So many Ancaps...

Why don't you give them room on your floor jonthom? As far as Trump goes I had no idea he had a golf course. What in the hell is that guy selling?

You know there is a guy in Canada that has a Hockey Ring in his basement? Pretty ridiculous eh?

Oh and radical

fail troll is fail fail...

Funnily enough a mate of mine did just that a few days ago, and we go out each Friday giving out food and other stuff to some of the homeless people we know in my city as well as just hanging out with them for a bit. not perfect but it does seem to help a bit.

more to the point though, private acts of charity on a personal level, while admirable in themselves, can only do so much. capitalism, in any form, creates these problems; communism aims to abolish them.

First off, of course all production is social. A doctor can't work if a farmer doesn't grow his/her food, if someone else didn't make and upkeep the transportation system, build the hospital s/he works in, and the teachers hadn't taught him/her, etc, etc. All those people can't work without regular access to medical care. Not to mention that we all benefit from the collective wisdom and experience passed down from generations before.

Couple things to say here. One, society, acting through directly democratic organs will decide on what's useful to produce. Two, you're still assuming that we want competitive, individual business. We don't. We want a democratically planned, co-operative economy.

Three, you're still missing basic points about capitalism. A business owner may want safe working conditions, but it's ultimately profit that determines the course of capitalist business ventures, not morality. I mean, Jesus, do you really need me to start listing figures on industrial accidents and sickness and disease at work? Then there's the fact that what the owner views as safe may not be what their workers view as safe. And then we're back to the conflict that's inherent to any capitalist workplace.

This is another fundamental difference. The point of an anarchist society is to have the most social wealth with the littlest amount of work. An anarchist society will be judged precisely on our ability to drop down required working hours as much as possible.

There's also a larger argument that 'work' itself is a construct of capitalism and that once we abolish commodity production, productive labor will have an entirely different dynamic than what we experience under capitalism today.

But that's a much larger conversation. So instead I'm going to post some quotes from an intro to anarchism thing I wrote many years back that I think address a lot of what you've been saying on this thread. It'd be good to hear your thoughts.

You know there are Utilitarians that argue that capitalism gives the best chance for everyone to make it out of the gutter. I think von Mises was one of them. At least he talks about it in Human Action.

While it's true that with capitalism there will always be a (key word approaching) comparatively poor class of people, I don't think that means that people will always be living in squaler.

Having been poor before (well comparatively to what I am today) I think that holds true if you are willing to work hard.

Incidentally, it appears to me that ya'll use the word "class" like I would use the word "caste" as in it seems that you guys mean class to be something you are born with, and something you can't lose.

Of course you had Nanner calling me a "class traitor" I suppose he means that since I was poor and don't desire to be poor for my entire life, that makes me evil.

I don't know it seems very... religious to me. Very much an us vs them mentally. No room for dissenters, a submit or die kinda of thing. I hope I'm wrong, because the whole point of me coming here, was based on there being an ability for peace between our philosophies.

What makes someone "proletariat" is it an accident of birth?

Libertarian socialists believe that every individual has the ability to make every decision that affects his or her life. However, we also recognize that many decisions are of a social nature. As such, all that are affected by a particular decision should have an equal say in the outcome. Related, libertarian socialists realize the economy is objectively social. In other words, one couldn’t do his or her job effectively if millions of others didn’t do their job effectively as well. For example, if sanitation workers didn’t clear the streets of trash, disease would spread so quickly that doctors would be too overwhelmed to handle the amount of patients who need care. Likewise, both doctors and sanitation workers need folks to grow their food, build their houses, make their clothing, and keep society’s transportation systems in working order. Those people, in turn, need health care and trash removal. Moreover, in our jobs, we all use products, inventions, and ideas inherited from previous generations. Knowledge itself is social, as it is built up and passed on from person to person and generation to generation.

Because the economy is objectively social, anyone who claims to “own” the fruits of the economy (i.e. a corporation or an individual capitalist) is effectively stealing from the workers who created such wealth in the first place. Instead of an economy driven by profit and greed, an ethical and rational economic system would be based on fulfilling human need (including the needs of luxury, rest, and relaxation) with the least amount of effort. In this socialist economy all individuals would engage in socially productive labor and all jobs would be recognized as equally valued and equally important.

Libertarian socialists believe that for socialism to truly thrive we must establish democratic control of every aspect of the economy. Workers must begin by democratically controlling their immediate workplace. Instead of managers appointed by profit-driven corporate bosses or government bureaucrats, workers must exercise self-management. Decisions concerning everything from what is produced to how it is produced can be made in regular meetings in which every worker has a vote. In short, workers will exercise worker control.

