is purchased then would be the most efficient for the whole community. This means the market outcome is inefficient.

The reason for this is inefficient outcome, is because such services as defense services fit the description of public goods. Now not perfectly of course, as nothing is perfect, but close enough to recognize that it fits the definition. Defense is non-rival as numerous people receive benefit from it at the same time, and non-excludable as you can't designate who benefits from having a safer neighborhood. This is simply why it doesn't work well in markets.

The alternative, is to have the whole community contract together and purchase an additional amount of the service, so as to meet the social demand (The Coase Theorem). In this case, enough service is provided to meet every community members' demands. Now, assuming minimal transaction costs, this will work fine, and everyone in the community will have their police or defense service. But if this happens, is that not a state? If the entire community united under that service for efficiency, then that business has a monopoly of their service (which is the use of force) over that geographical area. Thus creating a state.

In Coase's theorem, he supposes that everyone involved will contract together and pay for the service. Supposing this occurs, what happens to new persons who wish to live in the community? If a new person comes to live in a community with a public defense service, then they surely receive the same benefit as others in the community. However, if they weren't involved in the original contract, they're not currently paying for it. This is the free rider problem. The only equitable solution, would be for the community members to say that if anyone wants to enter the community with the police service, then they have to contribute to the cost. This isn't coercive, as anyone potentially affected chooses to enter into the contract by moving into that community.

So from this example, by using the Coase Theorem, a state and taxation arises naturally. In my opinion, progressive taxation would arise as well, as the community decided that those with more money (more to lose) benefitted more from the service, and it was therefore justified that they paid more.

So there's my argument. How does praxeology disprove this?


Positive freedom requires that persons be guaranteed positive outcomes which often requires the coercion of others to provide it. Meaning, positive rights "impose on others positive obligations to which they did not consent and which cannot be traced to any voluntary act".Positive freedom =/= positive rights. Positive freedom does not impose obligations on others. Positive freedom is the same as positive liberty, which refers to having the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential.


In this case, in order for me to exercise the positive freedom of walking in that public property, someone had to bear the cost (at gunpoint, since it is public property funded by tax) of me being allowed to go there. in our previous discussion, you said that you supported public (common) property, and you explained your perfectly legitimate for believing so. if you don't, and you support complete privatization of land, then you have a whole other host of problems regarding positive liberty.


However, i think you are misunderstanding negative freedom.

"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'." yes. negative freedom is freedom from restraint.


Restrictions on negative liberty are imposed by a person, not by natural causes or incapacity. Helvetius expresses the point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment ... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale."okay.


Yet, it could be argued that one is not free to go on holiday if one cannot afford it. In order for the freedom to go on holiday to be universal, proponents of positive liberty argue that those who own planes and other means with which to go on holiday must be forced to provide the means for everyone to go on holiday, no matter what. Those who prefer negative liberty like Nozick argue that just because no-one can stop you going on holiday does not mean they have to help you: otherwise they would be enslaved.Positive liberty is simply the ability to fulfill one's potential or desires. Very simply, being able to exhibit control over one's self (individual autonomy, or in your case, self ownership) is that potential. In order to be free to act, one must have property to do it on. We've had this discussion before I believe, regarding self-ownership specifically. Positive liberty would be the physical ability to act, while negative liberty is the ability to not be stopped by someone else from acting. In order to even exercise that negative liberty, one must first be free to act (have positive liberty). In addition, one must have property to do it on.

To put it in a rhetorical question, if I have no property (everything is privatized), and I must ask permission for every act, then do I have negative liberty?


Therefore negative freedom is freedom from being murdered, enslaved or stolen, which means you are free to do all the rest, although just because you can't do it at the time doesn't eman someone should provide for it, because otherwise they would be enslaved to you (i usually reach this logical conclusion when discussing wage slavery with some people here, although they prefer to ignore my arguments...)Nozick's argument of enslavement (reproduce here) rests on the fundamental assumption that someone indefinitely owns anything they mix their labor with, an assumption which leftists reject. So it makes sense that they would ignore you or sidestep you.

As to your first sentence, you said negative freedom is freedom from being stolen [from]. If I don't have property to be stolen, what use is negative freedom? I must have property to be stolen to even exhibit this freedom, and that is what positive liberty is.


do you agree with that communist stance?eh kind of. I'm still figuring out property in land. I've rejected the libertarian (from self ownership) justification, and am wandering somewhere between the Proudhon, Henry George and John Locke. I don't want to get into land here.


Yeah i've read most of it. It seems he tried to escape the logical consequence of your arguments for too long. he kept repeating one could not labor alone so therefore he couldn't own the products of his labor.well I agree with his general conclusion. I asked the question really just to be socratic and such, and I got an interesting answer.



If people cannot have private property (i'm using this in any definition, land, objects, machines, etc) under marxist definition, then they no not own private property, therefore they ccannot trade their labor with one another because "it belongs to society"Private property in the marxist sense is property devoted to creating more wealth. So no, someone trading their labor or products made from labor is not private property, as long as there is no capital accumulation.

[Havet]

In this example, social demand represents a communities demand for a police service - this service being one which produces positive externalities, as it benefits the community as a whole to have one person on the street buying a defense service. Now I understand that value is subjective (another argument for another time), but at some level, benefit is a tangible thing. If there are two options - being robbed or not being robbed - I am objectively benefited in the latter situation, even if it came as a result of a service which I don't particularly care for. [the person I was debating insisted that externalities didn't exist or weren't important cuz value was subjective. not important herei personally think the individual hiring security wouldnt buy "the whole package", so nobody would actually benefit from him having security.


The private demand in this example represents the demand of the single individual, considering the benefit he himself would receive from having such service. This is contrasted against the cost or supply curve, which represents the cost of the defense service. Now if the individual only considers his own well being (which mainstream economics says he will) then he will choose the exchange which will result in an economic equilibrium below pareto optimal. That means less defense service is purchased then would be the most efficient for the whole community. This means the market outcome is inefficient. inefficient? Only to the community, which after all hasn't engaged in any market activity and just stood there as a bystander, so they really can't complain.


The reason for this is inefficient outcome, is because such services as defense services fit the description of public goods. Now not perfectly of course, as nothing is perfect, but close enough to recognize that it fits the definition. Defense is non-rival as numerous people receive benefit from it at the same time, and non-excludable as you can't designate who benefits from having a safer neighborhood. This is simply why it doesn't work well in markets. actualy defense works very well in markets. In fact, public supply of defense was to bad that smaller private companies have appeared to fill the demand for defense. And like i said earlier, one can have defense and the rest of the world not benefit from it. If i buy defense to my own house, if nobody enters my house, nobody will benefit from me having defense in my house except those who are actually in my house.


The alternative, is to have the whole community contract together and purchase an additional amount of the service, so as to meet the social demand (The Coase Theorem). In this case, enough service is provided to meet every community members' demands. Now, assuming minimal transaction costs, this will work fine, and everyone in the community will have their police or defense service. But if this happens, is that not a state? If the entire community united under that service for efficiency, then that business has a monopoly of their service (which is the use of force) over that geographical area. Thus creating a state.First, dont know if this ctually matters or not, but im pretty doubtful every community member's demands would be met by this service, just like police service doesnt usually meet every citizen's demands in any country.

Second, your definition of state is not very accurate, because then an individual defending himself against an attacker would also constitute a state (he has the monopoly of defending himself using force)

I think i have a clearer definition of state; you named it well but there is a particular point you missed: a state (or government, in this case, which is the entity that acts, the state being the system where the government acts through) is an agency of legitimized coercion, coercion being the violation of what people in a aprticular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals.

A defense agency would not be a government, because they are not coercing; they are using force in defense against force, which is why they are called a defense agency.

In the case you presented, the defense agency would only be a government IF:
- they used direct coercion on the citizens they have contracted to supply their service, for whatever purpose the coercion may be used for,
-AND the citizens view this coercion as legitimate and necessary.

This is why governments are not seen as criminal gangs by ordinary people. governments are beleived to be necessary, therefore people beleive almost any action they undertake is legitimate, when that is not so much the case for a criminal gang. .


In Coase's theorem, he supposes that everyone involved will contract together and pay for the service. Supposing this occurs, what happens to new persons who wish to live in the community? If a new person comes to live in a community with a public defense service, then they surely receive the same benefit as others in the community. However, if they weren't involved in the original contract, they're not currently paying for it. This is the free rider problem. The only equitable solution, would be for the community members to say that if anyone wants to enter the community with the police service, then they have to contribute to the cost. This isn't coercive, as anyone potentially affected chooses to enter into the contract by moving into that community. agreed


So from this example, by using the Coase Theorem, a state and taxation arises naturally. In my opinion, progressive taxation would arise as well, as the community decided that those with more money (more to lose) benefitted more from the service, and it was therefore justified that they paid more.yeah, they arise naturally. From some time i believed that taxation was theft because i had not agreed to be born in my country and to pay for the services. I thought that in a community such problem would be solved, but if a person is born in a community with those same policies, he is in our same situation. This is why i now view every state as one giant community.

however, there is a fundamental difference. In cases of normal communities, there is a written contract that people agreed to this. There is physical proof of consent. In current states, there is no contract, you just pay or go to jail or leave. It is likely that in the case of a community the "taxes" would be payed by the family of the baby until it grew and then he bought a house and decided whether he wanted to pay the taxes or not. if he chose to stay, he would have to sign a written contract in which he accepted the conditions, and should any problems arise, the contract could serve to solve them.


So there's my argument. How does praxeology disprove this?i have badly presented my case. actually i don't know how praxeology disproves this because i havent looked at the specifics of praxeology in that detail. when i do i will get back on you, but i wouldnt hold my breath if i were you.


Positive freedom =/= positive rights. Positive freedom does not impose obligations on others. Positive freedom is the same as positive liberty, which refers to having the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential. okay


in our previous discussion, you said that you supported public (common) property, and you explained your perfectly legitimate for believing so. if you don't, and you support complete privatization of land, then you have a whole other host of problems regarding positive liberty. well in complete privatization of land, you can have no problems at all, provided the owners decide there shouldnt be any cost in you using their property (eg: shopping centers, malls, etc). Also remmember my examples of how a businessmen can profit from roads without charging the users for fees (ads and billboards basically)



Positive liberty is simply the ability to fulfill one's potential or desires. Very simply, being able to exhibit control over one's self (individual autonomy, or in your case, self ownership) is that potential. In order to be free to act, one must have property to do it on. We've had this discussion before I believe, regarding self-ownership specifically. Positive liberty would be the physical ability to act, while negative liberty is the ability to not be stopped by someone else from acting. In order to even exercise that negative liberty, one must first be free to act (have positive liberty). In addition, one must have property to do it on. i guess i can agree with this. But the fact that i must have property to act doesnt need others should be murdered, slaved, stolen to provide that choice to me.


To put it in a rhetorical question, if I have no property (everything is privatized), and I must ask permission for every act, then do I have negative liberty?many times in compeltely privatized situations one doesnt need explicit permission to act (again, shoping centers, you dont need permission to enter), and it is highly unlikely that would ever be the case in any society, so one could always act and have negative liberty.


As to your first sentence, you said negative freedom is freedom from being stolen [from]. If I don't have property to be stolen, what use is negative freedom? I must have property to be stolen to even exhibit this freedom, and that is what positive liberty is.negative freedom isn't just fredom from being stolen, but also freedom from being murdered and enslaved. So it would still be very useful..


I'm still figuring out property in land. I've rejected the libertarian (from self ownership) justificationcould you pm me about the specific reasons why you have rejected the libertarian stance? or if you dont want to do that, state them here or in another thread dedicated solely to this? I have discovered another stance (lol, when do they end!) regarding property which has some interesting points.


Private property in the marxist sense is property devoted to creating more wealth. So no, someone trading their labor or products made from labor is not private property, as long as there is no capital accumulation.a person creates wealth, are people private property in the marxist sense?

[Nwoye]

i personally think the individual hiring security wouldnt buy "the whole package", so nobody would actually benefit from him having security.
If there was a guy with an M16 standing in someones yard, then crime would most likely go down in the whole community. Also, you can consider it that less service is being provided then the community wants. The community wants three guys with M16's patrolling the house (community) all day, while person A only wants on guy patrolling at night. Here, the individual demand does not meet the social demand.


inefficient? Only to the community, which after all hasn't engaged in any market activity and just stood there as a bystander, so they really can't complain.By inefficient I mean pareto inefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency). The social demand for this service is not met.


actualy defense works very well in markets. In fact, public supply of defense was to bad that smaller private companies have appeared to fill the demand for defense. And like i said earlier, one can have defense and the rest of the world not benefit from it. If i buy defense to my own house, if nobody enters my house, nobody will benefit from me having defense in my house except those who are actually in my house. adressed above.


First, dont know if this ctually matters or not, but im pretty doubtful every community member's demands would be met by this service, just like police service doesnt usually meet every citizen's demands in any country.This is probably true, but the concept of a social demand for a service remains. In our case, the community would like for person A to purchase X amount of defense service, but person A only wants Y amount of service (X being more than Y).


Second, your definition of state is not very accurate, because then an individual defending himself against an attacker would also constitute a state (he has the monopoly of defending himself using force)

I think i have a clearer definition of state; you named it well but there is a particular point you missed: a state (or government, in this case, which is the entity that acts, the state being the system where the government acts through) is an agency of legitimized coercion, coercion being the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals.Let me clarify my definitions: a state is a monopoly of the use of force over a geographical area, representing the population within that area. A government is a body within a state (or organization) which holds the authority to enact and enforce legislation.


A defense agency would not be a government, because they are not coercing; they are using force in defense against force, which is why they are called a defense agency. But having a singe defense agency protecting (representing) an entire community would have a monopoly on their service, which is the use of force. The definition of a state has nothing to do with passivity/aggression per se, it has to do with making the claim of being the only body who can use violence in a given area.


In the case you presented, the defense agency would only be a government IF:
- they used direct coercion on the citizens they have contracted to supply their service, for whatever purpose the coercion may be used for,
-AND the citizens view this coercion as legitimate and necessary.They do use coercion, both in defense, and in enforcing their will. If some new member refuses to pay, there would probably be sanctions and such, but if it continued, what options would there be but to force them to leave the community? Also, if the defense force responds to all outside aggression with force (which is what they're supposed to do), then they are claiming that no one else may use violence in that area, which means they're claiming a monopoly of force over that area, which means they're a state.

Also, I'm assuming the second part of the definition (represent a population), as this defense service would be representing the members of the given community, since that's who paid for it.


