Anarcho-capitalism

[Umoja]

I've always been bothered by the differences between Left Anarchy and Right Anarchy.

It would seem that left anarchy would, more often then not, turn into right anarchy.

My main reason for this is because I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't still exist in some sorts of different social groups. These different social groups would eventually pick up doing things they liked, occupations.

Or what about people being worried about their well being, they'd likely want people to help protect them. Security companies, or Insurance/Security companies would seem the natural answer.

Even more importantly, capitalism exist far better without the existence of any form of government, while most left philosophies do not.

[Umoja]

I've always been bothered by the differences between Left Anarchy and Right Anarchy.

It would seem that left anarchy would, more often then not, turn into right anarchy.

My main reason for this is because I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't still exist in some sorts of different social groups. These different social groups would eventually pick up doing things they liked, occupations.

Or what about people being worried about their well being, they'd likely want people to help protect them. Security companies, or Insurance/Security companies would seem the natural answer.

Even more importantly, capitalism exist far better without the existence of any form of government, while most left philosophies do not.

[Umoja]

I've always been bothered by the differences between Left Anarchy and Right Anarchy.

It would seem that left anarchy would, more often then not, turn into right anarchy.

My main reason for this is because I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't still exist in some sorts of different social groups. These different social groups would eventually pick up doing things they liked, occupations.

Or what about people being worried about their well being, they'd likely want people to help protect them. Security companies, or Insurance/Security companies would seem the natural answer.

Even more importantly, capitalism exist far better without the existence of any form of government, while most left philosophies do not.

[Guest1]

I've always been bothered by the differences between Left Anarchy and Right Anarchy.
Evidently. There is no right Anarchism.


It would seem that left anarchy would, more often then not, turn into right anarchy.

My main reason for this is because I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't still exist in some sorts of different social groups. These different social groups would eventually pick up doing things they liked, occupations
Umm.... so? Anarchy is not about the abolition of specialization of employment, it's not about the abolition of social groups and subcultures, it's not about homogenous populations. None of what you meantion is a threat to Anarchism, in fact, Anarchism depends entirely on humanity's ability to work in small groups with different goals and specialties. So long as those groups work together, there's no problem.

Will they work together? Well unless the group making clothing suddenly decided they could survive without food, housing or any of the things the other groups make, they kinda have no choice.


Or what about people being worried about their well being, they'd likely want people to help protect them. Security companies, or Insurance/Security companies would seem the natural answer.
Hire them with what? Money has been abolished and everyone has what they need for free. They can't really implement wage labour because a little slip of paper means shit all to a worker in control of his life.

In fact, anyone attempting that would be putting themselves in more danger. Considering they'd be one person trying to bring back wage slavery, against the whole collective, which wouldn't look to kindly on such an attempt to bring back the ways of the old.


Even more importantly, capitalism exist far better without the existence of any form of government, while most left philosophies do not.
I disagree, radical leftism is about the masses, it's about the workers, who are the majority of the world's population. We have nothing to gain from concentrated power, and they have everything to lose from the egalatarian distribution of power.

They'd be outnumbered.

Besides, you seem to think no rulers means no rules, which is definitely not the case. The people will still fight wage slavery, concentrated power, religious propaganda, with greater efficiency and less compromise than any state "representitive" could.

[Guest1]

I've always been bothered by the differences between Left Anarchy and Right Anarchy.
Evidently. There is no right Anarchism.


It would seem that left anarchy would, more often then not, turn into right anarchy.

My main reason for this is because I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't still exist in some sorts of different social groups. These different social groups would eventually pick up doing things they liked, occupations
Umm.... so? Anarchy is not about the abolition of specialization of employment, it's not about the abolition of social groups and subcultures, it's not about homogenous populations. None of what you meantion is a threat to Anarchism, in fact, Anarchism depends entirely on humanity's ability to work in small groups with different goals and specialties. So long as those groups work together, there's no problem.

Will they work together? Well unless the group making clothing suddenly decided they could survive without food, housing or any of the things the other groups make, they kinda have no choice.


Or what about people being worried about their well being, they'd likely want people to help protect them. Security companies, or Insurance/Security companies would seem the natural answer.
Hire them with what? Money has been abolished and everyone has what they need for free. They can't really implement wage labour because a little slip of paper means shit all to a worker in control of his life.

In fact, anyone attempting that would be putting themselves in more danger. Considering they'd be one person trying to bring back wage slavery, against the whole collective, which wouldn't look to kindly on such an attempt to bring back the ways of the old.


Even more importantly, capitalism exist far better without the existence of any form of government, while most left philosophies do not.
I disagree, radical leftism is about the masses, it's about the workers, who are the majority of the world's population. We have nothing to gain from concentrated power, and they have everything to lose from the egalatarian distribution of power.

They'd be outnumbered.

Besides, you seem to think no rulers means no rules, which is definitely not the case. The people will still fight wage slavery, concentrated power, religious propaganda, with greater efficiency and less compromise than any state "representitive" could.

