How can Anarchy be Left-wing?

[Anti-Archy]

Not a commune, a society, communism is not a federation of "communes". As for violence, you're ignoring the class character of violence. We are against the violence of the bourgeoisie directed at the workers. We are for the violence of the proletariat directed at the exploiters and everyone who tries to be one.

The clash in philosophy here as im sure you know is that you find the actions of a free individual with his or her property to be exploitive where I do not. You find use of what you define as private property as an attack on the freedom of another where I find that restricting free use of Private property is restrictive of personal freedom.

it basically all boils down to that right there.

[Anti-Archy]

Notice I said "Restrict" though^^ That requires a hierarchy in some form.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The clash in philosophy here as im sure you know is that you find the actions of a free individual with his or her property to be exploitive where I do not. You find use of what you define as private property as an attack on the freedom of another where I find that restricting free use of Private property is restrictive of personal freedom.

it basically all boils down to that right there.

Consider this quote, comrade:

The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch02.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

1) So who organizes this and how are they not in a position of power like a ruler?

The answer is that the community decides on this and organizes it according to the possibilities which the conditions permit (such as what's nowadays called externalities and; the raw materials and power supply in conjunction with environmental impact for instance, the capacities for production). Why would it matter that the community is in a position of power like a ruler? Things need to be decided upon and then actually done; there is no way to get around this simple fact.

2) Who am I checking out whats available with and why must I report to them? If I wish to be a welder and there are no openings as a welder I am no longer free if I cant be a welder.

I don't have a blueprint or a genius plan with detailed descriptions of every facet of life. Though, it's safe to say that in this case it's the some kind of a work task center collecting info from workplace units. Why do you have to report? Well, you don't, but I assume this would be the easiest way to gather all information, do it fast and provide it to other people.

I would peacefully run the machinery. It would be up to you to be violent in defense of your communes property.

Don't be dense. How on earth are you gonna get in control of that machinery in the first place? By a forceful takeover or what?

That's just a cheap trick you're doing. Not really engaging in any sort of an argument apart from fabricating a ridiculous scenario which somehow means that social control and ownership engenders violence. And against whom? Against folks who'd waltz in and demands the people give the place over. On what grounds? Cause the person wants it. And god forbid we ever question the whims of an individual.

But yes, let's suppose you got your own little private security team helping you in that; yes, in this case of an attempted forceful takeover I would indeed expect and advocate forceful defense and neutralization of this silly group.

But to return to something a bit more plausible - I refer you to what I wrote about the ridicule you'd get. That would most probably be it.

[Anti-Archy]

1)The answer is that the community decides on this and organizes it according to the possibilities which the conditions permit (such as what's nowadays called externalities and; the raw materials and power supply in conjunction with environmental impact for instance, the capacities for production). Why would it matter that the community is in a position of power like a ruler? Things need to be decided upon and then actually done; there is no way to get around this simple fact.

2)I don't have a blueprint or a genius plan with detailed descriptions of every facet of life. Though, it's safe to say that in this case it's the some kind of a work task center collecting info from workplace units. Why do you have to report? Well, you don't, but I assume this would be the easiest way to gather all information, do it fast and provide it to other people.

3)Don't be dense. How on earth are you gonna get in control of that machinery in the first place? By a forceful takeover or what?

That's just a cheap trick you're doing. Not really engaging in any sort of an argument apart from fabricating a ridiculous scenario which somehow means that social control and ownership engenders violence. And against whom? Against folks who'd waltz in and demands the people give the place over. On what grounds? Cause the person wants it. And god forbid we ever question the whims of an individual.

But yes, let's suppose you got your own little private security team helping you in that; yes, in this case of an attempted forceful takeover I would indeed expect and advocate forceful defense and neutralization of this silly group.

But to return to something a bit more plausible - I refer you to what I wrote about the ridicule you'd get. That would most probably be it.

