What is Anarchism

metrovelvet

Akrasia wrote:

It might not be attractive to some of the people who hold all of the wealth, but to those who have nothing, it's a huge improvement (and the people with nothing outnumber the wealthy by 20 to 1)

I have nothing and this sounds like utter bunkham to me. If I wanted to be poor forever I might sign up for this crap.

Akrasia wrote:

training in the skills required to self manage. these skills are not innate, they need to be taught. just as people are not born knowing how to read or cook, they need to be taught how to take control of their own lives and represent their own interests. conversely People are not born respecting authority, that is something they are taught (and it's probably the hardest thing to get a child to do)

Where are they going to get the training? Who's going to pay for it? Education costs money.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

Where are they going to get the training? Who's going to pay for it? Education costs money.

the best way to learn is to do. people who already have skills would mentor others.

mountainyman

metrovelvet wrote:

Where are they going to get the training? Who's going to pay for it? Education costs money.

That would be pretty easy, for the sort of simplistic society that the advocates of 'Anarchism' envisage. How would you train engineers. Who would get to be a university lecturer, how would you prevent the inetlligentsia from becoming self perpetuating.

I asked a complicated concrete question and all I've heard is bullsh1t. Answer the questions about the bauxite for trains deal without this mad max crap.

MM

Sand

What protects them under a 'representative democracy'?

A system of law that is routinely denounced as not being democratic enough?

The nature of Anarchism is that individuals participate and promote their own interests actively, and not passively request representation from someone else.

People/mobs very easily fall into step behind someone they perceive as being a leader. Its instinct, how humanity is wired despite thousands of years of evolution. By removing the anti-populist blocks checks to populist rule you weaken and remove the controls that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You better be sure youve got more than rhetoric to protect minorities once theyre thrown to the wolves. Those blocks and checks were introduced for extremely good reasons, often harshly learnt.

How would you protect freedom of speech? well, lets turn that around?

If you have to dodge the question then weve found a flaw havent we? If the majority of a community decided they didnt like what you were saying, or didnt like your religion and decided to engage in intimidation or violence to shut you up who would you appeal to? The cops? Oh wait, no pigs. Guess youre stuck with the majority thats intimidating you?

Liberal democracy has a workable answer - you can appeal to the non accountable law to defend your rights by reference purely to the constitution rather than prevailing hysteria. Not always perfect, but it works more often than appealing to the mob thats shoving you into the gas chamber.

you're going to have to explain yourself here

See my point about laws above. Essentially, if you hold a deed that says you own this plot of land all you actually have is a scrap of paper. The rule of law is the only thing that makes that scrap of paper valuable. Hence private property owners demand strong rule of law, to protect their claims and to protect themselves from persecution. Private property grants people economic independance and control over their own lives. The rule of law and private property are linked much as state property and oppression are linked.

As you say yourself, "material conditions and power relationships are intertwined"

Nobody said an anarchist society would be perfect. It would have problems, but compared with the problems caused by Global capitalism, Anarchism is a much better option. All of the problems you mentioned are widespread in capitalist society, but you are using those problems that already exist as an argument why we could not live in an anarchist society.

Uh, Id have to argue that its at the very least unproven that anarchism would cause less problems than liberal capitalist democracy. Afterall, I agree that liberal democracy encounters a whole host of widespread problems but it has been designed - or simply just evolved - to deal with them as best as it can - often despite humanity, not because of it.

Your peculiar brand of communism-lite, and anarchism in general has no track record to speak of in comparison when it comes to dealing with humanity and their illogical, irrational behaviour. That might make it seem wonderful if you only look at the flaws in the current system, but it doesnt say much if you compare it to liberal democracy as a whole.

Political systems need to be as close to idiot proof as they can be made. Liberal democracy has done a relatively good job at working despite humanity. Anarchism simply assumes it will work well because of humanity. Not encouraging given humanity and its track record.

training in the skills required to self manage. these skills are not innate, they need to be taught. just as people are not born knowing how to read or cook, they need to be taught how to take control of their own lives and represent their own interests. conversely People are not born respecting authority, that is something they are taught (and it's probably the hardest thing to get a child to do)

If somebody needs to be taught to think for themselves then theyre already beyond all help. It brings up memories of Life of Brian, where hes telling the assembled crowd that they need to think for themselves, and they respond enmasse "Yes, we need to think for ourselves!".

I can think of a couple of political systems that have relied on political re-education but I dont think youd welcome the comparisons.

DadaKopf

sand wrote:

By removing the anti-populist blocks checks to populist rule you weaken and remove the controls that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You better be sure youve got more than rhetoric to protect minorities once theyre thrown to the wolves. Those blocks and checks were introduced for extremely good reasons, often harshly learnt.

