Re: Re: Re: Accumulation of Property and the State

[dubified89]

This info is so important

[Pazrayna]

So Anarchism is Communism, thanks for clearing that up.

[ke11an44]

sadhu sadhu sadhu

[KruZer7]

How can you say Madison created a state and not say Lenin or Mao created a state?

[peaceful0tiger]

again never actually stated I fully agee Lenin Mao Stalin Trotsky used the state. yeah stalin died from a shot wound he got from not being a good communist, stalin died from cuaisng fear trotsky died under the nads of stalind and mao died of natural causes[I forgot which]

[KruZer7]

Your comment is incoherent.

[buddhagem]

Think it through. Lenin and Mao overtook existing state power. Madison and his comrades created one out of thin air basically. Big difference. All three used the state to their advantage. Only Madison actually created one.

[KruZer7]

Most of the Warsaw Pact countries had their constitutions written out of thin air.

The difference is not as big as the one you are asserting. Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a new system of governance after taking control of the provisional government and gaining full control of the Petrograd Soviet. Madison and his ilk created a new system governance out of the Articles of Confederation. If both cases, the new was similar to the old, but drastically different at the same time.

[KruZer7]

Not to mention the fact that the Petrograd Soviet was a state created in and of itself.

[KruZer7]

*In both cases,

sorry.

[KruZer7]

"I should point out that there are no Socialists that created a state."

I should point out all Warsaw pact countries, The People's Republic of China, Cuba, and North Korea.

[RevolutionaryJam]

i'd like to see confederalsocialist make a video response to this

[RevolutionaryJam]

hey man great job on this video it's the best one of you i've seen

[overmind25]

I agree. The public vs private argument is in my cases fallacious and is not addressing the problem.

[peaceful0tiger]

Actually I agree to it doesn't.

[KruZer7]

Considering the fact a "socialist" such as benjamin tucker supported "private" police agencies, I do not think that you are necessarily supporting "state privitization" by supporting private defense firms...

Also, I think few ancaps support private defense firms being able to weild force in a way a state does or like how the pinketons did or how UGD does to day.

[peaceful0tiger]

You mean capitalist, potentially in socialist clothing but definitely and definitively capitalist.

[KruZer7]

Your argument reduces to semantics.

[brokendave]

good video

[brainpolice2]

A monarchy is a "private state".

[atypicalguy]

I think it might clear up some confusion to point out that there are no '"legitimate/illegitimate" uses of force, only stronger and weaker forces. Given that, it seems the method/goal of anarchists would be in the application of force to balance opposing forces among people.

[atypicalguy]

Also, "monopoly" is a meaningless term as all forces of will have control over SOME area.

[astrandofhair]

some entity will always end up getting the most power. Who should have the power? I'm a social libertarian, and I can't see any other way to avoid a system mutating back into a state without some exception power structure to hold the deconstruction together (as strange as that sounds). Or is it a common trait among anarchists to assume people will act rational when they are proven time and time again to be lulled back into capitalistic trojan horses?

[DixyHair]

Also, the way social anarchists proclaim their strand of anarchism to be the one true anarchism bears a strong resemblance to me to how social conservatives declare heterosexual marriage the only form of marriage, or how Catholics say that protestants aren't real Christians because they came later.

[DixyHair]

Keep in mind, I'm really not trying to be an ass, I just honestly think that social anarchists are quite dogmatic. Drawing the parallel between anarchism & Christianity again, there are radical differences between early Christianity & modern Christianity, & this is true of many philosophies, so why can't anarchism evolve?

[DixyHair]

Indeed, part of philosophy is the continual refinement of ideas, even basic concepts, so, if somebody takes the premises of the original anarchists & draws different conclusions, &/or tries to tweak the definition of anarchism to make it a more adequate or substantive definition, how are they not adding to the legacy of anarchism?

[Irtidad]

"Then be Honest... Don't call yourselves Anarchists... Call yourselves Socialist!!!!!!

There is nothing Anarchistic about your position."

-wizkid2000 (5 hours ago)

Attempting to monopolize the term is by no means unique to social anarchists. But even Rothbard did not consider himself an anarchist, its only his followers who decided to use that label.

[DixyHair]

Sure, but social anarchists are the worst offenders, especially when it comes to people who are somewhat educated on the subject & should thus know better, & I was directing this at them.

Don't get me wrong, ignorant capitalists who claim a monopoly on the term due to their superficial conception of anarchism should certainly be reprimanded, I just wasn't talking about them right here.

