Agna:

[Agnapostate]

I'm not going to accept your definition, because it's simply inaccurate and at odds with the flatly converse definitions of every major anarchist theorist. Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism," as Peter Kropotkin termed it. Chomsky contradicts what you're evidently asserting, that "anarchy" in the political sense involves "chaos" or "disorder." It doesn't. Anarchist theory is and always has involved a high level of social and political organization, simply with the absence of hierarchical constrictions and institutions. The etymology of the term renders its meaning "without rulers." Since an actual "lack of organization" is literally impossible in every sense (even the warlord who rules the primitive society or the various constituencies in Somalia are based on social organization), the greatest and most effective means to create a society "without rulers" is therefore to create a system of political organization that minimizes hierarchical authority in every realm.

You do seem to believe that a democratically elected group can do no wrong, you know.

Hence my reminder that a lynch mob is also a form of democracy.

This mob statement in no way negates the merits of your system, you know.

It's merely a reminder that mankind's nature (both individuals' psychopathologies and mass psychopthologies) can fuck up even the best devised goverment that exists.

No system is fool-proof, AG, because there's no limit to fools' abilities to screw things up.

No one would claim otherwise, but to assert that that's a basis for ultimate and total failure would be to commit the perfectionist fallacy. A lynch mob is a form of "democracy" in the crudest sense, but it's truly a form of uninformed and irrational popular reaction. Of course, uninformed and irrational popular reaction characterizes our current republican political system to a greater extent than is typically acknowledged, but we must recall the necessary distinctions between "bourgeois formal democracy" and "genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life." I'm inclined to believe that the participatory elements of the latter create a more genuine and rational form of democratic political participation than the republican system could ever achieve, and is thus that much more divergent from the lynch mob.

 

[editec]

I'm not going to accept your definition, because it's simply inaccurate and at odds with the flatly converse definitions of every major anarchist theorist.

Understood.

I used to have the same argument with French self-proclaiming anarchists in Paris.

They also harkened back to the Spanish so-called anarchistic communes explaining to me that since those existed, they had the right to pervert the language to redfine the meaning of the word anarchist.

They were also wrong about the meaning of the word.

You do understand, don't you, that my objection is to the word, more than the concept, right?

If you have a system of governance, and your system surely has that, then calling it anachistic is a misnomer.

If I started calling your system fascist, would you object?

Of course you would.

You would tell me that it isn't facistic at all, and I'd agree with you.

Well, that's my objection to calling it anarchistic.

The system you advocate isn't remotely anarchistic.

It's HIGHLY structured, in fact.

 

[Agnapostate]

The problem is that your conception of anarchism has never been an accepted meaning of the political term. From William Godwin to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to Mikhail Bakunin to Peter Kropotkin, there has never been any political figure or theorist to call himself an "anarchist" and subsequently advocate total disorder. Every single self-proclaimed anarchist that has been influential to the development of our theory has adopted the understanding that anarchism involves the establishment of horizontal federations of non-hierarchical municipalities. As put by the anarcho-communist Errico Malatesta, the source of common misconception about what anarchism entailed came from the fact that "since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order." But, as L. Susan Brown notes, "[w]hile the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation."

EDIT: The reason for the discrepancy is that we understand "government" to involve a centralized and hierarchical management of political units rather than any and all management of political affairs. As put by Malatesta, "[f]or us, government [or the state] is made up of all the governors; and the governors . . . are those who have the power to make laws regulating inter-human relations and to see that they are carried out . . . [and] who have the power, to a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the social power, that is of the physical, intellectual and economic power of the whole community, in order to oblige everybody to carry out their wishes. And this power, in our opinion, constitutes the principle of government, of authority" When we complement this with Kropotkin's declaration that "the word 'State' . . . should be reserved for those societies with the hierarchical system and centralization," perhaps greater clarity is provided.

 

[roomy]

Agnes, read it, it will come to pass.

 

[JBeukema]

I never expressed support for the prospect of one major local assembly managing absolutely every facet of absolutely every local industry and component of infrastructure; I can certainly envision appropriate divisions of management

Such as that present is a republican government

Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . .

declared but not demonstrated

You fail to account for the fact that the entrepreneur needs the laborer as much as the laborer needs to entrepreneur

Capitalism is constituted by the private ownership of the means of production,

-the right to keep what one earns, where your system places the desires of then majority over the individual, who has no enforceable rights

Your conception of this socialism a utopian one that is characterized by an ignorance of the human 'heart' and 6000 years of recorded human history.

