anarcho socialism question
 

I was reading about Socialist anarchism and I see they think this:

[ QUOTE ]
Workers would be compensated for their work on the basis of the amount of time they contributed to production, rather than goods being distributed "according to need"

[/ QUOTE ]

Who decides what work is considered "work" or who picks the jobs. If someone is picking the jobs wouldn't there necessarily be a state?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was reading about Socialist anarchism and I see they think this:

[ QUOTE ]
Workers would be compensated for their work on the basis of the amount of time they contributed to production, rather than goods being distributed "according to need"

[/ QUOTE ]

Who decides what work is considered "work" or who picks the jobs. If someone is picking the jobs wouldn't there necessarily be a state?

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote says that workers are paid based on what time they contribute towards production at collective production centers (farm, factory, whatever), rather than being given according to need (this for one particular type of collectivist system). In other words, wages are paid based on amount of work performed. I don't understand how your questions follow from this quote, but I'll answer your question with a question:

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?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ 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?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ 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.

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 ]Can you give me some more real world examples at how it gets played out in practice? Like how does one go and acquire food (step by step)?

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 ]

Can you give me some more real world examples at how it gets played out in practice? Like how does one go and acquire food (step by step)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need corporation X or Mr. Y to own exclusive rights for land for people to collectively grow food on it and eat it. So the process isn't rocket science but quite similar to what you might expect:

People grow it.
People buy it.
People eat it.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Can you give me some more real world examples at how it gets played out in practice? Like how does one go and acquire food (step by step)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need corporation X or Mr. Y to own exclusive rights for land for people to collectively grow food on it and eat it. So the process isn't rocket science but quite similar to what you might expect:

People grow it.
People buy it.
People eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]What do they buy it with? I assume you're going to say currency. How does the person earn currency?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ 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 ]

That sounds like democracy, not anarchy. Or, it's anarchocapitalism where Bob owns the factory.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

That sounds like democracy, not anarchy. Or, it's anarchocapitalism where Bob owns the factory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Democracy in this context and anarchy are not mutually exclusive. Anarchosocialism, just like AC, does not assume total chaos were people suddenly lose their capacity to make joint decisions. 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.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Can you give me some more real world examples at how it gets played out in practice? Like how does one go and acquire food (step by step)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need corporation X or Mr. Y to own exclusive rights for land for people to collectively grow food on it and eat it. So the process isn't rocket science but quite similar to what you might expect:

People grow it.
People buy it.
People eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]What do they buy it with? I assume you're going to say currency. How does the person earn currency?

[/ QUOTE ]

Currency if the society uses such a thing, or barter. As for how they earn it, see your own OP.

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?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, everything that involves people is a state. Now how does this help the discussion?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, everything that involves people is a state. Now how does this help the discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like an admission that you are unable to provide a defensible definition of a state that isn't also self-serving. That doesnt help the discussion, it ends it, and any defense of AC that relies on such a definition.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporate board is appointed by the OWNERS of the company to act on their behalf. This is not an apppropriate analogy to your situation where (I believe) no one is allowed to own the land and therefore no one is in a position to vote on leadership.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

It is if they don't OWN the land in the first place. If the people don't own the land, but they live there and appoint a representative to be in charge then you have created a representative democracy.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporate board is appointed by the OWNERS of the company to act on their behalf. This is not an apppropriate analogy to your situation where (I believe) no one is allowed to own the land and therefore no one is in a position to vote on leadership.

Or, EVERYONE is in a position to vote on leadership.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

It is if they don't OWN the land in the first place. If the people don't own the land, but they live there and appoint a representative to be in charge then you have created a representative democracy.

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or, EVERYONE is in a position to vote on leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'll buy that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

It is if they don't OWN the land in the first place. If the people don't own the land, but they live there and appoint a representative to be in charge then you have created a representative democracy.

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't see what else you can call it when you claim that everybody owns the land, and everybody elects officials to run tasks. You call Bob "the guy in charge or growing crops"; I can call him "the Department of Agriculture". The only difference I see is that you aren't formally demanding that people will vote on things, but just assuming that they will (or might).

Answer me this: if people refuse to follow Bob's crop growing orders, what happens?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't see what else you can call it when you claim that everybody owns the land, and everybody elects officials to run tasks. You call Bob "the guy in charge or growing crops"; I can call him "the Department of Agriculture". The only difference I see is that you aren't formally demanding that people will vote on things, but just assuming that they will (or might).

Answer me this: if people refuse to follow Bob's crop growing orders, what happens?

