>Society is more complicated than hunter-gatherer society and faces much
>more complicated and dangerous problems. A mere property system can't
>solve all problems (e.g., global warming). But I favor _democratic_
>property rights, which I think would involve democratically-controlled
>government ownership of the means of production. To some extent, depending
>on the situation (the type of industry, etc.), control should be devolved
>to those using these resources (workers' cooperatives and the like), but
>actual ownership isn't. Ownership should be subordinated to the principle
>of democratic popular sovereignty.
What you call democratic property rights I perceive as a lack of property rights. Bottom line, we agree - I think resources should be democratically controlled, with use rights replacing private property rights.
>That doesn't apply to the means of subsistence (consumer goods), most of
>which are truly private. There should be restrictions on their use (such as
>the requirement of anti-smog devices on cars or even better the restricted
>use of cars), of course, as long as people democratically decide that
>they're needed.
I'm aware of the distinction between property and possession, which I think is appropriate. The distinction being that possessions are employed for their use-value, whereas property is employed for the sake of accumulating profit. So the house you live in is a possession, but a house you rent out is property, etc. I don't want to socialize anyone's coffee mug.
>In order to have democracy, we need to have some sort of centralized
>organization to allow coordination. Some sort of state, despite anarchist
>wishes. I interpret Marx's bit about the withering away of the state as
>referring to the end of the separation -- the alienation -- of the people
>from the state and the end of the domination of the former by the latter.
>That is, the perfection of democracy.
I agree here too, and I don't think this is necessarily anti-anarchistic. Humans are social by nature, so there will always be a need for some form of social organization. If you want to call it a state, so be it. The crucial question, as you've pointed out, is whether or not the social decisions are democratically reached. Or more accurately, whether principles of self-management are upheld. That is, I wouldn't support a "state" which makes all decisions on the principle that a simple majority sentiment rules, period. If you always have the same 60% majority voting down the same 40% minority, then this is too authoritarian a scheme. There should be some mechanism by which persistent minorities can exert influence (in proportion to their numbers), or seccede to form their own community if need be.
>I'm also in favor of getting rid of authority of the sort that stands above
>people and dictates to them. But I am not in favor of abolishing authority
>if it represents the authority of peers. We need that kind of authority in
>case the anarcho-syndicalist workers' cooperative across the river decides
>to set up nukes.
I agree, and this is a real weakness - what do you do when the neighboring commune starts infringing on your commune's "turf?" Ultimately conflicts arise and need to get resolved, but this is an issue independent of how society is organized. You just have to hope they will be decided as peacefully and as satisfactorily as possible. I think anarchist social organizations would be more likely to prevent and diffuse conflict, but that's just my belief - I don't have any supporting evidence.
>And what is a freedom? We should remember that the state does not simply
>restrict our freedom (as when it forces us to pay taxes). It also creates
>_freedom_ -- at a minimum, freedom from a Hobbesian war in which life is
>nasty, brutish, and short. At a maximum, the state can create freedom from
>poverty and need and more. If people are allowed to work together for
>socialism, it's amazing what can be achieved.
>
>Freedom, said Rousseau, means obedience to laws one enacted oneself as part
>of one's community. That's the kind of freedom we should strive for. Get
>the state out of the capitalists' hands and subordinate it to democracy.
This is a really interesting question - what does it mean to be free, especially in a complex social setting? Does a state really enhance our freedom? In the traditional nation state, I think the answer is no - you invariably pay more in coercion and arbitrary authority than you gain in terms of protection or entitlements. Virtually all social organization serves to protect individuals and to insure them against misfortune. The main function of the traditional state, as I see it, is to protect either private property rights (in capitalist countries) or bureucratic/elite priviledge (in communist countries), and nothing good comes of this. Eliminate this function and you effectively eliminate the state. Even taxes are OK as long as they are voluntary. Maybe this is just a semantic difference in what we mean by a "state."
Finally, the notion of primitive life being "nasty, brutish, and short" is largely false. Shorter, definitely, but not necessarily meaner. In fact, we had to wait until civilization appeared before humanity was able to attain Olympian heights of brutality.
I'm not advocating a return to a simpler way of life, or trying to imply that hunter-gatherers were pacifists. Humans have the capacity for cruelty. But the establishment of private property rights and the use of the state to impose and maintain those rights institutionalizes the use of violence. This is the aspect of the state that must be eliminated.
Brett