Petition to stop being an anarchist

Economics Political Theory
221

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism. An-soc’s would still be utilizing majoritarianism, methinks.

Since when was being an anarchist a pre-requistie for being in a collective? I think you are a bit naive here.

No, I mean:

1.) Social austerity (which varies from the most benign treatments to possible outright abuse in various community hirearchies, i.e. community councils, etc.)

2.) Coperation with the “authorities” on tax resisters and/or individuals that could be considered “shady” (i.e. perhaps anti-statist) (Remember: It’s Your Patriotic Duty!). In other words, civilian spying, something that will be encouraged in a police state.

There’s probably more, but I do not mean something as benign as name-calling.

Those that believe in coercion & are against voluntaryism, to condense, I suppose. The list would be a bit long, methinks.

222

Thank you meambobbo. You are my hero [:D]

223

Hayek’s Road to Serfdom was about the essentiality of socialist/fascist systems to require central planning and totalitarianism; however, I need to read more of it. I am not sure this applies to anarcho-socialism, but systems under which one is already compelled by statism to operate under. For instance, if the government prohibits everyone in ___ geographic area from producing cars except businesses A, B, and C, we would expect centralized planning to result. If individuals A, B, and C start a syndicate to produce cars under collective property agreements, this has little effect on other producers of cars and shouldn’t require central planning. However, the resources to build the cars will have to be acquired by the syndicate either directly from nature, from other syndicates, or in the market. They cannot forcefully compell others not to build cars or own ___ capital goods or sell them raw materials at ___ price. For some reason, socialists think cooperating syndicates using democracy would be more efficient than individuals cooperating through capitalist market principles. I don’t, but in the absence of the state, it would be statism to refuse to let them try.

I have heard critiques of the USSR and Mao, claiming that republicanism and communism are incompatible. They claim these historical regimes were state-capitalist rather than socialist or communist. This is different from our definition of state-capitalism. They basically claimed that those elected to state power effectively “owned” the capital, and thus soaked up the prosperity of labor. IE, laborers were still enslaved by the system. They claim the syndicates (different sects of industry) must self-govern themselves directly democratically to prevent this, rather than elect officials. I have several objections with this argument; however, I’ll save those for another day. It’s simply important to note that many Marxists claims that Marxism has never been given a fair chance.

Finally, you are taking one fact for granted. Under anarchism, a democratic union is a private institution. One cannot stand in line for the benefits and simply leave the system every time an unfavorable decision is made. If one refused to pay dues, for instance, he should not expect fire or police service. If one leaves the system, one cannot expect to be welcomed back in with open arms. This would be akin to showing up to your job only every pay day and expecting a full two week’s pay.

Of course, I think this is another reason why Ancap would excel. One needs not worry about votes or changes in law, or the opinionated whims of others. One’s only requirements to remain in the system are to make his payments and resolve any disputes he has with others, especially those subscribing to the same agency. Thus, he has clear, objective standards to prevent ostracism, in addition to the ability to sample competitors’ services without penalty.

224

Yes, but a majority of which group? An-socs could indeed use majority, super-majority, or even unanimous voting as definitions of collective choice. This point is moot. The real point is who is this group of Ansocs attempting to enforce its choices upon. If this is simply the members of its own group, there is no problem. On the other hand, If this is anyone they stumble upon, this is statism. If this is former members of its own group who recently renounced their “citizenship” or contract, this is also statism. Even if a member does not approve of the outcome of a vote does not mean he rejects the institution as a whole. Similarly, just because Obama got elected doesn’t mean die-hard Republicans are calling for a revolt, secession, civil disobedience, or even civil war.

225

Again, thank you meambobbo.

226

No, that’s not what I meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just confused because you keep bringing up Statists when we are talking about an-socs. Not even close to the same thing.

227

Because I see Robin quoted this, I felt I should respond. To be clear, no one is saying that anyone else should be refused anything.

Millions and millions of dead Chinese and Russians probably beg to differ.

No, I’m not taking that fact for granted.

No one likes losing an election or referendum. That’s when the crying starts.

228

How does parecon differ from syndicalism BTW? I see no problem for workers’ coops in market anarchism (that is as part of the market, not just co-existing with it), but I’m pretty sure parecon goes further.

