NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not looking for opinions here, just an explanation, and this isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know: how would a democratic government go about giving the workers the means of production? What does the principle mean in practice?

I'm not looking for opinions here, just an explanation, and this isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know: how would a democratic government go about giving the workers the means of production? What does the principle mean in practice?

It won't, that's the flaw in any form of state socialism such as Marxism. A revolution must abolish the state as it abolishes capitalism or the system will reform itself. A direct democratic system does not have government apart from the people, the people are the government.

Vas.

Ok thanks, can I hear a statist socialist's opinion on how it would be done?

Ok thanks, can I hear a statist socialist's opinion on how it would be done?

Heh, I don't know if there's many of them around! Loads of anarchists and those looney libertarians who insist on calling themselves "anarcho-capitalist".

Vas.

I'm not looking for opinions here, just an explanation, and this isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know: how would a democratic government go about giving the workers the means of production? What does the principle mean in practice?

Your moving further and further towards the right Ben. Questioning Socialism isn't allowed in my book. Mainly because the only critiscm that comes about because of it is: "COMMIE PINKO LIBERALS!!!" and other such comments, far from being constructive and helping thier cause they only help to cement the image of Conservatism as a whole. Though I doubt they even want to get rid of the image of disregarding attitudes towards Poverty, a key vote loser. Its simply too inbuilt in them that everyone has equal opportunities in life, despite the fact that a baby born in a New York slum has far less chances of suceeding (despite maybe being just as clever) as the baby born in the penthouse 5 miles away.

Ben, cease this move away from Socialism, it is annoying.


Loads of anarchists and those looney libertarians who insist on calling themselves "anarcho-capitalist".

Libertarian Socialism is the way forward.

Ben, cease this move away from Socialism, it is annoying.


Libertarian Socialism is the way forward.

But his question is a valid one, and one to which statist socialists increasingly have no proper answer to. Marxist-Leninism, by far the largest of the Marxist sects, is in the midst of a severe crisis of identity at the moment, here in the UK at least, because it simply doesn't make sense. We all know the history well enough not to buy their revisions and no-one is really stupid enough to try the Bolshevik path again.

Vas.

I was joking you fool, he is a member of the Liberal Democrat party, the most socialist mainstream party in Britain. He isn't one of you capitalists.

Actually, i'm still considering leaving, because there is too much of the libertarian streak left in their underlying philosophy. But seriously, I actually want to know how it would work - I'm not posing the question as an attempt to put down socialism, I don't know enough about the subject and I'm trying to educate myself.

NWV, please don't insult people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think actually Dischordiac is about as far from capitalist as it gets - aren't you an anarchist in the anticapitalist sense?

I was joking you fool, he is a member of the Liberal Democrat party, the most socialist mainstream party in Britain. He isn't one of you capitalists.

Who are you calling a capitalist, ya dumb bollix? I'm an anarchist. How the hell am I supposed to pick up on in-jokes, eh?

And as for the LibDems being "socialist", all I've got to say is "my arse". They are, however, the "party most likely to promise to be all things to all men because we know we're not going to win an election any time soon".

Vas.

Actually, i'm still considering leaving, because there is too much of the libertarian streak left in their underlying philosophy. But seriously, I actually want to know how it would work - I'm not posing the question as an attempt to put down socialism, I don't know enough about the subject and I'm trying to educate myself.

NWV, please don't insult people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think actually Dischordiac is about as far from capitalist as it gets - aren't you an anarchist in the anticapitalist sense?

All Politics and parties are nucleated around the same political/economic system in this country, there is no need to bring up theoretical situations that will never happen in the current political climate and expect a rational answer. Its like asking what will happen to the Conservative Party when the World Ends.

I'm dissapointed Ben, but if you want to join the NAZI Party with Michael Howard and his merry men it is really your choice.

NWV, please don't insult people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think actually Dischordiac is about as far from capitalist as it gets - aren't you an anarchist in the anticapitalist sense?

Yes, but please don't start listening to those crazy merkins and their anarcho-capitalism rubbish. The only kind of anarchist is an anti-capitalist anarchist, if you say any different, I'll send Class War around to kick your LibDem bottom ;)

This coming from a recent member of said party :rolleyes:

Do you really think I'd dump the LibDems for being too capitalist and not liberal enough, only to go to the Tories? I joined them because they seem to have the most leftwing policies of all three parties, but they were never left wing enough for me. The problem is choosing where to strike the balance between being realistic (in that nobody further left than the LibDems will have any power any time in the near future) and being true to my ideals, which are way further left than even the fringe of the mainstream.

Yes, but please don't start listening to those crazy merkins and their anarcho-capitalism rubbish. The only kind of anarchist is an anti-capitalist anarchist, if you say any different, I'll send Class War around to kick your LibDem bottom ;)

What always confuses me about "anarcho-capitalists" is how they hope to stop someone raising an army and imposing a dictatorship.

Heh, I don't know if there's many of them around! Loads of anarchists and those looney libertarians who insist on calling themselves "anarcho-capitalist".

Grow up, little one.

What always confuses me about "anarcho-capitalists" is how they hope to stop someone raising an army and imposing a dictatorship.

That question could be asked of all anarchists, couldn't it?

Well, to an extent, but don't anticapitalist anarchists believe in communities organising in an uncoerced and non-hierarchical manner? So the communities could unite to beat off such an attack, whereas in anarcho-capitalism it'd just be whichever power-crazed corporate boss had the most money for wepaons and soldiers?

Well, to an extent, but don't anticapitalist anarchists believe in communities organising in an uncoerced and non-hierarchical manner? So the communities could unite to beat off such an attack, whereas in anarcho-capitalism it'd just be whichever power-crazed corporate boss had the most money for wepaons and soldiers?

Exactly.

Well, to an extent, but don't anticapitalist anarchists believe in communities organising in an uncoerced and non-hierarchical manner? So the communities could unite to beat off such an attack, whereas in anarcho-capitalism it'd just be whichever power-crazed corporate boss had the most money for wepaons and soldiers?
Is there such a thing as an Anarcho-Capitalist and if there is, who (s)he please stand up...

.
Libertarian Socialism is the way forward.

Libertarian Socialism is impossible. I'm a socialist, but how do you expect socialism to work while allowing people complete political freedom? Many people are greedy, so without government to control them, socialism is not possible.

Socialist libertarian is a crazy combo. I am a socialist so like a big, fat and juicy goverment whereas libertarians want a small, slim one.

The mechanism used previously can be examined in the post-Franco handling of the Cadiz shipyards. I'm not really up on how it worked but a google search of Cadiz amarcho syndicalist cnt should give one a fair idea of a system which has worked for giving ownership of the means of production to the workers. Alternatively one could accept the state socialist model of government ownership. Have to find a real socialist for more insight, but take a look at the Spanish example.

Socialist libertarian is a crazy combo. I am a socialist so like a big, fat and juicy goverment whereas libertarians want a small, slim one.

Libertarian socialism is about having the economy controlled by everyone rather than the government. It's a good idea.

Is there such a thing as an Anarcho-Capitalist and if there is, who (s)he please stand up...

No because capitalism is simply not compatable with anarchism. It's too hierarchial.

Libertarian socialism is about having the economy controlled by everyone rather than the government. It's a good idea.


It is a good idea... but it's still impossible. As I said, people are greedy. Socialism does not work if you let greedy people control the economy. They get rich, and everyone else is poor. How is that in any way socialism?

It is a good idea... but it's still impossible. As I said, people are greedy. Socialism does not work if you let greedy people control the economy. They get rich, and everyone else is poor. How is that in any way socialism?

People aren't greedy so much as selfish. Greed is just a manifestation of selfishness in a price-based economy. If there was no money, people would be interested in social esteem or something else.

There isn't any innate desire to want money and even if there were, it wouldn't crash anarchism. Afterall, the average person never gets rich, but that doesn't seem to matter. For the vast majority of people, wealth is unattainable.

People aren't greedy so much as selfish. Greed is just a manifestation of selfishness in a price-based economy. If there was no money, people would be interested in social esteem or something else.

There isn't any innate desire to want money and even if there were, it wouldn't crash anarchism. Afterall, the average person never gets rich, but that doesn't seem to matter. For the vast majority of people, wealth is unattainable.

Even still, in an ideal socialist society, "selfishness" doesn't work either. Everyone should be treated equally, not just with money, and everyone should be given the equal chance to learn and help society as best they can.

I'm sorry but I really do not see how it is possible for socialism to work without government. Without government, the next most powerful things are corporations. And what do corporations want? To get rich, at the expense of everyone else.

Anarcho Capitalism is often associated with (American) Libertarianism because they share many of the same sources for their ideals and the current crop of anarcho capitalists and the name came out of that movement (you might think of it as (American) Libertarianism on steroids and that should give you a rough idea of anarcho-capitalism). The primary theme for anarcho-capitalists is that government is consenual and only legitimate insofar as the members agree to its legitimacy. The secondary theme which distingushes them from hard anarchists is that they have a strong concept of property rights, most in fact think of all rights in terms of property rights (this is what makes them capitalist, not hierarchies). Since I just brought up hierarchies, one of the interesting points is that most anarcho capitalists will in fact agree that one can voluntary submit onself to the control of others, even sell oneself into slavery, a concept most hard anarchists find absurd. Its roots go back at least to the Spoonerists of the 1850s although I'm sure Letila will deny this. Look to LewROckwell for more info on this charming group.


*** I forgot to mention annother charming feature of anarcho capitalists, their rejection of equality. One of their central themes is that all men are created unequal. There is a fair ammount of discussion about this on some AC sites and it's amusing to see how some of them handle the concept.***

Grow up, little one.

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Vas.

Is there such a thing as an Anarcho-Capitalist and if there is, who (s)he please stand up...

There are a bunch of crazed laissez faire capitalists who've swallowed the linguistic trick played by a bunch of Austrians. This trick is: you can destroy your opponent by adopting their language and applying it to the opposite. It's something the Catholic Church pioneered by adopting much of the language and traditions of its pagan predecessors and calling them Christian. These Austrians put forward a contradictory view that individualist anarchist ideas could be wedded to free market fundamentalism. They can't, the individualist anarchists were as opposed to capitalism as the communists, though they did have more libertarian views of the freedom of the individual (in fact, libertarianism was originally simply another term for individualist anarchism, as opposed to its current small government/big business form).

It's a deliberate oxymoron, an attempt to destroy anarchism by claiming that it can be matched with that which it opposes and that the fundamental opposition to capitalism is unimportant, when, in fact, the opposition to the state is completely intertwined with opposition to capitalism. The state is nothing more than the enforcer of capitalism. Social advances haven't changed that fact - free healthcare was introduced, not due to concern for the sick (though that may have been the view of those who proposed it), but because the elites realised that it would provide them with a broader base of healthy workers. Improvements in the standard of living of people in the West has gone hand in hand with the growth of consumerism. Most drugs are bad because some drugs are profitable (alcohol). And so on, and so forth.

Vas.

Libertarian Socialism is impossible. I'm a socialist, but how do you expect socialism to work while allowing people complete political freedom? Many people are greedy, so without government to control them, socialism is not possible.

If people are greedy, you prefer a system where you give the greediest (politicians) power to exploit everyone else? That makes sense.

Vas.

Even still, in an ideal socialist society, "selfishness" doesn't work either. Everyone should be treated equally, not just with money, and everyone should be given the equal chance to learn and help society as best they can.

Throughout history, and in every system, people have shown that their innate "selfishness" (generally ensuring their own survival and that of their progeny) has been best served by co-operation, not competition. Competition and greed are imposed by the current capitalist system. Human are, without doubt, the most adaptable creatures on the planet, succeeding in not just surviving, but triumphing over virtually all natural conditions. As a result, humans also adapt to social systems. In a system that promotes greed and competition, they will be greedy and competitive. However, it's usually very easy to return them to their natural co-operative state. It's a simple fact of proving that co-operation is more rewarding than competition. Unions are a perfect example, when it's clear that those who act together can achieve more than those who try to negotiate on their own, *boom* people join up.

I'm sorry but I really do not see how it is possible for socialism to work without government. Without government, the next most powerful things are corporations. And what do corporations want? To get rich, at the expense of everyone else.

That's what's wrong with the idea of "anarcho-capitalism", but anarchism is opposed to capitalism as much as to the state. The reality is that the corporations need the state to defend them, because corporations aren't huge beasts, they're made up of people. If the people revolt and overthrow the government and take over the factories, what are corporations going to do? They can't send in the police or the army, the footsoldiers of capitalism, because the state, with all its infrastructure, has been abolished. It may try to use its private security firms, but, if the revolution is truly successful, their workers will have changed sides. All you'll be left with are the fat bloated proprietors and capitalists, who would be no match for the mass of workers.

Vas.

I'm not looking for opinions here, just an explanation, and this isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know: how would a democratic government go about giving the workers the means of production? What does the principle mean in practice?

