How can Anarchy be Left-wing?

[#FF0000]

But people aren't required to sell their labor to anyone in particular. The person buying the labor is a customer. To make the purchase they must have the best deal.

They are though. If you do not sell your labor, you have no income unless you have access to some kind of property. The person selling their labor has very little room to bargain in most cases because they need a job to live, and if they aren't willing to take scraps for payment, someone else will.

To your second reply above, can you go into more depth on that? Im not sure I understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that to establish and maintain private property requires violence. How else can one stake a claim to something with no owner, without saying "this is mine and I'm gonna hit you if you touch it"?

[Anti-Archy]

They are though. If you do not sell your labor, you have no income unless you have access to some kind of property.



I'm saying that to establish and maintain private property requires violence. How else can one stake a claim to something with no owner, without saying "this is mine and I'm gonna hit you if you touch it"?

Right, im accepting for the sake of argument that the person in question has no possible way to work for themselves by starting a business etc. That person must sell their labor but it is not specific to any one person. They are free to shop around in order to get the best price for their labor. If the buyer dosent have a good deal then the seller wont do business with them. This forces the business owner to provide a fair price for their labor in order to make the deal. Otherwise the seller will do business with a buyer offering a better deal. You cant describe an employer as a ruler when it is a mutual agreement that at any time either party can abandon. The employee is as much a ruler as the employer.

If by private property you mean land then the idea is simple. A person can't simply see a mountain and claim it as theirs without any practical use for that land. If they wish to claim ownership of unclaimed land then they must work to develop that land and improve it. If they have put their labor and or wealth into a piece of previously unclaimed land then they can rightfully say its theirs. As their property they have a right to defend it from theft. If that creates violence its only because someone attempted to steal his wealth or labor.

[RedWorker]

Why would someone respect private property? There is no universal moral law which makes it a human right. To maintain private property, force; violence is needed. That by itself is authority; there are rulers, but rule is decentralized. Additionally, there must be someone with a monopoly on force; if everyone could use force, private property wouldn't last long. Which results in the centralization of force.

[#FF0000]

Right, im accepting for the sake of argument that the person in question has no possible way to work for themselves by starting a business etc.

That's not for the sake of argument -- not every single person on the planet can just start a business. That isn't feasible. Our system requires a pool of disenfranchised labor who are forced by their conditions to work. I mean, for the most

That person must sell their labor but it is not specific to any one person. They are free to shop around in order to get the best price for their labor. If the buyer dosent have a good deal then the seller wont do business with them. This forces the business owner to provide a fair price for their labor in order to make the deal. Otherwise the seller will do business with a buyer offering a better deal. You cant describe an employer as a ruler when it is a mutual agreement that at any time either party can abandon.

If you work for a living, you know right away how this actually works in the real world. When times are hard and people need money the most, wages are going to be the lowest because people will take what they can get. You can't just go around and try to find the person who pays the most, because most jobs will pay similarly low amounts. It's not a coincidence that decent pay and benefits only came around when labor started to organize to fight employers on these issues.

The employee is as much a ruler as the employer.

Franky, I don't know how someone living in the real world can believe this.

If by private property you mean land then the idea is simple. A person can't simply see a mountain and claim it as theirs without any practical use for that land. If they wish to claim ownership of unclaimed land then they must work to develop that land and improve it. If they have put their labor and or wealth into a piece of previously unclaimed land then they can rightfully say its theirs. As their property they have a right to defend it from theft. If that creates violence its only because someone attempted to steal his wealth or labor.

Yep -- however that isn't what happens in industrial production or agriculture. In a factory, the owner gets the lion's share of the wealth produced in the factory, despite the fact that the useful work is done by other people.

[Anti-Archy]

Why would someone respect private property? There is no universal moral law which makes it a human right. To maintain private property, force; violence is needed. That by itself is authority; there are rulers, but rule is decentralized. Additionally, there must be someone with a monopoly on force; if everyone could use force, private property wouldn't last long. Which results in the centralization of force.

Natural law would be the universal law.

To maintain private property no violence is needed. To take away private property violence is needed. The violence only occurs at the hands of those in the wrong. The non-aggression principal would minimize any required violence in defense of your property.

[#FF0000]

Natural law would be the universal law.

To maintain private property no violence is needed. To take away private property violence is needed. The violence only occurs at the hands of those in the wrong. The non-aggression principal would minimize any required violence in defense of your property.

