Freedomain Radio

        I was doing a comparison of various Anarchist theories in my head, and was reading about Classical Anarchists and how they were socialists, and something occured to me.

          If State Capitalism and State Socialism are basically the same thing  (well there are major differences, State Capitalism keeps the cows alive longer) then wouldn't AnSoc and AnCap be similar as well? I will elaborate.

          For instance, lets say a bunch of AnSyndicalists take over a country's industries, if it brings prosperity then it will stand and people will adjust to it. If it is a bad system (As I think it is) it will just disolve into competing factories (union owned) and create a market, a market place demands property rights of some sort (they may not be traditional but some are better than none).

        I think that syndicalism just takes property and puts it into the hands of other people, which would be immoral in alot of cases. I would make the case that syndicalist style factory seizure is nessesary to undo the damage done by imperialists in certain countries, as I doubt that property is rarley rightfully earned there. But luckily self interest should kick in and have the union power disolved. You would just have the seed cultures owning the resources that were unjustly taken from them.

     Also, if Market Anarchism becomes a reality and for some unforseen reason things are not going well, people will suscribe to DROs that only enforce certain kinds of property, so instead of having traditional property rights that you might have some sort of mutualist system. Now I don't think that is desirable or productive, but I think its always safe to have a back up plan. Hopefully I have demonstrated that if certain kinds of Anarchism fail they will most likely move torwards the center. As for some reason the center is safe (Aristotelian Mean?) . 

   Statists are always willing to shoot eachother over slightly, and even the same, economic systems, I think that Anarchists should realize that a non state economy of any kind will be better than the way things are now.  And they will probably end up looking alot alike. Just like statist economies end up looking alot alike (in moral terms) . Now AnCap may be more productive just like StateCap is more productive, but AnSoc will probably be at worst annoying and unproductive compared to the horrors of state socialism.

Communes are for cultists, and not many people believe in AnCom luckily. Fuck Primitivists.

So in conclusion I think that the only significant economic theories are statist and non-statist. The Free Market will find the most just property rights theories. The state never will.

Now it is immoral to violate rights, but the only real argument between the different schools of Anarchism is on how property should be handled. It would be crazy to reject all property, and a closer examination of AnSoc thought shows that they do hold that property of certain kinds is legit, they just wan't to kiss up to their marxist friends. Things will either go into a Market Direction (non coercion) or a statist direction (coercion) If someone claiming to be an Anarchist goes in a statist direction you could hardly call him an Anarchist.

"For instance, lets say a bunch of AnSyndicalists take over a country's industries..."

How would they do this? How would they retain control over those industries?

If it is through voluntary negotiation and persuasion, I am all for it -- if it is through force, then...

What if the company took that very same property through force?  In places like Iraq I am sure haliburton is getting all sorts of buildings though unlawfull means.

Also, as far as I know, AnSynd want to take over the factories by a general strike. I only know of this happening once in a german city, but the Weinmar government went in and starting shooting people. I don't think a general strike is supposed to be violent, every AnSynd I have talked to in person is against the idea of taking things by force. Whether this works out in practice I have no idea.

I just think it is better to push non-coercion instead of pushing property rights. I only bring up property rights with minarchists in arguments now. I think that if one property rights theory is proven to suck in reality, than a free market will find better ones.

Also, as far as I know, AnSynd want to take over the factories by a general strike.

This depends on who you're talking to.  Many consider free markets to be slavery, and some (not all) syndicalists occasionally and openly advocate a forceful suppression.  You claim: "...every AnSynd I have talked to in person is against the idea of taking things by force."  But I guess you and I haven't spoken with the same AnSyns.  I'm very accepting of most variants of anarchism, and in most cases I see no reason why they cannot coexist (and would likely reach some form of equilibrium over time).  However, there are certain elements within the syndicalist movement (namely certain syndicalists themselves, not the ideology per se) that are incompatible with voluntarism in general.  Personally, I think it's naive to rail against "capitalist" institutions morphing into a de facto state and ruling the poor, impoverished masses when, if humanity is doomed to that, then a network of labor syndicates is going to culminate in the exact same result.

Yeah...Like some of the people on youtube that I have seen who claim to be Anarchists don't sound so. Like Mr1001nights or whatever. Alot of them just seem like leninists who want to escape the trouble that goes with being a leninist.

Wage slavery is mystic bs and I try to explain this to every socialist I talk to but they won't budge. I don't know how to convince them of that. But A market is inevitable in the absence of violence, if they use violence to supress it I think that gets their Anarchy Card revoked.  Syndicalism is also a seperate ideaology alltogether from anarchism. The fusion of the two is strange to me. I once read a AnSyn website where they were talking about "council of culture and education". This scared the shit out of me. Really all that I am afraid of is the idea that once the state dissapears there will be eternal conflict between people with different ideas on property, In which case i would not even see the point in getting rid of the state. Sure we can hope that they are such a minority that it does not matter, but idk.