[Guest1]

I've always been bothered by the differences between Left Anarchy and Right Anarchy.
Evidently. There is no right Anarchism.


It would seem that left anarchy would, more often then not, turn into right anarchy.

My main reason for this is because I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't still exist in some sorts of different social groups. These different social groups would eventually pick up doing things they liked, occupations
Umm.... so? Anarchy is not about the abolition of specialization of employment, it's not about the abolition of social groups and subcultures, it's not about homogenous populations. None of what you meantion is a threat to Anarchism, in fact, Anarchism depends entirely on humanity's ability to work in small groups with different goals and specialties. So long as those groups work together, there's no problem.

Will they work together? Well unless the group making clothing suddenly decided they could survive without food, housing or any of the things the other groups make, they kinda have no choice.


Or what about people being worried about their well being, they'd likely want people to help protect them. Security companies, or Insurance/Security companies would seem the natural answer.
Hire them with what? Money has been abolished and everyone has what they need for free. They can't really implement wage labour because a little slip of paper means shit all to a worker in control of his life.

In fact, anyone attempting that would be putting themselves in more danger. Considering they'd be one person trying to bring back wage slavery, against the whole collective, which wouldn't look to kindly on such an attempt to bring back the ways of the old.


Even more importantly, capitalism exist far better without the existence of any form of government, while most left philosophies do not.
I disagree, radical leftism is about the masses, it's about the workers, who are the majority of the world's population. We have nothing to gain from concentrated power, and they have everything to lose from the egalatarian distribution of power.

They'd be outnumbered.

Besides, you seem to think no rulers means no rules, which is definitely not the case. The people will still fight wage slavery, concentrated power, religious propaganda, with greater efficiency and less compromise than any state "representitive" could.

[Umoja]

But what if people institute a system of money?

I don't think it's logical to assume people will instantly loose the values of selfish-ness and greed even over thousands of years. Being selfish and having greed are values that people evolved with.


Hire them with what? Money has been abolished and everyone has what they need for free. They can't really implement wage labour because a little slip of paper means shit all to a worker in control of his life.

It's not logical to assume wants will dissappear. They won't. Why would everyone want to eat whole wheat bread? What if someone wants Rye bread? Not everyone wants to have a picture of me in their living room, some people want a picture of you. I want a green goat for the winter, while my neighbor wants a leather one. Etc.


I disagree, radical leftism is about the masses, it's about the workers, who are the majority of the world's population. We have nothing to gain from concentrated power, and they have everything to lose from the egalatarian distribution of power.

Worker controlled corporations (some sort of Semi-Anarcho-Sydicalist thing) could still use money, it would be to their advantage, because most economys need to assume people have wants. Is that an unrealistic thought?

More importantly, what do workers loose from having a choice of wants? That's what makes me think anarcho-capitalism would form.



Besides, you seem to think no rulers means no rules, which is definitely not the case. The people will still fight wage slavery, concentrated power, religious propaganda, with greater efficiency and less compromise than any state "representitive" could.

Anarchy doesn't imply people won't lead, it means their won't be a supreme group that controls the lives of people. If people accept this attitude, this doesn't stop corporate groups from forming, they wouldn't function the same as they do today because people simply wouldn't want corporations like that, and the market would adapt to the wants of people.

[Umoja]

But what if people institute a system of money?

I don't think it's logical to assume people will instantly loose the values of selfish-ness and greed even over thousands of years. Being selfish and having greed are values that people evolved with.


Hire them with what? Money has been abolished and everyone has what they need for free. They can't really implement wage labour because a little slip of paper means shit all to a worker in control of his life.

It's not logical to assume wants will dissappear. They won't. Why would everyone want to eat whole wheat bread? What if someone wants Rye bread? Not everyone wants to have a picture of me in their living room, some people want a picture of you. I want a green goat for the winter, while my neighbor wants a leather one. Etc.


I disagree, radical leftism is about the masses, it's about the workers, who are the majority of the world's population. We have nothing to gain from concentrated power, and they have everything to lose from the egalatarian distribution of power.

Worker controlled corporations (some sort of Semi-Anarcho-Sydicalist thing) could still use money, it would be to their advantage, because most economys need to assume people have wants. Is that an unrealistic thought?

More importantly, what do workers loose from having a choice of wants? That's what makes me think anarcho-capitalism would form.



Besides, you seem to think no rulers means no rules, which is definitely not the case. The people will still fight wage slavery, concentrated power, religious propaganda, with greater efficiency and less compromise than any state "representitive" could.

Anarchy doesn't imply people won't lead, it means their won't be a supreme group that controls the lives of people. If people accept this attitude, this doesn't stop corporate groups from forming, they wouldn't function the same as they do today because people simply wouldn't want corporations like that, and the market would adapt to the wants of people.

[Umoja]

But what if people institute a system of money?

I don't think it's logical to assume people will instantly loose the values of selfish-ness and greed even over thousands of years. Being selfish and having greed are values that people evolved with.


