[eugenekop]

I don't really have much knowledge on anarcho communist etc, but as I understand it, anarcho communists, advocate abolishing the state under the belief that everybody would then voluntarily live in communes etc. If this did happen would anarcho communism and the like not be products of the free market and therefore capitalist (if we chose to define capitalism in the free market sense of the word).

If on the other hand, people decided to live outside of the communes and acquire property, if the collectivist anarchists accepted this, would they not merely be market anarchists? If they didn't and used coercion to stop people acquiring property, they wouldn't be anarchists. The only justification for this would to claim that property is coercive which is ridiculous.

Or am I missing something? Because otherwise it just seems to me that people calling themselves anarcho communists or anarcho syndicalists seems a bit silly, either they accept what follows from abolishing the government or they resort to coercion, if they fit into the former category are they not recognising property rights as legitimate?

[Daktoria]

You seem to have anarchism psychologically backwards.

Anarchists view capital hoarders as self-alienating pigs. They wouldn't need to be stopped. They would drive themselves out of the community because they prefer to associate with stuff before associating with people.

That said, I'm not sure if anarchists care about security (which is why they despise private property). They look at social relations as a natural emergence. If people get beat up and made fun of for seeming weak or weird, anarchists wouldn't care. They simply accept outcasts as natural happenings. People are presumed to be assertive, and those who aren't get relegated in the social hierarchy. Spontaneous assertive engagement is simply accepted as part of belonging to a community. Relegated people are expected to adapt their communication to fit their place.

You have to learn to think dialectically in order to associate with anarchists. That way, you appear assertive in order to hide your true strength. If you get caught in a battle, you participate anyway because backing out makes you vulnerable and seem weak the next time. If your opponent helps you recover out of honor after the engagement, so be it. If he doesn't, the same applies.

An-caps don't tend to understand this. They think analytically instead, believing value expressions fit a definite structure. It's this necessitarian thought pattern which makes an-caps vulnerable because they're constantly removed from taking legal risks.

I think the really ironic part about this, though, is the role reversal in the private sector. Anarchists are extremely risk-averse when it comes to investment, unsure of themselves completely with how to manage economic projects. An-caps, in contrast, are bustling with ideas and confidence to pursue them.

That said, an-caps get looked upon as tools, completing projects for the sake of completing them rather than achieving a social experience. It's for this reason that an-caps wouldn't make it in an anarchist society. The instant an an-cap project is completed, the anarchists would tag along, and exploit it for all its worth, intimidating the an-cap to give up everything he made just to fit in. After he does, he'd be cast out again, struggling to figure out another project in order to be accepted.

The an-cap gets locked on this treadmill of abusive invention, so anarchists don't see a reason to care. After all, he's going to keep on inventing no matter what.

[Someone5]

I don't really have much knowledge on anarcho communist etc, but as I understand it, anarcho communists, advocate abolishing the state under the belief that everybody would then voluntarily live in communes etc. If this did happen would anarcho communism and the like not be products of the free market and therefore capitalist (if we chose to define capitalism in the free market sense of the word).

You're missing the part about property being a consequence of the state; without the state protecting the property privilege, ownership and markets are impossible. Ownership then becomes a matter of possession or use--it is no longer durable. Anarcho-capitalists base their position on a fundamental failure of logic--they assert that "property" is some sort of natural right that exists without government to protect the claim. That's obviously silly.

Some anarchists characterize this as the difference between "private property" and "personal property", where private property is a state-recognized privilege extended to an individual, and personal property is something a person happens to be using right now.

If on the other hand, people decided to live outside of the communes and acquire property, if the collectivist anarchists accepted this, would they not merely be market anarchists? If they didn't and used coercion to stop people acquiring property, they wouldn't be anarchists. The only justification for this would to claim that property is coercive which is ridiculous.

How is that ridiculous at all? The nature of property requires that a person exercise and defend an exclusive claim over a set of resources formerly belonging to the community as a whole. When you claim an acre of land as your own private property, that is an acre of land denied to everyone else. That's quite coercive.

Or am I missing something? Because otherwise it just seems to me that people calling themselves anarcho communists or anarcho syndicalists seems a bit silly, either they accept what follows from abolishing the government or they resort to coercion, if they fit into the former category are they not recognising property rights as legitimate?

Property is a consequence of government, and it is the foundation for the coercive power of governments and capitalists.

[The Immortal Goon]

Moved to Anarchist Forum




-TIG Edit

[eugenekop]

Someone5, which community the property is denied to? Which community exactly has the right to that property? Does anyone on earth can simply can get part of that property?

I suggest you to read this: http://attackthesystem.com/free-market- ... communism/

[Someone5]

Someone5, which community the property is denied to? Which community exactly has the right to that property? Does anyone on earth can simply can get part of that property?

