[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why anarcho socialism does not make sense. The only form of socialism that can exist without statism is the private groupings ive talked about.
If i accept the ASists position i must think of them and everyone alive as initiating force against themselves and each other simply by standing still and thinking. These cause a variety of anomalies.
[/ QUOTE ] Haha. Ok maybe I shouldn't so harsh on you. I can't be sure it's my fault that I don't understand what you are saying at all. But wtf?
[/ QUOTE ]
i searched and found someone else's words that touches on some of the same points. Maybe you'll benefit from a different persons articulation:
"The fact that "there are only individuals" is also a great argument for anarchism. There cannot be a single system forced on any two individuals without it fitting one individual better than the other, and thus such a system would create legal inequalities (and therefore be oppressive). Also, since there are only individuals there is no reason to believe some individuals should have the power to rule other individuals. If there are only individuals, all of them should be sovereign self-owners and enjoy an equal full right to their selves.
But this fact means also that people are different and that some people will value certain things while other people value completely different things. Some people will have high time preference for certain values, while others will have low time preference. Some people will be able to use their time and skill to create a lot of value to others (assessed subjectively), while others create value only recognized by a few. And individual choices will always be individual choices, the decisions made depending on the individual's subjective assessment of values he chooses to identify.
Socialism, as commonly defined by the socialists (of both anarchist and statist varieties), fails to realize this fact and therefore categorically dismisses market solutions, functions, and institutions that arise voluntarily and spontaneously. It might be true that socialists themselves would never accept wage labor, but many others would perhaps happily accept employment as being beneficial to them individually or collectively.
The same is true with the famous Marxian credo, usually advocated also by socialist anarchists, that the laborer is free only when he has taken ownership of the means of production. But how can we say a certain kind of profession or "class" shares the exact same values? That necessarily presupposes an extreme class consciousness, where individuals no longer exist. If "class consciousness" is instead interpreted rather as a sense of class belonging and unity in certain values, time preference and subjectivity of values would still apply!
"
http://www.mises.org/story/2096