NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Still, I think it's stupid how so many anarchists think he's so great. Marx said a lot of stuff that anarchists agree with yet is widely hated. Why does Nietzsche get a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Still, I think it's stupid how so many anarchists think he's so great. Marx said a lot of stuff that anarchists agree with yet is widely hated. Why does Nietzsche get a get-out-of-jail-free card?

the total marx hating is actually rather new - despite personal animosity and the theoretical disagreement over authority and the state, bakunin translated 'das kapital' into russian.

i don't know why so many people are willing to overlook certain parts of a work in favor of others. i personally like benjamin tucker's statement on it,

"Nietzsche says splendid things, -- often, indeed, Anarchist things, -- but he is no
Anarchist. It is of the Anarchists, then, to intellectually exploit this would-be exploiter.
He may be utilized profitably, but not prophetably."

In theory, dumbfuck.

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.

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

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.

Not tne that opposes private property you dimwit.

I'm going to start ignoring you until you either grow a brain or some tits.

the total marx hating is actually rather new - despite personal animosity and the theoretical disagreement over authority and the state, bakunin translated 'das kapital' into russian.
Even that supposed theoretical disagreement wasn't as wide a gulf as it's been portrayed. When talking about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' Marx certainly did not mean dictatorship in the modern sense but merely in a sense of "absolute". If we look at the Paris Commune we see that "dictatorship" was actually direct democracy.

I'd say the total Marx hating is down to two things. The misrepresentation of Leninism as Marxism (obviously not an issue in Bakunin's day) and in certain case the competition for membership.

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)

In most cases, people worked together on common land until someone invaded, knocked them over the head and claimed the land as their own.

Vas.

In theory, I don't think that at this point it's possible for everyone to have the same amount of income without a voluntary decision to do so. There isn't enough arable land for everyone to have their own field and still have enough land to farm to feed themselves. Certainly people could do other things, such as own factories, but that would require a surplus, one that couldn't happen if everyone was simply subsisting on their farms. I think that this could have worked 1,000 or more years ago, but I think there are just too many people nowadays. So I suppose that the only way you could achieve this is to have lots of people starve to death, which really shouldn't be the goal of any social movement.

Sorry for the rambling.

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.

Your original statement makes no sense then. No anarchic system endorses forcing people to give things away (except in terms of workers appropriating the means of production, which is a different story).

Vas.

Now we're getting somewhere. So, you no longer base your decision on the wishes and choices of the individual, but on one of two means of distribution:

well give it to the one who grew it, duh

Distribution according to labour - socialism...

or if someone else grew it, they should give it to either the person they value more,

Distribution according to personal links - hmmm, oligarchy?

or the one who will pay them more

Or distribution according to ability and willingness to pay - capitalism.

Now, how about conflicting demands? The two men are: 1. the farmer and 2. the landowner. The farmer leases the land from the rich landowner, the farmer grew the apple, but the landowner owns the land. The farmer wants to eat the apple, but the landowner says it's part of the rent. Who should get the apple?

Vas.

I'd say the total Marx hating is down to two things. The misrepresentation of Leninism as Marxism (obviously not an issue in Bakunin's day) and in certain case the competition for membership.

God, no, it's mainly down to one thing - Marxists. Marx did say a lot of useful things, but "Marxism" is a different beast. Also, the difference between Nietzsche and Marx is that the former is open to many different interpretations and proposes no system, while the latter proposes a system that anarchists oppose. Nietzsche (and I'd add Crowley in here) are about challenging modes of thought and supposedly fundamental concepts of society, Marx is all about politics.

Vas.

So I suppose that the only way you could achieve this is to have lots of people starve to death, which really shouldn't be the goal of any social movement.

Except possibly primitivism.

Vas.

For anybody interested in the successes and remaining problems in Somalia's blossoming anarcho-capitalism.

By one of the owners of the Awdal roads company.

http://www.libertariannation.libertyserver.com/a/n030d1.html

"The Answer for Africa" from Lew Rockwell's site

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/parker1.html

A summary based on extensive web research.

http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=205

More from Awdal

http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=50

I'd recommend the first 2 particularly.

God, no, it's mainly down to one thing - Marxists. Marx did say a lot of useful things, but "Marxism" is a different beast.I suspect strongly that by Marxists you're referring here again to the Leninists and their myriad (Trotskyism,Stalinism,Maoism etc) variants. Do you really have that much of a problem with people such as Gorter? Also, the difference between Nietzsche and Marx is that the former is open to many different interpretations and proposes no system, while the latter proposes a system that anarchists oppose. Nietzsche (and I'd add Crowley in here) are about challenging modes of thought and supposedly fundamental concepts of society, Marx is all about politics. I'd say Marx is as open to different interprations actually. He was a political philosopher. That doesen't mean everything he wrote can be used directly as a political blueprint. The only real difference with the anarchist system (or more specifically the class struggle anarchists) is that Marx believed that abolishing the state would take some work and anarchists believe you can get rid of it over night. That doesen't mean that Marx supported the strengtening of the state carried out by the Leninists.

