[Eran]

I am not sure I understand the social-anarchist model.

If certain communities want to voluntarily organize themselves along socialist lines - more power to them. No objection here.

But how do you anticipating society handling a capitalist entrepreneur in the middle of nowhere?

Here is a scenario:

Australia has organized itself along social-anarchist lines.

An entrepreneur developed new techniques for extracting minerals in the Outback. He offers employment (and stock options) to anybody interested to join him there. His company builds a mine, extracting valuable minerals and offering them for sale to any interested communities.

Does your society allow this development? Would it respect the property rights of the entrepreneur in his mine? In the proceeds of the mineral sales?

What if certain communities opt for a capitalist model, allowing private ownership of land and means of production? Kosher?

[Melodramatic]

Now lets see...

I need to exlian a few things about anarchism. Firstly anarchism is a socialist movement. Like all socialist movements anarchism's main issue is property, as in capital not personal belongings. Anarchism is, by definition, opposed to private property, the control of the capitalist class on the means of production. Why? because anarchists oppose slavery and because there is no difference between Private property and the state, except for the justification for its existence. As I already explained, a landlord and a state official can have the same power over a landmass, except the the state official will be restricted by democracy. The difference is that the landlord's right comes form his fortune while the official's right comes from (however fake) democracy. So what does one really do by abolishing the state and enshrining private property? does he give the people more freedom, or does he put their freedom up for sale? Anarcho-capitalism does not abolish the state, it privatizes it. It is a choice of fascism over democracy, and is therefore not anarchism at any level.

I already wrote extensively on the subject on a discussing with sir Eran, and I have no intention of repeating myself.

Forget individuals, property and rights for a second. These concepts are all dependent on society anyway. Look at the wider social picture, when a person is subjugated to another person or group, it is society's choice. Why? because ultimately society can decide to preserve or abolish these slavery. Dictatorships can exist and have existed, true, but they spent most of their time justifying their privilege to society and when society was tired of them, they faded away. It is still happening in the modern world (not so far from where I am right now, I've heard), probably right now.

So It is clear that slavery is not some act of violence, for society's POV, but a social position. A class, if you will. Some people are chosen to live subjected, perhaps due to a dehumanization of some kind (blacks, people form a conquered city) or just economic inability (very common historically). Society could have, with no real problem, demanded they be given more rights , perhaps get a fair salary, or helped them out of slavery but it chose not to do so.

So what does it mean to live subjugated? It means that society decided that your life, or aspects of it, is dependent and/or based on the will of another person or group. When your freedom and independence are forsaken you are a slave. following that logic, society has decided that:

(a) people inside a set of borders are automatically enslaved to the state.
(b) if a has an economical advantage (owns a factory or plot of real estate) he may use it to enslave others.

The case you don't seem to agree with is (b). So in what is it different? granted the slavery is economical. Now, out of politeness to your perspective, lets do it your way and ignore all the economical circumstances that led to this the person to this point (the social and collective responsibility we have on this slavery). Lets even say, and I have frightening flashbacks of my libertarian days as I say this, that its his own fault for not choosing to starve and that he is totally free to make that choice.

What choice does a man have but give away a percentage of his product to a man with economical superiority? That is the way capitalism fucking works. Economical inequality, something natural to most societies to an extent, can be used to create more and more of the same. Its called rent. Its called profit. Its called property.

Society today has dictated that freedom is a no-no. The vast majority of people today must enter a hierarchical structure that gives them only a portion of their product so that they can live decently. It is a fucking prerequisite of living in the modern world. Based on what can I say they must give a portion? Otherwise the people at the top of the hierarchy would make no profit. Profit does not come form thin air, it is based on taking a portion of what the workers make even if you contributed nothing.

You might say they have earned it due to their outstanding skill of being ticks on the back of society. Well that's just lovely, I thank their contribution. but if that was so, why would they need the hierarchy? If they are so fucking skilled wouldn't the workers below them want them? wouldn't they pay for them, just like you'd pay any worker you wanted? why not have some of that sacred competition there? because they don't contribute, at least not in the way that any thinking individual would deem their pay reasonable. they need the hierarchy because they are leeches.

