Anarcho-Communism is illogical [Archive]

syndicat

10th March 2010, 05:48

""But if not one, of the thousands of groups of our federation, will receive you, whatever be their motive; if you are absolutely incapable of producing anything useful, or if you refuse to do it, then live like an isolated man....That is what could be done in a communal society in order to turn away sluggards if they become too numerous."" - The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin

Since the means of production have already been socialized this appears to amount to, "work or starve" which is certainly just as repugnant as the capitalist system, correct?

No. In capitalism a person can live off others simply by owning productive assets needed by society to produce goods and services for each other, such as owning land or factories or whatever. That is authoritarian parasitism. It is authoritarian, and not just parasitic, because the capitalist uses ownership of the means of production to dominate and control others. Private profit is only possible because of this domination.

If a person is an able-bodied adult but refuses to work, they are demanding, in effect, that others be their servants, they are demanding a right to be a social parasite. Why get rid of the capitalist parasites and still allow parasitism?

The Rothbard article makes a number of silly or just plain wrong statements. For example, the statement that anarchists in Spain in 1936 threatened people with death for trying to use money is absurd. Abolition of money occurred in only a few villages and there wasn't a consensus on the wisdom of doing that among the Spanish social anarchists themselves at that time.

Zanthorus

10th March 2010, 12:17

There has been much conversation and debate about anarcho-capitalism lately, so i decided that we should talk about the other anarcho.

What "other" anarcho? As has been pointed out to you thousands of times "anarcho"-capitalism is a totally ahistorical ideology and Rothbard himself did not consider himself an anarchist before he suddenly did a 180 and decided that he could unsourced claims his way to anarchism.

Murray Rothbard

From this alone I can tell things are going to get bad.

The Death Wish of Anacho-Communism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html)

Marxism-Stalinism

From what little I know about the new left the authoritarian wing was mostly full of Maoists. Also what on earth is "Marxism-Stalinism"? Most "stalinists" self-identify as "Marxist-Leninists".

Anarcho-communism...and its current irrationalist

This is an unsupported assertion. If he thinks that anarcho-communism in general is "irrational" he needs to provide reasoning for it rather than just asserting it. If he's referring to lifestylism/primitivism then he needs to read some Bookchin.

is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.

Now remind me again, who was the first person to call themselves a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque&oldid=329814692)?

the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.

They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.

Rothbard needs to give himself a history lesson. In britain there used to be commons land which the peasants would use to provide for themselves. Of course this was horrifying to the sycophants of "private property" so they used state force to privatise the commons and sell it off to wealthy landowners.

Not to mention all the other laws passed by states in the past in order to defend the "right" of private property.

Just a random thought - you know how some people say that libertarianism is fascism because in libertarianism the state only intervenes to protect private property? In that case anarcho-capitalism is some kind of super-fascism because the corporations themselves are the ones protecting private property with their privately owned armies.

Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property

Yeah, from this it does not follow that we reject...

material affluence

...this, since the "material affluence" of the free-market exists only for the bourgeoisie. Furthermore this...

anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."

...is a strawman. Anarcho-communism is a revolutionary libertarian creed and has nothing to do with Rothbard's attempt at crude leftist stereotypes.

The anti-rational spirit of anarcho-communism was expressed by Norman 0. Brown,

Actually Brown was a supporter of Henry Wallace's progressive party so even if he was an anarcho-communist he wasn't a very consistent one. However I can't find anything anywhere to suggest that Wallace was an anarcho-communist apart from the fact that his thinking expressed marxist tendencies which isn't really convincing.

I can't be bothered to keep going with this but Rothbard's "critique" of anarcho-communism is a totally and utterly worthless strawman that most of the time seems to be conflating anarcho-communism with primitivism.

Zanthorus

10th March 2010, 15:26

So, "Comrade" (It would take a mutual enemy capable of destroying humanity to warrant me calling you that) "anarchist" (Sure, if you subscribe to such revisionism of history) I heard you like Anarchy. So I got you some quotes from the classical anarchists to show how "anarcho"-capitalism is better called "private-state"-capitalism:

The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.

- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/state/state_1.html

The State is, as I have said, a voracious abstraction of the life of the people; but in order for an abstraction to come into being, develop and continue to exist in the real world, there must be a real collective body interested in its existence. This cannot be the great mass of the people, since they are precisely its victims; it must be a privileged body, the sacerdotal body of the State, the governing and political class that is to the State what the sacerdotal class of religion, the priesthood, is to the Church.

And what do we really see in all of history? The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class, whether sacerdotal, noble, or bourgeois, and, in the end, when all the other classes have been used up, of a bureaucratic class. The State descends or rises up, depending upon how you look at it, into the condition of a machine. It is absolutely necessary for its welfare that there be some privileged class interested in its existence.

- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program-letters.htm

The State is the external constitution of the social power.

By this external constitution of its power and sovereignty, the people does not govern itself; now one individual, now several, by a title either elective or hereditary, are charged with governing it, with managing its affairs, with negotiating and compromising in its name; in a word, with performing all the acts of a father of a family, a guardian, a manager, or a proxy, furnished with a general, absolute, and irrevocable power of attorney.

- http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/resistance-to-the-revolution

So according to the classical anarchists (and by proxy most modern anarcho-communists) the state is an external body over society that exists for the interests of a privileged minority. Sounds kinda similar to your corporation controlled private defence forces eh?

Propertarian "anarchism" in eschewing democracy as "tyranny of the majority" subsequently reconstitutes the state in a new more vicious form since anarchism is simply the logical extension of the democratic principles. Now if you want to argue for private-state-capitalism fine. Then call it what it is or use another word (Like Panarchism or Voluntaryism).

anticap

10th March 2010, 15:35

So-called "anarchist-capitalism" [sic] is a literal oxymoron, which translates to "anti-capitalist-capitalism."

Skooma Addict

10th March 2010, 21:07

So-called "anarchist-capitalism" [sic] is a literal oxymoron, which translates to "anti-capitalist-capitalism."

That would depend on your definition of capitalism. Under my definition, all that is required is a functioning market, and this can can be provided by private courts which enforce contracts and property law. No government is required. There can be free-market communities and communist communities which exist side by side.

Aesop

10th March 2010, 21:26

That would depend on your definition of capitalism. Under my definition, all that is required is a functioning market, and this can can be provided by private courts which enforce contracts and property law. No government is required. There can be free-market communities and communist communities which exist side by side.

Here we have another one equating capitalism with the mythical free market.*sigh*

The Ben G

10th March 2010, 21:40

Comrade Anarchist, Can you just stop?

Old Man Diogenes

10th March 2010, 22:24

"At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap."

Firstly, "From the naturalistic point of view, all men are equal. There are only two exceptions to this rule of naturalistic equality: geniuses and idiots." - Mikhail Bakunin
Fuck you Rothbard.

I don't think any Anarchist has ever denied that some are smarter than others, in fact the encourage the develop of people to the fullest of their potential, in whatever area in which they have aptitude, it is capitalism that tries to fit the square peg in the round hole.

I have a friend who argues like Rothbard does in this article, he just makes statements, and when I ask for proof, he just makes more statements.

And on the issue of individuality, I find it funny that these anarcho-capitalists (or whatever) go on about individuality when their chief hobby is teabagging Rand or Rothbard or some other so called 'an-cap'.

IcarusAngel

10th March 2010, 23:06

I have a friend who argues like Rothbard does in this article, he just makes statements, and when I ask for proof, he just makes more statements.

He probably gets that from Misean economics. They seem to hate backing up their claims.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

10th March 2010, 23:54

Murray Rothbard has an excellent -

I stopped reading here.

Comrade Anarchist

11th March 2010, 16:01

danyboy27

11th March 2010, 17:41

Anarcho Communism is plain stupid. It is nothing more than a dream. An ancom society would be a farmer society more than likely and would have about as much freedom as you neighbor would allow you to have. Everyone *****es that ancaps want the creation of a new state, which we dont. But under ancom that is exactly what would happen. The state of the people. The state would consist of everybody. Direct democracy would be how this state functions and it would allow for much more vast and destructive form of mob rule. If i wanted to live outside the commune i would die b/c you would confiscate my property and livelihood for the commune. Anarcho-communism is a reactionary theory to marxism. People saw that marxism was too authoritative and the state as long as it existed would wrong people. But they like communism so much that had to bundle it up and create this still born defect ridden crap. An ancom society would be like the soviet union but instead of an oligarchy or single despot there would be roughly 6 billion despots each trying to short each other. And that number would shrink b/c of the lack of good workers b/c of according to one's ability according to ones need, would kill them all or they would take advantage and become super needy.
i dont know much about anarcho-communism, but i think you greatly understimate the capabilities for human to organize stuff together and to adapt themselves to news conditions given to them.

Anarcho-capitalism is possible too, it would be a world where we would all be slaves of buisness and industries, a complete dystopia where individual would be either slaveholder, or slave.

the Tyrannical power of the state transfered to private buisness, cartel and other all powerful organisation.

Personally, i dont seek to transfers tyranny, i want to get rid of it.

Anarcho-capitalism is convenients for those who have the material condition to exploit it, for the rest, fuck off and work another 50 hour, and if you dont like that, good luck finding another buisness that allow you to barely pay the rent that your landlord decided to increase of 50% last year so he could have his new car.

syndicat

11th March 2010, 17:41

Markets have existed for thousands of years, in various types of social system. That is not sufficient to define capitalism. Capitalism doesn't exist unless you have a large class of propertyless people who are forced to work for the capital-owners in order to live. They are forced because they face starvation or other dire consequences if they can't find a job to get wages, so as to be able to purchase what they need. So you're leaving out the fact that capitalism is a system of class domination and exploitation.

Old Man Diogenes

11th March 2010, 20:49

An ancom society would be a farmer society more than likely

One, no it wouldn't, please just go read something not by Rothbard. And wouldn't anarcho-capitalism be some new form of fuedal society?

would have about as much freedom as you neighbor would allow you to have.

What's bad about equal freedom. Equal freedom does not mean equal slavery, it means a society where everyone has the maximum amount of freedom available. It doesn't mean that your neighbour has the freedom to choose how free you are, as, it's equal freedom your neighbour will be entitled to as much as you are, to curtail his freedoms would be to curtail his own.

RGacky3

11th March 2010, 22:25

Anarcho Communism is plain stupid. It is nothing more than a dream. An ancom society would be a farmer society more than likely and would have about as much freedom as you neighbor would allow you to have. Everyone *****es that ancaps want the creation of a new state, which we dont. But under ancom that is exactly what would happen. The state of the people. The state would consist of everybody. Direct democracy would be how this state functions and it would allow for much more vast and destructive form of mob rule. If i wanted to live outside the commune i would die b/c you would confiscate my property and livelihood for the commune. Anarcho-communism is a reactionary theory to marxism. People saw that marxism was too authoritative and the state as long as it existed would wrong people. But they like communism so much that had to bundle it up and create this still born defect ridden crap. An ancom society would be like the soviet union but instead of an oligarchy or single despot there would be roughly 6 billion despots each trying to short each other. And that number would shrink b/c of the lack of good workers b/c of according to one's ability according to ones need, would kill them all or they would take advantage and become super needy.

6 billion despots each tryint to short each other? But Anarcho-Capitalism would be better, because, it would be ... a couple thousand despots succeding in shorting everyone else, thats less despots, definately better.

As far as confiscating property, what part of no property laws do you not understand, no PRIVATE property laws, no COMMUNAL porperty laws, so if your doing your own thing and not bothering anyone and not restricting anyone from anything then no ones gonna bother you,

I understand you don't want to ever share anything with anyone, so under a real anarchist society you are free to leave and be Boss of your own kingdom, you can have a pet dog and tell him what to do, and restrict him from peeing on your "property" with out paying rent (maybe he has to sit), and no freebees either, to get his buiscuts he has to play catch.

But if your sitting around something that other people need, like say, a river, or farmland, and your saying "THIS IS MINE, THIS IS MY PROPERTY, PISS OFF" No, either you cooperate with the rest, or you can piss off, now you can yell all you want, but no, you can't be a king just because you say so.

I've heard the homesteding garbage before so spare me, there is no logic behind it.

Might there be problems with direct democracy? maybe, its possible (most of hte problems are outlandish rediculous shit), but whatever problems there might be are much better than the definate despotism of Total Capitalism.

Skooma Addict

11th March 2010, 22:37

6 billion despots each tryint to short each other? But Anarcho-Capitalism would be better, because, it would be ... a couple thousand despots succeding in shorting everyone else, thats less despots, definately better.

As far as confiscating property, what part of no property laws do you not understand, no PRIVATE property laws, no COMMUNAL porperty laws, so if your doing your own thing and not bothering anyone and not restricting anyone from anything then no ones gonna bother you,

I understand you don't want to ever share anything with anyone, so under a real anarchist society you are free to leave and be Boss of your own kingdom, you can have a pet dog and tell him what to do, and restrict him from peeing on your "property" with out paying rent (maybe he has to sit), and no freebees either, to get his buiscuts he has to play catch.

But if your sitting around something that other people need, like say, a river, or farmland, and your saying "THIS IS MINE, THIS IS MY PROPERTY, PISS OFF" No, either you cooperate with the rest, or you can piss off, now you can yell all you want, but no, you can't be a king just because you say so.

I've heard the homesteding garbage before so spare me, there is no logic behind it.

Might there be problems with direct democracy? maybe, its possible (most of hte problems are outlandish rediculous shit), but whatever problems there might be are much better than the definate despotism of Total Capitalism.

The only fair way to do it is to allow both forms of communities coexist. If the state disappears, and one community forms anarcho-communist commune, and another forms a community based on private property, then the two should be allowed to remain that way and coexist.

danyboy27

11th March 2010, 23:31

los.barbaros.ganan

12th March 2010, 00:30

''Comrade'' anarchist is a clown,

Since we live under capitalism and the rules won't apply for the rich, we live already in some kind of capitalist-anarchy.

Skooma Addict

12th March 2010, 00:42

its gonna end up with 1 side capping the other one.

I don't see why that would be the case.

los.barbaros.ganan

12th March 2010, 00:49

I do, capitalism has to be destroyed in all his forms

Skooma Addict

12th March 2010, 00:54

I do, capitalism has to be destroyed in all his forms

Why? Why can't people who have different beliefs regarding property live in a community which upholds their preferred version of property law? Seems like the fairest way to do it in my opinion.

CartCollector

12th March 2010, 01:44

That would depend on your definition of capitalism. Under my definition, all that is required is a functioning market
So market socialism is capitalism? :laugh:

its gonna end up with 1 side capping the other one. I don't see why that would be the case.
Haven't you heard of a little thing called the Cold War? Each side would think the other one was being oppressed by (capitalists/communists) and would try to "free" them. Then each side would also think that they have to defend themselves from those damn (capitalists/communists) because they started it by trying to spread (capitalism/communism). Thus begins the arms buildup...

Skooma Addict

12th March 2010, 02:22

So market socialism is capitalism? :laugh:

What?

Haven't you heard of a little thing called the Cold War? Each side would think the other one was being oppressed by (capitalists/communists) and would try to "free" them. Then each side would also think that they have to defend themselves from those damn (capitalists/communists) because they started it by trying to spread (capitalism/communism). Thus begins the arms buildup...

Really?

gorillafuck

12th March 2010, 02:37

Haven't you heard of a little thing called the Cold War? Each side would think the other one was being oppressed by (capitalists/communists) and would try to "free" them. Then each side would also think that they have to defend themselves from those damn (capitalists/communists) because they started it by trying to spread (capitalism/communism). Thus begins the arms buildup...
While I'm sure they both did feel legitimately threatened, I am doubtful that the USSR weren't aware of their massive abuses, and I'm sure that the U.S. government weren't actually delusional enough to believe they were liberating countries through supporting the most monstrous regimes and through brutal interventions.

Die Rote Fahne

12th March 2010, 06:08

There has been much conversation and debate about anarcho-capitalism lately, so i decided that we should talk about the other anarcho.

