Difference between Social Anarchism and Individual Anarchism

[Smurf]

OK, how am I not being coerced when someone else makes economic decision for me? Like what can I buy, at what price, from whom, in what quantity, of what quality, at what time and place...
Let's clear from the start that these are not choices to be measured against limitless options, like not being free to buy a ticket to Proxima Centauri. It means being restricted from choices I would otherwise have, like importing cloth from China when restricted by labor union interests.

Okay, first some definitions:

- A command economy is an economic system in which production and distribution of resources is decided on by a state structure.

-Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds that all individuals deserve the liberty to do as they wish with themselves as long as those actions do not infringe on the same liberty of others.

Like I said before, it comes down to a difference in philosophical issues. Can a state that is a liberal, representative democracy, but with a command economy, be considered libertarian?

Anarchism recognizes this difference in philosophy in the difference between Social Anarchism and Individual Anarchism. Social Anarchism holds that private property is anti-productive towards a libertarian society, while individual anarchists argue it is essential to individual freedom. So, Social Anarchists would, while criticizing the existence of a state structure, say it is equally or more libertarian than a free market economy controlled by the same kind of government. Individual Anarchists would disagree.

 

[Smurf]

Another argument is wether or not more choices give you more freedom. You will always (short of an all oppressive regime) have the option to do it yourself. So, does an economic system which gives you 3 colors to choose from instead of 1 really give you more freedom?

 

[Townsend]

Simple question...what is your definition of the factors of production?

I need you to be very precise with your definition here Smurf...

For example your definition of a factor of production should be able to tell me if people are a factor of production in which a command economy owns by definition. If that is the case then immediately your command economy goes against the ideals of libertarians since from a libertarian point of view a person is free to do with themselves as they wish. That is certainly not a trait that is associated with a piece of property that is owned.

So you make your definition and then we will be able to see if a command economy does in fact maintain maximum liberty of the individual.

 

[Townsend]

Another argument is wether or not more choices give you more freedom. You will always (short of an all oppressive regime) have the option to do it yourself. So, does an economic system which gives you 3 colors to choose from instead of 1 really give you more freedom?

If you always have the option to do it yourself then what is to stop everyone from doing it their selves in cooperation with everyone else?

For example my friends and family may decide to form a coopertative community in which we all take part in helping to support each other. There would be production and what not but it would in fact require that the smaller community own some of the factors of production. How else can they produce food and whatever else they need? In fact, even if you were to do it all on your own you would have to have control over some of the factors of production.

So if there is a command economy, everyone must participate or die...simple as that. How should each individual participate? Are people free to make those decisions for themselves or do they have to capitulate to what the government wants them to do? Does that really support the idea that people should be as free as possible so long as their actions don't infringe on the rights of others?

 

[Smurf]

So if there is a command economy, everyone must participate or die...simple as that.

Is it not the same in a free market economy?

Does that really support the idea that people should be as free as possible so long as their actions don't infringe on the rights of others?

Well like I said, it's a matter of philosophy. In a world with scarce resources, does having private ownership over them infringe on people's liberties? Many anarchists would see both Market and Command economy as being equally detrimental.

 

[Townsend]

Is it not the same in a free market economy?

Of course not...America has had a free market since it started and many people did not participate so long as they could in fact own some of the factors of production like land. In a command economy this is impossible. Either you work for the government or you die.

Well like I said, it's a matter of philosophy. In a world with scarce resources, does having private ownership over them infringe on people's liberties?

People having private ownership of resources is not an infringement on your rights in any way. If someone uses their factors of production in a manner that is incosistent with the well being of society then and only then is that person violating your rights as a free person. For example if I owned Honda and I used illegal business practice that are detrimental to society then I have violated your rights and so the government protects you in such cases by attempting to prevent me from commiting such crimes. The same thing is true for pollutants or what ever else the factors of production could be used for that might infringe on your rights as a person.

Many anarchists would see both Market and Command economy as being equally detrimental.

I cannot understand why...I am trying to see this point but I just don't see it at all.

 

[jimmie]

So long as any "economic system", in which the production and distribution of resources is decided by subjective individuals that are not aware of what "right" is and therefore do no know what is NEEDED, is supported ANYWHERE, the planet and ALL of its inhabitants are on a path to CERTAIN extinction.

Of course, until the nations change all economic systems to be right, or until you become extinct, pass the 'time' by dickering back and forth over words such as "command economy", and "Libertarianism", and "representative democracy", and "Social Anarchism", and any other particular word you 'want' to argue about.

Let it be known: It was not possible to know "right" while i intended to argue.