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.
Oh do cry me a river, little one. You just can't stand that I have killed all of your bullshit AND have pointed out your fallacies. You can't even keep up with me! The above IS what is happening, you fucking moron. And you hate that you got caught.

Now fuck off, little one.

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.
There's google. People should learn to use it. I'm not here to teach Logic 101. If they don't know the terms--their problem, not mine.

Such élitism from the capitalists. They assume they deserve wealth while others suffer in sweatshops.
Strawman and vulcan fallacy. Try again, little one.

Oh, and if capitalists don't deserve the wealth, then you don't deserve your corneas while people have cataracts! Those people are suffering! Don't you care about them, you elitist?

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.

1.) Evolution is change.

2.) Evolution could involve the original form of the evolution of the body, technological evolution, or psychic evolution. I would prefer that we attempt to advance it on all fronts.

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.

Unfortunately, conflict and threat will probably be the source of our evolution, though I don't think it necessarily will be and it certainly would not be ideally, hence my allowing that anarcho-communism would not necessarily succumb to stagnation.

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.

In my vision of anarcho-capitalism, profit/greed would not be the primary driving force of the economy, and profit would only be a means of having an income that would sustain one. This would be due to the fact that people would ideally wake up and realize that their greed and disregard for the environment are negatively impacting our viability as a species.

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.

I quite agree. Anyway, I think I already explained this sufficiently to give you the idea of what I'm advocating in my response to your rather amusingly arrogant post in the thread entitled "Economics".

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.

Should Tim not be compensated for his work? I'm not saying he should want to make a killing off of it, just that he made a significant contribution to society and should be rewarded appropriately in a way that doesn't contribute to the impoverishment of others.

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.

Perhaps, but complacency is a common human phenomenon and has much to do with conservatism's little dictum: "It's fine the way it is." I'm just not sure that even with the incredible achievement of something like anarcho-communism, we would overcome what I like to call "human inertia". It might be that an anarcho-communistic society would overcome that complacency, and I allowed for that. My point is that I think the probability of it would be rather low, and my priorities are such that the other option sounds better to me. I know that my priorities are not necessarily better than an ancom's, and theirs are not necessarily better than mine, so I don't act all high and mighty about my preference.

All I really ask for from anarcho-communists is that they respect my ideals as I respect theirs. Is that really so hard?

Your original statement makes no sense then. No anarchic system endorses forcing people to give things away (except in terms of workers appropriating the means of production, which is a different story).
Expropriating, you mean. And it's the same thing.

Strawman and vulcan fallacy. Try again, little one.

Oh, and if capitalists don't deserve the wealth, then you don't deserve your corneas while people have cataracts! Those people are suffering! Don't you care about them, you elitist?

My corneas didn't come at the expense of people with cataracts. Your wealth did come at the expense of sweatshop workers or possibly American workers, though corporations love outsourcing.

Oh, and if capitalists don't deserve the wealth, then you don't deserve your corneas while people have cataracts! Those people are suffering! Don't you care about them, you elitist?
My corneas didn't come at the expense of people with cataracts.
Nor did the wealth of the "capitalists" come at the expense of anyone.

Still want to play games, little one? Had enough of your hypocrisy and ignorance being shown off?

Nor did the wealth of the "capitalists" come at the expense of anyone.

Hello, have you forgotten about the sweatshop workers who must work for long hours in brutal conditions for low pay? They suffer so you can get rich.

I bet you're going to give some "necessary evil" argument or maybe continue to treat sweatshop workers as an abstract value in your little theories rather than as humans who don't like working under brutal conditions.

Nor did the wealth of the "capitalists" come at the expense of anyone.

Hello, have you forgotten about the sweatshop workers
What about them? The "capitalist" is not making money at the expense of them.

Keep playing your emotive plea card. It won't work. Only logical, reasoned, well thought-out arguments are allowed. Whining is not. Tears welling in your eyes as you think of people who are working rather than starving IS NOT an argument.

Get it?

What about them? The "capitalist" is not making money at the expense of them.

They work for terrible wages in terrible conditions so the capitalists can have millions of dollars in profit.

Keep playing your emotive plea card. It won't work. Only logical, reasoned, well thought-out arguments are allowed. Whining is not. Tears welling in your eyes as you think of people who are working rather than starving IS NOT an argument.

