Comment by Kyle Griffith on October 15, 2009 at 11:55pm

Well, I glanced at the page in Davo's link and decided the LAST thing I want to think or talk about on these boards is the fine points of anarchist theory. I've lived and worked on projects with people who called themselves anarchists or syndicalists all my life, and my experience is that the only important theory behind what we were doing was the realization that coercion breeds more coercion and cooperation breeds more cooperation. All other theoretical details are just bean-counting and hair-splitting....

Comment by Davo on October 16, 2009 at 12:11am

oh very true Kyle, after all, we aren't talking about rocket science ;)
However the different ways that people go about things have been analysed before within anarchist theory.
Whereas knowledge of methods towards achieving anarchism aren't compulsory to understand why we need it, I think it is important to understand the basic ideas on how to achieve it.
There is also nothing wrong with understanding and investigating the pros and cons of the methods of organising toward an anarchist revolution. If we don't, we can go over and over the same ground, without progressing.
Anarchism is also traditionally a movement, people struggled and died for this concept of progress to socialisation. We have a rich history of direct action and actively working toward revolution ... it's a shame if those processes are not at least learnt from.

Comment by Kyle Griffith on October 16, 2009 at 10:01am

Davo, re: "oh very true Kyle, after all, we aren't talking about rocket science ;) However the different ways that people go about things have been analysed before within anarchist theory."

I agree with your first statement, but the problem is that the "anarchist theory" advanced by Bakunin and Kropotkin and their more recent imitators IS as complex, obtuse, and jargon-ridden as academic writing about "rocket science".

re: "Anarchism is also traditionally a movement, people struggled and died for this concept of progress to socialisation. We have a rich history of direct action and actively working toward revolution ... it's a shame if those processes are not at least learnt from."

I totally agree with what you just said, and I've done a lot of writing about the HISTORY of anarchism, but not about the THEORY behind it. I've read and even studied a lot the theory, and I recommend it to anyone who is reading politico-economic theory in general, but the blunt truth is that I've usually gotten along better in collective and cooperative enterprises with people who either haven't read it or who, like me, don't take it too seriously.

Comment by Habman on October 16, 2009 at 3:19pm

Davo,

Communism is coercion, just as democracy is coercion, just as socialism is coercion. Capitalism is a economic system not a political system.

If there are no rules or masters then what ever economic system one chooses to participate in is up to them.

Work with the capitalists if you wish or don't but the minute you bring cohesive force to bear to stop capitalism activity you are not longer an anarchist.

In an anarchistic society you would deal as you wish, and the most effective economic system would in the end prevail.

We really do not have a capitalistic economy, it is corporatism or more correctly fascist as the corporation with their bought and paid for government is picking the winners and losers. They win and the poor tax paying slobs loss.

On top of this, if you want to start any economic activity, one must petition the government to do so. This is not capitalism again it is fascism.

Comment by Davo on October 18, 2009 at 6:44pm

Habman, for sure, I see what you are saying, and personally agree as an anarchosyndicalist, regarding the tactics (anarcho-syndicalism vs anarcho-communism)

Indeed Kyle, I don't disagree either, however I am just pointing out, understanding methods to achieve freedom can avoid mistakes of the past, hence pointed out these 'names' are tactics, not results.

Comment by Habman on October 19, 2009 at 3:15pm

Davo, as I understand it one of the tenets of anarcho syndicalist is replacing capitalism with a self managed democracy of workers?

Am I correct?

If so you have just thrown the "anarcho" portion of the term right out the window and are then left with just another form of government where the majority, via democracy, runs rough shod over the minority, correct or am I missing something here?

And how would dissenters be handled?

