NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the new anarchist thread. Here is a quick guide to answer questions you may have:

http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70820

Let the flames begin!

*errects a black flag

*laughs at the phalic reference

Hi everyone, if there are any anarchists out there who have participated in anti globalization protests (ie Seattle 99 etc) then pelase send me a telegram. I am writing a research paper on the protest movement and i would love to interview anyone who fits that criteria.

Thanking you in advance,
The Protectorate of Trotterstan

This is the new anarchist thread.

Let the flames begin!

let's not. spending all your time arguing with libertarians about the same 2 points is neither a) fun or b) productive. especially when dealing with the one arrogant jerk makes others respond in kind and gets our old thread locked. how about we set some ground rules and try to keep away from certain topics this time around?

Hi everyone, if there are any anarchists out there who have participated in anti globalization protests (ie Seattle 99 etc) then pelase send me a telegram. I am writing a research paper on the protest movement and i would love to interview anyone who fits that criteria.

are you after just the big name protests, or can some of the lesser ones count too?

not too fussy on size but I am most interested in protests at whichdifferent groups were represented ie marxists, anarchists, greens, feminists etc rather than just one organisation protesting.

let's not. spending all your time arguing with libertarians about the same 2 points is neither a) fun or b) productive. especially when dealing with the one arrogant jerk makes others respond in kind and gets our old thread locked. how about we set some ground rules and try to keep away from certain topics this time around?
*is amused by Free Soviets' whining*

*especially about that part where one person makes someone else respond in kind, thus using the "debbil made me do it" argument*

let's not. spending all your time arguing with libertarians about the same 2 points is neither a) fun or b) productive. especially when dealing with the one arrogant jerk makes others respond in kind and gets our old thread locked. how about we set some ground rules and try to keep away from certain topics this time around?
Old thread was locked because it was too many pages. Read the forums rules. They get locked at like 75 pages.,

Old thread was locked because it was too many pages. Read the forums rules. They get locked at like 75 pages.,

nah, we had another 261 posts before we hit the limit. and it seemed to coincide quite nicely with hack and gmc showing up in the middle of a rather nice flamethrower fight.

let's not. spending all your time arguing with libertarians about the same 2 points is neither a) fun or b) productive. especially when dealing with the one arrogant jerk makes others respond in kind and gets our old thread locked. how about we set some ground rules and try to keep away from certain topics this time around?

I try to avoid flamewars. It's BAAWA who calls everyone who doesn't consider workers commodities to be bought and sold smoothbrains.

I try to avoid flamewars. It's BAAWA who calls everyone who doesn't consider workers commodities to be bought and sold smoothbrains.
no, most of the people on the thread were at least avoiding massive cursing, name calling, and death wishes...
However it's pretty naive and one-sided to claim it was just BAAWA- even if he started it, the others should be able to control themseves. I didn't start whining and bitching to Disc. when he asked me to die. What he says to me online just doesn't affect me that much.
And for the numbers, it was on page 70 and was not at the end of the page. I would say that it was locked for flaming (esp. since the mods had just asked them to stop) and not for a page limit

so then, its agreed, no flamethrowers, napalm, molotov coctails, matches or any other pyrotecnic warfare of any kind.

*loads AK

I've been thinking about Anarchy ever since my nation was classified as one. In game it is the best UN category you can have (well... that is if you want the highest of all your freedoms).

The main problem that I see with Anarchy is actually getting to it. Would the only way be for some disaster to happen that wiped out much of the Earth's population and government?

The main problem that I see with Anarchy is actually getting to it. Would the only way be for some disaster to happen that wiped out much of the Earth's population and government?

I think it may be an eventual swing of politics. Maybe not for another thousand years, but I think eventually, people will no longer have a need of a government. Hell, most people live their normal lives as though they were in an anarchy, the rule of law very rarely affecting their immediate decisions

I try to avoid flamewars. It's BAAWA who calls everyone who doesn't consider workers commodities to be bought and sold smoothbrains.
But BAAWA doesn't consider workers as commodities. Thus, I call morons who use strawmen "smooth-brains".

Get it?

A thousand years?! Oivay!

quite

I think the usa should take some massive plot of government land and all it in. Then give it to all the anarchists who want to live their. once most of em' die and the rest are miserable, well, we will take the land back. this would at least stop my dad from having to deal with htis particular species of protestor once a year in nyc.

I think the usa should take some massive plot of government land and all it in. Then give it to all the anarchists who want to live their. once most of em' die and the rest are miserable, well, we will take the land back. this would at least stop my dad from having to deal with htis particular species of protestor once a year in nyc.
Or, once the plot of land is successful, more people will want to join, thus creating a need for more land to be diverted to anarchism.

Or, once the plot of land is successful, more people will want to join, thus creating a need for more land to be diverted to anarchism.
Think about it, "State Department for Anarchism."

Wonder who will be secretary.

think the usa should take some massive plot of government land and all it in. Then give it to all the anarchists who want to live their. once most of em' die and the rest are miserable,

Right, because anarchists don't have opposable thumbs and cannot use tools?
Or maybe being ordered about makes one happy. Explains why some are unhappy at the top.

