I am not a communist. I am an anarchist. Anarcho-communism, like anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. It's like saying libertarian totalitarianism or syndicalist fascism. Sure, the dictionary definition of anarchism means simply to be against the current system of governance, but thats failing to take into account that anarchism is a political theory which includes much more (i.e. staunch anti-racism, feminism, anti-capitalism, concensus based descision making. sorry for glaring typos.

Community based anarchism and Individual anarchism really are the same thing that people express differently, the main differences are not concrete but semantics, tone, word choice. glass half full, glass half empty. It's just like the focus is in a different place but the ideas are the same.

Has anyone come up with an example of a non-coercive state? (I thought I seen it mentioned above somewhere)
someone once said "Show me the government that does not infringe upon the rights of anyone, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist."

Sometimes I call myself an anarcho-awesomist.

But more to the point, I think the basic arguments seen here for the State are that it provides a mechanism to protect good people from the bad people, and to make co-operative ventures easier.

I suppose a third rationale is that most people are sheep and unable to think or act for themselves, but I reject this entirely and (I hope) most of you do too, at least as a prime justification for coercive and absolute authority.


Now regarding the first two justifications, the basic problem here is that I frankly, I disagree that the State is a) Particularly good at them and b) That it is necessary for the State to exist to foil evil people or for people to work together productively.

I agree that as far as State's go, the one that claims authority over me is one of, if not the least oppressive in the history of man. Does that mean I ought to sit back and do nothing? I sure hope not. Women's rights at the turn of the 20th century were the best they had ever been. Should they have sat back and accepted their good lot? I don't think so.

Make no mistake. Iran, Russia, Libya, Indonesia, China... etc. These are all more oppressive and repressive than my State. But that does not make my State justified in it's authority, and it does not make the abuses of humans it commits in the name of helping them any less heinous.

@eden

"Do you know anything about serfdom? How is it any different from a totalitarian state today?"
Sorry i have no time to waste of explaining you the difference, 1000 years are between them, please just look up wikipedia maybe that helps you. I think it´s strange how you can come up with such theories and not knowing anything about the difference between feudalism and totlitarism.

"Explained this already. I used decentralization as a broader term "
A broader term? Decentralization is decentralization, you made up your own definition of it, but then we talk about two different thinks. I studied politics and history and i know the definition of it and can name many examples how it works in history. But way should i do that? You ignore it anyway and will come up again with "i have my own definition".

Miro. What happens if, hypothetically, I decide to concede both the things you're quoting? Where do we go from there?

Because frankly, those seem like irrelevant side tangents.

Here. Don't call it decentralization, since you're so averse to me using the term in a different context. It's a damn name for what I'm trying to describe, but apparently that's too much for you. My point -- which you've refused to address -- has been that, as government has progressed toward more direct forms (what we have today compared to the totalitarian states of old, the monarchies, and the medieval feudal system), man has become more free; in other words, the weaker the state, the freer people generally have become, so the claim that the state is necessary for rights and freedoms seems absurd.

And you've spent all your time... what, arguing over what I call this trend, or how I word it? Mind addressing something of substance? Or can you?

The best argument for anarchism as a political philosophy is that it seems to be the best idea we've had for limiting the worst excesses we as a species come up with when we cooperate. The strongest argument against anarchism as a political philosophy is that politics happen in the real world, and in the real world, anarchist societies have a life expectancy similar to that of elements in the high hundred and teens. Anarchies just do not compete successfully with states.

True. States are better as conquering and destruction by definition. So it's a problem to create perfectly anarchic systems.

I will (and am) perfectly content with a compromise between the two.

