Thin line between socialism and anarchism?

[Liberaregno]

what do you think is the borderline of socialism and anarchism?

i mean can there be a socialist country with a very slight powered government or with no government at all or would that then even be socialism anymore? can't there be inoppressive socialism?

what do you think about this?

[Anarchic Tribes]

What's socialism?

[workerscommunes]

Bertrand Russell gave a pretty good definition but I can't remember it word for word...It was something like the economic system whereby the means of production etc. are owned and controlled either by the people directly or by a democratic government. That could include anarchism I suppose as well as 'social democracy' but not Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism etc.

[allers]

once upon the time, there was a movement called revolutionary socialists..well in those times they had to fight to eat(i mean to busy to talk about retirements funds) socialist is now a pumpkin you set before your window in time of election a good way to be a middle class without feeling guilty....
Socialism is no change,nor a transition before communism ,it is the biggest illusion capitalist could use to have a social face...
btw,do you know the Socci?the roman one that is.

[Liberaregno]

i think a question that could be included in this topic is that do you believe more in anarchy or socialism?

i can't really say because i believe in both. i believe in socialism because i believe that recourses should be divided as to the everyone equally as much as possible but i also believe in the anarchy because i believe in the freedom and i very much dislike a soviet kind of socialism which in fact brings you really close to extremely strict capitalism.

so i think what i in the start meant with this thread was that if there's a socialist (or communist how you ever like it) state which acts not only in the interest of equality but also to great respect in the means of individual (and political) freedoms would anarchism then be needed? i mean anarachism could, till some point, help to create (and also be an important part) this society but if anarchism becomes a too big part of this society, could they even coexist anymore?

i hope you understand what i mean. anyway, (without really knowing huge amounts of anarchism) i think i would call me an anarcho-syndicalist because i think it could share the best parts of socialism and anarchism without sacrificing too much civil rights and equality.

(btw, why is my name not shown in green as your others' names are? is that because i haven't registered into the forums, can't i use my game account like in the normal nationstates forums it works? thanks)

[workerscommunes]

(You need to register if you don't want your name appearing in white. )

Do I believe more in anarchism or socialism? Well I'd need to be sure what exactly is meant by those terms. Does anarchism just refer to a stateless society or does it refer to an economic system as well? Like you and all anarchists, I'm a kind of socialist by default as I oppose private property. If someone were to ask if I were a socialist or an anarchist I'd go with anarchist everytime though as to most people socialism these days just means the Labour Party and social democracy.

The question isn't 'would anarchism be neccessary if there was a very limited socialist gvt. which had great respect for the individual?' but 'why would such a gvt be neccessary?'. Whose interests would it serve? Why would there be any demand?

[Liberaregno]

i don't really oppose private property. i just think in more like a marxist way that the guys who do the work should get the fruits so that kind of society owned means of production.

anyway, could you tell me why do you oppose private property?

i think government is a necessity in any modern civilization. at least a kibbutsi style of government (well is that not?). because i think in an anarchistic society government would be a really needed tool for the people the be better organized. for example i think a modern society couldn't survive without foreign policies and such. for example i think gvt. is a really good tool to force for example kioto deals upon corporations. of course that gvt. should work strictly democratically (far more democratically than todays "democracy" works...i.e. direct democracy etc)

i wish somebody who is a primitivist or something like that could tell me his/her opinions but i don't think a society without government wouldn't work because then there wouldn't really be any force to fight against government being formed and eventually there would be some kind of government.

please comment

[workerscommunes]

Guest-Liberaregno said:

anyway, could you tell me why do you oppose private property?

By private property of course I mean things like the private ownership of factories, farms, banks and suchlike - not personal posessions or small holdings like shops. It's the 'ownership' of people and the concept of employment I oppose because of the inequalities in power and wealth with are neccessary for their upkeep.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i think government is a necessity in any modern civilization. at least a kibbutsi style of government (well is that not?). because i think in an anarchistic society government would be a really needed tool for the people the be better organized.