Murray Rothbard has an excellent piece on this,

The Death Wish of Anacho-Communism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html)

Anarcho-Capitalist...you're aware of that being an oxymoron right?

Anarchy involves the absence of hierarchy and rulers.

Capitalism requires hierarchy and a ruling class to exist.

Physicist

12th March 2010, 18:55

Why? Why can't people who have different beliefs regarding property live in a community which upholds their preferred version of property law? Seems like the fairest way to do it in my opinion.

Perhaps if each succeeding generation could be formerly educated in a vacuum, and if each system existed in polarity on different planets, yeah. Property is consequential to social behavior. If its impact was only felt by the person laying claim, all leftist politics would be non-existent. That is not the case.

Skooma Addict

12th March 2010, 18:58

Perhaps if each succeeding generation could be formerly educated in a vacuum, and if each system existed in polarity on different planets, yeah.

I don't see why that need be the case.

Comrade Anarchist

12th March 2010, 22:10

Anarcho-Capitalist...you're aware of that being an oxymoron right?

Anarchy involves the absence of hierarchy and rulers.

Capitalism requires hierarchy and a ruling class to exist.

That isn't much of an oxymoron considering anarchism is the political ideology that thinks all states are harmful or useless. Capitalism is the epitome of individualism. It allows for individuals to go out make a living for themselves and to control their destiny.

All forms of communism seems pretty moronic to me, whether they are statist or not. Marxism will just lead to a totalitarian government like that of the ussr. Old fashion communism might as well be called primitivism b/c whats better than all of society working for the benefit of their neighbor and not themselves which by the way man is selfish and to capitalism uses that selfishness to grow and revolutionize the world around us. Anarcho communism no matter if under the band of technocracy or primitivism is just stupid. There aren't any property rights what so ever so no property can be confiscated. So let me see no buildings will ever be built b/c there is no property so everyone in the world will have to okay the use of every nail and board. So i come into the house where you live and start to live there and i make it home, you couldn't kick me out b/c it isnt your property. Without the ability to own property society can not function on an advanced and large basis.

John_Jordan

12th March 2010, 23:02

Haven't you heard of a little thing called the Cold War? Each side would think the other one was being oppressed by (capitalists/communists) and would try to "free" them. Then each side would also think that they have to defend themselves from those damn (capitalists/communists) because they started it by trying to spread (capitalism/communism). Thus begins the arms buildup...

The cold war was not between two Anarchist societies.

If you advocate something, and demand that everybody do it your way no matter what everybody may want, you are not an Anarchist.

Two Anarchist societies that operate differently should not have problems with each other, per se, if they were really Anarchist.

IcarusAngel

12th March 2010, 23:09

But the cold war operated under an anarchic system of states with the states being the actors who could violate their rules at their own whim, such as Hitler violating the treaty of non-aggression with Russia.

CartCollector

12th March 2010, 23:28

There aren't any property rights what so ever so no property can be confiscated.

There aren't any property rights in Anarcho-capitalism either. The assumption that Anarcho-capitalists make is that if you remove the government then everyone will just follow the property rules we have now without ever trying to steal anything. Jails filled with thieves show that this is not the case and very likely will not be the case under Anarcho-capitalism. So no, in Anarcho-capitalism, property rights don't exist unless everyone agrees on them (good luck with that), and therefore confiscation isn't possible either.

John_Jordan

12th March 2010, 23:43

Drace

13th March 2010, 00:08

The only fair way to do it is to allow both forms of communities coexist. If the state disappears, and one community forms anarcho-communist commune, and another forms a community based on private property, then the two should be allowed to remain that way and coexist.That's not quite possible.

How can we give workers the ownership over the means of productions while at the same time remain the factories, farms, and machinery in the hands of individuals?
Capitalism is also a globalized system. It cannot exist on a minor scale. It also calls for continuous expansion, new markets, new products, advertising, etc.
Capitalism cannot survive on a small scale.

John_Jordan

13th March 2010, 00:54

That's not quite possible.

How can we give workers the ownership over the means of productions while at the same time remain the factories, farms, and machinery in the hands of individuals?
Capitalism is also a globalized system. It cannot exist on a minor scale. It also calls for continuous expansion, new markets, new products, advertising, etc.
Capitalism cannot survive on a small scale.

You've said this nonsense before. Of course, you never backed it up before. Care to actually do that?

Why can't Capitalism, as understood by Ancaps, not survive on a small scale?

Tablo

13th March 2010, 08:08

You've said this nonsense before. Of course, you never backed it up before. Care to actually do that?

Why can't Capitalism, as understood by Ancaps, not survive on a small scale?
He quite clearly stated why. It is because Capitalism is based upon infinite expansion which is impossible under current circumstances.

Old Man Diogenes

13th March 2010, 20:46

whats better than all of society working for the benefit of their neighbor and not themselves

Are you just stupid, or do you have some kind of problem? I don't understand why you see everything in terms of 'me versus the rest of the world', in anarcho-communism you don't work for the benefit or your neighbour, you work because your work benefits everyone, INCLUDING yourself. :star:

Old Man Diogenes

13th March 2010, 20:53

So i come into the house where you live and start to live there and i make it home, you couldn't kick me out b/c it isnt your property. Without the ability to own property society can not function on an advanced and large basis.

Really? Do you really think this is going to happen? Did you stumble upon a case of LSD or something?

To quote Wikipedia, "Therefore, in anarcho-communist theory, land used by individuals for themselves or their families, or productive property used to produce for an individual (such as a small farm), would be considered private possessions rather than social possessions."

And for another thing, Anarchist communism aims for an egalitarian society, so therefore does it not follow that every human being should have somewhere to live, somewhere to call home, a house or living arrangement considered a 'private possession'?

Communism, "Comrade" Anarchist, is not the reproduction of the stupidities of Capitalism.

Comrade Anarchist

14th March 2010, 00:48

There aren't any property rights in Anarcho-capitalism either. The assumption that Anarcho-capitalists make is that if you remove the government then everyone will just follow the property rules we have now without ever trying to steal anything. Jails filled with thieves show that this is not the case and very likely will not be the case under Anarcho-capitalism. So no, in Anarcho-capitalism, property rights don't exist unless everyone agrees on them (good luck with that), and therefore confiscation isn't possible either.

Property rights are the basis of individual rights. Ancaps have an agreement about the revolution and then into the ancap society.We create the society before the revolution is done and once it is go into it. If you don't have the people then you don't have the revolution so if the revolution occurs then that means that people agreed on the rules of the society they want to create.

Are you just stupid, or do you have some kind of problem? I don't understand why you see everything in terms of 'me versus the rest of the world', in anarcho-communism you don't work for the benefit or your neighbour, you work because your work benefits everyone, INCLUDING yourself. :star:

So you work for everybody and how are you benefited? This is what i don't understand without property or a sense of reward. Why should anybody work for everybody if the only reward they know they are going to receive is more work. If i work and all my work benefits all and not myself then that leaves a much smaller piece of the pie that i made.

To quote Wikipedia, "Therefore, in anarcho-communist theory, land used by individuals for themselves or their families, or productive property used to produce for an individual (such as a small farm), would be considered private possessions rather than social possessions."

You can say that all you want but under an ancom society who are you to know what is someones property. That whole statement is contradictory to anarcho communism. You yourself say we all work for everybody and yet if an individual is allowed to own property then they will benefit unfairly compared to everyone else, therefore defeating the idea of ancom.

And for another thing, Anarchist communism aims for an egalitarian society, so therefore does it not follow that every human being should have somewhere to live, somewhere to call home, a house or living arrangement considered a 'private possession'?

So if someone doesn't work and makes no benefit to society then he should be allowed to live off somebody elses hard work. Someone had to build that home but he wont be paid for that work and someone will benefit from it while he won't. And as i said above to have private possession defeats the whole idea of anarcho communism. If you are allowed to own property then you will benefit over someone else and that flies in the face of each according to his ability each according to his needs and the whole idea of communism.

Nolan

14th March 2010, 00:55

Lol this is entertaining. Comrade Anarchist just ignores everyone else's points, blindy repeats himself, attacks strawmen, and crams everything into his "individual vs the collective" bullshit.

Comrade Anarchist

14th March 2010, 01:42

Lol this is entertaining. Comrade Anarchist just ignores everyone else's points, blindy repeats himself, attacks strawmen, and crams everything into his "individual vs the collective" bullshit.

Actually everybody is doing that.

Die Rote Fahne

14th March 2010, 06:12

That isn't much of an oxymoron considering anarchism is the political ideology that thinks all states are harmful or useless. Capitalism is the epitome of individualism. It allows for individuals to go out make a living for themselves and to control their destiny.

It is an oxymoron. Read what I said.

The idea of capitalism requires a hierarchical system to exist (class).
Capitalism, through that necessity of a hierarchichal system needs that higher class to be protected and a government is created out of the higher class. That means there is a power imbalance. That means the upper class rules the lower classes. Or in Marxist terms the bourgeoisie holds power over the proletariat.

Anarchy requires all hierarchical systems to be abolished (government, classes, etc). No rulers, and power is balanced.

Are you telling me that capitalism is allowing those in Africa to control their destiny? Those in China, for China IS capitalist, to control their destiny? Are you telling me that Bangladeshi sweatshops are great for individualism and shaping your own destiny? Ignore that, are you telling me the millions below the poverty line can control their destiny? If you are, you're insane. Making a living doesn't make one happy or an individual, my mother makes a living and she hates her job, but she's stuck there now because she can't afford school with the debt accumulated from student loans, bills and raising kids. In fact, The capitalist system is so restrictive in terms of employment that you become a sheep. A mindless automaton that, day in and day out, is stuck doing the same thing. Very rarely do people get careers. The majority have jobs.

The idea that you can escape the lower class and become a wealthy, or at least become higher in society is a fallacy. It happens 5% of the time maybe? If you are born into the lower class, you will most likely stay lower class. Same with upper class.

All forms of communism seems pretty moronic to me, whether they are statist or not. Marxism will just lead to a totalitarian government like that of the ussr. Old fashion communism might as well be called primitivism b/c whats better than all of society working for the benefit of their neighbor and not themselves which by the way man is selfish and to capitalism uses that selfishness to grow and revolutionize the world around us. Anarcho communism no matter if under the band of technocracy or primitivism is just stupid. There aren't any property rights what so ever so no property can be confiscated. So let me see no buildings will ever be built b/c there is no property so everyone in the world will have to okay the use of every nail and board. So i come into the house where you live and start to live there and i make it home, you couldn't kick me out b/c it isn't your property. Without the ability to own property society can not function on an advanced and large basis.That's simply untrue. Marxism doesn't always lead to a totalitarian government. If those who led their revolutions followed Marxist doctrine, then we would have had a democratic USSR. You need to read up on Rosa Luxembourg. Man is NOT selfish. Man has an innate survival instinct which, in Capitalist society, comes out as greed. Why? Because you want to be able to eat and survive and you want your family to survive. You have to be greedy in a capitalist society to get what you need.

Capitalism uses the human survival instinct to exploit the workers so a power imbalance can be kept. Your not working for yourself, your working for an employer who exploits you to make a profit from your labour. That's not individualism. Look up the term "wage slavery".

Communism, or Marxism i'd prefer to call it, as Communism is just a stage in Marxist theory, calls for a set of things. Marxism, in fact, supports the idea that people should not have to work at all (in prime conditions like first world nations) to be able to survive, but that people will work, at what ever they choose, as education and training is accessible to all, to support the society that supports them.

On the stroke of Anarcho-communism. It, technocracy and Primitivism are different things. You should read up on these terms.

There are property rights. Not private property (capital), but hard won individual property (clothes, soap, a car if you worked for it, etc). This is in both Anarcho-communism and Marxism.

A home would be considered your personal property or private posessions. In Marxist and anarcho-communist society you CANNOT just live in someone else's home. It isn't capital. And therefore belongs to the individual. Every person would have a home. And moving would have to be organized. If I want to move out of my house to say Toronto, I would have to wait until someone in Toronto wanted to leave their house and, to put it basically, agreements would be made. Or I would have to build my own home there. I would be able to do so as supplies would be readily available and people would help me based on the ideal that I would also help them if I so chose.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

You're problem is your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of Marxism and leftist socio-economic systems, as is evident by your not understanding Marxist ideas of property. For that, I suggest you read up. There are plenty of sources, including Wikipedia if you're lazy.

John_Jordan

14th March 2010, 11:38

He quite clearly stated why. It is because Capitalism is based upon infinite expansion which is impossible under current circumstances.

That's not an explanation. That's just a fancy way of saying that Capitalism cannot survive in a small place because Capitalism needs infinite expansion. That is, Capitalism can't survive in small places because Capitalism can't survive in small places.

There is no evidence that I see to suggest that Capitalism requires "infinite expansion."

Jazzratt

14th March 2010, 15:06

There is no evidence that I see to suggest that Capitalism requires "infinite expansion."

But I thought your lot, like hayenmill in the other thread, pride yourselves on the fact the market isn't a closed system; that is that it constantly increases meaning that the demand for resources constantly expands. I'm fairly sure you need to expand constantly when that is the case.

Comrade Anarchist

14th March 2010, 15:36

It is an oxymoron. Read what I said.

The idea of capitalism requires a hierarchical system to exist (class).
Capitalism, through that necessity of a hierarchichal system needs that higher class to be protected and a government is created out of the higher class. That means there is a power imbalance. That means the upper class rules the lower classes. Or in Marxist terms the bourgeoisie holds power over the proletariat.

Anarchy requires all hierarchical systems to be abolished (government, classes, etc). No rulers, and power is balanced.

Are you telling me that capitalism is allowing those in Africa to control their destiny? Those in China, for China IS capitalist, to control their destiny? Are you telling me that Bangladeshi sweatshops are great for individualism and shaping your own destiny? Ignore that, are you telling me the millions below the poverty line can control their destiny? If you are, you're insane. Making a living doesn't make one happy or an individual, my mother makes a living and she hates her job, but she's stuck there now because she can't afford school with the debt accumulated from student loans, bills and raising kids. In fact, The capitalist system is so restrictive in terms of employment that you become a sheep. A mindless automaton that, day in and day out, is stuck doing the same thing. Very rarely do people get careers. The majority have jobs.

Yes i am telling you that capitalism allows people to live and control their destiny. You have the choice to work and you compete in a free market for work. Capitalism does not require classes. Classes are in my opinion bullshit. The idea of classes must be enforced by the government. That is why i am an anarchist so that those who don't have a chance under the system of today will under anarchism. As i have said so many times capitalism with government support and state sponsored terrorism. The state is paid off and uses the force allocated to it to push the people down and then forces them to work for companies. These companies are practicing dangerous and disgusting practices and without a government to subvert the free market they would pay for it. Every thing is expensive so people do have to work jobs and that sucks but when not forced by the state one can work towards a career. Imagine how much cheaper things would be if people didn't have to pay taxes. Companies then you could take that out of the equation. And here comes the ball buster if workers are paid less then companies can charge less for goods and services. State capitalism is what we have today. The free market exists and it corrects itself but the state comes in and starts to regulate and save economies, but all they do is jack up prices and create new bubbles that will eventually pop.

That's simply untrue. Marxism doesn't always lead to a totalitarian government. If those who led their revolutions followed Marxist doctrine, then we would have had a democratic USSR. You need to read up on Rosa Luxembourg. Man is NOT selfish. Man has an innate survival instinct which, in Capitalist society, comes out as greed. Why? Because you want to be able to eat and survive and you want your family to survive. You have to be greedy in a capitalist society to get what you need.

Whenever governments are given full control of something they never give it up till they collapse or are greatly changed. The dictatorship of the proletariat will lead to that circumstance. Yes if the men leading the ussr were more marxist instead of power hungry then it would have been more democratic but the only choice would be between what leaders to control them. If the workers are in control of the government then the economy will inevitably lag. Just think no companies exist. No new machines are created b/c they would take workers jobs. Even if the government is more democratic it will fight tooth and nail to survive and prevent the fabled fading away. If you centralize all power of the economy so that all benefit then that centralization will continue, whether it be the state or a board of some kind or it will be the same if everyone has say in it.