Hire them with what? Money has been abolished and everyone has what they need for free. They can't really implement wage labour because a little slip of paper means shit all to a worker in control of his life.

It's not logical to assume wants will dissappear. They won't. Why would everyone want to eat whole wheat bread? What if someone wants Rye bread? Not everyone wants to have a picture of me in their living room, some people want a picture of you. I want a green goat for the winter, while my neighbor wants a leather one. Etc.


I disagree, radical leftism is about the masses, it's about the workers, who are the majority of the world's population. We have nothing to gain from concentrated power, and they have everything to lose from the egalatarian distribution of power.

Worker controlled corporations (some sort of Semi-Anarcho-Sydicalist thing) could still use money, it would be to their advantage, because most economys need to assume people have wants. Is that an unrealistic thought?

More importantly, what do workers loose from having a choice of wants? That's what makes me think anarcho-capitalism would form.



Besides, you seem to think no rulers means no rules, which is definitely not the case. The people will still fight wage slavery, concentrated power, religious propaganda, with greater efficiency and less compromise than any state "representitive" could.

Anarchy doesn't imply people won't lead, it means their won't be a supreme group that controls the lives of people. If people accept this attitude, this doesn't stop corporate groups from forming, they wouldn't function the same as they do today because people simply wouldn't want corporations like that, and the market would adapt to the wants of people.

[ComradeRed]

"Anarcho-capitalism" wouldn't work in practice due to the re-institution of government in the form of plutocracy.

It doesn't work in theory either. Namely because "Anarchism is stateless socialism". Or at least that's what Bakunin, the father of Anarchism says.

And there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Such a classic fallacy...

[ComradeRed]

"Anarcho-capitalism" wouldn't work in practice due to the re-institution of government in the form of plutocracy.

It doesn't work in theory either. Namely because "Anarchism is stateless socialism". Or at least that's what Bakunin, the father of Anarchism says.

And there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Such a classic fallacy...

[ComradeRed]

"Anarcho-capitalism" wouldn't work in practice due to the re-institution of government in the form of plutocracy.

It doesn't work in theory either. Namely because "Anarchism is stateless socialism". Or at least that's what Bakunin, the father of Anarchism says.

And there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Such a classic fallacy...

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:00 PM
"Anarchism is stateless socialism"
It can exist no "stateless socialism".

"Socialism is capitalism turned to needs of people." V.I.Lenin.
Market economic system without state adjustment will lead to nonsocial society.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:00 PM
"Anarchism is stateless socialism"
It can exist no "stateless socialism".

"Socialism is capitalism turned to needs of people." V.I.Lenin.
Market economic system without state adjustment will lead to nonsocial society.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:00 PM
"Anarchism is stateless socialism"
It can exist no "stateless socialism".

"Socialism is capitalism turned to needs of people." V.I.Lenin.
Market economic system without state adjustment will lead to nonsocial society.

[ComradeRed]

Not true, look at the Spanish Civil War, Anarchism worked in certain spots of spain.

[ComradeRed]

Not true, look at the Spanish Civil War, Anarchism worked in certain spots of spain.

[ComradeRed]

Not true, look at the Spanish Civil War, Anarchism worked in certain spots of spain.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:44 PM
But what if people institute a system of money?

I don't think it's logical to assume people will instantly loose the values of selfish-ness and greed even over thousands of years. Being selfish and having greed are values that people evolved with.
:huh:

People won't reinstitute money, because society moves forwards, not backwards. It will be a small minority who would want to reinstitute money, and they could never build a system because they want money to be able to get other people to do their work. Which few will fall for :lol:

As for the rest, you are making an argument against any form of socialism, period. <_< You aren&#39;t attacking just Anarchism. Socialism does not do away with "greed". It merely limits it, and channels self-interest into collective endeavours. When the options are: work enough that people consider it fair to give you what you need and want, starve, or take up arms against the entire society; self-interested minorities would mostly just do the damn work.

You&#39;re stuck in the view of Socialism that considers it some sort of "idealism" that requires a "new humanity". Socialism requires no such thing. People are a reflection of their material conditions.


It&#39;s not logical to assume wants will dissappear. They won&#39;t. Why would everyone want to eat whole wheat bread? What if someone wants Rye bread? Not everyone wants to have a picture of me in their living room, some people want a picture of you. I want a green goat for the winter, while my neighbor wants a leather one. Etc.
When we say "need", it refers to non-exhorbitant wants too. This is not Sparta, and the guy making coats won&#39;t just make one colour suddenly, just cause he doesn&#39;t get money for it. He&#39;ll want to be the best that he can be at that job.


Worker controlled corporations (some sort of Semi-Anarcho-Sydicalist thing) could still use money, it would be to their advantage, because most economys need to assume people have wants. Is that an unrealistic thought?
Money leads to class society. Period. There are no two ways about it. When the working class is united in smashing Capitalism to establish a new society, why should we stop there and go back to divide it and play it off itself again? Why kill the collective mass movement to reestablish the life and death competition again?

