Why are there different types of anarchism? - Page 4 - Politics and Economics

MissileDog · 03-13-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

If there is a factory with 100 workers each doing something, every day going to work, etc. and one day 100 workers come from a different city and start working at the factory early in the morning, before the regular workers have come (there are only about 100 work places in the factory). The new workers keep coming early in the morning every day. What follows in the ASist scenario?

Well first of all, we need to go through the whole ASist thingee once again. ASism is a liberal version of ACism. As such they are both oxymoronic NAP based self-contradictory nonsense. From our resident expert here on 2+2 in all things ACist, Borodog...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

Grunching; I'm sure this has probably all been explained already.

Anarcho-socialists are philosophical libertarians; they believe in the non-aggression principle. They differ from anarcho-capitalists in that, to one extent or another, they do not believe in the private ownership of the factors of production, most importantly land. They view private land ownership as inherently aggressive, and have some very good arguments for that view. To them land is properly the property of society, and fencing parcels off for private ownership is theft from society. The problem with this, of course, is that if land cannot be privately owned, it cannot be allocated economically by the price system, and it's productivity will then be severely limited.

Collective land ownership is fine for small, technologically primitive groups where the alternative possible uses of land parcels are few and it is at least possible to achieve social consensus on land use. It's utterly impossible and disastrous for large, technologically advanced societies where the number of alternative uses for land parcels is enormous and the possibility of achieving consensus on land use is essentially nil.

Whether the ASists are right that private land ownership is theft (I think they are wrong, but that's just, like, my opinion man) is a separate discussion. I've said before that if you live in a society with a social norm of private land ownership, going around cutting fences you will get in trouble, and if you live in a society with a social norm prohibiting private land ownership, going around fencing off parcels and forceably keeping people out of them you will get in trouble. But what the ASists should recognize at a minimum is that actually implementing their ideas would require the deaths of the vast majority of human beings. That's not to say they advocate doing the killing, by the way. Some ASists understand this and think it would be a positive thing, but I don't think that's representative of most ASists.

You also have to understand where a lot of the property violence of the AS movement comes from. They view private property as inherently aggressive, hence they are just using defensive violence on behave of society and not violating the NAP, similarly to a property owner using what he considers defensive violence to eject aggressors from his private property. Of course this is usually just an excuse for rebelious kids to break ****.

It's an interesting and deep topic. You definitely should not reject AS out of hand as crazy or stupid. It is very, very close in a lot of ways to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism gets the edge imo because private ownership of land is natural, just, and economically superior.

pvn · 03-13-2012, 09:19 PM

grunching...

there is only ONE type of anarchism, duh. It just happens to be the one that missiledog likes.

AlexM · 03-13-2012, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissileDog

Well first of all, we need to go through the whole ASist thingee once again. ASism is a liberal version of ACism. As such they are both oxymoronic NAP based self-contradictory nonsense. From our resident expert here on 2+2 in all things ACist, Borodog...

Anarcho-syndicalism is still not this. I thought we resolved at least this one of your fallacies. When people in here say AS, they are talking about YOU, not that Borodog definition you love to link that has absolutely no bearing on anything.

AlexM · 03-13-2012, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

grunching...

there is only ONE type of anarchism, duh. It just happens to be the one that missiledog likes.

And if you don't like it, he'll get the government to pass a law that says it's so.

MissileDog · 03-13-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexM

Anarcho-syndicalism is still not this. I thought we resolved at least this one of your fallacies. When people in here say AS, they are talking about YOU, not that Borodog definition you love to link that has absolutely no bearing on anything.

LOL no, I was never mentioned ITT. And I very seriously doubt that OP is referring to the labor movement. But, why don't we let la6ki clarify this point, instead of jumping to conclusions?

ILOVEPOKER929 · 03-13-2012, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

1. I am not sure I understand what private property actually means in the framework of ASism. In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't. I kind of see the distinction between property and possessions, but then it's very difficult for me to classify some things into the two categories.

First of all, I just want to point out that understanding the difference between property (which can also be referred to as private property or exploitative property) and possession (which can also be referred to as non-exploitative property) is pretty much the most important thing when it comes to understanding anarchy. If you don't get this, you'll never get anarchy imo. Here's the quick tutorial:

Quote:

Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.

To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives." We are opposed to the kind of property "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital." [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).

