[SolarCross]

Okay so most anarchists believe that compliance with the syndicates' dictat is mandatory? If so then what is the basis for the syndicates' authority? Is it "right of might" (they make the rules because they have a force superiority and are not squeamish about using this force on dissenters.) or is "right by contract" (they make the rules because the ruled consented to the syndicates rule making)?
If it is the former Phred and his schlepper would do well to move somewhere else if they want to be free to do business in the manner they like. If it is the latter then Phred and his schlepper could simply not consent to be a member of the syndicate and then they could do as they please except for where property is concerned that does not belong to them.
If they are a member of the syndicate they can use the clay deposits owned by the syndicate but they have to use it under the direction of the syndicate which would mean by contract they are unable to sell the product utilising the clay or freely exchange by contract labour for money.
On the other hand if they are not members then they do not need the syndicates permission to do business contrary to the terms of the syndicate but they do need permission from the syndicate to use the clay which the syndicate claims to own. Phred is no doubt willing to trade with the syndicate for the clay but would the syndicate be willing to trade with Phred? Is it not possible for the syndicate to sell some clay to Phred?

Has no one any answers to this?

[Phred]

I think what has happened here is that you thought you had a stellar argument to completely deconstruct the libertarian socialist tradition, which has been longstanding for nearly 200 years.

I do have such an argument. The argument is that when presented with examples of one hundred per cent capitalist mode of production enterprises, Left-Anarchists pretend they are okay with it. You yourself did just that, because you couldn't think of any defendable reason why you or anyone else should forcibly interfere with what the people at Phred's Ceramics and PC's Sandwich Shoppe are doing. The best you could do was to insist that the odds of anyone actually behaving in the manner we describe was vanishingly small in a Left-Anarchist society.

Then Red Barn threw you what you thought was a lifeline - you have the right to interfere with what those two groups of people are doing because they are using collectively-owned resources without getting everyone in the society to agree there was no objection to that use. When asked by Eran to show your work - i.e. to explain how everything on the planet can rightfully be considered off-limits to anyone until everyone else on the planet decides unanimously how that everything should be utilized, you once again dodged the question, shrugging it off as irrelevant. But just because Red Barn claims everything is under lock and key without unanimous approval doesn't mean it actually is, it just means Red Barn says it is. All it means is that Red Barn is eager to smash the heads of anyone who won't buy her bullshit.

After being repeatedly shown the fallacy of your conclusions...

Hasn't happened.

... and being answered at every step of the way...

Again, hasn't happened. For example, no one here has yet filled in even one of the two blanks in this question:

"Phred, you may think you have constructed a textbook example of the capitalist mode of production, but the fact that in your example, the people don't do __________________ and _________________ makes it not Capitalist at all, therefore Left-Anarchists have no reason to interfere with what those people are doing."

Think you might ever get around to filling in even one of those blanks? What essential act is it that my group of people (or Eran's... pick one) isn't carrying out that groups engaged in the capitalist mode of production do carry out?

...you have resorted to simply repeating yourself and saying we cannot argue, etc.

You certainly aren't arguing seriously in this thread. I reposted above just one of the several questions I have asked which you haven't answered. Eran has asked several others that have gone unanswered. Writing a bunch of words after making a quote box with the question in it isn't necessarily answering the question in that quote box. When you do answer, I give you credit for the answer and either show how your answer is non-factual or an example of an opinion arrived at through erroneous means, or I agree that your answer is correct. But when you don't actually answer the question being asked, I point that out, too.

I think everybody here recognizes that all your points have been addressed numerous times.

Addressing points is one thing, answering plainly worded questions is another. These aren't trick questions. They aren't sloppily worded or hard to understand. Yet they go unanswered. The reason they go unanswered is that to answer them honestly would expose Left-Anarchism as the envy-driven hate-filled violence-embracing philosophy it really is. See the last several posts by Barn and Rat and Decky.

It is pointless to keep addressing them because you will just once again find another way to ask the same question and then wonder why it hasn't yet been answered.

It's the reverse, actually. It is pointless to keep asking them because they will never be answered. For example, I'll ask you one right now that you haven't yet been asked, and you won't answer this one either. You'll dance all around it, then when I point out that you haven't actually answered it, you'll complain that I am asking you to answer what you have already answered. Here it is -

- What justification would you as a Left-Anarchist give for forcibly preventing me from carrying away from one of the thousands of practically limitless clay deposits of the world an infinitesimal fraction of my proportional share of it?

Don't protest that Rat or Barn or Decky has answered this, just answer it.

I have even provided a key 20th century example of anarcho-syndicalism (anarchist Spain)...

How long did it last? And what was its beginning? Why, the theft by violence of property that didn't belong to the Left-Anarchists of Spain. Funny how that worked out, eh?


Phred

[Red Barn]

This is like arguing with a black hole.

Don't think of it as "arguing." Think of it as eliciting additional ammo for my future defense attorney.

[Someone5]

I think Someone5 has given the capitalists a loophole here. If Phred and his clay schlepper want to ignore the syndicates' property claims on the clay and its property claims on the time of phred and the schlepper, they can. Presumably they can also ignore the syndicates' prohibition on monetary exchange and wage contracts too.

You're kind of missing the point there. What property? Practically the whole point of anarchism is getting rid of property and property rights. Why would you think that an anarchist syndicate would be making arguments about their property rights? If there's no government--a government threatening people with force, mind you--then there is no one to issue meaningful property rights. You as a capitalist are then presented with two options; live with your "property" being stolen by anyone who has a mind to take it, or threaten to hurt or kill anyone who tries to take your stuff. Let me point out that you're not going to win any friends or customers with the second choice, so the chances of that working out to a practical "voluntary capitalism" are just about nothing.