Let me take you on the survival instinct thing. Then under capitalism we are just trying better ourselves to survive. So in communism when i work im glad to work for everybody even if i have little to no benefit myself. That is bullshit. People work for themselves and their families. Force humans to work for their community and they will quit, b/c why should they have to if they only benefit a little if at all. Sounds like slavery to me. Probably community slavery.

Capitalism uses the human survival instinct to exploit the workers so a power imbalance can be kept. Your not working for yourself, your working for an employer who exploits you to make a profit from your labour. That's not individualism. Look up the term "wage slavery".

You don't have to work. That is the key to capitalism. You have the choice to choose where, how, and why you work. You put yourself in a market competing with others. When you have a job you are working for the employer so that he can pay you from what he makes, so in the end you are working for yourself. Wage slavery can only happen under the foot of force and force is always centralized within the state.

There are property rights. Not private property (capital), but hard won individual property (clothes, soap, a car if you worked for it, etc). This is in both Anarcho-communism and Marxism.

What, i have to work hard to clean myself and clothe myself but isn't that against communism. In communism i should be able to rely on everybody else to give me what i need. In capitalism i would actually have to work to obtain these things. Even if it is just a bar of soap i will benefit unfairly over someone else and that is contradictory to communism.

A home would be considered your personal property or private posessions. In Marxist and anarcho-communist society you CANNOT just live in someone else's home. It isn't capital. And therefore belongs to the individual. Every person would have a home. And moving would have to be organized. If I want to move out of my house to say Toronto, I would have to wait until someone in Toronto wanted to leave their house and, to put it basically, agreements would be made. Or I would have to build my own home there. I would be able to do so as supplies would be readily available and people would help me based on the ideal that I would also help them if I so chose.

So you have no personal choice of where you work or where you live. You were just saying how in capitalism there is a very limited choice of work, but you say that it is restricted by everyone else even further in anarcho communism. Capitalism without governments allows you to have free choice over every bit of your life, under anarhco communism you relegate to what the commune or what the world wants, and when you do that you sacrifice humanity. Humans are going to work for their benefit but when you force them to work for each other then you are essentially creating a state, consisting of everybody verses one.

Zanthorus

14th March 2010, 18:06

An ancom society would be a farmer society more than likely and would have about as much freedom as you neighbor would allow you to have.

Yes, because in glorious communist revolution we so want to destroy all of industrial society. Cause' you know, we're just masochistic like that. You know us workers, work work work. We don't need no technology saving us time and effort :rolleyes:

Seriously though, some people have argued that anarcho-communism would only be possible in societies with extremely highly developed technology in order to eliminate scarcity. Although I'm a bit more optimistic cuz I don't fetishise techy stuff like technocrats.

Everyone *****es that ancaps want the creation of a new state, which we dont.

Yeah you do. See, propertarians aren't libertarians. Their analysis doesn't start from freedom, collective or individual, it starts from property. They even attempt to boil down the connection between the mental and physical aspects of agents to one of "ownership". For the anarcho-capitalist the issue isn't with authoritarianism. Some anarcho-capitalists advocate despotic ultra-conservative monarchical regimes because the monarch acts like a property owning capitalist as opposed to liberal democracy which operates like teh evilz socializmz. The issue for the propertarian is simply one of "just" acquisition of property. The state acquired it's control by force hence it is illegitimate. Wal-mart acquired it's control through capital accumulation, hence wal-mart has a god-given right to control everything within the boundaries of its property.

Social anarchism and anarcho-communism offer a much deeper and more legitimately anarchist analysis of private property. Your strawmen offer material for a political comedy aimed at leftists.

That isn't much of an oxymoron considering anarchism is the political ideology that thinks all states are harmful or useless.

Anarchism is the political ideology that saw it's first glimpses in the political philosophies various socialists such as Proudhon or Saint-Simon as well as in movements like the Diggers in the english civil war. It came to prominence as the ideology of the "revolutionary (who are otherwise known as libertarian) socialists" (Bakunin, Where I stand (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch12.htm)) of the first international and in particular the spanish section of that international. Anarchists participated in the Russian Revolution, Spanish Civil War and set up and defended the Autonomous Shinmin region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Autonomous_Shinmin_r egion_.281929.E2.80.931932.29) in Korea. Throughout it's rich history it has remained firmly opposed to all forms of capitalism.

If you advocate something, and demand that everybody do it your way no matter what everybody may want, you are not an Anarchist.

If everyone wants to live under a neo-feudalist ultra-conservative regime then any anarchist worth their salt would still be opposed to it. Just as any anarchist worth their salt is opposed to capitalism. You are not an anarchist you are a Voluntaryist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryist)/Panarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism).

Die Rote Fahne

15th March 2010, 03:37

Yes i am telling you that capitalism allows people to live and control their destiny. You have the choice to work and you compete in a free market for work. Capitalism does not require classes. Classes are in my opinion bullshit. The idea of classes must be enforced by the government. That is why i am an anarchist so that those who don't have a chance under the system of today will under anarchism. As i have said so many times capitalism with government support and state sponsored terrorism. The state is paid off and uses the force allocated to it to push the people down and then forces them to work for companies. These companies are practicing dangerous and disgusting practices and without a government to subvert the free market they would pay for it. Every thing is expensive so people do have to work jobs and that sucks but when not forced by the state one can work towards a career. Imagine how much cheaper things would be if people didn't have to pay taxes. Companies then you could take that out of the equation. And here comes the ball buster if workers are paid less then companies can charge less for goods and services. State capitalism is what we have today. The free market exists and it corrects itself but the state comes in and starts to regulate and save economies, but all they do is jack up prices and create new bubbles that will eventually pop.

You have the choice to work or die. That's what capitalism is. I told you already. Look up the term wage slavery. That's what capitalism entails.

Class is a symptom of Capitalism in all forms.

I'm not for any form of capitalism.

Without labour laws enforcing a minimum wage and such, workers would be over worked for a pittance.

Whenever governments are given full control of something they never give it up till they collapse or are greatly changed. The dictatorship of the proletariat will lead to that circumstance. Yes if the men leading the ussr were more marxist instead of power hungry then it would have been more democratic but the only choice would be between what leaders to control them. If the workers are in control of the government then the economy will inevitably lag. Just think no companies exist. No new machines are created b/c they would take workers jobs. Even if the government is more democratic it will fight tooth and nail to survive and prevent the fabled fading away. If you centralize all power of the economy so that all benefit then that centralization will continue, whether it be the state or a board of some kind or it will be the same if everyone has say in it.

Where did I say anything about the government being given full control? I never. I call for the workers (MAJORITY) controlling the means of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not anti-democratic. In fact, it is a true democracy. What the USSR did was a small elite given the political power instead of the proletariat (once again, MAJORITY).

It's not about "benefitting". We are working for the abolishment of money, bet you didn't know that.

Let me take you on the survival instinct thing. Then under capitalism we are just trying better ourselves to survive. So in communism when i work im glad to work for everybody even if i have little to no benefit myself. That is bullshit. People work for themselves and their families. Force humans to work for their community and they will quit, b/c why should they have to if they only benefit a little if at all. Sounds like slavery to me. Probably community slavery.

Strawman.

You fail to realize that the burdens of capitalist society (bills, mortgage, car payments, providing food for your family, school supplies, clothes for your family, etc.) disappear as everyone is producing, not to meet sale demands, but the needs of the people (which includes them).

Saying "they will quit" is simply untrue. Look at Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain, where money was abolished.

You don't have to work. That is the key to capitalism. You have the choice to choose where, how, and why you work. You put yourself in a market competing with others. When you have a job you are working for the employer so that he can pay you from what he makes, so in the end you are working for yourself. Wage slavery can only happen under the foot of force and force is always centralized within the state.

That's what you fail to see. If you don't work, you die. Your family is poor, etc etc etc.

Do you understand what PROFIT is? And you don't understand what WAGE SLAVERY is. Do you need a dictionary?

What, i have to work hard to clean myself and clothe myself but isn't that against communism. In communism i should be able to rely on everybody else to give me what i need. In capitalism i would actually have to work to obtain these things. Even if it is just a bar of soap i will benefit unfairly over someone else and that is contradictory to communism.

You don't have to work in communism, but let me ask you this. If you lived in a communist, I'll use your kinds ignorant term "utopia", would you never work? Not even to obtain personal possessions? Because yes, you can obtain personal possessions.

So you have no personal choice of where you work or where you live. You were just saying how in capitalism there is a very limited choice of work, but you say that it is restricted by everyone else even further in anarcho communism. Capitalism without governments allows you to have free choice over every bit of your life, under anarhco communism you relegate to what the commune or what the world wants, and when you do that you sacrifice humanity. Humans are going to work for their benefit but when you force them to work for each other then you are essentially creating a state, consisting of everybody verses one.

You DO have a choice of where AND what you work at.

You DO have a choice of where you live.

It's impossible to maintain a government free society in capitalism.

You're not "FORCING THEM TO WORK FOR EACH OTHER". Communism requires a majority support. Be it a majority revolutionary, or a majority of pacifist support such as in the USSR.

--------------------------------------------------

Your whole argument is based on a complete lack of understanding of what Marxism and Anarchism actually are.

John_Jordan

15th March 2010, 04:38

But I thought your lot, like hayenmill in the other thread, pride yourselves on the fact the market isn't a closed system; that is that it constantly increases meaning that the demand for resources constantly expands. I'm fairly sure you need to expand constantly when that is the case.

I really don't know what you're talking about. But that's bound to happen when you just assume that I believe things out of nowhere.

Old Man Diogenes

15th March 2010, 21:10

So you work for everybody and how are you benefited? This is what i don't understand without property or a sense of reward. Why should anybody work for everybody if the only reward they know they are going to receive is more work. If i work and all my work benefits all and not myself then that leaves a much smaller piece of the pie that i made.

You can say that all you want but under an ancom society who are you to know what is someones property. That whole statement is contradictory to anarcho communism. You yourself say we all work for everybody and yet if an individual is allowed to own property then they will benefit unfairly compared to everyone else, therefore defeating the idea of ancom.

So if someone doesn't work and makes no benefit to society then he should be allowed to live off somebody elses hard work.

Someone had to build that home but he wont be paid for that work and someone will benefit from it while he won't. And as i said above to have private possession defeats the whole idea of anarcho communism. If you are allowed to own property then you will benefit over someone else and that flies in the face of each according to his ability each according to his needs and the whole idea of communism.

The first point, you are benefited as you will also receive not only the fruits of your own labour, but also the fruits of the labour of others. And as for the work, Anarchists seek to make work more enjoyable and fulfilling, how will anyone enjoy life when their career is unfulfilling and turns them into (and I'm sure I'm quoting but I'm not sure where from) 'mere cogs in a capitalist machine'?

No, the statement is not contradictory to Anarchist theory in the slightest, have you ever read any Proudhon, or Kropotkin, they both talk about social and private possessions, property is based on legal ownership, whereas under anarchist-communism those who use something have most say in what happens to it.

Secondly, private possession IS different to private property, private possession is something that only the individual uses, does owning your own toothbrush put you above others? Probably not. But owning a factory or land is a different case.

No, the able few should not be able to leech off society and I doubt people under any society would tolerate this, but you forget does not the capitalist leech of the worker's labour? And before we talk about able people not wanting to work, we must first attempt to try and make it 'work more enjoyable and fulfilling'.

Left-Reasoning

15th March 2010, 23:15

You have the choice to work or die. That's what capitalism is.

Is that not also what Anarcho-Communism is?

Die Rote Fahne

16th March 2010, 03:07

Is that not also what Anarcho-Communism is?

No. Are you mildly retarded?

Drace

16th March 2010, 04:00

No. Are you mildly retarded?

What?
I wouldn't suspect someone being fed and cared for if they willingly chose to not contribute any work.

Comrade Anarchist

17th March 2010, 00:45

You DO have a choice of where AND what you work at.

You DO have a choice of where you live.

It's impossible to maintain a government free society in capitalism.

You're not "FORCING THEM TO WORK FOR EACH OTHER". Communism requires a majority support. Be it a majority revolutionary, or a majority of pacifist support such as in the USSR.

Stop contradicting yourself. You say you need to get permission from your community then you have to wait till someone moves out. That isn't choice that is slavery. Everyone here keeps saying you can not have capitalism without a government. Quite frankly government is the antithesis of capitalism. True free market capitalism as i advocate can only exist if there is no government. You say that a government needs to exist to protect property. Why if we protect it ourselves? In anarcho-communism a government as something that has authority over you exists, it is through direct democracy that you are ruled instead of from throne rooms.

You keep thinking in this post scarcity mindset which guess what is impossible. Scarcity will continue to exist unless you kill most of the population, which is what anarcho communism intends to do.

You say that if you don't work you die. Well ya so what? If you don't work and do not contribute anything on free will, then you don't deserve anything. If you do work you can work your way up and better yourself. At times people work hard and fail, well at least we fail as individuals. Stop *****ing about wage slavery i know what it is, and if governments didn't exist workers wouldn't have to pay taxes and neither would companies so prices on goods and services drop. Things become cheaper so workers don't have to work as hard. Everyone always belittles the worker, "without labor laws he would die, boohoo." Well guess what the worker can quit that job and look for a better one. He stand up to his employer and ask him for more money. Workers are not helped by governments. In an anarcho-communist world workers would just become slaves to society. You can ***** all you want for how anarcho communism is for the worker, but if you think about it the worker has to work in order for others to not to. You say they dont have to work and that communism actively promotes not working, yet without people working how do you get food, shelter, etc. Just basic parts of living disappear without working. Workers only want to work b/c they receive a reward for it that they can use to promote their happiness. Which brings me to the abolishment of money. I used to be a very well read anarcho communist so i know a lot about it, so don't sit here and tell me i need a dictionary for concepts i've known about for years. As i said a bit ago, you want to do away with the only reason for working, for a reward to benefit one's happiness. To do away with currency you break down all abilities to judge what factories should make, and you do away with how people communicate. You can yell and scream about how greed ruins a society but it is greed that makes people work hard, so that if they act smart they can succeed. Why should you spend years at medical school and all the subsequent training afterwards, if there is no other reward for it other than a thank you.

Anarcho-communism is just not possible and is riddled with flaws. So how about we stop using everyone's favorite new phrase "strawman". You can call my arguments strawman, but yours are not at all convincing or logical for that matter.

gorillafuck

17th March 2010, 01:00

You keep thinking in this post scarcity mindset which guess what is impossible. Scarcity will continue to exist unless you kill most of the population, which is what anarcho communism intends to do.
Agreed, scarcity of some things will likely always exist (though it is a fact that there is enough food and water on this planet to go around). That was a considerable point until you resumed spouting idiocy out of your ass by claiming anarcho-communists intend to kill the majority of people.

If you do work you can work your way up and better yourself. http://www.childlaborphotographs.com/ewf/btt/resources//images/galleries/child_labor/david_parker_child_labor_scavenger_nicaragua.jpg

Workin' hard to make it to the top of the company!

syndicat

17th March 2010, 01:13

You say that a government needs to exist to protect property. Why if we protect it ourselves?

that's fine with me. but in that case capitalism won't last long. in the USA capitalists are maybe 8 percent of the population. By capitaliist I mean someone who makes their living based on ownership of a company that employs people (or ownership of assets used by such a company).

The working class is about 3/4 of the population. They could easily seize the property of the capitalists. After all, the capitalists are parasites. They expect to gain a property income simply from holding title to some asset.

you don't work and do not contribute anything on free will, then you don't deserve anything.

Requiring people to work is a reasonable principle of justice...for able-bodied adults. We do not expect this of our children, yet we provide for them.

Libertarian communism is about positive liberty: control over your life, and everyone having equal access to the means to develop and sustain their abilities. Capitalism is a system that systematically under-develops the abilties of the working class, and subjects workers to speedup, stress and dangerous chemicals and air pollutants, all of which cause the working class to not live as long as the elite classes.

