Libertarianism versus Anarchism

asdasd

Libertarians oppose conscription, on the grounds that the nationalist state has no grounds to kidnap a person and force him onto a battlefield.

And thats where I am not a libertarian. Clearly the decision to not go to war if your country is invaded supposes that someone else should die for you ( imagine a total war). It isnt all that surprising that conscription happens when nations are in peril.

But, I am not a libertarian.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

Iirst is specifically about state and corporation - http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050518.htm

Chomsky....."Out of associated innovations comes the automotive industry, and so on and so forth. In fact, it's very hard to find anything in the economy that doesn't rely critically on the state sector."

I find this view of world pure propaganda. The idea that all innovation is critically tied up with the state, or the military as he seems to focus on is just logically incorrect. he is basically arguing that we need war to develop and that if scientists werent working on how to fire bigger stuff at an opponent then there would be nothing to get the creative juices going.
All that is happening is that the state sets the agenda for certain R&D and not individuals or companies. In the absense of the state, R&D would have continued all the same with with less cost to the general public.

headmuzik

silverharp on Chomsky:

he is basically arguing that we need war to develop and that if scientists werent working on how to fire bigger stuff at an opponent then there would be nothing to get the creative juices going.

Have you actually read anything Chomsky has written?
By this logic, Chomsky would be suggesting that unending war ala 1984 would be the best thing for society. I'm not entirely sure where to start....

asdasd

.The idea that all innovation is critically tied up with the state, or the military as he seems to focus on is just logically incorrect

The State plays it's part ( although mostly the American State). What drives science is funding, either private sector, or public sector. Sometimes monopolies, private or public, can be innovative. So lets not dismiss the public sector ,and university sector, out of hand. Take Unix for instance. Or the Arpanet.

However, Chomsky is wrong on everything else. The Unix (BSD , so from Berkeley) is the basis of OS X, with a kernel originally designed by Carnegie Mellon - but OS X is really the extra work ( the value added) put in by Apple engineers to make a uncomfortable, user-unfriendly, command line system a real operating system which could work with any number of printers, peripherals and devices out of the box. And the UI. Of course the original Unix was developed on a machine created by the private sector.

But there is code written in Berkeley on the iPhone.

It is tit for tat. The Arpanet was developed in universities, the first html browser developed on a Next box ( also the precursor of OS X, and obviously a private sector device) in CERN which is publicly funded , the first real useful browser developed in the private sector by Netscape, Google's ideas from a thesis in Stanford.

I read a Chomsky speech where he decried the opening up the internet ( developed in the universities he portentously intoned). He then worked out the gains of all the companies on the internet and considered it "theft", a loss to the American government - the value added by private sector code and work was clearly unacknowledged. The interplay between State and private sector not mentioned - but the Soviet Union ( which had smart engineers) - did not have a chance in that race, were it around. What did it produce in the 80's?

I don't think that Chomsky is stupid, either. It is deliberately misleading. His sheep lap it up.

silverharp

asdasd wrote: »

I don't think that Chomsky is stupid, either. It is deliberately misleading. His sheep lap it up.

the point that irks me is his argument that innovation wouldnt have happened without state intervention, its like saying that there would be no heathcare without the state. it just seems to be an error in logic to assume that just because a particular solution to a problem was found in the military arena funded by the taxpayer that the same problem wouldnt have been solved from another direction using private resources. Or how does one even compute the waste of a bloated organisation like NASA and the crowding out effect it must have had on other sectors of the economy.

asdasd

TBH, I think the Jury is out on whether we would have the internet without the American state, or university, sector. It is a child of the cold war. The state is important for broadband and laying fibres as well. And electricity lines, back in the day. That needed to be subsidised. Sometimes public capital is needed; where private capital fails or is uninterested. This is an argument against Libertarians and anarchists.

Anyway, defending the mixed economy generally does not win you any favours, but I believe that since we dont have the mathematical ability to actually model the "best" society we have to stumble into it, making mistakes as we go : too much regulation here, too little there. The ideologies of radicals, are by necessity simple, because we can't model our complex society. It is not surprising that the title of this thread is a showdown between two utopian and unworkable ideologies which have the advantage of simplicity; for the radical mind needs a simple idea, complexity demands nuance. Let there be no State! Let the State control Everything! Let the State control nothing and let there be no property.

