The new anarchist thread - Page 2
John Bernhardt
23-04-2004, 00:54
I'm not an anarchist and it looks like neither are you.
Anarchy
Absence of any form of political authority.
You guys are just communists since all anarchy really is is lack of order.
I am an anarcho capitalist, or libertarian. I believe that people should be free in personal as well as economical choices.
The Great Leveller
23-04-2004, 01:32
I'm not an anarchist and it looks like neither are you.
Anarchy
Absence of any form of political authority.
You guys are just communists since all anarchy really is is lack of order.
I am an anarcho capitalist, or libertarian. I believe that people should be free in personal as well as economical choices.
You are correct, 'anarchy' is chaos but 'Anarchy' is completely different. I wouldn't say that they are communist (and I certainly am not), Letila denoucement of Statism makes that pretty clear.
You guys are just communists since all anarchy really is is lack of order.
No, a lack of hierarchial order.
I am an anarcho capitalist, or libertarian. I believe that people should be free in personal as well as economical choices.
An "anarcho"-capitalist who believes in economic freedom? How would capitalists get workers to follow their orders if they have economic freedom and are allowed to manage their own work? Why would workers even submit to the authority of bosses if they have economic freedom? You must have an odd definition of economic freedom.
You are correct, 'anarchy' is chaos but 'Anarchy' is completely different. I wouldn't say that they are communist (and I certainly am not), Letila denoucement of Statism makes that pretty clear.
Communism is an economic system without money and which the means of production are managed by society. Most anarchists are also communists. If by communist, you mean Marxist, you're absolutely right, though.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
The Great Leveller
23-04-2004, 01:48
Communism is an economic system without money and which the means of production are managed by society. Most anarchists are also communists. If by communist, you mean Marxist, you're absolutely right, though.
I think it goes beyond simply that (especially in the Marxist sense), but it deserves another time and place with a better server :wink:
So what economics do you support, TGL?
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
The Great Leveller
23-04-2004, 02:22
So what economics do you support, TGL?
You have asked the one (albeit rather broad) question I cannot answer satifactoraly (i know sp?). I believe the methods of production should be owned by the community, I take on the old Leveller idea that the Earth should be a "common treasury for all." However it may be easier if you ask a less broad question, because I know nothing about economics (it actually affects my life, sorting out living expenses and budjeting are a pain).
What about money? Do you think it should be abolished?
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
The Great Leveller
23-04-2004, 02:49
What about money? Do you think it should be abolished?
Aaahhhh, I'm not used to 16 year olds being as sharp as you (if that is the right age, I many be mixing you up).
I wrote a paragraph on money but deleted it because it was crap. I'll try better now I've been forced into a corner.
I think it should be up to the community to decide. I think it depends on the focus of the community to an extent. A more industrialized area may benefit more by retaining money than abandoning. However I do see the potential that money has as a 'powerbroker' so distrust it because of that (also I don't understand how it works). If I had the choice to go to community with money or one without I would probably go to the one without.
Free Soviets
23-04-2004, 02:56
I'm not an anarchist and it looks like neither are you.
Anarchy
Absence of any form of political authority.
You guys are just communists since all anarchy really is is lack of order.
I am an anarcho capitalist, or libertarian. I believe that people should be free in personal as well as economical choices.
round and round and round we go
So you walk the line between anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
The Great Leveller
23-04-2004, 03:06
So you walk the line between anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism.
I suppose you could put it like that.
I'm not an anarchist and it looks like neither are you.
Anarchy
Absence of any form of political authority.
So we have established that you are not an anarchist then. And, you have trounced the works of any anarchist you care to name in a single bound!
But waitaminute, waitaminute!
I am an anarcho capitalist, or libertarian. I believe that people should be free in personal as well as economical choices.
See its razor sharp and highly coherent posts like yours that keep me away from debating in NS for the most part. I just can't compete. :|
Look at democracies, the majority does not want to try it, Communist party run countries do not want to try it.
Well, technically a truly Marxist country would be wroking towards an anarchist society through authoritarian means. Check your The German Ideology.
Because Anarchy is a bad, flawed, political theory an incompatible with technology.
Enough vague rhetoric: why exactly is it bad and flawed and incompatible with technology?
One,
Take the manufacturing of a computer in an Anarchy.
You need raw materials to make the metals, plastics, silicon, and glass. How does Anarchy ensure that these supplies are mined and delivered to the processing plant? How is safety factors done? How do they treat the environment? Mining and drilling is hard work. These jobs are miserable. Without money how does Anarchy deal with labor shortages? Capitalism does this by giving these jobs a higher wage, so how will Anarchy deal with this?
Next, you need to get the processed materials to the chip plant and the manufacturing plant. How is this coordinated? What guarantees are there that the manufacturing plants receive the need materials on time?
Assembly is next. Assembly is one of the easier steps.
Now make thousands per day. How do you coordinate thousands of people?
Two,
Right now technological development costs billions annually. How does Anarchy get the equivalent manpower, lab equipment, and space? The Nanotechnology initiative alone is a billion dollars annually. How does Anarchy evaluate research projects and allocate resources? How does an idea get to the production line. Remember Ford, Microsoft, Motarola, etc… spends hundreds of millions per product to put things into production. How does Anarchy make a superior product? It can’t.
Neo-Anarchos
23-04-2004, 07:20
Tag. Libertad y Anarchia
Look at democracies, the majority does not want to try it, Communist party run countries do not want to try it.
Well, technically a truly Marxist country would be wroking towards an anarchist society through authoritarian means. Check your The German Ideology.
Because Anarchy is a bad, flawed, political theory an incompatible with technology.
Enough vague rhetoric: why exactly is it bad and flawed and incompatible with technology?
One,
Take the manufacturing of a computer in an Anarchy.
You need raw materials to make the metals, plastics, silicon, and glass. How does Anarchy ensure that these supplies are mined and delivered to the processing plant? How is safety factors done? How do they treat the environment? Mining and drilling is hard work. These jobs are miserable. Without money how does Anarchy deal with labor shortages? Capitalism does this by giving these jobs a higher wage, so how will Anarchy deal with this?
Next, you need to get the processed materials to the chip plant and the manufacturing plant. How is this coordinated? What guarantees are there that the manufacturing plants receive the need materials on time?
Assembly is next. Assembly is one of the easier steps.
Now make thousands per day. How do you coordinate thousands of people?
Two,
Right now technological development costs billions annually. How does Anarchy get the equivalent manpower, lab equipment, and space? The Nanotechnology initiative alone is a billion dollars annually. How does Anarchy evaluate research projects and allocate resources? How does an idea get to the production line. Remember Ford, Microsoft, Motarola, etc… spends hundreds of millions per product to put things into production. How does Anarchy make a superior product? It can’t.
Neo-Anarchos
23-04-2004, 09:27
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
Free Soviets
23-04-2004, 11:45
NORTH EAST MUTUAL AID GATHERING HITS NYC ON MAY 8TH AND 9TH!
North East Mutual Aid is an informal network of anti-capitalist anti-authoritarians. Our purpose is to open lines of communication so that existing groups and individuals throughout the Northeast can better coordinate support for each other in our local actions and struggles.
May 8 in NYC will be an opportunity for you to share energy, resources, information, and inspiration with other anti-authoritarians. Together we will implement, utilize, and broaden the network.
Some background:
On January 1, 2004, on the 10-year anniversary of the Zapatista Uprising, an anonymous call went out for a self-organized PGA-style network in North America. In the Northeast, work and momentum has built from the Strategy Session in Worcester, MA (December 6, 2003), the NCOR Conference (January 24-25, 2004) and the Gathering for Autonomy in Hartford, CT (February 28-29).
Drop us a line if you plan on attending, if you're interested in performing at the show on the evening of May 8, or if you're interested in doing a workshop on May 9. We will also be accepting proposals for the structure of the network (2 pages max). We need all registrations, suggestions, and workshop-proposals in by May 1.
Breakfast and lunch will be provided on Saturday and Sunday. Childcare will also be provided and parents must register their children by May 1. Bring a $10-20 donation to cover meeting costs if you can. No one will be turned away for lack of funds.
-email nycnemagathering@riseup.net
-call voice mail at(206)736-3938
-website at www.northeastmutualaid.org (coming soon!).
-announcement-only list-serve (send an email to Neanticapitalist-subscribe@lists.riseup.net).
If you're in the neighborhood, get involved in organizing this gathering! Start by joining the gathering-setup list-serve(send an email to nemagatheringsetup-subscribe@lists.riseup.net)or by calling our voice mail. Then bring your passions, priorities, and experience to meetings and planning.
Libertovania
23-04-2004, 13:56
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
Libertovania
23-04-2004, 14:22
What about money? Do you think it should be abolished?
Aaahhhh, I'm not used to 16 year olds being as sharp as you (if that is the right age, I many be mixing you up).
I wrote a paragraph on money but deleted it because it was crap. I'll try better now I've been forced into a corner.
I think it should be up to the community to decide. I think it depends on the focus of the community to an extent. A more industrialized area may benefit more by retaining money than abandoning. However I do see the potential that money has as a 'powerbroker' so distrust it because of that (also I don't understand how it works). If I had the choice to go to community with money or one without I would probably go to the one without.
It should be up to the individual - not the community - to decide whether to use money or not. Sure, if everyone else wants to use it giving it up will be inconvenient to say the least but you can't force them not to. If a group of people want to give up money they can start a commune or mutual aid society or whatever.
This is the wonderful world of the free market, each individual decides for themself. A free market does not require money but will function much better with it. On the free market, people could also voluntarily form communes. Thus a free market could in theory consist of only socialist communes. In other words, voluntary socialism is compatible with free markets, provided it is indeed voluntary.
Libertovania
23-04-2004, 14:39
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
Libertovania
23-04-2004, 14:41
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
Libertovania
23-04-2004, 14:41
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
note that America survived the Civil War, making it extremely rare as nations go...note also that state support for slavery is not a part of it, and that America is one of only a handful of nations world wide where competing political parties can exchange power without bloodshed. and if you really want to dredge up history then i don't think the UK should be your platform, given that there are several more centuries of the Empire's misdeeds to catalogue. in fact, if you compare America's timeline with Britains, the US is about a dozen centuries ahead of where England was at this point in its existence.
not that i think the US is perfect, but i think it's unique in many wonderful ways. if you want to just look at women's rights, the US is well ahead of European countries that have existed for centuries longer. stuff like that makes me proud of America, even though i have many beefs with the country as well.
Libertovania
23-04-2004, 15:05
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
note that America survived the Civil War, making it extremely rare as nations go...note also that state support for slavery is not a part of it, and that America is one of only a handful of nations world wide where competing political parties can exchange power without bloodshed. and if you really want to dredge up history then i don't think the UK should be your platform, given that there are several more centuries of the Empire's misdeeds to catalogue. in fact, if you compare America's timeline with Britains, the US is about a dozen centuries ahead of where England was at this point in its existence.
not that i think the US is perfect, but i think it's unique in many wonderful ways. if you want to just look at women's rights, the US is well ahead of European countries that have existed for centuries longer. stuff like that makes me proud of America, even though i have many beefs with the country as well.
So what your saying is that the American govt is marginally less oppressive than others. Whoop-dee-doo.
Many Americans did not survive the civil war and neither did the original "republic". States became completely sub-ordinate to the federal govt.
Compare the US with the UK now (it's not fair to start counting from the founding as the US was the baby of British rebels like Thomas Paine and grew out of this movement). Things ain't much better and are in many ways worse. And as an historical example I'm pretty sure the unconstitutional UK abolished slavery before the constitutional US.
To paraphrase David Hume, "It is entirely due to the constitution of the people and not the constitution of the govt that Americans are more free than Iranians."
My whole point was that saying democracy (or republicanism) "works" requires a fairly low estimation of what counts as "working". If we look at the bloody record of all states, even democratic ones, we'd do well to consider giving up statism and giving freedom a chance.
Ahhh...Tony Montana - ridiculed on Ubersite and now ridiculed here. The world clearly loves you.
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
It can work and has worked. They were just as power hungry as any dictator.
You need raw materials to make the metals, plastics, silicon, and glass. How does Anarchy ensure that these supplies are mined and delivered to the processing plant? How is safety factors done? How do they treat the environment?
Worker self-management. The workers vote on how to do these things and with the consumers, figure out how much needs to be produced.
Mining and drilling is hard work. These jobs are miserable. Without money how does Anarchy deal with labor shortages? Capitalism does this by giving these jobs a higher wage, so how will Anarchy deal with this?
By improving working conditions. If profit no longer exists, then there is no reason to cut costs. Working conditions can be vastly improved.
Now make thousands per day. How do you coordinate thousands of people?
Two,
Right now technological development costs billions annually. How does Anarchy get the equivalent manpower, lab equipment, and space? The Nanotechnology initiative alone is a billion dollars annually. How does Anarchy evaluate research projects and allocate resources? How does an idea get to the production line. Remember Ford, Microsoft, Motarola, etc… spends hundreds of millions per product to put things into production. How does Anarchy make a superior product? It can’t.
Federations. Groups of 100 or so people vote democratically and choose a delegate to meet other delegates. They make a decision. If they try to use this chance to take power, they can be recalled and replaced.
-------------------------
Free your mind!
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
I did read them you moron! It's just that I don't just belive what a web site tells me. I need proof something is going to work not just retoric. And if you want you're little anarchy society just live outside in the boondocks far away from any tech or human-grown food for about five weeks. Far away from your computer or microwave or TV or console or plumbing or human made cloths. Far away from guns or knives or arrows. Far away from your weed or your crack or your mary jane, your alcohol your tobac your caffine your movies or your better half. Oh yeah and no human made tents or sleeping bags. I wouldn't want you to be corrupted by what a primitve capitalist socitey made.
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
note that America survived the Civil War, making it extremely rare as nations go...note also that state support for slavery is not a part of it, and that America is one of only a handful of nations world wide where competing political parties can exchange power without bloodshed. and if you really want to dredge up history then i don't think the UK should be your platform, given that there are several more centuries of the Empire's misdeeds to catalogue. in fact, if you compare America's timeline with Britains, the US is about a dozen centuries ahead of where England was at this point in its existence.
not that i think the US is perfect, but i think it's unique in many wonderful ways. if you want to just look at women's rights, the US is well ahead of European countries that have existed for centuries longer. stuff like that makes me proud of America, even though i have many beefs with the country as well.
So what your saying is that the American govt is marginally less oppressive than others. Whoop-dee-doo.
Many Americans did not survive the civil war and neither did the original "republic". States became completely sub-ordinate to the federal govt.
Compare the US with the UK now (it's not fair to start counting from the founding as the US was the baby of British rebels like Thomas Paine and grew out of this movement). Things ain't much better and are in many ways worse. And as an historical example I'm pretty sure the unconstitutional UK abolished slavery before the constitutional US.
To paraphrase David Hume, "It is entirely due to the constitution of the people and not the constitution of the govt that Americans are more free than Iranians."
My whole point was that saying democracy (or republicanism) "works" requires a fairly low estimation of what counts as "working". If we look at the bloody record of all states, even democratic ones, we'd do well to consider giving up statism and giving freedom a chance. We have given freedom a chance you moron. It's called the United States. Just becase it don't fit some moron veiw of freedom beeing chaos dosn't make it less free.
I did read them you moron! It's just that I don't just belive what a web site tells me. I need proof something is going to work not just retoric. And if you want you're little anarchy society just live outside in the boondocks far away from any tech or human-grown food for about five weeks. Far away from your computer or microwave or TV or console or plumbing or human made cloths. Far away from guns or knives or arrows. Far away from your weed or your crack or your mary jane, your alcohol your tobac your caffine your movies or your better half. Oh yeah and no human made tents or sleeping bags. I wouldn't want you to be corrupted by what a primitve capitalist socitey made.
