NationStates Jolt Archive

If their is no government who is going to provide education, health care or social services. No one! Whose going to enforce law and order? Whose going to monitor the capitalists from gainig control. Whose going to build the roads, or subways, or protect the enviorment.

The answer is no one. And what about the old and sick? Or the droves of thugs that will exploit such a feeble government? You are a system that claims nothing and will never do anything.

And that is why anarchy and it's followers are stupid idealists who have no real grip on reality.

...Letila's gonna be here in a sec, but I'm going to comment anyway.
Anarchy as a political system is ineffecient. Anyone with political leanings would change it from anarchy to their own dictatorship.

Anarchy as a philosophy--this is me--states that all laws, traditions, regulations, etc. are convention and nothing but convention. I'd go into more depth if I had time, but there is a world outside of NS calling me...

Tear him a new one, Letila. :D

Anarchy and Anarchism are not alike, although I would not expect you to know this.

The government is not feeble, because there is no authoritarian government at all. Flat administration by and for the people will eliminate all needs to govern elder care or crime by an ineffectual and corrupt entity, by which I mean authority in government.

Or, to put it bluntly, there's no government like no government. Fuck 'em all!

If their is no government who is going to provide education, health care or social services. No one! Whose going to enforce law and order? Whose going to monitor the capitalists from gainig control. Whose going to build the roads, or subways, or protect the enviorment.

The answer is no one. And what about the old and sick? Or the droves of thugs that will exploit such a feeble government? You are a system that claims nothing and will never do anything.

And that is why anarchy and it's followers are stupid idealists who have no real grip on reality.

About time some one said something about how stupid anarchy is though you seem to make it as if capitalism is a Bad thing? It certainly works better than comunism(I bet i spelled that wrong didnt I?) :? In capitalism you earn your way to the top and when your their you have to work to keep it. Some of the richest people end up on the street cuase they do stupid stuff with their wealth like buy drugs or gamble it off and some of the poorest people can become the next Richest person if they work hard..or get really lucky and win the lottery :?

I just wonder, how do anarchists hope to keep people from rising into power? Fear, propaganda, control. All can be used to get someone into power.

Poof, where's the anarchy?

I'm not putting anarchy down, as much as I disagree. I just found this as the right time to finally get my question answered.

If their is no government who is going to provide education, health care or social services. No one! Whose going to enforce law and order? Whose going to monitor the capitalists from gainig control. Whose going to build the roads, or subways, or protect the enviorment.

people. they'll do so through education collectives, health care collectives, construction collectives, defense collectives, etc. all of which will be part of the various bottom-up federations that will form the structure of anarchist society.

the real question is how do you think you will ever get to be a dictator? you've got no charisma.

I just wonder, how do anarchists hope to keep people from rising into power? Fear, propaganda, control. All can be used to get someone into power.

Poof, where's the anarchy?

well, 'rising into power' is a lot harder to do in a decentralized federated structure like anarchism proposes. there is no point of command to take over, power is dispersed throughout the network. there is no president, no prime minister. you'd have to take over each node of the network in order to reshape it into something that you could hold as a central point of power. this is in contrast to the state, which inevitably has a single point (or several) where a great deal of power is concentrated. take control of a hierarchy and you have control over the lower parts of it. take control of a single part of a network and you have a bunch of other parts of the network that now know you're coming and will organize to fight against you.

I just wonder, how do anarchists hope to keep people from rising into power? Fear, propaganda, control. All can be used to get someone into power.

There is no available position to rule. It would have to be created.

About time some one said something about how stupid anarchy is though you seem to make it as if capitalism is a Bad thing? It certainly works better than comunism(I bet i spelled that wrong didnt I?) In capitalism you earn your way to the top and when your their you have to work to keep it. Some of the richest people end up on the street cuase they do stupid stuff with their wealth like buy drugs or gamble it off and some of the poorest people can become the next Richest person if they work hard..or get really lucky and win the lottery

Uh, no. The rich get their money by owning corporations. They only really worked in the begining.

If their is no government who is going to provide education, health care or social services. No one! Whose going to enforce law and order? Whose going to monitor the capitalists from gainig control. Whose going to build the roads, or subways, or protect the enviorment.

The answer is no one. And what about the old and sick? Or the droves of thugs that will exploit such a feeble government? You are a system that claims nothing and will never do anything.

Worker syndicates, organizations created by communes or concerned individuals, etc.

Anarchy as a political system is ineffecient. Anyone with political leanings would change it from anarchy to their own dictatorship.

How?

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

Dear Free Soviets,
I must have some sort of magical property, or else I would have been killed a long time ago. I once spoke out against relegion in general at a school podium, and got 14 people to denounce their faiths.
The party has 15 due-paying members. And 500 internet members who I have never seen. Once I get out of this house you will love Big Brother.

