Socialist Anarchism

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dont see why we need a new thread, the old thread was called libertarianism vs anarchism, where libertarianism is understood as "capitalist anarchism", at least by its proponants, and anarchism proper is understood as being a "socialist" society. I think the reason the name "socialist" is given to the left anarchists is that the overall goal of marxist ideology is somewhat aking to those of left-anarchism, however the method of bringing about that goal is pretty radically different. Libertarianism and anarchism, although some people in the other thread seemed to think that they were essentially the same, couldnt really be further apart, despite the fact that they seemingly profess the same goals. This is because the two movements critically differ on what it is to be "free", and where libertarians see business transactions as the be all and end all of human existence, so much so that our entire society should be reorganised, at massive cost to human wellbeing (or at least some human wellbeing) in order that our property rights not be violated, anarchists have (at least in my view) a much more balanced view of human life, realising that business transactions are simply a means to a goal, and thus should not be preferenced over far more basic human needs.

Before I go on, left anarchism's proponents are necessarily fragmented. Everybody who answers any number of those questions will probably answer differently, so I cant be seen to be answering for everyone on boards of roughly the same political persuasion as myself, much less the whole movement. Also, I dont claim to be an expert on economic reorganisation, writing on boards is for me, as Id imagine it is for most others on here, an excersise in learning more then anything else, so hopefully answering these will get my own head straight.

Topics for debate might include:

• What is socialist anarchism, and how does it differ from state socialism, individualist anarchism, and libertarianism?

I think I went through this above, also well covered in the other thread. (BTW I think the two threads should just be merged, pointless having two).

[*]Does socialist anarchism base itself upon a certain understanding of "human nature"?

Hmmm thats interesting. In not quite sure what my feelings on human nature are. However it is certainly my view that it is not possible to describe the totality of human behaviour in one word, such as "selfish", or "compassionate", or "altruistic". These seem to me to be gross, gross oversimplifications, and my opposition to the view that humans are entirely and absolutely selfish, all the time, no matter what, is because is seems to be utterly irrational, and is one of my primary bones of contention with libertarianism. So, if you like, my view of human nature can be summed up in the statement "human beings have no strictly defined, necessary-to-being-human nature", although I am certainly open to argument on this point. But please, dont just say "but humans are clearly selfish, look at X and Y and Z", because you really arent going to convince me that its the case.

Also, an interesting question for anyone who does believe in human nature, yet at the same time that entirely rational, free choice can be made in the world, how can you be said to be making a free choice when you have been inluenced by your very being human to choose a certain way? Id imagine the response is going to be, "thats rediculous, if I wasnt human, I wouldnt be able to choose in the first place". But our being human necessarily influences our choices, our way of perceiving the world is a result of the complex structures in the brain which determine our perceptual capabilities. If you recognise that these structures influence our behaviour and even the way we perceive the world, then why not other structures in the "external" world, such as the language we speak, our psychological structures (id, ego, superego), and finally societal and economic structures.

This is most definitely where libertarianism breaks down in my view, no attempt is made to account for the influence which broader structures have on the individual in society. Where Marxism is essentially attempting to alter the economic structure of society in order to prevent the alienation and constriction of oppurtunity (among other things) which those at the bottom suffer from under capitalism, the libertarian simply denies the existence of these problems, maintaining that human beings are essentially and irrefutably free, that it is due to free, unadulterated, fully-informed choice that people at the bottom are in the position they are, and that any attempt to alter the structures which determine all of our existences is a violation of our "liberty" and our rights. This is basically why I keep calling your view of "freedom" or "liberty" simpleminded, because you deny all that you dont want to deal with of human experience.

[*]Are there existing models—such as the open-source software community, for example—that might provide useful blueprints for a socialist anarchist order? If so, what lessons may be learned from them?

Dont really know that much about the open-source movement so maybe someone else can give a better account. Im not sure if id go so far as to say "blueprint", but certainly there are things to be learned.

Id say 2 highly relevant implications of the movement are:
1. that human colaboration outside of the realm of the capitalist market is not only possible, but is currently flourishing. The open-source movement can be seen as "public space" almost, I think it serves as a further motivation, if any were needed, to actively protect our other public spaces from appropriation and co-optation.
2. that purely material remuneration is not necessarily (and I would argue that it is only very indirectly) the desired reward (insofar as there is any desired reward other then the production for production and expression's sake) when humans create.

[*]Is a peaceful transition from liberal capitalist statism to socialist anarchism possible? If so, how?

Well I would certainly hope so. Im not sure how far I would go in terms of supporting a movement that used violence pre-emptively or unprovoked (though "unprovoked" is certainly a vague word). I think it is inevitable that any such radically progressive movement will come under attack from those sectors of society who stand to lose most (the top 5% or so). These people control a rediculously disproportional segment of society, and should be assumed to react violently if their stranglehold over society is challenged. It is only through a mass movement, hopefully a peaceful one, which encapsulates the majority of a population and is firmly supported by those at the bottom, as is not the case in Iran at the moment, for example, that real change can occur. Im not sure how useful democratically elected government is in its current form, certainly it is useful in that it can allow a small progressive party to gain recognition and bigger platform (eg Joe Higgins) on which to stand, but, as the posters around my area say "if elections changed anything, they'd be made illegal". Certainly that is true in their current manifestation, because it is apparent that if only 50% of the population or so actually feel empowered enough and informed enough to make a decision which affects their own future, then something is massively wrong with your instantiation of democracy. Democracy without real alternatives, empowerment and information (the mechanism of empowerment) is not really democracy.

[*]How would the socialist anarchist society understand concepts such as freedom and liberty?[/quote]

I think ive dealt with this above. If there was less rhetoric about ephemeral concepts that are shown to be rediculous by simple, everyday examples such as the prostitute etc, and more about the real suffering of real people who have their "liberty" inhibited by the fact that they are horrifically poor and who feel they have no choices in life, then maybe I would respect libertarian attempts to justify their skewed view of human agency.

[*]How would the society function politically? How would decisions be made, by whom, and under what conditions?

Democratically, as has been discussed comprehensively in the other thread. Dont see why you are still asking this question. The ideal is that people have a say in things which affect them to the extent that they are affected by them, as a general rule.

[*]How would this society function economically? Who would decide what and how much to produce, and under what principles? How would relative value of individuals' labour be assessed? What would be the rewards for working? Would restrictions be placed on the ownership of private property or possessions, and if so, what? How would goods and services be exchanged? Would the society issue a currency? Would saving or investment be possible?

Hasnt Akrasia just spent the last couple of days answering every single one of the above questions? Im sure you could find a response to every one of them if you go back and check the previous thread.

[*]How would the society function socially?

Perhaps if you explain how society "functions socially" now, I might be able to explain how it might be different...

1.How would it address issues relating to health care, education, crime, etc.?[ 2.How would it support and assist the young, old, disabled, and others in society who are dependent or vulnerable? 3.How would it deal with people who were delinquent, irresponsible, or lazy? 4.How would it deal with political dissidents?

I think all of the above are questions which should be decided democratically. I can give you my views certainly:
1. I would argue that everyone in a given locality or district or whatever unit is used to demarcate areas and populations should contribute according to their capacities and their means to care for those who need care, including children, sick and criminals.
2. Through community care, where work is allocated among those who benefit or will benefit in the future from the provision of services, ie. everyone. However if people are particularly talented want to specialise in care then they should be provided for by society, however they would also be allocated other communal work, as is everyone else. This prevents a division of labour between empowered/disempowered and ensures that information is accessible to all.
3. They would not be remunerated as much as someone who cannot be described using the above adjectives. Im not sure I oppose a monetary system, I need to be convinced one way or the other. It seems to me there is certain value in terms of efficiency (to use that capitalistic mantra), however this is very possibly just a signifier of the fact that living under a monetary system is all I know, a factor which I think is a great influence on many peoples objections to a lot of what we are proposing.
4. Well, dissedents from what? They are fully entitled to have their say. So long as they are not attempting to opress anyone, or violate our institution of democracy, then what harm are they causeing? Opression and violence are entailed in the apropriation of segments of the natural world for exclusive rights and should be treated as criminal actions, which I see them as being. Perhaps, as Kama suggests, I am being as simpleminded as the libertarian who maintains that property is the be all and end all of existence, and I am open to being convinced, but I certainly have yet to come even close to being convinced of the grounds for maintaining that property is something other then entirely socially constructed and hence as dispencible as any other institution we have, such as religion, or totalitarianism.

[*]Would there be a judicial system? Under what principles would it function? What sanctions, sentences, or penalties might be imposed in a socialist anarchist society?

Needs to be worked out democratically, Id like to hear what Akrasia and co have to say though. I havent really come to any conclusions myself.

[*]What status would the individual have under socialist anarchy? What status would the traditional nuclear family have?

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I dont get what the question is. Status in what realm? In comparison to what?

[*]Would the society be homogenous? Or would sub-groups be permitted to splinter off and create their own independent modes of economic and social organization?

Not if they entail oppresion of human beings. Otherwise, of course, why would we want to stop them?

If so, how would various groups interact, and how would conflict between their principle be resolved?

Well one would hope democratically. Obviously it depends on the situation, Im not sure I can give you an answer so early in the development of this society, what you are asking is something which can only come about after power has been re-apropriated from those who currently hold it and put back in the hands of those who have not governed themselves for a long long time.

Rules:

• This ideally will be a self-moderating thread. Be alive to the irony of a Politics Mod having to break up squabbles about socialist anarchist principles.
• The goal here is to have an actual adult-level debate, not a mud-slinging match. Think before you post. Be respectful of others, even if you disagree with them. No slurs, name-calling, jeering, goading, etc.
• Do not make extremist comparisons of posters' political positions to Nazism, Stalinism, etc.
• Factual/statistical claims are to be backed up on request, using reliable sources.

Good rules. Il stick to them this time, hopefully everyone else does the same.

Was only intending to write a couple of lines in response to this thread saying that it should have been in the other one, oh well.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

looks like wed be better off doing that since no one seems to be using this one... mods?

WinstonSmith

I know I'm still relatively new but I'd prefer this to sit on its own, not least because it may encourage people to participate instead of being deterred by the 20million pages of pre-reading on the Lib vs Ana thread. Furthermore, in an attempt to kick-start the discussion, I'd like someone to enlighten me, specifically, what anarcho-socialism actually entails with regards to social legislature and economic policies.

Kama

I'm also of the opinion that it would be helpful to have self-standing threads to explore the issues, hopefully with less stale 'i am left u are right we are fight!' feelings.

1st question is up, I'll see if anyone more anarchosocialist than me bites, if not I'll take a nibble.

Sunn

Kama wrote: »

1st question is up, I'll see if anyone more anarchosocialist than me bites, if not I'll take a nibble.

yea I'll contribute if I can.

pagancornflake

Joycey wrote: »

If you recognise that these structures influence our behaviour and even the way we perceive the world, then why not other structures in the "external" world, such as the language we speak, our psychological structures (id, ego, superego)

You did NOT just reference Feud....

Joycey

pagancornflake wrote: »

You did NOT just reference Feud....

Yeah i went there

Kama

I'd like to make an initial note on terms, which might seem pedantic but seems relevant to me. First, the term anarchist is derived from the Greek archos, meaning ruler, or authority; anarchy, hence, can be translated as 'without authority', or 'without rulers'; a philosophy characterized by anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchical politics. The movement contends that authoritarian hierarchy should be opposed, due to being innately oppressive to humankind; the opposition to both the State and capitalism (in its 'Left' formulations) emerges from this.

Social anarchism designates a subset of anarchist philosophy, a collectivist position diametric to individualist anarchism; crudely, the individualist stresses the primacy of individuals in composing groups, while the collectivist stresses the primacy of groups in forming individuals.

