[mikema63]

i was wondering for what reasons would left anarchists not allow other forms of left-anarchism and anarcho-capitalism to exist side by side? i know not all left anarchists would stop other forms of anarchism to exist but i was just curious about the justifications for that. if, as im fairly sure everyone believes, their system is the best why wouldn't the exploited workers in anarcho-capitalism flee to the syndicates or communes or whatever? would't, if anarcho-capitalism didn't work, the exploited labor class leave to a more desirable syndicate? or the other way around if the syndicates didn't work then communes or whatever other system they chose.

also, since left anarchists are against all government, then what about government regulations on business, how exactly would you go about getting rid of government and avoid businesses for taking advantage of the lack of regulation? are all left anarchists planning on outright revolt, or do some plan to work through the system and just change minds?

i was wondering why multiple systems of anarchism couldn't be allowed to exist side by side, and if they could why anarchists of all stripes (including the apparently fake anarcho-capitalists) couldn't work together towards implementing the removal of the state and then set up whatever type of anarchism they prefer?

[Paradigm]

i was wondering for what reasons would left anarchists not allow other forms of left-anarchism and anarcho-capitalism to exist side by side? i know not all left anarchists would stop other forms of anarchism to exist but i was just curious about the justifications for that. if, as im fairly sure everyone believes, their system is the best why wouldn't the exploited workers in anarcho-capitalism flee to the syndicates or communes or whatever? would't, if anarcho-capitalism didn't work, the exploited labor class leave to a more desirable syndicate? or the other way around if the syndicates didn't work then communes or whatever other system they chose.

It isn't that we wouldn't let anarcho-capitalists exist alongside us. It's just that they're naive to think capitalism could exist without the state. Of course, many ancaps support state-like features like private police forces and private courts, so if it seemed like we were getting hoodwinked into something like gang rule, we'd fight back.

also, since left anarchists are against all government, then what about government regulations on business, how exactly would you go about getting rid of government and avoid businesses for taking advantage of the lack of regulation?

It wouldn't be necessary to regulate business when the means of production are collectively owned. It would be a state of free association of producers, in which no one is cut off from the means of production. And if someone tried to claim exclusive property in the means of production, there'd be no police to enforce their claim.

are all left anarchists planning on outright revolt, or do some plan to work through the system and just change minds?

We're fairly unanimous on working outside the system, but that doesn't necessarily mean bombs and molotov cocktails. A major part of it involves a dual power strategy to build a new world in the shell of the old.

i was wondering why multiple systems of anarchism couldn't be allowed to exist side by side, and if they could why anarchists of all stripes (including the apparently fake anarcho-capitalists) couldn't work together towards implementing the removal of the state and then set up whatever type of anarchism they prefer?

Any system that does not require armed thugs to enforce it can exist peacefully alongside the others. If you think capitalism can meet that standard...good luck with that.

[mikema63]

alright, im curious then on how left anarchists generally do the whole law and order thing, i assume there will be some things like murder, rape, theft (not from private property but from everyone mabye? not sure about theft in hindsight) since you singled out policing and courts as gang rule, so what systems do left anarchists have to replace their functions, defend against attackers, and who interprets whatever set of rules you would go by, also how do you go about punishments?

[Paradigm]

alright, im curious then on how left anarchists generally do the whole law and order thing, i assume there will be some things like murder, rape, theft (not from private property but from everyone mabye? not sure about theft in hindsight) since you singled out policing and courts as gang rule, so what systems do left anarchists have to replace their functions, defend against attackers, and who interprets whatever set of rules you would go by, also how do you go about punishments?

Anarchist societies would be governed by a consensus model, where the people come together and collectively deliberate and make decisions. As for crimes, they would generally use a model of transformative justice, where the offender makes amends to the victim and society, and a solution is sought which doesn't simply try to punish, but seeks out the root of the crime. If someone is so psychotic that they can't be restored to society, then they can resort to banishment. As for defense, the people can organize militias, like the anarchists did in Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

[mikema63]

so general rules an laws are decided by direct democracy? i assume the units of people are fairly small, how different could the laws in this society become from one group to another and what would these groups do if one group say in the deep south went for racially based slavery? also do these militias do the internal protection as well as external, stopping theft arresting people and the like?

also are you a syndicalist or a communist or something else?

[Paradigm]

so general rules an laws are decided by direct democracy? i assume the units of people are fairly small, how different could the laws in this society become from one group to another and what would these groups do if one group say in the deep south went for racially based slavery? also do these militias do the internal protection as well as external, stopping theft arresting people and the like?

Yes, there would be local, small groups that would deliberate. They could then send representatives to spokecouncils for higher-level decisions. The representative's role would not be to make decisions on their behalf, but rather to convey the group's will to the spokescouncil as well as convey ideas from the spokescouncil back to the group. Or the internet could be used to simply coordinate action and decisions on a wider scale. And yes, militias would be involved in local policing as well, with people policing their own neighborhoods. Your concern with theft, however, assumes ideas about property which don't necessarily apply. Sure, people will have possessions that are personal for them, but what can be shared in common rightfully belongs to the commons. If something very personal is taken, the person can take their grievance to the local council, and they can put pressure on the offender to give it back.

also are you a syndicalist or a communist or something else?

The distinction is not a clear one, but overall I'm a syndicalist with communist leanings.

[Daktoria]

i was wondering for what reasons would left anarchists not allow other forms of left-anarchism and anarcho-capitalism to exist side by side? i know not all left anarchists would stop other forms of anarchism to exist but i was just curious about the justifications for that. if, as im fairly sure everyone believes, their system is the best why wouldn't the exploited workers in anarcho-capitalism flee to the syndicates or communes or whatever? would't, if anarcho-capitalism didn't work, the exploited labor class leave to a more desirable syndicate? or the other way around if the syndicates didn't work then communes or whatever other system they chose.

also, since left anarchists are against all government, then what about government regulations on business, how exactly would you go about getting rid of government and avoid businesses for taking advantage of the lack of regulation? are all left anarchists planning on outright revolt, or do some plan to work through the system and just change minds?

i was wondering why multiple systems of anarchism couldn't be allowed to exist side by side, and if they could why anarchists of all stripes (including the apparently fake anarcho-capitalists) couldn't work together towards implementing the removal of the state and then set up whatever type of anarchism they prefer?

It's a social thing really.

My understanding of pure anarchists is they expect things to flow smoothly without explicit communication. That is without property rights, they expect community to be a dynamic process where people accept their circumstances and relax to fit in.

Obviously, this doesn't work because it ignores how everyone with power is not a relaxed individual. You need property rights to establish boundaries and intentions so people can't force each other to do things.

Ergo, pure anarchists are either naive or deceptive.

It isn't that we wouldn't let anarcho-capitalists exist alongside us. It's just that they're naive to think capitalism could exist without the state.

Of course you don't need a State. All you need is formal language. Real estate is a perfect example of this. Literally, building a wall around an area is a FORM of expression.

Living side by side with people who don't appreciate formal language is impossible one way or another. Shenanigans can happen with or without the State.

[mikema63]

your right about theft i should have used a better example but you got the gist of what i was asking so i think im okay.

how much latitude would the local syndicates (or whatever each unit would be called) have in what is and is not allowed and how much latitude would the local militias have? you earlier referenced the anarcho-capitalist protection agencies as gangs but they functionally seem to be the same as the militias and the private courts to be the anarcho-capitalist form of your units direct democracy, you said they were state like features but your anarchism has those same things that run publicly instead of privately i dont see how yours are any less state like than mine. i think the perceived naivety about anarcho-capitalists believing capitalism is possible without a state is based on differing views on how economics and economies function more than just naivete on the part of the ancaps. so far i haven't seen any reason why (at least according to my understanding of economics) the two systems wouldn't be able to work side by side in relative peace as long as the two sides have formed a prior understanding on how to deal with conflicts between the two (your side wouldn't have the same understanding of theft as ancaps which would need to be resolved beforehand).

i was also wondering how conflicts between each group were handled and if that system you used couldn't be sucesfully used between a left anarchist group and an ancap protection agency.

as for daktoria, i think the main conflict between the two groups is a different understanding of how economics works which leads us to different conclusions on what systems would exist or develop without a state. i think even if we didn't prepare for it before getting rid of government then the society i think would exist would be an ancap one, and i imagine that he believes that his would be more or less the same absent of coercion on both sides of course.

the distinction between syndicalist and communist anarchist schools is something i have trouble seeing.

i think if both societies were allowed to coexist peacefully then whoever has the better veiw of economics preferred society would eventually absorb the other, or yet another form of anarchism entirely could be better, after all we could both be wrong.