The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession." To quote Proudhon:

"The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument without using it himself. To this end he lends it." [Op. Cit., p. 293]

While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists tend to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to a transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:

"Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount -- that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour -- then property changed its nature and this idea became complex." [Op. Cit., pp. 395-6]

Cont:

Quote:

Proudhon graphically illustrated the distinction by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a husband as a proprietor! As he stressed, the "double definition of property -- domain and possession -- is of highest importance; and must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend" what anarchism is really about. So while some may question why we make this distinction, the reason is clear. As Proudhon argued, "it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name 'property' for the former [possession], we must call the latter [the domain of property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym." [Op. Cit., p. 65 and p. 373]

The difference between property and possession can be seen from the types of authority relations each generates. Taking the example of a capitalist workplace, its clear that those who own the workplace determine how it is used, not those who do the actual work. This leads to an almost totalitarian system. As Noam Chomsky points out, "the term 'totalitarian' is quite accurate. There is no human institution that approaches totalitarianism as closely as a business corporation. I mean, power is completely top-down. You can be inside it somewhere and you take orders from above and hand 'em down. Ultimately, it's in the hands of owners and investors." Thus the actual producer does not control their own activity, the product of their labour nor the means of production they use. In modern class societies, the producer is in a position of subordination to those who actually do own or manage the productive process.

In an anarchist society, as noted, actual use is considered the only title. This means that a workplace is organised and run by those who work within it, thus reducing hierarchy and increasing freedom and equality within society. Hence anarchist opposition to private property and capitalism flows naturally from anarchism's basic principles and ideas. Hence all anarchists agree with Proudhon:

"Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession."

Source.

Some further elaboration on why anarchists are against private property:

Quote:

Private property is one of the three things all anarchists oppose, along side hierarchical authority and the state. Today, the dominant system of private property is capitalist in nature and, as such, anarchists tend to concentrate on this system and its property rights regime. We will be reflecting this here but do not, because of this, assume that anarchists consider other forms of private property regime (such as, say, feudalism) as acceptable. This is not the case -- anarchists are against every form of property rights regime which results in the many working for the few.

Anarchist opposition to private property rests on two, related, arguments. These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from What is Property? that "property is theft" and "property is despotism." In his words, "Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, What is Property, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority as well as exploitation and, consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It is based on and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.
We will summarise each argument in turn.

The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like -- see section B.3.2 for more discussion).

As we discuss in section B.3.3, this exploitation (theft) flows from the fact that workers do not own or control the means of production they use and, as a consequence, are controlled by those who do during work hours. This alienation of control over labour to the boss places the employer in a position to exploit that labour -- to get the worker to produce more than they get paid in wages. That is precisely why the boss employs the worker. Combine this with rent, interest and intellectual property rights and we find the secret to maintaining the capitalist system as all allow enormous inequalities of wealth to continue and keep the resources of the world in the hands of a few.

Yet labour cannot be alienated. Therefore when you sell your labour you sell yourself, your liberty, for the time in question. This brings us to the second reason why anarchists oppose private property, the fact it produces authoritarian social relationships. For all true anarchists, property is opposed as a source of authority, indeed despotism. To quote Proudhon on this subject:

"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?" [Op. Cit., pp. 266-7]

In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading to have to follow orders). And so private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life.

Source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

Owning a territory should definitely go to the category of property.

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

And the sandwich that I'm eating in order to survive should definitely be my possession.

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

But what about those things that are related to your privacy? Do I have a mail box that only I can open? How about an e-mail, Facebook, 2p2 account whose password is only known to me? How about some physical photos that I don't anybody to see, ever? Can I keep them as my own?

Those would all be examples of your possessions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

In short, is there a simple way to distinguish between possessions and property?

IMO (and I might be alone on this), the best way to think about this (at least in our capitalistic culture) is to divide things between exploitative property and non-exploitative property. The former is property you can use to exploit others (land, factories, water, office buildings, etc), the latter being property that is not used to exploit others, (my suitcase, my couch, my shirt, my glasses, my Nintendo, my house, my car, etc). Now the astute will note that you can use your house and car to exploit others, which is true, but when that's the case those examples are no longer non-exploitative property. They become exploitative property. So in many cases the property under question cannot be defined unless we know how it's being utilized, but I personally don't think it's as complicated as it sounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

2. Even if we agree that traditionally anarchism means what you say it means, why can't we accept that the definition has evolved?