However, anarchists would likely counter that those 'checks' can often be instruments of power used by elites to marginalise the 'true will' of the majority, or at the least, demonise those who think differently to the mainstream (who may be perceived as, or who may actually, disagree with or oppose an existing order dominated by elites).

mountainyman

DadaKopf wrote:

However, anarchists would likely counter that those 'checks' can often be instruments of power used by elites to marginalise the 'true will' of the majority, or at the least, demonise those who think differently to the mainstream (who may be perceived as, or who may actually, disagree with or oppose an existing order dominated by elites).

The law is an instrument by which the powerful maintain their power. How would bauxite be exchanged for trains?

MM

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

A system of law that is routinely denounced as not being democratic enough?

Sand, in a representative democracy, there is nothing to stop a sufficiently charismatic oppressor from being elected, and there is nothing to stop him/her from calling a referendum that will change the constitution to allow him any power he wants. well, there is something to stop him, the fact that there will be public opposition.
You seem to be taking your concept of human nature directly out of "lord of the flies" It's just a book you know. People do not want wars, people want to live in peace

People/mobs very easily fall into step behind someone they perceive as being a leader. Its instinct, how humanity is wired despite thousands of years of evolution.

That is why anarchists build their democratic institutions around the principle of limiting the ability of any one individual or elite group from taking power for themselves. There will still be charismatic individuals, there will still be leaders, but they will lead by inspiration, not by authority. Anarchists have been involved in war and have organised anarchist militias based on non heirarchical principles. if you're interested, George Orwell writes about it in depth in his book "Homage to Catalonya"

By removing the anti-populist blocks checks to populist rule you weaken and remove the controls that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You better be sure youve got more than rhetoric to protect minorities once theyre thrown to the wolves. Those blocks and checks were introduced for extremely good reasons, often harshly learnt.

Yeah, they were introduced to protect the rich from the poor. You can't have peasants voting for land reform now can you?

If you have to dodge the question then weve found a flaw havent we?
If the majority of a community decided they didnt like what you were saying, or didnt like your religion and decided to engage in intimidation or violence to shut you up who would you appeal to? The cops? Oh wait, no pigs. Guess youre stuck with the majority thats intimidating you?

If someone was going around saying something like "kill all jews" lots of people probably would tell him to stop. Most people would probably just ignore him. If he persistently kept spouting fascist hate filled bile, people might start to get physical. Anarchists would have a democratic court system to deal with problems like this.

Liberal democracy has a workable answer - you can appeal to the non accountable law to defend your rights by reference purely to the constitution rather than prevailing hysteria. Not always perfect, but it works more often than appealing to the mob thats shoving you into the gas chamber.

Anarchists would have a constitution too

See my point about laws above. Essentially, if you hold a deed that says you own this plot of land all you actually have is a scrap of paper. The rule of law is the only thing that makes that scrap of paper valuable. Hence private property owners demand strong rule of law, to protect their claims and to protect themselves from persecution.

And hence we have the primary role of the state, to protect private property. to protect owners from non owners, the rich from the poor.

Private property grants

SOME

people economic independance and control over their own lives.

Most other people are powerless and are forced to take whatever scraps are handed down to them. This is most easily demonstrated on a global scale, compare plantation labourers in Asia with stock brokers in new york? But it also works in Ireland. Most people are waged employees. they have a choice, to do what they're told, or to be unemployed. Most people do not have the option of moving jobs easily (or if they do, it's the choice between working in factory A, or identical factory B, or shop A or Shop

The rule of law and private property are linked much as state property and oppression are linked.

Yeah. They're linked in one chain, Law, Private property and State property are all tools of the same oppression.

Uh, Id have to argue that its at the very least unproven that anarchism would cause less problems than liberal capitalist democracy. Afterall, I agree that liberal democracy encounters a whole host of widespread problems but it has been designed - or simply just evolved - to deal with them as best as it can - often despite humanity, not because of it.

Anarchism has been conceptualised to deal with the problems that liberal democracy ignore. Anarchism has different priorities. Anarchism puts equality and freedom first, Liberal democracy puts economic success and wealth generation first. Anarchist principles have been tested and refined, and they have worked very well. the reason they have not survived is down to the violence of liberal democracies and fascist dictatorships, and not problems inherent with the anarchist system itself.

Your peculiar brand of communism-lite, and anarchism in general has no track record to speak of in comparison when it comes to dealing with humanity and their illogical, irrational behaviour. That might make it seem wonderful if you only look at the flaws in the current system, but it doesnt say much if you compare it to liberal democracy as a whole.