@eden

And i said that the states and its influence on its people over the time became stronger, and at last evolved to nationalism, while freedoms evolved over the time too. Beginning with "Magna Carta" to Napoleons "Code Civile" at the beginning of 19th century.
Todays western states have more influence on its people then ever.
Beginning with your birth you get citizenchip, maybe born in a public hospital all your lifetime you have health care for !all!, i would be dead already if it wasn´t so in my country.
Education is organized by the state, again for almost all children.
The states taxates its citizen for building streets, paying policemen (never its been so safe in western countries), fireman and so on...
Almost your whole lifeaspects like work, travel, the rights of your children(no harming allowed) is affected by the state.
Otherwise our freedoms finally became our highest good. We have constitutions guaranteeing our freedoms and forcing the state to protect them.

Do you see what i mean? Our whole life is affected by the state like it was never before, while our freedoms never had a higher statuts.
Medieval times weren´t as totalitarian as you might think, in fact you were less affected by the state. Serfdom is a question of freedom not of states power. You can be a slave of a small african tribe 3000 years ago, or a worker for Kim yong ill, same outcome two different "states".

It´s far from beeing able to live perfectly free, having all freedoms. But maybe now you can see the "evolution" of our modern freedoms is not because of shrinking states.

@Sicarius: Anarcho-communism itself is not an oxymoron. Communism is an economic system. Anarchism is a system of government (or rather, no government). But, most anarcho-communists are collectivists, and I consider any sort of anarcho-collectivism as an oxymoron. I usually consider my self an individualist anarcho-communist, but maybe it woul be better to just call myself an individualist anarchist.

Anyway, since you aren't a communist Sicarius, are you an anarcho-syndicalist, or an individualist anarchist agaianst capitalism and private property, like me?

Anarcho-syndacalists are against private property and capitalism too. This is what I was trying to say earlier, anarcho-syndacalism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-feminism collectivism, individualism etc. are really all the same things, just with a different focus, or emphasis on certain aspects. So I refuse to label myself further to limit devisiveness.
sp
I am an anarchist.

@FS
"Sometimes I call myself an anarcho-awesomist."

ROFLMAO. Have you been inhaling what your friends across the bridge have been smoking? If you want to change the world try to sound like you are still on if rather than in orbit. Growing up would be a good start because at the moment whiny little teenager is how you come across. Don't get carried away by all these anarcho-don't want to pay taxists who are edging you on. You still have chance to make a difference but you have to leave the kool-aid alone.

In my mind the state's basic job is to protect its citizens. So, in order for us not to have a government, there would need to be no threat at all, from anywhere, to the people. This is the reason that I believe a gov't will always exist in developed countries. The reason that there will always be a threat is that Man is ultimately evil (whether he is born that way or society teaches him to be, it has the same end; that we are, at heart, no matter how deep we may hide or push it, a group of selfish, pathetic, creatures). That is why a gov't will always be needed; to punish the criminal and protect good men.

Why do you need a government to punish criminals and protect good men (not just men I hope)?
Why cant we do it ourselves?

@Sicarius: because self appointed good men have a poor track record in handing out justice.

But jman, the State's of the world have a nearly consistent record of protecting criminals and punishing good men. Evil is drawn to power, and power is worshiped by Statist societies.

Would the Soviet Union in 1923 or Germany in 1930 been better off with more or less centralized power? Would thier neighbours have been better off? I think we all know the answer to that.

The existence of evil men and good men is one of the strongest arguments *against* a coercive and absolutely sovereign State that need not act on the individual interest of those it claims to represent.


And diplomat; get a sense of humour, yo. Do you pay attention to nothing I say except for my brief descents into poking humour at myself of others and then decide to take them seriously? Jeepers. ^^

diplomat, thats why you dont leave it up to a small number of people.

@Friendly Sword-And what is that compromise? Because to me, declaring yourself to be a variety of anarchist makes as much sense as declaring yourself in favor of a politicals system run by unicorns. It ain't going to happen on this world outside of fiction, so advocating it is just wanking.

@sword

"The existence of evil men and good men is one of the strongest arguments *against* a coercive and absolutely sovereign State that need not act on the individual interest of those it claims to represent."

Why?

