[Meistro1]

Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarcho-Socailism


Under an anarcho-capitalist society, anarcho-socialism or anarcho-syndicalism are free to exist. Under an anarcho-socialist or anarcho-syndicalist society, anarcho-capitalism cannot exist because a worker council can take stuff you've worked your whole life to acheive and use it for 'the greater good' (which will probaly be using it for their selfish ends, becuase people are always motivated by self interest).

All rights are simply an extension of property rights.

[Abood]

This statement only shows your lack of understanding of anarchism.

First of all, anarcho-capitalists want to achieve their so-called "anarchy" using corporations. There is nothing anarchist about that, because the corporations would be leaders. All they want to do is dismantle the state, and allow corporations to go unchecked. Anarchism requires no leaders whatsoever. The state is only one type of leadership anarchists oppose.

To go back on topic, why on earth would a corporation allow an autonomous commune to exist freely? Labour in a capitalist society is regarded as a cost; another factor of production, like raw materials and capital. And the reduction in the supply of labour would mean that its cost would rise and therefore profits would fall. This opposes the purpose that companies operate for in capitalism: profit-maximization. So the corporations would do anything they can to reduce costs, and one thing could be to increase their labour resources. Not to mention that a prosperous autonomous commune would prove that people don't need leaders and therefore prove that corporate hierarchy is unjustified and illegitimate.

Now, to go to anarcho-socialism/syndicalism, anarcho-socialists/syndicalists would allow individualists to exist, and would even trade with them, as long as the goods produced are produced voluntarily. If people chose to work in a company that's not socialized, then there's nothing to prevent them. No one would have the power to do so. What they would have the power for, however, is preventing a capitalist from taking over the land of the autonomous commune and/or forcibly taking the people living on it as employees.

[Meistro1]

"The state is only one type of leadership anarchists oppose. "

Stop hijacking my philosophy, or get a dictionary. Anarchy is NOT a world without bosses; it is a world without coercion. The key argument behind Anarchy, (and Libertarianism) is the initialization of the use of force is wrong.

A/C is not 'corporate' anarchy, it is freedom. If people wish to voluntarily work in corporations, THEY CAN. If people wish to live on a commune and do whatever they want, THEY CAN. In A/C it's entirely possible that everyone will decide to live on communes (that they own). In A/S you have a bunch of petty thugs taking people's property all the time. Have you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? Or what if some homelessman decides to come sleep in my bed with me? It's not my property, so I can't kick him out.

"
Now, to go to anarcho-socialism/syndicalism, anarcho-socialists/syndicalists would allow individualists to exist, and would even trade with them, as long as the goods produced are produced voluntarily. If people chose to work in a company that's not socialized, then there's nothing to prevent them. No one would have the power to do so. What they would have the power for, however, is preventing a capitalist from taking over the land of the autonomous commune and/or forcibly taking the people living on it as employees. "

You are actually describing anarcho-capitalism... but that's not what anarcho-syndicalist or socialists claim. They don't believe in property rights...

[HoniSoit]

Or what if some homelessman decides to come sleep in my bed with me? It's not my property, so I can't kick him out.

Then you'd have to sleep with him.

[Abood]

Anarchy is NOT a world without bosses; it is a world without coercion.

'Anarchy' comes from the Greek phrase 'an archos', literally meaning 'no leadership'.

A/C is not 'corporate' anarchy, it is freedom. If people wish to voluntarily work in corporations, THEY CAN. If people wish to live on a commune and do whatever they want, THEY CAN. In A/C it's entirely possible that everyone will decide to live on communes (that they own).

In theory, yes. But how will anarcho-capitalism be achieved? How would there be freedom?

Read this.

Or what if some homelessman decides to come sleep in my bed with me? It's not my property, so I can't kick him out.

Why does no capitalist know what property fucking means? PROPERTY MEANS ASSETS!!! It does not mean possessions!!!

You are actually describing anarcho-capitalism... but that's not what anarcho-syndicalist or socialists claim. They don't believe in property rights...

Anarcho-socialists believe in property rights if the people want to voluntarily work in private property. Rights come from consent.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Anarcho-Capitalism is 10 times worse than any other system imaginable.

Beacause it is a society ruled by money, that is power without law. The ultimate dream of Evil people is power without law.

It's a system where if you have enough money you can act with utter impunity.

Beacause nobody can afford to fight you. A Rich man can do what he wishes to the poor man, beacause he cannot afford to hire 'private justice' to protect himself.

[Meistro1]

"'Anarchy' comes from the Greek phrase 'an archos', literally meaning 'no leadership'. "

Conservatism comes from the root word conserve; to keep the same. What's your point? Words are defined by how people define them, not from a 2000 year old dead language. Actual anarchists, that is the people who wrote the books that form the basis for the ideas you've filtered down through indymedia websites and two minute Chomsky videos believed in the absence of the state, not 'no leaders'. There will always be leaders...