I really must ask this, when did Letila become the resident Anarchist? It's really worrying development. Perhaps more worrying is the fact that people seem to respect his ability to debate in the name of Anarchy. I have not seen a comment from him of longer than one line and with more substance than "you're wrong, I'm right" or "Anarchy is this" in a long time.

Dear Free Soviets,
I must have some sort of magical property, or else I would have been killed a long time ago. I once spoke out against relegion in general at a school podium, and got 14 people to denounce their faiths.
The party has 15 due-paying members. And 500 internet members who I have never seen. Once I get out of this house you will love Big Brother.

Yes, yes, but can you make the lame walk and the blind man see?

Dear Free Soviets,
I must have some sort of magical property, or else I would have been killed a long time ago. I once spoke out against relegion in general at a school podium, and got 14 people to denounce their faiths.
The party has 15 due-paying members. And 500 internet members who I have never seen. Once I get out of this house you will love Big Brother.

Yes, yes, but can you make the lame walk and the blind man see?

The government can do anything. :shock:

To quote my motto: "We're the government, we know everything."

they'll do so through education collectives, health care collectives, construction collectives, defense collectives, etc. all of which will be part of the various bottom-up federations that will form the structure of anarchist society.
Alternately they will do it through private schools, private health care with private health insurance, private construction contractors, a military based on voluntary service mixed with mercenaries. The poor will have incentive to make something of themselves as there will be no barrier to success (basically the American Dream), and the destitute will be helped by charity (because we'll stop taxing churches and charitable persons will have more money to give since they won't be getting taxes stolen from them). Basically the entire society will be based on voluntary associations in whatever form (collectivist or individualist) they may take between free men, never by compulsion (ie: taxation, slave labour including "national projects").

Alternately they will do it through private schools, private health care with private health insurance, private construction contractors, a military based on voluntary service mixed with mercenaries. The poor will have incentive to make something of themselves as there will be no barrier to success (basically the American Dream), and the destitute will be helped by charity (because we'll stop taxing churches and charitable persons will have more money to give since they won't be getting taxes stolen from them). Basically the entire society will be based on voluntary associations in whatever form (collectivist or individualist) they may take between free men, never by compulsion (ie: taxation, slave labour including "national projects").

No, actually anarchism will eliminate poverty alltogether.

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

No, actually anarchism will eliminate poverty alltogether.

Would you mind outlining how that could be?

Would you mind outlining how that could be?

Abolition of money and privately owned means of production. Everyone will have enough to eat.

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

Would it not be easier to take control in anarchy? Knowing the nature of people they would never cooperate so easily; social 'imprints' like currency would still flood their minds--greed. The 'economy' would collapse without a regulation to control supply and demand (such as gas prices), or are you suggesting we steal whatever we need? Without law and order, the will to continue collapses as well. Why farm when every time I get a nice crop it is stripped bare? Of course people would be arming themselves, but same problem: once everyone gets a gun, he's pointing at me, and me to her. It's a mess.

Taking control would be very easy. Look at people like Hitler. He exploited people's fears and 'capitalized' on their economic problems.

A fine political speaker with enough power could take control without force, only by showing his "compassion" to the people.

Would you mind outlining how that could be?

Abolition of money and privately owned means of production. Everyone will have enough to eat.

I'm sorry, but abolishing money and moving the means of production from their current private owners to others, or even leaving them with their current owners, would not in any way provide enough food for everyone. You are clearly lacking in a basic understanding of the economics of food production. The reason that people go hungry is not because there isn't enough food in the world, but because the food is poorly distributed. Eliminating money would not solve this problem, and might even further endanger people in places such as Africa who rely on selling cash crops like coffee to earn money to buy food from the U.S. and other more developed countries. This idea of privately owned means of production is nothing more than political rhetoric and has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. Allowing people to own "the means of production" (a vague term at best) does not prevent starvation, does not help distrubute food, and does not in any significant way differ from the current economic model.

Would it not be easier to take control in anarchy? Knowing the nature of people they would never cooperate so easily; social 'imprints' like currency would still flood their minds--greed. The 'economy' would collapse without a regulation to control supply and demand (such as gas prices), or are you suggesting we steal whatever we need? Without law and order, the will to continue collapses as well. Why farm when every time I get a nice crop it is stripped bare? Of course people would be arming themselves, but same problem: once everyone gets a gun, he's pointing at me, and me to her. It's a mess.

The means of production would be owned and managed by the community, so people would simply agree to increase or decrease production of various things depending on need. Products would be distributed mostly by need.

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

Abolition of money and privately owned means of production. Everyone will have enough to eat.

How do you propose to abolish money and private "means of production"? My means of production are my mind and body. Are you going to collectivize that? How can that be anything but slavery if I don't go along willingly?

Everything will have enough to eat... how? Who will raise crops? What happens to a farmer that just says "no"? Why would I study to be a doctor if I get the same recompense as a janitor, except I'm ordered to do 60 hour work weeks because of "the public need"?