Bob, I believe in limiting the authority of large, centralized, coercive and abusive government influence wherever and whenever it happens. Ideally, government wouldn't exist in it's current form at all, but I am willing to strive for simply limiting it and trying to make it more responsible and less violent an institution. In any case, anarchist forms of human organisation can and have existed in human history, and continue to exist. Their prime weakness is not their institutional frailty, but the militaristic and economic might of States that rightly see such systems as threats to their power. (eg. Spain in the Thirties, postwar Italy, parts of the American west, etc.)

If you think that the above views and intentions are equivalent to wanting a political system run by Unicorns, I respectfully submit that you are not nearly creative enough. :)

I have clearly stated multiple times that I am willing to accept the existence of States (as much as I am willing to accept the existence of imperfection in all things) but that does not mean I ought to accept the legitimacy of the State's power over me, because that would involve surrendering my arguments about limiting it's power.

@Miro

Because bad men get into power a lot, and when they do, they wreak disproportionate damage. It seems to be a poor trade-off for the dubious claim that a coercive State makes people freer.

See, and I approach politics primarily from a non-fanatical utilitarian standpoint. And there's plenty of reason to limit state power versus the individual. However, it has to be there, and it has to have the authority to limit the power granted by wealth to individuals within the society and redistribute wealth within society, or else you start down the road towards the capitalist kind of serfdom. Or revolution, once starvation gets widespread enough that sergeants' families start experiencing malnourishment. but that isn't an optimal solution, either.

I think you see me as a lot crazier than I really am Bob. I believe we could do fine without the State, but I don't join black blocs and I'm not militant or fanatical. This kind of mis-perception about anarchists is why arguments for limiting State power are not taken seriously.

Personally, I don't think that capitalist serfdom is a particularly threatening institution unless weapons and significant force are involved, and the kind of resources and usually needed to maintain that kind of infrastructure required to keep lesser classes in the position of being lesser classes generally necessitates centralized resource and human exploitation aka the State. Once again, the bogeyman that power seeks to justify it's power is another form of power.

This is not to say that it isn't a rational argument. Indeed, foreign power in the form of a tyrannical and ambitious landowner or a militaristic tribe from a distant land is scary and threatening. But that is only an argument to defend against it, not to implement it domestically.

Obviously it's a complicated question, and I am not absolutely certain we could do just fine without a state. But I have yet to find a truly convincing answer as to why I need to submit to further limitations of my freedoms in the name of representative democracy, and why I need to accept that others are justified in engaging in aggressive war-making in *my* name with *my* money.

@FS
What is your problem? I have read all the stuff you have written and commented where appropriate then when I laugh at your "joke" you have a sense of humour failure. Grow up.

Your implication seemed to be that my arguments ought not to be taken seriously because I was substance abusing whiny teenager. Set aside for a moment all these problematic assertions and focus on the spite. Apologies for interpreting that as something less than laughter. :)

The problem with text is that it makes irony and humour harder to identify. Thus whenever I can, I add some sort of smiley to a non serious remark. I think that our problem is misinterpretation.

Alternatively, I am a fool and you are a jerk. ^^

@FS
I am now not clear which of your remarks are meant seriously and which not.

There was no smiley after "anarcho-awesomist", which I laughed at that. Was that supposed to be serious?

I did take your arguments seriously (was that wrong?). Assuming that you meant them my point was that calling Canada an authoritarian state because you cannot smoke dope makes you sound like a whiny teenager. Whether that is due to substance abuse or comes naturally to you I am in no position to judge.

I really regret making this about me. Can we forget my joke about myself and go back to the principles of the argument? This is getting silly, sir.

Now, to be clear.

I do not consider Canada an authoritarian State in the sense of being similar to Soviet Russia, as I explained earlier. We are better off than lot's of people around the globe, mostly due to the fact that our government is more hesitant than others to blatantly oppress and act against the interests of it's populace. My point was however, that the State is not justified as the sole arbiter of authority by it's own benchmarks, much less those of alternative governing philosophies. And no, this is isn't about smoking dope (which I suppose was a problematic red herring), the issue was with the principle of government deciding legislation about how people ought to live with little regard to how millions of people feel about the issue.