First of all, you don't have to agree with me. You can look at the history and decide for yourself, and second of all, anarchists do not agree that the definition has evolved to include ACism. Anarchists do not see ACism as a form of anarchism. If you look at the history of anarchism you'll see that it developed in direct opposition to capitalism:

Quote:

Far from being a "natural" development, then, capitalism was imposed on a society by state action, by and on behalf of ruling elites. Those working class people alive at the time viewed it as "unnatural relations" and organised to overcome it. It is from such movements that all the many forms of socialism sprang, including anarchism. This is the case with the European anarchism associated with Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin as well as the American individualist anarchism of Warren and Tucker. The links between anarchism and working class rebellion against the autocracy of capital and the state is reflected not only in our theory and history, but also in our anarchist symbols. The Black Flag, for example, was first raised by rebel artisans in France and its association with labour insurrection was the reason why anarchists took it up as our symbol (see the appendix on "The Symbols of Anarchy"). So given both the history of capitalism and anarchism, it becomes obvious any the latter has always opposed the former. It is why anarchists today still seek to encourage the desire and hope for political and economic freedom rather than the changing of masters we have under capitalism. Anarchism will continue as long as these feelings and hopes still exist and they will remain until such time as we organise and abolish capitalism and the state.

Source.

So anarchism is opposed to all forms of capitalism including that oxymoron ACism (the "A" is directly opposed to the "C") Anarchism and ACism are not two kinds of the same thing. They're direct enemies of each other. Although saying ACism is an enemy of anarchism is kind've a joke. It gives too much credit to ACism which is really just an ineffectual online cult that a specific demographic (mostly privileged white males) find compelling. It's not really serious. It's easy to figure out that the idea of a stateless capitalism is as absurd as a stateless chattel slavery capitalism. It could never exist for obvious reasons. Without the state protecting the propertied class, the propertied-less exploited classes would quickly rise up and rectify their disadvantageous position(a truism that "the father of modern economics and capitalism" and James Madison recognized). A truism that the anarchist Kropotkin put succinctly: "the rich perfectly well know that if the machinery of the State ceased to protect them, their power over the labouring classes would be gone immediately." BTW, it's also worth noting that even Rothbard recognized that ACists are not anarchist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

I think the assumption is that few individuals will necessarily accumulate huge chunks of the wealth and will turn into the tyrants that the government was. But many people argue that without a central government this monopolization of the resources by a few big corporations is impossible.

Yes, without government or some equivalent apparatus of extensive violence, monopolization of resources other humans need access to in order to survive (water, land, factories, office buildings, etc) would be impossible. And that leads us to this interesting conundrum: ACists are pro-private property and the control over resources others need access to in order to survive is implied in the private property part. YET, ACists claim they are against the government. So something's gotta give right? Well their solution is very simple. They don't really seek to eliminate the government, they seek to privatize it:

Quote:

In addition, we must note that such inequalities in power and wealth will need "defending" from those subject to them ("anarcho"-capitalists recognise the need for private police and courts to defend property from theft -- and, anarchists add, to defend the theft and despotism associated with property!). Due to its support of private property (and thus authority), "anarcho"-capitalism ends up retaining a state in its "anarchy": namely a private state whose existence its proponents attempt to deny simply by refusing to call it a state, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. As one anarchist so rightly put it, "anarcho"-capitalists "simply replaced the state with private security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally understood." [Brian Morris, "Global Anti-Capitalism", pp. 170-6, Anarchist Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 175]

Quote:

As Albert Meltzer put it:

"Commonsense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a 'State' . . . but it could not dispense with organised government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie . . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 50]

Source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

And for me, I don't have such a huge problem with limited AND distributed power that only spreads to one's private property. I think the problem arises when too much power concentrates in one place, and this is what all anarchists are against. Some anarchists, like yourself, are also against tiny concentrations of power, but I personally don't feel the problem (at least for now).

Well to all anarchists power is illegitimate by assumption, i.e. it has to meet a burden of proof. It's not self-justifying. In most cases it cannot meet that burden of proof--whether we're talking about a tiny amount of power or a large amount of power--and when that's the case such power should be modified/eliminated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

3. Are you against small communities living under their own version of anarchism? If a small town like the idea of private property and free market, but another wants to live without the notion of private property, would you be fine with that?

