ACers: What do you think of mainstream (socialist) anarchism?

[soon2bepro]

The basic idea is to have a sort of socialism, where people form groups and join efforts towards shared goals, where they are achieved with much more efficiency than if they went at it on their own.

It would probably be like a direct democracy, although not necessarily nation wide. It could be a small group of people who also commerce with other groups, or it could be world-wide.

This can theoretically evolve from the current system without changing any law, just abolishing the state(s).

But it could start without that. Workers would start joining and starting businesses of their own. Since the capitalists would be almost out of exploitable workers and consumers, their wealth wouldn't mean so much after a while, and they would actually have to work for a living.
It would be a form of AC, only that because of convenience, it wouldn't be so competitive or exploitative.

The only problem in real life is (drums please) private property.

Theoretically the people still has the power. They can revolt anyday and decide to stop working, and the system would collapse. Only then they would have to think about what they'd eat. Where they'd live. They can't just start growing tomatoes, because they don't own the land.

Or maybe they'd choose to take over the lands they don't "own" under the current system. Do you have a solid objection to that? If so, on what grounds? Moral? Economic?

Now suppose for a moment that they wouldn't need to do that. That under the current system they could become powerful enough to own their own workplace. They would greatly outclass any capitalist, and eventually lead to their extintion. What would you think of this system? Would it meet your standards?

[nietzreznor]

I think there is a lot of common ground between market anarchists and left-anarchists, so as a market anarchist I have little to say negatively about 'socialist' anarchism, or whatever you want to call it.

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically the people still has the power. They can revolt anyday and decide to stop working, and the system would collapse. Only then they would have to think about what they'd eat. Where they'd live. They can't just start growing tomatoes, because they don't own the land.

Or maybe they'd choose to take over the lands they don't "own" under the current system. Do you have a solid objection to that? If so, on what grounds? Moral? Economic?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the problem with our current system is precisely that some people (i.e., government and certain wealthy elites) have used illegitimate means to amass 'property' that isn't rightfully theirs. So if there were to be a revolt, part of that revolt would have to be the seizure of government (or some degree of 'government-enabled') property, and a return of such property to its rightful owners (which in many cases would be the people actually using it, or living on it, working it, etc). So I don't see this as a problem or a point of contention among different types of anarchists.

[Archon_Wing]

OP,

IMO in a AC'ist world many communities would do this. It's only natural and very profitable to engage in non-coercive interaction with the people around you. You'd have the community of [insert place here] engaging in various economic activites as a whole It's very convenient this way and of course nobody would be forced to associate with the group just because they live in the same geographical areas. I'd assume people who aren't a part of these groups can still become affiliates of these groups. And of course people can opt out given they fulfill their contracutual obligations.


[ QUOTE ]
But it could start without that. Workers would start joining and starting businesses of their own. Since the capitalists would be almost out of exploitable workers and consumers, their wealth wouldn't mean so much after a while, and they would actually have to work for a living.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like capitalism to me. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You don't see that now since you probaly know whose side the government is on usually.

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically the people still has the power. They can revolt anyday and decide to stop working, and the system would collapse. Only then they would have to think about what they'd eat. Where they'd live. They can't just start growing tomatoes, because they don't own the land.

[/ QUOTE ]

They needn't revolt at all. They can always threaten to work for a rival community or just go off on their own. I'm quite confident someone will sell them tomatoes. Workers have plenty of power when you aren't beating them down with strikebreakers or forcing them to join unions.

[ QUOTE ]
Now suppose for a moment that they wouldn't need to do that. That under the current system they could become powerful enough to own their own workplace. They would greatly outclass any capitalist, and eventually lead to their extintion. What would you think of this system? Would it meet your standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

The capitalists in this case have not gone extinct. It's just that the workers have become the capitalists (and they were all along). And there's nothing wrong with that. And btw, being decentralized and voluntary, I wouldn't call this socialism as I know it. There's no central power planning out stuff for your own good or here to redistributed wealth, it just happens to happen by itself.

[Nielsio]

There is nothing wrong with communes, but there is something wrong with communism.

Communes = voluntary
Communism = dictatorship

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with communes, but there is something wrong with communism.

Communes = voluntary
Communism = dictatorship

[/ QUOTE ]

I had asked latefordinner about this before. (where has he been?) If I were to join a commune...that would be voluntary, but the tasks that need to be done are handed out by a person or panel of people...and what if I dont want the task they assign me?