With markets come market cycles. With market cycles, unemployment and inequality. Then, class society all over again.

I think that ignores wants, don&#39;t you? I&#39;d rather freedom and abundance.


More importantly, what do workers loose from having a choice of wants? That&#39;s what makes me think anarcho-capitalism would form.
Again with the Spartan minimalism. Anarcho-Communist society does not exclude choice&#33;


Anarchy doesn&#39;t imply people won&#39;t lead, it means their won&#39;t be a supreme group that controls the lives of people.
Like I said, no rulers. There will still be many leaders in the realm of ideas, none will be official.


If people accept this attitude, this doesn&#39;t stop corporate groups from forming, they wouldn&#39;t function the same as they do today because people simply wouldn&#39;t want corporations like that, and the market would adapt to the wants of people.
It does. Corporations imply bosses. Bosses are rulers. Rulers mean inequality.

Furthermore, Anarchism more specifically means "a lack of hierarchy".

As for the market... it has no place in any society attempting to abolish classes and/or the state. Markets do not adapt to the wants of the people. Markets adapt to the wants of the ruling class, and adapt the wants of the people to reflect that.

Corporations, at the base level, will function as they do today. Have you seen any of the co-operatives formed at the beginning of the 1900s? They began as collective projects among workers, and today have developed the standard corporate structures. They are the same as the Corporations they were built as an alternative to in all but name. I also wouldn&#39;t consider a worker owned business a Corporation, Corporations have a specific structure they don&#39;t stray from much and worker ownership is not a part of it.

So long as you continue the old structures, markets, private property (though owned by groups of workers) and the like, the material conditions are stronger than rhetoric. They will force a change back to wag slavery and Capitalist society sooner or later.

After the experiences of "going halfway" and the Soviet failure it resulted in, no one is buying that sack of shit again.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:44 PM
But what if people institute a system of money?

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s logical to assume people will instantly loose the values of selfish-ness and greed even over thousands of years. Being selfish and having greed are values that people evolved with.
:huh:

People won&#39;t reinstitute money, because society moves forwards, not backwards. It will be a small minority who would want to reinstitute money, and they could never build a system because they want money to be able to get other people to do their work. Which few will fall for :lol:

As for the rest, you are making an argument against any form of socialism, period. <_< You aren&#39;t attacking just Anarchism. Socialism does not do away with "greed". It merely limits it, and channels self-interest into collective endeavours. When the options are: work enough that people consider it fair to give you what you need and want, starve, or take up arms against the entire society; self-interested minorities would mostly just do the damn work.

You&#39;re stuck in the view of Socialism that considers it some sort of "idealism" that requires a "new humanity". Socialism requires no such thing. People are a reflection of their material conditions.


It&#39;s not logical to assume wants will dissappear. They won&#39;t. Why would everyone want to eat whole wheat bread? What if someone wants Rye bread? Not everyone wants to have a picture of me in their living room, some people want a picture of you. I want a green goat for the winter, while my neighbor wants a leather one. Etc.
When we say "need", it refers to non-exhorbitant wants too. This is not Sparta, and the guy making coats won&#39;t just make one colour suddenly, just cause he doesn&#39;t get money for it. He&#39;ll want to be the best that he can be at that job.


Worker controlled corporations (some sort of Semi-Anarcho-Sydicalist thing) could still use money, it would be to their advantage, because most economys need to assume people have wants. Is that an unrealistic thought?
Money leads to class society. Period. There are no two ways about it. When the working class is united in smashing Capitalism to establish a new society, why should we stop there and go back to divide it and play it off itself again? Why kill the collective mass movement to reestablish the life and death competition again?

With markets come market cycles. With market cycles, unemployment and inequality. Then, class society all over again.

I think that ignores wants, don&#39;t you? I&#39;d rather freedom and abundance.


More importantly, what do workers loose from having a choice of wants? That&#39;s what makes me think anarcho-capitalism would form.
Again with the Spartan minimalism. Anarcho-Communist society does not exclude choice&#33;


Anarchy doesn&#39;t imply people won&#39;t lead, it means their won&#39;t be a supreme group that controls the lives of people.
Like I said, no rulers. There will still be many leaders in the realm of ideas, none will be official.


If people accept this attitude, this doesn&#39;t stop corporate groups from forming, they wouldn&#39;t function the same as they do today because people simply wouldn&#39;t want corporations like that, and the market would adapt to the wants of people.
It does. Corporations imply bosses. Bosses are rulers. Rulers mean inequality.

Furthermore, Anarchism more specifically means "a lack of hierarchy".

As for the market... it has no place in any society attempting to abolish classes and/or the state. Markets do not adapt to the wants of the people. Markets adapt to the wants of the ruling class, and adapt the wants of the people to reflect that.

Corporations, at the base level, will function as they do today. Have you seen any of the co-operatives formed at the beginning of the 1900s? They began as collective projects among workers, and today have developed the standard corporate structures. They are the same as the Corporations they were built as an alternative to in all but name. I also wouldn&#39;t consider a worker owned business a Corporation, Corporations have a specific structure they don&#39;t stray from much and worker ownership is not a part of it.