There are no anarchists that would want to live in a society where private property exists, because then that would mean government or some equivalent would exist to protect the privilege that comes with private property--the privilege to dictate and exploit others. There are anarchists that are pro-markets. I would say I'm not one of them, but that's another discussion. But there's no contradiction with being pro-markets and being an anarchist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

By the way, what's your opinion of other forms of anarchism, like anarcho-primitivism?

I think it's pure insanity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

4. If you had to choose between ACism and the current system, which one would you choose?

The current system ainec. I think AC-land would be one of the most ruthless tyrannies man has ever created and I don't think that's hard to figure out. If you take this idea: "obviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."(Rothbard) And you then combine it with the reality of private property--the reality that resources other humans need access to in order to survive (factories, land, water, office buildings, etc) will be under private control. Then you're gonna end up with "an extreme form of authoritarianism". A society where "everyone would be technically free" in the sense that "they'll be free to make contracts with the person who has all the power, who owns the police, and so on, or they'll be free not to." Now can you really not see how "it's perfectly obvious that under the formulations of someone like, say, Murray Rothbard, you will get such inequalities of power that it would be like living under Gengis Khan or something like that."?(all quotes after the Rothbard quote are from Noam Chomsky).

ILOVEPOKER929 · 03-13-2012, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul D

I said read Mikhail Bakunin. Not sloppy written articles on wikis.

And anyone who wants to read the father of Anarchy here is where to look - http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...unin/index.htm

Yeah, I organized my post sloppily which is what caused this confusion. I was pointing out that your advice was good. The wikipedia remark was not towards you.

ILOVEPOKER929 · 03-14-2012, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexM

Everything you quoted is consistent with AC and opposes socialism.

When I or any anarchist talk about socialism, we simply mean, no more capitalist masters in the work place, i.e. self-managed workplaces.

Quote:

This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and co-operating workers puts Spooner squarely in the anti-capitalist camp with other anarchists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexM

Considering that everything quoted IS capitalism, this is an insane conclusion.

lol no. If "capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and co-operating workers" capitalism ceases to exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexM

I oppose wage labor too. I am a capitalist. Just like Spooner. People enjoying the full fruits of their labor is the entire point of capitalism.

Lol no. You can't oppose wage labor and be a capitalist at the same time. That's an obvious contradiction and you know it. And if you really want to know "the entire point of capitalism", it's simply the modern version of what elites figured out thousands of years ago--"that the peasantry produced a surplus and could be milked like cattle"(Kevin Carson)

AlexM · 03-14-2012, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILOVEPOKER929

Lol no. You can't oppose wage labor and be a capitalist at the same time.

Sure you can. Capitalism is just people trading with each other. Nothing more.

AlexM · 03-14-2012, 03:27 AM

And ACists and libertarians have the same ideas about legitimate and illegitimate property, they just don't use special words like "possessions" instead of just calling property property.

la6ki · 03-14-2012, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissileDog

LOL no, I was never mentioned ITT. And I very seriously doubt that OP is referring to the labor movement. But, why don't we let la6ki clarify this point, instead of jumping to conclusions?

TBH, I thought you and ILP were ASist, based on your opposition to LirvA in the "working together" thread, but I was mistaken. So, there isn't an additional term attached to your position, since you view it as redundant, if I understand correctly. So, you simply call yourself an anarchist? Also, what parts of ASism do you disagree with?

My question about the 100-worker factory still hasn't been answered btw. In an anarchist society (the one you're advocating) where there is no such thing as private property, what happens when the new workers do the thing I described in that post?

la6ki · 03-14-2012, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILOVEPOKER929

First of all, I just want to point out that understanding the difference between property (which can also be referred to as private property or exploitative property) and possession (which can also be referred to as non-exploitative property) is pretty much the most important thing when it comes to understanding anarchy. If you don't get this, you'll never get anarchy imo. Here's the quick tutorial:

Cont:

Source.

Some further elaboration on why anarchists are against private property:

Source.

Thank you for these clarifications, I think I understand the distinction pretty well now. I have two additional questions related to your answer:

1. Why do you assume that private property would necessarily lead to many working for the few in a governmentless society? I think that the only way a small percentage of the population can accumulate big chunks of the land or other types of goods is through using concentrated power (i.e., centralized government). In other words, if we abolish the central government, even if private property still exists, it wouldn't (couldn't) create a system like the one we have now. So, nobody (including the circumstances) could force you to work for somebody, unless you choose to do so yourself (having the option to work on your own property too).

