Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

AnCom vs. AnCap

lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:05:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay, I just don't get how AnCom is possible due to the regulating of the buisness that it would require and yet there would be no regulations due to no government. I'm just currious, but how would said system work?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 11:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 9:05:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Okay, I just don't get how AnCom is possible due to the regulating of the buisness that it would require and yet there would be no regulations due to no government. I'm just currious, but how would said system work?

Mainly it's about property rights, and whether they are or should be respected. Given the fact that they're advocating for no centralized government, just like AnCaps, the differences after the fact are, to me, rather academic. It's not that there would be additional regulations, it's that the "owner" under AnCap wouldn't be recognized as the "owner".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 6:20:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 11:05:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:05:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Okay, I just don't get how AnCom is possible due to the regulating of the buisness that it would require and yet there would be no regulations due to no government. I'm just currious, but how would said system work?

Mainly it's about property rights, and whether they are or should be respected. Given the fact that they're advocating for no centralized government, just like AnCaps, the differences after the fact are, to me, rather academic. It's not that there would be additional regulations, it's that the "owner" under AnCap wouldn't be recognized as the "owner".

How? I thought that Communists wanted the abolition of private property.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 9:04:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 9:05:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Okay, I just don't get how AnCom is possible due to the regulating of the buisness that it would require and yet there would be no regulations due to no government. I'm just currious, but how would said system work?

AnComs don't really seek to 'regulate' business, since that isn't what a communist society entails. Within a communist society, business (as it is known by capitalist economies) would cease to exist. Corporate hierarchies would be abolished, and replaced with (generally) horizontal organization as opposed to a vertical structure (i.e. economic organization and decision-making would become more democratic than hierarchical).

Not to be rude, but I think you are making the common mistake of assuming that communism essentially means total government control of the economy. Which is a 'command economy' instead of a 'communist' one. The reason why communism and command economies are confused is because of the propaganda campaign on both sides of the Cold War (e.g. The First world labeling the Second world as communist, and the Second world labeling themselves as socialist). However, communism among communists (from Marxists to council communists to AnComs) throughout history has essentially meant a stateless, classless, moneyless society that abolishes private property in favor of worker-controlled industry (not state-controlled industry).

However (sorry for going on a tangent but i'm a pit nit-picky :P), an AnCom society would have the workers who work factories, farms, and other means of production by their own means. AnComs also view democratic, horizontal municipalities as not being government, since they view government as being a vertical, centralized monopoly on the use of force, and controlled by a few. Small municipalities however, are controlled by the community through democratic means, and are thus legitimate.

Hope this helps.
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:03:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 9:04:10 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:05:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Okay, I just don't get how AnCom is possible due to the regulating of the buisness that it would require and yet there would be no regulations due to no government. I'm just currious, but how would said system work?

AnComs don't really seek to 'regulate' business, since that isn't what a communist society entails. Within a communist society, business (as it is known by capitalist economies) would cease to exist. Corporate hierarchies would be abolished, and replaced with (generally) horizontal organization as opposed to a vertical structure (i.e. economic organization and decision-making would become more democratic than hierarchical).

Not to be rude, but I think you are making the common mistake of assuming that communism essentially means total government control of the economy. Which is a 'command economy' instead of a 'communist' one. The reason why communism and command economies are confused is because of the propaganda campaign on both sides of the Cold War (e.g. The First world labeling the Second world as communist, and the Second world labeling themselves as socialist). However, communism among communists (from Marxists to council communists to AnComs) throughout history has essentially meant a stateless, classless, moneyless society that abolishes private property in favor of worker-controlled industry (not state-controlled industry).

However (sorry for going on a tangent but i'm a pit nit-picky :P), an AnCom society would have the workers who work factories, farms, and other means of production by their own means. AnComs also view democratic, horizontal municipalities as not being government, since they view government as being a vertical, centralized monopoly on the use of force, and controlled by a few. Small municipalities however, are controlled by the community through democratic means, and are thus legitimate.


Ah, so escentially it's after the 15 years of Socialist Rules that the government is abolished as depicted by Karl Marx. What's stopping another nation from going into an anarchic society and annexing it or someone using the Conquest theory to seize power?

Hope this helps.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:54:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
POLITICAL ANARCHISM

First what needs to be said to encompass all of the wide variety of anarchist political philosophies is that they differ greatly from the pop-notion of anarchy in contemporary society as depicted by lawlessness, destruction and mayhem.

