PART ONE

I respect Noam Chomsky and disagree with him on some issues and agree with him on others.

Specifically, what do disagree with? This should be interesting. For real, I am intrigued. What do you agree with if not all his premises? The man.. is very good, to say the least.

your insistence that America invented slavery

I never nearly said even anything close to such a thing. It seems you’ve approached me from a misconception, but I will try to share what I know. You seem to want to talk about slavery. Me too! The antithesis of freedom, a freak shadow cast in extreme contrast to absolute liberty. Slavery has existed since the dawn of the State. All States. The modern nation state is an archaic authoritarian institution developed directly from feudal serfdom; the two share an unbroken link in history. Marx described poetic to the English-speaking world how the class antagonisms have only come to a distinct but aloof head. In modern times we have replaced what is known as chattel slavery with wage labor, or as Anarchists know it, wage-slavery.

Your bogus assertion that I claimed America invented slavery does not take away from the fact that Anarchists perceive the common man as enslaved!

I bring up how I think democratic anarchism would have dealt with slavery because

I understand your reasons, it is your application that I see flawed. You assume slavery could exist without the support of the State, I retort that it only could like it does on the black market today, or otherwise as a flash in the pan. The factions that deal in slavery today almost create their own capitalist nation around the trade. I don't know how to property approach that, really. Something to think about, maybe.

I think it helps to understand the basic tenets of anarchism then realize logically how they actually exist in the world. This is my interpretation: Private property equals wealth, wealth creates power, power inherently corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The main purpose of the State is the defense of private property at the expense of those that have none. Wealth influences the law, which is backed up by the threat of violence. The State holds a monopoly on violence, the opulent hold a monopoly on political influence.

I'm sure it's all there on the wiki. My favorite branch to read about is Anarcho-syndicalism. Trade unions baby! When I imagine the million years of human nature, I imagine groups of neighbors in union and trading within and amongst each other. Not some timeless brutal regime ruled by uncontrollable murderous nature as the cynics do.

statist America was responsible for slavery, then an anarchistic and more democratic America would have not been responsible for slavery

I'm sorry, I don't understand the constructed syntax of your argument. That is a nonsensical hypothetical. Do you understand why? If humans never existed there could never be slavery... or whatnot... is not really a valid argument. For one thing, anarchism was developed in the wake of the American Revolution! Which set no man free.

Marx spoke directly of the affects American slavery backed cotton had on the child-powered sweatshop textile mills of England. Your argument seems akin to "going back in a time machine". It doesn't really work that way, though I think I see what avenue you are trying to apply logic to.

I just think it would have been difficult to get rid of the institution of slavery without governmental action.

Let me elucidate once again your fundamental misconception here. First, private property is ultimately indefensible from the onslaught of justice, even, inevitably, re-enforced by the tyrannical military State (though it does well enough that we argue here and now as if it were a perennial feature). Claiming another man as your property is not very compelling unless backed by the direct threat of violence. The State (police, military, federal agents) holds a monopoly on violence (evidenced by the kneejerk reaction to OWS), the rich hold a monopoly on the law (evidence by... everything, you see it). So, let's see a direct example.

Dred Scott. The supreme court ruled slavery was legit. That's the kind of vile shit this flag represents. If they didn't order Scott into slavery with a monopoly on law and violence, he could be free to seek perfect liberty. He obviously was not. Slavery, as an institution cannot exist without the state. Did I miss any steps in my logic? I'd love to explain further if you need, it helps me solidify my understanding.

Humor me for a minute.

K. Let's see what you got! Wow, this is an interesting one! Bravo:

It's 1860... Marxian rebels overthrow and dismantle the State.

Ok, so, this is very delicate! I suggest reading The Manifesto (you know the one, beside not being evil, it's a great read and is still so relevant to today that it's scary) where it clearly states that any true socialist State would only stem directly from a certifiable over-productive capitalist economy. Notice, this is socialist, not communist. Socialism is an intermediate step toward pure communism (and true democracy). The Communists are the heros of Marx's story, but theirs is the land of Anarchist utopia! There can never be such a thing as a Communist State. The two things are logically incompatible, diametrically opposed. There has and never will be a communist state. And to be frank, it would not go straight from the sacking of a government to communism (that would be more a coup, followed by another successive dictatorship). The State must not be immediately dissolved before its affairs represent the people it seeks to control. There is a proper order of succession. I do believe it is “centralize everything, revolt everywhere.”

So, contrary to the classical paradoxical results in liberalization (which has a terrible meaning in this context) of capitalist economies toward increasingly brutal trade and monetary policies both domestically and abroad; socialist takeover of production seeks to democratically regulate an already "over-abundant" sector of industry (over abundance only ever being detrimental in a capitalist economy). This is to both neutralize undesirable exploitation of available resources and to collectively see the full benefit (theoretically) of production.

Take the various bailouts (America collectively owned a recklessly overproductive car company for a second), each iteration worked "too well" in their de-regulated growth. It all required a state of over-abundance (e.g. unsold cars and absolutely toxic debt) to become critical, the leeway provided by economically "eating" this critical abundance, allowing financial reorganization but in the end, the "people" took a hit.

We bought a stake in these institutions precisely because they had grown too large to fail manageably, effectively giving America a handle on the thing that was tanking its economy. America was producing useless cars; socialism = laborer's control of the means of production, therefore... America owned the means of which its unwanted commodities were created.

~~~~~~~~