On a practical level, libertarian socialists, after expropriating the owning class and all its property, would seek to abolish all unproductive toil. This means that all positions that do not actually create wealth (managers, landlords, corporate executives, bankers, police officers, politicians, bureaucrats, etc.) and sites of unnecessary labor (outbound call centers, telemarketing agencies, the entire advertising industry, real estate agencies, banks, car dealerships, corporate offices, etc.) would be eliminated. All individuals could then gravitate toward the work they find most rewarding. Likewise, cooperation is always far more productive than competition. Engaging in productive labor within a democratic environment would encourage much greater efficiency. The stress, both individual and social, associated with the capitalist work regime would disappear. Moreover, with the profit motive removed, technology could be applied to the larger social good. Instead of advances in technology being one more excuse to cut jobs, it would help decrease the workload for everyone. Plus, with all engaged in productive work and the parasitic capitalist class abolished, the amount of work required from each member of society to would be drastically reduced. If, after all of this, ‘undesirable’ work still existed, it could be democratically divided between all able bodies.

No. Communists are the ones leading the fight against poverty. It's just that we recognise that we it's only through collective effort that we break down the system that creates poverty in the first place.

You're a class traitor if you actively act against the interests of your class. By ideologically defending capitalism and seeking to put your personal enrichment above the interests of your class, you're a class traitor.

It is. It's a structural us verses them created by the very organisation of capitalist society.

No, it's their relationship to the means of production.

Read this:

http://libcom.org/library/class-class-struggle-introduction-draft

Seriously.

"First off, of course all production is social. A doctor can't work if a farmer doesn't grow his/her food, if someone else didn't make and upkeep the transportation system, build the hospital s/he works in, and the teachers hadn't taught him/her, etc, etc. All those people can't work without regular access to medical care. Not to mention that we all benefit from the collective wisdom and experience passed down from generations before"

Well the begining of this is what I call the division of labour, and as for standing on the shoulders of giants, that is very true. Certainly neither of our philosophies would exist without the giants in our past.

"Couple things to say here. One, society, acting through directly democratic organs will decide on what's useful to produce. Two, you're still assuming that we want competitive, individual business. We don't. We want a democratically planned, co-operative economy."

Like I've said before I don't see how democracy isn't coercive, I certainly don't want to live in a democracy. But I'm not going to stop you from doing so. We've all born witness to the failures of the planned economies of the past, how is your planned economy going to be different?

"but it's ultimately profit that determines the course of capitalist business ventures, not morality" What is morality? To my mind morality is subjective. And this seems to hold true if we examine the various ethical codes taught by the religions, philosophers, and cultures around the world. I don't think it would be possible to have a single morality world wide. It may be possible in a smaller community however. Especially if having a certian ethical code were a requirement for entry into said community.

"This is another fundamental difference. The point of an anarchist society is to have the most social wealth with the littlest amount of work. An anarchist society will be judged precisely on our ability to drop down required working hours as much as possible."

There was a video on the front of an AnCap blog I enjoy reading that was pointing out that in the US the 40 hour work week was still standard, while in France they work something like 30 hours while having the same level of stuff we do. The idea being that work as a good thing was a Puritan concept, and since the French don't have that in their culture they've dispensed with the longer work week.

"productive labor will have an entirely different dynamic than what we experience under capitalism today."
Definetely interested in hearing alternatives. Like I said laying on a beach surronded by naked ladies sounds opitmal to me!

"But that's a much larger conversation. So instead I'm going to post some quotes from an intro to anarchism thing I wrote many years back that I think address a lot of what you've been saying on this thread. It'd be good to hear your thoughts. "

Well sounds good lets do it!

I think this brings us full circle.

Anarchism is, by definition, anti-capitalist. "AnCap", by definition, is pro-capitalist. I don't really see any possibility for "peace between our philosophies".

More to the point though, I don't know what that would even mean, and have even less idea what benefit there would be for it. As pointed out earlier in this thread, anarchists involve themselves in all sorts of practical activity beyond philosophising and debating online (not that there's anything wrong with these things in themselves, of course). Workers struggles, environmental campaigns, prisoner solidarity, benefit claimant organising, anti-austerity actions and a host of others. Take a look at the websites for AFed and SolFed for an idea of some of what anarchists in the UK get up to.