Can't people organise themselves? History would suggest they can. You may have noticed that the vast majority of the work done in the world is carried out by ordinary people in their day-to-day lives, not governments. Are we really so stupid that we can't manage to look after each other without interferance from hundreds of clumsy, bureaucratic state institutions? I just don't think life's complicated enough to merit all these laws and governmental bodies. How are tribespeople in Papua New Guinea able to get by without resorting to a central government if it is so very neccessary for human existance? I'm sure we not that much more incompetant than they are.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

for example i think a modern society couldn't survive without foreign policies and such. for example i think gvt. is a really good tool to force for example kioto deals upon corporations.

You assume that goverments and corporations will still exist in a voluntary collectivist society. If there were no 'states' there would be no need for foreign policy. If there were no 'corporations' there would be no need for kioto deals.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i wish somebody who is a primitivist or something like that could tell me his/her opinions but i don't think a society without government wouldn't work because then there wouldn't really be any force to fight against government being formed and eventually there would be some kind of government.

please commentc

I don't see why a voluntary militia made up of people passionate about their causes would be any less able to deal with a threat than a standing army of alienated, under-achieving drop-outs formed from a government initiative to mop up the underclass. Government and capitalism can only succeed so long as we let them. Without us they are powerless, a tiny group of old white men. I don't see how they'd ever manage to gain enough support to reintroduce capitalism or a government if people had already had a taste of life without them.

[Liberaregno]

Workers said:

You assume that goverments and corporations will still exist in a voluntary collectivist society. If there were no 'states' there would be no need for foreign policy. If there were no 'corporations' there would be no need for kioto deals.

you assume there weren't any corporations in a coluntary collectivist society. well in one sense, there wouldn't be, but anyways there would be factories and such that develop things. you can call them collectives or anything but they are still corporations in the sense that they pollute. and whatever you call them, the kioto deal would still be needed to lower their pollution levels. it's not like that if you give the factory another name and change the leadership positions and payment and such that it would stop polluting. i think even in an anarchistic society there lives a need for organized society to keep the society in the right tracks, like a some sort of police force to stop mass murderers and terrorist attacks (though i believe there wouldn't be that many in an anarchistic society) and also to for example work against hiv by distributing say free condoms and medicine). if the society is organized, it means someone or something must rule it (somebody must say that 'hey, we'll distribute you condoms'.) i.e. government. of course the government could also be ruled
a lot more democratically but that doesn't make it not government.[/quote]

Workers said:

I don't see why a voluntary militia made up of people passionate about their causes would be any less able to deal with a threat than a standing army of alienated, under-achieving drop-outs formed from a government initiative to mop up the underclass.

and which force would be there securing that this voluntary militia wouldn't seize power and install a dictatorship? like why couldn't I for example make up a cult and buy arms (clubs if the society is unarmed) and tell everybody who join my cult that they will get to Sugartartmountain, the happiest place in the world, once they die for my cause in the war against the say..."oppressors"? i mean even if there wouldn't be that much greed in the anarchic society, you can't take greed out of the minds of some wicked individuals.

what would protect the state of anarchism if not a democratic government?

[workerscommunes]

Guest-Liberaregno said:

you assume there weren't any corporations in a coluntary collectivist society. well in one sense, there wouldn't be, but anyways there would be factories and such that develop things. you can call them collectives or anything but they are still corporations in the sense that they pollute. and whatever you call them, the kioto deal would still be needed to lower their pollution levels. it's not like that if you give the factory another name and change the leadership positions and payment and such that it would stop polluting.

I think it's safe to say there wouldn't be any 'corporations' in a voluntary collectivist society by it's very definition. I agree there may be polluting factories etc. though and that this is a potential problem. However without the ridiculous level of unneccessary production which goes on in capitalist societies I think pollution would be a seriously reduced. If people were aware that excessive industrialism was going to put the future, their children and their environment in danger I doubt they would choose to take that path and instead focus on more sustainable production and conservation. They may choose to abandon industry altogether for that matter!