This is why governments are not seen as criminal gangs by ordinary people. governments are beleived to be necessary, therefore people beleive almost any action they undertake is legitimate, when that is not so much the case for a criminal gang.I don't understand why perceived legitimacy is a requirement for being a state. If I view the United States Government as a criminal gang (which I pretty much do) it doesn't cease being a state.


yeah, they arise naturally. From some time i believed that taxation was theft because i had not agreed to be born in my country and to pay for the services. I thought that in a community such problem would be solved, but if a person is born in a community with those same policies, he is in our same situation. This is why i now view every state as one giant community.

however, there is a fundamental difference. In cases of normal communities, there is a written contract that people agreed to this. There is physical proof of consent. In current states, there is no contract, you just pay or go to jail or leave. It is likely that in the case of a community the "taxes" would be payed by the family of the baby until it grew and then he bought a house and decided whether he wanted to pay the taxes or not. if he chose to stay, he would have to sign a written contract in which he accepted the conditions, and should any problems arise, the contract could serve to solve them. I agree with all of this. If you need modern day examples of how it could work, think of homeowners associations. Whenever someone moves into an association, they agree to the rules of said community. If they disobey, they are given sanctions and fines until they are eventually forced to move. The concept of a state is the same thing, the only difference is our modern states are horribly centralized, authoritarian, organs of class rule.


well in complete privatization of land, you can have no problems at all, provided the owners decide there shouldnt be any cost in you using their property (eg: shopping centers, malls, etc). Also remmember my examples of how a businessmen can profit from roads without charging the users for fees (ads and billboards basically)That could reasonably occur, but that doesn't mean that the example doesn't hold true. For example, If everything was privatized, and I was homeless, I could still probably take refuge in a WalMart or something, as they're open all the time. However, I am on private property, and the owner of that WalMart (manager) could tell me to leave and press charges for trespassing any time he liked. If I do anything he doesn't like, he can kick me off his land. I still must have permission to act.


i guess i can agree with this. But the fact that i must have property to act doesnt need others should be murdered, slaved, stolen to provide that choice to me. I'd like to avoid violence at all costs personally, and I tend to agree with the Kantian stance that no humans are expendable just for acheiving greater social good. That being said, if someone is making forceful claims to property that isn't theirs, force will probably end up being necessary.


many times in compeltely privatized situations one doesnt need explicit permission to act (again, shoping centers, you dont need permission to enter), and it is highly unlikely that would ever be the case in any society, so one could always act and have negative liberty. addressed above. you still need permission to act.


negative freedom isn't just freedom from being stolen, but also freedom from being murdered and enslaved. So it would still be very useful..right. I was just using one of your examples to show the importance of positive liberty.


could you pm me about the specific reasons why you have rejected the libertarian stance? or if you dont want to do that, state them here or in another thread dedicated solely to this? I have discovered another stance (lol, when do they end!) regarding property which has some interesting points.Well I fundamentally reject Neo-Lockean justification of self ownership and natural rights, which I believe we discussed in another thread. It completely ignores positive liberty and it's importance for individual autonomy.


a person creates wealth, are people private property in the marxist sense?No. Private property is an object devoted to creating wealth with another persons labor. To quote the Anarchist FAQ (which is incredibly useful):
a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes [private] property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession."

[Octobox]

It completely ignores positive liberty and it's importance for individual autonomy.

No. Private property is an object devoted to creating wealth with another persons labor. To quote the Anarchist FAQ (which is incredibly useful):

a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes [private] property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession."


The problem with A-Caps and A-Coms is that neither has truly meditated on the others world (regarding the implementation of the key tenents).

A-coms simply can't stop private enterprise from developing if they are in "an-archy" (no-authority) society -- they can't create that level of control. Yes everyone could "agree" -- but, people only agree in the short-run -- they lie in the long-run (check marriage statistics), hahaha.

A-Caps think they can own property in the long-run or that they can "effect" a smooth transition from Corporatism regarding housing disputes -- they forget once anarchy sets in there's no authority to "force" -- every act of aggression becomes force and gangsterism.

The truth is -- the wealthy will not hold property - hold currency - or hold ownership in the long-run in a free-society. So, A-Com has nothing to fear.

Meditate on this.

What are the profit drivers in an A-Cap society?
#1 Entrepreneurialism
#2 Intrapreneurialism

That's it -- there are no others without gov't

Who are the chief creators of entre- and intra- by degree title, race, and class? The number 1's (who create the most)
#1 Engineers (by degree/certification/training)
#2 Blacks (by race)
#3 Imigrants (by class)

All of these folks push the innovation envelope to "escape" their status and to express creativity and self-reliance; rather than, taking a job under another man.

These folks are poor or middle class people

So -- the wealth (in a free society) is totally dependent on poor and middle class people to derive wealth (advantage). This is a mutually beneficial driver.

If the poor can go into business for themselves they might make a good living, but if they partner with a knowledgeable investor they might go national and make a fortune.

What are the profit drivers in a corporatist society (as we live now)?
#1 Entrepreneurs
#2 Intrapreneurs
#3 Gov't Protectionism (judicial rullings - barriers to entry)
#4 Gov't Subsidization (fiat credit - granting - gov't contracts)
#5 Gov't Bailouts (super golden parachutes after the company is already insolvent)

How does this effect poor and middle class innovators?

In an A-Cap -- long-run capital holdings would be a hinderance to wealth development (entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism). Meditate on it.

In an A-Cap or a Corporatist Society -- "profit bursts" is how one makes dynamic wealth. Only in a corporatist society can one tie up their assets in long positions (owing to gov't protectionism).

In a free-market-anarchy the corporation can only live in the short to medium run -- In the long-run they are dead (because without gov't there are no barriers to entry). Monopolies only exist in the short-run because no one will invest in them because they no longer "profit burst" -- so they sell off divisions to stay profitable (allowing poor to middle class entrepreneurs to make efficiency-innovations and reap a level of profit -- a smaller burst).

In a free-society for the wealthy to stay ahead they must keep their money moving -- whereas the poor and middle income people must keep innovating and holding slower moving commodities.

Housing prices are tied to currency valuation -- as is the stock market.

This is okay in a corporatist society because the gov't can artificially stimulate it.

In a free-society (there's no artificial stimulation) -- therefore wealthy people will not hold shares (in the medium to long-run) -- nor will they horde property (other than personal use) -- they will not horde currency either.

In a Free-Market-Anarchy
The poor and middle income levels will "own" the companies, will "own" the properties, and will "hold" the gold/silver (or whatever commodity - asset is used to back their currency).

In a Free-Market-Anarchy
The wealthy (if they want to capture profit bursts -- and they always do) they must continuously risk their investment wealth -- they must keep it in rotation and cannot sit on any position too long.

Corporatism (the wealthy) park their assets and make the poor and middle income scramble (day trade - currency trade)

Free-Market (the wealthy) keep their assets moving: they "bet" on poor and middle income entre- and intra-preneurs.

Octobox

[Havet]

If there was a guy with an M16 standing in someones yard, then crime would most likely go down in the whole community. Also, you can consider it that less service is being provided then the community wants. The community wants three guys with M16's patrolling the house (community) all day, while person A only wants on guy patrolling at night. Here, the individual demand does not meet the social demand.

I think a more effective way of reducing crime is to allow everyone who wants to to purchase a handgun.

WHy should individual demand meet social demand? And isn't an individual demand part of social demand itself? You can break down social demand into several individual demands, and it would end up being a better situation to analyze (in other words, praxeology)


This is probably true, but the concept of a social demand for a service remains. In our case, the community would like for person A to purchase X amount of defense service, but person A only wants Y amount of service (X being more than Y).

The community is a group of individuals

Individuals can buy protection services themselves. However, since they live toguether, and all are planning on buying a protection service, what hey could do is buy a "wholesale package" so as to get a discount, but remain with individual contracts.


Let me clarify my definitions: a state is a monopoly of the use of force over a geographical area, representing the population within that area. A government is a body within a state (or organization) which holds the authority to enact and enforce legislation.

And if in a community we have 2 competing defense agencies, does that mean we have a state? By your definition, no because they don't have a monopoly, right?

I think you are still confusing defense from coercion (defending a house) from coercion itself (jailing people if they don't pay taxes)


But having a singe defense agency protecting (representing) an entire community would have a monopoly on their service, which is the use of force. The definition of a state has nothing to do with passivity/aggression per se, it has to do with making the claim of being the only body who can use violence in a given area.

But they would not be using violence, would they? They would be defending against violence. NOW, if the community told them it would be ok for the defense agency to use force on people who didnt pay the community taxes, THEN they would become a state, because by jailing people they would be coercing, and would be seen as legitimate.


They do use coercion, both in defense, and in enforcing their will. If some new member refuses to pay, there would probably be sanctions and such, but if it continued, what options would there be but to force them to leave the community? Also, if the defense force responds to all outside aggression with force (which is what they're supposed to do), then they are claiming that no one else may use violence in that area, which means they're claiming a monopoly of force over that area, which means they're a state.

yeah, i can see the problem in our discussion. You were thinkign that a defense agency would be hired as a enforcer of the wishes of the community rather than a defense agency against agression.

If a new member refuses to pay, this can be sovled without creating a state:
- Community and real-estate agents (who would either sell or distribute for free the houses) would only do so if the person interested signed a contract agreeing to pay the tax
-In short, creating barriers to entry (if you dont like it, leave it) instead of letting "free riders" come in and then having to enforce them to leave.


I don't understand why perceived legitimacy is a requirement for being a state. If I view the United States Government as a criminal gang (which I pretty much do) it doesn't cease being a state.

It would cease being a state if the majority of the population would start seeing it as a criminal gang (which they don't at present). Since everyone, in one way or another, believes a state to be necessary, then they will rarely complain when the body of the state (government) will act unless it is a very dangerous action.


I agree with all of this. If you need modern day examples of how it could work, think of homeowners associations. Whenever someone moves into an association, they agree to the rules of said community. If they disobey, they are given sanctions and fines until they are eventually forced to move. The concept of a state is the same thing, the only difference is our modern states are horribly centralized, authoritarian, organs of class rule.

I don't need modern day examples, i know there are some out there ^^

However, that association could lower its use of force by stating a priori that one can only buy a house there if they sign a contract agreeing to the rules of the community. If that person breaches the contract, they have legitimacy to use force without being a state, because the breach of contract constitutes an agression. See my definition of coercion above:

"coercion being the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals."

So if one of the rules were that nobody could smoke inside common buildings, then the person smoking is coercing, and others should defend themselves (preferably not by running in with force, but by talking this out).


That could reasonably occur, but that doesn't mean that the example doesn't hold true. For example, If everything was privatized, and I was homeless, I could still probably take refuge in a WalMart or something, as they're open all the time. However, I am on private property, and the owner of that WalMart (manager) could tell me to leave and press charges for trespassing any time he liked. If I do anything he doesn't like, he can kick me off his land. I still must have permission to act.

In some ultimate sense, if everything was public, and dealt with by vote, the majority could also vote that they didnt want homeless people sleeping in public places (for whatever reason). Then what would happen?

In both cases, you could only go to buildings of institutions that were created for your special case (homelessness): charities.

The first problem to come to mind with privatization is roads, or sidewalks, or where people can walk, and people can still circulate, without any cost, and the owners being able to make a profit from it (imagine small billboards like we have now in sidewalks to create revenue).


I'd like to avoid violence at all costs personally, and I tend to agree with the Kantian stance that no humans are expendable just for acheiving greater social good. That being said, if someone is making forceful claims to property that isn't theirs, force will probably end up being necessary.

And by making those claims, whch i presume end up in the later occupying the land, he is coercing (by the nature of our laws in the crrent society) against the owner. ttherefore, the owner can use force to defend himself and his property.

By the way, i thought kand did have that stance...

"According to Kant, a person must act from duty which he views as an act of pure or abject selflessness. One’s duty is thus to sacrifice himself to duty which is a dictate of pure reason. Moral duties are categorical imperatives that hold for all rational beings with absolute certainty regardless of their desires, individual characteristics, and other contingent factors. Kant’s fundamental principle of morality thus binds a person independently of any particular ends or preferences he may have. Kantian morality pertains to actions that apply categorically and that are good in themselves. Duty is the requirement to act out of respect of the moral law rather than from one’s desires or inclinations." (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Immanuel_Kant_Ayn_Rands_Intellectual_Enemy.shtml)




right. I was just using one of your examples to show the importance of positive liberty.

you just used the example to argue that a kind of negative freedom could not be posible, which may be true, but it doesnt show the importance of positive liberty.


Well I fundamentally reject Neo-Lockean justification of self ownership and natural rights, which I believe we discussed in another thread. It completely ignores positive liberty and it's importance for individual autonomy.

well, here's a nice article (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=106&sortorder=issue) about that, but thats not what i really wanted to discuss. What i wanted to show you was the new argment i found, by an anarchist, on ownership:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eShZ76P3jWc&feature=PlayList&p=96D07AF5CDC6D371&index=2


No. Private property is an object devoted to creating wealth with another persons labor. To quote the Anarchist FAQ (which is incredibly useful):
a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes [private] property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession."


Ok, i guess i could agree with that example. I have nothing against property or posession.

[RGacky3]

The 'Lifestylists' are doing more for anarchism than the arrogant 'class struggle' couch potatoes are and the class struggle folks are in a better position to do something meaningful.

Couch potatoes? Excuse me? I'm pretty sure every societal change that Anarchism has accomlished, be it 8 hour work days (the IWW), actual revolutions (CNT, Zapatistas, Free Ukriane, Oaxaca), bringin the spotlight on oppression and exploitation (protests and the such), community organizing (food not bombs, African shack dwellers and others), workplace takeovers (Argentina) and so on has ALL been class Struggle Anarchists.

Lifestylists have achieved being "cool".


There are no anarchist movements.


Yes there are.

[Nwoye]

I think a more effective way of reducing crime is to allow everyone who wants to to purchase a handgun.
i agree that would help but at some point people have to hire defense services. especially people who live in bad areas, have kids, or aren't home all day.


WHy should individual demand meet social demand? And isn't an individual demand part of social demand itself? You can break down social demand into several individual demands, and it would end up being a better situation to analyze (in other words, praxeology)well the concept that individual demand meets social demand is kind of the basis of free market economics (remember the invisible hand). the concept that: "By acting according to the dictates of our moral faculties, we necessarily pursue the most effective means for promoting the happiness of mankind." by throwing this concept overboard and admitting that individual demand doesn't meet social demand, you're kind of throwing away the basis of free market economics. here's a good quote on the subject by one of my favorite economists:
Adam Smith's invisible hand - the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if guided by unseen forces - is invisible, at least in part, because it is not there.
Also, while your call to praxeology is partly correct, social demand can certainly be quantified, even if only as a rough aggregation of individual demands. for example, as I explained earlier, it's best for the community if person A purchases 3 guys w/ M16's patrolling all day, while person A only wants 1 guy patrolling for half of the day. simultaneously, it's best for the community (person A being a part of this) if person B purchases 3 guys w/ M16's patrolling all day, while person B only wants 1 guy patrolling half of the day. Everyone could be satisfied, if the community pitched in an funded the 3 guys etc for everyone, so that the demand of the community was met.


The community is a group of individualsaddressed above.


Individuals can buy protection services themselves. However, since they live toguether, and all are planning on buying a protection service, what hey could do is buy a "wholesale package" so as to get a discount, but remain with individual contracts.could you explain this concept further? i don't really understand what you mean and i don't want to argue a straw man.


And if in a community we have 2 competing defense agencies, does that mean we have a state? By your definition, no because they don't have a monopoly, right?well yes, but markets and competition wouldn't work very well in this instance.


I think you are still confusing defense from coercion (defending a house) from coercion itself (jailing people if they don't pay taxes)

But they would not be using violence, would they? They would be defending against violence. NOW, if the community told them it would be ok for the defense agency to use force on people who didnt pay the community taxes, THEN they would become a state, because by jailing people they would be coercing, and would be seen as legitimate.

yeah, i can see the problem in our discussion. You were thinkign that a defense agency would be hired as a enforcer of the wishes of the community rather than a defense agency against agression.

If a new member refuses to pay, this can be sovled without creating a state:
- Community and real-estate agents (who would either sell or distribute for free the houses) would only do so if the person interested signed a contract agreeing to pay the tax
-In short, creating barriers to entry (if you dont like it, leave it) instead of letting "free riders" come in and then having to enforce them to leave.if that defense agency collected fees to upkeep the service (taxes) and enforced penalties when they were not paid, or if the community establish rules regarding conduct within that area, and the service enforecd penalties when they were not abided by, would that be a state?


