Is the term "anarcho-communist" an oxymoron?

[Agent Ferris]

Well anarcho-communism is not communism it is simply anarchy with communistic properties

And how will the collective function without imposing its will on the actions of the individual through force?

 

[spud_meister]

And how will the collective function without imposing its will on the actions of the individual through force?

the idea behind anarcho communism is that everyone who is a member of the anarchist commune is there willingly, and is an active member in sustaining the community, anything else and you end up with a petty dictatorship, which is what happened to every communist state in history.

 

[rathi]

As if trade unions didn't have centralized leadership. Anyways, the individual has the right to self ownership meaning that he has full and exclusive rights to his body and all goods and services produced by that body, that right can not exist within a collectivist society and thus collectivism of any sort and anarchy are mutually exclusive concepts because collectivism can not function without compulsion by force.

Pure anarchy itself is impossible in reality, as even the most unorganized people still have at least tribal organizations that exert coercive power. Anarcho-Communism is technically minanarchist, as is all political theory with the title "anarchist". The anarcho communist trade-unions did not have centralized leadership, they operated based on consensus and ad-hoc democracy. While they were not without coercive power, they were several orders of magnitude removed from the typical nation-state.

 

[Agent Ferris]

the idea behind anarcho communism is that everyone who is a member of the anarchist commune is there willingly, and is an active member in sustaining the community, anything else and you end up with a petty dictatorship, which is what happened to every communist state in history.

Might work on a very small scale, but I doubt it. Force would inevitably have to be implemented, if not on the first generation of the commune then upon future generations born into the commune.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Pure anarchy itself is impossible in reality,

Not really, under a modern market economy anarchism is quite possible.

as even the most unorganized people still have at least tribal organizations that exert coercive power. Anarcho-Communism is technically minanarchist, as is all political theory with the title "anarchist".

Anarcho-capitalism does not need coercive force of any kind because it is based on the contractual society, the right of self ownership, and the non-aggression principle.

The anarcho communist trade-unions did not have centralized leadership, they operated based on consensus and ad-hoc democracy. While they were not without coercive power, they were several orders of magnitude removed from the typical nation-state.

Mob rule =/= anarchy in any way, shape, or form.

 

[rathi]

Not really, under a modern market economy anarchism is quite possible.

No it isn't. The market economy requires common defense, contract enforcement, fraud protection and a few other basics to work at all.

Anarcho-capitalism does not need coercive force of any kind because it is based on the contractual society, the right of self ownership, and the non-aggression principle.

Which is why Anarcho-Capitalism is only a fantasy. Human beings don't follow those principles, especially the non-aggression principle.

Mob rule =/= anarchy in any way, shape, or form.

No, it was what anarchy inevitably turns into. The anarcho-communists had the same absurd idealistic notions you share that everyone would just work together and so no government was needed at all. They realized that didn't work, and compromised their beliefs by allowing votes into the workers councils.

 

[obvious Child]

Not really, under a modern market economy anarchism is quite possible.

For about 10 minutes before people realize that there are no rules. Why should I pay when I point more guns at you then you at me?

 

[Agent Ferris]

For about 10 minutes before people realize that there are no rules. Why should I pay when I point more guns at you then you at me?

No, actually you don't need the state racketeering scheme to have a police force, you can enter into voluntary contractual agreements with private security firms.

 

[obvious Child]

No, actually you don't need the state racketeering scheme to have a police force, you can enter into voluntary contractual agreements with private security firms.

Okay, what's stopping the next guy from getting a bigger firm with more guns? Nothing.

What you don't seem to get is that anarchy quickly turns into Despotism.

 

[Agent Ferris]

No it isn't. The market economy requires common defense,

No it doesn't:

Private defense agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domestic security could be handled through voluntary contracts with private security agencies, and a common defense against nation states could be provided by private defense firms.

contract enforcement, fraud protection

The most important mechanism for contract enforcement and fraud protection would be ones own reputation but there would still remain a system of liability tort and private arbitration to settle such disputes.

and a few other basics to work at all.

Such as?

Which is why Anarcho-Capitalism is only a fantasy. Human beings don't follow those principles, especially the non-aggression principle.

And that is why the individual retains the right of self defense and the right to enter into private voluntary contracts with security firms, they would, also, retain the right to collective self defense as they could enter into voluntary contractual agreements with fellow citizens to set up things like a neighborhood watch.

No, it was what anarchy inevitably turns into. The anarcho-communists had the same absurd idealistic notions you share that everyone would just work together and so no government was needed at all. They realized that didn't work, and compromised their beliefs by allowing votes into the workers councils.