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i think even in an anarchistic society there lives a need for organized society to keep the society in the right tracks, like a some sort of police force to stop mass murderers and terrorist attacks (though i believe there wouldn't be that many in an anarchistic society) and also to for example work against hiv by distributing say free condoms and medicine). if the society is organized, it means someone or something must rule it (somebody must say that 'hey, we'll distribute you condoms'.) i.e. government. of course the government could also be ruled
a lot more democratically but that doesn't make it not government.

Hmm...again you're assuming people can't organise themselves to a sufficient level. Police fuctions could, if neccessary, be provided by voluntary local organisations controlled from the bottom up which could be formed and disbanded whenever neccessary. HIV awareness could be spread through local decentralised means (eg. regional brances of democratic federated schools and hospitals) far more efficiently than through some bureaucratic government body.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

and which force would be there securing that this voluntary militia wouldn't seize power and install a dictatorship? like why couldn't I for example make up a cult and buy arms (clubs if the society is unarmed) and tell everybody who join my cult that they will get to Sugartartmountain, the happiest place in the world, once they die for my cause in the war against the say..."oppressors"? i mean even if there wouldn't be that much greed in the anarchic society, you can't take greed out of the minds of some wicked individuals.

Perhaps not, but why the fuck would anyone be any more likely to join such a crazy cult in an anarchist society than in today's? It's a possibility but hardly a major worry to be fair. People would be far more likely to join such a cult if they felt alienated and oppressed.

How exactly does one install a dictatorship over a decentralised network of independant autonomous communities? It would be a lot easier to do if there were a government on which everything else was dependant. Take control of the key governmental buildings and you have control over everything else. Theoretically, if you wanted to take over an anarchist 'country' (for want of a better word) you'd have to do it field by field, factory by factory, street by street as nothing would be any more important than anything else. Do you really think no one would fight back or come to their neighbours' aid?

[Liberaregno]

Workers said:

I think it's safe to say there wouldn't be any 'corporations' in a voluntary collectivist society by it's very definition. I agree there may be polluting factories etc. though and that this is a potential problem. However without the ridiculous level of unneccessary production which goes on in capitalist societies I think pollution would be a seriously reduced. If people were aware that excessive industrialism was going to put the future, their children and their environment in danger I doubt they would choose to take that path and instead focus on more sustainable production and conservation. They may choose to abandon industry altogether for that matter!

i can't see a way for this to work. i mean as you agreed, the pollution would still continue happening. btw modern capitalism doesn't feed everyone, there are billions of people living in hunger and with minimal supply of essential goods. so if anarchism then fed everybody, or at least more people, i don't think the production would go that much lower than it is in today's world. anyway, you said that

"If people were aware that excessive industrialism was going to put the future, their children and their environment in danger I doubt they would choose to take that path"

well that's what's happening today. people really are aware of these things, yet they do nothing or almost nothing to stop it happening. people just don't care 'cos they can't see it affect in their every-day life.

Workers said:

Hmm...again you're assuming people can't organise themselves to a sufficient level. Police fuctions could, if neccessary, be provided by voluntary local organisations controlled from the bottom up which could be formed and disbanded whenever neccessary. HIV awareness could be spread through local decentralised means (eg. regional brances of democratic federated schools and hospitals) far more efficiently than through some bureaucratic government body.

if police functions could just be provided voluntary at any time by caring individuals, who would be the one serving justice? who would define justice? i mean what would stop me and my friends to put up a "police" function that believes that everybody who are a little bit different than others are evil and should be dead? what would stop me from starting a genocide of blacks or gay or jews or...?