It would cease being a state if the majority of the population would start seeing it as a criminal gang (which they don't at present). Since everyone, in one way or another, believes a state to be necessary, then they will rarely complain when the body of the state (government) will act unless it is a very dangerous action.this is interesting but not particularly relevant to the discussion, i'm just going to leave it here.


However, that association could lower its use of force by stating a priori that one can only buy a house there if they sign a contract agreeing to the rules of the community. If that person breaches the contract, they have legitimacy to use force without being a state, because the breach of contract constitutes an agression. See my definition of coercion above:well that's what homeowners associations normally do. i understand your call to the Non aggression principle here, but often times rules are put in place that have nothing to do with individual rights.


"coercion being the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals."

So if one of the rules were that nobody could smoke inside common buildings, then the person smoking is coercing, and others should defend themselves (preferably not by running in with force, but by talking this out).
well a friend of mine lives in one of these associations, and he was recently told that he had to take down the deck in his backyard, or face fines/sanctions. now when he entered the association, he was fully aware that he had to keep his property looking respectable (his deck looked horrible btw, it was falling apart and was uneven), or face punishment. now certainly he didn't coerce anyone, but he did violate a law which he contracted into. would the homeowners association be justified in doing this? and further, if we're talking about an anarchic society, would that homeowners association constitute a state?


In some ultimate sense, if everything was public, and dealt with by vote, the majority could also vote that they didnt want homeless people sleeping in public places (for whatever reason). Then what would happen?

In both cases, you could only go to buildings of institutions that were created for your special case (homelessness): charities. well that could theoretically happen, and that's why i don't support making everything common property.


The first problem to come to mind with privatization is roads, or sidewalks, or where people can walk, and people can still circulate, without any cost, and the owners being able to make a profit from it (imagine small billboards like we have now in sidewalks to create revenue).even in that instance, the owners of roads have the authority to kick those people out. they have the authority to shoot anyone walking on those roads, since trespassing = aggression according to right-libertarian principles.


And by making those claims, whch i presume end up in the later occupying the land, he is coercing (by the nature of our laws in the crrent society) against the owner. ttherefore, the owner can use force to defend himself and his property.this assumes that the owners original claim to property was legitimate, which according to general leftist theory it wasn't.


By the way, i thought kand did have that stance...

"According to Kant, a person must act from duty which he views as an act of pure or abject selflessness. One’s duty is thus to sacrifice himself to duty which is a dictate of pure reason. Moral duties are categorical imperatives that hold for all rational beings with absolute certainty regardless of their desires, individual characteristics, and other contingent factors. Kant’s fundamental principle of morality thus binds a person independently of any particular ends or preferences he may have. Kantian morality pertains to actions that apply categorically and that are good in themselves. Duty is the requirement to act out of respect of the moral law rather than from one’s desires or inclinations."well i don't really like the duty aspect of kantian ethics. i think his categorical imperative and "kingdom of ends" theory is legitimate, but lately i've been leaning back into psychological egoism (not totally) which kind of makes duty ethics impossible.


well, here's a nice article (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=106&sortorder=issue) about that, but thats not what i really wanted to discuss. What i wanted to show you was the new argment i found, by an anarchist, on ownership: that was an interesting video. his theory of the restrictive covenant and it's relation to the state was very interesting, but i think had some major flaws. for example, his argument with the restrictive covenant basically meant that if people are cool with it, it's legitimate. and conversely, if they're against it, it's not. I don't remember anything about these man-made laws being necessarily universal, so theoretically a restrictive covenant could be formulated where everyone has property except for a bunch of slaves who the community agrees are necessary. i don't see why the rest of society couldn't say "well we agree that hayenmill shouldn't own his house" and have it become so, under this doctrine of property.

also, his definition of a state is interesting: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership." but going by this definition, if someone made a claim to property that people didn't agree on, they would be a state. how's that right?

[Havet]

well the concept that individual demand meets social demand is kind of the basis of free market economics (remember the invisible hand). the concept that: "By acting according to the dictates of our moral faculties, we necessarily pursue the most effective means for promoting the happiness of mankind." by throwing this concept overboard and admitting that individual demand doesn't meet social demand, you're kind of throwing away the basis of free market economics. here's a good quote on the subject by one of my favorite economists:
Adam Smith's invisible hand - the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if guided by unseen forces - is invisible, at least in part, because it is not there.


In general, the term “invisible hand” can apply to any individual action that has unplanned, unintended consequences, particularly those which arise from actions not orchestrated by a central command and which have an observable, patterned effect on the community.

Contrary to common misconceptions, Smith did not assert that all self-interested labour necessarily benefits society, or that all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. His proposal is merely that in a free market, people usually tend to produce goods desired by their neighbours.



could you explain this concept further? i don't really understand what you mean and i don't want to argue a straw man.

It's not really a concept, but a common consequence of markets: buying things in greater quantities will result in lower prices. If anything, it is an argument for some public goods.


if that defense agency collected fees to upkeep the service (taxes) and enforced penalties when they were not paid, or if the community establish rules regarding conduct within that area, and the service enforecd penalties when they were not abided by, would that be a state?

It would still not be a state, because it would not go around claiming ownership of property inside or outside the community in a manner differently than people inside or outside the community wwere perceived to acquire property.

For example, as argued in the video, a state is "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."". THis means that the community would only be a state if for example inside the community the notion perceived as the criteria for ownership was mixing someone's labor, and outside the community claimed ownership of land simply because it was close to it.


well that's what homeowners associations normally do. i understand your call to the Non aggression principle here, but often times rules are put in place that have nothing to do with individual rights.

Btw, i havent asked you yet, what do you think of the Non agression principle/axiom?


well a friend of mine lives in one of these associations, and he was recently told that he had to take down the deck in his backyard, or face fines/sanctions. now when he entered the association, he was fully aware that he had to keep his property looking respectable (his deck looked horrible btw, it was falling apart and was uneven), or face punishment. now certainly he didn't coerce anyone, but he did violate a law which he contracted into. would the homeowners association be justified in doing this? and further, if we're talking about an anarchic society, would that homeowners association constitute a state?

If he has agreed to the contract and its implications, then he now owes the action, or wealth required to put his deck back into a specified condition in the contract. They are not a state because they are enforcing something that was agreed upon. They would be a state if they went outside the community and started creating contracts without people's consent in a manner different than the prevalent criteria of contract. If the person doesnt agree to it anymore, he can negotiate (if he hadnt already when writing the contract) the conditions in which he can leave the agreement/contract.


well that could theoretically happen, and that's why i don't support making everything common property.

It is very likely a mixture of both would appear in a free society.


even in that instance, the owners of roads have the authority to kick those people out. they have the authority to shoot anyone walking on those roads, since trespassing = aggression according to right-libertarian principles.

Well, if he lets people in by in implicit contract then he is saying: "i agree that you use my road/sidewalk as long as you do not harm it". Assuming people dont harm it, then he couldnt just throw them out, even if he owned the road. The problem here is that the contract is implicit and not clearly stated. He could try and make it more explicit, but it would cost money and time to every party (imagine having to sign a contract everytime you'd enter a new sidewalk!). I think that in the cases of streets and sidewalks, it would end up being a public property (preferably without forceful taxation, and with voluntary taxation). As for roads, it would be more easy to make the implicit contract explicit (having a comprovative that you paid the toll in the road for example).


this assumes that the owners original claim to property was legitimate, which according to general leftist theory it wasn't.

if the prevalent criteria for ownership in that place were different than the one we currently have, then i guess he would neither own property, therefore not being able to defend it in agression.


that was an interesting video. his theory of the restrictive covenant and it's relation to the state was very interesting, but i think had some major flaws. for example, his argument with the restrictive covenant basically meant that if people are cool with it, it's legitimate. and conversely, if they're against it, it's not. I don't remember anything about these man-made laws being necessarily universal, so theoretically a restrictive covenant could be formulated where everyone has property except for a bunch of slaves who the community agrees are necessary. i don't see why the rest of society couldn't say "well we agree that hayenmill shouldn't own his house" and have it become so, under this doctrine of property. Yes this could come about.. Again we can expect everything when massively stupid people gather toguether. In any case, i don't think they would have an incentive to do so, if their goal was to maximize profit, utility or any other desirable goal that relied on trade (who'd want to go near that place at the risk of becoming a slave?"


also, his definition of a state is interesting: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership." but going by this definition, if someone made a claim to property that people didn't agree on, they would be a state. how's that right?

Yes they would be a state. "While Bob may have to farm land for his claim to be taken seriously by everyone else around him, a state (individual or group) can tax everyone over a certain geographic territory without altering that land in any way".

Defending property that was acquired through prevalent criteria does not make you a state.

Trying to steal property or violating the prevalent consensus over ownership or claiming ownership of land that it has been agreed upon one owns without having used any of the mechanisms which are agreed upon to acquire ownership makes you a state

[Nwoye]

In general, the term “invisible hand” can apply to any individual action that has unplanned, unintended consequences, particularly those which arise from actions not orchestrated by a central command and which have an observable, patterned effect on the community.

Contrary to common misconceptions, Smith did not assert that all self-interested labour necessarily benefits society, or that all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. His proposal is merely that in a free market, people usually tend to produce goods desired by their neighbours.
well honestly, just saying that something "usually" happens and then excusing the times when it doesn't is useless.


Btw, i havent asked you yet, what do you think of the Non agression principle/axiom? well as you know i disagree with it's underlying assumption of private property, but it's essentially just kantian ethics used to justify libertarianism. it's a fundamentally sound idea.

I'm going to merge these two quotes together, as they pertain to the same subject and i don't want to answer the same points twice.


[QUOTE]It would still not be a state, because it would not go around claiming ownership of property inside or outside the community in a manner differently than people inside or outside the community were perceived to acquire property.

For example, as argued in the video, a state is "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."". THis means that the community would only be a state if for example inside the community the notion perceived as the criteria for ownership was mixing someone's labor, and outside the community claimed ownership of land simply because it was close to it.

...

If he has agreed to the contract and its implications, then he now owes the action, or wealth required to put his deck back into a specified condition in the contract. They are not a state because they are enforcing something that was agreed upon. They would be a state if they went outside the community and started creating contracts without people's consent in a manner different than the prevalent criteria of contract. If the person doesnt agree to it anymore, he can negotiate (if he hadnt already when writing the contract) the conditions in which he can leave the agreement/contract.this is the problem i have with that definition and the usual anarchist characterization of the state. What you're doing here, and i don't know if it's intentional, is defining a state so that anything which is positive is anarchism and anything which is negative is a state. my example of the homeowners association does virtually everything that a state does, and if we accept the plausibility of my defense services argument, then it would probably have its own police (fire services, courts) as well. you've retorted with the definition from the video which effectively says, "if it does bad stuff it's a state" which I just don't find a satisfactory answer. even when I asked if taxation would make it a state, you said no because it's legitimate (voluntary and contractual) taxation. however, later on in your post you use the example of taxation as the determinant of a state: "While Bob may have to farm land for his claim to be taken seriously by everyone else around him, a state (individual or group) can tax everyone over a certain geographic territory without altering that land in any way". (I kind of like this example actually, as it aids proudhon's argument that a landlord is the equivalent of a despot, enforcing their will over a geographical area.)

also, earlier in the discussion you said that one of the defining features of a state must be the perceived legitimacy of the use of force: "In the case you presented, the defense agency would only be a government IF: ... the citizens view this coercion as legitimate and necessary." Now you're saying that a state by definition is an entity that is seen as an illegitimate property holder.

I'm genuinely confused by our current characterization of a state, as i don't think it's terribly useful in application nor do i feel we've been applying correctly.


It is very likely a mixture of both would appear in a free society.yes a free society would most likely be inhabited by individual and common property, as it should be.


Well, if he lets people in by in implicit contract then he is saying: "i agree that you use my road/sidewalk as long as you do not harm it". Assuming people dont harm it, then he couldnt just throw them out, even if he owned the road. The problem here is that the contract is implicit and not clearly stated. He could try and make it more explicit, but it would cost money and time to every party (imagine having to sign a contract everytime you'd enter a new sidewalk!). I think that in the cases of streets and sidewalks, it would end up being a public property (preferably without forceful taxation, and with voluntary taxation). As for roads, it would be more easy to make the implicit contract explicit (having a comprovative that you paid the toll in the road for example). that's reasonable.

Yes this could come about.. Again we can expect everything when massively stupid people gather toguether. In any case, i don't think they would have an incentive to do so, if their goal was to maximize profit, utility or any other desirable goal that relied on trade (who'd want to go near that place at the risk of becoming a slave?"I don't think we can safely say "well people wouldn't do that cuz it wouldn't be profitable". people do stupid and unprofitable things all the time, sometimes because they don't realize the consequences, and sometimes because they don't care.



Yes they would be a state. "While Bob may have to farm land for his claim to be taken seriously by everyone else around him, a state (individual or group) can tax everyone over a certain geographic territory without altering that land in any way".

Defending property that was acquired through prevalent criteria does not make you a state.

Trying to steal property or violating the prevalent consensus over ownership or claiming ownership of land that it has been agreed upon one owns without having used any of the mechanisms which are agreed upon to acquire ownership makes you a stateas i hinted above, this aids proudhon's argument immensely.

keep in mind, that private property as we understand it today (absentee ownership, renting out land) did not exist for the majority of human history. historically, property was based on possession, and if one left a piece of land unattended, someone else took it over. at some point or another, the state began setting up feudal estates and protecting private property, regardless of whether the proprieter was using it or not. out of this came feudalism. capitalism subsequently developed, and the state kept on protecting private property contrary to the natural laws of possession (Rothbardian "natural rights" aren't natural at all, and arose through government intervention).

Proudhon's argument, was that state sponsored private property, was the same as a despot ruling over land with an iron fist (property is despotism). Both exhibit absolute control over a peice of land, and both have the resources to enforce that claim with violence. Even if that proprietor, or that despot, had access to the only waterhole in 5 miles, they didn't have to allow access. And the people who live under the despots or proprietors rule have no power - they can't vote him out or recall him, they are completely subjected to his will. In addition, there's no difference between a despot taxing someone or a landlord charging rent. Both are benefiting from wealth they didn't create at the expense of others.

the point is, private property was a government construct, not a restrictive covenant as your video describes. and landlords, who benefited from government intervention and went against this restrictive covenant, would technically be called a state under this definition.

here's a good blog entry on property and anarchism:
http://www.genecosta.blogspot.com/

it's by GeneCosta, who i believe posts here on RevLeft and another forum i post on. i hope he doesn't mind me pimping his blog, but i was reading it earlier today and i found it interesting.


(http://www.genecosta.blogspot.com/)

[Havet]

well honestly, just saying that something "usually" happens and then excusing the times when it doesn't is useless. so what do you mean? whats your point?


this is the problem i have with that definition and the usual anarchist characterization of the state. What you're doing here, and i don't know if it's intentional, is defining a state so that anything which is positive is anarchism and anything which is negative is a state. my example of the homeowners association does virtually everything that a state does, and if we accept the plausibility of my defense services argument, then it would probably have its own police (fire services, courts) as well. you've retorted with the definition from the video which effectively says, "if it does bad stuff it's a state" which I just don't find a satisfactory answer. even when I asked if taxation would make it a state, you said no because it's legitimate (voluntary and contractual) taxation. however, later on in your post you use the example of taxation as the determinant of a state: "While Bob may have to farm land for his claim to be taken seriously by everyone else around him, a state (individual or group) can tax everyone over a certain geographic territory without altering that land in any way". (I kind of like this example actually, as it aids proudhon's argument that a landlord is the equivalent of a despot, enforcing their will over a geographical area.)state in a non-anarchic society: agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)

state in an anarchic society: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."