Suppose I want to make a contract with another person on terms that we decide and we choose to use a bond or some form of money in that contract? If caught, what will the punishment be?

The means of production would be owned and managed by the community, so people would simply agree to increase or decrease production of various things depending on need. Products would be distributed mostly by need.
Am I allowed to opt out of this "community"? Who is John Galt? What is the consequence if I do not partake?

The means of production would be owned and managed by the community, so people would simply agree to increase or decrease production of various things depending on need. Products would be distributed mostly by need.

What exactly do you mean when you say "the means of production." Many people have different ideas about this, but I'm curious about yours.

The idea that everyone would simply agree to do one thing or another is foolhardy. People have different ideas of how best to reacte to any given economic situation. No one can demonstrate that their idea is better or worse than any other, except to point at history, and unfortunately there are enough cases that almost any argument could be made.

"From each according to his merit to each according to his need" is a fundamentally flawed idea. It's nice and idealistic, but impractical. Greater rewards for more difficult, training intensive, or undesirable jobs is a way to balance the needs of society. Capitalist society meets its needs by making jobs and products which are needed more valuable to lure new people into working those jobs or producing those products. By removing the natural forces of supply and demand from the economy you necessitate the creation of a planning authority to maintain societies needs. A planning authority is both less efficient and more "governmental" if you will, than a supply and demand based capitalist economy.

About time some one said something about how stupid anarchy is though you seem to make it as if capitalism is a Bad thing? It certainly works better than comunism(I bet i spelled that wrong didnt I?) :? In capitalism you earn your way to the top and when your their you have to work to keep it. Some of the richest people end up on the street cuase they do stupid stuff with their wealth like buy drugs or gamble it off and some of the poorest people can become the next Richest person if they work hard..or get really lucky and win the lottery :?

HA! Thanks for that, that was the best laugh I had in a long time. Appearantly some people still believe in the quasi-myth of American social mobility. Hard work does not make you rich. Starting out with large amounts of money makes you rich. Those lucky few (VERY few) who attain great wealth starting out with little do not do so because they work harder than everyone else. I'ts simply a matter of being lucky.

About time some one said something about how stupid anarchy is though you seem to make it as if capitalism is a Bad thing? It certainly works better than comunism(I bet i spelled that wrong didnt I?) :? In capitalism you earn your way to the top and when your their you have to work to keep it. Some of the richest people end up on the street cuase they do stupid stuff with their wealth like buy drugs or gamble it off and some of the poorest people can become the next Richest person if they work hard..or get really lucky and win the lottery :?

HA! Thanks for that, that was the best laugh I had in a long time. Appearantly some people still believe in the quasi-myth of American social mobility. Hard work does not make you rich. Starting out with large amounts of money makes you rich. Those lucky few (VERY few) who attain great wealth starting out with little do not do so because they work harder than everyone else. I'ts simply a matter of being lucky.

In general you're right, but there are more and more opportunities to become extremely wealthy now than there were even 20 years ago. More CEOs making $10 million a year come from middle class families than ever before. Of course that's still only a tiny fraction of the total population, but it's also only a tiny fraction at the top. Social mobility is not generally considered going from being the poorest to being the richest, but going from somewhere in the middle to somewhere else in the middle, but higher. Immigrants, for instance, have said that they do not envision becoming extremely wealthy by moving the the U.S. but do envision becoming "respectable." Being able to support oneself is a sign of strength and is more than enough wealth for most people.

About time some one said something about how stupid anarchy is though you seem to make it as if capitalism is a Bad thing? It certainly works better than comunism(I bet i spelled that wrong didnt I?) :? In capitalism you earn your way to the top and when your their you have to work to keep it. Some of the richest people end up on the street cuase they do stupid stuff with their wealth like buy drugs or gamble it off and some of the poorest people can become the next Richest person if they work hard..or get really lucky and win the lottery :?

HA! Thanks for that, that was the best laugh I had in a long time. Appearantly some people still believe in the quasi-myth of American social mobility. Hard work does not make you rich. Starting out with large amounts of money makes you rich. Those lucky few (VERY few) who attain great wealth starting out with little do not do so because they work harder than everyone else. I'ts simply a matter of being lucky.

Well called Homerica, american social mobility is a myth. %20 of the american people think they are in the top %1 of earners and %60 think that they will one day be in the top %1. The illusion of social mobility is quite efficient at propping up the American economy but it is just an illusion.

What exactly do you mean when you say "the means of production." Many people have different ideas about this, but I'm curious about yours.

Factories, farms, etc.