For the life of me I can't see what benefit there would be for anarchists to try and "make peace" with AnCaps, nor where there would be much common ground for practical activity. Discussing philosophy and models of a hypothetical future society are somewhat interesting, certainly, but there are limits to how either interesting or useful this can be.

"For the life of me I can't see what benefit there would be for anarchists to try and "make peace" with AnCaps, nor where there would be much common ground for practical activity. Discussing philosophy and models of a hypothetical future society are somewhat interesting, certainly, but there are limits to how either interesting or useful this can be. "

Well the idea would be that we don't end up killing eachother. That seems fairly useful to me as I don't want to die, and I don't have any desire to kill anyone.

I don't know not dieing seems like a beneficial thing. I could be wrong.

In the mean time, since violence isn't on the horizon between us, since both our movements have bigger fish to fry, I'm happy to talk about ideas.

Knowledge is sacred, and the pursuit of knowledge is sacred.

Re: France

Yeah, and they achieved a short working week not through some friendly, enlighted capitalism class granting it from the goodness of their heart but through class struggle--working fighting in their own interests (shorter hours, higher pay, concessions in the form of state benefits) and against the interests of capital.

You think capitalism isn't a planned economy? It's just planned for private profit.

And we're not tpromoting state planning (which we'd consider state capitalism, anyway).

you seriously came here because you think people on libcom want to have you killed!?

I don't know where to even begin with that one...

you're right that both our movements have bigger fish to fry, and that debating ideas can be valuable (if it wasn't we wouldn't be here after all). that doesn't really answer the question of what benefit you see in the here and now in trying to make peace between two movements/philosophies which are not only different but fundamentally opposed.

Well if you come for my property, I'm not just going to let you take it. Which means we're going to fight, which means people are going to die.

So no I don't think people on libcom want to have me killed. But I think that the result if you can't find it within you to leave well enough alone. Id est, I mind my business, ya'll mind yours. That's what's going to happen.

Does that make sense?

When I say make peace, I don't mean that we all agree and hold hands like school girls. I mean we just learn to leave eachother alone.

Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't seem like ya'll are into that. If I am wrong, then I have learned that, and it is a good thing to know. If I'm not then I have learned that, and knowing is always better than not knowing.

Funny video by the way.

If you're a capitalist, it means you've enriched yourself at the expense of the working class and, once we get the chance, you can bet we're going to expropriate your shit. If you want to put up a fight for it, fine--that's you acting in your own material interests--but expect the same from us.

Now please stop turning everything into a morality play and please take an hour or so to read some of the links myself and others have posted for you.

And, for the love of God, please stop calling yourself an anarchist. Logically, economically, historically, and liguistically, and etymologically you're incorrect.

Sorry to but in but, no one is coming from your "property", further even if you had a mineral rich ranch somewhere it would be impossible to make productive use of it as a hermit. In regards to your comments on society you live in and the fact that you're able to communicate in English a product of centuries dead labor and not recognize it as self evidence of the existence of collection of socially dependent beings known "society" is to me astonishing.

Anyway I have some questions:

1. Lets say the hypothetical scenario you advocate for some reason emerges the state is benign how do you suppose humans handle the distribution of resources, who owns what? Barter, currency? How do you universalize the value a dollar/fanc etc if there is no state to back it?

2. If every human being is simply a self interested creature why would they submit to wage labor knowing you will extract all that surplus value from their work, how would you stop them from rebelling if they organised against it?

I have to ask is the emergence of ancap/individualist discourse the result of decades as living as subjects of capitalism or has this been one of those post enlightenment thoughts that just finds a voice in the people displaced by capital? Does this lame discourse have something to do with capitals effort at universalizing middle class subjectivity and mediocrity?

It's not really a matter of whether we're willing to do it so much as seeing it as a problematic concept in itself, for reasons given repeatedly in this thread; the tendency of capitalism to expand, inevitable conflicts over how we handle natural resources, the tendency of capitalism to create conflict between workers and employers, the fact an anarchist revolution would involve putting privately-owned workplaces under communal ownership, etc., etc.

as far as killing, well, you've said yourself that you'd be willing to kill anarchists who violated your property rights. so it's hardly a one-way process with the innocent capitalist being persecuted by those horrible anarchy types.

Incidentally, you might find the following sections of the Anarchist FAQ of interest:

Is 'anarcho'-capitalism a type of capitalism?

Anarchism and 'anarcho'-capitalism

And in particular (from the above): Anarchism and dissidents

Anyone else detecting a whiff of sexism in a couple of these posts?

Just sayin...

