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.