Sorry for the confusion on definitions. Apparently i got carried away with the abstractions.

If a landlord actually farmed or used his labor with the land (assuming farming and using labor with land are the prevalent criteria of ownership in that place) then he would be enforcing his will over HIS property as much as you and I enforce our will over our bodies: they are ours, we own them, we decide what to do with them.


also, earlier in the discussion you said that one of the defining features of a state must be the perceived legitimacy of the use of force: "In the case you presented, the defense agency would only be a government IF: ... the citizens view this coercion as legitimate and necessary." Now you're saying that a state by definition is an entity that is seen as an illegitimate property holder. definitions made clearer above.


as it should be. Yup



I don't think we can safely say "well people wouldn't do that cuz it wouldn't be profitable". people do stupid and unprofitable things all the time, sometimes because they don't realize the consequences, and sometimes because they don't care. Good point, but because some do stupid things doesn't justify power over everyone else (like we currently have)



keep in mind, that private property as we understand it today (absentee ownership, renting out land) did not exist for the majority of human history. historically, property was based on possession, and if one left a piece of land unattended, someone else took it over. at some point or another, the state began setting up feudal estates and protecting private property, regardless of whether the proprieter was using it or not. out of this came feudalism. capitalism subsequently developed, and the state kept on protecting private property contrary to the natural laws of possession (Rothbardian "natural rights" aren't natural at all, and arose through government intervention). well, in a way, nobody is really looking over your property when you leave your house. There isn't a police in every house, or even at every neighbourhood. Someone could go to your house and steal things as easily as if there was no police around. The thing is you can complain to the police and they will try to do something about it.

I think more preventive measures (like private defense mechanisms such as alarms or cameras) are more likely to dissuade a criminal (especially if they become even cheaper and in more houses) than the thought that the owner might call the police when they get home and realize theyve been robbed.


Proudhon's argument, was that state sponsored private property, was the same as a despot ruling over land with an iron fist (property is despotism). Both exhibit absolute control over a peice of land, and both have the resources to enforce that claim with violence. Even if that proprietor, or that despot, had access to the only waterhole in 5 miles, they didn't have to allow access. And the people who live under the despots or proprietors rule have no power - they can't vote him out or recall him, they are completely subjected to his will. In addition, there's no difference between a despot taxing someone or a landlord charging rent. Both are benefiting from wealth they didn't create at the expense of others. Wait a second, a landlord could've created the house in the land he is renting, and/or make the wealth needed to buy a house and then rent it. The difference is one had to acquire property legitimately, and the other doesn't (at least in an anarchic society).




here's a good blog entry on property and anarchism:
http://www.genecosta.blogspot.com/

it's by GeneCosta, who i believe posts here on RevLeft and another forum i post on. i hope he doesn't mind me pimping his blog, but i was reading it earlier today and i found it interesting.


(http://www.genecosta.blogspot.com/)"Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the occasional Ron Paul ditto head from jumping up on a table of fine Chinese quality oak and pronouncing that socialists are out to take everyone's property."

Well, you gotta agree some folks here want all property to be collectivized and then distributed "democratically" (in other words, everything public property)

He has some very interesting arguments (some parts i agree 100% with, for example, his argument that some capitalists have used government to make other forms of institution like cooperatives, less competitive)

[Nwoye]

so what do you mean? whats your point?
well i pointed out that the concept of an invisible hand isn't consistent, and your retorted that it's only supposed to apply some of the time. well that makes the theory a wholly unscientific and really useless one, if you can just shrug off inconsistencies. but it's really a tangential topic to our discussion, and it's not particularly relevant.



state in a non-anarchic society: agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)

state in an anarchic society: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."I don't see the usefulness or necessity in drawing two separate definitions of a state, one for present society and one for an anarchic society. Going by these definitions, a body existing in both societies acting the same exact way would be a state in the first example, but not in the second. for example, my homeowners association.

besides, a state doesn't exist in an anarchic society. if a state arose, the society would cease to be anarchic, and we would have to go back to the first definition.


If a landlord actually farmed or used his labor with the land (assuming farming and using labor with land are the prevalent criteria of ownership in that place) then he would be enforcing his will over HIS property as much as you and I enforce our will over our bodies: they are ours, we own them, we decide what to do with them. so if the homeowners association instituted a small fee for living in the community, and added it as a part of the contract, would they be a state? assuming they enforced that edict, peacefully at first and eventually with the threat of violence if the violator refused to comply.


Good point, but because some do stupid things doesn't justify power over everyone else (like we currently have)that's probably true as well. i was just warning against the common view that some anarchists (and communists) have that they don't need to worry about theft or violence or racism or something because it wouldn't be profitable or "in their best interests".


well, in a way, nobody is really looking over your property when you leave your house. There isn't a police in every house, or even at every neighbourhood. Someone could go to your house and steal things as easily as if there was no police around. The thing is you can complain to the police and they will try to do something about it. but there is a real and tangible difference between a lived in house (or a parked car) and an unused plot of land or an abandoned building.


Wait a second, a landlord could've created the house in the land he is renting, and/or make the wealth needed to buy a house and then rent it. The difference is one had to acquire property legitimately, and the other doesn't (at least in an anarchic society).but what determines legitimate property? your video argues that it's socially agreed upon principles (which is a reasonable argument). for thousands of years, that meant making something and then possessing it. private property as you're describing was created by the state to benefit feudal lords and exploit peasants.


"Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the occasional Ron Paul ditto head from jumping up on a table of fine Chinese quality oak and pronouncing that socialists are out to take everyone's property."

Well, you gotta agree some folks here want all property to be collectivized and then distributed "democratically" (in other words, everything public property)i'll grant that there are some retarded people on this forum and in the left movement in general, but i think that's true of every political movement. and it's grossly unfair to straw man a movement based on statements from its less intelligent members.


He has some very interesting arguments (some parts i agree 100% with, for example, his argument that some capitalists have used government to make other forms of institution like cooperatives, less competitive)yah i think both leftists and right-libertarians can arrive at common ground on a general distaste for the state and its protection of upper class interests, particularly through economic intervention and regulation.

[Ele'ill]

Couch potatoes? Excuse me? I'm pretty sure every societal change that Anarchism has accomlished, be it 8 hour work days (the IWW)

Correct but Anarchists didn't do this alone.






actual revolutions (CNT, Zapatistas, Free Ukriane, Oaxaca)

Not familure with Free Ukraine or 'Ukriane' but the others have not exactly been revolutions let alone successful although Greece was exciting. However, If I remember correctly, I wasn't thinking of global movements when I made the post. I was mainly thinking of inside the United States.




bringin the spotlight on oppression and exploitation (protests and the such),

Since the 90's the demonstrations in the United States have been Fail - and have not brought any spotlight onto anything except for how disorganized the left is at the moment.


community organizing (food not bombs,

This is where the line between lifestylists and activists gets blurred to shit because organizations like food not bombs are insanely easy to participate in and attract people looking for such. It makes them feel more accomplished than it should.

Its a great idea, I love it, but its something that should always be there and is not that big of a deal.


Lifestylists have achieved being "cool".

Depends on what way you demonize lifestylists.

If you travel around and live out of a tent or car, eat opossum, go to school, paint and sell your work, write and get published - or even if you hold a steady job while you're homeless - live part time with family part time on the road - organize in the work place - Fight in the streets volunteer on an organic cranberry farm. - do all the good stuff and you'll find someone who is simply living the way they want to live. Yes it has ties to anarchism and leftist ideology yes its philosophical as hell but the only people claiming this way of life as 'right' are the ones attacking it. Strawman.




Yes there are.Movements usually move.

[Havet]

I don't see the usefulness or necessity in drawing two separate definitions of a state, one for present society and one for an anarchic society. Going by these definitions, a body existing in both societies acting the same exact way would be a state in the first example, but not in the second. for example, my homeowners association.

I think the first example is an objective definition of the state without being biased towards its support (from a neutral standpoint, so to speak). The second proves to be a good example for the definition of a state in an imaginary place where the state is rare (an anarchic society).

In the case of your homeowners association, i think its not a state in either definition. Since you already agree with me that its not a state in the second example, ill try and explain why i think it is also not a state in the first:

"a state is an agency of legitimized coercion and with a monopoly of force"

The homeownership association has a police to enforce their laws that the "citizens" of the association previously agreed to. When they engage in doing so, they are seen as legitimate because they are engaging in the protection of contracts that have been agreed upon through the prevalent criteria for contracts (if you signed saying you'll do that, then either you do it, or you don't and pay the fine, and if you don't pay the fine, you get out of the community).

Now when they engage in enforcing the contracts individuals had agreed upon but didnt follow, they are not attacking or using force in the sense that we use it (without being in self-defense). Since the association is perceived to have acquired the associations land legitimately, that is, meeting the prevalent criteria for ownership (in this case, collective), then when they protect that land by enforcing the rules generally accepted then they are not a state.

A homeowners association is NOT a state for the same reason that violently defending your home (aquired through the perceived criteria for ownership) doesnt make you a state and for the same reason defending a shirt on your back wouldnt make you a state. Simply because the homeownership association is defending their land by enforcing the contract generally perceived as the consensus for the laws in the association (internal decision) doesnt make them a state. If the contract, or what the majority of people inside and outside the association thought would be a legitimate contract, would be that in order to be able to stay in the association one had to for example pray in the church once a week, a state would be a person or group of persons who tried to directly force people either not praying or praying even more.




besides, a state doesn't exist in an anarchic society. if a state arose, the society would cease to be anarchic, and we would have to go back to the first definition.

Thus why we need to define a state concisely in order to be able to identify one if it arises in an anarchic society.


so if the homeowners association instituted a small fee for living in the community, and added it as a part of the contract, would they be a state? assuming they enforced that edict, peacefully at first and eventually with the threat of violence if the violator refused to comply. adressed above



but there is a real and tangible difference between a lived in house (or a parked car) and an unused plot of land or an abandoned building. yes there is a difference. But in both cases we dont have police looking over 24/7.


but what determines legitimate property? your video argues that it's socially agreed upon principles (which is a reasonable argument). for thousands of years, that meant making something and then possessing it. private property as you're describing was created by the state to benefit feudal lords and exploit peasants.

im not sure i understand the bolded part exactly. If for thousands of years what constituted the prevalent criteria for property was making something and then possessing it (with the ability to exchange ownership by means of trade), then a state would be a person or group of persons who claimed ownership that was not acquired by making something and then possessing it and/or exchanging it. What you are trying to imply, perhaps, is that a landlord who got his property by making wealth legitimately, and then buying a house and renting it to someone else hasn't ownership of it. But im pretty sure in those days some people lived in houses they didnt own and paid a small fee for the privilege. In any case, it was perceived as legitimate. Examples of a state: a feudal wanting to tax peasants because they are in his "territory" which he came to own by "divine spirit" or by "being born of nobles" or by any other way that was not the perceived criteria and/or consensus.


i'll grant that there are some retarded people on this forum and in the left movement in general, but i think that's true of every political movement. and it's grossly unfair to straw man a movement based on statements from its less intelligent members.

i never intended my arguments to be generalizing. if thats how they looked i apolgize. There are less intelligent members in every movement. and i certainyl agknowledge every movement to have its stupid people and smart people (even libertarians, as i have seen by direct experience), even though curiously, some leftists argue that ALL right-libertarians must be dumbass idiots because they believe things that contradict leftist ideology


yah i think both leftists and right-libertarians can arrive at common ground on a general distaste for the state and its protection of upper class interests, particularly through economic intervention and regulation.

i have actually noticed a more interesting trend. When you take right and left to their both logical extreme they converge, into what I call "Anarchism without adjectives":

"
Anarchism without adjectives (from the Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) "anarquismo sin adjetivos"), in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "referred to an unhyphenated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen) form of anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism), collectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism), mutualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29), or individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism). For others, ... [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists_without_adjectives#cite_note-0)


You could sort of argue its anarcho-pluralism. Right before AWA (anarchism without adjectives), the left is represented by agorism, whereas the righ is represented by anarcho-capitalism. I actually devised a political spectrum trying to represent different forms of anarchism and this seemingly trend towards common ground. You can see it here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pmoo74E0L-w/SfsOgL-fgXI/AAAAAAAAAEA/0RQdaxETn4I/s1600-h/3axispoliticalmapFINAL2.jpg).

[RGacky3]

Correct but Anarchists didn't do this alone.

They were a big part of it, and most early unions came out of anarchist/communist (back then they were pretty much one in the same) ideals.


I was mainly thinking of inside the United States.

... Ok ... Well think larger, capitalists think larger.


Not familure with Free Ukraine or 'Ukriane' but the others have not exactly been revolutions let alone successful although Greece was exciting. However, If I remember correctly

They were successful in the sense that they functioned until violently destroyed by much larger forces.


Since the 90's the demonstrations in the United States have been Fail - and have not brought any spotlight onto anything except for how disorganized the left is at the moment.

Think longer, Capitalists think longer.


This is where the line between lifestylists and activists gets blurred to shit because organizations like food not bombs are insanely easy to participate in and attract people looking for such. It makes them feel more accomplished than it should.

Its a great idea, I love it, but its something that should always be there and is not that big of a deal.

sure, it SHOULD be easy to participate in, and it is a big dead to people they feed and also a big deal in the sense that its a form of parrallel society, meaning self organizing without the governmnet.

If people feel accomplished or not is up to them, but they should feel more accomplished doing that, actually helping people rather than just Not shopping at certain stores.


If you travel around and live out of a tent or car, eat opossum, go to school, paint and sell your work, write and get published - or even if you hold a steady job while you're homeless - live part time with family part time on the road - organize in the work place - Fight in the streets volunteer on an organic cranberry farm. - do all the good stuff and you'll find someone who is simply living the way they want to live. Yes it has ties to anarchism and leftist ideology yes its philosophical as hell but the only people claiming this way of life as 'right' are the ones attacking it. Strawman.

Its not a strawman because it was'nt an argument, it was a toungue in cheek statement.

Just living the way you want to live is what everyone does to the degree that they are able too. Nothing special about that, nothing anarchist aobut that.

If someone likes to dumpster dive and squat, because thats what they want to do thats fine, but its no more anarchistic or free, than someone who pays rent for a place they can afford and wears dress shirts.


Movements usually move.

Huh?

[Nwoye]

I think the first example is an objective definition of the state without being biased towards its support (from a neutral standpoint, so to speak). The second proves to be a good example for the definition of a state in an imaginary place where the state is rare (an anarchic society).
but why is it necessary to make such a distinction? what good does it do? will the transformation into an anarchic society somehow change the nature or the definition of what a state is?


In the case of your homeowners association, i think its not a state in either definition. Since you already agree with me that its not a state in the second example, ill try and explain why i think it is also not a state in the first:alrighty.


"a state is an agency of legitimized coercion and with a monopoly of force"

The homeownership association has a police to enforce their laws that the "citizens" of the association previously agreed to. When they engage in doing so, they are seen as legitimate because they are engaging in the protection of contracts that have been agreed upon through the prevalent criteria for contracts (if you signed saying you'll do that, then either you do it, or you don't and pay the fine, and if you don't pay the fine, you get out of the community).