Also, if you really are here to expand your horizons and develop ideas beyond the ridiculous ones you currently hold, why not actually think about some of the points raised here? Not just giving poorly thought through, knee-jerk, and often irrelevent answers to posts.

You've not once given an adaquate response to the social nature of the economy, for example. If you actually sat down and thought about this, you might just be able to understand why private property is ludicrous. Who made your house and everything in it? You? Didn't think so. Why is it yours? Because you paid money for it? So what, money should give you rights to things? Don't worry that there are meat packers working 20 hour days for minimum wage and company consultants working 3 hours a week for luxuary life-styles. The consultant obviously has more right to a nice house.

Instead you're preparing for a post-revolution gun fight with communists to protect "your" property, and sanding blocks of wood 8 hours a day for no apparent reason.

Ludwig Von Mises was a degenerate elitist with such a vast, vast hatred of humanity he apparently applauded Ayn Rand for having written a book that "had the courage" to tell "the masses" thath "they were not worthy." He was a disgusting human being, and we shouldn't mention him at all.

I'm not trying to abusive anymore, but I'm going to say that everything here notruiberal has said is deeply offensive to my person. That is all.

Notrueliberal, have you responded to any of my arguments about the non-aggression axiom? You've already said you'd resort to violence to defend your property, would you do the same if your property were threatened by workers? Were the Nationalists right to crush the anarchists, socialists and the workers in defense of their private property? I mean, when someone says they're ready to die for something they also mean they'll kill for it to (as spiritually dead devoting yourself to such a thing is), so doesn't this basically mean you'd be ready to kill anarchists, socialists, communists, and "uppity" workers?

Also, individualist discourse is absolutely middleclass valuelessness in regards to anarchism canIsggestsomething. Even Rudolf Rocker's vision of anarchism was some utterly myopic liberal "utopia" where the gloriousness of individualism could truly be realized, and he was a syndicalist. When too many middle class individuals overtake a movement, their stupid and silly values overtake everything about it! Every time anarchism becomes hedonist garbage, throughout history, is a time when anarchism becomes radically derooted from the working class and becomes a plaything for middle-class idiots and idiotic reprobates like Saul Newman and Genderloos

These an caps always delve into bigotry at some point, but I agree in notrueliberal's posts it is still just a whiff.

Well, when the ancap 'revolution' comes, I'm going to be investing in tanks.

Lots and lots of tanks.

Nanner,

I have addressed your comments about the NAP. What have I said that was not addressing your points?

I agreed with you that the logical conculsion of the NAP was anti-democracy. And I explained that majority (behold a key word) rule, was still (behold again) rule. And that is why democracy is statism.

Would I defend my property from workers? I don't see how someone's occupation has any bearing on my stance. If the owner of a factory came looking for eminent domian on my land, I would have zero ethical qualms about shooting him in the face. Like wise if I attempt to use eminent domian on someone else, and they shot me in the face, well I completely understand why.

I don't know enough about the nationalists, or the other things you've mentioned to make a value judgement on it. As far as "uppity" workers are concerned, I don't know what you mean. If I own a factory or a grocery or whatever and my workers strike, I'll just hire some scabs. If the workers on the other hand are too skilled for me to just replace with a scab, then I will negotiate with the workers. I'm not going to kill someone for quiting their job, or striking. If however they riot and start destroying property, mine or otherwise well... The main difference between us and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you guys believe in positive rights, I believe in negative rights. I don't believe people have rights to things, you do. And this is why you consider me to be morally bankrupt, and evil.

Value is subjective, it is not objective like the term "surplus value" implies. My question about the block of wood was not off point. It was in fact an attempt to ascertain what your idea of value is. If value comes from labour, then that block of wood should be worth something right? After all I sanded it...

Also I have explained the social nature of the economy on several occassions. Society does not cause the market, nor does it cause the economy. Society exists because of the market, and the greater efficiency of the division of labour. That is why society exists. You appear to be looking at society and seeing it as a cause not a result.

"Lets say the hypothetical scenario you advocate for some reason emerges the state is benign how do you suppose humans handle the distribution of resources, who owns what? Barter, currency? How do you universalize the value a dollar/fanc etc if there is no state to back it? "

Currency is not a State creation, sure the State has it's grubby paws all over currencies today, but the State doesn't cause currency to exist. Currency, money, is simply a convient medium of exchange.

A hypothetical: Three people live on an island, one person grows carrots, another fishes, and a third keeps Hens and collects the eggs. The person who grows carrots has no use for fish, but the fisherman wants carrots, however the carrot farmer likes eggs. What does the fisherman do? He trades some fish for some eggs, and then trades the eggs for the carrots.

