Anarchist Alliance - left and right love in. - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14450836
I think what you've just described is something that could loosely be called "free market socialism", in that firms are socialized in a free market. It is a rare position, I've come closer to over time.

If you think about it, this is the only way to reduce hierarchy both in the workplace and in the market: simple capitalism means the hierarchical power of the boss, whereas public ownership socialism makes it so that the hierarchy acts to rule over market actors. The synthesis of the market and worker control flattens both kind of fixed hierarchies, while allowing for re-callable temporary hierarchy.
#14451899
Pity to arrive so late in the discussion. Impossible to catch up with everything. Going back to the original question, I think a possible way to illustrate the unavoidable distance between both extremes could be how each conceptualises poverty. While one extreme acknowledges poverty as their problem (and know they are also responsibe -directly or indirectly- of its reproduction), the other extreme sees it as the problem of the poor. It's the distance between society as a shared responsibility or as an individual race.
#14502703
Rothbardian wrote:They won't. And they're completely unwilling to compromise on this point. As far as I can tell if they had their way, this is something they're willing to kill over. It's hard to reason and compromise with people who are swimming in dogma and rhetoric, and willing to take it to such an extreme.

And are the anarchocapitalists willing to compromise in that point?

Maybe the problem is that both sides are so opposed in that vision that there is no compromise possible. As the previous poster said, there is only one possible compromise, and with a lot of difficulties: abolition of the state.

Because, also there are many other key concepts that are absolutely in opposition. And about the dogma, you're wrong. Just there is an idea of social rights that more or less is kept in the leftism that the right tends to ignore.

The main problem about private property and is impossible to compromise is that private property is usually seen as a source to enslavement of the people. Also left anarchism is non-classist, and it goes against the typical functionment of the private property, by default, creates two classes: owners and non-owners.
#14504117
kilgram wrote:Maybe the problem is that both sides are so opposed in that vision that there is no compromise possible. As the previous poster said, there is only one possible compromise, and with a lot of difficulties: abolition of the state.

Because, also there are many other key concepts that are absolutely in opposition. And about the dogma, you're wrong. Just there is an idea of social rights that more or less is kept in the leftism that the right tends to ignore.

The main problem about private property and is impossible to compromise is that private property is usually seen as a source to enslavement of the people. Also left anarchism is non-classist, and it goes against the typical functionment of the private property, by default, creates two classes: owners and non-owners.


Yes, abolition of the state is the obvious compromise, and so also would be a focus on freedom. In the short run, this leads to cooperation in fighting for civil liberties and fighting against corporatism and militarism. In the long run, however, the two are diametrically opposed, with an-caps being more popular among the wealthy entrepreneurs, investors, and holders of capital and the socialist libertarians being more popular among workers and the poor.

Both are very unlikely to happen anytime in the near future, but ultimately these are simply two widely different visions on what a future society could potentially be. I also don't think the differences turn on issues of how property or capital is to be managed. There is an ideological difference on how individuals are understood, as anarcho-capitalism is more ego-centered, or "possessive individualism" while socialist libertarians are certainly communal oriented and more egalitarian.
#14504158
Well, as you can see Taxizen. Although he is no longer an anarchist. Also, as you can see, we all had many adjectives throughout the thread, and in the end were at loggerheads.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]