One of the most important freedoms is the the right to private property in that the individual has a right to the fruits of their own labour, this right does not even exist within anarcho-communism, anarchy can only exist when sovereignty is held by the individual, anarcho-communism places sovereignty within the hands of a collective, how is that different than a state exactly? In fact how is that different than a totalitarian state? Not only does the collective have a state like quality but because it controls the means of production it has the characteristics of a totalitarian state. You can not decentralize authority by centralizing the means of production into the hands of a collective, you can only decentralize authority by having many different competing interests controlling the means of production and that can only exist under a free market economy.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Okay, what's stopping the next guy from getting a bigger firm with more guns? Nothing.

Under a free market economy the competition within the system would negate the possibiilty of one firm becoming to powerful, if one security firm starts acting in a tyrannical way; such as, forcing its consumers to purchase their services then the consumers would simply turn to another private security firm. Monopolies can not form without the aid of state through such things as barriers to entry and exclusive state contracts which prop up the larger firms and harm the smaller ones.

What you don't seem to get is that anarchy quickly turns into Despotism.

Why is that?

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around - that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'." -- David Friedman

 

[obvious Child]

Under a free market economy the competition within the system would negate the possibiilty of one firm becoming to powerful, if one security firm starts acting in a tyrannical way; such as, forcing its consumers to purchase their services then the consumers would simply turn to another private security firm.

Forcing customer to purchase? What are you talking about? With sufficent force, people can take whatever they want. Furthermore, the largest PMCs could simply join and take every other firm out and then take over. Again, anarchy leads to Despotism. There is nothing stopping those with the largest amount of force from doing what they want when they want to whomever they want.

Monopolies can not form without the aid of state through such things as barriers to entry and exclusive state contracts which prop up the larger firms and harm the smaller ones.

Monopolies can form when you are able to forcibly eliminate your compeition by shooting them in the face.

They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'."[/I] -- David Friedman

Somalia suggests otherwise. When a power vaccum arise from a collapse of a goverment, we do not see what you proclaim arise. We see those with the power take power and execute all who get in their way.

 

[The Mark]

IMO (and, I think, anyone who thinks about it), a full anarchy, or even anarcho-communist, system, is always going to fail.

Relying on humans to do the right thing will never work, at least with the vast majority of current and past humans.

A system that includes the minimum of government involvement, however, would be better IMO.

But some people don't like thinking for themselves, and so...

 

[rathi]

Under a free market economy the competition within the system would negate the possibiilty of one firm becoming to powerful, if one security firm starts acting in a tyrannical way; such as, forcing its consumers to purchase their services then the consumers would simply turn to another private security firm.

The private security firm doesn't have to compete on an open market. They can simply use force to take what they want from anyone weaker than they are. If there customers try to switch, they can kill some and terrorize the rest into submission.

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around - that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'."

He has it backwards. A formal government like the U.S. treats its citizens far better than a Somali warlord.

Monopolies can not form without the aid of state through such things as barriers to entry and exclusive state contracts which prop up the larger firms and harm the smaller ones.

Do you seriously think that every monopoly in history was state backed? Have you even heard of microsoft?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Anarchism is the belief that no government should tell you what to do, but your neighbors should.

 

[The Mark]

Anarchism is the belief that no government should tell you what to do, but your neighbors should.

If true, that seems like an oxymoron...

Cause they are the same thing.

Or supposed to be, anyway.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Forcing customer to purchase? What are you talking about? With sufficent force, people can take whatever they want. Furthermore, the largest PMCs could simply join and take every other firm out and then take over. Again, anarchy leads to Despotism. There is nothing stopping those with the largest amount of force from doing what they want when they want to whomever they want.

So what you're saying is that decentralized private enterprises could ban together and form a monopoly on the use of force. How is that different from the system we currently have exactly?

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around - that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'." -- David Friedman

Monopolies can form when you are able to forcibly eliminate your compeition by shooting them in the face.

Name a monopoly that has ever formed in the existence of civilization without the aid of the state? Market competition simply will not allow monopoly to form without state intervention.

Somalia suggests otherwise. When a power vaccum arise from a collapse of a goverment, we do not see what you proclaim arise. We see those with the power take power and execute all who get in their way.

Somalia had an advanced market economy? Somalia was not the result of anarchism it was the result of the failure of the state. Civil war =/= anarchy.

 

[Agent Ferris]

The private security firm doesn't have to compete on an open market. They can simply use force to take what they want from anyone weaker than they are. If there customers try to switch, they can kill some and terrorize the rest into submission.

A single company would not be able to obtain that amount of strength under a free market economy, market competition would not allow it. If such tyrannical policies were adopted by a company then it would empower its competitors as they would lose business while the competition would gain business.

He has it backwards. A formal government like the U.S. treats its citizens far better than a Somali warlord.

