meambobbo: Human action is designed to maximize psychic benefits, not economic ones. We can never know the correct choices to maximize others' happiness.
Human action is designed to maximize psychic benefits, not economic ones. We can never know the correct choices to maximize others' happiness.
Exactly. If it makes them happy to live in a communal society then that's great. If it economically fails then that's their problem. If it doesn't workout then maybe they'll start reading Rothbard's stuff instead of Albert's.
Jon Irenicus: I think you'd better hide the fact that Chomsky endorses it.
I think you'd better hide the fact that Chomsky endorses it.
You guys don't hate Zinn do you? And what do you think about Keith McHenry? Food Not Bombs might be the largest anarchist organization on Earth and it literally saves lives every day.
Robin: If it economically fails then that's their problem. If it doesn't workout then maybe they'll start reading Rothbard's stuff instead of Albert's.
If it economically fails then that's their problem. If it doesn't workout then maybe they'll start reading Rothbard's stuff instead of Albert's.
One would have to be particularly naive to think that when their false utopia collapses, they won't demand food and shelter from me, by force if necessary.
Robin:The primitist cultures that are being prevented to live that way are the natives who are being pushed off their land by governments. Not so much in this country anymore (since most were already murdered), but definitely in South America. And yes, I would consider native tribal cultures to be anarcho-primitists.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
liberty student: I think that ultimately communal property rights + democracy = tyranny.
I think that ultimately communal property rights + democracy = tyranny.
No. Coercion equals tyranny. If people choose to live in a communal democracy then there is no tyranny.
liberty student: It doesn't matter if democracy is forced. As soon as a vote is taken, and the majority "win" over the minority you're no longer in a voluntary paradigm.
It doesn't matter if democracy is forced. As soon as a vote is taken, and the majority "win" over the minority you're no longer in a voluntary paradigm.
It is voluntary because there is no coercion. They can leave at any time. If they choose to do what the majority want then why do you care?
liberty student: I don't really care what people join or what they do. Until they show up on my doorstep, demanding my home and my property. AnSocs are much more likely to do so than AnCaps.
I don't really care what people join or what they do. Until they show up on my doorstep, demanding my home and my property. AnSocs are much more likely to do so than AnCaps.
Neither are likely to do that. The state is likely to do that. How about we all work together to remove the state from our world?
Robin:No. Coercion equals tyranny. If people choose to live in a communal democracy then there is no tyranny.
The tyranny of the majority.
Robin:Neither are likely to do that. The state is likely to do that. How about we all work together to remove the state from our world?
Neither are likely to do that? Sorry, I'm a student of history. Democracies get very oppressive when they can't provide the prosperity and bliss they promise. And when they can't squeeze their own people any more, they start to squeeze their neighbors.
I'm working to get out from under the state. Getting rid of the state is the beginning, not the end.
Juan:Oh, when you mentioned anarcho-primitivists I thought you were talking about people in, say, the US or Europe who didn't want to live in an industrial society.
Well, I meant them also.
Juan: On the other hand...I live in south america (argentina) and know that some of the people you refer to as anarcho-primitivists choose to leave the countryside and move into cities. Also, I wouldn't regard these people as anarchists, if by that you mean they are voluntarists.
If they promote coercion, then they weren't the ones I was thinking about. I basically think of anarcho-primitists as anyone who wants to re-wild (or never unwilded in the first place) and does not promote coercion.
liberty student: One would have to be particularly naive to think that when their false utopia collapses, they won't demand food and shelter from me, by force if necessary.
Again, you can't just generalize an entire group like that. They are not all the same. If their economy starts to fail, then they will get jobs in the an-cap society. If anyone tries to take something of yours by force, then kick their ass. I'll even help ya
liberty student: The tyranny of the majority.
Again, there is no tyranny if there is no coercion.
liberty student: I'm working to get out from under the state. Getting rid of the state is the beginning, not the end.
Of course.
Robin:Again, you can't just generalize an entire group like that.
But I thought we were generalizing these groups, by assuming they can work together based upon common goals...
Robin: Juan: Oh, when you mentioned anarcho-primitivists I thought you were talking about people in, say, the US or Europe who didn't want to live in an industrial society. Well, I meant them also.
Juan: Oh, when you mentioned anarcho-primitivists I thought you were talking about people in, say, the US or Europe who didn't want to live in an industrial society.
If they promote coercion, then they weren't the ones I was thinking about.
