Socialist Anarchism

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i'm glad we agree

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

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

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

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

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

do you want me to draw an org chart?

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

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dudess

synd wrote: »

Your a proponent of child abuse arn't you

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

granite man

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

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

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

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

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

Consider the analogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

synd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This coming from a libertarian, is unbelievable

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been explained already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not fear, but understanding.

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

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

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

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

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

synd wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your point, here?

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

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

This has been explained already.

No, it hasn't, at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

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

It's simple, No individual would have the 'right' to unilaterally fence off property and claim exclusive rights over it. There are other rights that they would have, such as the right to self determination and the right to provide food for oneself that might give you use rights over a particular plot of land, but even the most individualist of anarchists do not extend those rights beyond the land required to sustain one individual or family. (in other words, you can't claim use rights over a thousand hectares of prime farmland and hire workers and tenants to do the producing for you.
If the community decided that a field should be used to grow delicate crops or to graze dangerous animals, they could very well decide to restrict access to the land for people's own protection, it is also extremely likely that peope, would not be allowed to hold raves on ploughed fields growing vegetables. Most of this is common sense. You must have a very grim view of people if you think all of these common sense things need to be hammered down in minute legislation, If you believe that people are that stupid, it also has enormous consequences for your own 'rational choice theory' which is the bedrock of your ideology.

I'm sorry that you have a problem with the word 'would' but this is political theory and I can not use the alternatives of "will" and "are". All I can do is outline how I believe an anarchist society would work and defend those assumptions.

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

Because it has privatised and industrialised the countryside, pushed people off their land (farm reposessions were a major feature of the 20th century as capitalism drove the inputs in agricultural production up, things like pesticides, fertilisers, farm machinery etc that small farmers could not afford on the scale of their production but kept the prices low through the use of monoculture and the kinds of high technology the poor farmers can not afford) and driven people to the cities. Chck out this book, available for free on google books
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T9AS3_qGOFYC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=driven+farmers+off+their+land+developing+world&source=bl&ots=Tjizk_5NHv&sig=CzMEqChMhiXuJBPEZcrsdntK6xg&hl=en&ei=0j9cSuiJGoTU8wTkw-HkDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

I know you're going to say 'but without capitalism, these farms would be producing less and there'd be food shortages' But these communities had survived for thousands of years without food shortages and living sustainably within the limits of their environment, and within (less than) a hundred years of capitalist expansion, we have 1/6 of the world living in dire slums and ecological destruction on an unprecedented scale

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

are you genuinely concedeing a point? Never thought I'd see the day. (or more likely, you're unable to counter it so you prefer sarcasm)

What is your point, here?

The point is even in 'libertarian' free land, individuals would have to constrain their choices just as much as they would in an anarchist collective, except they wouldn't have the freedom to participate in public life (unless they were in the wealthy elite)

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

Is becoming a social pariah 'absolutely no consequence'?

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

It's clear at this point that you are not listening to any of the explanations and find it much more satisfying to argue against your own imagined version of anarchism

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

First of all, you propose a system where the minority can make these decisions on the basis of having control over the resources (this is why there are more golf courses than childrens playgrounds in Ireland) Your libertarianland might be full to bursting with posh art gallaries and opera houses and other playgrounds for the wealthy but there might not be enough schools or medical facilities for the low paid.
In Anarchism, the basic needs would be catered for first, then the surplus would be assigned democratically to meet the cultural and entertainment needs of the community. Your '51% get everything/49% get nothing argument implies that there is a solid voting block of 51% of all share exactly the same preferences (that's only true in capitalism where the 51% could be 1 person, and the preference is almost always 'more profit'. In the real world, people would make compromises, agree programs of development where minorities are catered for because these minorities are also part of the majority in other respects.

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

Are you suggesting there wouldn't be differences in culture. The onus is on you to show that rather than sneering replies that don't contribute anything

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

Why does there have to be a choice? The fans of 'alternative' music could have their venues, popular music could have their venues, just like there are disco pubs and ceili pubs and quiet pubs in every town in the country


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



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

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

More constructive comment. It is your contention that everything would be homogenous? Please provide evidence for that contention considering that anarcho syndicalist modes of production are nothing like centrally planned state communism.

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

You are demanding levels of detail that are not practical for me to provide on an internet discussion forum. If I demanded for you to provide a comprehensive organisational chart for how a piece of iron ore becomes a part of a space shuttle in capitalism, you would tell me to go **** myself.