Indeed, just the opposite in fact, one idea that seems to glue together these often quarrelsome divisions in anarchist schools of thought is the idea of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man. The rule of man is one that is arbitrary, whereas the rule of law involves sticking to a scheme of things which is considered just. However, the differences arise when individuals began to answer the question differently as to what that law should look like. But that problem is expected since the whole other problem we started with is that the rule of a single person is not always just. If anarchists would only open up their minds to other anarchists they could use that information to further refine their own ideas. And I assure you, not all your ideas are true. They couldn't be, no one is that wise.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM

According to many self described Ancaps, Anarcho-Capitalism is the one true and only form of Anarchism because it is derived from these axioms:

A. You own yourself

B. Your time and labor is an extension of yourself

C. You own your time and labor

Many Ancaps will also tell you that anyone is free to split off and create their own economy as long as it is voluntary. Now, as I'm about to explain, this is precisely why Anarcho-Capitalism is not stable, even though it's premises are true. One reason is that evolution is allowed in this linguistic context, and evolution has no end goal, it only diversifies and complexifies. This is a diverse world with many complex world views and it world be impossible to maintain such ideological purity that Ancaps are known for masturbating to while in a dark basement getting drunk off of tiny wines. A second reason, maybe ironically, is that Ancaps are not puritans at all! Their theories are NOT mathematical and complete. THAT system is called Anarcho-Mutualism. Anarcho-Mutualism is in fact the rational end of Ancap axiomatic reasoning. Which I shall explain in a minute. But first, I'd like to explain one potential outcome of an Anarcho-Capitalist society which has been followed to it's own end without any level of Mutualism. Such a society is basically identical to Feudalism. You could call it Liberal Feudalism.

ANARCHO-FEUDALISM

In a sense, a feudal society with a monarch is already an Anarcho-Capitalist society, since the monarch is monarch not because they were elected to government but because they legally inherited a great deal of property. A monarch's nation is essentially a huge corporation with it's own private defense agency. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, corporations with their own private defence agencies are those who fill the role of nations, and their owners are the monarchs. This implies that private defense agencies in an Anarcho-Capitalist society may go to war with one another.

In fact, many Ancaps have already realized this striking similarity of the two systems and have began legitimately exploring this new school of anarchist thought that further converges ideas between the two.

The social model of wealth accumulation in either case is primarily based on the behavior of inheritance. If something were to greatly alter that model such as, for example, human cloning, the way capitalism works would diverge significantly from Feudalism which is more clearly understood as being based on heritage and family honor, not necessarily like Capitalism.

ANARCHO-MUTUALISM

So what is Mutualism? The word actually comes from evolutionary biology to describe when different species cooperate with each other and depend on one another. There are two other opposing concepts, parasitism and commensalism. Parasites survive with behavior that becomes a disadvantage to another organism. Commensalism is where an organism survives without affecting other organisms in any meaningful way, positive or negative. Commensalism is pretty rare in nature. However, all throughout nature we see organisms which survive by mutual relationships that benefits both parties.

This was carried over into the political idea that an economy is best harmonized when all of it's working parts are thriving based on mutual benefit.

For an Ancap, a deal may be good enough as long as it is voluntary. But even the Ancap realizes that fraud is another way to violate their principles. Since we can infer that all rational people want to benefit from a deal, no deal becomes legitimate and free of fraud unless both parties truly are benefiting, within reason pertaining to risk-taking.

Mutualism is interesting because it combines the axioms of Anarcho-Capitalism with the Anarcho-Left objection that employers act as parasites towards workers. The worker may voluntarily consent to a wage-based income thinking that it's worth the compensation, but they have been tricked! Tricked, I tell you! Unless you truly enjoy your job, it is NOT worth the compensation! The worker turns their time-value into labor-value which is turned into material-value. But they aren't allowed to keep all of the material value they create because the owner of the property that the material was produced with is able to "tax" that value and keep it for themselves. This is the basis of capital property, as opposed to property meant only for personal use. It allows you the freedom to get ahead of the game and accumulate the material-value for yourself which is produced by other people. The capitalized economy, as opposed to a mutual one, steals from the most valuable thing a person has: their limited time to be alive on this planet. (Time is a resource we all have but we all run out of)

This is the idea of wage slavery. The notion that a system which pays some people for their time and others for the amount of time they have taxed from others is one that obviously stacks the odds against the former and produces a class separation.

In a Mutualist economy, workers simply refuse to unnecessarily give up their value to an employer. An employer, after all, is NOT needed for a business to run. It only needs workers. Therefore, workers would be better off if they owned the business themselves and cut out the middle man.

However, Mutualism still differs from the Anarcho-Left in that this equates to a decentralized worker-and/or consumer-coop economy as opposed to a syndicated economy where workers would vote on big economic decisions rather than only the local economic decisions they are mostly involved in.

Anarcho-Mutualism is actually the original form of political anarchist thought that was first described in an ideological way by Pierre Joseph Proudhon in the 1800s. All the other Anarcho-adjectives came later. Although it was just called Anarchism at the time.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:54:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ANARCHO-GEOISM

This is an off-shoot of Anarcho-Capitalism which says that a person can own material which they have "mixed" with their labor but must pay "rent" to society for using the land they make it on because the land does not belong to anyone, as no one has created it. A single property-tax is their solution. This also relates to Libertarian-Environmentalism.

