News Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[Mattara]

The problem with "democratically managing the factory" is that democracy is coercion because you can be forced with violence and the threat of violence to support something that you do not, in fact, support at all.

 

[jambaugh]

Your argument comes from a capitalist position and doesn't really come into play from a socialist point of view.

My argument is about the dynamics of interacting people. You can't invalidate the argument by shifting "points of view". If the argument is invalid point out where it is invalid. If its validity is contextual then argue the context. But the arguer's point of view is not a context. In particular...

Socialists criticize capitalism itself,...

how by your use of "point of view" dependence can a Socialist who thereby is NOT using a capitalist point of view legitimately criticize capitalism?

... and anarchists criticize heirarchical structures. So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.

In a socialist anarchist (there are anarcho-capitailsts too) framework, everyone would be risking the same amount of capital.

How can everyone risk the same amount of capital if not everyone has sufficient capital to pay their share? By the way, nothing in free market capitalism prevents a group of skilled laborers pooling their capital to form a company. Worker ownership is perfectly consistent with capitalism. What is not is workers using force to seize "the means of production" from the owner who did invest his capital.

Let me also point out that "the means of production" is ill defined. Part of the "means of production" is the contractual agreements of the owners and organizational leadership of management. Take the "Kelly Girls" the temp agency. There is no factory or raw materials or machinery. There is just a company which provides short notice on demand temporary office management labor. The actual girls could very well work independently of this structure but they benefit by the organization and logistical coordination of the management plus the contractual benefits e.g. retainer payments, and search and advertisement services provided by and paid for with the owner and his capital investment.

A new worker without capital must work for wages to get capital to invest in ownership of his own enterprise. He is free to do this in a capitalistic society and if successful enough to expand that enterprise hiring more workers. Indeed if he can demonstrate a reasonable chance of success in the venture he can get venture capitalists to back his enterprise. They will want a share in the ownership but that is their return on the risk and time use of this capital.

Provided he does not seek to obtain capital by fraud or force the socialist anarchist is perfectly free to live by his ideals in a free, free-market Federalist capitalist state. His ideals may make him non-competitive but that is not the fault of his competition.

Contrarily the capitalist is not free to exercise his ideals in a socialist state (whether they call their organization a state or an anarchy, if they use force to thwart capitalism they are a tyrannical state.) It would seem to me a no brainer that the capitalist society is more free.

You speak of "workers" vs "owners" as if they were disjoint sets. A worker is not a worker if he isn't working, he's just a person. An owner is a worker if he is adding value to the products of a concern. Let me point out that every job, EVERY job, is an intellectual occupation. A janitor doesn't just push a broom around, he must judge where unclean areas are and how to remediate them and whether his efforts have succeeded to the standards set. He uses perception and judgment. So too a ditch digger. Though some jobs are more physically demanding than others all are exercises of mind coordinating action. Without the mind there can be no value added. I make this point to say that the venture capitalist is too adding value through the judgment he makes in where and how much he will risk his capital. He judges how risky a venture is, how much the use of his capital should cost to offset that risk and whether he has enough information to make a reliable judgment. If he fails he looses capital. If he succeeds he gains more capital. The phylum of venture capitalists evolves with the most efficient at judging risk being the most successful.

Furthermore in the context of needing to court the venture capitalist the entrepreneur (possibly a dissatisfied worker) must demonstrate a competent business plan. Often he must submit multiple revisions before he is trusted with the investor's hard won capital. By this process the entrepreneur's chances of success (of generating and maintaining profitable productivity) is greatly greatly increased. The capitalist has added value to the enterprise by both providing the needed capital and by judging and remediating risk.

If we do it as you suggest "everyone risks the same amount of capital" firstly how broadly are you defining "everyone" and who has the competence to evaluate the risk of the venture in question? The successful venture capitalist has empirically demonstrated competence by virtue of his success. He risks only his own capital on his judgment. The collective you suggest do they go by vote? Do they appoint an executive to decide? Do they vote with their choice to participate? (This last case smells an awful lot like evil capitalists buying shares in an evil corporation under an evil free market system) And why can't individuals who more strongly believe in the enterprise not be able to risk more of their own capital in exchange for more return in the event of success? If its true anarchy then certainly nothing constrains him? And if something (a state?) does constrain him how is this situation more free than bad ole capitalism?

