[Matt24]

The last two months, I've been thinking and reading as much as I could about Anarchist ideas. From Anarchist Communism to Anarcho-capitalism, I tried to consider every thinker and every ideology. As a result, I've come to accept Anarchism theoretically, but there are still many doubts wandering in mind about its practicality.

Because I know that my vision of economic matters tends to be a biased capitalist one, I would like someone to contend my claims on why an Anarchist society would not be possible/desirable - just to make sure that if I reject Anarchism theories it's not because of having been manipulated by the society I live in.

Enough for an introduction. The following are my reservations about Anarchism as a whole. I am aware that some of my doubts may not be applicable to every kind of anarchist ideology, especially to Anarcho-Capitalism and to other individualist anarchist systems. So allow me to focus mainly on Social/Communist/Marxist anarchist philosophies, as I believe in present day (at least in the West) it is not the State's authority on political/social liberties that's unacceptable, but its defense (based solely on authority) of an unjust economic system:

Economic matters:
· If the economy is run by workers' associations, the distribution of "income" (as credit, vouchers, or whatever) in the economy will be unjust or prone to disputes. Possible clashes may occur between these associations. After all, who is to say that this job is harder/easier than another job? And who determines which workers have or don't have the ability to do it? Unlike a capitalist or state socialist economy, there is no one (not even a market) to assign a value to labor. Unless everybody received the same income (or goods, in a moneyless anarcho-communist economy for example) no matter what job you are doing, in which case....
· There would be no motivation for the workers to do their job right. If we assume human beings to be self-interested individuals, they wouldn't put more effort into their work just for the sake of it. In a money-less communist society, workers get their goods at the end of the day, whether they did their work as effectively as they could or not; since remuneration goes "to each according to his need". One could argue that a lazy worker could be fired by the workers' "council" but that's against the whole spirit of brotherly generosity between humans. If that's allowed to happen, then it's not impossible for a worker to lose his job because the council wanted another man in his place or because they didn't like him.

· Even if you had a democratic management of the economy (with decentralised economic planning, kind of like the case in Parecon), it could be the case that the population doesn't take the best decisions about its management. Let's say people, on the whole, imagine they would like to acquire 500 pairs of shoes this month. Now, since there's no authority to control the distribution of goods, it may be the case that someone who hadn't planned to buy shoes this month decides to do it now. As a result, one of the people who had originally planned to buy a pair will have none. It probably doesn't sound like a big deal, but what happens when a situation like this occurs in a big scale? You could have a serious shortage of a good, or viceversa, a big surplus of unwanted goods. True, it could all be solved if the person who took the pair that didn't belong to him said next time that he is intending to buy one. But what if he doesn't? Or what if someone else does the same he did? That way, the economy would be experiencing shortages and producers would not respond to the call (because on paper, they keep receiving the task to produce 500 pairs). This would probably not happen in a market. There is no price mechanism in this situation, so if it was agreed that the apple was worth 2 credits then it will remain the same in spite of an increase in the demand for it. Had the apple been worth 3 credits as a result of its high demand, then maybe those that decided all of a sudden to buy one would back out. Bottom-line, Anarchism requires full cooperation from every member of society. At the same time, if that happened it would mean consumers have no "real" freedom of choice.

Social matters:
· Conflicts would be incredibly problematic. For one thing, these societies can't have laws; otherwise they'd abolish certain liberties. As there can be no set of rules in which to base on, it would be difficult to reach a solution which could be considered "just". Yet most importantly, there would have to be an organisation for this, because someone has to decide the issue, right? So there should have to be a judge or a jury. In which case you give special authority to people (something that Anarchism should not do). But even if it does - democratically or in any other way - who would enforce the law? What if the victim/guilty party do not agree with the verdict? You can't send communal police or the like to enforce the verdict, because in that case you would have created a new mini-State.

I apologize in advance if this has gone on for too long.

Look forward to hearing what you have to say

[anticlimacus]

· If the economy is run by workers' associations, the distribution of "income" (as credit, vouchers, or whatever) in the economy will be unjust or prone to disputes. Possible clashes may occur between these associations. After all, who is to say that this job is harder/easier than another job? And who determines which workers have or don't have the ability to do it? Unlike a capitalist or state socialist economy, there is no one (not even a market) to assign a value to labor. Unless everybody received the same income (or goods, in a moneyless anarcho-communist economy for example) no matter what job you are doing, in which case....

Why would the distribution of income be unjust or more prone to disputes than a system organized under private property? Anarchism consists of a federation of communities, social organizations, or coops and associations. Disputes are resolved through discourse and communication.

Market socialism does assign economic value to labor. Other kinds of socialism or mutual aide look to free labor--the value is not determined by markets, but by needs and interests of those who do the labor. Certain kinds of work would have to be communally organized, but those kinds of things would have to be decided on on an ad hoc basis. In a capitalist economy, one is typically condemned to some form of wage slavery where one has no say over one's production or product.

There would be no motivation for the workers to do their job right. If we assume human beings to be self-interested individuals, they wouldn't put more effort into their work just for the sake of it. In a money-less communist society, workers get their goods at the end of the day, whether they did their work as effectively as they could or not; since remuneration goes "to each according to his need". One could argue that a lazy worker could be fired by the workers' "council" but that's against the whole spirit of brotherly generosity between humans. If that's allowed to happen, then it's not impossible for a worker to lose his job because the council wanted another man in his place or because they didn't like him.

There is often no motivation for workers to do their job right in a capitalist economy. If I work for a giant corporation selling, for example, coffee, I have no real interest in the product I make. I simply work for a paycheck. The product could be poorly made, dirty, and just bad quality--what do I care, so long as the corporation pays me? In a libertarian-socialist society, work is voluntary--I therefore do the work because I want to be a part of society and that particular production. The voluntary aspect of it frees me and allows me to become a meaningful participant both of society and of my production--why is that not motivation?

Even if you had a democratic management of the economy (with decentralised economic planning, kind of like the case in Parecon), it could be the case that the population doesn't take the best decisions about its management. Let's say people, on the whole, imagine they would like to acquire 500 pairs of shoes this month. Now, since there's no authority to control the distribution of goods, it may be the case that someone who hadn't planned to buy shoes this month decides to do it now. As a result, one of the people who had originally planned to buy a pair will have none. It probably doesn't sound like a big deal, but what happens when a situation like this occurs in a big scale? You could have a serious shortage of a good, or viceversa, a big surplus of unwanted goods. True, it could all be solved if the person who took the pair that didn't belong to him said next time that he is intending to buy one. But what if he doesn't? Or what if someone else does the same he did? That way, the economy would be experiencing shortages and producers would not respond to the call (because on paper, they keep receiving the task to produce 500 pairs). This would probably not happen in a market. There is no price mechanism in this situation, so if it was agreed that the apple was worth 2 credits then it will remain the same in spite of an increase in the demand for it. Had the apple been worth 3 credits as a result of its high demand, then maybe those that decided all of a sudden to buy one would back out. Bottom-line, Anarchism requires full cooperation from every member of society. At the same time, if that happened it would mean consumers have no "real" freedom of choice.

This concern seems a bit unfounded. In fact, if we are concerned about waste, isn't it capitalist society that we should have a real problem with? I live in an area where restaurants are constantly throwing away food at the end of the day. All the while there are people out on the street begging for food. Is that rational? Or take another example. An economic crisis occurs due to overproduction. Industry has to reduce itself, and suddenly we have a bunch of ready and willing labor that just sits unused because private profits cannot be made off of it, all the while society suffers. Is this rational? Under a decentralized socialist organization communities and associations would be able to coordinate their needs through communication. There would be no centralized system that decides what is best. Under anarcho-syndicalism, or something similar, there could still even be markets--although these markets depend worker owned and managed industry, which could also be in connection with something like "people's banks" or some form of community controlled capital. This allows for democratic participation, pricing, as well as rational organization that avoids the barbaric waste of the capitalist system.