The world, is , as it always shall be - imperfect, for it is filled with imperfect humans. A child will wonder why we couldn't all be equal, an adult understand why not. Radicals are children.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Again, the similarity with the Left; in World War 1, Leftists argued that this was a conflict between imperialist capitalist powers, and the nationalist call-to-warfare was against peoples interests. Dismissed as traitorous talk at the time...history redeems it somewhat...

Imo it overstates the case to say that warfare is an effect of statism, unless we are (circularly) defining warfare as a conflict between states. I would regard guerrillas such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta to be engaged in warfare, although their targets are primarily corporate, and their behavious quite 'free-market'; outsourcing guerrillas operations, basing military operations on their Return on Investment etc.

But the role of hierarchical structures in sending people, willingly or coercively, to die for them seems pretty well established, and is a shared component in right or left libertarianisms. It's succintly condemned by Carl Schmitt:

'To demand seriously of human beings that they kill others and be prepared to die themselves so that trade and industry may flourish for the survivors or that the purchasing power of grandchildren may grow is sinister and crazy'.

States have (historically) possessed a considerable comparative advantage in organized warfare; if you want to be a pacifist, paradoxically, you'd better be damn well armed: (vide the Soviet invasion of Finland). Men of peace are usually brave, indeed.
Otherwise, at best, you're free-riding a military hegemon (vide Western Europe in relation to the US). Which among other things is why I'm always a mite conflicted on the right to bear arms.

In reductio, if our libertarians are entitled to defend themselves, do they get nukes? If not, why? What level of lethality is permitted, and by whom?

asdasd

Yep. The problem with the libertarian, or anarchist, idea of having no Army is that the other guy probably has an Army.

Then you're shagged.

Kama

asdads wrote:

Anyway, defending the mixed economy generally does not win you any favours

Moderates are boooring. It seems a regrettable feature of 'human nature' that to hold beliefs strongly, we feel they need to be extreme beliefs.

The mixed economy is the only game in town, for the time being, for anyone even slightly realist, whether your model is Singapore or Sweden. States fail, markets fail, but the uneasy symbiosis, warts and all, slouches onward. Which is great for anyone who blames either markets or states for all the problems of the world, since their favourite adversaries, precious enemies, will always be there, to stand the devils place in a Manichaean morality play...

That being said, when things get shaken up, the pieces can land differently.

Kama

The problem with the libertarian, or anarchist, idea of having no Army is that the other guy probably has an Army.

Which accounts nicely for the complete absence of instantiated utopian colonies of either hue. If you want to be Switzerland (whether that means direct democracy, disregarding patent law, or the libertarian dream of having your own tax haven) you better all have guns and live in the mountains.

It also reminds me of a US law enforcement spokesman here in Texas, speaking informally about a secessionist enclave...

'Yeh we let them say what they want, until they break the law. Then we lock them the f*uck up'.

That being said, if sovereignty is maintained by an effective monopoly on force, and the barriers for entry lower (DIY tech, shifts in warfare), whither the State? I'm very interested in how either side of this debate thinks things would go down for them with widespread state failure...again, I no longer consider this a longshot.

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

the point that irks me is his argument that innovation wouldnt have happened without state intervention, its like saying that there would be no heathcare without the state. it just seems to be an error in logic to assume that just because a particular solution to a problem was found in the military arena funded by the taxpayer that the same problem wouldnt have been solved from another direction using private resources. Or how does one even compute the waste of a bloated organisation like NASA and the crowding out effect it must have had on other sectors of the economy.

Chomsky's argument is that the state, through the taxes it raises from the citizens subsidizes innovation upon which the private sector thrives, and the private sector privatise all the the profits and do everything they can to avoid paying just taxes despite all the benefits they receive from public financing.

It's an argument against liberal markets which claim that state intervention is bad and that unregulated free markets result in the most efficient companies when the biggest and most successful companies in the world are successful in part because they were incubated by the state.

Protectionism is good for the national economy in certain instances, by forcing the 'developing world' to privatise everything and drop all trade barriers, they are not helping them, they are ensuring that they remain poor and that the really profititable activity is undertaken in the west.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Kama wrote: »

That being said, if sovereignty is maintained by an effective monopoly on force, and the barriers for entry lower (DIY tech, shifts in warfare), whither the State? I'm very interested in how either side of this debate thinks things would go down for them with widespread state failure...again, I no longer consider this a longshot.

To be perfectly honest, if there was sudden widespread failures of states, I would be thinking 'Mad Max' rather than the smurfs.

Anarchism would only have any chance of succeeding if there was a long build up of organisation and education before the punctuated equilibrium event.

I see latin america as the best chance of a socialist alternative developing and providing a model for others to use as a base from which to build their own societies.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Private armies would only defend the rich.

Belfast

Private army is not always a Mercenaries army.
A peoples militia is a private army.
Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Britain used private armies for up till modem times.

The Ulster Volunteers were a unionist militia founded in 1912 to block Home Rule for Ireland. In 1913 they were organised into the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Kama

Akrasia wrote:

To be perfectly honest, if there was sudden widespread failures of states, I would be thinking 'Mad Max' rather than the smurfs.

Interesting. MadMax is individualism to the...Max? Generally, a left view privileges the importance of groups, a right view the importance of individuals; right stresses personal autonomy and hence blame for social problems, left locates the origin of individual failure in structural causes.

Contra this MadMax view, I would posit social breakdown as necessitating group formation; against the 'lone wolf' stereotype, wolves aren't solitary animals, their success is based on pack-formation and co-operation. Similarly, individual survival, whether in genetic terms or social, is pretty much impossible. Groups survive, reproduce, and compete.

Anarchism would only have any chance of succeeding if there was a long build up of organisation and education before the punctuated equilibrium event.

I kinda feel the other way...you learn to swim because you have to. Communities would develop autonomy and local production because no-one else is doing it for them, rather than due to a prolonged propaganda effort as to why local resilience and locally-accountable democratic government is a Good Thing.

Akrasia wrote: »

Private armies would only defend the rich.

Unless poor people get organized...An example for anarchists would be the oft-quoted EZLN, a private sub-state armed force. Down a step, if you reference private law enforcement, I'd agree with you. Admittedly, the lines can tend to blur.

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

Akrasia, with respect, I find your answers less than satisfactory. Your explanations amount to little more than 'there would be this and that' (ctrl+f 'would' and you'll see what I mean). Apparently, in an anarcho-socialist world, there would be schools, hospitals, technological breakthroughs, etc. Why or how? Well, there just would be. Do you care to explain the nuts and bolts, though?

I can't say there 'defnitely will' be any feature in a future anarchist society because it would have to be decided democratically and different communities would apply the theories differently.

I don't see where your objection to these assumptions that there would be schools and healthcare and comes from. These are valuable things and they would be a big element high up on the priority of the communities when they are making their decisions.

Regarding innovation, in Anarchist spain during the civil war, the collectivised farms and indusries exhibited enormous innovation (and there was a surplus of food, while the republican controlled areas of Spain suffered bread shortages)

Innovation in anarchism is probably one of the most positive features. In capitalism, the bosses make the decisions and the workers follow orders. If the workers (who usually know the specifics of their own job very well) have an idea that could improve efficiency, they have little incentive to speak out, and even when they do speak about it, their 'superior' is unlikely to implement the idea. In anarchism if the idea is a good one, the individual can implement it on his own initiative or can present it at a weekly meeting and have it approved by his peers.

I genuinely struggle to get my head around the anarchist argument. There would be no money and no private property, and people would co-operate voluntarily to meet the needs and wants of 'society'. Hmm, yes. Cures for diseases, satellites in space, safer cars, faster computers - all of these would be achieved without competion, but with direct democracy. Indeed. Over the last hundred years millions of people have died in attempts at coercively implementing collective policies - was coercion the reason it didn't work, or the policies?

One way large scale projects and infrastructure can be arranged is through the syndicate structure.
Trade is possible without money
From the bottom up there are individuals who join a collective, the collective participates in multiple syndicates, the syndicates are part of confederations divided geographically and by industry. through these layers, each indivdual has direct access to all the resources of all the syndicates in the confederation and can negotiate access to raw materials and finished goods.

Eg, I live in a rural collective and would like a mobile phone. My collective is part of numerous syndicates, 'irish tourism syndicate' Organic vegetables syndicate, dairy syndicate, poultry, grain etc. Each of these syndicates has lnks to other syndicates who value their products. (the brewing syndicates, the international tourist syndicate, paper syndicates etc. I am also in a geographic syndicate with other groups in my region. If i want a mobile phone, I put in a request with the local consumer council and this is added to the list of items the community would like to procure. There are syndicates that make electronic goods and will have thousands of phones to distribute that it will trade for other items like bread and clothes etc.

the staple goods can be procured in long standard agreements that are simply renewed regularly. It is only the individual consumable items that would need to be negotiated, but with modern comminications technology, this could be a relatively simpe process. There are many ways this could be designed.

