Political Theory

Re: Anarcho-communism

Neodoxy — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:29:12 GMT

Extremely relevant to the conversation:

... Carry on.

Re: Anarcho-communism

Kelvin Silva — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:57:38 GMT

arachno communism could work, id actually agree that it already exists.

Re: Anarcho-communism

Anenome — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:03:39 GMT

lol, Malachi :)

Re: Anarcho-communism

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:47:42 GMT

So killing for greed.

Re: Anarcho-communism

Malachi — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:03:18 GMT

Presumably the workers were enjoying the full product of their labor or something. And when they caught humans in their web and ate them, well thats just like killing a capitalist because you want a part of the wealth he has accumulated over his lifetime.

Re: Anarcho-communism

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:39:55 GMT

Why?

Re: Anarcho-communism

Malachi — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:38:48 GMT

Arachnophobia the movie depicted a hive of arachnids, so that might be considered an instance of arachno-communism.

Re: Anarcho-communism

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:36:27 GMT

Bump. This is too good of a conversation to get swept away.

Re: Anarcho-communism

stsoc — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:40:59 GMT

I don't understand. How is the relationship between "slaveowner and the slave" voluntary in any way? The slave, I'm assuming, did not voluntarily enter into that relationship.

People have become slaves troughout history by selling themselves, it existed in every law until some couple of centuries ago, in antebellum America six states had laws that explicitly mentioned the word "voluntarily" in the laws about the "freedom" of free "Negros" to sell themselves. E.g. In Luisiana a law was passed in 1859 which is about how could "free persons of color to voluntarily select masters and become slaves for life".

It's the same with lord and serf, subject and autocrat.

Oaths of fealty and pactus subiectionis were almost always accepted voluntarily. People accepting them were forced to do so by economic cincrumstances (of course, those who sold themselves into slavery, too), and capitalists, afaik, do not consider that coercion.

Who would enforce such rules?

People themselves. Socialism would probably mean a popular millitia. Or the community could decide that there should exist job positions of policemen in the community, and one could do that job and meet the labor quota needed to consume the products from the common storehouse. The job of policemen, like the laws they would enforce would be decided by extensive deliberation and plebiscites. They would be considered a simple brach of industry that the community wants to have.

E.g. Hungarian Revolution in 1958 tried to established socialism, and among other workers' councils like mine worker, agricultural, and factory worker councils, there were councils of "state emplyees", that is councils of police and army who joined the revolution and who didn't have a hierarchical, but simply an organisational, equal democratic position among other workers' councils.

The question of whether police is a branch of industry a socialist society would need is one of the few organizational question where socialist schools diverge. Other questions are prefence between markets, arkets, or monyless economies; and whether should socialists use elections and gain power in the state in order to dimsantle it, or should there be a direct action revolution (general strike with armed conflict).

Moreover, for a large group, doesn't this imply hierarchy?

Every complex organization will require some level of representation for needs of coordination, but I don't see any need for hierarchy.

If it is true as a matter of fact that a society organized along the lines you've described would witness initially egalitarian workers' cooperatives transformed into entities which are functionally identical to normal corporations

Which I don't find true.

I admit that I'm not an expert in that literature, but from what I have read, I'm not terribly impressed (I find a lot of it basically incomprehensible)

Well, as far as anarcho-communism is concerned, the ideas of organization are in the books of Kropotkin himself- The Conquest of Bread, and Fields, Factories and Workshops, and an anarcho-communist vision of a large scale industrial society, also called anarcho-syndicalism, is best presented in Diego de Santillan's After the Revolution.

I don't have any preference for egalitarianism as such, or any problem with hierarchy as such.

Nor any problem with hierarchy.

Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?

I would like you, if it's not too much trouble, to post on here your stance on things so we can all hear your viewpoints, i.e. what kind of society you want to see and why.

I cannot go into detail in a few sentances, but I can say that all socialists: mutualists, anarcho-individualists (which is a type of mutualism), anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-sydicalists (which are a type of anarcho-communists), parecon (a type of anarcho-collectivism), council communists (similar to anarcho-communists, except in details in tactics), orthodox marxists (also called world socialist), De Leonists (similar to anarcho-sydicalists, exept in some tactics), guild socialists (similar to anarcho-sydicalists and De Leonists), Esers, liberal socialists (like Ricardians, Hodgsinks, Thompson, Mill, which are similar to mutualists); all these types of socialists disagree on the three questions I mentioned above, but all want the same thing: a non-hierarchial economy without unearned incomes where people are free to organize according to ideas of any of these schools.