It has a track record in Spain 1936 where it did very wellin extremely difficult conditions in both Urban and rural environments until franco's fascist army overcame them and took victory in the civil war. The anarchists were also up against traiterous communist behaviour when the central party stabbed their allies in the back because the anarchist presence was too much of a threat to a post war communist state. Again, there are brilliant discriptions of life at that time in Orwell's book

Political systems need to be as close to idiot proof as they can be made. Liberal democracy has done a relatively good job at working despite humanity.

it's a good thing we have geniuses like you to tell the rest of us idiots what to do. How is that a democracy? if you only let people choose between options that are carefully designed to not disturb the prevailing system?

Anarchism simply assumes it will work well because of humanity. Not encouraging given humanity and its track record.

look at mankinds most disgusting moments, and you will see authoritarianism at the helm. The 20th century was the most violent time in the entire history of human civilisation. How many of those men who died in WW1 would have voted to go to that war?

If somebody needs to be taught to think for themselves then theyre already beyond all help. It brings up memories of Life of Brian, where hes telling the assembled crowd that they need to think for themselves, and they respond enmasse "Yes, we need to think for ourselves!".

That was satire. People can think for themselves, they just need a root up the backside (as my mother would say). People are conditioned to obey authority, usually because they have experience of punishment for failing to obey.
They just need to be exposed to a new way of thinking and they will change their behaviour.
We as a society can choose the values we want to have.

I can think of a couple of political systems that have relied on political re-education but I dont think youd welcome the comparisons.

I knew you'd try and make that comparison. If someone is an alcoholic, is it a process of re-education to help them to realise that they don't need drink to survive?

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

All decisions are made democratically, the particular style of democracy is also to be agreed democratically. There are advantages and disadvantages to be found with both consensus and majority rule forms of decision making. In reality, most decisions would be made in a hybrid of the two forms. If someone does not want to take part in the community, to avail of the services or to participate in the decision making processes, they would be free to live as they wish (as long as they are not exploiting others)

What if the people democratically deside to have leaders and to allow the ownership of property whether by individuyals or corporations?

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

The law is an instrument by which the powerful maintain their power. How would bauxite be exchanged for trains?

MM

using some kind of currency

A currency is any token that is mutually accepted as part of terms of trade.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

What if the people democratically deside to have leaders and to allow the ownership of property whether by individuyals or corporations?

well then they have democratically decided to end Anarchism and we will have reverted back to the current system.

If there were still a significant number of people dedicated to anarchism, they might move away or resist attempts by the capitalists to take control of all of the means of production.

There has never been an example of a genuinely socialist society voting for capitalism. Or if there is, I am not aware of it.

metrovelvet

Akrasia wrote:

Sand, in a representative democracy, there is nothing to stop a sufficiently charismatic oppressor from being elected, and there is nothing to stop him/her from calling a referendum that will change the constitution to allow him any power he wants.

Yes there is, its called checks and balances.

Akrasia wrote:

You seem to be taking your concept of human nature directly out of "lord of the flies" It's just a book you know. People do not want wars, people want to live in peace

Can I have whatever it is your smoking? Have you looked at the 20th century? People love fighting.

Akrasia wrote:

If someone was going around saying something like "kill all jews" lots of people probably would tell him to stop. Most people would probably just ignore him. If he persistently kept spouting fascist hate filled bile, people might start to get physical. Anarchists would have a democratic court system to deal with problems like this.

Really? Well what if he was a charismatic leader/bully of a community that went around to other members of that community and said "kill a jew or die" with a gun to said person's head. How would your court system deal with that? What if your court system was run by people who were servicing this jew killer? What if thats what the community wanted, to kill all jews?

Akrasia wrote:

And hence we have the primary role of the state, to protect private property. to protect owners from non owners, the rich from the poor.
SOME Most other people are powerless and are forced to take whatever scraps are handed down to them. This is most easily demonstrated on a global scale, compare plantation labourers in Asia with stock brokers in new york? But it also works in Ireland. Most people are waged employees. they have a choice, to do what they're told, or to be unemployed. Most people do not have the option of moving jobs easily (or if they do, it's the choice between working in factory A, or identical factory B, or shop A or Shop

Well id rather get a wage to work then no wage to work, which seems to be what you're proposing in this insane theory. Stock brokers in NYC didnt always start out as stockbrokers, some were poor immigrants kids. We have a very flexible class mobility, which is usually seen manifest in second generation immigrants. Its Europe, maybe even Ireland, which has a stricter class codes.

Yeah. They're linked in one chain, Law, Private property and State property are all tools of the same oppression.

Akrasia wrote:

. Anarchism puts equality and freedom first, Liberal democracy puts economic success and wealth generation first.

Im sorry but arent these two linked? Dont you like your computer? Do you want to be poor?