ANARCHO-COLLECTIVISM

Once upon a time a guy named Karl Marx had a bitter dispute with a guy named Mikhail Bakunin, who was a self-described Anarcho-Communist. Bakunin and his friends were not allowed to play with the other Communists in their Communist meetings. Their rivalry is highly symbolic of the split that their ideas produced in the Communist movement from that time on.

The legacy of Karl Marx went on to manifest in the form of Soviet Russia.

The legacy of Mikhail Bakunin first manifested in the short-lived Paris Commune, as well as Anarchist Catalonia which existed for the duration of the Spanish Civil War. In both cases government was abolished out-right in the strict sense and workers took over their workplaces. All workers were unionized and made economic decisions via direct-democracy.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM

This is essentially the same thing as Anarcho-Collectivism except that it produces a very specific strategy which is meant to initiate Anarcho-Collectivism. It starts with the premise that workers ultimately have all the power in the economy since the economy is run by workers. Therefor, organized workers can make unlimited economic demands simply by threatening to stop providing service, which is known as a general-strike. Workers have the power to seize the economy as soon as they can agree to do it. This also gives them the power to dismantle government and begin to engineer a new society from the bottom-up. Which is precisely what occurred in Anarchist Catalonia in 1936. Some parts of the region such as Barcelona actually went further than everyone else and completely abolished money, while still some other parts decided to replace money with new alternatives that they created such as local council-based coupons.

ANARCHO-COMMUNISM

Finally, I'm going to answer your question. But I do hope you read the rest first.

At the furthest left end of the Anarchist spectrum we have the idea of freedom as being inseparable from equality. This often riles up the ancaps who have a different idea of freedom.

But I wish for you to widen your frontier and know that these visions of freedom are not opposed to one another. The problem arises when we think of freedom as an concrete idea, rather than one which exists along a spectrum. There is indeed a spectrum to freedom with a left and a right minded way of looking at it.

Now, actually the pure version of right-wing freedom is not Anarcho-Capitalism. As I explained earlier, it is actually Anarcho-Mutualism. Anarcho-Mutualism is the only system where everyone gets to keep 100% of their labor vale. In Anarcho-Capitalism, this is not the case and therefore Anarcho-Capitalism is actually to the left of Anarcho-Mutualism!

Anarcho-Communism outright denies all of the axioms of Mutualism/Capitalism. You do NOT own yourself and in fact no one owns anything at all because ownership is an abstract concept of rules that can be altered in any way by direct-action. This is very much a post-modern outlook that is related more strongly to philosophical anarchism than Mutualism/Capitalism. Anarcho-Communism throws all hypothetical rights out the window and starts over with nothing.

Left-freedom recognizes property rights as political rights and therefor recognizes wealth as a means to impose one's political will over the political will of others. Therefor, class distinctions are also political distinctions. Left-freedom equates equality with freedom because wealth is considered power and power is considered to be a tool for limiting the freedom of others. Power is what they are arguing should be equal.

Right-freedom takes a different approach by recognizing property rights as a legitimate form of power that people use to express their freedom. Therefore, it limits freedom to limit property rights.

As you can see, the real issue of confusion here that these sides have not agreed on how words are defined. Left-freedom and Right-freedom are both different strategies within a greater and much more complicated libertarian context. I encourage you to look beneath the surface and realize that both these seemingly opposing constructs are really based on the same intentions to expand the potential of the individual. Anarcho-Communists, after all, are different from Anarcho-Collectivists and created a whole new split from Bakunin. Anarcho-Communists are in-fact individualists just like Mutualists and Capitalists. But not like Anarcho-Collectivists, who rely on majority rule to divide wealth. Anarcho-Communists don't need to vote because they have what is also called a gift-economy. Gift-economies are in fact very common in primitive economies and Karl Marx referred to it as Primitive Communism.

ANARCHO-FASCISM

Anarcho-Fascism is the newest branch upon the anarchist try of life and is probably the most confusing. But, I assure you, it makes sense! Anarcho-Fascism actually has less in common with Fascism as Anarcho-Capitalism has with Feudalism. And in many ways regular Fascism is very different from Monarchal Feudalism, even though they are both identified with a powerful leader. I really can't stress enough just how much more confusing politics truly is than you may think. Many ideologies which are hostile to one another actually share a lot of similar ideas and there is really no limit to how many ways you can rearrange and tweak those ideas.