Workers said:

Perhaps not, but why the fuck would anyone be any more likely to join such a crazy cult in an anarchist society than in today's? It's a possibility but hardly a major worry to be fair. People would be far more likely to join such a cult if they felt alienated and oppressed.

i don't presume people are any more likely to do such crazy things in an anarchistic society but i think nobody should presume such wackos don't exist in an anarchistic society. i mean in any dream perfect state, crazy people would exist, otherwise it would be a fascist dream.

in todays world there are these crazy groups wanting this and that. like the suicide cults in japan and what have you. people are just naturally (because of genetics and environment) different and there are always those who lust for power.

Workers said:

How exactly does one install a dictatorship over a decentralised network of independant autonomous communities?

well wasn't the whole world a long long time ago living in an anarchistic society?

Workers said:

It would be a lot easier to do if there were a government on which everything else was dependant. Take control of the key governmental buildings and you have control over everything else. Theoretically, if you wanted to take over an anarchist 'country' (for want of a better word) you'd have to do it field by field, factory by factory, street by street as nothing would be any more important than anything else. Do you really think no one would fight back or come to their neighbours' aid?

Of course, invading any resisting country is a hell of a thing to do. i mean states are easy to destroy but the fighting people, that's a different story. like we see in iraq now.

anyway, that has happened before and will continue happening. but in a theoretical sense, i don't think establishing a dictatorship or government or rule or anything such would be that hard to do. just get lots of guns and men for your cause (also fascists exist in anarchistic society) and establish a hierachial rule in your house. then go to the next building with your guns drawn and say: 'i want 10% of your income' or 'i want 5kg bananas each week', kill all who resist. write and distribute a newspaper or something like that telling everybody that 'the freedom is coming. we're bringing you an organized and just society' telling all the bad things in anarchism with a little bit more color too (there are also bad things in an anarchic society. in every society. i mean they could boast they will bring equal rights to education or anything...). then they go to the next house and demand a small taxation. soon you have the whole neighbourhood under your rule. then just spread your message, you'll get more people believing in you and fighting for your cause until your troops just do random attacks here and there in the city or the nation and just tell everybody that 'those who don't pay taxes pay with their life'. congratulations, you have established a fascist society over the anarchic one.

btw is it anarchic society or anarchistic society or how should i spell it?

[workerscommunes]

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i can't see a way for this to work. i mean as you agreed, the pollution would still continue happening. btw modern capitalism doesn't feed everyone, there are billions of people living in hunger and with minimal supply of essential goods. so if anarchism then fed everybody, or at least more people, i don't think the production would go that much lower than it is in today's world. anyway, you said that

But food is produced on farms, hunted or gathered, not using factories, and these methods do not generally cause pollution. The factories which cause this pollution are for the most part just churning out useless commodities. Without capitalism farmers in third world countries could get back producing food for themselves and their villages instead of corporations.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

"If people were aware that excessive industrialism was going to put the future, their children and their environment in danger I doubt they would choose to take that path"

well that's what's happening today. people really are aware of these things, yet they do nothing or almost nothing to stop it happening. people just don't care 'cos they can't see it affect in their every-day life.

And what would you expect might happen when they do start to see it affecting their everyday lives?

Guest-Liberaregno said:

if police functions could just be provided voluntary at any time by caring individuals, who would be the one serving justice? who would define justice? i mean what would stop me and my friends to put up a "police" function that believes that everybody who are a little bit different than others are evil and should be dead? what would stop me from starting a genocide of blacks or gay or jews or...?