Not all anarchists are primitivists. Anarchism existed in the Spanish civil war. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
I did read them you moron! It's just that I don't just belive what a web site tells me. I need proof something is going to work not just retoric. And if you want you're little anarchy society just live outside in the boondocks far away from any tech or human-grown food for about five weeks. Far away from your computer or microwave or TV or console or plumbing or human made cloths. Far away from guns or knives or arrows. Far away from your weed or your crack or your mary jane, your alcohol your tobac your caffine your movies or your better half. Oh yeah and no human made tents or sleeping bags. I wouldn't want you to be corrupted by what a primitve capitalist socitey made.
Not all anarchists are primitivists. Anarchism existed in the Spanish civil war. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg Yes I know that, but that is where a anarchist socitey is headed.
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
It can work and has worked. They were just as power hungry as any dictator.
You need raw materials to make the metals, plastics, silicon, and glass. How does Anarchy ensure that these supplies are mined and delivered to the processing plant? How is safety factors done? How do they treat the environment?
Worker self-management. The workers vote on how to do these things and with the consumers, figure out how much needs to be produced.
Mining and drilling is hard work. These jobs are miserable. Without money how does Anarchy deal with labor shortages? Capitalism does this by giving these jobs a higher wage, so how will Anarchy deal with this?
By improving working conditions. If profit no longer exists, then there is no reason to cut costs. Working conditions can be vastly improved.
Now make thousands per day. How do you coordinate thousands of people?
Two,
Right now technological development costs billions annually. How does Anarchy get the equivalent manpower, lab equipment, and space? The Nanotechnology initiative alone is a billion dollars annually. How does Anarchy evaluate research projects and allocate resources? How does an idea get to the production line. Remember Ford, Microsoft, Motarola, etc… spends hundreds of millions per product to put things into production. How does Anarchy make a superior product? It can’t.
Federations. Groups of 100 or so people vote democratically and choose a delegate to meet other delegates. They make a decision. If they try to use this chance to take power, they can be recalled and replaced.
-------------------------
Free your mind!
Are you even reading what your saying? How are they gonna improve conditions without haveing to pay someone to do it? How are they going to elect people who basicly do what we are doing here? How are the self managed workers going to agree on anything? How will these groups even meet? What happen if they don't wanna do it? Who care's? I'm not getting anything out of it. The customer can suck their own intel it's it's red and swollen but that not gonna do anything.
Are you even reading what your saying? How are they gonna improve conditions without haveing to pay someone to do it?
They will employ technology or something similar or if the job can't be made enjoyable, they could find ways of doing without it.
How are they going to elect people who basicly do what we are doing here? How are the self managed workers going to agree on anything? How will these groups even meet? What happen if they don't wanna do it?
It's simple. They hold meetings and vote on issues. People who disagree can argue their case or leave the group.
I'm not getting anything out of it. The customer can suck their own intel it's it's red and swollen but that not gonna do anything.
You would get plenty out of it. Free food, excellent working conditions, control over your own life.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Bodies Without Organs
24-04-2004, 00:57
I did read them you moron!
We have given freedom a chance you moron.
I'm not a mod, but... you really should learn to debate without calling other people morons. Firstly, it is flaming, and secondly, it doesn't make your case any more convincing.
Are you even reading what your saying? How are they gonna improve conditions without haveing to pay someone to do it?
They will employ technology or something similar or if the job can't be made enjoyable, they could find ways of doing without it.
How are they going to elect people who basicly do what we are doing here? How are the self managed workers going to agree on anything? How will these groups even meet? What happen if they don't wanna do it?
It's simple. They hold meetings and vote on issues. People who disagree can argue their case or leave the group.
I'm not getting anything out of it. The customer can suck their own intel it's it's red and swollen but that not gonna do anything.
You would get plenty out of it. Free food, excellent working conditions, control over your own life. Are you just being arugemenitive? How are we going to live without meat? That's not an enjoyable job but somebodys got to do it. How bout heat in the winter, AC in the summer, and corn? Those invole jobs wich arn't enjoyable but they are needed. What about milk? Eggs? Butter? Those are labor intensive things. Alotta effort goes in to them. You gotta get it just right or not at all.
Are you just being arugemenitive? How are we going to live without meat? That's not an enjoyable job but somebodys got to do it. How bout heat in the winter, AC in the summer, and corn? Those invole jobs wich arn't enjoyable but they are needed. What about milk? Eggs? Butter? Those are labor intensive things. Alotta effort goes in to them. You gotta get it just right or not at all.
Jobs are unenjoyable because the workers have no say in how they are done. They have to take orders and work in poor working conditions. In a society where the average person had the power and there was no money, work days could be cut in half. Coöperation instead of competition would make things more efficient.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
note that America survived the Civil War, making it extremely rare as nations go...note also that state support for slavery is not a part of it, and that America is one of only a handful of nations world wide where competing political parties can exchange power without bloodshed. and if you really want to dredge up history then i don't think the UK should be your platform, given that there are several more centuries of the Empire's misdeeds to catalogue. in fact, if you compare America's timeline with Britains, the US is about a dozen centuries ahead of where England was at this point in its existence.
not that i think the US is perfect, but i think it's unique in many wonderful ways. if you want to just look at women's rights, the US is well ahead of European countries that have existed for centuries longer. stuff like that makes me proud of America, even though i have many beefs with the country as well.
So what your saying is that the American govt is marginally less oppressive than others. Whoop-dee-doo.
Many Americans did not survive the civil war and neither did the original "republic". States became completely sub-ordinate to the federal govt.
Compare the US with the UK now (it's not fair to start counting from the founding as the US was the baby of British rebels like Thomas Paine and grew out of this movement). Things ain't much better and are in many ways worse. And as an historical example I'm pretty sure the unconstitutional UK abolished slavery before the constitutional US.
To paraphrase David Hume, "It is entirely due to the constitution of the people and not the constitution of the govt that Americans are more free than Iranians."
My whole point was that saying democracy (or republicanism) "works" requires a fairly low estimation of what counts as "working". If we look at the bloody record of all states, even democratic ones, we'd do well to consider giving up statism and giving freedom a chance.
You have missed my point, there is no proof that Anarchy is better than a Republic. What you need is a controlled experiment where Anarchy is tried scientifically, with controls, procedures, measurements (i.e. polls, personal journals/logs, and measures of productivity etc…) otherwise Anarchy will be just a Hypothesis, not a theory. Is Anarchy better? How much worse? You don’t have the numbers. You don’t have any data that Anarchy works. Get some if you want to be taken seriously. You offer no scientific proof, just rhetoric. It’s time that you raise money and test if Anarchy works, or Anarchy will stay in amateur hour.
Are you just being arugemenitive? How are we going to live without meat? That's not an enjoyable job but somebodys got to do it. How bout heat in the winter, AC in the summer, and corn? Those invole jobs wich arn't enjoyable but they are needed. What about milk? Eggs? Butter? Those are labor intensive things. Alotta effort goes in to them. You gotta get it just right or not at all.
Jobs are unenjoyable because the workers have no say in how they are done. They have to take orders and work in poor working conditions. In a society where the average person had the power and there was no money, work days could be cut in half. Coöperation instead of competition would make things more efficient.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg Oh now you want to get rid of competition! What drives the great sciences and armies of man? Cooperation and goodwill to all human kind? I don't think so. When a group of people bulid for the group, they build things the group needs, not the people that make it up. Liveing standereds would fall apart! Look at the USSR in the 70's! It built for the group and cooperated and the little guy starved. America 1970 was a bunch of over fed middle classians and hippies!
I did read them you moron!
We have given freedom a chance you moron.
I'm not a mod, but... you really should learn to debate without calling other people morons. Firstly, it is flaming, and secondly, it doesn't make your case any more convincing. I'm sorry, but sometimes you guys make me so mad with the stonewalling.
If you'd like, Letila, you can re-add me to the list of Anarchist nations.
I think it needs to be repeated to all the ignorant people who apparently did not take the time to read any of the links, before flaming anarchism:
An anarchist society is one WITH organization, just one WITHOUT authoritan hierearchy, or authority in general.
NOT raping and killing, or being a stalinist, for that matter.
NewXmen>> While I don't think such a feat of organization would be impossible in a federation of anarchist communes, it would require that a lot of people actually WANTED to make a car to Ford, rather than, for example, ensuring social equality and preserving the environment....
Which, I might add, is probably the duty of anyone with half a brain, not just anarchists.
Nice talk. But, when was the last time Anarchy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that Anarchy works.
George Washington to Thomas Jefferson: "Nice talk. But, when was the last time democracy has been tried out and what happened? Let's see proof that democracy works."
to which Jefferson replies:
"I don't think Democracy WILL work. That's why I have this idea of a Republic, with specific safeguards in place to avoid becoming a pure democracy."
learn your political theory, baby doll...America's Constitution is designed expressly to prevent us from becoming a democracy, since Jefferson and others knew damn well that wouldn't work.
I knew the difference but I was making a point. Don't quibble.
I suppose the constitution is the reason America is sooooooo much more free than the UK. :roll:
It's a pity they didn't know a republic wouldn't work either. As evidence: civil war within 80 years of founding, state support for slavery, people oppressed for victimless "crimes", govt seizes ~40% of income, imperialistic foreign policy, pressure group warfare, crushing regulations, large portion of population in jail, "public" debt, failing schools, out of control welfare, corrupt police, corrupt politicians, moronic leaders, overwhelming bureaucracy and the occasional bout of conscription. Thank God you're free.
But this is all okay since the supreme court (political appointees) says so, right?
note that America survived the Civil War, making it extremely rare as nations go...note also that state support for slavery is not a part of it, and that America is one of only a handful of nations world wide where competing political parties can exchange power without bloodshed. and if you really want to dredge up history then i don't think the UK should be your platform, given that there are several more centuries of the Empire's misdeeds to catalogue. in fact, if you compare America's timeline with Britains, the US is about a dozen centuries ahead of where England was at this point in its existence.
not that i think the US is perfect, but i think it's unique in many wonderful ways. if you want to just look at women's rights, the US is well ahead of European countries that have existed for centuries longer. stuff like that makes me proud of America, even though i have many beefs with the country as well.
So what your saying is that the American govt is marginally less oppressive than others. Whoop-dee-doo.
Many Americans did not survive the civil war and neither did the original "republic". States became completely sub-ordinate to the federal govt.
Compare the US with the UK now (it's not fair to start counting from the founding as the US was the baby of British rebels like Thomas Paine and grew out of this movement). Things ain't much better and are in many ways worse. And as an historical example I'm pretty sure the unconstitutional UK abolished slavery before the constitutional US.
To paraphrase David Hume, "It is entirely due to the constitution of the people and not the constitution of the govt that Americans are more free than Iranians."
My whole point was that saying democracy (or republicanism) "works" requires a fairly low estimation of what counts as "working". If we look at the bloody record of all states, even democratic ones, we'd do well to consider giving up statism and giving freedom a chance.
You have missed my point, there is no proof that Anarchy is better than a Republic. What you need is a controlled experiment where Anarchy is tried scientifically, with controls, procedures, measurements (i.e. polls, personal journals/logs, and measures of productivity etc…) otherwise Anarchy will be just a Hypothesis, not a theory. Is Anarchy better? How much worse? You don’t have the numbers. You don’t have any data that Anarchy works. Get some if you want to be taken seriously. You offer no scientific proof, just rhetoric. It’s time that you raise money and test if Anarchy works, or Anarchy will stay in amateur hour. Hear hear! And on a side note, Ford has done a lot of enviromental work lately. Just look at the monderenized Dearborn truck plant.
Bodies Without Organs
24-04-2004, 14:42
Firstly, it is flaming, and secondly, it doesn't make your case any more convincing. I'm sorry, but sometimes you guys make me so mad with the stonewalling.
I think we might be operating from different basic premises which is what causes the apparent stonewalling. (Either that or we are having collective flashbacks to shouting "No pasaran!" at the barricades. :wink: )
Bodies Without Organs
24-04-2004, 14:45
You have missed my point, there is no proof that Anarchy is better than a Republic. What you need is a controlled experiment where Anarchy is tried scientifically, with controls, procedures, measurements (i.e. polls, personal journals/logs, and measures of productivity etc…) otherwise Anarchy will be just a Hypothesis, not a theory. Is Anarchy better? How much worse? You don’t have the numbers. You don’t have any data that Anarchy works. Get some if you want to be taken seriously. You offer no scientific proof, just rhetoric. It’s time that you raise money and test if Anarchy works, or Anarchy will stay in amateur hour.
Both you and I know that that is not how political change occurs.
Firstly, it is flaming, and secondly, it doesn't make your case any more convincing. I'm sorry, but sometimes you guys make me so mad with the stonewalling.
I think we might be operating from different basic premises which is what causes the apparent stonewalling. (Either that or we are having collective flashbacks to shouting "No pasaran!" at the barricades. :wink: ) Ah. :?
Oh now you want to get rid of competition! What drives the great sciences and armies of man? Cooperation and goodwill to all human kind? I don't think so. When a group of people bulid for the group, they build things the group needs, not the people that make it up. Liveing standereds would fall apart! Look at the USSR in the 70's! It built for the group and cooperated and the little guy starved. America 1970 was a bunch of over fed middle classians and hippies!
People get more done through coöperation then competition. Why else do countries form alliances?
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
You have missed my point, there is no proof that Anarchy is better than a Republic. What you need is a controlled experiment where Anarchy is tried scientifically, with controls, procedures, measurements (i.e. polls, personal journals/logs, and measures of productivity etc…) otherwise Anarchy will be just a Hypothesis, not a theory. Is Anarchy better? How much worse? You don’t have the numbers. You don’t have any data that Anarchy works. Get some if you want to be taken seriously. You offer no scientific proof, just rhetoric. It’s time that you raise money and test if Anarchy works, or Anarchy will stay in amateur hour.
Both you and I know that that is not how political change occurs.
Look, you should treat Anarchy like a science, not a religion with "dogma" and a Anarchists "bible." Anarchists should get serious, amateur hour is over. Do the science or be a religion with faith and not proof. Saying Anarchy is better and unable to prove it will only convince the gullible and the disillusioned.
Look, you should treat Anarchy like a science, not a religion with "dogma" and a Anarchists "bible." Anarchists should get serious, amateur hour is over. Do the science or be a religion with faith and not proof. Saying Anarchy is better and unable to prove it will only convince the gullible and the disillusioned.
Do you have any evidence that statism is better? You're relying on faith.
Try this: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Look, you should treat Anarchy like a science, not a religion with "dogma" and a Anarchists "bible." Anarchists should get serious, amateur hour is over. Do the science or be a religion with faith and not proof. Saying Anarchy is better and unable to prove it will only convince the gullible and the disillusioned.
Do you have any evidence that statism is better? You're relying on faith.
Try this: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
I like the way America is these days. Do you have any evidence that Anarchy will improve my way of life? Or do you have faith that it will? I live in America and I know what America is like. I do not have any real world proof that Anarchy can work. I do not have any real world data on Anarchy. Do you have experimental evidence? Do lyou have real experimental data on Anarchy? I'd like to see it?
I like the way America is these days. Do you have any evidence that Anarchy will improve my way of life? Or do you have faith that it will? I live in America and I know what America is like. I do not have any real world proof that Anarchy can work. I do not have any real world data on Anarchy. Do you have experimental evidence? Do lyou have real experimental data on Anarchy? I'd like to see it?
Do you always demand physical evidence before you try something new? The link explained how anarchists in Spain increased harvests up to five times. Try reading it.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
I like the way America is these days. Do you have any evidence that Anarchy will improve my way of life? Or do you have faith that it will? I live in America and I know what America is like. I do not have any real world proof that Anarchy can work. I do not have any real world data on Anarchy. Do you have experimental evidence? Do lyou have real experimental data on Anarchy? I'd like to see it?
