Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe. If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

My AS question is how would something like a large factory (car factory, for example) come into existence? A car factory represents an awful lot of capital that must be tied up before a return to that capital is ever seen.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who "picks" what jobs are needed in a factory or farm under capitalism? Since it's not the state, why do you think it needs to be a state under collectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under capitalism, the owner of the capital decides what jobs are needed based on his/her guess as to what consumers in the market will pay for. Under socialism, if no one owns the means of production then the question becomes "Who makes the call as to how to use the capital?" This is what OP was getting at, I believe. In state socialism, the state owns the captial on behalf of the people, and instructs them as to its use. Under anarchosocialism, where does the direction come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The people or those acting on behalf of the people. Just because its a stateless society doesn't mean people can't pick Bob to manage the shoe factory. It just means Bob doesn't own the shoe factory now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bob runs the shoe factory, what's the problem with letting him own it?

Are workers compensated based on the quality of the work that they do, or just how long they were punched in for?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who "picks" what jobs are needed in a factory or farm under capitalism? Since it's not the state, why do you think it needs to be a state under collectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under capitalism, the owner of the capital decides what jobs are needed based on his/her guess as to what consumers in the market will pay for. Under socialism, if no one owns the means of production then the question becomes "Who makes the call as to how to use the capital?" This is what OP was getting at, I believe. In state socialism, the state owns the captial on behalf of the people, and instructs them as to its use. Under anarchosocialism, where does the direction come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The people or those acting on behalf of the people. Just because its a stateless society doesn't mean people can't pick Bob to manage the shoe factory. It just means Bob doesn't own the shoe factory now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bob runs the shoe factory, what's the problem with letting him own it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you tell me? If Manager Bill runs GM's factory in Springfield, why don't the shareholders just give him the factory?

[ QUOTE ]
Are workers compensated based on the quality of the work that they do, or just how long they were punched in for?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would probably depend on the particulars of a given community, just like it depends on the particulars of a given company today.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
My AS question is how would something like a large factory (car factory, for example) come into existence? A car factory represents an awful lot of capital that must be tied up before a return to that capital is ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there'd be fewer large factories. That's one plus for AS.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe. If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but you're splitting hairs. A corporation is analagous to a state in so much as it has a "territorial" monopoly over its property and means of production and makes laws governing the behavior of its "citizens". There are many more similarities than differences, and calling it a state is not at all a reach.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe. If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but you're splitting hairs. A corporation is analagous to a state in so much as it has a "territorial" monopoly over its property and means of production and makes laws governing the behavior of its "citizens". There are many more similarities than differences, and calling it a state is not at all a reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but then the "state" has no meaning. Any household is thus a "state" if your parents set the rules.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

You did not answer either question.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe. If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but you're splitting hairs. A corporation is analagous to a state in so much as it has a "territorial" monopoly over its property and means of production and makes laws governing the behavior of its "citizens". There are many more similarities than differences, and calling it a state is not at all a reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but then the "state" has no meaning. Any household is thus a "state" if your parents set the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that doesnt cause "state" to have no meaning, it causes a need for "state" to be defined, and for that definition to not be biased to support a particular philosophy. There may be no "bright line" that divides a "state" from "not a state". The definition is crucial to many arguments about anarchy.

Eg. is a State (eg California) a "state", or is only the US a "state". Is a county a "state", is a municipality a "state"? Is a homeowners association a state? You've already claimed a family isn't. Why not?