So long as you continue the old structures, markets, private property (though owned by groups of workers) and the like, the material conditions are stronger than rhetoric. They will force a change back to wag slavery and Capitalist society sooner or later.

After the experiences of "going halfway" and the Soviet failure it resulted in, no one is buying that sack of shit again.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:44 PM
But what if people institute a system of money?

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s logical to assume people will instantly loose the values of selfish-ness and greed even over thousands of years. Being selfish and having greed are values that people evolved with.
:huh:

People won&#39;t reinstitute money, because society moves forwards, not backwards. It will be a small minority who would want to reinstitute money, and they could never build a system because they want money to be able to get other people to do their work. Which few will fall for :lol:

As for the rest, you are making an argument against any form of socialism, period. <_< You aren&#39;t attacking just Anarchism. Socialism does not do away with "greed". It merely limits it, and channels self-interest into collective endeavours. When the options are: work enough that people consider it fair to give you what you need and want, starve, or take up arms against the entire society; self-interested minorities would mostly just do the damn work.

You&#39;re stuck in the view of Socialism that considers it some sort of "idealism" that requires a "new humanity". Socialism requires no such thing. People are a reflection of their material conditions.


It&#39;s not logical to assume wants will dissappear. They won&#39;t. Why would everyone want to eat whole wheat bread? What if someone wants Rye bread? Not everyone wants to have a picture of me in their living room, some people want a picture of you. I want a green goat for the winter, while my neighbor wants a leather one. Etc.
When we say "need", it refers to non-exhorbitant wants too. This is not Sparta, and the guy making coats won&#39;t just make one colour suddenly, just cause he doesn&#39;t get money for it. He&#39;ll want to be the best that he can be at that job.


Worker controlled corporations (some sort of Semi-Anarcho-Sydicalist thing) could still use money, it would be to their advantage, because most economys need to assume people have wants. Is that an unrealistic thought?
Money leads to class society. Period. There are no two ways about it. When the working class is united in smashing Capitalism to establish a new society, why should we stop there and go back to divide it and play it off itself again? Why kill the collective mass movement to reestablish the life and death competition again?

With markets come market cycles. With market cycles, unemployment and inequality. Then, class society all over again.

I think that ignores wants, don&#39;t you? I&#39;d rather freedom and abundance.


More importantly, what do workers loose from having a choice of wants? That&#39;s what makes me think anarcho-capitalism would form.
Again with the Spartan minimalism. Anarcho-Communist society does not exclude choice&#33;


Anarchy doesn&#39;t imply people won&#39;t lead, it means their won&#39;t be a supreme group that controls the lives of people.
Like I said, no rulers. There will still be many leaders in the realm of ideas, none will be official.


If people accept this attitude, this doesn&#39;t stop corporate groups from forming, they wouldn&#39;t function the same as they do today because people simply wouldn&#39;t want corporations like that, and the market would adapt to the wants of people.
It does. Corporations imply bosses. Bosses are rulers. Rulers mean inequality.

Furthermore, Anarchism more specifically means "a lack of hierarchy".

As for the market... it has no place in any society attempting to abolish classes and/or the state. Markets do not adapt to the wants of the people. Markets adapt to the wants of the ruling class, and adapt the wants of the people to reflect that.

Corporations, at the base level, will function as they do today. Have you seen any of the co-operatives formed at the beginning of the 1900s? They began as collective projects among workers, and today have developed the standard corporate structures. They are the same as the Corporations they were built as an alternative to in all but name. I also wouldn&#39;t consider a worker owned business a Corporation, Corporations have a specific structure they don&#39;t stray from much and worker ownership is not a part of it.

So long as you continue the old structures, markets, private property (though owned by groups of workers) and the like, the material conditions are stronger than rhetoric. They will force a change back to wag slavery and Capitalist society sooner or later.

After the experiences of "going halfway" and the Soviet failure it resulted in, no one is buying that sack of shit again.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:49 AM
Not true, look at the Spanish Civil War, Anarchism worked in certain spots of spain.
Where are those spots now? Whether it&#39;s necessary to unleash Civil War?

Market economic system works as self-regulating mechanism by enrichment some ones and bankruptcy others. If to start anarcho-capitalism from similar conditions for some group of people it will lead to developing of classic capitalism with class society. If to introduce any factor to prevent property inequality it will influence on market economic mechanism ruinously, i.e. appearing of critical goods, deterioration of goods, etc.(remember the experience of the former USSR).
Moreover we cannot introduce any force factor without institute of the State structure which could mean the end of anarchy.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:49 AM
Not true, look at the Spanish Civil War, Anarchism worked in certain spots of spain.
Where are those spots now? Whether it&#39;s necessary to unleash Civil War?