[mikema63]

i suppose i'll never get another post on this, to bad it was a good discussion for me and i didn't mean to annoy you.

for my own benefit i'll just say that i think from the point of view of both anarcho-capitalists and left anarchists allowing both to exist would be beneficial if each was implemented for the left anarchists the working class would leave from the anarcho-capitalist society to theirs if they are right and the anarcho-capitalist society would peacefully dissipate. from the anarcho-capitalist point of view the prosperity that everyone would receive would eventually entice the left anarchists and their society would peacefully dissipate.

either way it would only be because the economic theories of either side was proven true and people would prosper either way. without a coercive government that forced everyone to live under the same system then the fight about economic ideology and what type of society is best become more academic and more a matter of taste then now where it seems more like outright warfare. i think its in the best interests of both sides to work together to get rid of the government and work out a plan between them on how to do so that would allow for both societies to develop.

thats just my thoughts anyway.

[FrenchFried]

Yes, there would be local, small groups that would deliberate. They could then send representatives to spokecouncils for higher-level decisions. The representative's role would not be to make decisions on their behalf, but rather to convey the group's will to the spokescouncil as well as convey ideas from the spokescouncil back to the group. Or the internet could be used to simply coordinate action and decisions on a wider scale. And yes, militias would be involved in local policing as well, with people policing their own neighborhoods. Your concern with theft, however, assumes ideas about property which don't necessarily apply. Sure, people will have possessions that are personal for them, but what can be shared in common rightfully belongs to the commons. If something very personal is taken, the person can take their grievance to the local council, and they can put pressure on the offender to give it back.

Sorry for not contributing on the topic, but this paragraph really interested me. I'm really interested in left anarchy and I'm defintely leaning in that ideology but for the moment, I really don't know enough to claim myself an anarchist. However, when I read this, I immediately thought of Native American communities. There was a chief which never made decisions but only reported decisions made by consensus in their nation to the other nations. When someone did something bad that was harmful to the community, he was sent to reflect on the consequences of his actions and if he acted once again to the detriment of the community, he was banished.

Are those ideas inspired by Native American communities ? Or is there any link at all ?

[Eran]

It seems to me that the main challenge for peaceful co-existence is the different notions of property rights.

Imagine the following scenario. A person is employed by an ancap firm. The person is paid in line with his employment contract. At some point, perhaps having been exposed to left-anarchist material, the worker realises he is being exploited. He works out how much he should have been justly paid, steals the difference, and escapes to a left-anarchist community.

The firm reports the theft, and private police agents track the runaway employee only to find him defended by a local "left" militia.

Now imagine the opposite situation. An ancap entrepreneur notices an undeveloped piece of land near one of the "left" communities. Being undeveloped, by ancap standards, the land is unowned. The entrepreneur hires workers, clears the land and builds himself a house and a workshop. The "left" community considers the area under its "jurisdiction", and requires that the entrepreneur complies with local rules (even as he is politely invited to take part in local community deliberations). The entrepreneur refuses. "Left" militia is sent to his workshop to force compliance, encountering a private police team hired to protect his interests.

How are the differing notions regarding property rights going to be resolved peacefully? The only practical solution seems to involve territorially carving out our heterogeneous anarchist societies into separate "spheres".

[mikema63]

the conflicts would have to be worked out between the council and the protection firm, an independent arbiter would have to be found as well. the conflicts would be worked out as if (from the ancap prospective) the local council and its militia was another protection agency. how to deal with the difference in property rights between the two communities would have to be worked out between the two groups. it would be no different than if two different firms with two different sets of rules came into conflict, the left-anarchists will probably not be very exited about the prospect of violence any more than the ancap's.

i also imagine two left-anarchist groups with conflicting rules would have a similar arrangement between themselves as ancap's do. i see no reason that it could not be extended to the different groups as well.