Robin: liberty student: The tyranny of the majority. Again, there is no tyranny if there is no coercion. liberty student: I'm working to get out from under the state. Getting rid of the state is the beginning, not the end. Of course.
The will of the majority being forced upon the minority *is* coercion. It may not always be physical coercion, but it is coercion nonetheless (i.e. an easy example of this would be the package deal "solutions" the state employs towards various problems). Would you like to argue, like the anarcho-communists, on what coercion is "best" for society? Otherwise, you are cherry picking coercion, just as they are. on the basis of a collectivist belief (i.e. the majority).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Robin: liberty student: I think that ultimately communal property rights + democracy = tyranny. No. Coercion equals tyranny. If people choose to live in a communal democracy then there is no tyranny. liberty student: It doesn't matter if democracy is forced. As soon as a vote is taken, and the majority "win" over the minority you're no longer in a voluntary paradigm. It is voluntary because there is no coercion. They can leave at any time. If they choose to do what the majority want then why do you care? liberty student: I don't really care what people join or what they do. Until they show up on my doorstep, demanding my home and my property. AnSocs are much more likely to do so than AnCaps. Neither are likely to do that. The state is likely to do that. How about we all work together to remove the state from our world?
1.) How does this communal democracy deal with outside collectives and/or the possible outside polycentric society? Hopefully by not going to war with various people for resources, because democracy's don't rely on that at all (a bit of stinging sarcasm there, but justified).2.) How do you define choose, how does one measure consent, etc.3.) If the majority decide on Statism, does that mean it is morally correct? That, anarchism be damned, if the majority desires Statism again, should those who do not desire Statism be worried? Especially if the people who believe in majoritarianism think that they're way is better than the non-Statist way? What guarentee would there be that such a Statist collective would be entirley voluntary, regardless?4.) Coercion is not limited to physical coercion; this includes social coercion. Take for example how The State coerces you into paying your taxes with the threat of the IRS, yet, among people in The State, it is frowned upon on those who do not pay their taxes, & those who who second-guess it might very well reverse their rebellion based upon gossip. Not the best example, but there are many others if you look. Before you are threatened with physical coercion, you are threatened with social coercion (i.e. austerity by your peers). 5.) Poppycock. AnSoc's without respect for a polycentric law could easily demand property, An-Caps could too; you must look to see if the individual has a Statist streak or not. Example: Anarcho-Communists may view only the type of coercion beign used that needs to be questioned, not the concept itself; I could easily imagine a property dispute right there. *Edit: I apologize for not quoting per my responses, I had to re-write this after Firefox randomly exited out & erased my previous response... :(
This is getting out of hand. What Robin is saying isn't support of statist democracy. Voluntary democracy works very simply. The only difference between voluntary democracies and the non-federal US democracies (the states), is that there are much less transaction costs to nullifying one's contract with government. In other words, you need only take the time to find an adequate replacement rather than move hundreds of miles. Furthermore, one can be the citizen of multiple governments at once if one so chooses.
This is no different from an employment contract. You may not like x, y, and z about your job; but you like a, b, and c more; so you stay. If you choose to quit at anytime, no one can force you to work. If you were paid in advance, they have the right to use force to re-acquire their advance; but they cannot compell your future choices. Terminations of any unions are usually messy, but that does not mean they are either impossible or come at a steep cost in violence.
In a voluntary democracy, you may not like the outcomes of votes x, y, and z, but you like votes a, b, and c more, so you stay. You can leave at any time, and any breach of your property rights or freedom thereafter is aggression and may be met with force. There would most likely be non-democratic governments that you could hire to protect yourself from your former government. Things can get messy, depending upon how vague one's former laws were, and how willing former and new governments are to risk escalation of economic conflict into violence. This still represents a better situation than statist democracy.
I have to add - the main difference that I see between statism and anarchism is geographical limitation. This is because the state claims to own all land within their sight without regard to homesteading and simultaneously behaves as an unabashed coercive monopoly. As long as anarchist democracies didn't use force to defend property rights to land that wasn't homesteaded or compell citizenship onto the unwilling, I fail to see how they threaten anarcho-capitalism. Furthermore, given that anarcho-capitalism is said to describe the most productive use of scarce resources, anarcho-democracies that did act unlawfully according to anarcho-capitalist principles should be unable to defend themselves when their aggression is checked.
