On Jun 11, 2:34 pm, jmh <jmh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-06-11, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 11:24 pm, jmh <jmh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On 2008-06-07, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 6, 9:02 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> James Stephenson:
>
> >> >> > > I can't really think of two political philosophies
> >> >> > > that are further apart than anarchism and communism.
>
> >> >> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> >> >> > Depends what you mean by "anarchism" and "communism".
> >> >> > Certainly most anarchists have not been very fond of
> >> >> > the Leninist model.
>
> >> >> When the left anarchists took over Catalonia, in the
> >> >> first four hours they dropped each of the key principles
> >> >> that distinguished their social and economic order from
> >> >> the Leninist order.
>
> >> > Clearly, joining a state and especially its ruling class are
> >> > not very good for one's anarchism. Anarchists beware!
>
> >> Which raises a very interesting question. Is the
> >> only currently viable large scale anarchistic
> >> society that of anarcho-capitalism, i.e., a market
> >> based anarchistic social order?
>
> > There is no evidence that anarcho-capitalism is a
> > viable social order. Every instance of a capitalist
> > social order that we see includes a strong state.
>
> The Hansa seemed to have something that
> worked without any strong state as a
> fundamenat part of it. Early USA might also
> fit the bill of a fairly weak state internally,
> and perhaps externally as well at first.
>
> The main point though is that the concept of
> the market order society is one one largely
> of decentralized decision-making. It's not
> any claim of egalitarian power sharing --
> which we know doesn't exist within the
> state either even when that's the claimed
> role of the state in the society.
>
> The driving idea here is that within any
> of the proposed organized social orders
> the seek to achieve an anarchistic order,
> as you noted, ends up creating a state
> aperatus and thus fails.
>
> The market order approach definitionally
> requiring a more decentralized social
> decision-making structure would not attempt
> to establish that centralized organizing
> structure to coordinate social activity.
>
> > Granted, there's lots of theory that says there can
> > be a viable anarcho-capitalist social order, but there
> > are lots of theories that other social orders will be
> > viable, too.
>
> Well, there's the theory part of it and
> then the required structural aspects
> required by the theory. It's the latter
> that I'm thinking about with my comment.
>
> > I am not saying any of them are impossible,
> > including anarcho-capitalism. I'm just pointing out
> > the extent of what we observe _on the ground_.
>
> If we're going off what is that we have observed
> then we've seen that states and those types of
> social strucutres are stongest when people
> have attempted to implement anarchy, or similar
> efforts at creating a "no rulers" type of society,
> via political-based theory. In the cases
> where the attempt has been establi****ng the order
> based on market relation****ps the state has
> been a weaker one; at least initially.
When people say "capitalism" I assume they
are talking about something more complicated
than Yankee peddlers, trading posts and flea
markets.
As for people trying to implement anarchy,
in the sense of impose it on other people,
that seems like an oxymoron to me. In any
case I was dealing only with the proposition
that anarcho-capitalism was viable and was
not considering other forms of society.
|