[/ QUOTE ]

If people don't want to follow Bob's plan, then they don't follow Bob's plan and either other people volunteer to grow those crops or they don't get grown and people say "hey, wtf, we have no wheat for bread, why aren't we growing wheat?" Then in the town meeting it comes out that Persons X, Y, and Z are not growing wheat but instead trying to plant corn in violation of the group's farm plan. People can choose to not buy their corn and not trade with them, in which case they can either start working with the group or find a new community to live in. If people choose to say "no biggee, I think Bob's an idiot anyway", then so be it, too. Bob has no special standing that automatically gives him the power to use violence to enforce his own policy. And there's the difference between your Dept of Agriculture and a voluntary collectivist society.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
So basically, there'd be no real methods for mass production. How then is AS anything but a gigantic step backwards in standard of living?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
So basically, there'd be no real methods for mass production. How then is AS anything but a gigantic step backwards in standard of living?

[/ QUOTE ]

There certainly are methods for mass production. If we converted to AS today, we don't all of a sudden forget how to build things and all the capability in the world magically vanishes. Also, I know this concept may be hard for a capitalist fan, but unabated technological progress from 2007 isn't necessarily going to raise the standard of living. Widespread globalization of the industrial sector without any checks may actually be the recipe for the end of a high standard of living civilization (at least in theory). The point is that any assumption that rampant industrialization from hereon will raise the standard of living across the globe may be incorrect. There are a lot of variables and a lot of different definitions for progress to make anybody conclusively "right". As an extreme example, one could argue using some definitions that the average Lakota tribe member in 1700 had a higher quality of life than the average Midwesterner today -- but not if you base this on trinkets and GDP and the like.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we converted to AS today, we don't all of a sudden forget how to build things and all the capability in the world magically vanishes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that they forget how, it's that they no longer have capitalists to bear the risks of the business failing while the workers continue to be paid before the goods they've produced are sold.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I know this concept may be hard for a capitalist fan, but unabated technological progress from 2007 isn't necessarily going to raise the standard of living. Widespread globalization of the industrial sector without any checks may actually be the recipe for the end of a high standard of living civilization (at least in theory). The point is that any assumption that rampant industrialization from hereon will raise the standard of living across the globe may be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then provide an argument instead weak insinuations.

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 ]

This is completely wrong. The are numerous forms of anarchism that propopse some sort of democracy. Usually 'direct democracy' and on a regional basis such as libertarian municipalism.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

To summarise some AS positions here is a quote from a AS FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
In place of capitalism we want a free socialistic economic system in which the workers and peasants directly control the land and factories, and use these resources to produce for the benefit of all. In place of the State, we want to manage our own affairs through grassroots workplace and community councils, united at the local, regional, national and international levels. We call this system "anarchism" or "stateless socialism" or "libertarian socialism".

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is completely wrong. The are numerous forms of anarchism that propopse some sort of democracy. Usually 'direct democracy' and on a regional basis such as libertarian municipalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm starting to pick up on this from Kaj's posts. I am having a hard time understanding what purpose this "voting" process has when there is no assertion made that the outcome of the vote is at all binding. For example, some comparisons proposed by Kaj include:

- it's like voting with your friends on where to eat
- it's like voting done by a corporate board

But I don't think it's like that at all. When you declare common goods to belong to everyone and vote on how those public goods will be used, thinking that this won't rapidly become a full blow democracy seems crazy. Eventually someone will demand that the distinction between common goods and non-common goods be written down, and that a formal process for casting and counting votes be laid out, and that rules are constructed limiting the power of the elected officials over the population, and on an on and welcome to social democracy. The concept of social collectivism requires centralization at some level. We can't all be in it together without, well, acting together.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
To summarise some AS positions here is a quote from a AS FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
In place of capitalism we want a free socialistic economic system in which the workers and peasants directly control the land and factories, and use these resources to produce for the benefit of all. In place of the State, we want to manage our own affairs through grassroots workplace and community councils, united at the local, regional, national and international levels. We call this system "anarchism" or "stateless socialism" or "libertarian socialism".

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Zaster, maybe you can help Kaj answer my question about how factories will be built in the first place. Who will be building them? How will those working in them be paid while they are waiting for their product to be sold?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To summarise some AS positions here is a quote from a AS FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
In place of capitalism we want a free socialistic economic system in which the workers and peasants directly control the land and factories, and use these resources to produce for the benefit of all. In place of the State, we want to manage our own affairs through grassroots workplace and community councils, united at the local, regional, national and international levels. We call this system "anarchism" or "stateless socialism" or "libertarian socialism".