I fail to see how self-government (anarchism) is as dangerous as statism, simply because some groups choose to govern themselves in a form we dislike. Statism seeks to allow only as much self-governance as will allow the state to retain power, otherwise using coercion to increase its own power and extend this border. Its ultimate formation is one world government with absolutely no choice for the individual, other than the bones thrown to him by the state (such as the illusion of voting) to keep him from revolting. Anarchism on the other hand is the power of the individual, in freely choosing how he shall be governed. Group cooperation resulting from this philosophy further empowers the individual, not some other group at his expense. If it did, it would be rejected.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Juan:So, my point is valid ? They can move to the countryside -- nobody is stopping them?
Yes, your point is valid. No one is stopping the people in Europe and the US from moving to the country side. But governments in other nations aren't always so respectful of the property rights of people who choose to live primitive lives.
Thanks,Robin
liberty student: But I thought we were generalizing these groups, by assuming they can work together based upon common goals...
That's also a valid observation. Thanks for pointing that out
I think it's safe to say that some of them can work together with you guys and some of them can't. I'm just guessing that most of them can.
Check out the website Anarchism.net
That whole site is devoted to helping unite all the different types of anarchists.
Also, I found something on Wikipedia that you guys might like:
"Anarchism without adjectives", in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others,…[it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools".[100] "Anarchism without adjectives" emphasizes harmony among various anarchist factions and attempts to unite them around their shared anti-authoritarian beliefs. The position was first adopted in 1889 by Fernando Tarrida del Mármol as a call for toleration, after being troubled by the "bitter debates" among the different anarchist movements.[101] Voltairine de Cleyre,[102] Errico Malatesta,[103] and Fred Woodworth are noteworthy exponents of the view.[104]
Nitroadict: Otherwise, you are cherry picking coercion, just as they are. on the basis of a collectivist belief (i.e. the majority).
Otherwise, you are cherry picking coercion, just as they are. on the basis of a collectivist belief (i.e. the majority).
I'm not cherry picking coercion. I'm against all coercion. If some group takes a vote and I choose to obey the decision, then I was not coerced to do anything.
BTW, we're not talking about the American form of democracy here. We're talking about anarcho-socialists.
meambobbo: This is getting out of hand. What Robin is saying isn't support of statist democracy. Voluntary democracy works very simply.
This is getting out of hand. What Robin is saying isn't support of statist democracy. Voluntary democracy works very simply.
You're probably right meambobbo. I think after reading about ParEcon, I just can't help but see Marxism. And we know how that turns out in action. Statist democracy on steroids.
I think there is a distinction to be made between democracy where the loser withdraw after voting against, (basically a market action) and democracies that expect the losers to go along with the result of the vote, regardless of how they feel about it.
Now, one could say "I will go along because I believe in my peers and democracy" but then, why bother to vote for or against? Just let the democracy decide, if you're willing to subvert your opinion regardless of the outcome.
Nitroadict:1.) How does this communal democracy deal with outside collectives and/or the possible outside polycentric society? Hopefully by not going to war with various people for resources, because democracy's don't rely on that at all (a bit of stinging sarcasm there, but justified).
However they choose. If it results in war and conflict, they better have the workforce, capital, technology, intelligence, willpower, and economic system to produce what they need to win their wars. Such a battle between similar groups of anarcho-democrats and anarcho-capitalists could tip favor away from democracy if ancaps won it. There's no need to stress the NAP, because any group can simply define aggression, so that ___ group has already aggressed against them.
Of course, these battles could simply be economic only. As far as trade, democracies would vote on their trading policy. Ancap groups would be restricted to free trade policies. It would work the same way as nations do now, only there would not be clear geographic distinctions. In that line of thought, it'd be next to impossible to prevent free trade. This is yet another reason why Ancap has the balances tilted in its favor.
Nitroadict:2.) How do you define choose, how does one measure consent, etc.
If one hires a different group/tribe/government to protect himself against the aggression of another group, or simply resists himself, it is quite clear that he does not consent. Yet, will is less meaningful than power. So long as one has the power to incur greater costs than benefits against those who attempt to coerce him, he will most often remain free. Where he has a choice amongst coercive entities but not enough power to resist them all, given no other costs/benefits (such as having to move), he will always choose the least coercive one. It is quite clear that one believes he has not chosen or has terminated his agreement with a government that taxes him, when he pays another agency at a more expedient pay schedule to prevent the former group from taxing him.
Nitroadict:3.) If the majority decide on Statism, does that mean it is morally correct? That, anarchism be damned, if the majority desires Statism again, should those who do not desire Statism be worried? Especially if the people who believe in majoritarianism think that they're way is better than the non-Statist way? What guarentee would there be that such a Statist collective would be entirley voluntary, regardless?
