Ask an Anarchist

[PhroX]

Apologies, but I feel obliged to ask this: is it true that you don't like a good cuppa?

 

[Traitorfish]

Herbal teas only. Proper tea is theft.

 

[PhroX]

Herbal teas only. Proper tea is theft.

Good to know the old "dad jokes" are going strong

But for a more serious question, and this is something I wonder with all ideologies that seek to massively restructure society, what happens if people don't like it? What if the changes you seek comes to pass, that a truly anarchic society comes into existence, but the people living in such a society aren't happy and want to return to a system similar to what we have now?

 

[Takhisis]

In non-capitalist/non-modern societies, present-day capitalism does seek to massively restructure society.

 

[timtofly]

In non-capitalist/non-modern societies, present-day capitalism does seek to massively restructure society.

Would refocus be a better term that restructure? Capital does tend to change how people think, but it is survival of the knowledgeable, and not really an entity that comes in and starts barking orders for people to change. It is the next step that is revolutionary which forces people into certain molds.

 

[Traitorfish]

Good to know the old "dad jokes" are going strong

But for a more serious question, and this is something I wonder with all ideologies that seek to massively restructure society, what happens if people don't like it? What if the changes you seek comes to pass, that a truly anarchic society comes into existence, but the people living in such a society aren't happy and want to return to a system similar to what we have now?

I don't think that such a return would be possible, any more than a return to a manorial system would be possible today. Socioecomic systems just aren't a result of human will. Maybe you'd get a few weird colonies out in the middle of nowhere, like the utopian socialist experiments of the early 19th century, but I don't think that it would be possible to simply turn back the clock on society.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

What I've never understood about left-wing Anarchism is how will economic equality be enforced. What happens to the people who don't want to give up their money or private property?

 

[ParkCungHee]

In non-capitalist/non-modern societies, present-day capitalism does seek to massively restructure society.

I don't think 'modern' societies are exempt. They've been massively restructured repeatedly.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What I've never understood about left-wing Anarchism is how will economic equality be enforced. What happens to the people who don't want to give up their money or private property?

Without enforcement, how will the value of money and the nature of private property be enforced?

 

[Traitorfish]

The thing about communism is that you don't just say "property sucks, give me yours". You just decline to recognise that property exists. Somebody can refuse to give up their property as vocally as they might please, but that doesn't stop anybody else from just taking or using it anyway.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Without enforcement, how will the value of money and the nature of private property be enforced?

The person with property might have a weapon on them.

The thing about communism is that you don't just say "property sucks, give me yours". You just decline to recognise that property exists. Somebody can refuse to give up their property as vocally as they might please, but that doesn't stop anybody else from just taking or using it anyway.

Sounds like theft. So can if someone parks a car and goes into a building can I just hop in and take it for a ride?

 

[Traitorfish]

The person with property might have a weapon on them

He's going to guard a factory single-handedly? A plantation? An apartment block? That's the sort of stuff we're interested in, here. You can keep your toothbrush or stamp collection or whatever trash you can defend with a shotgun and a frown, but you can't force the world to accept your entire social paradigm by sheer force of individual will.

Sounds like theft. So can if someone parks a car and goes into a building can I just hop in and take it for a ride?

I dunno, who's car is it? Do they need it? Do you need it? Lots of factors to consider, here.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

He's going to guard a factory single-handedly? A plantation? An apartment block? That's the sort of stuff we're interested in, here. You can keep your toothbrush or stamp collection or whatever trash you can defend with a shotgun and a frown, but you can't force the world to accept your entire social paradigm by sheer force of individual will.

He can protect his property from theft if he hires guards. For instance, the place I worked this Summer had private security there.

I dunno, who's car is it? Do they need it? Do you need it? Lots of factors to consider, here.

What if I don't need it, but I really want to use it to go by some beer? The person who was driving it left to go into a building.