Market economic system works as self-regulating mechanism by enrichment some ones and bankruptcy others. If to start anarcho-capitalism from similar conditions for some group of people it will lead to developing of classic capitalism with class society. If to introduce any factor to prevent property inequality it will influence on market economic mechanism ruinously, i.e. appearing of critical goods, deterioration of goods, etc.(remember the experience of the former USSR).
Moreover we cannot introduce any force factor without institute of the State structure which could mean the end of anarchy.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:49 AM
Not true, look at the Spanish Civil War, Anarchism worked in certain spots of spain.
Where are those spots now? Whether it&#39;s necessary to unleash Civil War?

Market economic system works as self-regulating mechanism by enrichment some ones and bankruptcy others. If to start anarcho-capitalism from similar conditions for some group of people it will lead to developing of classic capitalism with class society. If to introduce any factor to prevent property inequality it will influence on market economic mechanism ruinously, i.e. appearing of critical goods, deterioration of goods, etc.(remember the experience of the former USSR).
Moreover we cannot introduce any force factor without institute of the State structure which could mean the end of anarchy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:43 AM
"Socialism is capitalism turned to needs of people." V.I.Lenin.
Market economic system without state adjustment will lead to nonsocial society.
Actually the term "stateless socialism" came about long before Lenin. And just because he said that, doesn&#39;t mean he&#39;s right.

You can read this essay if you like by Mikhail Bakunin, &#39;Stateless Socialism.&#39; (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin2.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:43 AM
"Socialism is capitalism turned to needs of people." V.I.Lenin.
Market economic system without state adjustment will lead to nonsocial society.
Actually the term "stateless socialism" came about long before Lenin. And just because he said that, doesn&#39;t mean he&#39;s right.

You can read this essay if you like by Mikhail Bakunin, &#39;Stateless Socialism.&#39; (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin2.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:43 AM
"Socialism is capitalism turned to needs of people." V.I.Lenin.
Market economic system without state adjustment will lead to nonsocial society.
Actually the term "stateless socialism" came about long before Lenin. And just because he said that, doesn&#39;t mean he&#39;s right.

You can read this essay if you like by Mikhail Bakunin, &#39;Stateless Socialism.&#39; (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin2.html)

[Umoja]

When we say "need", it refers to non-exhorbitant wants too. This is not Sparta, and the guy making coats won&#39;t just make one colour suddenly, just cause he doesn&#39;t get money for it. He&#39;ll want to be the best that he can be at that job.

But that&#39;s the reason a market serves a purpose. People will likely enjoy red coats for awhile, then most people will enjoy blue coats. Say for example someone saw a movie where the main character had a green coat, then green coats would become more common. Having a market, makes it easier for manufactures to respond to demands.


Money leads to class society. Period. There are no two ways about it. When the working class is united in smashing Capitalism to establish a new society, why should we stop there and go back to divide it and play it off itself again? Why kill the collective mass movement to reestablish the life and death competition again?

Property leads to a class society, not money. Money is just a simplified means of barter, and besides without a central government issuing money wouldn&#39;t be much in the way of possible, unless groups of people began to issue their own script (which they would do if they were sick of bartering).


I think that ignores wants, don&#39;t you? I&#39;d rather freedom and abundance

One of the key things about every economic system is that it&#39;s designed to deal with unlimited wants, in an enviornment with limited resources. You can insert propaganda about "artificial shortages" which do exist, but regardless there are still limited resources and they shape all economic systems. You can&#39;t have a true abundance.


As for the market... it has no place in any society attempting to abolish classes and/or the state. Markets do not adapt to the wants of the people. Markets adapt to the wants of the ruling class, and adapt the wants of the people to reflect that.

Then why would advertising exist? Markets adapt to the wants of the consumers, consumers react to the ruling class. But the market place is determined by consumtion, corporate interest isn&#39;t in making people buy their product, but rather by making a product people want (or need to buy).


With markets come market cycles. With market cycles, unemployment and inequality. Then, class society all over again.

This I don&#39;t disagree with, although I&#39;m sure a planned economy is much more sensitive to changes.


Corporations, at the base level, will function as they do today. Have you seen any of the co-operatives formed at the beginning of the 1900s? They began as collective projects among workers, and today have developed the standard corporate structures. They are the same as the Corporations they were built as an alternative to in all but name. I also wouldn&#39;t consider a worker owned business a Corporation, Corporations have a specific structure they don&#39;t stray from much and worker ownership is not a part of it.

Fine. No arugments.


So long as you continue the old structures, markets, private property (though owned by groups of workers) and the like, the material conditions are stronger than rhetoric. They will force a change back to wag slavery and Capitalist society sooner or later.

I&#39;m not aruging old habits. I&#39;m saying that an anarchist society would eventually turn into an anarcho-capitalist society. I&#39;m not promoting anarcho-capitalism by any leap or bound.

[Umoja]

When we say "need", it refers to non-exhorbitant wants too. This is not Sparta, and the guy making coats won&#39;t just make one colour suddenly, just cause he doesn&#39;t get money for it. He&#39;ll want to be the best that he can be at that job.