I think the usa should take some massive plot of government land and all it in. Then give it to all the anarchists who want to live their. once most of em' die and the rest are miserable, well, we will take the land back. this would at least stop my dad from having to deal with htis particular species of protestor once a year in nyc.

im glad people who dont even understand the simple basics of an idea like to try and show off....

ooooo, i guess all the Anarchists are going to shut up now because you made such a good point, looks like you alone have stopped the anarchist movement.

I think the usa should take some massive plot of government land and all it in. Then give it to all the anarchists who want to live their. once most of em' die and the rest are miserable, well, we will take the land back.

yes massa, i dun nah what ta do wit mesef without you there. lordy lordy, please take me back massa.

Freeeeeeeedom!!!

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

I dont know why, but i think it fits....

or not, whatever, its a great song

Or, once the plot of land is successful, more people will want to join, thus creating a need for more land to be diverted to anarchism.

Would be interesting if different states had vastly different laws - and to see how'd they turn out.

- artist formally known as snaggletooth but decided this name was much better

Would be interesting if different states had vastly different laws - and to see how'd they turn out.

I agree. We'd also be able to see if anarcho-communism is better than anarcho-capitalism.

I agree. We'd also be able to see if anarcho-communism is better than anarcho-capitalism.
Anarcho-communism would quickly turn into feudalism.

Anarcho-communism would quickly turn into feudalism.Why would that be?

Anarcho-communism would quickly turn into feudalism.

how so? the structures it proposes have nothing in common with the structures of feudalism or those that preceded it.

Did you just say something about anarcho- something having structures...? Look, I'm too tired to explain how this economic evolution works, but try catching me some other time--better yet...look through some of the other communism or anarcho-communism threads that I've debated with Letila on and see if you can find the explanation.

Did you just say something about anarcho- something having structures...?

yes. we've been quite explicit about what sorts of structures we propose, both in our theoretical works and our propaganda. hell, i've personally explained them at least a half dozen times on the ns general forum alone.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

the fact that you don't know what kinds of structures we support seems to undercut your assertion that anarchism leads to feudalism rather badly, don't you think?

I think Opal Isle's misunderstanding is that he automatically equates anarchism with chaos, which, while they can often go together, do not have to.

I think Opal Isle's misunderstanding is that he automatically equates anarchism with chaos, which, while they can often go together, do not have to.

and indeed insists upon maintaining that equation even when told otherwise. an unfortunately common affliction, actually.

ah, if only the word anomie was in common usage...

Don't you hate it when people draw in the head of your guinness?

*Takes out two LEGO figures, one with a red shirt with an L on it, one with a blue shirt with a C on it*

Alrighty. The one with L is Letila. Mr. Letila, meet Mr. C AKA Mr. Capitalism.

*Has Letila slap Capitalism*

But as many people grow older, they learn that in todays society, Anarchy is unpractical, especially because people are competitive, and that benefits a capitalist system.

*Has Letila shake hands with Capitalism*

Okay. Now shake hands with all other forms of government and that fact that anarchy won't be accepted. After you do that, never whine again about how great anarchy is.

Because it'll makw a lot of people happy.

But as many people grow older, they learn that in todays society, Anarchy is unpractical, especially because people are competitive, and that benefits a capitalist system.
If you believe competition is a good thing then what's wrong with the class war?

If you believe competition is a good thing then what's wrong with the class war?
It's a figment of your imagination?

It's a figment of your imagination?Do you not accept that people on low pay have a direct interest in getting more, and those paying them those wages have a direct interest in keeping them low?

*Takes out two LEGO figures, one with a red shirt with an L on it, one with a blue shirt with a C on it*

Alrighty. The one with L is Letila. Mr. Letila, meet Mr. C AKA Mr. Capitalism.

*Has Letila slap Capitalism*

But as many people grow older, they learn that in todays society, Anarchy is unpractical, especially because people are competitive, and that benefits a capitalist system.

*Has Letila shake hands with Capitalism*

Okay. Now shake hands with all other forms of government and that fact that anarchy won't be accepted. After you do that, never whine again about how great anarchy is.

Because it'll makw a lot of people happy.

well that was productive. you are aware that most anarchists aren't teenagers, yes? talk about 'growing up' from people who are almost certainly younger than myself is rather funny.

*Takes out two LEGO figures, one with a red shirt with an L on it, one with a blue shirt with a C on it*

Alrighty. The one with L is Letila. Mr. Letila, meet Mr. C AKA Mr. Capitalism.

*Has Letila slap Capitalism*

But as many people grow older, they learn that in todays society, Anarchy is unpractical, especially because people are competitive, and that benefits a capitalist system.

*Has Letila shake hands with Capitalism*

Okay. Now shake hands with all other forms of government and that fact that anarchy won't be accepted. After you do that, never whine again about how great anarchy is.