You have given no evidence for success in spain; all you have done is post the words of those who were enamoured with what they were shown, much like those who espouse the wonder of healthcare in Cuba

You are long on words on ppopaganda, but woefully short on vidence

 

[Agnapostate]

Such as that present is a republican government

Nope! A republican government is based on isolation through the election of representatives that are far less accountable than instantly recallable delegates; moreover, the opportunity for referendums is limited and for participatory policy formation completely absent. If you were unable to comprehend the differences between the nature of what I described (and supplemented with an account of its implementation) and a republican government, I really can't help you.

declared but not demonstrated

You fail to account for the fact that the entrepreneur needs the laborer as much as the laborer needs to entrepreneur

This repetition is getting a bit tiresome. Now, aside from the fact that you disingenuously attempt to insert the word "entrepreneur" into this discussion, despite the fact that many among the financial and coordinator classes are most certainly not legitimate "entrepreneurs," are you forgetting good old Adam Smith's observation that "in the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate" and Alfred Marshall's comment that "labor is often sold under special disadvantages arising from the closely connected group of facts that labor power is 'perishable', that the sellers of it are commonly poor and have no reserve fund, and that they cannot easily withhold it from the market."? And what of Ellerman's robbery analogy? Why do you choose to completely ignore every single argument that illustrates the basis of wage labor in the influence terms of power and coercion? Why have you not replied to any of these comments and have instead declared them wrong without substantive elaboration? Running out of gas already?

-the right to keep what one earns, where your system places the desires of then majority over the individual, who has no enforceable rights

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, as to "keep[ing] what one earns," the majority of aggregate capital accumulation is based on intergenerational transfers. For example, consider Summers and Kotlikoff's The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Accumulation. As noted by the abstract:

This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.

Secondly, individual liberty is always at the center of even the most communistic form of anarchism. Properly understood, individualism and collectivism are not in conflict, because any legitimate form of collectivism is entirely voluntary, and the mutual aid that characterizes voluntary associations is utilized by individuals to expand their range of personal opportunities and influence.

Your conception of this socialism a utopian one that is characterized by an ignorance of the human 'heart' and 6000 years of recorded human history.

Completely wrong. You didn't reply to the other thread, so perhaps you've forgotten the insights made by Peter Kropotkin in his Mutual Aid. I'll refresh your memory. Consider the approval of his thesis by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in his Kropotkin Was No Crackpot. As he put it:

The central logic of Kropotkin’s argument is simple, straightforward, and largely cogent.

Kropotkin begins by acknowledging that struggle plays a central role in the lives of organisms and also provides the chief impetus for their evolution. But Kropotkin holds that struggle must not be viewed as a unitary phenomenon. It must be divided into two fundamentally different forms with contrary evolutionary meanings. We must recognize, first of all, the struggle of organism against organism for limited resources – the theme that Malthus imparted to Darwin and that Huxley described as gladiatorial. This form of direct struggle does lead to competition for personal benefit.

But a second form of struggle – the style that Darwin called metaphorical – pits organism against the harshness of surrounding physical environments, not against other members of the same species. Organisms must struggle to keep warm, to survive the sudden and unpredictable dangers of fire and storm, to persevere through harsh periods of drought, snow, or pestilence. These forms of struggle between organism and environment are best waged by cooperation among members of the same species-by mutual aid. If the struggle for existence pits two lions against one zebra, then we shall witness a feline battle and an equine carnage. But if lions are struggling jointly against the harshness of an inanimate environment, then lighting will not remove the common enemy – while cooperation may overcome a peril beyond the power of any single individual to surmount...I would hold that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct.

Then again, you might not be a fan of Gould, considering that he was so audacious to declare this of anarchists:

We must shed the old stereotype of anarchists as bearded bomb throwers furtively stalking about city streets at night. Kropotkin was a genial man, almost saintly according to some, who promoted a vision of small communities setting their own standards by consensus for the benefit of all, thereby eliminating the need for most functions of a central government.