"In theory, yes. But how will anarcho-capitalism be achieved? How would there be freedom? "

Cut taxes until they don't exist. EZ.

"Why does no capitalist know what property fucking means? PROPERTY MEANS ASSETS!!! It does not mean possessions!!! "

Notice how the left get's outraged and angry when you confront the obvious logical problems with their theories? Take note please all disinterested third parties. Is land a possession? Is my house a possession? Is my body a possesion? Where do you draw the line?

"Anarcho-socialists believe in property rights if the people want to voluntarily work in private property. "

If you believe in property rights you're not much of a 'socialist' no are you?

[Meistro1]

"It's a system where if you have enough money you can act with utter impunity."

You fail, try again. Actually this describes the modern system (O.J. Simpson) a lot more than an A/C society. It is the state that grants immunity to the rich.

[smashthestate]

Hyphenated "anarchy" systems are basically contradictory. Anarchy is anarchy.

[Meistro1]

"Hyphenated "anarchy" systems are basically contradictory. Anarchy is anarchy. "

Not really. Anarcho-Capitalism is anarchy w/ property rights. Anarcho-Socialism is anarchy w/ mob rule (democracy).

[smashthestate]

Anarchy with property rights? A government or some kind of ruling body must exist to protect and enforce rights. Without this protection then it is not a right, and with this protection, it isn't a system of anarchy.

[Meistro1]

"A government or some kind of ruling body must exist to protect and enforce rights."

No, I don't believe this to be accurate but there must be a general consensus amongst the population (and this is a natural consensus, it does not need to be manufactured) that property rights are valid. In reality, property rights will always exist in any system, because people are always going to hold on to their stuff and fight to keep others from taking it from them.

[smashthestate]

I would agree that property rights in some form do always exist in any human political system. However, "anarcho-capitalism" would require a different consensus on what constitutes property rights compared to the consensus required from say...a formerly socialist/communist society.

Relying on consensus to safeguard rights is also ridiculous in my opinion. There are no guaranteed protections or even actions that can be reasonably predicted or suggested without any organized body with authority to enforce the rights and retaliate against violators of those rights.

[Meistro1]

I think you place too little faith in the people to defend themselves; undoubtably years of conditioning of getting you to think like a victim :P Still, an anarcho-capitalist society is not a society without police; you just pay for them instead of taxes paying for them, if there is a demand for that service.

[David Bergkvist]

No, I don't believe this to be accurate but there must be a general consensus amongst the population (and this is a natural consensus, it does not need to be manufactured) that property rights are valid. In reality, property rights will always exist in any system, because people are always going to hold on to their stuff and fight to keep others from taking it from them.

But even if that's the case, then that means that anarcho-syndicalism etc will invariably lead to anarcho-capitalism. And that means that the end result of anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are the same, and thus the two "systems" are actually the same system. So saying that one is better than the other is nonsensical.

[Meistro1]

Ok, but if the ideal result of anarcho-syndicalism is anarcho-capitalism that also implies there is a less than ideal result, as not everything works perfectly every time. Why not just get it right the first time?

[David Bergkvist]

I would say the anarcho-syndicalist etc would get it "right" the first time. I e, every reduction is state coersion would yield the same result regardless if the reduction is done by anarcho-capitalits or anarcho-syndicalists. There wouldn't be any intermittent anarcho-syndicalistic stage between current society and the end result.

It should be noted, however, that this is under your own assumption that mankind "naturally" want to own things and are significantly more eager to defend their property than they are to steal other people's property. Personally, I don't believe this, and would thus say that the above mentioned "end result" that would follow if anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-syndicalists had their way is neither anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism, but mob rule.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

"It's a system where if you have enough money you can act with utter impunity."

You fail, try again. Actually this describes the modern system (O.J. Simpson) a lot more than an A/C society. It is the state that grants immunity to the rich.

It does, that's why I am a Communist. Modern Society is a bit too much like Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is basically modern society, with every restraint and element of demi-Socialism taken away.

The 'State' (for want of a better term) indeed grants immunity to the Rich in Anarcho-Capitalism, beacause the 'State' is private property.

Someone (or more likely a group) can simply buy enough of the private armies that they have effective immunity from bieng held to account by anyone who isn't as rich as themselves.

The wealthy are your rulers. And simply beacause they are wealthy and for no other reason.

Worse they are rulers without being responsable to anyone, they are absolute rulers. They are responsable to noone.

Their power is private property, if you take power from them you take money from them. Beacause the two are the same thing.

[Gintonpar]

an anarcho-capitalist society is not a society without police; you just pay for them instead of taxes paying for them, if there is a demand for that service.

So the wealthy can buy super well trained police and the poor get some guy with a pitchfork?

Anarchy with property rights? A government or some kind of ruling body must exist to protect and enforce rights

QFT.

[JustinG]

So the wealthy can buy super well trained police and the poor get some guy with a pitchfork?

QFT. Why would you pay for them in need? The richest men in the world can hire thousands of police men for there protect and do anything they want.