Now when they engage in enforcing the contracts individuals had agreed upon but didnt follow, they are not attacking or using force in the sense that we use it (without being in self-defense). Since the association is perceived to have acquired the associations land legitimately, that is, meeting the prevalent criteria for ownership (in this case, collective), then when they protect that land by enforcing the rules generally accepted then they are not a state.

A homeowners association is NOT a state for the same reason that violently defending your home (aquired through the perceived criteria for ownership) doesnt make you a state and for the same reason defending a shirt on your back wouldnt make you a state. Simply because the homeownership association is defending their land by enforcing the contract generally perceived as the consensus for the laws in the association (internal decision) doesnt make them a state. If the contract, or what the majority of people inside and outside the association thought would be a legitimate contract, would be that in order to be able to stay in the association one had to for example pray in the church once a week, a state would be a person or group of persons who tried to directly force people either not praying or praying even more.see, above you said legitimacy was a necessary aspect of a state (legitimized coercion), now you say it's only a state if it's not. okay, to solve our problems, i've got two points:

1) the only difference you've drawn so far between the homeowners association and modern states, is the contract. so far, they both act exactly the same, by enforcing a set list of rules and regulations over a geographical area, and retaliating with force whenever that list is violated. the difference we have come to here, is that modern states are not acting under any contract, only the implicit agreement of everyone within their borders. when they punish someone for violating the list of rules, they not retaliating, but rather enforcing. however, if someone signs an explicit contract, then they have agreed to the terms and there is no coercion - it is therefore not a monopoly of force or agent of legitimized coercion, and therefore not a state. a few questions:
If the United States made every new citizen sign a contract or document confirming citizenship (and therefore agreement to laws), would they cease being a state?

Suppose, that in that homeowners association, the members joined in an community assembly and established democratically that every member must cut their grass once a week, or face fines/sanctions. (also suppose they placed this edict on the new contract for future incoming members, meaning new members had to agree to it to come in.) would the members of the association who voted against the edict (even just one or two people) be under the same obligation to cut their grass?

If the community enforced this new edict (from above), on members of the community who voted against the edict (with fines or sanctions) would they be a state?
2) if that homeowners association attempted to avoid the free rider problem by instituting a fee for living there, would it be a state? because this would happen naturally in my opinion (i've given my reasoning earlier in this thread and elsewhere), and according to your earlier example, it's a state: "While Bob may have to farm land for his claim to be taken seriously by everyone else around him, a state (individual or group) can tax everyone over a certain geographic territory without altering that land in any way". the homeowners association is now taxing its residence, making it a state, correct?


Thus why we need to define a state concisely in order to be able to identify one if it arises in an anarchic society. I think creating two separate definitions for it is not defining it concisely.


im not sure i understand the bolded part exactly. If for thousands of years what constituted the prevalent criteria for property was making something and then possessing it (with the ability to exchange ownership by means of trade), then a state would be a person or group of persons who claimed ownership that was not acquired by making something and then possessing it and/or exchanging it. What you are trying to imply, perhaps, is that a landlord who got his property by making wealth legitimately, and then buying a house and renting it to someone else hasn't ownership of it. But im pretty sure in those days some people lived in houses they didnt own and paid a small fee for the privilege. In any case, it was perceived as legitimate. what i'm saying is that private property arose by government enforced edicts, not by natural rights or restrictive covenants or anything of the like.


Examples of a state: a feudal wanting to tax peasants because they are in his "territory" which he came to own by "divine spirit" or by "being born of nobles" or by any other way that was not the perceived criteria and/or consensus. exactly my point. and how did they protect that private property? government.


i never intended my arguments to be generalizing. if thats how they looked i apolgize. There are less intelligent members in every movement. and i certainyl agknowledge every movement to have its stupid people and smart people (even libertarians, as i have seen by direct experience), even though curiously, some leftists argue that ALL right-libertarians must be dumbass idiots because they believe things that contradict leftist ideologyI'm not going to deny that that happens, but i've bolded the important word in that sentence.

in fact, some right-libertarians do the same thing, as evidenced by the thread about revleft (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx?PageIndex=1) on mises.org. so it goes both ways.


i have actually noticed a more interesting trend. When you take right and left to their both logical extreme they converge, into what I call "Anarchism without adjectives":

"
Anarchism without adjectives (from the Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) "anarquismo sin adjetivos"), in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "referred to an unhyphenated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen) form of anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism), collectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism), mutualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29), or individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism). For others, ... [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists_without_adjectives#cite_note-0)


You could sort of argue its anarcho-pluralism. Right before AWA (anarchism without adjectives), the left is represented by agorism, whereas the righ is represented by anarcho-capitalism. I actually devised a political spectrum trying to represent different forms of anarchism and this seemingly trend towards common ground. You can see it here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pmoo74E0L-w/SfsOgL-fgXI/AAAAAAAAAEA/0RQdaxETn4I/s1600-h/3axispoliticalmapFINAL2.jpg).personally, that's how i always viewed anarchism in general. i think a genuinely anarchist movement would have to tolerate differing ideologies, or it would cease to be anarchist. for example, if an anarcho-communist community went around violently seizing private property, then how are they not a state?

but yes i agree with you, and i think tolerance of other tendencies (collectivists allowing mutualists to exist, etc) is integral for a genuine anarchist movement.

[yuon]

Hey look everyone! I found a liberal that just proved my point!

Individualist "anarchists" have never been a movement, and have always been just a philisophical idea for the well fed. Your post just proves my point.

Sorry to take so long to get back to this...

Hey, I'm proud to be a liberal, if a liberal is considered to be someone who desires maximum freedom for all. Of course, I'm not a real liberal, 'cause I don't want a state (as all real liberals, both classical and welfare), and I don't like "property" or "capitalism" (as all real liberals, again, both classical and welfare want).

Anyway, what is your definition of anarchism? You didn't provide one, after all, is it just "class struggle communism, with a touch of anti-hierarchy"?

[Havet]

but why is it necessary to make such a distinction? what good does it do? will the transformation into an anarchic society somehow change the nature or the definition of what a state is?

Well i think it will. In a state society, the state is viewed as legitimate. In an anarchic the society, the nature of the state has to change, because otherwise the revolution/transition wouldnt have occurred. It is thus necessary for the state to not be seen as legitimate, and this means the definition changed.



1) the only difference you've drawn so far between the homeowners association and modern states, is the contract. so far, they both act exactly the same, by enforcing a set list of rules and regulations over a geographical area, and retaliating with force whenever that list is violated. the difference we have come to here, is that modern states are not acting under any contract, only the implicit agreement of everyone within their borders. when they punish someone for violating the list of rules, they not retaliating, but rather enforcing. however, if someone signs an explicit contract, then they have agreed to the terms and there is no coercion - it is therefore not a monopoly of force or agent of legitimized coercion, and therefore not a state. a few questions:
If the United States made every new citizen sign a contract or document confirming citizenship (and therefore agreement to laws), would they cease being a state?

Suppose, that in that homeowners association, the members joined in an community assembly and established democratically that every member must cut their grass once a week, or face fines/sanctions. (also suppose they placed this edict on the new contract for future incoming members, meaning new members had to agree to it to come in.) would the members of the association who voted against the edict (even just one or two people) be under the same obligation to cut their grass?

If the community enforced this new edict (from above), on members of the community who voted against the edict (with fines or sanctions) would they be a state?


I think i have finally understand the logic of your argument (sorry to have taken so long!)

In a state society, and by using the definition of the state there, which was: "agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)"

Thus the homeowner association, in a society where there is a state already, is essentially the same as a state: it coerces people and is seen as legitimate, whether there is a contract to it or not.

It was basically your examples of the US that made me see this more clearly: obviously if the US demanded a contract then it would still be a state, just as the homeowner association would be in a state society. (i thought something smelled rotten when i mentioned prevalent criteria for contracts..)

(I also think i might mixed definitions in what i wrote where you last quoted me)

And as we have agreed before, a homeownership association would not be a state in a stateless society

I think now the most interesting issue would be zones and the "prevalent criteria for ownership". It is likely different parts of a society had different criteria for ownership, and on some zones you would be a state according to a criteria, and in others it would be the reverse. This makes me assume those "borders" would have to be fairly obvious to identify. Maybe this is how some countries borders were defined?

2) if that homeowners association attempted to avoid the free rider problem by instituting a fee for living there, would it be a state? because this would happen naturally in my opinion (i've given my reasoning earlier in this thread and elsewhere), and according to your earlier example, it's a state: "While Bob may have to farm land for his claim to be taken seriously by everyone else around him, a state (individual or group) can tax everyone over a certain geographic territory without altering that land in any way". the homeowners association is now taxing its residence, making it a state, correct? yes, it would be a state under definition 1.


I think creating two separate definitions for it is not defining it concisely.actually, let me restate what i meant:

"Thus why we need to define a state concisely, without using the state definition in a state society, in order to be able to identify one if it arises in an anarchic society (which is stateless). "

Perhaps there is some way i am not seeing to mix the two definitions, but like I said above:

"In a state society, the state is viewed as legitimate. In an anarchic the society, the nature of the state has to change, because otherwise the revolution/transition wouldnt have occurred. It is thus necessary for the state to not be seen as legitimate, and this means the definition changed."


what i'm saying is that private property arose by government enforced edicts, not by natural rights or restrictive covenants or anything of the like. I agree, but i think to some degree there was "natural private property" (absentee property if you will) that met the prevalent criteria for ownership, and there were landlords (smaller in the size of their land) that existed naturally and were seen to have met the prevalent criteria because they didnt use force or acquired property by any other way than the prevalent criteria.


exactly my point. and how did they protect that private property? government. yeah exactly. since it was against the prevalent criteria (and many cases outright theft), they had to use something to prevent the mob from taking it back: force, which is government.


I'm not going to deny that that happens, but i've bolded the important word in that sentence.

in fact, some right-libertarians do the same thing, as evidenced by the thread about revleft (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx?PageIndex=1) on mises.org. so it goes both ways.yeah it always goes both ways, even though im more inclined to agree with libertarians (left and right), than with communists/socialists


personally, that's how i always viewed anarchism in general. i think a genuinely anarchist movement would have to tolerate differing ideologies, or it would cease to be anarchist. for example, if an anarcho-communist community went around violently seizing private property, then how are they not a state? yeah exactly. Unless anarcho-commies start to tolerare more ideologies, they might become a state when an anarcho-cappy society starts to spring up (check out my comment on zones above). It can also happen that anarcho-cappies become to act a state if some measures (like inheritance) are not seen as prevalent criteria for ownership. Either it all ends up in a war and violent conflicts, or people actually act rationally and reach agreements on both sides (hybrid between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalist).


but yes i agree with you, and i think tolerance of other tendencies (collectivists allowing mutualists to exist, etc) is integral for a genuine anarchist movement.yup. as long as people try to the best of their ability to resolve conflicts without using violence as their first choice, there could potentially exist a lot less problems in that anarchy society.

[Ele'ill]

... Ok ... Well think larger, capitalists think larger.

I think local.
I have the greatest chance of affecting local.
All local is global.


They were successful in the sense that they functioned until violently destroyed by much larger forces.

They didn't function successfully.




Think longer, Capitalists think longer.

So basically the revolution will happen when it happens. Enjoy your lobster.




sure, it SHOULD be easy to participate in, and it is a big dead to people they feed and also a big deal in the sense that its a form of parrallel society, meaning self organizing without the governmnet.

Which is why I love it.


If people feel accomplished or not is up to them, but they should feel more accomplished doing that, actually helping people rather than just Not shopping at certain stores.

Is this a reference to another discussion you and I had?

Most of the anarchists, anti-authoritarian anti capitalists ARE concerned about where their material goods come from. They WONT buy from certain companies. This includes those involved in food not bombs and if you're suggesting other-wise than you really need to get out more.




Its not a strawman because it was'nt an argument, it was a toungue in cheek statement.

It is a strawman because it was a false lifestyle created for the created lifestylists. As referenced in numerous discussions on this forum.


Just living the way you want to live is what everyone does to the degree that they are able too. Nothing special about that, nothing anarchist aobut that.

Asinine.
The way you live becomes anti capitalist, anti authoritarian, leftist, anarchist when you refuse to take part in certain aspects of a common system and to do so means suffering some form of indirect consequence.

Which is different than kicking off your new nikes at the end of a workday at the Exxon station to chow on steak yelling at fox news because baby you're an anarchist outside of your trust fund.

Think corporations are criminal? Stop supporting them with your money. Don't like a companies labor policies? Don't pull labor for them. Don't like material wealth? Don't participate in it.

As an anarchist its insane to say 'AWESOME SHOES!!' when refering to the worst workers rights violator in the world. There is no excuse.


If someone likes to dumpster dive and squat, because thats what they want to do thats fine, but its no more anarchistic or free, than someone who pays rent for a place they can afford and wears dress shirts.

I disagree to an extent. I've squatted - jobless and homeless and I've held a job and had an apartment. I've also done the in between bit.

Why would you want to participate in something you feel strongly against?








Huh?

The anarchist movement hasn't done much.

[Bud Struggle]

The anarchist movement hasn't done much.

Except to keep women "in their place," cooking and cleaning and being sex objects. I didn't make this up.

In the Anarchist-Feminists own words:

http://nopretence.wordpress.com/

On Sunday, June 7th a group of anarcha-feminists took the stage at the Anarchist Conference 09 to protest about sexist oppression within the movement. They projected a film and read out a statement, both of which you can find below.
Their actions went on to provoke a huge response – with comments ranging from undiluted misogyny to militant solidarity.
The misogyny provided more examples of the sexism we all battle with when we try and make our voices heard. Such attitudes make the prospect of fighting back more intimidating, but also increasingly urgent.

From the audience:

“Are you going to do a sexy dance for us?”

And online:

“A wrote:
Bear, was there any hotties present

“B wrote:
a few. one of the radical feminists who disrupted it, and who I know
looked really cute in black hoodie.”

Anarchists--who would have thought? :D

[Nwoye]

Well i think it will. In a state society, the state is viewed as legitimate. In an anarchic the society, the nature of the state has to change, because otherwise the revolution/transition wouldnt have occurred. It is thus necessary for the state to not be seen as legitimate, and this means the definition changed.
you know what, after all of this debate over what actually constitutes a state, and how those definitions can be applied to actual political theory and real world application, i think we have to create a thread specifically for that purpose - the State. within the next couple of days, i'll write up an OP for the thread "What is a State?" in Theory an open up discussion. I'll bring up your definitions (the second one is very interesting) and I'll address the typical Marxist classification, and it's possible historical accuracy.

i mean, we've taken up two pages of this thread and still can't come to a coherent agreement on what a state is.


I think i have finally understand the logic of your argument (sorry to have taken so long!) lol that probably has more to do with my ability to articulate ideas than your comprehension skills.


In a state society, and by using the definition of the state there, which was: "agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)"

Thus the homeowner association, in a society where there is a state already, is essentially the same as a state: it coerces people and is seen as legitimate, whether there is a contract to it or not. it acts exactly as a state does yes.


It was basically your examples of the US that made me see this more clearly: obviously if the US demanded a contract then it would still be a state, just as the homeowner association would be in a state society. (i thought something smelled rotten when i mentioned prevalent criteria for contracts..)i'd also like to add that the U.S. pretty much already does this already, with the extensive certification process of new citizens.

i'd also like to ask my other question again.
Suppose, that in that homeowners association, the members joined in an community assembly and established democratically that every member must cut their grass once a week, or face fines/sanctions. (also suppose they placed this edict on the new contract for future incoming members, meaning new members had to agree to it to come in.) would the members of the association who voted against the edict (even just one or two people) be under the same obligation to cut their grass?

secondly, if the community enforced this new edict (from above), on members of the community who voted against the edict (with fines or sanctions) would they be a state?

(I also think i might mixed definitions in what i wrote where you last quoted me)possibly.


And as we have agreed before, a homeownership association would not be a state in a stateless society hold on there, i don't recall if i did agree to that or not, but if i did, let me apologize and say i disagree.


I think now the most interesting issue would be zones and the "prevalent criteria for ownership". It is likely different parts of a society had different criteria for ownership, and on some zones you would be a state according to a criteria, and in others it would be the reverse.which is one of the problems with that theory. we can't sit here and realistically say "there will always be a definite restrictive covenant and agreement on what constitutes legitimate property". i mean, we've argued numerous times over what constitutes legitimate property, so it's obviously not and never going to be a universal agreement. as you said, different people could see different institutions as states (or not as states), simply because they disagree over property.


This makes me assume those "borders" would have to be fairly obvious to identify. Maybe this is how some countries borders were defined?I'll have to admit ignorance here. I just don't know enough about historical foundations for the organizations we call states to argue one way or another (and to be honest i should probably know more about them). that being said, believe it would be accurate to say that most original states arose out of oppression and exploitation, not out of arguments over borders or restrictive covenants.


yes, it would be a state under definition 1.but why not under definition 2? even ignoring my dispute over your definitions which i listed above, and going by the original non-anarchic definition:
"a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."
now certainly taxing an area (and enforcing your legislative will over it) is effectively exerting ownership over that area, and that's what the homeowners association is doing. it is exhibiting ownership over that area, yet it has not (as a singular body or a collective of individuals) mixed its labor with the property, or done whatever makes property legitimate. going by the second definition, it's a state.


actually, let me restate what i meant:

"Thus why we need to define a state concisely, without using the state definition in a state society, in order to be able to identify one if it arises in an anarchic society (which is stateless). "

Perhaps there is some way i am not seeing to mix the two definitions, but like I said above:

"In a state society, the state is viewed as legitimate. In an anarchic the society, the nature of the state has to change, because otherwise the revolution/transition wouldnt have occurred. It is thus necessary for the state to not be seen as legitimate, and this means the definition changed."that's reasonable, but as i said above, we need a whole thread to continue the discussion of the state. it's really that important and relevant.


I agree, but i think to some degree there was "natural private property" (absentee property if you will) that met the prevalent criteria for ownership, and there were landlords (smaller in the size of their land) that existed naturally and were seen to have met the prevalent criteria because they didnt use force or acquired property by any other way than the prevalent criteria.i'm not sure. there was certainly nothing resembling feudal or capitalist property that I know of.


yeah exactly. since it was against the prevalent criteria (and many cases outright theft), they had to use something to prevent the mob from taking it back: force, which is government.agreed.


yeah it always goes both ways, even though im more inclined to agree with libertarians (left and right), than with communists/socialistsfair enough.


yeah exactly. Unless anarcho-commies start to tolerare more ideologies, they might become a state when an anarcho-cappy society starts to spring up (check out my comment on zones above). It can also happen that anarcho-cappies become to act a state if some measures (like inheritance) are not seen as prevalent criteria for ownership. Either it all ends up in a war and violent conflicts, or people actually act rationally and reach agreements on both sides (hybrid between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalist). agreed. that's always been my biggest criticism of left-anarchists. I've repeatedly asked anarcho-communists how they would deal with someone holding onto private property, and every time they either answered with a force that effectively equaled a state, or they skirted the question.

edit: you know what though, i could formulte a legitimate justification to seizing private property under anarchism. i don't know if i could defend it well though.

ugh challenging your own beliefs/world view is so frustrating. :cursing:


yup. as long as people try to the best of their ability to resolve conflicts without using violence as their first choice, there could potentially exist a lot less problems in that anarchy society.i'd love to see it happen, i'm just skeptical.

[RGacky3]

The anarchist movement hasn't done much.

Yes it has ...

You need examples?


I think local.
I have the greatest chance of affecting local.
All local is global.

Sure, but Anarchism does'nt only matter in the US.


They didn't function successfully.


Yes they did jackass. They functioned successfully, unless you know what their disfunction was, and can show it to me.


So basically the revolution will happen when it happens. Enjoy your lobster.

I did'nt say that, you work toward it long term

If I could afford a lobster I would.

So basically revolution can never happen, so basically anarchism is dead, and its better to just live outside society and not make a difference at all, right?


Most of the anarchists, anti-authoritarian anti capitalists ARE concerned about where their material goods come from. They WONT buy from certain companies. This includes those involved in food not bombs and if you're suggesting other-wise than you really need to get out more.

So what, whats your point? Are we (I say we, but your not fighting anything so I use it loosely) fighting a system, or individual companies?


The way you live becomes anti capitalist, anti authoritarian, leftist, anarchist when you refuse to take part in certain aspects of a common system and to do so means suffering some form of indirect consequence.


No its not, because its not shifting power in any form, or even attempting to shift power in any form. And any "suffering" (be it eating stinky food or whatever) its pointless and inconsequential.


Which is different than kicking off your new nikes at the end of a workday at the Exxon station to chow on steak yelling at fox news because baby you're an anarchist outside of your trust fund.

What?

No its different from working to try and shift power away from the Capitalists and too the workers, and to have to actually work to pay rent and buy groceries, to organize and agitate (I don't know where you got the trust fund from), something that can actually make a difference.

All lifestylism is is essencially liberal guilt.


Think corporations are criminal? Stop supporting them with your money. Don't like a companies labor policies? Don't pull labor for them. Don't like material wealth? Don't participate in it.

First of all the "don't like material wealth?" ... EVERYONE LIKES MATERIAL WELATH, everyone wants nice things, that has nothing to do with communism or capitalism, having things is not anti communist. If a poor person can afford something nice, he is'nt suddenly a class traitor is he?

Essencailly all your "sollutions" are just lesser evilism, "lets try make capitalism nicer" sollutios.


As an anarchist its insane to say 'AWESOME SHOES!!' when refering to the worst workers rights violator in the world. There is no excuse.


Did the shoes exploit the workers?

You think under Communism without exploitation nice shoes won't be made?


I disagree to an extent. I've squatted - jobless and homeless and I've held a job and had an apartment. I've also done the in between bit.

Why would you want to participate in something you feel strongly against?


1. Because you have too

2. to try and change it.


Except to keep women "in their place," cooking and cleaning and being sex objects. I didn't make this up.

In the Anarchist-Feminists own words:

http://nopretence.wordpress.com/ (http://nopretence.wordpress.com/)

On Sunday, June 7th a group of anarcha-feminists took the stage at the Anarchist Conference 09 to protest about sexist oppression within the movement. They projected a film and read out a statement, both of which you can find below.
Their actions went on to provoke a huge response – with comments ranging from undiluted misogyny to militant solidarity.
The misogyny provided more examples of the sexism we all battle with when we try and make our voices heard. Such attitudes make the prospect of fighting back more intimidating, but also increasingly urgent.

From the audience:

“Are you going to do a sexy dance for us?”

And online:

“A wrote:
Bear, was there any hotties present

“B wrote:
a few. one of the radical feminists who disrupted it, and who I know
looked really cute in black hoodie.”

Anarchists--who would have thought? '

Are you suggesting that Anarchists are somehow more sexist than anyone else? If anything they are less so. An isolated incident does'nt erase history.

[Ele'ill]

Yes it has ...

You need examples?

Yes.


Sure, but Anarchism doesn't only matter in the US.

Not my point.

Worry about what you can actually control first which in most cases is local stuff. Stop worrying about what's going on in Greece or Italy or South America.

You can be in solidarity with other anarchists but thinking of the struggle as global is ridiculous. Greece was on fire for months and none of us in the United States felt anything change.

Think local.





Yes they did jackass. They functioned successfully, unless you know what their disfunction was, and can show it to me.

Yes.

They no longer exist.




I did'nt say that, you work toward it long term

We are fast approaching the end of 'long-term'.


So basically revolution can never happen, so basically anarchism is dead, and its better to just live outside society and not make a difference at all, right?

I don't think anyone really wants revolution. I think the leftists that talk about revolution either want reform or are content having something to fight because fighting is easier than taking the steps to stage a revolution.




So what, whats your point? Are we (I say we, but your not fighting anything so I use it loosely)

Don't try to disassociate me from the fight sweetie.

Just be honest and admit you're feeling a little guilty now.





fighting a system, or individual companies?

:laugh:

These companies are a larger part of the system than our governments are and have more power as well.



All lifestylism is is essencially liberal guilt.

Derives from possibly. What's wrong with that? We're all lifestylists.




First of all the "don't like material wealth?" ... EVERYONE LIKES MATERIAL WELATH,

I don't. I don't want three cars and a giant house. I don't need a TV. I don't need a big bed. I don't need a boat.

I don't need a car at all actually. I only need one pair of shoes and maybe several jeans and a couple shirts. "I don't mean to seem like I care about material things like a social status I just want four walls and adobe slabs for my girl" Maybe a quality bag for hiking so it does't tear.



everyone wants nice things, that has nothing to do with communism or capitalism, having things is not anti communist.

North America's over consumption of resources and material goods has been one of the more significant rallying points within the anarchist community here in North America.

If you want, I can give you several thousand links to articles and essays by some of the worlds more notable leftists on this issue.




If a poor person can afford something nice, he is'nt suddenly a class traitor is he?

Why should we lust for nice things at all?

Why are these things considered nice?


Essencailly all your "sollutions" are just lesser evilism, "lets try make capitalism nicer" sollutios.

Now you're just being silly.




Did the shoes exploit the workers?

:rolleyes:

Actually, you did.
You gave slavery a big wet sloppy kiss right on the lips.


You think under Communism without exploitation nice shoes won't be made?

It isn't the nicety of the shoes. They could make the world's worst shoes - who cares- quality is irrelevant. Its the system of labor that they're using.

I don't buy from certain companies for the same reason that I don't vote.






1. Because you have too

2. to try and change it.

'

Explain to me why you have to participate in blind over consumption in order to eliminate blind over consumption?


Are you suggesting that Anarchists are somehow more sexist than anyone else? If anything they are less so. An isolated incident does'nt erase history.

Its the same as you not realizing, up until you read this post, that consumerism and global corpratocracy is more of the problem than the word 'capitalism'.


If I didn't reply to any of your points its because they were redundant.

Also, one of the many helpful websites around-

http://www.knowmore.org/

[Bud Struggle]

Don't try to disassociate me from the fight sweetie.


Is it me or is this being sexist? I know if I said this to a woman I'd be banned or close to it.

Knock it off. This is a discussion forum not dial-a-date.

[Ele'ill]

Is it me or is this being sexist? I know if I said this to a woman I'd be banned or close to it.

Knock it off. This is a discussion forum not dial-a-date.

Or it could be that I am a female talking to a younger person as a parent would.

Keep your knee jerks to yourself. :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

Yes.

Ok, here we go, 8 hour workday, free speach rights in many countries, many many local victories (I remember in mexico a group of campasinos prevented an airport being built, various revolutions, more worker say in economic matters in many countries, ousting government officians / governments, feeding people, community projects, urban farms and so on, many worker rights, collective workplaces, workplace takeovers (significantly and specifically in argentina, when a semi revolution ended up with many factories being taken over by the workers). And I'm sure there are more.


Yes.

They no longer exist.

Why do (some of them) no longer exist, was it becaue they did'nt function or was it because (the same goddamn thing everytime I have to bring up) MILITARY FORCES MUCH MUCH MUCH LARGER AND POWERFUL DESTROYED THEM WITH GUNS.


Not my point.

Worry about what you can actually control first which in most cases is local stuff. Stop worrying about what's going on in Greece or Italy or South America.



I do, worry about local stuff, however what happens globally matters on a global scale, and I bring up those exampels to proove that its possible.


You can be in solidarity with other anarchists but thinking of the struggle as global is ridiculous. Greece was on fire for months and none of us in the United States felt anything change.

Think local

I agree, it did'nt change things in the states, but for those that it did change it for it counts. Just because it did'nt happen to you does'nt mean it did'nt happen.

Our strugge is in our communities, however other peoples struggles are just as significant and they count when discussing anarchism.


We are fast approaching the end of 'long-term'.

Well theres more long term :P


I don't think anyone really wants revolution. I think the leftists that talk about revolution either want reform or are content having something to fight because fighting is easier than taking the steps to stage a revolution.

You don't think anyone really wants revolution, well goddamn lets end the argument, because thats what you think.

"fighting is easier than taking the steps to stage a revolution"

revolution is not one day of flags and charging congress, revolution is about shifting power, in whatever way possible.


Don't try to disassociate me from the fight sweetie.


I'm sorry honey pie.


Just be honest and admit you're feeling a little guilty now.

I don't really wear things like nike or stuff like that, nor do I shop at places like walmart, however those are entirely personal desicions, akin to ones religion, and I realize that it has nothing to do with revolution, nor does it have anything to do with anarchism, nor does it make me better or on higher moral ground than anyone else. I realize it does'nt change anything.

You seam to think of yourself as some kind of hero because of it.

I'd feel just as guilty not giving money to a junkie.


These companies are a larger part of the system than our governments are and have more power as well.

Yeah I know, the reason they have the power is not because there are enough non hippies (who generally last until their mid 20s). Also wholefoods is just as much Capitalist as Vons :P. Individual companies are not the problem, the entire system is the problem, the institutions that give them the power are the problem.


Derives from possibly. What's wrong with that? We're all lifestylists.

Nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend that your lifestyle is somewhat morally superior or more revolutionary than others. Or try and paint non lifestylists as trust fund kids or whatever, because in my experience, the lifestylists come from liberal wealthy hoseholds in general with liberal guilt. Nothing wrong with that, but don't try and paint others as Blue blood liberals or whatever you were trying to do with this statement.


Which is different than kicking off your new nikes at the end of a workday at the Exxon station to chow on steak yelling at fox news because baby you're an anarchist outside of your trust fund.


I don't. I don't want three cars and a giant house. I don't need a TV. I don't need a big bed. I don't need a boat.

I don't need a car at all actually. I only need one pair of shoes and maybe several jeans and a couple shirts. "I don't mean to seem like I care about material things like a social status I just want four walls and adobe slabs for my girl" Maybe a quality bag for hiking so it does't tear.

Thats fine, but you would probably like a boat if you could get one (who would'nt), and a nice car, you'd probably enjoy fine wine (if you could get it), if you had the opportunity you would enjoy nice things, as I would. Now that does'nt mean its worth what you need to do to get it, or that its nessesary to live a good life (not at all), however they are nice, and people like them.


North America's over consumption of resources and material goods has been one of the more significant rallying points within the anarchist community here in North America.

If you want, I can give you several thousand links to articles and essays by some of the worlds more notable leftists on this issue.


Over consumption is no the same as enjoying nice things. Industry, military complex, and mega corporations are the over consumptors, not people who are able to, enjoying nice things.


Why should we lust for nice things at all?

Why are these things considered nice?

I'm not saying we should, (actually personally I live pretty minimally, don't have a lot of luxuries at all), I personally believe a simple life is better (simple is relative to what your have access to).

However, this has nothing to do with revolution, and anyone, and eveyrone, enjoys things that makes their life easier and more comfortable, and there is nothing wrong with that at all.


Now you're just being silly.

Why? Are your solutions revolutionary? Or are they just encouraging capitalism to be nice by not buying from mean ones? (clue, its the latter)


Actually, you did.
You gave slavery a big wet sloppy kiss right on the lips.