Now here is my answer to the question. A free market. The investor-owner using free contracts auctions the use of his capital by the enterprise. How much a block of ownership costs and thus how much return he gets per invested coin is determined by supply and demand and quality of the potential return (low quality being high risk). Likewise the worker auctions his service using a free contract again at a wage dictated by supply and demand and the quality of his offering and of his work situation. He asks more for hazardous labor, and for long hours. He is offered more if his work quality is higher. And if the enterprise does not distribute revenue equitably between worker wages and owner-investor returns then the value added by investors vs value added by workers will be out of balance making the productivity of the enterprise less than the ideal. They will not be as competitive against other enterprises in the same markets.

Inequity is defined empirically by inefficiency and lower productivity. The system if unconstrained by outside political (and hence coercive) forces is self correcting.

Only in a free market capitalist system is freedom maximized because only in such a system is the producer truly compensated in proportion to his effort and the benefit he provides to other individuals by his production. The producer may be either a worker, manager or capital investor. Or he may be a market trader or a banker or a independent contractor. If he is overpaid he will be underbid by competitors. If he is underpaid or rather offered underpayment he will sell his services elsewhere.

Money is ultimately a physical token of empirically verified moral value. You pay someone in direct proportion to how much he does for you as you judge your own benefit plus how much he sacrificed in the process as he judges. The negotiation of the contract is the mutual adjudication of what relative value this beneficent action has. He who does the most good to the most people gets the most tokens. He who receives the most benefit must reward the benefactor with tokens he earned by doing good himself. The only caveat is that an individual may give his tokens. Even the administration of tokens is a benefit hence the good banker gets rewarded. Any attempt to interfere with this system of moral prestige is a universal sin!

If you are dying of thirst in the desert and you run across a fellow who offers you a jug of water for $10,000 dollars you should pay it and be glad. Your life is worth $10,000 dollars to you and he just saved it by his foresight in having extra water. You may want to haggle but you should not stand on your rights to his beneficial action. Further if you see he has done this often you should go get a truck of water and compete with him selling at $500 a jug. Eventually some smart fellow will come along and install a coin operated water dispenser and many many lives will be saved. Free markets self correct.

 

[WhoWee]

By the way, nothing in free market capitalism prevents a group of skilled laborers pooling their capital to form a company. Worker ownership is perfectly consistent with capitalism. What is not is workers using force to seize "the means of production" from the owner who did invest his capital.

Did you notice the first thing the UAW wanted to do was sell their share of GM - that was given to them. Did anyone else wonder why they didn't propose an ESOP or some other method to acquire their employer?

If all of the UAW members and retirees went to the bank and borrowed $50,000 each to invest in GM, they could have attracted nearly unlimited capital in the market to acquire and operate the company "the right way".

 

[madness]

"I think our Capitalist society has been very fair in distributing wealth to poor people. Welfare has spent trillions of dollars to protect people - without burdening them with the ownership and management responsibilities of operating our industrial base."

Welfate is socialist and would be unacceptable in a free market.

"If you disagree with my comments, please explain to everyone that has something to lose how anarchy would make our lives better"

Socialism should make life better for working class people, obviously CEO's of companies aren't the ones who benefit, that's the whole point. In the UK I get all my university fees paid as well as an interest free student loan and free health care. I am incredibly thankful that I live in a country which provides this, as I would not be able to afford to go to a top university otherwise.

 

[madness]

"In a free market, anyone is "allowed to own means of production". There is no limit on "means of production"."

Then why is it that people born poor are statistically much less likely to go to a good university or end up with a high paying job? People who are born at a disadvantage have less access to education, a higher chance of getting involved in crime and less access to legal defense than those born into wealthy families.
The key point is that people are not born with equal opportunities, and do not always have access to the "means of production".