I have found that logic is rather authoritarian. Actions do not affect us rationally, but emotionally and should be judged emotionally. Your attempts to purge emotion from the argument allow you to justify great anguish in the name of reason.

What about them? The "capitalist" is not making money at the expense of them.

You are a complete fucking moron. If someone profits on the back of someone else's work, that is making money at the expense of them because it prevents them profiting from their own work. It's fundamental mathematics - if I produce 10 pies and you take 9 of them, you are profitting from my work, at my expense because I lost 9 pies. Sweatshops were the making of capitalism, anarcho-capitalism would look like the mid-1800 before the left achieved workers' rights - the eight-hour day, the five-day week, etc.

Remember the Haymarket Martyrs, remember: captalism did not bring about the rise in living standards, they have been fought for and won by our predecessors.

Vas.

You are a complete fucking moron.

Easy there.

It's fundamental mathematics - if I produce 10 pies and you take 9 of them, you are profitting from my work, at my expense because I lost 9 pies.

Except they supplied all the raw materials and the supplies needed to make said pies. Therefore, you are profiting at their expense. If it wasn't for them, you'd have nothing.

Easy there.

No, BWAHAHAHA is a complete fucking moron.

Except they supplied all the raw materials and the supplies needed to make said pies. Therefore, you are profiting at their expense. If it wasn't for them, you'd have nothing.

How did they get them in the first place? Somewhere back along the line, something was stolen from someone else. Someone with a big stick said "This is mine, now you have to give me tribute to use it". Property is theft.

Vas.

There's google. People should learn to use it. I'm not here to teach Logic 101. If they don't know the terms--their problem, not mine.
This of course assumes that we have the time to Google every term that comes along. It is your problem. You get ignored in the end.

I feel like I'm no longer learning anything from this thread. BAAWA and Dischordiac appear to be hellbent on outdoing each other for obnoxious and arrogant remarks. Mind you, Dischordiac does at least substantiate his remarks...

Only logical, reasoned, well thought-out arguments are allowed.
That would be great. However, I see precisely NONE coming from you.

What about them? The "capitalist" is not making money at the expense of them.
They work for terrible wages in terrible conditions so the capitalists can have millions of dollars in profit.
No they don't.


Keep playing your emotive plea card. It won't work. Only logical, reasoned, well thought-out arguments are allowed. Whining is not. Tears welling in your eyes as you think of people who are working rather than starving IS NOT an argument.
I have found that logic is rather authoritarian.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Logic is the science of correct reasoning and correct identification. How the FUCK is that authoritarian? If logic is authoritarian, then so is math, because math utilizes the concepts in logic. Identity. 1 = 1. Ooooh, that's SO authoritarian. 1 != 2. Oooooh, that's so authoritarian, isn't it?

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we: you don't like logic because your entire system is based on contradictory and self-contradictory premises, and you're rather not acknowledge that. You'd rather not have to deal with your stupid system falling apart under critical scrutiny, so you say that logic is authroritarian. You know, that's the same fucking line of shit that the religiotards give for why logic can't be used for god: it's "man's logic" (as if there is some other type). It's ad hockery and ad hominem.


Actions do not affect us rationally,
Yes they do.

but emotionally and should be judged emotionally.
Emotions have causes, do they not?

Your attempts to purge emotion from the argument
Strawman.

Lemme ask you something: do you think that Meryl Streep's "What about the children" wail during the alar scare was a valid argument? If so, then there's no longer any reason to respond to you. EMOTIVE PLEAS ARE NOT ARGUMENTS, LETILA.

Let me repeat: EMOTIVE PLEAS ARE NOT ARGUMENTS. Learn it.

What about them? The "capitalist" is not making money at the expense of them.
You are a complete fucking moron.
And you're a complete fucking tosswad, but I won't hold that against you.

If someone profits on the back of someone else's work, that is making money at the expense of them because it prevents them profiting from their own work.
Non sequitur.

It's fundamental mathematics - if I produce 10 pies and you take 9 of them, you are profitting from my work, at my expense because I lost 9 pies. Sweatshops were the making of capitalism
If the USSR wasn't communist, then capitalism has never happened.
Also, sweatshops existed before you think capitalism did.

Now fuck off.

anarcho-capitalism would look like the mid-1800 before the left achieved workers' rights
The "left" didn't achieve it, and you just pulled a Letila.

The market system is the only reason for a higher standard of living.

Now stop pulling a Letila and try to use your brain for a rational argument.

Only logical, reasoned, well thought-out arguments are allowed.
That would be great. However, I see precisely NONE coming from you.
*yawn*

*wakes up*

*smells something rotten*

Ewwww, did you mess your diaper again, Eco? Dammit, I thought you were potty-trained.

