community and anarchy - pt I

[LinusKS]

Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

[Phil153]

Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace, limited geography (islands), environmental constraints (cold winters), and homogeneity of race and religion.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
first point: the problem of maintaining a statist society without moving back towards a state or ("states by other names") is a problem of maintaining some sort of social cohesion/social order

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the Anarchocapitalist definition of the state - "that which has a successful monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographic area" - isn't Anarchocapitalism the replacement of one kind of government (democracy) for another?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't even post anything yet.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Historically, it just isn't the case that monopolies form without help from government. Read Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism--despite myths to the contrary, there really were no monopolies (with the possible exception of the telephone industry, though this was primarily caused by patents). There was not widespread centralization and cartelization of business until the Big Businesses, under the guise of 'Progressivism" lobbied the government for increased federal regulation.

So I'm really not understanding your points. How is it that monopolies will form without government coercion? How is it that free markets and voluntary exchange will lead to a situation where the very very few own most of the stuff? You have yet to really point out what you find so objectionable about voluntary exchange, since everything you've said so far can far more easily be traced to government intervention and corporate capitalism.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace, limited geography (islands), environmental constraints (cold winters), and homogeneity of race and religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they're excellent examples of anarchist--or near-anarchist--socities.

Seriously, trying to say "Ireland was completely AC" or "Iceland was totally not AC but all Anarchosocialist" is kind of stupid. There were clearly strong elements of both in such societies insofar as both Iceland and Ireland are excellent examples of highly decentralized socities that solved many 'problems' with voluntary measures. Some solutions might be classified as 'market solutions', others not.

[Phil153]

I agree - and anarchy can work in a place with the above mentioned criteria - military isolation, limited geography, and a relatively small, homogenous population with high social intelligence. In fact, it's a very noble thing that leaves government for dead.

But I think the concept of the market solving everything, where those prerequisites don't exist, is lol. I'm looking forward to more of latefordinner's posts.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace,

[/ QUOTE ]

So they're ASism due to a bunch of things ASism shares in common with ACism? Hmm...

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think the concept of the market solving everything, where those prerequisites don't exist, is lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree, since part of why anarchism works so well is the inherent decentralization. So even in a place like the US anarchism would work, I think, because if people wanted to be in a small community with people of their 'kind' it would be pretty easy--small communities might be internally homogenous even if the entire 'country' were quite heterogenous.

Military isolation, while obviously beneficial, is I think also unnecessary since a) neighboring countries might be less likely to attack an anarchist 'country' since it would never provoke attacks, and b) an anarchist society would already be difficult to attack since all such attacks would take place in the anarchist society and the high level of decentralization would make capture far more difficult and far less appealing.

I don't think the idea is that the market must 'solve everything', as if all of life's problems magically disappear before the free market. But I think free markets, when combined with non-market methods (charities, mutual aid societies, unions, town militias, nonviolent resistance) can overcome many of the things you list as 'essential' for an anarchist society.

[neverforgetlol]

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

"Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace, limited geography (islands), environmental constraints (cold winters), and homogeneity of race and religion. "

Neither of those were anarchist. The only anarchist area I can think of is the paris commune, spain in the late 1800's, and early 90's somalia.