[SpiderMonkey]

Capitalism is an inherently statist force for two reasons:

1. It requires total participation within its area of effect. All must agree to the property paradigm or be dealt with in some way

2. It results in inequality of wealth and of power (in terms of control over the economy)

Nobody would participate willingly in an economic system designed to subordinate them to someone else, and thus some form of coercion must be used to make people participate. Regardless of whether or not this power has been devolved from a central government to a local businessman, it is still unmistakably the power of the state.

[Fasces]

It is not anarchy only because capitalism depends on government regulation to ensure the sanctity of the free market is kept, not for any of the reasons you have listed. In the same way, anarcho-communism is not anarchy, because it forces individuals to comply to a certain way of life, and live in a certain society, or face expulsion from the community. In short your proof disproves anarcho-communism as much as anarcho-capitalism.

[Phred]

Capitalism is an inherently statist force for two reasons:

1. It requires total participation within its area of effect. All must agree to the property paradigm or be dealt with in some way

Translation from Collectivist-speak to actual English:

All must agree to not steal stuff from others. If they do steal stuff from others, they will face punishment.

Nobody would participate willingly in an economic system designed to subordinate them to someone else, and thus some form of coercion must be used to make people participate.

This is of course nonsense. No one is coerced into subordinating themselves to someone else. In a Capitalist society, people are left entirely free to be self-employed or to form co-ops where every member of the co-op shares equally in the benefits (and drawbacks) of the co-op's operations.

Regardless of whether or not this power has been devolved from a central government to a local businessman, it is still unmistakably the power of the state.

It is "unmistakably" no such thing. The businessman has no power over anyone. His employees are free to leave at any time. The instant an employee feels his interests are better served by leaving the employ of the businessman, he can do so with no retaliation from either the businessman or the state.



Phred

[SpiderMonkey]

It is not anarchy only because capitalism depends on government regulation to ensure the sanctity of the free market is kept, not for any of the reasons you have listed. In the same way, anarcho-communism is not anarchy, because it forces individuals to comply to a certain way of life, and live in a certain society, or face expulsion from the community. In short your proof disproves anarcho-communism as much as anarcho-capitalism.

People would could conceivably agree to a communal way of life without coercion - it benefits all. Capitalism has no such capability.

Translation from Collectivist-speak to actual English:

All must agree to not steal stuff from others. If they do steal stuff from others, they will face punishment.

What a shallow argument. Define 'steal'

[Fasces]

People would could conceivably agree to a communal way of life without coercion - it benefits all. Capitalism has no such capability.

Psychologically, this is nonsense. There are collective horizontal societies in the world - and they would certainly be apt to turn towards communism, but in vertical individualist societies like the United States, and many parts of Europe, it would hardly be surprising to see the majority of citizenry turn to a capitalist system, given the choice.

This is of course in the unlikely event that people would ever consent to be ungoverned. If nothing else, they enjoy having someone to blame for their problems, and an anarchist system would leave them unable to do so. The fundamental flaw in all anarchist theory, from Objectivism to Primitivism, is the fact that people like being governed; more so, people depend on it. People are followers. The ones who are not become the governors.

[Paradigm]

Any sufficiently advanced society is inherently statist. Which is why any form of anarchy is a pipe dream.

[Oxymoron]

Anarchy is just what happens when a system is changed and Power points are rearanged.. There never was Anarchy, there was always those who are more powerful and those that are less powerful.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Any sufficiently advanced society is inherently statist. Which is why any form of anarchy is a pipe dream.

QFT. Mob rule sucks.

[SpiderMonkey]

Psychologically, this is nonsense. There are collective horizontal societies in the world - and they would certainly be apt to turn towards communism, but in vertical individualist societies like the United States, and many parts of Europe, it would hardly be surprising to see the majority of citizenry turn to a capitalist system, given the choice.

You've just disproved your own statement; the existence of those 'horizontal societies' means that humans can adapt to live that way. There is no evidence at all that there is a genetic foundation in what kind of society people desire.

