Sobran - The Reluctant Anarchist

[Helm]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The only job as "regulator" that the State truly has in our modern society is maintaining advantagous market conditions for favored actors (i.e. corporations). Other than that, it's just about throwing enough breadcrumbs to the common man to keep him from revolting, and also destroying opposition to the State. You, as a seemingly radical socialist, know this.

You mean

The only job as "regulator" that the State SHOULD HAVE[...]

don't turn your demands into presuppositions.

I am not a radical socialist, whatever that means. I am not also of the opinion that a large, bloated state machine is a good idea. I believe the state should eventually be reduced to various applicative but mobile units that loosely co-relate to directly serve the People. I believe in direct democracy rather than representative, via technological means (a terminal in every house and the such) where the political parties are reduced to propaganda suppliers, and the citizen is called to examine all different viewpoints (via said propaganda) and make up his mind and vote for each and all issues partaining to his city - state - country. As you can see, I'm in a way, a libertarian myself.

However, you cannot get here from there. For such a system to work, there's an intermediate step where the state will have to possibly get a lot larger before it can become smaller. The People should be fed, first, and foremost. To that end, I agree with any cookie-cutter variety Red. The classes will have to go, and if that has to be done in a reactionary way (extreme taxation), then so be it! Just as long as it is the will of the people, as expressed through an elected party (on that level). Then the people should be educated, to be given the means to liberate themselves from themselves. Then, when this is achieved, the state will defuse into the aforementioned structure, as it will no longer be needed to guide, but rather serve. We should not need any more leaders. Hopefully, the next few generations of them will be the last.

Socialism isn't an end in itself, it's a necessary stepping stone to something greater. Even actual Socialists will tell you that.

The thing you fail to understand is that measures are taken to control the masses.

You think? I fail to understand this, how?

There is no utopian assumption that everyone will respect property; this is why private defense agencies (i.e. police) are contracted. They're even more effecient than the State, thanks to the subjection of force to competition.

This is laughable. Besides the actual examples of privatized policing forces (mercenaries, really) that have resulted to extremely unpleasant results, the fact and only that you're willing to put the interpretation of justice in the overzealous hands of competitive parties shows your utter lack of understanding of what justice, as a constant paradigm, is. I'll tell you what justice is not. It's not burgers. It's not different fast food joints competing for whom can make the biggest, fattest yet cheapest one. Idiot.

Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.

Is that before or after such societies (communes, really) either gradually overpower the solo guys, or the private police forces of the solo guys beat the crap out of the societies? Seriously, do you understand anything about the concept of POWER AS AN END IN ITSELF that has been the staple of human behaviour since day one? We can only outgrow this by examining human instinct and hopefully defeating it. This can only happen when people have the time to do this at their leasure, not when they're half-starving to death.

Furthermore, the very argument about the system being oppressive can be applied to socialism itself, be it in a statist or anti-statist tradition.

So is this "I know mine is, but so is yours" or what? Of course any large State construct will be oppressive. In the case of what I am describing, the idea is that you don't just end with socialism.

And finally, Marx's justification of egalitarian collectivism is flawed because it assumes a false theory of value.

I am not prepared to discuss economics, be them Marxist or not as I lack understanding of various aspects of the whole. Mainly because I find actual sterile economics very, very boring. I've read and understood parts of the Manifesto and Capital, but I haven't much looked into counterpoints and rebuttals. That Marxist politico-economical analysis is however, still very much applied in current discussions by people far more intelligent and well-read than me (be them Marxists like Hobsbawm or even complete opposite parties, everybody uses Marxist terminology) seems to suggest that you are also not exactly sure what you're talking about. But if you like regurgitating select catch phrases out of a silly primer textbook as you undoubtedly are, then go right on ahead.

Kropotkin? What about individualist anarchists, like Tucker or Stirner? Even the ansocs don't deny their legitimacy.

Haven't read these guys. Their legitimacy as to what? Anarchism comes in serveral different flavours (you've chosen the most rediculous and far-fetched one, anarchocommunism being the most possible, given communistic foundation), and most have either been tested to horrible results, or remain untested. I remain unconvinced there's a valid way to go from globalized capitalism to anarchism.