NationStates Jolt Archive

In a Communism he wouldn't need to steal corn from the farmer in the first place. If he actually did steal the corn he would be arrested for theft since he is making an imbalance, with the piece of corn he now has more resources than anyone else.

[QUOTE=BAAWA]

They earned it by virtue of their parents loving them and wanting to give it to them. Now you may not understand the idea that your parents love you, but that's your problem. When you have children, they become the most important thing on the planet to you. You would die to protect them. You would give them anything. That is how they earned it, you stupid fuck.

QUOTE]

So then you're saying that by virtue of their existence they earned their inheritances?

The problem with Letila (who I have a problem with adressing directly anymore) is that (s)he thinks that all rich people in Capitalism automatically earned their money by exploiting some poor starving working. This isn't exactly the case and I'd like for someone to convince Letila to stop thinking it is. Anyway, isn't it time to start this thread over again? You got 50 pages...

Certainly it isn't, because countries aren't pure capitalist countries. Most of them have welfare systems to prevent the poor from starving. However, in an anarcho-capitalism, there wouldn't be such a thing as welfare.

Certainly it isn't, because countries aren't pure capitalist countries. Most of them have welfare systems to prevent the poor from starving. However, in an anarcho-capitalism, there wouldn't be such a thing as welfare.
There would be privatised welfare, aka charity, as there always has been whenever the state wasn't pretending to help the poor.

There would be privatised welfare, aka charity, as there always has been whenever the state wasn't pretending to help the poor.

Historically speaking, there hasn't been enough charity to prevent starvation.

Historically speaking, there hasn't been enough charity to prevent starvation.
Could you elaborate?

Could you elaborate?

I mean that while (historically speaking) there was enough charity to prevent some people from starving, there wasn't enough to prevent everyone from starving.

I mean that while (historically speaking) there was enough charity to prevent some people from starving, there wasn't enough to prevent everyone from starving.
But do you have a concrete example?

In a Communism he wouldn't need to steal corn from the farmer in the first place. If he actually did steal the corn he would be arrested for theft since he is making an imbalance, with the piece of corn he now has more resources than anyone else.
that's my point
the capitalists will do the same thing, but with them it's usage of force, apparently

(and he's stealing the corn because he's not part of the commune....he's some guy who lives in a tree and doesn't want to work, so he doesn't contribute to the commune- or maybe he's from the capitalist village, but he's starving to death cause we won't feed him because he won't contribute to our village)

But do you have a concrete example?

Victorian England? I mean, has there been an instance in history where there was enough charity to feed everyone?

that's my point
the capitalists will do the same thing, but with them it's usage of force, apparently

(and he's stealing the corn because he's not part of the commune....he's some guy who lives in a tree and doesn't want to work, so he doesn't contribute to the commune- or maybe he's from the capitalist village, but he's starving to death cause we won't feed him because he won't contribute to our village)

While it is certainly true that there are people who don't want to work at all, that happens very seldomly. Most people do want to work, they just want to work in a field that they enjoy.

Victorian England? I mean, has there been an instance in history where there was enough charity to feed everyone?
I'm not sure Oliver Twist was an accurate representation of that period.

I'm not sure Oliver Twist was an accurate representation of that period.

People have done research into that time period. Have you ever heard of Anne Perry? While it is true that she writes fiction, she also does a lot of research, in order to make it as real as possible.

Certainly it isn't, because countries aren't pure capitalist countries. Most of them have welfare systems to prevent the poor from starving. However, in an anarcho-capitalism, there wouldn't be such a thing as welfare.
if capitalism is so dependent on the low-level workers, then why would we let them starve?
As long as someone is doing a job, we can't very well let them die off.
As for someone not working starving....good for them

note: this does not qualify for people who actually *can't* do work- they would be the first in line to get the charity. And, it's pretty well accepted that privately run organizations are more efficient than government-run.
Although I would like to point out that inability to work can be rather subjective. I mean, look at Stephen Hawking... (of course, very few people- handicapped or not have his abilities) But there are plenty of careers that people with a certain level of disability can follow.

if capitalism is so dependent on the low-level workers, then why would we let them starve?
As long as someone is doing a job, we can't very well let them die off.
As for someone not working starving....good for them

note: this does not qualify for people who actually *can't* do work- they would be the first in line to get the charity. And, it's pretty well accepted that privately run organizations are more efficient than government-run.
Although I would like to point out that inability to work can be rather subjective. I mean, look at Stephen Hawking... (of course, very few people- handicapped or not have his abilities) But there are plenty of careers that people with a certain level of disability can follow.

Yes, but historically speaking, there has always been an unemployment rate. Therefore, if someone is unemployed, they won't be able to afford food in order to work.

People have done research into that time period. Have you ever heard of Anne Perry? While it is true that she writes fiction, she also does a lot of research, in order to make it as real as possible.
Some historians build a career on getting it wrong on this period. F.A. Hayek et al tell the true story in "capitalism and the historians". For instance, most historians base their analysis of factory life on a gubmint report (forget its name) that was later proven false. They also rely on journalists who themselves were relying on 2nd or 3rd hand information and never went in a factory in their lives.

While it is certainly true that there are people who don't want to work at all, that happens very seldomly. Most people do want to work, they just want to work in a field that they enjoy.
I think you'd be VERY surprised
If people found out they could get the same for not working as they could for working...
As for jobs they enjoy, I'm all for that
However, it seems to me that you'd be able to have more variety in a capitalist world. Capitalism, with all its competition, constantly looks towards expansion. So you really could just do whatever you want. Communists have to focus on what's best for the commune, vote on what needs to be produced, and then they have to do that (although you can decide if you make shoes or shirts...unless everyone wants to make shoes...)

Tell me, do ya'll have room for a neuroengineer in your commune? (I'm sure Letila doesn't, after hearing his thoughts on technology, but what about the rest?)

Yes, but historically speaking, there has always been an unemployment rate. Therefore, if someone is unemployed, they won't be able to afford food in order to work.
If unemployment is so certain why won't people get insurance or savings? Historically speaking people have always got ill, so they get medical insurance. I'm sure you realise that the vast majority of involuntary unemployment is caused by govt interference.

Some historians build a career on getting it wrong on this period. F.A. Hayek et al tell the true story in "capitalism and the historians". For instance, most historians base their analysis of factory life on a gubmint report (forget its name) that was later proven false. They also rely on journalists who themselves were relying on 2nd or 3rd hand information and never went in a factory in their lives.

That's possible, are there firsthand reports from that era that states that it wasn't that bad of a place?

I think you'd be VERY surprised
If people found out they could get the same for not working as they could for working...
As for jobs they enjoy, I'm all for that
However, it seems to me that you'd be able to have more variety in a capitalist world. Capitalism, with all its competition, constantly looks towards expansion. So you really could just do whatever you want. Communists have to focus on what's best for the commune, vote on what needs to be produced, and then they have to do that (although you can decide if you make shoes or shirts...unless everyone wants to make shoes...)

Tell me, do ya'll have room for a neuroengineer in your commune? (I'm sure Letila doesn't, after hearing his thoughts on technology, but what about the rest?)

I'm sure that somewhere in the anarcho-communist system, there will be some need for a neuroengineer.
But a person wouldn't get as much from not working as they would from working. If they work, they'd increase the whole of the work, and thus increase the amount that they would get.

If unemployment is so certain why won't people get insurance or savings? Historically speaking people have always got ill, so they get medical insurance. I'm sure you realise that the vast majority of involuntary unemployment is caused by govt interference.

Medical insurance is a relatively new phenomenon. And while it is possible that government interference causes involuntary unemployment, I haven't read "the Wealth of Nations" yet, so I am unable to critique it.

I'm sure that somewhere in the anarcho-communist system, there will be some need for a neuroengineer.
But a person wouldn't get as much from not working as they would from working. If they work, they'd increase the whole of the work, and thus increase the amount that they would get.
this is true, and I'm glad you mentioned it...but the extra they get compared to the amount they produce is a miniscule fraction, especially if the size of the commune and other affiliated communes is as big as disch. and letila claim it would be.
I mean, you produce 10,000 things in a year and you'd be lucky to get 1.
Why would you work so hard to get only 1/10000 of what you produced. I think many people would say forget it- I don't want to work if it's just gonna add one clock to our house...we'd be better off without it (and I wouldn't have to do anything)

this is true, and I'm glad you mentioned it...but the extra they get compared to the amount they produce is a miniscule fraction, especially if the size of the commune and other affiliated communes is as big as disch. and letila claim it would be.
I mean, you produce 10,000 things in a year and you'd be lucky to get 1.
Why would you work so hard to get only 1/10000 of what you produced. I think many people would say forget it- I don't want to work if it's just gonna add one clock to our house...we'd be better off without it (and I wouldn't have to do anything)

You would get one of those 10,000 things, but you'd also get 1 of the things that the other 9,999 people produced. (Assuming of course that everyone produced 10,000 things a year).

That's possible, are there firsthand reports from that era that states that it wasn't that bad of a place?
It wasn't that great a place either, wouldn't have been under any system. The best advice I can give you is look for Hayek's book and chase up his references. I'll have a search around see what I can come up with.

You would get one of those 10,000 things, but you'd also get 1 of the things that the other 9,999 people produced. (Assuming of course that everyone produced 10,000 things a year).
the point is that you get that even if you don't work

and eventually everyone feels that way- even the people that enjoy their work- because they're working so hard and getting so little
and then there's nothing left for anyone
and you're left with the feeling of "well if I worked there would be something, but not enough to make a difference"

the point is that you get that even if you don't work

and eventually everyone feels that way- even the people that enjoy their work- because they're working so hard and getting so little
and then there's nothing left for anyone
and you're left with the feeling of "well if I worked there would be something, but not enough to make a difference"

No you wouldn't, if you didn't work, the people of the commune would decide to do something about it, most likely kicking you out of the commune.

It wasn't that great a place either, wouldn't have been under any system. The best advice I can give you is look for Hayek's book and chase up his references. I'll have a search around see what I can come up with.

Okay, thank you.

In a Communism he wouldn't need to steal corn from the farmer in the first place. If he actually did steal the corn he would be arrested for theft since he is making an imbalance, with the piece of corn he now has more resources than anyone else.
...but theft requires property rights, and there's no such thing as property rights in communism. So they're screwed.

No you wouldn't, if you didn't work, the people of the commune would decide to do something about it, most likely kicking you out of the commune.
well good for them, then
cause many communists don't feel that way
say, what if there wasn't any job that he wanted available in the commune?

They earned it by virtue of their parents loving them and wanting to give it to them. Now you may not understand the idea that your parents love you, but that's your problem. When you have children, they become the most important thing on the planet to you. You would die to protect them. You would give them anything. That is how they earned it, you stupid fuck.

So then you're saying that by virtue of their existence they earned their inheritances?
Almost. By virtue that they were born and their parents wanted to give it to them. Saying that something like that is bad is like saying that a parent giving a child a toy is bad, which is utterly asinine.

well good for them, then
cause many communists don't feel that way
say, what if there wasn't any job that he wanted available in the commune?

Then he could try to persuade the commune that the job that he wants to do would be for the good of the commune.

Almost. By virtue that they were born and their parents wanted to give it to them. Saying that something like that is bad is like saying that a parent giving a child a toy is bad, which is utterly asinine.

So then what you're saying that by a similiar note, those who receive charity earn it?

Then he could try to persuade the commune that the job that he wants to do would be for the good of the commune.

But would that not be extremely difficult? What about a scientist? or an artist? Would not the people of the commune look more too their own survival first and foremost.

I'm curious, in such a commune, how would voting be decided? Would it still come down to a majority vote? i.e choose option A,B or C. Or would it be a point system. 3 points to your first choice, 2 for the second and 1 for the third.

Curious, the communes that have been spoken about, are they based on the greek city state? I get that impression a bit

But would that not be extremely difficult? What about a scientist? or an artist? Would not the people of the commune look more too their own survival first and foremost.

I'm curious, in such a commune, how would voting be decided? Would it still come down to a majority vote? i.e choose option A,B or C. Or would it be a point system. 3 points to your first choice, 2 for the second and 1 for the third.

I shouldn't think that it would be difficult. While certainly survival is important, people do want to be entertained, and if the artist can entertain them then that's good. Also, if a scientist can convince the commune that his scientific research will somehow bring wealth or enjoyment, or something else that's good to the commune, then certainly they would want one.

I'm not exactly sure how voting would be decided, it would depend upon what the commune wanted. Personally, I'm for majority rule, but I do like the point system. There's also consensus, but I don't think too highly of that.

Curious, the communes that have been spoken about, are they based on the greek city state? I get that impression a bit

In my mind they are, except of course there'd be no slaves, and everyone in the commune could vote.

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]I shouldn't think that it would be difficult. While certainly survival is important, people do want to be entertained, and if the artist can entertain them then that's good. Also, if a scientist can convince the commune that his scientific research will somehow bring wealth or enjoyment, or something else that's good to the commune, then certainly they would want one.

I still don't see it. Artists, could work a whole lifetime to supply a few bits of art. Or it might not be appreciated in his/her lifetime. Why would the community as a whole want to support him? Or a scientist might bring out a more efficient method of doing a task, and bob the handyman is no longer needed. Or what about research that holds no better use for the moment than to increase the understanding of say.....solar winds (random topic choices)

Not being argumentative just wish to understand how this commune could work?

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]I shouldn't think that it would be difficult. While certainly survival is important, people do want to be entertained, and if the artist can entertain them then that's good. Also, if a scientist can convince the commune that his scientific research will somehow bring wealth or enjoyment, or something else that's good to the commune, then certainly they would want one.

I still don't see it. Artists, could work a whole lifetime to supply a few bits of art. Or it might not be appreciated in his/her lifetime. Why would the community as a whole want to support him? Or a scientist might bring out a more efficient method of doing a task, and bob the handyman is no longer needed. Or what about research that holds no better use for the moment than to increase the understanding of say.....solar winds (random topic choices)

Not being argumentative just wish to understand how this commune could work?

Well, in the case of the artist who only produces a few pieces during his lifetime, either he'd convince the commune that it's worth it, or he'd be doing something in addition to being an artist. And if the scientist produces a more efficient method of doing something, one would assume that Bob the handyman would enjoy his job enough to also do it the new way, or he would quit being a handyman and do something else.
Also, personally speaking, I enjoy learning about new things for the sake of learning about them, I fail to see why other people would be any different. (I suppose I view that as a form of entertainment.)

So then what you're saying that by a similiar note, those who receive charity earn it?
I don't think earning is the issue. It's a question of entitlement. Recipients of charity and inheritance are entitled to property because it belonged to their benefactors who freely chose to give them it. I've never met an Anarchist of any stripe who thought earning was the necessary requirement for valid ownership (or posession or whatever).

QUOTE=BAAWA]

They earned it by virtue of their parents loving them and wanting to give it to them. Now you may not understand the idea that your parents love you, but that's your problem. When you have children, they become the most important thing on the planet to you. You would die to protect them. You would give them anything. That is how they earned it, you stupid fuck.

QUOTE]

Here is where an anarchist mentioned earning as a requirement to have something, if you believe BAAWA to be an anarchist, anyway.

Here is where an anarchist mentioned earning as a requirement to have something, if you believe BAAWA to be an anarchist, anyway.
I think he was tying himself in knots by trying to discuss it in terms of "earning" while I don't think either you nor he really believes earning is the issue. It's easy to be led into a trap if you can be intimidated into using the other guy's language. That's why people have long boring arguments about definitions.

Put up or shut up, troll-boy.Tell you what, why don't you put up a poll and find out. Crunch time BAAWA. I'm calling you out. You're running, coward. Snipping a challenge doesen't alter it's existence. So, is your answer "yes" or "no"? Simple enough question.

One more lie from you, just for my own amusement.My father died 3 years ago with a whole $700 in his bank account, and that was from Social Security. I used all of that to pay for his funerary expenses (which even with some discounts they gave me was still just under $900). So you don't mind relying on goverment money when it suits you. I was 8, fuckstick. I didn't have a choice. So you're 11 now? (Assuming any of this is actually true and not just part of some sad little Oedipus Complex on your part). Lying again. Cue some more bluster on your part. But nobodys fooled. Not even the other anarcho-capitalists on here like you. But then no true believer likes a liability on their side.

I think he was tying himself in knots by trying to discuss it in terms of "earning" while I don't think either you nor he really believes earning is the issue. It's easy to be led into a trap if you can be intimidated into using the other guy's language. That's why people have long boring arguments about definitions.

I see. Perhaps that's true. I do agree that arguments about definitions don't usually get anywhere.

How long have there been anarcho-capitalists and communists. Its not a term I remember hearing that long ago?

I've tried reading the pages, but there are a hell of alot of them!!
So a question for someone to answer. How are these communes and different from what exists now? only appears to be a difference of scale.