Akrasia wrote:

They just need to be exposed to a new way of thinking and they will change their behaviour.

To what? To a behavior you approve of? Or oh, the community approves of? That sounds a little Clockwork Orange to me.

Akrasia wrote:

We as a society can choose the values we want to have.
I knew you'd try and make that comparison. If someone is an alcoholic, is it a process of re-education to help them to realise that they don't need drink to survive?

YEs but if they want to drink themselves to death, thats their choice. The state doesnt have the right to stop them, nor does your so called community.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

Yes there is, its called checks and balances.

what check is there to stop people electing a potential tyrant?
Only the will of the people
If that tyrant wants to change the constitution, that also requires a vote. If that is passed, then all of the 'checks and balances' are useless. I am not saying that this is a particularly likely scenario. I am saying that it's just as likely that people would follow a charismatic oppressor in a representative democracy as it is in an Anarchist society.

Can I have whatever it is your smoking? Have you looked at the 20th century? People love fighting.

Politicians love wars, people do not love fighting in wars. (well, the vast majority don't. there are always a few psychopaths.)

Really? Well what if he was a charismatic leader/bully of a community that went around to other members of that community and said "kill a jew or die" with a gun to said person's head. How would your court system deal with that? What if your court system was run by people who were servicing this jew killer? What if thats what the community wanted, to kill all jews?

your example is ludicrous. And it is not an argument against anarchism. The current system is vulnerable to all of those extremely hypothetical scenarios just as much, or as little, as an anarchist society is.

Im sorry but arent these two linked? Dont you like your computer? Do you want to be poor?

Wealth generation and economic distribution are two very different things.

To what? To a behavior you approve of? Or oh, the community approves of? That sounds a little Clockwork Orange to me.

to give them the skills to represent their own interests in a democratic way. I have already said that. To question all kinds of authority. These are positive skills. Only a fascist opposes the idea of people thinking for themselves.

YEs but if they want to drink themselves to death, thats their choice. The state doesnt have the right to stop them, nor does your so called community.

I agree. But we should at least provide the services to help them break the addiction, if they like being alcoholics, and if they aren't harming others, then they should be allowed to do whatever they like. On the other hand, forcing people to respect authority through education and punishment, is like forcing people to become alcoholics.
That is why anarchists want people to think for themselves, and that's why anarchists want people to manage their own lives and make their own decisions.

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia, it's clear that you are passionate about this form of 'goverment' (is this the correct word?), but how would people who are opposed to such a way of life be treated? You only have to do a count of the responces in this thread to get an idea that there would be a large majority who would be against this form of life.

DadaKopf

mountainyman wrote:

The law is an instrument by which the powerful maintain their power. How would bauxite be exchanged for trains?

MM

What's it with you and bauxite, eh?

mountainyman

DadaKopf wrote:

What's it with you and bauxite, eh?

The answers I am getting to the questions I am asking are sh t answers. Akrasia if it was your intention to proselytise you should have learned what you were talking about first. You are a disgrace.

MM

metrovelvet

I agree with MM. This is like marshmellow pie in the sky government. Big dreams, lord of the flies reality.

It sounds like the Smurfs.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

I agree with MM. This is like marshmellow pie in the sky government. Big dreams, lord of the flies reality.

It sounds like the Smurfs.

well you clearly know what you're talking about, You're clearly paying attention and have an open mind, I should stop talking about anarchist government right now.

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

The answers I am getting to the questions I am asking are sh t answers. Akrasia if it was your intention to proselytise you should have learned what you were talking about first. You are a disgrace.

MM

a disgrace to what?

I have said several times that industrial activity would take place through federations of co-operative workplaces. there are existing models that are working extremely well.

there is a large collectivised cooperative movement in Italy at present and productivity and efficiency is actually higher in these companies compared with their neo-liberal competitors

The authors find no significant differences in investment horizons or criteria for finance, despite theoretical assertions to the contrary. The cooperatives apparently have higher productivity, more labor-intensive production methods, lower income differentials, and a more tranquil industrial relations environment than the private firms.

mountainyman

Akrasia wrote:

a disgrace to what?

Anarchism, you have been given the opportunity to respond to questions in a specific way that would concretise your theories and continually respond with tedious jargon, bullsh t and references (passim)to relatively obscure industrial conglomerates in Spain.

Akrasia wrote:

I have said several times that industrial activity would take place through federations of co-operative workplaces. there are existing models that are working extremely well.

What does this mean, outline to me how the exchange that I have described above would take place- concretise it.