All the capitalists would be rounded up and executed. The proletariat will cheer momentarily, attempt to run things and after a few years everything will just go to crap. The proletariat will blame everyone and everything for the collapse except themselves. Eventually, the whole of society will break down into several factions trying to kill each other and gain control. The end result will be either everyone being enslaved in a totalitarian regieme, in which people spend 16 hours a day ploughing fields and worshipping the regieme, or a complete collapse of society, in which everyone is reduced to picking nuts and berries to survive.

Its roots go back at least to the Spoonerists of the 1850s although I'm sure Letila will deny this. I'd reject it. Spooner's views on capitalism: "... almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labour of others." - Poverty: It's Illegal Causes and Legal cure. I think you've been taken in by the 'anarcho'-capitalists attempts to pretend they've got a political ancestry, as opposed to being the invention of right wing economists and university professors.

The proletariat will cheer momentarily, attempt to run things and after a few years everything will just go to crap. I love the writing off of the majority of the people in society here. Anyone who denies the existence of the class war should read this post.

If people are greedy, you prefer a system where you give the greediest (politicians) power to exploit everyone else? That makes sense.

Vas.

Politicians are greedier than corporations??? Not likely...

Throughout history, and in every system, people have shown that their innate "selfishness" (generally ensuring their own survival and that of their progeny) has been best served by co-operation, not competition. Competition and greed are imposed by the current capitalist system. Human are, without doubt, the most adaptable creatures on the planet, succeeding in not just surviving, but triumphing over virtually all natural conditions. As a result, humans also adapt to social systems. In a system that promotes greed and competition, they will be greedy and competitive. However, it's usually very easy to return them to their natural co-operative state. It's a simple fact of proving that co-operation is more rewarding than competition. Unions are a perfect example, when it's clear that those who act together can achieve more than those who try to negotiate on their own, *boom* people join up.

It really would be nice if that would happen, but I don't believe it's true. If it were true that all humans are born as co-operative creatures who would rather work together to succeed, then why, after the fall of Rome, where it was an anarchy, did we form a system where there were both rich and poor? I believe that some (not all) humans are born with the desire to get as rich as possible in order to live as comfortably as possible. It is the human instinct to survive at all costs.

Don't get me wrong, I AM a socialist. I don't want to ALLOW those people to get rich. You're right though, maybe after 150 years or so of a Democratic Socialist state, Libertarian Socialism COULD be possible. But good luck with that.

It really would be nice if that would happen, but I don't believe it's true. If it were true that all humans are born as co-operative creatures who would rather work together to succeed, then why, after the fall of Rome, where it was an anarchy, did we form a system where there were both rich and poor? I believe that some (not all) humans are born with the desire to get as rich as possible in order to live as comfortably as possible. It is the human instinct to survive at all costs.

First, that wasn't anarchy. Second, the culture at the time was strongly hierarchial. These people had never read anything discouraging authority and couldn't be expected to question something they had lived with all their lives.

First, that wasn't anarchy. Second, the culture at the time was strongly hierarchial. These people had never read anything discouraging authority and couldn't be expected to question something they had lived with all their lives.

I disagree, the Dark Ages were pretty much anarchy. After the fall of Rome for a period of time, there was no government or ruler. What do you call that? Well I call it anarchy.

Eventually, it developed into fudal system. Why would it have done that if those people, given the chance to work together to achieve shared wealth, would, as you said, take that opportunity?

I'd reject it. Spooner's views on capitalism: "... almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labour of others." - Poverty: It's Illegal Causes and Legal cure. I think you've been taken in by the 'anarcho'-capitalists attempts to pretend they've got a political ancestry, as opposed to being the invention of right wing economists and university professors. I knew someone would bring this line up. The primary differnce between Spooner's views and those of the hard anarchists deals with private property. Spooner strongly believed that individuals could own the means of proiduction and have full enjoyment of this property (look to his defintions of wealth and property), to the exclusion of all others. Hard anarchists however believe that whosoever can utilize a given property has the right to that property, the right to property does not come from ownership but from instead from ability to use property. While Spooner would reject the Anarcho-Capitalist idea that anyone can enter into any contract with someone else (especially slavery), he grants the right of the owner of property (capital) to recieve a fair price for the use of that capital (I believe the early part of "Poverty" goes into fair interest on loans and if not look to "Our Bankers: Thier Ignorance, Usurpations and Frauds"), ie capitalism.

These are dividing points for streams of anarchist thought, first is there a right to ownership and second is mere ownership sufficent to be rewarded. Most hard anarchists come from those schools of thought which have rejected private ownwership and the rest have rejected the idea that ownership alone is a basis for reward, so Spooner is unacceptable to them (if they bother to actually read him). Spooner's works and those of the people who followed Spooner's concepts of the right to private property and the right to rewards for ownership eventually wound up influencing those chunks of the (American) Libertarian movemment which split off to start the anarcho-capitalists.

Sorry for the hurry, and uncalrity but I have to rush this.

Using the same methods the capitalists stole the land from the workers to regain the land for the workers...

Bwahahahahahaha! Irony! Bwahahahahahaha!

I disagree, the Dark Ages were pretty much anarchy. After the fall of Rome for a period of time, there was no government or ruler. What do you call that? Well I call it anarchy.

Eventually, it developed into fudal system. Why would it have done that if those people, given the chance to work together to achieve shared wealth, would, as you said, take that opportunity?

It didn't "develop" into a feudal system, the feudal system was imposed by force rather than developing organically. The Normans, in particular, under orders from the Vatican, brought feudalism to major areas of Western Europe.

And, even in between, the Irish and Scots, the Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, the Franks, etc, had their own hierarchical structure. There may not have been one single ruler of countries, but there were definitely tribal leaders and chieftains.

Vas.

In compulsory direct democracy we'd have 2 parties the capitalists and the laborers (at least concerning this issue) The laboring class always has been and always will be larger than the capitalist class. What we'd have is lets say the capitalist party saying, we know what's best for you! We can feed you consumerism and you'll like it. You'll have enough to survive and probably even more to feed your fetish for commodities. Which is what democrats and republicans say today...

Then we'd have the laborers saying we need equality in income, we need to stop people dying while others live in excess and we need to ....

Their voice would be squelched by the capitalists because they have the power (money). Now if there was equal voice. And the laborers got to finish their speech they'd probably ask for a marxist economy. Which of course the majority of people would deny because living in a capitalist society people don't know anything else. The attack from the capitalist party would be so strong and so pervasive (once again because they have the money). That you wouldn't be able to escape it.

So that's why marxists conclude that there is no "democratic" or government way to get equality in production/distribution/income. And we have to revolt.

I'm not looking for opinions here, just an explanation, and this isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know: how would a democratic government go about giving the workers the means of production? What does the principle mean in practice?

I don't see why everyone has such a hard time reconciling democracy and socialism (except in America, where they are taught that Communism is bad because it is anti-christian, creating strong left/right polarity).

Transition of means of production to workers is simple, the workers just assume the means of production - but this doesn't happen, and for two very good reasons:

1) It requires a democracy - and there is no pure democracy. The UK is basically a Constitutional Monarchy, the US is basically a Federal Republic, and who knows what the French are with their weird hybrid government...

A true democracy would require that every person had a say (or at least, the option) on any given issue - and that all voices would be equal. Obviously, this would be an administrative nightmare, and is why 'democratic' societies elect representatives

2) In our "True Democracy", every individual would have to be in favour of a socialist revision, in order for the new order to occur. Theoretically, small collectives could impose consensual socialisms (and do - in the form of co-operatives), but for a whole society to peacefully transition to the socialist model, that society would have to have no dissenting voices.


One more point: off topic, I know, but everyone else is talking Anarchy - and there is a very good reason why there are no Anarchic states:

e.g. "We now declare ourselves the Free Anarchic State of England............. oh look, here comes the French Army......"
"Let's all get together and fight them!!!!"
"Stop giving me orders, I don't have to do what you tell me!"
"Please? Please, let's get together and fight them... no bosses, all as equals?"
"Okay..... what now?"
SPLAT
"We now declare ourselves the Annexed State of French England"...

I'm not looking for opinions here, just an explanation, and this isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know: how would a democratic government go about giving the workers the means of production? What does the principle mean in practice?

well well, lots of anarchism, but no state socialists around to answer. pity. well, i guess i can pretend to be one for a bit. bear in mind that all of this is 'in theory' and i'm actually an anarchist.

there are several paths i could imagine a democratic government taking to realize the principle of worker ownership/control. one would be for the state to take ownership of capital property - either from absentee owners or through forced buy-outs or just because they can - but to leave the actual day-to-day running of things to the people who work there. this actually has happened in several places, though it certainly wasn't done on the initiative of the state. more like the state playing catch up with the actual events on the ground.

another, more statist version would again have the state owning the means of production but also having people (in general or at that particular enterprise) elect their managers and directors and such. this would be more of an indirect form of worker control, but i can see some people going for it.

there are probably a lot of variations on this sort of theme, but they will all more or less rely on the state taking owwership of the means of production and eventually transfering control of it to some form of democratic workers' organization.

of course, i personally don't trust them to ever really take that second step...

I don't see why everyone has such a hard time reconciling democracy and socialism (except in America, where they are taught that Communism is bad because it is anti-christian, creating strong left/right polarity).

Transition of means of production to workers is simple, the workers just assume the means of production - but this doesn't happen, and for two very good reasons:

1) It requires a democracy - and there is no pure democracy. The UK is basically a Constitutional Monarchy, the US is basically a Federal Republic, and who knows what the French are with their weird hybrid government...

A true democracy would require that every person had a say (or at least, the option) on any given issue - and that all voices would be equal. Obviously, this would be an administrative nightmare, and is why 'democratic' societies elect representatives

2) In our "True Democracy", every individual would have to be in favour of a socialist revision, in order for the new order to occur. Theoretically, small collectives could impose consensual socialisms (and do - in the form of co-operatives), but for a whole society to peacefully transition to the socialist model, that society would have to have no dissenting voices.


One more point: off topic, I know, but everyone else is talking Anarchy - and there is a very good reason why there are no Anarchic states:

e.g. "We now declare ourselves the Free Anarchic State of England............. oh look, here comes the French Army......"
"Let's all get together and fight them!!!!"
"Stop giving me orders, I don't have to do what you tell me!"
"Please? Please, let's get together and fight them... no bosses, all as equals?"
"Okay..... what now?"
SPLAT
"We now declare ourselves the Annexed State of French England"...

But what you described before putting down anarchy sounded a lot like what I understand to be anarchy - socialism achieved through consensual Direct Democracy

A true democracy would require that every person had a say (or at least, the option) on any given issue - and that all voices would be equal. Obviously, this would be an administrative nightmare, and is why 'democratic' societies elect representatives.

The EZLN and Indigenous Autonomous Municipalities (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/auto_munc.html).

e.g. "We now declare ourselves the Free Anarchic State of England............. oh look, here comes the French Army......"
"Let's all get together and fight them!!!!"
"Stop giving me orders, I don't have to do what you tell me!"
"Please? Please, let's get together and fight them... no bosses, all as equals?"
"Okay..... what now?"
SPLAT
"We now declare ourselves the Annexed State of French England"...

There is a certain amount of historical validity to this, but I ask you, if the Bush cabal decided tomorrow that there wasn't going to be another election, that the US was now a dictatorship and they were going to annex Canada and Mexico, could anyone stop them? I regard the lack of the ability to organise militarily as being something positive in anarchism. So an anarchist society would probably lose a war with a modern army, shit, so would France (again). France is a fabulous country with great culture and beautiful cities despite being militarily rubbish.

Vas.

In my state, the deficient worker is given the bare minimum wages needed for survival for a period of time or until he improves. This is what bugs me about capitalists; they argue the welfare is a drain to productivity; On what day will you get up and say, "I don't want to go to work today. I'll just take the measely gov't handouts"?

In my state, the deficient worker is given the bare minimum wages needed for survival for a period of time or until he improves. This is what bugs me about capitalists; they argue the welfare is a drain to productivity; On what day will you get up and say, "I don't want to go to work today. I'll just take the measely gov't handouts"?

Speaking as someone who has been unemployed for two lenghty periods due to inability to find work, it SUCKS. Drawing unemployment benefit is soul-destroying and seriously depressing. It is not, usually, an attractive option. So much so that, the second time, I didn't go looking for any kind of welfare the second time until I really had to.

Vas.

I disagree, the Dark Ages were pretty much anarchy. After the fall of Rome for a period of time, there was no government or ruler. What do you call that? Well I call it anarchy.

Eventually, it developed into fudal system. Why would it have done that if those people, given the chance to work together to achieve shared wealth, would, as you said, take that opportunity?

Hello, haven't you heard of the Catholic Church suppressing heretical views? There was nothing anarchistic about that time.