Under an anarchist system, yes... if they are willing to travel there.

I suggest you to read this: http://attackthesystem.com/free-market- ... communism/

It's yet another example of a market socialist trying to describe why property would be advantageous without a state, but providing no structural explanation for how such a property privilege would be granted or exchanged without a government. My problem with their view isn't how property would work... my problem with their viewpoint is that they don't explain why or how property would exist. Just because it might have some advantages doesn't explain how you can go about implementing it without creating just the sort of coercive organization anarchists claim to oppose. And yes, I'm aware that you can just call it something other than "government", for example "rights enforcement agency" or whatever. The point is that unless people have such an organization, there can't be property. It doesn't make sense without some coercive organization determining ownership.

One of the greatest crimes of coercive systems is the property privilege; why would any anarchist want to bring that back once it was broken?

[Nunt]

Under an anarchist system, yes... if they are willing to travel there.

Why should you have to travel? The segmentation of people into communities is entirely arbitrary. What is the relevant community size? The household? The street? The town? The province? The nation? The EU? The world?

Say there is some property in Rome. The Romans claim that the community only extends to Rome and that only Romans should get a piece. On the other hand, you have Lybians on the other side of the Mediterranean who claim that the community is in fact all the countries around the mediterranean.

[eugenekop]

So any person in the world can just go into my house and take my television?

[fuser]

^
There is a difference between "private property" and "personal property", please look it up.

[eugenekop]

Okay. 3 different people want my money. Who gets it and who decides who gets it?

[onemalehuman]

^
There is a difference between "private property" and "personal property", please look it up.

the difference between private and personal is genetics and a lifetime each generation. Ancestry and ancestor, inside the skin and everything beyond each person's hide/hyde characteristics and projected character of reality.

Does that cover every ideology equally?

What is the common properties of everything combined? Periodic table of elements. Common ground.

What is it in reality?
common use of vernacular tribalism adopted by each sole result of ancestry each generation now reproduces here in this moment instant changes add details never duplicated again.

So simple it is unbelievable, just understandable if taking everything into account. Oops rule of 72 of economic growth in dividing real into 6 degrees of separation painting only 4 corners to choose from while 8 exist all the time.

Choosing between only two sides when thinking out of the box philosphically leaves four sides unattented being polar opposites of two axioms other than the third open to debate.

But that is why I think grammar is designed to prevent open thinking within an entire species population of male and female lifetimes being sole results of specific conceptions conceptually compromising to deny what is real creating social justification characters need rights to prevent humans ignoring reality and adapting to the real moment.

Governance corrupts governments of time management to everything passing through this moment. i.e. absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[fuser]

Okay. 3 different people want my money. Who gets it and who decides who gets it?

I have no idea in what context this demand exists and in what form does 'money' exist in this hypothetical society.

[Someone5]

Why should you have to travel?

Because there would be no other way of asserting a claim over a set of resources? Without a government to grant property privileges, there is no way for private property to exist. Personal property--meaning goods or capital personally utilized--would be the full limit of what property could mean without some overarching organization to catalog and recognize and defend private property claims.

So yes, you would have to travel, because you would have to personally make use of the resource you wanted hold of. And it would mean relinquishing what you had before, unless you could carry it with you.

The segmentation of people into communities is entirely arbitrary.

So what? If you don't like your community, move. Unlike a capitalist private property system, you could do so in an anarchist society freely. No house to dispose of, no assets to liquidate, etc.

What is the relevant community size? The household? The street? The town? The province? The nation? The EU? The world?

Whomever is close enough to count? I guess it would depend on the individual willingness to commute. Like you said, communities are fairly arbitrary.

Say there is some property in Rome. The Romans claim that the community only extends to Rome and that only Romans should get a piece.

Which would not be anarchism, so I fail to see how this hypothetical is relevant.

On the other hand, you have Lybians on the other side of the Mediterranean who claim that the community is in fact all the countries around the mediterranean.

Okay, how would this be relevant? Unless they actually travel to Rome (and therefore take part in that community), they could have no meaningful interaction with the property in Rome. Because unlike a capitalist private property system, there would be no way to express a durable claim over property you do not personally utilize. They can sit on the other side of the Mediterranean and talk all they want about that property they "own" in Rome, but it wouldn't mean anything if they didn't get off their asses and actually go to Rome to make use of it.

So any person in the world can just go into my house and take my television?

Why would anyone bother? I mean, if society was actually organized along anarchist lines, there would obviously be other forms of social feedback to discourage such asinine stupidity. It doesn't take much to convince people that's a pretty stupid idea.

Okay. 3 different people want my money. Who gets it and who decides who gets it?