Also, 'authoritative polity' has a less an absolute connotation than 'authoritarian regime' in my mind. All states are authoritative and coercive in implementing their authority, but only some are defined as 'authoritarian', as it is used as a comparative term between States.

@FS: "go back to the principles of the argument"
As you wish.

I do not accept that the governments of western democracies are passing legislation without regard to the opinions of their populace.

@ FriendlySword: "SunZi, why do you think Monsanto and it's ilk exercise such influence in our society? It isn't because they are awesome, and it isn't because of market forces."

But how, in your anarchist system, would you prevent large corporations from exerting even greater power than they do today?

In the current world economy, abolishing the state would simply lead to our lives being completely dominated by corporations. How would that be an improvement?


@ FriendlySword: "refusal to engage in fundamentally immoral acts despite the State telling you to (informing on your neighbour...)"

Presuming your neighbour is committing a crime, in what way is informing on them "fundamentally immoral"?


"If the State really cared it would just let me live my life unaccosted."

Ok, and who would protect you against being accosted by non-state baddies? A private security company?


@ Conservative Man: "Wow, your country has never fought a war or has had the death penalty."

Lots of countries don't have the death penalty. I agree that the death penalty is immoral. However the fact that some states have the death penalty does not represent an argument against the concept of the state itself.


@ diplomat61 (to FS): "WTF are you whining about? A couple of frankly minor rules that you do not like. Do something about it. Campaign, get support, get the rules changed."

diplomat61 +1

Once again dudes, I am not proposing that we "immediately, today, tear down all State's in the world but leave everything else intact, full stop". That would be silly, it would be more negative than positive in a lot of instances, and would certainly be ridiculously hard to accomplish, even if the majority of the world supported that action (critically, that majority would likely not possess all the guns, all the resources, and all of the claimed moral authority).

Rather, I advocate that we should work to limit the coercive power of the state, limit the amount of influence it wields economically and militarily, and attempt to give greater decision-making to smaller groups in society. Obviously such action must be made through co-operation between the grassroots and (unfortunately) some of those in power if such action is to be peaceful and 'democratic'.

Simultaneously, such action is made easier and more responsible by fairer representation. This is why I support proprtional representation over stupid systems like first past the post, even though proportional representation is still obviously imperfect.

Sorry if such beliefs make me whiny and a crazy fundamentalist.

-------

But to answer your criticisms Jamie;

Mega-corporations survive and prosper to such a large degree today precisely because of thier relationship to powerful State entities and militaristic world powers. This power is built out of the legal infrastructure of modern 'capitalist' economies. The connection is really not that hard to draw. I'm not saying that commercially based entities will not potentially exercise a large degree of power in an anarchist society, but they will certainly be smaller, more responsible for thier actions, and less heirarchal in nature.

The structure of a corporation after all most closely resembles a strictly organized oligarchy.

In any case the nature of capital is that of something fake, and the only thing a human society needs to do to avoid the worst scourges of Capitalism is to revert to valuing items or actions in society directly to thier use and the effort required. The central impetus of 'Maximizing Capital' as it currently exists is also an unecessary element of human society, it's only possible benefit being an incentive to be creative. I would argue that this incentive can be offered in other means, and that the status quo encourages clever thievery from a complicated financial system rather than an incentive to produce or creatively contribute. Surely as a communist you are familiar with this line of thinking?

-----

Regarding war and the death penalty.

True enough, a significant number of States no longer practice the death penalty or war. Though it is significant, I note, that even today the size, strength, and degree of centralization within a State can be directly correlated with its propensity to wage war and kill people in general. :)

More centrally for me however, is the fact that most if not all States today weren't founded by a consensus, a democratic decision, a mandate from the heavens, or anything resembling a social decision. Rather, States were founded and maintained by war and death. Perhaps it is possible to maintain a State by means other than force (small ones most likely), but I don't think I can be blamed for not feeling particularly nationalistic about a State that was founded on the diseased and dispossessed corpses of native American's.

