Total new person post--Identifying anarchism

[Yarrow]

having rights OVER things? who gives out those kinds of rights?

actually, the concept is (perhaps) archaic, in some places it's downright traditional. just because we don't do something does not make it absurd. as a corrolary, just because we can do something (genetic modification anyone?) doesn't mean we should. then again, maybe humynity is destined to become much more powerful...

[Francois Tremblay]

You're evading the issue here. How are you supposed to live if no one can own any land? You can't have food without land. Or is this just a semantics dispute?

[Victor]

Well, the land would be collectively owned by the community. By theory, this keeps the control within workers and provides for them the ability to counter exploitations that are commonly committed by landowners in capitalism. It's perfectly rational and had been used in the Americas for centuries before Europeans came and fucked everything up.

[ambi]

francis, not quite sure if you are playing dumb for entertainment's sake or what, but anarchists generally do not believe in property. now, there are randites out there who call themselves anarchists who believe in property. lately, they seem to be calling themselves "market anarchists" in response to criticisms over their previous choice of names "anarcho-capitalists."

the choice of "market anarchist" as a label is truly unfortunate, as there are actual anarchists who believe in markets without capitalism.

i think that randites should call themselves what they actually are, which is "liberals" in the same sense of the liberal parties in the UK, germany, and elsewhere.

if you are being serious and not playing games, i suggest you have a go at the anarchist faq. also, your posts belong in the criticism section as "anarcho capitalism" isnt considered anarchism - at least not around here.

[ambi]

Well, the land would be collectively owned by the community.

that's the theory under authoritarian leftism; the state owns the property ostensibly for the people (but in reality for the party elite).

the other idea is no ownership at all. use, obviously. posession? perhaps. but ownership, no.

[Marja]

Well, Proudhon's What is Property adopts a very narrow def. of possession, and a much wider def. of property. Proudhon's actual position, in General Idea of the Revolution, the translated sections of Theory of Property, etc. was to counterpose occupancy/use property to absentee property. Ingalls' and Tucker's position was identical. They all used the term property to describe occupancy and use.

The common interpretation in the early 2000s was that possession referred to occupancy and use, while property referred to both actually-enforced property, and ancap and agorist models. For example, An anarchist FAQ consistently equates the Proudhon and Ingalls-Tucker positions with possession, not property.

However, this created as many definitional problems as it solved.

Possession, in the recent sense, and property, in the agorist models, have certain similarities, e.g.:

1. They are generally the possessions or property of those who create and use them. Either creating them, occupying them, or using them can justify one's claim, and the combination can more securely justify the claim.

2. They can be claimed by individuals or groups.

3. They are supposed to protect personal privacy and economic autonomy.

4. They are supposed to clarify which economic decisions are personal, which ones are group-based, and who can claim involvement (or damages).

5. They can be gifted or traded.

6. They can be abandoned.

7. If they are stolen, the prior possessor/owner does not lose her claim, and the thief does not gain one. (Contra Reissman, it is not considered an interruption in possession).

The big distinction is bullcrap because so many anarchists have emphasized both occupancy/use and creation as standards of legitimacy, often in the same passages. If we obsess on this shibboleth, we have to dismiss Proudhon and Bakunin as "propertarians."

[Francois Tremblay]

Wow, only a few posts in and I am already being called a troll. Is this an extreme-left club?

Let me make my position clear. I call myself generally a mutualist. I agree with all the points that Marja raised. I agree with use/occupancy rules. I agree, like Rothbard, that the means of production should be owned (in the sense of property) by the workers.

I believe it is vastly illogical to preach about a society without property. If no one owns anything, then we would very quickly die, for growing food or even just taking food from a tree implies some form of ownership. Whether you call it property, or possession, or use, the idea is the same.

I am an Anarchist by all definitions of Anarchism I have ever seen. No definition of Anarchism I have ever seen included "doesn't believe in property." If that was a defining feature of Anarchism, then I would most definitely not be an Anarchist, because it would mean Anarchism is a logical impossibility. No examples of Anarchist societies I have ever read about existed without property rights, even primitive ones. The very idea is preposterous, in my opinion.

If this is the kind of welcome my position will get me on this board, then tell me so I'll leave. If ambi's post against me was an extremist position for this board then I'll stay. Personally I think that people like ambi are utopian thinkers, with no understanding of economics or bare reality.

[Francois Tremblay]

And for your information, ambi, I am anti-capitalist, like most Market Anarchists. If you weren't so paranoid about "randites" and actually asked us what our position was, maybe you wouldn't be so bigoted. I agree that the idea of calling voluntaryism "capitalism" is pretty stupid, but come on.

[ambi]

francois, i believe we got off on the wrong foot due to semantics. i think that paranoia over randites is a bit justified - more than once on this board we've been bombarded by avatars who express their joy at having found a haven for their ideals, and then proceed to tell us about the joys of von Mises, milton friedman, rand, etc.

if no one has said it yet: welcome to flag! i look forward to dis/agreeing with you

[Francois Tremblay]

Well, I have nothing against those people, they just didn't know much about Anarchism that's all. I was in the same state (pun not intended) a few years ago. I think it's very unfair to prejudge people based on what they used to believe before they had all the information.

[ambi]

indeed, i've seen more people make the trek in the direction you did than the other way around.

[Francois Tremblay]

Yes, i don't expect many Anarchists became capitalists.