[Irtidad]

I guess the point I was trying to make was that, even though I eschew all attempts to try to "own" the term 'anarchism', when it comes to "social anarchism" (and in this I include individualist anarchists such as Tucker, who self-identified as a socialist) it makes more historical sense to me why they try to do this. What doesn't make sense to me, however, is anarcho-capitalists who do the same, followers of Rothbard when even Rothbard himself refused the label 'anarchist'.

[Irtidad]

It's sorta like when a new kid on the block shows up, and all the old kids want to exclude him. Yeah it's wrong for the old kids to act so exclusive to the new kid, but it at least makes some conceptual sense; it makes no sense, however, for the new kid to think that he can start dictating things.

[Irtidad]

And keep in mind that anarcho-capitalism is not the only recent innovation in anarchism. There are also a number of types of "green anarchy" which have grown in prominence over the past few decades. And even they have sometimes felt the urge to start dictating who can and can't be an anarchist. For example, I once had to cringe when reading a Derrick Jensen book when he described Nestor Makhno and Michael Bakunin as "so-called anarchists," implying that such a label is in fact inappropriate.

[Irtidad]

I've recently started reading Emma Goldman's auto-biography, and it's shown me that trying to deny other anarchists the legitimacy of their self-identification is nothing new in the movement. For example, Alexander Berkman came to claim that Johann Most wasn't an anarchist for his spendthrift ways, while Most had previously denied that Joseph Peukert was a true anarchist. The conflict between Most and Peukert could be understood as a conflict between communist and collectivist anarchisms.

[wizkid2000]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist who is a true Anarchist.... I don't presume to tell anyone how to live has long as there are not interfering with my life. In true Anarchy everyone can choose the system the want to be in.... If you believe in free markets you can be an An-Cap... If you prefer to live under a Socialistic or Communistic collective then that is your business. Freedom for all.

When people start talking about you should or must live this or that way.... Then it stops being Anarchy.

[Irtidad]

A compelling personal manifesto, but I don't see how it relates to the discussion at hand, nor how it corresponds with your previous attempt to deny others the legitimacy of their self-identification.

[prjctcivilian]

thats an oxymoron! no, when they start forcing you! social stigma and pressure will always exist

[yeahwotevaman]

What is a social anarchist? Is that opposed to being an anti-social anarchist? Like Johnny Rotten or something?

[DixyHair]

No, it's short for socialist anarchist.

[yeahwotevaman]

Right, a pertinent distinction I'm sure.

[DixyHair]

How is it that you constantly emphasize that there are many distinct flavors of socialism, & yet refuse to accept the same reality as it applies to capitalism? It's rather disingenuous to proclaim how much better stateless socialism is than state socialism, & then act as if stateless capitalism would be just like state capitalism.

I know you haven't explicitly stated such, but following your videos, you've certainly implied it, & you've definitely exhibited a double-standard.

[buddhagem]

Great question and one that I will be addressing shortly in a video. Thanks!

[hitssquad]

@Buddhajem,

I like your speaking style in this video: extemporaneous (improvised within an outline). 5 stars.

[Irtidad]

Some repeated material of course, but brilliant as usual. I certainly believe that anarchism is opposed to coercion. But the main point here, I think, is that when you have a group of people who actively use resources available to them, it's the person who claims to "own" more than he can use who must use coercive measures, not everybody else, unless you consider the act of using stuff to be coercive.

[AlaskanAnarchist]

I may not agree with all or even most of what you say sometimes, but dear god, you have the friendliest sounding debating voice I've ever heard Buddhagem.

[prjctcivilian]

true anarchy is not just voluntary associations and contracts its the fight against hierarchy and the only way to do so is through voluntary associations and through socialism!

[wizkid2000]

Ummm No it is not.... Anarchy is just the abolition of coercion. Without coercion how will you ever get everyone to agree with the way you think they should live??????

See that's the real bitch of Anarchism is, You can't have freedom for yourself without giving freedom to all. Being a control freak wont cut it.

Again... You have no right telling people how they should live... And you certainly don't have any right to make them live the way you want.

[wizkid2000]

Its funny how you criticize someone for not being educated about Anarchy when you apparently don't have a clue about if yourself.

Not all anarchist are socialist. If you want to volunteer to be in a socialistic collective then more power to you. When some people don't want to live the way you want, what are you going to do? Put a gun to there heads to comply?

True Anarchy is allowing only voluntary associations and contracts. You have no right to tell others how they should live!

[prjctcivilian]

the only way to do so is through a socialist economy

[wizkid2000]

Then be Honest... Don't call yourselves Anarchists... Call yourselves Socialist!!!!!!