Conflicts would be incredibly problematic. For one thing, these societies can't have laws; otherwise they'd abolish certain liberties. As there can be no set of rules in which to base on, it would be difficult to reach a solution which could be considered "just". Yet most importantly, there would have to be an organisation for this, because someone has to decide the issue, right? So there should have to be a judge or a jury. In which case you give special authority to people (something that Anarchism should not do). But even if it does - democratically or in any other way - who would enforce the law? What if the victim/guilty party do not agree with the verdict? You can't send communal police or the like to enforce the verdict, because in that case you would have created a new mini-State.

Anarchism does not meant "no rules". When I join, say a library, it is publicly controlled and everybody is free to access the material. Yet there are still rules with consequences. Nobody is going to arrest me if I don't return a book--but then I won't be able to use the library anymore. Despite the fact that I pay no fees to be a member, that nothing really happens to me if I don't return the material, libraries are not having a massive problem of theft or mishandling of material. How is this possible if there is no threat of jail or some other coercive force for my disregard of the rules? If I actually care about my participation, then I will invest in the rules of the group. This is nothing new, its something humans have done for thousands of years without any coercive force to control it. We only have a problem of people not following the rules if we live in a society were the vast majority have no say in their lives and do not participate in the social wealth. Coercive force is needed when a smaller and smaller group of people control the power. When power is much more diffuse, and people are empowered to meaningfully participate in society the need for coercion greatly diminishes, and almost becomes non-existent. People can claim their lives and their communities for their own--they abide by the rules because they make them and they know that they are for the good of all and not just some. Of course this does not mean there will be no disputes. However, these will by and large become more of private matters, as opposed to them being social in origin. For example, the legal system to control private property is built up of a coercive institution to ensure that those who own property will have it protected. This works primarily to the benefit of property owners--thus those who own the most social wealth. Theft that occurs in this system occurs as a result of not having basic needs, so one steals. If basic needs are met, this social problem is avoided.

[Matt24]

Why would the distribution of income be unjust or more prone to disputes than a system organized under private property? Anarchism consists of a federation of communities, social organizations, or coops and associations. Disputes are resolved through discourse and communication.

The distribution of income would be more prone to disputes, in my opinion, because the means of production are collectively owned. I can't go to "Google Corp." right now and say "Hey, how come I can't have a job in your company? I'm perfectly capable of coming up with groundbreaking ideas...", because it's a privately-owned company and they have the ability to hire labour as they please.

Now what would happen in a "workers' association"? Its means of production don't belong to a company or the State. They are owned collectively. So what stops me from wanting to be a part of it, especially if I would get paid more? Of course, you could argue that these organizations could have special requirements to access it; therefore, if I'm qualified enough then I have a right to work there. Fine. But we would forget that in such a case; these associations would start to run like guilds of the middle ages, where members would protect their common interest and allow as few new memberships as possible. Think about my hypothetical shoemakers' association, and for the purpose of making my point, let's say its workers are paid comparatively more than in other cooperatives. Since the high salary is very attractive, many people might start to learn the trade (assuming there'll be communal learning institutions) and asking for membership in the association. Now, if the community does not need to produce more shoes, then do you think the shoemaker cooperative will allow a surplus of workers in their workplace, making their salary go down? I think any rational individual would not allow this. That's my point. Cooperatives are, in a lesser degree than other kinds of businesses, exclusive enterprises. And they fundamentally care for their own well-being.

That's why, I imagine that the interests of each cooperative could clash, as each one will try to protect their share of income.

Market socialism does assign economic value to labor. Other kinds of socialism or mutual aide look to free labor--the value is not determined by markets, but by needs and interests of those who do the labor. Certain kinds of work would have to be communally organized, but those kinds of things would have to be decided on on an ad hoc basis. In a capitalist economy, one is typically condemned to some form of wage slavery where one has no say over one's production or product.

But in Market Socialism you have the State organizing production, right?. In an Anarchist economy, it's the people who need to do that - as they are the ones who own the means of production (at least this is the case in a communist one). If people are paid differently, then that would still maintain inequality (plus probable disputes, as I argued above). If they just aren't paid (as you say, free labor) then I don't see people making an effort if they see no apparent reward for it. I'm not saying it's something impossible (after all, indigenous communities don't need money to work), but in a large society, I believe that ultimately self-interest will influence how much labor its members do. If I can work 3 hours a day instead of 6, and receive the same wage/goods for it, why wouldn't I do it?

There is often no motivation for workers to do their job right in a capitalist economy. If I work for a giant corporation selling, for example, coffee, I have no real interest in the product I make. I simply work for a paycheck. The product could be poorly made, dirty, and just bad quality--what do I care, so long as the corporation pays me? In a libertarian-socialist society, work is voluntary--I therefore do the work because I want to be a part of society and that particular production. The voluntary aspect of it frees me and allows me to become a meaningful participant both of society and of my production--why is that not motivation?

You may not have any emotional attachment to the good/service you are producing, but you DO have a motivation to do it right. Of course, that motivation will not come intrinsically, that is, your boss may need to tell you that you need to produce the good this or that way. But you know that if you don't do as you're requested to do, then you will lose your paycheck.

Apart from that, you also have motivation to stand out from the others and receive a bigger paycheck. I know what you're thinking, it seems like such a materialistic thing to do; having no regard for your fellow workers. Yet that's technically an efficient way for laborers to improve and expand their skills.

Regarding voluntary work, as I've said before, I think that just wouldn't be a successful scheme. Would you work for 6 hours if you can work 3 hours and get the same paycheck? Would you? Even if you had a remote interest in what you're producing, would you still do it even though you know your neighbor just sits idle in his couch watching TV all day??

This concern seems a bit unfounded. In fact, if we are concerned about waste, isn't it capitalist society that we should have a real problem with? I live in an area where restaurants are constantly throwing away food at the end of the day. All the while there are people out on the street begging for food. Is that rational? Or take another example. An economic crisis occurs due to overproduction. Industry has to reduce itself, and suddenly we have a bunch of ready and willing labor that just sits unused because private profits cannot be made off of it, all the while society suffers. Is this rational? Under a decentralized socialist organization communities and associations would be able to coordinate their needs through communication. There would be no centralized system that decides what is best. Under anarcho-syndicalism, or something similar, there could still even be markets--although these markets depend worker owned and managed industry, which could also be in connection with something like "people's banks" or some form of community controlled capital. This allows for democratic participation, pricing, as well as rational organization that avoids the barbaric waste of the capitalist system.

True, you're absolutely right that capitalism generates lots of waste. However; you say that a society can coordinate their needs through communication. But I ask you, is there a better form of communication for an economy than a pricing system? I don't think so. You may not need prices if you're dealing with a small community; but can a city live without a price mechanism? Sometimes I feel like Anarchism is plausible only for rural, scarcely populated districts.

Indeed, I think those forms of Anarchism that maintain markets would be so much more efficient. I agree with that. By the way, now that you mention people's banks as a way of investing in capital, I remember another concern of mine which I forgot to add. Would these workers associations invest in new capital? I get it, it's not necessary to do so unless the level of production needs to be substantially increased. But what happens when, as a result of labor's diminishing returns under given units of capital, it is necessary to invest in capital to increase production? Would the cooperatives do it, knowing that new capital might make some workers dormant?

Anarchism does not meant "no rules". When I join, say a library, it is publicly controlled and everybody is free to access the material. Yet there are still rules with consequences. Nobody is going to arrest me if I don't return a book--but then I won't be able to use the library anymore. Despite the fact that I pay no fees to be a member, that nothing really happens to me if I don't return the material, libraries are not having a massive problem of theft or mishandling of material. How is this possible if there is no threat of jail or some other coercive force for my disregard of the rules? If I actually care about my participation, then I will invest in the rules of the group. This is nothing new, its something humans have done for thousands of years without any coercive force to control it. We only have a problem of people not following the rules if we live in a society were the vast majority have no say in their lives and do not participate in the social wealth. Coercive force is needed when a smaller and smaller group of people control the power. When power is much more diffuse, and people are empowered to meaningfully participate in society the need for coercion greatly diminishes, and almost becomes non-existent. People can claim their lives and their communities for their own--they abide by the rules because they make them and they know that they are for the good of all and not just some. Of course this does not mean there will be no disputes. However, these will by and large become more of private matters, as opposed to them being social in origin. For example, the legal system to control private property is built up of a coercive institution to ensure that those who own property will have it protected. This works primarily to the benefit of property owners--thus those who own the most social wealth. Theft that occurs in this system occurs as a result of not having basic needs, so one steals. If basic needs are met, this social problem is avoided.

Well, yes, you may still have rules, but the question is... who constitutes those rules? My concern is, what is the limit to these rules? To my mind, when you open up the possibility to establishing rules, sooner or later you will be creating a State (in a miniature version).

I don't think the library thing is the perfect example. Don't forget that a library is still "guarded"; there are security cameras; there are people around. If it really needed no enforcement of the rules, then libraries would stay open 24/7 without the need for any librarians around.

I also believe that economic inequality is the primary cause of crime. But it would be silly to claim that it would be non-existent in a different system. Humans are ambitious and greedy (though I think those qualities are exaggerated and even idolized in our capitalist societies), so it's not like equality is sufficient for a peaceful community.

[anticlimacus]

The distribution of income would be more prone to disputes, in my opinion, because the means of production are collectively owned. I can't go to "Google Corp." right now and say "Hey, how come I can't have a job in your company? I'm perfectly capable of coming up with groundbreaking ideas...", because it's a privately-owned company and they have the ability to hire labour as they please.

Now what would happen in a "workers' association"? Its means of production don't belong to a company or the State. They are owned collectively. So what stops me from wanting to be a part of it, especially if I would get paid more? Of course, you could argue that these organizations could have special requirements to access it; therefore, if I'm qualified enough then I have a right to work there. Fine. But we would forget that in such a case; these associations would start to run like guilds of the middle ages, where members would protect their common interest and allow as few new memberships as possible. Think about my hypothetical shoemakers' association, and for the purpose of making my point, let's say its workers are paid comparatively more than in other cooperatives. Since the high salary is very attractive, many people might start to learn the trade (assuming there'll be communal learning institutions) and asking for membership in the association. Now, if the community does not need to produce more shoes, then do you think the shoemaker cooperative will allow a surplus of workers in their workplace, making their salary go down? I think any rational individual would not allow this. That's my point. Cooperatives are, in a lesser degree than other kinds of businesses, exclusive enterprises. And they fundamentally care for their own well-being.

That's why, I imagine that the interests of each cooperative could clash, as each one will try to protect their share of income.

There are many different models of libertarian socialist economies--none of which, I think, has the problems you presume. But, for simplicity's sake, let's stick one I seem more inclined to, which would be anarcho-syndicalism within an economy based on a form of market socialism (as a point of reference, the economic structure I would broadly envision stems mainly from Rudolf Rocker and William Schweikart). So there is profit, although not off of labor. There is also pricing. There is also communally owned capital dispersed in community banks which advises and provides capital for investments both in syndicates and for communal needs. There are worker managed syndicates. The latter two are federated with other syndicates and communal banks and communal boards. Finally, there is an insistence on full-employment. No centralized state--everything operates under a federated system of autonomous communities or regions or what we might even call social subsystems.

OK. Now to your points. Hiring depends upon each syndicate. They want good employees that work well within their system that would help produce and sell their goods. Hiring may be a bit more difficult because employees are also not let go, except on a democratic basis. On the other hand, there is an insistence on full employment, as socialism has always entailed. Local communities also, presumably, have means available for helping individuals enhance their skills, determine their interests, and find suitable employment. So various trades are not necessarily closed off any more than they are within modern professions. The main difference is that these professions and technical trades exist in a socialist society. In fact, under a socialist economy their would be much more commitment to helping individuals develop both their interests and abilities in order to contribute. Although, this does not mean there will never be problems of over saturation of particular trades and particular interests. These would have to be mitigated on an ad hoc basis.

We also have to keep in mind that we should not assume, particularly in a socialist society, that becoming super rich becomes nearly as important as it does in a capitalist society. Communities, for instance, might ensure a certain base of wellbeing--and this might be operative on a federated level. Additionally, free-time or leisure-time is also a value, and becomes much more viable under this system than under a capitalist system. There is just not the same incentive to simply working to gain more and more money under this system. There is more of an incentive to find work that best meets one's interests and abilities.

In terms of cooperatives clashing--don't capitalist organizations constantly clash or collude? I think, under this system, there is less risk of this because of the social control over capital, primarily for the reasons stated above.

But in Market Socialism you have the State organizing production, right?. In an Anarchist economy, it's the people who need to do that - as they are the ones who own the means of production (at least this is the case in a communist one). If people are paid differently, then that would still maintain inequality (plus probable disputes, as I argued above). If they just aren't paid (as you say, free labor) then I don't see people making an effort if they see no apparent reward for it. I'm not saying it's something impossible (after all, indigenous communities don't need money to work), but in a large society, I believe that ultimately self-interest will influence how much labor its members do. If I can work 3 hours a day instead of 6, and receive the same wage/goods for it, why wouldn't I do it?

Schweikart envisions a centralized state (although he does not really define what that would mean--in other words, he is much much closer to anarchism than centralism). However, other market socialists, such as Proudhon, do not. I think we could employ something like Schweikart's economic paradigm in a more federated anarcho-syndicalism as described by Rudolf Rocker. There is a system of federated "people's banks" whose money funnels in from local syndicates (a sort of tax). These people's banks (controlled by local communities and their communal boards) allocate funds and coordinate with other banks within a federated system (i.e. there may be some agreement that certain regions should have more capital than others, etc.). Likewise local syndicates operate in connection with other local syndicates and banks and are also federated. Communal boards could also be federated. Much of this would just depend on how anarchism develops.
You also keep talking about "self-interest" as if Hobbesian or Smithian individuals are what we should assume. "Interests" are largely socially contingent, so are "selves". Capitalists systems tend to atomize creating social systems in which individuals are fragmented from the rest of society, and have little to no choice but to simply look after themselves or suffer. A socialist system views this as horribly wrong and antithetical to fruitful social development. Society based on social solidarity, on the other hand, could potentially create individuals capable of fully determining themselves and their own potential. Just something to keep in mind.

You may not have any emotional attachment to the good/service you are producing, but you DO have a motivation to do it right. Of course, that motivation will not come intrinsically, that is, your boss may need to tell you that you need to produce the good this or that way. But you know that if you don't do as you're requested to do, then you will lose your paycheck.

Apart from that, you also have motivation to stand out from the others and receive a bigger paycheck. I know what you're thinking, it seems like such a materialistic thing to do; having no regard for your fellow workers. Yet that's technically an efficient way for laborers to improve and expand their skills.

Regarding voluntary work, as I've said before, I think that just wouldn't be a successful scheme. Would you work for 6 hours if you can work 3 hours and get the same paycheck? Would you? Even if you had a remote interest in what you're producing, would you still do it even though you know your neighbor just sits idle in his couch watching TV all day??

In capitalist systems, you have a motivation to stay out of trouble from your supervisors. I agree there does need to be motivation. However, at the same time I do not agree that threat of unemployment, starvation, poverty, etc. needs to be the motivator. Under the system I described there are profits, but there is also social solidarity. Both individual economic profit and social solidarity can be a powerful motivator, particular under a social system that seeks to maximize human potential and wellbeing for all, as opposed to individual profit with the latter being an assumed consequence.
Now certainly, if people who did nothing could live like kings, you would have a point. But I don't think that would be the case. If you simply decide to live off the labor of society (as capitalists do!) without making any social contribution, there would be consequences to that. Sure no military or police force is going to break into your home and throw you in jail. But you might find yourself effectively ostracized. So, for example, if I refuse to work maybe I would not be able to utilize many of the social goods such as the local library, the garbage system, the plumbing, the air conditioning, the health system, etc. all of which come as a benefit to those who participate in society.

True, you're absolutely right that capitalism generates lots of waste. However; you say that a society can coordinate their needs through communication. But I ask you, is there a better form of communication for an economy than a pricing system? I don't think so. You may not need prices if you're dealing with a small community; but can a city live without a price mechanism? Sometimes I feel like Anarchism is plausible only for rural, scarcely populated districts.

Indeed, I think those forms of Anarchism that maintain markets would be so much more efficient. I agree with that. By the way, now that you mention people's banks as a way of investing in capital, I remember another concern of mine which I forgot to add. Would these workers associations invest in new capital? I get it, it's not necessary to do so unless the level of production needs to be substantially increased. But what happens when, as a result of labor's diminishing returns under given units of capital, it is necessary to invest in capital to increase production? Would the cooperatives do it, knowing that new capital might make some workers dormant?

I have described a system that employes pricing. However, this need not be the only viable solution for an anarchist society. I just find it to be the most practical, at least in the much of the industrialized world. In terms of investing, sure individuals could invest their own incomes--however, all syndicates make a contribution to communal banks. Otherwise they do not participate in social production and social goods. Communal banks in coordination with communal boards and entrepreneurs or groups of entrepreneurs make investments in future ventures. This would also most likely have links on a federated level.

Well, yes, you may still have rules, but the question is... who constitutes those rules? My concern is, what is the limit to these rules? To my mind, when you open up the possibility to establishing rules, sooner or later you will be creating a State (in a miniature version).

I don't think the library thing is the perfect example. Don't forget that a library is still "guarded"; there are security cameras; there are people around. If it really needed no enforcement of the rules, then libraries would stay open 24/7 without the need for any librarians around.

I also believe that economic inequality is the primary cause of crime. But it would be silly to claim that it would be non-existent in a different system. Humans are ambitious and greedy (though I think those qualities are exaggerated and even idolized in our capitalist societies), so it's not like equality is sufficient for a peaceful community.

Rules do not need to be enforced by a centralized establishment with a monopoly on force for them to be effective. They can be established by voluntary agreement. I strongly contend that the only reason for a established centralized force mechanism is the result of a dominant class who benefits the most from the institution of force. Better that the consequence of "breaking rules" comes in terms of social participation (or lack thereof) of social benefits. Rules need to be clear. Do not get me wrong. I just don't see that they need an authoritative mechanism, controlled by a "government", that legitimizes itself with a pretense of "watching over us"--that all sounds quite suspicious and naive to me.

[Matt24]

There are many different models of libertarian socialist economies--none of which, I think, has the problems you presume. But, for simplicity's sake, let's stick one I seem more inclined to, which would be anarcho-syndicalism within an economy based on a form of market socialism (as a point of reference, the economic structure I would broadly envision stems mainly from Rudolf Rocker and William Schweikart). So there is profit, although not off of labor. There is also pricing. There is also communally owned capital dispersed in community banks which advises and provides capital for investments both in syndicates and for communal needs. There are worker managed syndicates. The latter two are federated with other syndicates and communal banks and communal boards. Finally, there is an insistence on full-employment. No centralized state--everything operates under a federated system of autonomous communities or regions or what we might even call social subsystems.

OK. Now to your points. Hiring depends upon each syndicate. They want good employees that work well within their system that would help produce and sell their goods. Hiring may be a bit more difficult because employees are also not let go, except on a democratic basis. On the other hand, there is an insistence on full employment, as socialism has always entailed. Local communities also, presumably, have means available for helping individuals enhance their skills, determine their interests, and find suitable employment. So various trades are not necessarily closed off any more than they are within modern professions. The main difference is that these professions and technical trades exist in a socialist society. In fact, under a socialist economy their would be much more commitment to helping individuals develop both their interests and abilities in order to contribute. Although, this does not mean there will never be problems of over saturation of particular trades and particular interests. These would have to be mitigated on an ad hoc basis.

We also have to keep in mind that we should not assume, particularly in a socialist society, that becoming super rich becomes nearly as important as it does in a capitalist society. Communities, for instance, might ensure a certain base of wellbeing--and this might be operative on a federated level. Additionally, free-time or leisure-time is also a value, and becomes much more viable under this system than under a capitalist system. There is just not the same incentive to simply working to gain more and more money under this system. There is more of an incentive to find work that best meets one's interests and abilities.

In terms of cooperatives clashing--don't capitalist organizations constantly clash or collude? I think, under this system, there is less risk of this because of the social control over capital, primarily for the reasons stated above.

If I understand your argument on this correctly, you're saying that 1- Cooperatives wouldn't clash much (or not as much as corporations do) and 2- In case they did, the problems would be resolved spontaneously at that very moment. Yet I could not find a reason in your text about why these associations wouldn't clash. Maybe I was not clear enough myself on why I think this would occur more frequently. Let me state my reasons.

In a capitalist economy, workers encompass a class of their own. They have common interests, even if they do not belong to the same industry. They all fight to protect their share of the national income. Of course, they might not always be successful in doing so: it depends on the context and the country. Anyhow, my point is that they have the same objectives and intentions. Now, what would happen in an Anarcho-Syndicalist economy (for example)? The way I see it, since workers won't have to fight to protect their portion of income from capitalists, they will start to have more pronounced differences and disputes. And that could be very damaging for the success of this kind of economic system. If you had a body for decision-making that set the distribution of income itself (such as a socialist State) then maybe there wouldn't be so many clashes between cooperatives as their power would be significantly reduced. Sure, you could keep the market and let labor be assigned a price from it. But there would still be that other problem I talked about: how would you deal with a surplus of workers in some industry? Would people be fired? Would they need to learn new skills everytime they are laid off as a result of a surplus?

Note I'm not saying that these problems make Anarchism impossible nor that other economic systems would be preferrable to it. All I'm arguing is that such a system would be far from the perfect, peaceful society it is theoretized to be (at least in its economic perspective).

Schweikart envisions a centralized state (although he does not really define what that would mean--in other words, he is much much closer to anarchism than centralism). However, other market socialists, such as Proudhon, do not. I think we could employ something like Schweikart's economic paradigm in a more federated anarcho-syndicalism as described by Rudolf Rocker. There is a system of federated "people's banks" whose money funnels in from local syndicates (a sort of tax). These people's banks (controlled by local communities and their communal boards) allocate funds and coordinate with other banks within a federated system (i.e. there may be some agreement that certain regions should have more capital than others, etc.). Likewise local syndicates operate in connection with other local syndicates and banks and are also federated. Communal boards could also be federated. Much of this would just depend on how anarchism develops.
You also keep talking about "self-interest" as if Hobbesian or Smithian individuals are what we should assume. "Interests" are largely socially contingent, so are "selves". Capitalists systems tend to atomize creating social systems in which individuals are fragmented from the rest of society, and have little to no choice but to simply look after themselves or suffer. A socialist system views this as horribly wrong and antithetical to fruitful social development. Society based on social solidarity, on the other hand, could potentially create individuals capable of fully determining themselves and their own potential. Just something to keep in mind.

The idea about the banks sounds plausible. Although cooperatives should be careful not too put too much power (i.e. money) to those banks, it still seems to be the best way to help them invest in capital. I would like different banks to be around - just to ensure no bank has got all the money. If we allow them to lend money to individuals (let's say, for buying houses, cars, etc.) then there would be free competition between them, and the more efficient and transparent bank would probably get the most cash from cooperatives.

Regarding self-interest, I don't believe it is something assumed and/or eternal. Indeed, I agree with you that capitalism isolates people from society. But we should not forget that it IS a common attitude in humans. How else do you explain that most babies, after barely being a few months old, tend to be so egoistic? Of course, you later learn in schools that you have to respect others, and you could make an argument that this inflated self-interest exacerbated by capitalism CAN be eradicated from a future society (I think the change should start in the individual and families, but that's my opinion). But you can't ignore that there's something of self-interest in our nature. Let me tell you a little story which, though it pains me to remember it now, really showed me the extent to which we are self-interested.

I was a boy of around 12 years old, when one day getting off the bus that took me home, I saw the silhoutte of a suspicious man. I walked the other way, uncertain if I was right in fearing that man. My intuitions were correct, because I soon heard a woman yelling "get off me!" at the top of her voice. There was nobody else in the street. I turned around and saw the man grabbing the woman and trying to stroke her. I knew in the back of my mind I should go help her, but I felt defence-less (I'm not a particularly strong guy) and there was no one to ask for help, so I just kept walking pretending not to have seen or heard anything. You have no idea how much I regretted this later. I was young, yes, and at the moment it seemed like not getting involved was the right thing to do. But it really hit home to me how, in that moment when my life was in danger, I unconsciously chose to save myself (maybe I'm exaggerating, the guy didn't seem to be armed but he was on drugs and there was no telling what he might have done). Would I do it again if the same thing happened? No, of course not. Yet it was striking to me how at that moment I didn't think about it - it was like a natural body response to the situation. (By the way, if you're wondering what happened to the girl, when I came back with someone else five minutes later they were both gone. Apparently someone called the police and he ran away. So at least I don't feel THAT guilty).

So that kind of showed me, without meaning to, that there is self-interest in us. Whether that can be overcome or not is another thing. I think it can, to some extent.

In capitalist systems, you have a motivation to stay out of trouble from your supervisors. I agree there does need to be motivation. However, at the same time I do not agree that threat of unemployment, starvation, poverty, etc. needs to be the motivator. Under the system I described there are profits, but there is also social solidarity. Both individual economic profit and social solidarity can be a powerful motivator, particular under a social system that seeks to maximize human potential and wellbeing for all, as opposed to individual profit with the latter being an assumed consequence.
Now certainly, if people who did nothing could live like kings, you would have a point. But I don't think that would be the case. If you simply decide to live off the labor of society (as capitalists do!) without making any social contribution, there would be consequences to that. Sure no military or police force is going to break into your home and throw you in jail. But you might find yourself effectively ostracized. So, for example, if I refuse to work maybe I would not be able to utilize many of the social goods such as the local library, the garbage system, the plumbing, the air conditioning, the health system, etc. all of which come as a benefit to those who participate in society.

It's just that social and generous attitude I'm not particularly sure that will occur. To continue with personal examples, I live in a country where welfare benefits for the poorest are substantial. Yet people, especially the middle class (which I thought tended to relate more to the poor) are absolutely against that, and they regard them as lazy bastards that live off the government without doing any work. Although it shakes me to the core (since for me poverty is THE fundamental problem not only of my country but for the whole world) they do have a point in that it's not fair that they have to work to maintain a huge bulk of people with their taxes who aren't doing anything. On the whole I don't agree, but it's easy to note (a little bit) the unfairness of the issue. I believe people ultimately want to help others, but they don't want to do that if the others don't make any effort to contribute (note that I don't include the capitalist elite in this definition of people - they don't work either and I doubt many believe in honest philantrophy). In my experience, I find people to be incredibly self-interested as a result of capitalism, but that applies to all classes - not just the higher ones.

I know we're heading too much into psychological ground; sorry for that.

I have described a system that employes pricing. However, this need not be the only viable solution for an anarchist society. I just find it to be the most practical, at least in the much of the industrialized world. In terms of investing, sure individuals could invest their own incomes--however, all syndicates make a contribution to communal banks. Otherwise they do not participate in social production and social goods. Communal banks in coordination with communal boards and entrepreneurs or groups of entrepreneurs make investments in future ventures. This would also most likely have links on a federated level.

See my point above about the banking system.

Rules do not need to be enforced by a centralized establishment with a monopoly on force for them to be effective. They can be established by voluntary agreement. I strongly contend that the only reason for a established centralized force mechanism is the result of a dominant class who benefits the most from the institution of force. Better that the consequence of "breaking rules" comes in terms of social participation (or lack thereof) of social benefits. Rules need to be clear. Do not get me wrong. I just don't see that they need an authoritative mechanism, controlled by a "government", that legitimizes itself with a pretense of "watching over us"--that all sounds quite suspicious and naive to me.

So if I understand this right, you disapprove of a big centralized power exerting a monopoly on rules but you would not be totally against smaller decentralized institutions establishing them?

My concern is based on how much control these institutions would have. It's not a problem with libraries, of course. But sooner or later, people would start to set rules to protect their private property and boom.. you have a new "mini-State". I was reading yesterday Wikipedia's article about "Post-Anarchism" and I found this interesting paragraph about the ideas of Gustav Landauer (in this case at least, I agree with him): Most important for contemporary postanarchism is Landauer’s analysis of the state as a “certain relation between people: a mode of behaviour and interaction”. Following this logic, the state can be “transcended only through a certain spiritual transformation of relationships,” without such a transformation “the state will be simply reinvented in a different form during the revolution”.

[anticlimacus]

How else do you explain that most babies, after barely being a few months old, tend to be so egoistic?

Babies also have no defined interests. The fact babies are entirely helpless and thus do not develop the capacity to have social interests or even social instincts until later does not mean that human interests are shaped after infantile ones. Babies also do not have rationally developed brains--does that mean humans are naturally irrational about their needs and managing them?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that humans are naturally altruistic. Neither am I suggesting that they are “self-interested”. I am suggesting that their interests, as well as their selves, are socially contingent and develop within their environment. The simple idea that we seek to gratify “individual” needs first assumes that the individual can be a unit analyzable outside of social (and environmental) context. I find this to be a fallacious starting point. This is not an argument for an altruistic human being (altruism would also be contextually relative). It’s really an argument for more complexity when it comes to how our interests and selves are shaped, as opposed to the simple abstract self-interested individual of classical liberalism.

In a capitalist economy, workers encompass a class of their own. They have common interests, even if they do not belong to the same industry. They all fight to protect their share of the national income. Of course, they might not always be successful in doing so: it depends on the context and the country. Anyhow, my point is that they have the same objectives and intentions.

We have to be careful to distinguish apparent “class” interests from “individual” interests. This is particularly important as society becomes more complex and class becomes more diluted. Some workers have interests to pursue their profession. Some simply want to make ends meet. Some want to become capitalists. Etc. There is no apparent single unified interest, particularly the more complex society gets.

As a “class” we could say worker interests (in the abstract) must be defined in relation to capitalist class. Both interests are based off of social conflict between those who control capital and those who serve as labor. In capitalists society, uniting worker interests has been context relative. It’s been more difficult to do, for instance, in the US than in other parts of the world. It also depends on the kinds of manipulation and fragmentation created by the capitalist system which often pits workers against each other. Needless to say, conflict is ripe through and through in this system. In fact, its precisely the only way to define “class unity”.
In an anarchist society, this basic distinction is supposed to be transcended. It is not based on class division, but solidarity. There is no capitalist class. This does not mean there will be no conflicts or divisions, but “worker interests” seem to appear more unified in this system--we are all workers or producers.

Now, what would happen in an Anarcho-Syndicalist economy (for example)? The way I see it, since workers won't have to fight to protect their portion of income from capitalists, they will start to have more pronounced differences and disputes. And that could be very damaging for the success of this kind of economic system. If you had a body for decision-making that set the distribution of income itself (such as a socialist State) then maybe there wouldn't be so many clashes between cooperatives as their power would be significantly reduced. Sure, you could keep the market and let labor be assigned a price from it.

I'm still failing to see why you think there is more conflict between workers in this system than in a capitalist system. In the capitalist system, even if we take for granted a general class interest, there are still issues of racism, agism, sexism, nationalism, the unemployed "reserve army of labor" and the employed wanting to keep their jobs, cheaper labor in one region (e.g. China) as opposed to another (e.g. USA), etc. These divisions are often more pronounced than unity. Indeed, the challenge is attempting to actually unite--"workers unite!" is the Marxist plea, not the assumption.
As for coops and syndicates, take Mondragon, for instance. There is not more conflict in that worker coop than in a more capitalist structured industry simply because the workers are the owners. Worker satisfaction is actually fairly high in most coops precisely because of its democratic structure. Of course other issues may arise, but the point is we take away one of the biggest divisions in society: the division between those who privately control the means of production and those who do not.

But there would still be that other problem I talked about: how would you deal with a surplus of workers in some industry? Would people be fired? Would they need to learn new skills everytime they are laid off as a result of a surplus?

I don't see why worker saturation is necessarily a bigger problem in a socialist society as opposed to a capitalist society. There will be certain market determinants, over saturation in a particular field just depends on the context we are talking about. We have to keep in mind that in order for syndicates to survive they do have to be somewhat profitable, otherwise workers make no pay. Certainly, I would think workers would not as easily be let go--but coops would also not tend to over-expand as they would in a capitalist economy (what benefit do syndicates have to keep expanding indefinitely when that means they will just be bringing in more workers to share in the profits? Profit, recall, does not come off labor exploitation). I also mentioned communal banks and boards which would, most likely, invest in social goods--such as education, healthcare, housing, food, etc. (depends on the context). In addition I talked about a commitment to full-employment. So presumably society itself would be committed to providing means for individuals both to find work and to develop their own skills.

