Anarchism

[Land and Freedom]

How does it not? Under our current system anyone can affect change, given the right motivation. Under your proposed system, majority rules, meaning that only those actually conform to the local beliefs will be allowed to even try.

What?

Apartheid was awful. The solution is not "give all the power to the majority." Representative constitutional democracy does just fine of protecting the rights of both the majority and the minority.

The answer was to use "representative democracy" as a farce that while allowed a black middle and bureaucratic class to develop, also preserved white economic power, all with a generous dollop of corruption.

Um, no, the thing that stops people from rioting everytime their candidate loses is (a) they tend to figure "we'll get 'em next election" and (b) that'll just cause more problems than it solves. However, like I said, under your proposed system, majority-rules. Meaning what recourse does a minority have other than violent revolt?

I feel as if I've answered this question before...

I don't follow how you got there.

Then you obviously lied in the above when you claimed to understand the problems with direct democracy. When no one's in charge, that leaves a power vacuum for anyone to fill. Why do think so many so-called "socialist states" became totalitarian dictatorships (and why Athenian democracy only lasted about 2 centuries before its collapse)? When there's not an established ruling class, someone will create one.

There was never a power vacuum in places like the Soviet Union. The revolution had sprung from a hierarchical and organised underground vanguard party. There was no period of statelessness, just contention over statehood. I'm of the firm belief that states can and should be avoided or limited by the will and consciousness of the common people. I base this belief on my interactions with the people around me, and the history of human life.

So, just ignoring my point, then? Okay, I'll reiterate: Your system works on the basis of "love it or leave it" (which you yourself admitted), so, in such a system, how can there be dissent? People will have been conditioned to ignore and ostracize non-conformists, in an attempt to get them to leave or conform. So, again, how can you allow dissent, when the very nature of the system is one that requires there not be (pubic) dissent?

For the love of milk and honey, how is this different from any other group? Do you argue with your mates when you're out on the town? Do you argue with your family? All the fucking time I'll warrant. That's how groups are? You come to a mutual compromise don't you? Because you have the consciousness that you guys are better together. And if that isn't there, then why are you?

But, again, why pick capitalism? Why pick any system at all?

That's just nitpicking. Enough of that anyway.

I said "absolutely necessary" (which means "always necessary always," so I don't disagree with you, there). Okay, I guess I won't believe all the "pacifist liberal [sic] bullshit" about Martin Luther King, Jr., either.

Yeah don't do that either. Have at look at these articles when you can.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/05/319072156 ... s-movement
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/308608/

Of course has, that's the definition of "ruling class". But, again, I disagree. The idea that the working class and ruling class are/should be at each other's throats is an idiotic one. (As I said before, what about all the countries where the government and labor movements get along fine?)

They aren't, although perhaps they should be.

Look this is getting tiresome. Maybe I'm not making my argument well enough. If you've got the time, watch this video. It's interesting and not too dense. Highly recommended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XEosCE ... Wmlab4Z_dw

[The Land of Truth]

What?

How was I not clear? Under the current system: People can participate politically to any level they want and present any beliefs they want. Under your system: "You think different. Get out."

The answer was to use "representative democracy" as a farce that while allowed a black middle and bureaucratic class to develop, also preserved white economic power, all with a generous dollop of corruption.

So, basically, your argument is "bourgeoisie democracy ebil!"?

I feel as if I've answered this question before...

Obviously not very clearly, if it came up again.

There was never a power vacuum in places like the Soviet Union. The revolution had sprung from a hierarchical and organised underground vanguard party. There was no period of statelessness, just contention over statehood. I'm of the firm belief that states can and should be avoided or limited by the will and consciousness of the common people. I base this belief on my interactions with the people around me, and the history of human life.

You're right, Lenin picked Trotsky as his successor, hence why he--oh... I also hold that belief, which is why I'm against what you're arguing for. Your system sets up the majority as the state, thus giving it the full power of the majority without limiting it via protection of minority rights.

For the love of milk and honey, how is this different from any other group? Do you argue with your mates when you're out on the town? Do you argue with your family? All the fucking time I'll warrant. That's how groups are? You come to a mutual compromise don't you? Because you have the consciousness that you guys are better together. And if that isn't there, then why are you?

Yes, I do, however, we don't force the dissenters to leave. That's my entire point. Your whole system is inherently contradictory. On the one hand you claim to allow dissent, but on the other you claim that dissenters should just leave. Which is it? You, literally, cannot have both.

That's just nitpicking. Enough of that anyway.

So, no justification, then? Marvelous.

Yeah don't do that either. Have at look at these articles when you can.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/05/319072156 ... s-movement
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/308608/

Okay, and? Yes, yes, "the threat of violence is necessary to bring change, etc." But, I really don't see you point. There's always a threat of violence (even when there isn't). You seem to be mistaking political pragmatism for revolutionary success.

They aren't, although perhaps they should be.

Look this is getting tiresome. Maybe I'm not making my argument well enough. If you've got the time, watch this video. It's interesting and not too dense. Highly recommended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XEosCE ... Wmlab4Z_dw

Why on Earth would you say that? Isn't the entire point of libertarian socialism to eradicate class via the elimination of private property? How can one foster a sense of common ownership when you're likewise fostering a sense of class conflict?

Fine, but expect a TG outlining any and all objections I find.

[Mkuki]

My opinion on anarchism:

A horrible ideology that is just a step or two above fascism. That's my opinion on anarchism. At least on a large scale. On a small scale I think anarchism, like communism, can work. Nothing larger than your average-sized medieval village, though.

[Land and Freedom]

How was I not clear? Under the current system: People can participate politically to any level they want and present any beliefs they want. Under your system: "You think different. Get out."

Nope. Think what you like, but if you can't compromise or accept the will of your fellows get out.

So, basically, your argument is "bourgeoisie democracy ebil!"?

It's flawed.

Obviously not very clearly, if it came up again.

Ah well.

You're right, Lenin picked Trotsky as his successor, hence why he--oh... I also hold that belief, which is why I'm against what you're arguing for. Your system sets up the majority as the state, thus giving it the full power of the majority without limiting it via protection of minority rights.

The persecution of minorities is only possible through hierarchical thinking and processes. This is the antithesis of the consciousness that the whole community requires to develop in the first place.

Yes, I do, however, we don't force the dissenters to leave. That's my entire point. Your whole system is inherently contradictory. On the one hand you claim to allow dissent, but on the other you claim that dissenters should just leave. Which is it? You, literally, cannot have both.

What? Maybe one of us was unclear somewhere along the line. People who disagree are free to stay and free to leave. So long as they don't force their minority opinion on others. The same as what happens under the status quo. AND AS HAPPENS IN ANY CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP.

Not shouting, just putting a little emphasis.

So, no justification, then? Marvelous.

You'll live.

Yeah don't do that either. Have at look at these articles when you can.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/05/319072156 ... s-movement
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/308608/

Okay, and? Yes, yes, "the threat of violence is necessary to bring change, etc." But, I really don't see you point. There's always a threat of violence (even when there isn't). You seem to be mistaking political pragmatism for revolutionary success.

I've forgotten what the fucking point was to be honest, and I can't be bothered going back and finding it. At any rate, I'm sure you'll find those articles interesting, so give them a glance over.

Why on Earth would you say that? Isn't the entire point of libertarian socialism to eradicate class via the elimination of private property? How can one foster a sense of common ownership when you're likewise fostering a sense of class conflict?

Class conflict facilitates the eradication of private property, because the propertied class is not likely to give up their privileges without a fight. Once the class struggle has been one, there's been some sort of social revolution etc. then private property can be eliminated. Sad, but I reckon that's the most realistic way it'll happen at the moment.

Fine, but expect a TG outlining any and all objections I find.

No worries man, hope you enjoy it.

[Zottistan]

So it's negative.

Ok.

Correct. They has a right to accumulate that land, not a right to the land.

You know what I mean. Once they accumulate the land, others are not obliged to not coerce them and take it.

The use of coercion would conflict with the whole notion of self-ownership. If there is self-ownership, then coercion cannot be justified.

You know my stance on self-ownership.

You're trying to justify natural rights through self-ownership, and justify self-ownership through natural rights. Self-ownership presumes an institution of moral ownership: natural rights. And now you're trying to justify natural rights by saying that violating them would violate self-ownership? An individual can accumulate property from the commons. He can also accumulate property from others.

A natural right to accumulate and defend property, yes.

And the obligation not to take other people's property? Where does this come from?

Only in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer of holdings. Else it would conflict with self-ownership.

Self-ownership presumes an institution of ownership. I.e., natural rights.

I think this was missed.

[Land and Freedom]

My opinion on anarchism:

A horrible ideology that is just a step or two above fascism. That's my opinion on anarchism. At least on a large scale. On a small scale I think anarchism, like communism, can work. Nothing larger than your average-sized medieval village, though.

That's fine.

[The Land of Truth]

Nope. Think what you like, but if you can't compromise or accept the will of your fellows get out.

I said nothing about "thinking". Your system appears to be based on the concept of everybody conforming in public (which is, noticeably, more authoritarian than our current system, wherein people are free to say as they please in both public and private).

It's flawed.

Show me a political system that isn't.

The persecution of minorities is only possible through hierarchical thinking and processes. This is the antithesis of the consciousness that the whole community requires to develop in the first place.

Bullshit. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (If give a group unlimited power, they're going to use it. Your system seems to assume an idealistic mass tolerance that just doesn't exist.)

What? Maybe one of us was unclear somewhere along the line. People who disagree are free to stay and free to leave. So long as they don't force their minority opinion on others. The same as what happens under the status quo. AND AS HAPPENS IN ANY CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP.

Not shouting, just putting a little emphasis.

Define what you mean by "force their opinion on others." (Also, it's not okay for the minority to do it, but the majority can do whatever they want? I believe that's referred to as a "double standard.")

You'll live.

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows?

Class conflict facilitates the eradication of private property, because the propertied class is not likely to give up their privileges without a fight. Once the class struggle has been one, there's been some sort of social revolution etc. then private property can be eliminated. Sad, but I reckon that's the most realistic way it'll happen at the moment.

Yeah, I've heard Marxists say that a lot, but have never, you know, actually proved it. The only examples we really have to go by are Marxist-Leninist and Maoist states (and none of those states ever accomplished such a lofty goal). "Some sort of social revolution..." I was wondering when we were getting to this (though, kudos on making it this far). This is my main point of contention with far-left ideologies, they merely presume that everything'll work out in the end, however, they make no attempt to actually state what these world-changing events will be. Come back to me once you've come up with a realistic, workable formula for this "sort of social revolution," then we can have a more meaningful discussion.

No worries man, hope you enjoy it.

[Zottistan]

As some of them almost certainly will.

Then they can leave the community.

So your anarchist society can only exist in conjunction with statist societies?

Also, if they're going to be forced to leave the community, you have a state. You have a monopoly on violence forcing people to do things.

Well, it does if the society as a whole needs more than it produces. What constitutes a need in this context?

Food, water and shelter of course. But I suppose we should lump in desires too, in that case it's whatever the community wants.

And who decides what individual wants outweigh others? If Johnny wants a new TV and Jimmy wants a new sound system, and both of them have functional TVs and sound systems, who decides who gets it?

And on a larger scale, how do the TV producers decide which communities get how many TVs?

You'd need a central planning agency.

And really, what's stopping people from taking and not giving?

Peer pressure. In small groups, the greedy and the slack are generally confronted and if they refuse to change their ways, ostracised. If they fail to listen and continue to be anti-social, then they will be expelled. Corruption and the like will of course be punished by the law.

Well, to maintain the standard of living that we have, we'd need high levels of division of labour. Meaning we wouldn't be dealing with small groups.

Any sociopolitical system that revolves around everybody thinking the same way is really unrealistic. This "collective consciousness" isn't going to happen.

Thinking differently isn't necessary. The people in these communities simply need to operate under a different social contract. They've done it in the past, they're doing it now, and they'll continue to do it into the future. It's not a case of "it will never happen". It already has happened. At least acquaint yourself with some of the Spanish Civil War. And don't forget, the whole world need not organise like this.

TBH, I never got the romance associated with Anarchist Catalonia. From my admittedly limited readings about it, the CNT, militias and such organizations seems to have acted effectively as a government.

But that aside, I had been assuming you were planning on implementing this system worldwide. My bad.

I see no reason why a wealthy community would realistically join a federation that takes its money and gives it to others without some benefit for itself.

A sense of humanity, and the good sense to realise that most often, kindness like this is repaid. The same as with trrans-national aid programs and all charity.

We don't give enough in charity to generate material equality. We give in charity to stop poverty, not to make everybody equally rich.

If policing is collectivized and there are no police, what's stopping somebody from taking over by force.

It's still an armed and organised society, just not a stratified and hierarchical one.

Military and policing organizations kind of have to be hierarchical to function. Sure, they can be voluntary and use representative democracy, but they can't be directly democratic. You can elect the planner, not the plan, if you get me. And once you've got a policing body enforcing laws, you've necessarily got a monopoly on violence and a state.

For a lot of people, even the majority of this world, things aren't comfortable, productive and safe. Global capitalism hasn't eliminated the old abuses of the last century, it's outsourced them to the third world. But even in Western countries, it isn't all peachy.