"From each according to his merit to each according to his need" is a fundamentally flawed idea. It's nice and idealistic, but impractical. Greater rewards for more difficult, training intensive, or undesirable jobs is a way to balance the needs of society. Capitalist society meets its needs by making jobs and products which are needed more valuable to lure new people into working those jobs or producing those products. By removing the natural forces of supply and demand from the economy you necessitate the creation of a planning authority to maintain societies needs. A planning authority is both less efficient and more "governmental" if you will, than a supply and demand based capitalist economy.

Capitalism doesn't reward people by labor. It rewards the business owners far more than the people who actually work.

Am I allowed to opt out of this "community"? Who is John Galt? What is the consequence if I do not partake?

Yes. You would probably be given a plot of land and tools.

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

Alternately they will do it through private schools, private health care with private health insurance, private construction contractors, a military based on voluntary service mixed with mercenaries. The poor will have incentive to make something of themselves as there will be no barrier to success (basically the American Dream), and the destitute will be helped by charity (because we'll stop taxing churches and charitable persons will have more money to give since they won't be getting taxes stolen from them). Basically the entire society will be based on voluntary associations in whatever form (collectivist or individualist) they may take between free men, never by compulsion (ie: taxation, slave labour including "national projects").

that depends. do you mean 'private' in terms of capitalist ownership, where a few people own things and make a living by hiring those who don't to work for them? because that ain't freedom. at least not for those whose options are limited by their social class. as max stirner said in his reply to moses hess,

"...But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled as regards their most natural and obvious interests, actually an Egoists' association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded together when one is a slave or a serf of the other? No doubt there are egoists in such a society...but my word! the slaves did not seek out such company out of egoism, and are, rather, in their egoist heart of hearts against these splendid 'associations'...

Societies where the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger, or indeed who live a life of dissipation because others are foolish enough to live in indigence, etc....is more of a religious society, a communion held as sacrosanct by right, by law and by all of the pomp and circumstance of the courts."

Anarchy is almost perfect because it cannot succeed, nor can it fail. Anarchy is more of a social state of mind where all ideas of past civilizations are rethought, and a new form of civilization and a new set of ideals emerge. In Anarchy, the old is torn down, because it is obsolete and has grown stagnant. Then something new is put in its place, and that will eventually be replaced. It's called social evloution. Progress through chaos.

Abolition of money and privately owned means of production. Everyone will have enough to eat.

How do you propose to abolish money and private "means of production"? My means of production are my mind and body. Are you going to collectivize that? How can that be anything but slavery if I don't go along willingly?

Everything will have enough to eat... how? Who will raise crops? What happens to a farmer that just says "no"? Why would I study to be a doctor if I get the same recompense as a janitor, except I'm ordered to do 60 hour work weeks because of "the public need"?

Suppose I want to make a contract with another person on terms that we decide and we choose to use a bond or some form of money in that contract? If caught, what will the punishment be?

Anarchy has nothing to do with collectivisation and no one will appropriate you mind. Popular ownershp of the means of production is not really that complicated, it runs something like this 'if you work it, you own it'. If you work the land then you own it in the sense that you can legitimately dispose of the product of your labour. What ownership does not allow you to do is to exclude other people from the land.

As for efficiency in the laboutr market, i do not see this as contradictory with Anarchism and in fact the abolishment of the monetary system will most likely lead to better efficiency (not that as an Anarchist I really care about efficiency, its a capitalist concept after all, but i do know your type likes to have things explained in terms you can comprehend). With the rewards systems removed from the labour equation, people will train for work that they are best suited too. People who are genuinely interested and wel suited to medicine will stil train as doctors because a career in medicine is inherently valuable in itself. I would rather be treated by a doctor who felt genuine compassion and desired above all to heal me than by a doctor who took that career path because there was lots of cash to be made. Obviously, as in any society, there are people who are not particularly talented and there will always be need for janitors. In the absence of monetary reward, janitors are valued as much as doctors as their work is equally important. No one can 'order' a doctor to work a 60 hour week anyway because their is no legitimate authority to compell anyone. In a cooperative society, doctors will give their time according to their capacity and inclination to do so.

If you make private contract with other free individuals (free is an important condition in Anarchist society and is more than just the freedom allowed in liberal democratic societies which is limited at best) then you can impose any condition you like on the fulfilment of that contract. Punishment is socially grounded however and the strongest foprm of punishment is social exclusion. All the litttle law and order freaks out there probably dont like the sound of this but Anarchism is primarily based on social cooperation and to be excluded from it is a harsh punishment as it would leave you completely marginalised (kind of like poor people are marginalised in capitalist society because they are unable to participate in the same way that richer people are).

What exactly do you mean when you say "the means of production." Many people have different ideas about this, but I'm curious about yours.

Factories, farms, etc.

So you're implying that these things aren't already privately owned? Also, good look in an economics text book for the means of production, there's a lot more to it than that.

"From each according to his merit to each according to his need" is a fundamentally flawed idea. It's nice and idealistic, but impractical. Greater rewards for more difficult, training intensive, or undesirable jobs is a way to balance the needs of society. Capitalist society meets its needs by making jobs and products which are needed more valuable to lure new people into working those jobs or producing those products. By removing the natural forces of supply and demand from the economy you necessitate the creation of a planning authority to maintain societies needs. A planning authority is both less efficient and more "governmental" if you will, than a supply and demand based capitalist economy.

Capitalism doesn't reward people by labor. It rewards the business owners far more than the people who actually work.

Things I get from this:
Business owners necessarily do not work or earn their pay in any way.
People aren't payed for their labor.
people don't get payed at all, but it's meaningful to say that business owners get payed "more" rather than "at all."

What you've said he is simply wrong. Do some more research and hopefully you'll see why.

So you're implying that these things aren't already privately owned? Also, good look in an economics text book for the means of production, there's a lot more to it than that.

They are privately owned. In anarcho-communism, they would be communally owned.

Business owners necessarily do not work or earn their pay in any way.
People aren't payed for their labor.
people don't get payed at all, but it's meaningful to say that business owners get payed "more" rather than "at all."

What you've said he is simply wrong. Do some more research and hopefully you'll see why.

They may work, but it isn't really how they get their money. The real work is done by workers and the business owners take part of the money made by selling the products.

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

Things I get from this:
Business owners necessarily do not work or earn their pay in any way.
People aren't payed for their labor.
people don't get payed at all, but it's meaningful to say that business owners get payed "more" rather than "at all."

What you've said he is simply wrong. Do some more research and hopefully you'll see why.

Dude .... you cant even spell. If anyone needs research it's you.

www.dictionary.com might be able to help, please refer to them for2 the sake of everyone in the forum.

So you're implying that these things aren't already privately owned? Also, good look in an economics text book for the means of production, there's a lot more to it than that.

They are privately owned. In anarcho-communism, they would be communally owned.

Indeed, I misread something you wrote, I apologize.

Abolition of money and privately owned means of production. Everyone will have enough to eat.

Threw me off.

Business owners necessarily do not work or earn their pay in any way.
People aren't payed for their labor.
people don't get payed at all, but it's meaningful to say that business owners get payed "more" rather than "at all."

What you've said he is simply wrong. Do some more research and hopefully you'll see why.

They may work, but it isn't really how they get their money. The real work is done by workers and the business owners take part of the money made by selling the products.

What is real work? How is the work that a manager, for instance, does any less valuable or necessary than the work on the factory floor? Also, going back to the issue of factors of production, the initial capital (machinery) is as necessary as labor to produce a product. There is a balance between the amount of the profit which goes to each of the factors of production, and while the balance seems tipped towards the business owners it actually isn't. The business owner makes more than any single employee, but collectively the employees make as much or more than the business owner.

In Capitalism the advantage goes to those who know how to get it. You always need money to start, but even a small amount can be made into a large amount in the right hands.

Things I get from this:
Business owners necessarily do not work or earn their pay in any way.
People aren't payed for their labor.
people don't get payed at all, but it's meaningful to say that business owners get payed "more" rather than "at all."

What you've said he is simply wrong. Do some more research and hopefully you'll see why.

Dude .... you cant even spell. If anyone needs research it's you.

www.dictionary.com might be able to help, please refer to them for2 the sake of everyone in the forum.

Dictionary.com would not be particularly helpful for spelling problems considering that it gives defitions for words you already know how to spell. Also, if you don't have anything to add to the discussion, please don't post at all, it just clutters the place up. My spelling isn't great, and neither is my typing, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with my thinking or the points I'm trying to make.

To all those concerned with whether anarchist societies will make for easy pickings by armed autocrats and authoritarians, I think Letila and Free Soviets made excellent points about how a government devoid of authority can prevent that.

One most note, though, that an anarchist society likely will not rise before everyone is fed up with authority and mutual opression, and would therefore be made of people who are quite willing to embrace this 'flat' leadership structure.

About time some one said something about how stupid anarchy is though you seem to make it as if capitalism is a Bad thing? It certainly works better than comunism(I bet i spelled that wrong didnt I?) :? In capitalism you earn your way to the top and when your their you have to work to keep it. Some of the richest people end up on the street cuase they do stupid stuff with their wealth like buy drugs or gamble it off and some of the poorest people can become the next Richest person if they work hard..or get really lucky and win the lottery :?

HA! Thanks for that, that was the best laugh I had in a long time. Appearantly some people still believe in the quasi-myth of American social mobility. Hard work does not make you rich. Starting out with large amounts of money makes you rich. Those lucky few (VERY few) who attain great wealth starting out with little do not do so because they work harder than everyone else. I'ts simply a matter of being lucky.
But we don't have anything like a free market do we? We have a corporatist/welare/warfare/imperialist/mercantilist/crypto-fascist state.

