NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I am a borderline minarchist shading into anarcho-capitalist, ideally. But I don't see how that ideal can realistically be put into practice.

I am interested in ideas on how these can be implemented.
As the vast majority of society has yet to move in the direction of minarchy or anarchy (with the exceptions of certain "failed states" such as Somalia, which I suspect is not what is intended), it is clear that, for whatever reason, people do not want this. (If they did, it would have happened long ago.)

PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO ANOTHER ANARCHY DEBATE!

Question 1:
Do you believe a minarchist or anarchist society can realistically be achieved, considering the base human nature, greed, etc.?

Question 2:
How can modern democratic capitalist society be moved towards what you see as the ideal, considering that people are selfish and greedy, and generally do not wish to do so?

Correct me if im wrong, but a minarchist is someone who believes in as little government as possible?

Correct me if im wrong, but a minarchist is someone who believes in as little government as possible?

Yes, more or less. From a combination of minimal and -archy, or government.

Hmm, well, I'd like to believe that anarchy is currently possible, but no, not at this time. We really need to evolve to a point where we work for "the good of the species". I think that the first step towards anarchy would actually be a world wide democracy. then it would slowly bring in socialism, and then the government would slowly become less and less important as the people learn to work for each other, not for money.

Hmm, well, I'd like to believe that anarchy is currently possible, but no, not at this time. We really need to evolve to a point where we work for "the good of the species". I think that the first step towards anarchy would actually be a world wide democracy. then it would slowly bring in socialism, and then the government would slowly become less and less important as the people learn to work for each other, not for money.

Thank you. :)

And how can we overcome "sovereignty greed" (for lack of a better word to describe the unwillingness of most nations - including those in the EU - to give it up) to get to a world wide democracy?

(Just to make it clear, I am not being antagonistic. I really want to know! :D)

Someone once showed me how governmental systems should progress.

At the end was a utopian society, where a government was not needed.

Of course, the kid was a communist that always was screaming about "Mother Russia", and was kind of a douche.

Question 1:
Do you believe a minarchist or anarchist society can realistically be achieved, considering the base human nature, greed, etc.?

Question 2:
How can modern democratic capitalist society be moved towards what you see as the ideal, considering that people are selfish and greedy, and generally do not wish to do so?

i don't believe that there is a base human nature full of greed and selfishness. the best that the evidence lets us get away with is that humans are to some extent motivated by self-interest. but they are also motivated by drives towards cooperation. and it is fairly easy, given the proper conditions, to move from naive self-interest to enlightened self-interest. that's probably part of what got our distant ancestors their cooperative instincts/behaviors - cooperation works out better for everybody, as long as you have a mechanism to deal with free loaders if they become too much of a burden.

my answers wouldn't really be answers to your questions.

i don't believe that there is a base human nature full of greed and selfishness. the best that the evidence lets us get away with is that humans are to some extent motivated by self-interest. but they are also motivated by drives towards cooperation. and it is fairly easy, given the proper conditions, to move from naive self-interest to enlightened self-interest. that's probably part of what got our distant ancestors their cooperative instincts/behaviors - cooperation works out better for everybody, as long as you have a mechanism to deal with free loaders if they become too much of a burden.

my answers wouldn't really be answers to your questions.

(Thanks FS. :))

So how do we get from the where we are now to your ideal?
(That is really the essence of my questions...)

Do you believe a minarchist or anarchist society can realistically be achieved, considering the base human nature, greed, etc.?

We aren't inherently greedy. We are just worried about starving.

How can modern democratic capitalist society be moved towards what you see as the ideal, considering that people are selfish and greedy, and generally do not wish to do so?

Some say revolution. I say that we actively create alternatives to it.

-----------------------------------------
"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

And how can we overcome "sovereignty greed" (for lack of a better word to describe the unwillingness of most nations - including those in the EU - to give it up) to get to a world wide democracy?

the trick lies with combining a movement towards decentralized decision-making (local democracy) and a movement towards cross-border federations between local groups. essentially, since the national governments won't willingly give up power, you have to go around them and render them irrelevant.

And how can we overcome "sovereignty greed" (for lack of a better word to describe the unwillingness of most nations - including those in the EU - to give it up) to get to a world wide democracy?

the trick lies with combining a movement towards decentralized decision-making (local democracy) and a movement towards cross-border federations between local groups. essentially, since the national governments won't willingly give up power, you have to go around them and render them irrelevant.