 

[madness]

"My argument is about the dynamics of interacting people. You can't invalidate the argument by shifting "points of view". If the argument is invalid point out where it is invalid."

In historical examples of socialist anarchism, the workers collectively owned the factory and democratically elected someone to manage it. In this case, everyone risks the same capital, and your argument doesn't come into play.

"how by your use of "point of view" dependence can a Socialist who thereby is NOT using a capitalist point of view legitimately criticize capitalism?"

A socialist criticises capitalism on the basis that allows a select few to become wealthy through the labour of the majority.

"How can everyone risk the same amount of capital if not everyone has sufficient capital to pay their share?"

Why wouldn't they have sufficient capital? The whole point of socialism is to attempt to spread the narrow concentration of wealth among more people.

Sorry I haven't read the rest of your post, it's quite (very) long and I don't have time at the moment.

 

[Al68]

"In a free market, anyone is "allowed to own means of production". There is no limit on "means of production"."

Then why is it that people born poor are statistically much less likely to go to a good university or end up with a high paying job? People who are born at a disadvantage have less access to education, a higher chance of getting involved in crime and less access to legal defense than those born into wealthy families.
The key point is that people are not born with equal opportunities, and do not always have access to the "means of production".

My point was that the "means of production" are themselves a product of voluntarily sold labor. Factories don't just appear, they are built by labor that is voluntarily sold to the owner.

I never made the claim that life was fair, or that outcomes would be equal. I made the claim that free market capitalism is a consequence of individual liberty. Voluntary socialism can also be a consequence of individual liberty, but it's just much less common for people to make that choice when they have it.

Owners get paid an amount disproportianate to the amount of work they do compared to workers

This doesn't make any sense. Owners don't get paid for labor (unless they are also an employee).

If I invested $10 million in GM stock and made $1 million on it last year, I would have made much more than an average worker at GM, but it would have absolutely nothing to do with any labor on my part.

 

[jambaugh]

In historical examples of socialist anarchism, the workers collectively owned the factory and democratically elected someone to manage it. In this case, everyone risks the same capital, and your argument doesn't come into play.

Again how is this not allowed in a free market capitalistic system? And for a specific example I direct your attention to my last comment below.

A socialist criticises capitalism on the basis that allows a select few to become wealthy through the labour of the majority.

How are you going to disallow this without force? e.g. in an anarchistic socialism?

Do you not agree that the more productive someone is the more compensation they should receive? Do you not agree that the more risk someone takes the more compensation they should receive?

Efficiently functioning profitable enterprises are not self assembling automatic machines a worker just walks up to and turns the crank on. The logistics of creating them, the commitments of capital and assessment of risk are skills requiring experience and expertise. The exercise of these skills enable the enterprise and thus constitutes a huge "value added" level of productivity.

The rich get rich by being productive on a large scale, by deferring gratification in the short term to build up working capital, by taking risks with that capital, and most especially by enabling the worker to be productive and reap the benefits of that productivity.

"How can everyone risk the same amount of capital if not everyone has sufficient capital to pay their share?"

Why wouldn't they have sufficient capital? The whole point of socialism is to attempt to spread the narrow concentration of wealth among more people.

The UAW is free to, as an alternative to a strike, leave the evil capitalist auto companies en masse and building their own production facilities under the system you described. If they do not have enough capital then for certain some do not have enough to contribute their equal share of the total capital needed. Nothing in this country prevents them from doing this and acquiring the capital externally. But the persons risking that capital must be compensated or they won't participate. (Unless you want to force him.)

Why does UAW not do this? I'll tell you. Because the management and ownership of Ford Motor Corp. is an essential ingredient in the UAW being able to produce those cars profitably. It is not "Evil Capitalists getting rich off the backs of workers" it is the capitalists and the workers jointly maximizing productivity and freely contracting on their relative compensation for the utility of their contribution.