Anarcho capitalists and communists. Is the only difference between your groups that one leans to the right and the other the left? or is there more to it than that? If so, what are the differences and how are they different to normal capitalists and communists

How long have there been anarcho-capitalists and communists. Its not a term I remember hearing that long ago?

Anarchist communists have been around since the days of Bakunin and the Jura Federation, which inspired Kropotkin to write "Conquest of Bread", which remains the classic work on anarchist communism. Most political anarchists are anarchist communists, though there are some who prefer collectivism to communism.

As I don't regard anarcho-capitalism to be anything more than an oxymoron, I'm not an expert on its history.

Vas.

Anarchist communists have been around since the days of Bakunin and the Jura Federation, which inspired Kropotkin to write "Conquest of Bread", which remains the classic work on anarchist communism. Most political anarchists are anarchist communists, though there are some who prefer collectivism to communism.

As I don't regard anarcho-capitalism to be anything more than an oxymoron, I'm not an expert on its history.

Vas.

Ok I believe you. But I would have thought that anarchists and communists were not compatible. Communists want everything controlled by the state don't they? How is that different is you are an anarcho-communist?

Almost. By virtue that they were born and their parents wanted to give it to them. Saying that something like that is bad is like saying that a parent giving a child a toy is bad, which is utterly asinine.
So then what you're saying that by a similiar note, those who receive charity earn it?
In the minds of the people who donated to the charity, perhaps. But they certainly aren't entitled to it just because they have some need.

[snip bluster]

You've been busted, troll-boy. Run away now, coward.

I think he was tying himself in knots by trying to discuss it in terms of "earning" while I don't think either you nor he really believes earning is the issue. It's easy to be led into a trap if you can be intimidated into using the other guy's language. That's why people have long boring arguments about definitions.
Oh I do believe that earning is the issue. Whiners like Letila complain about "justice",when justice is not granting or receiving the unearned. Certainly, collectivism/communism/socialism grants the unearned.

Ok I believe you. But I would have thought that anarchists and communists were not compatible. Communists want everything controlled by the state don't they? How is that different is you are an anarcho-communist?

No, "Communist" nations of the 20th century and today are authoritarian socialist or state-capitalist, depending on your viewpoint. Anarcho-Communism is supposed to be the end result of a socialist evolution following capitalism according to Marxist theory.

[snip bluster]

You've been busted, troll-boy. Run away now, coward.Yes or no.

No, "Communist" nations of the 20th century and today are authoritarian socialist or state-capitalist, depending on your viewpoint. Anarcho-Communism is supposed to be the end result of a socialist evolution following capitalism according to Marxist theory.

And how is that exactly. What is the end result? And considering how people have made a total balls-up of communism this century, how are they supposed to get the end result right?

yes and no. we live in a society completely surrounded by capitalist and authoritarian institutions. we could make the choice to avoid them as best we can and live in inward focused communes. but it is far more important to most of us to do what we can to bring about the change we want to see in the world. and that means interacting with it. if we just turn our backs on class society, we turn our backs on all the people we leave behind and allow the capitalists and the authoritarians to win outright. so we make some concessions to the current system and then use every opportunity to organize against it.

So your anarcho-communist only because you say you are? But you use all the benefits of society, and just shit on it because you don't intend to make any real contributions to the cause that you say you support

And how is that exactly. What is the end result? And considering how people have made a total balls-up of communism this century, how are they supposed to get the end result right?

That's a good question. A peaceful evolution through democratic socialism perhaps? Certainly Marxism-Leninism is not the way.

And how is that exactly. What is the end result? And considering how people have made a total balls-up of communism this century, how are they supposed to get the end result right?

Personally, I don't believe that the individuals who attempted Communism in their countries really wanted it, they just wanted to have the moral high ground to oppress people.

Personally, I don't believe that the individuals who attempted Communism in their countries really wanted it, they just wanted to have the moral high ground to oppress people.

True in most cases, though I wouldn't say for sure that that applies to all of them.

And how is that exactly. What is the end result? And considering how people have made a total balls-up of communism this century, how are they supposed to get the end result right?

Pretty much each example of "communism" is allegedly a Marxist one - Leninism and Maoism are both Marxist-based ideas (if not practices). The fact that they were a "total balls-up" basically proves the point of anarchism - a state will not work to destroy itself, anarchy and communism are only possible through disestablishing the state mechanism and completely localising power. This is the fundamental difference between anarchism and Marxism, which historically led to the split in the First International. That said, there have been a number of examples of short-term anarchist systems, most notably the Ukraine during the Civil War following the Revolution and Catalonia in Spain during the Civil War. These were destroyed by external military force (the Red Army and the Axis coalition, so as big and bad as external military forces get) rather than internal issues.

Vas.

(nothing in particular)
Run away, little one.

Pretty much each example of "communism" is allegedly a Marxist one - Leninism and Maoism are both Marxist-based ideas (if not practices). The fact that they were a "total balls-up" basically proves the point of anarchism - a state will not work to destroy itself, anarchy and communism are only possible through disestablishing the state mechanism and completely localising power. This is the fundamental difference between anarchism and Marxism, which historically led to the split in the First International. That said, there have been a number of examples of short-term anarchist systems, most notably the Ukraine during the Civil War following the Revolution and Catalonia in Spain during the Civil War. These were destroyed by external military force (the Red Army and the Axis coalition, so as big and bad as external military forces get) rather than internal issues.

Vas.

Helpful thank you. But know i've got another question i'd like to ask you as you seem to know your stuff.
You site 2 examples of anarchy at work. Both are during a civil war. How succesful were they? How did they come to power in those places?

Have any anarchist systems come about naturally? As in evolved to that state. because during a civil war, normally the political system with the most guns works best.

I also get the impression that under anarcho-communism everyone is equal. I assume that everyone has the same opportunities, all are equal, etc..
But what is the incentive to excel at a task? As an example would a smarter, harder working child recieve extra classes or more difficult courses? Or would everyone be kept at the same level, which would be the lowest denominator?

something weird with the page? one reply per page or something?!?!?

Helpful thank you. But know i've got another question i'd like to ask you as you seem to know your stuff.
You site 2 examples of anarchy at work. Both are during a civil war. How succesful were they? How did they come to power in those places?

They were very successful until they were destroyed. Being anarchist systems, they didn't come to power, as such, but both came about by revolution. In the case of the Ukraine, the Makhnovist Revolution was contempraneous with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, but was based more among the agrarian population. All the info on that you'll ever need is available on the Nestor Makhno Archive (http://www.nestormakhno.info/). The situation in Spain was also one of revolution, the anarchist union, the CNT, led numerous uprisings and succeeded in setting up an "anarchist state" in Catalonia when Franco's forces attacked - for further info http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html

Have any anarchist systems come about naturally? As in evolved to that state. because during a civil war, normally the political system with the most guns works best.

Actually, that's not true. During a war, numerous different systems tend to be set up and attempted, it just tends to be the system with the most guns that lasts. What you also have to remember is that, quite often, it is the creation of radically left-wing movements and systems that provokes the forces of reaction and starts the civil war. There wouldn't be a civil war if there weren't competing groups and potential systems. There have, however, been numerous small scale examples of anarchism outside of major civil conflict - such as Christiania (http://christiania.org/tale1/) in Denmark and Chiapas (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/anarchist.html) in Mexico.

Vas.

I also get the impression that under anarcho-communism everyone is equal. I assume that everyone has the same opportunities, all are equal, etc..
But what is the incentive to excel at a task? As an example would a smarter, harder working child recieve extra classes or more difficult courses? Or would everyone be kept at the same level, which would be the lowest denominator?

Of course not, a free society with more free time and more teachers (no capitalism would free up a lot of bankers, businessmen, marketting execs, etc). And the incentive is usually in the task itself. How many schoolchildren think about money when they're at school? Equality of opportunity means that all children would have access to learning tailored to their abilities, whether advanced or, more importantly, restricted. Smarter, more academically gifted, children tend to be able to challenge themselves, it's the children with difficulties learning who need most attention.

Vas.

Of course not, a free society with more free time and more teachers (no capitalism would free up a lot of bankers, businessmen, marketting execs, etc). And the incentive is usually in the task itself. How many schoolchildren think about money when they're at school? Equality of opportunity means that all children would have access to learning tailored to their abilities, whether advanced or, more importantly, restricted. Smarter, more academically gifted, children tend to be able to challenge themselves, it's the children with difficulties learning who need most attention.

Vas.

The reason I used schools as an example is that in the 70's in the UK we had grammar schools and it was the socialist gov. at the time that got rid of them. That was the one system that rewarded intelligence and not social standing or wealth. So maybe that's coloured my view on the topic.
Anyway need to log off now hope to come back online. Please would be interested in any opinion. Always want to improve what little i know!

So your anarcho-communist only because you say you are? But you use all the benefits of society, and just shit on it because you don't intend to make any real contributions to the cause that you say you support

Please, there's no need to be insulting. I, for example, am a member of two unions, I'm a senior activist in one of them, I work as a journalist/editor in the human rights sector. The aim of any real anarchist isn't simply to create an anarcho-communist system out of thin air, but to agitate, educate and organise within society on a range of issues that will lead to a freer world - anti-racism, gay rights and local issues that get the community organised.

Vas.

The reason I used schools as an example is that in the 70's in the UK we had grammar schools and it was the socialist gov. at the time that got rid of them. That was the one system that rewarded intelligence and not social standing or wealth. So maybe that's coloured my view on the topic.

There is a big difference between what would happen in a post-revolutionary society and what a reformist social democratic party did in the 70s, though. Any changes now would still be in the context of lack of funding and the capitalist economy, things that would cease to be issues in an anarcho-communist system.

Vas.

There is a big difference between what would happen in a post-revolutionary society and what a reformist social democratic party did in the 70s, though. Any changes now would still be in the context of lack of funding and the capitalist economy, things that would cease to be issues in an anarcho-communist system.

Vas.

So, in the after-the-revolution model, we get back stratified education?

And 'anarchists' are going to support that?

Run away, little one.Would you like me to repeat the challenge again or do you have a specific one of your own. (Bet everyone else a tenner BAAWA either a)cuts this completly because he can't answer it or b) evades the question.)

You still haven't answered why you accepted money taken from the goverment to pay for your family expenses. (He'll do the same here as well).

But what is the incentive to excel at a task? As an example would a smarter, harder working child recieve extra classes or more difficult courses? Or would everyone be kept at the same level, which would be the lowest denominator?

People would generally do things they enjoy. You don't need an incentive to excel at baking cookies if you're doing it voluntarily, do you?

Would you like me to repeat the challenge again
You challenged me not.

You still haven't answered why you accepted money taken from the goverment
I accepted no money from the government.

You challenged me not.Start a poll on who people think is the troll.


I accepted no money from the government.Semantics. You used goverment money to pay for your father's funeral expenses, rather then supporting your own family like anarcho-capitalist theory suggests for other people.

You challenged me not.
Start a poll on who people think is the troll.
Why would I want to do something so childish? I would expect that from you, however.


I accepted no money from the government.
Semantics.
Not in the least.

You used goverment money to pay for your father's funeral expenses,
It was already in his account.

rather then supporting your own family like anarcho-capitalist theory suggests for other people.
Does it?

The difference between anarcho-communists and "anarcho"-capitalists isn't fundamentally about economics. It's the morality. Communists want a world where everyone has a decent opportunity to be happy. Capitalists want a world where happiness is the monopoly of the few.

Why would I want to do something so childish? I would expect that from you, however.Feel free to make your own challenge if you'd prefer. Alternatively, seeing as we seem to be back to a genuine discussion again, I have a genuine offer to make you. Accept we've both been deliberately trolling the other person (although we will naturally disagree on who started it). Accept that we're both bored of it and give it a rest and debate properly. This is a yes or no offer. I'm not going to bother acknowledge any other response. This is not a surrender on either side, merely a ceasfire. So, what do you say? Balls entirely in your court. If not I suspect both of us could carry on for years.

It was already in his account.Surely it's still dirty money by your standards?


Does it?I accept I could be mistaken on this. What is the anarcho-capitalist stance on the family? (Assuming there is a standard response to this issue, if not just give me your personal view).

The difference between anarcho-communists and "anarcho"-capitalists isn't fundamentally about economics. It's the morality. Communists want a world where everyone has a decent opportunity to be happy. Capitalists want a world where happiness is the monopoly of the few.
No, you've got it reversed. Communism is all about an oligarchy of happiness (as evidenced by the mass starvation of the workers in the Communist USSR and Communist China vs the wealth of the politburo). Capitalism provides the opportunity for happiness for all--and that is what's needed. The opportunity.

And who says that happiness has anything to do with morality? What sort of hedonistic or utilitarian idiot equates happiness with morality, anyway? That which makes you happy isn't necessarily moral.

Feel free to make your own challenge if you'd prefer.
Why? That would be childish.


It was already in his account.
Surely it's still dirty money by your standards?
I had nothing to do with it, and it's also repayment of the money he had stolen from him for years by the government. Again note: the money was in his account when he was found dead (and decaying from 3 days in a 4th floor room in the middle of summer). This was not the social security death benefits (which most people don't get anyway and is only something like $250).


Does it?
I accept I could be mistaken on this. What is the anarcho-capitalist stance on the family?
There isn't one.

(Assuming there is a standard response to this issue, if not just give me your personal view)
You don't give refunded money back.

The difference between anarcho-communists and "anarcho"-capitalists isn't fundamentally about economics. It's the morality. Communists want a world where everyone has a decent opportunity to be happy. Capitalists want a world where happiness is the monopoly of the few.
this is a ridiculous and slanderous statement
I want everyone to have equal opportunity to be happy*

and y'all DON'T want me to be happy, since I would not be happy earning the same as a clerical worker when my field is significantly harder than hers


*In fact, I'm not even wholly opposed to theoretically distributing the wealth- one time- as long as people were then allowed to rise and fall from where they were. I think it'd be interesting, and then A) you guys could stop bothering us with random reasons that it's not fair and B) There'd be a lot less stupid, worthless people at the top of the food chain

it would never work in practice, but theoretically I'd go for it

No, you've got it reversed. Communism is all about an oligarchy of happiness (as evidenced by the mass starvation of the workers in the Communist USSR and Communist China vs the wealth of the politburo). Capitalism provides the opportunity for happiness for all--and that is what's needed. The opportunity.

The examples you listed are not communist. They bear far more resemblence to capitalism than to anarcho-communism, which has no state or social classes. In fact, the USSR and China are practically capitalism, albeit a very strange form.

Communism, by definition, doesn't allow wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few. Capitalism, by definition is based on wealth in the hands of the few. Communism is based on equal opportunity while capitalism is based on privilege for the few who get lucky or cheat.

Communism rewards sharing and contribution with social esteem because there isn't money to distract you. You hear about what they contribute rather than how much money they earn. Capitalism, by contrast, rewards wealth with social esteem.

And who says that happiness has anything to do with morality? What sort of hedonistic or utilitarian idiot equates happiness with morality, anyway? That which makes you happy isn't necessarily moral.

My moral view is basically "might makes wrong". Any action based on force is wrong. Actions based on kindness, friendship, etc. are good. It is true that an action can be wrong and still increase happiness (The Matrix, for example), but generally, actions that increase happiness are based on kindness and friendship.

I had nothing to do with it, and it's also repayment of the money he had stolen from him for years by the government. Again note: the money was in his account when he was found dead (and decaying from 3 days in a 4th floor room in the middle of summer). This was not the social security death benefits (which most people don't get anyway and is only something like $250).
Fair enough, I misunderstood.


There isn't one.What's your personal view on the social function of the family?


You don't give refunded money back.Would it be immoral, in your opinion, for an anarcho-capitalist to accept mortage tax relief, or does that come under the catagory of refunded money? Would it be inconsistent for an anarcho-capitalist to draw the dole?

The difference between anarcho-communists and "anarcho"-capitalists isn't fundamentally about economics. It's the morality.

So...your view of morality is the basis for your political beliefs? I guess I'm a bit more rationalistic about it.

The primary basis for my political/economic beliefs is my understanding of what the most appropriate economic system (capitalism) for improving the odds of the long-term viability of our species would be. The secondary basis for my beliefs is my concern for freedom from coercive force and harmful social heirarchies. Hence the "anarcho".

Communists want a world where everyone has a decent opportunity to be happy. Capitalists want a world where happiness is the monopoly of the few.

You just can't imagine someone defining capitalism in a way that isn't bound to produce ill effects can you? Guess what? I did and I do. Yes, it's idealistic. There is most likely no way that anarcho-capitalism will ever exist in what I believe to be it's ideal form. Of course, the fact that anarcho-communism will most likely never exist in what you or I believe to be it's ideal form is a fact that doesn't escape me either.