That said, anarchism and socialism are based on far sounder analyses of human nature than the absurdity that is rational choice theory, the basis of many proponents of capitalism for their naive and utopian belief in the "rational economic man." 'Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing, in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.' (McQuaig, 2001)

You have given no evidence for success in spain; all you have done is post the words of those who were enamoured with what they were shown, much like those who espouse the wonder of healthcare in Cuba

The accounts that I've presented have been admittedly partisan, but if you were to examine any history of the Spanish Civil War, even critics of the anarchist social revolution would acknowledge its existence. Now, as to a more neutral historian, consider the words of the respected Antony Beevor. As Beevor put it in The Spanish Civil War:

[In] Catalonia and Aragon, were about 70 per cent of the workforce was involved. The total for the whole of Republican territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services such as water, gas and electricity were working under new management within hours of the storming of the Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate factories to war production meant that metallurgical concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July . . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive feats of those early days was the resurrection of the public transport system at a time when the
streets were still littered and barricaded.

Beevor is a neutral and trusted historian and not an anarchist partisan, and has no reason to exaggerate the legacy of the collectives. Also consider the commentary of American political economist Robin Hahnel, who is a libertarian socialist but a minarchist rather than an anarchist, if memory serves. As he puts it in Economic Justice and Democracy:

The anarchist collectives were voluntary, yet comprised 40% of the population. Relations of solidarity with autonomy between collectives and more reformist, all-inclusive syndicates permitted both efficient economic coordination and friendly political relations between "individualist" and "collectivist" peasants...the federation of collectives sponsored large-scale improvements to irrigation systems and programs on animal husbandry and cross plant breeding. The collectives established schools in every village, reducing the rate of illiteracy from 70 percent to below 10 percent in a little over two years, and the federation of collectives ran a school for accounting and bookkeeping in Valencia, as well as the University of Moncada, which the regional federation of the Levant placed at the disposal of the Spanish National Federation of Peasants. In sum, we have quite a remarkable example of energetic and efficient economic and cultural self-management occurring despite disruptions from the Civil War and suppression from a hostile government of social democrats and communists centered in Valencia.

As for Cuban healthcare, it does indeed outrank the U.S. system in various regards, but that isn't a justification for Cuba's political system, nor would I claim otherwise.

You are long on words on ppopaganda, but woefully short on vidence

Don't be absurd! My commentary is based on sound empirical analysis, keeping in mind Bookchin's statement that "[t]his 'green shoot' of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary." More than analyses of actually existing anarchist and libertarian societies, I've also based my commentary on microeconomic analysis through studies of workers' ownership and management published in peer-reviewed academic and economic journals. In short, I base my statements on a sound empirical literature that I've not yet seen you consult...

 

[JBeukema]

You have said one thing correctly: that your tired repetition of the same drivel- nearly all of it fished from the words of those who say what you wish- is growing ever-more tiresome.

You have merely repeated the same propaganda and the same refuted words as before

As for Cuban healthcare, it does indeed outrank the U.S. system in various regards,

i sense Michael Moore approaching

 

[Agnapostate]

You have said one thing correctly: that your tired repetition of the same drivel- nearly all of it fished from the words of those who say what you wish- is growing ever-more tiresome.

Nope! If I'm being "repetitive," it's only because I'm countering your own repetition. And if you have opposing perspectives to present, by all means, do so. The problem is that you do not and cannot present rebuttals to the arguments presented. You simply wish to pretend otherwise.

You have merely repeated the same propaganda and the same refuted words as before

This is absurd idiocy. It is amusing how you manage to remain arrogant even as your effective lack of a response indicates a concession, but it's imbecilic nonetheless. You have been unable to refute my comments about the power and coercion elements present in the existence of capitalist wage labor, the inferiority of republicanism and the superiority of grassroots direct democracy, and the successful abolition of these deficiencies during the anarchist social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. You've instead regurgitated inane drivel over and over again, despite the fact that it's been rebutted numerous times.

i sense Michael Moore approaching

That isn't necessary. It's merely a matter of elementary consultation of the available empirical research, dear boy. For example, consider the observations of Marchibroda:

Scores come from ratios that compare the U.S. national average performance with benchmarks, which represent top performance. If performance was uniform for each of the goals, and if, in those instances in which U.S. performance can be compared with other countries. The United States was consistently at the top, the average score would be 100. But, the United States as a whole scores an average of 66. Some major findings include:

• Long, Healthy, and Productive Lives: Total Average Score 69. The United States is one-third worse than the best country on mortality from conditions "amenable to health card"--that is, deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective care. Its infant mortality rate is 7.0 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 2.7 in the top three countries.