Socialists speak of "spreading the wealth around" as if wealth is a pre-existing substance like butter. This is one of the worst errors socialists make. Money is just paper. Wealth is the ability to get things done and the value each individual places on getting those specific things done. Money is a token of wealth. If you weekly redistribute the money evenly then everyone will know that no matter how much they acquire, next week it is spread again. The money no longer is an incentive to work because it no longer represents how much one had to product to get it.

An individual's wealth grows because he acquires indebtedness from his service to others which he can exchange for services from others. The arguments over the economic systems must acknowledge this truth. Socialists argue that person A. is better off with half his wealth so long as those with more wealth have theirs reduced by a larger fraction.

Wealth is not relative in this sense. My wealth is my ability to obtain comforts and necessities, to communicate, be entertained and to get these with minimum effort. If I can teach physics to someone for (what can now be purchased with) $100,000 and they can leverage this knowledge along with their talents to make $1,000,000,000 then am I not better off? Or should I restrict my teaching to only those who only pay me $100 and only use it to make $200?

Sorry I haven't read the rest of your post, it's quite (very) long and I don't have time at the moment.

Yes I do go on. Take your time. I'll say one more thing and then shut the heck up.

The Plymouth Colony which socialism long before it had a name. Their original system is very close to your described social anarchism: See: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0902/0902amsoc.htm" .

The result was near disastrous. The true original meaning of the American Thanksgiving holiday was the Pilgrims' thanking God for their discovery of the superior free market system:

"By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoysing of the harts of many, for which they blessed God. And in the effect of their perticular planting was well seene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year aboute, and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, 50 as any generall wante of famine hath not been amongest them since to this day."--Gov. Bradford 1623

Of course it isn't taught that way in schools today.

I suggest you read the whole account from the original history: http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml" and add it to your list of historical references. Indeed you're time, if limited, is better spent reading this than reading my rants.

 

[WhoWee]

"I think our Capitalist society has been very fair in distributing wealth to poor people. Welfare has spent trillions of dollars to protect people - without burdening them with the ownership and management responsibilities of operating our industrial base."

Welfate is socialist and would be unacceptable in a free market.

"If you disagree with my comments, please explain to everyone that has something to lose how anarchy would make our lives better"

Socialism should make life better for working class people, obviously CEO's of companies aren't the ones who benefit, that's the whole point. In the UK I get all my university fees paid as well as an interest free student loan and free health care. I am incredibly thankful that I live in a country which provides this, as I would not be able to afford to go to a top university otherwise.

You are arguing in favor of socialism, not anarchism. How would society benefit from anarchy?

 

[madness]

"You are arguing in favor of socialism, not anarchism. How would society benefit from anarchy?"

Anarchism is a very broad set of ideologies, ranging from anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism, from collectivist to individualist. The only common theme as I am aware, is that any form of authority has prove itself to be legitimate. I'll provide a youtube video of Noam Chomsky talking on this point.



I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.

 

[Al68]

"You are arguing in favor of socialism, not anarchism. How would society benefit from anarchy?"

Anarchism is a very broad set of ideologies, ranging from anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism, from collectivist to individualist. The only common theme as I am aware, is that any form of authority has prove itself to be legitimate. I'll provide a youtube video of Noam Chomsky talking on this point.



I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.

I think WhoWee was referring to the authoritarian socialist centralized power that used force to provide your "university fees paid as well as an interest free student loan and free health care." That is an example of socialist authoritarianism, not anarchism.

You said you were thankful that you lived in a country that used authoritarian force against others to provide your "university fees, loans, and health care", now you say you would prefer to live in a country that isn't authoritarian? Which is it?

 

[madness]

You don't have to choose between socialism and anarchism, hence the term socialist anarchism. This has been discussed at length already in this thread.

 

[jambaugh]

I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.

Burden of proof of what? I haven't heard arguments only claims. What values are you asserting anarchy and most especially socialistic anarchy better fulfill in their actualization than say Federal capitalism? It might help to outline the priorities before speaking of burden of proof.

Is individual civil liberty less important than the "common good"? Is individual welfare outweighed by common welfare? Does liberty trump wellbeing (as defined by others?)
I.e. is it better for individuals to have the right to act against their own interests as defined by criterion other than their own?