It's just that social and generous attitude I'm not particularly sure that will occur. To continue with personal examples, I live in a country where welfare benefits for the poorest are substantial. Yet people, especially the middle class (which I thought tended to relate more to the poor) are absolutely against that, and they regard them as lazy bastards that live off the government without doing any work. Although it shakes me to the core (since for me poverty is THE fundamental problem not only of my country but for the whole world) they do have a point in that it's not fair that they have to work to maintain a huge bulk of people with their taxes who aren't doing anything. On the whole I don't agree, but it's easy to note (a little bit) the unfairness of the issue. I believe people ultimately want to help others, but they don't want to do that if the others don't make any effort to contribute (note that I don't include the capitalist elite in this definition of people - they don't work either and I doubt many believe in honest philantrophy). In my experience, I find people to be incredibly self-interested as a result of capitalism, but that applies to all classes - not just the higher ones.

You talk about these divisions, but fail to recognize that these are divisions produced by a capitalist society. Ironically, you also have argued earlier that capitalism produces more unity among workers than socialism. Much of the divisions you mention, such as viewing those who utilize government for subsistence as "moochers", are divisions produced precisely because of capitalist divisions: negative propaganda (e.g. "welfare queens"), growing inequality, fragmentation among the workforce, positive propaganda (e.g. rich capitalists all work hard and do everything on their own), etc.
Again, to be clear, I'm not talking about a "generous society" where those who work hard have to support the "lazy". I'm talking about a society where producers (which we all are and can be) share in a more equal fashion in the progress that society makes. In fact, if anarchism is guilty of anything it is not a naive altruism--it's suspicion. Anarchism is not built on the assumption that people with power will simply do the good for the wellbeing of all. On the contrary, they will seek to greater empower themselves. The best way to preclude this is that power must be as equally shared as possible, and by so doing we enhance the capacity for individuals to empower themselves through their own efforts.

So if I understand this right, you disapprove of a big centralized power exerting a monopoly on rules but you would not be totally against smaller decentralized institutions establishing them?

Centralization of power I disapprove of at all--whether that be on a general scale (such as a federal government or massive corporate oligopolies) or on a local scale (such as state governments or single monopolies). I like Paul Goodman's summarization of the basic principle of anarchism: it seeks to "increase intrinsic functioning and diminish extrinsic power." This means that society seeks to maximize the autonomy of communities, syndicates, and individuals while diminishing power over them. Communal organization must therefore be radically democratic, and where authority is instituted it has, as Chomsky says, the burden of proof to justify itself.

But sooner or later, people would start to set rules to protect their private property and boom.. you have a new "mini-State".

I find this claim interesting, as it seems to assume an inherent justification of states. States did not come in to being in order to protect the citizenry and their personal belongings. States arose, following Charles Tilly, because of war, empire building, and then the emergence of capitalist property relations. The idea that states would just naturally occur by the "will of the people" to protect their property is simply a reformulation of classical liberalism contract theory. My view is that the more poverty and authoritarian relations are reduced, and the more means people have to actually determine and actualize themselves are available, the less social conflict we have.

I was reading yesterday Wikipedia's article about "Post-Anarchism" and I found this interesting paragraph about the ideas of Gustav Landauer (in this case at least, I agree with him): Most important for contemporary postanarchism is Landauer’s analysis of the state as a “certain relation between people: a mode of behaviour and interaction”. Following this logic, the state can be “transcended only through a certain spiritual transformation of relationships,” without such a transformation “the state will be simply reinvented in a different form during the revolution”

I'm not sure about a "spiritual transformation" but there does indeed need to be cultural groundwork, and capitalist relations and relations of dependence and domination must be transcended. There needs to be a sense in which people find themselves self-sufficient by virtue of their communal efforts. Capitalist society has communal efforts--but these are often hidden through the individualism and divisions inherent in the system. This allows for greater exploitation and fragmentation. The more wealth becomes actually recognized as a social product, as opposed to a private one, the more our communal efforts become visible as the base from which our individual autonomy depends.

[Matt24]

Babies also have no defined interests. The fact babies are entirely helpless and thus do not develop the capacity to have social interests or even social instincts until later does not mean that human interests are shaped after infantile ones. Babies also do not have rationally developed brains--does that mean humans are naturally irrational about their needs and managing them?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that humans are naturally altruistic. Neither am I suggesting that they are “self-interested”. I am suggesting that their interests, as well as their selves, are socially contingent and develop within their environment. The simple idea that we seek to gratify “individual” needs first assumes that the individual can be a unit analyzable outside of social (and environmental) context. I find this to be a fallacious starting point. This is not an argument for an altruistic human being (altruism would also be contextually relative). It’s really an argument for more complexity when it comes to how our interests and selves are shaped, as opposed to the simple abstract self-interested individual of classical liberalism.

Ok, the way I understand it, you're saying humans are neither naturally altruistic nor self-interested. I can admit to that. I think altruism and self-interest are *mainly* fostered by the environment. You do have a point that babies don't have a developed brain in their first months of life, however, I think my point can still be made about toddlers and older children. Yet I'd be stupid to ignore the fact that people *can* have magnanimous hearts, something that capitalism sometimes hampers with. Let's leave this discussion on human nature here, I don't think it'll take us anywhere to be honest. It's already a miracle we partially agreed

Nevertheless, (here it comes) I disagree with your claim that needs cannot/should not be analyzed from an individual scope. In fact, it is in my opinion necessary for people's basic needs to be met in order to construct positive social relationships. Man has individual needs to be met that, although they can obviously be shaped by his surroundings, are ultimately a requirement for his survival. Note I'm not talking about any other needs apart from the basic ones. It is a lie imposed by capitalism that we need a modern car, a TV, a cell phone to be "prosperous" (I'm sure you'd agree with me on this). But there are some goods that man needs for survival and which would ameliorate social problems such as crime, fights etc. That still wouldn't be enough to create a peaceful society of course; however, it would be step one.

We have to be careful to distinguish apparent “class” interests from “individual” interests. This is particularly important as society becomes more complex and class becomes more diluted. Some workers have interests to pursue their profession. Some simply want to make ends meet. Some want to become capitalists. Etc. There is no apparent single unified interest, particularly the more complex society gets.

As a “class” we could say worker interests (in the abstract) must be defined in relation to capitalist class. Both interests are based off of social conflict between those who control capital and those who serve as labor. In capitalists society, uniting worker interests has been context relative. It’s been more difficult to do, for instance, in the US than in other parts of the world. It also depends on the kinds of manipulation and fragmentation created by the capitalist system which often pits workers against each other. Needless to say, conflict is ripe through and through in this system. In fact, its precisely the only way to define “class unity”.
In an anarchist society, this basic distinction is supposed to be transcended. It is not based on class division, but solidarity. There is no capitalist class. This does not mean there will be no conflicts or divisions, but “worker interests” seem to appear more unified in this system--we are all workers or producers.

Let's see. First of all, I don't think individual interests should be distinguished from class interests, at least for the purpose of our discussion. Obviously, no group will EVER have homogenous interests. Everyone seeks different things but yet they may have a goal in common. A study group of, let's say, Medicine students don't all need to be future neuro-surgeons. One might want to become a pediatrician, another a nutritionist but that doesn't make the group less effective in studying Chemistry together. In many other cases, the same principle holds.

Indeed, as you say, workers are not always united especially in places like the USA. But I think in this case limitless corporate power, media manipulation and the idea of the "American Dream" are partly to blame for that. If Americans maybe disregarded the notions that capitalism will make everyone prosper then maybe they could create a more united working class. I'm sure other countries also have similar reasons why their trade unions and such are not strong enough.

I agree that Anarchism would be able to transcend the "I fight for my wage you fight for yours" notion that is sometimes typical of unions. However, my point is that there will still be distinctions between them. And even worse, instead of being united against capitalism; it will become doctor vs shoemaker vs teacher vs factory worker to see who can take more income. Unless you had a market, in which case you know my argument again.

I know what you're thinking: There's no reason for workers to clash with each other. You may be right, and I'm afraid that this is intrinsically related to our discussion above on human nature. How will people react once capital is shared and income is distributed just between workers? Would the comparatively worst-paid workers tolerate the differences in wealth which will arise from other workers being better-paid? You could answer back: "of course not, now that capitalists won't take the wealth generated by their labor they should be content, even if they don't get as much as others do". But we don't truly know. The fact that people tend to be ambitious and have a sense of justice tells me that the story wouldn't end just like this.

I'm still failing to see why you think there is more conflict between workers in this system than in a capitalist system. In the capitalist system, even if we take for granted a general class interest, there are still issues of racism, agism, sexism, nationalism, the unemployed "reserve army of labor" and the employed wanting to keep their jobs, cheaper labor in one region (e.g. China) as opposed to another (e.g. USA), etc. These divisions are often more pronounced than unity. Indeed, the challenge is attempting to actually unite--"workers unite!" is the Marxist plea, not the assumption.
As for coops and syndicates, take Mondragon, for instance. There is not more conflict in that worker coop than in a more capitalist structured industry simply because the workers are the owners. Worker satisfaction is actually fairly high in most coops precisely because of its democratic structure. Of course other issues may arise, but the point is we take away one of the biggest divisions in society: the division between those who privately control the means of production and those who do not.

I don't see why worker saturation is necessarily a bigger problem in a socialist society as opposed to a capitalist society. There will be certain market determinants, over saturation in a particular field just depends on the context we are talking about. We have to keep in mind that in order for syndicates to survive they do have to be somewhat profitable, otherwise workers make no pay. Certainly, I would think workers would not as easily be let go--but coops would also not tend to over-expand as they would in a capitalist economy (what benefit do syndicates have to keep expanding indefinitely when that means they will just be bringing in more workers to share in the profits? Profit, recall, does not come off labor exploitation). I also mentioned communal banks and boards which would, most likely, invest in social goods--such as education, healthcare, housing, food, etc. (depends on the context). In addition I talked about a commitment to full-employment. So presumably society itself would be committed to providing means for individuals both to find work and to develop their own skills.

That's true, capitalism leads to many other problems apart from inequality. But let's not forget that people are also a cause of it, and making the means of production collective or abolishing the state won't change that. Do you really think racism can be eradicated just by changing the economic system? Racism is a social problem, which may have been a product of capitalism and imperialism yes, but right now it has remained in society NOT in the economy. There is now no reason for a dark-skinned person not to be able to have a certain job or the education of a white european (although poverty may still be more prevalent for the usually discriminated races). But that's a problem Anarcho-Syndicalism may also have, as it can't reach perfect equality between its citizens.

I think Agism is not a problem if you have a universal pension system maintained by the State. It's quite atypical in many countries, but it is something that can be achieved through the election of socialist parties. Sexism has had a similar road as racism. It was a product of capitalism, but not anymore. There are still rights they have to win (such as legal abortion in many countries), yet they have tremendously changed their role in society and in the economy in the last couple of centuries. Nationalism depends on the politicians people elect, too.

As for regional differences of the cost of labor, I agree that's a big problem. But hey, it's not like economies can't survive that. After all, you can always restrict imports and/or deviate resources to other sectors which are not the light industry, right? Yes, workers are far from being very united nowadays. Yet we shouldn't forget that the progress of the working class in these last 150 years has been tremendous.

I know cooperatives work fine. In fact, I'm a big believer in them under the current system. My problem is not with cooperatives working alongside capitalists enterprises, my concern is with cooperatives being the ONLY organisations supplying the market. Because: 1- you obviously can't let many cooperatives be a part of the same market, otherwise they would compete with each other like corporations do. 2- So you have to let one control the market, in which case I still have my reservations about what the democratic committees would do when they find themselves with a surplus of workers. You say cooperatives would not over-expand because the profits will remain the same. I don't agree with that for two main reasons: The first one is that the whole point of a decentralized communal economy is to provide the goods that society demands. And here you came up with a stumbling block in your argument, because if what you say would be true, then the economy is not bound to be very successful. Just imagine that for whatever reason (let's say a population increase) citizens demand more of a certain good, but the association refuses to produce it because they get nothing out of it. Wouldn't it be... both inefficient AND unjust? Anyhow, in my mind they WOULD supply more goods, because they actually have a chance to sell more and take in more income. How? Well, hiring as few workers as possible so as to achieve the biggest difference between a hypothetical new income share and the current one. (I could explain this in more "economic" terms with marginal income, productivity and cost; however, I'm not particularly knowledgeable of the models and I wouldn't know how to specifically apply them for this kind of economy).

And the opposite can happen too. Even if somehow the associations remained as stable as possible, there's always the risk for demand to fall (no good is demanded in the same quantity indefinitely) and for workers to be laid off. This situation could be quite recurrent, and we could find ourselves with a segregated sector of the labor force struggling to get by and being hired and laid off periodically (yes, not very different to capitalism, but you get my point).

I'm ok with that communal bank system, though I think that since contributions are technically set up by the workers' associations, it could be the case that if they're not particularly committed to the cause, committees may cut down these social contributions (esp. when their profits fall..).

I know everyone's supposed to be socially responsible in this system (actually I have envisioned this for a capitalist economy) but I don't think that it would ever be possible if there's still money around and there's the possibility of earning more and more of it. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if this were the case in any kind of modern society (I told you how poverty concerns me), yet I've witnessed people who started off without any big ambitions and desires becoming more and more obsessed in maintaining their position and earning more. I don't know how much of that is shaped by society or the media, but I have the feeling that it's inherent in human beings to always want more (don't get me wrong, I'm talking about "temptations" not self-interest here).

You talk about these divisions, but fail to recognize that these are divisions produced by a capitalist society. Ironically, you also have argued earlier that capitalism produces more unity among workers than socialism. Much of the divisions you mention, such as viewing those who utilize government for subsistence as "moochers", are divisions produced precisely because of capitalist divisions: negative propaganda (e.g. "welfare queens"), growing inequality, fragmentation among the workforce, positive propaganda (e.g. rich capitalists all work hard and do everything on their own), etc.
Again, to be clear, I'm not talking about a "generous society" where those who work hard have to support the "lazy". I'm talking about a society where producers (which we all are and can be) share in a more equal fashion in the progress that society makes. In fact, if anarchism is guilty of anything it is not a naive altruism--it's suspicion. Anarchism is not built on the assumption that people with power will simply do the good for the wellbeing of all. On the contrary, they will seek to greater empower themselves. The best way to preclude this is that power must be as equally shared as possible, and by so doing we enhance the capacity for individuals to empower themselves through their own efforts.

I don't think it's ironic because I was talking about the working class and not about the excluded of the system. I agree these kinds of divisions do belong mainly to a capitalist society, but that was not the point I wanted to make. What I meant was that for a society where people's different levels of income don't correlate with the work they do will always tend to generate discord and self-interest. I only brought about this issue because you said that work was absolutely "voluntary". So I immediately imagined that many people would be content with doing nothing as long as they can live off that.

Of course, if the ones who do work are MORE than compensated for what they do, I think that would be very just (AND they wouldn't be able to complain about other people not doing anything because they are rewarded much more than the lazy ones).

Actually, that last paragraph you wrote was really persuasive. I like the emphasis on self-empowerment. I came to the conclusion long ago that my perfect society would ensure everyone got enough to satisfy their basic needs, but that those who wanted to live even a more prosperous life would be able to do so through effort. Does Anarchism embody this, then? See? Little by little you're hauling me to anarchism

Centralization of power I disapprove of at all--whether that be on a general scale (such as a federal government or massive corporate oligopolies) or on a local scale (such as state governments or single monopolies). I like Paul Goodman's summarization of the basic principle of anarchism: it seeks to "increase intrinsic functioning and diminish extrinsic power." This means that society seeks to maximize the autonomy of communities, syndicates, and individuals while diminishing power over them. Communal organization must therefore be radically democratic, and where authority is instituted it has, as Chomsky says, the burden of proof to justify itself.

That sounds good. The only reservation I have is regarding the democratic management of these communal institutions. Can people be counted on to put the others' needs before their own? Would the minorities be oppressed in some way by the majority's decisions?