Will everyone ever agree on a single moral code? No. Statism is seen as moral to some and immoral to others. The point of anarchism isn't simply a basis of morality, but one of practicality. It has moral foundations that most would agree with. It's true deterrent is the public's belief in its impracticality in acheiving its goals. The basis of anarchism is not competing governments and individuals, but cooperating ones. That is, individuals band together against aggressive coercion under the banner of self-government. If one group attempts to declare it is morally obligated to subvert another's will, that is statism. Voluntary democracy is take-it-or-leave-it. If you attempt to leave it and they don't let you, they are being statist. If you leave it then try to re-enter, they won't have you back, and you use force to re-enter, you are the statist. Again, it is insignificant whether some majority believes in the morality of statism. Do they have the power to implement it? I feel anarchism is a fundamental shift in society, just as we shifted away from aristocracy to democracy. Once it is out the bag in some large-scale example, it will always have more power than the old regimes of statism.
Nitroadict:4.) Coercion is not limited to physical coercion; this includes social coercion. Take for example how The State coerces you into paying your taxes with the threat of the IRS, yet, among people in The State, it is frowned upon on those who do not pay their taxes, & those who who second-guess it might very well reverse their rebellion based upon gossip. Not the best example, but there are many others if you look. Before you are threatened with physical coercion, you are threatened with social coercion (i.e. austerity by your peers).
I think Aristotle once argued that there was no thing as coercion, that even when faced with death, you alone have the power over your decisions. Obviously, we understand coercion is not simply force, but also threat of direct harm to one's person and property. It is not coercion for a democracy to demand taxes, and if you don't pay, they stop providing you the services that they offer. It is another thing to attempt to steal your property or imprison your body if you do not pay.
Otherwise, we venture into the coercive libertarian philosophy, which is a completely flawed ideology. This basically states that I should be able to use force to secure ___ freedom. For example, other people shouldn't be able to forbid me from their property if I choose to make statements that offend them.
It is less important that there is a common societal definition of coercion than there is a power structure devoted to opposing it. Consider our current state. Most don't know half about how it operates and how it defines crime, but they support its endevour to eliminate crime, even while not realizing that the state is committing crime. The fundamental reason that this situation exists is not lack of public knowledge about the definition of crime and understandings of coercion, but lack of market competition to provide protection against not only petty criminals but the state itself.
Nitroadict:5.) Poppycock. AnSoc's without respect for a polycentric law could easily demand property, An-Caps could too; you must look to see if the individual has a Statist streak or not. Example: Anarcho-Communists may view only the type of coercion beign used that needs to be questioned, not the concept itself; I could easily imagine a property dispute right there.
I agree, but as I said, it's not so much about whether some group is coercive in ___ area, but whether or not they can do so continuously and profitably in an anarchist environment. Without a firm form of taxation (individuals can freely hire protection against such from others), any agency's power is derived from their market demand. Foolishly engaging in costly policies diminishes its ability to provide its core services to consumers, who may fly to different agencies, which decreases its ability to pay for its coercive adventures. It's like the ever-expanding democratic welfare state; it's destined to collapse because its fundamentals are flawed.
Of course, power doesn't always end up on the "right" or moral side, according to one's view of aggressive coercion. Anarchism does not claim to offer utopia. It is simply a system designed to put much greater limits on government tyranny.
Nitroadict:How does this communal democracy deal with outside collectives and/or the possible outside polycentric society?
Nitroadict:What guarantee would there be that such a Statist collective would be entirely voluntary, regardless?
Nitroadict:Before you are threatened with physical coercion, you are threatened with social coercion (i.e. austerity by your peers).
Nitroadict:you must look to see if the individual has a Statist streak or not.
Robin:And how do you know it would even be a democracy? Tons of an-socs prefer consensus over democracy.
Robin:Statist collective? Statists are not anarchists.
Robin:Do you mean name calling? Sorry, but I wouldn't even consider that coercion.