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Zaster, maybe you can help Kaj answer my question about how factories will be built in the first place. Who will be building them? How will those working in them be paid while they are waiting for their product to be sold?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Factories already exist.

2) What do you think would be stopping people from building things using communal funds? As an extreme example, there were no capitalists in Russia. They managed to build a lot of stuff. The people can pool their resources to build a lot of stuff. It doesn't take a single capitalist.

And AS societies don't have to build everything for themselves anymore than my town has to build everything indigenously. There's nothing stopping AS community X to specialize in baskets and trade them with other AS societies to get the products it desires. In fact, this would likely be a norm.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) What do you think would be stopping people from building things using communal funds? As an extreme example, there were no capitalists in Russia. They managed to build a lot of stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure worked out great for everyone involved there

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Factories already exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
So no more would be built?

[ QUOTE ]
2) What do you think would be stopping people from building things using communal funds? As an extreme example, there were no capitalists in Russia. They managed to build a lot of stuff. The people can pool their resources to build a lot of stuff. It doesn't take a single capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]
There was no spontaneous communal decision to build tank factories in Soviet Russia.

It seems like "the people" would have to have an incredible amount of wealth in order for the amount of money to be available to not only pay for large factors of production like factories as well as the wages necessary until the product has sold.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Factories already exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
So no more would be built?

[ QUOTE ]
2) What do you think would be stopping people from building things using communal funds? As an extreme example, there were no capitalists in Russia. They managed to build a lot of stuff. The people can pool their resources to build a lot of stuff. It doesn't take a single capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]
There was no spontaneous communal decision to build tank factories in Soviet Russia.

It seems like "the people" would have to have an incredible amount of wealth in order for the amount of money to be available to not only pay for large factors of production like factories as well as the wages necessary until the product has sold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparisons to the soviet Union are missing the point. Soviet Russia was not communism- simply another form of state capitalism.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Factories already exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
So no more would be built?

[ QUOTE ]
2) What do you think would be stopping people from building things using communal funds? As an extreme example, there were no capitalists in Russia. They managed to build a lot of stuff. The people can pool their resources to build a lot of stuff. It doesn't take a single capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]
There was no spontaneous communal decision to build tank factories in Soviet Russia.

It seems like "the people" would have to have an incredible amount of wealth in order for the amount of money to be available to not only pay for large factors of production like factories as well as the wages necessary until the product has sold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparisons to the soviet Union are missing the point. Soviet Russia was not communism- simply another form of state capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kaj brought up Russia, not me.

Seriously, zaster, how do you think thousands and thousands of people will spontaneously decide to build a car factory? Where will the money come from? Who will be paying the workers while they're waiting for their product to be sold?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Factories already exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
So no more would be built?

[ QUOTE ]
2) What do you think would be stopping people from building things using communal funds? As an extreme example, there were no capitalists in Russia. They managed to build a lot of stuff. The people can pool their resources to build a lot of stuff. It doesn't take a single capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]
There was no spontaneous communal decision to build tank factories in Soviet Russia.

It seems like "the people" would have to have an incredible amount of wealth in order for the amount of money to be available to not only pay for large factors of production like factories as well as the wages necessary until the product has sold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparisons to the soviet Union are missing the point. Soviet Russia was not communism- simply another form of state capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kaj brought up Russia, not me.

Seriously, zaster, how do you think thousands and thousands of people will spontaneously decide to build a car factory? Where will the money come from? Who will be paying the workers while they're waiting for their product to be sold?

[/ QUOTE ]


Who will be paying the workers? No'body'

[ QUOTE ]
he [Proudhon ] recognised the ownership of the instruments of production by all, made effective by industrial groups bound to one another by free contract, so long as this right was not made to serve the exploitation of others and as long as the full product of his individual labour was assured to every human being. This organisation based on reciprocity (mutualité) guarantees the enjoyment of equal rights by each in exchange for equal services. The average working time required for the completion of any product becomes the measure of its value and is the basis of mutual exchange. In this way capital is deprived of its usurial power and is completely bound up with the performance of work. By being made available to all it ceases to be an instrument for exploitation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

Why should I listen to someone espousing the long-debunked labor theory of value?

[ QUOTE ]
Who will be paying the workers? No'body'

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll rephrase: how will the workers be paid while they're waiting for their product to be sold?