This is of course in the unlikely event that people would ever consent to be ungoverned. If nothing else, they enjoy having someone to blame for their problems, and an anarchist system would leave them unable to do so. The fundamental flaw in all anarchist theory, from Objectivism to Primitivism, is the fact that people like being governed; more so, people depend on it. People are followers. The ones who are not become the governors.

This is, I will admit, a major obstacle to Anarchy - but one that can be overcome. Some people are ready to live without being governed and face the responsibility that entails, meaning that it is possible for a person - any person - to reach that psychological state where they are ready to toss away the blankie of leaders.

[yrkoon]

Psychologically, this is nonsense. There are collective horizontal societies in the world - and they would certainly be apt to turn towards communism, but in vertical individualist societies like the United States, and many parts of Europe, it would hardly be surprising to see the majority of citizenry turn to a capitalist system, given the choice.


You've just disproved your own statement; the existence of those 'horizontal societies' means that humans can adapt to live that way. There is no evidence at all that there is a genetic foundation in what kind of society people desire.

I don't think there has ever been any truly horizontal society. These primitive communities have engaged in warfare and for that a hierarchical organization is most efficient (and they usually have had religious leaders etc.). And even monkeys and flock animals have hierarchies (even though most of them do not practise warfare in the human way). The stronger will in their self-interest suppress the weaker (how the modern Western states basically came about, following the anarchy during the Fall of Rome).

[SpiderMonkey]

I don't think there has ever been any truly horizontal society. These primitive communities have engaged in warfare and for that a hierarchical organization is most efficient (and they usually have had religious leaders etc.). And even monkeys and flock animals have hierarchies (even though most of them do not practise warfare in the human way). The stronger will in their self-interest suppress the weaker (how the modern Western states basically came about, following the anarchy during the Fall of Rome).

Not only have horizontal communities occurred, they still do. Groups of friends meet, work towards common goals, sometimes live together - all without leaders and hierarchies. If anything should be considered a natural organization of humans, friendship should - and notice that in most cases it occurs without people trying to gain the economic upper hand.

If you insist on bringing animals into this (which is stupid from the start because human beings are not the same as other animals) at least get your facts straight - flocks do not have hierarchies. Its an emergent behavior.

[yrkoon]

Not only have horizontal communities occurred, they still do.

A community is not a society. Even Viking-era Iceland (which did not have any executive power, came about mostly through the opposition to such power, and was isolated from the rest of the world) had clans ruled by chieftains. If you claim such a society has existed you need to prove it.

If you insist on bringing animals into this (which is stupid from the start because human beings are not the same as other animals) at least get your facts straight - flocks do not have hierarchies. Its an emergent behavior.

What is this supposed to mean? The physical factors involved in the hierarchies can be studied scientifically.

Determinants of dominance hierarchy in a captive group of pigtailed monkeys (Macaca nemestrina)

Abstract Eighteen pigtailed monkeys, all strangers to each other, were placed together in a laboratory compound. Two infants were eliminated from the study shortly after group formation. To determine dominance hierarchy aggressive-submissive interactions were observed among the remaining 16 monkeys during 4 periods covering 5 months of group development.
Results suggested that 3 factors were basic determinants of dominance hierarchy: body weight for males, estrus for females, and maturity for both sexes.
Aggressive-submissive interactions were far more frequent during Period I, the first hour of group formation, but decreased with stabilization of hierarchical order in subsequent periods.
Aggressive-submissive interactions were not evenly distributed among all possible pairs in the group, but tended to involve mostly the high-ranking animals. Also, high-ranking animals concentrated their aggression towards more submissive monkeys of their own rank. Because low ranking animals were involved in fewer aggressive-submissive interactions, their rank determination was difficult.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w61ht604034v0710/

[SpiderMonkey]

A community is not a society. Even Viking-era Iceland (which did not have any executive power, came about mostly through the opposition to such power, and was isolated from the rest of the world) had clans ruled by chieftains. If you claim such a society has existed you need to prove it.

I proved it right there, in that bit of my post you deliberately cut out because you can't address my actual argument

In any case, YOU haven't proven a thing

What is this supposed to mean? The physical factors involved in the hierarchies can be studied scientifically.