The 'police' functions wouldn't just be provided by any old gang of hooligans; they'd be more like today's voluntary fire-fighters. Trusted and respected figures could be regularly nominated by local communities to protect and serve said community when such a service were required. No one would 'define justice', things would be dealt with ad hoc on a case by case basis with the 'police' disbanded once they were no longer required. (please note these are only my own personal suggestions and are not meant to be representative of the 'Anarchist Party Line')

What's to stop you starting a genocide against blacks or gays or jews in any democratic system? Hitler was elected into power I think you'll find. In your syndicalist/democratic socialist society you could get yourself elected into government on the back of a racist campaign and then go about exterminating an ethnic group with the popular support of the people who elected you into power and your quest would by made easier by the prescence of a centralised state with a police force, military etc at your disposal.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i don't presume people are any more likely to do such crazy things in an anarchistic society but i think nobody should presume such wackos don't exist in an anarchistic society. i mean in any dream perfect state, crazy people would exist, otherwise it would be a fascist dream.

in todays world there are these crazy groups wanting this and that. like the suicide cults in japan and what have you. people are just naturally (because of genetics and environment) different and there are always those who lust for power.

There may always be people who lust for power, but they can only achieve power if there is central government which they can take control over. Without one they'll just remain isolated eccentrics in their communities. You ever heard of an Eskimo dictator?

Guest-Liberaregno said:

well wasn't the whole world a long long time ago living in an anarchistic society?

Yup. For thousands and thousands of years. So why are you arguing that human beings require government?

This 'anarchist' stage of human history did not come to an end because a dictator came to power, there were probably hundreds of factors such as the spread of farming from the fertile crescent which led to settled, hierachical and patriachal communities and the development of private property.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

Of course, invading any resisting country is a hell of a thing to do. i mean states are easy to destroy but the fighting people, that's a different story. like we see in iraq now.

So you admit it's harder to install a dictatorship over a society controled by a state than one without one? Would that not make having a state something of a threat to 'national security'?

Guest-Liberaregno said:

anyway, that has happened before and will continue happening. but in a theoretical sense, i don't think establishing a dictatorship or government or rule or anything such would be that hard to do. just get lots of guns and men for your cause (also fascists exist in anarchistic society)

And just how easy do you think that might be? Granted in today's world it may be fairly easy, you can bribe people with money or exploit their sense of alienation and resentment but in an anarchist world? Not so easy.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

and establish a hierachial rule in your house. then go to the next building with your guns drawn and say: 'i want 10% of your income' or 'i want 5kg bananas each week', kill all who resist. write and distribute a newspaper or something like that telling everybody that 'the freedom is coming. we're bringing you an organized and just society' telling all the bad things in anarchism with a little bit more color too (there are also bad things in an anarchic society. in every society. i mean they could boast they will bring equal rights to education or anything...). then they go to the next house and demand a small taxation. soon you have the whole neighbourhood under your rule. then just spread your message, you'll get more people believing in you and fighting for your cause until your troops just do random attacks here and there in the city or the nation and just tell everybody that 'those who don't pay taxes pay with their life'. congratulations, you have established a fascist society over the anarchic one.

Very fanciful. I think you underestimate the intelligence of the vast majority of people however. Your proposition isn't impossible of course, but again the same could far more easily happen in a 'democratic' country, the only reason it doesn't is that people for the most part aren't fascists and aren't willing to put up with such a system. Similarly they wouldn't tolerate fascism in a stateless society, probably even less-so as the abscence of capitalist/state social relations would seriously weaken the racial antagonisms which they perpetuate.[/quote]

Guest-Liberaregno said:

btw is it anarchic society or anarchistic society or how should i spell it?

Well I'm not into prescriptive grammar but I'd just go with 'anarchist' society.

[allers]

without quote(s)
so much labels to divid us Just a pitty
the only to win, are the ones in power.
Time to get away

[Liberaregno]

Workers said:

But food is produced on farms, hunted or gathered, not using factories, and these methods do not generally cause pollution. The factories which cause this pollution are for the most part just churning out useless commodities. Without capitalism farmers in third world countries could get back producing food for themselves and their villages instead of corporations.

well farming do pollute but as you said, not that much. it's also true that most part of the factories that pollute are just doing pointless things but let's say a very polluting example: paper industry. i think it's very essential also in an anarchist society since you need paper for writing your thoughts, for sanitary reasons, for studying, for forwarding messages, for news, for art... i mean, in an anarchist society you could forget most of that paper usage, but i wouldn't support that kind of anarchism which would decline the arts.

also there are other things which are needed to be produced in factories to assure the well-being of individuals for example medicine and all hospital equipment.


btw would there be money in your anarchist view or only trading?