Anarcho-Fascism borrows a few ideas from Fascism and ignores the rest of them. Anarcho-Fascism particularly borrows from the economic side of Fascism which involves Corporatism. Corporatism is not the be confused with Corporatocracy. Corporatocracy is by definition the rule of corporations, as in a business owned by it's share-holders. Corporatism is a similar word but very different, it involves a combination of left-wing and right wing ideas. It involves workers being entirely organized into a union alongside the existence of capitalists who are also organized into a cartel. With both sides properly organized, the idea is that both workers and capitalists will then, and only then, be cable of civil negotiations with one another.

An Anarcho-Fascist society would likely involve a diverse range of different business models suggested by other Anarchist schools of thought and bring them together to negotiate deals.
So, in a way, a better name for this would be Anarcho-Centrism.

However, Anarcho-Fascists tend to have many different ideas about how the ideology might look. Some of them borrow more ideas from Fascism than only economic ideas. I haven't seen any racist Anarcho-Fascists but I'm sure they're out there. A few social ideas I know many of them have adopted from Fascism is the idea of nationalism based on cultural identity, as well as the expression of that identity through a charismatic but purely or nearly symbolic dictator. And this is why Anarcho-Fascism may occupy a vague space somewhere between Minarchism and Anarchism. And yet that may also make it more post-modern and closely related to philosophical anarchism than any of the other ideologies, by spitting in the face of the rules that Anarchists have created by which to understand Anarchism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ANARCHO-PRIMITIVISM

This monologue wouldn't be complete without mentioning Anarcho-Primitivism. Anarcho-Primitivists are pretty strongly related with Anarcho-Communism due to the idea of Primitive Communism, like I mentioned earlier. Although that doesn't mean you can't create your own Anarcho-Primitivist ideology that fuses ideas of Capitalism or whatever.

Primitivists are perhaps the most radical of the Anarchists and suggest that our mass build up of wealth, as a result of technology, is the cause of all of our political problems. And that going back to nature will be the only way to bring peace and freedom.

In my biased opinion, I find this argument to be highly flawed in regards to humans but essentially valid when it comes to the rest of the ecosystem that we relentlessly rape and plunder on an exponential daily basis.

ANARCHO-PROGRESSIVISM

This one is not an actual ideology. Since progressivism has, by it's very nature, a changing and evolving sense of justice, it's actually a part of philosophical anarchism, unlike any of the others I've listed. An Anarcho-Progressivist would not share the idea in the ultimate rule of law and is thus in contradiction to what I said at the beginning about what connects all Anarchist schools of thought.

Anarcho-Progressivism suggests that there is no true Anarchism, that ideas about rights and freedom will continue to change and evolve, and that we should embrace this.

PANARCHISM

Last but certainly not least, Panarchism is the Anarchism for all Anarchists. The idea is unusually easy to grasp for an Anarchist philosophy. It simply implies that all the different Anarchists schools of thought can live side-by-side in a network of nations not bound by national boarders. Instead of out-right abolishing the idea of government everywhere, nations simply become detached from their national boarders and all people are free to sign up for the government they want, irrespective of where they live, like joining a club.

This is the most scientific of Anarchist ideas because it allows for maximum experimentation and diversification. However, I'm biased because Panarchism is essentially what I believe in. I guess.

PHILOSOPHICAL ANARCHISM

I do of course have one last thing to say about Anarchism. Out of all the seemingly redundant or contradictory adjectives people have come up with to describe their Anarchist ideologies, none is more contradictory than the idea an Anarchist ideology in of itself. Yes, Anarcho-Communism is contradictory! Yes, Anarcho-Capitalism is contradictory! Yes, Anarcho-Fascism is contradictory! They are all contradictory because every Anarchist ideology imposes rules in order to inhibit rulers. The rule of law as opposed to the rule of man. But philosophical anarchism is more broad than that. It also involves deconstructing the rules as well. Philosophical anarchism is the mechanism by which Anarcho-Progressivism does it's progressing. It is an act of breaking rules and not something that can be accurately defined in any way.

So there you have it, folks. Nothing is justified. Everything is fish. Poland.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:11:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The idea that anarcho-*insert* can be and must be in the absence of any rules or established order is blatantly false.
For instance, green anarchism is impossible without some degree of rules or order, because otherwise people who didn't believe in this system would trash the Earth for the heck of it. Anarcho-capitalism must require some degree of rules because otherwise the idea of private property couldn't be enforced (as Bladerunner060 pointed out). Anarcho-Communism needs some degree of rules to make people share everything and not get greedy.
Even anarchism requires rules to remain functional, otherwise some people would choose to establish a Government and bring about widespread order.

I think the issue is that people misunderstand the meaning of anarchism. It doesn't mean that there's no rules whatsoever. People would need to have a set of rules that they'd all agree to, and those rules would need to be enforced by the populace. Government is centralized, concentrated authority, whereas anarchism is a system without centralized, concentrated authority, but still with some rules.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid