NationStates Jolt Archive

Because
Anarcho-communism is such a stupid idea
I can't think of any reason
That anyone would support it, so someone please explain.

Please explain why you think it is stupid without bringing up the cliched human nature excuse (which is also a load of crap)

Yes, try reading up on it before you make such accusations. Why is it stupid, because you won't get to keep those millions of dollars you inherited? :headbang:

I'd guess it's because of the infuriatingly righteous tone you guys take, about how OPPRESSIVE capitalism is, all the while you're spouting an idealogy which proposes to eliminate the right to ownership, the right to pass on what you have to your children, the right to free trade and personal freedom to succeed at improving one's standard of living.

And if human nature can be so easily dismissed, Kanabia, well I guess your shallow and ignorant opinion can be, too!

Yes, try reading up on it before you make such accusations. Why is it stupid, because you won't get to keep those millions of dollars you inherited? :headbang:
wewt...hook, line, and sinker!!

Because
Anarcho-communism is such a stupid idea
I can't think of any reason
That anyone would support it, so someone please explain.

Haha!! Letila took the bait!!

Okay...now I'll really argue it. Not all capitalists are rich, nor will they all be inheriting millions of dollars. I just like the fact that my well-being will is determined by my ability to be well.

because anarchism and communism are the two things the American public hates most? (I can't really speak for other publics...though I'm sure some of them don't hate communism most- that's mostly us, because that whole cold war thing)

Well, anything that involves good things coming from any sort of anarchy is completely doomed. If the government is ever completely destroyed the people with the most guns will begin to set up their own little spheres of power, and people will run to them for protection from the other guys with guns. It only takes a few greedy, power-hungry humans *and it seems there will always be greedy, power-hungry humans* to destroy something as idealistic as anarcho-communism.

I'd guess it's because of the infuriatingly righteous tone you guys take, about how OPPRESSIVE capitalism is, all the while you're spouting an idealogy which proposes to eliminate the right to ownership, the right to pass on what you have to your children, the right to free trade and personal freedom to succeed at improving one's standard of living.

Those would all be redundant in anarcho-communism or are useless. In capitalism, the average person can't own nearly as much as the rich. I want real freedom, like the freedom to leave an economic system I don't like or the freedom to take what I need, or the freedom to manage my own work.

Well, anything that involves good things coming from any sort of anarchy is completely doomed. If the government is ever completely destroyed the people with the most guns will begin to set up their own little spheres of power, and people will run to them for protection from the other guys with guns. It only takes a few greedy, power-hungry humans *and it seems there will always be greedy, power-hungry humans* to destroy something as idealistic as anarcho-communism.

Then we'll just have to defend ourselves.

I want real freedom ... the freedom to take what I need, or the freedom to manage my own work.

You do realise those are contradictory, don't you?

If people are allowed to take what they need, then you cannot manage your own work. To give you an example:
You make computers. I "need" all the computers you make, so I take them. Now I am managing your work.

All anarchy means is that you take the right of force from the government and give it back to the people. There are many slippery slope arguments against - and sometimes, for - the various forms of anarchy, but no one really knows what will actually happen. The only thing that can be discussed in a reasonable way is the ideaology of it anarchy versus the ideaology of another governmental system, such as capitalism.

Those would all be redundant in anarcho-communism or are useless. In capitalism, the average person can't own nearly as much as the rich. I want real freedom, like the freedom to leave an economic system I don't like or the freedom to take what I need, or the freedom to manage my own work.

How many times do we have to go over this? Why can't the average peson own as much as the rich? Was Bill Gates born into wealth?

Manage your own work? Start your own business...just make sure you don't turn a profit!

How many times do we have to go over this? Why can't the average peson own as much as the rich? Was Bill Gates born into wealth?

No, but he profited off the wage labor of workers. That is theft.

No, but he profited off the wage labor of workers. That is theft.
It depends what wacky law you abide by I suppose, but in general, I would not regard employing a person for whatever wage as theft. Also, it took more than "profitting off wage labour" for Bill Gates to become rich, it took intelligence.

all liberties come at an expense, usually at the cost of other liberties.
so when someone is allowed the freedom to work for his own gain they are doing so at the expense of a disproportionate number of people.
on a national scale this can be written off as the more industrious getting what they deserve, but this falls flat on an international scale. and anarchism is (and communism should have been) transnational philosophies, so financial freedom is the freedom to make people starve. and i doubt anyone would support the unadulterated freedom to kill.

Ask any of the people in Microsoft's caffeterias whether or not Bill Gates stole from them.

I find the "wages are theft" type of argument really silly.

It depends what wacky law you abide by I suppose, but in general, I would not regard employing a person for whatever wage as theft. Also, it took more than "profitting off wage labour" for Bill Gates to become rich, it took intelligence.