Both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are never going to meet the requirements for a realistic political philosophy, so I suggest that both sides take that into account when using the rather obvious argument that:

"That couldn't possibly work in the real world because of a, b, and c."

Honestly, both are rather appealing ideals to me, but anarcho-capitalism is the preferred ideal for me becuase the competition will drive the improvements in technology that will help our species survive. The only problem I have with anarcho-communism is that it's too perfect. In such a society, everyone would have everything they needed through the communal distribution and would have no incentive to improve themselves, which I think would most likely lead to the stagnation of our species. If we achieve anarcho-communism (which is unlikely, I know), we would probably just have stuck ourselves in an evolutionary dead-end. We would have a beautiful peaceful society for a long time and then our planet would eventually die from some natural cosmological phenomenon, and our species would perish. That could be avoided by the all the communes making a decision to make it part of the communal job list or something to improve technology and try to avoid extinction. Similarly, anarcho-capitalism need not create vast social inequality because it could be avoided if everyone in the society decided to use their capital responsibly and not screw their fellow man. Take your pick people. It looks like six up and half a dozen down to me.

So...your view of morality is the basis for your political beliefs? I guess I'm a bit more rationalistic about it.

Yes. Excessive rationality will only lead to suffering.

Honestly, both are rather appealing ideals to me, but anarcho-capitalism is the preferred ideal for me becuase the competition will drive the improvements in technology that will help our species survive.

Help us survive! As if. We will be lucky if the world ends up being ruled by Patrick Zalas. Hierarchy and advanced technology will destroy us, not help us.

If we achieve anarcho-communism (which is unlikely, I know), we would probably just have stuck ourselves in an evolutionary dead-end. We would have a beautiful peaceful society for a long time and then our planet would eventually die from some natural cosmological phenomenon, and our species would perish.

Like what? No one ever said that anarcho-communists would be incapable of space travel.

Yes. Excessive rationality will only lead to suffering.

Then it's probably a good thing I don't take it to excess.

Help us survive! As if. We will be lucky if the world ends up being ruled by Patrick Zalas. Hierarchy and advanced technology will destroy us, not help us.

*sigh* Did I not just mention the futility of saying ideals are unrealistic? Are you paying attention at all or do you just want it to look like you actually have an argument?

Like what?

a. Large meteorite eventually collides with our planet.
b. Sun eventually blows, destroying our solar system.

No one ever said that anarcho-communists would be incapable of space travel.

1.)No they never did, and I never did, so it doesn't really make sense for you to imply that someone has, does it?

2.)And isn't space travel advanced technology, which will destroy us?

Also, stop taking bits of my post out of context and responding to them as if they were solitary statements. It signals a significant lack of comprehension on your part.

Sigh...again I am ignored...and I even kind of insulted him this time...


You just can't imagine someone defining capitalism in a way that isn't bound to produce ill effects can you? Guess what? I did and I do. Yes, it's idealistic. There is most likely no way that anarcho-capitalism will ever exist in what I believe to be it's ideal form. Of course, the fact that anarcho-communism will most likely never exist in what you or I believe to be it's ideal form is a fact that doesn't escape me either.

Both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are never going to meet the requirements for a realistic political philosophy, so I suggest that both sides take that into account when using the rather obvious argument that:

"That couldn't possibly work in the real world because of a, b, and c."

Honestly, both are rather appealing ideals to me, but anarcho-capitalism is the preferred ideal for me becuase the competition will drive the improvements in technology that will help our species survive. The only problem I have with anarcho-communism is that it's too perfect. In such a society, everyone would have everything they needed through the communal distribution and would have no incentive to improve themselves, which I think would most likely lead to the stagnation of our species. If we achieve anarcho-communism (which is unlikely, I know), we would probably just have stuck ourselves in an evolutionary dead-end. We would have a beautiful peaceful society for a long time and then our planet would eventually die from some natural cosmological phenomenon, and our species would perish. That could be avoided by the all the communes making a decision to make it part of the communal job list or something to improve technology and try to avoid extinction. Similarly, anarcho-capitalism need not create vast social inequality because it could be avoided if everyone in the society decided to use their capital responsibly and not screw their fellow man. Take your pick people. It looks like six up and half a dozen down to me.

I think this is a good point...The anarcho-communists around here seem so certain that people are good enough to share all their earnings with the commune, yet they seem to think that under capitalism, these same people would suddenly become evil- either master or slave. I don't see how the people are good enough to share and stand up for themselves in one situation, but in the other they want to own and control their fellow men...boggle... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Like what? No one ever said that anarcho-communists would be incapable of space travel.

Association of Autonomous Astronauts (http://www.uncarved.org/aaa.html)

"....the world's first independent and community-based space exploration programme...."

"... Join us now in providing an alternative media service for alien nations...."

I think this is a good point...The anarcho-communists around here seem so certain that people are good enough to share all their earnings with the commune, yet they seem to think that under capitalism, these same people would suddenly become evil- either master or slave. I don't see how the people are good enough to share and stand up for themselves in one situation, but in the other they want to own and control their fellow men...boggle...

Actually, the difference is how capitalism and communism work. In capitalism, things have a definite value. If you give them away, you can't get them back without buying them back. By contrast, in communism, if you give something away, you can get something back without paying for it.

Thus, in capitalism, it is in your best interest to keep stuff, whereas in communism, a reputation of generosity without your life being threatened by giving your products away for free makes it reasonable to give things away.

a. Large meteorite eventually collides with our planet.
b. Sun eventually blows, destroying our solar system.

I hate to disappoint you, but the sun will not die for another 5 billion years and it will swell up and then cool down, not explode as most people mistakenly think. I think the real problem is whether we will even be around when any of that happens.

2.)And isn't space travel advanced technology, which will destroy us?

Yes, but not everyone agrees with me that it will.

Actually, the difference is how capitalism and communism work. In capitalism, things have a definite value. If you give them away, you can't get them back without buying them back. By contrast, in communism, if you give something away, you can get something back without paying for it.

Thus, in capitalism, it is in your best interest to keep stuff, whereas in communism, a reputation of generosity without your life being threatened by giving your products away for free makes it reasonable to give things away.
In capitalism, you don't have to keep your stuff- you can sell it, and you can still give things to people because it feels good to sometimes give something to someone you care about. With that...capitalism is about always being selfish...is communism about being selfless?

I have to admit, I have no idea what "a reputation of generosity without your life being threatened by giving your products away for free makes it reasonable to give things away" is supposed to mean

I hate to disappoint you, but the sun will not die for another 5 billion years and it will swell up and then cool down, not explode as most people mistakenly think. I think the real problem is whether we will even be around when any of that happens.

I'm not disappointed by you, at least not in the way you're suggesting, and I'm well aware of the rather lengthy timetable. It was why I said "eventually", instead of "soon". I'm also aware that the sun will blow up like a big fiery ballon and then cool back down. I'm just rather surprised that you know that. I chose to simplify the discussion based on your rather lackluster performance. I misjudged you, and for that I apologize.

No, you've got it reversed. Communism is all about an oligarchy of happiness (as evidenced by the mass starvation of the workers in the Communist USSR and Communist China vs the wealth of the politburo). Capitalism provides the opportunity for happiness for all--and that is what's needed. The opportunity.
The examples you listed are not communist.
Yes, they were/are.

Communism, by definition, doesn't allow wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few.
Sure it does. That's the way it works. You have to have an oligarchy who controls the wealth and tells everyone where to work and what to produce and how much of it to produce.


And who says that happiness has anything to do with morality? What sort of hedonistic or utilitarian idiot equates happiness with morality, anyway? That which makes you happy isn't necessarily moral.
My moral view is basically "might makes wrong". Any action based on force is wrong.
Including defending your own life?

Remember your own words "ANY ACTION BASED ON FORCE IS WRONG". I will hold you to that. If someone ever attacks you, you'd better not try to defend yourself.

Actions based on kindness, friendship, etc. are good. It is true that an action can be wrong and still increase happiness (The Matrix, for example), but generally, actions that increase happiness are based on kindness and friendship.
Which rules out communism.

Truthfully, the only people for whom happiness matters are those involved in trades. Each person gets what s/he wants and is happier for it. If others become happy as a result, that is a good side-effect.

People don't enjoy work, that's why they get paid for it.

People don't enjoy work, that's why they get paid for it.

Incorrect, or at least not universally true. Some people enjoy work, and are paid for doing it because otherwise they will starve to death, leading to complications for their employer.

Incorrect, or at least not universally true. Some people enjoy work, and are paid for doing it because otherwise they will starve to death, leading to complications for their employer.

Yes, some people "enjoy" work. Like scientists and the like, but we can't all be scientists.

WHO IS GOING TO MAKE FUNNY JESTER HATS?!! WHO!!??

People don't enjoy work, that's why they get paid for it.

Work as we know it will be greatly reduced in anarchism. Workers will control their working conditions and they will greatly improve.

Yes, they were/are.

You cannot determine what something is by the name alone. If someone's name is derived etymologically from something meaning "Wealthy friend" or "beloved one", that doesn't necessarily mean they are rich or beloved. It's just a name. I could call myself an anarcho-feudalist but that doesn't make it so.

Sure it does. That's the way it works. You have to have an oligarchy who controls the wealth and tells everyone where to work and what to produce and how much of it to produce.

Complete BS. Everyone has a say in what is produced. I've said that a million times and yet you simply can't seem to understand it.

Including defending your own life?

Remember your own words "ANY ACTION BASED ON FORCE IS WRONG". I will hold you to that. If someone ever attacks you, you'd better not try to defend yourself.

I might make an exception for self-defence, but for the most part, I would avoid situations that would get me attacked by someone I can't reason with.

Which rules out communism.

Truthfully, the only people for whom happiness matters are those involved in trades. Each person gets what s/he wants and is happier for it. If others become happy as a result, that is a good side-effect.

Happiness matters for everyone. Trading would probably become unnecessary in communism, anyway.

In capitalism, you don't have to keep your stuff- you can sell it, and you can still give things to people because it feels good to sometimes give something to someone you care about. With that...capitalism is about always being selfish...is communism about being selfless?

Communism is based on valuing something other than money. Believe it or not, there are other things out there that are far more important than money. Capitalism doesn't take them into account.

I have to admit, I have no idea what "a reputation of generosity without your life being threatened by giving your products away for free makes it reasonable to give things away" is supposed to mean

It means that the benefits of being known for generosity would outweigh the neglegible harm of giving away things in communism. It's called a gift economy.

How is work going to be reduced? Food production, the water system, manufacturing and everything else vital all require a lot of work.

How is work going to be reduced? Food production, the water system, manufacturing and everything else vital all require a lot of work.

But there is so much productive ability being wasted. Think of all the lawyers, government officials, business owners, royalty, etc. who would be doing something useful in anarchism. Think of all the people in advertising and telemarketing. Then there are the people who are unemployed. Remember that numerous products made aren't even purchased. If that was delt with, it would reduce work even further.

Overall, it has been calculated by some that the average workday could be reduced by over half the current length. It should be remembered that it is probably around 12 hours because of all the people working in sweatshops, but still, the workday would then be reduced to around 6 hours.

Communism is based on valuing something other than money. Believe it or not, there are other things out there that are far more important than money. Capitalism doesn't take them into account.
So, for te sake of argument, let's say I don't see how this answers the question I asked.
Capitalism does not exclude giving things away...While there might not be anything other than trying to earn money built into capitalism, there is nothing that says people can't sometimes act on their feelings or rationality or morals instead of just acting on what gives them the most money
So...capitalism is selfish
is communism selfless?
The difference being, in capitalism, you are encouraged to give things to those you love because that makes you happy- for example, giving your baby a bottle of milk, or giving your spouse a kiss. Neither of these is outright to increase your capital- but that's the great thing about it- since capitalism is only an economic system, you can use morality to guide your actions

In a selfless community- or a community free of greed- you would only give things to people you disliked, and you would have to aviod anything you enjoy. Because doing things that are fun is selfish...

IOW, a little bit of greed, is good

So, for te sake of argument, let's say I don't see how this answers the question I asked.
Capitalism does not exclude giving things away...While there might not be anything other than trying to earn money built into capitalism, there is nothing that says people can't sometimes act on their feelings or rationality or morals instead of just acting on what gives them the most money
So...capitalism is selfish
is communism selfless?
The difference being, in capitalism, you are encouraged to give things to those you love because that makes you happy- for example, giving your baby a bottle of milk, or giving your spouse a kiss. Neither of these is outright to increase your capital- but that's the great thing about it- since capitalism is only an economic system, you can use morality to guide your actions

In a selfless community- or a community free of greed- you would only give things to people you disliked, and you would have to aviod anything you enjoy. Because doing things that are fun is selfish...

IOW, a little bit of greed, is good

No, communism rewards different things than capitalism. There's nothing in it requiring that you live selflessly.

But there is so much productive ability being wasted. Think of all the lawyers, government officials, business owners, royalty, etc. who would be doing something useful in anarchism. Think of all the people in advertising and telemarketing. Then there are the people who are unemployed. Remember that numerous products made aren't even purchased. If that was delt with, it would reduce work even further.

Overall, it has been calculated by some that the average workday could be reduced by over half the current length. It should be remembered that it is probably around 12 hours because of all the people working in sweatshops, but still, the workday would then be reduced to around 6 hours.

The goal of business is efficiency. Advertising and the like would not exist if did not bring rewards to the company. Business owners = wasted productive ability? The average blue collar worker can barely wipe his own ass without the aid of supervisors...

What products are made but not purchased?

Have you ever taken a business class?

Have you ever taken a business class?
Why come no one thought to ask Letila this ever before?! Gawd I feel like an idiot...

No, communism rewards different things than capitalism. There's nothing in it requiring that you live selflessly.
I was just wondering since I always hear from communists how greed is so bad, etc...
It's what I base my life on, and it's working out pretty well with me :cool:

Why come no one thought to ask Letila this ever before?! Gawd I feel like an idiot...
well he's only like 17
do high schools even offer business classes?

well he's only like 17
do high schools even offer business classes?
I just graduated from a small town school in Arkansas. Arkansas flip-flops between 49 and 50th for education quality among states. We had a couple business classes.

By the way...
Letila: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345223&page=4

The goal of business is efficiency. Advertising and the like would not exist if did not bring rewards to the company. Business owners = wasted productive ability?

It gets people to buy more. Communism lacks profit, so getting people to take more would be pointless. Removing things that encourage people to buy stuff would lower the amount needed and free up work for other things.

The average blue collar worker can barely wipe his own ass without the aid of supervisors...

BS. They are just as smart as you are, classist. I added that to my list of stupidest things I ever heard.

BS. They are just as smart as you are, classist. I added that to my list of stupidest things I ever heard.
Are you about to argue that all people are at the same level of intelligence? While I'm not entirely defending the original quote, I will call you on you're bad argument.

BS. They are just as smart as you are, classist. I added that to my list of stupidest things I ever heard.

It was an overstatement
But I am smarter
You obviously have never worked with any

But there is so much productive ability being wasted. Think of all the lawyers, government officials, business owners, royalty, etc. who would be doing something useful in anarchism. Think of all the people in advertising and telemarketing. Then there are the people who are unemployed. Remember that numerous products made aren't even purchased. If that was delt with, it would reduce work even further.

Overall, it has been calculated by some that the average workday could be reduced by over half the current length. It should be remembered that it is probably around 12 hours because of all the people working in sweatshops, but still, the workday would then be reduced to around 6 hours.

And, just how many of the 'anarcho-communists', 'socialists', 'anarchists', etc. on this forum do you think are doing something productive? Surely - if they are in favour of this self-sustaining lifestyle, they are all working in factories and farms... because that's the only way the 'lauded' model would work. I'm willing to bet that most of this forum's 'socialist/anarchist' element have some cushy office type job. And you know why that is?

It's because, while it SOUNDS so romantic, this tilling the fields together, and whistling while we beaver away at our conveyor belts producing all the millions of things a civilisation needs - the reality is that we'd all have to get our hands dirty, and it's bloody hard work.

That's why you've got your realists (who don't like capitalism, but know they're stuck with it), and your political wannabes (who LOVE the idea of that back to basics society, but have no idea of the manual labour involved).

Look at the Russian revolution - how many people did the revolution bring an easier workload to? Yes, Yes.... that's not the political model you're touting... well, it wasn't really the political model THEY were selling to the punters, either.

Please, there's no need to be insulting. I, for example, am a member of two unions, I'm a senior activist in one of them, I work as a journalist/editor in the human rights sector. The aim of any real anarchist isn't simply to create an anarcho-communist system out of thin air, but to agitate, educate and organise within society on a range of issues that will lead to a freer world - anti-racism, gay rights and local issues that get the community organised.

Vas.

Apologise Dischordiac. Was not refering to yourself. An earlier post I saw and felt that they were being insincere in their views.