Yes, you can certainly build capitalism by seizing what was once a communal belonging and claiming that it is your own personal property and protecting that claim with force. That's kind of the essential nature of capitalism--it's what it does. I don't think you'll find any argument from me that capitalists can certainly be effective thieves. I just don't think you'll get many people supporting your actions if they had a better alternative that you were actively trying to ruin.

[Someone5]

Let me guess. One of those points would be his naive assumption that all the decisions emanating from all these various co-ops and councils and tribunals and co-ordinating committees are mere suggestions.

Not an assumption; if the councils were making more than suggestions, they could not rightly be considered anarchist. By definition if they were "leftist-anarchist councils" they would be giving people the freedom to do as they think they ought to do, and among other things that means not stupidly forcing painters to be sculptors.

[Eran]

Wow, you guys were busy over the weekend...

Anyway, going back to the question of human nature.

anticlimacus,
It is true that people's perception of what's right, and what would serve their interests, their values etc. are, to some extent, determined by society.

However, I know of no examples in which people value the interests of strangers (i.e. anybody beyond a group of, at most, 50-100 others) as anywhere near as important as that of themselves or their close friends/kin/group members.

I think the suggestion that members of the syndicate (for the purpose of this discussion, assume a fairly small one, of, at most, 100 people) will put the good of the syndicate on par with their personal good (or that of their close family) is unlikely, but perhaps not impossible.

However, the suggestion that they will equally value the benefit of millions of other members of greater society as that of their own group (say syndicate) is too unlikely to take seriously. It is, I would argue, against human nature as we know it.


With that in mind, the argument over who owns natural resources isn't even required. True, the participants from the left have not given any moral argument for why or how unused (and never used) natural resources, far from any established community, are somehow communally owned.

Who owns mineral deposits deep under the ground of the Australian Outback? Assume (as is likely) that not a single person lives within 100 miles of said deposits. Are they still communally owned? If so, by whom and by what justification?


But set that aside. In any society comprised of humans remotely similar to the ones we all know, members of a syndicate will clearly (though not exclusively) prefer their own well-being over that of millions of strangers. Assuming the syndicate has control over whom it sells its products to, they are highly likely (in the absence of compulsion from above) to sell their product (or, at least, much of it) to whomsoever is able of offering them the best price.

Thus even if all natural resources are somehow communally-owned, they are owned by local communities, and a budding capitalist like Phred can simply buy his mud from some communal mud-digging syndicate.

After all, very few capitalist enterprises are radically vertically integrated (perhaps oil companies...). Most factories purchase their supplies from other factories, rather than mining them directly from the ground.

Unless I missed it, I don't think anybody responded to the question of knowledge-based capitalist enterprises such as s software / web design / product design / medical advice / entertainment / hair-cutting / home repair / lawn maintenance / private tutoring / etc / etc. enterprises.

None of those requires significant raw materials or means of production not available as personal property.

How will your society suppress budding capitalists starting such businesses by hiring willing employees?

[Phred]

Not an assumption; if the councils were making more than suggestions, they could not rightly be considered anarchist.

That would be because the central tenet of anarchism is that society should rightfully function as the linguistic roots of the word describes - "without rulers". I'm with you so far, as is Eran, who said in an earlier post: "If anarchy is about anything, it is about allowing people to engage in their chosen way of life without the violent interference of others."
Red Barn, however, is not with you so far.

By definition if they were "leftist-anarchist councils" they would be giving people the freedom to do as they think they ought to do, and among other things that means not stupidly forcing painters to be sculptors.

Among other things that means not forcibly interfering with the transport of clay to a ceramics works?

Phred

[SolarCross]

You're kind of missing the point there. What property? Practically the whole point of anarchism is getting rid of property and property rights. Why would you think that an anarchist syndicate would be making arguments about their property rights? If there's no government--a government threatening people with force, mind you--then there is no one to issue meaningful property rights. You as a capitalist are then presented with two options; live with your "property" being stolen by anyone who has a mind to take it, or threaten to hurt or kill anyone who tries to take your stuff. Let me point out that you're not going to win any friends or customers with the second choice, so the chances of that working out to a practical "voluntary capitalism" are just about nothing.

Yes, you can certainly build capitalism by seizing what was once a communal belonging and claiming that it is your own personal property and protecting that claim with force. That's kind of the essential nature of capitalism--it's what it does. I don't think you'll find any argument from me that capitalists can certainly be effective thieves. I just don't think you'll get many people supporting your actions if they had a better alternative that you were actively trying to ruin.

Actually the concept of "property" is exactly the point. Property is a right of use over something, if phred is not allowed to scoop up a bucket of mud but the syndicate is, then it would appear that the mud is (or at least claimed to be) the private property of the syndicate and not Phred. Anarchists (of the left) have funny ideas about property; sometimes they say they want to abolish it (so no one has a right to use anything) other times they say all property should be "common" so everyone is allowed to use everything, other times they say only anarcho-syndicalist councils have rights over all property. In contrast an-caps have a very precise, unambiguous and natural sense of property rights.
Property rights should not be issued by government because government doesn't have any property that it did not steal. Can you trust a thief to watch over your property? Property is and should be claimed and then recognised by someone with some moral credibility. If a claim is disputed then if the disputees cannot agree on the property rights through unaided negotiation they should go to an impartial and competent arbitration service. Lets say there is a PC sitting on a desk in a house you inhabit; who has authority over it? Well if asked you might say it is my property (you claim it) and ordinarily that is enough but then lets say someone else chooses to say that the PC is his property. Now you are in dispute, you argue that you paid for the PC therefore it is your property, the other insists that he was the last to use it so now it is his property. You argue but can't agree on the property rights over the PC eventually you both get tired and agree to take your dispute to an arbitrator to decide the matter. You ask the old man next door, who is wise in the ways of the world and has plenty of time on his hands to arbitrate. He listens to your argument that you paid for the machine and the other's argument that he was the last to use it and decides that you have the better claim on it; dispute resolved.