Akrasia

Belfast wrote: »

Private army is not always a Mercenaries army.
A peoples militia is a private army.
Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In libertarianism it is a mercinary army. the soldiers/security officers would be employed by whoever pays them and will defend their employer for profit. They will be answerable only to the people who pay their fee.

Belfast

Akrasia wrote: »

In libertarianism it is a mercinary army. the soldiers/security officers would be employed by whoever pays them and will defend their employer for profit. They will be answerable only to the people who pay their fee.

A volunteer peoples militia defending their homes and people do not need to be paid.

Kama

Akrasia wrote: »

I can't say there 'defnitely will' be any feature in a future anarchist society because it would have to be decided democratically and different communities would apply the theories differently.

Indeed. I'd assume some of them would be wont to flirt with anarcho-capitalist/Austrian approaches. The interesting question is how would the right of Exit/Entrance be managed?

In capitalism, the bosses make the decisions and the workers follow orders.

That's a mildly dated view. In current/late capitalism, the managerial function that was exercised in the top-down hierarchical manner you allude to has been partially supplanted by a view that workers should effectively self-manage themselves. Critically, this is seen as a further exercise in domination, the internalization of the oppressive functions of the boss, kinda like Tesco having you pack your own bags, or scan your own items. Positively, this is seen as a liberating move. Again, depends on your interpretation.

If the workers (who usually know the specifics of their own job very well) have an idea that could improve efficiency, they have little incentive to speak out, and even when they do speak about it, their 'superior' is unlikely to implement the idea. In anarchism if the idea is a good one, the individual can implement it on his own initiative or can present it at a weekly meeting and have it approved by his peers.

Contra, it could be said that in a collective structure there is little incentive to improve, as there is no reward structure other than egoboo, and that if an idea has merit, in terms of the bottom line, a good manager will be more than willing to appropriate accomodate it. Who knows, you might even get a bonus...

Trade is possible without money

This is highly problematic. Barter or potlatch is possible without money, for any other trade a medium of exchange, whether USD or an alternative currency based on whatever you like (food, gold, hours, reputation, whatever) is a must. Informally, and in small groups, we can do without money (I recently built a shed for my sister-in-law), because proximity and 'human nature' prevents flagrant cheating, but on a macro scale you do kinda need some kind of unit of account.

But longstoryshort...trying to abolish markets (a pre-capitalist social formation) and money per se (again, long predating), seems a but of a Canute approach. At best, you create a layer of capitalist black-market crime. At worst...authoritarian nightmares.

Speaking of Spanish anarchism, and in the interests of showing some commonality-in-eclecticism rather than a vestal-virgin approach of ideological purity:

Anarchism without adjectives was an attempt to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone—even in theory. Anarchists without adjectives tended either to reject all particular anarchist economic models as faulty, or take a pluralist position of embracing them all to a limited degree in order that they may keep one another in check.

Anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre "came to label herself simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order to determine the most appropriate form."Voltarine sought conciliation between the various schools, and said in her essay Anarchism, "There is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of [these systems] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to. (When I say 'do not agree to' I do not mean that they have a mere distaste for...I mean serious differences which in their opnion threaten their essential liberties...)...Therefore I say that each group of persons acting socially in freedom may choose any of the proposed systems, and be just as thorough-going Anarchists as those who select another.


La Wik

synd

How were these caused? Was killing a direct policy of India, like it was in the USSR? I think not. What does imperialism have to do with capitalism?

Lets get something clear, what you call capitalism is a bull**** fairy tale that's never existed, its an ideological theory beyond all empirical criticism, like god or the tooth-fairy. Now in fairness socialists engage in the same thing - only we tend to distinguish between theoretical models and historical examples. Libertarians make no such distinction, when capitalism is to be appraised its presented in terms of concrete actuality, when its subjected to criticism its ''re-defined'' as an intangible abstraction.

Existing capitalism and the state are essentially the same entity, ergo the expression state capitalism. Market competition consolidates wealth and power, as I have illustrated prior. Leading interest groups then utilize the state to maintain competitive advantage. Imperialism is the state manifestation of market compulsion. Was killing a direct policy of India ? No, it was a direct consequence of the inadequacies inherent within the capitalist system, just as famines under the soviet regime where a consequence of bad economic planning. Enough rice was being produced in Bengal, however inflation ensured that people could not afford it - now re-distribution in the form of state intervention could have prevented this.