Once a goal or a value to be optimized is established then what beginning assumptions are we to make? People act rationally? Power corrupts? 2+2=5?

It would also be helpful if you could give in clear terms what you mean by Anarchism. You speak of "grass roots democracy" but that's "pure democracy" not anarchism as you do not explain in any detail what the voters have the authority to decide, especially with regard to the use of force. Anarchism presumably has something to say about distribution of the authority to use force.

I suggest you sit down, and write your own draft charter or constitution or social contract outlining how an anarchistic system as you see it would be implemented. It needn't be perfect but it would be a hint at your definition.

I still for the life of me do not understand what you mean by anarchistic socialism or socialist anarchism or what-ever. Socialism dictates redistribution of wealth but that cannot be implemented without coercive force which presumes at least temporarily the action of a state. You speak disparagingly about a system where wealth is "inequitably distributed" but that distribution occurs via free choice contracts in the absence of coercive force. I can understand the definition of anarchistic capitalism but I can also argue against it...(specifically the ability to hire thugs to coerce).

I don't think your ideology is either well defined or self consistent.

 

[Galteeth]

They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves. Anyone can call themselves libertarian. They did not, however believe in the individual right to own one's labor. And although they called themselves "libertarian socialists", they were not advocates of a government imposed socialist economic system, either. They used both words very differently than commonly used today.They weren't the original libertarians, or libertarians at all. They just widely used the term first, while the word liberty was long commonly used to mean the opposite of what they believed in. And they used the word slavery to refer to what the word liberty had long been used to mean.

It's called propaganda.

But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor. Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation.

The context that might make this more familiar to you is that private property rights were seen as being enforced by the state. There are different views on this subject among the anarchist/libertarian left.

Being a self-described anarchist, I have given these matter a lot of thought, and am familiar with the various arguments. Some left anarchists take the meaning of the world "anarchy" very literally, meaning no rulers, or in other words, no hierarchy, even one that evolves without the use of force. Others are not so extreme, and believe in the idea of private property although not necessarily that force is justified to defend it. Most of these on the libertarian left do not extend this concept to ownership over means of production, or land, or other things of this sort where a single individual's ownership gives them a perpetually stronger bargaining position for free exchange then is created by the fruit of their labor alone. Thus opposing "capitalism" from this viewpoint is not opposing a "free market" but the notion of incruing rewards from the re-investment of capital.
Other anarchists see the term as a negative right, i.e., the absolute right to be free of violence, with economic arrangements as a secondary matter entirely (although since all economic arrangements would require the absolute consent of all involved, it is unlikely you would have "capitalists" in the modern sense of the term.)
On the right, you have many who don't oppose violence at all, just its monopoly. This is somewhat similar to the position of Rothbard. To me this is the most incoherent position, as the "competing" private forces are essentially warring governments.
You also have more moderate right wing anarchists who oppose force, but support the notion of property and capital in its modern form. You also have "minarchists" which are similar to what one thinks of as modern day american libertarians, who see the necessity of a state, but only in an absolute minimal role, which means preventing violence, protecting property rights, and enforcing contracts.
Many of these "minarchist" types also believe in the notion of keeping the state as local as possible.

 

[jambaugh]

As I suggested and as Chomsky seems to indicate in the youtube interview posted, anarchism seems more a political direction similar to left vs right than a specific system of principles or goal. It is a direction in one of the many dimensions of political systems.

Nonetheless we can define "anarchy" as it is traditionally used as the asymptotic limit (stateless society) and I think it obvious this is at best a highly unstable transitory situation. It is a meaningful phenomenon and the right word is "anarchy" so I suggest those trying to define a political ideal qualify further their labels.

There are also two factors in state structure which I am seeing ignored here but which are exemplified by Federalism. Federalism advocates maximum authority held by the most central state but minimal jurisdiction. The constraint on this minimization which keeps it from being trivial (zero jurisdiction) is the justification for the use of force also mentioned by Chomsky. Dually maximal jurisdiction is reserved for the most distributed level (the individual as a state of 1) but minimal authority (only authority over self and property and potentially over incompetent dependents such as children).