Workers said:

And what would you expect might happen when they do start to see it affecting their everyday lives?

well people will never see pollution affect their daily lives. see how high pollution is at the moment but the majority is not doing anything to lower their own pollution. or do you mean that pollution would be higher in anarchist society? i think pollution will only be seen as a long term change, and people think that they can't do anything on their own to stop the pollution so they don't care. i don't think this would be of any different in an anarchist society without agreements of clean air.

Workers said:

The 'police' functions wouldn't just be provided by any old gang of hooligans; they'd be more like today's voluntary fire-fighters. Trusted and respected figures could be regularly nominated by local communities to protect and serve said community when such a service were required. No one would 'define justice', things would be dealt with ad hoc on a case by case basis with the 'police' disbanded once they were no longer required. (please note these are only my own personal suggestions and are not meant to be representative of the 'Anarchist Party Line')

i see what you mean but my point was that if there wasn't a state delivering static, official police forces then there wouldn't be anyone stopping me to buy guns and start my own justice department.

Workers said:

What's to stop you starting a genocide against blacks or gays or jews in any democratic system? Hitler was elected into power I think you'll find. In your syndicalist/democratic socialist society you could get yourself elected into government on the back of a racist campaign and then go about exterminating an ethnic group with the popular support of the people who elected you into power and your quest would by made easier by the prescence of a centralised state with a police force, military etc at your disposal.

well firstly, hitler was elected in really different times than the modern capitalism is living now. the german society was living a crisis etc...

but the situation is a whole lot different in a modern democratic state because there are in many countries such laws that even prohibit nazi or racist activity. so that it would be really hard if not impossible to get into power in a modern democracy and start a genocide. and what really makes the difference is that in an anarchist society you would just pick up the guns and your friends and start your racist fascist activities. if you had the biggest group, you would be the military. todays you would have to be voted to the power by the majority of the population to actually be able to use the military for such a things. isn't that even more democratic than anarchy is?

Workers said:

There may always be people who lust for power, but they can only achieve power if there is central government which they can take control over. Without one they'll just remain isolated eccentrics in their communities. You ever heard of an Eskimo dictator?

well i don't think they would be left any alone if they just had a nice bunch of supporters. i mean they could just build the central government like they have been built before. no, i've never heard of Eskimo dictators, could you please enlighten me?

Workers said:

Yup. For thousands and thousands of years. So why are you arguing that human beings require government?

This 'anarchist' stage of human history did not come to an end because a dictator came to power, there were probably hundreds of factors such as the spread of farming from the fertile crescent which led to settled, hierachical and patriachal communities and the development of private property.

because i see that the hierarchial development which has occurred was a normal logical natural way of development which would also occur if we were put back to anarchist times without the state or some kind of force acting against it. and i don't think the people would fight that much more, because they never fought much. remember that in every revolution there are those who oppose it. no matter how beautiful it is.

Workers said:

So you admit it's harder to install a dictatorship over a society controled by a state than one without one? Would that not make having a state something of a threat to 'national security'?

no i don't. i argue that the state controlled military is rather easy to be destroyed by opposing forces of superior strength. yet the spirits of the people is hard to fight to death, like we see in iraq. so therefore. when summing both of those forces, i believe that a society controlled with a state is harder to replace by a dictatorship because you must only not fight the people but you must first destroy it's organized military.

Workers said:

And just how easy do you think that might be? Granted in today's world it may be fairly easy, you can bribe people with money or exploit their sense of alienation and resentment but in an anarchist world? Not so easy.

maybe not so easy, but yet highly possible. you could bribe them with money, if money didn't exist, with luxuries or a high position in a hierarchial society. you could tell them nice stories about the capitalist-democratical societies, you could buy them by threatening them. i don't see any proper reason or thing that would stop such a development.