Is it go find another commune for me? start my own commune? And isnt this person or panel of task hander outers a form of govt? Dont they now sit in a position to take bribes and be corrupt. Favorable tasks to those who "pay homage" so to speak.

I think I rubbed latefordinner the wrong way and never got any real answer to this situation. He seemed so gung ho that this was the only "just" way of life that any problems I saw with it were surely without merit, and I must be too dumb to understand.

He also never drew the line on the difference between property and possessions.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Is it go find another commune for me? start my own commune? And isnt this person or panel of task hander outers a form of govt? Dont they now sit in a position to take bribes and be corrupt"

Yes; but you can leave a commune. You can't leave communism.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with communes, but there is something wrong with communism.

Communes = voluntary
Communism = dictatorship

[/ QUOTE ]

I had asked latefordinner about this before. (where has he been?) If I were to join a commune...that would be voluntary, but the tasks that need to be done are handed out by a person or panel of people...and what if I dont want the task they assign me?

Is it go find another commune for me? start my own commune? And isnt this person or panel of task hander outers a form of govt? Dont they now sit in a position to take bribes and be corrupt. Favorable tasks to those who "pay homage" so to speak.

I think I rubbed latefordinner the wrong way and never got any real answer to this situation. He seemed so gung ho that this was the only "just" way of life that any problems I saw with it were surely without merit, and I must be too dumb to understand.

He also never drew the line on the difference between property and possessions.

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me illustrate through an example:

You have two friends and the three of you decide to go out to dinner. But where to? You guys talk it over and it turns out that two want to go Chinese but you don't. Namely because you had a traumatic experience with a chicken noodle soup and you can't stand the music. Now what happens? Well, you simply don't go. It's that easy.



Another example of a commune is a married couple and children. Let's say the man wants to have sex everyday but the woman at one point decide that she doesn't want to anymore. Well? She just leaves the guy.



So you see what the fundamental basis of all this is? It's just people cooperating. It's still trade, they just don't exchange money. It's informed consent, and when one party decides that it doesn't get what it wants from the cooperation then you simply stop cooperating.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with communes, but there is something wrong with communism.

Communes = voluntary
Communism = dictatorship

[/ QUOTE ]

I had asked latefordinner about this before. (where has he been?) If I were to join a commune...that would be voluntary, but the tasks that need to be done are handed out by a person or panel of people...and what if I dont want the task they assign me?

Is it go find another commune for me? start my own commune? And isnt this person or panel of task hander outers a form of govt? Dont they now sit in a position to take bribes and be corrupt. Favorable tasks to those who "pay homage" so to speak.

I think I rubbed latefordinner the wrong way and never got any real answer to this situation. He seemed so gung ho that this was the only "just" way of life that any problems I saw with it were surely without merit, and I must be too dumb to understand.

He also never drew the line on the difference between property and possessions.

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me illustrate through an example:

You have two friends and the three of you decide to go out to dinner. But where to? You guys talk it over and it turns out that two want to go Chinese but you don't. Namely because you had a traumatic experience with a chicken noodle soup and you can't stand the music. Now what happens? Well, you simply don't go. It's that easy.



Another example of a commune is a married couple and children. Let's say the man wants to have sex everyday but the woman at one point decide that she doesn't want to anymore. Well? She just leaves the guy.



So you see what the fundamental basis of all this is? It's just people cooperating. It's still trade, they just don't exchange money. It's informed consent, and when one party decides that it doesn't get what it wants from the cooperation then you simply stop cooperating.

[/ QUOTE ]

looks like I would be moving alot.

Still, is not the man or panel deciding who does what a form of govt, ripe for corruption at that?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, is not the man or panel deciding who does what a form of govt, ripe for corruption at that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but what's it matter if the deciding body is non-binding upon a minority? Each individual still remains sovereign.

Edit: and to address your question from before, from the Libertarian Socialism article on wikipedia: "As such, they see a distinction between the concepts of "private property" and "personal possession". Whereas "private property" grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, and regardless of its productive capacity, "possession" grants no rights to things that are not in use. A property title grants owners the right to withhold their property from others, or, if they desire, to require payment from those who wish to use it. "Possession," on the other hand, is not compatible with this form of "exploitation" or "extortion.""