1) The way around it is being free individuals engaging in free trade.

2) Fair enough

3) Im using the exact same reasoning of how communism describes capitalism as violent through ownership of Private property.

If my scenario is not even a realistic scenario then tell me how private property ownership is violent from the viewpoint of a communist.

[Thirsty Crow]

1) The way around it is being free individuals engaging in free trade.

So a some sort of capitalism; you won't find much support for that around here.

3) Im using the exact same reasoning of how communism describes capitalism as violent through ownership of Private property.

You're not though. But for the sake of the argument, let's suppose you are.

In this case, it's not a problem of some breach of inalienable rights of man or any such fiction. The problem with capital are its real effects upon the class it depends on - the working class. So the reasoning would be completely different from this idea that somehow a silly whim to overtake what has already been organized as social production and its failure to be met is tantamount to violence. In the first place, what I consider most relevant and important is missing - the real effects of social relations upon human beings. Namely, if we assume communism, we can't talk about exploitation and oppression - nor any of the associated phenomena such as being on the dole with not only existential and financial distress it brings, but also with psychological issues; the wages problem, workplace issues related to management and its sole goal to treat workers as variable capital (i.e. as human resources - resources for profit) and so on and so on. Now that we're assuming communism in this debate, we're also assuming the non-existence of these as well.

So what you end up with is a person with a silly, silly idea - and when the community refuses to indulge that person who wants to exploit the labor of others, then somehow this is violence against an individual. You could say much the same for some Don Quixote today who'd claim his parcel of land as a royal birth right and demand the people work as serfs under his personal guard of hired mercenaries - in the US for instance. It just doesn't work this way, no matter the fancy philosophical principles behind such thought experiments.

If my scenario is not even a realistic scenario then tell me how private property ownership is violent from the viewpoint of a communist.

I told you how it is "violent"; though this isn't at all the right word here. It's not that some ethical principle is being cast aside here; it's the effects of capital upon the working class. And I don't think there is any possible philosophical quasi-principle that should ever override this basic concern.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well as common courtesy for all those individuals involved it would be appropriate. But if it is required within the system then yes its a form of ruler.

Anything required of a man that does not effect the life, liberty or property of another and will then be met with a physical action in response is a form of ruler.

I suppose you meant to say "form of rule", because the form of (a) ruler is usually square. I think this statement demonstrates the problems with right-"libertarian" thought quite clearly. Obviously any complex society needs rules in order to facilitate cooperation between its members. Either you play nice or people won't want to play with you.

This is not, however, the same thing as class rule, where one class imposes structural state violence on another class (and other oppressed groups).

The clash in philosophy here as im sure you know is that you find the actions of a free individual with his or her property to be exploitive where I do not. You find use of what you define as private property as an attack on the freedom of another where I find that restricting free use of Private property is restrictive of personal freedom.

Well, I happen to be a Marxist, which means that freedom is not exactly my primary concern. But in any case, it is somewhat hilarious that you consider people starving, being denied access to healthcare because of their race and so on to be "freedom". Or rather it would be hilarious if these things did not happen regularly. It demonstrates that your notion of "freedom" is abstract and, quite frankly, useless.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

TIL libertarians and an-caps are against democracy.

[ralfy]

Indeed, anarchy is aligned more to left-wing views. Capitalism, on the other hand, tends towards hierarchy and even government to ensure property rights.

[RedWorker]

Well, I happen to be a Marxist, which means that freedom is not exactly my primary concern. But in any case, it is somewhat hilarious that you consider people starving, being denied access to healthcare because of their race and so on to be "freedom". Or rather it would be hilarious if these things did not happen regularly. It demonstrates that your notion of "freedom" is abstract and, quite frankly, useless.

Race is not even the issue here though. Even if there somehow was a "perfect" capitalism without racism, people would still be starving.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Race is not even the issue here though. Even if there somehow was a "perfect" capitalism without racism, people would still be starving.

