[notch656a]

I consider myself anarchist in the sense I do not believe in the legitimacy of government. I do not have any leftist view whatsoever, but I think people should retain ownership of their property except through consensual trade. Does that mean I'm not an anarchist, or does that mean I'm a leftist?

[kragen]

I suppose it depends on what definitions you're using of words like "government", "leftist view", "their property", and "anarchist"; clearly at least one of them differs from the mainstream definitions. I suspect it's "anarchist", since anarchism (as normally understood) opposes coercive hierarchy more broadly than just the usual definition of "government", including things sometimes described as "property", but I can't know for sure; you might be using a nonstandard definition of "government" instead, for example.

As I said before, though, you might benefit from reading at the introductory section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism.

[notch656a]

I've looked it over. I understand leftists have a rich history of invoking anti-state ideology. I'm using the oxford definition of anarchism.

I'm not saying leftists can't exist in anarchism as some sort of pact or contract amongst leftist, in the sense of without coercive hierarchy. But I don't see how anarchism is inherently leftist. If leftism means socialism or some form of redistributing property involuntarily, that sounds coercive.

Voluntary exchange of property and capital is the opposite of coercion. It seems capitalism fits in neatly with anarchism.

[denton-scratch]

> I'm using the oxford definition of anarchism.

Which Oxford definition? You've cited "The Oxford Dictionary" up-thread. There's a bunch of online lexicographical resources that are unrelated to the OED, but trade on its name and reputation.

At any rate, a brief definition from a concise lexicon is no substitute for doing some proper reading on the subject. And even reading will leave you pretty confused about how it can possibly work; participation in an anarchist collective might blow your mind.

[notch656a]

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Anarchism isn't some cursory subject for me. Someone up thread mentioned Rojava as an example of something closest to an anarchist collective. I went there and lived there. What I found was voluntary trade which we commonly call capitalism. I find this to be compatible with anarchism when trades are made voluntarily and not say, by strong arm of government forcing how you trade with people or the strong arm of some "anarchist" "opening up access" to your capital.

[denton-scratch]

I would consider "opening up access" to someone else's capital to be a kind of theft, in general, and not consistent with anarchism. When the capital in question is means-of-production that the workers have contributed to building, things are a bit less clear-cut.

Allowing workers to join the board, perhaps as a response to an all-out strike, might be a step towards worker's collectives.

It's much easier to articulate the objectives than the path.

[notch656a]

Isn't negotiating a wage (or choosing to accept the offered wage or not) how we determine how much of the means-of-production that a worker contributes to that they are owed? I've helped build houses for instance. When I performed the labor, I was paid cash which I can now use for ownership of my own home. The same for when I design electronics, I then used those proceeds to buy my own means of production to manufacture electronics.

If you can find some other way to allocate payment to workers that's fine if everyone is agreement. Me, I like commodities and currencies. If not dollars a gold bar will work fine, you needn't pay me in fractions of a factory floor or whatever. I ought to be able to negotiate with a factory owner to be paid that way.

[denton-scratch]

I just checked out Rojava on wikipedia; it's a new one on me. Turns out it's what I have thought to be the Kurdish Autonomous Region.

I have heard that KAR operates on roughly-anarchist lines, and works well; I'm very interested in large-scale, working, contemporary anarchist and collective societies. The only other one I can think of is Catalunya, which is sometimes described as anarchist. It appears to me to be mostly capitalism with a strong public sector, along with some major collectivised industries. But I'm not familiar with how decisions are made.

I'm very interested to hear that you've spent time in Rojava.

[Edit] Clarified, I hope.

[notch656a]

I'm not sure what KAR is exactly, is that another name for Rojava? I'm familiar with the kurdish autonomous region of Iraq, which is also known as KRG. It is basically democratic capitalist. Honestly looks like a middle eastern version of america in a lot of ways and is the most prosperous part of Iraq.

