[canadiancapitalist]

Are there any areas - universal health care, for example, or anti-discrimination laws - that anarchists should support expanding the power of the state and if so how is this not a contradiction with anarchistic beliefs (that is, the belief in abolishing the state).

[Sephardi]

No because Anarchism = No state. Why would they support creating a state just for protecting rights? If they do then they are libertarians.

[HoniSoit]

Are there any areas - universal health care, for example, or anti-discrimination laws - that anarchists should support expanding the power of the state and if so how is this not a contradiction with anarchistic beliefs (that is, the belief in abolishing the state).

It really depends on individual anarchists but I am among those who would support many state policies such as the ones you mentioned and many more.

Again, it would be mistaken to think left-wing anarchists' opposition to state is necessarily unqualified; it is those anti-social and destructive aspects of state that are being opposed. Also, in a democratic capitalist state such as the one you and me are living in, there is a relatively high degree of popular participation and control of the state/government (as opposed to the free market which is mostly undemocratic), and it's good to take advantage of that, and to expand public control.

[Okonkwo]

I am among those who would support many state policies such as the ones you mentioned and many more.

I'm sorry HoniSoit, but I don't understand. Anarchists want the abolishment of the state, no? The means of abolishment would preferably be revolution. These policies you said you would support are very characteristic of a welfare state, the policies would quiet the workers and prolong the existence of such a state by preventing a revolution from happening wouldn't they? Wouldn't it be more in an Anarchist's interest to live in a rather repressive state, because only then would you be able to rally the people and to incite your desired revolution.

[PredatorOC]

Are we talking about real anarchists (voluntarists) or pseudo-anarchists? If real anarchists: no. If pseudo-anarchists: yes, since they would just create an new authoritarian state anyway.

[Abood]

I don't see how increasing the role the state plays in the welfare of the people increases its repressiveness. The welfare state would be replaced with mutual aid in an anarchist society.

That's looking at it from a social anarchist perspective, of course. Market anarchists would just say that anything that prevents the free market from working is repressive--or something like that.

[PredatorOC]

That's looking at it from a social anarchist perspective, of course. Market anarchists would just say that anything that prevents the free market from working is repressive--or something like that.

If by "mutual aid" you mean charity, then the response would be the same as yours. Also, I don't see why a market anarchist would view any voluntary act as preventing the free market from working.

[HoniSoit]

The means of abolishment would preferably be revolution.

But what kind of revolution does depend on the specific context. It could be a prolonged and gradual process leading to a radical reorganisation of society with little or no violence, or it could be violent revolution as in popular image.

These policies you said you would support are very characteristic of a welfare state

Indeed. There are both positive and negative aspects in a welfare state. Anti-discrimination law and universal healthcare would be among those that should be preserved in any decent society (albeit perhaps taking a more mutual aid approach like Abood mentioned).

the policies would quiet the workers and prolong the existence of such a state by preventing a revolution from happening wouldn't they?

It may. It may also give hints to the public that a government may serve their interests and decide to start participating more in the running of their affairs.

Wouldn't it be more in an Anarchist's interest to live in a rather repressive state, because only then would you be able to rally the people and to incite your desired revolution.

This has been a old leftist argument but is not necessarily true. Some of the more repressive states in fact have enjoyed quite long life - take either Iraq under Saddam or North Korea under Kim: highly repressive states could also lead to demoralisation and demobilisation. More fundamentally, it will be highly self-destructive for the Left to think and act in those terms.

[canadiancapitalist]

The way Chomsky explained one of his view's on anarchism in a sit down interview that was a little more thought out in advance than some of his off the cuff political statements was that the burden of proof is power to justify itself. So an elementary example of this is if a child is about to run into the street, and you restrain him with force. This is a use of power, one that has to be, and in in fact justified. That is one left libertarian look on it; not necessarily one I subscribe to.

State power is fungible. The power of the state to tax for welfare is the power of the state to tax for warfare. It is no coincidence that the century that saw rise to the total state was the century that gave rise to total war. It is no exaggeration to say that the state is war.

[Lazy Faire]

There are some libertarian anarchists known as agorists who support the black market as a means of replacing the goods and services the state currently provides. Some of them don't really support expanding government per se, but see it as a good chance to convince people to jump on the black market train as government makes white market business harder to do with taxes and regulations and such (unless you have the right political connections, of course). Kind of that whole Chinese "crisis = opportunity" thing.

[albionfagan]

So what happens with trading? Without a state? It's the ultimate free trade I assume? So those with the most gain the most.

[canadiancapitalist]

Trade always benefits everyone.

[PredatorOC]

So what happens with trading? Without a state? It's the ultimate free trade I assume? So those with the most gain the most.

All free exchange is mutually beneficial.

[albionfagan]

Do you mean fair trade?

[PredatorOC]

Nope.

[liberty]

as opposed to the free market which is mostly undemocratic

HoniSoit please explain how the free market is mostly undemocratic. Your dollars are ballots (without thinking about it, your voting for companies) that you use to vote for the cheapest and most efficient products... So companies will compete to be the best. You only buy products you like, right? Otherwise what's the point? With free trade you get even more options because companies over seas don't have to pay tariffs thus encouraging more competition to bring down prices and saving consumers money. When the customers save money from products they either invest, buy products from industry, save, or all of the above. We not only save money from free trade but also receive better quality products. I don't have the time to explain every aspect of the Free Market but (free trade is just one aspect), this is the most democratic system ever. How does making everything public give you a vote or even a choice?

[canadiancapitalist]

How very insightful liberty. I agree, the Free Market is more democratic than the state, in a true meaningful sense of the word. Everyone gets to vote with their own dollars. It's also meritocratic in a sense - especially the ideal economic philosophy, as opposed to the vulgar libertarianism that has existed. Everyone get's to vote with their dollars, and they get as many votes as the wealth they create.

[liberty]

I forgot to add that not only do you get a vote but, you can have a chance to run your own campaign (Save money and build your own enterprise).

[FallenRaptor]

Democracy implies that there is some standard of equality amongst those who participate in it, ie. everyone gets one vote. Under capitalism there are those who have a ridiculously larger amount of "votes" than other. Some even have enough "votes" to "vote" all the politicians into their pockets. This is due to the fact that capitalism is really a de facto oligarchy, making it incompatible with real democracy in any way, shape, or form.

[liberty]

You don't vote with your dollars, you just squander them on whatever company has brainwashed you most effectivley.

So when a fast food restaurant gives people food poisoning and goes out of business because no one wants to eat there. You’re saying that people didn't vote? Or when a pallet of shit falls on someone at the Home Depot and everyone decides to go to Lowes, people didn't vote? When people decided they wanted DVD's instead of VHS it was because they were brain washed? When people decided they didn't want American cars because they aren’t made with quality products, they didn't vote? It won't matter how many ad's you have if someone else has better service, quality products, or cheaper prices. Everyone I know, can name and has named something that they won't buy. Whether its food at a resturant, a car, and etc...