These views are shaped by my experience of course. Coming from the bottom of the class system, I have a problem with it.

There's no reason these abuses have to occur in a capitalist system. Social capitalism and giving serious funding and support to developing nations seems like a much more sensible and practical approach to me.

[The New Sea Territory]

If you believe "public" and "private" are adjectives that can be applied to "law", then tell me what category the customary law of indigenous tribes falls into? Law is law is law. There is no such thing as "private law" in the way that you are using the term.

This^. Law made by governments is all public law.

Law made by government is legal law. There is no "public" law. That's used to sugarcoat the law we have.

[The New Sea Territory]

Also, if they're going to be forced to leave the community, you have a state. You have a monopoly on violence forcing people to do things.

Wrong. Monopoly on the Initiation of Violence, that's the state. Forcing someone to leave an anarchist community for initiating force is self-defense.

[The Land of Truth]

Also, if they're going to be forced to leave the community, you have a state. You have a monopoly on violence forcing people to do things.

Wrong. Monopoly on the Initiation of Violence, that's the state. Forcing someone to leave an anarchist community for initiating force is self-defense.

It has nothing to do with "initiating force." He's saying that if someone doesn't agree with the majority, then they should GTFO. How on Earth does non-conformism =/= force?

[Zottistan]

Also, if they're going to be forced to leave the community, you have a state. You have a monopoly on violence forcing people to do things.

Wrong. Monopoly on the Initiation of Violence, that's the state. Forcing someone to leave an anarchist community for initiating force is self-defense.

Wrong, in three ways.

1) A state is a monopoly on violence. Not a monopoly on the initiation of violence.
2) Making somebody leave the anarchist community isn't self defense: it's defense of others. Unless the individuals forcing them to leave are responding to violence against themselves as individuals.
3) They've essentially said people would be made to leave for not cooperating: not for initiating force. That's not self-defense. It's not defense at all.

[Sociobiology]

Also, if they're going to be forced to leave the community, you have a state. You have a monopoly on violence forcing people to do things.

Wrong. Monopoly on the Initiation of Violence, that's the state. Forcing someone to leave an anarchist community for initiating force is self-defense.

to you, to them it might be the initiation of force, if they do not see their original action as force. this is the flaw, everyone everywhere does not agree on what force is.

[Distruzio]

Wrong. Monopoly on the Initiation of Violence, that's the state. Forcing someone to leave an anarchist community for initiating force is self-defense.

to you, to them it might be the initiation of force, if they do not see their original action as force. this is the flaw, everyone everywhere does not agree on what force is.

It's also why those right-anarchists don't shy away from supporting a variation of anarchy that might be a bit more violent that their left-leaning brethren.

[Liberaxia]

to you, to them it might be the initiation of force, if they do not see their original action as force. this is the flaw, everyone everywhere does not agree on what force is.

It's also why those right-anarchists don't shy away from supporting a variation of anarchy that might be a bit more violent that their left-leaning brethren.

I think the left-anarchists tend to be more violent.

[Distruzio]

It's also why those right-anarchists don't shy away from supporting a variation of anarchy that might be a bit more violent that their left-leaning brethren.

I think the left-anarchists tend to be more violent.

Really? How so?

[Liberaxia]

I think the left-anarchists tend to be more violent.

Really? How so?

Bomb throwers, illegalism, the terrorism of the anarchists in Catalonia, etc. BTW, what do you think of "post-left anarchism"?

[Distruzio]

Really? How so?

Bomb throwers, illegalism, the terrorism of the anarchists in Catalonia, etc.

So... you consider the left anarchists to be cartoon characters because cartoon characters dominate your perception of anarchism. *shrug* Fair enough.

BTW, what do you think of "post-left anarchism"?

Meh. Too soon to say, really. McQuinn has a pleasant take on the traditional leftists that I can really identify with even though I was a right-anarchist and maintain favorable opinions of the approach to anarchism. Stirner, being more idividualist than collectivist, is a sound font from which necessary critique can and should be lobbed at both sides of the ideological pillar "anarchism". The man was someone to be admired. While I don't necessarily identify with egoist anarchism or egoism in general (it runs contrary to my own theological bent) I cannot deny the man's thought provoking and self-reflective prose. I really don't have anything poor to say about "post-left" anarchism other than to raise my eyebrow and nod.

[Land and Freedom]

Nope. Think what you like, but if you can't compromise or accept the will of your fellows get out.