All of the time I spent in Rojava was as a member of YPG. It was a few months. Most of the time was on border or self-defense tabor for defense against ISIS. My contributions were not particularly note worthy, mostly just helping them maintain their positions.

Naturally my view was not the best view of civilian. But I did travel through much of the territory and witness the people. There is definitely class and considerable disparity in quality of life, as their are nicer condos in the city cores and people in slums in the perimeters. Capitalist vendors are in the cities selling anything from cell phones to nuts. Most of the vendors were your garden variety 3rd world stalls kind of like how the storage facilities look with the metal sliding gates in front that they open up when ready for business.

Middle East culture is in general very hospitable and once taken as a guest you are taken care of until you decide to leave. But If you just entered the country as a civil citizen I'm not sure you'd find your lot any better off than in the traditional capitalist government in KRG. Qamislo and Erbil for instance are worlds apart in what they offer, although the wars are no doubt a large part of that.

It's my understanding there is collective union for some of the farming, oil extraction, and maybe some other natural resource extraction. Traditionally the kurds have also gotten a lot of income from smuggling due to their unique position in the mountains but I do not know how that is interconnected with governance.

[denton-scratch]

It means you're an extreme libertarian, but no anarchist.

[notch656a]

That's just leftist gate-keeping of anarchism. A completely voluntary system of free trade isn't incompatible with a system without coercion. Note I consider something coercion when it is performed by violence by the aggressor, a victim can fight back and I won't classify that as coercion.

[denton-scratch]

It's only "leftist gatekeeeping" if you're wedded to the idiosyncratic notion that anarchism is not a form of socialism.

From the language you use, I suspect you are a USAian; the term "leftist" seems to be used mainly as a term USAians use to express their contempt for socialism. In most of the world, "socialism" is not a bad word. But the term "leftist" is often used by authoritarians to describe the "terrorists" they're using the army to suppress.

[notch656a]

I could be wrong but I infered on your other response you're ok with people keeping the fruits of their labor. If you're ok with them trading those fruits I'd call you a capitalist, not a socialist. Some of those fruits and some of those trades may be means of production, like a drill press or factory floor or whatever. Unless of course you're strong arming someone with violence to hand over some of those fruits.

I'm ok with socialism when it's done consensually. If a bunch of people want to go live on a commune, more power to them. It's when you come for the equipment and capital I use to manufacture things and feed my family, is when you're gonna start needing the commune comrades to enact violence if you want to steal that from me. And to do that seems.... coercive and non-anarchistic.

[denton-scratch]

I'm OK with people keeping the fruits of their labour. Up to a point. When you get people using money to get more money, exponentially, until they've got so much they can't think of ways to spend it and start buying NFTs and building space rockets, it's gone way too far. So I'm good with keeping "fruits of labour" if that's what you need to live, subject to the constraints of tax policy.

My own political views are neither here nor there. I live in the UK, but I don't support Labour; I don't think Labour is socialist, and I do think they're authoritarian and militarist. I don't know how you can scale up anarchism from a collective to a nation; I do know when things are going in the wrong direction.

> I'm ok with socialism when it's done consensually.

You mean, when you can opt out, apparently.

[notch656a]

>You mean, when you can opt out, apparently

Yes precisely, this to me is the essence of anarchism. To have the free will to opt-out or opt-in to any voluntary exchange without coercion. To keep my factory floor if I like, and if people voluntarily want to buy enough widgets from me that I can build a space ship, that is great for everyone because I've given the world lots of value and they've voluntarily given it back to me in exchange for that value.

It's really strange to me that leftist anarchists and capitalist anarchist are such bitter enemies. I think both can survive under the banner of a system without coercion. Anarchist socialism is merely what happen when some group of people consent to each other to share their resources. Those that don't consent and want to use free trade instead look more like capitalists can continue to do so. Personally I pick the latter because I think it will bring me more prosperity, but I'm very live and let live and can see both ideologies living peacefully side by side so long as no one coercively tries to take the property of another.