[Ademir]

You mentioned exclusive use, not seizure. I assume some local group could make some collective agreement not to share proceeds with others, or lie about their production if there is such as sharing arrangement in place. Also a local group could very well exploit some natural resource on their own without a general surveillance system.

If property was collective, but then came to be used exclusively by an individual, it would need to be seized first. In other words, you can't really have exclusive use of something without owning it, because ownership is what gives you the right to prevent others from using it.

Your second point is interesting though, although this would only be a problem if the resources in question were scarce (no one would conspire to withhold something like bread, for example, at least currently while bread is abundant). I don't think it necessitates a police state however, a type of neighbourhood watch/local militia would do just fine.

[yrkoon]

If property was collective, but then came to be used exclusively by an individual, it would need to be seized first. In other words, you can't really have exclusive use of something without owning it, because ownership is what gives you the right to prevent others from using it.

There are no "rights" in anarchy since there is no legal system (and no enforcement). Anyone can do what they can get away with.

Your second point is interesting though, although this would only be a problem if the resources in question were scarce (no one would conspire to withhold something like bread, for example, at least currently while bread is abundant).

Well I believe production has a tendency to suffer over time under socialism, since it does not aim for maximum surplus but only for "need".

[Ademir]

There are no "rights" in anarchy since there is no legal system (and no enforcement). Anyone can do what they can get away with.

You are right of course, I meant to say "ability". But it doesn't change my main point. Also I don't think it is entirely fair to assume there would be no rules or enforcement of rules in anarchist society, it just wouldn't be imposed from the top down.

Well I believe production has a tendency to suffer over time under socialism, since it does not aim for maximum surplus but only for "need".

Maximising surplus has no function if everyone's needs are met. Of course, individuals may produce "surplus" amounts of something that they won't use themselves, but collectively, there wouldn't really be a need to produce a surplus for society (unless there was a common goal in mind, eg. hoarding materials to build a cool new machine that would make work easier).

[yrkoon]

You are right of course, I meant to say "ability". But it doesn't change my main point.

My definition of "exclusive use" is not preventing others from using it, but withholding produce from it for one's own purposes. Perhaps some section of the economy would begin to think they are better off trading their surplus instead of giving it away, without any surveillance.

Maximising surplus has no function if everyone's needs are met.

And that's why it is less prepared for change (such as population increase, war, natural disaster). Also bad planning might cause scarcity, especially in anarchy (how would some local producer know how much everyone in society is supposed to "need").

[Ademir]

My definition of "exclusive use" is not preventing others from using it, but withholding produce from it for one's own purposes. Perhaps some section of the economy would begin to think they are better off trading their surplus instead of giving it away, without any surveillance.

Exclusive use in the sense of private property means exactly having the power to do with it what you will. This can include withholding produce even when someone is producing something from your property (capitalism) or entirely disallowing others to use it. The point is, you have the POWER to exclude someone from using this thing, even if it would benefit them immensely. This power creates hierarchies and dependence and this is why most anarchists oppose it.

And what use would trade or hoarding surplus be in a society where all your needs are met? Someone mentioned in another thread - why would you hoard 10 microwaves if there is no one willing to buy it (because they are freely usable)? One would be enough for your use.

And that's why it is less prepared for change (such as population increase, war, natural disaster). Also bad planning might cause scarcity, especially in anarchy (how would some local producer know how much everyone in society is supposed to "need").

On the contrary, it's perfectly prepared for change. If people produce exactly what they need, then if disaster strikes, they will adjust their production accordingly. Democracy would replace money as an indicator of how much demand or need there is for a particular good or service. Don't confuse democratic planning with Soviet-style planning, as the latter was based entirely off the Communist Party's (incorrect) ideas about what people needed (or as was often the case, what they thought the USSR needed regardless of people's needs).

[ThereBeDragons]

On the contrary, it's perfectly prepared for change. If people produce exactly what they need, then if disaster strikes, they will adjust their production accordingly.

Absurd. Production cannot simply "adjust" overnight. For example, if there was to be massive and catastrophic crop failure in a widely cultivated monocultures, a seed bank - the running of which is unprofitable and thus could not exist in a purely profit-driven society - could well serve to avert total disaster.

[yrkoon]

Exclusive use in the sense of private property means exactly having the power to do with it what you will.

And my argument is that this power can exist in anarchy locally, since power is in the end not about legal finesse but what people actually can and will do with it.

And what use would trade or hoarding surplus be in a society where all your needs are met? Someone mentioned in another thread - why would you hoard 10 microwaves if there is no one willing to buy it (because they are freely usable)? One would be enough for your use.