Akrasia wrote:

there is a large collectivised cooperative movement in Italy at present and productivity and efficiency is actually higher in these companies compared with their neo-liberal competitors

List some of the companies. How do you measure productivity and efficiency, how would you measure them in an anarchist society. Your attitude is patronising to say the least [1] and you appear uninterested in whether the societal change you are talking about takes place as part of a mad max style global collapse or as a consequence of what we generally call a revolution.

MM


[1]Defensive would be more accurate whether because of limitations in ideology or limtations in intellect I am not sure.

FYI

For further reading on Anarchism:

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker3.html

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

Anarchism, you have been given the opportunity to respond to questions in a specific way that would concretise your theories and continually respond with tedious jargon, bullsh t and references (passim)to relatively obscure industrial conglomerates in Spain.

On page 1 of this discussion I said that anarchism, by it's very nature, does not have a concrete manifesto. It is a set of ideas and principles around which communities can decide for themselves what suits their needs best.

Everything about anarchism is 'relatively obscure'. Most people don't know what anarchism is.

What does this mean, outline to me how the exchange that I have described above would take place- concretise it.

anarchists would operate the economy according to the same principles of solidarity and mutual aid that society is organised around.
you won't like this explanation because in capitalism, 'Business is Business' and being an asshole is a prerequisite in order to succeed. Anarchist syndicates and federations would operate under a principle of Mutualism. There is a mutual benefit for the producer and the consumer through working together (without the producer there is nothing to consume, without the consumer, there is nobody to produce for) Anarchists would not produce for a profit, they would produce and exchange for the costs of production. They would distribute their goods based on the decisions of Producer and consumer councils, not just based on where the most profits are.

Mutualism holds that producers should exchange their goods at cost-value using systems of "contract." While Proudhon's early definitions of cost-value were based on fixed assumptions about the value of labor-hours, he later redefined cost-value to include other factors such as the intensity of labor, the nature of the work involved, etc. He also expanded his notions of "contract" into expanded notions of "federation." It is possible that these ideas, more fully developed, could strongly resemble participatory economics today.

(wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#Mutual_credit

These are the principles under which the Fair Trade movement operates under although they have to operate within the parameters of capitalism so there would be significant differences in an anarchist society.

List some of the companies. How do you measure productivity and efficiency, how would you measure them in an anarchist society.

I don't have a list of companies. If you have jstor access, go to this URL
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0427(198511)2:52:208%3C449:PPSWOA%3E2.0.CO;2-J
It's a paper in the Economica journal (hardly a left wing press) that analyses the productivity of 20,000 cooperative companies operating in Italy here is a short summary of their findings (I'm not typing out the whole thing)

A broad interpretation of our results is that for producer cooperatives, profit sharing, participation and individual worker ownership of assets have a positive or (in the case of participation and ownership) at least a non negative effect on productivity

Your attitude is patronising to say the least [1] and you appear uninterested in whether the societal change you are talking about takes place as part of a mad max style global collapse or as a consequence of what we generally call a revolution.

I believe I already outlined my position on this. I believe anarchism is viable. The biggest single thing preventing it from succeeding is the extremely violent hegemonic and imperialistic nature of global capitalism. Capitalism is unsustainable, it is heading for a big crash. When that happens, anarchism will have a unique opportunity to step in and establish itself.

I've always thought of science and open source software as examples of succesful anarchy. No hierarchies, self organising etc.

DadaKopf

Deleted User wrote:

I've always thought of science and open source software as examples of succesful anarchy. No hierarchies, self organising etc.

The 'free market' also. Because your typical Smithian/Friedmanist/neoliberal will argue that individuals acting in their own self-interest is also a society acting for the greater good. Though Smith would be much less individualist than Friedman.

Free marketeers believe that society can be organised much more efficiently through collective, self-organisation - anarchism, if you will.

Of course this ideology is a conceit which conceals and generates the enormous power inequalities of global industrial capitalism and calcified institutions of power that keep it so. We all know it.

A few here have asked about the economic theories behind anarchism. Perhaps yiz might like to read up on Participative Economics (www.parecon.org).

Akrasia

And for more examples of collectivised workplaces in action, there are more than 180 recuperated factories in Argentina, abandoned by the capitalists following their economic melt down (as a result of the neo-liberal ultra capitalism as directed by the IMF and WTO) They have been running for the last number of years, succeeding where capitalism has failed, and operating in an extremely stressful environment, under constant threat from the state of eviction and violence (they are essentially squatting the factories, but if they were not using them, they would remain empty and the workers would have no jobs or income)

It has not been an easy existence, the Argentinian economy was a complete mess, but they overcame these problems through cooperation and solidarity and collective action.