Man, it would be cool if you just admitted you were an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist to start with.

[RedWorker]

Natural law would be the universal law.

Natural law is completely subject to interpretation.

To maintain private property no violence is needed. To take away private property violence is needed. The violence only occurs at the hands of those in the wrong. The non-aggression principal would minimize any required violence in defense of your property.

Let's say I walk into your factory and work, making use of your machinery. That isn't violence. You'd need violence to kick me out.

Also, what if workers of your factory decide not to deliver to you, the owner, as you are not actually doing any work, but rather take the output for themselves?

[Anti-Archy]

Natural law is completely subject to interpretation.



Let's say I walk into your factory and work, making use of your machinery. That isn't violence. You'd need violence to kick me out.

Also, what if workers of your factory decide not to deliver to you, the owner, as you are not actually doing any work, but rather take the output for themselves?

Natural law may be interpreted in different ways but it would only be to benefit themselves and infringe on another person's rights. That person would either be seriously ignorant or intentionally being aggressive.

If you physically enter anothers private property and intend to take the food out of the mouths of the owner or his employees by either doing their work for free or by damaging their machinery or by not paying the owner of that machinery for use, then its no different then trying to steal a salmon from a bear. That is detrimental to his survival and you have physically attacked him in that sense. The non-aggression principal would advocate that you be stopped with as minimal amount of violence as you require of him. You initiated and demanded violence with your attacks. The owner merely carried out your demands.

[Anti-Archy]

Sorry if I can't reply to everyone. Im on my phone so ill do my best to reply to the most to the point posts.

[Anti-Archy]

That's not for the sake of argument -- not every single person on the planet can just start a business. That isn't feasible. Our system requires a pool of disenfranchised labor who are forced by their conditions to work. I mean, for the most

If you work for a living, you know right away how this actually works in the real world. When times are hard and people need money the most, wages are going to be the lowest because people will take what they can get. You can't just go around and try to find the person who pays the most, because most jobs will pay similarly low amounts. It's not a coincidence that decent pay and benefits only came around when labor started to organize to fight employers on these issues.



Franky, I don't know how someone living in the real world can believe this.

Yep -- however that isn't what happens in industrial production or agriculture. In a factory, the owner gets the lion's share of the wealth produced in the factory, despite the fact that the useful work is done by other people.

What causes times to be hard?

You assume useful work is only physical labor.

[TheBigREDOne]

Natural law may be interpreted in different ways but it would only be to benefit themselves and infringe on another person's rights. That person would either be seriously ignorant or intentionally being aggressive.

If you physically enter anothers private property and intend to take the food out of the mouths of the owner or his employees by either doing their work for free or by damaging their machinery or by not paying the owner of that machinery for use, then its no different then trying to steal a salmon from a bear. That is detrimental to his survival and you have physically attacked him in that sense. The non-aggression principal would advocate that you be stopped with as minimal amount of violence as you require of him. You initiated and demanded violence with your attacks. The owner merely carried out your demands.

But what gave that owner his right to own that machinery anyway?

[RedWorker]

Natural law may be interpreted in different ways but it would only be to benefit themselves and infringe on another person's rights. That person would either be seriously ignorant or intentionally being aggressive.

Or not. You're arguing about morality here. What if a ton of people are starving because they aren't employed, or they're suffering because their work conditions are too bad? Many approaches at morality would suggest that they are, in fact, in the right by taking over.

That is detrimental to his survival and you have physically attacked him in that sense.

So if people are starving because of a system which does not deliver enough to everyone, is that not detrimental to their survival and thus grounds for revolution? What if the people who take over create a fair system, where everyone can survive instead? That would be positive for everyone's survival.

The non-aggression principal would advocate that you be stopped with as minimal amount of violence as you require of him.

So is someone not inflicting violence by leading people to suffering, merely because they do not have enough of this or that, which is maintained by the system of ownership? Private property would definitely violate the "non-aggression principle" in many people's view of things.

You initiated and demanded violence with your attacks

According to whom? Certainly not everyone in a society without law and based on a few principles (which may or may not be accepted by all) is going to think the same way. A principle may be interpreted in a thousand ways.

[Anti-Archy]

How is this machinery managed in an An-Com society?

[#FF0000]

What causes times to be hard?

Capitalism's tendency towards crisis.