229

Liberty Student, I am not suggesting that we reexamine Marxism. Whenever I become skeptical of some free market stuff, I give Marx a whirl. His theories I find do not apply to real life and are mostly based upon class envy, not a desire for a more efficient economic system. Mises outright destroys Marxist arguments in his writings. And as Marxism is statism, I surely will never support it.

Claiming that republicanism leads to state capitalism whereas direct democracy is true communism means little to me. I understand their point, but disagree with their outcomes. I think there is still plenty room for totalitarian tyranny under direct democracy. Furthermore, any gains you make in preventing officials from soaking up the wealth would be replaced by the inefficiency of direct democracy. The fundamental point, however, is that nationalizing the means of production cannot produce prosperity. Whether people are dying in firing squads or due to hunger is less important than realizing Marxism is a spiritually poor doctrine.

On the other hand, anarcho-socialism I would also consider economically flawed, but not leading to tyranny. It is not statism. The way I see market anarchy is that if some people started “crying” for statist compulsion for governance, there would be a more powerful group ready to protect individuals from them. For instance, let’s say one sect of ansocs starts attempting to become statist upon another group of ansocs. The oppressed could hire protection from an ancap group, should they be unable to defend themselves.

230

I’m confused here. Are you addressing something I wrote, or are you sharing an opinion not tied to something I wrote?

231

How do you define “syndicalism”?

And as far as I know, ParEcon is just like a workers’ co-op. I own the book and I’ve read about 90% of it. Some businesses have already adopted participatory economics.

232

Oh… so what’s the problem then? Why can’t an-socs and an-caps work together?

233

Honestly, isn’t that all that really matters? People should be allowed to try new types of business operation. Live and let live, right?

234

AnCap - AnSoc

Profit good - Profit bad

Free trade good - free trade bad

Subjective theory of value - Labour theory of value

Voluntarism - Democracy

Markets - Communes/Councils

Private ownership of capital good - Private ownership of capital bad

Individual liberty as one of the highest ideals - Communal comfort as one of the highest ideals

Sharing, charity - Sharing, obligatory

Did I get any of these wrong?

235

An ideology that focuses on socializing losses and mistakes, is that an ideology that won’t turn on me, as an outsider, when it’s mistakes become too numerous?

I think Mises understood the evils of socialism. That it is not benign, or just another system or a fun experiment, or a weekend lark.

Now I am for you organizing, however you will, but when your system fails, as we (Austrians) are inclined to believe, it inevitably will, I will deal with you harshly, if you think you or your comrades can in any way, compromise my life and property. And it’s easy to say you won’t, just like it’s easy to say that people want to go live in the jungle. But we know a lot of anarcho-primitivists will starve to death, and we know, that socialism always leads to violence in the face of tyranny and poverty.

In MY opinion, living next to an ANSOC commune, would be like living next to a belligerent racist who owns a nuke. It’s only a matter of time until there is big trouble.

I think this conversation doesn’t do justice to the seriousness of the question about socialism. It is not benign. It is inherently coercive, because there is no expectation or protection for private property. I’m all for showing socialists the errors of their belief system, I’m not interested in turning a blind eye (tu ne cede malis) or participating in their agenda, even if it is common (sed contra audentior ito) in one small aspect.

Honestly, a post state world without ansocs, would be doubleplusgood. That said, if people want to go do it, go nuts. Just remember, the state is a socialist enterprise, not a capitalist one.

236

My original point about Marxism was that many from the right-wing side pay little attention to the complaints of communists about the very regimes you mentioned. They claim it they were state-capitalism, not true communism…or true socialism designed to lead to communism. In other words, they lay the blame for millions of dead Russians and Chinese on capitalism, not Marxism.

I do not support Marxism in any shape or form, mainly because it is statism, but also because I believe it is a flawed economic system. The real problem isn’t economic inefficiency, however. It’s coercive compulsion (aka slavery) to remain in this bankrupt system. Without state compulsion, people who were misled about the promised prosperity of communism, no matter its form, can quickly abandon it, or develop rival communist systems. In other words, they could experiment without violating the conditions of a free market.