In this scenario the eggs are a medium of exchange, and all currency is, is a medium of exchange. Furthermore there doesn't need to be a uniform currency. Having competeing currencies is fine, and I would consider it a good thing.

"as far as killing, well, you've said yourself that you'd be willing to kill anarchists who violated your property rights. so it's hardly a one-way process with the innocent capitalist being persecuted by those horrible anarchy types."

I've never said it was a one way process. From my end I consider it self defence. However you have stated that you don't believe in property, and that property is coercive, which means that to you taking my stuff is defence. So I understand that to you expropriating my stuff is just, and a morally right action. I just disagree.

". If every human being is simply a self interested creature why would they submit to wage labor knowing you will extract all that surplus value from their work, how would you stop them from rebelling if they organised against it? "

To say that people aren't self interested to my mind is to deny reality. Reality is we have to be self interested to survive. Maybe where you live things are different, but where I come from no one looks out for you ever. Condemn Rand all you want for her insanity (I'll be there right with you) but she did have a point about individuals being selfish.

Additionally not everybody agrees that "surplus value" is a thing. On the contrary as I've said before value is subjective, and that goes for goods and services as well as value judgements and morality. The fact that we have such fundamentally different ideas on what is right and wrong seems to prove that point rather effectively.

I wouldn't do anything to workers who organized themselves, except maybe fire them and hire some scabs. Failing to provide, employment, a good, or a service to someone is not coercive in my book.

Also you say you want democracy as a way to have a say in production. Has it occured to you that buy purchasing a good or service you are saying that it is worth existing? Essentially spending your money on what you see fit (or saving it) is your voice, however small in the market?

Anyway I'll leave you with that. I'm going to go read some of your literature now.

ps. Though our positions are fundamental different and opposed, I don't see that as meaning that violence between us is inevitable. That is all I'm trying to get across. The thing is I know from my own expierence that convincing people that their position is wrong is a fool's errand, I'm sure you have expierenced the same thing as I have. The point is that in my ideal world as I've said before there is room for you to live in an AnCom democracy. Just like I wouldn't stop religious fundamentalists from living in their own theocracy, and for the exact same reasons. Neither state of affiars is my business. If I live in a capitalist society, I don't see where it concerns you. But maybe sticking to my own affiars and living/working with like minded individuals is something you can't abide.

pps as far as not addressing everything that you guys are saying, well there are alot of thoughts and conversational paths going on here. Honestly it's hard for me to keep track of everything.

Read David Graeber's debt it's free on hear

No, the main irreconcilable and antagonistic difference between us is the you believe in capitalism and we don't.

And I'm sorry mate, but your definition of the 'market' is so broad as to be meaningless:

Oddly, though, it might leave space for agreement. Bourgeois and communist economic analyses alike agree that the market exists where commodities are exchanged. We want a society based not on exchange and profit, but on 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Production will be social and and goods and service will be freely available, with some sort of mechanism for distributing scarce items.

That's not a market by any rational definition of the word, but by your definition since production and distribution is occurring, it's a still a market, is that correct?

Nor, have you yet remotely addressed the social nature of production and, therefore, the contradictory notion of private ownership of the fruits of society:

Two more things:

Why do anarchist believe property is theft?

Finally, you don't seem to realize just how offensive the word scab is around here. As communists we are not only focused on some post-revolutionary future, but on improving our lives in the here and now, too. A scab is a class traitor of the worst kind. I mean, I applaud your capitalist honesty, but I'm really having to refrain from launching into a tirade of swear words against you.

God damn reading that was stomach churng. You people really are rignt-wing extremists. I really don't know how to respond without getting angry. Jesus christ.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is for the average person just right fucking outside, except the businesses have even more power to run our lives into the ground. All reaction isn't a form of insanity, it's also a worship of elites and elitism. I only saw Chilli Sauce get angry once before the existence of this thread, and there's a reason why. God damn.

What would happen to the poor under "anarcho-"capitalism? How would they fare with every single element of society being controlled by capitalism? What about the homeless? Since there would be no democracy, how could the weak ever exert their power over anything even to make their conditions less humiliating and miserable?

Who cares about ancaps, or right libertarians. The much greater danger is the Trots and authoritarian socialists, they actually have mass movements, and we've seen that what they are capable of. Ancaps are an only group that people hate because they stole a word from us, its kind of childish. Just let them be idiots, and ignore them.