[Red Barn]

Taxizen, why are you so insistent on trying to turn anarcho-capitalism into communism? This is like the third time you've been posting on this board about "communism 2.0" or whatever.

I was wondering the same thing.

I understand that An-Caps are "not well liked." That's been demonstrated over and over again. But they are what they are; there's no use pretending otherwise.

[Someone5]

I was wondering the same thing.

I understand that An-Caps are "not well liked." That's been demonstrated over and over again. But they are what they are; there's no use pretending otherwise.

But... but if they were trying to come up with a better name, why pick communism? That's hardly got a wonderful reputation.

[Red Barn]

True. But "communism" sounds so . . . rebellious, dontcha think?

I get the feeling they're trying to escape the (all too accurate) impression that Anarcho-Capitalism is, at the end of the day, exactly like the boring, grinding, soon-to-implode kind of capitalism everybody's sick of already - only more so.

I don't think this particular gambit is going to work, but I can certainly see why they might think it worth a try.

[Eran]

Because this is precisely what capitalist markets have tended to do. In fact, the freer the markets the more inequality and the more concentration of wealth coupled with slower growth. This is simply the plain facts and it is proven time and again, but denied by the faithful ideologues.

You did note that I asked specifically regarding intellectual property, right?

What makes you think that collusion and private armies organized among big capital will not be a major threat of violence? You really think the NAP will hold them back? Or will it just be a mere rationalization of their violence and control?

One could equally ask "What makes you think that collusion amongst army generals will not be a major threat of violence? You really think the Constitution will hold them back?"

And while neither one of us believes the Constitution is either a perfect document nor faithfully followed today, neither are we overly concerned about the risk of a military coup any time soon.

The NAP is a principle. If it is adopted by the vast majority of the population, in the same way that Constitutionalism is today, it won't be the NAP, but rather society at large that would stop such violations.

Ancaps need to understand that simply getting rid of the state is not going to lead to freedom.

Ancaps (at least thoughtful ones) do understand that. We are not calling for "simply getting rid of the state", but rather for getting rid of the state as a consequence of the adoption of the NAP as the fundamental political principle.

[SolarCross]

Redbarn & Someone5 - You misunderstand me (as usual) I am not trying to make an-capism "cool" by associating it with communism, it would be more true to say I am trying to shame an-caps into re-evaluating their ideas about a commons for information, but that still would not be quite right. But oh well, if there is one thing that is garuanteed in a discussion, socialists will twist and distort and get everything upsidedown and inverted.

[Red Barn]

I don't think people are "twisting and distorting" anything. You're just terribly unclear.

If you're not trying to misrepresent An-Cappery (and that's possible, I guess) then it's up to YOU to get a grip on the relevant ideas. It's not your adversaries' job to extract supposed pearls of wisdom from a quagmire of crappy scholarship and sloppy thinking. (Capitalism is not the only conceivable free market system; collective ownership of the MoP does not automatically imply a state. A person who once advertised himself as a Left Anarchist should be up to speed on these points, even if others in your new camp aren't.)

So if you're actually trying to "shame" An-Caps in some way, I suggest you stick with stuff you know, and address them, not us.

[anticlimacus]

One could equally ask "What makes you think that collusion amongst army generals will not be a major threat of violence? You really think the Constitution will hold them back?"

And while neither one of us believes the Constitution is either a perfect document nor faithfully followed today, neither are we overly concerned about the risk of a military coup any time soon.

I don't see what the connection would be here. I'm not concerned about private armies overthrowing big capital. In the ridiculous notion that we have an ancap world, what I'm saying is that big capital colluding with each other and organizing private armies would be little different than the current capitalism we have today--except what was once public becomes private. I don't think the NAP would make a shred of difference any more than the constitution does today.

The NAP is a principle. If it is adopted by the vast majority of the population, in the same way that Constitutionalism is today, it won't be the NAP, but rather society at large that would stop such violations.

I don't see how this would be accepted. Society does not operate by principles alone and they come together as a result of common interests (and private property is NOT one of them).

People generally accept the principle "thou shall not steal"--but living in poverty changes things. The NAP really will do nothing except defend absolute property rights, and could thus be used to justify the absolute power of those who control most of the capital. What I think is striking, which you don't seem to take into account, is how easily the constitution can be violated or any of our "moral principles" (such as love thy neighbor), by the power elite and there is nothing that we can do about it unless we unite against it. Interesting the forces that have historically united against these powers, particularly in the US, have been socialist and communist leaning--not those who believe in some abstract NAP principle, which simply justifies property rights. In your ancap world, I simple don't see why the principle of the NAP will make any more difference than any of our current principles now, or the constitution. Those who have power will do what they can to keep it--and even use your precious principles, like the NAP, to justify what they do.