People would generally do things they enjoy. You don't need an incentive to excel at baking cookies if you're doing it voluntarily, do you?

Lelita, that was not what i was referring too. If you wish to argue a point please use the whole quote.
But you do have a valid point. I think my problem is that I still imagine an anarchist state to be a STATE with all the mind-numbing bureaucracy that goes along with it!

[QUOTE=Letila]Actually, the difference is how capitalism and communism work. In capitalism, things have a definite value. If you give them away, you can't get them back without buying them back. By contrast, in communism, if you give something away, you can get something back without paying for it.

Thus, in capitalism, it is in your best interest to keep stuff, whereas in communism, a reputation of generosity without your life being threatened by giving your products away for free makes it reasonable to give things away.

I get the impression that what your talking about is simplified economics. Everything has a value, whether monetary or not. If I spent 20 hours making a chair and someone spent 1 hour making a fishing rod would both be seen as the same? Would one not be more sought after than the other?

And in this system would you not HAVE to give things away. What would happen if you did not have a reputation for generosity? Your not showing your system to be any better.

sorry quote went wrong!
First 2 paragraphs are from lelita.
rest is me

Are you about to argue that all people are at the same level of intelligence? While I'm not entirely defending the original quote, I will call you on you're bad argument.I'm not arguing that. I will question the idea that socio-economic class has any correlation to intellegence however.

In such a society, everyone would have everything they needed through the communal distribution and would have no incentive to improve themselves, which I think would most likely lead to the stagnation of our species. If we achieve anarcho-communism (which is unlikely, I know), we would probably just have stuck ourselves in an evolutionary dead-end.

Ok, a couple of questions first -
What do you mean by evolution? Evolution in its truest form hasn't changed humanity since the emergence of different skin colours.

What is your conception of future human evolution? There are a number of theories, including technological evolution or psychic evolution.

Do you think that further human evolution will be caused by the same form of threats as evolution generally is - conflict and threat? These are not the only forms of evolution, for example, it is predicted that lemmings will evolve some form of glider set up and that the need to evolve is hardcoded in them - overriding the basic survival instinct shared by most species. In this context, perhaps humans need a freer and more peaceful society to further evolve - we have been moving towards that for centuries.

Few here would deny that, for the majority of people in the West at least, life is now freer and less dangerous than it was even 60 years ago or so. In that time, technological advances have progressed at a previously unimaginable rate. My mobile phone now has hundreds of times more processing and memory capacity than my home computer had 20 years ago. Social changes have forged ahead as well - gay rights, racial and gender equality have made massive strides since the 1960s (thanks, in no small part, to the activities of anarchists such as Emma Goldman). Compare the advances in a free society with those in an oppressive and closed one - look at how little was done or achieved in Medieval society and how the Renaissance changed all that.

A truly peaceful society would have an interest in improving itself and working with others to improve the lot of all. That is the motivating factor in seeking anarchy and would be the motivating factor in anarchy. There are many potential advances that are not sought due to the profit motive. Recycling, sustainability, etc, are not priorities for capitalism, but they would be in an anarchy.

And, quite simply, people seek to advance themselves and improve what's around them for the basic reason that they want them improved - not always for profit. Open source software, or more importantly in the development of the Net, the truly revolutionary and magnanimous work of Tim Berners-Lee, are examples of how technological advances can, and are, advanced for non-profit and progressive motives.

To think that people in a more equal and fair world would be happy with their lot and unwilling to advance it (and that of the people around them) is complete nonsense. Human innovation and effort is greater the freer the society - a free society would increase it as well as targetting in into a purer humanist direction.

Vas.

The examples you listed are not communist.

Yes, they were/are.

OK, welcome to your own petard and enjoy your hoisting. If the USSR was truly communist, the USA, Great Britain, etc, are truly capitalist. Not mercantalist, not anything other than capitalist because they say they are.

Quite simply, it's simply basic logic and common sense to judge a system by what it did and not what it said. Then again, these are things in which you've shown consistently yourself to be lacking.

Vas.

These are not the only forms of evolution, for example, it is predicted that lemmings will evolve some form of glider set up and that the need to evolve is hardcoded in them - overriding the basic survival instinct shared by most species.



re: Lemming suicide is fiction: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

In a selfless community- or a community free of greed- you would only give things to people you disliked, and you would have to aviod anything you enjoy. Because doing things that are fun is selfish...

Communism is perfectly selfish in a natural human sense. Is my lot and that of my family likely to be better in a free system based on co-operation? It's a humanist selfishness, the principle that a better society will be better for me as well as everyone around me.

Vas.

Ok, a couple of questions first -
What do you mean by evolution? Evolution in its truest form hasn't changed humanity since the emergence of different skin colours.

What is your conception of future human evolution? There are a number of theories, including technological evolution or psychic evolution.

Do you think that further human evolution will be caused by the same form of threats as evolution generally is - conflict and threat? These are not the only forms of evolution, for example, it is predicted that lemmings will evolve some form of glider set up and that the need to evolve is hardcoded in them - overriding the basic survival instinct shared by most species. In this context, perhaps humans need a freer and more peaceful society to further evolve - we have been moving towards that for centuries.

Few here would deny that, for the majority of people in the West at least, life is now freer and less dangerous than it was even 60 years ago or so. In that time, technological advances have progressed at a previously unimaginable rate. My mobile phone now has hundreds of times more processing and memory capacity than my home computer had 20 years ago. Social changes have forged ahead as well - gay rights, racial and gender equality have made massive strides since the 1960s (thanks, in no small part, to the activities of anarchists such as Emma Goldman). Compare the advances in a free society with those in an oppressive and closed one - look at how little was done or achieved in Medieval society and how the Renaissance changed all that.

A truly peaceful society would have an interest in improving itself and working with others to improve the lot of all. That is the motivating factor in seeking anarchy and would be the motivating factor in anarchy. There are many potential advances that are not sought due to the profit motive. Recycling, sustainability, etc, are not priorities for capitalism, but they would be in an anarchy.

And, quite simply, people seek to advance themselves and improve what's around them for the basic reason that they want them improved - not always for profit. Open source software, or more importantly in the development of the Net, the truly revolutionary and magnanimous work of Tim Berners-Lee, are examples of how technological advances can, and are, advanced for non-profit and progressive motives.

To think that people in a more equal and fair world would be happy with their lot and unwilling to advance it (and that of the people around them) is complete nonsense. Human innovation and effort is greater the freer the society - a free society would increase it as well as targetting in into a purer humanist direction.

Vas.

Bravo.
Although I don't believe anyone here could disagree with the statement (can you hear the but coming?) I don't see such a world coming around for a long time.
My reasoning for this is that a high level of technology would be needed, because for such a society to exist, there would need to be large amounts of industrialisation to back it up. PLEASE, no one scream at me saying industrialisation is bad, its not and it does not have to be polluting. Computerisation would also have to be more advanced.
Also socially I don't believe we are ready for it. It would take several generations if not more for our society to evolve to such a state.
We as people are also unwilling to change easily. We fear change.
Also with each member of society taking a more 'active' part in the running of society, technology would have to help speed up the process, if not no decisions would ever be made.

Dischordiac have you ever read any books by Iain Banks? follows your line of thought a bit.

The goal of business is efficiency. Advertising and the like would not exist if did not bring rewards to the company. Business owners = wasted productive ability? The average blue collar worker can barely wipe his own ass without the aid of supervisors...

Classist bullshit. Virtually every boss or supervisor I've worked with couldn't wipe his ass without someone handing him the paper. The people who know best how to do their jobs are those who do them. Progressive unionism* in a company has shown time and time again to improve efficiency.

Vas.

* By which I mean, systems in which unions are granted a proper say in the running of the business.


SNAFU principle (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/s/SNAFU_principle.html)

In the beginning was the plan,
and then the specification;
And the plan was without form,
and the specification was void.

And darkness
was on the faces of the implementors thereof;
And they spake unto their leader,
saying:
"It is a crock of shit,
and smells as of a sewer."

And the leader took pity on them,
and spoke to the project leader:
"It is a crock of excrement,
and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the project leader
spake unto his section head, saying:
"It is a container of excrement,
and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."

The section head then hurried to his department manager,
and informed him thus:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer,
and none may abide its strength."

The department manager carried these words
to his general manager,
and spoke unto him
saying:
"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,
and it is very strong."

And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
"It promoteth growth,
and it is very powerful."

The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
and joyously exclaimed:
"This powerful new software product
will promote the growth of the company!"

And the President looked upon the product,
and saw that it was very good.

After the subsequent and inevitable disaster, the suits protect themselves by saying "I was misinformed!", and the implementors are demoted or fired.

OK, welcome to your own petard and enjoy your hoisting. If the USSR was truly communist, the USA, Great Britain, etc, are truly capitalist. Not mercantalist, not anything other than capitalist because they say they are.

Quite simply, it's simply basic logic and common sense to judge a system by what it did and not what it said. Then again, these are things in which you've shown consistently yourself to be lacking.

Vas.

Oh, the delicious irony:

"To claim that the originators of an idea and a common usage of a term were "wrong" is the most ridiculous contention imaginable. "
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341557&page=5&pp=15

"...anarchists, by self-definition (we applied the word to ourselves)..."
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341557&page=5&pp=15

"If a word has two meanings in use, it has two meanings in use. If a word has a meaning in use that varies from its original meaning, it has a meaning in use that varies from its original meaning. It's that simple, words mean no more and no less than what meaning we ascribe to them. "
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341557&page=7&pp=15

Discordianism
Discordianism /dis-kor'di-*n-ism/ n. The veneration of Eris, a.k.a. Discordia; widely popular among hackers. Discordianism was popularized by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson's novel "Illuminatus!" as a sort of self-subverting Dada-Zen for Westerners -- it should on no account be taken seriously but is far more serious than most jokes. Consider, for example, the Fifth Commandment of the Pentabarf, from "Principia Discordia": "A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads." Discordianism is usually connected with an elaborate conspiracy theory/joke involving millennia-long warfare between the anarcho-surrealist partisans of Eris and a malevolent, authoritarian secret society called the Illuminati

true????

re: Lemming suicide is fiction: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

Wow, ya think? Did I mention suicide? There is a strong theory that lemmings will evolve into something similar to their genetic cousins, the flying squirrels, and, vice versa, the flying squirrels evolved in that way in the past (jumping off things until nature caught up and gave them wings).

Vas.

Bravo.
Although I don't believe anyone here could disagree with the statement (can you hear the but coming?) I don't see such a world coming around for a long time.

Ah, well, there's few of us here, I'd imagine, who'd disagree too much with that. I don't expect to see anarchy tomorrow. Basically, barring a major incident that led to massive societal collapse, I'm of the "anarchy by evolution and not revolution" view.

Dischordiac have you ever read any books by Iain Banks? follows your line of thought a bit.

"Wasp Factory", I plan to read some more, but I spend most of my reading time on magazines that I don't read half as many books as I should.

Vas.

Wow, ya think? Did I mention suicide? There is a strong theory that lemmings will evolve into something similar to their genetic cousins, the flying squirrels, and, vice versa, the flying squirrels evolved in that way in the past (jumping off things until nature caught up and gave them wings).

Vas.

That's why I posted the link... Lemmings don't jump off of stuff. They never have. Any theory based on the principle of leaping lemmings is doomed, because the premise is faulty.

That's why I posted the link... Lemmings don't jump off of stuff. They never have. Any theory based on the principle of leaping lemmings is doomed, because the premise is faulty.

If I remember correctly, I heard the theory being expounded by David Attenborough, so take it up with him. In fact, the page doesn't deny they "jump off stuff", it explains in what circumstances they do so (accidental suicide due to population expansion). This does not contradict the glider theory.

Vas.

Oh, the delicious irony:

"To claim that the originators of an idea and a common usage of a term were "wrong" is the most ridiculous contention imaginable. "
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341557&page=5&pp=15

"...anarchists, by self-definition (we applied the word to ourselves)..."
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341557&page=5&pp=15

"If a word has two meanings in use, it has two meanings in use. If a word has a meaning in use that varies from its original meaning, it has a meaning in use that varies from its original meaning. It's that simple, words mean no more and no less than what meaning we ascribe to them. "
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341557&page=7&pp=15

Firstly, pointing out what you consider an inconsistency in my argument does not negate the exact same inconsistency in your own. Secondly, this is not an inconsistency. The issue with the USSR is not that they meant something different by communism, they meant exactly the same thing. The issue is that they did not match up to their own statements. It's basic hypocrisy, the USSR was not communist by its own definition. Much the same as the USA is not capitalist because the biggest industry, defense, is largely state-funded. The meaning is the same, the reality is different from that meaning - hypocrisy.

Vas.

If I remember correctly, I heard the theory being expounded by David Attenborough, so take it up with him. In fact, the page doesn't deny they "jump off stuff", it explains in what circumstances they do so (accidental suicide due to population expansion). This does not contradict the glider theory.

Vas.

http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20031027/009082.html
http://www.duke.edu/~kej/cps4/hoax.html

It is possible that some lemmings fall off things, obviously... the point is that Disney hurled hundreds of lemmings off a cliff, and an urban legend was born.
You can't use lemmings as a platform for an evolutionary flight scenario - because "what everybody knows" is wrong

Firstly, pointing out what you consider an inconsistency in my argument does not negate the exact same inconsistency in your own. Secondly, this is not an inconsistency. The issue with the USSR is not that they meant something different by communism, they meant exactly the same thing. The issue is that they did not match up to their own statements. It's basic hypocrisy, the USSR was not communist by its own definition. Much the same as the USA is not capitalist because the biggest industry, defense, is largely state-funded. The meaning is the same, the reality is different from that meaning - hypocrisy.

Vas.

"Not mercantalist, not anything other than capitalist because they say they are." Given the context, I found this ironic, no?

So - Russians weren't really Communists, because they didn't live up to what it means to be a communist.
The Americans aren't really Capitalists, because they don't live up to what it means to be a capitalist.

I just found this humourous - given our disagreement over whether you could be an Anarchist if you didn't live up to what it really means to be an anarchist.

"Not mercantalist, not anything other than capitalist because they say they are." Given the context, I found this ironic, no?

So - Russians weren't really Communists, because they didn't live up to what it means to be a communist.
The Americans aren't really Capitalists, because they don't live up to what it means to be a capitalist.

I just found this humourous - given our disagreement over whether you could be an Anarchist if you didn't live up to what it really means to be an anarchist.

I think that his point was that the Russians weren't Communist because they didn't live up to their own definitions of Communism. Not someone else's definition, but their own.
Likewise, here in America, we don't live up to our own definitions of Capitalism.

I think that his point was that the Russians weren't Communist because they didn't live up to their own definitions of Communism. Not someone else's definition, but their own.
Likewise, here in America, we don't live up to our own definitions of Capitalism.

I see it. I just enjoyed the irony of the subject of "communists who aren't communists" and "capitalists who aren't capitalists" being raised.

I think it unfortunate that so many labels are do not match the 'thing' being labelled. The idea of America or Great Britain as "democracies" strikes me the same way.

I see it. I just enjoyed the irony of the subject of "communists who aren't communists" and "capitalists who aren't capitalists" being raised.

I think it unfortunate that so many labels are do not match the 'thing' being labelled. The idea of America or Great Britain as "democracies" strikes me the same way.

I have to agree, at least on the second part. They say that America is a democracy because it is a "representative democracy". But I don't understand what the difference between that and a republic is.

Discordianism
Discordianism /dis-kor'di-*n-ism/ n. The veneration of Eris, a.k.a. Discordia; widely popular among hackers. Discordianism was popularized by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson's novel "Illuminatus!" as a sort of self-subverting Dada-Zen for Westerners -- it should on no account be taken seriously but is far more serious than most jokes. Consider, for example, the Fifth Commandment of the Pentabarf, from "Principia Discordia": "A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads." Discordianism is usually connected with an elaborate conspiracy theory/joke involving millennia-long warfare between the anarcho-surrealist partisans of Eris and a malevolent, authoritarian secret society called the Illuminati

true????

Valid, though not necessarily true. Is discordianism a religion? Is it a joke disguised as a religion? Is it a religion disguised as an elaborate joke disguised as a religion? Nothing is true! Everything is permissible.

Vas.

"Not mercantalist, not anything other than capitalist because they say they are." Given the context, I found this ironic, no?

So - Russians weren't really Communists, because they didn't live up to what it means to be a communist.
The Americans aren't really Capitalists, because they don't live up to what it means to be a capitalist.

I just found this humourous - given our disagreement over whether you could be an Anarchist if you didn't live up to what it really means to be an anarchist.