Hello, haven't you heard of the Catholic Church suppressing heretical views? There was nothing anarchistic about that time.

Hey, my alter-ego finally showed up!

Hello, haven't you heard of the Catholic Church suppressing heretical views? There was nothing anarchistic about that time.

Having Easter at the wrong time was enough for the Vatican to sic the Normans on your ass.

Vas.

I knew someone would bring this line up. The primary differnce between Spooner's views and those of the hard anarchists deals with private property. Spooner strongly believed that individuals could own the means of proiduction and have full enjoyment of this property (look to his defintions of wealth and property), to the exclusion of all others. Hard anarchists however believe that whosoever can utilize a given property has the right to that property, the right to property does not come from ownership but from instead from ability to use property. While Spooner would reject the Anarcho-Capitalist idea that anyone can enter into any contract with someone else (especially slavery), he grants the right of the owner of property (capital) to recieve a fair price for the use of that capital (I believe the early part of "Poverty" goes into fair interest on loans and if not look to "Our Bankers: Thier Ignorance, Usurpations and Frauds"), ie capitalism.

These are dividing points for streams of anarchist thought, first is there a right to ownership and second is mere ownership sufficent to be rewarded. Most hard anarchists come from those schools of thought which have rejected private ownwership and the rest have rejected the idea that ownership alone is a basis for reward, so Spooner is unacceptable to them (if they bother to actually read him). Spooner's works and those of the people who followed Spooner's concepts of the right to private property and the right to rewards for ownership eventually wound up influencing those chunks of the (American) Libertarian movemment which split off to start the anarcho-capitalists. While I'd concur that Spooner's politics had more in common with the rugged individualism of Tucker then he did with Kroptokin, I think it's a step too far to put him in the anarcho'-capitalist camp. He would have had nothing to do with it. His views on capitalist society can be seen clearly in his letter to Cleveland-

"All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."

In Natural Law he sets out his views on landowning (a central plank in the Libertarian's platform):

"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them."

The EZLN and Indigenous Autonomous Municipalities (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/auto_munc.html).


There is a certain amount of historical validity to this, but I ask you, if the Bush cabal decided tomorrow that there wasn't going to be another election, that the US was now a dictatorship and they were going to annex Canada and Mexico, could anyone stop them? I regard the lack of the ability to organise militarily as being something positive in anarchism. So an anarchist society would probably lose a war with a modern army, shit, so would France (again). France is a fabulous country with great culture and beautiful cities despite being militarily rubbish.

Vas.

Okay, the EZLN... what about them? Apart from being an example of the corruption that is democracy... they elect 'tribal' leaders - so even they don't have true democracy - or is this an argument for anarchy? If you think the 'passive resistance' stance persuasive, the only reason it has lasted is because Mexico lacks sufficient drive (and maybe resources) to wage an internal war. If they wanted EZLN land badly enough, it would all be over.

Oh, and while on the subject - calling yourself 'autonomous' and BEING autonomous are two very different things. You can bet that if there were to be some manner of epidemic in EZLN land, they would be only too ready to want access to Mexican hospitals, medicines and aid. It seems most people who 'opt out' of a society are quite ready to 'opt in' again when they want something.

Sure - if Bush invaded Canada and Mexico, assuming they didn't put up too stiff a resistence, there is not much that could be done to stop him.

With you so far, and agree that the ability to organise a military, and to make war is not necessarily a "good thing".

However - if Bush decided to make the USA into a collection of Anarchist states, the immediate repercussions would be the fragmentation of the union, and the disintegration of "American" military potential. I don't think it would be long before someone decided to step in and mop up those pockets of resistence - especially since the USA has been progressively disarming it's citizens for the last few years...

Maybe anarchy is a good idea - but unless it was done multi-laterally (pan-laterally, even) the big dogs remaining would quickly finish off anyone foolhardy enough to try it.

But what you described before putting down anarchy sounded a lot like what I understand to be anarchy - socialism achieved through consensual Direct Democracy

Anarchy is the complete lack of government. "An" + "archos", literally, without a leader.

You can mess around with semantics all you like, and people seem quite keen to do so when they want to coin a new phrase, or come up with a buzzword for their pet concept, but you cannot have an anarchist government. It is a nonsense.

Taken to it's root - you cannot actually have an anarchy of more than one person, since any congregation of persons will require some measure of control - even if it is just the rules of social and official engagement. Once you start adding a level of government - even one elected unanimously by your 'anarchists', you no longer have an anarchy.

I have seen Anarchism used as a term to describe interactions of self-governing collectives, outside of control of a state. This definition falls down on the fact that collectives need to be organised to interact, and so impose their OWN forms of internal and external governance.

And, even if you could orchestrate the interactions of trade and commerce, supply and demand, etc. without any form of control - this utopian vision is self-limiting, in that it can only maintain while everyone is happy to see it maintain. If any faction, internal or external, determines to capitalise on the inherent weakness of the model, it's sustainability crumbles.

I guess the difference between 'democratic-socialism' and 'anarchy', is that the socialists are admitting that there are still necessities for government, where 'anarchy' denies it. Sure, you can call a 'democratic-socialism' an 'anarchy', if you prefer that term... but it isn't - anymore than a rose becomes a dog, if you call it a dog.

I have seen Anarchism used as a term to describe interactions of self-governing collectives, outside of control of a state. This definition falls down on the fact that collectives need to be organised to interact, and so impose their OWN forms of internal and external governance.

Without violence or the threat of violence, they have no real power. The ability to force others to do what you want is what defines authority, not organization.

Without violence or the threat of violence, they have no real power. The ability to force others to do what you want is what defines authority, not organization.

I beg to differ. Authority is the right or power to give commands or make decisions. If a non-threatening body can make a decision (for example, an intermediate persuading two bodies to trade) or cause an action to take place (even without violence or threat), that body has 'authority'.

In creating a mechanism for trade (or just as easily, for migration, tourism or any number of other functions), certain responsibilities fall on certain individuals and organisations. The adjudication of that responsibility and that mechanism give authority to the body responsible.

As a wise philosopher once said "With great power comes great responsibility".

I beg to differ. Authority is the right or power to give commands or make decisions. If a non-threatening body can make a decision (for example, an intermediate persuading two bodies to trade) or cause an action to take place (even without violence or threat), that body has 'authority'.

No, if they can't force it to happen, then they aren't authority, at least not the coersive authority that anarchists oppose.

How are their decisions enforced without force?

No, if they can't force it to happen, then they aren't authority, at least not the coersive authority that anarchists oppose.

How are their decisions enforced without force?
Some people have respect for the law. Most people don't run around committing crimes and they aren't afraid of being beaten or arrested for doing their own business.

I beg to differ. Authority is the right or power to give commands or make decisions. If a non-threatening body can make a decision (for example, an intermediate persuading two bodies to trade) or cause an action to take place (even without violence or threat), that body has 'authority'.

In creating a mechanism for trade (or just as easily, for migration, tourism or any number of other functions), certain responsibilities fall on certain individuals and organisations. The adjudication of that responsibility and that mechanism give authority to the body responsible.

As a wise philosopher once said "With great power comes great responsibility".

There is a difference between coercive authority (enforced by the threat of violence) and consensual authority (such as that based on specialist knowledge, for example medicine). Anarchist oppose the former, but not the latter. As long as an individual is free to accept or decline the authority of any person or group, then that's fine. If I go to a doctor and choose to ignore his advice, then I'm free to reject his authority. However, if a policeman tells me to do something and I choose to ignore his order, then I'll be arrested.

There would, of course, be a need for some form of social control to deal with anti-social activities such as murder, rape, etc, but how that would be done is a question it's impossible to answer. It's not contradictory, however, to say that a free society without a state or formal laws would have some system to deal with murder or rape, or other activities deemed to be socially unacceptable. The fundamental concept of anarchist relations is "You can do what you like as long as that doesn't interfere with anyone else doing what they like" - if you kill someone, you have destroyed their freedom to do what they like and have therefore violated the social consensus, sacrificing your own freedom.

What there's unlikely to be is a formalised legal structure with judges and lawyers, etc. Trial by jury isn't, for me, a big problem. In the case of someone violating another's freedom, a jury should be brought together to listen to the evidence available and make a judgement and a ruling on punishment. Note: this is simply my idea of how it might work, not any kind of rulebook.

Vas.

Some people have respect for the law. Most people don't run around committing crimes and they aren't afraid of being beaten or arrested for doing their own business.

Actually, I don't buy that. Anyone who has respect simply for the law is afraid of the the consequences. That's completely different to a moral or ethical agreement with the principle of the law. Most people don't restrain themselves from murdering because the law tells them not to, they do it because they think it's wrong. In contrast, many people refrain from taking drugs, not because they don't want to, but because they run the risk of being arrested.

Vas.

Okay, the EZLN... what about them? Apart from being an example of the corruption that is democracy... they elect 'tribal' leaders - so even they don't have true democracy - or is this an argument for anarchy?

The EZLN system is their own form of direct democracy. Yes, the elect tribal "leaders", but these are not leaders in the representative sense of liberal democracy, they are delegates charged with carrying out the will of the people. They can be withdrawn at any state if they deviate from that will. Delegate democracy is perfectly acceptable to many anarchists if it is on that basis - a delegate is elected to voice the agreed wishes and views of those who elected them - they can be instantly withdrawn if they deviate unacceptably from that and their deviation erased.

If you think the 'passive resistance' stance persuasive, the only reason it has lasted is because Mexico lacks sufficient drive (and maybe resources) to wage an internal war. If they wanted EZLN land badly enough, it would all be over.

More and more, I think it is. The world is a very different place to how it was even 20 years ago. The accessibility of the media, the number of powerful campaign organisations means that it's very difficult for a government like Mexico's to carry out the kind of military action that would be required to destroy the Zapatistas. The international support the EZLN has built is phenomenal.

Oh, and while on the subject - calling yourself 'autonomous' and BEING autonomous are two very different things. You can bet that if there were to be some manner of epidemic in EZLN land, they would be only too ready to want access to Mexican hospitals, medicines and aid. It seems most people who 'opt out' of a society are quite ready to 'opt in' again when they want something.

That's just nonsense. If someone from the UK needs treatment that's only available in France, does that mean the UK's no longer a sovereign country? Declaring a separate state is not the same as "opting out" of society, it's about trying to create a space where you can choose your own society. That doesn't mean that you no longer want anything to do with outside.

Sure - if Bush invaded Canada and Mexico, assuming they didn't put up too stiff a resistence, there is not much that could be done to stop him.

With you so far, and agree that the ability to organise a military, and to make war is not necessarily a "good thing".

However - if Bush decided to make the USA into a collection of Anarchist states, the immediate repercussions would be the fragmentation of the union, and the disintegration of "American" military potential. I don't think it would be long before someone decided to step in and mop up those pockets of resistence - especially since the USA has been progressively disarming it's citizens for the last few years...

Firstly, with the disintegration of the military, then it would be possible to defend them. By your logic, the American revolution was impossible, the Irish war of independence, etc. Anarchists can make very good guerrillas.

Maybe anarchy is a good idea - but unless it was done multi-laterally (pan-laterally, even) the big dogs remaining would quickly finish off anyone foolhardy enough to try it.

Not necessarily, you've got to ask if they'd be bothered? To go back to the example of the Irish war of independence, the British Army could have won in 1922. They decided not to, because the devastation they would have to unleash to destroy the guerilla movement was not worth it. If you set up an anarchist commune in an Iraqi oil field or on top of Sierra Leonean diamond mine, then yes, you risk attack. If you did it on a remote Greek island...

Vas.

OK, Dischordiac, now you're really making me regret my comment in the other thread!

I don't think a revolution is a practical way of bringing about change. I suspect/hope that we'll evolve towards an anarchist society, preferably of the flavour that you describe as genuine anarchy.

With regards to the original question posed by _Myopia_, I guess that depends on how socialism is defined. Though I regard myself as left-wing and borderline anti-capitalist (I'm a bit hazy, in case you hadn't already realised), I don't feel like I'm a socialist. So, in order to answer the question, I'd really like to see a definition of socialism that we can agree on.

Oh, crap. Hope I haven't just triggered another Judean People's Front scenario.

Lol. What I want to know is not whether you endorse handing control of the means of production to the workers or whether you support socialism (the thread title only references socialism because I assumed that generally, handing over control of the means of production is part of socialist ideas, so i wanted to catch socialists' attention since I assumed they'd be best placed to answer my question), it's how you think it would be done by a representative democratic government if it was to be done. So far, I have heard:

It can't be done - you have to abolish the state
They would kill all the capitalists, then the utopain vision would collapse in fairly short order
The government takes control of it and gradually hands ownership and control over to the democratic will of the workers
The government owns the means of production but gives control to the workers, by allowing them to run their workplaces democratically etc.