I would argue that the social/individual axis says nothing in and of itself about views on property relations. For example, libertarian socialists would generally be found towards the individual side on the social/individual axis, yet the 'left' side on property. Communitarian anarcho-capitalists might stress groups such as the family and community before individual freedom on the social level, while emphasising individual private property economically. To repeat an earlier point, ideologies can be quite 'platypus'; rather than falling into neat categories like Left or Right, reptile or mammal, a plurality of possibility appears to exist in outlook and ethos, and genealogically mixture and cross-fertilization of ideas seems more prominent than discrete discourses.

Most of the debate thusfar has been dividing quite strictly on the property axis, but the cake can be sliced other ways; for instance, I find donegalfellas libertarianism to sound quite communitarian in practice, and hence to my mind 'not really libertarian', while he finds libertarian socialism to appear collectivist, and hence equally 'not really libertarian'. Arguing that another 'deviates from the Truth' makes for fiery rhetoric and persuasive polemic, with a long history of denunciations and exorcisms, but the relevant reference here is the No True Scotsman Fallacy, in my opinion.

I'd like someone to enlighten me, specifically, what anarcho-socialism actually entails with regards to social legislature and economic policies

I'll take the second first, if you don't mind.

The cheap answer is like the joke about astrologers and economists; if you don't like what the first one offered you, look for another until you find what you want to hear! The truth behind the joke is that there's quite an eclectic mix of propositions and practices as to how anarchosocialist economic systems either function or should function. While paradoxical, the concept of bottom-up, emergent or spontaneous order as a generative praxis appears both in classical liberal tradition such as Hayek, and the libertarian socialist side. Arguments against tend to ask 'but how will that take place?' whether the mode is political or economic; a satifactory answer to this appears impossible, by nature of its emergent quality. Examples can be and are referenced; in some ways the demand can be perverse on lines of: 'That might work in practice, but does it work in theory?'

The position of Anarchism without Adjectives would be rhetorically Maoist; 'let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend'. If you are conceptually committed to anarchist economics, then forcing a economic system in advance would appear self-contradictory and coercive; the better approach assumed here is one of emergent bottom-up systems rather than top-down diktat, and free competition and experimentation between communities as preferable to a single system.

I'm highly sympathetic to this, simply because it would make comparative arguments so much easier! On those lines Somalia is of interest as a experiment in non-state territories.

Subsets of left-anarchist economic thought divides on its attitude to property; anarchocommunists propose appropriating and bringing into collective ownership and management the means of production, whether farm, factory, or office-block. Management would be by direct democracy, and individual property generally abolished, with the communists instead having free access to the goods produced; essentially, as I understand it, property rights are abolished in favour of universal use-rights or usufruct. Murray Bookchin and Kropotkin have been probably the best known advocates of this position.

Counterarguments against this position are the autarkic nature of the model in a highly complex economy (I cannot eat electric toothbrushes) or in its association with other communes, what efficient and equitable allocation mechanism would be used; how would the proposed 'gift economy' scale?

Moving along the axis of ownership/property, after communist forms we find the slightly more attenuated collectivist strand. Collectivists accept the concept of property, but consider that its ownership should be socialized rather than individual-private; workers self-manage in democratic combines, but some form of labour renumeration exists, such as 'labour notes'. For the strict egalitarian, such as the Communist, this is already crossing the Rubicon towards oppression and hierarchy, as a differential of reward has been introduced. I'd include ParEcon in the collectivist strand also, though I'm not an expert on it. The (in)famous Clause 4 of the British Labour Party would also be a collectivist statement, as would be union and employee stock ownership to a degree. This position is, to me, compatible with a market economy; to put my (g)libertarian hat on, 'if you're so smart, why ain't you rich?' If worker self-ownership is so great, start a company, or buy out the one you are in, and show how truly kick-ass and equitable it is.

Moving further along, we come to Proudhon and Mutualism; free markets and private property are allowed, but access to the means to produce should be freely available; 'the right to product is exclusive [while] the right to means is common'. Exchange takes place on the basis of equivalent labour, a precursor to systems like LETS and Time Hours. Mutualists argue for a 'deregulation' of credit, breaking the current bank monopoly on the production of credit. Again, much of Proudhon seems quite compatible with liberal-market ideology; free markets without rentiers or the loss of liberty from economic alienation from the means of production. I'm also reminded, as a historical side-note, of some old Jewish law I wish I still had a reference for, that a debtors stone for grinding flour could not be taken from him; the means of basic reproduction were to be inalienable.

More recently (and topically, given the Pirate Partys electoral success), we can include infoanarchism, which advocates that the 'enclosure' of Intellectual Property law should be abolished, allowing a free exchange of ideas. The conditions of the net constituting a levelling and anti-hierarchical means of communication and liberty, and the means of reproducing as a revolutionary shift, that the marginal cost of an additional copy approaches zero, and that goods are naturally non-exclusive, my giving you a copy of Ubuntu does not deprive me of Ubuntu.

Well, that's a very short overview of some principle differences in economic policies between anarchisms; in no way comprehensive, but the question was broad, and I was lazy! In response to the first part, (if you mean social legislation), law would be democratically agreed, whether on a majoritarian or consensual basis, as in any other democratic body.

Joycey

Kama wrote: »

Moving along the axis of ownership/property, after communist forms we find the slightly more attenuated collectivist strand. Collectivists accept the concept of property, but consider that its ownership should be socialized rather than individual-private; workers self-manage in democratic combines, but some form of labour renumeration exists, such as 'labour notes'. For the strict egalitarian, such as the Communist, this is already crossing the Rubicon towards oppression and hierarchy, as a differential of reward has been introduced. I'd include ParEcon in the collectivist strand also, though I'm not an expert on it. The (in)famous Clause 4 of the British Labour Party would also be a collectivist statement, as would be union and employee stock ownership to a degree. This position is, to me, compatible with a market economy; to put my (g)libertarian hat on, 'if you're so smart, why ain't you rich?' If worker self-ownership is so great, start a company, or buy out the one you are in, and show how truly kick-ass and equitable it is.

Just to give an argument for the existence and what is seen as the justification due to overall benefit of the inequality in what you term as the "collectivist" model... Im not sure whether I buy into it or not, and if the following is accepted it certainly creates problems for the left side in deciding where the cutoff point is for levels of inequality...

If you are operating under conditions of exceptionally strictly egalitarian allocation of or entitlement to resources, whereby those who work harder, or contribute in any other way towards the overall productive capacity of the society are not preferenced over those who may not work as hard or contribute anything of significant value to the operation of society, it is possible that the GDP, if you like, of the society will be decreased due to individual feelings of not being rewarded by those who benefit from their work. While it is not necessarily the case that this will happen at all, and certainly not the case that we can know a priori that this will lead to the downfall of the civilised world as some may believe, it seems that a mechanism whereby contribution towards the good of all could be rewarded, may be beneficial even to those who are on the losing end of the inequality created.

What the Parecon model which Kama has mentioned proposes (or at least what Michael Albert, one of the most prominent propononents advocates), is a system whereby inequality can be created due to the remuneration (using what, Im not sure) of those who labour, in accordance with several criteria with regard to that labour.
As far as I remember, Albert proposes 4 criteria:

1. The time expended working.
- self explanatory, if I work for 8 hours and you do the same work for 6, I will receive 133% of your pay.

2. The intensity of the work.
- also self explanatory, if I sit around for 2 hours of my 8 hour shift, so you and I both actually do the same amount of work, then we should be remunerated equally for our efforts.

3. The danger/disgust which accords to the work.
- if I am working in an office, and you are working 3 kilometres underground in a dodgy mineshaft somewhere in rural china, aside from any considerations about the intensity of our labour, the riskiness of the mineshaft and the nasty working conditions should be considered when allocating resources after the labour.

4. The uniqueness/difficulty of your contribution.
- this is what I would argue is the most controversial/interesting theoretically of the four. While the first 3 seem fairly common sense, given that it is acceptable for inequality or some system of something related to currency in society, this fourth is more abstract, and is open to charges of unfairness or "injustice" according to Rawlsian ideas of justice.
- the basic argument is that the reason for allowing inequality for all these criteria is that what you are doing is incentivising them. This begs the question whether it is only due to becoming the beneficiary of a power inequality being socially learned that it seems a desirable incentive for labour, however thats another argument.
- if you have someone who is born an incredibly gifted mathematician, so much so that by the time they are in their early twenties there is no other human being in their particular branch of mathematics who can make such a contribution to the field as they can, then in order to benefit the whole of society to the greatest extent possible we should remunerate them for any contribution they make to a higher degree then anybody else. While this may seem to make sense intuitively, given that this is somewhat akin to the ideal of our current society (though not to its reality), what happens in a case where the contribution of the individual is valued by society due to complicated mechanisms far in excess of the actual levels of wellbeing provided to the society, you end up with artificially high levels of inequality, where there is no justification for the power imbalance (the example im thinking of here is someone like Christiano Ronaldo, or Britney Spears) This is a disturbing scenario for a society where heirarchy and opression which is entailed in power imbalance is seen as one of the primary social ills.

WinstonSmith

thanks joycey and kama. i must say that Joycey's descrption sounds very Stalinist in its advocation of a quasi-Iron curtain scenario. This is on of th main reasons I would dscribe myself as a libertarian socialist: because there is no need for so much change and the situations you dscribe I cannot imagine as being realistic.

Kama

I didn't see much Iron Curtain or Stalinesque in Joyceys exposition; ParEcon here sounds so close to ideas of market renumeration (more for more hours, more for more effort, more for unique/scarce contribution, more for hazard and discomfort) that I'm unsure how it differs substantively. If there are aspects of ParEcon which are comparable to Stalinism, please indicate them; otherwise it just looks like name-calling, and also contravenes the forum rules DF posted above.

Again, because I've always found words mean different things to different people: Winston, what does Libertarian Socialism mean to you?

headmuzik

The major differences in the way parecon brings supply into line with demand are the participatory planning structures for consumption and production, abscence of competitively determined prices, and no facility for remuneration according to output. Depends how you define "markets" I guess. If a market is anything that brings supply into line with demand, then parecon does have markets. But it is generally accepted that parecon lacks enough of the basic features of what are described as "market systems" for it to be described as such.

More: http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/qajustm.htm

WinstonSmith

Joycey wrote: »

if you have someone who is born an incredibly gifted mathematician, so much so that by the time they are in their early twenties there is no other human being in their particular branch of mathematics who can make such a contribution to the field as they can, then in order to benefit the whole of society to the greatest extent possible we should remunerate them for any contribution they make to a higher degree then anybody else. While this may seem to make sense intuitively, given that this is somewhat akin to the ideal of our current society (though not to its reality), what happens in a case where the contribution of the individual is valued by society due to complicated mechanisms far in excess of the actual levels of wellbeing provided to the society, you end up with artificially high levels of inequality, where there is no justification for the power imbalance (the example im thinking of here is someone like Christiano Ronaldo, or Britney Spears) This is a disturbing scenario for a society where heirarchy and opression which is entailed in power imbalance is seen as one of the primary social ills.

No Kama. Wasn't simply name-calling. This part is what I felt was slightly Stalinist. It seems to suggest to me that if there is a person gifted in the field of Mathematics then that person should be forced to use his gift to contribute to the society as a whole and will then be remunerated for this contribution. Of course this is similiar to the Stalinist regime in Russia wherein people were designated the field that they were best suited to irrespective of where their passions lay. Forgive me and please enlighten if I am mis-interpreting...

Kama

Hmm I didn't read it that way, I don't know which of us is the misinterpreter.

Joycey's 'Einstein' quote indicates to me that due to the scarcity/excellence of their work, such an individual deserves a higher renumeration than if they possessed a lower ability; I didn't see any direct statement of coercion or forced allocation of their labour. I'll try to get a better handle on it as a system, so as to give a more informed opinion before mouthing off any more.

Thanks for the link, headmuzik! I was amused to find a playtpus in it!