On the issue of political killings, the USSR - went after dissidents right and left who threatened the bolshevik regime. The political killings however must be understood in the context of war against the aristocracy - who prior to bolshevism had murdered millions both civilians and combatants. Revolutionary warfare is bloody, as in the case of the French revolution ect. The US capitalist state during the course of its development used profits derived directly from slavery to fund industrial development and wiped out the native population in order to avail of land, and raw materials. I don't distinguish between the death caused by state capitalism and state socialism - the only difference is that the former killed a far greater number.

Joycey

Kama wrote: »

That's a mildly dated view. In current/late capitalism, the managerial function that was exercised in the top-down hierarchical manner you allude to has been partially supplanted by a view that workers should effectively self-manage themselves. Critically, this is seen as a further exercise in domination, the internalization of the oppressive functions of the boss, kinda like Tesco having you pack your own bags, or scan your own items. Positively, this is seen as a liberating move. Again, depends on your interpretation.

Interesting. Hadnt ever thought about that before.

Anarchism without adjectives was an attempt to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone—even in theory. Anarchists without adjectives tended either to reject all particular anarchist economic models as faulty, or take a pluralist position of embracing them all to a limited degree in order that they may keep one another in check.

Anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre "came to label herself simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order to determine the most appropriate form."Voltarine sought conciliation between the various schools, and said in her essay Anarchism, "There is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of [these systems] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to. (When I say 'do not agree to' I do not mean that they have a mere distaste for...I mean serious differences which in their opnion threaten their essential liberties...)...Therefore I say that each group of persons acting socially in freedom may choose any of the proposed systems, and be just as thorough-going Anarchists as those who select another.

/thread

Kama

Every ideology needs an enemy. In both anarchocapitalism and anarchosocialism it's predominantly the State, hence the close cousins comment.
And frankly, if libertarians can't agree on allowing each other a different flavour of libertarianism...well, fail tbqfh.

Riffing off the worker self-management, a lot of what management-speek or HR-Speak I come across sounds, quite frankly, like a bizarre clone of old Leftist discourse...

Example = recent corporate conference call I sat in on...

Q: 'So, moving forward, what have we learned?'

A:' 'Well, the main thing I've learned is, it's not about me. It's not about my ego, or my territory, or my results, but about what contribution I make to the whole. In the old mindset, all our divisions were competing and it hurt the company...Now we need to actualise a position past that, of unity and unselfish synergy'

I'm not making this up, or even really hamming it. It's very close to Maoism in practice, or an exhortation to Stakhanovism, what Jacques Ellul would call horizontal propaganda; if you repeat sycophantic doggerel for long enough, it takes over as a reflex I guess, and critical thought gets swamped. Same as the education system!

(That and I consider HR to be parasites on the whole, but that's a private bugbear, hehe)

It's also kinda funky imo, in that a lot of the arguments aganst socialist planning (large bureaucratic organizations making longterm predictions etc) are solidly instantiated in multinational corporations...Course, corps are also kind of a incoherence for the libertarian argument about lots of small decentralized players in the market place, whereas the reality on the ground is large oligopolistic players. I'm quite in favour of 'yeoman' capitalism, I think it's ideologically correct anarchism, Comrades!

synd

Under the capitalist mode of organization property, wealth and social power invariably become concentrated. Now if property is equated with freedom then surely it follows that under conditions of market competition, some will end up with more freedom than others. Furthermore, those without property who must avail of the means of subsistence - must, by degrees, subordinate themselves before the despotic regime of the private domain.

There are, in reality only two forms of social decision making - majority rule and minority rule. The notion that constitutional rule exists as a third option is a fallacious argument, in reality constitution is generally compiled by a minority. I am of the opinion that people should have, and would prefer ''given the option'' an equal share in the construction and application of the decisions that effect their own lives. Minority rule dis- empowers the subordinated, blames them for their lack of initiative and uses their consequent apathy to justify further domination.

Libertarians are of the opinion that peoples degree of participation in the determination of their own life conditions should be decided by their socio economic position. The language of individual property rights serves the function of preserving a system that subordinates the many to the rule of the few. Only in the public domain can democracy exist. The market, given its pre-disposition to expand in the quest for new sites of investment is compelled to privatize all public spaces. This process facilitates the replacement of all democratic space with autocratic institutions.