But is that slavery? lets take a simpler case. A landowner taking rent. I'm sure you would agree that, in principle, there is no real difference between wage (the said portion) and rent. Both take a fee for using something they own. both can do so because society believes it is justified. Landlords are a much more pronounced example of someone who does not do enough for his pay (would you pay a man as much to do... whatever they do?).

Tell me right now, in what is different in the social relation described (a) and in (b), given the landlord example? Both give themselves, for whatever reason, full right to tell their citizen/resident what do. Both, in most cases, give the resident an "option to leave". Both are limited to restricted areas. Both even charge a fucking rent!

There is no difference. Both came form the same historical origin. In the middle ages most couldn't tell you the difference between a landlord and king. both will have the same social effect, but (b) can even be worse for the lack of democracy. Both will end the same way, if made ultimate (as in legally superior, today (a) is legally superior). If anarcho-capitalism was established today, it would look the exact fucking same as the modern states in twenty years. it will be going strait back to monarchism, or perhaps closer to fascism.

The difference is the justification. So you think your slavery is justified? get in line. But be wary, in the end of that line waits a bittersweet guillotine that's already sick of the taste of self-righteous blood.

So, back the my original point, you can't have both anarchism and capitalism. To have capitalism you need to preserve property titles that hurt the workers, therefor taking away their power to defend themselves and their independence. The moment you stop the workers from demanding what is theirs, the moment you start erecting laws and defending the capitalists, you are the state.

Like all socialists, Melo has made the cardinal mistake in assuming he can know what a person really needs better than the person himself does.

Incorrect. No such thing has been done, the point of anarchism is democracy.

Does your society allow this development?

Ask society. I would frown upon it, unless I trust the entrepreneur for some reason.

Would it respect the property rights of the entrepreneur in his mine?

Depends. I would do so until the workers say otherwise. If they would not I would go there and try to convince them to demand to work the mine on their own terms. I would also tell them to compensate the poor bugger. But I doubt it would get to that.

What if certain communities opt for a capitalist model, allowing private ownership of land and means of production? Kosher?

Kosher, it is not. We would not attack them, for the exact same reason we would not attack a state. We will convince the workers to revolt and support them.

[CounterChaos]

An entrepreneur developed new techniques for extracting minerals in the Outback. He offers employment (and stock options) to anybody interested to join him there. His company builds a mine, extracting valuable minerals and offering them for sale to any interested communities.

Who says anything about stock options? The State would provide all that the entrepreneur needed to develop his enterprise. Of course the enterprise would need to be located within an accepted circle of responsibility that allowed capitalist adventurism. However, one place could have a mine within their sphere of influence Socialist (politically), they could approach the State to help develop it or the State could advise them of a new technique developed under another circle of responsibility. Contracts change hands..etc...Money value is not lost in this society and based on a tangible asset, so an entrepreneur could still profit under his circle of responsibility while working at another under contract. What disappears is Wall Street-Hedge Funds..etc. It is the States responsibility to support all adventures within its power after circle of responsibility votes. The State runs nothing, just does what it is told...

Let me give you a small example...A small town in the middle of nowhere population 300 has a small circle of responsibility...They vote to be hippies and live communal...The State provide the very basics...They live as hippies...Some desire to move to another circle of responsibility that lives a totally different way because they tire of this life....If accepted in the community, they follow this circles direction and laws. All is inclusive in Social Anarchism....This same hippie community could mature over time to vote another social way using the democratic process and even merge with a larger entity for mutual benefit. It allows for human beings to be dynamic or not, depending entirely upon their individuality.

@Melodramatic...You are right! Everything that you espouse can be found in a circle of responsibility...There is no one size fits all.

[Melodramatic]

You are right! Everything that you espouse can be found in a circle of responsibility.

I do not understand what this "circle" talk means.

[CounterChaos]

I do not understand what this "circle" talk means

Then take the time to read my other posts here...

[Melodramatic]

Ok, sorry...

