As far as I know Sieben, the social-anarchist movements only hold that land and resource cannot be privately owned, and that companies should be run with direct (or at least nearly direct) worker control. And how can you have an involuntary anarchism?
So they claim. The reasons I have heard for dismissing land and resource ownership apply to self ownership too though.
When im feeling snarky, I point out that currently workers can buy shares of large corporations 
If you attack innocent people.
Do you think it’s easier then to form a capitalistic society from a communist society rather than from a corporatist one? I’d agree with that statement just because people tend to get capitalism and corporatism confused.
I do. Many people in Kibbuzt left for “capitalistic” reasons
So long as it’s voluntary it’s possible
State < No State
Irrelevant however due to the fact that stateless communism is impossible.
Unless all else is equal, I’d prefer crony capitalism. I’d rather live in our current world than in a society content with the limited economic development that could exist under “stateless communism.”
Depends. In this communist stateless society am I allowed to join/start non worker run businesses? Or do I have to live by their standards and have my choices dictated by what the majority deem is best for me or what they consider to be “immoral”.
If this is the case then I rather live in Crony Capitalism.
However should they let me and others live however we please then I would rather live in a stateless society.
The only problem that I’d see with this situation is there may not be too many other people who would join you. I guess, depending on what time era we’re starting from, it would be easier to find others with whom to start a new an-cap society on the internet, but if we start back during the 1800s or so, it will be hard to find new people and the internet will most likely not be invented for a much longer time due to the inevitably slower increase in the economy.
I would like to think that after living in such a deplorable system many people would be willing to try out new ideas. But you’re right if we were living in a time were there was no large median of communication such as the internet, it would be tougher and probably take longer to set up such a society.
Sieben,
Or, you could just forget the spook of the “right” to “property”, which is just a fancy moral justification for a territorial monopoly, which anarchists get a little squeamish about. You could just say,
“It’s your 'till it ain’t”
Indeed.
The reason I can see preferring to live under state-capitalism would be essentially massive preferential coercion to be communist in the stateless society, instead of a majority of people endorsing worker run businesses due to (let’s pretend this was decided in an alternate universe in the fallout of today’s state-capitalism) perceived better outcomes.
If it’s the latter, than I do not think many would object to non-worker ran buissnesses (I’d imagine a different , common terminology would arise as shorthand between worker ran vs. non worker ran, perhaps something like ‘managed vs. self-managed’), but would simply not patronize these enterprises and/or view that as less desirable outcomes.
I think however, in reality, we will soon see a lot of people trying out the worker ran or self-managed businesses as costs, barriers, & the means of production (if we were to use the term) are further de-centralized, & become favorable as less expensive & perhaps more efficient alternatives from the upcoming fallout (i.e. a global depression of sorts).
I think within a decade or so we will find out if worker ran buissnes are viable options, methinks, as more people become aware of economics in general (which is a worthy subject for average joes to know about when the ship is sinking).
That a lot more of my friends who aren’t really into computers are name dropping Open Source & trying out Ubuntu gives me hope that people are at least beginning to try out new ideas, albeit, in small steps.
reasons I have heard for dismissing land and resource ownership apply to self ownership too though
They do. They just don’t follow the silly notion that mixing your labor with something gives you anymore of a practical (amoral) right to an object than mixing your violence with it.
If you attack innocent people
Well, once you start trying to rule someone, it stops being anarchy, doesn’t it?
Haha! That’s a trick question. There is no such thing as either. Business will always influence government when there is the opportunity, and even in primitive societies, people organize in such a way as to protect private property. Communism has never been practiced without state thugs to keep the masses under the collective yoke. Even in a voluntary commune, people would generally be expelled for random acts of individuality, like expecting to profit in any way from their own labor.
The only solution is to keep government as small as possible, so it can do as little damage as possible.
Crony-Capitalism by far. I like eating.
Haha. One of the best answers so far.