I'm glad you're amused. Might I remind you that you didn't actually have a point. As I've said, the Soviet Union wasn't really communist because it didn't live up to its own definition of what communism is. That is entirely consistent with my argument that anarchism is what has been historically established as anarchism, and not some stupid dictionary definition based on nothing more than the constituent parts of the word in their original language. And it is definitely not a narrow interpretation of what those words mean either. Anarchy means without rulers, this does not mean a delegate system is opposed to anarchism, quite the contrary.

Vas.

I have to agree, at least on the second part. They say that America is a democracy because it is a "representative democracy". But I don't understand what the difference between that and a republic is.

By definition, America is actually a Federal Republic... their Constitution was deliberately crafted in such a way as to determine that they should be a Republic rather than a Democracy.

A Democracy is theoretically a 'majority' government, with each individual given the right to vote... this right would (theoretically) be true on any given issue, so the more rational model of a "representative democracy" is used, in which 'representatives' are 'elected' - to carry forward the voting choices of a mass of constituents. In practice - this power would be administered by 'regional' delegations (like county councils, or parishes).

In that respect, the only real difference between a "Federal Republic" and a "representative Democracy" is that Republics restrict the right to vote to citizens, and administer central power through representatives and officers, and regional power through semi-autonomous territorial units.

Great Britain and America are 'democratic' (little d) governments, since they allow their voters to elect their representatives, but neither is a True Democracy.

(England is a Constitutional Monarchy, in case you didn't know).

I'm glad you're amused. Might I remind you that you didn't actually have a point. As I've said, the Soviet Union wasn't really communist because it didn't live up to its own definition of what communism is. That is entirely consistent with my argument that anarchism is what has been historically established as anarchism, and not some stupid dictionary definition based on nothing more than the constituent parts of the word in their original language. And it is definitely not a narrow interpretation of what those words mean either. Anarchy means without rulers, this does not mean a delegate system is opposed to anarchism, quite the contrary.

Vas.

Easy, tiger.

If their own definition IS the definition of communism, then they are not communists if they fail to meet the true meaning, or their own meaning.

If their own definition IS NOT the definition of communism, then they never were communists, except by their own definition. Surely?

A Democracy is theoretically a 'majority' government, with each individual given the right to vote... this right would (theoretically) be true on any given issue, so the more rational model of a "representative democracy" is used, in which 'representatives' are 'elected' - to carry forward the voting choices of a mass of constituents. In practice - this power would be administered by 'regional' delegations (like county councils, or parishes).

The more truly democratic system of mandated delegacy is also used, primarily in organisations (such as democratic unions), but also in Zapatista controlled Chiapas (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/andrew_diff_feb01.html).

A representative is elected to make decisions on behalf of the populace, a mandated delegate is elected to pass the decisions of the populace on to a wider audience.

Vas.

Easy, tiger.

If their own definition IS the definition of communism, then they are not communists if they fail to meet the true meaning, or their own meaning.

If their own definition IS NOT the definition of communism, then they never were communists, except by their own definition. Surely?

Not necessarily, now we're into the grey area of interpretation and common usage. There can be differences of interpretation on ideologies - for example, in theory, communism can be brought about by government, the basis of the Soviet Union. In practice, it wasn't. Thus, the Soviet Union was not communist by its own definition. However, anarchists argue that the theory is wrong - thus interpretations differ. Then there is the problem of common usage, which can be fundamentally wrong, such as the common American view that Communism means big government. In contrast, "anarcho-capitalism" falls down on both the interpretation and common usage arguments - the interpretation of the historical development of anarchism is flawed as all previous forms of anarchism were opposed to capitalism - and anarchism is generally understood to be a left-wing ideology.

Common usage is valid when it doesn't contradict a valid and existing interpretation of a term. The erroneous definition of communism above is erroneous because there are those still around who dispute it based on the the history of the concept and its proper meaning. If there was no strong opposition, then common usage would mean the word had been redefined.

Liberalism is a classic example of a word that has changed and continues to change - it now exists with totally contrasting and equally valid definitions - liberal as socially progressive and neoliberal as ultra-capitalist. The reason for this is due to splits and developments within the interpretation of what liberalism means both based on valid arguments - liberalism strictly holds that both capitalism and social progress are important and intertwined. Where the use of liberal, particularly in the US, goes wrong is where it's used to define an anti-capitalist. Liberals, properly, are those who fight on social issues such as civil rights, etc, but without opposing the overall capitalist system. Liberals are reformists, not revolutionists. Socialists are not liberals (a statement that should be immediately clear as socialism and liberalism are two different ideologies).

Vas.

Not necessarily, now we're into the grey area of interpretation and common usage. There can be differences of interpretation on ideologies - for example, in theory, communism can be brought about by government, the basis of the Soviet Union. In practice, it wasn't. Thus, the Soviet Union was not communist by its own definition. However, anarchists argue that the theory is wrong - thus interpretations differ. Then there is the problem of common usage, which can be fundamentally wrong, such as the common American view that Communism means big government. In contrast, "anarcho-capitalism" falls down on both the interpretation and common usage arguments - the interpretation of the historical development of anarchism is flawed as all previous forms of anarchism were opposed to capitalism - and anarchism is generally understood to be a left-wing ideology.

Common usage is valid when it doesn't contradict a valid and existing interpretation of a term. The erroneous definition of communism above is erroneous because there are those still around who dispute it based on the the history of the concept and its proper meaning. If there was no strong opposition, then common usage would mean the word had been redefined.

Liberalism is a classic example of a word that has changed and continues to change - it now exists with totally contrasting and equally valid definitions - liberal as socially progressive and neoliberal as ultra-capitalist. The reason for this is due to splits and developments within the interpretation of what liberalism means both based on valid arguments - liberalism strictly holds that both capitalism and social progress are important and intertwined. Where the use of liberal, particularly in the US, goes wrong is where it's used to define an anti-capitalist. Liberals, properly, are those who fight on social issues such as civil rights, etc, but without opposing the overall capitalist system. Liberals are reformists, not revolutionists. Socialists are not liberals (a statement that should be immediately clear as socialism and liberalism are two different ideologies).

Vas.

Actually, "Communism" and "Liberalism" both fall foul of the same hurdle in America, which is the dominance of a Right-wing Religious ideology.

Communism is viewed by Americans as the 'big bad' because (basically) the Russian model forbad Christianity. That's pretty much what killed it - because the Christian Right hold the reins of power, and they are - obviously - totally against anything that would upset the theological balance. American politics behave a lot like those of a Fundamentalism.

Liberalism is viewed by Americans as a loosening of morality, and an embrace of 'non-christian' values. Social reform is considered bad because it opposes the status-quo which exists (they would argue) because of the perfect model of the Bible. This is why Bible-belt states tend to vote Republican - because the Democrat party is the more 'liberal'.

The modern common view of Anarchy makes it inseperable from socialism, but with the implication of lawlessness and self-serving intent.

The historical view of Anarchy is bloody revolution, and dissent.

Modern Anarchists may have 'redefined' their title, but, unfortunately, this is not the common usage of the word. This is not the face of Anarchy, as seen by most people.

The modern common view of Anarchy makes it inseperable from socialism, but with the implication of lawlessness and self-serving intent.

The historical view of Anarchy is bloody revolution, and dissent.

Modern Anarchists may have 'redefined' their title, but, unfortunately, this is not the common usage of the word. This is not the face of Anarchy, as seen by most people.

Actually, the historical view is deliberately politicised and ignores the historical reality about anarchism. While anarchists were involved in a number of high profile assassinations at one point (the "propaganda by deed" era), the acts of violence by anarchists pale into insignficance when compared to those by any other ideology. The reputation is due to the fact that anarchism is opposed to and opposed by virtually all other ideologies (except libertarianism), as they all retain government. The historical view ignores the fact that the vast majority of anarchists through history, from Godwin, through Proudhon and Kropotkin, up to Chomsky and Bookchin, were largely non-violent, while those who were violent - Bakunin, Berkman - were so for very specific reasons.

The stereotype continues to this day, with protestors called dangerous and violent by the police and the media. In most cases, the police are the ones that are armed and dangerous and most after the fact investigations have shown that their actions were brutality. Yet the myth persists.

As I've said elsewhere, though, the only way around this is for anarchists to properly engage with local communities, prove to people that they're not lunatic or vandals, but serious activists. When Emma Goldman did this in the past, and this was in the US, anarchism was far more widely respected than it is now.

Vas.

Actually, "Communism" and "Liberalism" both fall foul of the same hurdle in America, which is the dominance of a Right-wing Religious ideology.



Social liberalism is curtailed by religious conservatives, but economic liberalism is impeded by those on the left.

It dosn't make sense, but fiscal "conservatives" are more economically liberal

Social liberalism is curtailed by religious conservatives, but economic liberalism is impeded by those on the left.

It dosn't make sense, but fiscal "conservatives" are more economically liberal

That's what I meant by the difference between "liberal" and "neoliberal". And it makes perfect sense, the original attempt to wed social and economic liberalism failed as societal problems forced governments to adopt somewhat socialistic ideas (the New Deal, the NHS, etc). Time and time again we've seen that economic liberalism has damaged social liberalism because unrestrained capitalism is about profits and not people.

Vas.

That's what I meant by the difference between "liberal" and "neoliberal". And it makes perfect sense, the original attempt to wed social and economic liberalism failed as societal problems forced governments to adopt somewhat socialistic ideas (the New Deal, the NHS, etc). Time and time again we've seen that economic liberalism has damaged social liberalism because unrestrained capitalism is about profits and not people.

Vas.


Social liberalism is being free to do what one wants, not to be propped up by government programs (new deal, af action, etc)

Furthermore, the New Deal did not solve any societal problems

Actually, the historical view is deliberately politicised and ignores the historical reality about anarchism. While anarchists were involved in a number of high profile assassinations at one point (the "propaganda by deed" era), the acts of violence by anarchists pale into insignficance when compared to those by any other ideology. The reputation is due to the fact that anarchism is opposed to and opposed by virtually all other ideologies (except libertarianism), as they all retain government. The historical view ignores the fact that the vast majority of anarchists through history, from Godwin, through Proudhon and Kropotkin, up to Chomsky and Bookchin, were largely non-violent, while those who were violent - Bakunin, Berkman - were so for very specific reasons.

The stereotype continues to this day, with protestors called dangerous and violent by the police and the media. In most cases, the police are the ones that are armed and dangerous and most after the fact investigations have shown that their actions were brutality. Yet the myth persists.

As I've said elsewhere, though, the only way around this is for anarchists to properly engage with local communities, prove to people that they're not lunatic or vandals, but serious activists. When Emma Goldman did this in the past, and this was in the US, anarchism was far more widely respected than it is now.

Vas.

Well.. the historical view stretches back more than a few hundred years... there were Greek anarchists, who did, literally, define themselves by resistance to government.

I agree that the anarchist history is a victim of public misunderstanding, and that an anarchist is not an anarchist is not an anarchist.
That has kind of been my point all along. There are different reasons why a thing is called a thing, and some are more valid than others to certain people, at certain times.

The problem anarchists have, is that, still, no-one really knows what they stand for... although a lot know what anarchy 'means'... and they carry the stigma of that. I will always be of the opinion that the name fails to fit, and that a different 'name', a different platform - must be established if 'anarchists' are to see any real progress.

It's scary... it's almost like you agreed with what I said...

What's your personal view on the social function of the family?
To provide a good environment to raise the children. Other than that, I'm not certain precisely what you're asking. Does my answer meet your needs, or do you need something futher?

Would it be immoral, in your opinion, for an anarcho-capitalist to accept mortage tax relief, or does that come under the catagory of refunded money?
Refunded money. The rule is: it's your money first, last and always. It's not the government's, and any money they give back to you is like a thief giving you back your property which s/he stole.

Would it be inconsistent for an anarcho-capitalist to draw the dole?
If all other options are exhausted, then no. But the idea is to not be on it for long (of course, the welfare system in the US is set up so that you stay on it because you're forced into minimum-wage jobs or else you lose benefits. I've seen this first-hand. It's not a failing of the market--but a failing of how the welfare system is set up).

If all other options are exhausted, then no. But the idea is to not be on it for long (of course, the welfare system in the US is set up so that you stay on it because you're forced into minimum-wage jobs or else you lose benefits. I've seen this first-hand. It's not a failing of the market--but a failing of how the welfare system is set up).

That makes no sense. That implies that you need welfare even if you have an above-minimum wage job. If so, then what does that say about capitalism? It isn't a failing of the market, but capitalist hierarchy.

If all other options are exhausted, then no. But the idea is to not be on it for long (of course, the welfare system in the US is set up so that you stay on it because you're forced into minimum-wage jobs or else you lose benefits. I've seen this first-hand. It's not a failing of the market--but a failing of how the welfare system is set up).

Those on unemployment must provide proof that they are actively seeking a new job (I think one or two applications a week). 26 weeks is the longest one can be on it.

Those on unemployment must provide proof that they are actively seeking a new job (I think one or two applications a week). 26 weeks is the longest one can be on it.

Unless they enroll at a University, then no job seeking is needed

Yes, they were/are (communist nations)
You cannot determine what something is by the name alone.
Which is why the actions are also being used, and the actions make them communist.


Sure it does. That's the way it works. You have to have an oligarchy who controls the wealth and tells everyone where to work and what to produce and how much of it to produce.
Complete BS. Everyone has a say in what is produced.
No they don't. You need a small group to do it. I've explained it to you a million times, yet you simply can't seem to understand it.


Including defending your own life?

Remember your own words "ANY ACTION BASED ON FORCE IS WRONG". I will hold you to that. If someone ever attacks you, you'd better not try to defend yourself.
I might make an exception for self-defence, but for the most part, I would avoid situations that would get me attacked by someone I can't reason with.
And if you can't? No weaseling. Either admit that you are wrong or be a hypocrite. Those are your only options.


Which rules out communism.

Truthfully, the only people for whom happiness matters are those involved in trades. Each person gets what s/he wants and is happier for it. If others become happy as a result, that is a good side-effect.
Happiness matters for everyone.
Not in a trade situation. The parties involved in the trade are the ones who matter.

I still wonder why you think that using emotive arguments in some way validates communism. "Don't you want people to be happy?" Yes, but that's no way to have a debate. "Don't you care about those people in 'sweatshops'?". Yes, but that's no way to have a debate.

If all other options are exhausted, then no. But the idea is to not be on it for long (of course, the welfare system in the US is set up so that you stay on it because you're forced into minimum-wage jobs or else you lose benefits. I've seen this first-hand. It's not a failing of the market--but a failing of how the welfare system is set up).
Those on unemployment must provide proof that they are actively seeking a new job (I think one or two applications a week). 26 weeks is the longest one can be on it.
Yes, but that's unemployment, not welfare/AFDC/etc, which is a different set of rules.

My sister that I live with was on welfare for a while. She had to watch how much she made from her job or else she would lose welfare "benefits" and would have a difficult time paying rent.

If all other options are exhausted, then no. But the idea is to not be on it for long (of course, the welfare system in the US is set up so that you stay on it because you're forced into minimum-wage jobs or else you lose benefits. I've seen this first-hand. It's not a failing of the market--but a failing of how the welfare system is set up).
That makes no sense. That implies that you need welfare even if you have an above-minimum wage job. If so, then what does that say about capitalism?
Nothing. It's a failing of the government, and nothing to do with capitalism at all.

You really need to think before you post.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345456 60 pages...

Social liberalism is being free to do what one wants, not to be propped up by government programs (new deal, af action, etc)

Rightwing bullshit - no healthcare, racial/gender discrimination, no welfare safetynet are all blocks to "being free to do what one wants". No welfare systems allow bosses to exploit workers to a greater degree than they do normally, because there's no safety-net and quitting

Furthermore, the New Deal did not solve any societal problems

Reducing unemployment isn't solving societal problems? Providing old age insurance and unemployment insurance isn't? Rubbish.

Vas.

Which is why the actions are also being used, and the actions make them communist.

What communist actions? Did they give the working class ownership and management of factories? Did they introduce free distribution? Did they abolish money?

No they don't. You need a small group to do it. I've explained it to you a million times, yet you simply can't seem to understand it.

You simply can't seem to understand that anarcho-communism does do it without an oligarchy. I've said it a dozen times. Everyone has a say, not just a small group.

And if you can't? No weaseling. Either admit that you are wrong or be a hypocrite. Those are your only options.

I admit that I may be forced to kill, but even Vash was forced to kill Legato to prevent more death.

Not in a trade situation. The parties involved in the trade are the ones who matter.

Anarcho-communism makes trade unnecessary. In addition, trades can and do affect third parties. Pollution, traffic increases, etc. can all result from capitalists employing workers and affect outside parties.

I still wonder why you think that using emotive arguments in some way validates communism. "Don't you want people to be happy?" Yes, but that's no way to have a debate. "Don't you care about those people in 'sweatshops'?". Yes, but that's no way to have a debate.

I still wonder why you eschew concern for humanity and emotion in favor of alienating and dehumanizing logic. Are you a human or a machine?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345456 60 pages...
Edit: 61...

To provide a good environment to raise the children. Other than that, I'm not certain precisely what you're asking. Does my answer meet your needs, or do you need something futher?
It does to a large extent. Thanks. Am I right in thinking by that that you would see parents having a responsibility to their children? Would the opposite apply? Obviously there would be no state provided care for old people in an anarcho-capitalist society. Would adult children have a responsibility to provide for their families in old age, even if only a moral one? And how about old people with no surviving relatives?

Refunded money. The rule is: it's your money first, last and always. It's not the government's, and any money they give back to you is like a thief giving you back your property which s/he stole.Technically (and this is hypothetical, I know it's not what you're advocating as a tactic) that would also cover people who rob goverment institutions.


If all other options are exhausted, then no. But the idea is to not be on it for long (of course, the welfare system in the US is set up so that you stay on it because you're forced into minimum-wage jobs or else you lose benefits. I've seen this first-hand. It's not a failing of the market--but a failing of how the welfare system is set up).Would the same apply to working for a goverment body? Yes, but only if you have no other option.

Which is why the actions are also being used, and the actions make them communist.
What communist actions? Did they give the working class ownership and management of factories?
Yep, via the oversight of the politburo.

Did they introduce free distribution? Did they abolish money?
They were getting there. Recall: Marx said that communism does take time (of course, that didn't stop him from trying to incite riots to have communism implemented, in stark contrast to his writings where communism comes about gradually).


No they don't. You need a small group to do it. I've explained it to you a million times, yet you simply can't seem to understand it.
You simply can't seem to understand that anarcho-communism does do it without an oligarchy.
No, it can't. It requires an oligarchy.


And if you can't? No weaseling. Either admit that you are wrong or be a hypocrite. Those are your only options.
I admit that I may be forced to kill, but even Vash was forced to kill Legato to prevent more death.
That didn't answer the question. Answer it!


Not in a trade situation. The parties involved in the trade are the ones who matter.
Anarcho-communism makes trade unnecessary.
No, it doesn't. Kids trade lunch items, don't they? No matter what system. That is TRADE. Anything like that is TRADE!

In addition, trades can and do affect third parties. Pollution, traffic increases, etc. can all result from capitalists employing workers and affect outside parties.
...or communist systems, like the horrid affairs in eastern Germany or in Chernobyl.


I still wonder why you think that using emotive arguments in some way validates communism. "Don't you want people to be happy?" Yes, but that's no way to have a debate. "Don't you care about those people in 'sweatshops'?". Yes, but that's no way to have a debate.
I still wonder why you eschew concern for humanity
There you go again!

and emotion in favor of alienating and dehumanizing logic.
Yes, logic is such a bad thing, isn't it? I mean, being able to identify things without contradictions is horrid, n'est-ce pas? Yeah, let's throw out logic. Let's throw out the law of identity, which states that something is what is it (A = A) Let's throw out the law of the excluded middle, which says that there is that thing and then there's everything else (A or ~A). Let's throw out the law of noncontradiction, which says that something can't be both itself and not itself at the same time and respect (can't be both raining and not raining at the same place and time). Yeah, that's really alienating and dehumanizing, isn't it? That's just so damned awful. Who do I think I am, trying to identify things correctly!

Fucking moron.

Are you a human or a machine?
Vulcan fallacy.

To provide a good environment to raise the children. Other than that, I'm not certain precisely what you're asking. Does my answer meet your needs, or do you need something futher?
It does to a large extent. Thanks. Am I right in thinking by that that you would see parents having a responsibility to their children? Would the opposite apply? Obviously there would be no state provided care for old people in an anarcho-capitalist society. Would adult children have a responsibility to provide for their families in old age, even if only a moral one?
No, an "adult child" has no responsibility to care for an elderly relative (but obviously can choose to do so).

And how about old people with no surviving relatives?
If they need assistance, private charities would be able to handle it.


Refunded money. The rule is: it's your money first, last and always. It's not the government's, and any money they give back to you is like a thief giving you back your property which s/he stole.
Technically (and this is hypothetical, I know it's not what you're advocating as a tactic) that would also cover people who rob goverment institutions.
You might be able to stretch it to include that, but I honestly wouldn't see how.


If all other options are exhausted, then no. But the idea is to not be on it for long (of course, the welfare system in the US is set up so that you stay on it because you're forced into minimum-wage jobs or else you lose benefits. I've seen this first-hand. It's not a failing of the market--but a failing of how the welfare system is set up).
Would the same apply to working for a goverment body? Yes, but only if you have no other option.
Yes.

Yep, via the oversight of the politburo.

Remember Kronstadt?

No, it can't. It requires an oligarchy.

No it doesn't, it simply requires a well organised mandated delegacy system, which works well for properly democratic unions.

Vas.

They were getting there. Recall: Marx said that communism does take time (of course, that didn't stop him from trying to incite riots to have communism implemented, in stark contrast to his writings where communism comes about gradually).

So they weren't communist. If they used money, they weren't communist, plain and simple.

No, it can't. It requires an oligarchy.

No, it doesn't. Maybe ahierarchial economic systems are hard for you to comprehend, but it doesn't. Besides, who are you to criticize communism for having an oligarchy. Isn't that the case with capitalism?

That didn't answer the question. Answer it!

Yes, I would defend myself. Does that make me a hypocrit? Probably. At least I try, though. Your morality is based on force and wealth.

No, it doesn't. Kids trade lunch items, don't they? No matter what system. That is TRADE. Anything like that is TRADE!

They live under capitalism. It's probably more accurate to say that anarcho-communism will probably make trading unnecessary.

Yes, logic is such a bad thing, isn't it? I mean, being able to identify things without contradictions is horrid, n'est-ce pas? Yeah, let's throw out logic. Let's throw out the law of identity, which states that something is what is it (A = A) Let's throw out the law of the excluded middle, which says that there is that thing and then there's everything else (A or ~A). Let's throw out the law of noncontradiction, which says that something can't be both itself and not itself at the same time and respect (can't be both raining and not raining at the same place and time). Yeah, that's really alienating and dehumanizing, isn't it? That's just so damned awful. Who do I think I am, trying to identify things correctly!

It is bad when you ignore the plight of workers and treat them as an abstract factor in a theory. It is extremely dehumanizing.

They were getting there. Recall: Marx said that communism does take time (of course, that didn't stop him from trying to incite riots to have communism implemented, in stark contrast to his writings where communism comes about gradually).What's you source for that? And even if it's true, how precisely does that differ from Bakunin's secret societys of "elite" revolutionarys?

What's you source for that? And even if it's true, how precisely does that differ from Bakunin's secret societys of "elite" revolutionarys?

I don't base my views on Bakunin very much. He was a racist, violent authoritarian and he could have cut back a little on the anti-Christian rants as they really don't help him in the eyes of most people.

Question for Letila: In anarcho-communism, is religion permitted?

Question for Letila: In anarcho-communism, is religion permitted?

Most anarchists are staunchly atheists, but some people reached anarchist conclusions from religion, surprisingly enough. Tolstoy's book The Kingdom of God is Within You is an example.

The general concensus among anarchists is that organized religion is oppressive but there is nothing wrong with individual religious views. I doubt Catholicism, for example, would be very popular in a culture that held anarchist views, though, so the issue of banning it might never really come up.

Catholic Worker are essentially an Anarcho-pacifist Catholic group.

Yep, via the oversight of the politburo.
Remember Kronstadt?
Those were counter-revolutionaries who didn't understand the liberation that their fraternal socialist brothers had brought them (oh I can do that so well).


No, it can't. It requires an oligarchy.
No it doesn't, it simply requires a well organised mandated delegacy system, which works well for properly democratic unions.
IOW: oligarchy.

You aren't anarchist, though. At least concede that.

anarchy?

Hmm, since I cannot believe in anarchy, guess none of you are :P.

True Anarchy cannot exist, as soon as the strong dominate the weak you have formed a government, should it not be call unstructured government isntead?

They were getting there. Recall: Marx said that communism does take time (of course, that didn't stop him from trying to incite riots to have communism implemented, in stark contrast to his writings where communism comes about gradually).
So they weren't communist. If they used money, they weren't communist, plain and simple.
Hoak-kay. Let's play it your way, shall we?

If they weren't communist, then the US isn't capitalist, since capitalism requires no government intervention/no government at all--no mucking around with the economy. So you cannot ever complain about a capitalist country because none has ever existed!

Hoist. Petard. Your own.

I await your spluttering and whining.


No, it can't. It requires an oligarchy.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.

Maybe ahierarchial economic systems are hard for you to comprehend, but it doesn't. Besides, who are you to criticize communism for having an oligarchy. Isn't that the case with capitalism?
Nope.


That didn't answer the question. Answer it!
Yes, I would defend myself.
Then you are a hypocrite.

Does that make me a hypocrit? Probably. At least I try, though. Your morality is based on force and wealth.
No, it's not.

Contractarianism is a theory of morals, but what is morality? By this I mean, which of various possible directives that we might look to for any sort of guidance to our conduct are the ones called "moral"? As I understand this question, it is not intended to be a profoundly difficult philosophical question, but just an effort to be clear what we are talking about. The word 'moral' is no doubt used in more than one way, to be sure, and if so we will need to select among the familiar meanings the one that applies here. But in fact, the meanings aren't so diverse that the choice among them is arbitrary. In the main, there are two notions going here. One is that morality has to do with controlling one's passions; this is perhaps better called 'ethics,' but it doesn't matter. It was the meaning assigned to 'moral' by Aristotle (or rather, by his translators, by whom I am necessarily guided). The other is that morality is, roughly speaking, Rules for the Group. But the two are not unrelated, for a "rule" is something that is intended to override one's passions. Given the right set of rules, morality in the second sense requires morality in the first.

The idea of "rules for the group," as I call it, has an extremely important ambiguity in turn. Are these (1) the actual rules for an actual group? Or are they (2) the "true" or "real" or rationally certified such rules? Contractarianism is a theory about the latter, primarily. It can also be applied to the former question, as in Gilbert Harman's well-known work on Moral Relativism. But a theorist might, in the spirit of anthropology, simply be trying to explain how a given group's moral rules came to be what they are, and argue that some sort of agreement had something to do with it; or he might, in the spirit of the rationally reconstructivist philosopher, be arguing, normatively, that this is how a group's rules ought to look, in the light of reason. It is the latter, not the former, that is the undertaking of philosophical Contractarianism.
http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html


No, it doesn't. Kids trade lunch items, don't they? No matter what system. That is TRADE. Anything like that is TRADE!
They live under capitalism.
So no kid in the USSR ever traded his PB&J for ham-and-swiss (assuming they could even get such luxiries with all the shortages)? NEVER? Is that what you're telling me? Please tell me you're not trying to sell me that line of bullshit, because I'm not buying it.


Yes, logic is such a bad thing, isn't it? I mean, being able to identify things without contradictions is horrid, n'est-ce pas? Yeah, let's throw out logic. Let's throw out the law of identity, which states that something is what is it (A = A) Let's throw out the law of the excluded middle, which says that there is that thing and then there's everything else (A or ~A). Let's throw out the law of noncontradiction, which says that something can't be both itself and not itself at the same time and respect (can't be both raining and not raining at the same place and time). Yeah, that's really alienating and dehumanizing, isn't it? That's just so damned awful. Who do I think I am, trying to identify things correctly!
It is bad when you ignore the plight of workers and treat them as an abstract factor in a theory.
Only communism does that.

Hoak-kay. Let's play it your way, shall we?

If they weren't communist, then the US isn't capitalist, since capitalism requires no government intervention/no government at all--no mucking around with the economy. So you cannot ever complain about a capitalist country because none has ever existed!

Hoist. Petard. Your own.

I await your spluttering and whining.

Capitalism is very dependent on the government and infact the government played a crutial rôle in its development. The problem is that we define words differently, really.

Nope.

What do you call CEOs? What do you call business owners? They form a definite

So no kid in the USSR ever traded his PB&J for ham-and-swiss (assuming they could even get such luxiries with all the shortages)? NEVER? Is that what you're telling me? Please tell me you're not trying to sell me that line of bullshit, because I'm not buying it.

I don't consider the USSR communist. They had almost no genuine characteristics of communism and were based on wage labor.

Only communism does that.

Maybe Marx's brand of communism, but not mine. I can see you happily ignore the suffering of sweatshop workers, though.

True Anarchy cannot exist, as soon as the strong dominate the weak you have formed a government, should it not be call unstructured government isntead?

Can you try something not recycled from Leviathan? If this were true, than the government would oppress us and we would be better off without it.

IOW: oligarchy.

Oligarchy means the few ruling over the many. It doesn't mean a confederation of directly democratic communes.

Those were counter-revolutionaries who didn't understand the liberation that their fraternal socialist brothers had brought them (oh I can do that so well).

So you're a Trot now? Kronstadt disproves your point because it was the end of the Free Soviets and installation of direct party rule. From that point onward, the workers did not control the means of production, the party (an oligarchy) did. Thus, the Soviet Union was not communist.

Vas.

Hoak-kay. Let's play it your way, shall we?

If they weren't communist, then the US isn't capitalist, since capitalism requires no government intervention/no government at all--no mucking around with the economy. So you cannot ever complain about a capitalist country because none has ever existed!

Hoist. Petard. Your own.

I await your spluttering and whining.

Hello, I'm sorry, but stealing someone else's quote and twisting the logic is totally pathetic.

OK, welcome to your own petard and enjoy your hoisting. If the USSR was truly communist, the USA, Great Britain, etc, are truly capitalist. Not mercantalist, not anything other than capitalist because they say they are.

You've stated the USSR was communist, despite not meeting in practice its own definition of communism. You, above, are applying your own libertarian view of capitalism to the US, not the US's own interpretation (hypocritical as it is). Illogical. My quote above, however, more accurately reflects your position.

Vas.

If they weren't communist, then the US isn't capitalist, since capitalism requires no government intervention/no government at all--no mucking around with the economy. So you cannot ever complain about a capitalist country because none has ever existed!
What about tax havens such as Belize? Surely their goverment has no active role in the economy.

The USSR is exactly what you will always get by trying to implement Marx's "plan". The list of people who have attempted to construct communist societies reads like a rogues gallery of the tyrants of history: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot.... Brutal dictatorship is the inevitable consequence of a system where the state controls everything.

To say the USSR wasn't really communist is like saying the hindenburg wasn't really an airship since airships are supposed to fly, not explode. But explosion is the inevitable result of flying aroung in a bag full of hot hydrogen and the USSR is the inevitable result of total economic control by the state, whether it is "supposed to be" or not.

To claim that communism is a tyrant government is utter nonsense. When in the history of this planet has communism ever exsisted? Stalin ruined the idea of communism and set a bad example to the rest of the communist world. Che, Mao, Stalin, etc.. are all perfect examples of how communism at our current status will never work. Because each and everyone of you are little versions of mao and stalin. You all want power and money. I can't blame you though, you grew up in a capitalist world and will die in one. So money and power is all you know. This is the reason why communism will never take place in our current society. Communism will occur through evolution, not revolution.

Once the human race evolves to the point where we can all live without being little greedy capitalists, communism will take shape. Its no joke either. The final "form" if you will, of government will be communism. Because at some point or another the people will realise that the people outweigh the capitalist armies in numbers, and will fight back. Don't judge communism on the USSR, PRC, Cuba, vietnam, etc.. But judge communism on what Marx and Lenin write in there thesis's. For now, I would be happy with a Democrate Socailist government. Just give it time, communism will take root.

Peace Comrades,

Acelord

The USSR is exactly what you will always get by trying to implement Marx's "plan". The list of people who have attempted to construct communist societies reads like a rogues gallery of the tyrants of history: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot.... Brutal dictatorship is the inevitable consequence of a system where the state controls everything.

To say the USSR wasn't really communist is like saying the hindenburg wasn't really an airship since airships are supposed to fly, not explode. But explosion is the inevitable result of flying aroung in a bag full of hot hydrogen and the USSR is the inevitable result of total economic control by the state, whether it is "supposed to be" or not.

On one level you're pushing an open door, on the other you're making a bizarre contention. The anarchist critique of Marxism is that it will fail to bring about communism and history has bourne this out. The USSR was not communism because it didn't have the characteristics of communism, for the upteenth time by its own definition. If the makers of the Hindenburg had said - this is an airship because: a. it's got large wings like an airplane, b. it's filled with helium and c. it will never explode - then, by their own definition, it would not have been an airship. They didn't, thus your argument is bullshit. The Hindenburg was an airship for a time, then it was debris. The explosion does not negate its initial airshipness. In Russia, the revolution did establish limited regional communist systems, which were destroyed by the Bolsheviks as they created the Soviet Union (by definition ending the free soviets). Thus, the USSR was not simply not communist, it was an anti-communist set-up.

Vas.

To claim that communism is a tyrant government is utter nonsense. When in the history of this planet has communism ever exsisted? Stalin ruined the idea of communism and set a bad example to the rest of the communist world.

Oh please, the Bolsheviks destroyed communism in Russia (and the Ukraine) long before Stalin got his dictatorial hands on it. Remember Kronstadt?

Vas.

Hoak-kay. Let's play it your way, shall we?

If they weren't communist, then the US isn't capitalist, since capitalism requires no government intervention/no government at all--no mucking around with the economy. So you cannot ever complain about a capitalist country because none has ever existed!

Hoist. Petard. Your own.

I await your spluttering and whining.
Capitalism is very dependent on the government
No, it's not. Thanks for spluttering.

and infact the government played a crutial rôle in its development.
No it didn't.

The problem is that we define words differently, really.
Yes. I define them correctly and you do not.


Nope.
What do you call CEOs? What do you call business owners? They form a definite
A definite what?


So no kid in the USSR ever traded his PB&J for ham-and-swiss (assuming they could even get such luxiries with all the shortages)? NEVER? Is that what you're telling me? Please tell me you're not trying to sell me that line of bullshit, because I'm not buying it.
I don't consider the USSR communist.
Then you're wrong from above.

They had almost no genuine characteristics of communism and were based on wage labor.
More spluttering and whining.


Only communism does that.
Maybe Marx's brand of communism, but not mine.
Ah yes, the "Let's forget the inventor brand and believe that it really can work some other way, even though it can't" way. I see.

I can see you happily ignore the suffering of sweatshop workers, though.
More emotive garbage. Try again.


IOW: oligarchy.
Oligarchy means the few ruling over the many.
Which is communism.

Those were counter-revolutionaries who didn't understand the liberation that their fraternal socialist brothers had brought them (oh I can do that so well).
So you're a Trot now? Kronstadt disproves your point because it was the end of the Free Soviets and installation of direct party rule. From that point onward, the workers did not control the means of production, the party (an oligarchy) did. Thus, the Soviet Union was not communist.
Then, like Letila, you are herby barred from ever talking about a "capitalist" country or "capitalism" because capitalism has never happened! There has never been a "capitalist" country, so you can't whine about them! You can't whine about "capitalist" practices because there's never been any such thing!

I love it when you leftist fucks annihilate your own position with your No True Scotsman fallacies.

Oligarchy means the few ruling over the many.

Which is communism.

No, honey, that's capitalism and representative democracy.

Vas.

Hoak-kay. Let's play it your way, shall we?

If they weren't communist, then the US isn't capitalist, since capitalism requires no government intervention/no government at all--no mucking around with the economy. So you cannot ever complain about a capitalist country because none has ever existed!

Hoist. Petard. Your own.

I await your spluttering and whining.
Hello, I'm sorry, but stealing someone else's quote and twisting the logic is totally pathetic.
I agree. Now show that I twisted the reasoning (not logic, you idiot. Logic and reasoning are different things. Why people conflate the two is beyond me).


You've stated the USSR was communist, despite not meeting in practice its own definition of communism.
Sure it did.

You, above, are applying your own libertarian view of capitalism to the US, not the US's own interpretation (hypocritical as it is).
I'm doing no such thing.

I'm sorry, but lying about someone's position is uttely pathetic.

Oligarchy means the few ruling over the many.

Which is communism.
No, honey, that's capitalism and representative democracy.
No honey, that's communism.

I agree. Now show that I twisted the reasoning (not logic, you idiot. Logic and reasoning are different things. Why people conflate the two is beyond me).

That's because you lack logic and the ability to reason. A statement has logic, not reasoning. The writer may use reason, but the statement itself can only have logic.

I'm sorry, but lying about someone's position is uttely pathetic.

Does the official US position on capitalism reject government intervention? If not, then their definition of capitalism is different to yours as a libertarian. With me so far? Does the US meet its own definition of capitalism? Debatable, but only in the context of its definition and not yours.

Now, the point is that the USSR was not communist by its own definition. Having any form of state would preclude it from being communist by my definition, but that's not the point.

Of course, your original point was the most illogical of all - that the USSR was communist because it said so. Governments lie, the measure of what does or does not exist is actually examining the facts. That's kind of fundamental to logic and reasoning.

Vas.

Help us survive! As if. We will be lucky if the world ends up being ruled by Patrick Zalas. Hierarchy and advanced technology will destroy us, not help us.
No idea who Zalas is. I kind of agree with you on hierarchy but your statement is alarmingly technophobic. I'll put the environment before politics but not at the expense of our development as a species.

BAAWA, the Soviet Union was not communist, even under a Marxist interpretation. Communism is an end-point of the Marxist process, if you will. That's not the same situation as capitalism, by any means. Capitalism as a concept does not intrinsically demand the absence of government; anarcho--capitalism does. I disagree with Dischordiac and Letila on their insistence that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

So, this 'No True Scotsman' fallacy doesn't apply to their argument. By the way, any chance that we could stop throwing around terms like 'No True...'? After all, we've not all studied fallacies in detail (which doesn't mean we can't debate consistently).

No honey, that's communism.

Explain how a system based on not having an oligarchy is ruled by an oligarchy, as opposed to an economic system (capitalism) based on economic inequality and bosses and workers, or a system of government where the majority is ruled by a political elite (the very essence of oligarchy).

And please, try to avoid illogical statements. The existence of oligarchy in the Soviet Union is exactly what made it not communism. Thus it is not an example.

Would you buy a car with no wheels because the salesman said it had them?

Vas.

Capitalism as a concept does not intrinsically demand the absence of government; anarcho--capitalism does. I disagree with Dischordiac and Letila on their insistence that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

Explain how, then, you can have a capitalist variant of an anti-capitalist socio-economic theory without it being an oxymoron, please.

Vas.

an economic system (capitalism) based on economic inequality and bosses and workers
That is not what the free market is. A free market could in principle have exactly equal wages with everybody self employed.

The anarchist critique of Marxism is that it will fail to bring about communism and history has bourne this out. The USSR was not communism because it didn't have the characteristics of communism, for the upteenth time by its own definition.
Then the USSR (including under Lenin) was not Marxist because it didn't have the characteristics of Marxism, by Marx's own definations.

I kind of agree with you on hierarchy but your statement is alarmingly technophobic. I'll put the environment before politics but not at the expense of our development as a species.
Letilia's sympathetic to primitivist ideas. I'd be interested to hear his explanation of how he's going to achieve the mass reduction in population levels needed to put primitivism into practice.

Letilia's sympathetic to primitivist ideas. I'd be interested to hear his explanation of how he's going to achieve the mass reduction in population levels needed to put primitivism into practice.
Well he could shoot all the businessmen and clergy, like his Spanish "Anarchist" idols.

That is not what the free market is. A free market could in principle have exactly equal wages with everybody self employed.

Not without ending capital property rights. How could everyone receive equal wages with everyone self-employed if only one of them owns the factory, the field or the workshop? It may seem fine on paper, but it can't work. You oppose the social equality that could bring about economic equality and hope, through some bizarre reasoning, that it will happen automatically. Did the emergence of liberal democracy end the privilege of the aristocracy?

Vas.

Explain how, then, you can have a capitalist variant of an anti-capitalist socio-economic theory without it being an oxymoron, please.

Vas.
I think we've been here before... it's a matter of semantics that probably isn't even very important. Put simply, I'm not persuaded that anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. I contentedly accept that you disagree with me on this. It's not worth arguing over.

Well he could shoot all the businessmen and clergy, like his Spanish "Anarchist" idols.

Get over it, it was a Civil War. The mass graves being uncovered now show that the Monarchists were far, far worse.

Vas.

Not without ending capital property rights. How could everyone receive equal wages with everyone self-employed if only one of them owns the factory, the field or the workshop? It may seem fine on paper, but it can't work. You oppose the social equality that could bring about economic equality and hope, through some bizarre reasoning, that it will happen automatically. Did the emergence of liberal democracy end the privilege of the aristocracy?

It is in principle possible that a free market could have equal wages and everyone be self employed. I don't desire either of these outcomes for it's own sake but it is in principle possible.

Well he could shoot all the businessmen and clergy, like his Spanish "Anarchist" idols.Are you ever going to reply to the refutation of Brian Caplan I posted?

Get over it, it was a Civil War. The mass graves being uncovered now show that the Monarchists were far, far worse.

Oh well that's okay then. Hey, it was okay to murder 120 000 people in Dresden, Hitler was much worse.... The outbreak of civil war does not legitimise genocide. Get over it!

I think we've been here before... it's a matter of semantics that probably isn't even very important.

It is a matter of fundamental importance, not semantics. The opposition to capitalism in anarchism is fundamental to achieving social justice and equality. The state is the lapdog and the enforcer of the capitalist. The state is not the ultimate problem -- privilege and hierarchy are. Equality is impossible in any system that retains capital property rights. If I own a field and you're hungry, how are we equal? Anarcho-capitalists are not fellow travellers with a slightly different viewpoint, their position is absolutely opposed to that of an anarchist. Either you have property rights or you don't, it's that simple. The two can't co-exist.

Vas.

Are you ever going to reply to the refutation of Brian Caplan I posted?
No, because I haven't read it yet. Does it say that the "Anarchists" didn't commit genocide?

It is in principle possible that a free market could have equal wages and everyone be self employed. I don't desire either of these outcomes for it's own sake but it is in principle possible.

How? Answer the question - how is it possible to have equal wages and everyone be self-employed if capital property rights are retained?

Vas.

Oh well that's okay then. Hey, it was okay to murder 120 000 people in Dresden, Hitler was much worse.... The outbreak of civil war does not legitimise genocide. Get over it!

The clergy and businessmen of Catalonia were far from innocent, do some reading on the history of the region.

Vas.

No, because I haven't read it yet. Does it say that the "Anarchists" didn't commit genocide?http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spainrebut.html

It says that a minority of "anarchists" did behave in non-anarchist ways, but Caplan massively exaggarates the fact, and sometimes lies outright, in order to meet his own ideology. Fully sourced, naturally.

How? Answer the question - how is it possible to have equal wages and everyone be self-employed if capital property rights are retained?

You see how people make something called money when they work? It is in principle possible that they might all make the same amount. You see how some people work for themselves rather than other people? It's in principle possible for everyone to do this. Thus, it is in principle possible for equal wages and no employees to exist in a free market.

You see how people make something called money when they work? It is in principle possible that they might all make the same amount. You see how some people work for themselves rather than other people? It's in principle possible for everyone to do this. Thus, it is in principle possible for equal wages and no employees to exist in a free market.

Christ, if you can't do better than this, you're going on to the ignore list. For someone who is so critical of others, to be unable to answer the most fundamental question about his own supposed ideology is rather surprising. What you wrote above is not an argument, it's not even logical, it is the most simplistic and ridiculous crap you've yet written.

Vas.

No, because I haven't read it yet.

You're making yourself look better and better.

Vas.

Christ, if you can't do better than this, you're going on to the ignore list. For someone who is so critical of others, to be unable to answer the most fundamental question about his own supposed ideology is rather surprising. What you wrote above is not an argument, it's not even logical, it is the most simplistic and ridiculous crap you've yet written.

What "fundamental" question do you think you've asked?

You're making yourself look better and better.

Would you rather I gave a response before reading it?

How? Answer the question - how is it possible to have equal wages and everyone be self-employed if capital property rights are retained?

Vas.
Property is unnecessary to start a business. With technology where it is, anyone can do it. Walk down to the local library and borrow a computer to set up an ebay account. People will buy all kinds of crazy stuff. Even if you own NOTHING, you can walk along the street and find stuff that you can sell on ebay. You can sell the rights to have a song written about them. ANYONE can be self-employed (barring extreme mental handicaps).
As to making the same wages...well although it's unlikely, it is possible that by random chance they would all earn the same amount...
Of course, we could always do a one-time redistribution of the wealth...wages would probably be pretty equal at the start of that...but that would change quickly

Would you rather I gave a response before reading it?

I'd rather, when you cite a work to support your position, you read the rebuttal before returning to the topic.

Vas.

What "fundamental" question do you think you've asked?

How is it possible to have equal wages and everyone be self-employed if capital property rights are retained?

Vas.

How is it possible to have equal wages and everyone be self-employed if capital property rights are retained?

It's so simple I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding it. How is it not possible?

Property is unnecessary to start a business. With technology where it is, anyone can do it. Walk down to the local library and borrow a computer to set up an ebay account. People will buy all kinds of crazy stuff. Even if you own NOTHING, you can walk along the street and find stuff that you can sell on ebay. You can sell the rights to have a song written about them. ANYONE can be self-employed (barring extreme mental handicaps).

This is the same kind of non-logic your oxymoron friend used. The fact that some people can do something does not mean everyone can. If everyone tried to sell stuff on ebay, who'd run the site? Who'd produce the stuff to sell? While it is possible for a few people to do it themselves, the vast majority of people work for other people. Large factories can only be worked in two ways - capitalism with bosses and workers or syndicalism with workers in charge. Your logic is unscientific, it is incorrect to generalise from the specific to the general when the evidence of the general contradicts the specific. Are all swans black because a few are? No, because most swans are white.

As to making the same wages...well although it's unlikely, it is possible that by random chance they would all earn the same amount...
Of course, we could always do a one-time redistribution of the wealth...wages would probably be pretty equal at the start of that...but that would change quickly

Bingo - your last suggestion does not retain property rights. It may reset and retain them in principle, but it doesn't retain the actual rights and even then you don't retain equal pay. Thus, one person will become richer than another and have more power, proving anarcho-capitalism will immediately become an oligarchy. The ability to pay more grants greater access to everything. Remove any state levellers such as welfare and you hand all power to the rich, creating a totally corrupt society that has nothing to do with anarchy.

Vas.

Property is unnecessary to start a business. With technology where it is, anyone can do it. Walk down to the local library and borrow a computer to set up an ebay account. People will buy all kinds of crazy stuff. Even if you own NOTHING, you can walk along the street and find stuff that you can sell on ebay. You can sell the rights to have a song written about them. ANYONE can be self-employed (barring extreme mental handicaps).
Agree -
A good number (I would say a majority) of companies DO NOT own the land upon which their business resides. Ownership of land is certainly not needed for a business to start or succeed.


As to making the same wages...well although it's unlikely, it is possible that by random chance they would all earn the same amount...
Of course, we could always do a one-time redistribution of the wealth...wages would probably be pretty equal at the start of that...but that would change quickly

Yep - some people would be incompetent and their business would fail. Others would make less because of worthless products. Regardless, having everyone own and operate their own business with no benefits of specialization would be quite inefficient.

It's so simple I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding it. How is it not possible?

I own a field, ten other people do not. I hire them to work my field. They have no field, so they have no choice but to work in my field. They produce ten units each, I demand 50 units as payment, leaving them with 50 units between them or 5 units each. That's how capitalism works - equal pay and everyone being self-employed is impossible when a minority owns the means of production. Christ, it's basic economics.

Vas.

Agree -
A good number (I would say a majority) of companies DO NOT own the land upon which their business resides. Ownership of land is certainly not needed for a business to start or succeed.

Not a point, someone owns it and gets paid for it. And most businesses need employees, unless they're co-operatives.

Yep - some people would be incompetent and their business would fail. Others would make less because of worthless products. Regardless, having everyone own and operate their own business with no benefits of specialization would be quite inefficient.

Yes, it would be complete lunacy, which is part of the ridiculousness of anarcho-capitalism. Everyone being self-employed in capitalism is madness. Everyone being "self-employed" in a co-operative or syndicalist workplace is very efficient.

Vas.

I own a field, ten other people do not. I hire them to work my field. They have no field, so they have no choice but to work in my field. They produce ten units each, I demand 50 units as payment, leaving them with 50 units between them or 5 units each. That's how capitalism works - equal pay and everyone being self-employed is impossible when a minority owns the means of production. Christ, it's basic economics.

Vas.


That's pretty steep...I think I'll work on someone else's field

Explain how a system based on not having an oligarchy
Oh but it is based on having an oligarchy. How else do you have the who/what/where/when/how of production decisions being made for THE WHOLE?

Answer: you can't.

And please, try to avoid illogical statements. The existence of oligarchy in the Soviet Union is exactly what made it not communism.
Actually, that's what made it especially communist.

I own a field, ten other people do not. I hire them to work my field. They have no field, so they have no choice but to work in my field. They produce ten units each, I demand 50 units as payment, leaving them with 50 units between them or 5 units each. That's how capitalism works - equal pay and everyone being self-employed is impossible when a minority owns the means of production. Christ, it's basic economics.

