[SolarCross]

I was reviewing this thread - Anarchism private property and the commons - that I started back when I was calling myself an anarcho-communist and first encountering anarcho-capitalists here on pofo, when it occurred to me that I still broadly agreed with all the arguments I made then even though I now see myself as a market-anarchist / voluntaryist / agorist. So then I have to wonder if the gulf between anarcho-lefties and anarcho-righties is quite as unbridgeable as some may think.. and if we could come to some common agreement then jointly we may acomplish more towards our ideal society than if we work separately or even worse fight each other.
So how could anarchists of the left and right come together in common cause? What would we want from the other and what mutual understanding can be made?

[Goldberk]

Private property seems to be a sticking point, I find it hard to see how left anarchists would accept anything beyond personal and communal property.

[SolarCross]

Private property seems to be a sticking point, I find it hard to see how left anarchists would accept anything beyond personal and communal property.

Well if left anarchists accept personal and communal property they can accept the personal and communal property of the market-anarchists.. What's the problem?

[Paradigm]

Some things anarchists and an-caps can potentially work together on:

- Alternative currencies
- Fighting state repression of dissidents

That's all I've got for now. We can agree with agorists on the idea of dual power, but how that looks in practice would be quite different.

[Rothbardian]

Private property seems to be a sticking point, I find it hard to see how left anarchists would accept anything beyond personal and communal property.

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.

[Goldberk]

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.

The same can be said of right anarchists, many of which have a cult like worship of private property.

[SolarCross]

Paradigm - Good suggestions. On the subject of alternative currencies I have in mind a project that would allow mutual credit to interface with crypto-currency, its a bit beyond my means at present but could have good potential to very much diminish to hold that gov fiat money has over us.

Goldberk and Rothbardian - yes each camp has its own funny way of looking at things especially when it comes to the concept of property but we can resolve this I am sure.

For the lefties they should come to realise that private property has its place and if they can accomodate the idea of personal property then it is only a very small stretch to accomodate the idea of private property also they need to stop clinging the obviously incorrect Labour Theory of Value and try and wrap their heads around the Marginal Theory of Value.

For the righties they should come to realise that some kinds of property do work better as commons rather than private property. Since righties mostly already believe in a commons for information and ideas it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to accomodate a commons for some physical things such as roads. As it stands most roads are the property of the state and the state in a democracy is supposed to be the property of the people thus with the end of the state roads as well as any other state property should end up in the commons. I know righties at that point will bring up the "tragedy of the commons" but see if that happens then we can say that this property has been abandoned and thus claim it as private property by our Lockean homesteading.

[mikema63]

Dare I suggest the two sides get together and say "this side is yours this side is ours" and create a line that neither side crosses.

Then we can shoot each other when one side tries to cross over.

[fuser]

Dare I suggest the two sides get together and say "this side is yours this side is ours" and create a line that neither side crosses.

Then we can shoot each other when one side tries to cross over.

I approve this arrangement. When you are out of bullets, we (dirty statist) can even loan you some.

For the lefties they should come to realise that private property has its place and if they can accomodate the idea of personal property then it is only a very small stretch to accomodate the idea of private property

So basically you are saying that real anarchists should accept the tyranny of capital. Then its only a very small stretch to accommodate the tyranny of government too.

[ingliz]

Private property seems to be a sticking point.

Right anarchists are 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.

[anticlimacus]

Indeed, I think there are very many similarities that can be found--particularly in fighting against the current marriage between corporate capitalism and the state and even more so in the militarization and surveillance policies of the major states, such as the US.

However, as has been mentioned, the issue of private property is a major difference. It's not just a detail that can be worked out--that would be like saying the state is just a detail that can be worked out and compromised on with statists (hence the fierce break with the Marxists). The abolition of private property much like the abolition of the state is at the very core of what it means to be a libertarian socialist.

[SolarCross]

Indeed, I think there are very many similarities that can be found--particularly in fighting against the current marriage between corporate capitalism and the state and even more so in the militarization and surveillance policies of the major states, such as the US.

Amen to that.

However, as has been mentioned, the issue of private property is a major difference. It's not just a detail that can be worked out--that would be like saying the state is just a detail that can be worked out and compromised on with statists (hence the fierce break with the Marxists). The abolition of private property much like the abolition of the state is at the very core of what it means to be a libertarian socialist.

Well one might subscribe to the conspiracy theory that marriage is a bourgois plot to increase the labour supply and therefore keep wages down and if one did subscribe to that theory no one could blame one for not getting married but that is a different thing altogether to pointing guns at married people and telling them to get divorced or else... So if you don't want private property feel free to give yours away but what gives you the right to force others to give it away?

[anticlimacus]

So if you don't want private property feel free to give yours away but what gives you the right to force others to give it away?

There is a major difference between private property and personal property. Private property refers to the means of production for a particular society, i.e. the social tools, machinery, technology, and resources used to produce necessary goods and services. Personal property has to do with what is yours and yours alone and does not require society to operate and sustain. But regardless, this shows exactly why we will never get along on this issue. The socialist looks at private property from the perspective of its social side. The Liberal views it solely from the side of individual ownership.

When you look at it solely from the latter perspective, of course, the logical conclusion is to view the abolition of private property as a violation of those individual rights.

But if you look at it from the former perspective (from the social side), those individual rights are nothing but the product of society and the social divisions of power that make up that particular system of rights that allow the means of production, which requires society to make productive, to become merely an individual guarantee for those who have the capital to own it. Just like the state, this system of private property is wrapped up in power and domination of those who control those social means.

Thus, from this perspective, your question, Tax, "What gives you the right to force others to give it away?" is therefore looked at no different than an apologist of the state who says, "What gives you the right to take away our right to govern as elected officials?" The answer is obvious: the state is not ours and never was in the first place. It and it's laws, while having everything to do with us, are something that is decided upon outside of our communities--those decisions have nothing to do with us. We have no rights to the state, those rights concern only you who are in power. Similarly the rights you reference to your capital have only to do with you. We have no rights to your capital, and that is the very problem we see, because your capital depends upon our productive labor. While your capital, it's production and consumption, has everything to do with us, the decisions made about it have nothing to do with us. But you would never understand that as an owner of capital who believes in your right to own this social product just like the elected official who believes in his/her right to govern over us. It's therefore ridiculous for us to talk about what right we have to your capital, because we have no right to capital at all. Your "right to capital" is something that was decided, in fact, by the state. You become privileged to that right once you become lucky enough to purchase it.

[SolarCross]

Anticlimacus - I am sure your heart is in the right place but search parties have yet to discover where your brain is. Private property is just property that is considered exclusive to certain named individuals or a named collective.

Cambridge Dictionary - private property
Private property: something, especially land or buildings, that belongs to a particular person or company, rather than to a government.

and personal property is just movable property.

Personal property
the things you own which you can take with you, such as money, vehicles, or furniture, rather than land or buildings

Okay so apparently you are talking in another language to the rest of us. How about my taxi? By the dictionary it is both private property and personal property but according to you it is "socialised means of production" and the whole fucking world owns it. Okay fine then the whole fucking world can fucking well pay for my fuel and repair it and compensate me for all the fucking money I spent on it including the £13,500 I spent to buy it. Until then it is bloody well MY FUKCING TAXI is tha t FUCKY OK AWItHY you!!!>???????/ (RAGE QUIT)

[Rothbardian]

The same can be said of right anarchists, many of which have a cult like worship of private property.

I'm not sure if you're a liar or just ignorant? Those of us that are not anarcho communists, which you call 'right', have no problem at all with you and your friends living a communal existence and we do not judge such behavior as some kind of asinine affront on ourselves.

[anticlimacus]

However, as has been mentioned, the issue of private property is a major difference. It's not just a detail that can be worked out--that would be like saying the state is just a detail that can be worked out and compromised on with statists (hence the fierce break with the Marxists). The abolition of private property much like the abolition of the state is at the very core of what it means to be a libertarian socialist.

Okay so apparently you are talking in another language to the rest of us. How about my taxi? By the dictionary it is both private property and personal property but according to you it is "socialised means of production" and the whole fucking world owns it. Okay fine then the whole fucking world can fucking well pay for my fuel and repair it and compensate me for all the fucking money I spent on it including the £13,500 I spent to buy it. Until then it is bloody well MY FUKCING TAXI is tha t FUCKY OK AWItHY you!!!>???/ (RAGE QUIT)

I rest my case.

[SolarCross]

I rest my case.

Get a job scrounger.

[anticlimacus]

You make a statement like this:

Anticlimacus - I am sure your heart is in the right place but search parties have yet to discover where your brain is. Private property is just property that is considered exclusive to certain named individuals or a named collective.

In the process of making this comment, which has nothing to do with what a socialist means by private property, i.e. the means of production, you actually have the audacity to insult my intelligence--and all in a thread where you are seeking to find common ground.

I rest my case because even talking about property with a socialist and a liberal just fills the room with rage.

[Goldberk]

Those of us that are not anarcho communists, which you call 'right', have no problem at all with you and your friends living a communal existence and we do not judge such behavior as some kind of asinine affront on ourselves.

Fair enough on one level, it's easy to envisage a live and let live attitude to different anarchist communities, however private property spurs accumulation, accumulation that spreads. Private property also requires legitimisation, I fear that would lead us to state like structures.

[SolarCross]

I rest my case because even talking about property with a socialist and a liberal just fills the room with rage.

I became angry because you insist on spouting nonsense and I'm tired of it. We can get along just fine if you lot would just get a clue. There is no monolithic "means of production" in the real world productive property is everywhere. The problem is not people owning stuff but people stealing stuff, chiefly this is government but it also includes some petty criminals. If you want to own a piece of the "means of production" all you need to do is what I did: work, save and buy. I started out in life practically destitute, so if I can earn my "means of production" by honest methods then so can you.