So internet groups, NGOs, and the like?

Some say revolution. I say that we actively create alternatives to it.

So what are some creative alternatives?

Hmm, well, I'd like to believe that anarchy is currently possible, but no, not at this time. We really need to evolve to a point where we work for "the good of the species". I think that the first step towards anarchy would actually be a world wide democracy. then it would slowly bring in socialism, and then the government would slowly become less and less important as the people learn to work for each other, not for money.
I don't know if evolve is really the word you're looking for...if anything we need to devolve to that point. Before "totalitarian agriculture" became the way, people didn't have big governments telling them what to do. Our citizens have been taught, more or less, not to think, and just to listen. Even people who think they question things often don't see the whole pictures- and all of the options (I know I don't) And everyday we move farther from where our "prehistoric" ancestors were. Anyway, all I'm trying to say, is that I don't see any indication that we're getting closer and closer to eliminating the need for government- in fact, I suspect the opposite is true.

And now I pull a Daniel Quinn and say "I've explained to you that we need to get back. Now you tell me how to do it."

I guess I think a minarchist society would only work if it were what we adopted or were forced to adopt in the event of our current government suffering a cataclysm.

Me, I'm more in favor of the communal type of local government. I look at "primitive" societies where extended families live together and contribute to the common good, and free up more resources for all, and I wonder why it couldn't work in the western world. (Well, I know damned well that most people hate the idea of exchanging the idea of mine for ours.) Still, it would even seem to be a good strategy for succeeding in a capitalist world. I even think it would be better for the well-being mentally of those in it, because everyone would have a sense of being a necessary part of the whole.

So internet groups, NGOs, and the like?

yeah. and things like the neighborhood assemblies that were operating as something of a politcal power base in argentina a couple years ago. and i'm partial to an international syndicalist union structure. but yeah, things that operate outside of the established hierarchies and also have the possibility of operating in place of them. as long as they are based on local power and federalism between local groups.

there is actually a long history of these kinds of structure being more or less created out of nothing in the right conditions.

but yeah, things that operate outside of the established hierarchies and also have the possibility of operating in place of them. as long as they are based on local power and federalism between local groups.

we actually have a number of (currently explicitly anarchist) organizations like this - though some are definitely much better organized or larger or active than others.
http://www.broadleft.org/anarchis.htm

Question 1:
Do you believe a minarchist or anarchist society can realistically be achieved, considering the base human nature, greed, etc.?

Question 2:
How can modern democratic capitalist society be moved towards what you see as the ideal, considering that people are selfish and greedy, and generally do not wish to do so?

1: No. I have regular debates with my Anarchist mother about this and my be all end all answer is: Not everyone is as honest as you. You're asking for another Eden in the middle of the city of Soddom. Not... gonna... happen...

2: Simple. It's time for the big parties to be deposed. You have an idea how to do this, let me know. But that has to be first. Now... I don't understand why you asked for libertarians. We're all for a good sized government. I am a registered Republican, but I vote Libertarian. That's because I know the Libertarians will put forth a good canidate... I'm just scared of what the Republicans are gonna do...

Just not a huge centralized government. Before the 1860s, the US was an alliance of the states. Even the fact that we say the 'United States is' instead of 'are' is telling of how that has changed drastically.

You have a misconception of us. The anarchist are the fringe Libertarians, like the ultra-eviromentalists are the fringe Democrats.

I would write more, but there's a damn good movie on.

An economic based on human integrity is destined to fail. Cases in point: socialism, rampant capitalism. In one, there is no incentive to work; in the other, profit is considered the same as productivity despite any injustices inflicted.

I consider myself to be a libertarian in that I greatly favor civil rights and other freedoms, and I believe that a worker should receive what he earns rather than having his wealth redistributed. However, the government should have the power to intervene in ways like anti-trust laws to prevent bloated corporations from denying equal opportunity for success to fledgling entrepreneurs.

Sensible, fair economic systems are hard to come by.

I consider myself to be a libertarian in that I greatly favor civil rights and other freedoms, and I believe that a worker should receive what he earns rather than having his wealth redistributed. However, the government should have the power to intervene in ways like anti-trust laws to prevent bloated corporations from denying equal opportunity for success to fledgling entrepreneurs.

The problem is that in capitalism, the worker isn't allowed to keep what they earn. The business owners get part of it.