There was a comma, you know - people starving was considered in isolation from people being denied access to healthcare because of their race. Or being killed for being gay. Or being turned into a walking (well, lying) incubator for being female. And so on, and so on.

I think many people consider these problems to be secondary to capitalism in some sense, as if we could have a "colour-blind", "orientation-blind" etc. capitalism. But no such possibility exists. The oppression of minorities and women is crucial for the continuation of capitalism.

[Anti-Archy]

I suppose you meant to say "form of rule", because the form of (a) ruler is usually square. I think this statement demonstrates the problems with right-"libertarian" thought quite clearly. Obviously any complex society needs rules in order to facilitate cooperation between its members. Either you play nice or people won't want to play with you.

This is not, however, the same thing as class rule, where one class imposes structural state violence on another class (and other oppressed groups).



Well, I happen to be a Marxist, which means that freedom is not exactly my primary concern. But in any case, it is somewhat hilarious that you consider people starving, being denied access to healthcare because of their race and so on to be "freedom". Or rather it would be hilarious if these things did not happen regularly. It demonstrates that your notion of "freedom" is abstract and, quite frankly, useless.

I would argue that you are unaware of what freedom is as well.

But I also understand you are using the current system as your example of why capitalism is an evil failure. Luckily for realities sake, we aren't in a free market so we know its not any indication of what a free market capitalism would be like. And even under this piss poor economic system that is labeled capitalism there still is nobody starving. Not one person. Show me the article of the person in America that starved to death. Not that im defending this crappy system we currently have in America but i feel the need to debunk your claim against it.

[DigitalBluster]

Capitalist apologists like to present all Good Things as being the result of capitalism, and all Bad Things as being the result of a lack of capitalism. Their opponents are prevented from using real-world examples to criticize the free market because it "doesn't exist"; but they're not prevented from using real-world examples to glorify it.

[RedWorker]

But I also understand you are using the current system as your example of why capitalism is an evil failure. Luckily for realities sake, we aren't in a free market so we know its not any indication of what a free market capitalism would be like. And even under this piss poor economic system that is labeled capitalism there still is nobody starving. Not one person. Show me the article of the person in America that starved to death. Not that im defending this crappy system we currently have in America but i feel the need to debunk your claim against it.

That's because in capitalism there are a very few rich countries, while the starvation happens elsewhere. There are also 50 million poor people in the U.S.

Fully "Free markets" do not exist. And less regulation would result in even worse monopolies, etc. that there are now.

I'm sure someone can show you an example of any country with very little regulation which has a terrible economy.

[Anti-Archy]

That's because in capitalism there are a very few rich countries, while the starvation happens elsewhere. There are also 50 million poor people in the U.S.

Fully "Free markets" do not exist. And less regulation would result in even worse monopolies, etc. that there are now.

I'm sure someone can show you an example of any country with very little regulation which has a terrible economy.

So a truely free market has never existed so you just point to some redheaded stepchild for your reasons of why something totally different wouldn't work? Just because it has 4 wheels dosent mean its a Ferrari.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would argue that you are unaware of what freedom is as well.

But I also understand you are using the current system as your example of why capitalism is an evil failure. Luckily for realities sake, we aren't in a free market so we know its not any indication of what a free market capitalism would be like. And even under this piss poor economic system that is labeled capitalism there still is nobody starving. Not one person. Show me the article of the person in America that starved to death. Not that im defending this crappy system we currently have in America but i feel the need to debunk your claim against it.

First of all, capitalism is not some "absolutely free" market system, and an "absolutely free" (your term) market is horrible nonsense since state intervention is required to preserve private property. Capitalism is the mode of production characterised by generalised commodity production, wage-labour and private ownership of the means of production. All of which exist in America and most of the rest of the world (I wasn't aware we were talking exclusively about America, but that's an assumption many Americans seem to make).