• Quality: Total Average Score 71. Only 49 percent of adults received preventive and screening tests according to guidelines for their age and sex. In addition, the current gap between national average rates of diabetes and blood pressure control and rates achieved by the top 10 percent of health plans translates into an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 preventable deaths and $1 billion to $2 billion in avoidable medical costs.

• Access: Total Average Score 67. In 2003, one-third of adults under 65 (61 million) were either underinsured or were uninsured at some time during the year.

• Efficiency: Total Average Score 51. As a share of total health expenditures, U.S. insurance administrative costs were more than three times the rates of countries with the most integrated insurance systems.

That said, your hatred of empirical research and apparent disdain for the scientific method has become readily apparent at this point.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Here's a brief summary that's been posted elsewhere of full-fledged anarchist communism, though most elements of it are adaptable to any form of libertarian socialism:

... (Fast forwarding to where the first comment is discredited by the last) ...

Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

... (Fast forwarding to where the illusion turns to DELUSION) ...

Communism would be implemented from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In this manner, it would be based on free association, not on forced collectivization. True and legitimate communism can never be coercive.

Sweet Mother... what a load of absurd drivel...

Absent coercion, leftism of ANY STRIPE cannot be sustained...

Heirarchy is a function of nature, thus these schemes to avoid having to get your ass up and COMPETE is never going to amount to ANYTHING, but irrational nonsense...

 

[JBeukema]

Absent coercion, leftism of ANY STRIPE cannot be sustained...

Can any society, ethics, or State be maintained without a certain level of coercion in the form of punishments against those that act against it while those who comply and work within the system experience some sort of reward or benefit? indeed, there must be coercion in order to protect the social contract and its participants from both those within who might seek to against against toe society, State, or Pweople as well as to deter outsie threats.

Heirarchy is a function of nature, thus these schemes to avoid having to get your ass up and COMPETE is never going to amount to ANYTHING, but irrational nonsense...

The 'heigher' tiers, absent the authoprity to enforce their decsions,ar empty, weak, meaningless confederations that cannot last.

 

[Agnapostate]

ROFLMNAO! Is that the best you have to offer the collective audience here, Pubicus, you DEGENERATE IMBECILE?! SWEET MOTHER...I suggest you compose yourself and prepare for a second attempted endeavor of that nature, SIS! ROFL...RIGHTISTS!

Heirarchy is a function of nature, thus these schemes to avoid having to get your ass up and COMPETE is never going to amount to ANYTHING, but irrational nonsense...

Well now, Pubic, it appears that you've chosen to remain faithful to your typically fallacious manner of presentation and proudly trot out the naturalistic fallacy. Not that hierarchy isn't a biologically natural element of human organization, but it can be overcome just as assuredly as inclinations to intra-species competition that involves violence and the inclination of many human males to the biologically natural act of forcible rape (which likely has an evolutionary origin) can be overcome. Biologically natural conditions are not sufficient for asserting the morality or practical nature of certain acts or patterns.

And let's not forget the bankruptcy that your own intellectual deficiencies create when asserting the superiority of capitalism. Apart from the fact that a socialist economy can maximize legitimately competitive market enterprise to a greater extent than the capitalist economy can because of the former's elimination of wealth and market concentration, your own advocacy is based on an idiotic conception of allegedly "perpetually competitive" elements of human nature. Obviously a fallacious one...'Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing, in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.' (McQuaig, 2001)

 

[Agnapostate]

Can any society, ethics, or State be maintained without a certain level of coercion in the form of punishments against those that act against it while those who comply and work within the system experience some sort of reward or benefit? indeed, there must be coercion in order to protect the social contract and its participants from both those within who might seek to against against toe society, State, or Pweople as well as to deter outsie threats.

Certainly not! The goal is to minimize coercive influences to the greatest extent possible, which is the basis behind anarchist society's elimination of hierarchical authority through horizontal federations of self-managed municipalities. Complete disarray would breed the emergence of hierarchical warlords or violent individuals who would coercively influence others, thus constituting a powerful emergence of authoritarianism also. Anarchist society is based on an attempt to deter such influences and utilize minimal coercion against offenders to deter greater coercion, similar to the principle of law enforcement's arrest and detainment of a criminal ideally being a prevention of a greater coercive imposition.

