Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[The Ozzman]

Yes because the one providing the mortgage is ostensibly the owner of the property who is exploiting the prospective owner through an agreement that gives the former a profit, or at least this is the intent.

This is how I presume an anarchist would view mortgages, anyways since both 'profit' and 'property' are rejected by them.

So, how do you suppose people are to purchase houses? Should the houses just be 'given' to people?

 

[skeptik]

I agree with you in some respects, but keep in mind that wage slavery is a very old term which when first used was probably extremely accurate in defining the conditions that existed under industrialization. Just because conditions have gotten better, it doesn't mean that wage slavery or wage exploitation have disappeared.

However, in the case of tyranny, I think its use is justified to explain how corporations are managed--they are, tangibly and metaphorically, private tyrannies.



Yes because the one providing the mortgage is ostensibly the owner of the property who is exploiting the prospective owner through an agreement that gives the former a profit, or at least this is the intent.

This is how I presume an anarchist would view mortgages, anyways since both 'profit' and 'property' are rejected by them.

While there are certainly different levels of tyranny, I would say any business that uses wage exploitation and top down organization is essentially tyrannical in the sense that the owner(s) hold absolute power over those that they 'employ'.

After all, a tyranny can be defined most simply as "a single ruler [or set of rulers] holding absolute power over a state or within an organization". In other words, it isn't necessary for a business to treat its workers in a 'cruel' or 'harsh' manner for it to be considered tyrannical (i.e. organized in such a way as to allow for a 'master' or 'sovereign leader') in the original sense.

My point is that the words are loaded with traces of connotations, and it's pretty obvious that these words are used expressly for this purpose. I just can't take somebody seriously when they do this.

 

[Death Aflame]

My point is that the words are loaded with traces of connotations, and it's pretty obvious that these words are used expressly for this purpose. I just can't take somebody seriously when they do this.

I am assuming you are talking about Chomsky's labelling of corporations that would arise out of a state of unfettered capitalism? If this is the case, then I would have to disagree with you. If you want some evidence, just consider the damage that MNCs, like Wal-Mart for instance (The High Cost of Low Prices is a great documentary on this specific subject), already cause within our system of state monitored/controlled capitalism--if no ethical bodies existed to combat their motives, that are at least partly influenced by popular values, it is not unreasonable to assume that the tyranny (in the bad use of the word, i.e. direct oppression) would be substantially worse than it already is.

In terms of not liking the use of wage slavery, I think Chomsky again provides a strong argument in favor of its accuracy--ultimately there is little difference between selling yourself (chattel slavery) and renting yourself (wage slavery) to a master (first part of the interview):

 

[The Ozzman]

So, how do you suppose people are to purchase houses? Should the houses just be 'given' to people?

.

 

[Death Aflame]

I am getting to it, Ozz, since the burden of proof is on me to both educate and argue it takes me awhile to come up with these responses.

I'll just say that at this point your question seems to be more or less indicative of a larger economic system within anarchist societies. In other words, the specificity of your question is simply symptomatic of inquiring about the economic structure of a libertarian society as a whole.

Edit: if you can't wait for me to boil it down for you, check this out: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI3.html

 

[The Ozzman]

Nah, I can wait

 

[Death Aflame]

So, how do you suppose people are to purchase houses? Should the houses just be 'given' to people?

As I said above your explicit question seems to be masking a much larger implicit one: what is the nature of 'ownership' or even the 'economy' in an anarchist society? I will try to answer both but by detouring through the larger question and then returning to your specific inquiry.

The answer to the economic structure question isn't entirely clear as anarchists themselves are divided on how an anarchist community would be structured in the specifics (though this is not necessarily a bad thing).

That being said, at its core an anarchist society seeks to do the following (again from an AFAQ):

An anarchist society will try to integrate the social and economic, embedding the latter in the former in order to stop any harmful externalities associated economic activity being passed onto society. As Karl Polanyi argued, capitalism "means no less than the running of society as an adjunct to the market. Instead of the economy being being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system." [The Great Transformation, p. 57] Given the negative effects of such an arrangement, little wonder that anarchism seeks to reverse it.

As I have brought up before, anarchism favors workers owning the means of production in a decentralized and democratic fashion. However as Ender Rises brought up before, simply altering the interior structure of businesses may not necessarily result in conditions any different from the negative social aspects of the current capitalist mode of production. Consequently, this type of anarchist economics could be considered a more 'right' perspective, officially titled 'individualist anarchism', that advocates competition as a means to equality (but this is still not a capitalist system, it should be stressed), though it is not without its problems:

Worker co-operatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing the exploitation and oppression of labour by capital, since workers are not hired for wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm. This means that the workers control both the product of their labour (so that the value-added that they produce is not appropriated by a privileged elite) and the work process itself (and so they no longer sell their liberty to others). However, this does not mean that all forms of economic domination and exploitation would be eliminated if worker ownership were confined merely to individual firms. In fact, most social anarchists believe this type of system would degenerate into a kind of "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" in which worker-owned firms would act as collective "capitalists" and compete against each other in the market as ferociously as the real capitalists used to. This would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured that the workers involved made irrational decisions (from both a social and individual point of view) in order to survive in the market.