Workers said:

Very fanciful. I think you underestimate the intelligence of the vast majority of people however. Your proposition isn't impossible of course, but again the same could far more easily happen in a 'democratic' country, the only reason it doesn't is that people for the most part aren't fascists and aren't willing to put up with such a system. Similarly they wouldn't tolerate fascism in a stateless society, probably even less-so as the abscence of capitalist/state social relations would seriously weaken the racial antagonisms which they perpetuate.

i don't understand how it would be easier to happen in a modern democracy since here we have the police forces and the military to stop such crazy gangs to try to take control of the society by arms.

i think the only reason why it doesn't happen is that we're doing pretty fine now so majority doesn't see a reason to change these big things and also because it's so hard. if you wanted to do it politically you would need a majority of the population on your side or if you would choose to do it here and now with guns, the police system and the military would stop you and you would be put to jail. oppressing a todays army as a citizen fighting for your own cause would be quite hard because today the armies have such powerful weapons including tanks and fighting airplanes. but i don't think it would be so in an anarchist society or if they would, there would in fact exist a military. a country with a military taking care of criminality and justice but still not other government functions is not called anarchism, it has another name, police state.

Workers said:

Well I'm not into prescriptive grammar but I'd just go with 'anarchist' society.

i think it's sickening, that even we, who support the ideas of anarchism, can't write it properly ;D. i think it shows a severe lack of anarchist organization and discussion.


and allers, there exist no words which would fit better now.

it's such a disgrace that the anarchist movement is so divided.

[workerscommunes]

Guest-Liberaregno said:

well farming do pollute but as you said, not that much. it's also true that most part of the factories that pollute are just doing pointless things but let's say a very polluting example: paper industry.

Well for a start there'd be a hell of a lot less paper production anyway but for the paper that was needed there's always reusing and recycling. There are hundreds of potential ways of limiting pollution, we'd probably have to experiment.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

also there are other things which are needed to be produced in factories to assure the well-being of individuals for example medicine and all hospital equipment.

Ditto

Guest-Liberaregno said:

btw would there be money in your anarchist view or only trading?

I personaly oppose the concept of money but different communities would probably have their own way of dealing with things. If everything was publicly owned and available to everyone, what point would there be in a currency?

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i think pollution will only be seen as a long term change, and people think that they can't do anything on their own to stop the pollution so they don't care. i don't think this would be of any different in an anarchist society without agreements of clean air.

People do think they can't do anything to stop pollution: does that mean they will always think this way? People change, and when the effects of pollution become rapidly more visible in the next fifty years or so, they will.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i see what you mean but my point was that if there wasn't a state delivering static, official police forces then there wouldn't be anyone stopping me to buy guns and start my own justice department.

Why wouldn't a 'police force' nominated, elected and controlled by their local community like the one I proposed be any less able to do this?

Guest-Liberaregno said:

well firstly, hitler was elected in really different times than the modern capitalism is living now. the german society was living a crisis etc...

but the situation is a whole lot different in a modern democratic state because there are in many countries such laws that even prohibit nazi or racist activity. so that it would be really hard if not impossible to get into power in a modern democracy and start a genocide. and what really makes the difference is that in an anarchist society you would just pick up the guns and your friends and start your racist fascist activities. if you had the biggest group, you would be the military. todays you would have to be voted to the power by the majority of the population to actually be able to use the military for such a things. isn't that even more democratic than anarchy is?

Hitler was elected because of numerous historical factors, who's to say similar events won't occur in your society? You think the only reason our countries aren't run by fascists (debatable I suppose!) is because our politicians generously provide laws to prevent this? I think it has more to do with the fact that there is too much popular opposition. Our governments do not benevolently allow us not to be ruled by fascists, if they could get away with it I'm sure most of them would prefer a fascist Big Brother type of government to the ones we have today. The only thing stopping them doing so is their intuitive knowledge that there is a limit on oppression which a politically conscious population can take. Also there would be nothing to stop a racist politician passing a bill to change anti-racist/fascist laws in your socialist republic if they had enough support, in an anarchist society they couldn't.