Most people don't understand anarchism as a philosophy. Anarchists agree that there should be no state but disagree over what should replace it. There are libertarians (me) who would like to see free markets and private charity and there are anarcho-communists who want to have some sort of ant hill type structure instead and their magically transformed super humans all work for the good of "society". Most criticism of anarchists seems to be aimed at the second (and larger) faction.

Why will income mobility be increased without a govt? Well 1) income tax eliminated. Income tax is a tax on becoming rich, not being rich. It shelters the "old money" from competition from newcomers 2) taxation/regulation structure is strongly biased to benefit established wealth, all in the name of protecting us against them! 3) free trade will quickly weed out the untalented rich 4) People will be willing to work harder if they are allowed(!) to keep what they earn and thus work their way up the ladder.

There are other factors too but I can't be bothered going into it.

As examples look at idiots like Paris Hilton or Mike Tyson who surely will not stay rich for long in a free market (Tyson's just filed for bankrupcy). Anyway, if I work hard why shouldn't I give money to my kids? If I earned it I ought to be able to do what I like with it. My kids being rich doesn't make you any worse off so stop sticking your nose in, thief!

Go here and let Uncle Murray Rothbard tell you all about it.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

About time some one said something about how stupid anarchy is though you seem to make it as if capitalism is a Bad thing? It certainly works better than comunism(I bet i spelled that wrong didnt I?) :? In capitalism you earn your way to the top and when your their you have to work to keep it. Some of the richest people end up on the street cuase they do stupid stuff with their wealth like buy drugs or gamble it off and some of the poorest people can become the next Richest person if they work hard..or get really lucky and win the lottery :?

HA! Thanks for that, that was the best laugh I had in a long time. Appearantly some people still believe in the quasi-myth of American social mobility. Hard work does not make you rich. Starting out with large amounts of money makes you rich. Those lucky few (VERY few) who attain great wealth starting out with little do not do so because they work harder than everyone else. I'ts simply a matter of being lucky.
But we don't have anything like a free market do we? We have a corporatist/welare/warfare/imperialist/mercantilist/crypto-fascist state.

Most people don't understand anarchism as a philosophy. Anarchists agree that there should be no state but disagree over what should replace it. There are libertarians (me) who would like to see free markets and private charity and there are anarcho-communists who want to have some sort of ant hill type structure instead and their magically transformed super humans all work for the good of "society". Most criticism of anarchists seems to be aimed at the second (and larger) faction.

Why will income mobility be increased without a govt? Well 1) income tax eliminated. Income tax is a tax on becoming rich, not being rich. It shelters the "old money" from competition from newcomers 2) taxation/regulation structure is strongly biased to benefit established wealth, all in the name of protecting us against them! 3) free trade will quickly weed out the untalented rich 4) People will be willing to work harder if they are allowed(!) to keep what they earn and thus work their way up the ladder.

There are other factors too but I can't be bothered going into it.

As examples look at idiots like Paris Hilton or Mike Tyson who surely will not stay rich for long in a free market (Tyson's just filed for bankrupcy). Anyway, if I work hard why shouldn't I give money to my kids? If I earned it I ought to be able to do what I like with it. My kids being rich doesn't make you any worse off so stop sticking your nose in, thief!

Go here and let Uncle Murray Rothbard tell you all about it.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

gee ya think

The reason why we can't see that anarchy works is because as a people we're too greedy to understand it fully. It may seem like a hopeless idea, but eventually you'll see. It sure beats out on what Alansyist Eurasia has in store for us. If you want to see some of the stuff, check here: Alansyism (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150133)

The reason why we can't see that anarchy works is because as a people we're too greedy to understand it fully. It may seem like a hopeless idea, but eventually you'll see. It sure beats out on what Alansyist Eurasia has in store for us. If you want to see some of the stuff, check here: Alansyism (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150133)

Most people don't understand anarchism as a philosophy. Anarchists agree that there should be no state but disagree over what should replace it. There are libertarians (me) who would like to see free markets and private charity and there are anarcho-communists who want to have some sort of ant hill type structure instead and their magically transformed super humans all work for the good of "society". Most criticism of anarchists seems to be aimed at the second (and larger) faction.

You misunderstand anarcho-communism. Work days are much shorter in anarcho-communism and if someone still refuses to work, the commune can always refuse to work with them. It's capitalism where people work for the good of the "whole" by doing wage labor to make the CEOs wealthier.

Why will income mobility be increased without a govt? Well 1) income tax eliminated. Income tax is a tax on becoming rich, not being rich. It shelters the "old money" from competition from newcomers 2) taxation/regulation structure is strongly biased to benefit established wealth, all in the name of protecting us against them! 3) free trade will quickly weed out the untalented rich 4) People will be willing to work harder if they are allowed(!) to keep what they earn and thus work their way up the ladder.

First, the highest taxes are on the richest people. I'm not sure how that protects the rich. Second, pretty much all rich people are untalented compared to the amount of money they have. Are we supposed to believe that a billionaire really works a thousand times harder than the average person? Finally, capitalism is basically defined by not being able to keep all your money. Business owners have to make a profit and they do so by not paying workers all the money the products are worth.

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

[quote="Letila"]

First, the highest taxes are on the richest people. I'm not sure how that protects the rich. Second, pretty much all rich people are untalented compared to the amount of money they have. Are we supposed to believe that a billionaire really works a thousand times harder than the average person? Finally, capitalism is basically defined by not being able to keep all your money. Business owners have to make a profit and they do so by not paying workers all the money the products are worth.

[quote]

While I hate to agree with Libertovania I think he is correctly identifying a problem with income tax as opposed to wealth based tax programs. Income tax does not tax capital such as land, machinery etc. Returns on investment such as dividends and interest payments but that sort of tax is reasonably easy to avoid with family trusts and so forth. Some countries do try to tax old money through death duties and capital gains taxes but i dont really think these work too well.

Nevertheless, the best solution to this is to abolish money not to abolish taxation as Libertovania would suggest. He provides an economic solution but fails to address the social problems cerated by competitive market behaviour.

(te he he - Alansyist Eurasia is an ex nation)

Most people don't understand anarchism as a philosophy. Anarchists agree that there should be no state but disagree over what should replace it. There are libertarians (me) who would like to see free markets and private charity and there are anarcho-communists who want to have some sort of ant hill type structure instead and their magically transformed super humans all work for the good of "society". Most criticism of anarchists seems to be aimed at the second (and larger) faction.

You misunderstand anarcho-communism. Work days are much shorter in anarcho-communism and if someone still refuses to work, the commune can always refuse to work with them. It's capitalism where people work for the good of the "whole" by doing wage labor to make the CEOs wealthier.

How can the work day be shorter while still managing to provide the same level of production? There isn't a significant (if any) increase in effeciency of work done by reorganizing control.

Why will income mobility be increased without a govt? Well 1) income tax eliminated. Income tax is a tax on becoming rich, not being rich. It shelters the "old money" from competition from newcomers 2) taxation/regulation structure is strongly biased to benefit established wealth, all in the name of protecting us against them! 3) free trade will quickly weed out the untalented rich 4) People will be willing to work harder if they are allowed(!) to keep what they earn and thus work their way up the ladder.

First, the highest taxes are on the richest people. I'm not sure how that protects the rich. Second, pretty much all rich people are untalented compared to the amount of money they have. Are we supposed to believe that a billionaire really works a thousand times harder than the average person? Finally, capitalism is basically defined by not being able to keep all your money. Business owners have to make a profit and they do so by not paying workers all the money the products are worth.

Let's not forget the income tax applies to intrest on money in banks and that there is tax on profits from the sale of stocks. On the other hand, houses are almost tax free, which is benificial mostly for people who can only barely afford a house without the taxes, but it also allows the ultra-wealthy to store their money in a relatively safe way without having to pay taxes on it.

You're still not understanding the employer/employee relationship. Each enters the relationship with something the other needs. The employee provides the labor and the employer provides the capital. Without the other they would both be nowhere. If the workers were payed the entire market value of the products they produced there would be no incentive for people with capital to invest it in production products. I've said it here before, but I guess I have to say it again, the employer does not make more money than the workers, but the workers have to distribute their pay over multiple people. The only advantage that the employer has is organization because one person coordinating their own plans is much easier than coordinating all the workers of a company. Read some of the early rightings on Capitalism, like those of Adam Smith and you will come to realize that Capitalism actually benifits the worker/consumer segment of the population more than any other, even though each individual within that segment is less well off than those in the owner segment. Workers simply have a greater population to distribute their wealth among, there is no real inequality there.

Whatever happened to Analysist? Why was he deated?

First, the highest taxes are on the richest people. I'm not sure how that protects the rich. Second, pretty much all rich people are untalented compared to the amount of money they have. Are we supposed to believe that a billionaire really works a thousand times harder than the average person? Finally, capitalism is basically defined by not being able to keep all your money. Business owners have to make a profit and they do so by not paying workers all the money the products are worth.



While I hate to agree with Libertovania I think he is correctly identifying a problem with income tax as opposed to wealth based tax programs. Income tax does not tax capital such as land, machinery etc. Returns on investment such as dividends and interest payments but that sort of tax is reasonably easy to avoid with family trusts and so forth. Some countries do try to tax old money through death duties and capital gains taxes but i dont really think these work too well.

Nevertheless, the best solution to this is to abolish money not to abolish taxation as Libertovania would suggest. He provides an economic solution but fails to address the social problems cerated by competitive market behaviour.

(te he he - Alansyist Eurasia is an ex nation)
Yes. The income tax beats down anyone who could displace the "old money".

