A Response to a Question from an Anarcho-Socialist

[AlexMerced]

http://libertyisnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/response-to-question-from-anarcho.html

[Anti Federalist]

Anarcho-Socialist???

Now there's a contradiction in terms.

[AlexMerced]

well, essentially the idea is stateless voluntary worker run society, like a kibbutz, but if it's voluntary then someone should be able to set up a market based society next to it and let people voluntary choose between the two and see who wins.

[Vessol]

That'd be an interesting experiment to say the least.

[fj45lvr]

Anarcho-Socialist???

Now there's a contradiction in terms.


No kidding...

How do they expect to get "other people's money" without government force??

[ChaosControl]

well, essentially the idea is stateless voluntary worker run society, like a kibbutz, but if it's voluntary then someone should be able to set up a market based society next to it and let people voluntary choose between the two and see who wins.

A community could collectively decide they want a voluntary socialist society and they'd prevent external entities from entering their society to set up a market. Although they could set one outside of their society, like say if it is a town, they could set it up in the next town.

I think that is fine since it is completely voluntary. Anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism should be able to co-exist peacefully in that sense. If they cannot exist peacefully it is because one group or the other is ultimately wanting to force their views on the other.

I don't care what one a person believes in, they are both fine, I only care if people support the initiation of force. You support that, you are a part of the problem, in my opinion, no matter if you are capitalist or socialist or whatever. Personally I don't really have a preference, I'd be willing to try both out and see which I felt more comfortable in.

[AlexMerced]

a community could collectively decide they want a voluntary socialist society and they'd prevent external entities from entering their society to set up a market. Although they could set one outside of their society, like say if it is a town, they could set it up in the next town.

I think that is fine since it is completely voluntary. Anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism should be able to co-exist peacefully in that sense. If they cannot exist peacefully it is because one group or the other is ultimately wanting to force their views on the other.

I don't care what one a person believes in, they are both fine, i only care if people support the initiation of force. You support that, you are a part of the problem, in my opinion, no matter if you are capitalist or socialist or whatever. Personally i don't really have a preference, i'd be willing to try both out and see which i felt more comfortable in.

ftw

[StilesBC]

Collectivism of any sort presupposes homogenous social values which are what determine the efforts of labour - not the price system and the profit incentive.

Force is always required to create the illusion of unanimity in this regard. Some people will simply persist in liking cheese (or anything) more than others do.

[TCE]

like a kibbutz

Don't you mean a Kabbash? Isn't that a Jewish pastry?


I see absolutely no way a voluntary socialist society could ever work without force.

[AlexMerced]

Don't you mean a Kabbash? Isn't that a Jewish pastry?


I see absolutely no way a voluntary socialist society could ever work without force.

how about a commune or a Kibbutz which is like a commune, these are VOLUNTARY communities, anything can works if everyone volunteers to follow the rules... but then they should be free to leave as well.

THe irony is that volunteering is a market transaction

[TCE]

how about a commune or a Kibbutz which is like a commune, these are VOLUNTARY communities, anything can works if everyone volunteers to follow the rules... but then they should be free to leave as well.

THe irony is that volunteering is a market transaction

A good point, I was referring to a mass-scale implementation, but that was my fault. You are correct.

[AlexMerced]

no system works on a mass scale, even the system we're advcating is really allowing everyone to have reign over their local communities.

Humans are too complex to manage through any large monolitic system

[tremendoustie]

Just so people are aware, many "anarcho socialists" do not support the non-aggression principle, and will not respect property rights. They want the same coercive socialism we know and abhor, they just want it implemented by random people, rather than a central authority.

I agree with those who suggest that people should be free to choose between worker owned arrangements, more traditional businesses, etc. This, I believe, is the right way for people for those who support cooperatives, communes, etc, to implement and promote their ideas -- and I absolutely support them in these efforts.

Just be clear though, many "anarcho-communists" do not fit this description. It's probably worth asking, and clarifying, what means any given "anarcho socialist" intends to use to reach their desired ends. Do they want to convince free people to choose to participate in communes and worker owned businesses? Or, do they want to take other people's property by force?

[AlexMerced]

agreed, in my post the original questiosn posed by the AS is as a capitalist would I use violence to prevent voluntary communist groups, and my answer is no long as their system is voluntary and they don't prevent others from practicing another system.

[awake]

Anarcho socialisim is a contradiction in practical application. Voluntary communal ownership of all property is a great idea in theory for a population of slaves, but when some one, or a group of others, do not wish to participate, then what? Whats more, who has the right to use the joint property, for how long and under what conditions? As we can see it does not take long before conflicts arise which then require force and coercion, along with expropriation from the non participating individuals to control the disastrous state of affairs.

If my neighbor has a car that is owned by all of the community, can I not help myself to it, as I own it as well? If there are many more who do not have a car and wish the use of this vehicle, who says who can use it, if at all?

It is a silly idea.

[AlexMerced]

Anarcho socialisim is a contradiction in practical application. Voluntary communal ownership of all property is a great idea in theory for a population of slaves, but when some one, or a group of others, do not wish to participate, then what? Whats more, who has the right to use the joint property, for how long and under what conditions? As we can see it does not take long before conflicts arise which then require force and coercion, along with expropriation from the non participating individuals to control the disastrous state of affairs.

If my neighbor has a car that is owned by all of the community, can I not help myself to it, as I own it as well? If there are many more who do not have a car and wish the use of this vehicle, who says who can use it, if at all?

It is a silly idea.

If they don't want to participate, they leave and hang out with us in the thriving anarcho-capitalist society next door.

[lester1/2jr]

human action has a chapter on syndicalism. it's just the same coercion