-----------------------------------------
"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

I consider myself to be a libertarian in that I greatly favor civil rights and other freedoms, and I believe that a worker should receive what he earns rather than having his wealth redistributed. However, the government should have the power to intervene in ways like anti-trust laws to prevent bloated corporations from denying equal opportunity for success to fledgling entrepreneurs.

The problem is that in capitalism, the worker isn't allowed to keep what they earn. The business owners get part of it.

True. The path money takes becomes so complicated...

Maybe we should go back to swapping seashells for animal skins.

Maybe we should go back to swapping seashells for animal skins.

I say we abolish all forms of exchange. It's called the gift economy.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Maybe we should go back to swapping seashells for animal skins.

I say we abolish all forms of exchange. It's called the gift economy.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Oh yeah that's going to work.

Oh yeah that's going to work.

The gift economy is a real concept that has existed before. Many hunter-gatherer societies worked that way, I'm told.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Question 1:
Do you believe a minarchist or anarchist society can realistically be achieved, considering the base human nature, greed, etc.?

Question 2:
How can modern democratic capitalist society be moved towards what you see as the ideal, considering that people are selfish and greedy, and generally do not wish to do so?

1: No. I have regular debates with my Anarchist mother about this and my be all end all answer is: Not everyone is as honest as you. You're asking for another Eden in the middle of the city of Soddom. Not... gonna... happen...

2: Simple. It's time for the big parties to be deposed. You have an idea how to do this, let me know. But that has to be first. Now... I don't understand why you asked for libertarians. We're all for a good sized government. I am a registered Republican, but I vote Libertarian. That's because I know the Libertarians will put forth a good canidate... I'm just scared of what the Republicans are gonna do...

Just not a huge centralized government. Before the 1860s, the US was an alliance of the states. Even the fact that we say the 'United States is' instead of 'are' is telling of how that has changed drastically.

You have a misconception of us. The anarchist are the fringe Libertarians, like the ultra-eviromentalists are the fringe Democrats.

I would write more, but there's a damn good movie on.

Looks like we are in the same boat.
I asked for libertarians as well because both believe in a "radical downsizing" of government.

dp

While anarchy is a allways possible, the reality of the horror of living in an anarchist society is the reason we choose to have goverment in the first place. As far as democracy is concerned. Democracy in it's pure form is nothing but rule of the mob. As a american, I hate it when our politicians bandy the word democracy about like it was a great thing. I wish they would read the US Constitution so they could see that our founding fathers set up the USA as a republic and not a democracy. It's written in plain english. Of course then they would have to see how much money the federal goverment spends on stuff it doesn't have any authority to spend it on. :evil: However, getting back on topic, a republician for of goverment is the best bet in my opion for keeping goverment small. BTW there's no such thing as a gift economy. Your talking about a bartter economy. Check out The Wealth of nations by Adam Smith for an excellent description of how the invention of money came about. It's a very old book so your library should have a copy.

While anarchy is a allways possible, the reality of the horror of living in an anarchist society is the reason we choose to have goverment in the first place. As far as democracy is concerned. Democracy in it's pure form is nothing but rule of the mob. As a american, I hate it when our politicians bandy the word democracy about like it was a great thing. I wish they would read the US Constitution so they could see that our founding fathers set up the USA as a republic and not a democracy. It's written in plain english. Of course then they would have to see how much money the federal goverment spends on stuff it doesn't have any authority to spend it on. :evil: However, getting back on topic, a republician for of goverment is the best bet in my opion for keeping goverment small. BTW there's no such thing as a gift economy. Your talking about a bartter economy. Check out The Wealth of nations by Adam Smith for an excellent description of how the invention of money came about. It's a very old book so your library should have a copy.

Please refer to the OP. This is not the place to re-start the debate over anarchy.

hmm.. anarchy would be a problem and I don't think its actually possible nor do I want it to be some government is needed is nescessary and capitalism is the best system it is the system that best supports the individual rather than a group etc. I say we need small limited efficient government with a reasonable amount of freedom (nothing too crazy) I tend to go the libertarian route

Kropotkin said it best:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

I say we abolish all forms of exchange. It's called the gift economy.

How do you propose to "abolish" it? What will you do to people who dissent and (horror of horrors) trade amongst each other freely?

To destroy capitalism we need but abolish the state that establishes the legal framework without which it cannot exist.

There are lots of places with abolished states and destroyed capitalism. They all suck, unless you like starvation and murder.

I say we abolish all forms of exchange. It's called the gift economy.

How do you propose to "abolish" it? What will you do to people who dissent and (horror of horrors) trade amongst each other freely?

Yup. The so-called anarchists here still don't realise that capitalism is about the closest to economic anarchy you're ever going to get. You can't really abolish capitalism since there's not much there to abolish. You can only introduce your own system (backed up by lethal force) on top of what's already there.

Question 1:
Do you believe a minarchist or anarchist society can realistically be achieved, considering the base human nature, greed, etc.?

In a purist sense, no. Pure anarchy seems to require a complete lack of interaction, which is impractical at best (though it is practiced by some individuals, i.e. hermits). A more pragmatic form of anarchism does seem possible, but only with voluntary individuals, and only in the distant future.

Question 2:
How can modern democratic capitalist society be moved towards what you see as the ideal, considering that people are selfish and greedy, and generally do not wish to do so?

Capitalism makes people generally selfish and greedy, it's not "natural" if that word can be used to mean anything. The state of nature for human beings is simple, person survival (and immortality as possible, be it genetic or otherwise) takes first priority, but secondary to it is species survival and immortality. To the extent that the struggle for surival can be eliminated, the secondary directive, species survival, can become the primary directive, thus allowing cooperation for mutual benifit to become the greatest human endevour.

I say we abolish all forms of exchange. It's called the gift economy.

How do you propose to "abolish" it? What will you do to people who dissent and (horror of horrors) trade amongst each other freely?

Yup. The so-called anarchists here still don't realise that capitalism is about the closest to economic anarchy you're ever going to get. You can't really abolish capitalism since there's not much there to abolish. You can only introduce your own system (backed up by lethal force) on top of what's already there.

Hey now, don't steriotype. There are some of us here who've been advocating anarcho-capitalism all along and having about as much trouble with the self-proclaimed "true" anarchists (not very anarchistic behavior if you ask me) as you have.

Capitalism makes people generally selfish and greedy, it's not "natural" if that word can be used to mean anything. The state of nature for human beings is simple, person survival (and immortality as possible, be it genetic or otherwise) takes first priority, but secondary to it is species survival and immortality. To the extent that the struggle for surival can be eliminated, the secondary directive, species survival, can become the primary directive, thus allowing cooperation for mutual benifit to become the greatest human endevour.
Hey now, don't steriotype. There are some of us here who've been advocating anarcho-capitalism all along and having about as much trouble with the self-proclaimed "true" anarchists (not very anarchistic behavior if you ask me) as you have.

Err, so which is it?

Being an Rand-style anarchist-capitalist is a strange position, because you share bedspace with the "Collectivist Anarchist" weirdos that make signs that say "Property is Theft" and other nonsense. I'll take Stirner over Proudhon, thanks.

Capitalism makes people generally selfish and greedy, it's not "natural" if that word can be used to mean anything. The state of nature for human beings is simple, person survival (and immortality as possible, be it genetic or otherwise) takes first priority, but secondary to it is species survival and immortality. To the extent that the struggle for surival can be eliminated, the secondary directive, species survival, can become the primary directive, thus allowing cooperation for mutual benifit to become the greatest human endevour.
Hey now, don't steriotype. There are some of us here who've been advocating anarcho-capitalism all along and having about as much trouble with the self-proclaimed "true" anarchists (not very anarchistic behavior if you ask me) as you have.

Err, so which is it?

Being an Rand-style anarchist-capitalist is a strange position, because you share bedspace with the "Collectivist Anarchist" weirdos that make signs that say "Property is Theft" and other nonsense. I'll take Stirner over Proudhon, thanks.

First I must state that there are many contratictions in general philosophy. It's unavoidable though we may act to minimize their effect they will always be there.

Capitalism is essentially just a market system. It does not demand that personal profit stem from the collection of property, though our current system works that way. A capitalist system could be created in which personal profit was synonmous with social benifit by simply changing the mindset of the individuals involved in the market. Obviously such cultural/psychological changes take time, but we've got time, so it's alright.

As for the idea that property is theft I must bring in this little section from a wonderful book:
Property is theft.
- P.J. Proudhon
Property is liberty.
- P.J. Proudhon
Property is impossible.
- P.J. Proudhon

In essense Proudhon is highlighting the absurdity of the idea of property while at the same time expressing its necessity. The apparent contradiction comes from a semantic ineffectiveness in the word "property." Property aquired by the use of force is theft, while voluntarily accepted property (the fruits of one's labors, for instance) is liberty, but the existence of both in the same system is impossible.

If you're going to make a sign that says "Poperty is theft," at least have the decency to include the entire quote.

As for the idea that property is theft I must bring in this little section from a wonderful book:
Property is theft.
- P.J. Proudhon
Property is liberty.
- P.J. Proudhon
Property is impossible.
- P.J. Proudhon

In essense Proudhon is highlighting the absurdity of the idea of property while at the same time expressing its necessity. The apparent contradiction comes from a semantic ineffectiveness in the word "property." Property aquired by the use of force is theft, while voluntarily accepted property (the fruits of one's labors, for instance) is liberty, but the existence of both in the same system is impossible.

If you're going to make a sign that says "Property is theft," at least have the decency to include the entire quote.

Uhm, "Property is Theft" isn't my sign. And the entire quote is not from Illuminatus, it's from What is Property?, which Proudhon wrote in 1840.

If I were asked to answer the following question: WHAT IS
SLAVERY? and I should answer in one word, IT IS MURDER, my
meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would
be required to show that the power to take from a man his
thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death;
and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this
other question: WHAT IS PROPERTY! may I not likewise answer,
IT IS ROBBERY, without the certainty of being misunderstood;
the second proposition being no other than a transformation of
the first?

Proudhon was wrong, but whatever his subtleties and contradictions, "Property is Theft!" is a cheap rally slogan, hence my comment about the signs.

Uhm, "Property is Theft" isn't my sign. And the entire quote is not from Illuminatus, it's from What is Property?, which Proudhon wrote in 1840.

Please understand I did not mean you specifically when I said "you," I meant people in general and that I did not mean to insult you through anything I said. Also, my first experience with that quote was from Illuminatus, and origianlly I had intended to include more from the book, but decided to remove it, and did not change the quoter.

If I were asked to answer the following question: WHAT IS
SLAVERY? and I should answer in one word, IT IS MURDER, my
meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would
be required to show that the power to take from a man his
thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death;
and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this
other question: WHAT IS PROPERTY! may I not likewise answer,
IT IS ROBBERY, without the certainty of being misunderstood;
the second proposition being no other than a transformation of
the first?

Proudhon was wrong, but whatever his subtleties and contradictions, "Property is Theft!" is a cheap rally slogan, hence my comment about the signs.

I would not so lightly say that he was wrong, though I would say that greater meaning is being placed on the word "property" than it can handle without creating contradictions. With that said I heartily agree with you about the slogan.

BTW there's no such thing as a gift economy. Your talking about a bartter economy. Check out The Wealth of nations by Adam Smith for an excellent description of how the invention of money came about. It's a very old book so your library should have a copy.

no.

that's just factually wrong. check out "the gift" by marcel mauss for the basic original essays on gift economies. there is a huge amount of literature that comes after that, but that still basically serves as a base.

the problem with using a book written in 1776 for a description of 'the invention of money' is that people in 1776 didn't know shit about ancient history, let alone prehistory.

I think that having no government is unrealistic, but I think the power of the government should be limited.

Question 1:
Do you believe a minarchist or anarchist society can realistically be achieved, considering the base human nature, greed, etc.?

Question 2:
How can modern democratic capitalist society be moved towards what you see as the ideal, considering that people are selfish and greedy, and generally do not wish to do so?
To avoid any confusion I'll state from the outset that I'm a libertarian or "anarcho-capitalist" (I hate that term)

1./ The belief that anarchism is only possible with perfect people is common but false. Stateless does better than a state with any sort of people. If people are evil do you want to a) give them all a chance to vote about your life in a contest where the person most able and willing to use political power wins. How can a nation of devils elect an angel? or b) don't give them any oportunity to put themselves in power over you.

Any system does better with angels than with devils: communism, corporatism or any brand of anarchism. But libertarianism does better than any other system regardless of the general level of maliciousness in society because it doesn't afford the malicious an easy way to aquire overwhelming power.

Miniarchism on the other hand is pure utopian. It's been tried and it didn't work. The logic of govt is to grow and grow. No constitution will save us. See "public choice theory". It will always be profitable for politicians to bribe people with their neighbours' money and they'll find ways of doing it.

2./ Hmmmmm. I'm working on that. Education is the key right now. Despite the fact nobody trusts politicians they've still been galled into believing that they are necessary to protect us against greater "evils", typically: the rich, the poor, immigrants, jews, scientists, mystics, foreigners, criminals, drugs (it's not even funny), atheism, immorality, poverty and "acts of god". Unfortunately even some anarchists have fallen for some of these lies. Oops, I didn't say that! Don't flame me please!

Secession could work if a group of anarchists were concentrated in one particular area. Change could come about democratically.

Violent revolution is not something I'd usually support. The Spanish anarchists ended up murdering thousands of priests and businessmen and quite hierarchical in structure (I think....) Not worth copying.

Globalisation: Could make govt simply too expensive and uncompetitive thus forcing it to reduce in size. This would be wonderfully ironic for the anarcho-commies. Come on guys, 3 cheers for globalisation!

Welfare Collapse: Buy gold when the economy collapses. Keep you and your family safe.

Any other ideas?

Yup. The so-called anarchists here still don't realise that capitalism is about the closest to economic anarchy you're ever going to get. You can't really abolish capitalism since there's not much there to abolish. You can only introduce your own system (backed up by lethal force) on top of what's already there.

Capitalism is based on lethal force (the threat of starvation). Communism does away with both markets and money.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Striner, Uzebettergetoffmyland, Moonshine, et al:
Please try to stay on topic. As stated in the OP, this is NOT THE PLACE TO REVIVE THE ENDLESS DEBATE ON ANACHISM! If you can not add to this discussion thread, except to dis the anarchist, please start yet another pointless debate.

(Much more and I will have this closed, despite this being one of the more interesting threads, IMO)

Yup. The so-called anarchists here still don't realise that capitalism is about the closest to economic anarchy you're ever going to get. You can't really abolish capitalism since there's not much there to abolish. You can only introduce your own system (backed up by lethal force) on top of what's already there.

Capitalism is based on lethal force (the threat of starvation). Communism does away with both markets and money.

When the glorious revolution has come to pass the new communist man will no longer need food. :roll:

Get a job, hippy.

When the glorious revolution has come to pass the new communist man will no longer need food.

Actually, business owners will no longer make profit off of the labor of the workers.

-----------------------------------------
"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

YO! READ THE OP! PLEASE, NO MORE ANARCHISM IS GOOD/BAD POST! ONE MORE OF THOSE AND I WILL REQUEST THE THREAD TO BE CLOSED!

yo, guys. if you want to agrue about anarchism's feasibility or convince anarchists that capitalism isn't so bad you could take it over to the new anarchist thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123286).

(and bear in mind that some of us having been arguing on that thread or its original (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71742) since last september, so please at least skim through some before posting the same thing that's been argued to death already)

i wrote this in another thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149337). i think it also gets at the question of getting from here to there. it was written as an answer to a slightly different question too, but i think it still works.

well, what anarchists are doing now is organizing. we're organizing our workplaces, either with our own unions or while working to transform the capitalist unions into bottom-up federations instead of top-down hierarchies. we're organizing community projects such as homes-not-jails and other squatting movements to highlight the injustice of having cities filled with both abandoned buildings and homeless people, and food-not-bombs to feed the hungry, and projects like copwatch to hold the police accountable for their crimes, and tenants unions to help allow people's voices to be heard. we setup and run co-ops and collectives doing everything from playing music to publishing and distributing a huge collection of books to prison education and outreach programs to taking over abandoned property to build living space and community centers and gardens. we're also at least partially behind a good chunk of the protests you see these days. because of all this, we're in the middle of a huge growth-spurt in the anarchist movement. and we've got people who wouldn't identify as anarchists organizing in anarchist ways.

as for a plan for the future, it basically goes that we'll keep organizing and propagandizing and establishing directly-democratic bottom-up methods of collective decision making as the norm in all areas of collective life, until we are strong enough to win. and when we are strong enough there will be no stopping us, because it means that a majority of people will have rejected the legitimacy of the state and capitalism and hierarchy in general.

my personal mid-range plan is to get together with some other people and create a builder's collective - essentially a business of carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. run in an anarchist fashion. because while we are building the support needed to be strong enough to fire the bosses, we all need to get experience running our lives and workplaces without them.