Anarchy! - Why We Need It

Some interesting points sir, I shall elaborate...

The problem arises when communists seek to control, socially or otherwise, the freedom of the individual.

When this happens, it ceases to be any kind of communism. The whole basis of social anarchy/true communism is that there would be no kind of coercion from either or individuals or groups of them. Everything, like you said, must be voluntary. Bear in mind though, so we dont end up playing the semantics game, that by true communism we are referring to the social ownership (NOT state ownership) of the means of production and democratic, self-managed federations of communties.

I have no idea what, specifically, you mean by capitalism.

By Capitalism i mean the current dominant economic system. Defined by:

-Private Ownership of the means of production (farms, laboratories, factories etc.)
-Production of things as commoditites to be sold for for a profit on a market, not for satisfying human need.
-A heirarchial separation between worker/producer and owner/capitalist, with political and social power stemming from the top down.
-Distribution of goods warped by people with more purchasing power (i.e. the rich) dictating the terms of supply and demand.

Basically, the world over....

It cannot be 'free market' because if you are advocating the destruction of a free market you are advocating control over that market (for examples, see the USA) by some authority. That would, in turn, not be Anarchy.

How exactly am I implying this?


I advocate the ABOLITION OF MARKETS as the vehicle for distribution of goods, as most social anarchists will save Mutualists (and even then only to a limited degree). To participate in a market, you must surrender to the principle of "grow or die". What does this mean?:

-Your business must expand, you must make a profit for your shareholders. If you do not you will go under and as such, profit-making supersedes meeting needs.

- You must do this by either a superb product (which others will themselves want to compete with and waste creative talent by producing an identical product), OR driving down your costs: Making an inferior product, driving up prices, marketing for the right "needs" that will pay you, and paying your employees pittance.

- Plus, a system built on profits and markets (modern capitalism), wastes a tremendous amount of both labour and commodities. Even if you ignore the sheer overproduction you see rotting in dumpsters out Tescos/Wal-mart, think of the people involved. Bankers, marketing consultants, stock traders, advertising salesmen, accountants, hedge fund analysts, the list goes on. They do not grow food, they do not put out fires, they do not find cures for cancer or build jet engines or anything socially useful. They exists soley to maintain the complex, clunky and inefficient system of profit and loss.

I do not know why social anarchists are so adamant in distancing themselves from other anarchists. We have a fundamental difference in the theory of value, but we both believe that the state is not a necessary or a preferred way of doing things.

This is true, and i also fail to understand it sometimes. Social anarchism upholds the sovreignty of the individual over themselves just as much. Just becuase we can achieve more co-operating together than we can alone does not negate this. But both capitalism and the state are divisive influences that pit us against each other in order for both systems to operate. I feel sometimes that fetishized individualism of some anarchists lends them to feel that a competetive capitalism is the only true extension of this.

I believe that in a world without government, socialism and capitalism will interact in peace

To me this reads as an oxymoron. Can you elaborate on what you define socialism as?