I find this claim interesting, as it seems to assume an inherent justification of states. States did not come in to being in order to protect the citizenry and their personal belongings. States arose, following Charles Tilly, because of war, empire building, and then the emergence of capitalist property relations. The idea that states would just naturally occur by the "will of the people" to protect their property is simply a reformulation of classical liberalism contract theory. My view is that the more poverty and authoritarian relations are reduced, and the more means people have to actually determine and actualize themselves are available, the less social conflict we have.

Well, I always thought their main objective was to protect the private property of the ruling class. In the historical cases you mentioned, to protect the monarchs' properties. The citizenry was not really defended willingly in my opinion, but rather as a way of establishing order and preventing upheavals.

I could be totally wrong though, maybe as you say I came upon these conclusions through Rousseau and the rest of the social-contract theorists.

I'm not sure about a "spiritual transformation" but there does indeed need to be cultural groundwork, and capitalist relations and relations of dependence and domination must be transcended. There needs to be a sense in which people find themselves self-sufficient by virtue of their communal efforts. Capitalist society has communal efforts--but these are often hidden through the individualism and divisions inherent in the system. This allows for greater exploitation and fragmentation. The more wealth becomes actually recognized as a social product, as opposed to a private one, the more our communal efforts become visible as the base from which our individual autonomy depends.

This. So much. It's such a sad thing that happens. The worst thing is, those efforts are rarely known by most of the population, yet the most profitable and innovative entrepreneurs and companies get all the media attention.

I agree wealth needs to be made social, but the key lies in preventing anyone from taking advantage of that situation for their own self-interest.

By the way, I'm sorry I took so long to write back. There was much to write about and I was a bit busy. Thanks for your patience

[anticlimacus]

I know what you're thinking: There's no reason for workers to clash with each other. You may be right, and I'm afraid that this is intrinsically related to our discussion above on human nature. How will people react once capital is shared and income is distributed just between workers? Would the comparatively worst-paid workers tolerate the differences in wealth which will arise from other workers being better-paid? You could answer back: "of course not, now that capitalists won't take the wealth generated by their labor they should be content, even if they don't get as much as others do". But we don't truly know. The fact that people tend to be ambitious and have a sense of justice tells me that the story wouldn't end just like this.

You are correct that there are always potentials for conflict. Anarchism does not rid the world of conflict. However what it does do--or at least part of what it attempts to do--is provide an equal and participatory environment within which disagreements and conflicts can be resolved. In our current system of corporate capitalism, social conflict arises within a context of those who have authoritarian power and those who are dominated. It becomes class conflict, or conflict between those in power and those outside of power. Since anarchism rests on the basic principle that authority over self-determination requires justification, conflicts that arise between dominant and dominated become far less likely--the society is built on the idea that domination is typically unjustifiable. Now there may be individual parochial conflicts between Worker A and worker B. But that is different from conflicts that develop out of social inequality. Ironically, what the dominant groups in capitalist society attempt to do is to make capitalist class conflicts a matter of individual parochial conflicts, so that the full force of united Capital can confront individual, isolated workers. So Joe's fighting for a higher wage has nothing to do with the system, but is his own individual problem to be dealt with in relation to his boss. Socialists recognize this as having its root in the wage system where Joe's interests for a better economic standard of living is a class interests among wage workers. Capitalists fear, more than anything, workers and the dominated uniting under a common interests. So they utilize indoctrination and strategies to privatize what are really social conflicts.

That's true, capitalism leads to many other problems apart from inequality. But let's not forget that people are also a cause of it, and making the means of production collective or abolishing the state won't change that. Do you really think racism can be eradicated just by changing the economic system? Racism is a social problem, which may have been a product of capitalism and imperialism yes, but right now it has remained in society NOT in the economy. There is now no reason for a dark-skinned person not to be able to have a certain job or the education of a white european (although poverty may still be more prevalent for the usually discriminated races). But that's a problem Anarcho-Syndicalism may also have, as it can't reach perfect equality between its citizens.

I don't think the aim is simply to abolish the state. The aim is to overcome domination that cannot be consented to--or unjustifiable domination. If, for example, I cannot freely consent to your power, then your power over me is unjustifiable. But in order for this to be possible I have to have enough power to prevent you from dominating me. Otherwise, regardless of what I say, you will find the means to control me. If we were to just get rid of the state, we would still have some form of massive corporate capitalist power, which would have to collude in order to protect their power. These may even likely become even worse privatized tyrannies than we have today because there would exist absolutely no public forum from which to contest these massive powers of capital. From my point of view, the capitalist system--which includes the modern state--must be made superfluous. That means revolution occurs over time from the ground up, by people and communities finding common interests and working together to meet their own needs. In the mean time, the state also must be used to protect the interests of the dominated, although the ultimate aim is to the eradication of the state.

I do not think things like racism, sexism, agism, etc. can be eradicated by just changing the economic system. However, I think these problems are greatly exaggerated and exploited by the current socio-economic system. Racism in the US is largely a product of the capitalist slave trade and it has been maintained in all its manifestations in order to make white workers fight with black people as the source of their social frustration, and vice versa. Racism has largely been a constructed phenomenon designed to maintain control over the population. Again it is this whole idea that socio-economic problems are supposed to become private, non-economic affairs so that the poor, workers, and the marginalized do not unite in order to overcome the real systems of power that dominate them. So sexism, racism, etc. do not just go away, but they are radically transformed and reduced.

Actually, that last paragraph you wrote was really persuasive. I like the emphasis on self-empowerment. I came to the conclusion long ago that my perfect society would ensure everyone got enough to satisfy their basic needs, but that those who wanted to live even a more prosperous life would be able to do so through effort. Does Anarchism embody this, then? See? Little by little you're hauling me to anarchism

Indeed we shall convert you..resistance is futile mwaaaa

Seriously, though self-impowerment is central. At the same time it depends on working together, on finding our common interests and creating systems of support that allow us all to reach our full potential.

That sounds good. The only reservation I have is regarding the democratic management of these communal institutions. Can people be counted on to put the others' needs before their own? Would the minorities be oppressed in some way by the majority's decisions?

Again, I don't think we need to count on people being altruistic. Democratic control simply means that those with whom decisions directly effect get to decide, together. So, for instance, in the workplace those who actually do the work get to make the decisions about their products and their working conditions, i.e. workers themselves. The same with communities. Owner of industry X, for example, cannot just take his/her capital to a different country just because there is cheaper labor there and thus leave our community out to dry. Industry X is just as much ours as it is the one who is given private right to make all the decisions about it. It is a part of our community and its economy and it has been worked and operated by us. We should be able to decide what does and does not happen to it. Those decisions are social decision, and should not be privatized to private owners of capital.

I could be totally wrong though, maybe as you say I came upon these conclusions through Rousseau and the rest of the social-contract theorists.

Well, at least Rousseau realized that modern society had become a degraded system. Although his view of democracy was largely authoritarian. But I think we need to resist the temptation simply assume the state to be the product of "our will" or of "our interests". The state is not a mere abstraction. It is a system of power and needs to be understood historically as such, not as an idea.

By the way, I'm sorry I took so long to write back. There was much to write about and I was a bit busy. Thanks for your patience

No worries--life happens

[Eran]

Matt24,
I have been away for a little while, and missed the conversation. I am a strong advocate of Anarcho-Capitalism. Most of your questions and the subsequent discussion pertain specifically to left anarchism, and being the positive guy that I am, I will allow the defence by anticlimacus, one of the more thoughtful proponents of left-anarchism, to stand as is.

If you do have any questions or reservations regarding Anarcho-Capitalism, please let me know.



However, you did make one concession that I would like to challenge:

True, you're absolutely right that capitalism generates lots of waste.

Not so.

Capitalism is the least wasteful system known to Man, for the simple reason that owners are financially motivated to reduce real waste.

When restaurants throw edible food, that may appear to be wasteful, but isn't so. The cost (in labour, management time, risk, etc.) of making use of that food is greater than the value of the food being thrown out. Thus any system which makes use of that food would be more wasteful than the one which doesn't.

Every instance of (real) waste is an entrepreneurial opportunity which would reward alert entrepreneurs who identify and take steps to reduce it.