[SolarCross]

Redbarn - The OP was not specifically directed at your camp, but was just an invitation to anyone interested to mull over the an-cap position on intellectual property. Simple and clear.

Mutualism is arguably a market economy sure, I like mutualism on the whole. However as I understand it from discussions on libcom.org "libertarian" socialists loathe mutualism as much as the loathe an-cappery, is that not right? Collective ownership of the means of production would be a totalitarian state if the collectivised property was indiscriminately taken by force and membership was compulsory. I didn't think that was what traditional anarchism was about (silly me) but then I found out from libcom.org that traditional anarchism is indeed exactly about doing just that. Is not then anarchism about imposing a totalitarian monopolistic "democratic" socialist republic? If it is, as it seems to be, then I will be a dissenter and either get rich as a black marketeer or get dead in some ghastly political re-education centre if I am caught (selling T-shirts).

[Red Barn]

I don't read libcom because the membership strikes me as dumber than dirt, so I have no idea what they "loathe."

I myself don't dislike Mutualism at all. In fact, it seems to me a very useful model in certain contexts (non-industrial communities, for instance, or highly specialized, non-essential production) and a very promising transitional strategy to boot. Plenty of rational grown-ups agree.

. . . Collective ownership of the means of production would be a totalitarian state if the collectivised property was indiscriminately taken by force and membership was compulsory . . . etc, etc

That isn't anarchism - it's unmitigated horseshit. Stop reading libcom and you'll be fine.

[Eran]

I don't see what the connection would be here. I'm not concerned about private armies overthrowing big capital. In the ridiculous notion that we have an ancap world, what I'm saying is that big capital colluding with each other and organizing private armies would be little different than the current capitalism we have today--except what was once public becomes private. I don't think the NAP would make a shred of difference any more than the constitution does today.

I take it you believe Big Capital is effectively in charge today. Clearly, it isn't the army that is in charge of the US (unlike some other countries).

Why is it, in your mind, that the army isn't taking over from Big Capital today? After all, the army has all the guns, and by your dismissal of the Constitution, it isn't that document that stops them either.

What is it that stops the military from taking over from Big Capital (or just civilian government)?

I don't see how this would be accepted. Society does not operate by principles alone and they come together as a result of common interests (and private property is NOT one of them).

What are the common interests based on which today's American society has come together to virtually universally accept the Constitution as the fundamental principle based on which force may legitimately be used?

If the NAP (which makes every person a sovereign over his own body and peaceful projects) isn't a principle over which we can all agree, why would the Constitution, a convoluted, highly complicated and easily hijacked mechanism for determining which uses of force are legitimate, be one?

What I think is striking, which you don't seem to take into account, is how easily the constitution can be violated or any of our "moral principles" (such as love thy neighbor), by the power elite and there is nothing that we can do about it unless we unite against it.

What makes you think I don't take that into account? I view the Constitution as a well-intentioned, highly-flawed and greatly-abused document. Having said that, there is no doubt that virtually all Americans support it. Why do you suppose that is the case?

And if that is the case, why do you suppose it impossible or improbable that most Americans won't support the NAP in a similar capacity?

In your ancap world, I simple don't see why the principle of the NAP will make any more difference than any of our current principles now, or the constitution. Those who have power will do what they can to keep it--and even use your precious principles, like the NAP, to justify what they do.

You have posed to separate questions. One, why would those with the most resources in an ancap society bother protecting the NAP, rather than abusing it? My answer is by analogy - those with the most guns in our society do protect the Constitution, also a piece of paper (or a set of ideas and principles). As long as a principle is widely accepted (the Constitution in our society, the NAP in an ancap one), society can effectively ensure its respect.

The second question regards the likely consequences of an NAP-governed society (and, by extension, the likelihood that it would enjoy broad support in a hypothetical world in which most people are motivated by self-interest rather than principle).

This is a separate question we have explored at length. In a nutshell, and assuming the NAP (and, by extension, property) are well-protected, moneyed elites lack the tools (today available through government) to prevent their own usurpation.