Capitalists have even now all needs met, yet they seek more (according to Marxist theory at least).

Democracy would replace money as an indicator of how much demand or need there is for a particular good or service.

Even if it would somehow work, it would seem to apply mostly to existing goods and services and innovation would be potentially quite limited. After all innovation meets no "need". Practically I also believe this would probably in the long run cause a breakup of the anarchic society, modern democracies do not exactly have peaceful and orderly politics (compared to the preceding monarchies).

[Ademir]

Absurd. Production cannot simply "adjust" overnight. For example, if there was to be massive and catastrophic crop failure in a widely cultivated monocultures, a seed bank - the running of which is unprofitable and thus could not exist in a purely profit-driven society - could well serve to avert total disaster.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - you seem to be criticising my point but then it looks like you're opposed to profit-driven societies because they can't prepare for disaster. Please clarify your point. What I was trying to say is, if there was a major catastrophe, communist society could produce or do what is needed to fix the issue because it operates on the basis of need, making a solution more likely than in a society where the relief would only come if someone profited from it or if authoritarian planners were lucky enough to predict exactly what relief was needed.

Obviously, if the situation is so bad that no food can be produced at all (which is highly unlikely - there is plenty of food for everyone on earth, and a communist society would only make alternative sources of food more easily accessible), I don't see how a capitalist economy would deal with this any better.

And my argument is that this power can exist in anarchy locally, since power is in the end not about legal finesse but what people actually can and will do with it.

I understand your point, I just believe it is highly unlikely that someone could take control of a factory/mine/whatever in a functioning anarchic society. Firstly, why would the collective majority just sit back and allow this to happen? Secondly, what would be the point? So you can produce lots of goods which you have no use for and can't sell to anyone because everyone already has all their needs met for free? Thirdly, even if you did manage to do this successfully, how would you be better off, since the rest of society would likely cut you off from itself (for example, no one is going to give you food freely if you are acting aggressively towards them and denying them something)? Finally, who in their right mind would choose to work for you when the alternative is having all their needs met?

Capitalists have even now all needs met, yet they seek more (according to Marxist theory at least).

While their needs are generally met, they seek to acquire surpluses, especially of things they don't need, because their needs being met is not guaranteed, but reliant on them having enough money. Because surpluses can be turned into money, which can then be used to acquire other things they may need either now or in the future, there is a reason to have surpluses. In a society where everyone can simply take a microwave if they need one, what use would it be for you to take 9? Who would buy them from you?

Even if it would somehow work, it would seem to apply mostly to existing goods and services and innovation would be potentially quite limited. After all innovation meets no "need". Practically I also believe this would probably in the long run cause a breakup of the anarchic society, modern democracies do not exactly have peaceful and orderly politics (compared to the preceding monarchies).

Innovation certainly does meet needs. If work is really hard because your tools are inefficient, inventing new ones would be extremely helpful. People would just invent new things which would make their lives easier or more enjoyable. This is demonstrated by primitive communism - profit did not exist in early human tribal societies, and yet, the productive forces developed as new innovations were created to make people's lives easier (such as farming). Profit is simply a new type of motive in societies which came afterwords, but it is not the only motive in existence.

Of course there would be different views and interests, but this would be drastically reduced if everyone was materially equal and had all their needs fulfilled. Besides, even modern democracies don't disintegrate every time someone is unhappy with the social order. If anything, conflict and the like stems precisely from differences in material interests in current societies.

[yrkoon]

I understand your point, I just believe it is highly unlikely that someone could take control of a factory/mine/whatever in a functioning anarchic society.

I am still not talking about overt seizure, but clandestine "exclusive use" that can only be prevented with surveillance. Perhaps corruption is an analogy.

Because surpluses can be turned into money, which can then be used to acquire other things they may need either now or in the future, there is a reason to have surpluses. In a society where everyone can simply take a microwave if they need one, what use would it be for you to take 9? Who would buy them from you?

Assuming that I accepted this analysis, projected scarcity of food for example could also cause the same behaviour in the anarchy.

Innovation certainly does meet needs. If work is really hard because your tools are inefficient, inventing new ones would be extremely helpful. People would just invent new things which would make their lives easier or more enjoyable.

Socialism is claimed to work only as the successor to capitalism, basically because most inventions have been already made in that stage. The tools would probably be considered "good enough", and that would severely limit any incentive to innovate. In an anarchy without central planning perhaps the infrastructure would also decay over time, as few would bother voluntarily educating themselves about the technology as long as they have their "needs" fulfilled.

Of course there would be different views and interests, but this would be drastically reduced if everyone was materially equal and had all their needs fulfilled.

Everyone cannot have all their needs fulfilled at the same time in democratic planning.

[Ademir]

I am still not talking about overt seizure, but clandestine "exclusive use" that can only be prevented with surveillance. Perhaps corruption is an analogy.

Give me an example of what you mean.

Assuming that I accepted this analysis, projected scarcity of food for example could also cause the same behaviour in the anarchy.

Food scarcity in a global communist society would really only be a problem in the case of global famine. However, I agree that many important resources are very limited (or at least not infinite), I just don't think food falls into this category. Stuff like oil, for example. I don't want to speculate on exactly how this would be dealt with, but remember that there would still be rules and a form of "government" in this society (just no state). There is no reason why democratic solutions to resource distribution could not be found, if scarcity was a real issue.

Socialism is claimed to work only as the successor to capitalism, basically because most inventions have been already made in that stage. The tools would probably be considered "good enough", and that would severely limit any incentive to innovate. In an anarchy without central planning perhaps the infrastructure would also decay over time, as few would bother voluntarily educating themselves about the technology as long as they have their "needs" fulfilled.

Socialism can only work once productive forces have been built under capitalism, yes - these forces are required, necessary, and this includes the many inventions under capitalism. But this in no way means people will stop developing the forces beyond what is merely necessary. People would continue to invent things that would be useful to them. Simply because, the easier work becomes, the more freedom they will have. Who wouldn't want that? I also don't know why you assume infrastructure would decay, the people who maintain it and build new infrastructure would still exist.

Everyone cannot have all their needs fulfilled at the same time in democratic planning.

This is true only if the resource in question is scarce. However, democratic planning would still be more equitable and conducive to a stable and progressive society than a market. I would prefer scarce resources to be allocated based on democracy rather than to be purchased and hoarded by the wealthy. At least that way if I don't get what I want, at least I know I had a say in the matter and started from a position of equality. This is much less likely to result in social disintegration than a system where people never had a say in whether they could have access to something.

[yrkoon]

I am still not talking about overt seizure, but clandestine "exclusive use" that can only be prevented with surveillance. Perhaps corruption is an analogy.

Give me an example of what you mean.

Encyclopedia of Soviet Life

What is a Kulak

but remember that there would still be rules and a form of "government" in this society (just no state).

Nice cop out playing with words. This is no longer anarchy to me, maybe communism but not anarchy.

There is no reason why democratic solutions to resource distribution could not be found, if scarcity was a real issue.

Democracy only works if all people on average are educated and intelligent. I do not believe that would be the case, and poor planning is likely to be frequent.

People would continue to invent things that would be useful to them. Simply because, the easier work becomes, the more freedom they will have. Who wouldn't want that?

Then there would have to be someone specialized in meeting this "need", otherwise division of labor prevents it. Education needs hierarchy.

I also don't know why you assume infrastructure would decay, the people who maintain it and build new infrastructure would still exist.

People would have a choice of whether to maintain it or not, instead of being paid for it. But there would be no immediate need that requires it, people would have other priorities most of the time.

Everyone cannot have all their needs fulfilled at the same time in democratic planning.

This is true only if the resource in question is scarce.

About everything has some level of scarcity in the current price system. Where are the wealthy stashing away all those hoarded resources now? I thought they were hoarding useless things like gold and stocks.

[Ademir]

The USSR was either state capitalist or a form of degenerated socialism (I'm leaning towards the former), but it definitely wasn't communist or anarchic.

Nice cop out playing with words. This is no longer anarchy to me, maybe communism but not anarchy.

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. "Government" would exist though not in the current sense. The point is, there will be no monopoly over force or any body which could coerce you beyond the collective stopping you seizing their property. Anarcho-capitalism is a different story, however; a state would emerge, it would just be privatised.

Democracy only works if all people on average are educated and intelligent. I do not believe that would be the case, and poor planning is likely to be frequent.

It doesn't require extraordinary intelligence to know what your needs are. You would just express ideas like "we need a barrel of oil this week" with a vote rather than money. Again, you are confusing democratic planning with top-down authoritarian planning typical of Soviet states, which took no account of what people actually wanted.

Then there would have to be someone specialized in meeting this "need", otherwise division of labor prevents it. Education needs hierarchy.