Re: Anarcho-communism

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:28:43 GMT

@ stsoc

I would like you, if it's not too much trouble, to post on here your stance on things so we can all hear your viewpoints, i.e. what kind of society you want to see and why.

Re: Anarcho-communism

Anenome — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:08:47 GMT

I too have no desire to impose egalitarianism. Nor any problem with hierarchy.

It is only aggression that I despise. And, seemingly without fail, those in favor of egalitarianism and against hierarchy suggest using aggression to achieve their ends, for such ends can only be thus achieved.

Re: Anarcho-communism

Minarchist — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:57:54 GMT

stsoc:
Only technological utopians espouse this view. All other communists (being that you mentioned "common storehouse" you means a communistic type of socialism) are both for informal limits on how much one can take from the common storehouse, and a more formal limit of a minimal quota of labor contribution necessary to make all the products that are to be in that common storehouse that would allow one to take from the storehouse in the first place.

Who would enforce such rules? Given that violations of these rules would be crimes against the public interest, not crimes against anyone in particular, it seems you need something like a public prosecutor, as well as public police, because it's in no one's particular interest to spend resources deterring, catching, prosecuting, and punishing offenders. Moreover, for a large group, doesn't this imply hierarchy? Doesn't the initial creation, periodic alteration, and enforcement of such rules requires some kind of standing body of people specializing in these tasks, people who "tell others what to do"?

Could be called something like that. E.g. each factory would be owned by it's corporation, and the corporation would be a workers' cooperative contituted by the workers in that factory.

Right.

I do not see how coops coul be hierarchical. If they are hierarchical, they are not genuine coops...Which is not a justification of hierarchy.

If it is true as a matter of fact that a society organized along the lines you've described would witness initially egalitarian workers' cooperatives transformed into entities which are functionally identical to normal corporations, indeed, that is not an ethical justification of hierarchy, but it is a problem for your theory. Likewise, if it were true as a matter of fact that the emergence of the State in an anarcho-capitalist society is inevitable, that would not be an ethical justification of the State, but it would pose a major problem for anarcho-capitalism. In other words, if the respective facts of the matter turned out that way for your version of socialism or for anarcho-capitalism, it wouldn't make them unethical political systems, but it would make them utopian political systems.

There are ideas of socialistic organization that are made for large-scale industrial societies, like (a type of anarcho-communism) anarcho-syndicalism. And that has been proved to be economically fiesable by the Spanish Revolution where Catalonia and Andalusia were organised according to it's tenets.

I admit that I'm not an expert in that literature, but from what I have read, I'm not terribly impressed (I find a lot of it basically incomprehensible). But I guess for me it almost doesn't matter whether such socialist organization is feasible, because even if it were, I don't see why it's desirable. I don't have any preference for egalitarianism as such, or any problem with hierarchy as such. Strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Re: Anarcho-communism

SkepticalMetal — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:32:27 GMT

@ stsoc

"Yes. Voluntary relation between a slaveowner and the slave, lord and serf, subject and autocrat, employer and employee would be abolished. So would hierarchical forms of army, marriage, organized religion, etc."

I don't understand. How is the relationship between "slaveowner and the slave" voluntary in any way? The slave, I'm assuming, did not voluntarily enter into that relationship. It's the same with lord and serf, subject and autocrat. But the employee on the other hand voluntarily entered into the agreement to work for the employer.

Re: Anarcho-communism

stsoc — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:08:30 GMT

Private property belongs to individuals, and entails the right to exclude others from the use of that property. This is obviously what libertarians are interested in. By "public property" I mean property belonging to the State. Now, this is somewhat problematic, because (ignoring how the State acquires its property), public property is functionally identical to private property insofar as the owner in each case has the right to exclude others from the use of the property, which is the essence of property. This is what we see in State-socialism.

As you said, "public property" being functionally the same as "private property", it's not state socialism, but state capitalism. The point of socialism is to institute a different notion of property, which we deem legitimate, as opposed to the current one.

The problem I mentioned, of people being able to avoid work while taking what they like from others (from the "common storehouse," etc) is an instance of the tragedy of the commons.

Only technological utopians espouse this view. All other communists (being that you mentioned "common storehouse" you means a communistic type of socialism) are both for informal limits on how much one can take from the common storehouse, and a more formal limit of a minimal quota of labor contribution necessary to make all the products that are to be in that common storehouse that would allow one to take from the storehouse in the first place.

Finally, judging by your comments elsewhere, your version of socialism seems to admit of private property. just not private ownership of the means of production. So then, for you, the tragedy of the commons problem only arises with respect to the means of production, which is commonly owned (i.e. not owned at all). Is that right?