It means you are wrong about flocks (and have conveniently skipped over that), and wrong to try and derive how humans should behave from how dumb animals do behave. Monkeys are aggressive and territorial - this is not a news flash - but we are not monkeys. Animal territoriality has almost no bearing on human political systems and property paradigms, because both of those strive to reduce the threat and conflict that is characteristic of animal territoriality.

[yrkoon]

A community is not a society. Even Viking-era Iceland (which did not have any executive power, came about mostly through the opposition to such power, and was isolated from the rest of the world) had clans ruled by chieftains. If you claim such a society has existed you need to prove it.

I proved it right there, in that bit of my post you deliberately cut out because you can't address my actual argument

In any case, YOU haven't proven a thing

A temporary community IS NOT A SOCIETY. Even if some ephemeral "friendship" can perhaps exist in a community for some time (although the kibbutzes did not last long) that says nothing about a society of such communities. Iceland broke down into civil war. I am addressing your argument that such a society has existed, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it with an counter-example.

What is this supposed to mean? The physical factors involved in the hierarchies can be studied scientifically.

It means you are wrong about flocks (and have conveniently skipped over that),

If the factors for establishing a hierarchy are physical and are consistent, that shows it's not learned behaviour but an inherent trait. The factors are not capacity for aggression in all species at all. (Ant hierarchy for example is based on chemicals.)

and wrong to try and derive how humans should behave from how dumb animals do behave.

Some monkeys are even able to use primtive language, so I would not call them "dumb". (Their intelligence has also been tested in laboratories.)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/1 ... guage.html

Monkeys are aggressive and territorial - this is not a news flash - but we are not monkeys. Animal territoriality has almost no bearing on human political systems and property paradigms, because both of those strive to reduce the threat and conflict that is characteristic of animal territoriality.

Scientists are of the opposite opinion, there are strong correlations between human and some monkey societies.

Humans And Monkeys Share Machiavellian Intelligence
ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2007) — When it comes to their social behavior, people sometimes act like monkeys, or more specifically, like rhesus macaques, a type of monkey that shares with humans strong tendencies for nepotism and political maneuvering, according to research by Dario Maestripieri, an expert on primate behavior and an Associate Professor in Comparative Human Development and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago.

"After humans, rhesus macaques are one of the most successful primate species on our planet; our Machiavellian intelligence may be one of the reasons for our success" wrote Maestripieri.*

Maestripieri has been studying monkeys for more than 20 years and has written extensively on their behavior. He has studied them in Europe, at a research center in Atlanta, and on an island in Puerto Rico, where researchers established a rhesus macaque colony for scientific and breeding purposes.

Rhesus macaques live in complex societies with strong dominance hierarchies and long-lasting social bonds between female relatives. Individuals constantly compete for high social status and the power that comes with it using ruthless aggression, nepotism, and complex political alliances. Sex, too, can be used for political purposes. The tactics used by monkeys to increase or maintain their power are not much different from those Machiavelli suggested political leaders use during the Renaissance.

Alpha males, who rule the 50 or so macaques in the troop, use threats and violence to hold on to the safest sleeping places, the best food, and access to the females in the group with whom they want to have sex. Like human dictators intent on holding power, dominant monkeys use frequent and unpredictable aggression as an effective form of intimidation. Less powerful members of the rhesus macaque group are marginalized and forced to live on the edges of the group's area, where they are vulnerable to predator attacks. They must wait for the others to eat first and then have the leftovers; they have sex only when the dominant monkeys are not looking.

"In rhesus society, dominants always travel in business class and subordinates in economy, and if the flight is overbooked, it's the subordinates who get bumped off the plane," Maestripieri said. "Social status can make the difference between life and death in human societies too," he pointed out. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, for instance, the poorer members of the community accounted for most of the hurricane's death toll.