There would be no division of labour in a communist society, it would be a redundant concept. When labour has become life's prime want people will labour on their own terms, rather than those they are coerced into by the threat of starvation. Changing your "work" would be easy, and in addition, if you undertook to invent something which you believed was useful to you, you would not face financial risks or the risk of starvation. Education would continue to exist, I don't know why you assume otherwise.

People would have a choice of whether to maintain it or not, instead of being paid for it. But there would be no immediate need that requires it, people would have other priorities most of the time.

I think the risk of it falling on your head and killing you is an immediate need.

About everything has some level of scarcity in the current price system. Where are the wealthy stashing away all those hoarded resources now? I thought they were hoarding useless things like gold and stocks.

The price system creates artificial scarcity, because hoarding commodities has a use under a price system. Without this system only what is needed would be consumed and resources could be shared on a global level to fulfil these needs without the impediment of profit-making eg if you experience a famine in your area you can get food from other sources without having to pay.

[yrkoon]

The USSR was either state capitalist or a form of degenerated socialism (I'm leaning towards the former), but it definitely wasn't communist or anarchic.

To me it was an honest attempt.

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. "Government" would exist though not in the current sense.

To govern is synonymous with to rule.

The point is, there will be no monopoly over force

You have already said a local militia is needed to prevent exclusive use of natural resources.

It doesn't require extraordinary intelligence to know what your needs are.

Not present but future needs, that's what planning is about after all. Some economists suspect not even supercomputers is enough to predict future needs of an entire society.

There would be no division of labour in a communist society, it would be a redundant concept.

Fantasy to me, no one can learn everything. What would probably happen is then that everyone would eventually grow his own crops and everything else would slowly fall apart in the anarchy. I am not discussing communism, if that is what you are debating I have no more interest in this discussion.

[Ademir]

To me it was an honest attempt.

Then criticise it as a particular way of trying to construct socialism, not as an example of an anarchist or communist society in action.

To govern is synonymous with to rule.

Not if the "governor" is society as a whole organised from the bottom up. This would be no more than "ruling" over oneself, and thus shares little with the common idea of authority or rule.

You have already said a local militia is needed to prevent exclusive use of natural resources.

This is not the same thing as a state; it doesn't have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force because it is voluntary and entirely answerable to and composed of the members of the society which it is defending, not separate to them like state institutions eg the army. Again, the only thing it could "rule" over is itself, which really means autonomy. Besides, no state can exist where there are no classes.

But fundamentally, I do agree that such action would be a form of coercion. I expressed this belief way back in my first post when I said that no society could function with no coercion at all, the point was minimising it. A society has to at least be able to defend itself from chaos. I simply believe more coercion exists in anarcho-capitalism, hierarchies and exclusion and the like, while anarcho-communism only limits your ability to coerce others. I am a Marxist, I don't really oppose coercion if it's in my class' interests, and any anarchist who claims that coercion can be completely abolished is hopelessly idealistic. At the very least, members of a society have to defend against others trying to coerce them.

Not present but future needs, that's what planning is about after all. Some economists suspect not even supercomputers is enough to predict future needs of an entire society.

I agree, that's why democratic "planning" isn't really planning in the traditional sense at all. It is a market where votes have replaced money. Votes give signals as to what needs are and work is adjusted accordingly. If alot of people complain that there aren't enough TVs then more TVs are made; just as if alot of people are willing to pay for TVs more TVs usually get made. The advantage of votes is that everyone has an equal say. (Note that by votes I basically mean "expressed needs" - I'm not suggesting that some kind of voting system resembling current ones would exist, that would be baseless speculation).

Fantasy to me, no one can learn everything. What would probably happen is then that everyone would eventually grow his own crops and everything else would slowly fall apart in the anarchy. I am not discussing communism, if that is what you are debating I have no more interest in this discussion.

I didn't say everyone would learn everything. They would simply be free to do whatever they wanted, and could change work at will. As a result, there would be no systemic "division of labor" as in capitalist society which would limit your ability to do what you wanted. I guess what I mean is, work would be divided (obviously, can't do everything at once) but the idea of certain people only doing certain things would vanish.

Why not discuss it? The whole point of the thread is that anarcho-capitalism is not really anarchism, since most forms of anarchism are communistic/collectivist. As such it's relevant to compare the qualities of the two different societies (insofar as we can)

[yrkoon]

Then criticise it as a particular way of trying to construct socialism, not as an example of an anarchist or communist society in action.

I have no interest in discussing practical implementations of Marxism (it can be defined as almost anything without private property, and therefore can't really be debunked). And there is a separate forum for that (although maybe one would get quotes by Marx or Lenin instead of realism there).