2. I think you'd agree that the distinction between property and possessions is not always clear-cut. A big pharmaceutical company having a patent over a life-saving medicine overpricing it is easily categorized as "property". In other words, a big majority of the people would call that property, based on the distinction provided in the text from the links you gave above. But there would be other things for which there could potentially be 50/50-like disagreements. What kind of entity would then determine if the person can hold on to the ownership of the thing in question? And would this entity not be perceived as a government-like entity by many people?

Quote:

First of all, you don't have to agree with me.
<snip>

Okay, so perhaps from a historical point of view the term ACism is not well chosen. But is this really all about a terminological argument? You know that language evolves all the time. If traditionally anarchism meant "opposition to all hierarchical authority", but now most people (not just anarchists) understand it to mean "opposition to all coercive hierarchies", why can't we move on from this fight over terminology? I mean, is the name really that important? Maybe I'm missing something, but it just doesn't seem so productive to me.

As I said before, I am not convinced that when there is no government few would still be able to get ownership over many.

Quote:

Yes, without government or some equivalent apparatus of extensive violence, monopolization of resources other humans need access to in order to survive (water, land, factories, office buildings, etc) would be impossible. And that leads us to this interesting conundrum: ACists are pro-private property and the control over resources others need access to in order to survive is implied in the private property part. YET, ACists claim they are against the government. So something's gotta give right? Well their solution is very simple. They don't really seek to eliminate the government, they seek to privatize it:

Source.

Well, one huge difference between government now and the private institutions is going to be the lack of monopoly in the latter case. This is huge imo.

But I still don't understand: let's say we abolished government and now we're a group of people in a territory. We are a dynamic system. This system will naturally reach an attractor, right? If society turns out to be best if people have private ownership of lands and so on, then they will live that way. If this is unsustainable, maybe the society will evolve into one which you're advocating. Is letting things develop naturally a bad idea?

Quote:

There are no anarchists that would want to live in a society where private property exists, because then that would mean government or some equivalent would exist to protect the privilege that comes with private property--the privilege to dictate and exploit others. There are anarchists that are pro-markets. I would say I'm not one of them, but that's another discussion. But there's no contradiction with being pro-markets and being an anarchist.

Pro-market in which possessions are freely exchanged? What type of market are anarchists in favor of?

But I think you didn't answer my question. I don't know which country you're from but let's say that the central government in your country is abolished and you live in city X. The people there lead to the formation of a system in which there is no private property. In city Y, on the other hand, people develop a system where private property exists and there are many competing private firms that protect it. You don't ever have to visit city Y, if you don't like it.

Do you see a problem with such a development?

Quote:

The current system ainec. I think AC-land would be one of the most ruthless tyrannies man has ever created and I don't think that's hard to figure out. If you take this idea: "obviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."(Rothbard) And you then combine it with the reality of private property--the reality that resources other humans need access to in order to survive (factories, land, water, office buildings, etc) will be under private control. Then you're gonna end up with "an extreme form of authoritarianism". A society where "everyone would be technically free" in the sense that "they'll be free to make contracts with the person who has all the power, who owns the police, and so on, or they'll be free not to." Now can you really not see how "it's perfectly obvious that under the formulations of someone like, say, Murray Rothbard, you will get such inequalities of power that it would be like living under Gengis Khan or something like that."?(all quotes after the Rothbard quote are from Noam Chomsky).

Okay, but you believe this based on what? You know there are many refutations of such dooms-day scenarios that ACists have come up with. You might disagree with them, but why do you think this will really lead to unseen tyrannies? Is it just based on your (or Chomsky's) hypothetical simulation of the unfolding of that society and seeing the results in your own mind?

MissileDog · 03-14-2012, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

TBH, I thought you and ILP were ASist, based on your opposition to LirvA in the "working together" thread, but I was mistaken. So, there isn't an additional term attached to your position, since you view it as redundant, if I understand correctly. So, you simply call yourself an anarchist? Also, what parts of ASism do you disagree with?...