I know you say you don't believe in class, but that's a crock. Being forced to seek work for employers to live, and being made to do what they want, to serve their profit-seeking ends, is to not have control over your life. Management hires and fires, decides on technologies, how the work is organized, what to produce, whether to move the workplace to some other country etc. Workers are denied a say in these things even tho it means they don't even govern their own activities in work. This is a regime of oppression and domination, and that's what class is.

Things become cheaper so workers don't have to work as hard.

This is bullshit. All companies work constantly to reduce their labor expenses. They do so in order to make more profit. At the same time they also figure out ways to get people to work harder. The harder a company can get people to work, the more revenue is produced per hour of work, thus increasing profit. Companies make profits by shifting costs onto workers. Forcing people to work harder, avoiding adequate protections against illness and injury are ways companies dump costs onto workers.

Altho some anarcho-communists have advocated abolition of money, it's not necessary in order for libertarian communism to function.

Comrade Anarchist

17th March 2010, 01:22

Agreed, scarcity of some things will likely always exist (though it is a fact that there is enough food and water on this planet to go around). That was a considerable point until you resumed spouting idiocy out of your ass by claiming anarcho-communists intend to kill the majority of people.

http://www.childlaborphotographs.com/ewf/btt/resources//images/galleries/child_labor/david_parker_child_labor_scavenger_nicaragua.jpg

Workin' hard to make it to the top of the company!

Well they do. let me b a ancom for a sec, lets create a society where there is no scarcity and lets make it to where no one has to work and yet all the magical things around us just appear, whether that be our food or home, this idea sounds good enough to support close to 7 billion people. Now let me be fucking logical, you will kill billions b/c without people working then nothing is in turn being created. Anarcho communism is pretty much primitivism, no matter if the proponents call themselves technocrats.

The little boy probably lives in a country where the state is either A) ruled by warlords so the leader changes every other week, B) oppressive and rapes the country for it's own benefit, C) this one kinda goes with b but the state is a whore to state capitalists and pretty much sells its people off and allows its land to be destroyed for capital gain.

Maybe if you all injected a little autarchy into your ideologies you'd see that states do the oppressing, and state capitalists are their tool and that the ability of self governance is the key to a truly free society.

Nolan

17th March 2010, 01:39

Maybe if you all injected a little autarchy into your ideologies you'd see that states do the oppressing, and state capitalists are their tool and that the ability of self governance is the key to a truly free society.

Great, now explain how a system based on class and exploitation such as capitalism equates to self governance and you'll get ten internet points. I guess if you technically "own" yourself, that means you "govern" yourself in your fantasy world.

gorillafuck

17th March 2010, 01:51

Well they do. let me b a ancom for a sec, lets create a society where there is no scarcity and lets make it to where no one has to work and yet all the magical things around us just appear, whether that be our food or home, this idea sounds good enough to support close to 7 billion people. Now let me be fucking logical, you will kill billions b/c without people working then nothing is in turn being created. Anarcho communism is pretty much primitivism, no matter if the proponents call themselves technocrats.
You're confusing what (in your views) would happen, despite that it is obviously not what they intend to do. Those are two different things.

The little boy probably lives in a country where the state is either A) ruled by warlords so the leader changes every other week, B) oppressive and rapes the country for it's own benefit, C) this one kinda goes with b but the state is a whore to state capitalists and pretty much sells its people off and allows its land to be destroyed for capital gain.You think states are required to enforce extraordinarily unfair labour practices? Hell, this little boy wouldn't be able to afford private cops to defend him when the corporation he works for hire paramilitaries to force him to overwork.

Elfcat

17th March 2010, 01:55

The fellow in this article says, "How will we know when scarcity is over? When prices drop to zero."

Prices for farmers, so I hear, have gone down so low that the government has to subsidize their existence, our percentage of the population farming is the lowest it has ever been, and in fact one of Liare Keith's assertions is that livestock started being fed corn because it became cheaper than grazing them and quicker to grow them that way.

But do any of us get food for free? No, because the corporations involved in getting the food to us create artificial scarcity merely for the purpose of making profit. The existence of prices can be as much a matter of some individuals' hoarding as of actual scarcity. The hoarders make these almost costless resources their property, gouge the rest of the populace, and rely absolutely on the state to define as a crime any act which, by the very natural law right libertarians claim to uphold, is the mere taking of a personal liberty - and indeed, personal responsibility - to directly confront such hoarding and exert pressure on the hoarders.

Left-Reasoning

17th March 2010, 02:29

No. Are you mildly retarded?

In communism would the workers be forced to care for the sluggards? Kropotkin says that they wouldn't.

syndicat

17th March 2010, 07:50

In communism would the workers be forced to care for the sluggards? Kropotkin says that they wouldn't.

you'll need to define what you mean by "sluggards." Do you mean slackers, people who refuse to work? Isaac Puente's response was to say that if people who are able-bodied don't want to work, they are at liberty to make what they need themselves. We are under no obligation to carry at our expense people who can work, and for whom jobs are available, and who refuse to work.

At the same time, it is the obligation of the society to ensure that meaningful, worker-controlled work is available for everyone. If people are out of work due to being laid off or failure of a venture, then they would need to be carried at public expense until such time that there are jobs available for them.

Die Rote Fahne

17th March 2010, 20:35

What?
I wouldn't suspect someone being fed and cared for if they willingly chose to not contribute any work.

It's a part of the ideology that people who choose not to work do not have to.

syndicat

17th March 2010, 23:21

It's a part of the ideology that people who choose not to work do not have to.

that may be part of your ideology, it's not part of mine.

Drace

18th March 2010, 00:35

Well they do. let me b a ancom for a sec, lets create a society where there is no scarcity and lets make it to where no one has to work and yet all the magical things around us just appear, whether that be our food or home, this idea sounds good enough to support close to 7 billion people. Now let me be fucking logical, you will kill billions b/c without people working then nothing is in turn being created. Anarcho communism is pretty much primitivism, no matter if the proponents call themselves technocrats.

Lol.

The little boy probably lives in a country where the state is either A) ruled by warlords so the leader changes every other week, B) oppressive and rapes the country for it's own benefit, C) this one kinda goes with b but the state is a whore to state capitalists and pretty much sells its people off and allows its land to be destroyed for capital gain.

What's stopping the exploitation of the people from foreign capitalists without the state?

Maybe if you all injected a little autarchy into your ideologies you'd see that states do the oppressing, and state capitalists are their tool and that the ability of self governance is the key to a truly free society.

Yes self governance is truly possible in a society where 1% of the population will own all the institutes of life.

Left-Reasoning

18th March 2010, 01:56

you'll need to define what you mean by "sluggards." Do you mean slackers, people who refuse to work? Isaac Puente's response was to say that if people who are able-bodied don't want to work, they are at liberty to make what they need themselves. We are under no obligation to carry at our expense people who can work, and for whom jobs are available, and who refuse to work.

That sounds like "work or die" to me.

Misanthrope

18th March 2010, 04:38

Capitalism cannot exist without a hierarchic structure to enforce the law of private property, aka a state.

syndicat

18th March 2010, 05:16

Agorist:

That sounds like "work or die" to me.

We will all die if we don't do the work necessary to produce things for each other. Capitalism is a system that allows some people to be parasites, becoming wealthy off the labor of others...capital owners. "Work or die" is the law for the working class. Indeed, it's worse than that because it isn't just "work or die" it's being forced to work under the dictatorial control of an authoritarian managerial bureaucracy, for purposes you have no say in, you are reduced to a "thing" being exploited by the employers.

Within libertarian communism, however, workers collectively self-manage the work. So one is doing work where one has an equal say with coworkers over its character and direction. Under capitalism, the talents of the working class are underdeveloped, via things like Taylorist deskilling, which is a huge inefficiency, and a form of oppression. Under libertarian communism, work is re-designed so as to "fit" with workers being educated to do skilled work and control the planning and direction of the work.

Die Rote Fahne

18th March 2010, 07:58

Stop contradicting yourself. You say you need to get permission from your community then you have to wait till someone moves out. That isn't choice that is slavery. Everyone here keeps saying you can not have capitalism without a government. Quite frankly government is the antithesis of capitalism. True free market capitalism as i advocate can only exist if there is no government. You say that a government needs to exist to protect property. Why if we protect it ourselves? In anarcho-communism a government as something that has authority over you exists, it is through direct democracy that you are ruled instead of from throne rooms.

No I never said "you needed permission" to move. Please show me the exact quote.

In a capitalist system (notedly Free Market) that lacks a government, what happens is private militias and other corporations gain monopolies, which means they gain power. These private firms alongside powerful criminal organizations will form a "government", if you want to call it that, of their own.

You can protect your property, but the bourgeois would prefer a government ready to protect their property.

Direct democracy isn't hierarchy.

You keep thinking in this post scarcity mindset which guess what is impossible. Scarcity will continue to exist unless you kill most of the population, which is what anarcho communism intends to do. Scarcity of what? The illusion of "food shortages" is just that. Illusions. There is enough food on this planet to sustain everyone, so long as it is maintained.

In which anarcho-communist article by which "anarcho-communist" did you read that anarcho-communism intends to kill people?

You say that if you don't work you die. Well ya so what? If you don't work and do not contribute anything on free will, then you don't deserve anything.That's where we disagree. Everybody should get the necessities of life no matter what. Food/Shelter/Water/Clothing.

If you do work you can work your way up and better yourself. At times people work hard and fail, well at least we fail as individuals.That's the problem. The MAJORITY fail "as individuals". Otherwise the majority of people would be bourgeois.

Stop *****ing about wage slavery i know what it is, and if governments didn't exist workers wouldn't have to pay taxes and neither would companies so prices on goods and services drop. Things become cheaper so workers don't have to work as hard.You haven't demonstrated that you know.

I, for one, support abolishing government and taxes.

If companies didn't have to pay taxes they would not lower prices. Why would they do that?

Everyone always belittles the worker, "without labor laws he would die, boohoo." Well guess what the worker can quit that job and look for a better one. He stand up to his employer and ask him for more money. Workers are not helped by governments. In an anarcho-communist world workers would just become slaves to society.Nobody is belittling the worker. But the fact is, without labour laws (such as a minimum wage, a 40 hours week, etc etc.) the living conditions of the proletariat would plummet. You want a nation without workers rights? Bangladesh.

Asking your employer for more money is NOT the solution. The employer isn't going to just give you more money, especially if you are in a place where you can't afford to lose your job.

Why would workers be slaves to society? They already are slaves to their employers and would be under any capitalist system.

You can ***** all you want for how anarcho communism is for the worker, but if you think about it the worker has to work in order for others to not to. You say they dont have to work and that communism actively promotes not working, yet without people working how do you get food, shelter, etc. Just basic parts of living disappear without working. Workers only want to work b/c they receive a reward for it that they can use to promote their happiness.I'm not *****ing, but it's getting obvious that you're frustrated.

Communism does NOT "promote" not working. It merely allows for the option. People would still work in a communist society. Why? Because the reward they get is life, freedom, and a functioning society.

People work in capitalism because they need to pay to stay alive.

Which brings me to the abolishment of money. I used to be a very well read anarcho communist so i know a lot about it, so don't sit here and tell me i need a dictionary for concepts i've known about for years. As i said a bit ago, you want to do away with the only reason for working, for a reward to benefit one's happiness. To do away with currency you break down all abilities to judge what factories should make, and you do away with how people communicate. You can yell and scream about how greed ruins a society but it is greed that makes people work hard, so that if they act smart they can succeed. Why should you spend years at medical school and all the subsequent training afterwards, if there is no other reward for it other than a thank you.What you fail to grasp is that people do not work because they are greedy. No, people work because they want to live.

Is living in a society where you shelter/food/water/clothing/etc. is attainable without struggle not a reward? The "incentive" for still working would be that you want to contribute to your community because your community has contributed to you. Not only that, jobs/education/training would be accessible to all so you can do the job of your choosing.

Anarcho-communism is just not possible and is riddled with flaws. So how about we stop using everyone's favorite new phrase "strawman". You can call my arguments strawman, but yours are not at all convincing or logical for that matter.List those flaws.

When you claim my position is something it isn't, which you have, then you are creating a strawman argument. Simple as that.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Let me ask you this:

If a communist society were to come about (let's say it's a hypothetical utopia), would you not work?

**Note that in this society the education/training is readily accessible and jobs are open everywhere for everyone (so long as they are trained/educated properly)**

ALSO:

Two more points:

1. It needs to be noted that Anarcho-communism and Marxism require a majority support. Which means it requires a majority knowing what entails the society that is to be created. Ergo, you're idea that people would not work is invalid.

2. Anarchist Spain, where money was abolished, is a prime example of a working anarcho-syndicalist society. It differs from Anarcho-communism in some ways, but is extremely similar to the point you CANNOT ignore it.

robbo203

18th March 2010, 08:37

There has been much conversation and debate about anarcho-capitalism lately, so i decided that we should talk about the other anarcho.

Murray Rothbard has an excellent piece on this,

The Death Wish of Anacho-Communism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html)

Hardly. Rothbards peice is one of the most ignorant and prejudiced rants against anarcho-communism Ive come across. It is full of absurdities and blatant untruths

syndicat

18th March 2010, 20:08

Anarchist Spain, where money was abolished, is a prime example of a working anarcho-syndicalist society. It differs from Anarcho-communism in some ways, but is extremely similar to the point you CANNOT ignore it.

This is an exaggeration. Money was only abolished for a brief period in a small rural area (Aragon). They eventually went back on that because they found it was a real problem. Because bread was free, peasants used it to feed their pigs...an inefficient use of the human labor of baking. Carrod, the leader of one of the anarchist militias, was a peasant who opposed abolition of money because he said it was necessary to have a system of social accounting, of costs and benefits, and he's right.

Also, the campesinos disliked the "free sharing" system because they believed they had earned a certain share of the social product through their work. There is in fact a certain working class sense of justice in this, which "anarcho-communists" often ignore.

What is scarce is our labor time. There are only so many hours in the day we want to work. If we use our time making X we can't use that time to make Y. so we will have to make a choice. there are many things people might want which we may not be able to make because it's a lower priority than the things that consume the available work time and resources.

It's all well and good to say everyone should have necessities: water, shelter, food, clothing. But people don't just want "food" in the abstract...except maybe in a situation where they are starving. What people want are various types of foods and different cuisines. And the same for furnishings and clothes. This can't arranged by some simple scheme of getting everyone together in one big meeting to decide what to produce.

providing things for free makes sense in the case of public goods, where these are things we want to be available for everyone...water up to a certain level of consumption, education, health care. whether this "free sector" could be expanded to everything is questionable, and is in any event not feasible to a socialist society that emerges from capitalism, which encourages indidivualism and greed.

Die Rote Fahne

18th March 2010, 20:33

This is an exaggeration. Money was only abolished for a brief period in a small rural area (Aragon). They eventually went back on that because they found it was a real problem. Because bread was free, peasants used it to feed their pigs...an inefficient use of the human labor of baking. Carrod, the leader of one of the anarchist militias, was a peasant who opposed abolition of money because he said it was necessary to have a system of social accounting, of costs and benefits, and he's right.

Also, the campesinos disliked the "free sharing" system because they believed they had earned a certain share of the social product through their work. There is in fact a certain working class sense of justice in this, which "anarcho-communists" often ignore.

What is scarce is our labor time. There are only so many hours in the day we want to work. If we use our time making X we can't use that time to make Y. so we will have to make a choice. there are many things people might want which we may not be able to make because it's a lower priority than the things that consume the available work time and resources.

It's all well and good to say everyone should have necessities: water, shelter, food, clothing. But people don't just want "food" in the abstract...except maybe in a situation where they are starving. What people want are various types of foods and different cuisines. And the same for furnishings and clothes. This can't arranged by some simple scheme of getting everyone together in one big meeting to decide what to produce.

providing things for free makes sense in the case of public goods, where these are things we want to be available for everyone...water up to a certain level of consumption, education, health care. whether this "free sector" could be expanded to everything is questionable, and is in any event not feasible to a socialist society that emerges from capitalism, which encourages indidivualism and greed.

