Right, left.. isn't it all a bit old hat?

I don't disagree with what you're saying in your reply at all. I just expect a sensible explanation from your position. Thank you, I have read all of the notebooks in Grundrisse and all three volumes of Kapital as well as Class Struggles in France so furthermore I recognise one and the other from this notion of class. In other words, oppression is contingent for capitalist profit but that is a necessity for the wage slave.

Then say it with me..."anarcho" capitalism IE private property, wage slavery, rent and interest bearing loans have no place in an anarchist society because it would lead to capital accumulation, then to a hierarchical society which can only be maintained by a state so their entire ideology is bankrupt. Do you agree? If so then the "anarchism without adjectives" (by proxies definition) is bunkum in your opinion. Glad we agree.

No actual anarchist wants to force people to work together/democratically within industry. Hell, Thoreau was the first individualist I read years back- I read Walden and have respect for the actual individualists position. I've read Tucker and Spooner as well and they didn't advocate capital accumulation ie private property, wage slavery, rent or interest ( early on Tucker advocated trade of labor between workers/artisans but collective control of industry as did Proudhon). I think there should in fact be various economic models around the globe but non should involve private property, wage slavery, rent or interest. Nothing that would allow a reset on primitive accumulation and thus Kings and serfs....masters and slaves....capitalists and workers.

Freedom and equality is the goal and I think individualism has a place in that but not the form so many Americans have fallen into. Hell I can even criticize certain aspects of direct democracy- it's not perfect but it's a step up in human social progression. In an anarchist society I may even opt out of taking part in industrial society and go at it on my own as an individualist. Build a cabin on Walden Pond and fish....watch the ants go to war with eachother....take walks to the city and get drunk with women...grow a garden. Sounds great to me. I have a little hippie in me

I just can't comprehend how you can just say:

I'm going to stick with property rights first, because without that, the others are not even worth talking about.

Even in the most basic of tribes, you would spend the time to make an arrowhead and you would not be okay with someone taking it from you. If there was a necklace that you wanted from someone else, you didn't take it, you would trade one of your arrowheads for it. If they didn't want an arrowhead for it, then you'd offer two and etc. This is a simple interaction that comes from the basic principle of non-aggression towards your own society. We as social creatures have evolved to be this way for a reason. If I were a sociopath and lived in a tribe and stole things and threatened people with force, I would not be in that tribe for long. If that's the case, then it's only rational that I would come up with other ways to get things from people than by force.

Furthermore, look at 7 month olds. Even at that age, they already cry when you take something from them. Ownership is human nature. When something is taken from you, it breaks the bond of trust. Sharing is also human nature, but the idea of giving something to someone with no expectation of getting it back in some way is not true. Even when I share food with a group, I would be doing so in the understanding that at some point down the road someone will do the same for me. It is the golden rule. So, even in this situation, it's safe to say that I'm doing so because there is a perceived value in doing it. Every action, and product that we do or own has value. We weigh these values in our head and use it to make decisions. "Would it be better for me to hog all of this food and have everyone hate me and possibly not eat tomorrow? Or would it be better for me to share, so that I can eat tomorrow?" These decisions are made by each individual, it does not require some magical god, or a king to decree that you do this...you just do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property%3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Possessions are what we attain through labor. Private property is when a capitalist owns the means of production/sustenance to exploit wage workers. I don't exploit people with my home- it is my possession to be mine and mine only but it would become private property as soon as I move out and charge people to live there for a profit (rent).

My tools (I'm a finish carpenter) are my possessions but as soon as I use them to extract surplus value from a worker with no tools they become private property.

Land is possessed- no one would or should have the right to take land that you are using so long as that land is inhabited by you. That is possessed land. Land becomes property when, lets say, feudal lords claim it as their own and charge serfs to work the land in so extracting surplus value from the serfs.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Much_Land_Does_a_Man_Need%3F

So the basic definition of private property is what confuses many supporters of capitalism. No one wants to take what you've earned with your own labor. If you go out into the woods and cut down logs, build a log cabin and live there it is yours and yours only- it is your possession but as soon as you use that cabin to extract surplus value from other people it becomes private property and is undesirable in an anarchist society as it leads to wealth accumulation:

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

and thus the same shit we see today sooner or later. People can't accumulate and hoard the worlds resources without force. It takes all sorts of trickery, violence and crooked dealings to do so (capitalism). This doesn't have to be the way humans live. This isn't "human nature".