But that&#39;s the reason a market serves a purpose. People will likely enjoy red coats for awhile, then most people will enjoy blue coats. Say for example someone saw a movie where the main character had a green coat, then green coats would become more common. Having a market, makes it easier for manufactures to respond to demands.


Money leads to class society. Period. There are no two ways about it. When the working class is united in smashing Capitalism to establish a new society, why should we stop there and go back to divide it and play it off itself again? Why kill the collective mass movement to reestablish the life and death competition again?

Property leads to a class society, not money. Money is just a simplified means of barter, and besides without a central government issuing money wouldn&#39;t be much in the way of possible, unless groups of people began to issue their own script (which they would do if they were sick of bartering).


I think that ignores wants, don&#39;t you? I&#39;d rather freedom and abundance

One of the key things about every economic system is that it&#39;s designed to deal with unlimited wants, in an enviornment with limited resources. You can insert propaganda about "artificial shortages" which do exist, but regardless there are still limited resources and they shape all economic systems. You can&#39;t have a true abundance.


As for the market... it has no place in any society attempting to abolish classes and/or the state. Markets do not adapt to the wants of the people. Markets adapt to the wants of the ruling class, and adapt the wants of the people to reflect that.

Then why would advertising exist? Markets adapt to the wants of the consumers, consumers react to the ruling class. But the market place is determined by consumtion, corporate interest isn&#39;t in making people buy their product, but rather by making a product people want (or need to buy).


With markets come market cycles. With market cycles, unemployment and inequality. Then, class society all over again.

This I don&#39;t disagree with, although I&#39;m sure a planned economy is much more sensitive to changes.


Corporations, at the base level, will function as they do today. Have you seen any of the co-operatives formed at the beginning of the 1900s? They began as collective projects among workers, and today have developed the standard corporate structures. They are the same as the Corporations they were built as an alternative to in all but name. I also wouldn&#39;t consider a worker owned business a Corporation, Corporations have a specific structure they don&#39;t stray from much and worker ownership is not a part of it.

Fine. No arugments.


So long as you continue the old structures, markets, private property (though owned by groups of workers) and the like, the material conditions are stronger than rhetoric. They will force a change back to wag slavery and Capitalist society sooner or later.

I&#39;m not aruging old habits. I&#39;m saying that an anarchist society would eventually turn into an anarcho-capitalist society. I&#39;m not promoting anarcho-capitalism by any leap or bound.

[Umoja]

When we say "need", it refers to non-exhorbitant wants too. This is not Sparta, and the guy making coats won&#39;t just make one colour suddenly, just cause he doesn&#39;t get money for it. He&#39;ll want to be the best that he can be at that job.

But that&#39;s the reason a market serves a purpose. People will likely enjoy red coats for awhile, then most people will enjoy blue coats. Say for example someone saw a movie where the main character had a green coat, then green coats would become more common. Having a market, makes it easier for manufactures to respond to demands.


Money leads to class society. Period. There are no two ways about it. When the working class is united in smashing Capitalism to establish a new society, why should we stop there and go back to divide it and play it off itself again? Why kill the collective mass movement to reestablish the life and death competition again?

Property leads to a class society, not money. Money is just a simplified means of barter, and besides without a central government issuing money wouldn&#39;t be much in the way of possible, unless groups of people began to issue their own script (which they would do if they were sick of bartering).


I think that ignores wants, don&#39;t you? I&#39;d rather freedom and abundance

One of the key things about every economic system is that it&#39;s designed to deal with unlimited wants, in an enviornment with limited resources. You can insert propaganda about "artificial shortages" which do exist, but regardless there are still limited resources and they shape all economic systems. You can&#39;t have a true abundance.


As for the market... it has no place in any society attempting to abolish classes and/or the state. Markets do not adapt to the wants of the people. Markets adapt to the wants of the ruling class, and adapt the wants of the people to reflect that.

Then why would advertising exist? Markets adapt to the wants of the consumers, consumers react to the ruling class. But the market place is determined by consumtion, corporate interest isn&#39;t in making people buy their product, but rather by making a product people want (or need to buy).


With markets come market cycles. With market cycles, unemployment and inequality. Then, class society all over again.

This I don&#39;t disagree with, although I&#39;m sure a planned economy is much more sensitive to changes.


Corporations, at the base level, will function as they do today. Have you seen any of the co-operatives formed at the beginning of the 1900s? They began as collective projects among workers, and today have developed the standard corporate structures. They are the same as the Corporations they were built as an alternative to in all but name. I also wouldn&#39;t consider a worker owned business a Corporation, Corporations have a specific structure they don&#39;t stray from much and worker ownership is not a part of it.

Fine. No arugments.


So long as you continue the old structures, markets, private property (though owned by groups of workers) and the like, the material conditions are stronger than rhetoric. They will force a change back to wag slavery and Capitalist society sooner or later.

I&#39;m not aruging old habits. I&#39;m saying that an anarchist society would eventually turn into an anarcho-capitalist society. I&#39;m not promoting anarcho-capitalism by any leap or bound.