I suppose the issue that is raised by the third option is how do you define "the workers"? Do you say it is the entire population, and simply have the elected representatives make the decisions, sometimes using referenda? Or do you classify it solely as those in work? Or all people of working age (so the elderly couldn't vote on such matters)?

OK, Dischordiac, now you're really making me regret my comment in the other thread!

I don't think a revolution is a practical way of bringing about change. I suspect/hope that we'll evolve towards an anarchist society, preferably of the flavour that you describe as genuine anarchy.

Evolution can bring about a revolution. A revolution doesn't have to be storming the gates of the castle and chopping off the king's head. A revolution is simply massive social and political change. I, also, think evolution is more likely than revolution in the current circumstances (but the number one lesson of history is - don't expect this to last). However, my point was about how an anarchist society, however formed, would be able to defend itself.

Vas.

I suppose the issue that is raised by the third option is how do you define "the workers"? Do you say it is the entire population, and simply have the elected representatives make the decisions, sometimes using referenda? Or do you classify it solely as those in work? Or all people of working age (so the elderly couldn't vote on such matters)?

To give the anarchist response, the people are those who work for others, rather than those who exploit people and profit from their work. However, this means classes of people and not individuals. After the revolution, everyone would be a worker if capitalism was destroyed. Having formerly exploited people would not bar you membership of the commune.

Vas.

I tend to shy away from the whole 'get behind the workers' deal. It seems (in the UK, at least) that the working classes are the perceived vanguard of socialism and that the middle classes are either enemies or in some way not to be trusted.

Maybe I'm being a snob (though my family are working class).

Lol. What I want to know is not whether you endorse handing control of the means of production to the workers or whether you support socialism (the thread title only references socialism because I assumed that generally, handing over control of the means of production is part of socialist ideas, so i wanted to catch socialists' attention since I assumed they'd be best placed to answer my question), it's how you think it would be done by a representative democratic government if it was to be done. So far, I have heard:In my view you can't do it with a representative goverment. You'd need direct democracy- at the very least delegates as opposed to representives.
I suppose the issue that is raised by the third option is how do you define "the workers"? Do you say it is the entire population, and simply have the elected representatives make the decisions, sometimes using referenda? Or do you classify it solely as those in work? Or all people of working age (so the elderly couldn't vote on such matters)?I'd go for an option you haven't mentioned- the massive decentralisation of political power. I think the current system of nationstates is to large for direct democracy to be feasible in.

On your question about the workers. Put simply, I believe that those who work in an industry are best placed to make decisions about how that industry would be managed. This would also include the elderly, while they might have retired, they still have a wealth of discussion to bring to the discussion.

I'd also say the same about communities. Those who live within there should make the decisons on how they're run.

To sloganise at you, I'm simply calling for working class rule in working class areas.

While I'd concur that Spooner's politics had more in common with the rugged individualism of Tucker then he did with Kroptokin, I think it's a step too far to put him in the anarcho'-capitalist camp. He would have had nothing to do with it. His views on capitalist society can be seen clearly in his letter to Cleveland-

"All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."Yes, he states his views, that a capitalist society is a good thing. The break up the established oligargicies of wealth would be inevitable if only the wage slaves had access to capital which would free them from the necessity for worling for wages. This is not a statement that the existing system should be broken up and the wewalth distributed to the worlers, but a statement of the inevitable conclusion of allowing free captial will be the break up of the established system.
Earlier in the letter he speaks specifically of the need for more capital: "They need all this money capital to enable them to buy the raw materials upon which to bestow their labor, the implements and machinery with which to labor, and their means of subsistence while producing their goods for the market. Unless they can get this capital --- they must all either work at a disadvantage, or not work at all. A very large portion of them, to save themselves from starvation, have no alternative but to sell their labor to others, at just such prices as these others choose to pay. And these others choose to pay only such prices as are far below what the laborers could produce, if they themselves had the necessary capital to work with. But this needed capital your lawmakers arbitrarily forbid them to have; and for no other reason than to reduce them to the condition of servants; and subject them to all such extortions as their employers --- the holders of the privileged money --- may choose to practise upon them." This is in fact the very sort of policy so favored by the anarcho-capitalists, On Poverty could very well have been Milton Friedman instead of Spooner. The overriding theme of Spooner's (and anarcho capitalists') economics is that the greatest problem of reaching man's full productive capacity is the restrictions placed upon free usea and distribution of Capital, which if government did not distort the marketing of, would make all men free. The scheme promoted in On Poverty is fairly simple, remove the laws and restrictions on loaning money capital and money capital will become freely availible at fair rates, enabling every man acquire the means to set themself up as an independant capitalist and free themselves from wage slavery, the same ideas promulgated by the anarcho capitalists.In Natural Law he sets out his views on landowning (a central plank in the Libertarian's platform):

"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them."Actually no. For his ideas on landowning one should look to The Law of Intellectual Property: "The right of property is simply the right of dominion. It is the right , winch one man has, as against all other men , to the exclusive control, dominion, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing.
The principle of property is, that a thing belongs to one man, and not to another mine, and thine, and his, are the terms that convey the idea of property.
The word property is derived from proprius, signifying one's own. The principle of property, then, is the principle of one's personal ownership, control, and dominion, of and over any thing. The right of property is ones right of ownership, enjoyment, control, amid dominion, of and over any object, idea, or sensation.
The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the timing of which he is the proprietor. The thing belongs to him, and not to another man. He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure; and is not accountable to others for the manner in which he may use it. Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to invade, infringe, or impair the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

What the fragment from Natural Law you quote deals with is on the origin of government and it's illegitimacy. The point is not that landownership is bad, but that the robber class (government) had not only enslaved the people but confiscated all the land, and the robber class had all the land. Your line of argument is similar to taking a discourse about how propaganda is used to show that the author feels that the printing press is bad. The fact that Spooner argues that the robber class had appropriated all the land and used that as a means of control does not mean he viewed land ownership as bad, only the system which wrongly perpetuates the ownership by the robber class was bad.

The EZLN system is their own form of direct democracy. Yes, the elect tribal "leaders", but these are not leaders in the representative sense of liberal democracy, they are delegates charged with carrying out the will of the people. They can be withdrawn at any state if they deviate from that will. Delegate democracy is perfectly acceptable to many anarchists if it is on that basis - a delegate is elected to voice the agreed wishes and views of those who elected them - they can be instantly withdrawn if they deviate unacceptably from that and their deviation erased.



The only way you can have leadership, is by redefining the word anarchy. Anarchy has just become a buzzword - people throw it around with little or no regard for the actual meaning. Anarchists - by definition - resist leadership. That's what it means. And, elected or otherwise, a leader is still a leader. Most democratic governments have a mechanism where the leader can be 'removed' at any time, but most of these mechanisms actually lack the power, in most cases, to get the job done.


More and more, I think it is. The world is a very different place to how it was even 20 years ago. The accessibility of the media, the number of powerful campaign organisations means that it's very difficult for a government like Mexico's to carry out the kind of military action that would be required to destroy the Zapatistas. The international support the EZLN has built is phenomenal.



And, of course, Sudan is an example of how difficult it is for a state to engage it's own minority? Or Iraq.... "you guys have been torturing those poor Kurds for years now... if you keep doing it for another twenty years, we're gonna come over there and do something about it...."


That's just nonsense. If someone from the UK needs treatment that's only available in France, does that mean the UK's no longer a sovereign country? Declaring a separate state is not the same as "opting out" of society, it's about trying to create a space where you can choose your own society. That doesn't mean that you no longer want anything to do with outside.



But, if a nation or state, as a whole, cannot sustain it's need for (for example) medicine, is it autonomous? If the EZLN has seperated itself from taxation and control by Mexican authority, have they any right to make claims on Mexico?

Firstly, with the disintegration of the military, then it would be possible to defend them. By your logic, the American revolution was impossible, the Irish war of independence, etc. Anarchists can make very good guerrillas.



Well, the American war of independence was a pretty bad example, if you think about it, since the American and British factions were both heavily outnumbered by the number of mercenaries and freebooters involved. Sure you can put up brave resistance if you pay for your troops, but anarchists states are not necessarily going to have great wealth, or any wealth at all.

Not necessarily, you've got to ask if they'd be bothered? To go back to the example of the Irish war of independence, the British Army could have won in 1922. They decided not to, because the devastation they would have to unleash to destroy the guerilla movement was not worth it. If you set up an anarchist commune in an Iraqi oil field or on top of Sierra Leonean diamond mine, then yes, you risk attack. If you did it on a remote Greek island...



Two problems... when fighting against a guerilla force, it is impossible to acheive a 'win'. The British Army could only have 'won' in 1922 if they had killed everyone that supported independence. Afghanistan is an example of how impossible it is... the two super powers have both occupied that country, and yet their Guerilla faction is stronger now than ever.

Secondly - the remote greek island is a good idea, and probably the only way to make it truly workable... but how are you going to persuade all these 'anarchists' to relocate to a small greek island? Even WITH a lovely view...

The only way you can have leadership, is by redefining the word anarchy. Anarchy has just become a buzzword - people throw it around with little or no regard for the actual meaning. Anarchists - by definition - resist leadership. That's what it means. And, elected or otherwise, a leader is still a leader.

would you care to show me how our usage of the term is different from proudhon's or kropotkin's or malatesta's?

anarchists, by self-definition (we applied the word to ourselves) and based on its roots, are against rulers/chiefs - and this is generalized to all forms of privilege and unjust and unnecessary hierarchy. its been that way ever since we started using the word. and we always made the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of leadership and authority.

Secondly - the remote greek island is a good idea, and probably the only way to make it truly workable... but how are you going to persuade all these 'anarchists' to relocate to a small greek island? Even WITH a lovely view...

well, first we learn to speak greek. next we talk to some of the greek anarchists that have retired from active insurrection in the streets and we find out if they've already got their own island. i'm actually willing to bet they do. there are enough of them there for it.

would you care to show me how our usage of the term is different from proudhon's or kropotkin's or malatesta's?

anarchists, by self-definition (we applied the word to ourselves) and based on its roots, are against rulers/chiefs - and this is generalized to all forms of privilege and unjust and unnecessary hierarchy. its been that way ever since we started using the word. and we always made the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of leadership and authority.



well, first we learn to speak greek. next we talk to some of the greek anarchists that have retired from active insurrection in the streets and we find out if they've already got their own island. i'm actually willing to bet they do. there are enough of them there for it.

Well said, anarchists are against rulers. That's what it means. It has been applied for thousands of years, usually (BY a government) TO troublemakers, demagogues and malcontents, with a consistent meaning that they 'opposed leadership'. If modern day malcontents oppose the regime, they are anarchists - the "acceptable" or "unacceptable" nature of that regime is both irrelevant and subjective.

I wish people would say what they mean... if you want to dodge taxes and live in a commune, just say it. Don't hide behind mis-applied labels - even if you mis-apply them yourself.

Well said, anarchists are against rulers.


Hello, I'm an anarchist. You're not. Simple point: you're talking out of your arse and have no right to tell me what I do or do not believe, thank you very much.

Vas.

The only way you can have leadership, is by redefining the word anarchy. Anarchy has just become a buzzword - people throw it around with little or no regard for the actual meaning. Anarchists - by definition - resist leadership. That's what it means. And, elected or otherwise, a leader is still a leader. Most democratic governments have a mechanism where the leader can be 'removed' at any time, but most of these mechanisms actually lack the power, in most cases, to get the job done.

Anarchists oppose hierarchy and coercion, not leadership per se. Anarchism is based on free association (even the individualist anarchists agree on this), it's not, in any way, inconsistent for a commune to delegate someone to speak for it at a larger gathering. That's direct democracy, a concept central to political anarchism in action since it started.

And, of course, Sudan is an example of how difficult it is for a state to engage it's own minority?

Sudan is an example of how a corrupt state will persecute it's dirt-poor people. Sudan is an example of how Africa's history and Western meddling has completely ruined Africa.

Or Iraq.... "you guys have been torturing those poor Kurds for years now... if you keep doing it for another twenty years, we're gonna come over there and do something about it...."

Kurdistan is an example of how the Middle East's history and Western meddling has completely ruined the Middle Easst.

But, if a nation or state, as a whole, cannot sustain it's need for (for example) medicine, is it autonomous? If the EZLN has seperated itself from taxation and control by Mexican authority, have they any right to make claims on Mexico?

Yes. Chiapas is obviously not the best example, due to the fact that it is the poorest section of Mexico.

Well, the American war of independence was a pretty bad example, if you think about it, since the American and British factions were both heavily outnumbered by the number of mercenaries and freebooters involved. Sure you can put up brave resistance if you pay for your troops, but anarchists states are not necessarily going to have great wealth, or any wealth at all.

That's not the point.

Two problems... when fighting against a guerilla force, it is impossible to acheive a 'win'. The British Army could only have 'won' in 1922 if they had killed everyone that supported independence. Afghanistan is an example of how impossible it is... the two super powers have both occupied that country, and yet their Guerilla faction is stronger now than ever.