I don't have any problem with that and nor did Karl Marx if you read about his study of the Iroquois. Once agian no one used the necklace to extract surplus value from other tribe mates. No one used the arrowhead to extract surplus value from their tribesmen (perhaps some raiding/waring tribes did so to other tribes but we're not talking about building a tribal society we're talking about the interaction within the tribe).

The means of production or the means of sustenance is what we consider important. In tribal societies such as the Iroquois women had equal access to the means of sustenance as they farmed on a small scale and hence enjoyed an almost equal status within the community. Men would hunt and women would farm. Both had access/control over their way to provide a living. Both were free. In capitalism it's not the worker who controls his way of providing it's the capitalist.

In some cultures women aren't allowed to work therefore having no way to provide for themselves in so making them subordinate to their husbands while their husbands (more likely than not) are subordinate to a boss. This is what we call hierarchical society and is the basis of most of our social ill's. The point of anarchism is to give everyone equal access to the means of production/sustenance and hence an equal amount of freedom.

So, what would happen if I used your tools and destroyed them on purpose?

So, in your society, wouldn't you have to have a state to control this?

Question 1- I would kick your ass three ways from Sunday.

Question 2- No. You would be a total asshole piece of shit which is typical of capitalists. Might is right is your opinion which means you believe in coercion/control/a state. End of story.

But seriously the answer to your question is here:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch4.html

If you want to destroy peoples possessions then you have no respect for the conception of property you espouse. Why would a person in a tribe not steal and break another Iroquois home? Because there would be social repercussions....is this to say that the Iroquois had a state? No, this means they live a life of cooperation in lieu of man against man. Why would a person choose to give up value they create? As Kropotkin shows in chapter 4 of Conquest Of Bread (link above) no rational person would submit to wage slavery if they could just as easily survive without submitting to it. Your conception of property is indeed theft.

dont mix up wanting something with private property, private property is not use but EXCLUSIVE USE (baby example) and you need a state to organise general exclusion (private property as a production mode). Marx said something like we dont care for you toothbrush, we care for the machines to make them.

"Fuck the G-rides, I want the machines that are making them"

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

I'm taking great pleasure in being able to support something that yourmum has said - let's hope it's the start of a general reconciliation between us!

The real problem is that dkey1983 has been brainwashed by bourgeois society (as we all are, that's why we discuss things here, communally) into seeing only one category, ie. 'private property'.

But this actually hides within itself two distinct categories, which are:

1. private (personal) property (for use), which is a social category

2. private (social) property (for production), which is an economic category

Bourgeois mystification blends together the 'socially productive' with the 'individually useful', under the all-encompassing ideology of 'Private Property'.

This confuses the unwary, and helps the capitalists convince people who want to have their own privately-owned underpants (personal property) that they are under threat from Communists who want to socialise privately-owned factories (social property).

We Communists declare our intention to destroy bourgeois 'private property', and unify the economic with the social using democratic methods, and the pre-brainwashed hear that the Communists are going to force everyone to share underpants, presumably chosen randomly from a big dirty pile in the central square each morning.

Note to the bourgeois-influenced - neither yourmum nor LBird wish to share our underpants randomly, either with each other or with dkey1983!

I don't have any skid marks...whats wrong with communism?

dont worry Lbird, just because i get angry about what you say doesnt mean i hate you gotta say though ive met people who wanted my underpants and i shared them, they are a commodity too in this society and thus for some inaccessible.

I don't care, mate, when the Commies force us to share shreddies, I'm going 'Commando in a kilt'!

[breakfasts being spewed up everywhere at the very thought]

Bastard anarchists trying to make everyone have anal sex with old people....ugh.....ya. Freedom?

that would be fun!! nothing's like a good laugh to start the day!

but of course ccommunists are against the private property of the means of productions, against social relations by which the means of production are used as means of exploitation.

I've actually had to share underwear randomly with a few thousand men. It's called jail. For Christ sakes....some people died from staph infections...it was actually pretty bad. If that was communism/anarchism I'd run the other way naked shooting a gun at the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

double post

I beg you, please put this on a banner, to be carried by a stern-faced, grizzly old unionist

Btw, left or right is for anarchists not only wrong because that was the place of progressive or reactionary movements in the parliament. If in 18th and even in 19th century there was a difference between both - because the left were against absolutist regimes, and the right were for conservation of the old society - so now we have more "left" movements who are completely absolutist. There is nothing in common with "left" now. It's a historical term, only.

Down town they are talking about "Right Wing Anarchists", and I feel the political swing has never become so shallow. The political debate is centred on an axis of class war, so the movement concerns any individual when the moment comes for revolution because the object of liberation synthesises the solidarity. Communism is an ideal worth defending, however, in communism we find struggle contingent with anarchism: inevitably, the principle means for anarchist communism it is rare. This establishes ourselves, at root, so we cannot be defeated.