As a very simple example, please consider the following question (which I posed before, but I don't recall you answering):

How could a capitalist-controlled factory compete for workers with a worker-run syndicate? Since workers are much more likely, by your logic, to prefer working for a syndicate, and since in an NAP-respecting society nobody can stop them from so doing, why wouldn't you expect capitalist enterprises to die a quick death as their workers abandon them on-mass to work for competing syndicates?

[Someone5]

Mutualism is arguably a market economy sure, I like mutualism on the whole. However as I understand it from discussions on libcom.org "libertarian" socialists loathe mutualism as much as the loathe an-cappery, is that not right?

I've rarely encountered a socialist of the anarchist variety who "loathed" mutualism, though certainly there are reasons to consider it inadequate. It would still be a huge step up from what we've got.

Collective ownership of the means of production would be a totalitarian state if the collectivised property was indiscriminately taken by force

If the "state" refuses to acknowledge or protect property claims anymore, how on earth is that "totalitarian"?

I didn't think that was what traditional anarchism was about (silly me) but then I found out from libcom.org that traditional anarchism is indeed exactly about doing just that.

You losing your property does not infringe upon your rights as a human being. You would still be free to act as you saw fit, you simply wouldn't be able to wield capital against other people. Want to go drive taxis? Go drive taxis. Want to paint pictures? Go paint pictures. That's the point. You are not free merely by having property; property is a system that establishes strict controls and is inherently oppressive.

Traditional anarchism is about maximizing human freedom; that necessarily involves deconstruction of the state, of the capitalist system, and systems of property.

Is not then anarchism about imposing a totalitarian monopolistic "democratic" socialist republic?

You have one very strange definition of the term "totalitarian" if it could be applied to a loose organization that refuses to infringe on the rights of the people who are nominally part of it. Keep that in mind--the mere existence of property requires a state that will interfere with everyone else in order to protect your property claim. If anything, the state that allows property to exist is the totalitarian state, because it believes in harshly restricting everyone's behavior.

If it is, as it seems to be, then I will be a dissenter and either get rich as a black marketeer

Get rich in what? As soon as someone "buys" something from you it would cease to be theirs.

or get dead in some ghastly political re-education centre if I am caught (selling T-shirts).

I can't imagine anyone would buy your t-shirts, since you would be charging for them.

[SolarCross]

Redbarn - Libcommers struck me as being "dumb as mud" too, as did the revleft crew, anarchist subredditors and, I hate to say it, one or two of the red-anarchists here on pofo.. Are there any clever left-anarchists and where can they be found?

Someone5 - (speak of the devil),

If the "state" refuses to acknowledge or protect property claims anymore, how on earth is that "totalitarian"?

If that was all "it" did then that would not be totalitarian for sure but what happens if others did acknowledge and protect property claims? Lets test this in a thought experiment. Lets say we are living in a mixed anarchist society, there are left-anarchists and right-anarchists. I am a taxi driver. One morning I discover my car is no longer on my driveway where I left it and so I presume it has been stolen. I phone up the Dispute Resolution Organisation with which I contract and explain what happened. They give me some money to cover the cost of buying a replacement car and then go off to find the miscreant in order to recover their money from him. Let's say they find him and take him to court which finds against the accused and they then recover their expenses from the thief in terms of labour or money whichever the thief has. What, if anything, would left-anarchists do to interfere?

[Someone5]

If that was all "it" did then that would not be totalitarian for sure but what happens if others did acknowledge and protect property claims?

Then they would be part of a competing society and would be involved in a collective theft from said anarchists.

Lets test this in a thought experiment. Lets say we are living in a mixed anarchist society, there are left-anarchists and right-anarchists.

A "mixed anarchist" society could not exist between those two groups. Unicorn Capitalists could never peacefully coexist in an anarchist society.

I am a taxi driver. One morning I discover my car is no longer on my driveway where I left it and so I presume it has been stolen. I phone up the Dispute Resolution Organisation with which I contract and explain what happened. They give me some money to cover the cost of buying a replacement car and then go off to find the miscreant in order to recover their money from him. Let's say they find him and take him to court which finds against the accused and they then recover their expenses from the thief in terms of labour or money whichever the thief has. What, if anything, would left-anarchists do to interfere?

Obviously the anarchists would physically stop the "security officer" who was kidnapping an innocent man well within his rights to drive that taxi. Quite possibly they would use deadly force to stop him if he insisted on committing his crime. It would never go before your sham of a court.