[Djehuti]

Anarcho-capitalism is no anarchism, rather an extreme liberalism, though the liberals claim that it is no liberalism because there is no garant for the private property in such a society.

Anarchism is far more then a critique of the state, and the anarcho-capitalists does not even wish to abolish the state, but rather create a system of many private states, so to speak.


-------------BTW--------------

Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html

[Djehuti]

Anarcho-capitalism is no anarchism, rather an extreme liberalism, though the liberals claim that it is no liberalism because there is no garant for the private property in such a society.

Anarchism is far more then a critique of the state, and the anarcho-capitalists does not even wish to abolish the state, but rather create a system of many private states, so to speak.


-------------BTW--------------

Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html

[Djehuti]

Anarcho-capitalism is no anarchism, rather an extreme liberalism, though the liberals claim that it is no liberalism because there is no garant for the private property in such a society.

Anarchism is far more then a critique of the state, and the anarcho-capitalists does not even wish to abolish the state, but rather create a system of many private states, so to speak.


-------------BTW--------------

Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html

[sanpal]

... the anarcho-capitalists does not even wish to abolish the state, but rather create a system of many private states, so to speak.


There is some grain of sense in this definition. It a bit closer to marxism
because a commune could be rated as a corporation if to look from outside.
If several communes inside have the similar economic condition (nonmarket
economy without money, for instance) they could combine to general communist
economic sector not depended from the state like ordinary corporation is.
Thus it could be reached an reformist way to create stateless society even
if inside the part of the State as a sector only. The Unity of communes
could create besides production of goods own medicine service, militia,
education, etc. If communist sector will be more attractive for working
class then it will be growing and it will cause the outflow of labour from
capitalist sector of economy and accordingly the State will wither away.

No doubt the bourgeois propaganda wouldn&#39;t consider appearing communist
sector economy simply as one of the corporations though nominally it is so.
In that case the proletariat must protect it-self using different ways of
fighting. Most peaceful one is reorganization of the bourgeois parliament
into the proletarian parliament. It means that representatives to parliament
must be advanced not from groups of people in any region but from classes.
Who is majority so their interest must be in priority. If peaceful methods
are insufficient the fighting could intensify till armed revolt. In this
case the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary but not for ruling but
for forming the proletarian parliament and creating communist sector of
economy. It has no need to abolish bourgeois class. The bourgeoisie must be
overcome economically.

[sanpal]

... the anarcho-capitalists does not even wish to abolish the state, but rather create a system of many private states, so to speak.


There is some grain of sense in this definition. It a bit closer to marxism
because a commune could be rated as a corporation if to look from outside.
If several communes inside have the similar economic condition (nonmarket
economy without money, for instance) they could combine to general communist
economic sector not depended from the state like ordinary corporation is.
Thus it could be reached an reformist way to create stateless society even
if inside the part of the State as a sector only. The Unity of communes
could create besides production of goods own medicine service, militia,
education, etc. If communist sector will be more attractive for working
class then it will be growing and it will cause the outflow of labour from
capitalist sector of economy and accordingly the State will wither away.

No doubt the bourgeois propaganda wouldn&#39;t consider appearing communist
sector economy simply as one of the corporations though nominally it is so.
In that case the proletariat must protect it-self using different ways of
fighting. Most peaceful one is reorganization of the bourgeois parliament
into the proletarian parliament. It means that representatives to parliament
must be advanced not from groups of people in any region but from classes.
Who is majority so their interest must be in priority. If peaceful methods
are insufficient the fighting could intensify till armed revolt. In this
case the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary but not for ruling but
for forming the proletarian parliament and creating communist sector of
economy. It has no need to abolish bourgeois class. The bourgeoisie must be
overcome economically.

[sanpal]

... the anarcho-capitalists does not even wish to abolish the state, but rather create a system of many private states, so to speak.


There is some grain of sense in this definition. It a bit closer to marxism
because a commune could be rated as a corporation if to look from outside.
If several communes inside have the similar economic condition (nonmarket
economy without money, for instance) they could combine to general communist
economic sector not depended from the state like ordinary corporation is.
Thus it could be reached an reformist way to create stateless society even
if inside the part of the State as a sector only. The Unity of communes
could create besides production of goods own medicine service, militia,
education, etc. If communist sector will be more attractive for working
class then it will be growing and it will cause the outflow of labour from
capitalist sector of economy and accordingly the State will wither away.

No doubt the bourgeois propaganda wouldn&#39;t consider appearing communist
sector economy simply as one of the corporations though nominally it is so.
In that case the proletariat must protect it-self using different ways of
fighting. Most peaceful one is reorganization of the bourgeois parliament
into the proletarian parliament. It means that representatives to parliament
must be advanced not from groups of people in any region but from classes.
Who is majority so their interest must be in priority. If peaceful methods
are insufficient the fighting could intensify till armed revolt. In this
case the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary but not for ruling but
for forming the proletarian parliament and creating communist sector of
economy. It has no need to abolish bourgeois class. The bourgeoisie must be
overcome economically.