During the October 27 rally workers from Renacer, BAUEN and Zanon expressed their solidarity with workers who days before faced a violent eviction. Over 50 police officers violently attacked 14 workers who were occupying a gas station in a Buenos Aires neighborhood. Two years after the owners claimed bankruptcy, the workers formed the Punta Arenas cooperative. They are demanding that the gas station be expropriated and handed over to the workers in compensation to back salaries that the owner never paid. Despite differences with the pro-capitalist lawyer Luis Caro who represents the Punta Arenas cooperative, worker run businesses from diverse groupings said: if they mess with one of us, they mess with all of us. "Factories that close down are factories of death that kill entire families," said Fernando Velazquez from City Hotel, a worker run and recovered hotel in the coastal city of Mar del Plata. The occupied factories and enterprises are proving that they are organizing to develop strategies in defense of Latin American workers susceptible to factory closures and poor working conditions. While these experiences are forced to co-exist within the capitalist market they are forming new visions for a new working culture. "Factories that close down should be recovered by the workers and the courts must recognize the right to work," commented Velazquez. "We all deserve definitive expropriation because we are recuperating jobs and dignity."

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-11/09trigona.cfm

there's an overview of argentinian cooperperatives and the state repression that they have been facing here
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-12/26trigona.cfm

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

If there were still a significant number of people dedicated to anarchism, they might move away or resist attempts by the capitalists to take control of all of the means of production.

So the anarchists should have the right of secession? But how come in an anarchist society the non anarchists haven't the right of secession? c.f. discussion thread on The Fedaralist 10. And if they "move elsewhere" are they not gerrymandering a "tyranny of the majority"?

There has never been an example of a genuinely socialist society voting for capitalism. Or if there is, I am not aware of it.

this is just a "one true scotsman" argument isnt it? Could you give me a few examples of "genuinely socialist societies"?

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

You are a disgrace.

mountainyman wrote:

...limtations in intellect...

mountainyman gets a week's holiday.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

So the anarchists should have the right of secession? But how come in an anarchist society the non anarchists haven't the right of secession? c.f. discussion thread on The Fedaralist 10. And if they "move elsewhere" are they not gerrymandering a "tyranny of the majority"?

Everyone has the right of secession, and others have the right to resist that secession. Complex social change does not happen seamlessly. The point of anarchism is that the individuals involved make a collective decision to not respect imposed authority or the rule of an oppressive state. Anarchists would not force capitalists to stop being capitalists themselves, If people want to remain in waged labour and continue to pay rent to landowners, then they can do so if they please, They can have their own capitalist economies completely separately to the anarchist societies, (I can not see this surviving without becoming a totalitarian regime) but in a shared space, anarchists would not support the landowners 'right' to collect rents from tenants who refuse to pay it. Without the state or their own private army, capitalists can not enforce their property rights, and their system would be unsustainable. Anarchists would fight against any private army that tried to impose rule upon them, so anarchism and capitalism are not really compatible with each other.

this is just a "one true scotsman" argument isnt it? Could you give me a few examples of "genuinely socialist societies"?

Well, I can think of loads of examples of socialist regimes being violently overthrown by imperialist capitalists, but I can't think of any socialist countries voting to change the system voluntarily. The reason for this, is that socialism is usually supported by the majority of the population, but the wealthy minority have the means to force their will onto everyone else.

I said 'Genuine socialism' because I don't describe the likes of the eastern bloc countries as socialist, they were failed state capitalists and authoritarian regimes.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

Everyone has the right of secession, and others have the right to resist that secession.

But if the vast majority don't want ananarchist state then the "right to resist" is violent revolutionist insurgency isn't it?

Complex social change does not happen seamlessly. The point of anarchism is that the individuals involved make a collective decision to not respect imposed authority or the rule of an oppressive state.

But that is already built into democracy! the state does not have a right to oppress people even if it is not an anarchist state. One does not have to have anarchism to make it binding on the state to respect individuals.

Anarchists would not force capitalists to stop being capitalists themselves, If people want to remain in waged labour and continue to pay rent to landowners, then they can do so if they please, They can have their own capitalist economies completely separately to the anarchist societies, (I can not see this surviving without becoming a totalitarian regime) but in a shared space, anarchists would not support the landowners 'right' to collect rents from tenants who refuse to pay it.

i.e. anarchists reject the idea of ownershipof property. But if as you state anarchists will not stop others from believing in the ownership of property then how do you suggest anarchists can do anything about this?

Without the state or their own private army, capitalists can not enforce their property rights, and their system would be unsustainable.

but if people already collectively agree to having an army and to individuals owning property and to having police courts councils etc. enforce these rights then how is anarchism to remove these systems of enforcement which the people already accept?

Anarchists would fight against any private army that tried to impose rule upon them, so anarchism and capitalism are not really compatible with each other.