I'm an IWW, which practices what is called "Industrial Unionism" in North America, and "Anarcho-Syndicalist" in Europe. LirvA explicitly identified Syndicalism in his thread title, so the use of "AS" in that thread was unambiguous. Otherwise since you are discussing ACism ITT, it really has to be assumed that ASism means "Anarcho-Socialism", which as I mentioned above, is just a liberal version of ACism.

The root cause of this confusion is that there are not different "types" of anarchism at all. Instead there are different and distinct definitions of the word "anarchism". And it is a category error to assume these different and distinct definitions are two "types" of the same kinda "thing". Your thread title should have asked: "why are there different definitions of the word 'anarchism'"? instead.

Quote:

My question about the 100-worker factory still hasn't been answered btw. In an anarchist society (the one you're advocating) where there is no such thing as private property, what happens when the new workers do the thing I described in that post?

You can only have private property if there is a government to enforce it. So your're question really boils down to: without a government to interfere, how do people deal with disputes? And the answer is of course... they would deal with disputes without calling upon a government to interfere. And that leads to my question in return: do you believe there are ways that people can deal with disputes without calling upon a government to interfere? If you don't, let's deal with the general underlying question you are asking here first.

MissileDog · 03-14-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

...1. Why do you assume that private property would necessarily lead to many working for the few in a governmentless society?...

Because you can't have private property without a government (or equivalent) to enforce it.

Quote:

...2... What kind of entity would then determine if the person can hold on to the ownership of the thing in question? And would this entity not be perceived as a government-like entity by many people?...

Any entity that determines and enforces private property is a government, or equivalent. That is what governments are and what they do.

Quote:

...Okay, so perhaps from a historical point of view the term ACism is not well chosen. But is this really all about a terminological argument? You know that language evolves all the time. If traditionally anarchism meant "opposition to all hierarchical authority", but now most people (not just anarchists) understand it to mean "opposition to all coercive hierarchies", why can't we move on from this fight over terminology? I mean, is the name really that important? Maybe I'm missing something, but it just doesn't seem so productive to me...

Actually anarchism means taking direct action in opposition to coercive hierarchy, and always has meant that. The problem is that the ACists don't fit this definition, and they use their own oxymoronic "special" little patois definition instead. This goes back to the fact there are different definitions of the word "anarchism" and they are not different "kinds" of same "thing", as I mentioned above.

Quote:

...But I still don't understand: let's say we abolished government and now we're a group of people in a territory. We are a dynamic system. This system will naturally reach an attractor, right? If society turns out to be best if people have private ownership of lands and so on, then they will live that way...In city Y, on the other hand, people develop a system where private property exists

Because once again, you can't have private ownership if there isn't a government (or equivalent) to enforce it.

Quote:

...Okay, but you believe this based on what? You know there are many refutations of such dooms-day scenarios that ACists have come up with. You might disagree with them, but why do you think this will really lead to unseen tyrannies? Is it just based on your (or Chomsky's) hypothetical simulation of the unfolding of that society and seeing the results in your own mind?

Based on history and reality. Anarchism is not some kinda untried "theory", it has worked historically in large scale societies, and is working today as we blog in large scale communities and enterprises. Google is your friend.

LawMess · 03-14-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissileDog

Because you can't have private property without a government (or equivalent) to enforce it.Any entity that determines and enforces private property is a government, or equivalent. That is what governments are and what they do.Actually anarchism means taking direct action in opposition to coercive hierarchy, and always has meant that. The problem is that the ACists don't fit this definition, and they use their own oxymoronic "special" little patois definition instead. This goes back to the fact there are different definitions of the word "anarchism" and they are not different "kinds" of same "thing", as I mentioned above.Because once again, you can't have private ownership if there isn't a government (or equivalent) to enforce it.Based on history and reality. Anarchism is not some kinda untried "theory", it has worked historically in large scale societies, and is working today as we blog in large scale communities and enterprises. Google is your friend.

I think this is the third, maybe fourth time i have seen you post that Anarchism has worked historically in large scale societis, (or advanced industrial societies as you stated in the Rothbard thread) and then just simply said, Google is your friend. Strikes me as odd that you can draft long (and although i disagree with all of your points, i must admit well written and thought out posts) and just never manage to actually set out even one of the historical and realilty bases for your claim that it can/does work. Seems like the kid who spouts off nonsens and when pushed to back up his claims, responds with "I don't have to tell you, look it up" to me.