I think you're confusing worker-owned with socially-owned.

are the two mutually exclusive?

If different groups of anarchists in Barcelona owned each factory separately that would be private ownership. I dont know if that's the arrangement they had, but if they did and thought that constituted social or common ownership they would be wrong.

you think they felt that they owned these factories in both senses?
Anarcho-Syndicalism is a system of federated autonomous communities, each enterprise would be a community unto its self. autonomous, yet part of a system of mutual benefit with the community at large. those who possesd the buildings and used the equipment, where compensated by the community.

Again, what I'm talking about in this thread is COMMON ownership, ownership by the community, as opposed to ownership by individuals or groups of individuals comprising less than the whole community. As in what the anarcho-communists advocate.

welcome to the grey area that is Theory In Practice. learn to live there.

In other words, in socialist or collectivist anarchism, whatever one wants to call it, each factory would not be owned separately by different groups of people. That would be private ownership. Rather, everybody at each factory would share ownership of all other factories in the community, as well ss the one they're working at. That's what social ownership of the means of production means.

And yet the Anarchists in revolutionary Barcelona, who openly called themselves socialists, organized in a syndicalist fashion, and did not call it private ownership. Odd.

Understand, they did not come to own their factories by purchasing anything. Ownership, and especially ownership with the word private tacked on before it, was not recognized in the way that it had been before. You came about owning something by using it or by working. One person could not simply buy a factory. Such an agreement was not recognized by anyone. Hence, new terms were coined.

But if you can only call something like that private ownership, then I have had no hesitation in saying you are right. If you insist on calling it something no one else has, then by all means you are correct.

However, these socialists, the ones in Barcelona, have had a quite recent (and if it were not for communist meddling, quite successful) anarchist revolution. Their society functioned solely on socialist anarchist principles. Argentina has seen some factories organize similarly in the 21st century! (See: The Take. It's a documentary).

So all semantics, ownership values and other disagreements aside, socialist Anarchism has proven and continues to prove it's relevance every god damn day, even outside of factories as well. I can think of four entities in Detroit alone that function on socialist anarchist principals.

And you know what? While we're add it, just to throw gas on the flames, guess what? Benjamin Tucker, a wild proponent of market Anarchism, considered himself a socialist.

I think you're confusing worker-owned with socially-owned.

If different groups of anarchists in Barcelona owned each factory separately that would be private ownership. I dont know if that's the arrangement they had, but if they did and thought that constituted social or common ownership they would be wrong.

Again, what I'm talking about in this thread is COMMON ownership, ownership by the community, as opposed to ownership by individuals or groups of individuals comprising less than the whole community. As in what the anarcho-communists advocate.

In other words, in socialist or collectivist anarchism, whatever one wants to call it, each factory would not be owned separately by different groups of people. That would be private ownership. Rather, everybody at each factory would share ownership of all other factories in the community, as well ss the one they're working at. That's what social ownership of the means of production means.

And yet the Anarchists in revolutionary Barcelona, who openly called themselves socialists, organized in a syndicalist fashion, and did not call it private ownership. Odd.

Understand, they did not come to own their factories by purchasing anything. Ownership, and especially ownership with the word private tacked on before it, was not recognized in the way that it had been before. You came about owning something by using it or by working. One person could not simply buy a factory. Such an agreement was not recognized by anyone. Hence, new terms were coined.

But if you can only call something like that private ownership, then I have had no hesitation in saying you are right. If you insist on calling it something no one else has, then by all means you are correct.

However, these socialists, the ones in Barcelona, have had a quite recent (and if it were not for communist meddling, quite successful) anarchist revolution. Their society functioned solely on socialist anarchist principles. Argentina has seen some factories organize similarly in the 21st century! (See: The Take. It's a documentary).

So all semantics, ownership values and other disagreements aside, socialist Anarchism has proven and continues to prove it's relevance every god damn day, even outside of factories as well. I can think of four entities in Detroit alone that function on socialist anarchist principals.

And you know what? While we're add it, just to throw gas on the flames, guess what? Benjamin Tucker, a wild proponent of market Anarchism, considered himself a socialist.

Benjamin Tucker was not for social ownership of the means of production, but private ownership.

In other words, in socialist or collectivist anarchism, whatever one wants to call it, each factory would not be owned separately by different groups of people. That would be private ownership. Rather, everybody at each factory would share ownership of all other factories in the community, as well ss the one they're working at. That's what social ownership of the means of production means.