There is nothing Anarchistic about your position.

[AnarchismIsSocialism]

1a) If anarchy means no rulers, then anarchists must oppose all rulers.

1b) Anarchy means no rulers.

1c) Therefore, anarchists must oppose all rulers.

2a) If capitalists rule the workplace, then anarchists must oppose capitalists.

2b) Capitalists rule the workplace.

2c) Therefore, anarchists must oppose capitalists.

3a) If the opposite of capitalism is socialism, then anarchists must be socialists.

3b) The opposite of capitalism is socialism.

3c) Therefore, anarchists must be socialists.

[wizkid2000]

WOW where did you get that? An An-Soc coloring book? I fear you maybe demonstrating the average intelligence of an An-Soc.

1) Anarchy opposes the mandatory nature of state predicated on the threat of violence.

2) The employee/employer relationship is fundamentally a voluntary one.

3) Anarchy is based on free association and voluntary contracts.

4) An-Soc seek to forbid "excess" property, private capital assets ownership, wage labor, rent and anything else they deem as "Exploitative".

[wizkid2000]

5) The only way An-Soc's could possible get everyone to agree to there philosophy is with the threat of violence.

6) ergo, An-Soc is Statism not Anarchy!

[buddhagem]

Yes, all Anarchists are Socialists. But not all Socialists are Anarchists. The fact that "Anarcho-Capitalists" and "National Anarchists" pretend to be Anarchists doesn't change this and certainly doesn't erase the history of Anarchist struggle against Capitalism. Thanks for the laugh with the contracts bit. Sure, Anarchists have been fighting for the last 150 years for "contracts." LOL. You're cute.

[wizkid2000]

Your still not addressing the main point... When people don't want to live under your socialist utopia... What are you going to do? Let them be? or take some kind of action against them???

[buddhagem]

We'll line you up and shoot you. Why don't you familiarize yourself with actual Anarchist history. There's plenty of examples of what real live Anarchists did in such situations. Read up on the history of the Spanish Revolution: Emma Goldman's Vision on Fire is a good read. The workers did all sorts of stuff. But it boils down to free association. I won't be liquidating if you if that's what you're wondering.

[wizkid2000]

So you wont come to someones house and take what you deem as "excessive" property that exceeds his use?

You will allow If people want to rent property or work for a salary?

[yeahwotevaman]

"When people don't want to live under your socialist utopia... What are you going to do?"

We are going to boil your bones down and make glue with them.

[PhilosophersFire]

He just explained to you in the video that Anarchism is a socialist philosophy that was perverted and distorted by Rothbard. Anarchism as a philosophy has existed for centuries before anarcho-caps like you began distorting it with your claim that capitalist coercion is somehow compatible with it. You also have absolutely no functional knowledge of the role of the state as existing only to defend large agglomerations of private wealth over time.If you actually read Adam Smith you would know this.

[wizkid2000]

I don't give a fuck what Adam Smith said. WTF is "capitalist coercion" and how do you possible conflate that with free markets? Do you even know what a free market is?

Why cant you people just answer the question? Under Anarchic Socialism would people be free to choose a different system?

Now maybe I have misunderstood you guys and if I did I apologize... If you meant once Anarchy is achieved you would join a voluntary socialistic collective and let others choose for themselves I support that.

[wizkid2000]

But if you mean that your ideology will somehow be coerced on to other people then you are not Anarchist, you are statist.

[LibertarianCommunist]

It's amusing to see pro-capitalists wring their hands about the socialist menace that supposedly threatens to engulf them. In fact, it's capitalism that poses that threat. As any capitalist will concede, their system must grow or die. It's inherently imperialistic for this reason. Socialists are the ones who have cause for hand-wringing. All their system needs is enough resources to be self-sufficient. They'd prefer it be the whole planet, because they want freedom for all, but it needn't be.

[LibertarianCommunist]

State-socialists/vanguardists push for global state-socialism, but libertarian-socialists/anarchi­sts are happy to be left alone in a sufficiently-resourced enclave. Give me an anarchist-communist society on a resource-rich island and you can bring the rest of the world down around your own ears as far as I'm concerned. But of course that's a utopian fantasy. In reality, as long as capitalism exists, socialists must divert resources from social needs to defense against capitalist imperialism.

[LibertarianCommunist]

It may surprise pro-capitalists to learn that there's a (bizarre) minority of state-socialists who agitate for your dream policies (e.g., global "free" trade). They want to get it over with, like ripping off a bandaid, because they know that global laissez-faire capitalism, having nowhere left to expand, would burn through the planet's resources and fizzle out, leaving a planetary dustbowl, which (they hope) could be revitalized by the global socialism that would necessarily result. Ponder that.