Male macaques form alliances with more powerful individuals, and take part in scapegoating on the lower end of the hierarchy, a Machiavellian strategy that a mid-ranking monkey can use when under attack from a higher-ranking one. Altruism is rare and, in most cases, only a form of nepotistic behavior. Mothers help their daughters achieve a status similar to their own and to maintain it throughout their lives. Females act in Machiavellian ways also when it comes to reproduction. They make sure they have lots of sex with the alpha male to increase the chances he will protect their newborn infant from other monkeys 6 months later.

"But while they have lots of sex with the alpha male and make him think he's going to be the father of their baby, the females also have sex with all the other males in the group behind the alpha male's back," Maestripieri said. They do so just in case the alpha male is sterile or he dies or loses his power before the baby is born.

Struggles for power within a group sometimes culminate in a revolution, in which all members of the most dominant family are suddenly attacked by entire families of subordinates. These revolutions result in drastic changes in the structure of power within rhesus societies, not unlike those occurring following human revolutions. There is one situation, however, in which all of the well-established social structure evaporates: when a group of rhesus macaques confronts another one and monkey warfare begins. Rhesus macaques dislike strangers and will viciously attack their own image in a mirror, thinking it's a stranger threatening them. When warfare begins, "Even a low-ranking rhesus loner becomes an instant patriot. Every drop of xenophobia in rhesus blood is transformed into fuel for battle," Maestripieri wrote.

"What rhesus macaques and humans may have in common is that many of their psychological and behavioral dispositions have been shaped by intense competition between individuals and groups during the evolutionary history of these species" Maestripieri said. Rhesus groups can function like armies, and this may explain why these monkeys have been so successful in the competition with other primates.

Pressure to find Machiavellian solutions to social problems may also have led to the evolution of larger human brains.

"Our Machiavellian intelligence is not something we can be proud of, but it may be the secret of our success. If it contributed to the evolution of our large brains and complex cognitive skills, it also contributed to the evolution of our ability to engage in noble spiritual and intellectual activities, including our love and compassion for other people", Maestripieri said.

*This is in the new book Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144314.htm

[SpiderMonkey]

A temporary community IS NOT A SOCIETY. Even if some ephemeral "friendship" can perhaps exist in a community for some time (although the kibbutzes did not last long) that says nothing about a society of such communities. Iceland broke down into civil war. I am addressing your argument that such a society has existed, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it with an counter-example.

Really? Here was me thinking you had made the original statement without a shred of proof whatsoever

I don't consider you leaving capslock on to be proof, by the way.

If the factors for establishing a hierarchy are physical and are consistent, that shows it's not learned behaviour but an inherent trait. The factors are not capacity for aggression in all species at all. (Ant hierarchy for example is based on chemicals.)

Rubbish. The fact hierarchy requires factors to turn up at all means it is, at least in part, environmental. Don't try and push out of date concepts of evolutionary psychology on me.

Some monkeys are even able to use primtive language, so I would not call them "dumb". (Their intelligence has also been tested in laboratories.)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/1 ... guage.html

Monkeys are dumb. Just because they are not quite as dumb as cows, doesn't make them smart

Scientists are of the opposite opinion, there are strong correlations between human and some monkey societies.

Citing one piece of science journalism (which is not the same as science) doesn't give you the authority to speak for 'Scientists'. Even so, the article only compares monkeys to dictators - not all human interaction as you seem to imply.

[yrkoon]

A temporary community IS NOT A SOCIETY. Even if some ephemeral "friendship" can perhaps exist in a community for some time (although the kibbutzes did not last long) that says nothing about a society of such communities. Iceland broke down into civil war. I am addressing your argument that such a society has existed, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it with an counter-example.

Really? Here was me thinking you had made the original statement without a shred of proof whatsoever

You've just disproved your own statement; the existence of those 'horizontal societies' means that humans can adapt to live that way. There is no evidence at all that there is a genetic foundation in what kind of society people desire.

If this means that 'past horizontal societies' was only the unsubstantiated claim of Fasces in your view then I don't have anything more to add to this.

I don't consider you leaving capslock on to be proof, by the way.

I am only folllowing your lead.

If the factors for establishing a hierarchy are physical and are consistent, that shows it's not learned behaviour but an inherent trait. The factors are not capacity for aggression in all species at all. (Ant hierarchy for example is based on chemicals.)

Rubbish. The fact hierarchy requires factors to turn up at all means it is, at least in part, environmental. Don't try and push out of date concepts of evolutionary psychology on me.

For humans I can agree that the distinction between genetics and environment is not clear, but not for most animal species. If you argue environment is a large factor for animals, then animals would also be quite smart.

Monkeys are dumb. Just because they are not quite as dumb as cows, doesn't make them smart

Human children that have been abandonded and grown up in the wilderness are not much "smarter". What you seem to call intelligence is mostly due to civilization and stored learning+education.

Citing one piece of science journalism (which is not the same as science) doesn't give you the authority to speak for 'Scientists'.

No it's not the same as 'science', but I said 'scientists' not 'science'.

[Ademir]

I like to be realistic, and let's face it, no society is truly 100% free from coercion. Some coercion is necessary to have a functioning society, the only alternative is chaos. What anarchy does is attempt to minimise coercion to the absolute lowest level possible.

With that said, anarcho-capitalism is far more coercive than anarcho-communism. Anarcho-capitalists focus too much on minimising state coercion (although this is impossible in a capitalist society, as a state would quickly emerge to defend the interests of the ruling class) at the expense of the coercion caused by private property. I don't know whether this warrants saying they aren't real anarchists or not, but it's not surprising that many don't consider them such, since anarchism has always been a branch of socialism.

In communism, the only form of coercion would be not allowing anyone to attempt to seize property as their own at the expense of the collective. No one would be barred from using property, however. This coercion would simply be a form of defense against later coercion at the hands of individuals, a protection of freedom.

Private property on the other hand is far more coercive than collective property overall. It leads to exclusion of use in addition to the defense against seizure (and for the benefit of private individuals rather than everyone), and creates hierarchies. It grants you two extra freedoms, the freedom to enslave others and the freedom to be enslaved (with the latter granted far more readily), but I'm willing to give up these two freedoms to actually be free.

So I don't know whether I would say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, but I'm quite certain it embodies anarchist values to a far lesser degree.

[yrkoon]

In communism, the only form of coercion would be not allowing anyone to attempt to seize property as their own at the expense of the collective. No one would be barred from using property, however. This coercion would simply be a form of defense against later coercion at the hands of individuals, a protection of freedom.

Private property on the other hand is far more coercive than collective property overall. It leads to exclusion of use in addition to the defense against seizure (and for the benefit of private individuals rather than everyone), and creates hierarchies. It grants you two extra freedoms, the freedom to enslave others and the freedom to be enslaved (with the latter granted far more readily), but I'm willing to give up these two freedoms to actually be free.

I don't believe in either system, but to prevent exclusive use of property there seems to be a need for some kind organized police force and constant surveillance system. To prevent seizure, I suppose the idea is self-defence (maybe hired help) most of the time and outside help only in emergencies.

[Ademir]

I don't believe in either system, but to prevent exclusive use of property there seems to be a need for some kind organized police force and constant surveillance system. To prevent seizure, I suppose the idea is self-defence (maybe hired help) most of the time and outside help only in emergencies.

Not really. Remember, we aren't talking about personal possessions like toothbrushes, but the means of production (at least, I assume anarchists generally share their ideas of collective property with Marxists, but I'm not an anarchist so correct me if I'm wrong). It wouldn't be easy to seize a factory or a mine for your own private use in a communist society, and if you tried it, you would be detected easily (for obvious reasons).

Of course, a local militia would definitely need to exist for self defence, in case any real attempts to seize collective property were made by individuals or groups.

[yrkoon]

Not really. Remember, we aren't talking about personal possessions like toothbrushes, but the means of production (at least, I assume anarchists generally share their ideas of collective property with Marxists, but I'm not an anarchist so correct me if I'm wrong). It wouldn't be easy to seize a factory or a mine for your own private use in a communist society, and if you tried it, you would be detected easily (for obvious reasons).

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.