Federalism seems to me to have been designed to promote the ideals espoused by anarchists (sans economic qualifiers such as socialist) while preserving the stability lacking in "naive anarchism".

Is Federal Anarchism an oxymoron in the sense you anarchists define anarchism?

 

[Al68]

You don't have to choose between socialism and anarchism, hence the term socialist anarchism. This has been discussed at length already in this thread.

The choice is between authoritarianism and anarchism (or something in between).

Sure, in the absence of state (or state-like) economic "authority", both voluntary socialism and capitalism would be possible, and both would exist. I have no problem with voluntary socialism, and neither does any libertarian or anarchist I've heard of.

"Voluntary socialism" exists in the U.S. and includes every U.S. citizen that chooses (volunteers) to participate.

Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.

As stated, I agree with the quote above. In practice however, state socialism includes everyone and excludes true capitalism at all but the smallest scales.

Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc. One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.

In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).

 

[jambaugh]

...Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc.

Not "is" but rather democracy tends to choose capitalism mostly over socialism. Just because A is compromised to allow a little bit of B doesn't make A=B.

One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.

But note the more freedom the more these "wealth concentrating" institutions exist. This fact should say something to the idealist who thinks them evil or unjust. If banks and corporations are exploiting the workers why do they exist and even thrive in a free society? Why do they emerge and profit if they are not providing beneficial services?
[I am asking this question mainly of the statest socialist and communists out there.]

Let me also add to the anecdotes of history the Israeli kibbutz, another miserable failure of socialistic ideals.

In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).

I would qualify that there is no "legitimate" voluntary capitalism. I.e. it goes on but under the state's radar or at least their official radar. There is always barter and black markets (and graft to the local officials who look the other way).

 

[Galteeth]

As I suggested and as Chomsky seems to indicate in the youtube interview posted, anarchism seems more a political direction similar to left vs right than a specific system of principles or goal. It is a direction in one of the many dimensions of political systems.

Nonetheless we can define "anarchy" as it is traditionally used as the asymptotic limit (stateless society) and I think it obvious this is at best a highly unstable transitory situation. It is a meaningful phenomenon and the right word is "anarchy" so I suggest those trying to define a political ideal qualify further their labels.

There are also two factors in state structure which I am seeing ignored here but which are exemplified by Federalism. Federalism advocates maximum authority held by the most central state but minimal jurisdiction. The constraint on this minimization which keeps it from being trivial (zero jurisdiction) is the justification for the use of force also mentioned by Chomsky. Dually maximal jurisdiction is reserved for the most distributed level (the individual as a state of 1) but minimal authority (only authority over self and property and potentially over incompetent dependents such as children).

Federalism seems to me to have been designed to promote the ideals espoused by anarchists (sans economic qualifiers such as socialist) while preserving the stability lacking in "naive anarchism".

Is Federal Anarchism an oxymoron in the sense you anarchists define anarchism?

1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.

2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence." This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale.
It is likely true that in such a small and competitive scale of government, justifications for the use of force will be extremely arbitrary, (such as "I feel like killing that person over there") but this is still a state imposing its will through coercion. Most people likely define some arbitrary cutoff point between "gangs with guns" and "states" although on close examination it is a matter of continuum. (For example, even the United States Government, which most would consider being the exemplar of a state in the opposite sense of warring gangs, does not follow its own fundamental "contract with the governed" from which it allegedly derives the right to exert force.)

 

[Al68]

The context that might make this more familiar to you is that private property rights were seen as being enforced by the state.

Of course, but the practice of claiming ownership of property was not invented or introduced by the state.

In society there are many people who will want to claim ownership and use property, and defend it. Maybe the state will help them defend it, maybe not. In an anarchist society, they will at least try to defend it themselves, or pay for private security.

Anarcho-socialists cannot just decide these people won't exist, they must decide whether or not to use force against them.