 

[Traitorfish]

He can protect his property from theft if he hires guards. For instance, the place I worked this Summer had private security there.

Hires them with what? There's no money, remember, and even if he makes his own, it isn't worth anything. Best he could do is form some self-sustaining neo-capitalist colony and pay them with scrip, but why would anybody abandon to society to live on what could only be described as a dystopian commune just to make this one guy happy?

What if I don't need it, but I really want to use it to go by some beer? The person who was driving it left to go into a building.

That doesn't sound like you really need it, so if I were you I'd probably not take it and just get the bus or something.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Hires them with what? There's no money, remember, and even if he makes his own, it isn't worth anything. Best he could do is form some self-sustaining neo-capitalist colony and pay them with scrip, but why would anybody abandon to society to live on what could only be described as a dystopian commune just to make this one guy happy?

If there's no money he could give them some of the products the factory makes.

That doesn't sound like you really need it.

But the car isn't owned by anyone so why can't I use it for whatever I want?

 

[Traitorfish]

If there's no money he could give them some of the products the factory makes.

A factory without resources, workers or power isn't going to make anything, even if you could find somebody out there who was willing to be paid entirely in wellington boots. Take away the capitalist social order, take away the institution of wage-labour, take away the whole social and technical division of labour which capitalism has created, and the capitalist enterprise becomes impossible, ceases even to make sense, any more than a manorial system would make sense today. It makes little more sense to ask "what if this guy started a corporation?" than it does to ask if he might sprout wings and shoot fire from his arse.

But the car isn't owned by anyone so why can't I use it for whatever I want?

If the car isn't owned by anyone, then the car is in effect owned by everyone. You're assuming a framework of private property, and just approaching it as a lack of defined private claims over particular items. What I'm proposing is the abandonment of the framework of private property altogether. It means casting the issue in an entirely different light, not "who is going to stop me taking this?" but "do I have the right or duty to take this?".

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

A factory without resources, workers or power isn't going to make anything, even if you could find somebody out there who was willing to be paid entirely in wellington boots. Take away the capitalist social order, take away the institution of wage-labour, take away the whole social and technical division of labour which capitalism has created, and the capitalist enterprise becomes impossible, ceases even to make sense, any more than a manorial system would make sense today. It makes little more sense to ask "what if this guy started a corporation?" than it does to ask if he might sprout wings and shoot fire from his arse.

They might start a barter system or something of the like.

If the car isn't owned by anyone, then the car is in effect owned by everyone. You're assuming a framework of private property, and just approaching it as a lack of defined private claims over particular items. What I'm proposing is the abandonment of the framework of private property altogether. It means casting the issue in an entirely different light, not "who is going to stop me taking this?" but "do I have the right or duty to take this?".

I bet the person driving the car is going to be pretty mad when they walk back out of the building and see that the car isn't there.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

Hires them with what? There's no money, remember, and even if he makes his own, it isn't worth anything. Best he could do is form some self-sustaining neo-capitalist colony and pay them with scrip, but why would anybody abandon to society to live on what could only be described as a dystopian commune just to make this one guy happy?

What if he trades them gold?

 

[Traitorfish]

They might start a barter system or something of the like.

Why would anybody participate? Even if you could sustain a complex capitalist economy on barter, and you can't, that's like Adam Smith 101, if goods are held in common, people aren't to gain anything from bartering them back and forth. It would be a waste of time. The only things that people could barter for are items of deliberately contrived scarcity, like art pieces or maybe trading cards of some sort, things that people allow to be scarce because they enjoy the fact of scarcity, nothing you could built an economy around.

I bet the person driving the car is going to be pretty mad when they walk back out of the building and see that the car isn't there.

So don't take it?

What if he trades them gold?

I don't know why he would have gold, why they would want it, or how he's enforcing this framework of exchange on the whole situation. I don't think that any of those conditions are likely to be satisfied.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

So don't take it?

I think there really would be chaos without some form of property ownership.