[yeahwotevaman]

wizkid2000 is not even arguing about any existant or historical reality, but rather a hypothetic situation 'once Anarchy has be acheived'.

[TheBigHo111]

I am not a pacifist.

[CapitalistHell]

I'm with Marx on the nature of the state: it's an instrument used by one class to suppress another. A capitalist state defends the capitalist class against the working class; it's a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" (the starry-eyed young Obama supporters who hoped for "Change(TM)" are currently learning this hard lesson, the poor things). State-socialists advocate the reverse (and that's where I part with them, although I'd prefer a proletarian state if I could only choose one or the other).

[CapitalistHell]

This is why democracy is so feared (and why the founders of the US were so against it, being the benefactors of a bourgeoisie revolution): because if everyone had a voice, capitalism would vanish in a heartbeat.

The bourgeoisie revolutions of the 18th-century were certainly a progression from feudalism (laissez-faire was left-wing in that context), but there was still a long way to go. Naturally, the current benefactors of those revolutions (and those who hope to be) want to stop the clock.

[jrpigg]

round & round again

Anarchism opposes political and economic hierarchy--always has always will.

The state is a political hierarchy--a group of people/institution set apart from society at large that wield a monopoly on the technologies of political power.

Capitalism is an economic hierarchy--a group of people set apart and above the rest of society who control the economic power that everyone needs.

Anarchism seeks to decentralize, democratize, and socialize political AND economic power.

[DixyHair]

If anarchism can't be exclusive to political/legal power, & extends to economic power, then where does it stop?

If somebody who does well in the market is an economic archon, then isn't somebody who's sexually attractive a sexual archon, & isn't somebody who's charismatic or a good entertainer a theatrical archon, & isn't a successful musician a musical archon, & isn't an established scientist or philosopher an intellectual archon (ad nauseam)?

[DixyHair]

To clarify with an example, somebody who's sexually attractive owns something that's quite sought-after (their body, of course, & perhaps their charisma), & people who are unattractive are in a very unequal position to people who are, & can thus be easily manipulated.

The point is that in any social activity, there will be a few exceptional people who excel, & they'll be in a very advantageous position, so "Archon" defined in this way is a rather vacuous concept.

[jrpigg]

Well, luckily for us, we don't define "archon" as such a vacuous concept. :)

Instead, we reserve it for situations where there is a completely unavoidable power held by the "archon." Just b/c someone's more beautiful, or smarter, or faster than someone else does not ensure that they have an unavoidable power over others. Rather, there must be systems in place (the state & capitalism) for them to parlay their natural abilities, talents, etc into the power required to really become an "archon."

[DixyHair]

I suppose it's necessary here to point out that Free Market =/= Capitalism, & that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is just one of many forms of social organization that can emerge on a free market. The market is not a system unto itself, but rather, a platform for many systems, which happens to be tolerant of capitalism, so how does it enhance their power over others?

[DeflocculatedDentist]

the only thing i disagree with you on is that pacifist anarchism has been a huge factor in global politics.

Leo Tolstoy is incredibly well known, and he directly inspired MLK and Gandhi. :)

Are you a pacifist?

[buddhagem]

I like Tolstoy, though I'm more a fan of Dovstoesky's work. And I didn't mean to diss the Pacifist Anarchists but I seriously doubt most people who are familiar with Anarchism would ask if it's purely a pacifist philosophy. I probably didn't make that point as clear as I should have. Thanks for your comment

[DeflocculatedDentist]

Oh yeah, for sure. I think Leo Tolstoy did have a pretty big effect on other non-pacifist anarchist, though (Emma Goldman was a huge fan).

I'm not a pacifist anarchist, so don't think you offended me or anything :)

[buddhagem]

Also, not sure if I made this clear or not but my intent was to point out that Pacifism has been a minor element in Anarchist history. Obviously MLK and Gandhi weren't Anarchists. If I said Pacifism was a small factor in global politics I was just wrong. I certainly meant in relation to Anarchist history. Again, thanks for the comment.

[darkreign16]

The difference is not really private vs public, this is true. The difference, as you pointed out, is competition.

PDA's would only become totalitarian or "state-like" if they were monopolies (which may be why he said public was bad, as it often implies monopoly). If they were competing in a market, then a monopoly wouldn't form, perhaps.

[vdmerwe]

first, last, only.