To combat the assumed negative effects that such a structure would necessarily result in, social anarchists argue in favor of a more deeply integrated cooperative system that privileges society as a whole and not individual syndicates competing within a specific industry (this could include anything from construction to financial industries where your mortgage question is derived from).

Social anarchists' proposed solution is society-wide ownership of the major means of production and distribution, based on the anarchist principle of voluntary federation, with confederal bodies or co-ordinating councils at two levels: first, between all firms in a particular industry; and second, between all industries, agricultural syndicates, and people's financial institutions throughout the society. As Berkman put it:

"Actual use will be considered the only title [in communist anarchism] -- not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 69]

Moving yet another step beyond this the so-called 'communist-anarchist' perspective which would seek to have all people, regardless of industry affiliation or not, to have a say in the economic affairs that would affect their social lives. On the other hand, any economic decisions which were deemed largely irrelevant to a larger social community they would not have a say in.

n communist-anarchism, workers make the day-to-day decisions concerning their work and workplaces, while the social criteria behind these decisions are made by everyone.

In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils would be the focal point, formulating policies for their individual workplaces and deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues through general meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone would participate in decision making. Voting in the councils would be direct, whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be carried out by temporary, unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable delegates, who would resume their status as ordinary workers as soon as their mandate had been carried out.

"Mandated" here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies and councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on how to deal with any issue. The delegates would be given imperative mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to a framework of policies within which they would have to act, and they could be recalled and their decisions revoked at any time for failing to carry out the mandates they were given (this support for mandated delegates has existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when Proudhon argued that it was "a consequence of universal suffrage" to ensure that "the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]). Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates, workers' councils would be the source of and final authority over policy for all higher levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy.

Now, to return to your more specific question it is difficult to answer because you have clearly framed it to desire an answer for how we can transition into an anarchist society from a neoliberalist society (i.e. 'would we just give them houses?'), which obviously is a whole other topic that I would rather not delve into at this point in time. Though if you are interested you can check out some of the ideas of how a transition may work (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI2.html).

Now the simple answer to your question is that in an anarchist society you can only possess what you use for yourself. As has been argued by Alexander Berkman, anarchism

abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]

Thus, it can be assumed that if you are in need of a house for yourself the society in which you dwell should be able to provide one to you that is suitable to your needs. And of course, this is all contingent upon the society as a whole, including the individual in need, reaching a consensus or super-majority decision upon the matter and not some institution simply called 'the society' doing it on behalf of citizens.

 

[The Ozzman]

Man, I had to go through all that to FINALLY get the answer to my question like five thousand pages later? You suck at explaining shit as simply as possible.

It also bugged me that the FAQ uses the word 'between' when it should use 'among'

Thirdly, stop taking shit from an FAQ and answer shit for yourself in your own words

Anyway, this seems like a more convoluted type of socialism with more types of 'governing bodies' than any regular capitalist society

 

[Dak]

this seems like a more convoluted type of socialism

.

 

[Death Aflame]

Man, I had to go through all that to FINALLY get the answer to my question like five thousand pages later? You suck at explaining shit as simply as possible.

As I said at the beginning of the post, I was going to answer your question by trying to answer a larger implicit one first. You could have skipped to the end if you didn't give a fuck about the larger issue at hand.

It also bugged me that the FAQ uses the word 'between' when it should use 'among'

Mistakes happen especially considering that the entire FAQ is massive. I own the first volume in its printed form and it is over 600 pages in length and this doesn't even include all of the questions that the online one has, or the appendices (I'll have to wait for volume two for that).

Thirdly, stop taking shit from an FAQ and answer shit for yourself in your own words

What difference does it fucking make if you are asking the same frequently asked question that AFAQ has already thoroughly answered? And considering that it comes complete with extensive sources and referencing that have been compiled for over a decade, it should be obvious that any lone individual such as myself could not provide near as convincing arguments to the questions that this FAQ already provides. In short, by using it I am attempting to give you the best answers possible, so I don't see why this is a problem. And obviously I do use my own words as I see fit.

Anyway, this seems like a more convoluted type of socialism with more types of 'governing bodies' than any regular capitalist society

All anarchism is socialism, so obviously calling it socialist is not a pejorative, as you are trying to do here. Secondly, more participation in affairs that concern us would be a natural result of abolishing class-based power, so having a system that gives people the chance to participate far more than electing masters once every 4 years would clearly be slightly more extensive and involving (though ultimately voluntary).