Robin:Who do you think has a Statist streak?
meambobbo: This is getting out of hand. What Robin is saying isn't support of statist democracy. Voluntary democracy works very simply. The only difference between voluntary democracies and the non-federal US democracies (the states), is that there are much less transaction costs to nullifying one's contract with government. In other words, you need only take the time to find an adequate replacement rather than move hundreds of miles. Furthermore, one can be the citizen of multiple governments at once if one so chooses. This is no different from an employment contract. You may not like x, y, and z about your job; but you like a, b, and c more; so you stay. If you choose to quit at anytime, no one can force you to work. If you were paid in advance, they have the right to use force to re-acquire their advance; but they cannot compell your future choices. Terminations of any unions are usually messy, but that does not mean they are either impossible or come at a steep cost in violence. In a voluntary democracy, you may not like the outcomes of votes x, y, and z, but you like votes a, b, and c more, so you stay. You can leave at any time, and any breach of your property rights or freedom thereafter is aggression and may be met with force. There would most likely be non-democratic governments that you could hire to protect yourself from your former government. Things can get messy, depending upon how vague one's former laws were, and how willing former and new governments are to risk escalation of economic conflict into violence. This still represents a better situation than statist democracy. I have to add - the main difference that I see between statism and anarchism is geographical limitation. This is because the state claims to own all land within their sight without regard to homesteading and simultaneously behaves as an unabashed coercive monopoly. As long as anarchist democracies didn't use force to defend property rights to land that wasn't homesteaded or compell citizenship onto the unwilling, I fail to see how they threaten anarcho-capitalism. Furthermore, given that anarcho-capitalism is said to describe the most productive use of scarce resources, anarcho-democracies that did act unlawfully according to anarcho-capitalist principles should be unable to defend themselves when their aggression is checked. I fail to see how self-government (anarchism) is as dangerous as statism, simply because some groups choose to govern themselves in a form we dislike. Statism seeks to allow only as much self-governance as will allow the state to retain power, otherwise using coercion to increase its own power and extend this border. Its ultimate formation is one world government with absolutely no choice for the individual, other than the bones thrown to him by the state (such as the illusion of voting) to keep him from revolting. Anarchism on the other hand is the power of the individual, in freely choosing how he shall be governed. Group cooperation resulting from this philosophy further empowers the individual, not some other group at his expense. If it did, it would be rejected.
Thank you meambobbo. You are my hero
liberty student: You're probably right meambobbo. I think after reading about ParEcon, I just can't help but see Marxism. And we know how that turns out in action. Statist democracy on steroids. I think there is a distinction to be made between democracy where the loser withdraw after voting against, (basically a market action) and democracies that expect the losers to go along with the result of the vote, regardless of how they feel about it. Now, one could say "I will go along because I believe in my peers and democracy" but then, why bother to vote for or against? Just let the democracy decide, if you're willing to subvert your opinion regardless of the outcome.
Hayek's Road to Serfdom was about the essentiality of socialist/fascist systems to require central planning and totalitarianism; however, I need to read more of it. I am not sure this applies to anarcho-socialism, but systems under which one is already compelled by statism to operate under. For instance, if the government prohibits everyone in ___ geographic area from producing cars except businesses A, B, and C, we would expect centralized planning to result. If individuals A, B, and C start a syndicate to produce cars under collective property agreements, this has little effect on other producers of cars and shouldn't require central planning. However, the resources to build the cars will have to be acquired by the syndicate either directly from nature, from other syndicates, or in the market. They cannot forcefully compell others not to build cars or own ___ capital goods or sell them raw materials at ___ price. For some reason, socialists think cooperating syndicates using democracy would be more efficient than individuals cooperating through capitalist market principles. I don't, but in the absence of the state, it would be statism to refuse to let them try.
I have heard critiques of the USSR and Mao, claiming that republicanism and communism are incompatible. They claim these historical regimes were state-capitalist rather than socialist or communist. This is different from our definition of state-capitalism. They basically claimed that those elected to state power effectively "owned" the capital, and thus soaked up the prosperity of labor. IE, laborers were still enslaved by the system. They claim the syndicates (different sects of industry) must self-govern themselves directly democratically to prevent this, rather than elect officials. I have several objections with this argument; however, I'll save those for another day. It's simply important to note that many Marxists claims that Marxism has never been given a fair chance.
Finally, you are taking one fact for granted. Under anarchism, a democratic union is a private institution. One cannot stand in line for the benefits and simply leave the system every time an unfavorable decision is made. If one refused to pay dues, for instance, he should not expect fire or police service. If one leaves the system, one cannot expect to be welcomed back in with open arms. This would be akin to showing up to your job only every pay day and expecting a full two week's pay.
Of course, I think this is another reason why Ancap would excel. One needs not worry about votes or changes in law, or the opinionated whims of others. One's only requirements to remain in the system are to make his payments and resolve any disputes he has with others, especially those subscribing to the same agency. Thus, he has clear, objective standards to prevent ostracism, in addition to the ability to sample competitors' services without penalty.