[Paradigm]

Here's the thing: When you're talking about something getting stolen from your house, that's not a real sticking point for left-wing anarchists. We draw a distinction between property and possession. If you can keep it for personal use, we don't really have much problem with that. The sticking point comes with the means of production. In this case, it's not so much a matter of theft but rather denial of access. If you can run a factory all by yourself, great. But in most cases, the factory requires workers, so you can't really keep it all to yourself and expect to get any use out of it. Yet capitalism, through the institution of private property, says that what the workers produce using the means of production belongs to the capitalist. This is the sort of arrangement that can only be upheld through a state infrastructure, particularly in cases where the capitalist doesn't even live in the same place as the workers. So basically, under anarchism, the individual is free to take what they need for themselves, but does not have the power to extract surplus value from others.

[mikema63]

so an ancap wouldn't be able to employ anarchists in their factories under the normal terms, i still think a set of general rules could exist for the two factions dealing with each other and interacting.

i was wondering if there was any kind of binding contract in left anarchist societies, or is that considered hierarchical?

[Paradigm]

so an ancap wouldn't be able to employ anarchists in their factories under the normal terms, i still think a set of general rules could exist for the two factions dealing with each other and interacting.

I'm fine with them interacting. I'm just saying that any army or police force separate from the community will be resisted. I very much doubt that the conditions of capitalism could persist under such conditions, but you're welcome to try. An earlier comment you left suggests a misunderstanding of the militias I was talking about, so let me clarify: the type of militias I'm talking about are composed of their own communities. In other words, it is simply communities defending themselves rather than an outside force patrolling their streets. The latter is a state institution.

i was wondering if there was any kind of binding contract in left anarchist societies, or is that considered hierarchical?

It's not that contracts are hierarchical. It's that they require a state infrastructure to enforce. Thus, contracts are rejected on anti-statist grounds.

[mikema63]

i have difficulty viewing voluntary competing "states" as states

to bad about the contracts i suppose it would be difficult to work out much trade across the "property rights" barrier. how are conflicts between anarchist groups resolved? (without violence) would their be boundaries between them that must be respected? (not borders so much as access to the communities stuff)

[Paradigm]

i have difficulty viewing voluntary competing "states" as states

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

to bad about the contracts i suppose it would be difficult to work out much trade across the "property rights" barrier. how are conflicts between anarchist groups resolved? (without violence) would their be boundaries between them that must be respected? (not borders so much as access to the communities stuff)

Conflicts can be resolved through mediation. To write up a contract is to assume that the conflict cannot be resolved without the threat of violence(or at least financial retribution), whereas the whole premise of anarchism is that people are social beings who are capable of resolving their differences peacefully.

You might be interested to know that the Middle East during the Islamic Golden Age had many features of market anarchism. Sure, there was a Caliphate, but it was rather distant from the economic affairs of ordinary people. And in such an environment, there were no contracts. Instead, deals were made with a handshake, and their legitimacy was determined by the standards of the community rather than by some court. This meant that any exploitative deals wouldn't pass the smell test, and thus would not be recognized as legitimate. It was precisely under such conditions that interest was made virtually impossible.

[Eran]

And in such an environment, there were no contracts. Instead, deals were made with a handshake, and their legitimacy was determined by the standards of the community rather than by some court.

You are making distinctions without differences (or is it differences without distinction?)

A handshake is a contract. It might not be a written contract, but it is still an agreement pertaining to future exchanges of ownership.

You also write "legitimacy was determined...", using the passive voice. Who determined the legitimacy of such deals? Whoever made that determination was a court.

[Paradigm]

You are making distinctions without differences (or is it differences without distinction?)

A handshake is a contract. It might not be a written contract, but it is still an agreement pertaining to future exchanges of ownership.

You also write "legitimacy was determined...", using the passive voice. Who determined the legitimacy of such deals? Whoever made that determination was a court.

You may choose to torture the English language as you wish, but a "contract" is not a contract and a "court" is not a court if it lacks the enforcement mechanisms of the state.

[Eran]

Contracts have been enforced for centuries by merchant courts under the Lex mercatoria system without any state enforcement mechanism.

There are many other examples, but this is one of the best known.

I did notice, btw, that left-anarchists tend to worry a lot about semantics. Why do you think that is?