Imagine for a moment the State of Missouri-referring only to the landmass. Within this landmass are hundreds of small communities. Through zoning, these communities could be given a "circle of responsibility". Through democratic vote, each circle of responsibility could implement their own laws, rules etc.; totally independent of others around them. Where one circle of responsibility would opt for theocratic rule another may adapt a more secular view. The whole of these circles of responsibility would comprise the State. From within these circles of responsibility would be provided to the State, representatives and individuals for military service, higher education etc.. The States responsibility would be to provide the basic necessities to each circle of responsibility, as well as coops to distribute goods, technical service to solve problems etc. Small scale capitalistic endeavors would be allowed dependent upon the democratic vote of your community. Private land ownership as well, would be dependent upon the vote of your circle of responsibility.

That just seems like some form of federalism. Direct democracy is neat and all, but that is not anarchism by itself. Anarchism demands democracy in all spheres, and economical hierarchy will need to be defended by the state. When that happens your state will be an enemy of the workers, like any other state, and in hope of ending slavery we will end it. If it will not, than this talk of of circles will end as the workers will take what is theirs, but I doubt that will be the case.

It might be a good move for anarchism, but it is not anarchism, as it does not deem the state illegitimate. Also it is not even close to what SS is talking about, which is quite frankly libertarianism taken into the extreme. I wonder if he even read it (not that I'm some saint)...

[CounterChaos]

Anarchism demands democracy in all spheres, and economical hierarchy will need to be defended by the state.

Through democratic vote, each circle of responsibility could implement their own laws, rules etc.; totally independent of others around them....It is the States responsibility to support all adventures within its power after circle of responsibility votes. The State runs nothing, just does what it is told....The whole of these circles of responsibility would comprise the State.

......I would add that under this system any political ideology could flourish within its circle of responsibility with the "don't tread on me" oath. The State through its representatives-again by democratic vote-could use force to rid the anarchist society of any circle of responsibility that broke that oath...Circles of responsibility could be based on racial preference, cultural preference, economic preference etc. In my example: The entire landmass of the State of Missouri could be broken up into hundreds of different circles of responsibility (communities) involved in any endeavor they choose to give direction to. Common currency and value based on a tangible asset. Whatever the values of the community is, would be representative of their vote-then they could live it. Knowing if they did not tread on another, they would be protected..There is no State leadership, just a means of taking action. All leadership is relegated to the individual circles of responsibility as they vote and see fit.

[Melodramatic]

You missed the point. If not through the federal state than through the circles themselves, the state will enslave the workers. It does not matter who does it, its the enslavement that matters. All you are doing in breaking up the state into mini-states, while this might do good it is no solution. More importantly it is not anarchism. Anarchism might exist within it, although it will be hampered, but the system itself is just a form of extreme federalism.

More importantly, Anarchism will not stop with its own circles. It will do its best to spread everywhere, as we have a responsibility for all workers, and people in general, regardless of any "live and let live" apologist postmodern bullshit. Than, all hell will ensue, as there are no capitalists stupid enough to let their fortunes wither away.

[CounterChaos]

You missed the point. If not through the federal state than through the circles themselves, the state will enslave the workers.

The individual is free to leave any circle of responsibility and find another whenever they choose. They are not locked in. The only responsibility the individual has is to follow the rules of whatever one he decides to hang his hat in. Of course you need to be accepted by them as well-they may not want your type if you have nothing to offer. There could be thousands of different ideologies out there to choose from-thousands of different opportunity's to choose from-Thousands of different locations in just the landmass of the U.S. alone. Even anarchy has to have some rules or you will have nothing but chaos. Chaos is only for those that possess the best guns and the most ammo...Or the sharpest sword...

[Melodramatic]

The right to leave is irrelevant. I would rather have the workers come to where they will not be enslaved, but the fact that there are grounds where they can be must be rectified. The workers there must fight the capitalists, not just run away. I doubt they would want to anyway. You cannot flee from your troubles, society does not work like that. If nothing else I will not have the capitalists steal their homes, tools and jobs.

Regardless, that does not lessen my claim. In the said lands the circle will enslave the workers, becoming a state. I will not have it, I will fight it like I would any state.