In terms of the society becoming more convoluted than capitalist ones, this is purely speculative and I am not sure how true in practice it would actually be (my gut tells me that your summary would prove incorrect). More to the point, it would also largely depend on the economic system embraced by the community, as I listed 4 possible ones previously and I am sure there are many more.

 

[The Ozzman]

Well, from what I understand, anarchism advocates very limited (or zero) state control of means of production whereas some forms of socialism advocate state control of the means of production. I found something on wiki about social anarchism. Is that what you are advocating?

 

[Dak]

(my gut tells me that your summary would prove incorrect)

My gut tells me that , by offhand analysis of your suggestions, that the long term result of such a setup on a global scale would lead to fractured commonwealths based around major resources and then fighting amongst the soon to be militarized commonwealths for control of more resources.
Even more long term, we are right back where we are now.

 

[Death Aflame]

Well, from what I understand, anarchism advocates very limited (or zero) state control of means of production whereas some forms of socialism advocate state control of the means of production. I found something on wiki about social anarchism. Is that what you are advocating?

Confederal bodies, syndicates, etc. are not 'states', as you say there would be no governments in an anarchist community. And although, higher level decisions may have to be made by elected officials, the distinction between that and our current system is that the people are the puppet masters and hold absolute power as a whole over their chosen delegate, as opposed to the other way around (elected officials are the puppet masters of the people) that currently exists (this can be seen in the summary of the communist-anarchist perspective I highlighted previously) and hence oft-used term in anarchist thought of organization from the bottom-up.

In terms of which economic structure I am advocating for, I am not entirely sure at this point, and I will have to do some more research into the area before I commit to one or the other, or potentially a mix of a few. I will say that I am critical of Proudhon's argument that allows for competitive syndicates as I believe that this may lead to inequities.

 

[The Ozzman]

Okay, so the syndicates could be somewhat compared to something like a trade union?

 

[Death Aflame]

My gut tells me that , by offhand analysis of your suggestions, that the long term result of such a setup on a global scale would lead to fractured commonwealths based around major resources and then fighting amongst the soon to be militarized commonwealths for control of more resources. Even more long term, we are right back where we are now.

Like anything that is taken from theory to practice shit could hit the fan--and it would be no different for anarchist society.

However, if things are implemented with the will to constantly improve liberty and socialism (including the idea that resources are not owned by anyone, or any group but mutually shared) then it could just as easily go in the opposite direction that you predict.

Although I have not read them, I have heard that Iain M. Banks The Culture book series seems to deal with such hypothetical questions that you are asking, so you may be interested in checking those out.

 

[Death Aflame]

Okay, so the syndicates could be somewhat compared to something like a trade union?

Well considering trade unions too arose out of socialist thought, yes they are at least somewhat analogous. However, as far as I know a trade union elects a leader and is hierarchical in structure--a type of organization that would NOT be endorsed nor implemented by a 'true' syndicate.

And this goes without saying that a syndicate, far from a modern union, would be in complete control of the means of production.

 

[The Ozzman]

Like anything that is taken from theory to practice shit could hit the fan--and it would be no different for anarchist society.

However, if things are implemented with the will to constantly improve liberty and socialism (including the idea that resources are not owned by anyone, or any group but mutually shared) then it could just as easily go in the opposite direction that you predict.

Are you defining resources as things like what are currently natural resources?

So, is anarchist philosophy totally against a business making a profit? I guess I just don't understand how the whole economic and business structure would work there in terms of making a profit since it could lead to exploitation

 

[Death Aflame]

Are you defining resources as things like what are currently natural resources?

Yes, because I assumed that this is what Dakryn was referring too.

So, is anarchist philosophy totally against a business making a profit? I guess I just don't understand how the whole economic and business structure would work there in terms of making a profit since it could lead to exploitation

First it should be noted that 'profits' would be abolished entirely, as they can only exist under capitalism.

More to the point, it depends on the school of thought within anarchism which economic system is advocated for, as far as I can tell, if syndicates would compete with each other, baring gains and losses amongst their individuals democratically then this is considered a more individualist anarchist perspective.

And I know you hate an AFAQ, but their are large sections in it that are dedicated to this exact issue that you highlight in extensive detail. In particular sections I.3 What could the economic structure of an anarchist society look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI3.html) and I.4 How would an anarchist economy function? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html).

 

[Dak]

I am referring to natural resources, whether it be water, fuel sources, prime agricultural farmland, ore, etc.

 

[The Ozzman]

In a sense there are profits, but they are just shared amongst the workers (profit sharing) instead of the majority going to one individual.