SkepticOne

Joycey wrote: »

1. The time expended working.
- self explanatory, if I work for 8 hours and you do the same work for 6, I will receive 133% of your pay.

2. The intensity of the work.
- also self explanatory, if I sit around for 2 hours of my 8 hour shift, so you and I both actually do the same amount of work, then we should be remunerated equally for our efforts.

3. The danger/disgust which accords to the work.
- if I am working in an office, and you are working 3 kilometres underground in a dodgy mineshaft somewhere in rural china, aside from any considerations about the intensity of our labour, the riskiness of the mineshaft and the nasty working conditions should be considered when allocating resources after the labour.

4. The uniqueness/difficulty of your contribution.
- this is what I would argue is the most controversial/interesting theoretically of the four. While the first 3 seem fairly common sense, given that it is acceptable for inequality or some system of something related to currency in society, this fourth is more abstract, and is open to charges of unfairness or "injustice" according to Rawlsian ideas of justice.
- the basic argument is that the reason for allowing inequality for all these criteria is that what you are doing is incentivising them. This begs the question whether it is only due to becoming the beneficiary of a power inequality being socially learned that it seems a desirable incentive for labour, however thats another argument.
- if you have someone who is born an incredibly gifted mathematician, so much so that by the time they are in their early twenties there is no other human being in their particular branch of mathematics who can make such a contribution to the field as they can, then in order to benefit the whole of society to the greatest extent possible we should remunerate them for any contribution they make to a higher degree then anybody else. While this may seem to make sense intuitively, given that this is somewhat akin to the ideal of our current society (though not to its reality), what happens in a case where the contribution of the individual is valued by society due to complicated mechanisms far in excess of the actual levels of wellbeing provided to the society, you end up with artificially high levels of inequality, where there is no justification for the power imbalance (the example im thinking of here is someone like Christiano Ronaldo, or Britney Spears) This is a disturbing scenario for a society where heirarchy and opression which is entailed in power imbalance is seen as one of the primary social ills.

Shouldn't there also be a fifth factor based on the demand for the work by others. You could be doing a very difficult, time-consuming, unpleasant job that only you have the ability to do (it is easy to come up with examples), but why should you be rewarded if it is of little value to others?

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Anarchism is a political movement that wants to create a participatory, democratic and fair society free from domination whether religious, political or economic.
We are socialist in that we believe that the means of production should be owned socially. We are libertarian in that we don't believe in centralised heirarchical decision making (like state communism) and prefer bottom up federations of autonomous communities working together through free associations of networks.

[*]Does socialist anarchism base itself upon a certain understanding of "human nature"? Is that view reasonable and defensible?

My understanding of human nature is that the most pervasive feature that permeates throughout all cultures and all societies since we climbed down from the trees, is that human beings are remarkably adaptable.
Our human nature is not fixed, and rather our behaviour is influenced by the conditions we live in. We have the ability to be warriers or monks, altruists, or sociopaths.
Societies and cultures can shift between different modes depending on the economic and political conditions of the period.
People are also very resourceful and some people will play any system for their own gain. The best way I can think of mitigating against that is to link the success of the individual with the success of the collective. If you want to improve your own circumstances, you need to work with others for the good of everyone (there can also be individual incentives to reward extra effort)

[*]Are there existing models—such as the open-source software community, for example—that might provide useful blueprints for a socialist anarchist order? If so, what lessons may be learned from them?

There are a huge number of Workers cooperatives operating very successfully in the Bologna region of Italy. There are participatory budgeting structures in cities all around the world that demonstrate the viability of collective decision making.

[*]Is a peaceful transition from liberal capitalist statism to socialist anarchism possible? If so, how?

It is possible for anarchism to emerge after the collapse of capitalism. It could be a peaceful emergence, but the collapse of capitalism would probably be quite violent.

I support non violence, but I don't see how peaceful collectivisation of resources would be tolerated by the wealthy elites.
The 'owners' of these assets, even assets that they have no use for, would fight very hard against the threat of a good example. the threat that successful collectives would encourage others to do the same.

You claim to be against violence but you admit you would set attack dogs on someone who violated your property. You consider the violation of 'property' to be more violant than mauling someone with a vicious animal. As long as you hold that opinion, you will never agree that the collectivisation of property would be anything other than an act of war, and you would blame the revolutionaries for 'making you' turn to violence.

[*]How would the socialist anarchist society understand concepts such as freedom and liberty?

Anarchists see freedom as freedom from oppression, freedom from domination, and freedom to participate as an equal, in making the decisons that directly affect them.
Libertarians see freedom, as freedom to own property, and freedom to do whatever you like while you are king of your own castle. Unfortunately, this is an internal contradiction, because such freedom is impossible, and even libertarianland would impose restrictions on what he/she could do if it affects other people.
Anarchists do not oppose anyone having any degree of personal autonomy, but when their autonomy starts to have impacts on other people, they need to involve them in the decision making process.

[*]How would the society function politically? How would decisions be made, by whom, and under what conditions?

Democratically, by the people who are affected by them, and depending on what structures each collective decides to adopt.
I would suggest non heirarchical federations of syndicates for larger scale decisions, small round table meetings for smaller decisions, and individual autonomy for the every day decisions that don't breach any democratic mandate or guidelines. There wouldn't be constant meetings for hours every day. Most decisions could be made at the lowest level, there could be weekly meetings for the whole collective, but not everyone would want to attend every meeting, only if there were matters that they had a personal interest in. Individual collectives would all have different systems, and technology could play a part in streamlining the process.

[*]How would this society function economically? Who would decide what and how much to produce, and under what principles? How would relative value of individuals' labour be assessed? What would be the rewards for working? Would restrictions be placed on the ownership of private property or possessions, and if so, what? How would goods and services be exchanged? Would the society issue a currency? Would saving or investment be possible?

These are all issues that are to be decided democratically by the people. In Anarchism as there are are a variety of different answers that could be chosen and still comply with the fundamentals of Anarchist theory.

[*]How would the society function socially? How would it address issues relating to health care, education, crime, etc.? How would it support and assist the young, old, disabled, and others in society who are dependent or vulnerable? How would it deal with people who were delinquent, irresponsible, or lazy? How would it deal with political dissidents?

Healthcare, education etc would be provided on a universal access basis. Higher education could be organised through the syndicate structure, complex medical procedures and medications could also be organised through networks of syndicates. Questions about child rearing woud be decided on by the individuals and the communities involved (some groups might prefer more communal lives, others may prefer the traditional nuclear family) Care of the sick and elderly would be organised on a universal access basis. I would imagine the elderly would be facilitated to remain independent for as long as they choose or are able. I would also envisage the elderly and people with disabilities playing a much greater role in the anarchist community as ther experience and skills would be valued long after they are no longer economically profitable to employ.

[*]Would there be a judicial system? Under what principles would it function? What sanctions, sentences, or penalties might be imposed in a socialist anarchist society?

there would have to be some form of arbitration to decide on disputes and a criminal court to deal with violent crimes.

Sentencing would be a matter for the individual communities to decide. They may vote on constitutions to restrict certain punishments so that they could not be used im the heat of the moment. (just like in a constututional republic)

[*]What status would the individual have under socialist anarchy? What status would the traditional nuclear family have?

The individual would have legislative powers and shared ownership over all the resources of the community. Compared with the Libertarian world where it is only those with assets who have power, I think this is more favourable. Compared to representative democracy which is fundamentally disempowering, I prefer participative direct democracy.
Nuclear families or otherwise would depend on the collective

[*]Would the society be homogenous? Or would sub-groups be permitted to splinter off and create their own independent modes of economic and social organization? If so, how would various groups interact, and how would conflict between their principle be resolved?

An anarchist society would be extremely diverse, made up of autonomous communities working together. There would be room for all kinds of experimentation and lifestyles.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

Now you are blatantly misrepresenting me. My question related to a hypothetical scenario, in which a libertarian and anarcho-socialist are trying to co-exist. The libertarian has fenced off his property, and has posted clear signs reading PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING, and BEWARE OF THE DOG.

Libertarians are proponents of bourgeoisie rule therefore reactionary, they would most likely take up arms against socialist revolution. Co-existence with people who advocate plutocracy is not on the agenda as far as im concerned.

An anarchist comes along, decides that the libertarian's claim to "private property" is illegitimate, believes that he has as much right to the property as the putative "owner," and climbs over the fence. He is promptly mauled by the owner's guard dogs. Who is in the right?

As Marx stated, In cases of conflicting ideological valuation - force prevails.

Yes, that's right. Anyone who enters onto my private property with the intention of harming me or stealing from me will be shot. No question about it.

And anyone who steals socialized capital claiming it to be their own will also be shot. We have diametrically opposed interests - anarchists conceptualize property as nothing but the tool of oppression, you ''as a proponent of upper class rule'' don't. Simple

You're completely misrepresenting the libertarian position. Libertarians do not support people having "freedom to do whatever you like while you are king of your own castle." Do you think libertarians would be happy if someone were raping and torturing children, so long as he did it on his own private property?

Yes, consensual market transactions are sacrosanct as far as libertarians are concerned. For instance a wealthy man offering a starving child food in return for sex is fine from the libertarian perspective - provided ''force'' is not used. Any claim to the contrary is logical inconsistency.

You've already said that crucial elements of people's personal autonomy—such as whether they could ride bicycles or hang art on their walls—would be determined not by the individual, but by the "democratic will of the collective."

I have explained this numerous times, in the process of collective decision making only two methods are logically possible, either minority decree or majority decree. Anarchists think that people should be, ''and would prefer given the option'' an equal say in the construction and implementation of decisions to the degree that it effects them. Libertarians on the other hand propose that social decision making should be determined by property/wealth relation.

Yes, there would. Have you ever been part of a collectivist system of any kind? One of my exes was in a "collectivist" feminist organization. The only thing they ever did was have meetings—and endless disagreements.

Iv participated in collectives and they work very efficiently. The alienation and consequent apathy fostered under despotic forms of organization is completely absent - people engage with enthusiasm given that initiative is no longer consolidated into the hands of an elite minority.

I won't hold my breath waiting on that brain surgery, then, so. Maybe you'll let me know when my surgeon is back from collecting the bins.

Proclaims the person who actually has no problem with surgeons cleaning toilets, so long as its occurs under capitalism.

Unless they're right-wing ones, of course. We can't have that.

Exactly

SkepticOne

synd wrote: »

...will also be shot.

This is why I tend not to believe stories from likes of Spain during the civil war as being anarchist in anything other than name. There would have been armed groups enforcing their particular ideology on people threatening to shoot those who did not comply.

Soldie

synd wrote: »

Libertarians are proponents of bourgeoisie rule therefore reactionary, they would most likely take up arms against socialist revolution. Co-existence with people who advocate plutocracy is not on the agenda as far as im concerned.

Amazing, isn't it? People defending their own property - what next?!

As Marx stated, In cases of conflicting ideological valuation - force prevails.

I suppose that explains The Great Purge, Gulags, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, etc.

And anyone who steals socialized capital claiming it to be their own will also be shot. We have diametrically opposed interests - anarchists conceptualize property as nothing but the tool of oppression, you ''as a proponent of upper class rule'' don't. Simple

Buying something is not the same as stealing it. Besides, what are you going to use for weaponry when the chronic shortage of, well, everything kicks in after a week or two?

Yes, consensual market transactions are sacrosanct as far as libertarians are concerned. For instance a wealthy man offering a starving child food in return for sex is fine from the libertarian perspective - provided ''force'' is not used. Any claim to the contrary is logical inconsistency.

What's your favourite Charles Dickens book? :rolleyes:

I have explained this numerous times, in the process of collective decision making only two methods are logically possible, either minority decree or majority decree. Anarchists think that people should be, ''and would prefer given the option'' an equal say in the construction and implementation of decisions to the degree that it effects them. Libertarians on the other hand propose that social decision making should be determined by property/wealth relation.