 

[ron damon]

If someone else is making decision for you, no matter how enlightened he/she/it might be, you are being coerced. That's the basic ideological premise, which exists in a vacuum. When stepping into the real world, a Libertarian would try to limit to the absolute minimum the authority others have over your life.

A way to do so, advocated by F. A. Hayek, is establishing clear rules and boundaries, so that you can know what to expect of others, and what the limits of your own actions are, leaving to authority very little discretion in matters legal, economic, and social.

So 1) you are free to pursue your own path, and 2) you know what to expect of others; the purpose being to limit arbitrary coercion from individuals, and discretionary action from authority.

It is entirely irrelevant whether we are talking about a democracy or a totalitarian regime. Democratic coercion is as insidious as other kinds. Thus the notion of *any* kind of body (democratic, religious, fascist, alien) making binding decisions for the rest would be opposed by a Libertarian.

A couple of problems emerge: how can diverse life be captured in as few and clear rules as one would desire in order to prevent arbitrariness? And how can there be institutional change?

The key word to keep in mind is "approach". We "approach" autonomy and liberty, but there will always arise imperfections and incoherences, which force us to break our own rules.

What doesn't make any sense (and whoever taught you this doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about) is liberty minus private property and the ability to work, invest, associate, and trade freely.

Smurf, if you are serious about studying this subject you should order right now F. A. Hayek - The Constitution of Liberty, and a basic economics textbook such as Samuelson/Nordhaus's, since I've seen you write much nonsense on economics

 

[ron damon]

Examples of coercion:

* the government forbids you from importing clothes from China because of local producers' pressures.
* the government forces you to invest (through taxation) in certain industries deemed "strategic", such as aerospace.
* the government takes money from you and uses it to subsidize farmers.
* the government forces you to hire (or prevents you from firing) someone because of racial considerations.
* the government forbids you from entering a profession or practice because of union pressures.
* the government prevents from starting a new business by demanding onerous, costly, and time-consuming paperwork.
* the government prevents you from running your business as you see fit by imposing arbitrary regulations.

 

[Smurf]

Of course not...America has had a free market since it started and many people did not participate so long as they could in fact own some of the factors of production like land. In a command economy this is impossible. Either you work for the government or you die.

Exactly, you have to buy all the factors you need to sustain yourself independantly. You can't get the money to buy that without participating in the system, and of course, buying them is participating in the system. Hell, owning them could be seen as participating in the system - if to a lesser degree. And of course if something happens once you've got yourself set up you have to go and buy replacements - more wood, more nails, (a forge to make your own nails ) ect,.

People having private ownership of resources is not an infringement on your rights in any way.
snip
I cannot understand why...I am trying to see this point but I just don't see it at all.

Well it is hard to understand as there are many different viewpoints out there. Some would tolerate private property to the degree of worker solidarity and would be against private trading of property. This is mainly because it's the beginning of a system that favors the rich.
And of course, there's the above argument. You can't live in a free market society (which requires private property and trading of) without participating in the system, therefore you are automatically limited in your freedom. They would probably say the same about a command economy.

 

[ron damon]

So long as any "economic system", in which the production and distribution of resources is decided by subjective individuals that are not aware of what "right" is and therefore do no know what is NEEDED, is supported ANYWHERE, the planet and ALL of its inhabitants are on a path to CERTAIN extinction.
Of course, until the nations change all economic systems to be right, or until you become extinct, pass the 'time' by dickering back and forth over words such as "command economy", and "Libertarianism", and "representative democracy", and "Social Anarchism", and any other particular word you 'want' to argue about.
Let it be known: It was not possible to know "right" while i intended to argue.

And how will the process of anointing the ones deciding what's right work? What will happen to the ones who disagree with what's right?

 

[Smurf]

If someone else is making decision for you, no matter how enlightened he/she/it might be, you are being coerced. That's the basic ideological premise, which exists in a vacuum. When stepping into the real world, a Libertarian would try to limit to the absolute minimum the authority others have over your life.
A way to do so, advocated by F. A. Hayek, is establishing clear rules and boundaries, so that you can know what to expect of others, and what the limits of your own actions are, leaving to authority very little discretion in matters legal, economic, and social.
So 1) you are free to pursue your own path, and 2) you know what to expect of others; the purpose being to limit arbitrary coercion from individuals, and discretionary action from authority.
It is entirely irrelevant whether we are talking about a democracy or a totalitarian regime. Democratic coercion is as insidious as other kinds. Thus the notion of *any* kind of body (democratic, religious, fascist, alien) making binding decisions for the rest would be opposed by a Libertarian.
A couple of problems emerge: how can diverse life be captured in as few and clear rules as one would desire in order to prevent arbitrariness? And how can there be institutional change?
The key word to keep in mind is "approach". We "approach" autonomy and liberty, but there will always arise imperfections and incoherences, which force us to break our own rules.
What doesn't make any sense (and whoever taught you this doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about) is liberty minus private property and the ability to work, invest, associate, and trade freely.
Smurf, if you are serious about studying this subject you should order right now F. A. Hayek - The Constitution of Liberty, and a basic economics textbook such as Samuelson/Nordhaus's, since I've seen you write much nonsense on economics

Can you rephrase that in English please? I don't speak gibberish.