That's the whole point about a guerilla force.

Secondly - the remote greek island is a good idea, and probably the only way to make it truly workable... but how are you going to persuade all these 'anarchists' to relocate to a small greek island? Even WITH a lovely view...

Not planning to, that's just an example. There's the West of Ireland, Northern Scandinavia, numerous other regions of no strategic significance where communes oould be set up.

Vas.

Hello, I'm an anarchist. You're not. Simple point: you're talking out of your arse and have no right to tell me what I do or do not believe, thank you very much.

Vas.

Perhaps we are redefining anarchist to mean 'people who use abusive language if they don't like the direction the discussion takes'.

What do you think?

I was quoting "soviets", but I didn't see you launching in on him... this is the humourous situation of anarchists sticking together, no?

I'll make this simple for you... I didn't question what you believe, did I? Show me where? I pointed out that you are using the wrong word... Anarchy means "Against Leaders", that's the definition. That's what it means. I'll say it slowly... thats what it means.

Believe what you like, but if you call it 'anarchism' you are always going to be wrong. Call it collectivisation, or a soviet socialism. Hell, call it bananas if you have any legitimate belief that the word applies.

Believe what you like, but if you call it 'anarchism' you are always going to be wrong. Call it collectivisation, or a soviet socialism. Hell, call it bananas if you have any legitimate belief that the word applies.

No, it's very, very simple. Anarchism is an historical thread of ideas from Godwin, through Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Stirner, Spooner, Golman, Berkman, Malatesta, Makhno, through to Bookchin, Chomsky and Bey (and, of course, there's many many more). I challenge you to find, in the works of any of these, opposition to voluntary organisation and the principle of democratic delegation. I challenge you to find a fundamental rejection of the principle of authority through knowledge (such as that of a doctor), once it's matched with the principle of free association.

Anarchism is not opposed to "leadership" in the sense of a group recognising that an individual has particular skills and knowledge to guide the group in a task, as long as: a. the group has a free choice both between individuals and the option not to choose anyone and any individual in the group has the right to leave should he so wish, and b. that the choice is not regarded as a choice of a permanent "leader" or "representative" and the group is free to reverse the choice at any point.

Your petty little dictionary definition debating is simply ignorant and worthy of no further comment.

Vas.

No, it's very, very simple. Anarchism is an historical thread of ideas from Godwin, through Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Stirner, Spooner, Golman, Berkman, Malatesta, Makhno, through to Bookchin, Chomsky and Bey (and, of course, there's many many more). I challenge you to find, in the works of any of these, opposition to voluntary organisation and the principle of democratic delegation. I challenge you to find a fundamental rejection of the principle of authority through knowledge (such as that of a doctor), once it's matched with the principle of free association.

Anarchism is not opposed to "leadership" in the sense of a group recognising that an individual has particular skills and knowledge to guide the group in a task, as long as: a. the group has a free choice both between individuals and the option not to choose anyone and any individual in the group has the right to leave should he so wish, and b. that the choice is not regarded as a choice of a permanent "leader" or "representative" and the group is free to reverse the choice at any point.

Your petty little dictionary definition debating is simply ignorant and worthy of no further comment.

Vas.

First: It doesn't matter how many people hold a conviction, or how long the chain of progression is... they can all still be wrong. In the other thread I've been debating, there are factions for Creation and Evolution, and for one of them to be utterly correct, the other really has to be wrong - and lots of people have supported both camps for hundreds/thousands of years.

So, Godwin used the word incorrectly, and then so did Proudhon, etc.
It's not your fault they were wrong, but you do choose to perpetuate a fallacy, and that is the idea that you can have anarchistic 'government'.

Second: Mine wasn't actually a dictionary definition, it was just the literal meaning of the word anarchy... which anyone with a little education should be able to deduce for themselves... you did give me an idea, though.

Anarchy:

1. The complete absence of government
2. political disorder and violence; lawlessness
3. disorder in any sphere of activity.

Interesting... so, in the case of dictionary definitions (which you deem worthy of no further comment) you are wrong three times instead of just the usual one. Now I see why you don't want to debate definition.

While on the subject of dictionaries... you might want to also look up "ignorant".

First: It doesn't matter how many people hold a conviction, or how long the chain of progression is... they can all still be wrong. In the other thread I've been debating, there are factions for Creation and Evolution, and for one of them to be utterly correct, the other really has to be wrong - and lots of people have supported both camps for hundreds/thousands of years.

You, my friend, are talking pure, unadulterated shite.

So, Godwin used the word incorrectly, and then so did Proudhon, etc. It's not your fault they were wrong, but you do choose to perpetuate a fallacy, and that is the idea that you can have anarchistic 'government'.

To claim that the originators of an idea and a common usage of a term were "wrong" is the most ridiculous contention imaginable.

Second: Mine wasn't actually a dictionary definition, it was just the literal meaning of the word anarchy...

an = without, archy (from arkhos) = a ruler. A ruler != a leader.

which anyone with a little education should be able to deduce for themselves...

Stupid and elitist at the same time. A little education automatically means speaking Greek, does it?

you did give me an idea, though.

Anarchy:

1. The complete absence of government
2. political disorder and violence; lawlessness
3. disorder in any sphere of activity.

Interesting... so, in the case of dictionary definitions (which you deem worthy of no further comment) you are wrong three times instead of just the usual one. Now I see why you don't want to debate definition.

I have been debating definition constantly on the Anarchist Thread, but doing so with people who have some idea of the context. You, on the other hand, have proven yourself to be completely ignorant. You are like someone arguing with a priest what Christian means without knowing what's in the Bible. You are talking, to use the vernacular, out of your arse. Anarchism is what anarchists say it is. We define ourselves.

While on the subject of dictionaries... you might want to also look up "ignorant".

No, I don't actually need to refer to the dictionary for simple words, perhaps you do. You are arguing with an expert on anarchist history and theory about the definition of anarchy. You are an idiot and completely ignorant.

Vas.

You, my friend, are talking pure, unadulterated shite.
To claim that the originators of an idea and a common usage of a term were "wrong" is the most ridiculous contention imaginable.
an = without, archy (from arkhos) = a ruler. A ruler != a leader.
Stupid and elitist at the same time. A little education automatically means speaking Greek, does it?
I have been debating definition constantly on the Anarchist Thread, but doing so with people who have some idea of the context. You, on the other hand, have proven yourself to be completely ignorant. You are like someone arguing with a priest what Christian means without knowing what's in the Bible. You are talking, to use the vernacular, out of your arse. Anarchism is what anarchists say it is. We define ourselves.
No, I don't actually need to refer to the dictionary for simple words, perhaps you do. You are arguing with an expert on anarchist history and theory about the definition of anarchy. You are an idiot and completely ignorant.

Vas.

A well reasoned and balanced argument, well done. No... wait, sorry - I must have been thinking of someone who didn't resort to vulgarity and insults to cover the inadequacies of their debate.

I wasn't talking shite. You can disagree without swearing. You can disagree without claiming that my argument has no validity. Or maybe you can't.

I disagree with your definition of the 'most ridiculous contention', also. I would say that arguing the meaning of a word, by looking at one (fairly modern and entirely subjective) definition was far more ridiculous.

You seem to be saying that knowing a little Greek is stupid, and that assuming others might know it too, is elitist? Is English your second language?

Maybe I am wrong, but a brief covering of the classics, and a slight working knowledge of how languages evolve isn't too much to ask from a reasonable education. The fact that you argue makes me wonder what they teach at most schools.

Re: context. My whole point is that the context is flawed. I'm not arguing politics here, just the fact that you (and others) totally misuse a word, to mean something lightyears removed from it's actual meaning. You cannot really complain, then, if others are confused, or have different opinions, with regard to that name.

Nice touch with the 'completely ignorant', too. I am both elitist and completely ignorant. I am probably also an anarchist, no? I think you said i was stupid too... oh, and I can apparently talk through my posterior. You may as well admit defeat, it seems I am well prepared for ANY eventuality?
It's a shame you didn't give me the ability to read minds, or see through walls... those would have been handy.

You can 'define yourself' all you like. That doesn't make it right. And, I guess, the rules of grammar, and the system of semantics are more of those evil governmental institutions that you rail against. If a squirrel calls itself a tree, it is not a tree, it is a squirrel... a mixed up squirrel with delusions of it's own importance.

I'm not ignorant. I'm not an idiot.

By the way, I actually do respect the fact that you are an expert on the history of anarchy. I may argue definition with you, but I can appreciate that you know your subject.

By the way - saw your post about the industrial music:
If you like Al Jourgensons' vocal style, try listening to "Corporate Avenger".
Their lyrics are anti-government, anti-taxation and anti-organised religion.

Damn it, you anarchists, show some support for other types of socialism or communism, will you? I am a Marxist-Leninist (one of the few around here, it seems) and I consider you to be my comrades. I completely agree with your vision of anarchy/communism (you call it anarchy, we call it communism), but I simply believe that your idea of getting there immediately after the revolution is misguided and naive. However, if you can actually manage to pull it off, more power to you.

Regardless of any other considerations, we should work together and support each other while capitalism still exists and is in power.

Oh, and by the way, it makes sense for you to bash Leninism, but when you start attacking Marxism you're acting quite hypocritical indeed - because many of your own anarchist ideas have their foundations in Marxism. You accept the Labor Theory of Value, do you not? You accept Historical Materialism, do you not?

And now to answer the original question of this topic:

I'm not looking for opinions here, just an explanation, and this isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know: how would a democratic government go about giving the workers the means of production? What does the principle mean in practice?
First of all, the government doesn't "give" anything. The government is a servant, not a master. The old (capitalist) government is overthrown, and the workers establish a new government in its place, invested with the powers that the workers choose to give it. In order for any kind of socialism to exist, the government must be democratic and under the control of the people.

Now, as for how public ownership over the means of production is to be achieved, there are two ways:

1. A democratic planned economy. The state controls and plans the economy, while the people control the state and set the major economic directives. This system can "wither away" into communism if the people assume more and more control of planning and managing the economy, ever diminishing the role of the state.

2. Worker-owned companies. Quite simply, all kinds of wage labor are abolished and the people who work with the means of production also own them. Or, to put it another way, everyone who works in a company is an equal shareholder.

Most socialists and non-anarchist communists support a combination of the two methods described above. For example, I want smaller companies to be entirely worker-owned, the big industries to be entirely state-owned, and the medium-sized companies to be owned partially by the state and partially by their own workers.

Oh, and by the way, it makes sense for you to bash Leninism, but when you start attacking Marxism you're acting quite hypocritical indeed - because many of your own anarchist ideas have their foundations in Marxism. You accept the Labor Theory of Value, do you not? You accept Historical Materialism, do you not?

No and no. Our (economic) anarchist ideas have their foundations in Proudhon, that bloke who came before Marx, who Marx read and was influenced by. Learn some bloody history. Proudhon predates Marx and Bakunin was his contemporary. Anarchism is OLDER than Marxism.

Bloody Trots.

Vas.

Splitters! Right deviationist running dogs! A pox o' ye!

A well reasoned and balanced argument, well done. No... wait, sorry - I must have been thinking of someone who didn't resort to vulgarity and insults to cover the inadequacies of their debate.

Fuck off. I'm sick and tired of jumped up little fuckwits thinking they know something about a subject while openly acknowledging they know fuck all.

I wasn't talking shite. You can disagree without swearing. You can disagree without claiming that my argument has no validity. Or maybe you can't.

No, I can't, because your argument has no validity. Capice?

I disagree with your definition of the 'most ridiculous contention', also. I would say that arguing the meaning of a word, by looking at one (fairly modern and entirely subjective) definition was far more ridiculous.

You have looked at the meaning of the word and extrapolated it into something it isn't. That's ridiculous honey. Having no rulers does not mean have no delegates.

You seem to be saying that knowing a little Greek is stupid, and that assuming others might know it too, is elitist? Is English your second language?

Your statement was stupid, your assumption that being educated means understanding Greek was elitist.

Maybe I am wrong, but a brief covering of the classics, and a slight working knowledge of how languages evolve isn't too much to ask from a reasonable education. The fact that you argue makes me wonder what they teach at most schools.

In my case Irish, German and French. Elitist twat.

Re: context. My whole point is that the context is flawed. I'm not arguing politics here, just the fact that you (and others) totally misuse a word, to mean something lightyears removed from it's actual meaning. You cannot really complain, then, if others are confused, or have different opinions, with regard to that name.

You are arguing about political ideas based on an erroneous reading of a word. Ignorant and stupid.

Nice touch with the 'completely ignorant', too. I am both elitist and completely ignorant. I am probably also an anarchist, no? I think you said i was stupid too... oh, and I can apparently talk through my posterior. You may as well admit defeat, it seems I am well prepared for ANY eventuality?

