Anarchy or mutualism or capitalism

[x-punk]

Hi, I am new to the forum. My own tendancy is towards anarchy or more precisely anarcho-communism.

During my relatively short time studying this I have noticed many others (on other forums) using the Anarchy label to describe something which I myself would not consider to be anachy or at least not anarcho-communism.

It goes like this. The state is abolished yet people still own the products of their labour as this is seen as personal property and not private property. Land ownership, idea ownership and corporations cannot exist as they are creations of the state. However, from this exclusive ownership of the products of your labour a system of trade and currency establishes.

This theory of Anarchy is being heavily promoted on certain sites on the internet.

What do you think this would be classified as? My knowledge of anarcho-mutualism is quite limited but I think this is probably the closest fit. However, I think this system would also allow for the ownership of the means of production by those other than the workers so maybe it should be seen as capitalist. Im not really sure.

I personally do not like this version of anarchy as I believe it takes the definition of personal property too far and that the products of labour should be socialised. I also do not believe it is at all workable without a state to define the property rights and I also dont think it is workable alongside communism as there would be inevitably be ownership disputes which would require resolution.

Many arguments are put forward as to why this wouldnt result in oligopolization of commodities but im not convinced by these. The main argument is that because there is no single currency and people have equal access to land and resources that this could not occur.

I also believe it allows for land ownership in a round about way. The proponents of this theory are quick to make strong arguments against land ownership which is fair enough. But surely the products of labour occupy a spatial area which means that the owners of these products effectively own the area of space, or land, it occupies. And in a system which facilitates trade, this would amount to nothing more than monopolization of land. This in effect makes their arguments contradictory.

These are just a few of my thoughts and i know im rambling a bit. The reason I have made this post is because for me, and probably many others, this theory was my first introduction to anarchy as it is being heavily promoted in many popular sites on the internet.

I would appreciate peoples views on this.

[ckaihatsu]

Hi, I am new to the forum. My own tendancy is towards anarchy or more precisely anarcho-communism.

During my relatively short time studying this I have noticed many others (on other forums) using the Anarchy label to describe something which I myself would not consider to be anachy or at least not anarcho-communism.

It goes like this. The state is abolished yet people still own the products of their labour as this is seen as personal property and not private property. Land ownership, idea ownership and corporations cannot exist as they are creations of the state. However, from this exclusive ownership of the products of your labour a system of trade and currency establishes.




This theory of Anarchy is being heavily promoted on certain sites on the internet.

What do you think this would be classified as?


Hi, and welcome.

I would tend to call this 'libertarianism', and I think it's a fairly common public sentiment because it's very intuitive and just seems to "make sense". People might tout this as something worth moving towards, and it contains aspects that are familiar to both proletarian and small-property-owning folk.





My knowledge of anarcho-mutualism is quite limited but I think this is probably the closest fit. However, I think this system would also allow for the ownership of the means of production by those other than the workers so maybe it should be seen as capitalist. Im not really sure.


I'll first issue the disclaimer that I'm *not* an anarchist, but to me it's a matter of *scale* mostly, so that's about the only significant difference I've seen between my own (central-planning-minded) politics and that of anarchists.

The ownership of the means of mass production is really at the heart of the matter, so I think a person's stance on that question would definitely tip-the-scales one way or the other.





I personally do not like this version of anarchy as I believe it takes the definition of personal property too far and that the products of labour should be socialised.


Agreed.





I also do not believe it is at all workable without a state to define the property rights and I also dont think it is workable alongside communism as there would be inevitably be ownership disputes which would require resolution.


Yes, correct / agreed.





Many arguments are put forward as to why this wouldnt result in oligopolization of commodities but im not convinced by these. The main argument is that because there is no single currency and people have equal access to land and resources that this could not occur.


I'll admit that this is a very attractive approach -- which probably explains its popularity -- but the problem, even with these conditions steadily maintained, is the question of *mass production*. The libertarian vision is geared towards a mindset of personal, *small-scale* production, and pretty much *ignores* the existence of very productive and efficient *large-scale* *industrial* mass production.

Those who are more 'big picture'-minded would do everything they could to repeat the 19th century, edging out small "mom-and-pop" enterprises with their larger conglomerations of sales and buying power. A side *benefit* of their efforts -- for consumers -- would be the stability and standards that would accompany the sheer scale of their presence, like any transnational corporation of today.

The enlightened politics of the libertarian premise would *not* be able to hold against the gradual oligopolization of its resulting economics. And, with the rise of major private economic interests would arise the centralization of *political* power, re-creating the bourgeois hegemony that we know all-too-well today.





I also believe it allows for land ownership in a round about way. The proponents of this theory are quick to make strong arguments against land ownership which is fair enough. But surely the products of labour occupy a spatial area which means that the owners of these products effectively own the area of space, or land, it occupies. And in a system which facilitates trade, this would amount to nothing more than monopolization of land. This in effect makes their arguments contradictory.


Agreed.





These are just a few of my thoughts and i know im rambling a bit. The reason I have made this post is because for me, and probably many others, this theory was my first introduction to anarchy as it is being heavily promoted in many popular sites on the internet.

I would appreciate peoples views on this.


As soon as we recognize and acknowledge that the existing technology of production is not just going to go *backwards* and become *weaker* and *less-effective*, we'll be closer to approaching a realistic socially *progressive* / revolutionary method for doing mass production.

I've developed a proposal along these lines, at my blog entry.