Anarchy =~ Communism

[qbg]

As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

[1714925154]

1714925154

[1714925154]

1714925154

[1714925154]

1714925154

[lemonginger]

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

But you have a Lockean view of property and I don't, so my examples of a coercive hierarchy will often seem perfectly acceptable to you, but not to someone with a different understanding of property (Proudhon of course, and quite a few others as well)

[myrkul]

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.

[myrkul]

But you have a Lockean view of property and I don't, so my examples of a coercive hierarchy will often seem perfectly acceptable to you, but not to someone with a different understanding of property (Proudhon of course, and quite a few others as well)

Stipulated.

Try and find one that would strike even me as coercive.

[lemonginger]

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

[myrkul]

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

Without a doubt, especially with the advent of 3d printing.

[josell]

I want to, but can't believe in communism or anarchism, because there is no ONE practical evidence they can work, at least in the actual humanity (for tranhumans, maybe).

Even the "primitive" comunities have a basic form government... Even in classrooms students creates their own social structure and "game rules", accepted or not by the most of them.

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

[myrkul]

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

[qbg]

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

This. The boss/employee model will have to face competition with other models in the labor market.

As for collectives, there is nothing stopping from collectives from having leadership; its just that the nature of the leadership would be different.

[josell]

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

[myrkul]

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

I don't follow. Could you explain the logic of that one?

[josell]

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

I don't follow. Could you explain the logic of that one?

I mean that, from my perspective, we need basic rules or laws to make possible a society, which would not be possible if based only on individual rules. I may be wrong, but I think a balance is the best. Moral values to individual being, and social laws for society.

Of course, thats my perspective, but I have hope in "soft" anarchysm.

[myrkul]

I mean that, from my perspective, we need basic rules or laws to make possible a society, which would not be possible if based only on individual rules. I may be wrong, but I think a balance is the best. Moral values to individual being, and social laws for society.

Of course, thats my perspective, but I have hope in "soft" anarchysm.

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.

[smellyBobby]

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.

Canarchy like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

[myrkul]

Anarcho-capitalism like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

You mean, like the status quo?

[The Script]

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.

Canarchy like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

How come you won't answer my question?

[smellyBobby]

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

Why don't you just answer my question? As usual it is difficult to get a straight answer.

The only thing that stops a subset of the population from enslaving the rest is luck. Luck has allowed the  variance of the population's coercive distribution to become large. Therefore some individuals within the population have significantly more coercive power than the rest. Luck has allowed the set of individuals who have significantly more coercive power to form a distinct social group. Now this distinct social group has coercive power that is unrivaled by any other group. Again luck determines that the agenda of this social group involves enslaving the rest unopposed.

Short answer: The variance of the population's coercive distribution became to large. The laws of the universe will do the rest.

[smellyBobby]

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

So ??

[myrkul]

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

So ??

Simple answer: All the other ones.

[The Script]

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

So ??

Yes, as Myrkul says, the other ones.  Governments can afford to have large armies because they can forcibly take money from their citizens and amass large amounts of wealth with which to muster and pay armies.  Private companies will have a harder time doing this, and will be subject to the laws of the market.  Namely, those that do not best serve the consumers will suffer losses, those that best serve the consumers will get profits.  Private companies who start building armies and become aggressive will lose customer support and will not be able to afford to keep their armies.