There's google. People should learn to use it. I'm not here to teach Logic 101. If they don't know the terms--their problem, not mine.
This of course assumes that we have the time to Google every term that comes along.
Then you shouldn't be here, you lazy fuck. This isn't a school. Do your own fucking research. LEARN!

I feel like I'm no longer learning anything from this thread. BAAWA and Dischordiac appear to be hellbent on outdoing each other for obnoxious and arrogant remarks. Mind you, Dischordiac does at least substantiate his remarks...
No, he does not. All he's been doing is pulling a Letila and using emotive pleas.

[QUOTE=Libertovania]For anybody interested in the successes and remaining problems in Somalia's blossoming anarcho-capitalism.

By one of the owners of the Awdal roads company.

[url]http://www.libertariannation.libertyserver.com/a/n030d1.html[/urlQUOTE]

I checked out the first site, and found a couple problems with it. First off, the author mentions countries like Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti. While they do have Somali populations, they are independent countries, with governments.
The author also didn't mention Somalia's terrorist ties.
Lastly, there was a contradiction. First he stated that "Land in town tends to be subdivided" then he states that "The subdivision of property is anathema to Somali culture." Which is it?

Property is theft.
In this article, I shall confine myself to the analysis of a single principle — a single fallacy — which is rampant in the writings of the neo-mystics and without which their doctrines could not be propagated.

We call it "the fallacy of the stolen concept."

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."

"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property" — and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft" while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use "theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right — that is, as a stolen concept.

All of man's knowledge and all of his concepts have a hierarchical structure. The foundation or ultimate base of this structure is man's sensory perceptions; these are the starting points of his thinking. From these, man forms his first concepts and (ostensive) definitions — then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale. It is a process of building one identification upon another — of deriving wider abstractions from previously known abstractions, or of breaking down wider abstractions into narrower classifications. Man's concepts are derived from and depend on earlier, more basic concepts, which serve as their genetic roots. For example, the concept "parent" is presupposed by the concept "orphan"; if one had not grasped the former, one could not arrive at the latter, nor could the latter be meaningful.

The hierarchical nature of man's knowledge implies an important principle that must guide man's reasoning: When one uses concepts, one must recognize their genetic roots, one must recognize that which they logically depend on and presuppose.

Failure to observe this principle — as in "All property is theft" — constitutes the fallacy of the stolen concept.
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html

You can never escape the fact that it is a stolen concept fallacy.

Now be a good little tosswad leftist and tell me to fuck off because you've got no defense against this.

[QUOTE=BAAWA] The "left" didn't achieve it, [QUOTE]

Then who did?

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html

You can never escape the fact that it is a stolen concept fallacy.

Now be a good little tosswad leftist and tell me to fuck off because you've got no defense against this.

This goes back to the argument that I made about the Native Americans. Their land was taken from them, they were killed off, etc. The same is true for every piece of land, someone else owned it first, they were killed off, and it was taken. Therefore, all property is theft, not because property in itself is inherently theft, but because all property has been either stolen, or only acquired after stealing other property.

Much as I personally enjoy extended bouts of pointless filthy swearing, for the sake of the board rules, BAAWA and Discordiac, could you two tone it down a little?

Then you shouldn't be here, you lazy fuck. This isn't a school. Do your own fucking research. LEARN!
Do you have any comprehension of where you are? You (and you're not alone, just the worst offender) continually belittle and insult others for their failings when you are equally culpable. At least today you finally posted something to support your argument. Well done. And - shock, horror - I agree with your demolishing of Letila's anti-logic nonsense.

I feel like I'm no longer learning anything from this thread. BAAWA and Dischordiac appear to be hellbent on outdoing each other for obnoxious and arrogant remarks. Mind you, Dischordiac does at least substantiate his remarks...

Constant repetition gets wearing. I've addressed virtually everything that's been posted by "critics" of real anarchism over and over again, yet BWAHAHAH (someone stole my soother) just posts his irrational bullshit over and over again. Liberwhatever's getting as bad, posting "in principle" arguments that are physically impossible. This is supposed to be the Anarchist Thread, not the f**king moron "anarcho-t**tfaced-capitalist" troll nonsense page.

Vas.

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html

You can never escape the fact that it is a stolen concept fallacy.

Now be a good little tosswad leftist and tell me to fuck off because you've got no defense against this.

Fuck off you moron. If you knew anything about the Proudhon argument, which you've shown over and over again, it's knowingly and internally contradictory. However, this "argument" is nonsense as it is ADDRESSED within Proudhon's book (yes, a book, not a f**king slogan) in the penultimate chapter - "That property is impossible".

Thus, I need no defence against a piece of ignorant nonsense such as this.

Vas.