On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 02:57:02PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2017-05-01 10:58, \0xDynamite wrote:
How does anarchy provide the high-level of organization needed to produce a car? From ore, to smelting steel, to engineering, to molding, to paints, batteries, upholstery and textiles, etc?
Anarcho socialists and anarcho communists have provided vague and evasive answers on this question, which answers I interpret as saying the central planning committee will command what is to be produced and ration what is to be consumed, as in Soviet Russia or today's Venezuela and North Korea. And if you do not produce as directed, or if you attempt to consume more than allotted, off to the gulag you go.
Sounds like communism - I've never heard of "anarcho communism" and that sounds like an oxymoron.
Aside from not being very anarchistic, this does not work very well. The planners strangle themselves in red tape and when you go to collect your bread ration, there is no bread. Google Venezuela bread.
Political anarchy however presupposes a strange concept called "free will", and so that little "off to the gulag" bit doesn't mesh with anything (AIUI) that could be associated with anarchism.
Anarcho capitalists of course have a simple and obvious solution, and, for a change, will actually tell you their solution: Which is that the rich capitalist purchases the resources needed to build a car, purchases or builds the tools necessary to build a car, hires people to build cars, and tells them what to do. In this model all rights are property rights, and if you violate someone's property rights, private security takes care of you.
Well this sounds straightforward on the surface, but there's an unspoken unintended-by-you deception (courtesy The State's ministry of truth and TPTB marketing speak), which is the concept of "property". If I build or buy some machinery, do you agree that I have: - the right to use that machinery - the right to protect that machinery - the right to exclude others from using that machinery ?? Now, assuming these "physical" property rights is what most anarchists who comprehend the term would accept as foundations of anarchy. The problem is the predatorial intention which "created" non-physical "property rights" and used the machinery of "the democratic state" to institute punishment for violation of said purported "property rights", namely copyright, trademarks and patents, which are all mere virtual or intellectual constructions and "agreement", and are not based in physical reality other than by that agreement, or rather enforcement and "punishment according to statute" for violation. Enforcement of these virtual "property rights" is insidious, anti-community, anti-abundance, and anti-freedom. It is nothing but the despotism of those with the power to so enforce. This discussion, to be useful, must absolutely distinguish these to types of "property rights" - conflating them is in the interests of TPTB and is antithetical to political anarchy. Next, "anarcho capitalism" is the term used by those who wish to either disparage political anarchy, or highlight what are its presumed problems. To have an objective conversation we must identify and or remove unspoken biases from the phrases we use, and to this end, the term "anarcho syndicalism" speaks hopefully more accurately to this concept: - humans have a right to associate, to syndicate, by their own free will and agreement - that is, humans have the right to work together, or to work in any arrangement of employer/employee that they so choose To have anything work well, be it The State, political anarchy and syndicalism or any other construct, requires humans to be educated. In all cases, whilst they are uneducated and or unwilling or unable to get educated or unable or unwilling to move towards better relationships/ syndications/ agreements/ contracts, than problems will continue, and usually continue to get worse, so education is paramount to any "better future".
With the rise of the reactionary right, there is now also an anarcho feudalist movement, which proposes feudalism with a weak king appointed from time to time by a board composed of or representing the aristocracy. Sounds awfully like an electoral republic with a restricted franchise, but the difference is that aristocrats make local laws and administer local justice.
And anarchists say "fine, let people submit to whatever king/ benevolent dictator or otherwise, but let them withdraw from such submission at any time they choose", which leads to the thought: the only "unlawful" contract or agreement is one which states, or implies, that there is no right to exit the contract under reasonable and reasonably possible (actualisable), terms. This also reiterates the necessity for humans to be educated and willing enough to act in self interest and not enter any contracts nor agreements which proclaim such "fundamentally unlawful" terms.
Now I am sure that anarcho socialists can point out all sorts of horrid problems with other variants of anarchism, but when there is no bread, no one is going to worry about those problems.
Indeed, without food, most humans readily submit to any tyranny promising bread.
The failure of socialism tends to be more fundamental and less abstract.
What's truly insidious is that at the present point in time, the majority of humans on this planet are caused to acquiesce to tyranny, without their conscious awareness that they are so acquiescing. Acquiescence is tacit consent. Tacit consent is default or implicit consent. Consent is agreement, be it consciously affirmative (by word or deed) or unconscious and tacit/ implicit. Seriously we need better education of humans, and less schooling of robots. Regards,