How long did this short abolition of money last in Aragon?

revolution inaction

18th March 2010, 23:20

syndicat

19th March 2010, 02:11

money isn't a system of social accounting of costs and benefits.
There is no reason why bread could not be rationed if people where using far more than was needed, this would not require money.

Within capitalism this is distorted because prices measure market power. But in a libertarian socialist economy, prices can be used to measure costs and benefits. This is necessary to have an effective system of allocation of resources to production, to ensure that what is produced corresponds with people's priorities.

Money is itself a form of rationing in that it forces people to stick to a budget and to thus prioritize. This is why their decisions about how to use their purchasing power reflects their priorities. But this doesn't have to happen only in a market. It can happen in the context of a decentralized planning system.

Rationing was in fact used in Aragon. In fact they had a uniform rationing book for the region. But how do you decide how much of bread anyone should have? Is this a social decision? But why should the whole community be telling people what they must eat?

As to how long the abolition of money lasted in Aragon, they very quickly started using local currencies which are a form of money. But their localized schemes caused conflicts with the industries in Catalonia which were using the Spanish currency for accounting. I'm not sure exactly when the switch to the Spanish currency occurred, but it was pretty much forced on them by the fact they were not self-sufficient but had to plug in with the other worker-managed industries.

anticap

19th March 2010, 02:48

So-called "anarchist-capitalism" [sic] is a literal oxymoron, which translates to "anti-capitalist-capitalism."
That would depend on your definition of capitalism.

No, it wouldn't, unless your definition of "capitalism" would be unrecognizable to anarchists, who are, and have always been, fundamentally opposed to it.

Under my definition, all that is required is a functioning market, and this can can be provided by private courts which enforce contracts and property law. No government is required. There can be free-market communities and communist communities which exist side by side.

Anarchists, being fundamentally opposed to capitalism, are likewise necessarily opposed to the private property regime on which it depends. Thus, whether that regime is enforced by a traditional state, which is at least potentially under the influence of the public at large, or by a private state of the sort envisioned by so-called "anarcho-capitalists" [sic], which is designed with the sole and explicit purpose of being "safe" from such influence, is of no consequence here -- anarchists will oppose it.

As to the coexistence of capitalism and communism, it is, of course, impossible, except on antagonistic terms, since capitalists are compelled by the very nature of their system to go in search of resources, once they've burned through what they've got, in order to expand. Thus, they will come up against the communists and war will ensue, given that communists do not engage in exchange for profit.

P.S. I've removed you from my iggy bin, since I find its use more of an inconvenience to me than a benefit. I'm hoping I won't find reason to regret it. If you're interested, what that would entail on your part would be to retain at least the gist of my replies to you, so that I don't get the impression that I'm talking to a brick wall, which was my initial reason for relegating you to its dark depths.

Skooma Addict

19th March 2010, 02:59

Anarchists, being fundamentally opposed to capitalism, are likewise necessarily opposed to the private property regime on which it depends. Thus, whether that regime is enforced by a traditional state, which is at least potentially under the influence of the public at large, or by a private state of the sort envisioned by so-called "anarcho-capitalists" [sic], which is designed with the sole and explicit purpose of being "safe" from such influence, is of no consequence here -- anarchists will oppose it.

As to the coexistence of capitalism and communism, it is, of course, impossible, except on antagonistic terms, since capitalists are compelled by the very nature of their system to go in search of resources, once they've burned through what they've got, in order to expand. Thus, they will come up against the communists and war will ensue, given that communists do not engage in exchange for profit.

P.S. I've removed you from my iggy bin, since I find its use more of an inconvenience to me than a benefit. I'm hoping I won't find reason to regret it. If you're interested, what that would entail on your part would be to retain at least the gist of my replies to you, so that I don't get the impression that I'm talking to a brick wall, which was my initial reason for relegating you to its dark depths.I don't see how a person can fundamentally oppose capitalism when they have never heard of or seen capitalism in their life.

Again, it would really help if you define capitalism. If me and others voluntarily form a community where individuals own the means of production and private property is enforced via private arbitration agencies, is that capitalism to you? I also assume you believe anarchists are anti-authority, in which case anyone preventing me from forming such a commune would not be an anarchist as they would be exercising authority over me.

I am pretty sure that the "search for resources" is a feature of all economic systems as resources do deplete....

I still see no reason why capitalist and communist communes could not exist side by side. The fact that they "might" battle does not mean coexistence is impossible.

What is an iggy bin?

Green Dragon

19th March 2010, 03:11

Within libertarian communism, however, workers collectively self-manage the work. So one is doing work where one has an equal say with coworkers over its character and direction. Under capitalism, the talents of the working class are underdeveloped, via things like Taylorist deskilling, which is a huge inefficiency, and a form of oppression. Under libertarian communism, work is re-designed so as to "fit" with workers being educated to do skilled work and control the planning and direction of the work.

What the "libertarian" communist system seems to propose to do is to gear and design work so as to satisy the needs of those doing that work.
The producer control production.

But such a situation makes no sense, since work does not exist to give somebody a job. Work exists because somebody else needs that labor performed. Those workers should be gearing and designing their work to satisfy the people who need the result of that labor, not being geared to satisfy the people who are doing that labor.

Who cares what the workers want to produce. What matters is whether people want what they decide to produce.

Green Dragon

19th March 2010, 03:18

But in a libertarian socialist economy, prices can be used to measure costs and benefits. This is necessary to have an effective system of allocation of resources to production, to ensure that what is produced corresponds with people's priorities.

So to dovetail with my previous note, if prices in the libertarian socialist community will be used to measure costs and benefits, to what extent can production be "re-designed" by the workers, and to what extent can they truly "control" the "direction" of their work?

Dean

19th March 2010, 03:21

I don't see how a person can fundamentally oppose capitalism when they have never heard of or seen capitalism in their life.
You mean someone hasn't seen organizations interested in the acquisition and reinvestment of capital? Are you serious? Or are you conflating capitalism with a "totally free market" in order to apply some type of moralistic virtue to the idea?

Again, it would really help if you define capitalism. If me and others voluntarily form a community where individuals own the means of production and private property is enforced via private arbitration agencies, is that capitalism to you? I also assume you believe anarchists are anti-authority, in which case anyone preventing me from forming such a commune would not be an anarchist as they would be exercising authority over me.
I bet it would help if someone defined capitalism for you (as I did above), since you seem to think that the fundamental character of capital - that is the acquisition of profit - isn't, in fact what it is! Don't forget that the term was coined in the early 19th century to describe - what else - those who acquire and maintain systems of capital.

If you are voluntarily engaged in a system involving private arbitration which defines private property relations, than you are acting under the authority of a firm which does not have your interests at heart, but rather the interests of those who act as chief benefactors to that private arbitration firm. You'd be a complete fool to willingly submit yourself to their jurisprudence unless you have sufficient capital to sway their judgment.

While justice can be bought and sold to a limited degree under "democratic" capitalist regimes, it can be bought in sold in its totality in the context of a state of capitalist martial law.

Unless you have nothing but complete contempt for the human rights and dignity of a vast majority of the human race, you should unconditionally reject private security as a form of legal organization.

*See: defines private property relations

Skooma Addict

19th March 2010, 03:27

You mean someone hasn't seen organizations interested in the acquisition and reinvestment of capital? Are you serious? Or are you conflating capitalism with a "totally free market" in order to apply some type of moralistic virtue to the idea?

I am talking about the anarchists who lived many hundreds of years ago (long before Proudhon). How did they fundamentally oppose capitalism?

I bet it would help if someone defined capitalism for you (as I did above), since you seem to think that the fundamental character of capital - that is the acquisition of profit - isn't, in fact what it is! Don't forget that the term was coined in the early 19th century to describe - what else - those who acquire and maintain systems of capital.

If you are voluntarily engaged in a system involving private arbitration which defines private property relations, than you are acting under the authority of a firm which does not have your interests at heart, but rather the interests of those who act as chief benefactors to that private arbitration firm. You'd be a complete fool to willingly submit yourself to their jurisprudence unless you have sufficient capital to sway their judgment.

While justice can be bought and sold to a limited degree under "democratic" capitalist regimes, it can be bought in sold in its totality in the context of a state of capitalist martial law.

Unless you have nothing but complete contempt for the human rights and dignity of a vast majority of the human race, you should unconditionally reject private security as a form of legal organization.

*See: defines private property relations

Well I disagree with you on pretty much everything you said here, which is why I would live in a "capitalist" commune and you wouldn't. Now, would you exert authority over me and others and prevent us from forming a voluntary commune?

Dean

19th March 2010, 03:38

I am talking about the anarchists who lived many hundreds of years ago (long before Proudhon). How did they fundamentally oppose capitalism?
Point taken.

Well I disagree with you on pretty much everything you said here, which is why I would live in a "capitalist" commune and you wouldn't. Now, would you exert authority over me and others and prevent us from forming a voluntary commune?
So, instead of directly responding to what I said - notably my argument about the systemic problems with a private security firm - you're going to ask me if I would "exert authority" over you? Hell, I won't stop you if you want to live under that brutal kind of regime, but I can assure you that the subsequent generations will live either miserably or in direct opposition to a regime which has taken to violently enforcing the interests of the highest bidder. If you think private security is so great, I really want to know why you think they wouldn't act like any other capitalist firm - that is to pander to the highest bidder.

Why don't you instead provide either:
-a systemic analysis proving how private security would justly enforce the rights of those they arbitrate over
-an explanation as to why you "disagree with [me] on pretty much everything [I] said here"?

Skooma Addict

19th March 2010, 03:45

So, instead of directly responding to what I said - notably my argument about the systemic problems with a private security firm - you're going to ask me if I would "exert authority" over you? Hell, I won't stop you if you want to live under that brutal kind of regime, but I can assure you that the subsequent generations will live either miserably or in direct opposition to a regime which has taken to violently enforcing the interests of the highest bidder. If you think private security is so great, I really want to know why you think they wouldn't act like any other capitalist firm - that is to pander to the highest bidder.

Why don't you instead provide either:
-a systemic analysis proving how private security would justly enforce the rights of those they arbitrate over
-an explanation as to why you "disagree with [me] on pretty much everything [I] said here"? I didn't directly respond because what you said was not central to the point at hand. Suffice is to say that I disagree with you concerning what the outcomes of private arbitration and pdas would be. The main point is that given your definition of anarchism, you cannot prevent me from forming such a community and remain an anarchist.

A debate about PDAs would just end up derailing the topic.

anticap

19th March 2010, 04:20

I don't see how a person can fundamentally oppose capitalism when they have never heard of or seen capitalism in their life.

If this is a reference to the absurd ad hoc divide between capitalism and so-called "corporatism" that is posited by the likes of the Misesians, then you can save it for someone else.

In any case, anarchists are fundamentally opposed to something that they call capitalism, which they clearly are familiar with. Since anarchists were witness to the rise of capitalism as a globally-dominant system, it stands to reason that they are familiar with whatever possible historical instance of it that you might posit as truly representative of it -- unless your preferred version existed only prior to its dominance, in which case you must not be an advocate of a globally-dominant capitalism, which raises the question of why you're advocating for it at all, when you could simply get together with your fellows and buy a little island and live out your little dream, much like how capitalists often suggest that we communists could do. And if your assertion is that it has never existed, then any argument that you might offer for its superiority must be purely speculative, and any "evidence" that you might uphold could only be supportive of some other system, which, no matter how closely it might approximate this mythical "capitalism," you must oppose, given your opposition to any example posited by any other group with an interest in -- and thus a familiarity with -- the subject.

Again, it would really help if you define capitalism. If me and others voluntarily form a community where individuals own the means of production and private property is enforced via private arbitration agencies, is that capitalism to you?

Yes.

I also assume you believe anarchists are anti-authority, in which case anyone preventing me from forming such a commune would not be an anarchist as they would be exercising authority over me.

This doesn't deserve a response, given the history of capitalist accumulation and usurpation of resources, which is "written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm)," as Marx so vividly put it. The question isn't whether you and your fellow Gilligans on Capitalist Isle would have reason to fear anarchists, or any other communists -- the question is what you would do once you had turned your isle to a literal desert.

I am pretty sure that the "search for resources" is a feature of all economic systems as resources do deplete....

Communists are not obliged, by the very nature of their system, to expand. Given sufficient resources, communism "in one country" is quite possible, provided that it remain unmolested (after all, no communist would deny that "communism on one planet" is possible; the only substantive difference being that there are no extra-terrestrial capitalists). Capitalism, on the other hand, must expand, irrespective even of such considerations as population growth; this is Capitalism 101, and is even upheld as a virtue of the system by its advocates.

I still see no reason why capitalist and communist communes could not exist side by side. The fact that they "might" battle does not mean coexistence is impossible.

As I said, it is impossible if "coexist" implies "peacefully," given the natures of each system. The only way battle might be avoided is if the capitalists* were so safely isolated (e.g., on an island without sufficient materials for seafaring), that they could never pose a threat by their necessary blob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob)-like expansion. In that case, they would eventually kill themselves off (as they will do once they've burned through Earth's resources and turned it into an inhospitable wasteland, unless they've sufficiently funded the state-sectors -- such as NASA -- that will develop the technologies to save them from themselves and doom some other planet to eventual destruction).

*Incidentally, it is quite absurd to even speak of a "community of capitalists," since a capitalist community will necessarily entail a majority of non-capitalists (a.k.a. "workers"). What we're speaking of, then, is a community where the productive class (the workers) have their productive activity controlled by a capitalist class.

What is an iggy bin?

"iggy bin" = "ignore list"

syndicat

19th March 2010, 04:22

What the "libertarian" communist system seems to propose to do is to gear and design work so as to satisy the needs of those doing that work.
The producer control production.

But such a situation makes no sense, since work does not exist to give somebody a job. Work exists because somebody else needs that labor performed. Those workers should be gearing and designing their work to satisfy the people who need the result of that labor, not being geared to satisfy the people who are doing that labor.

Who cares what the workers want to produce. What matters is whether people want what they decide to produce.

People who work and consume are part of the same families, at least in society where there are no longer capitalist parasites.

Subordination in work means that the working class lives less long than the dominating classes. It is a form of oppression. So we're talking about liberation here. The under-development of people's potential is also a huge inefficiency. To control workers capitalism develops huge managerial bureaucracies which are a huge drag on the economy....15.7% of workforce in USA are supervisors, whose function is basically a police role, to ensure that workers do as they're told, in the interests of maximizing profits of the owners and personal power and incomes of the bureaucratic class.

So to dovetail with my previous note, if prices in the libertarian socialist community will be used to measure costs and benefits, to what extent can production be "re-designed" by the workers, and to what extent can they truly "control" the "direction" of their work?

Because costs can be shifted onto workers as they are now...via chemical exposures, speedup, stress etc....this is an inefficiency and an injustice of capitalism. To eliminate this it's necessary to replace it with a system where workers control production, and the population who use what is produced control their decisions about their own consumption, that is, their decisions about what they want produced.

Within the market, prices do act as a transmission belt of oppression as firms that don't dump costs onto workers will be outcompeted by firms that do.

Hence, a libertarian socialist economy requires a form of grassroots social planning where there is a systematic process of negotiation in which residentially based groupings (households, neighborhood assemblies, regional federations) propose what they want produced, and workers make proposals for production, and through tabulating the proposals projected supply and demand can be calculated and projected prices adjusted.

Because people and communities and organizations operate as economic actors with budgets, they will need to adjust their requests to keep within budgets, and hence arrive at a match between supply and demand. But workers are not subordinate within this process. If there is less demand for their product, then they may need to change their proposal for production. Accurate prices means real social opportunity costs need to be calculated. Markets can't do this because markets encourage firms to engage in systematic cost-shifting such as onto workers through speed up etc or onto communities through pollution etc.

Skooma Addict

19th March 2010, 05:02

If this is a reference to the absurd ad hoc divide between capitalism and so-called "corporatism" that is posited by the likes of the Misesians, then you can save it for someone else.

I was referring to the anarchists who lived many hundreds of years before capitalism.

unless your preferred version existed only prior to its dominance, in which case you must not be an advocate of a globally-dominant capitalism, which raises the question of why you're advocating for it at all, when you could simply get together with your fellows and buy a little island and live out your little dream, much like how capitalists often suggest that we communists could do.

I have a feeling that is easier said than done....

Anyways, yea, I think me and a group of other people living in 1 capitalist commune surrounded by communist communes would suck.

This doesn't deserve a response, given the history of capitalist accumulation and usurpation of resources, which is "written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm)," as Marx so vividly put it. The question isn't whether you and your fellow Gilligans on Capitalist Isle would have reason to fear anarchists, or any other communists -- the question is what you would do once you had turned your isle to a literal desert.

How does it not deserve a response? It is the central and most important point of our discussion. I think most communities would be more "capitalist" than "communist," and I believe the former will be vastly superior, but that is not the point. The point is that you cannot prevent people forming such communities and remain an anarchist (using your definitions).

Communists are not obliged, by the very nature of their system, to expand.

Nor are capitalists. There is absolutely no reason why a capitalist commune is required by its nature to conquer land.

Drace

19th March 2010, 05:31

How does it not deserve a response? It is the central and most important point of our discussion. I think most communities would be more "capitalist" than "communist," and I believe the former will be vastly superior, but that is not the point. The point is that you cannot prevent people forming such communities and remain an anarchist (using your definitions).From our viewpoint, people returning to capitalism is like people returning to feudalism.

Of course, the only thing that would stop people from creating said communities would be the common conscious.

Also I would think that there would be some unity among communes through larger organizations and institutions, so I don't see completely isolated communes as a reality.

John_Jordan

19th March 2010, 08:32

From our viewpoint, people returning to capitalism is like people returning to feudalism.

Of course, the only thing that would stop people from creating said communities would be the common conscious.

Also I would think that there would be some unity among communes through larger organizations and institutions, so I don't see completely isolated communes as a reality.

Not everybody agrees with you. And no matter what you think, it's a pretty sure thing that there will never be a time when everybody agrees with you. Given the chance, Ancaps will make their own communes. So will every other sort of Anarchist. It's just how it is.

anticap

19th March 2010, 23:21

I was referring to the anarchists who lived many hundreds of years before capitalism.

Then you're being difficult just for the sake of it.

When I say "anarchists are, and have always been, fundamentally opposed to capitalism," I'm not making a claim as to which came first. We could argue that historical point, but it's unnecessary. If we accept your assertion that the anarchist came first, then the point is not that the first anarchists had an opinion on capitalism, but that the first capitalists would have made an impression on anarchists.

To put it another way: it makes perfect grammatical sense for me to say that I have always been fundamentally opposed to you, even though I have not existed since the dawn of time, and even though there was a time in my life before I was aware of your existence. The use of "always" in this sense refers to the history of the interaction.

Now, do you feel you've wasted enough time on this silliness?

How does it not deserve a response?

It didn't deserve a response (though I gave one anyway, and you appear to have ignored it, as you are wont to do) because for an advocate of capitalism to put on a worried face and wring his hands at the prospect of being mistreated by those who have been so mistreated by his ideological forbears is infuriating as well as ridiculous. It's like a rapist asking his victim if she intends him harm.

Nevertheless, expanding on my previous reply: neither anarchists, nor other communists, have any reason to care what fully-informed people voluntarily do. As I've said, it is capitalists who lust after what others have; communists (of all stripes) recognize that all are entitled to the resources necessary for survival. So why would they not respect the needs of your little group? Your question can only have been asked for melodramatic effect; it can't have been serious.

There is a caveat to the above: notice my use of "fully-informed" and "voluntarily." Neither is sufficient alone. Suppose I turn the question back on you, thus: "Would you try to prevent me and my group of pro-feudalists from forming a feudal society?" If you're a decent human being, you'd probably feel a bit leery, and want to know whether the serfs of this society would be entering the arrangement with eyes open. If they wouldn't be, then you'd probably be inclined to defend them against exploitation by me and my fellow would-be feudal lords. It wouldn't be enough for us to secure their voluntary signatures if we withheld the truth about the life we had planned for them; and of course it wouldn't be enough for us to tell them everything while dragging them there in chains. Likewise, it stands to reason that if the wage-slaves in your Kapitalist Kingdom were not there voluntarily, and were not fully-informed of the nature of the barbaric, neo-feudalist economic system they were toiling under, then anarchists/communists would have a vested interest (as decent human beings, like yourself) in sticking their noses in and, at the very least, propagandizing the victims of your exploitation.

Does that explication of my position satisfy you?

Nor are capitalists. There is absolutely no reason why a capitalist commune is required by its nature to conquer land.

Yes, there is. As I've said, this is Capitalism 101, and is even held up as a virtue of the system by its advocates. Of course, they don't put it in so many words! But "growth" is put forth as the shining attribute of capitalism, and growth requires an ever-expanding supply of resources. As long as capitalism survives, non-capitalist societies are in danger and will have to divert precious resources to defense. Thus, cooperative societies will be forced to remain mixed, semi-competitive societies (war being merely a grand competition). Please, do us a favor and abolish yourselves, won't you? :thumbup1:

John_Jordan

20th March 2010, 00:11

Nevertheless, expanding on my previous reply: neither anarchists, nor other communists, have any reason to care what fully-informed people voluntarily do....

There is a caveat to the above: notice my use of "fully-informed" and "voluntarily." Neither is sufficient alone. Suppose I turn the question back on you, thus: "Would you try to prevent me and my group of pro-feudalists from forming a feudal society?" If you're a decent human being, you'd probably feel a bit leery, and want to know whether the serfs of this society would be entering the arrangement with eyes open. If they wouldn't be, then you'd probably be inclined to defend them against exploitation by me and my fellow would-be feudal lords. It wouldn't be enough for us to secure their voluntary signatures if we withheld the truth about the life we had planned for them; and of course it wouldn't be enough for us to tell them everything while dragging them there in chains. Likewise, it stands to reason that if the wage-slaves in your Kapitalist Kingdom were not there voluntarily, and were not fully-informed of the nature of the barbaric, neo-feudalist economic system they were toiling under, then anarchists/communists would have a vested interest (as decent human beings, like yourself) in sticking their noses in and, at the very least, propagandizing the victims of your exploitation.

I doubt you really believe this. It is an extremely annoying thing to actually follow this train of reasoning to its end point. In the first place, what is "Fully informed" defined by? Can you give me a good definition? How do you tell one is fully informed?

Would Communists be leery of other Communists? Would they attempt to make sure all Communists are "fully informed" before joining the commune?

If I was making shoes, would you go up to me and make sure I am fully informed in what shoe making entails? What about farming? Baking? Any job in fact.

If I am to romance a person, would you go up to me and ask if I am fully informed in what sort of impact such a relationship would have on my life?

If you said no to any of that, you're not being consistent. If you're not consistent, it's reasonable to say that you don't really believe in "fully informed"ness. It's probable then that you just are fully convinced that Capitalism, and Feudalism for that matter, are so terrible that anybody who said they were agreeing to it must not be fully informed. It thus becomes not a requirement of being fully informed when people do things, but just a sort of astonishment that you have, which becomes a need for verification.

Which is fine. But it's not the same thing as a requirement.

Yes, there is. As I've said, this is Capitalism 101, and is even held up as a virtue of the system by its advocates. Of course, they don't put it in so many words! But "growth" is put forth as the shining attribute of capitalism, and growth requires an ever-expanding supply of resources. As long as capitalism survives, non-capitalist societies are in danger and will have to divert precious resources to defense. Thus, cooperative societies will be forced to remain mixed, semi-competitive societies (war being merely a grand competition). Please, do us a favor and abolish yourselves, won't you? :thumbup1:

Sounds to me like you're just reading negatives into something because you find that something negative. They say growth. This isn't mercantilism, you can grow without expanding territorially.

anticap

20th March 2010, 00:57

[:rolleyes:-inducing drivel]

Like your comrade, Olaf, it appears that you enjoy being difficult, just for the sake of it, or perhaps to see how far others will follow you down your persnickety rabbit-hole. I'll go no farther than to point out the obvious: in the case of anti-capitalist objections to capitalism, "fully-informed" means "fully-informed of the anti-capitalist objections to capitalism."

You are now fully-informed as to what I meant by "fully-informed" in my previous post. Onwards!

mercantilism

Ah! My second-favorite ad hoc Misesian distinction! No, I think this one is my favorite: it sounds better, and is even more ridiculous! :thumbup1:

Dean

20th March 2010, 06:54

I didn't directly respond because what you said was not central to the point at hand. Suffice is to say that I disagree with you concerning what the outcomes of private arbitration and pdas would be. The main point is that given your definition of anarchism, you cannot prevent me from forming such a community and remain an anarchist.

A debate about PDAs would just end up derailing the topic.

That's not the main point. You're making it the main point in order to dodge a question, and reasoned analysis, which can only lead to the obvious conclusion that pay-to-play legal organizations fundamentally represent the interests of those who can pay best.

It is a fundamental argument by capitalists that the consumer will ultimately be empowered when it comes to the representation of their dollar in a free market. Applying that same philosophy to the private sale of security leads to the most basic damning evidence for the "free market."

The fact is that this explicitly paints your proposed system as an incredibly coercive one which, in transforming all political and legal representation into marketable currency, creates an incredibly centralizing mode of security which will use its coercive power to do - what else - act in its own self interest and expand its market share by forcible means.

Furthermore, this is absolutely on topic because your claim, that communism needs coercion, is trumped by my claim, that competition is a fundamentally coercive system, especially when applied to state structures.

The fact that you, hayenmill and Trivas7 all fail to even acknowledge this argument seems to unmask your incredibly weak, defensive position. You may believe that private security firms would be great, but your failure to provide or even explain systemic examples proving this supposed penchant for equality under a system driven by inequal, competitive market forces really indicates that you have no idea why a critical function of your free market would manifest in an orientation justly representative of their constituency.

Comrade Anarchist

21st March 2010, 00:23

What everyone here keeps doing is beating up on capitalism for not being capitalism. State capitalism is what we have today. If companies use or are used by the government for gain then they are state capitalist. That is what is happening today. You can not blame free markets if they are not free. Only a few free market societies have existed. I advocate for a free market society, where everyone has full reign over what they do with their lives. Everyone works to gain a life and to fulfill their happiness. Everyone works for themselves or their families. Businesses that are created earn a profit and the businesses are the creation of people who had to work hard. If they fail it is because of bad decisions or just plain bad luck in the market. The boom and bust cycles are creations of state capitalists whether in or out of government. They tempt to control economies by pushing billions into certain sectors and all they are doing is creating bubbles.

Without governments prices will go down b/c without the taxes that are levied on goods and companies then companies will be able to cut prices b/c they wont have to account for tax money, this means that workers who can barely afford things now b/c they are having their paychecks cut up by governments will be able to get cheaper goods. Without governments regulating economies businesses can grow and create new jobs. Without governments people will be able to compete for the services and the best provider wins. Competition is the back bone. When it is gone capitalism ceases to exist. When companies use governments to create new regulations they are trying to break competition and are trying to subvert the free market so that they may control it. Companies that have made bad decisions will sink if they do not turn around. Capitalism therefore exists b/c the majority want it and they want a society of individuals.

Now on to anarcho communism. Now to use everyone's favorite word anarcho communism is a strawman. Ancoms say you don't have to work, everything is given to you without a struggle. First off without a state who is giving anybody anything. Secondly, ancoms need to stop thinking in this false post scarcity world. Just because capitalism is gone doesn't make resources magically reappear overnight. In this society you don't have to work so instead you are given everything you need. My question is how? How can you get all you need if no one works. Without workers there is no society. If no body has to work then who will work on farms, or in mines, or in forests, factories, etc. Without people working then your society falls apart. The things we rely on every day are not bestowed upon us for laying around they are received by us b/c we worked for them. Now workers, they make up every economy. An anarcho communism may be a supposed paradise for workers, but in fact it is a hell. There are two ways to get people to work, by force or by reward. If your society says you get all your needs and you don't have to work for them then someone has to. In capitalism workers go to work voluntarily and receive paychecks, for a reward for hard work, so that they may live. You take away money or some type of currency and you are left with force.

An ancom society would devolve into hell. I have described why for workers now for everyone else. The state or government will arise in your society. Governments don't have to have hierarchies, you can all be part of a governmental organization and still be equal. An anarcho communist society will have a state. Everyone has divided the state into 2 categories, a republic of some kind, or a society with an all powerful authoritative government. There is a third category, that being direct democracy. You can overthrow any government but to replace it with direct democracy is to replace it with a government. A direct democracy allows everyone to directly vote on issues and ideas. Well that sounds like a governing organization, aka government. Governments are creations of the mob. Direct democracy is the full evolution of the mob. It allows for everyone to vote on issues that may effect your life. A government is nothing more than an organization that exercises authority over people. Direct democracy is a government where everyone has a say in how their government works. One of the many anarcho communist problems is that the idea of a state is contradictory to anarchism. Everyone here except for stalinists i guess, are against tyrants with supreme authority, and we are all against the ignorant mobs voting for bush, yet you ancoms want to give the lowest of the mob the right to act as tyrant and voter.

anticap

21st March 2010, 01:02

What everyone here keeps doing is beating up on capitalism for not being capitalism. State capitalism is what we have today.

Stopped reading there.

Capitalism is a mode of production. It relies on a particular set of property relations, which must be enforced. Whether that is done by a so-called "public state" [sic] (i.e., a union of capitalists under nominal public influence), or by a private state (which is what your "private courts and defense agencies" amounts to), is immaterial to the question of whether or not the capitalist mode of production exists.

When you say "state capitalism," what you mean is "capitalism as enforced by an arrangement I don't like." The distinction is in the enforcement, not in the mode of production.

"State capitalism" is capitalism.

Comrade Anarchist

21st March 2010, 13:58

Stopped reading there.

Capitalism is a mode of production. It relies on a particular set of property relations, which must be enforced. Whether that is done by a so-called "public state" [sic] (i.e., a union of capitalists under nominal public influence), or by a private state (which is what your "private courts and defense agencies" amounts to), is immaterial to the question of whether or not the capitalist mode of production exists.

When you say "state capitalism," what you mean is "capitalism as enforced by an arrangement I don't like." The distinction is in the enforcement, not in the mode of production.

"State capitalism" is capitalism.

Everybody here keeps getting upset and saying that capitalism needs to be enforced so there needs to be a state. No just like every other revolutionary idea out there people must agree on the society before they enter it. Private courts would exist and they would have objective law and morals. They would have an arresting force that is very limited. Private defense companies would obviously be used to subvert competition so they wouldn't exist in a society based on competition. Capitalism is nothing more than a system where the modes of production are owned privately, not some wide sweeping government fueled conspiracy. We in the ancap society will agree to property rights and to respect contracts and such. You all seem so flabbergasted by that idea, yet without that cooperation and agreement no society can come into being.

gorillafuck

21st March 2010, 15:54

Private defense companies would obviously be used to subvert competition so they wouldn't exist in a society based on competition.
Private defense companies wouldn't exist?

Then how are people defended in your stateless society?

syndicat

21st March 2010, 18:05

There is a third category, that being direct democracy. You can overthrow any government but to replace it with direct democracy is to replace it with a government. A direct democracy allows everyone to directly vote on issues and ideas. Well that sounds like a governing organization, aka government. Governments are creations of the mob. Direct democracy is the full evolution of the mob. It allows for everyone to vote on issues that may effect your life. A government is nothing more than an organization that exercises authority over people. Direct democracy is a government where everyone has a say in how their government works.

Yes, the governance power in a libertarian communist society is a form of government. but it's the people organized to govern the collective aspects of their society themselves.

This is not a state. As Kropotkin pointed out, there is a distinction between state and government. A state is a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure that presides over society, is not effectively controlled by the mass of the people, and thus is able to work to defend the interests of a minority dominating and exploiting class.

Businesses are like a state in being hierarchical forms of power, in which workers are forced to be subordinate to the owners and managers.

You can't keep this system of oppression and exploitation going unless you have an armed state power that is apart from popular control.

John_Jordan

21st March 2010, 22:22

Like your comrade, Olaf, it appears that you enjoy being difficult, just for the sake of it, or perhaps to see how far others will follow you down your persnickety rabbit-hole. I'll go no farther than to point out the obvious: in the case of anti-capitalist objections to capitalism, "fully-informed" means "fully-informed of the anti-capitalist objections to capitalism."

You are now fully-informed as to what I meant by "fully-informed" in my previous post. Onwards!

Okay (this doesn't actually work, but this wasn't my main argument. It was just an honest question). Then perhaps you should respond to everything else I said (particularly the main argument).

Ah! My second-favorite ad hoc Misesian distinction! No, I think this one is my favorite: it sounds better, and is even more ridiculous! :thumbup1:

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm starting to think everybody on this board loves von Mises more than is healthy. He comes up randomly all the time.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

22nd March 2010, 02:03

Everybody here keeps getting upset and saying that capitalism needs to be enforced so there needs to be a state. No just like every other revolutionary idea out there people must agree on the society before they enter it. Private courts would exist and they would have objective law and morals. They would have an arresting force that is very limited. Private defense companies would obviously be used to subvert competition so they wouldn't exist in a society based on competition. Capitalism is nothing more than a system where the modes of production are owned privately, not some wide sweeping government fueled conspiracy. We in the ancap society will agree to property rights and to respect contracts and such. You all seem so flabbergasted by that idea, yet without that cooperation and agreement no society can come into being.

ITT: Libertarians confuse a free market with a certain type of property rights with "capitalism."

Us leftists form a characterise economic systems according to how they operate. Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. It matters not to us whether this private entity is called "the state" and claims to be working for the "public good" or whether it is many private entities, all claiming to also work for "consumer satisifaction."

As opposed to you libertarians, who define capitalism according to the "moral" principle of "whether exchange is voluntary."

Which do you think is more useful?

And as a side note, to say capitalism is based on "voluntary exchange" fosters the kind of misunderstanding I see a lot of libertarians holding. Capitalist property rights are still enforced onto people no matter what they think of them - even if they exchange said property "voluntarily."

John_Jordan

22nd March 2010, 02:33

ITT: Libertarians confuse a free market with a certain type of property rights with "capitalism."

Us leftists form a characterise economic systems according to how they operate. Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. It matters not to us whether this private entity is called "the state" and claims to be working for the "public good" or whether it is many private entities, all claiming to also work for "consumer satisifaction."

As opposed to you libertarians, who define capitalism according to the "moral" principle of "whether exchange is voluntary."

Which do you think is more useful?

I don't know, which is more useful, and why is it more useful?

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

22nd March 2010, 04:00

I don't know, which is more useful, and why is it more useful?

Which do you think is based on how the system actually works, and which do you think is based on some abstract principle?

To make this more obvious, imagine if I decided to define political systems in accordance to whether people in them preferred rugby or football?

Thats obviously much more useless a definition than the libertarian one, but even so.

syndicat

22nd March 2010, 04:30

Right-libertarians mean by "voluntary" "absence of overt coersion or physical restraint." Market relations have more or less this feature in capitalism. But markets have existed for thousands of years. They are a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of capitalism.

Capitalism is also essentially a class system, and thus a system of oppression and exploitation. This is because there is a minority who have a relative monopoly over ownership of the means of production. And because the means of production are the means to life, the majority are forced to seek jobs under the thumb of the privately owned businesses (or the state). Forced because dire consequences are likely if one doesn't take a job offer.

Competition forces each business to seek as much market share as it can get and to make as much profit as it can, otherwise it will tend to lose out over time to competitors. A major way to maximize profits is to shift costs onto others, onto the community via pollution, or onto workers via speed up, deskilling, close monitoring, exposure to chemicals and other dangerous condtions.

Capitalist firms can make a profit only because of the relatively powerless position of workers in this situation, which enables firms to push down wage rates to a level that enables them to make a profit.

Because capitalism is a class system, and a system of oppression and exploitation, it requires a state in order to protect the ownership of the capitalists, and to ensure the capitalist game can continue. A major function of the police is basically intimidation of the lower class, to keep them in bounds, and the managerial bureaucracy plays a kind of policing role also, monitoring and disciplining and ordering workers to work as hard as they can get them to.

Green Dragon

22nd March 2010, 13:29

.

You can't keep this system of oppression and exploitation going unless you have an armed state power that is apart from popular control.

And what about armed state power that is under popular control?

Green Dragon

22nd March 2010, 13:52

[QUOTE=syndicat;1697034]People who work and consume are part of the same families, at least in society where there are no longer capitalist parasites.

Not really. I do not have any family memebers who work growing corn.

Subordination in work means that the working class lives less long than the dominating classes. It is a form of oppression.

OK. So the claim is that workers will live LONGER in a socialist community than in a capitalist one. The proofs of this should be interesting.

The under-development of people's potential is also a huge inefficiency. To control workers capitalism develops huge managerial bureaucracies which are a huge drag on the economy....15.7% of workforce in USA are supervisors,

In a socialist community, it would seem neccessary to have supervisors in a workforce. I mean after all, how does one ensure that the democratic vote on a particular course of production is adhered to? Somebody has to make sure the train stays on the track.

whose function is basically a police role, to ensure that workers do as they're told,

In a socialist community, those workers who LOST in a democratic vote will absolutely need to do what they were told. Their failure to do so can cause serious problems for the system itself, far more so than recalcitrant workers in a capitalist system.

Because costs can be shifted onto workers as they are now...via chemical exposures, speedup, stress etc....this is an inefficiency and an injustice of capitalism. To eliminate this it's necessary to replace it with a system where workers control production, and the population who use what is produced control their decisions about their own consumption, that is, their decisions about what they want produced.

But a situation where the workers "control" production does not solve any of the aforementioned problems. All that can be said is that the workers would choose to shift the costs elsewhere. But then one has to examine the impact upon THAT cost-shifting has on the community.

Within the market, prices do act as a transmission belt of oppression as firms that don't dump costs onto workers will be outcompeted by firms that do.

Perhaps. Or perhaps by those who DO dump their costs on labor.

Hence, a libertarian socialist economy requires a form of grassroots social planning where there is a systematic process of negotiation in which residentially based groupings (households, neighborhood assemblies, regional federations) propose what they want produced, and workers make proposals for production, and through tabulating the proposals projected supply and demand can be calculated and projected prices adjusted.

A "libertarian" socialist economy is apparently one where the purchasing decisions of an individual are subsumed by some sort "grouping" ( a nice way of saying "beauracracy." Because that is what is created). It does not strike on as being particularly "libertarian."

But aside from that, look at what is being said- These "groupings" will negotiate with the workers of the various factories for needed goods and services. Since it appears the pursuit of profit will not be how the workers will calculate their ability to produce in that situation, it seems the negotiations will be about to what extent the workers feel like producing what is being asked- based upon their own criteria and fullfilling their own needs. It still makes little sense as to why if the community needs 100 hair dryers they should have to negotiate with the hair dryer factory workers aboit supplying thoe 100 dryers.

Because people and communities and organizations operate as economic actors with budgets, they will need to adjust their requests to keep within budgets

Sure. They may have to reduce costs somewhere to get what they want, or to produce what is being asked of them.

If there is less demand for their product, then they may need to change their proposal for production.

One would think this goes without saying.

But what happens to the factory choose NOT to adjust their producton>

Accurate prices means real social opportunity costs need to be calculated. Markets can't do this because markets encourage firms to engage in systematic cost-shifting such as onto workers through speed up

OK. So rather than "speed-up" when the consumer demands it, the costs of an increased demand for that product will be shifted to the consumer who wants that product. That product will not be as readily available as it could have been. I am not seeing how ths is beneficial to the community.

RGacky3

22nd March 2010, 14:02

Private defense companies would obviously be used to subvert competition so they wouldn't exist in a society based on competition.

Who would stop them from existing the ...... GOVERNMENT???

The whole idea of the market is to subvert compeition and win profits btw.

And what about armed state power that is under popular control?

Is much much better than the alternative.

In a socialist community, it would seem neccessary to have supervisors in a workforce. I mean after all, how does one ensure that the democratic vote on a particular course of production is adhered to? Somebody has to make sure the train stays on the track.

A democratic vote on a course would be enforced democratically, in other words, if you see some one going against what he agreed to then you bring it up, its pretty simple, if you've ever done a group project of anykind you'd understand this simple concept.

Their failure to do so can cause serious problems for the system itself, far more so than recalcitrant workers in a capitalist system.

How so?

BTW green dragon, you bring up this stuff all the time, possible problems in socialist-anarchism, but I have yet to see an alternative that is better from you.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

22nd March 2010, 16:40

Right-libertarians mean by "voluntary" "absence of overt coersion or physical restraint."

That is correct - however capitatlists feel free to imposed their property concepts onto us without consent, so capitalism is only "voluntary" if we ignore that.

Socialism does one better, and allows people to democratically decide who owns what, making it more "voluntary."

Skooma Addict

22nd March 2010, 16:43

That is correct - however capitatlists feel free to imposed their property concepts onto us without consent, so capitalism is only "voluntary" if we ignore that.

You are correct here.

Socialism does one better, and allows people to democratically decide who owns what, making it more "voluntary."

Maybe it is more voluntary for you. But it isn't for me.

syndicat

22nd March 2010, 18:49

That is correct - however capitatlists feel free to imposed their property concepts onto us without consent, so capitalism is only "voluntary" if we ignore that.

Socialism does one better, and allows people to democratically decide who owns what, making it more "voluntary."

The dominating classes won't give up their power voluntarily. So in fact socialism can't be imposed voluntarily. This is not a problem since the power and monopoly of control of work and wealth by the minority owning and bureaucratic classes is illegitimate. It's illegitimate because it tramples the postive and negative freedom of the working class.

the Right-libertarian definition of freedom only defines negative freedom. They leave out positive freedom because it is denied to the working class within capitalism. Positive freedom is control over your life and work, that is, self-management, and also equal acess to the means to sustain and develop your abilities.

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:34

Capitalism is nothing more than a system where the modes of production are owned privately

I'm glad you've come around to seeing it my way. Does that mean you'll drop the various ad hoc distinctions that you and your "comrades" attempt to draw between capitalism qua capitalism and the status quo (which you'd understandably like to distance yourself from, given all its horrors)?

Or is this the part where you deny that the mode of production is privately owned under the corporatist/mercantilist/state-capitalist/socialist/fascist/whatever-the-fuck system we allegedly live under?

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:36

perhaps you should respond to everything else I said

Perhaps you shouldn't have gotten yourself banned. Perhaps you'll pose the question again under your real account (you know, the one you -- perhaps -- registered this one to side with in arguments, because, hey, even pro-capitalists need friends). Or perhaps you were banned for something else. Perhaps I'll never know. Perhaps I'll someday care. Perhaps we'll meet again, somewhere....

Green Dragon

23rd March 2010, 02:28

Is much much better than the alternative.

My question related to the definition of the "state" given by that fellow.

A democratic vote on a course would be enforced democratically, in other words, if you see some one going against what he agreed to then you bring it up, its pretty simple, if you've ever done a group project of anykind you'd understand this simple concept.

One would need to describe how a democratic vote is enforced democratically.
And in group projects, there is always a supervisor, somebody to whom the group reports.

How so?

Because of "mutual consent" and all those other definitions and descriptions of democracy previously offered. The worker on the losing end of the vote who refuses to obey the decision of the majority is in that sense attacking the system. He is not giving that "mutual consent" so required. That worker who disagrees with a decision of the capitalist is always free to leave to find employment elsewhere, with no particular negative impact upon the system.

BTW green dragon, you bring up this stuff all the time, possible problems in socialist-anarchism, but I have yet to see an alternative that is better from you.

The present system is far superior.

Dean

23rd March 2010, 02:37

The present system is far superior.

I swear I've heard that before somewhere... oh wait, I think the caves are calling you home!

syndicat

23rd March 2010, 05:03

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

24th March 2010, 02:09

You are correct here.

Maybe it is more voluntary for you. But it isn't for me.

Perhaps it isn't voluntary for you.

But are you denying that giving people some say over what property system they live under is more voluntary than giving them none at all?

I can't see how you'd think that? :S

syndicat

24th March 2010, 18:46

Because of "mutual consent" and all those other definitions and descriptions of democracy previously offered. The worker on the losing end of the vote who refuses to obey the decision of the majority is in that sense attacking the system. He is not giving that "mutual consent" so required. That worker who disagrees with a decision of the capitalist is always free to leave to find employment elsewhere, with no particular negative impact upon the system.

This is complete nonsense. No worker is oppressed because he loses a vote. That's individualist nonsense. Oppression is of groups, due to social structures...such as the capitalist class structure, white supremacy, patriarchy. Under capitalism the workplace is organized as a dictatorship: "Do as I say or leave."

Under collective self-management, a worker who loses a vote simply loses a vote, and the decision of the majority is then carried out. At least he has a say, can argue for this position, and the workers control what goes on. In the capitalist workplace there is no collective control by the workers. They are all subject to the capitalist dictatorship.

And in regard to the freedom to leave and go elsewhere, that exists also in libertarian communism. But in libertarian communism one is not faced with starvation without a job. Nor is there systemic unemployment making it hard to find a job.

Green Dragon

26th March 2010, 13:26

[
QUOTE=syndicat;1701948]This is complete nonsense. No worker is oppressed because he loses a vote. That's individualist nonsense. Oppression is of groups, due to social structures..

Ok. Then the group of workers who always lose a vote.

Under collective self-management, a worker who loses a vote simply loses a vote, and the decision of the majority is then carried out.

"Do as I (the majority) say, or leave."

And in regard to the freedom to leave and go elsewhere

How does that impact ownership by that worker?

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 13:32

Ok. Then the group of workers who always lose a vote.

Do you honestly think there will be a group of workers that ALWAYS loose a vote?

But AGAIN, whats the alternative.

"Do as I (the majority) say, or leave."

And what would you have?

Green Dragon

26th March 2010, 14:36

Do you honestly think there will be a group of workers that ALWAYS loose a vote?

Why not? it happens in the political world all the time.

And what would you have?
[/QUOTE]

The socialists claim always amounts to a variation of 'capitalism is bad. Therefore socialsim must be better.' They rarely attempt to quantify or demonstrate the latter.

So, in the above, how is the lot of the worker improved when his choices are to accept the dictates of the capitalist versus the dictates of the majority? It isn't.

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 15:57

Why not? it happens in the political world all the time.

Show me an example of direct democracy where this is the case.

BTW, there are democratic work places right now, and they work.

So, in the above, how is the lot of the worker improved when his choices are to accept the dictates of the capitalist versus the dictates of the majority? It isn't.

The difference is he has a say in a democracy, he has no say with a Capitalist. Are you HONESTLY saying there is no difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?

AGAIN,

WHAT IS YOUR BETTER SOLUTION!!!???

syndicat

26th March 2010, 23:55

me:

A person is not oppressed because they lose a vote.

you:

Ok. Then the group of workers who always lose a vote.

Extremely unlikely to occur. The examples of many cases of workers taking over and collectively managing workplaces and industries do not show any such example I can think of offhand, unless one is thinking of former bosses and former owners. They would lose votes to re-impose their power and privileges. That's okay because their power and privileges were illegitimate.

People grow up in families and in classes, in social groups. They are shaped by this, and as adults also if a working class person has the experience of joint struggles with others, participation in a social movement... and this would be widespread or there will be no libertarian socialism...and this also shapes their desires and attitudes, as does their shared class situation.

The upshot of this is they will in fact have shared desires with others around them. So it is highly unlikely they will always lose votes.

Individualists don't think of this because they imagine that individuals are social atoms, with desires solely arising from within themselves. But that's a false theory of the human person.

And in regard to the freedom to leave and go elsewhere
How does that impact ownership by that worker?

Land and other non-human means of production are not privately owned by individual workers. They are owned in common by the society as a whole. When a group of workers manage some workplace, those facilities are being subcontracted to them by society, so they have a use-right to those facilities. They don't "own" them; that is, no one can buy or sell them.