Somalia was the result of a failed state, it wasn't anarchy it was a civil war in which two groups were each vying for the right to state sovereignty and a monopoly on the use of force.

Do you seriously think that every monopoly in history was state backed?

Yes.

Have you even heard of microsoft?

Microsoft is a monopoly? I think someone ought to inform Apple. :roll:

 

[obvious Child]

So what you're saying is that decentralized private enterprises could ban together and form a monopoly on the use of force. How is that different from the system we currently have exactly?

The citizens control who is put in charge of the current system. Your proposal has no control from the citizens. Second, the citizens get to vote on legislation that affects their lives. In your proposal, who has the guns sets the rules. In the current system we get remove people from power. In your proposal, we have to stage armed rebellions to remove PMCs.

Name a monopoly that has ever formed in the existence of civilization without the aid of the state? Market competition simply will not allow monopoly to form without state intervention.

Microsoft. Market competition doesn't mean squat when you can take what you what by force.

Somalia had an advanced market economy? Somalia was not the result of anarchism it was the result of the failure of the state. Civil war =/= anarchy.

Except that Somalia was in a state of anarchy. You have this notion people will do the right moral thing without pressures above them. I question if you were born on this planet.

 

[spud_meister]

so in this hypothetical, what if all the security companies simply merged to maximise profits for all the individuals involved, how would that be prevented?

 

[Agent Ferris]

The citizens control who is put in charge of the current system. Your proposal has no control from the citizens. Second, the citizens get to vote on legislation that affects their lives. In your proposal, who has the guns sets the rules. In the current system we get remove people from power. In your proposal, we have to stage armed rebellions to remove PMCs.

No in my system there is no monopoly on the use of force because security is provided through decentralized private entities each competing with one another for market share which would insure that no single one would become to powerful under your system there already is a monopoly on the use of force engendered by the state, under my system one would only enter into security arrangments with these firms through voluntary contracts under your system you are forced into it and if you fail to comply with the racketeering scheme of the state you are thrown in jail.

Microsoft.

Microsoft is not a monopoly.

Market competition doesn't mean squat when you can take what you what by force.

A) The state already takes what it wants by force.

B) If a company started acting in such a way they would lose consumers to their competitors, their competitors would grow stronger and they weaker. It just wouldn't make good business sense.

Except that Somalia was in a state of anarchy.

No it was in a state of civil war.

You have this notion people will do the right moral thing without pressures above them.

I have no illusions, which is why there will stil be a necessary for individual and collective self defense.

 

[Agent Ferris]

so in this hypothetical, what if all the security companies simply merged to maximise profits for all the individuals involved, how would that be prevented?

Without state created barriers to entry smaller competitors would continiously be entering the market.

 

[obvious Child]

No in my system there is no monopoly on the use of force because security is provided through decentralized private entities each competing with one another for market share which would insure that no single one would become to powerful under your system there already is a monopoly on the use of force engendered by the state, under my system one would only enter into security arrangments with these firms through voluntary contracts under your system you are forced into it and if you fail to comply with the racketeering scheme of the state you are thrown in jail.

What's stopping firms from colluding to take power? What's stopping them from just shooting their competition? Nothing. Your idea makes no sense in the context of how humans actually operate. When there is nothing to stop being from acting badly, they act badly. Your argument resides on the principle that people are inherently good, that firms won't collude, that they won't kill their competition. What's stopping them from shooting each other in the face? Nothing.

Microsoft is not a monopoly.

At the moment, no. But it was and without state support.

A) The state already takes what it wants by force.

And we can legislate laws to limit that. Your proposal has no method of recourse. Your proposal has no method to control groups who do not play by the rules. Your proposal is nothing more then Despotism.

B) If a company started acting in such a way they would lose consumers to their competitors, their competitors would grow stronger and they weaker. It just wouldn't make good business sense.

Who needs customers when we can just take their stuff? Who needs to pay for anything when we can just execute anyone who gets in our way? Who needs to even play by the rules when we have more guns then you? You think PMCs act to protect. And there's where your argument fails. Nothing is stopping PMCs from taking what they want when they want.

No it was in a state of civil war.

Except there was no government. Do you know what anarchy means? Unlike Civil wars between defined groups, such as a suceeding government or rebel factions, Somalia was little more then a free for all.

I have no illusions, which is why there will stil be a necessary for individual and collective self defense.

And why you'll get rolled over by people with more guns.

 

[obvious Child]

Without state created barriers to entry smaller competitors would continiously be entering the market.

And the big PMC would just execute them. What's stopping that from happening? Nothing.

 

[The Mark]

And the big PMC would just execute them. What's stopping that from happening? Nothing.

You do not need laws banning monopolies if you have laws banning the actions they could and/or would take to force competitors out of the market.

This is, in a word, obvious.