The question doesn't make sense from the anarchist viewpoint. You wouldn't have any money, and why would anyone want it even if you did? It's a freaking anarchist society, no one is paying for things anyway. Why would anyone demand your money, much less three people?

[Someone5]

Bad habit, sorry for the double post.

[SecretSquirrel]

There are only two systems: Voluntaryist and not

Other labels are obfuscation

[eugenekop]

Unfortunately Someone5, you don't give us a guideline that will enable people to solve conflicts. You are basically just saying that they'll get along. But how?

[Someone5]

Unfortunately Someone5, you don't give us a guideline that will enable people to solve conflicts.

How many personal conflicts not involving private property are resolved by the courts? It's comparatively few, and there's no real reason that a similar arbitration method couldn't resolve them in an anarchist society.

But frankly it's not really my job to tell people how to solve their problems. I'm promoting the anarchist position here--what kind of sense would it make for me to proscribe a specific system for other people to resolve their disputes? That's essentially the very definition of their own concern to deal with. Their preference in that matter may well disagree with mine, and there's nothing wrong with that. It just means I would move to a community that agrees with me, and they would move to one that agrees with theirs. And that may well represent a permanent split, where one side does not deal with the other. So long as both hold to overall anarchist principles, there's not a problem. If one side adopts other principles, then maybe the question of how an anarchist society deals with war would come up. They would have advantages and disadvantages relative to capitalists and nationalists.

You are basically just saying that they'll get along. But how?

Uhh, I didn't even remotely suggest that personal conflict wouldn't exist. I don't think an anarchist society would be a touchy-feely everyone gets along nicely kind of thing. But I do think it would probably have less violence because there wouldn't be the omnipresent threat of utter failure hanging over people's heads. Failure wouldn't equate with losing everything, so there would be less of a reason to press it to extremes. And before you say that it's in human nature to push things to the extremes, let me point out that culture has a strong role in shaping a person's reactions to threats and stress. Anarchism would necessarily require a strong degree of social engineering; just like feudalism and capitalism required a lot of social engineering to bring to fruition. It takes time--it's not something that would happen overnight.

[eugenekop]

You didn't understand my last sentence, but never mind.

So it seems that your kind of anarchy fits very well with an anarcho-capitalist one. In *your* community you'll have communist laws, but you will also respect the capitalist property of capitalist communities. Am I right?

[mikema63]

im all for pluralism, ive got nothing against the idea of other communities practicing communism or socialism as long as its voluntary.

in your view it would even help keep capitalists honest by providing somewhere for all the workers to run off to if they get exploited.

(i also like the idea of having somewhere else to run off to if im/you are proven wrong and it goes to shit )

[Someone5]

You didn't understand my last sentence, but never mind.

Your last sentence made no sense given the context, outside of personal conflicts. Without a meaningful definition of private property, the vast majority of legally arbitrated conflicts in a society would vanish. They just wouldn't make any sense.

So it seems that your kind of anarchy fits very well with an anarcho-capitalist one.

Not even remotely. My "kind" of anarchy could never coexist with anarcho-capitalists. The anarcho-capitalists would start claiming resources as their own private property and attack anyone else using it, and therefore constitute a threat to everyone who wasn't an ancap. Left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists could not coexist if either one of them succeeded.

In *your* community you'll have communist laws, but you will also respect the capitalist property of capitalist communities. Am I right?

No. The capitalists would not have "their" property respected at all. Their legal fiction could only be maintained through force.

im all for pluralism, ive got nothing against the idea of other communities practicing communism or socialism as long as its voluntary.

Unless your hypothetical society were willing to declare its own borders and never move beyond them, there would be a fundamental and unavoidable contradiction that would create violent conflicts. The capitalists would quickly run out of resources within their borders and start seizing the "unclaimed virgin territory" of the communists. That's basically how capitalists have always viewed and treated lands no one was currently claiming ownership over.

There's no way in hell that an ancap society and a left-anarchist society could coexist as neighbors. The ancaps are too rooted in claims of ownership and violent assertions of property to manage that.

in your view it would even help keep capitalists honest by providing somewhere for all the workers to run off to if they get exploited.

While certainly a left-anarchist society would be able to use its prosperity as a social weapon in a long-term conflict, I can't help but think there would be tremendous animosity between a hypothetical right-anarchist and hypothetical left-anarchist society. The two philosophies are not at all compatible, mainly because neither would be able to keep itself separated from the other and there would be some very deep, fundamental contradictions between them. Not to mention the left-anarchists might well start to resent having to keep rehabilitating right-anarchist refugees. You know, providing them adequate education as adults, teaching them how to be functional members of a society, conditioning them not to mindlessly take from others, treating the no doubt extensive psychoses that would develop among the right-anarchists, etc.

Come to think of it, that could make an interesting story for a sci-fi book.