[CounterChaos]

Even in Megaton there is small scale capitalism isn't there? Or, are you just looking to live your life as a Raider?

[Eran]

Would it respect the property rights of the entrepreneur in his mine?

I would do so until the workers say otherwise

In other words, no. You don't have property rights if your workers can decide, at any time, that they prefer to take over your property.

Setting aside my moral reservations about a system that arbitrarily dispossesses people off the fruits of their labour, I am concerned about the motivational aspects of such system.

Specifically, the drive to save in order to invest, to take risks and work hard for the potential of a great success, are all taken away. Without those drives, entrepreneurship will die, and with it, society's progress will slow to a crawl.

Melodramatic insists on identifying every employee-employer relation with slavery. As a life-long employee and an occasional employer, I can tell you that nothing is further from the truth. I have never felt like a slave of my employer, because I always knew I have an option to leave. Similarly I never felt like my employees are my slaves, because they always had an option to leave.

So what does it mean to live subjugated? It means that society decided that your life, or aspects of it, is dependent and/or based on the will of another person or group.

In this broad sense, since no person can maintain a reasonable standard of living without being highly dependent on the cooperation of others, we are all slaves. Always.

What choice does a man have but give away a percentage of his product to a man with economical superiority? That is the way capitalism fucking works.

No, it isn't. Capitalism works by having people cooperation. Both people bring something into the bargain. Person A might be bringing his labour, while person B brings land, equipment, reputation or know-how. If person A doesn't feel that what person B brings into the bargain is worth what B demands, A is welcome to go elsewhere.

You seem to suggest that what the employer typically brings into the bargain with the employee doesn't justify the share of the overall product retained by the employer. But if that is the case, the employee (on his own, or in cooperation with other employees) can always substitute his own inputs to those of the employer. Many employees routinely do just that - leaving an employer to start a business of their own.

It is a fallacy to suggest that people have no choice but to work for a particular employer. Realistically, there are always other options. The correct statement is that people prefer working for that employer because, all things considered, that employer offers them the best possible deal.

Profit does not come form thin air, it is based on taking a portion of what the workers make even if you contributed nothing.

Completely false. If an employer contributed nothing, why are the workers working for him? Why don't they work for themselves and cut out the employer??? Since they don't, it must be that the employer adds an essential contribution which you fail to see.

Landlords are a much more pronounced example of someone who does not do enough for his pay

How did the landlord become the owner of the property in question? Presumably, he purchased it from the previous owner. Following the chain of title back, we will often find a person who obtained ownership of a much less valuable piece of land (ideally through homesteading). Subsequent owners have risked their savings purchasing the property, often risking even more savings by improving it. Provided land ownership is not assigned arbitrarily or based on the use of force, the landlord has earned the right for the rent.

Tell me right now, in what is different in the social relation described (a) and in (b), given the landlord example? Both give themselves, for whatever reason, full right to tell their citizen/resident what do. Both, in most cases, give the resident an "option to leave". Both are limited to restricted areas. Both even charge a fucking rent!

Not seeing the difference between a legitimate landlord and government is like not seeing the difference between a legitimate owner of anything (even personal property) and a thief. You see two people walking down the street holding an apple. The first picked it in the forest. The second robbed a third person and took his apple at the point of a gun.
Now you ask - what's the difference between the two? Both claim ownership of the apple. Both are taking a bite into it, and refusing to give it to others.

But the history of how they became to possess the apple is critical for the moral dimension of the narrative.

To have capitalism you need to preserve property titles that hurt the workers, therefor taking away their power to defend themselves and their independence.

By your standards, workers are never "independent". Say you have a factory in your world, owned and run by the workers. I am one worker out of a thousand. How am I independent? In practical terms, there is no difference between being employed by a Capitalist and employed in a worker cooperative. In either case, I an dependent on others for my income.