Socialistic notion of property is that of a strict interpretation of labor theory of property. Under socialistic theory of property, areas of land cannot be property (being that they are not products of labor) but could only be "occupied-and-used" (as Tucker popularised the term), and rent is illegitimate, also intellectual property. To have constant income, one would have exert constant labor.

are really just corporations if they own the capital.

Could be called something like that. E.g. each factory would be owned by it's corporation, and the corporation would be a workers' cooperative contituted by the workers in that factory.

And if that's true, well then I'm trying to think what your "socialism" actually amounts to, and how it differs from anarcho-capitalism.

The view on property as I explained.

And actually, I think it's event debatable whether in the long-term worker's cooperatives would be less hierarchical (however exactly one defines that) than standard capitalist-owned firms.

I do not see how coops coul be hierarchical. If they are hierarchical, they are not genuine coops.

I'd concede that very small cooperatives could remain fairly egalitarian

There are ideas of socialistic organization that are made for large-scale industrial societies, like (a type of anarcho-communism) anarcho-syndicalism. And that has been proved to be economically fiesable by the Spanish Revolution where Catalonia and Andalusia were organised according to it's tenets.

And it seems to me that the cooperatives which grew to a large size yet remained stubbornly egalitarian in organizational structure would fall behind and be driven out of business by other firms which were willing to introduce hierarchy.

Which is not a justification of hierarchy.

Re: Anarcho-communism

Minarchist — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:35:41 GMT

stsoc:
Well, this is considered by socialist as immoral, someone's preference for it in no way justifies it.

This sort of baffles me.

To my mind, there are three types of property: private, public, and common. Private property belongs to individuals, and entails the right to exclude others from the use of that property. This is obviously what libertarians are interested in. By "public property" I mean property belonging to the State. Now, this is somewhat problematic, because (ignoring how the State acquires its property), public property is functionally identical to private property insofar as the owner in each case has the right to exclude others from the use of the property, which is the essence of property. This is what we see in State-socialism. And finally, common property is really a misnomer, it's not property at all but rather the absence of property: as no one has any right to exclude anyone else from its use.

Now, if socialism wishes to abolish private property, and is anti-state, all that remains is common property: i.e. no property at all. The problem I mentioned, of people being able to avoid work while taking what they like from others (from the "common storehouse," etc) is an instance of the tragedy of the commons. That's my position. So, returning to your comment, are you saying that in fact socialism does involve property (either private or public), or that, indeed, there is only common "property," but nonetheless somehow people are to be discouraged from exploiting it in such a way as to cause a tragedy of the commons?

Finally, judging by your comments elsewhere, your version of socialism seems to admit of private property. just not private ownership of the means of production. So then, for you, the tragedy of the commons problem only arises with respect to the means of production, which is commonly owned (i.e. not owned at all). Is that right?

Note: If you say that the workers' collectives own the means of production (as opposed to the means of production being commonly owned - and these are very different claims), well then really you do allow for private property on all levels, as I would argue that the workers' collectives (stripped of their metaphysical/mystical qualities) are really just corporations if they own the capital. And if that's true, well then I'm trying to think what your "socialism" actually amounts to, and how it differs from anarcho-capitalism. It seems the only distinction is your prohibition on workers renting the means of production, as you put it, the only real effect of which is to alter the structure of corporations and make them less hierarchical. And actually, I think it's even debatable whether in the long-term workers' cooperatives would be less hierarchical (however exactly one defines that) than standard capitalist-owned firms. As we all know, the people cannot literally rule. It is logistically impossible, especially for a business enterprise which has to actually be productive, and cannot externalize its costs onto taxpayers. I'd concede that very small cooperatives could remain fairly egalitarian, since there's less need for management in a simpler and smaller operation. But why would cooperatives remain small? Wouldn't they, like any other capitalist-owned firm, seek to exploit economies of scale? And it seems to me that the cooperatives which grew to a large size yet remained stubbornly egalitarian in organizational structure would fall behind and be driven out of business by other firms which were willing to introduce hierarchy. So, ultimately, I think you'd end up with a bunch of "workers cooperatives" which are structured very much like normal corporations, with various hierarchies of management and so forth. The only difference would be the absence of "the capitalist." But then again, if the cooperative actually owns the means of production, and the workers control the cooperative, it amounts to a joint-stock corporation, with the workers as shareholders - and that's in fact how many real cooperatives operate today. And then...well, what the heck's the difference between this and a normal corporation?

....My apologies for this very long and not very tightly focused post.