You said when people lose elections, that’s when the crying starts. Well, are we talking about statist democracy as we have now or voluntary democracy that we’d have under anarchy? Under statism, it doesn’t matter if you vote for, against, or abstain. The outcome will be compelled upon you. Under anarchy, there is no society-wide democracy. Various ansoc tribes would hold votes, but they could not compell the outcomes upon anyone, even their own members. However, if members refused to accept the outcomes, they would no longer be entitled to the benefits, as they are effectively no longer part of that voluntary democratic union.

Here’s an example: let’s say I join a syndicate to farm corn. The syndicate collectively owns numerous capital goods to accomplish this. To decide who works when, using what machinery, the syndicate takes democratic votes. Our income results from trading our corn with other market entities, such as capitalist individuals or other syndicates, which is also determined by democratic votes. I join, and I like my income. We trade with an automobile syndicate and a consumer electronics syndicate. One day, however, our corn tribe decides to take a vote on changing who we trade with. Rather than exchange corn for automobiles and electronics, we propose trading for beets. I am firmly opposed and vote nay, however, the majority votes yay. I can whine all I want. We’re still trading our corn for beets. I can refuse to work. This doesn’t compell the democracy to change their trade decision. It also means I violate the conditions of syndicate membership, and the syndicate will no longer provide me with a cut of the collective income. The syndicate cannot force me to work, and I cannot force them to provide me income. Thus, I join a new syndicate, or abandon such collectives altogether and embrace free market capitalism.

It seems like we are having a simple misunderstanding. Are you suggesting that voluntary democracy in various ansoc tribes as I describe above will probably lead to statism? If so, how? As I said, there are always whiners. The point should be that the whiners are not the ones in power, the anti-statists are. This is simply because anti-statism is a more efficient system of production, including defensive services, especially capitalist anti-statism.

237

I see what you are saying now; however, this argument is fundamentally flawed. You are assuming ansocs will fail economically and in the face of poverty turn to crime. This definitely would violate the conditions of a utopian free market. Anarchism, however, is not a utopian ideal. In an idealistic society, we would have no need to produce weapons or defensive services and everyone would simply obey the rules. To maintain a free, non-idealistic society, we rather only need to simply ensure that the freest groups and individuals are more powerful than the coercive and criminal ones.

Do you honestly believe that socialists can build weapons of plunder more productively than capitalists can build weapons of defense, while at the same time admitting that this threat of plunder is only due to socialism failing to produce enough basic goods to maintain survival? You are basically advocating the arms race against the Soviets here.

Indeed, living next to a crack pot who you suspect will resort to crime isn’t ideal. But you counter this risk by devoting some of your income to security. So long as criminals are thwarted more often than they succeed, the amount of income you devote to security can significantly lessen over time. This is one reason the state is predominate. It prevents individuals from acquiring the means to defend themself against the state, while at the same time plundering them and increasing its own arsenal.

238

Yeah, but I don’t understand why you make this point. Of course socialists don’t want to take responsibility for the outcomes of socialism, any more than they are willing to admit that free trades in an open market are a key component of individual liberty. Or that man is not a selfless creature who acts not in his own self-interest.

You join an ansoc group. Your capital is absorbed into communal capital. Vote occurs, you’re not happy. You try to leave with your capital (which you relinquished ownership to by joining the group), violence ensues. Or you stay, because you cannot survive outside the commune without your capital.

When you lose a vote, that is where the crying starts. The entire socialist paradigm is based upon compulsion, not market cooperation. You seem to continue to confuse the two. Go read up on ParEcon. Markets are bad. Free choices by individuals are bad.

That remains to be seen.

Yes, because your example never addresses the resolution of the property rights issue.

When you have no absolute right to property, you’re not in power.

239

Like assuming water is wet, people who believe capitalists are evil and private property ownership does not exist (and thus, the right not to be aggressed against doesn’t exist) are most likely to attack ancaps.

Have you been outside lately? WE’RE LIVING UNDER THIS NOW!

I give up. My brain hurts, and the arguments are getting sillier with each post.

240

You haven’t even read the book. In participatory economics, people can leave the system anytime that they want.