I said nothing about "thinking". Your system appears to be based on the concept of everybody conforming in public (which is, noticeably, more authoritarian than our current system, wherein people are free to say as they please in both public and private).

How on earth did you get that impression?

Show me a political system that isn't.

Exactly.

Bullshit. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (If give a group unlimited power, they're going to use it. Your system seems to assume an idealistic mass tolerance that just doesn't exist.)

Ah I get it, you're afraid of the masses. I'm not.

Define what you mean by "force their opinion on others." (Also, it's not okay for the minority to do it, but the majority can do whatever they want? I believe that's referred to as a "double standard.")

Nah mate it's what's referred to as "democracy". And forcing your opinion on others is, I suppose, using force to make others do or act in away they don't want.

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows?

We can hope at least.

Class conflict facilitates the eradication of private property, because the propertied class is not likely to give up their privileges without a fight. Once the class struggle has been one, there's been some sort of social revolution etc. then private property can be eliminated. Sad, but I reckon that's the most realistic way it'll happen at the moment.

Yeah, I've heard Marxists say that a lot, but have never, you know, actually proved it. The only examples we really have to go by are Marxist-Leninist and Maoist states (and none of those states ever accomplished such a lofty goal). "Some sort of social revolution..." I was wondering when we were getting to this

Kewl.

(though, kudos on making it this far).

Don't be like that.

This is my main point of contention with far-left ideologies, they merely presume that everything'll work out in the end, however, they make no attempt to actually state what these world-changing events will be. Come back to me once you've come up with a realistic, workable formula for this "sort of social revolution," then we can have a more meaningful discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_revolution

Here you go, Spain's the most obvious, and for a bit the most successful example.

[Land and Freedom]

Then they can leave the community.

So your anarchist society can only exist in conjunction with statist societies?

It doesn't have to, although it can.

Also, if they're going to be forced to leave the community, you have a state. You have a monopoly on violence forcing people to do things.

I'm viewing the state as a specific organisation, distinct from the population. But yes, the masses should have a democratic monopoly on violence, whilst retaining strong individual rights, and if that doesn't conform to anyone's idea of statelessness, it doesn't bother me.

And who decides what individual wants outweigh others? If Johnny wants a new TV and Jimmy wants a new sound system, and both of them have functional TVs and sound systems, who decides who gets it?

And on a larger scale, how do the TV producers decide which communities get how many TVs?

You'd need a central planning agency.

No private property remember? And hopefully, a rethinking of personal property and shift towards communal living and lifestyle. But the trade between and within communes would be decided democratically by the workers.

TBH, I never got the romance associated with Anarchist Catalonia. From my admittedly limited readings about it, the CNT, militias and such organizations seems to have acted effectively as a government.

It's just nice to see the working class standing on their own and making their own decisions on one corner of this globe for a couple of years. That's why I get nostalgic.

But that aside, I had been assuming you were planning on implementing this system worldwide. My bad.

No worries.

We don't give enough in charity to generate material equality. We give in charity to stop poverty, not to make everybody equally rich.

I'm saying that's where the basis for mutual cooperation comes from. And once again consciousness and all that jazz. And of course, a commune should give to another so that it can stand on its own feet and rise independently.

Military and policing organizations kind of have to be hierarchical to function. Sure, they can be voluntary and use representative democracy, but they can't be directly democratic. You can elect the planner, not the plan, if you get me. And once you've got a policing body enforcing laws, you've necessarily got a monopoly on violence and a state.

Whatever it's called I'm not fussed. The line between state and statelessness can be blurred.

There's no reason these abuses have to occur in a capitalist system. Social capitalism and giving serious funding and support to developing nations seems like a much more sensible and practical approach to me.

There has to be a poor labour force for capitalism to be productice, at least the capitalism we know now. And rather than rely upon the rich to be kind and through us alms, I advocate for the poor to organise and abolish class society altogether. I know that's a radical solution, but it's a solution I think would be the most lasting and realistic.

[Land and Freedom]

Bomb throwers, illegalism, the terrorism of the anarchists in Catalonia, etc.

So... you consider the left anarchists to be cartoon characters because cartoon characters dominate your perception of anarchism. *shrug* Fair enough.

Applause for that.

[Land and Freedom]

Really? How so?

Bomb throwers, illegalism, the terrorism of the anarchists in Catalonia, etc. BTW, what do you think of "post-left anarchism"?

White terror, red terror, black terror, blue terror, that's war folks.