Libertarians on these threads have consistently failed to give detailed answers on matters relating to how courts would decide disputes or conflicts between different 'property rights' declaring them 'matters of jurisprudence'

Why is that an acceptable answer, to defer to the decisions of the courts, for a libertarian, but an anarchist can not say that the details would be decided autonomously and democratically and may be different in each circumstance.

We have already outlined in detail the principles of anarchism and I have explained how syndicates can trade amongst each other through networks to enable access to the raw materials needed to produce goods and technology. What more do you want?

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

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

If the middle east wants access to irish agricultural produce or whatever resources we would be willing to trade, then they would supply oil. If some other country has a good or service that the oil producers want very badly, they would have trade rights for more oil than they can use, and if they wanted irish produce, they could trade the middle eastern oil that they have access to, for the goods we have to offer.
It's the network of different traders and syndicates that would facilitate trade, it's not all one to one bartering which is only a simplistic model used to demonstrate the concept to children.
There are many different websites and books that discuss the intricate workings of proposed syndicate structures if you like

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Akrasia wrote: »

If the middle east wants access to irish agricultural produce or whatever resources we would be willing to trade, then they would supply oil. If some other country has a good or service that the oil producers want very badly, they would have trade rights for more oil than they can use, and if they wanted irish produce, they could trade the middle eastern oil that they have access to, for the goods we have to offer.
It's the network of different traders and syndicates that would facilitate trade, it's not all one to one bartering which is only a simplistic model used to demonstrate the concept to children.
There are many different websites and books that discuss the intricate workings of proposed syndicate structures if you like

I'll have a look however developing the oil example, what form of accounting is used, will the oil countries be able to build up "investment" surplusus or could they only trade for what they can consume straight away? how do they motivate foreign experts to give up 3 to 5 years of their life living in difficult conditions to bring new production on. it would seem that there is a huge risk to underproduce or less motivation to do the difficult jobs in society.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its similar in anarcho syndicalism, the producer trades it's surplus with other syndicates who demand it. The difference is that the demand and supply are planned and negotiated in advance rather than just following market prices

Before you blunder ahead arguing that the socialists would just head down to the town hall to resolve all resource-allocation issues through the magic of participatory democracy, you might want to read up on the economic calculation problem. It just isn't as simple as you think it is.

The main difference between 'free markets' and syndicalism is that in free markets, the producers produce commodities to sell on an open market and have to guess at the level of demand for their produce. In syndicalism, the producers produce to order based on the demand that they know is out there, and they only produce enough to satisfy the demand (which is more efficient)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

There are other rights that they would have, such as the right to self determination and the right to provide food for oneself that might give you use rights over a particular plot of land, but even the most individualist of anarchists do not extend those rights beyond the land required to sustain one individual or family. (in other words, you can't claim use rights over a thousand hectares of prime farmland and hire workers and tenants to do the producing for you.

I'm asking you to tell me precisely what these rights are - do I have a right to have possessions and, if so, what is the limit of this? (Can I own three bicycles, for instance?) You seem to have tremendous difficulty answering this question, so I'll be as precise as possible. You claim that no individual can claim exclusive rights over a field, but can they claim exclusive rights over a kettle, a toaster, a TV, a loaf of bread, and so on? You have repeatedly failed to point out where the line is.

If the community decided that a field should be used to grow delicate crops or to graze dangerous animals, they could very well decide to restrict access to the land for people's own protection [...]

Similarly, if the community decides that I shouldn't be allowed to have three bicycles, can they take them from me?

I'm sorry that you have a problem with the word 'would' but this is political theory and I can not use the alternatives of "will" and "are". All I can do is outline how I believe an anarchist society would work and defend those assumptions.

The word 'would' is not what I have a problem with, what I have a problem with is the fact that you repeatedly make fantastical claims about every loose-end being tied up in anarcho-socialist land, without offering a scrap of evidence to back up your claim.

Because it has privatised and industrialised the countryside, pushed people off their land (farm reposessions were a major feature of the 20th century as capitalism drove the inputs in agricultural production up, things like pesticides, fertilisers, farm machinery etc that small farmers could not afford on the scale of their production but kept the prices low through the use of monoculture and the kinds of high technology the poor farmers can not afford) and driven people to the cities. Chck out this book, available for free on google books
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T9AS3_qGOFYC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=driven+farmers+off+their+land+developing+world&source=bl&ots=Tjizk_5NHv&sig=CzMEqChMhiXuJBPEZcrsdntK6xg&hl=en&ei=0j9cSuiJGoTU8wTkw-HkDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that. Please provide some detailed examples of how free-market capitalism has been directly responsible for these millions of deaths. Making vague claims doesn't count. I'll get the ball rolling: Mao's Great Leap Forward. Your turn.

are you genuinely concedeing a point? Never thought I'd see the day. (or more likely, you're unable to counter it so you prefer sarcasm)

Let's rewind a little; this is what you quoted:

Soldie wrote:

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

Here was your response:

Akrasia wrote:

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

I then said:

Soldie wrote:

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

My point is that if you wish your statement to be taken seriously, then back it up with some economics instead of assuming your word is the final say on the matter.