[Eran]

What property? Practically the whole point of anarchism is getting rid of property and property rights.

...

Yes, you can certainly build capitalism by seizing what was once a communal belonging and claiming that it is your own personal property and protecting that claim with force.

Note the contradiction. If there are no property rights, in what sense is something a "communal belonging"? If something is a "communal belonging", it is the property of the community.

Now we all can agree that something are legitimately communally owned.

But what community owns wilderness? The Australian Outback (far from any aborigine settlement)? The oil under the ocean floor?

And if the community does own a resource, doesn't the community have the right to transfer that resource to private hands? And following such transfer, doesn't it rightly belong to the individual into which hands it was transferred?

Thus even in a world with strong presumption of communal ownership, there are mechanisms whereby individuals can legitimately come to privately own property.

Why wouldn't capitalism built on such legitimately-acquired property (rather than seizing communal property) be equally legitimate?

[anticlimacus]

However, I know of no examples in which people value the interests of strangers (i.e. anybody beyond a group of, at most, 50-100 others) as anywhere near as important as that of themselves or their close friends/kin/group members.

Neither do I. For instance, in the ripeness of the Feudal era, where identities were very much ascribed by society and communal living was the norm (and note, I am not trying to argue we go back to the Feudal era), strangers were considered dangerous and often subject to criminal investigation. Now, of course, strangers are looked at as potential consumers. At any rate, I'm not arguing that we look at everybody, from our moral and cultural standpoints equally. That would be unrealistic and thoroughly abstract. However, neither do I think I need to in order to make the case that I am making. It is not difficult to understand that even those whom I don't know very well or at all, are still like me and represent a part of me in that they are a part of my community. Take for instance moments of intense nationalism (after, say, an attack): people will see complete strangers on the street and feel entirely connected to them simply because they are of the same nationality. The point is that people can associate with others, even if they don't know them personally, if they see that they seem to hold the same background assumptions (cultural and linguistic norms). And there's no reason to assume that part of our background assumptions, including our values, would be that our own good is dependent upon the good of others--why is that so unrealistic?

I think the suggestion that members of the syndicate (for the purpose of this discussion, assume a fairly small one, of, at most, 100 people) will put the good of the syndicate on par with their personal good (or that of their close family) is unlikely, but perhaps not impossible.

However, this is not what I suggested. As I said, there is no doubt that we operate out of interests, and interests by definition are at least perceived to be self-serving--so we are at least agreed on that. So if I have an interest in the good of my syndicate and of my community, why does that necessarily have to trump the interests I have in my family or myself? I think you are attempting drawing a false dichotomy here: we are either self-interested or we are communally-interested. Why can't the both be intertwined, and institutionally structured that way? In other words, we cannot simply deal with our own, say, material well-being without seeking the well-being of our community. To put it crassly, life becomes much more of a team sport as opposed to an individualistic, everybody for themselves, game. This doesn't seem to require any change in human nature whatsoever.

True, the participants from the left have not given any moral argument for why or how unused (and never used) natural resources, far from any established community, are somehow communally owned.

Sure, but this isn't difficult to do. First, we could go back to Locke and find that even he, a classical liberal, viewed all land and resources as first communally owned. Nobody has any single right to it. Socialists have made the same moral arguments for centuries, that nobody has exclusive right to the land and natural resources. Second, we also have to consider the reality of the world. We are not living in the 18th century. Humans occupy most of the world, and single individuals rummaging for food and then making a claim on some resources--like our ideal individuals of the classical liberals--simply don't exist. Uncovering vast resources is more often than not a collective endeavor, whether it is through privately owned corporations or through states; and it is likewise a collective endeavor to use them and process them. This brings us to a third more positive moral argument, that socialists have made: what takes collective labor to operate should be collectively controlled, producers should be able to control their own production.

Who owns mineral deposits deep under the ground of the Australian Outback?

So, in this case, the Australians--not business man Joe or business woman Tonia who may or may not be an Australian.

Most factories purchase their supplies from other factories, rather than mining them directly from the ground.

Yes, most factories. Again, we are assuming that somehow Phred's little clay project becomes a massive industry where workers simply flock to him because it is so promising. In this society, factories are communally controlled and are also interconnected with communities and their decision making bodies and other syndicates--this would be so even if Phred gets all his "schleppers".

Unless I missed it, I don't think anybody responded to the question of knowledge-based capitalist enterprises such as s software / web design / product design / medical advice / entertainment / hair-cutting / home repair / lawn maintenance / private tutoring / etc / etc. enterprises.

I'm failing to see why we need to go through every single example of every single potential industry. Presumably we live in a diverse society with a diversity of interests, skills, and talents. Some things we would all have to chip in--say, perhaps, tasks nobody wants to do like garbage clean-up; and some things others are able to do as groups or entirely on their own. Take private tutoring, what is so strange about somebody offering their ability to tutor another student either voluntarily (I in fact did this and many do!) or for some compensation to be designated by the two involved? And maybe, just maybe, you might have to care for your own lawn--or, as often happens, just like with tutoring there might be willing members who could help out those in need (as neighbors often do!) or some private voluntary exchange could be made. I guess I'm failing to see why this all seems so foreign...

How will your society suppress budding capitalists starting such businesses by hiring willing employees?