But in principle they could own the field themselves and each have an equal share of the profits which could in principle be equal to everyone elses wages in similar ventures. Thus in principle they could all have equal wages, although it is vanishingly unlikely. But you defined capitalism as an economic system based on inequality and worker/employer relationships, neither of which are even a necessary consequence of, never mind the basis for, private property.

Explain how, then, you can have a capitalist variant of an anti-capitalist socio-economic theory without it being an oxymoron, please.
Because anarchism is not anticapitalist.

anarchism

Belief that an ideal human society should have no organized government, often accompanied by a practical disregard for the authority of existing governments and by a proposal for abolishing them.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm#anar

Philosophy dictionary, bitch. Eat it.

I agree. Now show that I twisted the reasoning (not logic, you idiot. Logic and reasoning are different things. Why people conflate the two is beyond me).
That's because you lack logic and the ability to reason.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

A statement has logic, not reasoning.
A series of statements is reasoning.

The writer may use reason, but the statement itself can only have logic.
So show where my reasoning was flawed.


I'm sorry, but lying about someone's position is uttely pathetic.
Does the official US position on capitalism
...have anything to do with this? No.

The point is that If (Communism == all of what Letila says) then (Capitalism == what I say) and !(Letila && Discordiac complain about capitalism).

That's pretty steep...I think I'll work on someone else's field

You sure you don't want to magic your own field out of the air? And, actually, income 10 times that of the workers is fairly low compared to the differences in most businesses.

Vas.

BAAWA, the Soviet Union was not communist, even under a Marxist interpretation. Communism is an end-point of the Marxist process, if you will. That's not the same situation as capitalism, by any means. Capitalism as a concept does not intrinsically demand the absence of government; anarcho--capitalism does. I disagree with Dischordiac and Letila on their insistence that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

So, this 'No True Scotsman' fallacy doesn't apply to their argument. By the way, any chance that we could stop throwing around terms like 'No True...'? After all, we've not all studied fallacies in detail (which doesn't mean we can't debate consistently).
I'm trying to make a point for the two morons who like to use their pet definitions for communism and capitalism, and then scream and complain when anyone calls them on such and uses a reverse method on them, thus showing a No True Scotsman/Special Pleading combo.

And no, there's no chance we could stop throwing around philosophical terms. Debate requires the pointing out of fallacies where warranted.

But in principle they could own the field themselves and each have an equal share of the profits which could in principle be equal to everyone elses wages in similar ventures. Thus in principle they could all have equal wages, although it is vanishingly unlikely. But you defined capitalism as an economic system based on inequality and worker/employer relationships, neither of which are even a necessary consequence of, never mind the basis for, private property.

Christ, are you this dim? Firstly, "in principle" is meaningless when the reality can support it. You're talking complete nonsense, it makes no sense to say that a person without a field "could own the field themselves". That's just fucking stupid.

And inequality is the fundamental basis of private property, if one person has and the other person as not, then that's unequal.

Vas.

The point is that If (Communism == all of what Letila says) then (Capitalism == what I say) and !(Letila && Discordiac complain about capitalism).

Oh, just fuck off. There really is no point trying to reason with someone with the intelligence of a particularly stupid stone. You can't even keep up with the conversation, for fuck's sake. Try reading back and see that what you say above is not what we were talking about, moron.

Vas.

You sure you don't want to magic your own field out of the air? And, actually, income 10 times that of the workers is fairly low compared to the differences in most businesses.

Vas.


Profit margin of the average business is in the 4-6% range

Profit margin of the average business is in the 4-6% range

Profit margin does not define the wages for CEOs nor the repayment of capital to the owners, these are capital and running costs respectively. Are you trying to say that owners and bosses do not generally earn more than 10 times more than individual workers?

Vas.

I'm just wondering if any of the communists here have actually know anything about capitalism, and vice-versa
Because the ansocs say one thing about what capitalism stands for, and the ancaps all disagree that that is their stance
then the ancaps say something that communism stands for, and the ansocs all disagree
Arguing back and forth saying "yes it is" "no it isn't" doesn't achieve anything...and since we're all in support of anarchy, or, letting people do whatever the hell they want (with minimal exceptions) I still don't see how we're arguing over which system we should force onto the people.
It seems to me that the communists are all for redistribution and then forcing people to give away their stuff- from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalists, on the other hand, support pretty much what we have now in the US except without the government. Enforcing current property rights but abolishing any laws relating to trade and business regulation (since we're abolishing the government).
I support (in theory, but we're arguing theory, not reality) redistribution and then allowing people to do whatever the hell they want (with the exception of initiating force against someone else- you may not murder, steal someone's stuff, or hold a gun to their head to force them to work for you)
That way, everyone starts on an even field, except for their actual inherent differences, and people can succeed or fail based on their actual merit and ambition.
A bunch of factory workers can pool their resources to run their own factory, or they can hire someone else to make managerial decisions while they do their own trade.
Anyway, I support letting individual people decide what's best for them, and not "society" or "the commune" or the "direct democracy councils" or whatever you want to call it.

Profit margin does not define the wages for CEOs nor the repayment of capital to the owners, these are capital and running costs respectively. Are you trying to say that owners and bosses do not generally earn more than 10 times more than individual workers?

Vas.

I figured you were talking about CEOs...who are different than the owners. They get a wage too. So are they working class? I really don't know why the owners continue to pay CEOs so much.

Repayment of capital - so you are getting back the money you lent to someone. So what? That is not income. The 5% interest is income.

Arguing back and forth saying "yes it is" "no it isn't" doesn't achieve anything...and since we're all in support of anarchy, or, letting people do whatever the hell they want (with minimal exceptions) I still don't see how we're arguing over which system we should force onto the people.
It seems to me that the communists are all for redistribution and then forcing people to give away their stuff- from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


Forcing people to give away their products is not anarchy...it requires a system of rules & regulations

I figured you were talking about CEOs...who are different than the owners. They get a wage too. So are they working class? I really don't know why the owners continue to pay CEOs so much.

Repayment of capital - so you are getting back the money you lent to someone. So what? That is not income. The 5% interest is income.

Slightly miswritten, it's fucking hot here. I was referring mainly to rent, which is a capital cost to the owners of the property. For the recipient, this is income.

Vas.

Rightwing bullshit - no healthcare, racial/gender discrimination, no welfare safetynet are all blocks to "being free to do what one wants". No welfare systems allow bosses to exploit workers to a greater degree than they do normally, because there's no safety-net and quitting
Vas.
I remembered seeing this before and I felt the need to comment on it
THIS is bullshit, and even you should be able to recognize it. The absence of healthcare and welfare is not a block to anything. That doesn't even make sense. No, you can't do whatever you want. I, for example, can't fly by flapping my arms about, but that's not what someone means when they say "you are free do do what you want" Since healthcare and welfare are manmade, and recently manmade at that (at least what you are referring to is recent- since I assume you want the most modern rather than outdated forms) not having it can't be a block to doing what you want. Would you say that humans were less free before the formation of steady society and government? Because at that point, none of them had healthcare and welfare. It might be a stupid example, but that's precisely why I used it. Your statement was completely ignorant. A thing can be a block. The absence of a thing cannot be.

Anyway, I support letting individual people decide what's best for them, and not "society" or "the commune" or the "direct democracy councils" or whatever you want to call it.

Oh for god's sake. People are social animals, you can't have an absolute rule that "individuals" decide what's best for them. Direct democracy councils are based on the principle of free association, people are free to decide what's best for them. Quite often though, what's best for me is also what's best for everyone else. Having a bus service might be best for me and all of the other people who use it, building a road, etc. It's impossible to do all of these things solo, so the only way to absolutely respect the rights of as many individuals as possible is through direct democracy. What if one person's wishes clashes with the wishes of 99 other people? Is it fair if his wishes come out on top? The only way to maximise freedom of the individual is to work in co-operation, attempting to respect each individuals wishes and working through democratic majority rule if there's no other option.

Go and read "Conquest of Bread".

Vas.

Forcing people to give away their products is not anarchy...it requires a system of rules & regulations

Look idiot, learn what you're talking about before critiquing it. Voluntary association, free assembly nobody is forced to give anything away. Christ, all of these self-appointed experts who don't know their arse from their elbows. Idiots, all of you.

Vas.

I remembered seeing this before and I felt the need to comment on it
THIS is bullshit, and even you should be able to recognize it. The absence of healthcare and welfare is not a block to anything. That doesn't even make sense. No, you can't do whatever you want. I, for example, can't fly by flapping my arms about, but that's not what someone means when they say "you are free do do what you want" Since healthcare and welfare are manmade, and recently manmade at that (at least what you are referring to is recent- since I assume you want the most modern rather than outdated forms) not having it can't be a block to doing what you want. Would you say that humans were less free before the formation of steady society and government? Because at that point, none of them had healthcare and welfare. It might be a stupid example, but that's precisely why I used it. Your statement was completely ignorant. A thing can be a block. The absence of a thing cannot be.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The absence of a foot is a block to running. The absence of a chair is a block to sitting down comfortably. The absence of an open door is a block to getting out.

The absence of general healthcare is a block for the poor achieving what those rich enough to pay for it can achieve. Look at the history of the NHS, and then fuck off and die you fascist scumbag. OK?

Vas.

Look idiot, learn what you're talking about before critiquing it. Voluntary association, free assembly nobody is forced to give anything away. Christ, all of these self-appointed experts who don't know their arse from their elbows. Idiots, all of you.

Vas.
While I do agree that it's good to know what you're arguing about, I don't agree with being a hypocrite. So tell me, what have you read on capitalism?
and I'm assuming when you declare all of us idiots, you're including everyone else- like Letila.

And no, there's no chance we could stop throwing around philosophical terms. Debate requires the pointing out of fallacies where warranted.
Please have the decency to define them, then. Not all of us have studied philosophy. I wouldn't try and explain physics to someone with a minimal scientific background by bandying around terminology they are not likely to have encountered. It's infuriating.

Christ, are you this dim? Firstly, "in principle" is meaningless when the reality can support it.

Where does this leave you then, pinko boy?

You're talking complete nonsense, it makes no sense to say that a person without a field "could own the field themselves". That's just fucking stupid.

You don't own a field but in principle you could. How is that stupid?


And inequality is the fundamental basis of private property, if one person has and the other person as not, then that's unequal.

You're over there and I'm over here thus we are unequal. It all depends on what idiotic way you want to use the word "equal" today.

Free markets are not "based on" inequality of wealth (a phrase which doesn't even make sense without a price structure. They are based on private property. Any distribution of incomes is logically compatible with this.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The absence of a foot is a block to running. The absence of a chair is a block to sitting down comfortably. The absence of an open door is a block to getting out.

The absence of general healthcare is a block for the poor achieving what those rich enough to pay for it can achieve. Look at the history of the NHS, and then fuck off and die you fascist scumbag. OK?

Vas.
hmmm
someone's getting testy
This isn't a fault of the healthcare/welfare, these are human limits. They aren't societally based, they are human based, just as all the other examples you listed. I suppose my not having wings is a block to my being able to fly, but I don't blame that on anything except reality- humans don't come with wings, and it's not a birth-given right.
and I believe that's flaming...and it certainly doesn't make you look anymore intelligent...and on top of that, I figured a good anarchist like yourself would allow people to have differing opinions than your own, but I guess not- anyone who doesn't agree with you should die...nice philosophy :fluffle:

You don't own a field but in principle you could. How is that stupid?
no kidding...it seems obvious that we're not arguing reality, especially since they all agree that communism has never been achieved in reality. All we're arguing is theory, and in theory, you cuold own a field. (I could not, however, fly, because humans still dont have wings)

While I do agree that it's good to know what you're arguing about, I don't agree with being a hypocrite. So tell me, what have you read on capitalism?

A considerable amount when I studied it in school and in university.

and I'm assuming when you declare all of us idiots, you're including everyone else- like Letila.

Just the idiots here right now.

Vas.

you can't have an absolute rule that "individuals" decide what's best for them.
There you have it. And this is "real Anarchism"?

Where does this leave you then, pinko boy?

In theory, dumbfuck.


You don't own a field but in principle you could. How is that stupid?

Because, just because one person can own a field, doesn't mean everyone can, which is where your moronic deduction leaves you. If someone owns a field, obviously not everyone can, in principle or otherwise.


You're over there and I'm over here thus we are unequal. It all depends on what idiotic way you want to use the word "equal" today.

Economically and socially, when we're talking about socio-economic theories.

Free markets are not "based on" inequality of wealth (a phrase which doesn't even make sense without a price structure.

Rubbish. Two apples are more than three apples. Basic maths is not a "price structure", price structures are the application of maths in one way.

They are based on private property. Any distribution of incomes is logically compatible with this.

Not one that opposes private property you dimwit.

Vas.

A considerable amount when I studied it in school and in university.
well then it should be easy for you to tell me what

Just the idiots here right now.

Vas.
oh, so not letila, who frequently declares random things as the basis for capitalism even though no capitalist agrees with him, and who refuses to read material by capitalist authors because they are EVIL because the other communists say so.
(I'm only picking on Letila because I know it's true for him, and I haven't heard anyone else say something like that- though I assume it's true for most people online, whatever they believe)

There you have it. And this is "real Anarchism"?

It's impossible, you twat. Unless you can fit everyone on the planet into a space where they never affect anyone else, you can't do it. Two people want the same apple, how can you respect the wishes of both individuals?

Vas.

Look idiot, learn what you're talking about before critiquing it. Voluntary association, free assembly nobody is forced to give anything away. Christ, all of these self-appointed experts who don't know their arse from their elbows. Idiots, all of you.

Vas.


Right. I said forcing people to give things away is not anarchy. If your proposed system does not advocate this, then the statement is not directed towards you. And thus your attack on me makes no sense.

Because, just because one person can own a field, doesn't mean everyone can, which is where your moronic deduction leaves you. If someone owns a field, obviously not everyone can, in principle or otherwise.
Back in the day, everyone DID own a field- everyone sustinence farmed. Then people started thinking, well hey, if you farm for me, I can make these cooking pots for both of us, etc... (actually, that's not exactly true, since different cultures had differences...by the time the farmers had moved to the next step, other cultures were still hunter-gatherers)
I'd think if it once happened, that it is possible in theory

Right. I said forcing people to give things away is not anarchy. If your proposed system does not advocate this, then the statement is not directed towards you. And thus your attack on me makes no sense.
heh...all his partners are gone, and he's being ganged up on for once...poor kid :( :cool:

It's impossible, you twat. Unless you can fit everyone on the planet into a space where they never affect anyone else, you can't do it. Two people want the same apple, how can you respect the wishes of both individuals?

Vas.
?
well give it to the one who grew it, duh
or if someone else grew it, they should give it to either the person they value more, or the one who will pay them more

how do YOU do it?

they could share! (optimism!!)

Such élitism from the capitalists. They assume they deserve wealth while others suffer in sweatshops.

Such élitism from the capitalists. They assume they deserve wealth while others suffer in sweatshops.
Uh...

I think they assume they deserve the right to earn wealth...as do all people...

Ever read Neitzsche?

I think they assume they deserve the right to earn wealth...as do all people...

But the problem is that capitalism puts barriers in the path of most people, which is why a very small minority have billions when the average person only has 10s of thousands.

Ever read Neitzsche?

Not directly, but I wouldn't bother. He was a hardline authoritarian who valued power over everything else. The view that power is the highest goal is the anti-thesis of my morality, which values friendship and happiness the highest.

Not directly, but I wouldn't bother. He was a hardline authoritarian who valued power over everything else. The view that power is the highest goal is the anti-thesis of my morality, which values friendship and happiness the highest.
Maybe you should read it and you might understand some people's belief in capitalism because you obviously don't understand him.

Maybe you should read it and you might understand some people's belief in capitalism because you obviously don't understand him.

nietzsche isn't exactly a capitalist

nietzsche isn't exactly a capitalist

But he is, or was, really, very authoritarian and anti-egalitarian. I can't understand why so many anarchists like him.

But he is, or was, really, very authoritarian and anti-egalitarian. I can't understand why so many anarchists like him.

because he says lots of interesting things when he isn't being an aristocratic asshole. anarchists were some of his first big fans, especially in the us, and they tended to publicize the bits of his work that don't suck. and his thought was very probably influenced by the work of max stirner, who we've adopted completely, so he fits in with the philosophical tradition even if he is often at odds with it or denouncing us outright.

SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.

A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.

A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.

Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.

This sign I give unto you: every people speaketh its language of good and evil: this its neighbor understandeth not. Its language hath it devised for itself in laws and customs.

But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.

False is everything in it; with stolen teeth it biteth, the biting one. False are even its bowels.

...

There, where the state ceaseth- there only commenceth the man who is not superfluous: there commenceth the song of the necessary ones, the single and irreplaceable melody.

There, where the state ceaseth—pray look thither, my brethren! Do ye not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Superman?—

Thus spake Zarathustra.