Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

Thanks for the non-abrasive response

[ QUOTE ]
Children are in a fuzzy, weird place, but you certainly don't own them. I would also say the same, to a lesser extent, about some animals, although most ACers probably wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have there been any good discussions about this? I would be interested, as its anthropocentric basis is a strong objection to AC for me

[ QUOTE ]
People who have fundamental difference in their views on property rights simply cannot live in the same place. Each views the other as initiating force on them and neither is really wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, and like I said I accept the possibility than in a non-statist society people would choose to orgranize themselves in all sorts of different ways - but I would also argue that capitalism and imperialism have always had a strong connection and that by its very nature capital seeks to expand -- I also accept the fact that for both of us talking about the "future" can get very difficult because the correct answer is often "I don't know what that would look like, and that's okay" but we can still ahve nice rollicking debates here and now

[ QUOTE ]
anarchism: a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

You can't just redefine words how you want them to mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue the same and point out that while yes, anarchy as a word has a simple dictionary definition derived from it's etymology of "without government" that /anarchism/ as a living, breathing, evolving political philosophy has often had a very harsh critique of capitalism and a rejection of the worker-boss relationship and that when we look at historical social/political movements that have self-identified as anarchist (the CNT-FAI, the Ukranian anarchists, etc) they have been socialists

(and yes, you could argue that part of the evolving nature of anarchism has been the development of an individualist market-anarchism strain connected with natural rights theory - I know Rothbard and Nozick are out there - and that simply claiming you are "anarchist" doesn't make you so anymore than the US claiming it is capitalism or the USSR claiming it was socialist didn't make it so)

[ QUOTE ]
We simply have vastly different concepts on where/how force is initiated, so we view the other as "not being anarchism" because they want to initiate force on us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The power/force thing is very interesting and I will think about it more.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately though, if we can learn to accept our differences, we would make strong allies against the real enemy: the statists. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the reasons that I got excited to post here is because 1) I don't often get to talk about anarchism or capitalism with people I think are highly intelligent 2) Often capitalists are IMHO spouting nonsense that doesn't even make sense in their own economic theories and are just interested in justifying a status-quo that is currently benefiting them rather than advocating capitalism as a system that will benefit everyone and 3) because I have been involved (and am involved) in a lot of anarchist projects -political, social, activist and otherwise and I have never met a single ACer working on any of those projects, never seen a single ACer at an anarchist infoshop, never seen a single ACer working to build non-statist alternatives to needs that are currently being met (or not met as the case may be) by the State

now I realize that ACers by and large probably aren't going to be coming out to the next protest against the WTO for philosophical reasons and I accept that, but there are a wide variety of anarchist projects happening in every major city I have been in in the US and in Europe - and anarchists are a strong force in a lot of major protest movements -- certainly for example we could both agree that the police force in the US often functions as a domestic army to protect the State (and in my opinion protect capitalism because captialist interests and State interests are so currently intertwined) and ACers wouldn't philosophically object to being active in citizen monitoring efforts of the police (like http://www.berkeleycopwatch.org/copwatch), or an anti-authoritarian parenting discussion group, or one of a hundred other things where we are both interesting in building social structures to either help reign in/ameliorate negative aspects of state/corporate power or offer people ways of meeting each others needs outside the state

so yes, I /am/ interested in building those bridges.

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would also argue that capitalism and imperialism have always had a strong connection and that by its very nature capital seeks to expand

[/ QUOTE ]

And I would argue that socialism and tyranny have always had a strong connection and that by its very nature socialism seeks to control everyone everyone within its bounds, even to the extent of stopping them from leaving and seeking their fortune elsewhere. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anarchism: a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

You can't just redefine words how you want them to mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue the same and point out that while yes, anarchy as a word has a simple dictionary definition derived from it's etymology of "without government" that /anarchism/ as a living, breathing, evolving political philosophy has often had a very harsh critique of capitalism and a rejection of the worker-boss relationship and that when we look at historical social/political movements that have self-identified as anarchist (the CNT-FAI, the Ukranian anarchists, etc) they have been socialists

[/ QUOTE ]

So you take a word that has a specific meaning and try to claim it as your own with the meaning you want to assign to it? Language doesn't work that way. Words mean what most people think they mean. Over time, maybe people will come around to your view like they did with the word "liberalism", but as it stands when most people think of anarchism, they think "no-government", so that's what the word means. In fact, it would make even more sense to say that neither of us can call ourselves anarchists since most people think of anarchism as being chaotic. Regardless, why would you want to try to claim a word that already has a specific meaning as yours anyway? All this does is confuse the living hell out of people. Much better to simply invent a new word for your views. Personally, I'd say that either one of us using the word anarchy in conjunction with our views is detrimental since so many people associate anarchy with chaos.


