Should social anarchists support Ron Paul?

[hmkpoker]

I'm not the most well-versed in anarcho-socialist/syndicalist theory, but from what I have gathered, a social anarchist America would basically be a loose confederation of many city-states, which exercise social democratic control of resources on a local level. These communities decide their own rules democratically, but recognize the sovereignty of other groups, making somewhat anarcho-capitalistic interactivity between communities.

While a social anarchist may feel differently about local politics than an ACist, I think we see eye-to-eye on national politics. They should be done away with. That's why we're both called "anarchists" after all.

How do the resident left-leaning anarchists feel about this?

[AlexM]

I'm no social anarchist, but yes.

[hmkpoker]

I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in that group as well, then. Although in practice, there is nothing stopping small communities from merging into big communities and looking very much like countries... which is why I don't see "AS/AC vs. Statism" as the same black and white issue that most here do.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in that group as well, then. Although in practice, there is nothing stopping small communities from merging into big communities and looking very much like countries... which is why I don't see "AS/AC vs. Statism" as the same black and white issue that most here do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of an anarchist world presupposes the peoples' support for it (or else it would never have existed). If it were to exist at all, the people, by an large, would have had to favor the decentralization of the federal government, then the state governments, then (possibly) local governments. If the people are so actively supportive of decentralization, it's pretty unlikely that they would want to merge very much.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist. The size of the communities that they typically advocate are small enough for me to consider the social contract with them voluntary. Their beliefs are 100% congruent with mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in that group as well, then. Although in practice, there is nothing stopping small communities from merging into big communities and looking very much like countries... which is why I don't see "AS/AC vs. Statism" as the same black and white issue that most here do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of an anarchist world presupposes the peoples' support for it (or else it would never have existed). If it were to exist at all, the people, by an large, would have had to favor the decentralization of the federal government, then the state governments, then (possibly) local governments. If the people are so actively supportive of decentralization, it's pretty unlikely that they would want to merge very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for making my point in the great AC vs. Statism debate. If anarchy presupposes that the world by and large wants to have decentralization, then all the arguments against unfettered growth of the state are moot because people by and large don't want that anymore and won't support it. So, in effect, minarchy or AC/AS are basically indistinguishable and it's just a question of how much territory each "state" (or corporation, or individual, or group, or whatever) administrates on average.

Edit to add: And it also means that anarchists who scoff at those who would work or advocate to decentralize / limit existing governments (such as minarchists or libertarians), are actually inhibiting the very conditions required for their own system to ever emerge.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a social anarchist.

[/ QUOTE ]


What's that?

[JuntMonkey]

I have a friend who used to be a hardcore Democrat (actually a socialist, but wanted to fit neatly into the glorious two party system). I hadn't talked to him in around 4 years, and it now turns out that he is an anarchist.

He is anti-voting, but he did cast one final protest vote for Nader in 2004. I am unclear on what he thinks an anarchist society would ideally look like, but I do know that in the world as it is today, he would not consider it immoral to rob any corporate executive of all of his possessions in his home at gunpoint and to leave him there tied up and starving to death (he gave this exact example, and I really don't think he's being facetious).

He also briefly mentioned something about how he'd like to see Batman stories explore the fact that Bruce Wayne is "exploiting" the same people that Batman is supposed to be helping.

So, if he had to support a candidate, I have no idea whether he would choose a libertarian or a socialist. I'll be asking him.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if he had to support a candidate, I have no idea whether he would choose a libertarian or a socialist. I'll be asking him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the example with the executive, I'd be greatly surprised if he'd vote libertarian. For noncapitalist anarchist, the slow weening-off of government that would occur by voting Libertarian, would make things a whole lot worse before they got better. Think of all the things the labor movement had fought for following the industrial revolution. Most of those protections--right, wrong, or otherwise--would be lost. So while ASists seek the same stateless society as ACist, I think it has to come in a more radical, revolutionary way.

[clowntable]

Would it be utterly selfish to promote voting and vote to make the situation a lot worse so that the transition to AC becomes easier?