Comment by Kyle Griffith on October 19, 2009 at 4:05pm

Habman, I agree with everything you just said, except that my understanding has always been that capitalISM, socialISM, and communISM are from the very structure of the words themselves the political ideologies that UNDERLIE an economic system. Concepts such as who owns what, how business contracts are enforced, etc. are defined by law. The idea of "rights" that are independent of government and the ideology it runs on is actually very reactionary, rooted in the idea of "the divine right" of kings and priests to define what people's "god-given rights" are. The root "ism" means "belief in", hence any term that contains it refers to a political, religious, or philosophical ideology of some kind. The very word "anarchism" originally meant "not believing in authoritarian politics". You are quite right that "democracy" is authoritarian, because it's based on forcing the will of the majority on EVERYBODY, but "capitalism" means forcing the will of people who "own" property on everyone who uses it, so the word actually means exactly the same thing as "plutocracy". So I've always interpreted anarchism as a belief that the use of coercion by the government should be minimized by checks and balances of every form of power, including the power inherent in property ownership and the power inherent in all organized spiritual belief systems in which the clergy claims supernatural authority....

Comment by Habman on October 19, 2009 at 9:22pm

But ownership of one's life is the foundation of all rights, and from that ownership flows all other rights. So if one is not allowed to own the fruits of ones labor, what does one really have?

And the idea of checks and balances is "difficult" at best, as those given power to execute those checks and balances tend over time to abuse them.

Where the evil comes from is not ownership, but the ability to control what one does not own via the use of governmental force.

Leveling the playing field in terms of opportunity rather than outcome should be the goal, as results of any interference in the system cannot be predicted with accuracy.

Pure capitalism isn't the greatest evil as it doesn't really exist, however corporatism is, in my opinion.

Comment by Davo on October 19, 2009 at 11:04pm

Habman, what are you talking about? How is anarchosyndicalism, the abolition of all state functions in the life of society, throwing 'anarchism' out of the window? You have to explain how the move from collectivism to socialisation through forming a system of free councils and federations within the anarchosyndicalist tactic creates a hierarchy.

It is not a rule of the majority, not sure where you are getting your information, and you seem to be coming across as a laissez faire capitalist.

You are also ignoring the time old phrase, that your rights stop where anothers rights start (for simplicity), so yes ownership of the 'fruits of your labour' depends on how you define that 'fruit', monopoly, centralisation and property/capital is another when that infringes on others rights. A free market economy (which you are hinting at I am pretty sure) will degenerate into capitalism, end workers' control and ownership and thus freedom.

It seems you are referring to property, as the fruits of ones labour.

As proudhon stated "instead of inferring from this that property should be shared by all, I demand, as a measure of general security, its entire abolition." from 'What Is Property?'

This is the reason most anarchists are communists (stateless communists), the product of your labour is free access to the resources and surplus of the commune.

Proudhon was referring to specific property, and you will find this is why I see you arguing for what is basically free market capitalism, the property you refer to is the 'product' of ones labour is access as stated previously, but referring to the means of production and to ownership of surplus, thus ownership of 'capital', you are directly referring to capitalism. 'Property' or 'capital' in this regard only becomes productive in the labor process when workers use it.

So you will have to define what you call fruits of ones labour, as you seem to be defining it as property.

"And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor--that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the works of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both."

Comment by Habman on October 20, 2009 at 7:43am

Davo,

Thanks for the reply Davo just a couple of things I guess I don't understand.

Is not the stated goal of anarchosyndicalism replacing capitalism with a self managed democracy of workers?

Well if so, democracy has crept in so we are back to a de facto state. Democracy is always rule the majority or it is not democracy. How would the will of this electorate then be executed?

And in your idea of the abolition of property runs smack dab into the Tragedy of the Commons. How do you propose to counter this?

This is the reason communism always fails, you cannot disregard personal self interest in creating social structures, which communism does.

And I disagree with your statment that "anarchists are communists (stateless communists)". Most anarchists I have met are not communists, maybe 30-40% were but that is not most by any measure.

So the eternal question when dealing with this issue is, what does the worker receive for his labor?

What if they are the only one that can repair a critical piece of infrastructure and they refuse unless they receive property, how would they be dealt with? I already know the communists handled these type of situations, so I would like to hear how your structure would over come this problem.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page