Do you always demand physical evidence before you try something new? The link explained how anarchists in Spain increased harvests up to five times. Try reading it.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Nice article, however the experiment was too short and the data is imcomplete. Yes the harvests have inceased up to five times, but from what? What was the average yield? What was the average increase? Was that five times increase a fluke or was it a standard? Secondly Anarchy was not self sustaining. If that is your evidence it is pretty poor and outdated in the information age.
Do you have any more recent experiments, one where most of the participants are alive? And yes I demand evidence when people claim what I think is unreasonable...
Do you have any more recent experiments, one where most of the participants are alive? And yes I demand evidence when people claim what I think is unreasonable...
Political theories are tested by implementation, not by science experiments. At least you'll never support anarcho-capitalism. Von Mises specifically rejected testing economic theory. If you demand proof before implementation, than the political theory will never be tested.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Do you have any more recent experiments, one where most of the participants are alive? And yes I demand evidence when people claim what I think is unreasonable...
Political theories are tested by implementation, not by science experiments. At least you'll never support anarcho-capitalism. Von Mises specifically rejected testing economic theory. If you demand proof before implementation, than the political theory will never be tested.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Do you have any more recent experiments, one where most of the participants are alive? And yes I demand evidence when people claim what I think is unreasonable...
Political theories are tested by implementation, not by science experiments. At least you'll never support anarcho-capitalism. Von Mises specifically rejected testing economic theory. If you demand proof before implementation, than the political theory will never be tested.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Do you have any more recent experiments, one where most of the participants are alive? And yes I demand evidence when people claim what I think is unreasonable...
Political theories are tested by implementation, not by science experiments. At least you'll never support anarcho-capitalism. Von Mises specifically rejected testing economic theory. If you demand proof before implementation, than the political theory will never be tested.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
And why not? Can't you buy some land and set up a Anarchist community? Becasue if Anarchy can't work on a small scale it will not work on a large scale.
I'm told that there are anarchist communities, but I don't know of any specific examples other than FEC, which isn't quite anarchist, but has a very weak hierarchy.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2004, 00:15
Do the science or be a religion with faith and not proof.
Have you read much of Karl Popper's view of political theory? I think you would like it: basically it treats political ideas as hypotheses which we must attempt to disprove (similar to his view of the philosophy of science).
I'm told that there are anarchist communities, but I don't know of any specific examples other than FEC, which isn't quite anarchist, but has a very weak hierarchy.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Getting hard data would do wonders for your argument. Besides why don't you try to live in an Anarchy type community?
I'll look for one. I don't know if there are any around where I live, but I have heard a lot of references to them. I'm still relatively new to anarchism, though. Try asking Bodies Without Organs.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'll look for one. I don't know if there are any around where I live, but I have heard a lot of references to them. I'm still relatively new to anarchism, though. Try asking Bodies Without Organs.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
All right, does Bodies Without Organs belong to an Anarchy community and if not, are you going to join one?
Do the science or be a religion with faith and not proof.
Have you read much of Karl Popper's view of political theory? I think you would like it: basically it treats political ideas as hypotheses which we must attempt to disprove (similar to his view of the philosophy of science).
Well, it looks like I have do a lot of reading.
All right, does Bodies Without Organs belong to an Anarchy community and if not, are you going to join one?
He has seen one before. I don't know if he actually lived in one for any length of time.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Bodies Without Organs
25-04-2004, 03:44
All right, does Bodies Without Organs belong to an Anarchy community and if not, are you going to join one?
Well, I worked in an a non-hierarchical arts centre/musicians collective for 14 years which was run along anarchist principles. It shut down last year, and we are currently looking into the best way to set up something similar again.
All right, does Bodies Without Organs belong to an Anarchy community and if not, are you going to join one?
Well, I worked in an a non-hierarchical arts centre/musicians collective for 14 years which was run along anarchist principles. It shut down last year, and we are currently looking into the best way to set up something similar again.
So, why did it fail and what could you have done to prevent the failure?
Oh now you want to get rid of competition! What drives the great sciences and armies of man? Cooperation and goodwill to all human kind? I don't think so. When a group of people bulid for the group, they build things the group needs, not the people that make it up. Liveing standereds would fall apart! Look at the USSR in the 70's! It built for the group and cooperated and the little guy starved. America 1970 was a bunch of over fed middle classians and hippies!
People get more done through coöperation then competition. Why else do countries form alliances?
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg So they can compete anginst other nations.
But is competition really in your best interest? If you coöperate, you can get much more done.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
But is competition really in your best interest? If you coöperate, you can get much more done.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg No you don't! If you compete then geting done faster and better then the other guy become first piroity. The world moves on competition.
Cuneo Island
25-04-2004, 15:41
Anarchists blow.
Anarchists blow. Well then, I geuss we know where you stand.
No you don't! If you compete then geting done faster and better then the other guy become first piroity. The world moves on competition.
But you lose what really matters. When you try to outdo others, you sacrifice creativity and individuality. I believe there's a book on it called No Contest: The Case Against Competition.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
No you don't! If you compete then geting done faster and better then the other guy become first piroity. The world moves on competition.
But you lose what really matters. When you try to outdo others, you sacrifice creativity and individuality. I believe there's a book on it called No Contest: The Case Against Competition.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg We are compeateing right now! Compation is got us here!
If nature cooperated and worked together we still be bacteria!
Athamasha
25-04-2004, 15:56
Government is the natural state of humanity. If you tear all the governments down, they will merely rise again!
Government is the natural state of humanity. If you tear all the governments down, they will merely rise again! Hear hear!
We are compeateing right now! Compation is got us here!
If nature cooperated and worked together we still be bacteria!
It's because you spend too much time arguing against anarchism. Sometimes I think you just like to argue.
Government is the natural state of humanity. If you tear all the governments down, they will merely rise again!
A little evidence would be nice.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
We are compeateing right now! Compation is got us here!
If nature cooperated and worked together we still be bacteria!
It's because you spend too much time arguing against anarchism. Sometimes I think you just like to argue.
Government is the natural state of humanity. If you tear all the governments down, they will merely rise again!
A little evidence would be nice.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg Well you argue too much about anarchism. Your just being difficult. And don't go lamblasting someone for proof when you can't back up your system with proof.
Well you argue too much about anarchism. Your just being difficult. And don't go lamblasting someone for proof when you can't back up your system with proof.
He made a big claim. I suggest you do a little research on anarchism at flag.blackened.net
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Libertovania
26-04-2004, 10:13
Emperor Joe: What is your definition of freedom and how is it met in the US today, or do you just believe your TV when it tells you "you're free" 1000 times a day?
NewXmen: On evidence: First of all I'm not a traditional anarchist, I'm an "anarcho-capitalist", "market anarchist" or "libertarian". I only say this so that you realise that I'm not defending the type of thing most of these guys are.
There is plenty of evidence of the success of free markets and their success relative to taxation/regulation systems. There is also a clear and illuminating body of theory to explain this called "free market economics".
I suppose the three claims I must justify in order to prove that it will "work" are these. 1) That the poor can be taken care of without a welfare state 2) That non-state (polycentric) legal systems can do a better job of preventing crime than centralised state systems (I differ with traditional anarchists in that I do see the need for legal systems) 3) That free lands will be safer (or at worst not much less safe) from military invasion.
1) With unrestricted free markets there will be a much stronger economy. This means there will be less poor needing help and more surplus from which to help them. Private charity is also more effective than state redistribution. The guiding principle of private charity is helping people to get back on their own feet, helping them to help themselves.
People usually object that "people are too selfish and won't want to help the poor", but if this is true then why do they vote for the welfare state at the moment? Imagine the welfare state would be abolished next week. What effect would this have on your willingness to give charity? Would this effect the agenda of church meetings or whatever? People are much less selfish than is normally supposed, but more selfish than most of the anarchists here would admit. People have a natural but limited generosity and this is all perfectly proper.
But you demanded evidence. I would point to 19th century America as evidence that people willingly help each other when necessary. I know there was a lot of poverty then but that would have been true under any system given the wealth of "society" at the time. Given this level of wealth private charity did an excellent job (see Alexis de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" for evidence) I can think of many other situations where people find ways to make it work when the govt doesn't get involved or does so in a limited way; for instance alcoholics anonymous or blood donation.
2) There are many examples of legal systems which evolved with little or no state interference: medieval iceland, Anglo-Saxon England, the international "law merchants" of medieval Europe, the "thief takers" of early modern England and some examples from early America such as the (not so) wild west as well as some tribes in Africa whose names I still can't remember.
Try this link: http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Try the articles by David Friedman or especially by Murray Rothbard (the chapter in "for a new liberty" is brilliant) or look for books by Bruce Benson.
3) On evidence that military defence can be provided on a voluntary basis there is again the case of the American war of independence. There are also cases such as Afgahnistan or Vietnam where a determined group of lightly armed militia took on far superior forces. This is of course assuming armies are necessary, Costa Rica does okay without (I think).
For an idea how voluntary militia could work today there is this wonderful article by Robert T Long
http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html
There is both theory and evidence for all 3 of these claims. (although I think the 3rd is sketchiest.)
On evidence: First of all I'm not a traditional anarchist, I'm an "anarcho-capitalist", "market anarchist" or "libertarian". I only say this so that you realise that I'm not defending the type of thing most of these guys are.
You're not an anarchist at all. Anarchism is opposed to all forms of coersion, not just a specific kind known as the state.
There is plenty of evidence of the success of free markets and their success relative to taxation/regulation systems. There is also a clear and illuminating body of theory to explain this called "free market economics".
Yeah and there are social classes, heavy crime, and little freedom for the working class.
People usually object that "people are too selfish and won't want to help the poor", but if this is true then why do they vote for the welfare state at the moment? Imagine the welfare state would be abolished next week. What effect would this have on your willingness to give charity? Would this effect the agenda of church meetings or whatever? People are much less selfish than is normally supposed, but more selfish than most of the anarchists here would admit. People have a natural but limited generosity and this is all perfectly proper.
But you demanded evidence. I would point to 19th century America as evidence that people willingly help each other when necessary. I know there was a lot of poverty then but that would have been true under any system given the wealth of "society" at the time. Given this level of wealth private charity did an excellent job (see Alexis de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" for evidence) I can think of many other situations where people find ways to make it work when the govt doesn't get involved or does so in a limited way; for instance alcoholics anonymous or blood donation.
If people are generous enough for the poor to actually survive in such a system, then they can't be driven totally or even largely by greed. I think that the drive for prestige and respect should be encouraged by a moneyless economy.
Communism doesn't require getting rid of self interest, it just means getting rid of greed and encouraging people to channel their desire to do things into ways that will yield products needed by society. Also, working conditions will be vastly improved when workers control their workplace and try to maximize enjoyment rather than profit.
There are many examples of legal systems which evolved with little or no state interference: medieval iceland, Anglo-Saxon England, the international "law merchants" of medieval Europe, the "thief takers" of early modern England and some examples from early America such as the (not so) wild west as well as some tribes in Africa whose names I still can't remember.
You won't get any disagreement here, though.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Emperor Joe: What is your definition of freedom and how is it met in the US today, or do you just believe your TV when it tells you "you're free" 1000 times a day?
NewXmen: On evidence: First of all I'm not a traditional anarchist, I'm an "anarcho-capitalist", "market anarchist" or "libertarian". I only say this so that you realise that I'm not defending the type of thing most of these guys are.
There is plenty of evidence of the success of free markets and their success relative to taxation/regulation systems. There is also a clear and illuminating body of theory to explain this called "free market economics".
I suppose the three claims I must justify in order to prove that it will "work" are these. 1) That the poor can be taken care of without a welfare state 2) That non-state (polycentric) legal systems can do a better job of preventing crime than centralised state systems (I differ with traditional anarchists in that I do see the need for legal systems) 3) That free lands will be safer (or at worst not much less safe) from military invasion.
1) With unrestricted free markets there will be a much stronger economy. This means there will be less poor needing help and more surplus from which to help them. Private charity is also more effective than state redistribution. The guiding principle of private charity is helping people to get back on their own feet, helping them to help themselves.
People usually object that "people are too selfish and won't want to help the poor", but if this is true then why do they vote for the welfare state at the moment? Imagine the welfare state would be abolished next week. What effect would this have on your willingness to give charity? Would this effect the agenda of church meetings or whatever? People are much less selfish than is normally supposed, but more selfish than most of the anarchists here would admit. People have a natural but limited generosity and this is all perfectly proper.
But you demanded evidence. I would point to 19th century America as evidence that people willingly help each other when necessary. I know there was a lot of poverty then but that would have been true under any system given the wealth of "society" at the time. Given this level of wealth private charity did an excellent job (see Alexis de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" for evidence) I can think of many other situations where people find ways to make it work when the govt doesn't get involved or does so in a limited way; for instance alcoholics anonymous or blood donation.
2) There are many examples of legal systems which evolved with little or no state interference: medieval iceland, Anglo-Saxon England, the international "law merchants" of medieval Europe, the "thief takers" of early modern England and some examples from early America such as the (not so) wild west as well as some tribes in Africa whose names I still can't remember.
Try this link: http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Try the articles by David Friedman or especially by Murray Rothbard (the chapter in "for a new liberty" is brilliant) or look for books by Bruce Benson.
3) On evidence that military defence can be provided on a voluntary basis there is again the case of the American war of independence. There are also cases such as Afgahnistan or Vietnam where a determined group of lightly armed militia took on far superior forces. This is of course assuming armies are necessary, Costa Rica does okay without (I think).
For an idea how voluntary militia could work today there is this wonderful article by Robert T Long
http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html
There is both theory and evidence for all 3 of these claims. (although I think the 3rd is sketchiest.)
Neat, however I was arguing against Anarchy not Anarcho-Capitalism.
I put you into a different category.
BTW is pre-revision Hong Kong a modern example of Anarcho-Capitalism?
Libertovania
27-04-2004, 14:06
Neat, however I was arguing against Anarchy not Anarcho-Capitalism.
I put you into a different category.
BTW is pre-revision Hong Kong a modern example of Anarcho-Capitalism?
I don't know much about Hong Kong but I'm pretty sure the govt retained control over some areas such as monetary supply and the justice system. Since these are key areas which effect everyone via the economy and limitations on personal freedom such as anti-narcotics laws I would have to say that Hong Kong is not such an example.
I'm not sure how regulated the Hong Kong markets were or how high taxation was.
Libertovania
27-04-2004, 14:06
Neat, however I was arguing against Anarchy not Anarcho-Capitalism.
I put you into a different category.
BTW is pre-revision Hong Kong a modern example of Anarcho-Capitalism?
I don't know much about Hong Kong but I'm pretty sure the govt retained control over some areas such as monetary supply and the justice system. Since these are key areas which effect everyone via the economy and limitations on personal freedom such as anti-narcotics laws I would have to say that Hong Kong is not such an example.
I'm not sure how regulated the Hong Kong markets were or how high taxation was.
Libertovania
27-04-2004, 14:30
On evidence: First of all I'm not a traditional anarchist, I'm an "anarcho-capitalist", "market anarchist" or "libertarian". I only say this so that you realise that I'm not defending the type of thing most of these guys are.
1) You're not an anarchist at all. Anarchism is opposed to all forms of coersion, not just a specific kind known as the state.
There is plenty of evidence of the success of free markets and their success relative to taxation/regulation systems. There is also a clear and illuminating body of theory to explain this called "free market economics".
2) Yeah and there are social classes, heavy crime, and little freedom for the working class.
People usually object that "people are too selfish and won't want to help the poor", but if this is true then why do they vote for the welfare state at the moment? Imagine the welfare state would be abolished next week. What effect would this have on your willingness to give charity? Would this effect the agenda of church meetings or whatever? People are much less selfish than is normally supposed, but more selfish than most of the anarchists here would admit. People have a natural but limited generosity and this is all perfectly proper.
But you demanded evidence. I would point to 19th century America as evidence that people willingly help each other when necessary. I know there was a lot of poverty then but that would have been true under any system given the wealth of "society" at the time. Given this level of wealth private charity did an excellent job (see Alexis de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" for evidence) I can think of many other situations where people find ways to make it work when the govt doesn't get involved or does so in a limited way; for instance alcoholics anonymous or blood donation.
3) If people are generous enough for the poor to actually survive in such a system, then they can't be driven totally or even largely by greed. I think that the drive for prestige and respect should be encouraged by a moneyless economy.
Communism doesn't require getting rid of self interest, it just means getting rid of greed and encouraging people to channel their desire to do things into ways that will yield products needed by society. Also, working conditions will be vastly improved when workers control their workplace and try to maximize enjoyment rather than profit.
1) Taking someone's property (and therefore the product of their labour) is an act of coercion and thus tantamount to slavery.
I think coercion is wrong except in defence or retaliation. Do you agree with this? Also, complete pacifism and anarcho-capitalism are not incompatible and I know a few who are both.
2) People aren't classes, they're individuals. What have these classes to do with anything? Crime would be less.
You're confusing freedom and poverty. One can be rich but not free (in PRC for instance) and one can be poor and free (as many were in the "not so wild" west)
3) If the people in a free market don't want to use money then there will be none. In practice they always do, such as cigarettes being used in concentration camps (well, this isn't exactly a free market but the point is people always use money because it is very convenient)
Nothing in what you say communism means is incompatible with a free market in which people have the tastes you want them to have. For instance, trade unions could start their own factories and put the workers in control and the consumers could boycot non-union manufacturing IF this is what they wanted.
My question for you "true" anarchists is this: how would you prevent religion and capitalism? If people wanted to worship the pope or whatever how would you stop them? If people wanted to use money and retain private property how would you stop them?
If you would not then you are technically an anarcho-capitalist, albeit an atheist one who would rather live in a commune, and we can all get along. Remember, if you want to pool your property into a commune this is perfectly compatible with anarcho-capitalism.
If you would stop them then you are (violently?) preventing people living the way they choose and thus not the advocates of "total freedom" you claim to be.
Thus it is "anarcho-communism" which is the oxymoron, not "anarcho-capitalism".
Taking someone's property (and therefore the product of their labour) is an act of coercion and thus tantamount to slavery.
I think coercion is wrong except in defence or retaliation. Do you agree with this? Also, complete pacifism and anarcho-capitalism are not incompatible and I know a few who are both
Property is backed up by force. Business owners only own land and buildings they never use because governments keep people of them without permission. Workers are regularly robbed of the products of their labor, which is how CEOs are paid 500 times more without working 500 times harder.
It is impossible to advocate peace in a system based on seperating the workers from property and food by violent force. The massive estates and factories of the rich are protected by police.
People aren't classes, they're individuals. What have these classes to do with anything? Crime would be less.
There definitely are classes. While it's true that people are individuals, you would have to be stupid to claim that rich people don't have more power and privileges than poor people.
My question for you "true" anarchists is this: how would you prevent religion and capitalism? If people wanted to worship the pope or whatever how would you stop them? If people wanted to use money and retain private property how would you stop them?
Religion wouldn't be banned. Private property relies on the threat of force to exist. Without government or some form of violence, it couldn't exist because property "owners" have no way of keep people off large areas, etc. if they don't actually use them. That should be clear.
If you would not then you are technically an anarcho-capitalist, albeit an atheist one who would rather live in a commune, and we can all get along. Remember, if you want to pool your property into a commune this is perfectly compatible with anarcho-capitalism.
If you would stop them then you are (violently?) preventing people living the way they choose and thus not the advocates of "total freedom" you claim to be.
"Anarcho"-capitalism is based on the use of decentralized violence to keep people off the stuff they made but were robbed of by the property owners. The workers make the products and the business owners own and sell them, paying the workers only a small part and keeping the rest for themselves.
-------------------------
Free your mind!
Free Soviets
28-04-2004, 07:06
My question for you "true" anarchists is this: how would you prevent religion and capitalism? If people wanted to worship the pope or whatever how would you stop them? If people wanted to use money and retain private property how would you stop them?
i don't want to prevent religion per se. i just want to destroy its power and privilege, same as all good radical democrats did several centuries ago. people can worship whatever sky monkey they want, but when the sky monkey's earthly 'representatives' start exerting undue influence and claiming undue power then it is time to knock them back down.
as for relations of production, to get to a free and just society we must do away with the current set of relations and put new ones into place - as i see it, at least. this can only be done during certain special situations (like after we've convinced the majority of the population in a particular area or when capitalism eventually implodes). once we have the social revolution you simply would be unable to claim private ownership of a factory or whatever, because it would be with its rightful owners. and why would they let you have it all to yourself?
i seem to recall saying this before, but from where i stand there is no possibility of a legitimate claim to private ownership of the means of social production. and since you accept the right to use force in self defense, then there is no problem with us stopping you from stealing (claiming private ownership of) something that is socially owned.
Our Earth
28-04-2004, 07:50
Wow, this thing is still around? Has anyone here gotten any more open minded since I've been gone?
Free Soviets
28-04-2004, 07:52
of course not. why would any of us want to do that?
Anglo-Scandinavia
28-04-2004, 07:54
Libertovania: Isn't your anarcho-capitalism a lot like a fully implemented version of Classical Liberalism?
I'm not trying to argue against you- I'm sympathetic to Classical Liberal views though not to the same extent as you :)
Libertovania
28-04-2004, 09:44
Libertovania: Isn't your anarcho-capitalism a lot like a fully implemented version of Classical Liberalism?
I'm not trying to argue against you- I'm sympathetic to Classical Liberal views though not to the same extent as you :)
Yes.
Libertovania
28-04-2004, 10:20
Taking someone's property (and therefore the product of their labour) is an act of coercion and thus tantamount to slavery.
I think coercion is wrong except in defence or retaliation. Do you agree with this? Also, complete pacifism and anarcho-capitalism are not incompatible and I know a few who are both
Property is backed up by force. Business owners only own land and buildings they never use because governments keep people of them without permission. Workers are regularly robbed of the products of their labor, which is how CEOs are paid 500 times more without working 500 times harder.
It is impossible to advocate peace in a system based on seperating the workers from property and food by violent force. The massive estates and factories of the rich are protected by police.
People aren't classes, they're individuals. What have these classes to do with anything? Crime would be less.
There definitely are classes. While it's true that people are individuals, you would have to be stupid to claim that rich people don't have more power and privileges than poor people.
My question for you "true" anarchists is this: how would you prevent religion and capitalism? If people wanted to worship the pope or whatever how would you stop them? If people wanted to use money and retain private property how would you stop them?
Religion wouldn't be banned. Private property relies on the threat of force to exist. Without government or some form of violence, it couldn't exist because property "owners" have no way of keep people off large areas, etc. if they don't actually use them. That should be clear.
If you would not then you are technically an anarcho-capitalist, albeit an atheist one who would rather live in a commune, and we can all get along. Remember, if you want to pool your property into a commune this is perfectly compatible with anarcho-capitalism.
If you would stop them then you are (violently?) preventing people living the way they choose and thus not the advocates of "total freedom" you claim to be.
"Anarcho"-capitalism is based on the use of decentralized violence to keep people off the stuff they made but were robbed of by the property owners. The workers make the products and the business owners own and sell them, paying the workers only a small part and keeping the rest for themselves.
Your rantings against private property for being something backed up by force are empty. Women may use violence to defend themselves from rape, it doesn't mean they should be condemned for "seperating the workers from sex using violent force".
If you are a total pacifist then I again point out that there are pacifist anarcho-capitalists (I'm obviously not one) and these doctrines are not incompatible. If people wanted private property and there was no need to back it by force would you still be against it and how would you stop them?
"Free Soviets" admits he thinks it's acceptable to use force to back up social ownership, whatever that means, so don't get on your high horse. Thus I charge that this would also rely on force. The question is, which use of force is legitimate?
Since depriving someone of the product of their labour (private property) is depriving them of ownership of their labour it is therefore a type of slavery. I.e. Theft is slavery, just as sure as if the thief put a gun to your head and forced you to build the car or whatever it was he took. Aside from that, the free market is by far the best means to produce wealth for all individuals (or classes or whatever). Thus whether you look at it from the angle of rights or consequencialism you get private property.
The generic worker does not own the materials or tools he works with so he does not have any immediate claim to the product of his labour. Furthermore, he trades his labour for a wage so the labour, and therefore the product of his labour, belongs to whoever purchased it. It is confusion over this point, coupled with the erroneous "labour theory of value", which leads to your confusion over exploitation.
Don't "the workers" use just as much a threat of violence to keep the rich out of their homes?
Can you show me 2 people, one of whom works exactly twice as hard as the other? Or 3 times? Then how do you measure 500 times? Your claim that the CEO doesn't work 500 times harder is meaningless since there is no possible measurement which could confirm or disconfirm it.
The idea of classes makes no sense. You draw arbitrary lines on the income scale and treat people in the same group as a unified entity, and treat different groups as enemies. You need to get over this antagonistic philosophy. You just use the rich as a scapegoat same as the Nazis used the Jews.
Free Soviets
28-04-2004, 18:19
"Free Soviets" admits he thinks it's acceptable to use force to back up social ownership, whatever that means, so don't get on your high horse. Thus I charge that this would also rely on force. The question is, which use of force is legitimate?
the force that is required to back up private property is the force to take from the many and give to a tiny elite and keep it that way. the force required to back up social or community property is the force required to stop a single thief.
(and about social ownership - it just means that productive property is owned by the community or federation as a whole. decision making is a divided process, with most of it being done by the people who work in any particular workplace and with bigger questions of production goals and investment plans and such being bumped up to wider levels. all involved are equal owners of the thing in question.)
Since depriving someone of the product of their labour (private property) is depriving them of ownership of their labour it is therefore a type of slavery. I.e. Theft is slavery, just as sure as if the thief put a gun to your head and forced you to build the car or whatever it was he took. Aside from that, the free market is by far the best means to produce wealth for all individuals (or classes or whatever). Thus whether you look at it from the angle of rights or consequencialism you get private property.
in anarchist discourse private property is not the same as possesions. see B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html#secb31)
the main function of private property is to allow a tiny elite to own and control things that they then have other people work on/with. ownership is a privileged position - the owner gets to make all the rules and decisions that everyne else has to obey (though this is often delegated to other higher-ups). among those decisions is the question of distribution of wealth. and completely unsurprisingly, an unequal distribution of decision making power over wealth leads to a radically unequal distribution of the wealth itself. you do the work and i decide how we share the products of it. this is nothing more than robbery and slavery. and it is only possible because of the state-backed monopoly i have that says that my private ownership is privileged over your labor.
a market of some sort may be the best way to generate wealth for all individuals, but if you couple that market with private property you also get classes of haves and have-nots, the elite and the dispossesed.
The generic worker does not own the materials or tools he works with so he does not have any immediate claim to the product of his labour. Furthermore, he trades his labour for a wage so the labour, and therefore the product of his labour, belongs to whoever purchased it. It is confusion over this point, coupled with the erroneous "labour theory of value", which leads to your confusion over exploitation.
the generic worker doesn't own them because of past crimes. they rightfully belong to her, just as they always have. she trades her labor for a wage because she doesn't have any realistic opportunities not to. you said yourself that she doesn't own the materials or tools, so what can she do except sign away what is rightfully hers? its like bargaining with the irs - you take what you can get because you're fuct either way. it doesn't make it legitimate.
Can you show me 2 people, one of whom works exactly twice as hard as the other? Or 3 times? Then how do you measure 500 times? Your claim that the CEO doesn't work 500 times harder is meaningless since there is no possible measurement which could confirm or disconfirm it.
you are right, there isn't a real way to measure work. so how would you go about justifying the ridiculous disparity in wealth between people? because the claim that the work of some is more valuable than that of others is just circular ('it must be more valuable, why else would they get paid more?'). the only analysis that makes any amount of sense is an analysis of power relations.
The idea of classes makes no sense. You draw arbitrary lines on the income scale and treat people in the same group as a unified entity, and treat different groups as enemies. You need to get over this antagonistic philosophy. You just use the rich as a g0at same as the Nazis used the Jews.
class makes sense because it is a useful predictive and explanatory tool. we live in a class society and your position in that class sytem determines you access to education, to healthcare, your quality of life, your personal safety, your working conditions, your access to prestige and power, and your ability to make a living by having others work for you.
a market of some sort may be the best way to generate wealth for all individuals, but if you couple that market with private property you also get classes of haves and have-nots, the elite and the dispossesed.
I don't support markets. The people who need food most may not have the money for it.
It is confusion over this point, coupled with the erroneous "labour theory of value", which leads to your confusion over exploitation.
I don't believe in value. Value exists only because of force. The government is willing to use more force to keep a house out of the hands of a poor person than a loaf of bread.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Free Soviets
28-04-2004, 23:08
a market of some sort may be the best way to generate wealth for all individuals, but if you couple that market with private property you also get classes of haves and have-nots, the elite and the dispossesed.
I don't support markets. The people who need food most may not have the money for it.
well, you could in theory have a socialist system with some sort of market mechanism for some distribution - think something like everyone gets all of their basic necessities provided for and everything else is available through a market system. not my first choice, but it'd be better than what we have, especially if the firms that were distributing stuff on this market were worker controlled.
which brings up another point that i didn't address when i made that comment - markets don't really create wealth, they just move stuff around. the real claim is that they are the most efficient mechanism for both distributing stuff and relaying to the producers how much stuff to produce next time. and to that all i have to say is that i do not worship the gods of efficiency and that there are other possible mechanisms for both distribution and information sending that work well enough for me.
Neo-Anarchos
29-04-2004, 11:23
My question for you "true" anarchists is this: how would you prevent religion and capitalism? If people wanted to worship the pope or whatever how would you stop them? If people wanted to use money and retain private property how would you stop them?
- I would not want to prevent religion, I just want to stop it from being an opressive factor over peoples life(see the rapidly detetoriating separation of church and state in America, and the power of the catholic church over the state in Italy, for examples), and turn it back into what it has always been and should be: a personal relationship between yourself and god(or whatever divine entity(ies) you want to believe in. Or nothing at all, being agnostic I don't really care.
As for capitalism, the free market can only survive by expansion to new markets, exhausting natural resources as they are found and isolated. Many people claim, in matrixesque fashion, that humans are a cancer that isolates and destroys all resources. I disagree. Only humans exercising capitalism are guilty of this. That being said, I have nothing against free trade, I just can't see the human race cooperating non-hierarchally as anarchists in harmony with their planet, while raping the ecosystem to supply demands.
Libertovania
29-04-2004, 14:22
Every time I post here I become more and more convinced most opposition to free markets comes from confusion and misunderstanding.
For exmaple, Neo-Anarchos' post about expanding markets. Sheer rubbish.
Then there is all this talk of the "dispossessed". Nobody is a "have not" since (almost) everyone each has a body capable of labour and labour can easily be traded.
If someone doesn't have the money to afford bread you have to ask "why not"? It can only be because they don't work, so why should I have to feed them?
As well as wanting those who don't work to live as parasites on those who do, you criticise free markets because they don't distribute wealth according to who "deserves" it. But by providing the worker with tools the employer allows him to produce more wealth, part of which comes to him in wages. He traded the labour for wages so he has no claim on the product of the labour.
Then you criticise private property for using force, neglecting to mention that you too are willing to back up your property system by force. Utter hypocracy. And then private property is only for a "tiny elite", but everyone I know owns some property. Even homeless folk own some stuff. This is like saying freedom of speech is unfair because some people talk more than others.
I still haven't heard a decent argument rebutting my case for private property except whining about how you don't like the outcome.
All of this nonsense is backed up by confused rantings about exploitation, social classes and, perversely, freedom. How can I be free if I have to feed, cloath and heal the entire world before doing anything for myself? Freedom comes with responsibility. If you want to be free then it's up to you to take care of yourself or you'll have to rely on others' charity.
I'm having a bad day.
Then there is all this talk of the "dispossessed". Nobody is a "have not" since (almost) everyone each has a body capable of labour and labour can easily be traded.
It requires no effort to rent machinery. It requires a great deal to actually work. Those with property enjoy a much better life than those without.
Then you criticise private property for using force, neglecting to mention that you too are willing to back up your property system by force. Utter hypocracy. And then private property is only for a "tiny elite", but everyone I know owns some property. Even homeless folk own some stuff. This is like saying freedom of speech is unfair because some people talk more than others.
We don't back up our "property" by force. Do some research on the difference between property and possesion.
well, you could in theory have a socialist system with some sort of market mechanism for some distribution - think something like everyone gets all of their basic necessities provided for and everything else is available through a market system. not my first choice, but it'd be better than what we have, especially if the firms that were distributing stuff on this market were worker controlled.
I think direct democracy should be used. The commune discusses how much is needed, for example, or workers make agreements to get a certain resource from another syndicate.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Libertovania
30-04-2004, 13:53
Then there is all this talk of the "dispossessed". Nobody is a "have not" since (almost) everyone each has a body capable of labour and labour can easily be traded.
It requires no effort to rent machinery. It requires a great deal to actually work. Those with property enjoy a much better life than those without.
Good looking people enjoy a much better life than ugly people. What's your point? Should we slash the faces of all the pretty folk?
a market of some sort may be the best way to generate wealth for all individuals, but if you couple that market with private property you also get classes of haves and have-nots, the elite and the dispossesed.
I don't support markets. The people who need food most may not have the money for it.
Who "needs" food the most? I thought we all kinda had to eat to survive...
It is confusion over this point, coupled with the erroneous "labour theory of value", which leads to your confusion over exploitation.
I don't believe in value. Value exists only because of force. The government is willing to use more force to keep a house out of the hands of a poor person than a loaf of bread.
I don't believe in you....I mean, that's just as legitimate to say right, I am value, and you don't believe in me; therefore, it's ok for me to not believe in you, right?*
what does that mean anyway? Are you saying that a house is more valuable than bread, or what?
-----------------------------------------
Free your mind!
*no, it's not ok to just deny the existence of something that does, in fact exist
EDIT: I knew existence wasn't spelled with an "a"!
Then there is all this talk of the "dispossessed". Nobody is a "have not" since (almost) everyone each has a body capable of labour and labour can easily be traded.
It requires no effort to rent machinery. It requires a great deal to actually work. Those with property enjoy a much better life than those without.
Hmmm...is that so? I mean, I've never tried to rent machinery before, but you must tell me where you get yours from, in case I ever do want to rent something. Since your provider gives you whatever you want for nothing without you even picking up the phone to call him, or finding a place to put it or anything...
How old are you? I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, I just often forget.
Hmmm...is that so? I mean, I've never tried to rent machinery before, but you must tell me where you get yours from, in case I ever do want to rent something. Since your provider gives you whatever you want for nothing without you even picking up the phone to call him, or finding a place to put it or anything...
How old are you? I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, I just often forget.
Charging people to use a house or machine hardly sounds like hard work.
Who "needs" food the most? I thought we all kinda had to eat to survive...
Those who have the least. Those too poor to buy food.
Good looking people enjoy a much better life than ugly people. What's your point? Should we slash the faces of all the pretty folk?
Wealth isn't genetic. It's the result of the way society is set up.
---------------------------
Free your mind!
Hmmm...is that so? I mean, I've never tried to rent machinery before, but you must tell me where you get yours from, in case I ever do want to rent something. Since your provider gives you whatever you want for nothing without you even picking up the phone to call him, or finding a place to put it or anything...
How old are you? I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, I just often forget.
Charging people to use a house or machine hardly sounds like hard work.
Oh, you mean renting out something.
Well generally if you're charging someone for their access to something that you own, you still have to provide upkeep for the machinery or housing. Not to mention you have to get their rent.
By the way, what do you mean by renting machinery then? Like laundromats? Obviously not factories, since the workers are not forced to pay to use the machinery.
Who "needs" food the most? I thought we all kinda had to eat to survive...
Those who have the least. Those too poor to buy food.
That sounds like circular logic
Those too poor to buy food need it the most because those who need it the most are too poor to buy it.
You can only keep one of those statements. keeping both makes you sound stupid
---------------------------
Free your mind!
*sigh*
the way I'm saying that, it's not coming out right
you said "I don't support markets. The people who need food the most may not have the money for it."
But when I asked who needed it the most, you said "those too poor to buy food" so essentially, what you're saying is "I don't support markets. The people who are too poor to buy food may not have the money to buy food."
It doesn't make sense to say
those who need food the most = those who can't afford food
and to say
Those who need food might not be able to afford it.
For one, if they're equivalent as you said they were, then the people who need it DEFINITELY can't afford it
and for two, even if you said they can't afford it, it's a tautology, and basically worthless
In essence, what you've said is "An even number is divisible by two" and "If a number is even, it might be divisible by two"
Sure it's true, but who cares?
the way I'm saying that, it's not coming out right
you said "I don't support markets. The people who need food the most may not have the money for it."
But when I asked who needed it the most, you said "those too poor to buy food" so essentially, what you're saying is "I don't support markets. The people who are too poor to buy food may not have the money to buy food."
It doesn't make sense to say
those who need food the most = those who can't afford food
and to say
Those who need food might not be able to afford it.
For one, if they're equivalent as you said they were, then the people who need it DEFINITELY can't afford it
and for two, even if you said they can't afford it, it's a tautology, and basically worthless
In essence, what you've said is "An even number is divisible by two" and "If a number is even, it might be divisible by two"
Sure it's true, but who cares?
What I'm saying is that companies will sell food based on what is profitable. If people in one place are too poor in general to buy much food, the food might be sold to places where it would bring more profit. That has been the cause of some famines.
Oh, you mean renting out something.
Well generally if you're charging someone for their access to something that you own, you still have to provide upkeep for the machinery or housing. Not to mention you have to get their rent.
By the way, what do you mean by renting machinery then? Like laundromats? Obviously not factories, since the workers are not forced to pay to use the machinery.
The workers are forced to pay for the factories. The business owner takes part of the money brought in by the workers' labor.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
the way I'm saying that, it's not coming out right
you said "I don't support markets. The people who need food the most may not have the money for it."
But when I asked who needed it the most, you said "those too poor to buy food" so essentially, what you're saying is "I don't support markets. The people who are too poor to buy food may not have the money to buy food."
It doesn't make sense to say
those who need food the most = those who can't afford food
and to say
Those who need food might not be able to afford it.
For one, if they're equivalent as you said they were, then the people who need it DEFINITELY can't afford it
and for two, even if you said they can't afford it, it's a tautology, and basically worthless
In essence, what you've said is "An even number is divisible by two" and "If a number is even, it might be divisible by two"
Sure it's true, but who cares?
What I'm saying is that companies will sell food based on what is profitable. If people in one place are too poor in general to buy much food, the food might be sold to places where it would bring more profit. That has been the cause of some famines.
Oh I guess that makes sense...where have these famines been, by the way?
Totalitarian Agriculture (farming wherever you can and killing anything that will compete with or eat your crops) has been the cause of starvation for centuries...how do you feel about farming?
Oh, you mean renting out something.
Well generally if you're charging someone for their access to something that you own, you still have to provide upkeep for the machinery or housing. Not to mention you have to get their rent.
By the way, what do you mean by renting machinery then? Like laundromats? Obviously not factories, since the workers are not forced to pay to use the machinery.
The workers are forced to pay for the factories. The business owner takes part of the money brought in by the workers' labor.
No...remember that the workers trade labor for wages...Libertovania has been screaming that for days...
Any money that is taken away from the paychecks of the workers is going to the government for things that they may not even use
and THAT is the problem
Oh I guess that makes sense...where have these famines been, by the way?
Totalitarian Agriculture (farming wherever you can and killing anything that will compete with or eat your crops) has been the cause of starvation for centuries...how do you feel about farming?
Africa and Ireland, I think. Farming is really the only way to get food without causing mass exinctions as of now.
No...remember that the workers trade labor for wages...Libertovania has been screaming that for days...
Any money that is taken away from the paychecks of the workers is going to the government for things that they may not even use
and THAT is the problem
But what do the business owners trade for money? Nothing. They basically charge people for the "privilege" of working for them by taking part of the money they make without doing any real work.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Oh I guess that makes sense...where have these famines been, by the way?
Totalitarian Agriculture (farming wherever you can and killing anything that will compete with or eat your crops) has been the cause of starvation for centuries...how do you feel about farming?
Africa and Ireland, I think. Farming is really the only way to get food without causing mass exinctions as of now.
Alright that's acceptable, but what time period and such...you should provide a link saying that the companies caused the famines...you know, not the farmers...not the drought, etc...
No...remember that the workers trade labor for wages...Libertovania has been screaming that for days...
Any money that is taken away from the paychecks of the workers is going to the government for things that they may not even use
and THAT is the problem
But what do the business owners trade for money? Nothing. They basically charge people for the "privilege" of working for them by taking part of the money they make without doing any real work.
Oh well if they don't work, and don't have to find someone to upkeep the machinery and don't have to find people to provide them with materials and don't have to find consumers and aren't involved in hiring...then I suppose you're right
and often they trade money for money
they provide the initial investment in hopes that they'll be able to make more than they put in
and often they trade money for money
they provide the initial investment in hopes that they'll be able to make more than they put in
But investing is hardly hard work. Let's look at other problems with capitalism. A CEO can make as much as $7 million dollars a year. Is that justified?
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Libertovania
01-05-2004, 18:41
Letila: The Irish famine happened due to British imperialism. African famines happen mainly because they can't compete with subsidised European agriculture and because of high levels of artificial (i.e. govt) debt. There is plenty of arable land in Africa to feed the continent with loads to spare except it's wasted on cash crops to pay debt. Government is to blame, not the market.
If you don't blame famine on private property I won't mention famines in Ukraine or Russia, although communal property was certainly responsible for soviet bread queues. This is the famous "calculational problem" of socialism where the lack of prices mean people have no rational way to decide what jobs need done or what to invest in. This leads to distortions and chaos, misallocation of resources and chronic inefficiencies such as those that cripples the USSR and can be seen in the operations of western govts in education and health care, for example.
A genuinely free market has exactly the opposite effect on famine to that which you put forward. If France has lots of food and Germany very little then food will be cheap in France and expensive in Germany (supply and demand). This acts as a signal to entrepeneurs to buy food from France and sell it in Germany because they'll be able to make a profit.
You can say "the business owner takes part of the money brought in by the workers labour" or you could say "the worker takes home part of the wealth generated by the thrift and wise investment of the entrepeneur". In reality the "exploitation" you're trying to convince us of is a figment of your imagination generated by your distorted worldview where the workers are heroic and businessmen are subhumans.
I find it hard to decipher your philosophy underneath all the slogans and soundbites. You criticise private ownership of capital on the grounds that it deprives the workers of the product of their labour (you seem to reject the possibility that labour can be freely traded for a wage, I don't know why), so it would seem you think it's wrong to take what someone's earned. But then you say people have a right to healthcare and food etc regardless of whether they did anything to earn it. Isn't the difference only one of degree? In both cases someone else is taking the product of your labour.
On ownership of capital, it would seem you regard people as somewhat distinct from the world of material objects. The factories didn't just appear out of nowhere, dropped out the sky by some benevolant Prometheus. How did the boss aquire ownership of the factory in the first place? It is clear he either provided the resources and organisation for constructing the factory, paid for and organised the materials and labour which went into it, or he freely traded for it with someone who did (or who himslf traded for it). In either case he legitimately aquired ownership and he deserves his income for his thrift and wise investment which was to the betterment of everyone.
In order for the general wealth to advance it is vital that some present consumption is foregone in order that resources might be invested in capital (factories, machines and the like). This is a vitally important task under any property system. In free markets those who make sacrifices in their consumption in order to invest resources in capital get there absolutely fair share of the wealth created by their thrift and sacrifice.
You are denying that this is a useful and productive thing to do and by your logic someone who wastes resources on immediate pleasures such as cigarettes is a heroic worker while someone who foregoes some immediate consumption in order that he might generate more wealth in the future is exploitative. You've got your priorities backwards. Thrift should be cheered, not booed.
Libertovania
01-05-2004, 18:50
and often they trade money for money
they provide the initial investment in hopes that they'll be able to make more than they put in
But investing is hardly hard work. Let's look at other problems with capitalism. A CEO can make as much as $7 million dollars a year. Is that justified?
I would imagine it must be, or nobody would pay him it. If by using his organisational and strategic talents he was contributing less than $7 million worth of profits or savings to the company then he could not fetch such a high wage. Well done that man! I for one am happy for him in his success as I don't subscribe to base feelings of jealousy.
I would imagine it must be, or nobody would pay him it. If by using his organisational and strategic talents he was contributing less than $7 million worth of profits or savings to the company then he could not fetch such a high wage. Well done that man! I for one am happy for him in his success as I don't subscribe to base feelings of jealousy.
Or maybe it has something to do with his power his position brings him. Possible?
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Libertovania
01-05-2004, 19:08
I would imagine it must be, or nobody would pay him it. If by using his organisational and strategic talents he was contributing less than $7 million worth of profits or savings to the company then he could not fetch such a high wage. Well done that man! I for one am happy for him in his success as I don't subscribe to base feelings of jealousy.
Or maybe it has something to do with his power his position brings him. Possible?
That's too vague for me to comment. You dismiss my point without any argument.
Free Soviets
01-05-2004, 19:10
I would imagine it must be, or nobody would pay him it. If by using his organisational and strategic talents he was contributing less than $7 million worth of profits or savings to the company then he could not fetch such a high wage.
circular reasoning in the first part. obvious falsehood in the second. check the actual numbers on executive compensation - they tend to have very little to do with the performance of the company.
That's too vague for me to comment. You dismiss my point without any argument.
How? Do you actually believe that a CEO works 500 times harder than a worker? It's simply not humanly possible.
I suggest you debate here: http://flag.blackened.net/forums/index.php
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Libertovania
01-05-2004, 19:24
I would imagine it must be, or nobody would pay him it. If by using his organisational and strategic talents he was contributing less than $7 million worth of profits or savings to the company then he could not fetch such a high wage.
circular reasoning in the first part. obvious falsehood in the second. check the actual numbers on executive compensation - they tend to have very little to do with the performance of the company.
It's not circular. If employing someone contributes $20 000 a year to the company there is little chance he'll be paid more than $20 000. The same logic applies whether its $7 thousand or $7 million.
You've refuted what you think I said, not what I said. The company must be at least $7 million better off for his activities, assuming the shareholders act even vaguely rationally. This might mean they lose $90 million instead of $100 million. He still saved them $10 million.
I think in the next few years shareholders will start being more active in the selection of CEOs. This has already started in the UK.
Libertovania
01-05-2004, 19:35
That's too vague for me to comment. You dismiss my point without any argument.
How? Do you actually believe that a CEO works 500 times harder than a worker? It's simply not humanly possible.
I suggest you debate here: http://flag.blackened.net/forums/index.php
That doesn't even make sense. I've already pointed out that you can't quantify how hard someone works in any meaningful way. I've also pointed out that neither you nor I believe that income should necessarily be based on how hard you work (for different reasons, of course).
I don't fancy going into the belly of the beast today but I might do some other time, thanks for the link. I don't think I'll make any converts. I converted one of yours once but it took months of hard work. I only debate here because I don't want any newcomers to anarchism to think that all anti-statists are anti-free market or private property, or that there has to be a connection between these movements, or that your slurs against the market are anything other than baseless sulking.
That doesn't even make sense. I've already pointed out that you can't quantify how hard someone works in any meaningful way. I've also pointed out that neither you nor I believe that income should necessarily be based on how hard you work (for different reasons, of course).
If you can't even tell how much work someone does, how can you even hope to figure out how much money their efforts contributed? The $7 million dollars couldn't have been made without the workers. That doesn't seem to matter to you, though.
If your arguments are so strong, then why don't you want to debate on a small forum? You shouldn't have a problem dealing with a bunch of foolish opponents of capitalism.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
I would imagine it must be, or nobody would pay him it. If by using his organisational and strategic talents he was contributing less than $7 million worth of profits or savings to the company then he could not fetch such a high wage. Well done that man! I for one am happy for him in his success as I don't subscribe to base feelings of jealousy.
Or maybe it has something to do with his power his position brings him. Possible?
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg No. If his company donst make 7 million then how is he going to?
Libertovania
02-05-2004, 15:26
That doesn't even make sense. I've already pointed out that you can't quantify how hard someone works in any meaningful way. I've also pointed out that neither you nor I believe that income should necessarily be based on how hard you work (for different reasons, of course).
If you can't even tell how much work someone does, how can you even hope to figure out how much money their efforts contributed? The $7 million dollars couldn't have been made without the workers. That doesn't seem to matter to you, though.
If your arguments are so strong, then why don't you want to debate on a small forum? You shouldn't have a problem dealing with a bunch of foolish opponents of capitalism.
And the workers couldn't have made it if the owner hadn't invested in building a factory. That doesn't seem to matter to you though. The workers recieve their compensation in wages and this is the end of the story as far as I'm concerned. I've also pointed out that neither you nor I believe that income should necessarily be based on how much you contribute. Again, you're looking at the situation from a jaundiced standpoint: worker=superhero, capitalist=supervillain. Why are you going round in circles? Since I've responded to this line at length before I can only assume you're ignoring my posts.
While it is impossible to invent a scale which measures how hard someone's worked in any meaningful way, it is in theory possible to discover how much money has been generated by a single person's work although in practice this could be tough. Applied to our current situation the clear obvious fact is that if the shareholders didn't think the CEO's services were worth $7 million then they wouldn't pay him that.
Imagine the CEO of British Airways was replaced by Kevin the burger flipper from McDonalds. How much money would BA lose as a result of this mismatch of position and skills? Millions, no doubt. This is why shareholders are willing to pay CEOs millions, because his skills really are worth millions to the company. If they could find someone equally qualified who'd do it at a lower wage they'd hire him instead.
What does it mean to say that a company would lose millions? There's more to it than just lots of pieces of paper with $100 stamped on it. If a company needlessly spends millions then that means that scarce resources - workers and materials - are being employed wastefully. By using their resources more efficiently resources are freed up for other things which increases the general wealth. In fact, this is the only way to advance the general wealth.
For example, in medieval times loads of people were employed in agriculture. More efficient farming methods (machinery, fertiliser etc) have freed up these people so they can now be manufacturers, entertainers, shopkeepers etc.
I don't want to debate on your forum because I don't see any point. Lot's of anarcho-communists come and post on the anarcho-capitalist website I go to (www.anti-state.com) and they've not won any converts so I can't see me winning any converts on your website. I've got better things to do with my time that bash my head off that brick wall.
Cuneo Island
02-05-2004, 15:30
I don't believe in anarchy.
well said, Libertovania. but you are probably wise to withdraw from discussing this with Letila...personal experience has taught me that he is less interested in actual discourse and more interested in fleshing out his "all people with money are nasty bad criminals who want to oppress me" story. it's fun at first, but he doesn't really have much material, so it ends up being a broken record after a while.
Dragoneia
02-05-2004, 15:35
Anarchy means no government right? Then who funds the police? the Fire department? The military? Who would fund the educational system? There will always be a need for some kind of government unless you want warlords fighting over terratory with no one to stop them. I mean look at alot of countries in africa Poor government=Poor starving people with no way out... :?
Libertovania
02-05-2004, 16:07
well said, Libertovania. but you are probably wise to withdraw from discussing this with Letila...personal experience has taught me that he is less interested in actual discourse and more interested in fleshing out his "all people with money are nasty bad criminals who want to oppress me" story. it's fun at first, but he doesn't really have much material, so it ends up being a broken record after a while.
Thanks, I know. That's why I don't want people to think "hey what's anarchism, why don't I look at the anarchy thread and find out?" only to be greeted by her (I think Letila is female) skreeds.
Libertovania
02-05-2004, 16:22
Anarchy means no government right? Then who funds the police? the Fire department? The military? Who would fund the educational system? There will always be a need for some kind of government unless you want warlords fighting over terratory with no one to stop them. I mean look at alot of countries in africa Poor government=Poor starving people with no way out... :?
Governments ARE warlords fighting over territory with no one to stop them. Without govt you would have independent police and militia to protect you against violence, you'd be much safer than today because today nobody can protect you from the state.
All these services have been provided without govt before. Private police are an everyday sight. Voluntary fire departments have existed and do exist still today and fire services would probably be a part of fire insurance in a free nation. I think Britain had vitually universal education even before public schools were created in the 19th century.
Decentralised militia are very effective at repelling occupying forces, and why would anyone attack a peaceful country with no govt? It wouldn't be profitable and they would not be any more secure. Costa Rica has no military so is this even necessary? (I'm inclined to think it is for now) One point I really try to drive home is that *the poor would gain the most from the abolition of govt.*
African govts are mostly responsible for Africa's problems. The reason African govts are poor is that the people are poor so the govt can't steal much money off them.
For a more fleshed out FAQ check out the 2nd post on page 17. CUNEO ISLAND: you might want to check that out too.
For a book length treatment try this website....
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp
and often they trade money for money
they provide the initial investment in hopes that they'll be able to make more than they put in
But investing is hardly hard work. Let's look at other problems with capitalism. A CEO can make as much as $7 million dollars a year. Is that justified?
I would imagine it must be, or nobody would pay him it. If by using his organisational and strategic talents he was contributing less than $7 million worth of profits or savings to the company then he could not fetch such a high wage. Well done that man! I for one am happy for him in his success as I don't subscribe to base feelings of jealousy.
And don't forget, that this CEO isn't in a free capitalist society, Letila is arguing more about the terrible "capitalism" he sees in the US and so many other nations (and yes, he is a he, from what I hear at least)
He seems to be incapable of making an argument of a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society, yet he expects us to argue against his hypothetical world. Without taxes and government regulations and such, the workers would have a bigger say in the compensation they get for their jobs. (which would, in turn, regulate how much the CEO could get, to an extent)
Free Soviets
02-05-2004, 20:08
...
Free Soviets
02-05-2004, 20:12
And the workers couldn't have made it if the owner hadn't invested in building a factory. That doesn't seem to matter to you though. The workers recieve their compensation in wages and this is the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.
but there is a logical difference between ownership and working. ownership could be handled in many different ways, but there will always be a need for workers (until we get technology that is indistinguishable from magic at least). thus talking about the 'contribution' of the owner is merely to assert the existence of the current system. what is really meant by the contribution of the owner is the contribution of infrastructure.
work + materials = created wealth
work + materials + infrastructure = more created wealth
materials + infrastructure = fuck-all
Libertovania
04-05-2004, 10:51
And the workers couldn't have made it if the owner hadn't invested in building a factory. That doesn't seem to matter to you though. The workers recieve their compensation in wages and this is the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.
but there is a logical difference between ownership and working. ownership could be handled in many different ways, but there will always be a need for workers (until we get technology that is indistinguishable from magic at least). thus talking about the 'contribution' of the owner is merely to assert the existence of the current system. what is really meant by the contribution of the owner is the contribution of infrastructure.
work + materials = created wealth
work + materials + infrastructure = more created wealth
materials + infrastructure = f----all
The problem we're debating is really a disguised form of the communal/private property debate which has been dragging out for weeks. Within the private property system the owner makes a substantial contribution at and risks a substantial sacrifice should the venture go belly up. In the private property system the owner may contribute both materials and infrastructure without which work is irrelevant. So Letila's claim that owners and CEOs contribute nothing or little of value *at present* is false given that the current system is one of mostly private property.
Libertovania
05-05-2004, 11:34
And don't forget, that this CEO isn't in a free capitalist society, Letila is arguing more about the terrible "capitalism" he sees in the US and so many other nations (and yes, he is a he, from what I hear at least)
'Pologies. I wonder why I though Letila was female?
[controvertial comment] Was it just the effeminate name or was it the irrational arguments inspired more by emotion than logic? [/controvertial comment] :lol:
Dischordiac
05-05-2004, 18:06
Letila: The Irish famine happened due to British imperialism.
Saying the Irish famine was due to imperialism and not private property is like saying AIDS is due to HIV and not sexual activity or needles. British imperialism introduced private property as a concept to the Irish countryside.
Basically, the British imperial powers carried out a number of policies to destroy the power of the people of Ireland. The introduction of landlordism, the division of land into leased plots and, most importantly, the law that all plots had to be divided between male inheritants rather than left to the senior (thereby reducing the land available to individual families) wrecked the Irish agricultural system, which had previously been based on communal ownership and created the circumstances that led to the famine. The Irish were forced to live largely on potatoes because they were forced to sell all other crops to pay their rent. Because they were not permitted to retain large plots, their ability to grow more was removed.
Private property, in terms of the division of the land into smaller and smaller plots, as well as the need to pay the landlord, created an impoverished population which was decimated by potato blight.
Vas (don't talk Irish history when there's a Paddy about).
How do you know that's how much they contributed?
Was it just the effeminate name or was it the irrational arguments inspired more by emotion than logic?
[another controversal comment]You b*****.[/another controversal comment]
The problem we're debating is really a disguised form of the communal/private property debate which has been dragging out for weeks. Within the private property system the owner makes a substantial contribution at and risks a substantial sacrifice should the venture go belly up. In the private property system the owner may contribute both materials and infrastructure without which work is irrelevant. So Letila's claim that owners and CEOs contribute nothing or little of value *at present* is false given that the current system is one of mostly private property.
You're assuming property to defend property. They still don't have to work for those millions of dollars.
Saying the Irish famine was due to imperialism and not private property is like saying AIDS is due to HIV and not sexual activity or needles. British imperialism introduced private property as a concept to the Irish countryside.
Basically, the British imperial powers carried out a number of policies to destroy the power of the people of Ireland. The introduction of landlordism, the division of land into leased plots and, most importantly, the law that all plots had to be divided between male inheritants rather than left to the senior (thereby reducing the land available to individual families) wrecked the Irish agricultural system, which had previously been based on communal ownership and created the circumstances that led to the famine. The Irish were forced to live largely on potatoes because they were forced to sell all other crops to pay their rent. Because they were not permitted to retain large plots, their ability to grow more was removed.
Private property, in terms of the division of the land into smaller and smaller plots, as well as the need to pay the landlord, created an impoverished population which was decimated by potato blight.
And the initial imperialism was a side effect of hierarchy and the need to expand, too. This exists in capitalism.
--------------------
Free your mind?
And don't forget, that this CEO isn't in a free capitalist society, Letila is arguing more about the terrible "capitalism" he sees in the US and so many other nations (and yes, he is a he, from what I hear at least)
'Pologies. I wonder why I though Letila was female?
[controvertial comment] Was it just the effeminate name or was it the irrational arguments inspired more by emotion than logic? [/controvertial comment] :lol:
I have the same problem all the time and I even know that he's a guy. I, by the way, am a girl...
So I guess it's the name...
Free Soviets
09-05-2004, 06:28
Within the private property system the owner makes a substantial contribution at and risks a substantial sacrifice should the venture go belly up. In the private property system the owner may contribute both materials and infrastructure without which work is irrelevant. So Letila's claim that owners and CEOs contribute nothing or little of value *at present* is false given that the current system is one of mostly private property.
of course, it is equally true that feudal land owners "contributed'" land for their serfs to work on. and at the same time, they didn't contribute jack shit and merely exploited people. the contribution of onwership is merely the assertion of the status quo
Free Soviets
11-05-2004, 23:03
news post time:
Southern California Anarchist Federation (SCAF) Gathering
We have reached a point in history where linking ourselves- and our struggles within our individual communities- to build, destroy, and fight for a new world is absolutely necessary. Each day, this system chips away at what little is left within nature and within our hearts. It crucial that we begin to organize collectively in order to build a solid community, capable of carrying on the struggle for a different world.
Liberation Weekend will take place this Saturday, May 15th in Los Angeles. Along with relevant workshops, the forum will feature speakers such as Rod Coronado, Leslie Pickering, & Kevin Jonas. The next day, we call for Anarchists from across the southland to converge in Orange County for a gathering that will provide the groundwork for the Southern California Anarchist Federation.
What: 1st SCAF gathering
Where: Hart Park, located at 701 S. Glassell, City of Orange (in Orange County). Look for signs.
When: Sunday, May 16th @ 1:00 pm
Transportation:
There will be carpools and caravans from LA on the night of Saturday May 15th, to Orange County where housing will be provided.
Directions:
From LA - Take the 5 FWY South to the 22 FWY East. Exit Grand Ave, turn Left on Grand Ave., Grand Ave. becomes Glassell St. End at 701 S. Glassell St.
Housing:
Housing arrangements will be provided for anyone who wants to come to Orange County the night of May 15th, and stay for the SCAF meeting on Sunday, May 16th. E-mail OCEF@riseup.net for housing details and to RSVP.
About SCAF:
SCAF is a decentralized, regional network of anarchist collectives from Southern California. The purpose of the federation is to provide a forum for groups and individuals to work together, build solidarity, share resources and help each other with local projects. We'll also be preparing for national mobilizations, organizing trainings and forums, and providing an infrastructure which allows for growth within our movement.
SCAF:
http://www.anarchistfederation.org
LIBERATION WEEKEND:
http://www.ocproject.org/scaf/images/LibWeekendFlyer3.jpg
Libertovania
12-05-2004, 11:56
Letila: The Irish famine happened due to British imperialism.
Saying the Irish famine was due to imperialism and not private property is like saying AIDS is due to HIV and not sexual activity or needles. British imperialism introduced private property as a concept to the Irish countryside.
Basically, the British imperial powers carried out a number of policies to destroy the power of the people of Ireland. The introduction of landlordism, the division of land into leased plots and, most importantly, the law that all plots had to be divided between male inheritants rather than left to the senior (thereby reducing the land available to individual families) wrecked the Irish agricultural system, which had previously been based on communal ownership and created the circumstances that led to the famine. The Irish were forced to live largely on potatoes because they were forced to sell all other crops to pay their rent. Because they were not permitted to retain large plots, their ability to grow more was removed.
Private property, in terms of the division of the land into smaller and smaller plots, as well as the need to pay the landlord, created an impoverished population which was decimated by potato blight.
Vas (don't talk Irish history when there's a Paddy about).
This is something you communists don't seem to realise about property rights. If they had communal property then it is a violation of their property rights to force them into a different property system. Property rights mean being able to do whatever you want with your property including communise it (if that's a word). True capitalists would be as much opposed to forced privatisation as you are. It is precisely this sort of "helpful" meddling we're opposed to.
However, is it not true that the British forced the Irish to export wheat during the famine? Would any of this have happened without imperialism?
Dischordiac
12-05-2004, 18:07
This is something you communists don't seem to realise about property rights. If they had communal property then it is a violation of their property rights to force them into a different property system. Property rights mean being able to do whatever you want with your property including communise it (if that's a word).
So where do you draw the line? The fundamental anarchist argument about property, stretching back to Proudhon in particular, is that, at some point in time, the creation of private property involved just the crime you outline above. In the case of Ireland, even after independence, the landlords retained ownership. It took the Economic War for the British to accept reparations and, even then, not all landlord claims were revoked. The Irish government, rather than returning agricultural land to common ownership, gave private ownership to tenants. Thus, the crime was perpetuated. It's no different anywhere else, somewhere along the line common ownership of land was ended by someone saying "I own this", usually backed up by force. Private ownership of the fundamental natural resource - land - is theft.
True capitalists would be as much opposed to forced privatisation as you are.
You're descending into a "true Scotsman" argument. Pure capitalism is totally impossible and it has been tried numerous times, far more times than anarchism. Why? Because, any system that promotes competition and greed above all other driving forces cannot expect people to play fair. Anarchism is based on the principle of promoting co-operation and mutual aid, because, if successful, this will reduce the impetus to cheat and lie for personal gain.
It is precisely this sort of "helpful" meddling we're opposed to.
Alas, in practice, capitalists are all too eager to engage in just that.
However, is it not true that the British forced the Irish to export wheat during the famine? Would any of this have happened without imperialism?
Of course not, the British could not have imposed landlordism or harsh capitalism (more properly mercantilism) without imperialism. But the two are completely intertwined. As for the wheat, it is more true to say that the British were in almost complete ignorance of the situation of the Irish "peasants", while the landlords didn't care. Wheat was exported before, during and after the famine, regardless of the potato blight. That's capitalism, business as usual.
Vas.
Free Soviets
19-05-2004, 05:41
Support Anarchists and Anti-Authoritarians of Southern California Facing Government Harassment!
Stop the arrests! Free all Prisoners!
On the weekend of May 15-16, various anarchist, earth and animal liberation, and anti-authoritarian groups converged in LA for “Liberation Weekend”. The first day featured groups ranging from animal liberation like Compassion for Farm Animals (www.vegsandiego.com), and SHAC (www.shacamerica.net), radical environmental groups like Orange Country Earth First!(http://www.ocproject.org/earthfirst/), anarchist/anti-authoritarian groups like LA Anti-Racist Action (LA-ARA) and Food Not Bombs, and revolutionary political groups like Arissa (www.arissa.org). The speakers included Rod Coronado, former ALF activist and political prisoner, Leslie P., former spokesperson for the ELF, and Kevin Jonas, director of the SHAC campaign. The following day was to also include a meeting and planning session for the newly formed Southern California Anarchist Federation (http://www.anarchistfederation.org/) which included collectives from San Diego to the Antelope Valley (www.geocities.com/autonomousvalley).
In the wake of various large scale Earth and Animal Liberation actions that occurred largely in Southern California (www.directaction.info, www.earthliberationfront.com), the FBI and local law enforcement seemed itching at the chance to suppress activists in Southern California. David A., from CFA (Compassion for Farm Animals) remarked on the conference:
“Yesterday L.A. activists hosted Liberation Weekend, a conference devoted to promoting activism that breaks the stale useless confines mass mobilization ad nuseum . Meant to provide information about the various militant struggles that go beyond protest and begging the system to end itself, the conference had a variety of speakers including members of Earth First!, SHAC and was organized by members of SCAF (So-Cal Anarchist Federation). Headlined by indigenous earth first warrior Rod Coronado, [who] last year spoke here in San Diego, and two homes of activists were raided by FBI, ATF and “Department of Homeland Security” agents.
We believe the harassment occurred to silence Rod’s voice from inspiring all who hear his message of militant resistance. Just as the FBI targeted the black and native America activists in the 60’s and 70 LA, animal-rights and radical environmentalists are the being targeted this weekend…today! The organizers of the conference expected harassment but imagine our surprise that the harassment begun already.”
Following the end of the conference, police moved in on various individuals, made several arrests, and began following various people. David goes on to write about the various people and groups being harassed:
“Nic H., a LA based animal liberation activist (who is not a conference organizer), has noticed that he has been followed since Friday. Yesterday, after confronting the under covers, he was arrested. Nik was released and came to the conference but was never even told what he was being charged with. He was followed home from the conference, and he went to a friends home that was also [near] the conference. 4 unmarked cars remained stationed out side of the activist home until 3:30 am. Some of the cars had Nevada plates. Nik is still at a loss why he is being targeted. For more info you can write nik@nocompromise.org Details are still coming in, but appears members of LA Food Not Bombs were also followed. Melissa of SCAF is being followed as I write this by 4 cars. Activist Rob “ruckus” Middugh has been arrested by federal agents, charges unknown.”
Melissa, a organizer for the event, and member of SCAF, wrote this on LA-IMC (la.indymedia.org), about the harassment she received right after the conference was finished:
“The current situation with me is: I'm safe at the house of a member of the NLG but there are still vehicles surrounding the house. After dropping off Liberation Weekend speakers, members of SCAF headed down to OC for the gathering. We were being followed by 4 vehicles, and because we didn't have a safe place to go, we hung out at ‘Native Foods’ - we had two attorneys with us. After we left, we were immediately pulled over by police- 7 cars & a helicopter. They arrested most everyone inside for not wearing seat belts (they also searched my car)- there were 8 of us total. I was told that I did not have the right to consult with an attorney, and they ripped my cell phone away as I tried to call one of them. 5 were taken to the station and released due to jail solidarity. We were still being followed, and after taking most [everyone] home, there were only two of us left but now we were being followed by 7 cars. Close to my friends house we were ordered to pull over by the FBI. They ordered us out of my car and identified themselves as FBI. They told me there were ALF signs in my car, (that the deputy "noticed" during the illegal search), there were none in my car. They asked me about propane tanks I had used for camping. They asked me about a brown jar with liquid - there is none. Finally they asked me about ELF & ALF. Several other activists were followed and harassed this weekend. All entrances to Hart park, where the SCAF meeting was set to take place, were blocked off. We’ll keep people posted, support for everyone involved is needed and much appreciated.”
Also targeted was Robert M. (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=01/11/16/6316462), who was recentally out of jail after two years for throwing a bottle of soda at a police officer during the famous May Day police riot in Long Beach in 2001, (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2001/05/6466.php). He was apperentally charged with violating his parole by going outside of his area without telling his parole officer, and has spent several days in jail.
Animal Liberation activists from Oakland were also targeted, and we stopped while going over the Grapvine, and asked if they were going to the conference. In San Diego, members of Compassion for Farms Animals also had their homes raided and were visited by FBI agents once again. In what seemed like a repeat of the harassment that happened last year in the wake of the ELF attacks in San Diego.
The harassment continued into the next day as well, and according to the SCAF website, the FBI made it clear that they did not want anarchists organizing in LA: “The first SCAF meeting that was to take place on Sunday May 16th at Hart Park in Orange County has been delayed due to state repression. All of the roads that lead to the park were blocked off. People who got around the road blocks found a black SUV with tinted windows parked in the middle of the park, identical to the black SUV's that have been following multiple activists around all weekend. They're trying to stop us early on because once we organize, they will be powerless against us! We'll post more about this along with pictures of some of the FBI agents.”
Repeatedly the FBI and government agents said to various revolutionaries during their harassment, that they should “lay low”, and that property destruction and violence was no way to further a cause. While it is totally laughable that the US GOVERNMENT would state that VIOLENCE is never away to achieve anything, we have to 1.) Be aware that our militant activism is being seen as effective, and 2.) That there will also be very real repression against us now, and in the future. Just as in the same way that FBI and local police came in a totally destroyed the Long Beach anarchist scene, imprisoning Sherman Austin, Matt L., and others, shutting down the REACH Center, Copwatch and Food Not Bombs, this same thing will also play out in LA if we are not aware of what’s going on, and offer our help. As David of CFA stated, the harassment being lodged at activists in the Southern California area isn’t going to go away, and it isn’t going to stop. The only way it’s going to stop is if Southern California anarchists stop being active and stop fighting, which is not an option, or if we increase the pressure, show solidarity, and work harder to back each other up!
Action!: Call the jail that is housing Rob M., and demand that he be released! The number of the jail is: 909-955-2400 . His booking number is “200420258”. For more info email: hello_3500@yahoo.com . (Take from la.indymedia.org). Various SCAF members are also currentaly working on conducting a press conference, and some various workshops/teach-ins. Keep up to date by visiting: www.anarchistfederation.org
Network! Help! Solidarity!: Please visit this thread on the SCAF website, and talk with Federation members about how you can help. View at: http://www.smokescreenprinting.net/scaf/viewtopic.php?t=35
This is the new anarchist thread. Before bashing anarchism, take a look at the pages at the bottom. Anarchism is not chaos or destruction. It is about getting rid of hierarchy. I don't think I did as good a job as Spiritual Anarchy at making the new thread, but I hope this leads to some insightful debate.
Here are some anarchist nations:
Letila (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/36948/page=display_nation/nation=letila)
Free Soviets (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/36948/page=display_nation/nation=free_soviets)
Bodies without organs (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/36948/page=display_nation/nation=bodies_without_organs)
Free Outer Eugenia (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/36948/page=display_nation/nation=free_outer_eugenia)
Utopio (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/36948/page=display_nation/nation=utopio)
Carlemania (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/36948/page=display_nation/nation=carlemnaria)
Neo-Anarchos (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/36948/page=display_nation/nation=Neo-Anarchos)
Anarchist pages:
www.infoshop.org
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
For anarchists, some of these countries seem to have quite a bit of government presence.
For anarchists, some of these countries seem to have quite a bit of government presence.
The game has statist assumptions.
-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg
Our Earth
20-05-2004, 03:46
For anarchists, some of these countries seem to have quite a bit of government presence.
The way the game is designed is indicative of the bias of its creator. Unfortunately this means that you will see a nation with an "omnipresent" government that was intended to be essentially anarchic. My nation, for instance, ranks very well in the UN reports on anarchist issues such as police to citizen ratio, number of prisons, and things of that sort, but the nation description contradicts those ratings at times. That said, my nation is nearly an anarchist's paradise with little to no government influence on dayly life, no crime, and just general freedom all around.
Free Soviets
20-05-2004, 08:43
RENEWING THE ANARCHIST TRADITION: A SCHOLARLY CONFERENCE September 24-26, 2004 Plainfield, Vermont
CALL FOR PROPOSALS / LOGISTICAL DETAILS
The Renewing the Anarchist Tradition (RAT) conference, cosponsored by the Institute for Anarchist Studies and Institute for Social Ecology, aims to provide a scholarly space in which to both reexamine and reinvigorate the social and political tradition of anarchism.
RAT is meant as one contribution to the project of developing a more rigorous as well as contemporary theoretical framework for anarchism, and to assist in nurturing new generations of anti-authoritarian public intellectuals. Thus, as opposed to conferences that attempt to create anarchist organizations, statements of purpose, or focus on "lifestyle anarchism" or how-to workshops, RAT brings together anarchist and libertarian socialist scholars, activists, educators, writers, organizers, students, and others to explore how we make sense of our own tradition; how we understand anarchism in the context of our lives, movements, and present-day social conditions; and how the conceptual tools that the anarchist tradition provides can and need to be rethought.
Anarchism has tended to be a dynamic theory and practice, and its influence in anti-capitalist struggles around the world has become keenly apparent of late. We are, as it were, inside history, and if anarchism is to continue to be relevant to this moment of global transformations, it must not only understand the present but also scrutinize its own internal taboos and tensions; it must not only be able to describe contemporary forms of hierarchy and oppression but also articulate openings for a radical reshaping of social relations and material conditions along ethical lines. The work that all of us attempt to do now, the ideas and values we struggle to put into words and practice, will have profound implications for how this historical moment structures the future. RAT is a modest addition to the grand anarchist project of the present to ensure a freer tomorrow for all.
As in the past, we hope that RAT continues to raise difficult questions--questions ranging from the character of social change to the ongoing relevance of categories such as class, community, and labor; from the changing shape of the state and capital to emergent forms of both domination and resistance in a globalizing world; from anarchism’s relation to geopolitical concerns such as terrorism and war to its ability to grapple with issues of identity such as race, gender, and sexuality; to a host of other controversial, contested, or even uncharted subjects.
Alongside a participatory weekend of presentations, panels, and debates in a supportive atmosphere, the beautiful rural Vermont setting affords the opportunity to meet other anarchists and radicals, relax around a campfire, or enjoy the fall foliage. RAT will also include a mini-bookfair, free literature tables, and possible film screenings.
CALL FOR PRESENTATION AND PANEL PROPOSALS: DUE JULY 15, 2004
We are now accepting proposals for individual presentations and panels/panelists. People of color, women, those outside academia, and others often excluded from scholarly life--due to gender, sexuality, class, and so forth--are especially encouraged to send in proposals.
We’re looking for individual presentations that attempt to analyze and/or critique current social relations and dilemmas; share work and ideas on anarchism’s relevance and potential as a political/social theory as well as a practice; grapple with and constructively challenge/build on standard anarchist notions in light of a radically changing world; and cover a wide variety of perspectives and scholarly disciplines.
While you can also propose a full panel, including all panelists, please consider simply proposing yourself for a panel topic or two and we will put the panel together based on a diversity of viewpoints. Specifically, we would like to see panelist proposals for the following topics: globalization; the role of anarchists in international solidarity work; the changing character of statism/anti-statism, capitalism/anti-capitalism, or class/labor today; movement building and anarchism’s relation to other social movements; anarchism and Marxism; anarchism and poststructuralism; anarchism and identity (in particular, race, gender, and sexuality); anarchism and ecology; anarchist responses to contemporary concerns such as terrorism and the "war on terrorism," new legal regimes and policing, war, the rise of fundamentalism and nationalism, or the U.S. presidential elections; and anarchism and its relation to its own history. Please feel free to propose other ideas, of course.
Individual presentation and panel proposals should be no more than one typed page each; remember, you can also propose yourself as a panelist and let us set up the panel itself. Please include a presentation or panel title and brief description, a few sentences about yourself and/or other proposed panelists, and complete contact information (address, phone, and e-mail). Indicate if you feel comfortable having your presentation/panel audiotaped, and if so, if you would be amendable to post-conference "publication" of such audio on a Web site or CD. Keep in mind that presenters are asked to limit individual presentations to about 30 to 40 minutes, and end by framing a question or two for the participants in order to facilitate another 30 to 40 minutes of discussion. Panelists should each prepare about 10 to 15 minutes of material, leaving time for discussion as well. Our intent with the panels is to stimulate lively, but friendly debate, so again, a variety of perspectives on each panel is encouraged.
Proposals are due by July 15, 2004, and should be e-mailed to both co-organizers:
John Petrovato at jpetrovato@hotmail.com, and Cindy Milstein at cbmilstein@yahoo.com.
If you don’t have access to e-mail, mail two copies of your typed proposal(s) to Cindy Milstein, 19 French Street, Barre, Vermont 05641. We will inform you about the outcome of your proposal(s) by August 1. Please note: all presenters must also register and pay for the conference, and space is limited, so don’t delay.
CONFERENCE LOCATION
This year’s RAT will take place on the Goddard College campus in Plainfield, Vermont, about nine miles east of Vermont’s capital, Montpelier. We will also utilize the nearby Institute for Social Ecology’s facilities for camping (weather depending) and socializing.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
RAT will get underway mid-afternoon on Friday, September 24, followed by dinner and then an opening panel at 7:30 p.m. Saturday, September 25, will be filled with multiple, simultaneous presentations and panels throughout the day. Presentations and panels continue until 5 p.m. on Sunday, September 26, when we close the doors on another RAT conference. Descriptions of presentations and panels TBA (stay tuned to www.homemadejam.org/renew, or if you would like to be added to our occasional e-announcement list, please send us your e-mail address for updates).