Given our irreconcilable ideological difference - we wont settle for anything less than the complete democratization of every space conceivable. Opposition to this is ''by definition'' despotic and must be smashed by force to attain freedom.

Libertarianism will always appeal to the rich and powerful - thankfully they are in the minority.

synd

It's also kinda funky imo, in that a lot of the arguments aganst socialist planning (large bureaucratic organizations making longterm predictions etc) are solidly instantiated in multinational corporations...Course, corps are also kind of a incoherence for the libertarian argument about lots of small decentralized players in the market place, whereas the reality on the ground is large oligopolistic players. I'm quite in favour of 'yeoman' capitalism, I think it's ideologically correct anarchism, Comrades!

State capitalism = fail. Free market = ultra fail. On planning. It wouldn't be a large bureaucracy - planning can done via IT. The Austrian complexity/calculation argument is pretty much dead in the water at this point, gaussian elimination isn't required using successive approximation. It been calculated that using computers such as the Fujitsu VP200 or the Hitachi S810/20 - labor values for entire economies can be found in a matter of minutes. Price as defined by demand tells us nothing about needs, it tells us about the ability to pay. Supply and demand is grossly inefficient - its erratic in a manner that leads to sorts of socially undesirable outcomes. Price would be far better determined by a constant - like socially necessary labor time.

silverharp

synd wrote: »

Under the capitalist mode of organization property, wealth and social power invariably become concentrated. Now if property is equated with freedom then surely it follows that under conditions of market competition, some will end up with more freedom than others. Furthermore, those without property who must avail of the means of subsistence - must, by degrees, subordinate themselves before the despotic regime of the private domain.

ok, so lets roll out Bill Gates from central casting, does the fact that he is billionaire oppress the the software engineers or clerical staff etc that earn a good living working for him?

Akrasia

Kama wrote: »

Every ideology needs an enemy. In both anarchocapitalism and anarchosocialism it's predominantly the State, hence the close cousins comment.
And frankly, if libertarians can't agree on allowing each other a different flavour of libertarianism...well, fail tbqfh.

Anarchists main enemy is heirarchy and domination. The state is one representation of that, but capitalism is just as authoritarian as any dictator. The power relationship between owners and workers is absolute, and when you factor in the other elements like 'private security' and 'private armies' I can't help but get shivers down my spine at the thought of private mercinaries protecting 'private property' (which includes our city streets and public parks) against 'trespassers' (homeless people, children from broken families etc)

Who would these people turn to for protection from these 'security forces'? they have no money to pay for defence or their own security. Their only chance would be to form their own militia for self defense, but it is 100% guaranteed that these would be declared to be 'terrorist organisations' and there would be a brutal crackdown on the poor.

asdasd

and when you factor in the other elements like 'private security' and 'private armies' I can't help but get shivers down my spine at the thought of private mercinaries protecting 'private property

Riiiight. Um, at the moment we generally dont have private armies protecting private property. Instead we socialise the protection of property with via a democratic State and it's democratically elected police force, guarded by the division of power between the police force, laws, the judicary and the Public working through it's representatives.

Come the anarchist "revolution" private armies are a dead certainty, for reasons I outlined earlier. If property is not guaranteed by law, it is guaranteed by force. The communes had better be armed or it will lose it's produce. The State may have a chance of taking Roman Abromovichs property, but anarchists certainly cannot. If the State breaks down we get gangsterism

You wouldn't have a hope.

Akrasia is a good example of the cultist mind. There is no actual way to convince him he is wrong. I am really here to show anarchists up to neutrals. He "states as facts" the position in anarchism without regard to human nature, previous history, science, reason or logic. His addled brain thinks that public property ( parks etc.) are private property, seemingly because the State far too occasionally removes it of anti-social elements ( which is the least the tax-payer funded State can do for the taxpayer who wishes to use a park he subsidises). he thinks that a state police force, subject to law, is a private police force - but is should be clear that anarchism needs private police forces as there will be no State.

And we still dont know how to get from here to there. Do we? I asked a few simple questions about a series of existing Irish workers, and their circumstances and how they could be transformed. I may as well have been talking to a brick.

For those of us with scientific training this is a delight. I will continue the fun with more questions on how we transform society later.


Neutrals can expect no answers.

asdasd

For people too lazy to read the links here is what Stephen Pinker had to say

As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order.