[beaconstudios]

I think a lot of people had a lot of hope in the Soviet Union, especially when there were actual soviet councils involved. It didn't take long to devolve into a regular dictatorship. After all the state was supposed to be a vanguard for the implementation of socialism but power begets power and in the end it existed to serve itself.

I think that's the main reason that most sane leftists* are some flavour of anarchist these days.

* not including social democrats/other liberals in the "leftist" bracket.

[notch656a]

How can one be both anarchist and leftist? Doesn't re-allocating resources in an unprofitable way for the owner require some sort of involuntary transaction, or would you expect owners of capital will all relinquish them peacefully? It seems like capitalism is more compatible with anarchism as capitalism can be contained within voluntary transactions.

[kragen]

It sounds like you would benefit from reading at least the introduction section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism.

[notch656a]

Oxford dictionary: noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

That sounds compatible with mere free trade amongst men without any sort of socialism. Seems like leftism wants some involuntary reallocation of capital, but maybe I'm mistaken. If they don't I'd say they're just charitable capitalists.

[beaconstudios]

Anarchism isn't just "no rules or government" as it means in common parlance; it is against coercive hierarchy in general, and capitalism is inherently coercive because it involves denial of access to means of production, and denial of access to necessary resources like food and medicine. Think of anarchism as being more akin to a modern attempt at the tribal system of humanity's prehistory, but scaled up: resources being pooled and shared instead of traded transactionally. There are other interpretations of anarchist productive organisation but that's a common one.

[notch656a]

How are you going to take my means of production (in my case, my electronics manufacturing and design lab) and use it for something else (un-deny the access)?

Or say I have a full fledged industrial scale wave soldering, mass PnP, full inventory of millions of dollars worth of components. I need it to feed my family, I'm not going to just hand it to you after I gained it through consensual trade fair and square. Doesn't that require coercion? I'm not just going to give up my goods I worked hard for, what's going to happen when the comrades see the loaded barrel of a rifle protecting that which feeds my family? I think a lot of people needing to feed there families are going to have a lot of rifles, and they're not going to be very happy about someone coming along to "open up access" to means of production of their business.

When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

This all just sounds like a violent way of less efficiently allocating capital, under the guise of non-coercion. Access to property should require consent, otherwise you have coercion. Seems to me free market trading of private property fits a lot more neatly with the oxford definition of anarchism.

[beaconstudios]

Under an anarchist model you wouldn't "need" ownership of a factory to feed your family because the farmer also isn't withholding food from the hungry on condition of payment.

The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military. Its kind of ironic that you accuse anarchists of violence while simultaneously withholding resources with threats of direct violence.

You have to understand, we're talking about an alternative economic system here, not an immediate action. Anarchism in practice within capitalism is things like this article, or mutual aid - people helping out others in need,and cooperating on mutual benefit. Anarchists also squat unused properties to feed and house the homeless, or come together to form cooperative societies in a few places like Oaxaca and Rojava.

> When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

[denton-scratch]

You seem to be confusing anarchism with libertarianism. Libertarianism is basically capitalism on steroids; it's an individualistic, "rules-are-for-little-people" ideology. Anarchism is any of several different kinds of non-hierarchical socialism.

For clarity, by "socialism" I don't mean Robin Hood socialism, taking from the rich to give to the poor; that's coercive. I mean that socialists aim for a more-equal society. So I'm saying that anarchists are people that aim for a more equal society, and hope to achieve that using processes and structures that minimise hierarchy.