I don't think we will need to suppress anybody. I fail to see (any more than your sandwich shop) why these must necessarily become capitalist enterprises, in the sense of some owning the capital and putting it to use for private profit through the utilization of wage labor, those who have no access to the means of production. And we should keep in mind that in any professional field--even if knowledge based--there are means of production. There are, for instance, means of production both in education and in resources required for the field. Presumably, these too would be controlled socially.

[Phred]

I don't think we will need to suppress anybody.

That puts you at odds with Red Barn and The Clockwork Rat and Decky, then. But that is beside the point. What matters isn't your opinion on the likelihood of people wanting to organize themselves into textbook examples of the capitalist mode of production, what matters is your response to such an eventuality.

I fail to see (any more than your sandwich shop) why these must necessarily become capitalist enterprises...

Your failure to accept the inevitability of at least some groups of people choosing to organize themselves into textbook examples of the capitalist mode of production isn't germane to the discussion. What is germane is whether you will support the forcible prevention of these people from carrying out their enterprise in the manner they - not you - have all agreed of their own free will to follow.

...in the sense of some owning the capital and putting it to use for private profit through the utilization of wage labor, those who have no access to the means of production.

Who says these people don't have access to "means of production"? Of course they have access to their own means of production! It's just that for reasons they find compelling they prefer to use my means of production rather than their own.

And we should keep in mind that in any professional field--even if knowledge based--there are means of production.

Such as?

There are, for instance, means of production both in education and in resources required for the field. Presumably, these too would be controlled socially.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! The community as a whole gets to decide who is allowed to go to medical school or architecture school? Seriously? And what "resources" does an architect need other than pencil and paper and T-square and a drafting table? Are pencils and paper and T-squares and drafting tables all communally-owned and doled out solely at the behest of the People's Architecture Guild Local 588?


Phred

[SolarCross]

I think anticlimacus is too nice to be a lefty; Phred is right when he says anticlimacus is an an-cap and eventually he (she?) will realise it, just like I did.

[anticlimacus]

That puts you at odds with Red Barn and The Clockwork Rat and Decky, then.

How so? I've never suggested we don't have rules and obligations, and when those are broken there are consequences--say if you decide to take what belongs to the community and appropriate it for yourself. What I have argued, throughout this entire thread, is that our rules and obligations, indeed our institutional structure, precludes capitalist enterprise from developing. In fact, this is exactly what I stated in the next sentence, but your selective reading (and preconceived notions of what libertarian socialism is) has kept you from putting the two together:

I fail to see (any more than your sandwich shop) why these must necessarily become capitalist enterprises, in the sense of some owning the capital and putting it to use for private profit through the utilization of wage labor, those who have no access to the means of production.

That was how this whole conversation developed. I simply do not agree that capitalism necessarily develops in this society. This is not that difficult to grasp. It's no different from the fact that our institutional structures preclude centralized states from developing.

What is germane is whether you will support the forcible prevention of these people from carrying out their enterprise in the manner they - not you - have all agreed of their own free will to follow.

To organize themselves in voluntary working situations--yes, this society actually allows for that (i.e individuals to carry out their work how they see fit). This is something that capitalism does not allow.

into textbook examples of the capitalist mode of production isn't germane to the discussion

Except that we have not reached "textbook examples of capitalist mode of production". What we have is you just constantly repeating this over and over.

Such as?

Read the next sentence.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! The community as a whole gets to decide who is allowed to go to medical school or architecture school? Seriously? And what "resources" does an architect need other than pencil and paper and T-square and a drafting table? Are pencils and paper and T-squares and drafting tables all communally-owned and doled out solely at the behest of the People's Architecture Guild Local 588?

--yes Phred, we will have planning assemblies that decide who goes to do what, and if you don't we will jail you or kill you. Can I please be a socialist now?

I think anticlimacus is too nice to be a lefty; Phred is right when he says anticlimacus is an an-cap and eventually he (she?) will realise it, just like I did.

[Phred]

How so? I've never suggested we don't have rules and obligations, and when those are broken there are consequences--say if you decide to take what belongs to the community and appropriate it for yourself.

But I have never suggested that I do such a thing. See my questions to Red Barn about whether or not I and Mr PC will be allowed to collect our daily (weekly, fortnightly, whatever) rations of milk and strawberries and clay.

What I have argued, throughout this entire thread, is that our rules and obligations, indeed our institutional structure, precludes capitalist enterprise from developing.

Only through the use of force against peaceful individuals who are harming no one and depriving no one of anything.

I simply do not agree that capitalism necessarily develops in this society.

But you are wrong. Of course it would. It can't be suppressed short of using physical force, because it is human nature to want to improve one's lot in life through trading with other humans. That is why humans have been doing just that for at least as long as they have been recording their deeds, and certainly substantially longer than that.

It's no different from the fact that our institutional structures preclude centralized states from developing.

Through the use of force against peaceful humans who have violated the rights of no one, have done no harm to anyone, have deprived no one of anything.

Except that we have not reached "textbook examples of capitalist mode of production".

Except we have. I have shown repeatedly that the examples given by Eran and by me contain every single essential component of the capitalist mode of production. Accordingly, they are examples of the capitalist mode of production. People in our scenarios act exactly as people engaged in the capitalist mode of production do today. No difference. Zero. Zip Nada. None of you has been able to fill in even one blank in my "fill in the blanks" question I have posed so often. Note that even now, you can't fill in even one blank, let alone two. Here it is again -

"Phred, you may think you have constructed a textbook example of the capitalist mode of production, but the fact that in your example, the people don't do __________________ and _________________ makes it not Capitalist at all, therefore Left-Anarchists have no reason to interfere with what those people are doing."

What we have is you just constantly repeating this over and over.

What we have is a failure of you (or anyone else) to fill in at least one of the two blanks above.

yes Phred, we will have planning assemblies that decide who goes to do what, and if you don't we will jail you or kill.

This is why Left-Anarchism repels everyone who is not an authoritarian. It is the most repressive system imaginable short of outright slavery.


Phred

[Rothbardian]

A better question would be whether your intention would be to use force to steal the communal property so that you can start living as capitalists.

Who says I want to live as a capitalist? I'm very sympathetic towards socialism. I just cannot justify breaching the NAP. People who develop resources into factories or "the means of production" included. It is for that reason I'm constantly labeled right wing. Which I dont mind anymore since the right wing anarchists are generally much more tolerant of alternate preferences.

Also just had to point out, yet another example of a lefty on these boards responding to a challenge by mumbling about "capitalists".

Has no one any answers to this?

Its become painfully obviously that, at least on this forum, the founding principle is "hey, its not capitalism!"

[ralfy]

The global capitalist system requires increasing amounts of oil and other resources needed to maintain economic growth, but resource limitations will not allow for that. To make matters worse, financial speculation leads to one credit crunch after another coupled with long-term effects of pollution and global warming.

With that, the formation of small communities focusing on localization is inevitable.

[Eran]

Neither do I.
...
However, neither do I think I need to in order to make the case that I am making.

Excellent. We have a basis for discussion.

Take for instance moments of intense nationalism (after, say, an attack): people will see complete strangers on the street and feel entirely connected to them simply because they are of the same nationality. The point is that people can associate with others, even if they don't know them personally, if they see that they seem to hold the same background assumptions (cultural and linguistic norms). And there's no reason to assume that part of our background assumptions, including our values, would be that our own good is dependent upon the good of others--why is that so unrealistic?

With the exception of such unusual moments, while we do recognize the good of others as well as ourselves, and are even willing to give up some of our own good for the benefit of others, our willingness to do so is very limited.

So if I have an interest in the good of my syndicate and of my community, why does that necessarily have to trump the interests I have in my family or myself? I think you are attempting drawing a false dichotomy here: we are either self-interested or we are communally-interested. Why can't the both be intertwined, and institutionally structured that way? In other words, we cannot simply deal with our own, say, material well-being without seeking the well-being of our community. To put it crassly, life becomes much more of a team sport as opposed to an individualistic, everybody for themselves, game. This doesn't seem to require any change in human nature whatsoever.

It does, when you considered that decisions are made on the margin.

Let's explore two scales - self vs. syndicate, and syndicate vs. society at large.

Self vs. Syndicate
I work for the syndicate. I am fully aware that my well-being is intertwined with that of the syndicate. I would never choose an action that would sacrifice the syndicate for my short-term well-being. That would be silly.

But now I have to decide whether to call a sick-day because I'd like to attend my son's school function, and I ran out of vacation days.
Or I need to decide whether to work an extra hour to finish a task or not.
Or I need to decide whether to volunteer for an unpleasant but necessary task, knowing that if I don't volunteer, somebody else is likely to do the job.
Or I need to decide whether, as a purchasing agent, to buy supplies from my friend or from another supplier, knowing that my friend's supply entails a slightly worse deal for the syndicate (either in terms of price or in terms of quality).
Or I need to decide whether to "borrow" office supplies from the syndicate for my personal use, or buy them in the store.

In each case, my choice entails a slight increment in my own well-being at the expense of a tiny cost to the syndicate. Note - none of those choices are going to have dramatic effect on the syndicate. I am not faced with a choice of self vs. syndicate, but rather the choice of a little more for me or a little more for the syndicate.

Being human, most people would choose a tiny improvement in their own well-being over that of the syndicate.

Syndicate vs. Society at large
Here I am assuming that a syndicate may choose whom it wants to sell its products to. If this assumption is wrong, please explain which organisation has authority over the syndicate, and why you wouldn't call that organisation "government".

Now I am participating in a democratic assembly in which we need to decide whom to sell the syndicate's product (clay) to. On the one hand, we can sell it to People's Terra Cotta Jug Production Facility C-35. On the other hand, we have a higher price offered by Phred's ceramics business.

Let's assume that I am a convicted socialist (like everybody else), and I believe that it is wrong to sell to budding capitalists like Phred, rather than to employee-run syndicates like People's Terra Cotta Jug Production Facility C-35.

On the other hand, Phred offers a higher price, and that would allow the syndicate to purchase new equipment to our communal gym.

The members debate the issue, and all agree that if Phred purchases the clay, no disaster would befall society. People's Terra Cotta Jug Production Facility C-35 could get its clay a little later (or from somebody else), and Phred is a nice guy that generally manages to refrain from whipping his wage slaves.

With that in mind, we decide (democratically) to sell our clay to the highest bidder (Phred).


So I am making two arguments, both based on the differential preference people have for themselves over their neighbours (or group members) and for their group over strangers. The preference, to emphasise, is differential, i.e. relates to small increments of value, rather than an all-or-nothing choice.

Sure, but this isn't difficult to do. First, we could go back to Locke and find that even he, a classical liberal, viewed all land and resources as first communally owned.

Locke believed all the land is given from God to Man.

Humans occupy most of the world, and single individuals rummaging for food and then making a claim on some resources--like our ideal individuals of the classical liberals--simply don't exist.

Sort of. All the easily-exploitable resources are, indeed, spoken-for (with some exceptions, like government-owned land and ocean fishing).

But that has always been true. In the 18th century, to the extent that some areas have not been occupied, those where areas that, given 18th century technology and distribution of humanity, those areas haven't been easily-exploitable either.

For white people, Nebraska in the 18th century was, while technically available, economically not viable.

Fast forward to today, and recognise that there still are many resources today that aren't spoken for. I mentioned minerals under ground in the Australian Outback. Add to that crude oil under the ocean (or even in territorial waters) and you get my point.

What takes collective labour to operate should be collectively controlled, producers should be able to control their own production.

But what about those funding the operation? Aren't they entitled to control what is done with their savings?

And who says the moral argument implies equal control? Why should an entrepreneur who spent years working days and nights to initiate an enterprise has an equal say as a manual worker who just joined a few weeks ago?

Most importantly, if workers are allowed, once admitted into a productive enterprise, to a say in its running, aren't they equally entitled to forgo that right, say in exchange for higher wages?

If they are so entitled, what is the moral objection to workers choosing to work for fixed wages, understanding that if capital providers had to split control with them, they (the workers) would have to work without wages until such time as the enterprise started being profitable?

So, in this case, the Australians--not business man Joe or business woman Tonia who may or may not be an Australian.

What gives a person who lives in Sydney and never set foot in the Outback a greater claim to those minerals than a businessman who worked hard and risks his savings actually exploring for those minerals?

Sydney, to remind everybody, is thousands of miles away from the Outback. And, to remind you, you are an anarchist. Presumably you don't recognise the moral claim of governments to the territory that they happen to claim.

I'm failing to see why we need to go through every single example of every single potential industry.

The socialist rhetoric makes a huge deal out of the "means of production". I think it is reasonable to ask you to refer to industries in which there are no means of production, or in which such means are easily and cheaply available to all.

I guess I'm failing to see why this all seems so foreign...

That's because you are missing the point Phred and I are trying to make. The point isn't that capitalist production is the only (or even the best) way of providing certain services.

Our point is that you cannot prohibit capitalist production and still call yourself "anarchist".

Thus if I started a tutoring company, I might rely on my reputation and innovative educational approach to acquire more students than I can teach myself. I offer John employment. I agree to pay him a fixed amount in exchange for providing him with students, instruction, monitoring, lesson-guides, etc.

Or I start a cleaning services company. I have created a nice web-site that brings me more customers than I can handle myself. I offer Marta employment as a cleaner. I will pay her a fixed amount in exchange for directing clients her way.

In such cases, there are no "means of production" (or they are easily available to all). And Red Barn's "you won't be able to get the raw materials" argument doesn't work.

Is your society going to prohibit such employer-employee relationships? If so, how?

I don't think we will need to suppress anybody. I fail to see (any more than your sandwich shop) why these must necessarily become capitalist enterprises, in the sense of some owning the capital and putting it to use for private profit through the utilization of wage labor, those who have no access to the means of production.

You have just qualified what you count as "capitalist enterprises".

So, if I build myself reputation as a responsible, reasonably-priced provider of cleaning services, and I get 20 people to agree to clean houses as my employees for fixed wages, you wouldn't call that a "capitalist enterprise"?

I simply do not agree that capitalism necessarily develops in this society. This is not that difficult to grasp. It's no different from the fact that our institutional structures preclude centralized states from developing.

Here is a key difference. Capitalist enterprises (not "capitalism" in the abstract) or, to be precise, employer-employee relationships in which the employer pays the employee a fixed wage in exchange for the employee performing a given task, can arise through voluntary and peaceful choices made by free individuals.

Not so centralized states.

Thus an anarchist and peaceful society could use force against the latter, but not against the former.

We don't have to hope that centralised states won't develop - we can fight them because any state (by definition) is based on aggression.

Not so employer-employee relationships.

[anticlimacus]

With the exception of such unusual moments, while we do recognize the good of others as well as ourselves, and are even willing to give up some of our own good for the benefit of others, our willingness to do so is very limited.

However, I've explicitly stated that it's quite different if you view that your own good is conditional upon the good of others. Again, this is not a question of whether or not we are self-sacrificing and altruistic or self-seeking and selfish.

Being human, most people would choose a tiny improvement in their own well-being over that of the syndicate.

You are assuming that there are always going to be these massive decisions, that we all face all at once, which will then make the syndicate impossible. This is silly. Nobody is suggesting that what is most personal to me and intimate to me (say my family) is not usually going to come first. But that does not mean that everybody at the same time is going to be confronted with having to decide for their family or the syndicate--and in many ways those choices will overlap, in the same way our work and voluntary obligations often do now (e.g. I work to provide for my family; my family volunteers for this because it is important to us).

I organize a voluntary group for my work, and I just received a call from one of our members on our volunteer board. She said she would not be able to make the meeting tonight because she has work obligations. She was very sorry and especially sorry because she has missed the past couple of meetings. I told her it is fine and just wanted to make sure she still wanted to participate--and of course she did. Of course, we have 7 other members on our board, and all of them are able to come tonight. Not all of them had to make this kind of decision tonight. We are able to function as a voluntary group, even though some may, at some times, might need to put other needs first.

Here I am assuming that a syndicate may choose whom it wants to sell its products to. If this assumption is wrong, please explain which organisation has authority over the syndicate, and why you wouldn't call that organisation "government".

I've explained this numerous times. A syndicate works in connection with labor cartels and local communal boards in order to decide what needs to be produced and how much. There is no centralized deciding authority and no syndicate works in a vacuum and neither does its members exist in a vacuum, as they are a part of the communities for which they produce. Finally, as I have also explained--which got us on the "human nature" tangent--we are not producing in order to make an economic profit. We are producing to meet the needs of all.

Locke believed all the land is given from God to Man.

Sure, but the point is that Locke viewed the land as initially a universal right.

But what about those funding the operation? Aren't they entitled to control what is done with their savings?

You mean the community?

And who says the moral argument implies equal control? Why should an entrepreneur who spent years working days and nights to initiate an enterprise has an equal say as a manual worker who just joined a few weeks ago?

As in any large voluntary organization there are elected leaders--why would this be any different in a syndicate? But just because you have more responsibility as a leader, does not mean you have more right to the resources we all need (I think it was Plato who argued that the philosopher king should work for free!).

Most importantly, if workers are allowed, once admitted into a productive enterprise, to a say in its running, aren't they equally entitled to forgo that right, say in exchange for higher wages?

Wages?

If they are so entitled, what is the moral objection to workers choosing to work for fixed wages, understanding that if capital providers had to split control with them, they (the workers) would have to work without wages until such time as the enterprise started being profitable?

Again, wages? Why are we all working under a wage system? And, lest we forget, we are all the capital providers!

What gives a person who lives in Sydney and never set foot in the Outback a greater claim to those minerals than a businessman who worked hard and risks his savings actually exploring for those minerals?

What gives a capitalist, who has never set foot in a factory, the right to make decisions over production to which he/she has had nothing to do with? What gives an investor in Germany the right to make decisions about territory in Australia to which he/she neither lives nor has ever seen and may or may not know who it will effect? This land, these resources, should not be decided upon without first including in a crucial way those to whom it will most intimately effect.

Sydney, to remind everybody, is thousands of miles away from the Outback. And, to remind you, you are an anarchist. Presumably you don't recognise the moral claim of governments to the territory that they happen to claim.

Presumably we are talking about the existing Australia today, which is not anarchist. It is up to the people themselves, in Australia and all whom it effects, to make decisions about what happens in that land. This of course does not exclude those who may actually live in the Outback.

That's because you are missing the point Phred and I are trying to make.

Not really. I understand that you and Phred are trying to argue that within an anarchist society 1) capitalist production will inevitably occur and 2) we will not be able to stop it from occurring and still claim to be anarchists. I, and others, understand this quite well. What you, and Phred, are failing to grasp is that on a structural level a socialist society precludes capitalist production just like on a structural level an anarchist society precludes state centralized authorities. What you describe as a fully voluntary organization between X and Y is not capitalist production in the slightest, precisely because these decisions are fully voluntary under a socialist economic foundation. What Billy and Joe decide about their fence is between Billy and Joe. What Suzie Q sandwich maker decides about her own sandwiches and the help she gets from Joe Schmoe schlepper is between her and Joe.

And, I will additionally add, a libertarian socialist society actually makes it possible for these agreements to really be only between those two and on equal terms. This latter point is why I keep going back to the fact that under capitalist production capital is privately controlled on one side, while labor is freed from the means of production on the other and has only its labor power to sell. Thus the hiring of labor is always a socially produced fact under capitalism that develops as a result of socio-economic conditions between unequals. It is no longer person X dealing with person Y, it is capitalist dealing with labor. This is a key point that has been made over and over that both you and particularly Phred, who continues to ask the same question ad noseum, have not quite considered or understood.

Now if by chance forms of domination develop, be they political or economic that is something we would have to deal with as a community when those problems occur and we do our best to prevent them from occurring and festering in the long run.

In such cases, there are no "means of production"

Some of your cases don't make sense. Why am I starting a tutoring company? What profit am I going to make when the economy is no longer based on capitalist production? Why don't I start tutoring because--crazy idea--I love to teach! And, as I mentioned before, there are means of production involved in every single professional field. I need materials in order to tutor--I don't necessarily get them all on my own, but I need a community in order to have pencils, textbooks, papers, calculators, etc. I also need a community in order to learn the material I need to know in order to tutor. These are all very much means of production.

You have just qualified what you count as "capitalist enterprises".

No, I keep having to go back to the fact that we are living in a socialist society--structurally this transforms whatever you do on a local scale.

Here is a key difference. Capitalist enterprises (not "capitalism" in the abstract) or, to be precise, employer-employee relationships in which the employer pays the employee a fixed wage in exchange for the employee performing a given task, can arise through voluntary and peaceful choices made by free individuals.

What "wages" are you going to give me that convinces me that I should simply work for you, indefinitely, for the payment you offer. And what kind of profit are you thinking you are going to make in this society? As I said, your money's no good here, what are you going to do for me if I help you make your sandwiches? Or maybe I help you make your sandwiches, because--another novel idea--like you I love cooking!

I bring up centralized states only to stress the point that the only reason we do not have one is because the structure of our society prohibits it--the exact same is with capitalist production.

We don't have to hope that centralised states won't develop - we can fight them because any state (by definition) is based on aggression.

This is naive. There are always subtle things that can happen, as power does not always come from an obvious position. For instance savvy political Cane gets involved in three different crucial decision making boards and chairs one of them, and works closely with the chairs of the other two. All of the sudden, much of the decision making has been located within the hands of small few. These are always problems that will need to be addressed, as with any democratic organization. Again, we meet them as they come, and we always try to prevent them from occurring.

[Phred]

What you describe as a fully voluntary organization between X and Y is not capitalist production in the slightest, precisely because these decisions are fully voluntary under a socialist economic foundation.

See, this is why no rational person can possibly take Left-Anarchist "explanations" seriously. You admit that in our examples, the people involved are behaving identically to how people involved in a capitalist enterprise behave. They are performing the exact same actions, using the exact same capital goods and the exact same raw resources, producing the exact same products, and receiving the exact same consideration for their efforts, and they are doing it for the exact same reasons - they judge themselves better off for having acted in this particular way than they would be had they not. Yet you keep insisting that if they do all these things in a Left-Anarchist society, there is a difference. Not just a little difference either, a big enough difference that what they are doing no longer qualifies as capitalist production.

When pressed to explain just what this critical difference is, the best you can do is say that this identical activity is taking place in a non-identical social milieu, in a society where most (not all) of the members of that society have a different worldview than do most of the members of today's Western societies. Well... so what? That doesn't change the fact that they are behaving the same, using the same tools and same raw materials to produce the same goods for the same reasons. As I pointed out lo these many pages ago, the only difference seems to be how they feel about what they are doing!

Due to your inability to grasp that there will always be people who want more than they have, you claim that you guys will engineer your society so well that no one will ever want more than they have, but just in case there remain a few insane ones who do, it won't matter, because they'll be forcibly prevented from acquiring - no matter how peacefully, no matter if every aspect of that acquisition is accomplished with the willing and often eager voluntary assistance of other members of that society - the means of production they need to bring about this improvement in their level of prosperity.

This latter point is why I keep going back to the fact that under capitalist production capital is privately controlled on one side, while labor is freed from the means of production on the other and has only its labor power to sell.

You ignore the fact that everyone starts out life with only their labor to sell. What else do they have? Seriously, what else do they have? You ignored Eran when he asked this earlier. Will you ignore me when I ask it now?

You also ignore the fact that even Syndicates need laborers - if everyone on the planet were given a hundred kilos of gold bullion at birth it wouldn't change the fact that the Syndicate doesn't need gold bullion to turn clay into roof tiles, it needs human labor.

Thus the hiring of labor is always a socially produced fact under capitalism that develops as a result of socio-economic conditions between unequals. It is no longer person X dealing with person Y, it is capitalist dealing with labor.

But it is precisely person X dealing with person Y. Left-Anarchists persist in seeing this as a "master-slave" relationship when in fact it is nothing of the kind. It is nothing more than a trade. There is nothing sinister about it. Nothing evil, nothing "dominating". There is no "extracting" of "surplus value" from "alienated" "wage slaves" through the process of "exploitation". It is a mutually beneficial relationship that the "wage slave" is free to walk away from at any time and go back to doing what he was doing before the offer was made. In a Left-Anarchist society, it appears what he was doing before the offer was made was to work a few hours here or there at this syndicate or that, then take whatever he was allowed to take from the meager communal pot replenished by whatever the various co-ordinating councils can bring themselves to agree would be good to produce this week.

This is a key point that has been made over and over that both you and particularly Phred, who continues to ask the same question ad noseum, have not quite considered or understood.

To the contrary, the reason I ask the same question is not that I don't understand the responses you give. I understand them so well that I cannot help pointing out that the responses are only that - responses. They aren't actual answers to the question that was actually asked. And the question - and its yet-to-be-delivered answer - is central to the entire conversation. This is of course why you won't give a straight answer.

Now if by chance forms of domination develop, be they political or economic that is something we would have to deal with as a community...

Always by force, of course.

No, I keep having to go back to the fact that we are living in a socialist society--structurally this transforms whatever you do on a local scale.

Structurally, it does no such thing. If you act in one way, you are acting in a capitalist manner. If you act another way, you are acting in a socialist manner. If you act a third way, you might be acting in an authoritarian manner. What matters isn't where you act, it's what those acts are. If you act as the people in our examples (Phred's ceramics and PC's Sandwiches) are acting, then you are engaging in the capitalist mode of production, no matter if your acts are taking place in Philadelphia or in Red Square.

What "wages" are you going to give me that convinces me that I should simply work for you, indefinitely, for the payment you offer.

Define "indefinitely". Your problem is that - like all Left-Anarchists - you have next to no grasp of how human beings actually behave. You seem to believe Homo sapiens sapiens is a colonial species like ants or bees or termites or coral polyps. But that isn't the case. Let me tell you about the guy who manages the apartment building in which I live. He is his mid-thirties. His name is Francisco (everyone calls him Frank) and he is the only son of one of the most wealthy and influential men on the North coast of the Dominican Republic. Like your hypothetical denizen of your hypothetical Left-Anarchist society, all his wants could easily be looked after. In his case by his rich family, in your case by your various co-ordinated syndicates. Frank's family would set him up in a very comfortable lifestyle indeed. He would want for nothing, ever. Yet he chooses not to live that way. He wants more than that.

Instead of letting his family look after him while he lazes around doing nothing, or even going to work in one of the family's firms for a very comfortable salary, he instead manages two different rental properties - for hourly wages - and has saved enough from those wages to buy a nightclub in Puerto Plata that he also runs. He didn't get the two jobs he holds down through family connections, either. He answered ads in the local papers and went on job interviews. Like your hypothetical Left-Anarchist he isn't "forced" to "sell his labor" out of necessity, he sells it because he judges he will be better off by doing so. People like Frank are a lot more common than you think. People like Frank will exist in every society, including in your Left-Anarchist Utopia.


Phred

[Eran]

As I said, your money's no good here

I think I suffered from a fundamental misunderstanding of the socialist anarchy proposal.

I thought the society would still be using money to facilitate exchange between individuals, individuals and corporate bodies (like syndicate) and between corporate bodies (like syndicate and consumer organisations).

Now I suspect I was sorely mistaken. Rather than a cash economy, you are proposing a gift economy.

Corporate bodies give each other valuable resources, not in exchange for some payment (whether in money or in commodity), but as a gift, based on a mutual agreement as to what would best serve the needs of the economy.

Thus a steel-making syndicates doesn't sell its steel to car-making syndicates, but rather hands them steel based on mutual agreement. The car-making syndicate doesn't sell its cars to consumers, but rather hands them over based on mutual allocation decision by itself and a union representing consumers. And, of course, syndicate members do not get money wages with which they can buy stuff. Rather, they work for free, with the anticipation that the various goods they require or desire will similarly be handed to them by the respective productive syndicates.

Before giving my opinion on this arrangement, I need a reality check. Is the description above accurate?

Do you see exceptions (e.g. in trade with foreign countries)? Or do you anticipate that the entire inter-connect global economy will operate on such mutual gift basis?