[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]

You haven't mentioned how public provision is to be made. I know that things like sanitation, energy, health, water, and so on can all be provided privately, by capitalists; I know that it doesn't work as well as public provision.

Here in the UK, all of those things were public, until they were privatised in the '80s. I'm in a position to compare the service we used to have with the one we have now. In every case, they're worse (I deliberately didn't mention telecoms). The only service here that hasn't yet been completely privatised yet is health; unfortunately it's rapidly being privatised, and becoming more like the US system (I've spent a fair bit of time recently in hospitals and clinics).

The NHS is paid for collectively; "free at the point of delivery", as they say (which is a lie). But they do refuse to do some expensive treatments; many other treatments have very long waiting lists (hip replacements). They only have to squeeze harder to force more people into private treatment.

[notch656a]

The provision is anyone who wants to consent to a pact to communally benefit from a cooperative effort can do so. This takes many forms, it could be co-op (kind of like a farmer's co-op as often found in rural US at least where farmers all chip in to buy goods and then divide), charity, insurance, or really any consensual arrangement you can come up with. Or some people may prefer for-profit enterprise. Public should not have a monopoly.

NHS would not exist. It is an institution of violence, funded coercively.

[denton-scratch]

> It is an institution of violence, funded coercively.

Goodness, what a weird thing to say. It is Britian's most-loved institution.

I've never met anyone in Britain that disapproves of the NHS. We were all born in the NHS, doctors visited us as children when we got chicken pox, and the whole thing was organised so as to provide the best response they could to the public's needs. Village hospitals, visiting midwives, comprehensive GP service.

We were never asked to pay.

So are you seriously advocating a "system" where all services are provided by private businesses that are free to withdraw services at any time? Where different services (IC, CT scan, MRI, ENT, surgery) are all provided by different companies in different locations? Where unprofitable locations get zero service?

Even bosses love the NHS - it means they don't have to include insurance in the comp.

Thatcher privatised nearly every government-run business operation, but she balked at privatising the NHS. It was too popular.

Of course it's funded coercively; it's funded from general taxation. But "violence"? What can you possibly mean?

[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]

> 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

OK, I was referring to the region in Iraq. My mistake. I need to get better-informed. Thanks for your account.