[ QUOTE ]
I have been involved (and am involved) in a lot of anarchist projects -political, social, activist and otherwise and I have never met a single ACer working on any of those projects, never seen a single ACer at an anarchist infoshop, never seen a single ACer working to build non-statist alternatives to needs that are currently being met (or not met as the case may be) by the State

[/ QUOTE ]

Activist ACers tend to focus their energies in L/libertarian circles and waste most of that energy trying to "keep libertarianism pure from those damned statists who are trying to hijack it" (AKA libertarian minarchists) rather than actually concerning themselves with the real enemy. It's pretty sad really. Also, due to the individualist nature of ACists/libertarians, trying to get people to agree on "what to do" is often like herding cats.

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, these AS folks would feel wronged by not being able to just stroll up and commandeer someone's stuff? I don't get it. They can just come into my house and take my tv for their own use? You can't possibly be serious.


[/ QUOTE ]
As i understand it according to ASers it isn't "your" stuff though, and theoretically in AS land the cultural norm would be that it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's reasonably correct. You can't graft libertarian socialism on top of a philisophical worldview based around the idea of freedom as being "the individual right to own property" or you end up with absurd contradictions.

AC: but you gonna be stealing all my stuff
AS: how can we steal our stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't there have to be some limits, practically speaking, to the doctrine that there is no such thing as possessions? It would be horrible if you could have no reasonable expectation that the personal items you had collected over the years, would not be taken from you by whim or by committee tomorrow morning. People need a reasonable expectation that their well-fitting clothes, favorite books, personal items, etc. are safe from being appropriated for others. Maybe you built a desk just the right height for computer work for your own personal ergonomic needs.

If people can't have an expectation of security of long-term possession of certain things, life would really suck. You need certain things more than some random person or person needs them - and some things you have worked to customize precisely for you, for your own needs. You have a dog named Frito and bought a few toys for him, and a doggy bed...anyone can come take them? Or take them if the committee votes to do so? Where is the line?

I can see voluntary collective ownership of some factories, land, etc. being jointly held and organized...but not personal items. So what exactly do AS-ists mean when they say "property is theft" and "there is no property"? Do they really think that owning a favorite old record album or special old book is theft? If so, that's insane, in my opinion.

Committees cannot micromanage everyone's lives nor can they micromanage everyone's possessions - neither should they try.


I could also see major problems if the committees could just decide to kick you out of your house - your house, which you may have customized for your own needs.

You say you would like to live off-grid in 5 years and grow >50% of your own food. Well...if they could come and take your farming tools, and perhaps your off-grid dwelling, because property is theft and thus you don't really own it...think about that, please.

What if you had built a log cabin on that homestead from scratch and had cleared the fields and turned some of the woodland into tillable acreage. That's a LOT of work, to do all that. You couldn't do it all yourself in a year even with full funding and full-time work. Let's not forget building a barn, too...and digging or drilling a well. You're talking several years of work at least, if you don't hire most of it done, or get a lot of free help somehow.

So where do Anarcho-Socialists draw the line? At factory ownership? Land ownership? House ownership? Automobile ownership? Toaster ownership? Clothing ownership? Hairbrush and toothbrush ownership?

Please clarify, because I'm having a hard time seeing how all this would work if AS-ists take the "property is theft" line literally and across the board. Again...I can somewhat see it on the big items, for collective voluntary groups. I can't see it for toothbrushes, or clothes that fit you just right, or lots of other personal or household items.

Any clarification you can provide would be helpful.

Thanks again for reading.

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please clarify, because I'm having a hard time seeing how all this would work if AS-ists take the "property is theft" line literally and across the board. Again...I can somewhat see it on the big items, for collective voluntary groups. I can't see it for toothbrushes, or clothes that fit you just right, or lots of other personal or household items.

[/ QUOTE ]

When ASists say "property is theft" they (usually) only mean land. Pretty much anytime you hear someone say "property is theft" you're better off making that assumption.

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]
When ASists say "property is theft" they (usually) only mean land. Pretty much anytime you hear someone say "property is theft" you're better off making that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I would say they usually mean any ownership the means of production, just as other varieties of socialism do. certainly owning land and renting it out to make a profit off of nothing other than the fact that you own land and someone else needs land is part of that.

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When ASists say "property is theft" they (usually) only mean land. Pretty much anytime you hear someone say "property is theft" you're better off making that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I would say they usually mean any ownership the means of production, just as other varieties of socialism do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have a problem with a group of people "owning the means of production" though, so you don't have an inherent problem with that. Like say 10 people working together own that business, right? So your problem isn't with ownership of the means of production, your problem is with everyone who works there not owning an equal share.

Actually, that brings up a good question. Can there be unequal shares of ownership? To bring up an obvious example of where this might apply: a doctor's office. Clearly, the doctor is far more important to the business than the other employees.