MINI-BOOKFAIR
A number of bookstores and publishers, such as Raven Used Books and AK Press, will be present at RAT as part of this year’s mini-bookfair. Tables are available for bookstores, publishers, and infoshops throughout the weekend for $35, but you must reserve and pay for a table in advance. Tables will also be available at no charge for free literature.
GETTING TO RAT
Plainfield is accessible by car. From the South or North, take I-89 to the Montpelier (Vermont) exit, then take Route 2 East to Plainfield. Goddard College is on your left just before you enter Plainfield Village. Park in the first lot on your right and follow the signs to RAT.
Both Amtrak and Greyhound/Vermont Transit offer train and bus service, respectively, to Montpelier. Limited pick-ups and drop-offs will be available, or you can call a taxi during the daytime hours. Please check with us about your travel arrangements before assuming that a pick-up or drop-off is possible.
There is an airport in Burlington, Vermont, about an hour’s drive from Plainfield. We will, however, be unable to do any airport pick-ups or drop-offs. If you fly to Burlington, please arrange your own ground transportation (limited bus service to Montpelier or rental cars).
COST
You must register and pay in advance, as conference space is limited.
* SLIDING-SCALE REGISTRATION FEE: $20 to $40 (for those who can afford it, the higher registration fee will go toward our scholarship fund to assist others; see below).
* OPTIONAL: * MEALS: $48 covers two breakfasts, two lunches, and two dinners, with a variety of vegetarian and vegan options prepared by the New England Culinary Institute. Food or meals can also be purchased separately in Plainfield; there are three restaurants, a small food cooperative, and a convenience store. * HOUSING: $30 per night/per person for a single, $23 per night/per person for a shared double, and $15 per night/per person for a shared triple (dorms rooms are at Goddard College, and include towels and linens; there are a limited number of single and triple rooms). Camping, weather permitting, is also available on the nearby Institute for Social Ecology’s campus for $10 night, per one- or two-person tent (bring your own camping equipment and supplies). There are motels and B&Bs in the area as well.
SCHOLARSHIPS
A limited number of partial scholarships are available to subsidize RAT conference fees for those with limited resources. Please inquiry early and we will do our best to offer assistance. These scholarships are made possible because of the generosity of other RAT participants. If you can afford to pay the higher end of our sliding-scale registration fee, or want to donate more beyond that, we will pass along the extra funds to those needing financial aid to attend RAT.
REGISTER AND PAY IN ADVANCE
Space is again limited for RAT--though this year, RAT is limited to about 200 people instead of our usual 100 or so. Thus, please register and pay in advance to ensure your participation. Send a check, made out to Cindy Milstein (unofficial RAT treasurer), to: Cindy Milstein, 19 French Street, Barre, Vermont 05641. Include your name, address, phone, e-mail, and an itemization of what the check covers (registration, meals, housing, donation beyond registration toward scholarships for others, and/or a mini-bookfair table).
STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? WANT RAT UPDATES?
Feel free to contact either of the co-organizers, John Petrovato (jpetrovato@hotmail.com) or Cindy Milstein (cbmilstein@yahoo.com). Or check out the RAT Web site at http://www.homemadejam.org/renew. Or send us your e-mail address and we’ll add you to our occasional RAT e-announcement mailing list.
Dischordiac
31-05-2004, 00:13
For anarchists, some of these countries seem to have quite a bit of government presence.
The game has statist assumptions.
On of the initial questions, or issues (I don't remember), is whether or not to have elections. Anarchist nations, not having representative governments, do not have elections. Neither do authoritarian states. This game presupposes the latter.
Vas.
Libertovania
31-05-2004, 10:27
This is something you communists don't seem to realise about property rights. If they had communal property then it is a violation of their property rights to force them into a different property system. Property rights mean being able to do whatever you want with your property including communise it (if that's a word).
So where do you draw the line? The fundamental anarchist argument about property, stretching back to Proudhon in particular, is that, at some point in time, the creation of private property involved just the crime you outline above. In the case of Ireland, even after independence, the landlords retained ownership. It took the Economic War for the British to accept reparations and, even then, not all landlord claims were revoked. The Irish government, rather than returning agricultural land to common ownership, gave private ownership to tenants. Thus, the crime was perpetuated. It's no different anywhere else, somewhere along the line common ownership of land was ended by someone saying "I own this", usually backed up by force. Private ownership of the fundamental natural resource - land - is theft.
Well, first you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular piece of land was stolen, as is required by all decent systems of law. Then, say you've proven that a field was stolen 1000 years ago. Since it is clear nobody else has a claim to the land the land reverts back to unowned status as soon as there is no clear heir. (probably about 900 years ago). Once it is unowned it can be claimed by the first person/people who bring it back into production. In any case the libertarian views this as a historical crime, which does not prove an inconsistency in the theory, and thinks it as unjust as you do. What we don't believe is that by repeating the crime by stealing the land from it's present owners (if they are legitimate owners) is an acceptable solution to the problem.
The problem with Proudhon's argument is that is pre-supposes the notion of property. If property is theft who is it stealing from? In fact, Proudhon meant it poetically as he compared it to saying "slavery is murder", which is clearly not true. You claim that the private property was backed up by force but I find it hard to believe the idyllic peasants didn't back up their "communal" property by force when neighbouring clans came to take their cattle.
As for the activitys of the British and Irish govts, I'm not a statist so don't complain about it to me.
True capitalists would be as much opposed to forced privatisation as you are.
You're descending into a "true Scotsman" argument. Pure capitalism is totally impossible and it has been tried numerous times, far more times than anarchism. Why? Because, any system that promotes competition and greed above all other driving forces cannot expect people to play fair. Anarchism is based on the principle of promoting co-operation and mutual aid, because, if successful, this will reduce the impetus to cheat and lie for personal gain.
I'm afraid I don't follow. I'm not a state capitalist. Don't blame me for contradictions in state capitalism because I'm well aware of them. But competition and greed still exist in socialism. As long as there are 2 people who want the same resource for mutually incompatible purposes, and there always will be, there will be competition. Whether the conflict is resolved via a market mechanism or local democracy is irrelevant. Competition is still present. The free market contains more cooperation than competition and the activities of billions of people are smoothly coordinated via the price structure of the market.
We could spend all day with you saying "capitalism is based on greed" and me saying "socialism is based on envy and plunder" but it's not very fruitful. The fact is that people are usually looking out for themselves and very close members of their family. I think the idea of a "new socialist man" is tremendously naive and it is foolish to advocate a system which necessitates a change in human nature. At least in capitalism that rational self interest is channelled into useful productive tasks.
However, is it not true that the British forced the Irish to export wheat during the famine? Would any of this have happened without imperialism?
Of course not, the British could not have imposed landlordism or harsh capitalism (more properly mercantilism) without imperialism. But the two are completely intertwined. As for the wheat, it is more true to say that the British were in almost complete ignorance of the situation of the Irish "peasants", while the landlords didn't care. Wheat was exported before, during and after the famine, regardless of the potato blight. That's capitalism, business as usual.
Vas.
Why are you blaming me for statism, mercantilism and imperialism? I AM NOT A STATIST!
Dischordiac
11-06-2004, 11:59
Well, first you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular piece of land was stolen, as is required by all decent systems of law. Then, say you've proven that a field was stolen 1000 years ago. Since it is clear nobody else has a claim to the land the land reverts back to unowned status as soon as there is no clear heir. (probably about 900 years ago). Once it is unowned it can be claimed by the first person/people who bring it back into production. In any case the libertarian views this as a historical crime, which does not prove an inconsistency in the theory, and thinks it as unjust as you do. What we don't believe is that by repeating the crime by stealing the land from it's present owners (if they are legitimate owners) is an acceptable solution to the problem.
So, basically, you don't actually have any workable policies or viewpoints. Fine.
The problem with Proudhon's argument is that is pre-supposes the notion of property. If property is theft who is it stealing from? In fact, Proudhon meant it poetically as he compared it to saying "slavery is murder", which is clearly not true. You claim that the private property was backed up by force but I find it hard to believe the idyllic peasants didn't back up their "communal" property by force when neighbouring clans came to take their cattle.
What are you blathering about? Firstly, if you're read "What is property", you know he distinguishes between a number of different forms of property. Property is theft when that which was once in common ownership becomes that in private ownership of the minority. This is a political point, this is what anarchists accept as being a fundamental element of the problems of the current system. You are failing completely to actually argue the points. "You're wrong because you're wrong" is not an argument.
As for the activitys of the British and Irish govts, I'm not a statist so don't complain about it to me.
Oh ffs, learn how to debate. I'm not holding you personally accountable, dufus, I'm challenging your basic assumptions about the issue.
I'm afraid I don't follow. I'm not a state capitalist. Don't blame me for contradictions in state capitalism because I'm well aware of them.
Of course we can blame capitalism in general for the contraditions in state capitalism because, quite simply, the modern liberal state was created by capitalists to defend capitalism. Capitalism without the state is impossible because the state is, quite simply, the facilitator and enforcer of capitalism.
But competition and greed still exist in socialism. As long as there are 2 people who want the same resource for mutually incompatible purposes, and there always will be, there will be competition. Whether the conflict is resolved via a market mechanism or local democracy is irrelevant. Competition is still present. The free market contains more cooperation than competition and the activities of billions of people are smoothly coordinated via the price structure of the market.
Bullshit. Any form of capitalism will automatically mean that resources will not go where they are most needed, but will go to those who can afford them best. Thus it is fundamentally opposed to any form of just and equal society. True trade is only possible between two equals, capitalism usually involves those with a surplus selling to those with a lack. Because the sale of the surplus is not essential, while the purchase by those with a lack is often completely essential, the seller has power over the buyer. This is not trade, but is, in fact, highway robbery.
We could spend all day with you saying "capitalism is based on greed" and me saying "socialism is based on envy and plunder" but it's not very fruitful.
Firstly, is there any argument that capitalism is based on greed? Secondly, in most cases, social activism is based on empathy, not envy and plunder. Look at the history of anarchism - Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman - people who gave up wealth and position to fight for the rights of others. I am not an anarchist because I want the wealth of others, I'm doing quite well and would be happy to share what I do have in a free society. I am an anarchist because I want to see an end to political and social inequality - I want to redistribute from the rich to the poor, not to myself.
The fact is that people are usually looking out for themselves and very close members of their family. I think the idea of a "new socialist man" is tremendously naive and it is foolish to advocate a system which necessitates a change in human nature. At least in capitalism that rational self interest is channelled into useful productive tasks.
This is nonsense and completely ignores the development of human society. "New socialist man" is basically the general functioning of humanity. We co-operate far, far more than we compete.
Why are you blaming me for statism, mercantilism and imperialism? I AM NOT A STATIST!
I'm not BLAMING you for anything, fool, I'm debatting points YOU MADE.
Vas.
Free Soviets
11-06-2004, 19:46
Fix Shit Up: Anarchism in Action
Deprived of the opportunity of writing about masked anarchist hordes pillaging Georgia's coastal communities, both local and national media have been forced to cast about for new angles on the G-8 summit story. Still committed to searching out the dreaded Anarchist Peril they have found themselves drawn to the Fix Shit Up project (FSU), the most high profile anarchist initiative taking place in Brunswick, GA during the summit.
Those looking for the bang-bang of militant posturing were likely disappointed. Rather than the brick and slingshot wielding stereotypes that they and their colleagues in the corporate media have done so much to promote, they found a crew armed with hammers, crowsbars and other tools busily engaged in cleaning and repairing decayed housing in the African-American section of old Brunswick. Just how they will spin this story remains to be seen. One thing is certain, the usual frame of the "violent" anarchists versus the "non-violent" protestors is out the window.
So what exactly is this FSU project that has re-written the media script on Anarchism at G-8? According to released statements, FSU is a project associated with the Southeast Anarchist Network (SEANET), which links up various individuals and groups throughout the south. FSU member Caitlin Childs described the project as an initiative by members of SEANET who believed it was necessary for activist to accept leadership from the local community in Brunswick.
The initiative was originally brought forward by Anarchists in the Atlanta vincinity and was discussed in detail at a convergence held earlier this year in North Carolina. Afterwards, activists contacted local Brunswick civil rights leader and Green Party Activist Rev. Zack Lyde. "Rather than coming in and doing something without knowing what the community wanted, we wanted to make contact with the community and let them lead us." said Childs. "We heard that the Lyde family owned these homes and were thinking about using them as housing for young mothers or for homeless folks in the community. We thought that sounded good so we got in touch."
Members of FSU followed up by making the long trip down to Brunswick, meeting with the Lydes and checking out the proposed work sites. They then took responsibility for providing tools and logistical support for the volunteers who would be arriving in Brunswick to help with the project. This was no small task since the project encompassed repairing no less than four separate residences. Caitlin estimates that around a hundred volunteers have participated in the project, most of whom were from around the southeast but including folks from as far away as the west coast and Vermont.
Not surprisingly, local authorities threw a few obstacles in the way of the FSU. Police came by the most prominent work site located on Martin Luther King St. and demanded a building permit. Later, housing code inspectors arrived. This in an area where it was clear that some rental properties would not have passed even the most superficial code inspection. Failing to find any violations that would have allowed them to halt the work, officials claimed that all trash and rubbish taken from the house could not be left on the curb but had to be removed immediately. Childs says that the volunteers rose to the challenge,clearing the house and the property of all the rubbish in about thirty minutes. "It was very obvious that there was nothing they could get us on so they were just going to nit-pick and find some way to make our job more difficult but they actually motivated us."
In some ways the media swarm that descended on the FSU volunteers was ironic, considering some of the criticism the Anarchists had received from within their own ranks. Says Childs,"In the anarchist movement there was some criticism. People who had no idea what our motivations were tried to say we wanted to look good for the media, that we were just catering to the media when in fact we were exactly the opposite." According to Caitlin the FSU was very clear about their stance towards the media, "We knew there would be media here, so we were prepared but our goal was not to have a story about the activists. We wanted the media to focus on Brunswick. To focus on the community. To focus on the specific project rather than the 'anarchists coming down'." Indeed, printed statements from the FSU make it plain that their project was conceived from the perspective of giving direct aid to a community already victimized by corporate globalization.
In Childs' view, FSU has succeeded in its primary goals of aiding the Brunswick community and demonstrating "anarchy in action."
"We've had amazing support from the community. Amazing leadership from the community, things have come together and we have been really successful in what we wanted to do."
As for FSU's impact on the public perception of anarchism, Caitlin smiles and has the following to say.
"Some members of the Lyde family have said that if the media ask them they'll say that we've done more for the community than the US government has ever done."
http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/30075/index.php
Good post, FS. Keep up the good work.
-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg
Zyzyx Road
13-06-2004, 21:31
Whats the deal with Somalia? And Albania? Would they be considered anarchist places?
No, they aren't anarchist. They are ruled by warlords or whatever.
-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg
Dischordiac
15-06-2004, 18:02
Whats the deal with Somalia? And Albania? Would they be considered anarchist places?
Do they look to you to be places organised on a principle of equality and social justice?
To quote Alexander Berkman:
"...I must tell you... what Anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.
It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you don't want to do.
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life."
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_intro.html
Vas.
Dischordiac
15-06-2004, 18:03
Whats the deal with Somalia? And Albania? Would they be considered anarchist places?
Do they look to you to be places organised on a principle of equality and social justice?
To quote Alexander Berkman:
"...I must tell you... what Anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.
It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you don't want to do.
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life."
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_intro.html
Vas.
Dischordiac
15-06-2004, 18:04
Whats the deal with Somalia? And Albania? Would they be considered anarchist places?
Do they look to you to be places organised on a principle of equality and social justice?
To quote Alexander Berkman:
"...I must tell you... what Anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.
It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you don't want to do.
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life."
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_intro.html
Vas.