It took intelligence for Hitler to take power. That doesn't make his actions anymore justified.

i doubt anyone would support the unadulterated freedom to kill.

The government has that "right".

It took intelligence for Hitler to take power. That doesn't make his actions anymore justified.
Who mentioned Hitler?

It took intelligence for Hitler to take power. That doesn't make his actions anymore justified.
Right OK, let me get this straight, in my head, if you know what I mean...OK lets go.

You are comparing Bill Gates to Hitler?

Now, I have heard some really stupid things in my time - strangely enough they usually involve Hitler and left-wing advocates - but that is a top ten.

Right OK, let me get this straight, in my head, if you know what I mean...OK lets go.

You are comparing Bill Gates to Hitler?

Now, I have heard some really stupid things in my time - strangely enough they usually involve Hitler and left-wing advocates - but that is a top ten.

No, I'm saying that using intelligence doesn't justify an act.

No, I'm saying that using intelligence doesn't justify an act.
It does in a meritocracy.

No, but he profited off the wage labor of workers. That is theft.

No - it's voluntary

Ha ha
We seem to be beating this to death on every thread

all liberties come at an expense, usually at the cost of other liberties.
so when someone is allowed the freedom to work for his own gain they are doing so at the expense of a disproportionate number of people.
on a national scale this can be written off as the more industrious getting what they deserve, but this falls flat on an international scale. and anarchism is (and communism should have been) transnational philosophies, so financial freedom is the freedom to make people starve. and i doubt anyone would support the unadulterated freedom to kill.

How does this "fall flat" on an international scale?

Funny, ask any person I work with whether or not they've been stolen from. They'll say no.

Ask any guy that went to college and got a degree in computer programming whether or not he's been stolen from.

Thing is, if you're talking about sweatshops in Asia, I think that is a bit wrong. The working conditions should be good.

Ask any guy that went to college and got a degree in computer programming whether or not he's been stolen from.

Last time I checked, we didn't all program computers. Does he work for a boss?

No - it's voluntary

No, you have a "choice" between taking orders and starving.

I meant to say "then worked at Microsoft"

But who gives a shit.

No, you have a "choice" between taking orders and starving.

Work for yourself, an option you continue to ignore

Who provides all the food in your ideal society? How do I, a non-farmer, aquire this food?

Actually, it's quite possible, if you know what you're doing, to living outside of society. You wouldn't even need money to buy seeds to make a garden. All you would need is the knowledge of what is and is not edible. Letila, can I have your address so I can send you some books that will help you learn this stuff?

I don't believe anyone is preventing you from forraging for food in the wilderness. I believe there are vacancies in the South American rainforest, currently.

I don't believe anyone is preventing you from forraging for food in the wilderness. I believe there are vacancies in the South American rainforest, currently.
Did I say someone was preventing anyone?

I belive he was responding to Letila:

No, you have a "choice" between taking orders and starving.

I belive he was responding to Letila:
Oh. Thanks.

It is animal nature to be a capitalist, to try to get to the top at the expense of anyone who gets in your way. This animalian instinct was driven into us even more by the Church so there would always be oppressed people that would turn to it for comfort and become even more oppressed. Thus it became fortified as human nature. Once humans can get above being animals, communism can work, until then, socialism is the closest we can come and capitalism will remain dominant. There will be opressers and opressed as long as privately owned businesses remain and we remain animals.

In order for Communism to work it requires everyone to take an initiative to provide a service and thus better the lives of everyone, which indirectly links to yourself. It also requires that the entire globe is unified under one banner. It would also require our rescendanse to being humans, instead of animals. This is of course completely the opposite of what happens today; where it doesn't matter what you do, because you will opressed by someone bigger than you if you start to make a success; there is too much hatred sown by religions, governments and human stupidity; the Church still remains to supress and oppress.

It is animal nature to be a capitalist, to try to get to the top at the expense of anyone who gets in your way. This animalian instinct was driven into us even more by the Church so there would always be oppressed people that would turn to it for comfort and become even more oppressed. Thus it became fortified as human nature. Once humans can get above being animals, communism can work, until then, socialism is the closest we can come and capitalism will remain dominant. There will be opressers and opressed as long as privately owned businesses remain and we remain animals.

Actually, many of the earliest societies were essentially anarcho-communist from what I've read.

Actually, many of the earliest societies were essentially anarcho-communist from what I've read.
Hmm...
anyone here ever played the game "Runescape"? It's a kind of dumb MMORPG. I mention Runescape for this reason...there are no controls put in for the economy (except that it can't completely crash due to NPCs). However, this game, with players from all around the world, is extremely capitalistic...like, overwhelmingly so...

(I noted this because it is kind of evidence that argues for the naturalness of capitalism)