When a worker changes jobs they become part of a grouping of workers, with equal rights there, so they have the same use-right as before.

Green Dragon

29th March 2010, 13:21

Show me an example of direct democracy where this is the case.

An example where people live under a democratic government not of their choosing? A Republican in Harlem.

BTW, there are democratic work places right now, and they work.

Gacky- It has nothing to do with this. Nobody is arguing that that workers cannot decide what to do in their own workplaces. What is being argued is this:

1. Eonomic-- that all such decisions have to be made to utilise th present ecomonic base in the most efficient way possible. Simply saying that "democracy" solves that problem is incorrect. It doesn't even answer it.

2. Political-- Yet again, unless a democracy in a socialist system is expected to have a 100% vote in favor or against evert time, it is simply not true to say their are no rulers, or ruled. The majority will rule; and the minority will be ruled. To say that To say that this is not so because that minority may ("may" it should be added) be a majority someday changes nothing.

The difference is he has a say in a democracy, he has no say with a Capitalist. Are you HONESTLY saying there is no difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?

The worker has a great deal of say in a capitalist community-- he can refuse to work under the terms offered. A worker who refuses to work in socialism under the terms so dictated by the majority is in a way witholding "mutual consent" and is attacking the democratic system.

Green Dragon

29th March 2010, 13:29

Extremely unlikely to occur. The examples of many cases of workers taking over and collectively managing workplaces and industries do not show any such example I can think of offhand,

OK. So your conception of a functioning workplace in a socialist system is all the workers agreeing on a course of action more or less all the time.

People grow up in families and in classes, in social groups. They are shaped by this, and as adults also if a working class person has the experience of joint struggles with others, participation in a social movement... and this would be widespread or there will be no libertarian socialism...

OK. So if the workers of a workplace in a socialist system are NOT more or less agreeing with each other all the time on a course of action, there is NOT a functioning "libertarian" socialist community?

Land and other non-human means of production are not privately owned by individual workers. They are owned in common by the society as a whole. When a group of workers manage some workplace, those facilities are being subcontracted to them by society

So does "society" have a right to overule the decisions of the managers of a given workplace? Can "society" decide that the present workers are simply not performing up to snuff and thus replace them with others it deems more qualified?

RGacky3

29th March 2010, 15:05

An example where people live under a democratic government not of their choosing? A Republican in Harlem.

Thats not what I asked, I asked to give me an example of direct democracy where a group ALWAYS looses on an issue. Even a Republican in Harlem will get his way many times.

But Harlem, is not a direct democracy.

1. Eonomic-- that all such decisions have to be made to utilise th present ecomonic base in the most efficient way possible. Simply saying that "democracy" solves that problem is incorrect. It doesn't even answer it.

Obviously in the real world there are more complicated issues. Capitalists answer is "The Market", mine is "democracy".

The point is not how decisions are to be made perse, its who makes them, and my stance is everyone has an equal say over it if they decide to use it.

2. Political-- Yet again, unless a democracy in a socialist system is expected to have a 100% vote in favor or against evert time, it is simply not true to say their are no rulers, or ruled. The majority will rule; and the minority will be ruled. To say that To say that this is not so because that minority may ("may" it should be added) be a majority someday changes nothing.

I don't think your correct, if you and a group of friends pool money together to buy beer, and its decided that your gonna buy Coronas, if you want something else id you don't like corona, you can take your money out of the equasion and not be part of the group, you can stay home and drink miller by yourself, now what you can't do is overrule what your group of friends decided and say "everyones having miller." Now if you decide to stay and drink corona even though you'd prefer miller so you can enjoy time with your friends, would you say you are being "ruled" over? If so I don't know how you have friends.

Thats the same principle with democracy, you can choose to take part in individual decisions or not, but if you do choose, you can't over rule everyone else. THATS what I mean by democracy.

The worker has a great deal of say in a capitalist community-- he can refuse to work under the terms offered. A worker who refuses to work in socialism under the terms so dictated by the majority is in a way witholding "mutual consent" and is attacking the democratic system.

the whole point of mutual consent is that you hae a right to withhold it, and not take part.

Under a Capitalist system you have a "right" to refuse, but in reality you have very little rights, becasue the material conditions dictate that you ahve to consent to moneyed power.

So does "society" have a right to overule the decisions of the managers of a given workplace? Can "society" decide that the present workers are simply not performing up to snuff and thus replace them with others it deems more qualified?

No, but historically thats never been the case, remember the difference between capitalist efficiency and socialist efficieny, under socialism you don't need to make a profit.

syndicat

3rd April 2010, 19:01

OK. So if the workers of a workplace in a socialist system are NOT more or less agreeing with each other all the time on a course of action, there is NOT a functioning "libertarian" socialist community?

I don't understand your question. Workplaces would have assemblies. These would be the ultimate authority. Each worker has an equal vote in these assemblies. All workers have equal access to training and acquisition of skills and knowledge pertinent to the running of that industry.

Not all decisions are made in workplace assemblies, because there is some delegation of tasks. And when spheres of decision-making mainly apply to one department, then they have their own assemblies to make those decisions. They also elect coordinating committees, to coordinate the work. But those delegated special tasks such as coordinators are elected by and removal by the worker collective.

However, when a decision is made in the assembly, if there is disagreement, the matter is decided by majority vote. But there is no structural or stratified division into separate groups, with different degrees of power, as there is in capitalism, with its division into classes.

Because people have many common perceptions and shared understandings and interests with others, and work in a cooperative way with ohters, and do not have a structured antagonism of interests (such as exists in a class system), people are likely to be in agreement with others most of the time.

me:
Land and other non-human means of production are not privately owned by individual workers. They are owned in common by the society as a whole. When a group of workers manage some workplace, those facilities are being subcontracted to them by society
Land and other non-human means of production are not privately owned by individual workers. They are owned in common by the society as a whole. When a group of workers manage some workplace, those facilities are being subcontracted to them by society
you:
So does "society" have a right to overule the decisions of the managers of a given workplace? Can "society" decide that the present workers are simply not performing up to snuff and thus replace them with others it deems more qualified?

There are no "managers" as a separate class ruling over the workers in workplaces. The workers collectively manage the workplace.

The workers in a workplace are accountable to society. There are conditions that would have to be agreed to by the society that are the conditions that will need to be satisfied for the workers to retain their use-right to the facilities. For example, this might be that benefits provided do not fall more than a certain level below costs without social approval. As long as the ratio of benefits to costs for a workplace organization is equal to the average, they should continue to have their use-right.

syndicat

3rd April 2010, 19:14

Yet again, unless a democracy in a socialist system is expected to have a 100% vote in favor or against evert time, it is simply not true to say their are no rulers, or ruled. The majority will rule; and the minority will be ruled. To say that To say that this is not so because that minority may ("may" it should be added) be a majority someday changes nothing.

What libertarian socialism is opposed to is a relative monopoly of decision-making authority, ownership and/or expertise into the hands of a few. Within capitalism you have both relative monopoly of ownership of productive property in the hands of the few (capitalist class) and also relative monopoly of decision-making authority and expertise pertinent to management of labor in the hands of a few (bureaucratic class).

This is what a "class hierarchy" is. Libertarian socialism is opposed to a hierarchy in this sense. So when we say there are no rulers, we mean there is no relative monopoly of power (ownership or decision-making authority) into the hands of a few, with the majority subordinate to their power.

Oppression is when some are subordinated, dominated, exploited. Class, oppression of races/nationalities, structural inequality by gender...these are forms of oppression in this sense. These are ways in which the freedom of people are trampled.

The opposite of this oppression is both negative and positive liberty. Positive liberty is both self-management -- control over the decisions that affect you, control over your life -- and equal access to the means to develop your potential.

But notice that oppression is of groups, not of individuals as such. A person is not oppressed simply because they lose a vote in a meeting.

If they have the same equal access to development of skills and knowledge and participation in the decisions, they have positive liberty.

Locke The Radical

3rd April 2010, 23:46

Locke The Radical

3rd April 2010, 23:53

This is complete nonsense. No worker is oppressed because he loses a vote. That's individualist nonsense. Oppression is of groups, due to social structures...such as the capitalist class structure, white supremacy, patriarchy. Under capitalism the workplace is organized as a dictatorship: "Do as I say or leave."

So then leave, whats the problem? You signed a contract agreeing to the terms of the "dictatorship". Btw, management are not Capitalists. If someone was doing something on your land such as killing your cows, it would be a violation of your property rights.

You could be self-sufficient and grow your own food on your property, but the Government has a property tax and an income tax which force you to accumulate capital. People get jobs to live a higher standard of living.

Dean

4th April 2010, 00:09

You could be self-sufficient and grow your own food on your property, but the Government has a property tax and an income tax which force you to accumulate capital. People get jobs to live a higher standard of living.
Why wouldn't a capital-driven private security firm also see fit to force people to pay taxes? Seems like they'd be wasting their potential power to accumulate capital if they don't take the steps available to them to acquire more wealth.

Left-Reasoning

4th April 2010, 00:24

Comrade Anarchist

4th April 2010, 00:25

Locke The Radical

4th April 2010, 00:28

Why wouldn't a capital-driven private security firm also see fit to force people to pay taxes? Seems like they'd be wasting their potential power to accumulate capital if they don't take the steps available to them to acquire more wealth.

"Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand’s famous argument) I think you’ve violated my rights and you think you haven’t, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency – why won’t they just do battle? What guarantees that they won’t do battle? To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won’t do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.

The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, “I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!” But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, “I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence.” Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can."

Drace

4th April 2010, 00:31

You should all be proud. I was just on Mises.org and this site was in thread that was featured in a thread there. So now you can feel important that actual organizations are actually looking on here, laughing

Lol whut? Did you happen to be the one who posted it?
Your group of 3 friends can laugh as much as you want.

Skooma Addict

4th April 2010, 00:34

Dean

4th April 2010, 00:42

Aggression requires customers to pay higher premiums.
Right, and by enforcing these premiums, capitalists are able to achieve a more efficient model of capital accumulation.

syndicat

4th April 2010, 00:54

So then leave, whats the problem? You signed a contract agreeing to the terms of the "dictatorship".

Forced to agree to their terms. Because the capitalists have a relative monopoly over non-human means of production, which are the means to life, workers are forced to work for them.

X is forced to do A if not doing A would have dire consquences. If you're about to be thrown out of your apartment and you have no money for food, not taking that job offer would have dire consequences. Hence you're forced to.

And don't talk about that great abundance of jobs out there. There are always more unemployed than jobs.

Btw, management are not Capitalists.

Right. They're members of the bureaucratic class. This class has, to a large degree, a policing function, getting workers to work as hard as possible, ensuring that the firm is run in a way that will make profits for the owners. Bureaucratic bloat is one of the inefficiencies of capitalism, that is, the fact the system requires a huge bureaucratic class. Managers are 15.7 percent of workforce in USA. they participate in the exploitation of the working class through the higher salaries they receive and the power and prestige of their position relative to their subordinates.

You could be self-sufficient and grow your own food on your property, but the Government has a property tax and an income tax which force you to accumulate capital. People get jobs to live a higher standard of living.

Nonsense. Ever heard about the enclosures movement? This was how capitalism was intiially created in England. Forcing the rural population off the common lands, denying them their traditional rights to build cottages, take game or wood from the forests. The barons used their control over parliament to get their land grabs legalized. They created a mass of propertyless people, who could be forced to work for a pittance on their farms.

And now there is a relative monopoly over ownership of means of production by less than a tenth of the population.

Taxes provide revenue for the state. The function of the state is to defend the capitalist system and the interests of the dominating classes. They have their police out to intimidate people in strikes, arrest people in protests. Their judges make rulings that generally favor the dominating classes. The largest part of the federal budget is for the military regime that is used to proect American foreign investments. Who has foreign investments? capitalists do. And so on.

attis

4th April 2010, 01:03

My problem with this whole debate is the fact that no one is willing to admit at the heart of economics is a system that is never driven by a singular universe of values. Values may come into play as the motivation of the individuals in the economy, but these values are only successful because of the individuals figure out ways which are successful in themselves to express the given value(s). That means that ancom society could be feasible so long as it reflects the right theory of economics in its operations, even if it does so in what would seem like a contradictory manner. By that reasoning, it means that a plurality of societies could easily flourish parallel to each other so long as they agree on the basics of economics (as theory and practice). So, I don't see why either so-called ancoms and so-called ancaps seek to destroy each other when the heart of the problem is not economics (as science), but politics (as fact).

Skooma Addict

4th April 2010, 01:24

Right, and by enforcing these premiums, capitalists are able to achieve a more efficient model of capital accumulation.

They would lose customers.

Dean

4th April 2010, 03:22

They would lose customers.

Not if they were forcibly extracting their currency. That's like saying that taxation is a bad model because you'll "lose citizens." We've seen that people do not typically leave their homes that easily.

For that matter, I see no reason why private security wouldn't degrade into Feudalism - if you recall your history lessons, protection of propertty was precisely the justification used for their taxation system.

Skooma Addict

4th April 2010, 03:33

Not if they were forcibly extracting their currency. That's like saying that taxation is a bad model because you'll "lose citizens." We've seen that people do not typically leave their homes that easily.

For that matter, I see no reason why private security wouldn't degrade into Feudalism - if you recall your history lessons, protection of propertty was precisely the justification used for their taxation system.

And what makes you think the people they are forcibly extracting money from won't have professional protection of their own? Even a community guard could make such an endeavor too expensive. The private company cannot externalize costs. Aggressive behavior means its customers will have to pay higher premiums. Other defense agencies would not be happy with such an aggressive competitor, since that would mean their clients are at a higher risk of conflict.

And yes, they would lose customers. Switching subscriptions to a company is easier than moving to a different country.

Locke The Radical

4th April 2010, 04:28

Lol whut? Did you happen to be the one who posted it?
Your group of 3 friends can laugh as much as you want.

I take responsibility for both.

Dean

5th April 2010, 01:33

And what makes you think the people they are forcibly extracting money from won't have professional protection of their own? Even a community guard could make such an endeavor too expensive. The private company cannot externalize costs. Aggressive behavior means its customers will have to pay higher premiums. Other defense agencies would not be happy with such an aggressive competitor, since that would mean their clients are at a higher risk of conflict.

And yes, they would lose customers. Switching subscriptions to a company is easier than moving to a different country.

Arbitration is useless against a security firm which can easily crush its competitors. What we have seen in destabilized nations is that warlords are able to effectively control certain regions, and yes, this is basically a state structure. It is preposterous to think that security firms wouldn't devolve into state structures, because it is an incredibly effective model to take control of a region and defend it from competitor firms, rather than to "honestly compete."

I addition to which, I see no reason why a banana distributor with more capital, for instance, wouldn't use a security firm to forcibly extract its competitors. That provides for a distinctly advantageous profit system, and since security firms would not have any laws to abide by (remember, their allegiance is only to the dollar) they would definitely have an incentive and a vehicle to enact these policies.

Skooma Addict

5th April 2010, 01:59

Arbitration is useless against a security firm which can easily crush its competitors. What we have seen in destabilized nations is that warlords are able to effectively control certain regions, and yes, this is basically a state structure. It is preposterous to think that security firms wouldn't devolve into state structures, because it is an incredibly effective model to take control of a region and defend it from competitor firms, rather than to "honestly compete."

I assume that by destabilized nations you mean Somalia? I would hope you are not comparing todays Somalia with, say, a western European government. Maybe if you compared Somalia before and after the government collapse you would see things more clearly.

I addition to which, I see no reason why a banana distributor with more capital, for instance, wouldn't use a security firm to forcibly extract its competitors. That provides for a distinctly advantageous profit system, and since security firms would not have any laws to abide by (remember, their allegiance is only to the dollar) they would definitely have an incentive and a vehicle to enact these policies.

And its competitors just sit by and watch this happen? Is this company so powerful that it can forcibly control the entire banana market? Are there no other well funded competitors? Even if this were to happen, this would simply raise the price of bananas and incentiveze people to enter the industry.

Now do you want me to list some potential problems with a monopolized police and army force for you so we can compare and contrast?