Yuo keep proposing the false dichotomy that capatilism and anarchism are two mutually exclusive systems between which one has to chose.
they may not be compatabile but there is communism scientism theocracy and a host of other choices.

Well, I can think of loads of examples of socialist regimes being violently overthrown by imperialist capitalists, but I can't think of any socialist countries voting to change the system voluntarily.

forgetting the people who were overthrown for a moment. Please tell me of a socialist country that had socialism and didnt vote to change it.

Now moment over please tell me of a few truly socialist countries that were overthrown. you said there were loads so tell me three. can you do that please?

The reason for this, is that socialism is usually supported by the majority of the population, but the wealthy minority have the means to force their will onto everyone else.

So which countries are you referring to ?

I said 'Genuine socialism' because I don't describe the likes of the eastern bloc countries as socialist, they were failed state capitalists and authoritarian regimes.

I didn't ask what countries you regarded as sham socialists. I asked you to name what countries were "genuine socialism" existed. Since you claim therer were "loads" three should suffice.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

But if the vast majority don't want ananarchist state then the "right to resist" is violent revolutionist insurgency isn't it?

Only if they resist violently.
They could resist in the way anarchists currently resist capitalism, Demonstrations, occupying factories, squatting, setting up their own collectives as far outside the system as they can get away with...

But that is already built into democracy! the state does not have a right to oppress people even if it is not an anarchist state. One does not have to have anarchism to make it binding on the state to respect individuals.

Right, tell that to the people of Rossport who are being oppressed by the state because they don't want a corporation to build a dangerous pipeline and processing plant through their community. Watch the news tomorrow, there is a huge protest planned for there tomorrow morning. (I wish I was there myself, and I had planned to be but my girlfriend had a serious family situation spring up today and I want to be with her for that)

i.e. anarchists reject the idea of ownershipof property. But if as you state anarchists will not stop others from believing in the ownership of property then how do you suggest anarchists can do anything about this?

They would simply refuse to respect their ownership claim to that land. It's not hard to understand. If Some landlord claims to own my house and I don't agree, unless there is a state to defend his claim and imprison me for lack of compliance, he'll have a hard time getting any rent out of me.

but if people already collectively agree to having an army and to individuals owning property and to having police courts councils etc. enforce these rights then how is anarchism to remove these systems of enforcement which the people already accept?

As the state collapses, so will the institutions of the state. Who will pay the army? they won't work for free. People who are have specific skills would have a big input into shaping the new society, but they would not be able to impose anything without democratic approval.

Yuo keep proposing the false dichotomy that capatilism and anarchism are two mutually exclusive systems between which one has to chose.
they may not be compatabile but there is communism scientism theocracy and a host of other choices.

private property is an anathema to anarchism. Capitalism can not work without private property. The two systems are utterly incompatible. Some of the economics systems could survive, there could be similarities, but the central principles of capitalism can not survive in an anarchist society (private property, profit, interest)

forgetting the people who were overthrown for a moment. Please tell me of a socialist country that had socialism and didnt vote to change it.

You can't just forget about the countries who had dictatorships imposed on them. They were the most promising socialist experiments, that's why they were taken out. The United States could not tolerate a 'threat of a good example'
Why don't you tell me what socialist country voted for capitalism.

Now moment over please tell me of a few truly socialist countries that were overthrown. you said there were loads so tell me three. can you do that please?

Well, there were the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, Guatamala and Iran in 1953 are just 3 examples.

In reality, Most Socialist movements never get a chance to succeed because they were taken out before they have a chance to take hold.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

Only if they resist violently.

so you condone non violent insurgency? Would that include hacking into banks and pension funds and destroying data?

They could resist in the way anarchists currently resist capitalism, Demonstrations, occupying factories, squatting,

This isnt reserved for anarchists.It is a valid form of civil disobiedience for many many more people than anarchists.

setting up their own collectives as far outside the system as they can get away with...

Co operatives are NOT an anarchist perogative! Indeed many are set up in Ireland . They own land and property! some are housing co operatives. Many are in cities and not far from the system.
There are even co operative banks! Ireland is a world leader in them! They are called credit unions. We dont need anarchism to have them.

Right, tell that to the people of Rossport who are being oppressed by the state because they don't want a corporation to build a dangerous pipeline and processing plant through their community.

I wont go into this particular issue because i have some sympathies. Indeed I have published on how oil companies exploit locals before. But let us deal with the principle you raise of local wishes. That might just be NIMBYism. People dont want dumps mental hospitals prisons power plants etc. built beside them but they have to be built somewhere.

They would simply refuse to respect their ownership claim to that land. It's not hard to understand. If Some landlord claims to own my house and I don't agree, unless there is a state to defend his claim and imprison me for lack of compliance, he'll have a hard time getting any rent out of me.