[CounterChaos]

I have figured Melodramatic out, I don't know why I didn't catch it earlier ..He is a gamer. The game he plays is indicative of his signature. It is called Fallout 3 and it takes place in a post-apocalyptic world. A world of anarchy. Spread out among the game is a host of small pockets of civilization that are struggling to survive. Trade routes have been set up between them and there is small scale capitalism throughout. Their currency is "bottle-caps".. Living in the wilderness of this game-world is a group of bandits and roughnecks called Raiders. They kill and steal anything they can and live a lawless free life...Melodramatic's ideal..

[Melodramatic]

Even in Megaton there is small scale capitalism isn't there? Or, are you just looking to live your life as a Raider?

Cute.

Seriously though, I am trying to say that acceptance of private property, even if altering the decision making process, is not anarchism. Not to say that you can't have a market or such, in fact markets are probably a good tool to help the workers, but hierarchical production is a form of slavery. Any state that stops the workers form ending it, is an enemy of anarchism.

He is a gamer.

Correct, I guess?

The game he plays is indicative of his signature. It is called Fallout 3 and it takes place in a post-apocalyptic world.

I actually haven't played it for quite a while... *still quite confused*

Living in the wilderness of this game-world is a group of bandits and roughnecks called Raiders. They kill and steal anything they can and live a lawless free life...Melodramatic's ideal..

What the fuck are you talking about? I am trying to have a serious discussion here, for fuck's sake...

In other words, no. You don't have property rights if your workers can decide, at any time, that they prefer to take over your property.

Correct, anarchism is opposed to private control over the means of production.

Specifically, the drive to save in order to invest, to take risks and work hard for the potential of a great success, are all taken away.

Incorrect. People will have the same motivation to make themselves wealthy, assuming the people will want to continue operating in a market-based economy. Except that they will not be able to use their money to exploit the workers. They can still buy tons of junk and live happy consumerist lives or, if things go my way, get some more time for themselves...

Melodramatic insists on identifying every employee-employer relation with slavery.

Incorrect, I insist on identifying private property with slavery.

As a life-long employee and an occasional employer, I can tell you that nothing is further from the truth. I have never felt like a slave of my employer, because I always knew I have an option to leave. Similarly I never felt like my employees are my slaves, because they always had an option to leave.

Than you need to get to know whats yours and demand your rights. And understand that you are profiting of the back of your workers. Although I doubt its as simple as that, you can't just cut people into two categories. Modern society is more complex than that. Still the principle remains the same, the public sentiment will grow unhappy with the capitalist lords and people like you will eventually understand the situation.

In this broad sense, since no person can maintain a reasonable standard of living without being highly dependent on the cooperation of others, we are all slaves. Always.

Now you decide to replay? oh well..

Yes, in a sense we are all subjugated to society in general. Whats your point? I assume you understand what I meant...

Person A might be bringing his labour, while person B brings land, equipment, reputation or know-how.

Incorrect. These exist independently to the capitalist when the production begins. The capitalist has a political title over these, so effectively, due to societies decree, he contributes nothing.

If person A doesn't feel that what person B brings into the bargain is worth what B demands, A is welcome to go elsewhere.

Correct. But within the social system this is not the case, with the mass majority of employees being dependent on capitalists and their titles.

If an employer contributed nothing, why are the workers working for him?

Because societies has given him a title that prohibits them form working without him setting the terms first. The capitalist contributes nothing to the production

How did the landlord become the owner of the property in question? Presumably, he purchased it from the previous owner. Following the chain of title back, we will often find a person who obtained ownership of a much less valuable piece of land (ideally through homesteading). Subsequent owners have risked their savings purchasing the property, often risking even more savings by improving it. Provided land ownership is not assigned arbitrarily or based on the use of force, the landlord has earned the right for the rent.

.

I never claimed he does not have a social title for that land, allowing him to take rent. I claimed he doesn't do anything. He profits exclusivity form the social title. He profits by doing nothing because he is economically superior. Whats so hard to understand?

Not seeing the difference between a legitimate landlord and government is like not seeing the difference between a legitimate owner of anything (even personal property) and a thief.

I never claimed I did not see the difference. I claimed there is no difference in the social relation. They are both slavery, only that one is supposedly justified.

Now you ask - what's the difference between the two? Both claim ownership of the apple. Both are taking a bite into it, and refusing to give it to others.

Why must you twist my words? this is tiring.

Say you have a factory in your world, owned and run by the workers. I am one worker out of a thousand. How am I independent? In practical terms, there is no difference between being employed by a Capitalist and employed in a worker cooperative. In either case, I an dependent on others for my income.

I did not claim that any one worker is independent. I claimed that the workers are independent. They control the factory and they, as a collective, can decide what to do (and how income is divided) democratically.

[CounterChaos]

Seriously though, I am trying to say that acceptance of private property, even if altering the decision making process, is not anarchism.

Your real beef here seems to be with private property..In my scenario private property rights would be totally dependent on the circle of responsibilities democratic vote and apply only to them...Using the same style I did, please lay out a picture for us of your world that we can understand...Honestly, I can't make sense of what you are trying to say.

[Melodramatic]

Your real beef here seems to be with private property..

Correct. Private property, private control over the means of production, is statist by definition.

In my scenario private property rights would be totally dependent on the circle of responsibilities democratic vote and apply only to them...

Correct. I am saying that that is not sufficient, and not anarchism. Because if the people of a certain circle decide they want private property they will be creating a state and destroying the democracy by creating hierarchy in the economical sphere. Not to imply I want to prevent them from doing so, you can't force a revolution, but I'm saying that making the decision circle-based does not make both choices anarchism. Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism, only societies that reject it can be anarchistic. And in the spirit of anarchism and collective responsibility, the anarchists will try to spread anarchism to other circles, and that will blow the thing up.

Honestly, I can't make sense of what you are trying to say.

I understand that, and I apologize. That is why I was disappointed with your previous "epiphany"...

[CounterChaos]

Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism, only societies that reject it can be anarchistic.

So are you espousing a barter system then?

And in the spirit of anarchism and collective responsibility, the anarchists will try to spread anarchism to other circles, and that will blow the thing up.

There seems to be no order at all in what you are espousing..It seems to be complete chaos. Are you sure Fallout 3 did not get to you?..

[Melodramatic]

So are you espousing a barter system then?

In the sense that money will need real value, rather than fiat value, yes, but that relates to government monopolies that have plagued the workers, not the current issue .

I do see what may be our misunderstanding. Capitalism in this context refers to private ownership of the means of production. The alternative is the workers controlling the means of production, either through party-state control (the communist method) or direct (democratic) control (the anarchist method).

The goal is the end slavery (see above discussions) and give control of society back to the people, rather than the capitalists.

[CounterChaos]

Melodramatic...I would highly recommend that you go back and read through everything I wrote-you will discover within an "idea". Or, in my style, present a scenario of your minds eye. Friend, you appear to be totally lost and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is not that I don't want to understand Melodramatic, it is just that it jumps around so much with no substance that I simply cannot get a picture of what you are trying to say. Please; don't dictate to me what anarchism is-show me your plan...

[Melodramatic]

There seems to be no order at all in what you are espousing..It seems to be complete chaos.

Its not a matter of "order" or "chaos", its a matter of workers getting hurt by the capitalist system. I will not have it, even if they are of a different part of your federalism. I, and any anarchist, will convince them to start revolting and implementing a socialist (anarchist) rule, hopefully with no bloodshed. Then, the friction between the anarchists and capitalist will cause the federalism to break away.

I would highly recommend that you go back and read through everything I wrote-you will discover within an "idea".

Yes, I got it. Some sort of irrelevant federalism...

Or, in my style, present a scenario of your minds eye.

I do not know, or care to know, what is your style. I want the workers to take control of the factories and implement socialism. I will not use violence to do this, anarchism is democratic. Than the workers will run the factories, and society will probably be divided into social structures I call collectives, who will function similarity to your circles, although their relation to boundaries ("borders") might be a tad different.

Friend, you appear to be totally lost and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is not that I don't want to understand Melodramatic, it is just that it jumps around so much with no substance that I simply cannot get a picture of what you are trying to say.

I have truly no idea what you are talking about.

Please; don't dictate to me what anarchism is-show me your plan...

I want anarchism