Is becoming a social pariah 'absolutely no consequence'?

Many people on the dole are already looked down upon, so I really can't see people being motivated due to their fear of being seen as a "social pariah".

It's clear at this point that you are not listening to any of the explanations and find it much more satisfying to argue against your own imagined version of anarchism

What's clear is that you haven't really given any explanation.

In Anarchism, the basic needs would be catered for first [...]

Please explain exactly what you mean by "basic needs", and then explain who would be responsible for deciding what "basic needs" are in anarcho-socialist land.

then the surplus would be assigned democratically to meet the cultural and entertainment needs of the community.

And here dies the individual in anarcho-socialism.

Your '51% get everything/49% get nothing argument implies that there is a solid voting block of 51% of all share exactly the same preferences

It's not my "51% get everything/49% get nothing argument, it's what we can only assume to be the case as you've refused to point out how the anarcho-socialist democratic system would work, other than making vague references to it.

Are you suggesting there wouldn't be differences in culture. The onus is on you to show that rather than sneering replies that don't contribute anything

What are you talking about? Those who go to galleries are a tiny minority, so it's safe to say that if there was a vote to decide if a gallery should be built, the no vote would win. Despite this, you express outrage at the very thought that there would be no cultural variation in anarcho-socialist land. Again, you ignore this reality and simply keep repeating the claim that there 'would be' a variation in culture under anarcho-socialism.

Why does there have to be a choice? The fans of 'alternative' music could have their venues, popular music could have their venues, just like there are disco pubs and ceili pubs and quiet pubs in every town in the country

But if everything was handled democratically, as you say it 'would be', then the reality is that populism would overwhelm and saturate everything. You seem to completely ignore this, and keep sticking to your 'would be' mantra.

More constructive comment. It is your contention that everything would be homogenous? Please provide evidence for that contention considering that anarcho syndicalist modes of production are nothing like centrally planned state communism.

I have very clearly explained that individualism and variety would literally die out overnight due to the fact that the underdog would continuously lose with your tyranny of the majority system. Again, you rattle on about having wonderfully diverse galleries with everything from Da Vinci to Van Gogh hanging on the walls, with top-notch concert venues catering for Britney Spears, Neil Young, and you name it - but, as usual, you don't offer one iota of logic to back it up, other than claiming it 'would be' the case.

You are demanding levels of detail that are not practical for me to provide on an internet discussion forum. If I demanded for you to provide a comprehensive organisational chart for how a piece of iron ore becomes a part of a space shuttle in capitalism, you would tell me to go **** myself.

Ranging from the limits of personal possessions to the nuts and bolts of how things are provided (hospitals, roads, computers, etc.), you've comprehensively failed to offer an even remotely detailed explanation of anything, really. For the final time: making ambiguous references to "syndicates" co-operating with eachother and inexplicably complex democratic systems, answering questions with questions, and feigning outrage such as 'Are you suggesting X wouldn't exist under anarcho-socialism?!' only serves to undermine your entire argument.

Libertarians on these threads have consistently failed to give detailed answers on matters relating to how courts would decide disputes or conflicts between different 'property rights' declaring them 'matters of jurisprudence'

Such as?

We have already outlined in detail the principles of anarchism and I have explained how syndicates can trade amongst each other through networks to enable access to the raw materials needed to produce goods and technology.

No, really, you haven't, at all.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Forgive me if i don't get excited about a debate between the walrasians and the austrians about free markets. It's a bit like a debate between the sun worshippers and the moon worshippers over which is the one true god.

How hard is it to understand the concept of producing goods to order rather than producing goods to place on the marketplace in the hope that there is demand.
Planning demand for staple goods based on population and average levels of consumption, and producing that amount of food or clothes rather than much more in the hope of increasing sales (in a competitive market,or restricting supply in the hope of increasing prices in oligopoly of markets protected by barriers to entry)

The consequence is that people might have to wait a little while for their goods to be produced and shipped and 'impulse buying' would be affected, but there's no great harm in that.