[Arkolon]

Consc and Zott wrote things I have to reply to. Might take a week, so, if it even matters that much to you all, do be patient and enjoy your summer yourselves.

[Zottistan]

So your anarchist society can only exist in conjunction with statist societies?

It doesn't have to, although it can.

If there were no statist societies there'd be nowhere for those who don't cooperate to go. Which means they'd have to be made to cooperate.

Also, if they're going to be forced to leave the community, you have a state. You have a monopoly on violence forcing people to do things.

I'm viewing the state as a specific organisation, distinct from the population. But yes, the masses should have a democratic monopoly on violence, whilst retaining strong individual rights, and if that doesn't conform to anyone's idea of statelessness, it doesn't bother me.

Alright so. Technically speaking, according to widespread definition, it's not anarchism, it's some form of radical socialism, but that's fine.

And who decides what individual wants outweigh others? If Johnny wants a new TV and Jimmy wants a new sound system, and both of them have functional TVs and sound systems, who decides who gets it?

And on a larger scale, how do the TV producers decide which communities get how many TVs?

You'd need a central planning agency.

No private property remember? And hopefully, a rethinking of personal property and shift towards communal living and lifestyle. But the trade between and within communes would be decided democratically by the workers

Even then, assume the community only owns one TV. Do they allow Johnny or Jimmy to use it?

I had thought that private property referred to individual ownership of a means of production and personal property was property used to live and enhance quality of life? That's the Marxist definition, right?

TBH, I never got the romance associated with Anarchist Catalonia. From my admittedly limited readings about it, the CNT, militias and such organizations seems to have acted effectively as a government.

It's just nice to see the working class standing on their own and making their own decisions on one corner of this globe for a couple of years. That's why I get nostalgic.

But that aside, I had been assuming you were planning on implementing this system worldwide. My bad.

No worries.

We don't give enough in charity to generate material equality. We give in charity to stop poverty, not to make everybody equally rich.

I'm saying that's where the basis for mutual cooperation comes from. And once again consciousness and all that jazz. And of course, a commune should give to another so that it can stand on its own feet and rise independently.

Fair enough, if you could persuade enough people to play along and are willing to concede the need for central planning. I still don't see how it's preferable to properly managed capitalist statism, but that's being dealt with below.

Military and policing organizations kind of have to be hierarchical to function. Sure, they can be voluntary and use representative democracy, but they can't be directly democratic. You can elect the planner, not the plan, if you get me. And once you've got a policing body enforcing laws, you've necessarily got a monopoly on violence and a state.

Whatever it's called I'm not fussed. The line between state and statelessness can be blurred.

There's no reason these abuses have to occur in a capitalist system. Social capitalism and giving serious funding and support to developing nations seems like a much more sensible and practical approach to me.

There has to be a poor labour force for capitalism to be productice, at least the capitalism we know now. And rather than rely upon the rich to be kind and through us alms, I advocate for the poor to organise and abolish class society altogether. I know that's a radical solution, but it's a solution I think would be the most lasting and realistic.

There has to be a relatively poor labour force. They can still live comfortably while the capitalists are wealthier. And that aside, modern technology is making the labour force increasingly obsolete.

You don't need to rely on the rich for alms with a proper welfare state.

[Land and Freedom]

It doesn't have to, although it can.

If there were no statist societies there'd be nowhere for those who don't cooperate to go. Which means they'd have to be made to cooperate.

There could be other anarchist societies or they could make their own. That's their prerogative.

Even then, assume the community only owns one TV. Do they allow Johnny or Jimmy to use it?

Democratic consensus and compromise. Same as what you and your family do.

Fair enough, if you could persuade enough people to play along and are willing to concede the need for central planning. I still don't see how it's preferable to properly managed capitalist statism, but that's being dealt with below.

No worries.

There has to be a relatively poor labour force. They can still live comfortably while the capitalists are wealthier.

Departing from any moral considerations about liberty and inequality. Yes, when capitalist are wealthier (most) can live comfortably depending of course on the benefits they have won from the capitalists (welfare state etc.), but when things go sour, what happens? What's happening all over the world, living standards are decreasing for the majority of the population while the rich stay rich (or sometimes become wealthier), all in the interests of "austerity" and "economic efficiency". As soon as world capitalism undergoes one of its little corrections, it's the poor who feel the sharp end of it.

And that aside, modern technology is making the labour force increasingly obsolete.

You don't need to rely on the rich for alms with a proper welfare state.

A welfare state differs from alms and charity in that through the whims of the rulers or the power of the workers, the capitalists are forced to give away some of their private property.