And yet the Anarchists in revolutionary Barcelona, who openly called themselves socialists, organized in a syndicalist fashion, and did not call it private ownership. Odd.

Understand, they did not come to own their factories by purchasing anything. Ownership, and especially ownership with the word private tacked on before it, was not recognized in the way that it had been before. You came about owning something by using it or by working. One person could not simply buy a factory. Such an agreement was not recognized by anyone. Hence, new terms were coined.

But if you can only call something like that private ownership, then I have had no hesitation in saying you are right. If you insist on calling it something no one else has, then by all means you are correct.

However, these socialists, the ones in Barcelona, have had a quite recent (and if it were not for communist meddling, quite successful) anarchist revolution. Their society functioned solely on socialist anarchist principles. Argentina has seen some factories organize similarly in the 21st century! (See: The Take. It's a documentary).

So all semantics, ownership values and other disagreements aside, socialist Anarchism has proven and continues to prove it's relevance every god damn day, even outside of factories as well. I can think of four entities in Detroit alone that function on socialist anarchist principals.

And you know what? While we're add it, just to throw gas on the flames, guess what? Benjamin Tucker, a wild proponent of market Anarchism, considered himself a socialist.

In other words, in socialist or collectivist anarchism, whatever one wants to call it, each factory would not be owned separately by different groups of people. That would be private ownership. Rather, everybody at each factory would share ownership of all other factories in the community, as well ss the one they're working at. That's what social ownership of the means of production means.

If you are positive that there are only three choices, that our definitions of social ownership are not adequate, and there is no convincing you, then you win. Socialist Anarchists have been for private ownership all along by your definition. They have exercised private ownership and only recognized some form of private ownership and everyone is for private ownership.

If you are unable to see that some of what you deem to be private ownership is called different things by most other people, then of course you are right. If you are unable to see why people call, for example, a syndicalist model a type of communal or collective ownership instead of private ownership, then there is nothing I can say to you.

If the discussion must be dictated by your terms and not those widely regarded by others then this discussion will head nowhere.

You're not familiar with anarcho-communism? They are not for social ownership, not private ownership. I think what it is, is you just didn't understand the philosophy of those who advocate common ownership. Many of those who call themselves social anarchists don't understand it either. Read Kropotkin. He is not for separate privately owned units of the means of production but for all means of production to be owned in common by everyone. Anything else is private ownership of the means of production. Communist philosophers understand this.

What I have been criticizing is community ownership, and supporting private ownership. This discussion has gone nowhere because no one that's responded was even aware that everything that is not state or community ownership is private ownership.

Actually, that was fairly clear at the beginning, when you identified various sorts of collectivist arrangements as "private ownership." The discussion has gone nowhere because nobody has stepped up to take on your rather ignorant notion of what "socialist anarchism" is.

If you weren't so ignorant of basic political philosophy, you would know what "private" meant. I made it very clear that when I was using the term "socialist" I was referring to social ownership, as opposed to private ownership. You're just stupid.

If you are positive that there are only three choices, that our definitions of social ownership are not adequate, and there is no convincing you, then you win. Socialist Anarchists have been for private ownership all along by your definition. They have exercised private ownership and only recognized some form of private ownership and everyone is for private ownership.

If you are unable to see that some of what you deem to be private ownership is called different things by most other people, then of course you are right. If you are unable to see why people call, for example, a syndicalist model a type of communal or collective ownership instead of private ownership, then there is nothing I can say to you.

If the discussion must be dictated by your terms and not those widely regarded by others then this discussion will head nowhere.

What I have been criticizing is community ownership, and supporting private ownership. This discussion has gone nowhere because no one that's responded was even aware that everything that is not state or community ownership is private ownership.

Actually, that was fairly clear at the beginning, when you identified various sorts of collectivist arrangements as "private ownership." The discussion has gone nowhere because nobody has stepped up to take on your rather ignorant notion of what "socialist anarchism" is.

The horror that is modern day capitalism is a topic worthy of another thread, so I will not indulge it here. And I will only say that while I own a computer many people do not. And if you buy the idea that anyone can pull themselves up by their boot-straps, I think the Tea Party camp is probably better suited for you.

Moreover, the issue seems strictly semantic. Almost all Anarchist philosophies have not argued for complete societal ownership of everything everywhere all the time. Including Socialist Anarchists. What you call private ownership is, in some cases, entirely compatible with socialist Anarchist thought. Call it whatever you want, but you will be met with misunderstanding, since that term as it is conventionally understood is not used by socialist Anarchists.