If I did'nt buy the shoes, the corporations would'nt just give the land back to the workers there and let them run their own industries. Shoes and people who wear shoes don't exploit people.

Post revolution, people will still wear shoes, maybe nike shoes created by shoe collectives.

If a company looses money, and the economy goes down, workers don't benefit.


Explain to me why you have to participate in blind over consumption in order to eliminate blind over consumption?

You don't, but consumption is'nt the issue, its power.

I have to work, to pay rent and afford groceries, and maybe a little extra if I can, is that over consumption? Also if I'm working I can try and shift the power in the workplace, you cannot.

[Ele'ill]

Ok, here we go, 8 hour workday, free speach rights in many countries, many many local victories (I remember in mexico a group of campasinos prevented an airport being built, various revolutions, more worker say in economic matters in many countries, ousting government officians / governments, feeding people, community projects, urban farms and so on, many worker rights, collective workplaces, workplace takeovers (significantly and specifically in argentina, when a semi revolution ended up with many factories being taken over by the workers). And I'm sure there are more.

This is pretty vague, RGacky3.

Also: Maybe we need to come to a common definition of successful.




Why do (some of them) no longer exist, was it becaue they did'nt function or was it because (the same goddamn thing everytime I have to bring up) MILITARY FORCES MUCH MUCH MUCH LARGER AND POWERFUL DESTROYED THEM WITH GUNS.

What good is an anarchist community that can't defend itself long enough to actually exist?




I do, worry about local stuff, however what happens globally matters on a global scale, and I bring up those exampels to proove that its possible.

You didn't bring up anything global. You brought up issues that were dealt with locally. :)

To you they are global. To the people, 'that fights', its a local struggle- which most North American anarchists DON'T get. They just don't understand. Its nothing but a movie to them and they feel they're a part of the 'cool actors on the good side'.




I agree, it did'nt change things in the states, but for those that it did change it for it counts. Just because it did'nt happen to you does'nt mean it did'nt happen.

Not a valid point.

For anything significant to happen globally- many smaller 'things' need to happen locally. There is no jumping shortcut to 'global'. What happened in Greece stays in Greece FOREVER- until its replicated in the United States or elsewhere at the same level of intensity.


Our strugge is in our communities, however other peoples struggles are just as significant and they count when discussing anarchism.

Other people's struggles- even if they're a victory- are theirs. Its a personal victory for them and their community. As for being a victory for anarchism- I think not. It is a rallying point. It is a moral booster of sorts. It is fun to get excited about other people finally obtaining what they've fought for. But that's it. It doesn't add a tally on the board for anarchism. Not until all communities are working together.






Well theres more long term :P

This is a cop-out. At what point- say three hundred years from now- does it finally become ridiculous for the left to think- well, there's still MORE long term.




You don't think anyone really wants revolution, well goddamn lets end the argument, because thats what you think.

Show it to me. Where are the people using their heads in this fight. Revolution will seperate the human beings from the pabst drinkers.




revolution is not one day of flags and charging congress, revolution is about shifting power,

Show me one day of flags and charing congress and i'll believe that the left is ready for 'shifting power'.


in whatever way possible.

Most of the people on this board hate reformists. Even if its revolutionary reform.

They hate 'lifestylists' that hate this system so much they've been homeless eating opossum and squatting for the last fifteen years.

They think worker solidarity means workers are better than.

Intolerant assholes.




I'm sorry honey pie.

Glad you understand, sugar.




I don't really wear things like nike or stuff like that, nor do I shop at places like walmart, however those are entirely personal desicions,

Its also a personal decision to be political at all. Why half ass it?




You seam to think of yourself as some kind of hero because of it.

Worker solidarity. I'm sure some of the more politically active people in the third world would give me a hug. North American absent minded consumption and acceptance is the issue that they are fighting. It isn't even in my list of top one hundred things that i've done to better this world but I do it without thinking twice.

Its not even up for discussion in my mind.

It was literally one of the first steps I took. I was eleven or twleve.








Yeah I know, the reason they have the power is not because there are enough non hippies (who generally last until their mid 20s).

This is the most irrelevant of your statements in this thread.


Also wholefoods is just as much Capitalist as Vons :P.

They're a fortune 500 company. I understand greenwashing etc.


Individual companies are not the problem, the entire system is the problem, the institutions that give them the power are the problem.

And until the WTO, IMF, WB - our government stops catering to their intentional mistreatment and corruption of the thirdworld (and first world) I will hold the CEO's and companies themselves just as accountable.

If rape were legalized i'd still kill a rapist.





Thats fine, but you would probably like a boat if you could get one (who would'nt), and a nice car, you'd probably enjoy fine wine (if you could get it), if you had the opportunity you would enjoy nice things, as I would. Now that does'nt mean its worth what you need to do to get it, or that its nessesary to live a good life (not at all), however they are nice, and people like them.

I don't like them. I am a fairly simple person.




Over consumption is no the same as enjoying nice things. Industry, military complex, and mega corporations are the over consumptors, not people who are able to, enjoying nice things.

I strongly disagree. Packaging, recycling, chemical disposal, etc.
We are obese- as a nation (North America).






However, this has nothing to do with revolution, and anyone, and eveyrone, enjoys things that makes their life easier and more comfortable, and there is nothing wrong with that at all.

When you participate in these things knowing that they are destroying the earth and the people of the earth it becomes very very wrong. Very wrong. Very.




Why? Are your solutions revolutionary? Or are they just encouraging capitalism to be nice by not buying from mean ones? (clue, its the latter)

My solution are encouraging every person on this planet to think about how their daily lives intertwine with someone thousands of miles away. How can they change locally to affect things globally?




If I did'nt buy the shoes, the corporations would'nt just give the land back to the workers there and let them run their own industries. Shoes and people who wear shoes don't exploit people.

It would bring awareness to the fact that these workers aren't allowed to unionize by threat and physical act of death. 98% of the North American population isn't aware of where their overconsumption of products is coming from or supporting- in the third world.

Paramilitary guarding and watching over first world factories on third world soil? Yep. And they get paid. Paid to buy weapons and terrorize the population. To force their politics on them to keep the cycle going.

etc etc etc Use your imagination and its happened.




Post revolution, people will still wear shoes, maybe nike shoes created by shoe collectives.

I don't hate the word Nike. I hate the company, what it does to people, and its lack of compassion.










You don't, but consumption is'nt the issue, its power.

Consumption fuels desire for power.


I have to work, to pay rent and afford groceries, and maybe a little extra if I can, is that over consumption? Also if I'm working I can try and shift the power in the workplace, you cannot.

No. Perhaps not you as you're a simple person.

I will PM you some links regarding North American consumption. You will be shocked out of your socks. :)

[RGacky3]

This is pretty vague, RGacky3.

Also: Maybe we need to come to a common definition of successful.

Successful: making things better for people, shifting power.


What good is an anarchist community that can't defend itself long enough to actually exist?

The Paris commune was attacked by a huge prussian army, the Ukraine free territtory against the Soviet army, the Spanish anarchist communties by the fascists, and communist/republicans (and the Spanish Anarchists held out supprisingly well).

Anarchist communities don't defend themselves anyless than non Anarchist communities. The enemies were huge.


You didn't bring up anything global. You brought up issues that were dealt with locally. :)

To you they are global. To the people, 'that fights', its a local struggle- which most North American anarchists DON'T get. They just don't understand. Its nothing but a movie to them and they feel they're a part of the 'cool actors on the good side'.

What are you talking about, how is it relevant, of coarse its local to the poeple involved, I never suggested otherwise. Whats your point.


For anything significant to happen globally- many smaller 'things' need to happen locally. There is no jumping shortcut to 'global'. What happened in Greece stays in Greece FOREVER- until its replicated in the United States or elsewhere at the same level of intensity.

Again, I fail to see what your talking about here, or how its relevant, you seam to forgot why we brought up the whole local/global thing in the first place.


As for being a victory for anarchism- I think not. It is a rallying point. It is a moral booster of sorts. It is fun to get excited about other people finally obtaining what they've fought for. But that's it. It doesn't add a tally on the board for anarchism. Not until all communities are working together.


Well if the doomsday things people say will happen in anarchism don't happen, then its a victory for anarchism.


This is a cop-out. At what point- say three hundred years from now- does it finally become ridiculous for the left to think- well, there's still MORE long term.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI


Show me one day of flags and charing congress and i'll believe that the left is ready for 'shifting power'.


You don't understand my point, power HAS shifted, the ruling class cannot get away with what it used to get away with, the government is more answerable to the people now, this is because of small revolutions forcing power to shift.


Most of the people on this board hate reformists. Even if its revolutionary reform.

a strike victory is in a way "reform" but also revolution, they hate reformists who believe that we can just sweet talk the bourgeouis.


They hate 'lifestylists' that hate this system so much they've been homeless eating opossum and squatting for the last fifteen years.

No one hates lifestylists, they just don't think it has anything to do with revolution and is really just a dumb waste of time.


They think worker solidarity means workers are better than.

better than what?


Its also a personal decision to be political at all. Why half ass it?


because one coarse of action makes sense, the other does'nt.


Worker solidarity. I'm sure some of the more politically active people in the third world would give me a hug. North American absent minded consumption and acceptance is the issue that they are fighting. It isn't even in my list of top one hundred things that i've done to better this world but I do it without thinking twice.

I don't know of any revolutionary group in the third world whols goal is to stop north americans from eating nice food nad living in structures, or who actually think that THAT is the problem.

No I'm sure they'll think your retarded for being a pointless myrtre, that is if you consider your lifestyle something revolutionary.


This is the most irrelevant of your statements in this thread.

Its very relevant, it shows that consumption is NOT WHAT GIVES THE RULING CLASS POWER.


I don't like them. I am a fairly simple person.


Thats fine, but that has nothing to do with anarchism, thats just because you don't like boats and/or wine.


I strongly disagree. Packaging, recycling, chemical disposal, etc.
We are obese- as a nation (North America).

There ar emany factors contributing to America being obese (north america is'nt a nation),, lack of excersise, packaged processed food and so on. Also, like I said, its not individuals making the most polution, and consuming the most, its industry, if you'd like to challenge that you may.


When you participate in these things knowing that they are destroying the earth and the people of the earth it becomes very very wrong. Very wrong. Very.


Boats and wine don't destroy the earth or the people of the earth.


My solution are encouraging every person on this planet to think about how their daily lives intertwine with someone thousands of miles away. How can they change locally to affect things globally?


Yeah, and eating opposoms and living in abandonded buildings change things locally and affects globally right?


It would bring awareness to the fact that these workers aren't allowed to unionize by threat and physical act of death. 98% of the North American population isn't aware of where their overconsumption of products is coming from or supporting- in the third world.

Paramilitary guarding and watching over first world factories on third world soil? Yep. And they get paid. Paid to buy weapons and terrorize the population. To force their politics on them to keep the cycle going.

etc etc etc Use your imagination and its happened.

I am aware that that does happen.


I don't hate the word Nike. I hate the company, what it does to people, and its lack of compassion.

Its a company, companies don't have compassion, they have stock holders.


Consumption fuels desire for power.

How? I've never eaten a nice steak dinner with fine red wine, and enjoyed a boat ride and though "I gotta take over shit" consumption does'nt fuel power, power fuels power.


No. Perhaps not you as you're a simple person.

I will PM you some links regarding North American consumption. You will be shocked out of your socks.

I'll take a look at it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Remember, towards the end of his life Tucker was an egoist, in the tradition of Max Stirner. He did not believe in private property, he believed that you could use and occupy anything you could defend from aggression. So you don't have any rights to owning your house or your backyard - if the militia down the street with AK-47's can capture it, it's theirs.

That's a statement of fact, not a testament of Tucker's personal ethics.

[Nwoye]

That's a statement of fact, not a testament of Tucker's personal ethics.
I'm not all that familiar with Tucker's philosophy, so I'm not sure if his egoist tendencies were born out of the belief that that's the only way it could work, or the belief that it was a just and fair system. Either way it's worth noting how he felt about property.

[Jack]

personally, that's how i always viewed anarchism in general. i think a genuinely anarchist movement would have to tolerate differing ideologies, or it would cease to be anarchist. for example, if an anarcho-communist community went around violently seizing private property, then how are they not a state?

but yes i agree with you, and i think tolerance of other tendencies (collectivists allowing mutualists to exist, etc) is integral for a genuine anarchist movement.

THe property of the bourgeoise must be expropriated, or anarchism cannot exist. So yes, private property is to be seized and redistrobuted and collectivised.

How is an anarchist movement supposed to have a clear cut goal if we allow people who don't agree with us in? You can't have one person who wants property work with another who forsakes it, the only common goal is the abolition of the state, nothing else.

[Ele'ill]

Successful: making things better for people, shifting power.

Specific examples of actions that have made life better for people.




The Paris commune was attacked by a huge prussian army, the Ukraine free territtory against the Soviet army, the Spanish anarchist communties by the fascists, and communist/republicans (and the Spanish Anarchists held out supprisingly well).

Maybe direct confrontation wasn't a good idea. Maybe they chose anarchism as a way out of an already violent time without the goal of keeping it established. Perhaps they should have chosen a better strategy. Regardless, they aren't here with us now because they failed as a community.

Don't create a society on the basis that people outside of the community will be nice.


Anarchist communities don't defend themselves anyless than non Anarchist communities. The enemies were huge.


Bad time to make yourself a target, eh? :)




What are you talking about, how is it relevant, of coarse its local to the poeple involved, I never suggested otherwise. Whats your point.

You said it was global. It is not global. It is local.

The example of Greece and etc.






You don't understand my point, power HAS shifted, the ruling class cannot get away with what it used to get away with,

They absolutely can and are- still getting away with literal murder.


the government is more answerable to the people now, this is because of small revolutions forcing power to shift.

Which is useless when the people eat up the bullshit PR answers that are flung at them nightly.

If anything, the state has become more militarized. Our current police units are trained and outfitted as a military infantry unit would be.







a strike victory is in a way "reform" but also revolution, they hate reformists who believe that we can just sweet talk the bourgeouis.

If someone's idea of reform is to sweet talk someone else then they're not a reformist.







because one coarse of action makes sense, the other does'nt.

:rolleyes:




I don't know of any revolutionary group in the third world whols goal is to stop north americans from eating nice food nad living in structures, or who actually think that THAT is the problem.


The problem is over consumption of every natural resource including water land etc. and their land grabbing or literal country grabbing policies.

You've mentioned the EZLN several times. Have you not read or watched anything relating to Mexico - American relations?





No I'm sure they'll think your retarded for being a pointless myrtre, that is if you consider your lifestyle something revolutionary.

I think that passionately loathing the policies of corporations and the entire system that supports them (run by men and women and fueled by people that either don't care or don't know)

and then supporting these companies by giving them my money for a product that was made by someone who didn't have much of a choice to live a horrible life- is fucking sickening.






Its very relevant, it shows that consumption is NOT WHAT GIVES THE RULING CLASS POWER.

The current ruling class's power is money. Through a myriad of twists and turns much of the media and corporations and politicians are working together to make sure nobody takes their money flow from them. They get this money by exploiting workers- destroying the environment- killing people- supporting violent military dictatorships so on and so forth.

Until the revolution- I won't be supporting the cock suckers. :thumbup1:

Come time to get things done you'll find yourself slapped with a domestic battery charge seeing how you spent so much of your time in bed with the fuckers before things got ugly.





There ar emany factors contributing to America being obese (north america is'nt a nation),,

I am aware. :lol:


lack of excersise, packaged processed food and so on. Also, like I said, its not individuals making the most polution, and consuming the most, its industry, if you'd like to challenge that you may.

