November 21, 2012 at 5:45 am #19048necessariusverumMember
I am wondering what the staff and what the listeners think about anarcho communism in a more elaborated sense.
As Mr. Woods said in the most recent live session;
If we can impose the idea and stance of private property.
Why can’t they impose the idea of communal property.
Which the conversation usually gets down too.
–I’m using impose as someone imposing the right to live, not as in imposing a tax or imposing will.–
I have some arguments in mind, but I want to know what you guys think.
Why is our position more justified?
Why is there’s unjustified?
I am going to call in Freedomainradio this sunday and address these questions and get even more input. I also recently convinced a YouTuber that is an anarcho communist to do the same in a week or two.
I’d like to really get to the bottom of this because if we do, we can gain a lot of followers of like-mind.
Also they seem like the last plateau to overcome because it’s pretty easy to beat a statist in a debate, left or right.
Anarcho communists are on the right path, but if we could just educate them more on economics! Maybe that is all it is.
Thanks guys!November 21, 2012 at 9:27 pm #19049jerry3643Member
To me it all boils down to force. I’m ok with people deciding to form an anarcho communist community so long as they don’t want to force me or others to be involved. Anarcho capitalism does not say people can’t form into whatever system that they want to. All it says is that IF one does not chose it, you should not force them.
Even though anarcho communist sometimes don’t say they are socialist it seems to me that what they are advocating is Karl Marx’s final phase of socialism. That is where the state withers away and you are left with communism.January 1, 2013 at 8:05 pm #19050erikmalinParticipant
I asked my friend Autolykos to help me in a debate I was having with another friend of mine who had gone from anarcho-capitalist to anarcho-communist. This was Auto’s final comment, which basically got the response of “I don’t want to debate anymore” (i.e. you just owned me and I want to save face). Here it is. Out of respect he calls the anarcho-communists “traditional anarchists.”:
As an anarcho-capitalist, I see ownership as entailing three kinds of right: the right to use (jus utendi), the right to the fruit(s) of use (jus fruendi), and the right to abandon (jus abutendi). This is very similar to, if not the same as, the Roman-law treatment of ownership.
In my experience with traditional anarchists so far, I have seen that much of it is the same as anarcho-capitalism, with one major difference. As far as what is similar, it seems clear to me that they believe a person possesses the right to use something once he comes into contact with it. Maybe a better way to put it is that they think it’s right for a person to continue using what he’s already started to use. As I see it, that’s the jus utendi component of what I call “ownership”.
Likewise, it seems clear to me that they think it’s right for a person to start using what he’s created from other things that he’s already been using. As I see it, that’s the jus fruendi component of what I call “ownership”.
It also seems clear to me that they think it’s right for a person to stop using something he’s been using, at which point they think it’s right for another person to start using it. As I see it, that’s the jus abutendi component of what I call “ownership”.
Finally, it seems clear to me that they think it’s not right for a person to (try to) use something that someone else is already using. This is the exclusionary aspect of what I call “ownership”. In other words, an owner of something possesses the exclusive rights to use, enjoy the fruit(s) of use, and abandon the thing.
So if anarcho-capitalists and traditional anarchists agree on these things – and it seems clear to me that they do – the dispute lies somewhere else and is more fundamental. It seems evident to me that the dispute is over the meaning of the verb “use”.
Let’s say that I cut down some trees and mill them into lumber. Then I offer to pay a friend to take that lumber and build a house with it. I think there are two basic ways to evaluate the result. If I’m considered to retain ownership of the lumber, then I’d presumably own the result of my friend acting on/with that lumber, which is the house. Otherwise, if my friend is considered to acquire ownership of the lumber upon taking it and acting on/with it, then he’d presumably own the house.
It seems clear to me that traditional anarchists thinks I’m no longer using the lumber once I give it to my friend to build a house with it. In other words, once I give him that lumber, they think I’ve abandoned my rights to use it and enjoy the fruit(s) of using it. On the other hand, I don’t think giving my friend that lumber to build a house with entails abandoning those rights at all.
Therein lies the fundamental difference between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchism. Basically anarcho-capitalists ascribe a broader meaning to “use” than traditional anarchists, such that a person can still be said to be using something himself even if he’s hired or otherwise directed someone else to do something with it. Under traditional anarchism, only the person who’s (most) directly acting on or with something can be said to be using it.
I think there are some interesting implications to taking the traditional anarchist view of things here. For one thing, it means exclusive individual ownership of something can only be said to exist when an individual labors for it entirely on his own. If anyone else labors for it with him, then the other person becomes part owner, either jointly or separably. Since there are multiple sub-traditions within the anarchist left – individualist anarchism, mutualism, and different forms of social anarchism – I wonder if there are different opinions within traditional anarchism about the kind of part-ownership the other person is said to acquire.
Finally, another major complaint that I’ve heard some traditional anarchists say about anarcho-capitalism is that is has a “gun in the room” in that it is okay to (for example) shoot someone dead for simply setting foot on someone’s property without his permission.
As I see it, a person on my property could be trespassing – that is, interfering with my use of my property. Whether he’s physically damaging my property or not is irrelevant to me. However, that doesn’t mean I think I have the right to kill him simply for standing within my property when I don’t want him to. I think killing him for that would be an extremely immoral (i.e. unjust) act on my part. In my opinion, it would only be legitimate to kill him if he was threatening my own life. Of course, in trying to coerce him off of my property, he may resist to the point where I reasonably perceive him to indeed be threatening my own life. I still see nothing wrong with killing him in that case. If that constitutes a “gun in the room”, so be it. I have no problem with that.
However, I think one could just as easily say there’s a “gun in the room” with traditional anarchism – it’s just pointed in the opposite direction. What I mean is that traditional anarchists seem to think it would be right for (what I see as) the trespasser to kill me if I come to be threatening his life.January 17, 2013 at 8:06 pm #19051jerry3643Member
Very good analysis by your friend. It echos many of the thoughts I’ve had about the differences between the two.
The thing for me is this. If for example you take the idea of a worker run factory that ancoms like to talk about, then what would they do in the case of someone coming along and trying to take their property or destroy it? Would they use force to remove the threat? If yes then how is this different than what they complain about ancaps? If no then it’s easy to see the failure in that type of system.
It seems to me ancoms have not thought their system through in effect. It’s as if they have never worked for any length of time in their life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.