The main point is that Socialist Anarchist thought is indeed still relevant and has proved to be the only school of thought that has yielded ANY results throughout history of which I am aware.

There are only three choices, in regard to the means of production: State ownership, community ("social") ownership, and private ownership.

What I have been criticizing is community ownership, and supporting private ownership. This discussion has gone nowhere because no one that's responded was even aware that everything that is not state or community ownership is private ownership.

++++++++++++++++
What I'm trying to gain here is to explore these issues for mutual knowledge and understanding.
++++++++++++++++

Anyone,

How about a test to see if the above is remotely true?

If there is such a thing as “mutual knowledge”, the thing could be measured accurately by something, such as agreement – person’s A, B, C, and D measure the thing and they all agree that the thing is, in fact, knowledge.

1. The thing is knowledge
2. Knowledge is mutual

How about an example?

What is ownership and can ownership be two things, not one thing?

I. Ownership

A. Private ownership

B. Public (social) ownership

If someone owns the means of production (dogma), then someone can dictate the meaning of said dogma, and no one, ever, can measure that dogma in any other way other than the dictatorial version.

Example:

++++++++++++
The it's not social ownership of the means of production. It's private ownership. A group of people owning equal shares of an enterprise does not equate with social ownership - the commons. It's private ownership.
++++++++++++

That private owning dogmatist appears to own that dogma privately, lending some evidence to the perception that ownership exists and ownership is private – or individual.

The individual named as Hardee, who is publishing words on this public access forum, appears to be a good, and accurate, example of private ownership, as Hardee owns dogma – the example quoted (in the fence) above.

What happens if one other person, one other individual, publishes words on this public access forum that confess ownership of the same dogma? Would that be proof positive of the existence of public ownership of that specific thing owned?

Can the test be more specific, and therefore better able to support the answer – avoiding ambiguity?

How about some basic focus on one simple concept before moving onto more complicated and confusing concepts?

Is, for example, there anything to measure when perceiving this idea called ownership – before moving onto such things as private or non-private ownership, and before moving onto anything as complex as the idea that there can be shared ownership, or public ownership – such as the ownership of stock shares, lottery tickets, money, etc.?

If ownership could be measured up accurately as something real, something understandable, something that can be accurately perceived by someone, some individual somewhere, at some time, then knowledge could exist at that moment by that individual – that individual may own that bit of knowledge at that time.

Knowledge would exist at that time, concerning the existence of ownership – at that time.

1. A person exists
2. Ownership exists
3. A person knows ownership for what it is exactly at a moment in time.
4. Knowledge exists.

Suppose that happens?

Like this:

++++++++++++++++
What I'm trying to gain here is to explore these issues for mutual knowledge and understanding.
++++++++++++++++

Almost like that, except the “mutual” part isn’t yet confirmed in any measurable way. It would take two, not one, but two, or more, examples of knowledge concerning the same thing known for this knowledge thing to become mutual – yes or no?

When dealing with dogma, there can be only one owner - the dogmatist.

Too weird to respond to.

++++++++++++++++
What I'm trying to gain here is to explore these issues for mutual knowledge and understanding.
++++++++++++++++

Anyone,

How about a test to see if the above is remotely true?

If there is such a thing as “mutual knowledge”, the thing could be measured accurately by something, such as agreement – person’s A, B, C, and D measure the thing and they all agree that the thing is, in fact, knowledge.

1. The thing is knowledge
2. Knowledge is mutual

How about an example?

What is ownership and can ownership be two things, not one thing?

I. Ownership

A. Private ownership

B. Public (social) ownership

If someone owns the means of production (dogma), then someone can dictate the meaning of said dogma, and no one, ever, can measure that dogma in any other way other than the dictatorial version.

Example:

++++++++++++
The it's not social ownership of the means of production. It's private ownership. A group of people owning equal shares of an enterprise does not equate with social ownership - the commons. It's private ownership.
++++++++++++

That private owning dogmatist appears to own that dogma privately, lending some evidence to the perception that ownership exists and ownership is private – or individual.

The individual named as Hardee, who is publishing words on this public access forum, appears to be a good, and accurate, example of private ownership, as Hardee owns dogma – the example quoted (in the fence) above.