I mean, this is why there is an irreconcilable difference between Unicorn Capitalists an anarchists; you consider it totally okay to go kidnap and punish someone because they "stole your property." You consider it okay to build an institution to engage in organized, collective violence against people who offend against your "property."

That's the problem, and it's why propertarians cannot reasonably be called anarchists; you believe firmly that it's totally okay to build systems of violent oppression in order to protect your property.

[Red Barn]

Are there any clever left-anarchists and where can they be found?

I know what you mean.

Besides the baby Stalinists dressed up as "Anarchists" you're talking about, there are also the Lifestyle "Anarchists" that Bookchin talks about (and that I happen to hate especially) - and now this brand new bunch of idiots, who insist on describing themselves in mind-numbing terms like "Left Rothbardian."

---> --->

Have you ever read Rudolph Rocker? That guy is insanely clever.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... udolf.html

You might try skimming the "Collected Works" section; the stuff on the history and ideology of anarchism is awesome. He writes in clean, crisp, unambiguous prose, and never falls into that obnoxiously fluffy, jargon-stuffed rhetoric that people lacking a solid theoretical base invariable favor.

I just love that guy.

[Someone5]

I know what you mean.

Besides the baby Stalinists dressed up as "Anarchists" you're talking about, there are also the Lifestyle "Anarchists" that Bookchin talks about (and that I happen to hate especially) - and now this brand new bunch of idiots, who insist on describing themselves in mind-numbing terms like "Left Rothbardian."

He's actually talking about anyone who thinks property is theft, as far as I can tell.

[Red Barn]

Maybe.

At the moment, I think he's just suffering an unfortunate reaction to the clods over at libcom, which is perfectly understandable. In any event, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt until he straightens it all out in his mind, since I find our Taxi rather hard to dislike for some reason.

[anticlimacus]

How could a capitalist-controlled factory compete for workers with a worker-run syndicate? Since workers are much more likely, by your logic, to prefer working for a syndicate, and since in an NAP-respecting society nobody can stop them from so doing, why wouldn't you expect capitalist enterprises to die a quick death as their workers abandon them on-mass to work for competing syndicates?

I don't see how what you are saying is really anything different from, say, the 20th century. Workers en masse did, in fact, unite to overthrow capitalism. Some instances were more successful than others: anarchist spain, nationalists movements in Latin America, the Russian revolution, unions and workers in the US who helped produce the welfare state, current existing coops, etc. But in general these have not been able to defeat the power of capital and state controlled capital, and they have been beaten back in a variety of ways. The reason is, unlike your fantasy world, we are and never have been starting from ground zero, where we are all on equal footing with each other able to just decide on what kind of society we want. We are products of a history of domination, of conrol over property, wealth, and people. I don't think it is the case--or ever has been the case--that the masses are choosing capitalism. It has been quite the opposite, in fact (fighting against capitalism). Capitalism has just been that resilient of a socio-eocnomic force. But, much like Feudalism and other forms of social control, I do believe it will eventually crumble. I only hope that what comes out of it is something positive.

I take it you believe Big Capital is effectively in charge today. Clearly, it isn't the army that is in charge of the US (unlike some other countries).

Why is it, in your mind, that the army isn't taking over from Big Capital today? After all, the army has all the guns, and by your dismissal of the Constitution, it isn't that document that stops them either.

What is it that stops the military from taking over from Big Capital (or just civilian government)?

I'm still confused on where this question is coming from, but anyway: Monopoly Corporate and Finance Capital are in charge along with the state, which at times can work against them, but most of the time supports them and assists them. The army is a function of the modern state and is not independent from it, and neither are its generals, so there it does not operate on its own. The state and capital, is very much intertwined and this is especially true in advanced capitalist nations. Now there have been states that have taken over capital and thus nationalized resources, and, of course, this has typically been met with violent reactions from the capitalist states where those businesses originated. But, as I said, I'm confused at what you are getting at with this. Again, my point was that I don't see your ancap world as resulting in anything much different than the current world we have today, only violence and oppression intensified since what was once public (the state), now become private. You seem to be depending on the good-will of people through the NAP to previent horrible attrocities. I don't have that faith. In fact, I see teh NAP simply becoming a rationalization for absolute power--it's their "right" to control everything, and they are only defedning their rights when they kill you, imprison you, lower your working conditions, etc.

What are the common interests based on which today's American society has come together to virtually universally accept the Constitution as the fundamental principle based on which force may legitimately be used?