Nitroadict:An-soc's would still be utilizing majoritarianism, methinks.
Yes, but a majority of which group? An-socs could indeed use majority, super-majority, or even unanimous voting as definitions of collective choice. This point is moot. The real point is who is this group of Ansocs attempting to enforce its choices upon. If this is simply the members of its own group, there is no problem. On the other hand, If this is anyone they stumble upon, this is statism. If this is former members of its own group who recently renounced their "citizenship" or contract, this is also statism. Even if a member does not approve of the outcome of a vote does not mean he rejects the institution as a whole. Similarly, just because Obama got elected doesn't mean die-hard Republicans are calling for a revolt, secession, civil disobedience, or even civil war.
meambobbo: in the absence of the state, it would be statism to refuse to let them try.
in the absence of the state, it would be statism to refuse to let them try.
Again, thank you meambobbo.
Nitroadict:Since when was being an anarchist a pre-requistie for being in a collective? I think you are a bit naive here.
No, that's not what I meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just confused because you keep bringing up Statists when we are talking about an-socs. Not even close to the same thing.
meambobbo:For some reason, socialists think cooperating syndicates using democracy would be more efficient than individuals cooperating through capitalist market principles. I don't, but in the absence of the state, it would be statism to refuse to let them try.
meambobbo:It's simply important to note that many Marxists claims that Marxism has never been given a fair chance.
meambobbo:Finally, you are taking one fact for granted. Under anarchism, a democratic union is a private institution. One cannot stand in line for the benefits and simply leave the system every time an unfavorable decision is made. If one refused to pay dues, for instance, he should not expect fire or police service. If one leaves the system, one cannot expect to be welcomed back in with open arms. This would be akin to showing up to your job only every pay day and expecting a full two week's pay.
No one likes losing an election or referendum. That's when the crying starts.
How does parecon differ from syndicalism BTW? I see no problem for workers' coops in market anarchism (that is as part of the market, not just co-existing with it), but I'm pretty sure parecon goes further.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Liberty Student, I am not suggesting that we reexamine Marxism. Whenever I become skeptical of some free market stuff, I give Marx a whirl. His theories I find do not apply to real life and are mostly based upon class envy, not a desire for a more efficient economic system. Mises outright destroys Marxist arguments in his writings. And as Marxism is statism, I surely will never support it.
Claiming that republicanism leads to state capitalism whereas direct democracy is true communism means little to me. I understand their point, but disagree with their outcomes. I think there is still plenty room for totalitarian tyranny under direct democracy. Furthermore, any gains you make in preventing officials from soaking up the wealth would be replaced by the inefficiency of direct democracy. The fundamental point, however, is that nationalizing the means of production cannot produce prosperity. Whether people are dying in firing squads or due to hunger is less important than realizing Marxism is a spiritually poor doctrine.
On the other hand, anarcho-socialism I would also consider economically flawed, but not leading to tyranny. It is not statism. The way I see market anarchy is that if some people started "crying" for statist compulsion for governance, there would be a more powerful group ready to protect individuals from them. For instance, let's say one sect of ansocs starts attempting to become statist upon another group of ansocs. The oppressed could hire protection from an ancap group, should they be unable to defend themselves.
meambobbo:On the other hand, anarcho-socialism I would also consider economically flawed, but not leading to tyranny. It is not statism. The way I see market anarchy is that if some people started "crying" for statist compulsion for governance, there would be a more powerful group ready to protect individuals from them. For instance, let's say one sect of ansocs starts attempting to become statist upon another group of ansocs. The oppressed could hire protection from an ancap group, should they be unable to defend themselves.
I'm confused here. Are you addressing something I wrote, or are you sharing an opinion not tied to something I wrote?
Jon Irenicus: How does parecon differ from syndicalism BTW? I see no problem for workers' coops in market anarchism (that is as part of the market, not just co-existing with it), but I'm pretty sure parecon goes further.
How do you define "syndicalism"?
And as far as I know, ParEcon is just like a workers' co-op. I own the book and I've read about 90% of it. Some businesses have already adopted participatory economics.
liberty student: To be clear, no one is saying that anyone else should be refused anything.
To be clear, no one is saying that anyone else should be refused anything.
Oh... so what's the problem then? Why can't an-socs and an-caps work together?
meambobbo: On the other hand, anarcho-socialism I would also consider economically flawed, but not leading to tyranny. It is not statism.
On the other hand, anarcho-socialism I would also consider economically flawed, but not leading to tyranny. It is not statism.