 

[JBeukema]

PI's fallacy was automatically equating that which is natural with that which is good

 

[Agnapostate]

PI's fallacy was automatically equating that which is natural with that which is good

Indeed, though the naturalistic fallacy is probably one of the less significant among the numerous that he's committed.

 

[JBeukema]

[D]isarray would breed the emergence of hierarchical warlords or violent individuals who would coercively influence others, thus constituting a powerful emergence of authoritarianism also.

Yet another reason I object to your system; I noted earlier that your powerless confederation would lack the necessary authority to enforce any decision it read, rendering the confederation itself hollow and leaving only a number of competing States. Such a situation breeds conflict and leaves the system ripe for takeover from either internal or external authoritarian and tyrannical elements.

Anarchist society is based on an attempt to deter such influences

it is here that a properly restrained republic offers the best solution yet presented. Not that out own republic is not properly restrained do to insufficient protections and a historical trend among the people to desire a stronger- more authroitarian- central authority, due to their lack of a desire to actively participant in the necessary activies for effective semi-autonomous selfp0-government within a federated republic

The republic can offer protections for the individual that are written into the very nature of the State and its law, and which more easily be enforced by the central authority than by a central non-authority with no true stength such as yoyur system has, while the states themselves can still together oppose any attempts to infringe upon the rights of the states or individual

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Absent coercion, leftism of ANY STRIPE cannot be sustained...

Can any society, ethics, or State be maintained without a certain level of coercion in the form of punishments against those that act against it while those who comply and work within the system experience some sort of reward or benefit?

Yep... where one recognizes that punishment for one having violated the just and inaliable rights of another is not coersion... but justice...

 

[JBeukema]

Yep... where one recognizes that punishment for one having violated the just and inaliable rights of another is not coersion... but justice...

1)Demonstrate that such rights exist
2)Actually, it's coercion to comply with the social contract among persons to protect those 'rights'

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI's fallacy was automatically equating that which is natural with that which is good

Indeed, though the naturalistic fallacy is probably one of the less significant among the numerous that he's committed.

Ahh... So that which is natural is NOT good?

An interesting conclusion... would ya care to elucidate?

Given the natural design is the sustainable design, reason is served that that which competes with the natural order is destined to fail. So is this your rationalization which hopes to excuse the chronic failure of the left by projecting that 'that which is natural is inherently bad, thus competing with nature is good, despite the certainty that such competition is doomed to failure?

I suppose it's as good a 'failure happens' rant as any... it just doesn't excuse failure... that's all I'm saying.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO! Is that the best you have to offer the collective audience here, Pubicus, you DEGENERATE IMBECILE?! SWEET MOTHER...I suggest you compose yourself and prepare for a second attempted endeavor of that nature, SIS! ROFL...RIGHTISTS!

Heirarchy is a function of nature, thus these schemes to avoid having to get your ass up and COMPETE is never going to amount to ANYTHING, but irrational nonsense...

Well now, Pubic, it appears that you've chosen to remain faithful to your typically fallacious manner of presentation and proudly trot out the naturalistic fallacy. Not that hierarchy isn't a biologically natural element of human organization, but it can be overcome just as assuredly as inclinations to intra-species competition that involves violence and the inclination of many human males to the biologically natural act of forcible rape (which likely has an evolutionary origin) can be overcome. Biologically natural conditions are not sufficient for asserting the morality or practical nature of certain acts or patterns.

And let's not forget the bankruptcy that your own intellectual deficiencies create when asserting the superiority of capitalism. Apart from the fact that a socialist economy can maximize legitimately competitive market enterprise to a greater extent than the capitalist economy can because of the former's elimination of wealth and market concentration, your own advocacy is based on an idiotic conception of allegedly "perpetually competitive" elements of human nature. Obviously a fallacious one...'Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing, in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.' (McQuaig, 2001)

Your default concession is AGAIN, duly noted and summarily accepted...

The concession comes from her attempt to trot out a strawdog by which to change the subject, thus conceding the argument, from which she fled.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that this turd has now sunk to creating multiple screen names through which to argue with herself...

ROFLMNAO... Now that's just freakin' SAD!