Social problems? Competition will exist so long as there are finite resources (i.e. always). It doesn't matter whether you have money, barter, communal "ownership" or whatever. People will always have conflicting uses for the same resources due to their different ends. Some form of competition will always be the result of this. In the free market people compete for your cooperation. People "compete" by trying to do more for you than anyone else will. I can't imagine any other system with such a benign form of competition.

Social problems? Competition will exist so long as there are finite resources (i.e. always). It doesn't matter whether you have money, barter, communal "ownership" or whatever. People will always have conflicting uses for the same resources due to their different ends. Some form of competition will always be the result of this. In the free market people compete for your cooperation. People "compete" by trying to do more for you than anyone else will. I can't imagine any other system with such a benign form of competition.

I think you are applying the logic of valuational solipsism to your argument here Libertovania. Resources are scarce only if we apply the cold capitalist logic that more is better. Resources are certainly sufficient to meet basic needs and basic luxuries. Sure we cant all drive ferrari's and watch 52 inch TV's but we dont really need to in order to be happy because happiness can be measured by other than material means. In other words when referring to material goods 'to each according to their needs' and this is distinct from 'to each according to their wants'. Capitalist logic is based on theories that hold human desires as limitless but this is not neccesarily the case.

In other words when referring to material goods 'to each according to their needs' and this is distinct from 'to each according to their wants'.
Both these phrases are evil because they miss out the all-important "from where?". The answer as you know is "from each according to his ability."

The capitalist version is neither "to each according to his needs" nor "to each according to his wants". It is:

"To each according to his deeds from himself."

If the other phrases were rewritten with that last part I would support them.

"To each according to his needs from himself."
"To each according to his wants from himself."

Unfortunately both rely on appropriating property and labour from other people without their consent.

In other words when referring to material goods 'to each according to their needs' and this is distinct from 'to each according to their wants'.
Both these phrases are evil because they miss out the all-important "from where?". The answer as you know is "from each according to his ability."

The capitalist version is neither "to each according to his needs" nor "to each according to his wants". It is:

"To each according to his deeds from himself."

If the other phrases were rewritten with that last part I would support them.

"To each according to his needs from himself."
"To each according to his wants from himself."

Unfortunately both rely on appropriating property and labour from other people without their consent.

The manner in which you phrase those statements is problematic in that needs and wants are not generated in the absence of context. The nature of human existence is deeply embedded in their social context and a humans social condition is thus at least partly responsible for the formation of their needs and wants. This is the problem of valuational solipsism.

In an Anarchist society, nothing can be appropriated from an individual. Labour is given and property is not owned privately.

Abolish money? why? Money as we know it today (as opposed to gold coins and jewels used as barter items and having their own intrinsic value) is simply a way of representing your assests. It is impossible to carry a piece of land or 100 sacks of grain around with you and for those of us who's assests are skills that are not widely applicable, it provides a concrete representation of those skills in such a form that we can carry out commerce with anyone, not just the very limited subset of people who need our skills (and may not have what we need in return). Money is a convenience and nothing more. It is the whole system of commerce that people who don't like money are really complaining about and the fact of the matter is that commerce is the most efficient system so far that distributes goods and services from those who can provide them to those who need them. It is not perfect, but nothing else seems to have worked.

As for the "anarchist state" (which as far as I can tell people use to mean a state with no centeral government) that is, in a sense, what all of our current states have evolved out of. The original family-based tribal systems found in Africa and later North America are, if current thinking on human migration patterns is correct, the original "state of man" and are about as close to the commune/collective system as anything I have ever seen (they can still to some extent be seen today in the bushmen of the African Sahvanna). The fact of the matter is, that when populations grow, settle, become agricultural, and specialization of trade begins, such communal systems become unwieldy. They are replaced first by local governments and then by centeral governments who can organize and regulate the poplulations, supposedly for the good of all. The fact that this occurs can be seen in the evolution of all early societies (with some variation in practice, but not really in principle). Thus the ancarchist state has existed, but evolves into something else over time. It is a beginning rather than an end state. The problem with saying that if the state is abolished, communes will form and people will care for each other is that it assumes people are generally kind and good at cooperating. This is true in most cases only for people who know each other well, outsiders are generally either disregarded or distrusted. Thus upon the abolishion of centeral authority, what is most likely to happen is that communes of a sort will form among friends but they will either be at war with all of the other communes or will find things the other communes have that they want. In this case the will initiate commerce with them, the commerce will lead to the need for protocols and controls in order for everyone to be sure that those in the other communes (who they do not trust) will deal fairly, and government will form again. For evidence of this, just note that this is what has happened to all primitive societies that have grown large enough! I don't know if it is inevitable but is sure seems to be.

In short, if a state of anarchy exists, it will evolve, gain structure, and eventually have a government, or it will be at war with itself and be destroyed. Human nature seems to dictate this.