I think you misunderstand what I meant by 'voluntary' in the context of a 'police' or 'militia': they would all have to nominated by their communities and regularily changed so as to prevent the formation of an elite. The part about them being 'voluntary' just meant that they wouldn't be recruited.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

well i don't think they would be left any alone if they just had a nice bunch of supporters. i mean they could just build the central government like they have been built before. no, i've never heard of Eskimo dictators, could you please enlighten me?

My point was that in the abscence of a hierachical power structure (like in tribal Eskimo society I'm assuming, I'm no expert on their social organisation) it's impossible for despots to climb to the top of it. Yes it would be possible for a group of outsiders with the backing of a large corporation or state to impose an authoritarian rule over a native population but it's far from easy, especially if they aren't any corporations or states. The wars between the native Americans and colonialists for example lasted hundreds of years. The only historical example of a small group of individuals establishing a kind of state over their own local decentralised comunity in the way you suggest might happen in my conception of an anarchist society would be Ghengis Khan and I think it's safe to say he was one-of-a-kind.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

because i see that the hierarchial development which has occurred was a normal logical natural way of development which would also occur if we were put back to anarchist times without the state or some kind of force acting against it.

But non-hierachical methods of social organisation didn't cease to exist because they didn't work; they had worked for thousands of years and continue to work in certain places. If it was natural for humans to develop hierachical societies in the way it is natural for bees to make honey all of them would do it and historically always would have done. Perhaps the development of hierachy in certain parts of the world were logical considering their own unique historical circumstances; but then again perhaps the development of capitalism in Europe was logical considering ours, does that mean we should accept it as the natural economic system for human beings and not oppose it?

Guest-Liberaregno said:

when summing both of those forces, i believe that a society controlled with a state is harder to replace by a dictatorship because you must only not fight the people but you must first destroy it's organized military.

But why would the local militia's I proposed be a less competant fighting force than a state army? Why couldn't they be just as well organised and highly skilled as a hierachical military? Enlighten me. To defeat an anarchist 'nation' one would have to destroy both the militias and the people.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

you could bribe them with money, if money didn't exist, with luxuries or a high position in a hierarchial society. you could tell them nice stories about the capitalist-democratical societies, you could buy them by threatening them.

Like I said it wouldn't be impossible but far less likely than in any other society where people could literally be bought and promised actual positions of power rather than just theoretical ones.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

i don't understand how it would be easier to happen in a modern democracy since here we have the police forces and the military to stop such crazy gangs to try to take control of the society by arms.

i think the only reason why it doesn't happen is that we're doing pretty fine now so majority doesn't see a reason to change these big things and also because it's so hard. if you wanted to do it politically you would need a majority of the population on your side or if you would choose to do it here and now with guns, the police system and the military would stop you and you would be put to jail. oppressing a todays army as a citizen fighting for your own cause would be quite hard because today the armies have such powerful weapons including tanks and fighting airplanes. but i don't think it would be so in an anarchist society or if they would, there would in fact exist a military. a country with a military taking care of criminality and justice but still not other government functions is not called anarchism, it has another name, police state.

Bit of a jump there I think. Any theoretical police or militia which may be neccessary in an anarchist society would just be one part of an interlinked network of people taking care of societiy's various needs including healthcare, education, the environment etc. Why do you assume defense would have a priority position? I believe its significance would be drasticaly reduced.

Guest-Liberaregno said:

it's such a disgrace that the anarchist movement is so divided.

Why? I'm quite keen on keeping it fresh through the free exchange of different ideas, rather than letting it stagnate due to a rigid adheance to an anachronistic party line. Without contraries is no progression.