[ QUOTE ]
certainly owning land and renting it out to make a profit off of nothing other than the fact that you own land and someone else needs land is part of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, are you saying groups can own land now?

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't there have to be some limits, practically speaking, to the doctrine that there is no such thing as possessions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, libertarian socialists recognize possessions, they just differentiate personal possessions for use from private property.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be horrible if you could have no reasonable expectation that the personal items you had collected over the years, would not be taken from you by whim or by committee tomorrow morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a person or committee could decide to, say, take your toothbrush without your consent you wouldn't be living in a libertarian society, you'd be living in an authoritarian one


[ QUOTE ]
So what exactly do AS-ists mean when they say "property is theft" and "there is no property"? Do they really think that owning a favorite old record album or special old book is theft? If so, that's insane, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The property debate is a big one. and I will probably start a thread for libertarian socialism property and possessions here, but I -mostly- agree with you. Certainly a group of people could decide, in an egalitarian way, that having expectations of permanent possession of certain items is a good thing. However, by being part a voluntary part of the community, you agree that you are going to make these decisions collectively through some sort of egalitarian participatory decision making process, not by individual ownership of something.

So for example you live on a collective farm. You use part of this farm for your sculpting. The light is perfect, you have all your sculpting tools arranged right and the place just feels special to you. No one is interested in taking anything away from you and in fact you have a meeting where you express the fact that actually, the place is so special to you, that you don't ever want anyone else in the community to go there. Perhaps some people object and you reach a mutual decision along the lines of no one will go there without talking to you about why they need to go there first and it works. or it doesn't and you have to come to some other mutual decision.

but a few years go by and for some reason this particular piece of land is really needed by the community. And its brought up at a meeting. now presumably you are a rational person. and presumably you find the benefits of your communal arrangement to be good for you. and so, obviously, you are concerned about the wellbeing of the community and your respect the other community members.

so you have a discussion about it and in the end agree that the community needs to use this land in another way and though you're not happy about moving your studio to the barn, you agree to it because you're a rational person that wants what's best for the community and the other members of the community have presented a compelling case for why this is necessary.




[ QUOTE ]
I could also see major problems if the committees could just decide to kick you out of your house - your house, which you may have customized for your own needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

no committees are forcing people to submit to their demands! people are collectively making decisions about things that affect their lives.

[ QUOTE ]
You say you would like to live off-grid in 5 years and grow >50% of your own food. Well...if they could come and take your farming tools, and perhaps your off-grid dwelling, because property is theft and thus you don't really own it...think about that, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm living in a capitalist state so I'm going to buy the land and damn wll assume that means no one can just decide to come appropriate for their use, I'm not living in AS-world. However, I will likely have other ASers with me and we will make decisions about the use of the land in a collective way.

[ QUOTE ]
So where do Anarcho-Socialists draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a fairly comprehensive treatment of anarchism and property from what I would characterize as a bit of a stodgy Old Left syndicalist perspective, but certainly offers one vision for how libertarian socialists deal with this question. Bookchin's theories of libertarian municipalism/social ecology are another.

collective ownership and individual liberty

why are anarchists opposed to private property?

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

holy crap, how many of you are lurking this forum you've already broken that geocities page within 5 minutes!

here's a mirror - the main mirror is at infoshop.org - just do a search for "anarchist faq" but infoshop appears to also be down right now. anarchists never could keep the trains running on time [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secI6.html#seci62

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secB3.html

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, libertarian socialists recognize possessions, they just differentiate personal possessions for use from private property.



[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity...where is the line drawn between property and possessions? For Example I move to your farming commune and I have a tractor and a few other farm implements. Every other farmer is working by hand and spending 16 hours in the field each day. My (possibly our) equipment would save the other farmers much time and effort. I say the extra use will cause me more maint. and wear and tear on my machines...and will eventually cause me to have to work harder...so I dont want others using it.

Is this equipment property or a possession? Can the other farmers come and take my tractor just cause they want to?

Re: stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!
 

[ QUOTE ]
So if any group of people decide something can be owned and that by their actions they own it, it is now owned even if large portions of society don't believe that it is a commodity subject to ownership? and that's not coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's coercive about it? How can you be upset about someone else using something you don't own?

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your theory of use-based property rights, but like I said, even ACers disagree on the limits of those property rights, so how is one person or group of people with more restrictive property rights going to assert that position over the others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this doesn't matter. The interesting question is "what are you going to do about it?" You come upon some water. Someone else says "sorry, this is mine." Now what do you do?

[ QUOTE ]
In this case, if there are 20 of us living in an area and you and 3 of your friends declare that you now "own" the only viable source of water in the area,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, decree doesn't confer a property right.