Honestly, isn't that all that really matters? People should be allowed to try new types of business operation. Live and let live, right?
AnCap - AnSoc
Profit good - Profit bad
Free trade good - free trade bad
Subjective theory of value - Labour theory of value
Voluntarism - Democracy
Markets - Communes/Councils
Private ownership of capital good - Private ownership of capital bad
Individual liberty as one of the highest ideals - Communal comfort as one of the highest ideals
Sharing, charity - Sharing, obligatory
Did I get any of these wrong?
Robin:Honestly, isn't that all that really matters? People should be allowed to try new types of business operation. Live and let live, right?
An ideology that focuses on socializing losses and mistakes, is that an ideology that won't turn on me, as an outsider, when it's mistakes become too numerous?
I think Mises understood the evils of socialism. That it is not benign, or just another system or a fun experiment, or a weekend lark.
Now I am for you organizing, however you will, but when your system fails, as we (Austrians) are inclined to believe, it inevitably will, I will deal with you harshly, if you think you or your comrades can in any way, compromise my life and property. And it's easy to say you won't, just like it's easy to say that people want to go live in the jungle. But we know a lot of anarcho-primitivists will starve to death, and we know, that socialism always leads to violence in the face of tyranny and poverty.
In MY opinion, living next to an ANSOC commune, would be like living next to a belligerent racist who owns a nuke. It's only a matter of time until there is big trouble.
I think this conversation doesn't do justice to the seriousness of the question about socialism. It is not benign. It is inherently coercive, because there is no expectation or protection for private property. I'm all for showing socialists the errors of their belief system, I'm not interested in turning a blind eye (tu ne cede malis) or participating in their agenda, even if it is common (sed contra audentior ito) in one small aspect.
Honestly, a post state world without ansocs, would be doubleplusgood. That said, if people want to go do it, go nuts. Just remember, the state is a socialist enterprise, not a capitalist one.
My original point about Marxism was that many from the right-wing side pay little attention to the complaints of communists about the very regimes you mentioned. They claim it they were state-capitalism, not true communism...or true socialism designed to lead to communism. In other words, they lay the blame for millions of dead Russians and Chinese on capitalism, not Marxism.
I do not support Marxism in any shape or form, mainly because it is statism, but also because I believe it is a flawed economic system. The real problem isn't economic inefficiency, however. It's coercive compulsion (aka slavery) to remain in this bankrupt system. Without state compulsion, people who were misled about the promised prosperity of communism, no matter its form, can quickly abandon it, or develop rival communist systems. In other words, they could experiment without violating the conditions of a free market.
You said when people lose elections, that's when the crying starts. Well, are we talking about statist democracy as we have now or voluntary democracy that we'd have under anarchy? Under statism, it doesn't matter if you vote for, against, or abstain. The outcome will be compelled upon you. Under anarchy, there is no society-wide democracy. Various ansoc tribes would hold votes, but they could not compell the outcomes upon anyone, even their own members. However, if members refused to accept the outcomes, they would no longer be entitled to the benefits, as they are effectively no longer part of that voluntary democratic union.
Here's an example: let's say I join a syndicate to farm corn. The syndicate collectively owns numerous capital goods to accomplish this. To decide who works when, using what machinery, the syndicate takes democratic votes. Our income results from trading our corn with other market entities, such as capitalist individuals or other syndicates, which is also determined by democratic votes. I join, and I like my income. We trade with an automobile syndicate and a consumer electronics syndicate. One day, however, our corn tribe decides to take a vote on changing who we trade with. Rather than exchange corn for automobiles and electronics, we propose trading for beets. I am firmly opposed and vote nay, however, the majority votes yay. I can whine all I want. We're still trading our corn for beets. I can refuse to work. This doesn't compell the democracy to change their trade decision. It also means I violate the conditions of syndicate membership, and the syndicate will no longer provide me with a cut of the collective income. The syndicate cannot force me to work, and I cannot force them to provide me income. Thus, I join a new syndicate, or abandon such collectives altogether and embrace free market capitalism.
It seems like we are having a simple misunderstanding. Are you suggesting that voluntary democracy in various ansoc tribes as I describe above will probably lead to statism? If so, how? As I said, there are always whiners. The point should be that the whiners are not the ones in power, the anti-statists are. This is simply because anti-statism is a more efficient system of production, including defensive services, especially capitalist anti-statism.
liberty student:In MY opinion, living next to an ANSOC commune, would be like living next to a belligerent racist who owns a nuke. It's only a matter of time until there is big trouble.