What happens if one other person, one other individual, publishes words on this public access forum that confess ownership of the same dogma? Would that be proof positive of the existence of public ownership of that specific thing owned?

Can the test be more specific, and therefore better able to support the answer – avoiding ambiguity?

How about some basic focus on one simple concept before moving onto more complicated and confusing concepts?

Is, for example, there anything to measure when perceiving this idea called ownership – before moving onto such things as private or non-private ownership, and before moving onto anything as complex as the idea that there can be shared ownership, or public ownership – such as the ownership of stock shares, lottery tickets, money, etc.?

If ownership could be measured up accurately as something real, something understandable, something that can be accurately perceived by someone, some individual somewhere, at some time, then knowledge could exist at that moment by that individual – that individual may own that bit of knowledge at that time.

Knowledge would exist at that time, concerning the existence of ownership – at that time.

1. A person exists
2. Ownership exists
3. A person knows ownership for what it is exactly at a moment in time.
4. Knowledge exists.

Suppose that happens?

Like this:

++++++++++++++++
What I'm trying to gain here is to explore these issues for mutual knowledge and understanding.
++++++++++++++++

Almost like that, except the “mutual” part isn’t yet confirmed in any measurable way. It would take two, not one, but two, or more, examples of knowledge concerning the same thing known for this knowledge thing to become mutual – yes or no?

When dealing with dogma, there can be only one owner - the dogmatist.

The horror that is modern day capitalism is a topic worthy of another thread, so I will not indulge it here. And I will only say that while I own a computer many people do not. And if you buy the idea that anyone can pull themselves up by their boot-straps, I think the Tea Party camp is probably better suited for you.

Moreover, the issue seems strictly semantic. Almost all Anarchist philosophies have not argued for complete societal ownership of everything everywhere all the time. Including Socialist Anarchists. What you call private ownership is, in some cases, entirely compatible with socialist Anarchist thought. Call it whatever you want, but you will be met with misunderstanding, since that term as it is conventionally understood is not used by socialist Anarchists.

The main point is that Socialist Anarchist thought is indeed still relevant and has proved to be the only school of thought that has yielded ANY results throughout history of which I am aware.

But we already are in a situation where no on is forced to work for anyone. People can, and do, start employee-owned businesses. They aren't any more difficult to start than ordinary ones. Yet people are still choosing to mostly start ordinary businesses and to work at those. How are you drawing the conclusion that an employee-owed business pays more?

An employee-owned business has an overhead cost of $0.

As far as this statement:
"we already are in a situation where no on is forced to work for anyone."
this is simply not true.

The means of production are not available to everyone. Therefore, people must work for those who can afford to own them.

What do you mean? You're free to start a business. You own a means of production - a computer. Study up computer programming, and start soliciting for customers. Viola, a business.

Capitalism systematically starves and impoverishes people for the sole purpose of keeping them desperate so that they have no other choice than to work for someone.

So it's a conspiracy? That's ludicrous. The conspiracy would have leaked out, from one of the millions of business owners.

The government enforces the capitalists' right to privately own the means of production and exploit the situation of the lower class.

The plain and simple fact is that the vast majority of those who are poor do not have the access to capital to start their own business, collective or otherwise. So they are forced to work under someone.

You don't have to have any money to start your own business. You can look for investors, a loan, or some nice person may even give you the tools you need.

Yep. Social ownership means ownership by the whole community. Private ownership means ownership by people constituting less than the whole community.

That's just not true.

Look at Anarchist Catalonia. They were syndicalists, no? Socialist Anarchists, right? Believe it or not, the entirety of Barcelona didn't own, say, the Telephone exchange. Only the CNT workers who worked there did. The idea of worker control, as opposed to capitalist control, is a socialist idea. I don't even know of an Anarchist school of thought where the entire society is supposed to own everything. I'm not doubting it's existence, that's just to say I haven't come across one.

The it's not social ownership of the means of production. It's private ownership. A group of people owning equal shares of an enterprise does not equate with social ownership - the commons. It's private ownership.

Regardless, the conventional idea of "private ownership" is not the one you're espousing. I've heard of ownership by way of occupancy and use. That's certainly not a conventional way to, for lack of a better term, claim "private ownership," but could qualify, and is a widely accepted Anarchist mode of thought. The point being, that new terms need to be coined in order to stray away from the capitalist conventions we've come to recognize. You may say private ownership, I'll say occupancy and use.

I'm not using the word "property" intentionally, in order not to cloud the issue. What I'm saying applies to both private 'property' and private 'occupancy and use'.