[edit]

euh? ...what does this means?

... the unity of the working class ...

]

I'm not confused, it's an ideology created by Murray Rothbard justifying consumerism and identifying human interaction as primarily observable within the confines of give and take which already dominate life within market liberalism and worldwide life as we all know it. It perceives capitalism as able to better serve humanity without government(s) operating it utilising central banks and a fractional reserve banking system under a fiat currency which he considered legalised, widespread financial fraud. (while I disagree with it, it is mentioned repeatedly within the Zeitgeist Movement). He also opposed intervention by power structures within the affairs of other peoples economical affairs through military means. In short he believed money liberated people as it gave them choice. I don't support anarcho-capitalism, I just understand it for what it is and aknowledge it as a derivative of anarchist ideals.

no "anarcho" capitalism is not in any way derived from anarchism, someone who didn't know anything about anarchism decided to us the word anarchism to describe their idea of free market capitalism

the anarchism faq has a fair amount on it and why its not anarchism
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

if you actually knew anything about communism you would know that the communist partys really have nothing to do with communism and neither did the ussr. i don't mean it wasn't what i would want from communism, i mean that it never claimed to be communist, and the people who set it up know it wasn't communist.
also communism doesn't mean supporting a government, since the most basic principle of communism is that the workers should control the means of production, then communism is directly opposed to a having a body separate from the people to make decisions.

anarcho capitalism supports centralised authority, in the form of privert property and a privatised state, they just use different words to describe it

and class describe a materiel relationship that shapes society and all of our lives, we cant just ignore it and pretend it doesn't matter.
capitalists are materially better of if they act in certain ways, like paying workers as little as possible, going to war to secure resorses, smashing workers movements.
and at the same time it is in the material interests of workers to resist this, and ultimately to destroy capitalism and establish an anarcho communist society.
this differences in interests between the classes results in class struggle, and in the 19th century anarchism emerged from this struggle.

Yes you are very confused if you think Rothbard is an anarchist.

You're ignorant. This is fact not an insult. I've already shown in this thread how capital accumulation takes place and what happens afterward. Hint* Hint* a hierarchical society which can only be maintained by a state. What do you not understand about that? I'll get very detailed if need be.

Ignorant again. You're using the dictionary definition of anarchism. I'm running out of patience.

IGNORANT

Only over disagreements with the state socialist period kid. You should start feeling embarrassed right about now.

Are you a young American X- right wing libertarian by any chance? Your view of anarchism is stunted to say the least.

Sorry Ortho, but anarchism that rejects class struggle isn't anarchism, just as much as anarchism that rejects communism isn't anarchism.

Without trying to sound like a dick, you're letting the fact that some right-wing fuckwits hijacked the term colour your understanding of a movement that has been explicitly and irrevocably class struggle and communist for 150 years before those fuckers came around.

That said, if you buy into the individualism of Stirner, I can see how you arrived at these conclusions. However, the anarchist movement, while acknowledging a debt to people like Stirner (and even Proudhon, whom I also don't consider an anarchist) came out of the workers movement and never looked back.

I don't think stiner was an anarchist or ever considered himself one, its just that some anarchists find his work interesting.

orthodoxyproxy i'm having trouble not thinking that you are just here to troll,you don't appear to be making any effort to understand anyone posts.

Communism is an economic system that is run according to the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to need" it has nothing to do with dictators or the rule of the "communist" party.
those countries that are referenced to as communist are or where state capitalist, that is a form of capitalism with the state as the sole capitalist, they where as far from communism as its possible to get.

this is a basic introduction to anarchist communism - http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction
so is this - http://libcom.org/library/introduction-anarchist-communism-anarchist-federation
and this is an introduction to libertarian communism - http://libcom.org/thought/libertarian-communism-capitalism-direct-action-introduction
into to capitalism - http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-introduction
into to class/class struggle -http://libcom.org/library/class-class-struggle-introduction-draft

please read them all before you do anything else because it is clear you don't know what people no here mean by these things, that is understandable, we use these terms in a rather different way to the reast of society, but if you want to have a productive discussion you need to do some reading first.

After that you may find this useful - http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

ortho:

Here man! Are you going to take a telling or what! How many times have you got to be told that the libertarian communism that anarchists want is not the crap that you're hell-bent on confusing with that was foisted upon the people in the ussr.
You said you came on here to learn - then learn this: you can't reject anarchist politics but still decide to call yourself an anarchist because you like the bleeding name!