So it's an equal say but it operates on a gradient depending on the degree if affects you? That doesn't make any sense. Besides, who is responsible for deciding just how much a decision affects someone?

Under anarcho-socialism I could choose not to bother going into work for an entire month but I'd still have my "basic needs looked after". The entire system practically encourages inefficiency, yet anarcho-socialists believe that universities, hospitals, factories (naturally) and otherwise will still be able to function efficiently, with everyone being a highly-motivated jack-of-all-trades to boot. God forbid any of us are different!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

[Amazing, isn't it? People defending their own property - what next?!

Capital was built via the expropriation/theft of surplus value - it is in reality public. Furthermore, it serves as the tool of upper class oppression in that those without real capital must subordinate themselves by degrees before those in possession in order to make a living.

The assertion that property is legitimate is nothing but a claim that one social group should dominate another through property. The democratization of society requires capital be socialized.

I suppose that explains The Great Purge, Gulags, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, etc.

Just as well as it explains the counter revolutionary purges carried out by the reactionary bourgeoisie - the numerous White terrors, Hungarian death camps, Kuomintang purges, Pinochet's camps, el-Salvadorian death squads ect.

BTW - Tiananmen Square was ordered by Deng Xiaoping an ardent proponent of economic liberalization. Many of the protesters, in addition to supporting greater democratic reform where industrial urban workers dissatisfied with the removal of state welfare provision and numerous privatizations.

What's your favourite Charles Dickens book? :rolleyes:

Your a proponent of child abuse arn't you

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/25/libertarian-presidential-front-runner-defends-child-porn/

So it's an equal say but it operates on a gradient depending on the degree if affects you? That doesn't make any sense. Besides, who is responsible for deciding just how much a decision affects someone?

Dumb question - Heres an analogy

Hanging a picture on your wall doesn't effect anyone not living with you, blearing your radio and 6 in the morning might wake up half your street. Chefs would control how the kitchen operates ect.

Under anarcho-socialism I could choose not to bother going into work for an entire month but I'd still have my "basic needs looked after".

Same thing happens under your proposed system - its called welfare.For future reference - think about what you will type before you reply.

The entire system practically encourages inefficiency, yet anarcho-socialists believe that universities, hospitals, factories (naturally) and otherwise will still be able to function efficiently, with everyone being a highly-motivated jack-of-all-trades to boot. God forbid any of us are different!

It actually functions more efficiently than capitalism in practice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPUjR5AReBU

Soldie

synd wrote: »

Capital was built via the expropriation/theft of surplus value - it is in reality public. Furthermore, it serves as the tool of upper class oppression in that those without real capital must subordinate themselves by degrees before those in possession in order to make a living.

Newsflash: It's the year 2009. 'Upper class oppression'? What in God's name are you talking about? It must be a real thorn in your side that people work on a voluntary basis, it'd be much easier to trot out the Victorian-style arguments convincly if children were actually forced to work in coal mines, etc., wouldn't it? Also, what do you make of the oppressed working class such as Bill Cullen, who started out selling from a street-stall on Moore street, and is now a multi-millionaire? Oops, let's just ignore that, shall we? Quick, look over there, someone's being oppressed!

The assertion that property is legitimate is nothing but a claim that one social group should dominate another through property. The democratization of society requires capital be socialized.

In that case, I nominate you to visit some working-class parts of Dublin to inform the locals that their property is illegitimate and that, to better their situation, they should collectivise their property. Oh and that, as property owners, they're dominating another social group. Cast your votes, people - let's do this democratically.

Just as well as it explains the counter revolutionary purges carried out by the reactionary bourgeoisie - the numerous White terrors, Hungarian death camps, Kuomintang purges, Pinochet's camps, el-Salvadorian death squads ect.

Firstly: I find it amusing that you're surprised that people react to the threat of collectivisation. If a mob formed outside my house to inform me that my property was illegitimate and that it now belonged to the collective, I'd be reaching for my hurley. Secondly: May I suggest that we don't go down the road of 'X Massacre was done by oppressive capitalists!' - I assure you, the socialists won't win the statistics game.

Your a proponent of child abuse arn't you

Resorting to this, then? Pathetic, really.

Dumb question - Heres an analogy

Hanging a picture on your wall doesn't effect anyone not living with you, blearing your radio and 6 in the morning might wake up half your street. Chefs would control how the kitchen operates ect.

I hadn't thought of that. How about this:

Depending on what volume you can hear the radio at from your own premises, the votes will be allocated as follows:

10 - 19dBA = 0.1 of a vote
20 - 29dBA = 0.2 of a vote
30 - 39dBA = 0.3 of a vote
40 - 49dBA = 0.4 of a vote
50 - 59dBA = 0.5 of a vote
60 - 69dBA = 0.6 of a vote
70 - 79dBA = 0.7 of a vote
80 - 89dBA = 0.8 of a vote
90 - 99dBA = 0.9 of a vote
100dBA+ = 1 vote

Sounds about right. Let's meet in the town hall at 3pm to run it by the rest of the collective?

Same thing happens under your proposed system - its called welfare.For future reference - think about what you will type before you reply.

Can you point out where I outlined my 'proposed system', no less where said that I supported welfare? For future reference - italicising your Jerry Springer style 'Final Thought' at the end of every post you make merely makes you look like a fool.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How about we change the scene slightly, Instead of a 'field' fenced off and defended by a dog, it's a water source, and it's the only water source for 5 miles. If the anarchist needs a drink and crosses the fence and gets maulled by your dog, do you still defend yourself as 'non violent'?
Would you still shoot the anarchist if he 'trespassed' on your land?

Yes, that's right. Anyone who enters onto my private property with the intention of harming me or stealing from me will be shot. No question about it.

Thats self defence, if someone is planning on harming me, I would defend myself too. But you are talking about shooting people who trespass on your land just because it claimed as private by you and you are too intolerant to allow others walk on its soil.

You're completely misrepresenting the libertarian position. Libertarians do not support people having "freedom to do whatever you like while you are king of your own castle." Do you think libertarians would be happy if someone were raping and torturing children, so long as he did it on his own private property?

if the children 'consented' to be raped and tortured..... If the children were poor and needed money, they could sell themselves for sex (you have already said that you see homeless children's choices as either prostitution or sweatshops)

You are the one who keeps bringing up extreme examples, Lets stay grounded. Your libertarian has property rights in his own apartment. Can he play his electric guitar at high volume? No, because he would violate his neighbours rights. Can he drill holes in his walls to put up a satelite dish, probably not because his 'property rights' in the apartment don't extend to the external walls. Can he decorate his apartment to his own tastes? Probably not as there are restrictions on what structural changes he can make, and most apartments prohibit wooden floors.....
Where is your freedom now?
There would be the same restrictions on your personal freedom in libertarianism as there would be in an anarchist collective, and you probably feel sick at the thought of that

You've already said that crucial elements of people's personal autonomy—such as whether they could ride bicycles or hang art on their walls—would be determined not by the individual, but by the "democratic will of the collective."

Nowhere did i say that. our dicussion was about private ownership of bicycles (ie, would bicycles be provided for free by the collective, or would the individuals procure and own their own bicycles. Re art, I said there might be restrictions on a picasso as a personal posession.

You ignore the very obvious restrictions that exist in libertarianland that prohibit someone from owning a bike or a picasso. Personal wealth. Only the very very rich could own a picasso, bicycle ownership would be restricted to people who could afford to buy the bike, and then pay the tolls to use the privatised roads and cycle lanes (there might not be designated cycleways, and the road owners could ban bikes from travelling on them if they interfere with the more profitable car traffic.)

Yes, there would. Have you ever been part of a collectivist system of any kind? One of my exes was in a "collectivist" feminist organization. The only thing they ever did was have meetings—and endless disagreements.

So your only experience of a collective orgaisation is an ex girlfriend's feminist talking group, and you conclude that all collective decision making is impossible?
I have been involved in many groups and some of them have been extremely effective, others less so, but my experience is that once you find an effective methodology for holding meetings and arriving at decisions, it can be extremely efficient and amazing things can be achieved.

What do you mean by this?

There would be diversity, There would be hippy collectives that believed in collective child rearing, and more 'traditional' collectives that believed in the nuclear family as the base unit. Whats so hard to understand about that?

Unless they're right-wing ones, of course. We can't have that.

Yes, there would be no room for arrogance, domination and greed

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats how it doesn't work. You don't envisage any conflict between what you want and what I want, and the only mechanism you have for resolving that conflict is the courts (you couldn't come to an amicable compromise, that would be a shock collective decision)

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have said categorically elsewhere that under the age of 18 children are the exclusive responsibility of their parents and that they don't have any capacity to contract. Now you are saying that some children have the right to 'consent' to make pornography or to have sex?

However, you don't really know or care much about the nuances of libertarian debate, do you? You're just interested in taking a cheap shot and smearing all libertarians as pedophiles, even if you need to distort fact, logic, and sense to do so.

Is the posession of child porn legal or illegal in libertarianland?

But can the socialists please explain how their society would handle such issues? What happens in a socialist society when—

(a) A 15-year-old male is having intercourse with a 15-year-old female;
(b) An 18-year-old male is having intercourse with a 16-year-old female;
(c) A 30-year-old male is having intercourse with a 14-year-old female;
(d) A 35-year-old mother is taking sexually explicit pictures of her 8-year-old daughter and selling them on the Internet (and/or bartering them for goods and services on the black market, since the socialists are presumably going to say that there would be no commerce under their system);
(e) A 40-year-old father of 7- and 10-year-old daughters is discovered to have thousands of explicit child pornography images stored on his PC.

Please don't tell me that you would all convene down in the town hall and let the "democratic will of the collective" prevail, because that is becoming the catch-all—and yet tellingly equivocal—solution to every single problem your socialist society could ever face.

anarchists would protect children from exploitation. If a parent of other adult was taking photographs of children or sexually abusing them then he/she would face serious charges.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And if you want to join a collective, you would find out what their principles are and if you don't agree with them, you could go somewhere else.

Its not the mafia we're talking about here, If you don't agree with the collective, you can leave and live somewhere else, or you could try and have the elements that you disagree with changed.

But all these things don't fall like manna from heaven in a socialist world. Costs will be incurred under socialism too—somebody has to provide/maintain the roads, manufacture the bicycles, and so on. The illusion that all of this can be done for "free" is just a chimera.

They would be provided through the syndicate structure. In return for bicycles, we would provide a different service (perhaps not directly to the bicycle makers, but to someone else in the network, but i have already explained this plenty of times)

Basically, in a private system, people who want bicycles pay for them, maintain them, and incur all the expenses involved in riding them. If I don't want to ride a bicycle myself, I don't have to bear the costs of paying for everyone else's cycling habits.

In your 'free' system, the 'freedom' to own a bike is whollely dependent on your ability to pay the costs. Your obsession with not having to pay for things you don't specifically use yourself makes no sense.

I didn't say that it's impossible. I said that it's extremely inefficient, because people spend much of their time in meetings, rather than actually doing stuff.

I work in a capitalist corporation, there are meetings upon meetings between all the different levels of management, and everything has to be approved by the head office. If we want the wording of a letter changed, it can take months of requests and meetings to get it changed. In an anarchist system where the people who do the job have responsibility for that task, that change could take one meeting and if it didn't work, one meeting to change it back.

Nothing at all. But this is no different from libertarianism, which also allows parents the freedom to decide how best to raise their children.

i'm glad we agree

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is a very good reason why posession of child porn is illegal in civilised countries, and that is because allowing a market for child porn to exist guarantees that there will be exploitation and harm to children. Making it illegal doesn't solve the problem, but it removes any possibility of anyone being able to have a 'legitimate' excuse for the posession of such material.

Any system that cannot recognise this is not living in the real world.

If dogmatic adherence to your ideology blinds you to the logic that posessing pornographic material involving children is by default, exploitation and abuse, then it is a sad reflection of how much faith you put in your ideology.

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

How about we change the scene slightly, Instead of a 'field' fenced off and defended by a dog, it's a water source, and it's the only water source for 5 miles. If the anarchist needs a drink and crosses the fence and gets maulled by your dog, do you still defend yourself as 'non violent'?
Would you still shoot the anarchist if he 'trespassed' on your land?

Do you think that someone should be entitled to go wherever they wish just because they call themself an anarchist? If I go for a hike in the countryside and forget to bring some food, that doesn't give me permission to head into the nearest farmer's field and help myself to his produce. Also, I cannot understand the fascination with assuming that libertarians are gun-toting hillbillies who live in complete isolation. If I see someone in my garden and I don't know who they are, it's safe to say I'd simply ask them to leave, as opposed to immediately reaching for a gun. Much in the same way that a farmer would probably ask you to leave his property if you were helping yourself to the water in his well - it's not always a case of shoot-on-sight, regardless of circumstances. Of course, if one's life is in danger, that's a different story.

if the children 'consented' to be raped and tortured..... If the children were poor and needed money, they could sell themselves for sex (you have already said that you see homeless children's choices as either prostitution or sweatshops)

Again with this obsession with depicting a libertarian world as something from a Charles Dickens novel. Don't you feel as though you're undermining your own argument when you need to resort to this? Yes, we get it; under libertarianism we'd see homeless children at every street corner, evil capitalists fenced off in their enormous mansions, waiting on their balconies for the destitute to trespass on their property so that they can shoot them dead and cook them for dinner.

You are the one who keeps bringing up extreme examples, Lets stay grounded. Your libertarian has property rights in his own apartment. Can he play his electric guitar at high volume? No, because he would violate his neighbours rights. Can he drill holes in his walls to put up a satelite dish, probably not because his 'property rights' in the apartment don't extend to the external walls. Can he decorate his apartment to his own tastes? Probably not as there are restrictions on what structural changes he can make, and most apartments prohibit wooden floors.....
Where is your freedom now?

Don't you think this is getting ridiculous now? I don't wish to be offensive, but you're really scraping the barrel here. Some days ago you were rattling on about brewing home-made cancer medication in a bathtub, and now it looks like you've gotten your second wind. You seem hell-bent on concluding that under libertarianism, everybody would be a complete and utter crackpot, who sues left, right and centre, for the most trivial of things.

Nowhere did i say that. our dicussion was about private ownership of bicycles (ie, would bicycles be provided for free by the collective, or would the individuals procure and own their own bicycles. Re art, I said there might be restrictions on a picasso as a personal posession.

You claimed that if a certain piece of art (or a certain possession) was deemed to be of sufficient value (cultural, I assume), then it ought to be displayed in a public gallery. This presents enormous problems, in that it raises the question as to how it's decided how valuable something actually is. Is it done by voting? Does it mean that there'll be regular meetings to vote on eachother's possessions? If over half of the people in the collective believe Jane's hairbrush should be commonly owned, is she obliged to forfeit possession of it? If I make a piece of art and everyone decides that it should be in a gallery, what happens? This is a serious question, by the way, and I've alluded to this issue in the past, and your unconvcing explanation was to make obscure references to syndicates, representational democracy, meetings, voting depending on how much it affects you, blahdy blahdy blah. The system you describe is uncensored tyranny of the majority populism. More people read Hello! magazine than read classic novels, more people watch Big Brother than watch Hitchcock movies, more people listen to Rihanna than Mozart, more people look at porn than look at Picasso paintings, etc. - anarcho-socialism has absolutely no way of accomodating this reality in a satisfactory way. You try to explain it away by claiming that Picasso will, in fact, be found in galleries, but the reality is that at least 51% of the people would favour something else in a gallery.

You ignore the very obvious restrictions that exist in libertarianland that prohibit someone from owning a bike or a picasso. Personal wealth. Only the very very rich could own a picasso, bicycle ownership would be restricted to people who could afford to buy the bike, and then pay the tolls to use the privatised roads and cycle lanes (there might not be designated cycleways, and the road owners could ban bikes from travelling on them if they interfere with the more profitable car traffic.)

Compared to utopian anarcho-socialist land, where everybody will have everything they want. The roads will have car lanes, bus lanes, motorbike lanes, bicycle lanes, skateboard lanes and rollerblade lanes, not to mention a walking lane. You name it, we've got it. Want a computer and a flatscreen TV? Sure, join the queue, no problem. What's that? How is it getting to be made? Don't worry about that, comrade, you'll be enjoying your HD experience on no time.

I reiterate a previous point, which is directed more generally at any anarcho-socialist who wishes to comment. As has been explained by anarcho-socialists, everyone will have their basic needs looked after. People will be protected from themselves in the sense that, should they blow all of their points on booze, they'll still have food on their table. I could decide that I didn't want to go to work for a few weeks, months or years. Hell, I could decide that I simply didn't want to work anymore, because I wasn't getting anything for it. Would I be left to rot? That doesn't appear to be the case - I'd still have my basic needs looked after. What happens if everyone does this, though? I have yet to see anyone explain why anyone would bother their arse doing a tap.

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

They would be provided through the syndicate structure. In return for bicycles, we would provide a different service (perhaps not directly to the bicycle makers, but to someone else in the network, but i have already explained this plenty of times)

Do you care to actually explain this? Everytime you're asked how something would come to be, be it a road, computer, plane, or otherwise, you make a vague reference to syndicates co-operating with eachother to produce just about everything anyone could possibly need. You haven't explained this once, let alone "plenty of times".

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

Do you think that someone should be entitled to go wherever they wish just because they call themself an anarchist? If I go for a hike in the countryside and forget to bring some food, that doesn't give me permission to head into the nearest farmer's field and help myself to his produce. Also, I cannot understand the fascination with assuming that libertarians are gun-toting hillbillies who live in complete isolation. If I see someone in my garden and I don't know who they are, it's safe to say I'd simply ask them to leave, as opposed to immediately reaching for a gun. Much in the same way that a farmer would probably ask you to leave his property if you were helping yourself to the water in his well - it's not always a case of shoot-on-sight, regardless of circumstances. Of course, if one's life is in danger, that's a different story.

In my scenario, the capitalist claims ownership over the water source and wants to sell it to the anarchists. The anarchists don't believe that someone should own such a vital resource, especially one that he didn't do anything to cultivate, and they refuse to pay the charge instead choose to take the water without paying for it.

Again with this obsession with depicting a libertarian world as something from a Charles Dickens novel. Don't you feel as though you're undermining your own argument when you need to resort to this? Yes, we get it; under libertarianism we'd see homeless children at every street corner, evil capitalists fenced off in their enormous mansions, waiting on their balconies for the destitute to trespass on their property so that they can shoot them dead and cook them for dinner.

Why was Dickensian Britain so Dikensian? Because it was dominated by the wealthy who subjugated the poor, and there was no protection for the poor who were reduced to begging and stealing to survive. Victorian britain was marked by massive poverty as the wealthy industrialists made vast fortunes while paying the labourers barely a subsistence wage. There were slums and orphans on the street. Dickens was a novelist who dramatised and invented characters, but he was basing his works on the reality for very many people.

Don't you think this is getting ridiculous now? I don't wish to be offensive, but you're really scraping the barrel here. Some days ago you were rattling on about brewing home-made cancer medication in a bathtub, and now it looks like you've gotten your second wind. You seem hell-bent on concluding that under libertarianism, everybody would be a complete and utter crackpot, who sues left, right and centre, for the most trivial of things.

My example of brewing medicines in a bathtub is a reality in the unregulated sections of 'pharmaceuticals' (hippy drugs and 'health supplements') although a little poetic license was used. My example of the restrictions in an apartment building are 100% accurate and the point was that people's free choices are always restricted by their effects on others.

DF's only reply was to agree, and to say that if someone wanted to be truly free, he could always live on a mountain by himself (guess what, there under anarchism that option would be available too, but we acknowledge that living in communities necessitates compromise and voluntarily restricting our own freedom for the good of others and to reduce conflict and live in peace.

You claimed that if a certain piece of art (or a certain possession) was deemed to be of sufficient value (cultural, I assume), then it ought to be displayed in a public gallery. This presents enormous problems, in that it raises the question as to how it's decided how valuable something actually is. Is it done by voting? Does it mean that there'll be regular meetings to vote on eachother's possessions? If over half of the people in the collective believe Jane's hairbrush should be commonly owned, is she obliged to forfeit possession of it?

Just the paragraph above, you criticise me for using extreme and ridiculous examples, but now you're claiming that anarchists would hold a meeting decide if someone's hairbrush should be confiscated?

If I make a piece of art and everyone decides that it should be in a gallery, what happens? This is a serious question, by the way, and I've alluded to this issue in the past, and your unconvcing explanation was to make obscure references to syndicates, representational democracy, meetings, voting depending on how much it affects you, blahdy blahdy blah. The system you describe is uncensored tyranny of the majority populism. More people read Hello! magazine than read classic novels, more people watch Big Brother than watch Hitchcock movies, more people listen to Rihanna than Mozart, more people look at porn than look at Picasso paintings, etc. - anarcho-socialism has absolutely no way of accomodating this reality in a satisfactory way. You try to explain it away by claiming that Picasso will, in fact, be found in galleries, but the reality is that at least 51% of the people would favour something else in a gallery.

Most artists create art to have it displayed in galleries. You are probably the only artist who makes art to have it concealed in your own darkened bedroom.

Re art galleries, the people who have no interest in art would have no interest in voting on what art should be hung in art galleries. The people who work in the art gallery and who are on the gallery committee would probably decide autonomously which art to display as an internal operating decision. The gallery would almost certainly include within itself a constitution that decides how the art is chosen, It would only be in a very rare case of a hugely popular artist being denied entry to the gallary because of prejudice or snobbery that the public would ever get involved.

If that's wooly and ' blaah' then I don't know what kind of explanation you would be satisfied by

Compared to utopian anarcho-socialist land, where everybody will have everything they want. The roads will have car lanes, bus lanes, motorbike lanes, bicycle lanes, skateboard lanes and rollerblade lanes, not to mention a walking lane. You name it, we've got it. Want a computer and a flatscreen TV? Sure, join the queue, no problem. What's that? How is it getting to be made? Don't worry about that, comrade, you'll be enjoying your HD experience on no time.

Who said that? Roads would be publically owned and controlled for the use of everyone and not to maximise profit.
Consumer goods would be created and traded just like in the current system, the differences would be that the demand would lead supply, and the emphasis would be on quality and durability rather than maximising profit. It would be much more efficient to make high quality goods that last, than the current 'graded' goods where you make cheap flimsy products to make the expensive higher quality products more attractive.

20 years ago a television lasted a decade or more. If they broke, they would be repaired. Now televisions appear to last 5 years or less before they break and are too costly to repair.
You might 'want' a HD television, but without the stupid marketing to make you want it, you'd be perfectly happy with a regular television. (those ads are really irritating, showing you colourful pictures on your normal non hd television to show you how good hd pictures would look.)

I reiterate a previous point, which is directed more generally at any anarcho-socialist who wishes to comment. As has been explained by anarcho-socialists, everyone will have their basic needs looked after. People will be protected from themselves in the sense that, should they blow all of their points on booze, they'll still have food on their table. I could decide that I didn't want to go to work for a few weeks, months or years. Hell, I could decide that I simply didn't want to work anymore, because I wasn't getting anything for it. Would I be left to rot? That doesn't appear to be the case - I'd still have my basic needs looked after. What happens if everyone does this, though? I have yet to see anyone explain why anyone would bother their arse doing a tap.

If everyone did that, there wouldn't be anyone working to provide for those needs and everyone would starve. If 50% of people decided to do no work, then they'd have to put up with a subsistence lifestyle and would not be very popular amongst the other 50%, If 90% of people did their fair share, they would have a fantastic lifestyle and plenty of free time and the 10% who weren't working (assuming they are capable) would have to constantly justify why they were sitting at home doing nothing, and would probably not be very popular with the community.

In tribal societies there aren't wages or property or profit incentives, but everyone pulls together to get the work done.
Lazyness comes from privilege. You are much more likely to find a lazy teenager living in a upper middle class western suburb, than on a farm in the developing world.

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

Do you care to actually explain this? Everytime you're asked how something would come to be, be it a road, computer, plane, or otherwise, you make a vague reference to syndicates co-operating with eachother to produce just about everything anyone could possibly need. You haven't explained this once, let alone "plenty of times".

do you want me to draw an org chart?

Sounds like a lot of work, how will you pay me for this information?

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

In my scenario, the capitalist claims ownership over the water source and wants to sell it to the anarchists. The anarchists don't believe that someone should own such a vital resource, especially one that he didn't do anything to cultivate, and they refuse to pay the charge instead choose to take the water without paying for it.

I understand that anarcho-socialists disagree with the private ownership of property, but where is the limit? If I call myself an anarcho-socialist does it mean I can feast on my neighbour's vegetable garden, cook in his kitchen, relax in his living room and sleep in his bed? You're attempting to justify your position by suggesting that every violation of property rights is akin to simply cutting across a farmer's field, but that simply isn't the case. By claiming that an anarcho-socialist should be allowed to cut across a farmer's field because he doesn't accept the private owner of the property then, to extend the logic, you're implying that the hiker is allowed to camp overnight on the property, eat what may be growing, drink what may be flowing, and so on.

Why was Dickensian Britain so Dikensian? Because it was dominated by the wealthy who subjugated the poor, and there was no protection for the poor who were reduced to begging and stealing to survive. Victorian britain was marked by massive poverty as the wealthy industrialists made vast fortunes while paying the labourers barely a subsistence wage. There were slums and orphans on the street. Dickens was a novelist who dramatised and invented characters, but he was basing his works on the reality for very many people.

Charles Dickens' novels were just that - novels. They were fictional. In Hard Times, for example, he depicts destitute factory workers who work a pittance. Socialists wish to drag this, kicking and screaming, from the 19th century and suggest that if it weren't for government intervention (or otherwise, I suppose it just depends on what shade of socialist you are), we'd be living in a similar situation. This is an utter fallacy, though. To take minimum wages as an example; lefties argue that it protects workers, and that without it workers would be further exploited/oppressed/otherwise, and would be earning a pittance, much like some of the characters in Hard Times. The reality, however, is that there is no evidence to suggest that a lack of a minimum wage drives wages down, and I note that it was in fact the Progressive Democracts who introduced the minimum wage here.

My example of brewing medicines in a bathtub is a reality in the unregulated sections of 'pharmaceuticals' (hippy drugs and 'health supplements') although a little poetic license was used. My example of the restrictions in an apartment building are 100% accurate and the point was that people's free choices are always restricted by their effects on others.

You're just slinging mud with your examples, though, and hoping that some of it will stick. It's quite simple, really; if I'm sold a product and told it will do X, then it ought to do X or I'll be looking for my money back or, if necessary, taking legal action. If I rent an apartment and I'm told that Y is prohibited, then I understand that if I do Y, it's my own fault if I'm fined, evicted, or otherwise. If you can think of something that may occupy more of a gray area, then be my guest to point it out and I'll do my best to answer, but so far I think you've failed in your attempts at debunking this logic by highlighting obscure and unrealistic scenarios.

DF's only reply was to agree, and to say that if someone wanted to be truly free, he could always live on a mountain by himself (guess what, there under anarchism that option would be available too, but we acknowledge that living in communities necessitates compromise and voluntarily restricting our own freedom for the good of others and to reduce conflict and live in peace.

I think you're misinterpreting things here. The point is that someone should have the freedom to decide whether or not they agree with a contract before signing it, rather than having the freedom to do whatever they want, regardless of the circumstances.

Just the paragraph above, you criticise me for using extreme and ridiculous examples, but now you're claiming that anarchists would hold a meeting decide if someone's hairbrush should be confiscated?

I claimed that your examples were ridiculous because they were clearly answered by the simple explanation that if product Y is told it can do X, then it ought to do X or there will be consequences. You ignored this, and tried to dig up even more obscure examples. On the other hand, I think you've failed to outline just how the decision-making process actually works. Can you outline what intrinsic rights a person has under anarcho-socialism? At one point you claimed that possessions are tolerated, but property is not - can you elaborate on this, though? If I have a certain possession, let's call it X, since you think a hairbrush is ridiculous. If most people in the community (I'm not sure if 51% is a figure I should be using here, as you seem keen to point out that anarcho-socialism is not a tyranny of the majority, but rather it has a complex system of, well, I'm not quite sure. I'm afraid you haven't really explained exactly how the democratic decision-making process works, other than making vague references to it) decide that possession X would be better under shared ownership, what happens?

Most artists create art to have it displayed in galleries. You are probably the only artist who makes art to have it concealed in your own darkened bedroom.

And what of those who don't? Are they obliged to have it handed over to galleries because 51% most artists want to have theirs in galleries? Oh, and my bedroom is quite bright, actually, but thanks for your concern.

Re art galleries, the people who have no interest in art would have no interest in voting on what art should be hung in art galleries. The people who work in the art gallery and who are on the gallery committee would probably decide autonomously which art to display as an internal operating decision. The gallery would almost certainly include within itself a constitution that decides how the art is chosen, It would only be in a very rare case of a hugely popular artist being denied entry to the gallary because of prejudice or snobbery that the public would ever get involved.

The problem I have with this is that you're not hypothesising your theory of anarcho-socialism from a neutral perspective but, instead, doing so within the context of today's established norm. What if most people think that today's art is nothing but utter nonsense and that it has no place in galleries? What if most people worhip Michael Bay as a demi-god, and think of Alfred Hitchcock as an awful director? If everything, and I mean absolutely everything (as you've suggest yourself), is handled democratically (tyranny of the majority, as much as you hate to hear it), then the reality is that we wouldn't really have any galleries. We'd all be queing up to watch the latest Transformers movie, perhaps stopping off in HMV to pick up Britney Spears' latest single.

Who said that? Roads would be publically owned and controlled for the use of everyone and not to maximise profit.
Consumer goods would be created and traded just like in the current system, the differences would be that the demand would lead supply, and the emphasis would be on quality and durability rather than maximising profit. It would be much more efficient to make high quality goods that last, than the current 'graded' goods where you make cheap flimsy products to make the expensive higher quality products more attractive.

With respect, I read this and think of little more than starry-eyed idealism. 'We'd have this, we'd have that. Everything will be grand, no bother at all'.

20 years ago a television lasted a decade or more. If they broke, they would be repaired. Now televisions appear to last 5 years or less before they break and are too costly to repair.
You might 'want' a HD television, but without the stupid marketing to make you want it, you'd be perfectly happy with a regular television. (those ads are really irritating, showing you colourful pictures on your normal non hd television to show you how good hd pictures would look.)

That may well be the case, but it's my own business whether I want to buy a HD television or not. Under anarcho-socialism, if most of the people decide that HD televisions are a waste of time, well then that's tough **** for those who want one. We'd all have the same bicyces, the same TVs, the same cars, the same appliances, and so on - how does this blandness appeal to anyone?

If everyone did that, there wouldn't be anyone working to provide for those needs and everyone would starve. If 50% of people decided to do no work, then they'd have to put up with a subsistence lifestyle and would not be very popular amongst the other 50%, If 90% of people did their fair share, they would have a fantastic lifestyle and plenty of free time and the 10% who weren't working (assuming they are capable) would have to constantly justify why they were sitting at home doing nothing, and would probably not be very popular with the community.

So, under anarcho-socialism, the motivation to work is the fear that if everyone doesn't do a tap, things would be rather grim? I'm not quite sure what to say to that, really. I think I could handle being unpopular with the community if I got a free ticket for doing absolutely nothing. You should head down to the dole office and spread the word, the supporters of anarcho-socialism would balloon overnight. Just to get this straight; other than being unpopular with the community, there is no consequence of doing absolutely sweet fúck all, but we'd still all have TVs, radios, cars, computers, hospitals, universities, you name it? :eek:

Dudess

synd wrote: »

Your a proponent of child abuse arn't you

Awesome
I love how a person who posts a comment regarding child abuse which is less than furious outrage must be a "proponent of child abuse"... or indeed a potential paedophile.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

granite man

I've spent many years considering anarchism as a working process. While on paper it's all fine and dandy and undoubtably a very good way forward, the major point is, is that with todays attitudes and with the complete lack of respect that the majority of people show each other (due to being conditioned from birth to accept the type of system we live in) anarchism is a non starter.
Society, attitudes and behaviour need to change, the mindsets of greed, capitalist opportunity and I'm alright Jack won't change overnight and for an anarchist society based on respect and need not greed to work this has to be overcome.
I suppose if it all started at a community level(this is already happening, mostly out of the cities) and moved on from there it would be a start, or even getting people to a level where they can actually see where the politicians(ie lisbon,recession,blasphemy, criminal justice bill etc etc), drug companies(ie swine flu)oil companys(iraq etc) are leading us, the people might loose the 'fear' of the unknown and start living their lives for themselves and start to organise at least a non corrupt political model.
Utopian stuff isn't for now, nice as it is it won't happen till the tv's get turned off and Mr and Mrs Joe Public see this as it really is.
The thing for now is to get the dreaded undemocratic Lisbon 2 defeated. If folk can actually be made see what our elected are selling us then theres a hope for the future. Unfortunately tho, I feel not many of the anarchist breathren out there will be putting in much effort to educate and campaign and actually go and vote no as voting(in this system) isn't really on the anarchist agenda.So....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

Newsflash: It's the year 2009. 'Upper class oppression'? What in God's name are you talking about? It must be a real thorn in your side that people work on a voluntary basis, it'd be much easier to trot out the Victorian-style arguments convincly if children were actually forced to work in coal mines, etc., wouldn't it? Also, what do you make of the oppressed working class such as Bill Cullen, who started out selling from a street-stall on Moore street, and is now a multi-millionaire? Oops, let's just ignore that, shall we? Quick, look over there, someone's being oppressed!

People are ''allowed'' to work for one boss or another - be subjected to the control of HR dept 1 or HR dept 2, we propose deconstruction of the system that faclitates ''choice'' between various forms of subordination. Your justification is essentially the same as arguing aristocracy legitimite on the premise that peasants had the ''freedom'' to switch landlords. Now, the ''freedom'' to choose which aristocratic lord to subordinate yourself before hardly justifies aristocracy. The notion that ''force'' is a pre-requisite to exploitation is another falacious argument - a starving person would willingly enter into an exploitative arangement in return for food, concent does not negate abusive relationships. We argue that the structure that facilitates abusive relationships needs to be dismantled - while you argue the structure vindicated due to the fact that those subjected to it have the ''choice'' to move from one site of exploitation to another.

The socialist conception of exploitation will never be accepted by liberals - again our ideologies are polar opposite. It is not that the libertarian position is wrong in some objective sence - rather it is wrong for us, just as socialism must necessarily be conceptualized as wrong for proponents of upper class rule.

Furthermore the argument that social mobility justifies the current system is nonsence, slaves in ancient Rome could on occassion obtain freedom and over time purchase slaves themselves - this doesnt justify slavery (from our perspective) A proponent of slavery would argue otherwise. The only way to end the popular conceptualization of slavery as natural is to A. Dispense of the slave-owners as a social group and wipe their ideology away.

Consider the analogy

In that case, I nominate you to visit some working-class parts of Dublin to inform the locals that their property is illegitimate and that, to better their situation, they should collectivise their property. Oh and that, as property owners, they're dominating another social group. Cast your votes, people - let's do this democratically.

Property is not the same as possession, commodities derived from ones own labor power are ''possessions''. Real capital is a means of appropriating the labor value of others, and is itself built on social surplus. The capitalist class derive profits from paying people less than the full value of their labor, this profit is invested in more capital. Capital/the means of production is therefore, in reality social property considering it was built upon what you might consider - ''unpaid wage/stolen value''. What puts the capitaist class in a position to negotiate the exploitative contract is uneven bargining power derived from the fact that they A. monopolize the means of production B. maintain a reserve army of unemployed labor.

Firstly: I find it amusing that you're surprised that people react to the threat of collectivisation. If a mob formed outside my house to inform me that my property was illegitimate and that it now belonged to the collective, I'd be reaching for my hurley. Secondly: May I suggest that we don't go down the road of 'X Massacre was done by oppressive capitalists!' - I assure you, the socialists won't win the statistics game.

Oh Im not suprised, the upper class have absolutely no reason to ''agree'' with socialist revolution - they will invariably seek to up-hold their position as the dominant social group. They can either A. accept the new social order B. fight to preserve oppression - in which case they will either perish or succeed. The process of emancipation entails the destruction of the masters property/chains. Libertarians advoocate rule through property, we have no property, need to use it and dont want to be ruled.

Again, we have have dimometricly opposed interests - our freedom can only be secured via the negation of your class ideology as a historical block. Revolution, that is the destruction of one form of social organization and the implimentation of another will always be ''unkind'' to the upholders of the dominant order. The libertarian claim to property = an attempt to rule people.

PS. The ''black book of communism'' so popular among liberal prpagandists, is highly discredited however even if we take its figure as accurate ''for the sake of the argument'' - capitalism has killed far more people I assure you.

Depending on what volume you can hear the radio at from your own premises, the votes will be allocated as follows:

Minor disputes may be carried out as they are now. The workplace functions democraticly - votes are assigned based on dept. What I find amazing is that I have actually provided recorded evidence of anarchism in practice which you ''ignore'' and then procced to make riduculas arguments about ''why it wouldnt work''. Its like a football analylist making an argument about why team A wont win against team B (after team A have won the match!). Then again your a libertarian, so dementia is to be expected.

Anarchism unlike libertarianism has actually been implimented and proven successful in all events - where libertarianism on the other hand has never existed, outside the imagination of libertarians. Now, provide me with ''one'' historical example of libertarianism.

Can you point out where I outlined my 'proposed system', no less where said that I supported welfare?

You support capitalism ergo you support welfare. The expropriation of social surplus value - a form of upward re-distribution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-P_VLOq2D4

synd

This is an utter fallacy, though. To take minimum wages as an example; lefties argue that it protects workers, and that without it workers would be further exploited

LOL I suppose you also think unions pushing up wages leads to unemployment ? Im going to have fun on this thread

On the other hand, I think you've failed to outline just how the decision-making process actually works. Can you outline what intrinsic rights a person has under anarcho-socialism?

''Intrinsic'' or ''natural'' rights are a liberal superstition, rights are social constructs and are nothing more than the fickle creations of the people who invented them. Individuals would have rights under socialism, rights that are decided upon via democratic process. The liberal objection stems from the fact that they prefer social order to be determined via minority decree/executive order. Liberal constitution is constructed by and designed to uphold the interests of the executive class who construct it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAgJs9anhw8

At one point you claimed that possessions are tolerated, but property is not - can you elaborate on this, though?

This is explained in my last post - although I will expand further if necessary.

The problem I have with this is that you're not hypothesising your theory of anarcho-socialism from a neutral perspective but, instead, doing so within the context of today's established norm.

Oh please, objectivtivity in the valuation of socio economic organization is a myth. Our ideologies are inseparable from our subjective interests, as such conflict between interests is inevitable.

and I mean absolutely everything (as you've suggest yourself), is handled democratically (tyranny of the majority, as much as you hate to hear it), .

Denunciation of majority rule and direct democracy illustrates the inherent Liberal preference for the only possible alternative - (minority rule through executive order). I wonder which social order people would prefer to live under given the option.

With respect, I read this and think of little more than starry-eyed idealism. 'We'd have this, we'd have that. Everything will be grand, no bother at all'.

This coming from a libertarian, is unbelievable

That may well be the case, but it's my own business whether I want to buy a HD television or not. Under anarcho-socialism, if most of the people decide that HD televisions are a waste of time, well then that's tough **** for those who want one. We'd all have the same bicyces, the same TVs, the same cars, the same appliances, and so on - how does this blandness appeal to anyone?

Consumers would order for production of luxury commodities and pay in labor value. Quantity of essential goods would be produced according to calculated criteria and distributed freely. What exactly qualifies as ''essential'' would be negotiated by syndicate, general consensus exists among socialists however that water, housing and medicine qualify as needs and should be provided without individual charge this occurs to an extent under the present system.

So, under anarcho-socialism, the motivation to work is the fear that if everyone doesn't do a tap, things would be rather grim?

Your ignorance of socialist economic theory is amazing. The motivation to work would be the desire to avail of luxury commodities and enjoy a higher living standard. Of course, you could choose not to work and be provided with the bare essentials however this occurs under the present form of organization. The incentive to work would be greatly increased given that people would have a direct say in how the workplace is managed - the recorded increases in productive output under collectivization speak volumes.

You should head down to the dole office and spread the word, the supporters of anarcho-socialism would balloon overnight

Well the socialist party have a policy of going down to the dole office and distributing papers and handing out recruitment forms. The workers solidarity movement (anacho-socialists) distribute a monthly magazine in working class areas. The membership of the socialist party, wsm and swp has risen significantly in the recent years. I don't see any libertarians down at the dole office handing out magazines about how we should scrap social welfare, get rid of public education, health and legalize child pornography. Then again, maybe I just haven't seen you there

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

I understand that anarcho-socialists disagree with the private ownership of property, but where is the limit? If I call myself an anarcho-socialist does it mean I can feast on my neighbour's vegetable garden, cook in his kitchen, relax in his living room and sleep in his bed?

Reductio ad absurdum.
You are trying to argue that because anarchists don't believe in privatising natural resources, that we don't also have any concept of personal space.

People would still have a home, private space that they had autonomous control over. There would still be the public and the private. There is nothing in anarchist theory or practise that says anything different.

You're attempting to justify your position by suggesting that every violation of property rights is akin to simply cutting across a farmer's field, but that simply isn't the case. By claiming that an anarcho-socialist should be allowed to cut across a farmer's field because he doesn't accept the private owner of the property then, to extend the logic, you're implying that the hiker is allowed to camp overnight on the property, eat what may be growing, drink what may be flowing, and so on.

In an anarchist society there wouldn't be someone's private field, are you suggesting that people camping in your back garden would be a serious problem in anarchism?

Charles Dickens' novels were just that - novels. They were fictional. In Hard Times, for example, he depicts destitute factory workers who work a pittance. Socialists wish to drag this, kicking and screaming, from the 19th century and suggest that if it weren't for government intervention (or otherwise, I suppose it just depends on what shade of socialist you are), we'd be living in a similar situation.

There are places in the world today that are much worse than any victorian slum, the common factors are poverty, capitalism(the profit motive) lack of regulations and lack of social supports. Go to the townships of South Africa, or the shantytowns in Mumbai or any one of the dozens of asian and south american cities that have millions of people living in shacks in abject poverty in unregulated libertarian utopias. (why don't these people all organise themselves as capitalists and trade their way to prosperity?, 1 billion people live in shanty towns by the way. 1/6 of the worlds population)

This is an utter fallacy, though. To take minimum wages as an example; lefties argue that it protects workers, and that without it workers would be further exploited/oppressed/otherwise, and would be earning a pittance, much like some of the characters in Hard Times. The reality, however, is that there is no evidence to suggest that a lack of a minimum wage drives wages down, and I note that it was in fact the Progressive Democracts who introduced the minimum wage here.

The lack of minimum wages, combined with no social welfare supports would certainly drive wages down (and crime up), the only safety valve being the possibility of emigrating to somewhere less miserable.

In Chile during pinochet, unemployment skyrocketed and wages fell. Was this because of all his social programs distorting the market?

You're just slinging mud with your examples, though, and hoping that some of it will stick. It's quite simple, really; if I'm sold a product and told it will do X, then it ought to do X or I'll be looking for my money back or, if necessary, taking legal action. If I rent an apartment and I'm told that Y is prohibited, then I understand that if I do Y, it's my own fault if I'm fined, evicted, or otherwise. If you can think of something that may occupy more of a gray area, then be my guest to point it out and I'll do my best to answer, but so far I think you've failed in your attempts at debunking this logic by highlighting obscure and unrealistic scenarios.

What's mud slinging about pointing out that sharing space in an apartment block restricts your 'freedom' to engage in certain activities?

You are reducing all of life down to a series of 'contracts'. Contracts are not always fair, and you don't always get the opportunity to negotiate your own contract (that is a luxury restricted to high rollers) Ordinary people have to take what they're offered or do without. Anarchists propose a participatory society where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the decision making process, rather than the limited choices of contract x or conract y, both of which are weighted in favour of the seller (especially if there are no regulations)

I think you're misinterpreting things here. The point is that someone should have the freedom to decide whether or not they agree with a contract before signing it, rather than having the freedom to do whatever they want, regardless of the circumstances.

Anarchists want the freedom to negotiate our terms, not just choose between different contracts.

I claimed that your examples were ridiculous because they were clearly answered by the simple explanation that if product Y is told it can do X, then it ought to do X or there will be consequences. You ignored this, and tried to dig up even more obscure examples. On the other hand, I think you've failed to outline just how the decision-making process actually works. Can you outline what intrinsic rights a person has under anarcho-socialism? At one point you claimed that possessions are tolerated, but property is not - can you elaborate on this, though?

This has been explained already.

If I have a certain possession, let's call it X, since you think a hairbrush is ridiculous. If most people in the community (I'm not sure if 51% is a figure I should be using here, as you seem keen to point out that anarcho-socialism is not a tyranny of the majority, but rather it has a complex system of, well, I'm not quite sure. I'm afraid you haven't really explained exactly how the democratic decision-making process works, other than making vague references to it) decide that possession X would be better under shared ownership, what happens?

Anarchism seeks to create an environment where material goods are there to serve the needs and wants of the community. Obviously things like clothes, toothbrushes hairbrushes etc would be personal posessions because of hygene and the personal taste and fit. Beyond this, we have tools and posessions that people have a personal attachment to, such as musical instruments, sports equipment, personal audio, a bicycle etc which would be reserved for the use of the individual, but they would be encouraged to share them where practical. The property conventions would be set up to prevent hoarding of valuable resources and to encourage sharing and cooperation.

And what of those who don't? Are they obliged to have it handed over to galleries because 51% most artists want to have theirs in galleries? Oh, and my bedroom is quite bright, actually, but thanks for your concern.

If you're an artist who doesn't want to have his art displayed, that would be your choice. Of course, you wouldn't be able to claim the time you spend working on that art as socially useful work, but that would be your choice. Again, this is reducing the argument to absurtities.

The problem I have with this is that you're not hypothesising your theory of anarcho-socialism from a neutral perspective but, instead, doing so within the context of today's established norm. What if most people think that today's art is nothing but utter nonsense and that it has no place in galleries? What if most people worhip Michael Bay as a demi-god, and think of Alfred Hitchcock as an awful director? If everything, and I mean absolutely everything (as you've suggest yourself), is handled democratically (tyranny of the majority, as much as you hate to hear it), then the reality is that we wouldn't really have any galleries.

You are having a very hard time with the principle of subsidiarity and autonomy. The non art viewing public would have no interest in what happens in art gallaries.
There would be popular culture, there would be popular music and popular teleivision and cinema, there are would also be arthouse movies, and diverse music. In fact, I would foresee much more variety in art and music as people would be encouraged to be creative from a young age rather than being educated and groomed for life in offices and factoreis.

We'd all be queing up to watch the latest Transformers movie, perhaps stopping off in HMV to pick up Britney Spears' latest single.

Are you saying that there is no room in the world for both Britney and Lenard Cohen? That the majority would 'outlaw' non britney music?
Is that how you believe democracy works?

That may well be the case, but it's my own business whether I want to buy a HD television or not. Under anarcho-socialism, if most of the people decide that HD televisions are a waste of time, well then that's tough **** for those who want one. We'd all have the same bicyces, the same TVs, the same cars, the same appliances, and so on - how does this blandness appeal to anyone?

Buying a HD television has effects on others. spending 2000 on a television while others are scrimping by buying the cheaper own brand baked beans in the shops....
Where did you get this 'one tv, one bicycle malarky from? There would be different products available, there would be choice within the syndicate structure, one thing that I can see changing would be the deliberate grading of products to justify higher prices for 'premium' products. Instead of making 15 different models of television of varying quality, they would make a few different shapes and sizes all of the highest quality that could be produced for the most efficient cost.

So, under anarcho-socialism, the motivation to work is the fear that if everyone doesn't do a tap, things would be rather grim?

not fear, but understanding.

I'm not quite sure what to say to that, really. I think I could handle being unpopular with the community if I got a free ticket for doing absolutely nothing.

that's not a very good reflection on your own level of maturity.

You should head down to the dole office and spread the word, the supporters of anarcho-socialism would balloon overnight. Just to get this straight; other than being unpopular with the community, there is no consequence of doing absolutely sweet fúck all, but we'd still all have TVs, radios, cars, computers, hospitals, universities, you name it? :eek:

as has already been said, the basic needs would be provided universally, there would probably be incentives for contributing to the community.

But even without that, people work together in group activities all the time purely for the psychological benefits of contributing and being part of a team.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

synd wrote: »

People are ''allowed'' to work for one boss or another - be subjected to the control of HR dept 1 or HR dept 2, we propose deconstruction of the system that faclitates ''choice'' between various forms of subordination. Your justification is essentially the same as arguing aristocracy legitimite on the premise that peasants had the ''freedom'' to switch landlords. Now, the ''freedom'' to choose which aristocratic lord to subordinate yourself before hardly justifies aristocracy. The notion that ''force'' is a pre-requisite to exploitation is another falacious argument - a starving person would willingly enter into an exploitative arangement in return for food, concent does not negate abusive relationships. We argue that the structure that facilitates abusive relationships needs to be dismantled - while you argue the structure vindicated due to the fact that those subjected to it have the ''choice'' to move from one site of exploitation to another.

Do you have a critique of capitalism that doesn't feature worn-out clichés involving oppressed workers, and people forced to slave away at the hands of their whip-cracking capitalist overlords? Please explain to me how the modern worker is oppressed, without the pseudo-economics. Also, I note that you neatly ignored the Bill Cullen spanner-in-the-works.

Furthermore the argument that social mobility justifies the current system is nonsence, slaves in ancient Rome could on occassion obtain freedom and over time purchase slaves themselves - this doesnt justify slavery (from our perspective) A proponent of slavery would argue otherwise. The only way to end the popular conceptualization of slavery as natural is to A. Dispense of the slave-owners as a social group and wipe their ideology away.

I'm not quite sure what you're on about here, to be honest.

Property is not the same as possession, commodities derived from ones own labor power are ''possessions''. Real capital is a means of appropriating the labor value of others, and is itself built on social surplus.

Hold on - we've been told that there's no such thing as money in anarcho-socialist land, just how are workers remunerated?

Oh Im not suprised, the upper class have absolutely no reason to ''agree'' with socialist revolution - they will invariably seek to up-hold their position as the dominant social group. They can either A. accept the new social order B. fight to preserve oppression - in which case they will either perish or succeed. The process of emancipation entails the destruction of the masters property/chains. Libertarians advoocate rule through property, we have no property, need to use it and dont want to be ruled.

:rolleyes:

PS. The ''black book of communism'' so popular among liberal prpagandists, is highly discredited however even if we take its figure as accurate ''for the sake of the argument'' - capitalism has killed far more people I assure you.

Then you'll have no trouble pointing out the millions of deaths you believe to have happened as a result of free-market capitalism, right?

Minor disputes may be carried out as they are now. The workplace functions democraticly - votes are assigned based on dept. What I find amazing is that I have actually provided recorded evidence of anarchism in practice which you ''ignore'' and then procced to make riduculas arguments about ''why it wouldnt work''. Its like a football analylist making an argument about why team A wont win against team B (after team A have won the match!). Then again your a libertarian, so dementia is to be expected.

Anarchism unlike libertarianism has actually been implimented and proven successful in all events - where libertarianism on the other hand has never existed, outside the imagination of libertarians. Now, provide me with ''one'' historical example of libertarianism.

This is a joke, right? You linked a piece of propaganda YouTube video which showed some happy-go-lucky workers defending a factory that they forcefully took control of. Did you notice the light-hearted soft rock music that was played everytime they showed the busy worker-bees going about their work with not a care in world? I thought it was a cute touch. If anything more than a two-bit company was run in this manner, I'd give it about two weeks before the whole system imploded.

You support capitalism ergo you support welfare. The expropriation of social surplus value - a form of upward re-distribution.

I'm sure "Heyek" is rolling in his grave at this definition of capitalism. To be honest, I see little point in trying to have an informed debate with someone who merely regurtitates convoluted Marxist rhetoric, and believes that welfare is synonymous with capitalism.

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum.
You are trying to argue that because anarchists don't believe in privatising natural resources, that we don't also have any concept of personal space.

People would still have a home, private space that they had autonomous control over. There would still be the public and the private. There is nothing in anarchist theory or practise that says anything different.

Okay. I get it already. People would have this, people would have that. That's not what I asked, though. Where is the line? Can you answer my question? You suggested that an anarchist should be free to roam through fields and the like. I'm asking you if this is a simple claim - that anarchists should be free to roam through fields and just that, fields, or if it implies something else?

There are places in the world today that are much worse than any victorian slum, the common factors are poverty, capitalism(the profit motive) lack of regulations and lack of social supports. Go to the townships of South Africa, or the shantytowns in Mumbai or any one of the dozens of asian and south american cities that have millions of people living in shacks in abject poverty in unregulated libertarian utopias. (why don't these people all organise themselves as capitalists and trade their way to prosperity?, 1 billion people live in shanty towns by the way. 1/6 of the worlds population)

Can you explain how free-market capitalism is responsible for the above?

The lack of minimum wages, combined with no social welfare supports would certainly drive wages down (and crime up), the only safety valve being the possibility of emigrating to somewhere less miserable.

Okay, I'll have to take your word for it then, I guess? I couldn't possibly argue with that logic.

What's mud slinging about pointing out that sharing space in an apartment block restricts your 'freedom' to engage in certain activities?

What is your point, here?

You are reducing all of life down to a series of 'contracts'. Contracts are not always fair, and you don't always get the opportunity to negotiate your own contract (that is a luxury restricted to high rollers) Ordinary people have to take what they're offered or do without. Anarchists propose a participatory society where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the decision making process, rather than the limited choices of contract x or conract y, both of which are weighted in favour of the seller (especially if there are no regulations)

No, anarchists propose a system where there is absolutely no consequence to sitting on a sofa all day and letting someone else toil in a field to ensure your 'basic needs are looked after'. Laughable, really.

This has been explained already.

No, it hasn't, at all.

Anarchism seeks to create an environment where material goods are there to serve the needs and wants of the community. Obviously things like clothes, toothbrushes hairbrushes etc would be personal posessions because of hygene and the personal taste and fit. Beyond this, we have tools and posessions that people have a personal attachment to, such as musical instruments, sports equipment, personal audio, a bicycle etc which would be reserved for the use of the individual, but they would be encouraged to share them where practical. The property conventions would be set up to prevent hoarding of valuable resources and to encourage sharing and cooperation.

So they're encouraged to share certain possessions, but not forced to? So in reality, someone living in anarcho-socialist land could simply say 'Nah you're alright, I'll hang on to my stuff, thanks!', and there'd be no consequence? I must admit, I'm beginning to warm to the utopia - I get loads of stuff for free and I don't have to lift a finger.

If you're an artist who doesn't want to have his art displayed, that would be your choice. Of course, you wouldn't be able to claim the time you spend working on that art as socially useful work, but that would be your choice. Again, this is reducing the argument to absurtities.

You are having a very hard time with the principle of subsidiarity and autonomy. The non art viewing public would have no interest in what happens in art gallaries.

You're completely missing the point. Those who go to galleries are a minority. What happens when, at the town hall meeting to decide if a gallery should be built, the no vote wins? Oh well, no gallery, I guess.

There would be popular culture, there would be popular music and popular teleivision and cinema, there are would also be arthouse movies, and diverse music. In fact, I would foresee much more variety in art and music as people would be encouraged to be creative from a young age rather than being educated and groomed for life in offices and factoreis.

There would be this, there would be that...

Are you saying that there is no room in the world for both Britney and Lenard Cohen? That the majority would 'outlaw' non britney music?
Is that how you believe democracy works?

I'm saying that in the vote to decide whether Spears or Cohen should play at the next concert, Britney would kick his ass.

Buying a HD television has effects on others. spending 2000 on a television while others are scrimping by buying the cheaper own brand baked beans in the shops....

And just when I'd saved up enough points for my 'big ticket item'. I suppose I'll have to make do with my collective-issue bicycle, getting from A to B is a basic need, after all.

Where did you get this 'one tv, one bicycle malarky from? There would be different products available, there would be choice within the syndicate structure, one thing that I can see changing would be the deliberate grading of products to justify higher prices for 'premium' products. Instead of making 15 different models of television of varying quality, they would make a few different shapes and sizes all of the highest quality that could be produced for the most efficient cost.

There would be this, there would be that...

not fear, but understanding.
that's not a very good reflection on your own level of maturity.

With respect, the idea that people would bust their ass working a 40 hour week for absolutely no remuneration whatsoever is not a very good reflection on your level of sanity. By the way, in the past you mentioned some kind of 'benefits' from working, and you ignored me when I asked you what they were. So, same question again.

as has already been said, the basic needs would be provided universally, there would probably be incentives for contributing to the community.

There would be this, there would be that...

At the risk of sounding rude, and I must say that I honestly don't mean to sound rude, I'm afraid I really can't take your posts seriously any longer if you continue to dodge questions, answer questions with other questions, explain that 'there would be this, and there would be that' without backing it up whatsoever, and claiming that you've already explained something, despite the fact that every libertarian in this and the other two threads have uninamously agreed that you've failed to explain anything in a detailed way. You make vague references to syndicates co-operating with eachother to ensure that everything is looked after, be it a road or a hospital. You try to tip-toe around the fact that your proposed utopia would be nothing more than a tyranny of the majority, by mentioning ambiguous democratic systems, without explaining what they are. You mention worker benefits, the rights to possessions but not property, and so on, all without any degree of detail - please pin your colours to the mast and explain exactly what you mean with these vague claims.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Akrasia wrote: »

Anarchism seeks to create an environment where material goods are there to serve the needs and wants of the community. Obviously things like clothes, toothbrushes hairbrushes etc would be personal posessions because of hygene and the personal taste and fit. Beyond this, we have tools and posessions that people have a personal attachment to, such as musical instruments, sports equipment, personal audio, a bicycle etc which would be reserved for the use of the individual, but they would be encouraged to share them where practical. The property conventions would be set up to prevent hoarding of valuable resources and to encourage sharing and cooperation.

I still cant see interational trade working. For instance why would the Middle East bother to export oil. It takes huge capital inputs to keep this type of industry running/growing. If they simply decided to pump enough to produce for their home market what would happen then?
All I see is a decaying infrastructure that would survive for a while as its canabilised but then whole cities would be abandoned. Beyond some marginal "Amish" style settlements, I cant see it as a functioning model on a large scale.