At this point, I've no idea what exactly you wish to gain. It seems as though you're just using private ownership as a malleable term in order to get someone to admit it would exist in an Anarchist society. Switching the meaning from owning a business with no workers to owning a business and being able to employ people. It's as if we're wrestling, though instead of waiting for someone to say uncle, you'd like us to say private ownership.

Let me end it here. Private ownership.

What I'm trying to gain here is to explore these issues for mutual knowledge and understanding.

Yep. Social ownership means ownership by the whole community. Private ownership means ownership by people constituting less than the whole community.

That's just not true.

Look at Anarchist Catalonia. They were syndicalists, no? Socialist Anarchists, right? Believe it or not, the entirety of Barcelona didn't own, say, the Telephone exchange. Only the CNT workers who worked there did. The idea of worker control, as opposed to capitalist control, is a socialist idea. I don't even know of an Anarchist school of thought where the entire society is supposed to own everything. I'm not doubting it's existence, that's just to say I haven't come across one.

Regardless, the conventional idea of "private ownership" is not the one you're espousing. I've heard of ownership by way of occupancy and use. That's certainly not a conventional way to, for lack of a better term, claim "private ownership," but could qualify, and is a widely accepted Anarchist mode of thought. The point being, that new terms need to be coined in order to stray away from the capitalist conventions we've come to recognize. You may say private ownership, I'll say occupancy and use.

At this point, I've no idea what exactly you wish to gain. It seems as though you're just using private ownership as a malleable term in order to get someone to admit it would exist in an Anarchist society. Switching the meaning from owning a business with no workers to owning a business and being able to employ people. It's as if we're wrestling, though instead of waiting for someone to say uncle, you'd like us to say private ownership.

Let me end it here. Private ownership.

But we already are in a situation where no on is forced to work for anyone. People can, and do, start employee-owned businesses. They aren't any more difficult to start than ordinary ones. Yet people are still choosing to mostly start ordinary businesses and to work at those. How are you drawing the conclusion that an employee-owed business pays more?

An employee-owned business has an overhead cost of $0.

As far as this statement:
"we already are in a situation where no on is forced to work for anyone."
this is simply not true.

The means of production are not available to everyone. Therefore, people must work for those who can afford to own them.

Capitalism systematically starves and impoverishes people for the sole purpose of keeping them desperate so that they have no other choice than to work for someone.

The government enforces the capitalists' right to privately own the means of production and exploit the situation of the lower class.

The plain and simple fact is that the vast majority of those who are poor do not have the access to capital to start their own business, collective or otherwise. So they are forced to work under someone.

As soon as one person decides to run his own business then the social anarchism no longer exists, becauseby definition social ownership is ownership by all of society.

No. But thanks for playing...

Yep. Social ownership means ownership by the whole community. Private ownership means ownership by people constituting less than the whole community.

As soon as one person decides to run his own business then the social anarchism no longer exists, becauseby definition social ownership is ownership by all of society.

No. But thanks for playing...

So they would go down in the history books as a society based on private ownership because of one person even though no one else recognizes it? That's interesting.

If you want to nit-pick about exactly what the society would be called, go for it. I could care less. The point is, however, that the ideas put forth by the so-called "irrelevant" anarchist schools do indeed serve some purpose. They offer an alternative to hierarchical business models, and many entities already operate collectively.

What exactly you mean by "own a business" is beyond me. If it takes one person to do all the work for that business then they would indeed be the sole owner in a lot of these "irrelevant" anarchies. But if this one person wants to own a business and employ others to do work for them, I don't see how he could convince anyone else to do so.

You don't see how anyone convince someone to work for him? I don't see any reason why I person wouldn't offer to work for someone. What if a guy starts a sole proprietorship doing some professional service and he puts up an ad for "secretary wanted." Why wouldn't someone come in and offer to to do this for wage?

Because that ad would be next to one that offers the same work for, likely, higher pay, benefits, and the ability to be an owner of the business with all their coworkers, therefore having a say in the direction it heads. Because people would rather be their own boss than have one. In a society where one is not forced to work under anyone, I doubt they would.

But we already are in a situation where no on is forced to work for anyone. People can, and do, start employee-owned businesses. They aren't any more difficult to start than ordinary ones. Yet people are still choosing to mostly start ordinary businesses and to work at those. How are you drawing the conclusion that an employee-owed business pays more?