And of course people starve in America. In 2010, around five percent of the population was starving.

[Anti-Archy]

First of all, capitalism is not some "absolutely free" market system, and an "absolutely free" (your term) market is horrible nonsense since state intervention is required to preserve private property. Capitalism is the mode of production characterised by generalised commodity production, wage-labour and private ownership of the means of production. All of which exist in America and most of the rest of the world (I wasn't aware we were talking exclusively about America, but that's an assumption many Americans seem to make).

And of course people starve in America. In 2010, around five percent of the population was starving.

See we're assuming communist definitions as we talk about capitalism again. Tell me how outside the ideology of communism, a totally free market cannot exist and how a state must always intervene. I know you're using communist definitions when you say a truely free market cannot exist.

I only refer to America specifically because I am not capable of listing any and all capitalist knock-off systems currently in operation. At least not without some time to prepare. I know that basically everyone, especially on this forum, are more then likely aware of the current economic system in America today. So it would make more sense to use America specifically in our discussion to avoid confusion or side rants about various examples that weren't excluded specifically from an unknown cluster of capitalist knock-offs systems.

If 5% in America were starving in 2010 then surely you can show me one definitive example where a person was unable to stay nourished and died due to lack of caloric intake despite any and all efforts to survive, devoid of any mental problems.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I don't get how an-caps even purport to be able to establish the type of system they advocate. Minarchism is somewhat possible...but only for a while because people would get seriously pissed off. But straight-up stateless capitalism? How are you going to achieve that? Through revolution? I suppose not, that would go against your principles. So would you do it through actual reforms? It would probably take hundreds of years to even get remotely close to a stateless "free market".

Your description of "rulers" is also extremely confusing. Aren't most an-caps in favor of "arbitration" to replace courts of law organised by the state? How would these private courts not be forcing you to do things when they convict you? You seem to advocate some sort of extreme "liberty" with only easily manipulated "natural law" to tell you what's right or wrong, that is not feasible at all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

See we're assuming communist definitions as we talk about capitalism again. Tell me how outside the ideology of communism, a totally free market cannot exist and how a state must always intervene. I know you're using communist definitions when you say a truely free market cannot exist.

It's not a communist definition, though. Most people seem to agree that capitalism exists in America today - as it does in Germany, in France etc. etc. Only "anarcho"-capitalists and similar system-builders that think America is not capitalist.

A "totally free" market is nonsensical because only state intervention can preserve private property. What "an"-caps want is private property without state protection - so who is to stop someone from waltzing in and taking your private property?

If 5% in America were starving in 2010 then surely you can show me one definitive example where a person was unable to stay nourished and died due to lack of caloric intake despite any and all efforts to survive, devoid of any mental problems.

Starvation doesn't actually work like that. Most people who die of starvation die of illness, not directly from a lack of calorie intake - even in severe, extended outbreaks of hunger, such as the one after WWI. The numbers are there - if newspapers don't consider that to be worth printing, that's their problem. Likewise you probably won't find articles in the newspaper about women being denied abortion services, but it definitely happens.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

In the United States. Starvation or hunger aren't named as such. They're called food insecurity. This occurs when families have to refrain from buying the amount of food they normally should to maintain a normal diet, in 2010 this was 5,4% of all american families. In more serious cases, eating patterns are severely disturbed and are seen by caregivers as severely inadequate. I don't know how many calories this would be, but I'm guessing it's far below 2000, in some cases perhaps below 1000. For children this is devestating as it would curb their growth. About 1% of all American families in 2010 had children who were simply not getting enough food. One percent may not seem like much but we're talking about hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions (i don't know the average amount of children in the US) of children who are malnourished here.

Apparently about 120 people starve in the USA every year. Mostly due to social issues other than a lack of food. It's not unimaginable that some of these deaths are related to malnourishment though.

To say that people are starving in the USA is perhaps a bit of harsh way to put it but there is certainly some truth to it.