Anarchism v.s. Capitalism

[Anarchosyndicalist]

I would like to have a one-on-one debate with a knowledgable Objectivist.

To clarify, I belong to the original socialist/communist strand of Anarchism. Not "Anarco-Capitalism".

[DavidOdden]

I would like to have a one-on-one debate with a knowledgable Objectivist.

To clarify, I belong to the original socialist/communist strand of Anarchism. Not "Anarco-Capitalism".

To get a taker, you will probably have to propose something concrete, e.g. that you will defend the moral superiority of a lawless society that does not have property, or whatever you want.

[Anarchosyndicalist]

My apologies.

I intend to defend the superiority of stateless socialism(anarchism) to capitlaism. I will describe how anarchists view such a society being structured and why such a system would be better than capitalism.

[softwareNerd]

Often, such debates are led astray because the two sides are using the terms differently. I do not think the terms themselves should be part of the debate (or rather, that's a different debate from the one proposed). I'm not sure how familiar you are with Objectivism, and if you are using the term "Capitalism" in the same sense as an Objectivist would. Here are some rough points...

• The essential features of Capitalism are: a government that can and will enforce individual rights, including the right to property.
  
• In Capitalism, people do not take the law into their own hands, but allow the government to be the primary wielder of force (except for extraordinary situations like self-defence or some other situation where it is impractical not to use force against someone who initiates it.
  
• And essential aspect to this is an understanding that people do not have a right to the effort of others, and so (for instance) the poor do not have a right to the money of the rich, the sick do not have a right to the money of the healthy. While the wealthy and the healthy may well help the poor and the sick, it is not the role of the government to force them to do so.
  
• By Capitalism, Objectivists do not mean a system like it exists in the US or UK; these are mixed economies. Of coruse, with that said, such countries are more like Capitalism than (say) Russia, Venezuela, or Iran
  
• In Capitalism, the role of government is as a "rights-protection agency", with the police, the courts and the army, and almost nothing else
  

It would be useful if you could indicate, at least in some similar informal way, what you mean by "stateless socialism". Briefly, how would it work? Decribe it in some very brief yet concrete terms.

Once that is done, everyoen will know what the debate is actually about.

[Anarchosyndicalist]

I will do my best to explain what I mean by Stateless Socialism.

In stateless socialism the land, the means of production, and distribution; would be owned communally and self managed by the workers. No centrally planned marxist state.

There would be no military, police, or prisons. But there would be a sort of national guard of the people to protect again any sort of foreign invasion or common psychopath.

Production would be for use and not profit. So everything from housing to luxury items would be freely distributed. Thus no need for money.

Direct democracy i.e. popular vote would play a key role in making decisions.

This is a very brief sketch. I hope I have been of help. If I need to elaborate further I will do so.

Edited December 24, 2006 by Anarchosyndicalist

[softwareNerd]

First, some minor clarifications:

• If someone were to steal something or assault someone, would there be an agency to deal with the bad guy? Would such things be decided by democratic vote or according to some rules by some appointed judges?
  
• You mention "free distributed". This is unclear. After all, under almost any system, people are free to freely distribute what they produce. So, I assume that this type of free-distribution means something different. In particular, would the wealth be taken from one person by force, and given to another. Would there be some type of agency that would decide this? Or would this be decided by some type of democratic vote?
  

More importantly, when you say that you wish to debate the superiority of "socialist anarchism", do you have in mind some specific concept of superiority? i.e. what exactly do you mean by superiority? For instance, do you mean that this type of system will achieve maximum economic benefit and wealth for the greatest number of people? Or, do you mean that it is morally superior even though people will generally be less wealthy than under a different system? If you mean moral superiority, perhaps you should explain that a bit, because what you think of as morally superior is probably very different from what other forum-members think of as moral. For instance, are you using relative wealth equality as a measure of how moral a system is? etc.

(Edit: I see that aequalsa and I posted similar posts almost simulteously.)

Edited December 24, 2006 by softwareNerd

[aequalsa]

I will do my best to explain what I mean by Stateless Socialism.

In stateless socialism the land, the means of production, and distribution; would be owned communally and self managed by the workers. No centrally planned marxist state.

There would be no military, police, or prisons. But there would be a sort of national guard of the people to protect again any sort of foreign invasion or common psychopath.

Production would be for use and not profit. So everything from housing to luxury items would be freely distributed. Thus no need for money.

Direct democracy i.e. popular vote would play a key role in making decisions.

This is a very brief sketch. I hope I have been of help. If I need to elaborate further I will do so.

If you could elaborate a little more, I would be appreciative. I still don't have a very concrete understanding of the system that you propose.

For example, You would not have police, but would have a national guard to deal with common psychopaths. In what way would the peoples guard be different from police.

I assume psychopaths to mean, muderers and rapists primarily. Since there is ostensibly no right to personal property it would not include stealing. Is this correct? Or is there no acknowledged right to life or liberty either? And without prisons, what would the national guard do with such criminals to protect the people?

Do courts exist? If not, how is guilt determined in regard to the psychopaths?

How are producers who do not give away there wares dealt with?

Who decides how particular industries and factories are managed? ARe managers elected?

How is distribution managed? Especially with regard to things of limited supply where the demand out paces the supply? Who gets to consume those things and how is that decided?

I or someoneelse might be willing to engage in a debate, but would need to have a clearer understanding of what you are actually proposing.

[DavidOdden]

Well, it seems to me that there has been a reasonable prelude to this debate. I assume you (Anarchosyndicalist) understand or are willing to understand the basic ground rules regarding debates, and grasp the fundamentals of Objectivism (so as to avoid pointless ). See especially the earlier debates (frankly, I'm annoyed at the recent uses of the debate forum as a way to simply bash Objectivism). Check the debates of a year ago, so Kant vs. Rand, Reason vs. Faith, Anarchy vs. Government.

I propose that you construct a standard debate proposition (I presume you are familiar with the genre), i.e. an assertion rather than a topic. Actually, let me reiterate that: most informal debates crash because they are unfocused topic-debates, not focused assertion-debates. A rational being cannot debate a topic, that can only debate an assertion. Make an assertion, and take your chances. State any ground-rules you consider necessary for your participation. Consider the resulting proffers, and act accordingly (accept the proffer that you thing serves your purposes). Be prepared to defend any and all claims that you make in service of your assertion, and be prepared to admit defeat, which will be graciously accepted. And may god have mercy on your soul. (Bwahahahaha).

[Anarchosyndicalist]

Thank you both for your replies. I feel I have a better idea of what information you're both seeking. I will do my best to satisfactorily answer your questions.

If someone were to steal something or assault someone, would there be an agency to deal with the bad guy? Would such things be decided by democratic vote or according to some rules by some appointed judges

Theft will be impossible in a society where everything is freely provided. Violent crimes such as rape,assualt, murder, pedophilia, and other such physical crimes will be the concern. The best way to look at how anarchist socialism would work is to invision government eliminated all the way exept at the local level. Different town councils would be elected and controlled by the population of a town. So there would be a council concerned with crime and punishment etc. If a man killed his wife the evidence would be presented to the council. If there was enough to indicate the mans guilt there would have to be a punishment that didn't involve imprisonment administered. What that would be would have to be decided by the people of a given town or "commune".

You mention "free distributed". This is unclear. After all, under almost any system, people are free to freely distribute what they produce. So, I assume that this type of free-distribution means something different. In particular, would the wealth be taken from one person by force, and given to another. Would there be some type of agency that would decide this? Or would this be decided by some type of democratic vote?

Freely distributed is probably not the best term. But what I mean is everything that is produced, from houses to luxury items, will be accessable to the people free of charge. It will require no money to purchase anything. You may simply go to a distribution center and get what you'd like. When it comes to homes you will be able to do the same as long as the house you pick is not occupied at the time.

For instance, do you mean that this type of system will achieve maximum economic benefit and wealth for the greatest number of people?

This is what I meant.

How are producers who do not give away there wares dealt with?

When the workers sieze the means of production Capitalists will call in their police forces and military. Most of which are made up of people from working class backgrounds. If the military and police refuse their orders and do not attack their fellow workers there will be no violence. If on the other hand they attempt to regain the Capitalists "property" then they and the Capitalists will be oppressed.

Who decides how particular industries and factories are managed? ARe managers elected?

The workers will agree on what methods will be used to make their factory more efficient. Who would know better how to improve than the people who work there. Yes, managers would be elected or the workers could simply make decisions by democratic vote.

How is distribution managed? Especially with regard to things of limited supply where the demand out paces the supply? Who gets to consume those things and how is that decided?

Distribution would be managed by elected councils and the input of the people. Items that are of a limited supply would be distributed as fairly and evenly as possible; with those in greater need taking priority.

[kingofthething]

So by free distribution you mean that I can have whatever I want without a cost. What ensures that there will be enough to go around? What ensures that there is anything because there is no reward for productivity? I believe that your hypothetical society would not exist for very long. Are we going to assume that it will and debate the morality dispite the impracticality?

[gags]

I intend to defend the superiority of stateless socialism(anarchism) to capitlaism. I will describe how anarchists view such a society being structured and why such a system would be better than capitalism.

Would you mind briefly describing your view of capitalism? What do you see as the system that you planning to argue against?