-----

Finally;

"I do not accept that the governments of western democracies are passing legislation without regard to the opinions of their populace."

OK,
Let's say most or all of legislation in Western States have been passed with what would have been a majority support from the populace had they been directly consulted (though I doubt it). Even if I were to accept that premise, there are still three critical issues.

One, a great deal of decisions by governments have impacts rivalling or even surpassing legislation, and are made in secret, or with little to no consultation. The Pentagon budget for example, goes up year after year despite the fact that only a minority of America supports spending multiple times the money on it's weapons than the rest of the world combined. Secret decisions regarding privacy issues, regarding DIplomatic decisions, well they happen all the time. I'm sure you think they are all justified, but please do not tell me the public is in anyway consulted over these elements of foreign and domestic policy.

Two, the system of representation is pretty broken. I know it's cliched to say that the two-party system is a major part of the United States' problems, but that is because it's true. Both parties share the same opinions on most subjects, and except on relatively trivial clash issues, are extremely similar with regards to things like social issues, foreign policy, State intervention in the economy etc. A genuinely representative republic ought to allow a real marketplace of ideas represented in it's parties. Obviously, this is difficult to implement and maintain because it is not in the interest of powerful American's, and it is not perfectly compatible with a coercive State apparatus. Seperating everyone into two angry groups of partisans is remarkably more effective at maintaining control over them.

Three, even if the majority of voting Americans support a government decision, that leaves a potential of nearly 200 hundred million people who are effectively unrepresented and possible against the decision in question. Furthermore, decisions made hudreds of years ago are generally not even brought up. I question the legitimacy of my life being guided by the misconceptions and beliefs of generations long past. Sadly, such a large State as the United States *cannot* effectively represent the wills of it's people, given that they are so numerous and disparate. Size matters.

-----

Given all that, does no one agree that at least part of the problem with State's is not thier particular peculiarities (eg. being reactionary on social issues) bu rather the entire enterprise of a vast, centralized, authoritative and heirarchal geographic polity?

I'm not saying we should get ought there and revolutionalize, I am saying there are problems with out government that run deeper than who controls Parliament/Congress.

----

Okay, I think I am getting too serious. :P. Back to making snarky jokes with ye, Friendly Sword. :) Sorry about being all melodramatic. ^^

@ Friendly Sword: "Mega-corporations survive and prosper to such a large degree today precisely because of thier relationship to powerful State entities and militaristic world powers. This power is built out of the legal infrastructure of modern 'capitalist' economies. The connection is really not that hard to draw."

I agree 100 percent with this statement. The solution, however, is not to abolish the state, but to abolish capitalism.


"I'm not saying that commercially based entities will not potentially exercise a large degree of power in an anarchist society, but they will certainly be smaller, more responsible for thier actions..."

How would you ensure they were forced to be more responsible for their actions?


"The central impetus of 'Maximizing Capital' as it currently exists is also an unecessary element of human society, it's only possible benefit being an incentive to be creative. I would argue that this incentive can be offered in other means, and that the status quo encourages clever thievery from a complicated financial system rather than an incentive to produce or creatively contribute. Surely as a communist you are familiar with this line of thinking?"

Yes, and I basically agree with you. However as noted, we need to get rid of capitalism, not get rid of the state. We need the state. Without the state there is no order. Without order there is no civilization.


"More centrally for me however, is the fact that most if not all States today weren't founded by a consensus, a democratic decision, a mandate from the heavens, or anything resembling a social decision."

Just out of interest then, if your country (in your case Canada, I think) held a referendum in which all citizens could vote freely, on the question: "Should the State of Canada continue to exist?", and the majority voted "YES", would you be happy to drop your objections?