No, you're simply an ignorant (as in not knowing), elitist (as in thinking you know better), stupid (as in not realising you don't know what you think you know) twat (as in vulgar term referencing female genitalia).

It's a shame you didn't give me the ability to read minds, or see through walls... those would have been handy.

No, honey, you see, those who talk out of their arse quite clearly talk shite.

You can 'define yourself' all you like. That doesn't make it right. And, I guess, the rules of grammar, and the system of semantics are more of those evil governmental institutions that you rail against. If a squirrel calls itself a tree, it is not a tree, it is a squirrel... a mixed up squirrel with delusions of it's own importance.

Congratulations, I was thinking you couldn't appear more ignorant, but there you go. A complete and obvious example of someone with no knowledge of language theory at all. To argue for the dictionary definition of a word in the face of its popular usage is, quite simply, ignorant, elitist and stupid (hmm, I feel I'm repeating myself).

I'm not ignorant. I'm not an idiot.

Actually, you are.

By the way, I actually do respect the fact that you are an expert on the history of anarchy. I may argue definition with you, but I can appreciate that you know your subject.

Arguing definition with an expert on the history of a term is like an atheist arguing the Catechism with a Bishop.

By the way - saw your post about the industrial music:
If you like Al Jourgensons' vocal style, try listening to "Corporate Avenger".
Their lyrics are anti-government, anti-taxation and anti-organised religion.

That I may do, Soulseek's my friend.

Vas.

PS. I've got a piece of advice with you, don't pick an argument with an Irish Discordian anarchist about "what does anarchy mean". You'll lose and you'll be insulted a lot along the way.

Oh, and by the way, it makes sense for you to bash Leninism, but when you start attacking Marxism you're acting quite hypocritical indeed - because many of your own anarchist ideas have their foundations in Marxism. You accept the Labor Theory of Value, do you not? You accept Historical Materialism, do you not?
It is a bit. Marxism has definately been an influence on anarchist theory, and vice versa. It's nowhere near as hypocritical as calling yourself a "Marxist-Leninist". The two are contradictory. Apart from anything else, Marxism is a working class political viewpoint, whereas Leninism is the preserve of the "radical" bourgeoise, ironically a trait it shares with "anarcho"-capitalism.

"The working classes can only ever achieve a trade union consciousness"
-Lenin

It is a bit. Marxism has definately been an influence on anarchist theory, and vice versa. It's nowhere near as hypocritical as calling yourself a "Marxist-Leninist". The two are contradictory. Apart from anything else, Marxism is a working class political viewpoint, whereas Leninism is the preserve of the "radical" bourgeoise, ironically a trait it shares with "anarcho"-capitalism.

I wouldn't say it's all that ironic, Leninism was state capitalism, capitalism of any shade elevates the middle classes.

Vas.

Fuck off. I'm sick and tired of jumped up little fuckwits thinking they know something about a subject while openly acknowledging they know fuck all.



It would be nice to see someone debate without coarse language. Maybe that is why you consider me elitist? Just because I can string together sentences without vulgarity? If anyone is elitist, it is the aggressor who throws punches because he is sure he is much more well educated in the matter than anyone else. In this case, this would be you. You could call yourself a student of anarchy, or just an anarchist, but you chose to title yourself an 'expert' on it. I didn't claim to be an expert, and you ASSUMED I know nothing - so, which one of us is the elitist?




No, I can't, because your argument has no validity. Capice?



In your view, my argument has no validity. In my book, your argument is irrelevant because the concept of anarchy as popularly embraced is part-erroneous and part-optimism, and totally divorced from what "anarchy" is.



You have looked at the meaning of the word and extrapolated it into something it isn't. That's ridiculous honey. Having no rulers does not mean have no delegates.



I assume that you mean the delgates make the decisions, rather than being the underlings? The delegates are the persons qualified to suggest policy for the benefit of the collective? You should perhaps read "Animal Farm".

And, I haven't extrapolated the meaning of the word at all. "Without Leaders" is what Anarchy MEANS. It's not an extrapolation, exploration, interpretation of any other '-ation'. It is just the literal meaning of the word.

If you cannot see that, I despair, because it means you are basing an argument upon foundation of a lie.



Your statement was stupid, your assumption that being educated means understanding Greek was elitist.



Try rereading what I wrote. Education isn't about Greek, but there is no reason why you shouldn't be educated including Greek, surely?



In my case Irish, German and French. Elitist twat.



Another one of those witty retorts. Perhaps you should start a thread where you can be wrong and off-topic all you like, and still feel justified in hurling insults and vulgarity?

You only had three classes all the way through school?



You are arguing about political ideas based on an erroneous reading of a word. Ignorant and stupid.



No - ignorant and stupid would be erroneously using a word to describe a political idea. You probably call the police "facists" too, no?



No, you're simply an ignorant (as in not knowing), elitist (as in thinking you know better), stupid (as in not realising you don't know what you think you know) twat (as in vulgar term referencing female genitalia).



Not ignorant: I actually do know a fair amount of stuff. perhaps I am not an 'expert' in many fields, but I am quite well versed in several topics.
Not elitist: My argument was definition, how it is misapplied. My argument is unassailable. If you lack the tools to debate my point in civilised fashion (which you, of course, couldn't win), maybe I am 'elite', but not 'elitist'.



No, honey, you see, those who talk out of their arse quite clearly talk shite.



Not even worth dignifying with a rebuttal.



Congratulations, I was thinking you couldn't appear more ignorant, but there you go. A complete and obvious example of someone with no knowledge of language theory at all. To argue for the dictionary definition of a word in the face of its popular usage is, quite simply, ignorant, elitist and stupid (hmm, I feel I'm repeating myself).



I assume this means that you are of the school of thought that the "popular" meaning of a word is the most correct, then? Which means you IGNORE the actual meaning, which would make YOU ignorant. Oh, and by assuming my knowledge of the language is less than your own, you would also be being elitist. I'm not going to bother debating the "stupid" insult.



Actually, you are.



Catchy one liner, filled with layer upon layer of hidden meaning. Or a quick, unsupported attack. Take your pick.



Arguing definition with an expert on the history of a term is like an atheist arguing the Catechism with a Bishop.

Good point, surely. An atheist can argue catechism with a bishop. He may even know more about the catechism than the bishop, since believing something is different to knowing anything about it.





PS. I've got a piece of advice with you, don't pick an argument with an Irish Discordian anarchist about "what does anarchy mean". You'll lose and you'll be insulted a lot along the way.

PS. I've got a piece of advice for you - don't pick an argument with an Irish non-anarchist about "what does anarchy mean". You'll probably lose, because he may have the moral highground of the superior argument, and you'll swear a lot along the way. And he will not, because he's above it - and because he comes to the forum to debate, not to vent his anger.

It would be nice to see someone debate without coarse language.

Oh fuck off.

Maybe that is why you consider me elitist? Just because I can string together sentences without vulgarity? If anyone is elitist, it is the aggressor who throws punches because he is sure he is much more well educated in the matter than anyone else. In this case, this would be you. You could call yourself a student of anarchy, or just an anarchist, but you chose to title yourself an 'expert' on it. I didn't claim to be an expert, and you ASSUMED I know nothing - so, which one of us is the elitist?

No, on the basis of the pure shite you posted (ie. a dictionary definition disproves nearly two centuries of history) proved you know nothing about a topic about which I know a lot. I'm an expert, you're ignorant.

In your view, my argument has no validity. In my book, your argument is irrelevant because the concept of anarchy as popularly embraced is part-erroneous and part-optimism, and totally divorced from what "anarchy" is.

And that's bullshit. So there you go. You can't dispute popular meaning, because language is nothing more nor less than common meaning.

I assume that you mean the delgates make the decisions, rather than being the underlings? The delegates are the persons qualified to suggest policy for the benefit of the collective? You should perhaps read "Animal Farm".

Congratulations for showing EVEN MORE ignorance. Now go look up what the difference between delegates and representatives.

And, I haven't extrapolated the meaning of the word at all. "Without Leaders" is what Anarchy MEANS. It's not an extrapolation, exploration, interpretation of any other '-ation'. It is just the literal meaning of the word.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anarchy means without rulers. Leaders are not the same as rulers. Rulers means you have no choice but to obey, whereas the choice to follow a leader can be voluntary. Someone can lead a discussion without ruling a discussion, you can lead a hike by going in front, but take direction from those behind you. Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy, to rulers, NOT to voluntary systems, however they may be organised.

If you cannot see that, I despair, because it means you are basing an argument upon foundation of a lie.

Despair away, dumbfuck, because your wrong on every level.

Try rereading what I wrote. Education isn't about Greek, but there is no reason why you shouldn't be educated including Greek, surely?

That's not your original contention. You implied that being educated required the ability to understand some Greek. That's both wrong and elitist.

Another one of those witty retorts. Perhaps you should start a thread where you can be wrong and off-topic all you like, and still feel justified in hurling insults and vulgarity?

Fuck off twice.

You only had three classes all the way through school?

No, dahlink, these are the languages I learnt in school. History, maths, economics, etc - these aren't languages.

No - ignorant and stupid would be erroneously using a word to describe a political idea. You probably call the police "facists" too, no?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Not ignorant: I actually do know a fair amount of stuff. perhaps I am not an 'expert' in many fields, but I am quite well versed in several topics. Not elitist: My argument was definition, how it is misapplied. My argument is unassailable. If you lack the tools to debate my point in civilised fashion (which you, of course, couldn't win), maybe I am 'elite', but not 'elitist'.

To claim you are elite is to be an elitist, dumbass.

Not even worth dignifying with a rebuttal.

Three times!

I assume this means that you are of the school of thought that the "popular" meaning of a word is the most correct, then? Which means you IGNORE the actual meaning, which would make YOU ignorant. Oh, and by assuming my knowledge of the language is less than your own, you would also be being elitist. I'm not going to bother debating the "stupid" insult.

It's a description, not an insult. There is no ACTUAL meaning to any word other than its use. The meaning of the constituent parts of a modern word in another ancient language denotes origin, not meaning. So you're wrong there. And you've extrapolated incorrectly from the origin Greek anyway, as I've shown above, ruler does not mean leader.

Catchy one liner, filled with layer upon layer of hidden meaning. Or a quick, unsupported attack. Take your pick.

I'd actually say that it's supporting previous vulgar abuse in a pantomime fashion.

PS. I've got a piece of advice for you - don't pick an argument with an Irish non-anarchist about "what does anarchy mean". You'll probably lose, because he may have the moral highground of the superior argument, and you'll swear a lot along the way. And he will not, because he's above it - and because he comes to the forum to debate, not to vent his anger.

Angry? No, you're not worthy of anger. You are worthy of little more than vulgar abuse, because your contention is moronic, your debating skills are non-existent and it's fun to rile you by calling you names. You keep coming back for more, which makes it even better.

Vas.

Is it conceivable that the people who wrote the dictionary definition were wrong? You can look up "homosexualty" in an old dictionary, and you will find it described as a perversion, which is completely wrong.

Yeah! I’m with Constantinopolis 70% on this one. And I’m glad he posted because I’m also a Marxist and revolutionary socialist and I don’t have much time. But since the question was asked, I think it’s only right that I give some reply, as I’ve studied and thought about this question a massive amount. He said:

First of all, the government doesn't "give" anything. The government is a servant, not a master. The old (capitalist) government is overthrown, and the workers establish a new government in its place, invested with the powers that the workers choose to give it. In order for any kind of socialism to exist, the government must be democratic and under the control of the people.
Now, as for how public ownership over the means of production is to be achieved, there are two ways:
1. A democratic planned economy. The state controls and plans the economy, while the people control the state and set the major economic directives. This system can "wither away" into communism if the people assume more and more control of planning and managing the economy, ever diminishing the role of the state.
2. Worker-owned companies. Quite simply, all kinds of wage labor are abolished and the people who work with the means of production also own them. Or, to put it another way, everyone who works in a company is an equal shareholder.
Most socialists and non-anarchist communists support a combination of the two methods described above. For example, I want smaller companies to be entirely worker-owned, the big industries to be entirely state-owned, and the medium-sized companies to be owned partially by the state and partially by their own workers.
I’d add that the Marx in his study of the Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks with the policy of “all power to the soviets”, and the many revolutions in the inter-war years all shared the same characteristic – radically democratic workers’ councils are the main organs of government. The economy should be organized from the ground up democratically. I am convinced this would not only be more equitable but also more efficient. Comments like Dischordiac’s about human nature being selfish or people obeying laws only out of fear of punishment are ideological claptrap that don’t stand up to a moment’s reflection – on your own lives, and on society. People do have elements of selfishness, but only in psychopaths does selfishness trump our overwhelmingly social instincts. We are tribal animals, not solitary.
Also this quote

"The working classes can only ever achieve a trade union consciousness"
-Lenin
is inaccurate. Lenin later changed his idea under the influence of the 1905 revolution to argue that the workers were instinctively socialist. Arguably neither is 100% accurate, but he was a much more serious thinker and activist than HW suggests.

