community and anarchy - pt I

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
If it were legitimate, there would be no argument against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it /isn't/ legitimate in the eyes of anarchists, I'm using a more general sociological definition here in that the only way the state maintains its stateness is by claiming (and convincing/coercing its subjects) that it has a monopoly on violence

Thanks for the thoughts so far, it helps to see where there will be points of strong contention so that I can focus on those - Thanks also to Phil for intuiting in advance the social norms and social control that a community exerts on its members as being an important part of the picture

I'll try to write the first half of the argument tonight

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is an anarcho-socialist? That makes no sense. Maybe you mean syndicalist?

[/ QUOTE ]

syndicalism is certainly a type of libertarian socialism - though i would argue that it suffers from the same industrial bias that most Marxist variants do - if yr familiar with your anarchist theory you'll note that most anarchist writers explicitly identify the political philosophy as a branch of socialism (and actually as the only /true/ socialism)

I agree with the spanish communes during the revolution as being anarchist, not so much with the paris commune or situationists, don't know enough about somalia, but I think that the strongest arguments for anarchism can be found in the social relations of pre-civilized societies and in small intentionally anarchist communal experiments in both the US and especially in the large scale squats in the Scandanavian countries, Spain, and the autonomia movements in Germany and Italy

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
So how does the "rough equality" exist without a state to enforce it? It seems like you are just taking a circuitous route to claiming that a stateless society cannot exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

no in fact I'm arguing the opposite, that a stateless society CAN exist, HAS in fact existed, but that it is not compatible with massive wealth/power disparities -- let me get there sheesh!

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is an anarcho-socialist? That makes no sense. Maybe you mean syndicalist?

[/ QUOTE ]

syndicalism is certainly a type of libertarian socialism - though i would argue that it suffers from the same industrial bias that most Marxist variants do - if yr familiar with your anarchist theory you'll note that most anarchist writers explicitly identify the political philosophy as a branch of socialism (and actually as the only /true/ socialism)

I agree with the spanish communes during the revolution as being anarchist, not so much with the paris commune or situationists, don't know enough about somalia, but I think that the strongest arguments for anarchism can be found in the social relations of pre-civilized societies and in small intentionally anarchist communal experiments in both the US and especially in the large scale squats in the Scandanavian countries, Spain, and the autonomia movements in Germany and Italy

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialism to me, is at least temporarily marx's idea of the workers' state, the main thing that seperates socialists/marxists from anarchists.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]


But even now when you say "state coercion" that is coercion of government working with capitalists!! If you are an Austrian you must know that barriers to entry are levied by firms, using the law, to harm competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


But even now when you say "state coercion" that is coercion of government working with capitalists!! If you are an Austrian you must know that barriers to entry are levied by firms, using the law, to harm competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and?

[/ QUOTE ]

So saying "state coercion" implies that capitalists are somehow not a part. They want to harm other firms just as much as the state does.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
So saying "state coercion" implies that capitalists are somehow not a part.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't. I and other ACists have been very vocal about the fact that capitalists often use government to externalize costs or to get sweet/no bid contracts. We do so because we recognize the incentives involved with having a government.
[ QUOTE ]
They want to harm other firms just as much as the state does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, that's why ACism has the A to go along with the C, so that other firms can't use government to their advantage.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Socialism to me, is at least temporarily marx's idea of the workers' state, the main thing that seperates socialists/marxists from anarchists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's marxism, not nec. socialism and was the reason for the schism between anarchists and mainstream socialists. bakunin, malatesta, rocker, kropotkin, makhno, emma goldman, alexander berkman, the CNT-FAI - nearly all post enlightment European political movements that identified as anarchist explicitly and repeatedly identify it as libertarian socialism in opposition to both authoritarian socialism and capitalism

also important to note that, there have been intermediate grounds between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism, like Prodhoun's mutualism which still advocates individual ownership of land and functioning markets though it is telling that most anarcho capitalists still see mutualism as socialist. I would count the Mandragon collectives as important examples of a bridge between collectivist, individual, socialist and capitalist tendencies.

Also forgot to mention the Israeli kibbutzum as being examples of libertarian socialist communities

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
The one question I have is "why do you think equality in outcome is so important? (wouldn't this create a bunch of robotic type cardboard cutout people?)A truly free society would have very different outcomes for different people. Opportunity and outcome will not follow the same line on a graph. If you choose to provide a service you enjoy providing...ie ice cream shop owner and you make a average income, that is your choice. Perhaps you could make three times as much being a IT manager at a large company...but would not enjoy it as much. (the option is available but you decide hapiness is worth more than the money)

Your previous posts on AS lead me to believe that some commitee is going to decide how ones personel skills are best utilized for the benefit of the commune. You or I could get stuck doing labor we truly hate...for the benefit of others. I do not consider that freedom. In AC everything is voluntary because your purpose is for yourself and not to benefit others or the "greater good" (a term I detest...because the greater good in my opinion may not be the greater good in your opinion) Many things today are said to be for the greater good that I do not agree with....I do not see how this would change in AS....I do see it changing in AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can any of you socialist leaning folks out there please respond to this? I am truly interested in why outcome is so important even if it takes away personel choice.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be trying to make something very complicated out of something that's actually very simple. ACers believe that by making use of land, a person gains ownership of it and ASers disagree and call trying to own land "theft". As far as I can tell, that's the only real difference between the two beliefs. All the other differences are rooted in this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I would say it's bigger than that. Capitalism doesn't just function on land ownership, it functions on profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it functions on mutually beneficial trades. There's nothing in AS that stops people from making mutually beneficial trades, is there? Cause I thought AS was against initiation of force.

Also, I don't even think the land thing is true. Let's say you have your little commune factory and I blow it up? That's ok, right, since no one owns the property?