As far as "voluntary socialism", it seems to me that by definition, it would include only those who choose to "volunteer", which is fine by me, and I think such a thing has never had any real political opposition.

 

[jambaugh]

1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.

OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.

2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."

I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.

This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale...

Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.

Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.

If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.

In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.

I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"

One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.

Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.

Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.

Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."

The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.

 

[Galteeth]

OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.

I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.

Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.

Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.

If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.

In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.

I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"

One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.

Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.

Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.

Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

I agree with all of this, which is why I personally see anarchy as more of an ethical code then a political system/ideal. I don't believe the use of force is justified except in immediate self-defene. The result of everyone having this same ethical code would in my mind be anarchy. They don't and they won't, but that's irrelevant from my point of view. Sort of like how one can believe murder is immoral but sill recognize that other people wil go on murdering irrelevant of that initial person's moral beliefs.
I don't claim these views necessarily represent a majority or even a large portion of self-described anarchists, although some type of similar moral ideal is often an underlying motivator, if not fleshed out coherently.

 

[Galteeth]

The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.

"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.

I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.

In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

 

[Galteeth]

I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.

In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

Here is a conceptual difficulty with that definition. Imagine a situation where a state claims full sovereignty over a territory. There could be a region within that territory where a group exists that enforces its own rules and such and flaunts the laws of the state, but makes no challenge to the highest authority and perhaps even acknowledges them in some way (say through tax or tribute.) Thus that entity would not be a state, even if they had effective local control.

Also any challenge on a territorial claim until one side has been vanquished sufficiently to make that claim null invalidates a definition of state for either group from the perspective of someone living inside that territory. Thus the definition of what constitutes a "state" is undefined until after the outcome of the conflict (I.e, the Confederate States of America was not a state, but if they had won the war, they would have been.)
This would even be true if there was no realistic chance for one group to extend their influence over said region as long as it was not worth it to extinguish the challenging group, leaving the area in a stateless position. (Schrodinger's Catsylvania)

In terms of states acknowledging each other, you can easily wind up with diamterically oppossed positions on what constitutes a state depending on which side's point of view you engage from.

I think the total sovereignty thing really is just a useful social construction. The reality it seems to me is that there are states within states, and the individual unit of state is one, a single individual willing to use violence to achieve his aims.

From this perspective (my perspective) it is pointless to talk about anarchism in territorial notions, the only relevant question is am I a unit of state or non-state, and if I choose non-state, I am refusing to impose my will on others by definition (at least through violent means), so there is no point in worrying about the broader questions of organization. An anarchist community could be a community of people who interact with each other on a voluntary basis, even if they have no power to resist a state (which they don't by definiton.)
It's a different gestalt then the conventional framework of politics.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The fact remains that if an anarchist community is founded on land claimed by a state, the community is in principle subject to the sovereign whether the sovereign chooses to enforce its authority or not. If the anarchist community challenges the authority of the sovereign, then it is in rebellion and an unstable situation exists until the situation is resolved. If the anarchist community is successful in establishing its independence it de facto obtains sovereignty over the land it uses and becomes a state whether it wants to or not.

For example, if the community wanted to recognize plural marriage, including persons under a certain age, in violation of the laws of the state, it would either have to be accommodated by the state by means of a waiver, accommodate the state by obeying its laws, or successfully rebel so that it could do whatever it wanted. Under such circumstances it would effectively become a state with its own rules of conduct (if you don't want to use the term "laws").

The idea of a state is a legal concept. It includes the idea of a defined territory with recognized boundaries. The CSA never fully established its legality as a state although it was organized as one. Its claim to its territory was immediately challenged by the USA and de facto control over it's claimed territory was limited by the shifting lines of battle. Stability was restored when the USA won and the CSA disappeared. No other power ever recognized the CSA.

 

[WhoWee]

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

Are you describing Pirates?

 

[Galteeth]

Are you describing Pirates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_utopia



I would not personally define these as anarchist, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Galteeth]

The most famous "anarchist" pirates (who probably never existed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia