[Eran]

Such voluntary solutions are perfectly compatible with, and can form a seamless part of an anarcho-capitalist society.

Different ancaps may hold different views about the relative economic merits of different forms of economic organization (e.g. hierarchical corporation vs. employee-controlled enterprises, small vs. large scale operations, etc.).

However, they would all agree that their personal views are irrelevant from a policy perspective. Rather, the market would work things out.

[houndred]

why can't left anarchists just form their communes within an ancap society?

[grassroots1]

Some kind of libertarian socialist society could not exist, probably not even on an extremely minor scale, in a system where the vast majority of the resources are owned privately. First I think we're confused on the definition of libertarian socialism, because you seem to think that worker owned firms operating within the capitalist system constitutes libertarian socialism, but that's not the case. As I understand it libertarian socialism is a system of democratically controlled production. I mean, by your logic anarcho capitalism could exist within a libertarian socialist society because there would be minor examples of exchange.

[Eran]

Socialist libertarians should explain how they can hold at the same time two seemingly contradictory claims:
1. Libertarian Socialist society could not exist (not to mention flourish) in a system where resources may be privately owned

2. Libertarian Socialist society would be preferred by workers, and is comparable in economic efficiency with Capitalist economy.

If (2) is correct, shouldn't mutually-owned production and consumption units flourish, out-compete and, ultimately, dominate privately-owned firms?

[houndred]

As I understand it libertarian socialism is a system of democratically controlled production.

So have your own libertarian socialist society operating alongside. You don't have to have anything to do with the capitalists next door, just ignore them.

f (2) is correct, shouldn't mutually-owned production and consumption units flourish, out-compete and, ultimately, dominate privately-owned firms?

I think that's the problem. They are afraid that they will fail if they are in competetion with professionals.

[grassroots1]

Libertarian socialism is not simply a bunch of competing worker owned firms. It is a whole form of social organization.

[Kman]

Libertarian socialism is not simply a bunch of competing worker owned firms. It is a whole form of social organization.

It's magic!

[grassroots1]

It's not magic, but it is heoretical. It's a system that can only exist without privately owned and controlled means of production.

[Kman]

It's not magic, but it is heoretical. It's a system that can only exist without privately owned and controlled means of production.

Does this mean it has to be implemented around the world at the same time in order to work?

[Wolfman]

To answer the question in the title of the thread: the reason you cannot have an 'economic middle ground' in Anarchism, is because Left Anarchists don't think Right Anarchists are really Anarchist, and Right Anarchists don't think Left Anarchists are really Anarchists. You might as well ask for a middle ground between the New Black Panthers and the Aryan Nations. All you're going to get is a turf war between two different groups of diluted children.

[Eran]

Again, I'd like those who believe in socialist anarchism to try and explain why their system requires that no private ownership of the means of production is anywhere allowed.

For example, imagine your favourite socialist anarchy.

Now imagine that, for whatever reason, some people are allowed to use their savings to create or acquire resources that they can then use to produce stuff others value. For example, imagine an amateur geologist who, wondering in the wilderness, finds a deposit of gems.

He sets up a small-scale mining operation, and sells the gems in the market.

Later, as the work associated with mining, transporting and selling the gems becomes too much, he offers a friend to partner with him, and the two work out a mutually-agreeable mechanism for splitting both work and sales proceeds.

Later still, many more people are hired into the operation, each agreeing to the terms offered.

At what point in this process did the socialist anarchy break down, and why?

[houndred]

You might as well ask for a middle ground between the New Black Panthers and the Aryan Nations.

There is plenty in common between these two racist groups. Which is why Tom Metzgar of the Aryan nations regularly addresses the New Black panthers. Here he is talking to themhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ5OHDJ_9FQ

[Wolfman]

And if you ask them to work together on a large continuous scale, best case scenario is you getting laughed at.

[houndred]

I think the point is that they would be more than happy working apart.

The Lib-socs could run their own system quite separately from the market in an ancap society

[grassroots1]

Not true. A system of unhindered market forces with no democratic control is pure tyranny.

[Kman]

Not true. A system of unhindered market forces with no democratic control is pure tyranny.

Prices are far more democratic than voting is since they reflect the choices of every individual, votes dont get lost in the price system like they do in the voting system where large groups end up ignored and bullied by the majority.

[Sceptic]

Prices are far more democratic than voting is since they reflect the choices of every individual, votes dont get lost in the price system like they do in the voting system where large groups end up ignored and bullied by the majority.

I agree, one vote per dollar is far more democratic than one vote per man...erm...

But democracy is severely overrated anayway, public and private decision making should be based on merit, hence meritocratic capitalism.

[grassroots1]

Youre wrong kman. Your choices as to what you can buy can be extremely limited. A representative democratic system is the only tool we have to keep business from running amok. The problem in America is that entrenched interests are thoroughly corrupting the process. That doesn't mean democracy is bunk, and we need to move toward the free market, though the Koch brothers would be grateful toward you for espousing that perspective.

[Kman]

Youre wrong kman. Your choices as to what you can buy can be extremely limited.

It is far less of a problem than in a democracy, there are no libertarians I can vote for in Denmark, nobody who supports Ron Paulian ideas so you can say the same thing about democracy, my vote is also lost in the system since the party that is closest to my views have very little influence.
If you refuse to buy a candy bar then the producer of said candy bar loses X amount of dollars or cents in profits, that is direct democracy, it is far more fair and just than political voting.

[grassroots1]

The problem is the tendency of the market left alone toward concentration of wealth. Maybe there are only a few colluding sellers, in which case you can't do anything but buy from one of them. If a group of predatory companies control the only means to survive, then the worker has no tool to fight them with except the ability to withhold their labor. That's what the entire labor history of America is about. We're not talking about greedy unionists, we're talking about people who wanted a safe workspace and something less than a 14 or 12 hour day. Or an increased wage.

Kman you could start your own libertarian political party and argue your positions. That's the point of democracy, in theory.