Oh fuck off.


Can't debate. So you swear. A lot. Look up debate? (I'll save you having to borrow a dictionary - it means to 'discuss opposing reasons'. You do not discuss, you just 'cuss'.)



No, on the basis of the pure shite you posted (ie. a dictionary definition disproves nearly two centuries of history) proved you know nothing about a topic about which I know a lot. I'm an expert, you're ignorant.


And,I quote you "a dictionary definition disproves nearly two centuries of history". Thankyou, couldn't have said it better myself. More worrying - the whole quote only contains one obscenity.... did you copy that from someone else's post? You are a self-proclaimed expert. I cannot say for certain if you are or not. I can say you are not a very appealing spokesman for your cause, if it is true.


And that's bullshit. So there you go. You can't dispute popular meaning, because language is nothing more nor less than common meaning.


You actually can dispute popular meaning. Language is the accumulation of meaning, the 'accretion' you might say. Metaphor is a classic example of language being far more than common meaning. "Buzz-words" are a classic example of language being far less than common meaning.

You may have studied languages, but you are obviously no student of 'language'. Except perhaps, for a diploma in 'foul language'.


Congratulations for showing EVEN MORE ignorance. Now go look up what the difference between delegates and representatives.


A delegate is someone to whom responsibility, authority and power have been delegated. A representative is someone who acts to represent an individual or group. The two are not necessarily different - and usually end up being the same thing. A representative is the delegated advocate of a cause.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anarchy means without rulers. Leaders are not the same as rulers. Rulers means you have no choice but to obey, whereas the choice to follow a leader can be voluntary. Someone can lead a discussion without ruling a discussion, you can lead a hike by going in front, but take direction from those behind you. Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy, to rulers, NOT to voluntary systems, however they may be organised.


Anarchy: [from the Greek: anarchia: see ANARCH]

Anarch: [from the Greek: anarchios, "without a leader" < -an Without + archos, Leader...]

That was from the first dictionary I had to hand - the New World Dictionary (Second College Edition) - and proves you to be completely, undeniably, indefensibly wrong. But, it was a good try anyway - almost like 'debating'.


Despair away, dumbfuck, because your wrong on every level.


Except on the levels on which we disagree, where I am, it seems, repeatedly proved correct.


That's not your original contention. You implied that being educated required the ability to understand some Greek. That's both wrong and elitist.


"it was just the literal meaning of the word anarchy... which anyone with a little education should be able to deduce for themselves..." and they should. We live in an education-rich, information-rich world. Almost everyone has access to a dictionary, if they are online they MUST have access to some form of internet protocol. To not understand a word must, therefore, come down to willful ignorance or just plain laziness.

If you fail to comprehend my meaning, that is surely your failing - not mine.


Fuck off twice.


Can't debate. So you swear.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


it's a duck? Am I right? Or - have we now decided I'm a duck?


To claim you are elite is to be an elitist, dumbass.


I claimed that your failure to make an argument without the descent into the gutter maybe suggested I was elite... you still descend into the gutter - you make me superior to you. It's not my will, you choose to lower yourself.

And, actually, if I were Elitist, that would actually only mean that I was in favour of government by the control of an elite... which is kind of what we have now...


Three times!


Didn't think to check, was math on that list of subjects....


It's a description, not an insult. There is no ACTUAL meaning to any word other than its use. The meaning of the constituent parts of a modern word in another ancient language denotes origin, not meaning. So you're wrong there. And you've extrapolated incorrectly from the origin Greek anyway, as I've shown above, ruler does not mean leader.


To believe that there is no meaning to a word, other than it's use, is ridiculous. Words have history of use, which supports the meaning of the word. Some words are considered to have meanings quite apart from their use: take "Cellar-door" for example, or "Abracadabra"

Oh - and, as I have proved... I was actually right.

And remember, ignorance is no defence.


Angry? No, you're not worthy of anger. You are worthy of little more than vulgar abuse, because your contention is moronic, your debating skills are non-existent and it's fun to rile you by calling you names. You keep coming back for more, which makes it even better.



You have no idea of my worth. To judge by the ineloquence of your parlance, I would care to venture you have no idea of YOUR OWN worth. You seem to strive for the lowest common denominator - be it in debate, in choice of vocabulary or even in your choice of expletives.

You say I am unworthy of anything except vulgar abuse... I would contend that the truth may be the more solemn fact that you are incapable of anything except vulgar abuse.

I think most people would agree that my argument (whether or not they agreed with my point) was fairly rational, reasonably well put together, acceptable articulate - and pretty much free from profanity.

I doubt that your part in this 'debate' would acheive the same review.

I hold that my contention is perfectly acceptable - and that you merely refuse to acknowledge that fact.

And I think 'riling me' is a strong way to put it... I find myself more than averagely bored by your crude misconduct, however, if that makes you feel any better.

And, i guess the reason I keep coming back, is the hope that you might make a good point, or see some degree of rationality. It makes me sad to see a fellow irishman (or even, a fellow human) making such a parody of himself.

Cheers. It's been swell. But now the swelling's gone down.

Is it conceivable that the people who wrote the dictionary definition were wrong? You can look up "homosexualty" in an old dictionary, and you will find it described as a perversion, which is completely wrong.

I agree that definitions can be wrong - and I think it cannot be held both ways. If a word is it's usage - then the dictionary defnition of homosexuality was correct. If a word is more than the sum of it's usage, then the etymology of the word has to (to some extent) determine it's meaning.

And - a hundred years ago, homosexuality was a perversion - a perversion is merely something that is deviant to what is considered 'right'. By that standard, most people in our 'civilised' societies STILL consider it a perversion.

I’d add that the Marx in his study of the Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks with the policy of “all power to the soviets”, and the many revolutions in the inter-war years all shared the same characteristic – radically democratic workers’ councils are the main organs of government. The economy should be organized from the ground up democratically. I am convinced this would not only be more equitable but also more efficient.

Remember Kronstadt?

Comments like Dischordiac’s about human nature being selfish or people obeying laws only out of fear of punishment are ideological claptrap that don’t stand up to a moment’s reflection – on your own lives, and on society. People do have elements of selfishness, but only in psychopaths does selfishness trump our overwhelmingly social instincts. We are tribal animals, not solitary.

Get your bleedin' quotes right, I said nothing of the sort. I'm an anarcho-communist, I disagree with Marxists on method, not destination.

Vas.

I've been reading what's been said and i'm curious about a point. I see myself as a capitalist because in my own opinion it is the best working model currently in use. Also I see the similarities with our nature.

If everything was given back to the people. How would wealth work, would it be like in russia we're everyone was equal or else sort of situation.

Please explain, i am interested to learn more. Also of the socialist government in the world (or leaning in that direction) which one do you hold in high regard?

Can't debate. So you swear. A lot. Look up debate? (I'll save you having to borrow a dictionary - it means to 'discuss opposing reasons'. You do not discuss, you just 'cuss'.)
I discuss with those worthy of my attention, I abuse those worthy only of vulgar abuse.

And,I quote you "a dictionary definition disproves nearly two centuries of history". Thankyou, couldn't have said it better myself.

Eh, you did say it yourself, moron, which is why I attributed it to you.

More worrying - the whole quote only contains one obscenity.... did you copy that from someone else's post? You are a self-proclaimed expert.

Ya got that right.

I cannot say for certain if you are or not.

Try actually reading some of the other threads. You might learn something.

I can say you are not a very appealing spokesman for your cause, if it is true.

You know what? I don't think I'd want to be a member of any club you'd seek to join.

You actually can dispute popular meaning. Language is the accumulation of meaning, the 'accretion' you might say. Metaphor is a classic example of language being far more than common meaning. "Buzz-words" are a classic example of language being far less than common meaning.

You may have studied languages, but you are obviously no student of 'language'. Except perhaps, for a diploma in 'foul language'.

Fuck you, dumbass. Any ignoramous who regards "foul language" as being separate from language is, once again, talking out of their arse.

A delegate is someone to whom responsibility, authority and power have been delegated. A representative is someone who acts to represent an individual or group. The two are not necessarily different - and usually end up being the same thing. A representative is the delegated advocate of a cause.

Wrong. A delegate is someone chosen by a group to put forward the decisions and views of the group where it is not practicable for the entire group to do so. In a properly organised delegate system, the delegate can be deselected should he or she go beyond the terms of the delegacy and their acts in doing so disregarded. Thus, it is not the selection of a leader, simply the selection of a mouthpiece.

Anarchy: [from the Greek: anarchia: see ANARCH]

Anarch: [from the Greek: anarchios, "without a leader" < -an Without + archos, Leader...]

Very good, complete inconsistency. Go back and look at what you previously said it mean. A ruler is NOT the same as a leader.

That was from the first dictionary I had to hand - the New World Dictionary (Second College Edition) - and proves you to be completely, undeniably, indefensibly wrong. But, it was a good try anyway - almost like 'debating'.

An American dictionary? That explains it.

Except on the levels on which we disagree, where I am, it seems, repeatedly proved correct.

Riiiiight.

"it was just the literal meaning of the word anarchy... which anyone with a little education should be able to deduce for themselves..." and they should. We live in an education-rich, information-rich world. Almost everyone has access to a dictionary, if they are online they MUST have access to some form of internet protocol. To not understand a word must, therefore, come down to willful ignorance or just plain laziness.

Exactly. To refuse to understand a word when the meaning is explained to you by an expert is willful ignorance.

If you fail to comprehend my meaning, that is surely your failing - not mine.

I understood your meaning only too well, you have your own rules of what it means to be educated, which makes you elitist.

Can't debate. So you swear.

What is it with your fucking puritanical streak. I swear, get over it.

it's a duck? Am I right? Or - have we now decided I'm a duck?

Let's hear you quack.

I claimed that your failure to make an argument without the descent into the gutter maybe suggested I was elite... you still descend into the gutter - you make me superior to you. It's not my will, you choose to lower yourself.

Dahlink, fuck off.

And, actually, if I were Elitist, that would actually only mean that I was in favour of government by the control of an elite... which is kind of what we have now...

You've shown no evidence of what you do favour, preferring to engage in a pointless and ignorant discussion about semantics, which I only continue because you amuse me.

Didn't think to check, was math on that list of subjects....

It wasn't a list, it was a couple of examples. Seeing as you're so interested, my subject list at Leaving Cert level (before university) was: English, Irish, French, German, Maths, History, Economics and Accountancy. Happy now? I've also got a BA in Journalism.

To believe that there is no meaning to a word, other than it's use, is ridiculous. Words have history of use, which supports the meaning of the word. Some words are considered to have meanings quite apart from their use: take "Cellar-door" for example, or "Abracadabra"

Can you be feckful? Are you whelmed by this discussion? 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.

Oh - and, as I have proved... I was actually right.

Sorry, I missed that seeing as you have consistently been wrong.

And remember, ignorance is no defence.

A pity, as, if it was, you'd be safe.

You have no idea of my worth. To judge by the ineloquence of your parlance, I would care to venture you have no idea of YOUR OWN worth. You seem to strive for the lowest common denominator - be it in debate, in choice of vocabulary or even in your choice of expletives.

I'm not debating with you, I'm largely hurling abuse at you. Learn the difference.

You say I am unworthy of anything except vulgar abuse... I would contend that the truth may be the more solemn fact that you are incapable of anything except vulgar abuse.

Should you care to actually look at some of the discussions on this site, including one of my own inception, you will see that it is you who have elicited this vulgar abuse.

I think most people would agree that my argument (whether or not they agreed with my point) was fairly rational, reasonably well put together, acceptable articulate - and pretty much free from profanity.

Just because you type like a fucking nun doesn't actually prove your nonsensical contention.

I doubt that your part in this 'debate' would acheive the same review.

It's not a debate, it's me abusing you.

I hold that my contention is perfectly acceptable - and that you merely refuse to acknowledge that fact.

And I think 'riling me' is a strong way to put it... I find myself more than averagely bored by your crude misconduct, however, if that makes you feel any better.

And, i guess the reason I keep coming back, is the hope that you might make a good point, or see some degree of rationality. It makes me sad to see a fellow irishman (or even, a fellow human) making such a parody of himself.

Oh fuck off, moron.

Cheers. It's been swell. But now the swelling's gone down.

You saying you got a thrill from this? You like being talked dirty to? Jaysus, now I feel dirty.

Vas.

I've been reading what's been said and i'm curious about a point. I see myself as a capitalist because in my own opinion it is the best working model currently in use. Also I see the similarities with our nature.

If everything was given back to the people. How would wealth work, would it be like in russia we're everyone was equal or else sort of situation.

Please explain, i am interested to learn more. Also of the socialist government in the world (or leaning in that direction) which one do you hold in high regard?