Examples of coercion:

* the government forbids you from importing clothes from China because of local producers' pressures.
* the government forces you to invest (through taxation) in certain industries deemed "strategic", such as aerospace.
* the government takes money from you and uses it to subsidize farmers.
* the government forces you to hire (or prevents you from firing) someone because of racial considerations.
* the government forbids you from entering a profession or practice because of union pressures.
* the government prevents from starting a new business by demanding onerous, costly, and time-consuming paperwork.
* the government prevents you from running your business as you see fit by imposing arbitrary regulations.

Are you arguing for a command economy or for a market economy?

 

[ron damon]

Can you rephrase that in English please? I don't speak gibberish.Are you arguing for a command economy or for a market economy?

In all honesty, you disappoint me

 

[alexandra]

In a command economy this is impossible. Either you work for the government or you die.

This depends on how you define 'command economy'. If the command economy is run by the people themselves (or truly democratically elected representatives of the people), then you either work for the *community* (rather than the government) or you die. Just another way of looking at this issue...

alex

 

[alexandra]

And how will the process of anointing the ones deciding what's right work? What will happen to the ones who disagree with what's right?

With the incredible crisis situations we are facing right now (I agree with jimmie that we are facing extinction if we don't sort some crucial stuff out really, really soon), it is not difficult to know what is right.
Here is my list of ideas on what is right:
* do whatever it takes (at whatever loss of profit it takes) to stop global warming and reverse the environmental damage that threatens not only humanity but all life on this planet
* move on from the inherently and inevitably destructive system of global capitalism, which widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots and destabilises the world, to a more evolved and humane system of organising world affairs in which everyone has a stake in living.
Those people who worry so much about losing their 'individual freedom' are either, IMO, totally deluded about how much freedom they do, in fact, have or are so short-sighted they can't see where this is all heading. Soon we will all be totally free to live on a planet that can no longer support life - all because we are so determined to protect individuals/corporations/whatever who are just out to make a profit. Where is the sense in that?

 

[ron damon]

With the incredible crisis situations we are facing right now (I agree with jimmie that we are facing extinction if we don't sort some crucial stuff out really, really soon), it is not difficult to know what is right.
Here is my list of ideas on what is right:
* do whatever it takes (at whatever loss of profit it takes) to stop global warming and reverse the environmental damage that threatens not only humanity but all life on this planet
* move on from the inherently and inevitably destructive system of global capitalism, which widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots and destabilises the world, to a more evolved and humane system of organising world affairs in which everyone has a stake in living.
Those people who worry so much about losing their 'individual freedom' are either, IMO, totally deluded about how much freedom they do, in fact, have or are so short-sighted they can't see where this is all heading. Soon we will all be totally free to live on a planet that can no longer support life - all because we are so determined to protect individuals/corporations/whatever who are just out to make a profit. Where is the sense in that?

You have a good heart, but sadly don't know much about how the world works. Sensible people such as yourself should work the hardest to understand how things really are. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly don't believe Socialist dogmatism can provide solutions to the very urgent and real problems you describe.

 

[Smurf]

You have a good heart, but sadly don't know much about how the world works. Sensible people such as yourself should work the hardest to understand how things really are. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly don't believe Socialist dogmatism can provide solutions to the very urgent and real problems you describe.

I didn't see her expressing any "socialist dogmatism" in that thread.

 

[ron damon]

I didn't see her expressing any "socialist dogmatism" in that thread.

see below.

move on from the inherently and inevitably destructive system of global capitalism, which widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots... all because we are so determined to protect individuals/corporations/whatever who are just out to make a profit.

 

[Smurf]

see below.

so dissent with the system is "socialist dogmatism" now?

 

[ron damon]

so dissent with the system is "socialist dogmatism" now?

That's the same rhetoric from the Soviet days. Heck, from the Second International days.

 

[alexandra]

You have a good heart, but sadly don't know much about how the world works. Sensible people such as yourself should work the hardest to understand how things really are. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly don't believe Socialist dogmatism can provide solutions to the very urgent and real problems you describe.