You assume useful work is only physical labor.

No, I don't assume that at all.

[#FF0000]

How is this machinery managed in an An-Com society?

Collectively, by the community that uses the machines and benefits from them.

[#FF0000]

If you physically enter anothers private property and intend to take the food out of the mouths of the owner or his employees by either doing their work for free or by damaging their machinery or by not paying the owner of that machinery for use, then its no different then trying to steal a salmon from a bear. That is detrimental to his survival and you have physically attacked him in that sense. The non-aggression principal would advocate that you be stopped with as minimal amount of violence as you require of him. You initiated and demanded violence with your attacks. The owner merely carried out your demands.

How can a person claim ownership over machines they will never, themselves, operate? You said earlier that someone can only claim a piece of land if they're actually doing something to it -- improving it somehow. Why doesn't this hold the same with these machines?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Is communism not a form of government?

Communism is the classless society based on the socialisation of the means of production. In communism, there is no state and no government, only the administration of the processes of production.

My initial question that arises from what you just said is, if communism is a stateless society, then who decides how property and wealth is evenly distributed?

Property doesn't exist in communism, and the material objects that are produced are not "distributed equally", whatever that means, but freely; each worker takes what they need.

But it is fundamentally against anarchism to vote upon the fait of anothers life, liberty or property.

Anarchists oppose property, always have, and always will, even if some right-"libertarians" consider themselves anarchists and want to usurp a long revolutionary socialist tradition. In any case, you would not be voting for any of these in communism - since property would not exist, and there would be no government to order you how to live your life. All that would be voted on is what gets produced, how it gets distributed, how to organise the trash collection etc.

So everyone will take turns being Ruler?

So everyone participates in the administration of the socialised production.

If someone wishes to not participate then what happens?

They can go live in the woods if they want to throw a sulk and not cooperate with the rest of society.

Ok so lets try this then. How is capitalism highly hierarchic, and packed with rulers? Im reffering specifically to a totally free market without any government intervention.

Then you're referring to something that's impossible. Capitalism is not this chimaera of a "totally free" market but a mode of production that rests on private ownership of the means of production, wage-labour and generalised commodity production (producing objects to be exchanged on the market).

Natural law would be the universal law.

Oh, and why should anyone accept your "natural" law?

To maintain private property no violence is needed.

Do you even live in the real world because that's one hell of an incorrect statement, just look around you.

[Anti-Archy]

Or not. You're arguing about morality here. What if a ton of people are starving because they aren't employed, or they're suffering because their work conditions are too bad? Many approaches at morality would suggest that they are, in fact, in the right by taking over.



So if people are starving because of a system which does not deliver enough to everyone, is that not detrimental to their survival and thus grounds for revolution? What if the people who take over create a fair system, where everyone can survive instead? That would be positive for everyone's survival.



So is someone not inflicting violence by leading people to suffering, merely because they do not have enough of this or that, which is maintained by the system of ownership? Private property would definitely violate the "non-aggression principle" in many people's view of things.



According to whom? Certainly not everyone in a society without law and based on a few principles (which may or may not be accepted by all) is going to think the same way. A principle may be interpreted in a thousand ways.

The same scenario could be placed on communism. If we're assuming it can happen then the same can be applied to all.

If you are starving to death then either you stop yourself from starvation with the minimal amount of violence necessary to whoever is causing your starvation or if the scenario shows no direct individual cause then simply attacking the system at random would make no sense.

What would you say if people are starving in a communist society? Obviously you'd all be starving equally. But if the system is causing starvation to people who are better suited to survival when they arent restricted by the less skilled, would that person be able to justify attacking their oppressors in order to survive?

[RedWorker]

The same scenario could be placed on communism. If we're assuming it can happen then the same can be applied to all.

It would be almost impossible; because of free access and its decentralized nature. Meanwhile capitalism today causes the death of over 20,000 people a day - when it is known that more than 2500 kilocalories for each of the 7000 million persons worth of food is produced per day, but merely it isn't getting to people - just because they do not have enough money.

If you are starving to death then either you stop yourself from starvation with the minimal amount of violence

So, basically, you are justifying that either private property is abolished or temporarily disregarded - or should someone just go and "steal" some food? Why should the system not just be replaced for a better one in a peaceful manner?

[Anti-Archy]

What does a communist do when another walks in their home and steals their TV? They just go steal someone else's TV?