I didn't mean the individuals being obese. Although that could be made a valid point in due time. I was refering to the actual nation.




Boats and wine don't destroy the earth or the people of the earth.

Never said they did.




Yeah, and eating opposoms and living in abandonded buildings change things locally and affects globally right?

Not my point at all here.

Its more of a sacrifice than anything. They believe so strongly about something that while they're involved elsewhere engaged in organizations that are making a change, they will squat and live off the land.




I am aware that that does happen.

Well thank god :lol:

And?




Its a company, companies don't have compassion, they have stock holders.

They have directives being passed down from the top by people. The companies are run by people making decisions to exploit other people.




How? I've never eaten a nice steak dinner with fine red wine, and enjoyed a boat ride and though "I gotta take over shit" consumption does'nt fuel power, power fuels power.

Money fuels power. Once people realize that they can exploit other people for money- they quickly(very quickly, like seconds) realize they can use money for power.

Multinational corporations have power over foriegn governments because of the money involved. They get these large sums of money by convincing Americans- as an example- that they should buy their products because being cool is more important than community. Overconsumption of every product being manufactured.






I'll take a look at it.

Will do. Give me a couple days-


Lets not have another bloated post.

Start cutting stuff out. Otherwise each post is going to be a thread page long.

[Nwoye]

THe property of the bourgeoise must be expropriated, or anarchism cannot exist. So yes, private property is to be seized and redistrobuted and collectivised.
well how does that not make you a state? going around enforcing your view of property on others (legitimate or not) is an essential characteristic of states.


How is an anarchist movement supposed to have a clear cut goal if we allow people who don't agree with us in? You can't have one person who wants property work with another who forsakes it, the only common goal is the abolition of the state, nothing else.
there's going to be disagreement among the movement. shit look back at past revolutionary movements and the amount of differences between its participants (the russian revolution, hello?). chances are, there are going to be people in your community who want markets or who want private defense or something.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In order to understand mutualism and individualist anarchism, you really have to understand the conditions in which it developed, in my opinion. While mutualism and IA did have some minor sway in some anarchist circles in Europe (Proudhon and his influence on the French CGT and syndicalism in France in general in the first case, and the influence of "Stirnerites" in Russia in the second case), both philosophies had most of their influence in the United States. The U.S. never really developed a strong, united labour movement as did other nations, even though the workers in the U.S. were trenchantly militant, and this combined with the unique individualist "frontier" philosophy that developed here certainly colored the anarchist movement, I think.

And not just from the individualist anarchists, either; you can see the same kinds of arguments regarding the individual's rights against the collective coming from people like Emma Goldman, as well. I still find some of the IA analysis useful, and a good number of them were activists in regards to social issues such as the abolitionist movement, the developing labour movement, feminism and free love.

[RGacky3]

Specific examples of actions that have made life better for people.

the IWW lumberjacks direct action for the 8 hour workday. Mass protests in the 60s which now make it much harder for the United States to go to war, and prevent them from taking back the draft, pretty much every successfull syndicalist strike in history.

Most of it is local victories, some of it is by nation, in the sense that the nation now has to be more careful.

The Sacco and Vinceti case and the after math also made persicution of people for their beliefs much harder in the US.


Maybe direct confrontation wasn't a good idea. Maybe they chose anarchism as a way out of an already violent time without the goal of keeping it established. Perhaps they should have chosen a better strategy. Regardless, they aren't here with us now because they failed as a community.

Don't create a society on the basis that people outside of the community will be nice.

If someone shoots your baby, did you fail as a mother?

They did'nt do direct confrontation they were confronted. What strategy? They were invaded by the prussian army (at that time exreamly powerful).

Maybe, you have no idea what your talking about.


Bad time to make yourself a target, eh?

So if its risky you should'nt do it right? If it requires some sacrifice. It was risky to run away from a plantation as a slave too.


You said it was global. It is not global. It is local.

The example of Greece and etc.

When I said it was global I ment you can't discound things happening in different locals dumnass.


They absolutely can and are- still getting away with literal murder.

The Capitalist class in the united states used to be able to pretty much openly and physically attack and many times kill strikers. Its not so easy anymore.

Theress a reason why labor laws were put into place. Its not because the rulling class had a change of heart.


Which is useless when the people eat up the bullshit PR answers that are flung at them nightly.

If anything, the state has become more militarized. Our current police units are trained and outfitted as a military infantry unit would be.

All right, so do you believe that the US government and ruling class can get away with what they could have 100 years ago?


The problem is over consumption of every natural resource including water land etc. and their land grabbing or literal country grabbing policies.

You've mentioned the EZLN several times. Have you not read or watched anything relating to Mexico - American relations?

The EZLN is autonomous from mexico.

the land grabbing and resource grabbing is'nt done to feet Americas fat ass, its control and power.


Come time to get things done you'll find yourself slapped with a domestic battery charge seeing how you spent so much of your time in bed with the fuckers before things got ugly.

And I guess every single worker that buys things will too.


The current ruling class's power is money. Through a myriad of twists and turns much of the media and corporations and politicians are working together to make sure nobody takes their money flow from them. They get this money by exploiting workers- destroying the environment- killing people- supporting violent military dictatorships so on and so forth.

Capitalism is Capitalism, we live in a Capitalist society. You can not support them if you want, but its just symbolic, they still control everything, and you rsacrificing for no reason.


Never said they did.

Then why are you arguing against nice things?


Its more of a sacrifice than anything. They believe so strongly about something that while they're involved elsewhere engaged in organizations that are making a change, they will squat and live off the land.

ITs a pointless sacrifice, you can do it if you want, if it makes you feel better about yourself, but its pointless.

Like people who pick paper over plastic in order to "save the planet".


They have directives being passed down from the top by people. The companies are run by people making decisions to exploit other people.


Corporate leaders don't exploit people because they are just evil dickheads, its because they have to make a profit for their stockholders. Its not about good vrs bad, its Capitalism.


Money fuels power. Once people realize that they can exploit other people for money- they quickly(very quickly, like seconds) realize they can use money for power.

Multinational corporations have power over foriegn governments because of the money involved. They get these large sums of money by convincing Americans- as an example- that they should buy their products because being cool is more important than community. Overconsumption of every product being manufactured.

If enough people dumpster dived I guarantee you the Capitalists would privatise dumbster diving.


Start cutting stuff out. Otherwise each post is going to be a thread page long.

Damn, you should have started your post with that :P

[Ele'ill]

Mass protests in the 60s which now make it much harder for the United States to go to war,

How?
Why didn't it work with the latest several wars and mini wars?


and prevent them from taking back the draft,


Don't dare make the population work for someone else's riches or else they might catch on- in between sessions of halo.
The fat and happy people would resist too.

I tend to think they don't want their supporters going to war. They could give a shit about the anarchists and other 'radical' leftists.




pretty much every successfull syndicalist strike in history.


Again, examples.



If someone shoots your baby, did you fail as a mother?

Did you challenge them knowing of a threat to your baby? Did you take proper precautions?

Their communities are no longer existing because they chose to create their communities in a time when there were angry and much larger opposing forces watching. This isn't brave its stupid and pure ego feed.


They did'nt do direct confrontation they were confronted.

And they didn't expect this?

What horrible planning :mad:



What strategy?

Lets!-Go!-De-fense! :thumbup1:





So if its risky you should'nt do it right?

Are you opting for the path of Martyr or continued existence- and I think that the word usage of "risky" is a bit down played here.







If it requires some sacrifice. It was risky to run away from a plantation as a slave too.

Then you've essentially flip flopped on your stance of sacrifice.

What of squatters? Assuming they're still participating in other actions.






When I said it was global I ment you can't discound things happening in different locals dumnass.

You can not consider victories that take place elsewhere to be global victories. What have you won at a local level? Nothing? Fail.




The Capitalist class in the united states used to be able to pretty much openly and physically attack and many times kill strikers. Its not so easy anymore.

Its not as easy for strikers to strike and its not as easy for those strikes to actually mean anything. Fucking patsies.


Theress a reason why labor laws were put into place. Its not because the rulling class had a change of heart.

The ruling class realized that the laws were easy to manipulate. There are plenty of loop holes to negate even the strongest law.




All right, so do you believe that the US government and ruling class can get away with what they could have 100 years ago?

I believe that they are still getting away with the same type of things. Both sides evolve.




The EZLN is autonomous from mexico.

And how are they doing these days?


the land grabbing and resource grabbing is'nt done to feet Americas fat ass, its control and power.

You will learn as you get older and a little more knowledgeable that the control and power comes from feeding Americans stuff. Supply - Demand.




And I guess every single worker that buys things will too.

Only the ones that were fuckin enemy generals.

Not every company is a bad company.






Capitalism is Capitalism, we live in a Capitalist society. You can not support them if you want, but its just symbolic, they still control everything, and you rsacrificing for no reason.

Capitalism can also support companies that chose not to violate worker's rights on epic proportions and chose to run their companies in a sustainable manner. I support these guys and gals. :thumbup:

I know that my money is not going towards something I disagree with.

Would you give money to a rapist or a slow sensual lover that took care of their mate?




Then why are you arguing against nice things?

The over consumption of these things causes more problems than the over consumption of hay for your strawmen.




Like people who pick paper over plastic in order to "save the planet".

They live their lives on the most basic levels as revolutionaries. Because they are revolutionaries.

:thumbup1:






Corporate leaders don't exploit people because they are just evil dickheads, its because they have to make a profit for their stockholders.

The profit gained from over consumption fuels exploitation. The policies and loopholes that allow exploitation are created by people. Corporate leaders at every level.




Its not about good vrs bad, its Capitalism.

Pros and Cons.




If enough people dumpster dived I guarantee you the Capitalists would privatise dumbster diving.

The stuff is available inside of the store....




Damn, you should have started your post with that :P

I tried to cut a lot of stuff that was already mentioned in several other threads.

[RGacky3]

I tend to think they don't want their supporters going to war. They could give a shit about the anarchists and other 'radical' leftists.


I think the mass resistane to the draft also had an effect. But I'm not in the governments mind.


Again, examples.

Do you want me to actually list successfull strikes? First tell me that you believe that there was'nt a successfull strike that benefited workers and gave them more say, then I'll look up a bunch.


Their communities are no longer existing because they chose to create their communities in a time when there were angry and much larger opposing forces watching. This isn't brave its stupid and pure ego feed.

The fascists came after the Anarchist revolution in Spain, in Paris the prussians came from far away. the Russian revolution was in russia, the anarchists were in ukraine, the Russians invaded ukraine.

It was'nt an ego feed, it was people trying to take control of their communities, and for you to berate them like that is very chauvinistic.


And they didn't expect this?

What horrible planning

Lets!-Go!-De-fense!

Are you opting for the path of Martyr or continued existence- and I think that the word usage of "risky" is a bit down played here.


First of all, Anarchist spain DID expect to be attacked by the fascists, and they held out extreamly well, sometimes better than the republicans, but later on the republicans turned on them.

I doubt the Paris commune expected to be invaded by the prussians, that would be like the Zapatistas being invaded by Columbia. the Zapatistas did prepare (but you don't count that because you think no one cares about that). Ukrain happened during a revolution, where the bolsheviks actually were supposed to be on their side, so I don't know if they expected to be backstabbed.

Then again, at what point do you think it would be safe to have a revolution?

Oaxacca reacently revolted, it was put down, it failed. The govoner is still in office, and most of the APPO liberated areas have been retaken by the state. However I can tell you this much, from now on the govoner is going to think twice before he messes with the Oaxacan people and workers. Also now the APPO, and the popular assemballies now have to be recognized by the government as a force, the government now has to actually deal with the people.

So even failures have a degree of success.


Then you've essentially flip flopped on your stance of sacrifice.

What of squatters? Assuming they're still participating in other actions.

No I'm all for sacrifice if it means something, in the past I've lost a job due to organizing.

As for squatting, thats fine, too tell you the truth I don't hold things against people who don't sacrifice (why should they), if squatters participate in other actions that help then thats wonderful, if they don't thats fine too.

To me squatting is just another lifestyle, not a revolutionary sacrifice.



You can not consider victories that take place elsewhere to be global victories. What have you won at a local level? Nothing? Fail.

I consider them other peoples local victories, and I appluad them and I can point to them as examples, I never claimed they were global. Agian, now your just arguing semantics. So lets leave that one alone.


Its not as easy for strikers to strike and its not as easy for those strikes to actually mean anything. Fucking patsies.


Its more likely for a strike to have significance than it is for a few people squatting.


I believe that they are still getting away with the same type of things. Both sides evolve.

Well, I'll tell you this much, no they arn't, 8 hour workday, unions cannot be violently suppressed (they can be in other ways, but its not as easy), no child labor, and so on.

Are they still being oppressed? Yes, have unions helped things get better? Yes as well.


And how are they doing these days?

Fine.


Capitalism can also support companies that chose not to violate worker's rights on epic proportions and chose to run their companies in a sustainable manner. I support these guys and gals. :thumbup:

I know that my money is not going towards something I disagree with.

Would you give money to a rapist or a slow sensual lover that took care of their mate?

I would'nt give money to either :P, Anyway, I can't argue that some companies run their companies more sustainably, however capitalism is capitalism, and I'd rather lessen the power of the dictator, than just support the nicer dictator.


You will learn as you get older and a little more knowledgeable that the control and power comes from feeding Americans stuff. Supply - Demand.

Well, right now, the vast majority of people arn't goarging so much (they can't afford it), who still controls the capital and resources? yeah, the capitalst.

[Ele'ill]

The fascists came after the Anarchist revolution in Spain, in Paris the prussians came from far away. the Russian revolution was in russia, the anarchists were in ukraine, the Russians invaded ukraine.

It was'nt an ego feed, it was people trying to take control of their communities, and for you to berate them like that is very chauvinistic.



Main Entry: chau·vin·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈshō-və-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
Date: 1851

1 : excessive or blind patriotism — compare jingoism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jingoism)
2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3 : an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude






I don't understand how this word fits. (because it doesn't)





People in dire need of survival shouldn't chose a radical ideology.








Then again, at what point do you think it would be safe to have a revolution?

When a larger portion of the population feels the same.




So even failures have a degree of success.

You hopefully learn to not do it like that again. :rolleyes:




To me squatting is just another lifestyle, not a revolutionary sacrifice.

I would put squatting in the same category as you loosing your job for organizing- if you feel that where ever you are working you need to organize. It doesn't come second- It just is.

It is revolutionary because revolutions start at the most basic level.









Its more likely for a strike to have significance than it is for a few people squatting.

Not necessarily true and it greatly depends on the goals of both.




Well, I'll tell you this much, no they arn't, 8 hour workday, unions cannot be violently suppressed (they can be in other ways, but its not as easy), no child labor, and so on.

Are they still being oppressed? Yes, have unions helped things get better? Yes as well.

Unions are not what they once were. They have become ineffective centralized behemoths falling horribly short of a very achievable goal which is international solidarity.




Fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation




I would'nt give money to either :P, Anyway, I can't argue that some companies run their companies more sustainably, however capitalism is capitalism, and I'd rather lessen the power of the dictator, than just support the nicer dictator.

Its either sustainable or its not. I don't support 'sort of sustainable' and I don't support 'not sustainable at all'.




Well, right now, the vast majority of people arn't goarging so much (they can't afford it), who still controls the capital and resources? yeah, the capitalst.

If the consumption was three times as much as it should have been in successful economic times then its twice as much as it should be now.

With companies resorting to all kinds of stupid shit to make even more money.