Thanks for the compliment, Ron (about my good intentions). But it's not really a 'good heart' that leads me to these conclusions; as far as I am concerned, this is just the reality of the situation. Do you know, as a Marxist/socialist, I never used to give much thought to the environment - workers' rights to have a job always took precedence. That was in the days when there just wasn't the evidence that there is today. Global warming and environmental damage is now irrefutable and if we worry about our survival as a species then we cannot ignore it.

My socialist economic/political views are, again, as far as I see them, pragmatic. Capitalism is based on greed - there's no getting away from that; it will destroy humanity. Sadly, I don't think we will evolve beyond it: I'm not stupid, so I don't think human beings are actually capable of evolving to a point where they can secure their long-term survival as a species. But I'm a bit of a die-hard activist on this front. Although I don't actually believe it will do any good, I'm trying to disseminate the knowledge and understanding I have. From what I see, we will continue along the path of capitalism to our doom - there truly is no hope. But I have to try, for the sake of future generations...

People have suggested that rather than wallowing in these thoughts I get out there and do something, do some good. But capitalism is incapable of being reformed - 'band aid' fixes are no solution. There is no point in working for charity organisations that feed the poor, for example (I've tried that - it does not fix the problem of poverty). There is no point in trying to reform capitalists and telling them to stop being greedy (ha, ha!). No, there is no solution. So I sit and I watch and I think and share my thoughts. If enough people saw what was happening, then collectively we could change the path we are currently on. But I don't believe this will happen (but I will do the only thing I can think of, which is continue trying to educate). Good luck to us humans:-)

alex

 

[loseyourname]

Why do I get the feeling that this isn't going to be a discussion of libertarianism?

 

[ron damon]

Thanks for the compliment, Ron (about my good intentions). But it's not really a 'good heart' that leads me to these conclusions; as far as I am concerned, this is just the reality of the situation. Do you know, as a Marxist/socialist, I never used to give much thought to the environment - workers' rights to have a job always took precedence. That was in the days when there just wasn't the evidence that there is today. Global warming and environmental damage is now irrefutable and if we worry about our survival as a species then we cannot ignore it.
My socialist economic/political views are, again, as far as I see them, pragmatic. Capitalism is based on greed - there's no getting away from that; it will destroy humanity. Sadly, I don't think we will evolve beyond it: I'm not stupid, so I don't think human beings are actually capable of evolving to a point where they can secure their long-term survival as a species. But I'm a bit of a die-hard activist on this front. Although I don't actually believe it will do any good, I'm trying to disseminate the knowledge and understanding I have. From what I see, we will continue along the path of capitalism to our doom - there truly is no hope. But I have to try, for the sake of future generations...
People have suggested that rather than wallowing in these thoughts I get out there and do something, do some good. But capitalism is incapable of being reformed - 'band aid' fixes are no solution. There is no point in working for charity organisations that feed the poor, for example (I've tried that - it does not fix the problem of poverty). There is no point in trying to reform capitalists and telling them to stop being greedy (ha, ha!). No, there is no solution. So I sit and I watch and I think and share my thoughts. If enough people saw what was happening, then collectively we could change the path we are currently on. But I don't believe this will happen (but I will do the only thing I can think of, which is continue trying to educate). Good luck to us humans:-)
alex

I like you

You illustrate the tragedy of Socialism: it appeals to some of the best people.

I think you should start by re-reading Fourier, who thought that denying the human condition will only prevent you from improving it.

And I know you won't believe me, but more capitalism is the only solution to all of our problems.

 

[Smurf]

And I know you won't believe me, but more capitalism is the only solution to all of our problems.

I always kind of thought that blind loyalty to an ideal was the source of our problems in the first place.

 

[Smurf]

Why do I get the feeling that this isn't going to be a discussion of libertarianism?

You're not honestly surprised are you?

 

[loseyourname]

You're not honestly surprised are you?

Not in the least, but it would be nice to actually have a discussion of libertarianism. I don't think we ever have before.

 

[Smurf]

Not in the least, but it would be nice to actually have a discussion of libertarianism. I don't think we ever have before.

No I don't think we have. It would be fun. I think we should divid this forum into 2 sections. Theory and Current Events.

 

[loseyourname]

No I don't think we have. It would be fun. I think we should divid this forum into 2 sections. Theory and Current Events.

That's not a bad idea. I'd love to have a pure political theory forum.

 

[inquire4more]

Not in the least, but it would be nice to actually have a discussion of libertarianism. I don't think we ever have before.

If it's any consolation, allowing the topic to stray from that which was intended, as it does no one any harm, is libertarianism in action.