If the NAP (which makes every person a sovereign over his own body and peaceful projects) isn't a principle over which we can all agree, why would the Constitution, a convoluted, highly complicated and easily hijacked mechanism for determining which uses of force are legitimate, be one?

I'm not sure the former has occured. People have come together on a number of different issues, however, and it has been a result of common interests--not abstract principles.

Again, I'm confused with the second question. Did I ever say the constitution was a universally agreed upon "principle"? Maybe we're just miscommunicating. Baring the fact that the NAP is simply a horrible moral principle and no society in their right minds would simply adopt it as the way things should be, I'm simply wondering why it, by itself, becomes the deterent for those with absolute power of capital control--which is basically what we give them when we abandon the state and leave in place the private ownership of the means of production. I, in fact, see no reason why the NAP could not be used to rationalize horrible atrocities: allowing people to starve because they cannot pay for food, putting down revolts and strikes against capitalist rulers violently because it "violates our peaceful projects" etc.

[Red Barn]

I, in fact, see no reason why the NAP could not be used to rationalize horrible atrocities: allowing people to starve because they cannot pay for food, putting down revolts and strikes against capitalist rulers violently because it "violates our peaceful projects" etc.

Well, sure.

The NAP is just the secular version of the feudal masters' "Christian meekness": a much-lauded virtue for starving peasants and penniless priests, but a big, fat joke for armored Lords and scheming Cardinals. It's easy enough to preach "non-aggression" to the hungry when you've already annexed everything good to your own table.

Why should capitalist masters be any different?

[SolarCross]

Redbarn - Some years ago I did buy Anarcho-Syndicalism - Theory and Practice (I know it was not very anarchist of me to buy it, I should have "stolen" it, but it isn't easy to steal from those nasty capitalists at Amazon) I read the intro and didn't get much further for some reason. I'll dust it off and have another go when I get the chance since you recommend him. So what do you think of Someone5's answer to my thought experiment:-

Taxi asks:-
I am a taxi driver. One morning I discover my car is no longer on my driveway where I left it and so I presume it has been stolen. I phone up the Dispute Resolution Organisation with which I contract and explain what happened. They give me some money to cover the cost of buying a replacement car and then go off to find the miscreant in order to recover their money from him. Let's say they find him and take him to court which finds against the accused and they then recover their expenses from the thief in terms of labour or money whichever the thief has. What, if anything, would left-anarchists do to interfere?

Someone5 answers:-
Obviously the anarchists would physically stop the "security officer" who was kidnapping an innocent man well within his rights to drive that taxi. Quite possibly they would use deadly force to stop him if he insisted on committing his crime. It would never go before your sham of a court.

In your opinion is Someone5 worthy of his exalted peers on libcom or is he a Rocker of a fellow? And what would your answer be?

[Red Barn]

Well, it depends on context, of course.

If you're talking about a Mutualist society, then taking your taxi without permission would, indeed, be stealing, and I'd assume the person taking it would be made to return it with whatever penalty that particular community happened to think suitable.

But if you're talking about a 100% post-ownership, post-scarcity society, then the whole question would be moot, since taxicabs would, I assume, simply be standing about, ready to be used by anyone who happened to need one. In that case, the idea that one particular taxi was "yours" would doubtless seem a bit odd to people - rather like claiming that this or that cubic foot of air was "yours." So, yeah: if you were to drag in some armed stranger to apprehend a person "stealing" "your" taxi, you might well be taken for a dangerous lunatic - just as you'd now be taken for a lunatic if you tried to arrest somebody for "stealing" "your" air.

That's my take on it, anyway. I can't speak for anyone else.

To me, ideological constructs like Mutualism and Anarcho-Syndicalism are practical, realistic, boots-on-the-ground kinds of ideas that can be hashed out in real world terms. They were conceived specifically to be implemented within capitalist structures to begin with, and to overthrow capitalism in the process of coming into being, and that gives them a distinctly transitional, or strategic quality, if you know what I mean.

On the other hand, the arrangements possible in a true post-scarcity society exist only in in the realm of theory - although technological advancements make them seem less far fetched every day. For many of us, this is the ideal and ultimate goal, even if we know full well that we'll never live to see such a world.

I've noticed that people (including me) often forget to make this distinction - that is, between the practical and the ideal - when debating all this stuff. I suppose we just assume that everybody will know which is which, and fill in the blanks accordingly. I can see how that might be confusing, though - especially if some or all of it is new to you.