I see what you are saying now; however, this argument is fundamentally flawed. You are assuming ansocs will fail economically and in the face of poverty turn to crime. This definitely would violate the conditions of a utopian free market. Anarchism, however, is not a utopian ideal. In an idealistic society, we would have no need to produce weapons or defensive services and everyone would simply obey the rules. To maintain a free, non-idealistic society, we rather only need to simply ensure that the freest groups and individuals are more powerful than the coercive and criminal ones.
Do you honestly believe that socialists can build weapons of plunder more productively than capitalists can build weapons of defense, while at the same time admitting that this threat of plunder is only due to socialism failing to produce enough basic goods to maintain survival? You are basically advocating the arms race against the Soviets here.
Indeed, living next to a crack pot who you suspect will resort to crime isn't ideal. But you counter this risk by devoting some of your income to security. So long as criminals are thwarted more often than they succeed, the amount of income you devote to security can significantly lessen over time. This is one reason the state is predominate. It prevents individuals from acquiring the means to defend themself against the state, while at the same time plundering them and increasing its own arsenal.
meambobbo:My original point about Marxism was that many from the right-wing side pay little attention to the complaints of communists about the very regimes you mentioned. They claim it they were state-capitalism, not true communism...or true socialism designed to lead to communism. In other words, they lay the blame for millions of dead Russians and Chinese on capitalism, not Marxism.
Yeah, but I don't understand why you make this point. Of course socialists don't want to take responsibility for the outcomes of socialism, any more than they are willing to admit that free trades in an open market are a key component of individual liberty. Or that man is not a selfless creature who acts not in his own self-interest.
meambobbo:You said when people lose elections, that's when the crying starts. Well, are we talking about statist democracy as we have now or voluntary democracy that we'd have under anarchy? Under statism, it doesn't matter if you vote for, against, or abstain. The outcome will be compelled upon you. Under anarchy, there is no society-wide democracy. Various ansoc tribes would hold votes, but they could not compell the outcomes upon anyone, even their own members. However, if members refused to accept the outcomes, they would no longer be entitled to the benefits, as they are effectively no longer part of that voluntary democratic union.
You join an ansoc group. Your capital is absorbed into communal capital. Vote occurs, you're not happy. You try to leave with your capital (which you relinquished ownership to by joining the group), violence ensues. Or you stay, because you cannot survive outside the commune without your capital.
When you lose a vote, that is where the crying starts. The entire socialist paradigm is based upon compulsion, not market cooperation. You seem to continue to confuse the two. Go read up on ParEcon. Markets are bad. Free choices by individuals are bad.
meambobbo:It seems like we are having a simple misunderstanding.
That remains to be seen.
meambobbo:Are you suggesting that voluntary democracy in various ansoc tribes as I describe above will probably lead to statism?
Yes, because your example never addresses the resolution of the property rights issue.
meambobbo:The point should be that the whiners are not the ones in power, the anti-statists are.
When you have no absolute right to property, you're not in power.
meambobbo:I see what you are saying now; however, this argument is fundamentally flawed. You are assuming ansocs will fail economically and in the face of poverty turn to crime.
Like assuming water is wet, people who believe capitalists are evil and private property ownership does not exist (and thus, the right not to be aggressed against doesn't exist) are most likely to attack ancaps.
meambobbo:This definitely would violate the conditions of a utopian free market. Anarchism, however, is not a utopian ideal. In an idealistic society, we would have no need to produce weapons or defensive services and everyone would simply obey the rules. To maintain a free, non-idealistic society, we rather only need to simply ensure that the freest groups and individuals are more powerful than the coercive and criminal ones. Do you honestly believe that socialists can build weapons of plunder more productively than capitalists can build weapons of defense, while at the same time admitting that this threat of plunder is only due to socialism failing to produce enough basic goods to maintain survival.
Do you honestly believe that socialists can build weapons of plunder more productively than capitalists can build weapons of defense, while at the same time admitting that this threat of plunder is only due to socialism failing to produce enough basic goods to maintain survival.
Have you been outside lately? WE'RE LIVING UNDER THIS NOW!
I give up. My brain hurts, and the arguments are getting sillier with each post.
liberty student: Go read up on ParEcon. Markets are bad. Free choices by individuals are bad.
Go read up on ParEcon. Markets are bad. Free choices by individuals are bad.
You haven't even read the book. In participatory economics, people can leave the system anytime that they want.