Iti isnt there to defend the claim it is ther to enforce the law as regards who has the valid claim. And if there was no enforcement arm then whats to stop the landlord or anyone else havng a gang of thugs turf you outon the road?

As the state collapses, so will the institutions of the state. Who will pay the army? they won't work for free. People who are have specific skills would have a big input into shaping the new society, but they would not be able to impose anything without democratic approval.

Great- back to fudalism. Some people on housing estates in Limerick will really love that.
And how will you stop people from imposing things?

private property is an anathema to anarchism. Capitalism can not work without private property. The two systems are utterly incompatible.

This is not true in theory. A state could have no ownership of land but still have commodities and personal possession. It isnt pratical but it is possible.

Some of the economics systems could survive, there could be similarities, but the central principles of capitalism can not survive in an anarchist society (private property, profit, interest)

So prices on every commodity will stay the same for ever and people will only ever use the same amount never over consume and they will be an infinite supply to replace the products used and the cost of disposal will never change?

You can't just forget about the countries who had dictatorships imposed on them.

I didnt! please read what I wrote and dont quote out of context!

They were the most promising socialist experiments, that's why they were taken out.

please give me a list of genuine socialist countries.

The United States could not tolerate a 'threat of a good example'
Why don't you tell me what socialist country voted for capitalism.

Why dont you back up what you claimed about genuine socialist countries?

Well, there were the Sandanistas in Nicaragua,

Led by Ortega. I thought you didnt like leaders? Ortega was elected this week as president? So is Nicaragua a "genuinly socialist" country?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6117704.stm

Guatamala

Since 1524, the year Pedro de Alvarado of Spain conquered the Mayan inhabitants, there have been indigenous rebellions on an average of every 15 years.

there was nt an election until 1954 and Guatemala was controlled almost entirely by a handful of families and their economic interests. Opposing them was guerilla groups such as the F.A.R. (Armed Rebel Forces), E.G.P. (Guerilla Army of the Poor), or O.R.P.A (Revolutionary Organization of People in Arms.) These are ARMIES by the way, something you stated should not exist in your anarchist utopia and that violent resistance was not acceptable.

From 1960 to the signing of the peace accords in 1996 there were an estimated 55,000 victims of the war, including 30,000 murdered by the army in the 1980´s alone. Ninety percent of these victims were civilian leaders and 75% were indigenous. Amazingly, 80% of these causalities took place between 1980-83.

So in what way is this a "genuinely socialist" country?

and Iran in 1953 are just 3 examples.

I assume you referto the tudeh?
http://www.iranian.com/History/2001/November/Tudeh/index.html

If the Tudeh was to put up a meaningful and organized resistance against the coup, its military organization had to play an important and leading role. Created in 1944, the Military Organization of the Tudeh Party of Iran (sazman-e nizami-yi hizb-i Tudeh-ye Iran), sometimes called The Officers Organization (sazman-i afsaran), was a network of military officers supporting the party. The military personnel which came to create the Military Organization had established their cells in the defeated imperial Iranian armed forces a year after the allied occupation of Iran in 1941. Prominent among these officers were Col. Ezatallah Siyamak, one of the few communist officers who was not exposed to the police during Riza Shah's rule; Col. Muhammad Ali Azar, Major Ali Akbar Eskandani and Captain Khusruw Ruzbih. During 1942-1944 these officers operated without direct contact with the Tudeh.

....
Factional infighting had been a part of the Tudeh existence from its inception and continued to play an important role in the party's paralysis in face of the coup. According to one of the party's former leaders, "The existence of two factions in the leadership of the Tudeh Party of Iran can be seen like a red line in the 38 year history of the Tudeh Party in Iran and in exile." Different names could be used to identify the two factions. Sources published by the coup leaders called them the old guard and corrupted faction vs. the critical and compromising faction. This characterization as well as the whole analysis of factionalism in the Tudeh by the imperial regime is utterly inadequate and only served the regime's counter-propaganda goals.

hmmm. military wing ? friendly with soviet russia? leaders again? and factions infighting and disarry. Hardly a picture of genuine socialism is it?

then again come to thing of it...:)

Smacks of -we are the Judean peoples front!

In reality, Most Socialist movements never get a chance to succeed because they were taken out before they have a chance to take hold.

Yu are only contradicting yourself here.
So you are saying now that your claim about "lots of genuine socialist countries" is really not "lots" but "none" and not "genuine" but "potential" since they never got off the ground. i.e. you claim a socialist country is a route to a true anarchist society and will certainly happen but anywhere the first step was tried it failed or never got off the ground because it was destroyed from outside or within.

I dont have problems with pipe dreams but clearly say they are that and not that they are historical or actual fact.