I'd ignore this thread completely and look at The Anarchist Thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339635) and Poll: Capitalism Or Socialism Which Is Better (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341451).

Vas.

Remember Kronstadt?




Man, after reading your posts I'm getting real vivid images of Kronstadt

I've been reading what's been said and i'm curious about a point. I see myself as a capitalist because in my own opinion it is the best working model currently in use. Also I see the similarities with our nature.

If everything was given back to the people. How would wealth work, would it be like in russia we're everyone was equal or else sort of situation.

Please explain, i am interested to learn more. Also of the socialist government in the world (or leaning in that direction) which one do you hold in high regard?
.

1) it’s the only working model in use. China, Cuba, etc are state capitalist – a privileged managerial class controls the means of production. There’s no workers’ control.
2) Similarities with our nature? Marxists don’t reckon that we’re naturally lovey dovey, but we do point out that we evolved as social creatures and spent ninety percent of our species life in primitive communist societies (ie hunter gatherer). We appeal to people’s greed as well – we just say that working people are going to satisfy their wants only by working together. Otherwise we’ll always be satisfying the wants of a small elite. Its like game theory (that’s what everyone says nowadays. Game theory is v trendy
3) So far as wealth goes – you’d put in work and get back everything nec for survival plus some, but wealth would be mainly in your creativity (ie if you like cars youll have the opportunity to build your own hotrod, but you won’t have 1000s of people working to make 100s of cars for you to indulge your pleasure) and in relationships. I thinke anyone can see that is a much more satisfying form of wealth.
4) There are no govts in the world now where the working class controls society. In all countries, a small capital-owning elite enjoys the lion’s share of power. But some countries are a lot worse than others. The right to vote, to free association and speech etc etc all of these were won by the workers movement (yes even in the USA). And we celebrate these achievements even as we argue that they must be constantly defended against the ruling class and we’ll only be safe once the working class - the majority of the population - is the ruling class.

I discuss with those worthy of my attention, I abuse those worthy only of vulgar abuse.


Feeble. You abuse because, it would appear, you can do no better.
If you could - you might have actually tried one of these 'ripostes' without spewing offal. (See - I didn't use the word 'debate' there, just for you, since the concept seems to pain you so greatly).


Eh, you did say it yourself, moron, which is why I attributed it to you.


Ah, yes. That must be why it sounded reasonable. Like I said... I couldn't have put it better myself.



Try actually reading some of the other threads. You might learn something.


Your mistake is in assuming that I don't read the other threads. Your other mistake is in assuming that I learn nothing. For example, when I was checking out one of your rants on one of those other threads, I learned that it's not just politics and semantics you appear to need remedial action with, but you obviously need some help with philosophy/theology. You were, incidentally, wrong about your use of a word in that thread too - and, as I recall, somewhat crass to your unfornunate 'victim'... guess it 'goes with the territory'.


You know what? I don't think I'd want to be a member of any club you'd seek to join.


Really? So if I join your so called 'anarchists', you'd leave? The strength of conviction is staggering.


Fuck you, dumbass. Any ignoramous who regards "foul language" as being separate from language is, once again, talking out of their arse.


'Foul language' is separate from 'language', in that it is foul. See those little apostrophes? (That's what they call those little floating dots). See the emphasis? If you ever ascend as far as 'language' you might have something to see, instead of just spraying vitriol.



Wrong. A delegate is someone chosen by a group to put forward the decisions and views of the group where it is not practicable for the entire group to do so. In a properly organised delegate system, the delegate can be deselected should he or she go beyond the terms of the delegacy and their acts in doing so disregarded. Thus, it is not the selection of a leader, simply the selection of a mouthpiece.


You asked about the difference between a delegate and a representative. And now you talk about leaders? I think you have confused yourself with too many words. Reread your own post, maybe.


Very good, complete inconsistency. Go back and look at what you previously said it mean. A ruler is NOT the same as a leader.


I could bring out a dictionary again, but you have rejected them as part of the oppressive regime. You said ruler this time... do you even look at your own posts while you type them?


An American dictionary? That explains it.


So far below being worthy of any kind of comment.


Exactly. To refuse to understand a word when the meaning is explained to you by an expert is willful ignorance.


And, refusing to accept the definition overed by a self-professed expert, who has shown himself to lack any concept of semantics, is caution.


I understood your meaning only too well, you have your own rules of what it means to be educated, which makes you elitist.


You don't know what many words mean, do you? Am I crypto-fascist, too?
You obviously STILL don't understand my meaning, and I'm not sure I can really simplify it enough for you to grasp such a difficult concept.

I don't think it takes TOO much education to learn the words you use.


What is it with your fucking puritanical streak. I swear, get over it.


Not puritanical. I'm neither a Protestant, nor a stickler for religious doctrine. I just believe that vulgarity is the last resort of a feeble intellect. In my opinion, people resort to such abrasive language when they have nothing better to say, and lack the social graces to say it.



You've shown no evidence of what you do favour, preferring to engage in a pointless and ignorant discussion about semantics, which I only continue because you amuse me.


Which is a shame, because you could have really learned something, if your mind was not so sphincter-tight. Oh - and for about the third time, you misused the word 'ignorant'. Can you persuade someone to get you a dictionary for christmas?


It wasn't a list, it was a couple of examples. Seeing as you're so interested, my subject list at Leaving Cert level (before university) was: English, Irish, French, German, Maths, History, Economics and Accountancy. Happy now? I've also got a BA in Journalism.


Why does it not surprise me that you lack any 'pure' science subjects? The sad lack of the ability to draw a conclusion from evidence... that might be it.


Can you be feckful? Are you whelmed by this discussion? 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.


Feckful. I like that one. Words mean no more or less TO YOU than the meaning you ascribe to them, and that, I'm afraid is your loss.
You don't mean to be ignorant, you are just being yourself. That is your crime, and also your punishment.



I'm not debating with you, I'm largely hurling abuse at you. Learn the difference.


Hence, the 'debate' in the "little dot things". I have been debating, probably because I am capable of doing so. As you pointed out, you have not.


Should you care to actually look at some of the discussions on this site, including one of my own inception, you will see that it is you who have elicited this vulgar abuse.


Yes... I looked. You are abusively sanctimonious, condescending and patronising to anyone you disagree with. I'm struggling to find a phrase to describe the magnitude of your delusion of grandeur.

I suspect that, if you had anything to say - or if I truly were the offending party, you might have strung together a few sentences without uncouth bile - just to show that you could.


Just because you type like a fucking nun doesn't actually prove your nonsensical contention.


I assume you are a Protestant, then?


It's not a debate, it's me abusing you.


Hear, hear.


Oh fuck off, moron.


Catchy, come up with that yourself?


You saying you got a thrill from this? You like being talked dirty to? Jaysus, now I feel dirty.



Which means your character now resembles your vocabulary. Good day.

Not puritanical. I'm neither a Protestant, nor a stickler for religious doctrine. I just believe that vulgarity is the last resort of a feeble intellect. In my opinion, people resort to such abrasive language when they have nothing better to say, and lack the social graces to say it.
I don't for a moment propose to get involved in your little tiff with Dischordia, but I have to pick you up on this. Have you ever read Chaucer? Or for that matter Irvine Welsh? The idea that you show your linguistic superority by refusing to use words that have been around, at least in some cases, since ancient times is frankly staggering.

I don't for a moment propose to get involved in your little tiff with Dischordia, but I have to pick you up on this. Have you ever read Chaucer? Or for that matter Irvine Welsh? The idea that you show your linguistic superority by refusing to use words that have been around, at least in some cases, since ancient times is frankly staggering.

very primly said, ma'am.

I don't for a moment propose to get involved in your little tiff with Dischordia, but I have to pick you up on this. Have you ever read Chaucer? Or for that matter Irvine Welsh? The idea that you show your linguistic superority by refusing to use words that have been around, at least in some cases, since ancient times is frankly staggering.

It's not a matter of linguistic superiority - it's a matter of civilisation.

When you cannot resolve an international situation by any other means, you declare war... but you try diplomacy first.

When you cannot protect your honour by an other means, the gloves come off - but I would assume you try reason first.

When you cannot express your frustration, etc. in decent language, you resort to expletives, but, I guess I figure you should try to use an acceptable vocabulary first.

Expletives seem to be a weak recourse. The Russian revolution was stirred by skilled oration and moving speech. It would be depressing to think that it was actually motivated by the Russian equivalent of "String the Bastards Up."

Also - Chaucer and Welsh are about as far removed from Dischordiacs missive as it is possible to get and still use words. Chaucer (whether you like the work or not) is literature. The responses I received in this thread are a diatribe, nothing more.

It's not a matter of linguistic superiority - it's a matter of civilisation.

When you cannot resolve an international situation by any other means, you declare war... but you try diplomacy first.

When you cannot protect your honour by an other means, the gloves come off - but I would assume you try reason first.

When you cannot express your frustration, etc. in decent language, you resort to expletives, but, I guess I figure you should try to use an acceptable vocabulary first.

Expletives seem to be a weak recourse. The Russian revolution was stirred by skilled oration and moving speech. It would be depressing to think that it was actually motivated by the Russian equivalent of "String the Bastards Up."

Also - Chaucer and Welsh are about as far removed from Dischordiacs missive as it is possible to get and still use words. Chaucer (whether you like the work or not) is literature. The responses I received in this thread are a diatribe, nothing more.

Oh, fuck off.

Vas (now bored of playing with this petulant child).

So. That's the end of a potentially interesting discussion, I guess?

It's not a matter of linguistic superiority - it's a matter of civilisation.
What are you basing your supposition that not swearing is a hallmark of civilised societys on?
When you cannot resolve an international situation by any other means, you declare war... but you try diplomacy first.

When you cannot protect your honour by an other means, the gloves come off - but I would assume you try reason first.No, surely you use whatever vocabulary best serves your purpose?

When you cannot express your frustration, etc. in decent language, you resort to expletives, but, I guess I figure you should try to use an acceptable vocabulary first.
Define acceptable.
Expletives seem to be a weak recourse. The Russian revolution was stirred by skilled oration and moving speech. It would be depressing to think that it was actually motivated by the Russian equivalent of "String the Bastards Up."Again, it depends on the context. Check the Blues Brothers for imaginative use of obscenity. Or Goodfellas.

Also - Chaucer and Welsh are about as far removed from Dischordiacs missive as it is possible to get and still use words. Chaucer (whether you like the work or not) is literature. The responses I received in this thread are a diatribe, nothing more.As I said, I don't propose to get dragged into your fight with Dis. It seems to be both of you are quite capable of holding your own. Surely, by your logic, Chaucer should be considered less valid as literature as he uses rude words?

Oh, fuck off.

Vas (now bored of playing with this petulant child).

And THAT pretty much sums up my case.

Alarming handbags duel aside, I believe that 'foul' language is a valuable tool when used well. Maybe it's something to do with hailing from the British Isles, but I really appreciate creative use of colourful language.

What are you basing your supposition that not swearing is a hallmark of civilised societys on?
No, surely you use whatever vocabulary best serves your purpose?
Define acceptable.
Again, it depends on the context. Check the Blues Brothers for imaginative use of obscenity. Or Goodfellas.
As I said, I don't propose to get dragged into your fight with Dis. It seems to be both of you are quite capable of holding your own. Surely, by your logic, Chaucer should be considered less valid as literature as he uses rude words?

I merely base my assumption that 'not swearing' is the mark of a civilised society, on the fact that a civilised society has improved upon it's manners, with relation to a 'less-civilised' earlier state.

You can use whichever vocabulary best serves your purpose. Being politic would probably indicate that you try to avoid vulgarity. Also - I don't think that Dischordiacs vocabulary DID serve his purpose, unlwess his purpose was to list as many expletives as possible.

Like my example with the Russian Revolution, I doubt if Dis made many converts with his abusive tongue - whereas firebrand rhetoric may have swayed undecided observers to the obvious wisdom of his cause.

Chaucer, and to a lesser extent Blues Brothers and Goodfellas are art. A nude woman in a painting can be defined as art, the same woman nude in the street would be arrested for indecency. Art is an arena to itself.

maybe it's just me, but the tirade of abuse Dischordiac posted did not SEEM to be art. If it was - I will try to step back from it, and observe it for it's artistic merit. But, I don't think I'll be needing to, somehow?

Alarming handbags duel aside, I believe that 'foul' language is a valuable tool when used well. Maybe it's something to do with hailing from the British Isles, but I really appreciate creative use of colourful language.

Like I said in another response... I don't believe foul language played any valuable part here. It did not meet any of my arguments, did not persuade me to review my opinions, did not offer any evidence of debatable fact.

I can appreciate the use of colourful language in the context of entertainment (and strongly oppose the current mood in America to restrict what words are permissable on network broadcasts) - or when it is really justified... or even just funny. Here, it was none of the above.

Also - if you check the spellings I have used throughout my posts, you'll see I'm from the same side of the pond as you.