Because it'll makw a lot of people happy.

ouch, if that isnt patronizing

Anarchy, With bas towards the government result of anarchy with only anarchists decent with non anarchist bad

Anarchy, With bas towards the government result of anarchy with only anarchists decent with non anarchist bad

:confused:

:confused:
I'll second that.
:confused: :confused:

yes I have them in my mental web attack my brethern

I like BAAWA's argumentative style. It's good to see someone who can see through logical fallacies with efficiency. I will name BAAWA my advocate for this thread, since even though he prefers the "anarcho" prefix he still manages to make the "capitalist" points stick, and that's what's important.

This also conviniently saves me from feeling obligated to defend capitalism from the rampant anticapitalists, on this thread anyway. :P

I like BAAWA's argumentative style. It's good to see someone who can see through logical fallacies with efficiency.

the problem is that he can't. he only really knows the names of like five of them, tends to use them incorrectly, and when he presents his own arguments they are riddled with fallacies of his own. not to mention the fact that he's an arrogant ass that responds in one-liners and defends himself through misrepresentation, name calling, and changing the subject. there are better 'anarcho'-cappies out there to claim as your champions.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it clearly isn't mine. And I admire people who can make adequate responses with one-liners, and I think he can. I on the other hand, tend to ramble dully when a simple 'your opinions do not guide my actions' would do.

Alright, I've decided to go cold turkey on opposing the stupid comments and "facts" made by anarchists (Young and old).

Because it's POINTLESS.

It's always the same arguement. Nothing new. "Government bad. Anarchy good." Then I get links to sites with stupid Q&A sessions on them.


*Leaves the cold, harsh realm of the anarchist system and walks into the warm, dry, and cozy Democratic Republic we live in.*

Alright, I've decided to go cold turkey on opposing the stupid comments and "facts" made by anarchists (Young and old).

Because it's POINTLESS.

It's always the same arguement. Nothing new. "Government bad. Anarchy good." Then I get links to sites with stupid Q&A sessions on them.


*Leaves the cold, harsh realm of the anarchist system and walks into the warm, dry, and cozy Democratic Republic we live in.*

ignorance=bliss and all that jazz

MUST...RESIST..URGE...TO...PROVE...WRONG....

*Explodes*

MUST...RESIST..URGE...TO...PROVE...WRONG....

*Explodes*

lol

seriously, if you can prove the (i think) thousands of years of anarchist philosophy wrong, do it

beacuse if it is so obviously flawed i would appreciate it if someone would open my eyes for me



get a life

Well, I have a life. It's great. I've got tons of friends, I have a great computer, I've played a variety of sports in the past, experienced several magnificent natural phenomon- Oh. Sorry.

And here's why anarchy doesn't work:

The American government has lasted hundreds of years. So has the British. So has the French. So has the German. So has the Russian. So has the Sp.... (And on and on and on)

Have you see a anarchist government:

1. Become the "government" of a nation voluntarily?

2. Be used as a type of "government" for hundreds, soemtimes thosuands of years?

3. Not come into exsistence because of a crumbling dictatorship/communist system, etc.?

And here's why anarchy doesn't work:

The American government has lasted hundreds of years. So has the British. So has the French. So has the German. So has the Russian. So has the Sp.... (And on and on and on)

that's just silly. the american state only barely made it to 100 and now clocks in at just over 200. the french are on their third republic in 100 years, not even counting the vichy regime, and they very nearly fell to a libertarian socialist revolution in 1968. the germans have done just about the same, if not slightly worse. the russians have been all over the map politically, from fuedalism to revolutionary socialism and anarchism to stalinist dictatorship to neo-stalinist dictatorship this time with capitalism, and with a bunch of breakaway islamic theocracies too - all in under 100 years. and were you going to write spain when you wrote 'sp'? because that would be an excellent example. they radically changed governments only a few decades ago. and a few decades before that they had a functioning anarchist system that by all indications could have lasted indefinitely if it didn't have to fight both the fascists and the stalinists.

Have you see a anarchist government:

1. Become the "government" of a nation voluntarily?

2. Be used as a type of "government" for hundreds, soemtimes thosuands of years?

3. Not come into exsistence because of a crumbling dictatorship/communist system, etc.?

1. depending on what you mean by 'nation', yes.
2. depending on what you are willing to qualify as 'anarchist', yes.
3. do revolutions against monarchs count? how about coming from the realization that a republic was powerless to stop a military coup, but the anarchist militia pulled it off? if so, yes.

I'm goling to follow the British method of law: Guilty, until proven innocent.

Do you have example of these countries which haf done those 3 things?

And despite the fatc they've gone through all sorts of things, those governments are still her today. Some are not though, but the fact that a government there exists is what is important.

I like BAAWA's argumentative style. It's good to see someone who can see through logical fallacies with efficiency.
the problem is that he can't.
Awwww...lookit the widdle baby who's pouting because he got his ass kicked by me a lot.

he only really knows the names of like five of them,
Actually, I know them all. That's how I point them out.

tends to use them incorrectly,
You meant to say "correctly points them out".

and when he presents his own arguments they are riddled with fallacies of his own.
And if you can point them out, let me know. I'd love to see you find them, since no one has been able to.

not to mention the fact that he's an arrogant ass that responds in one-liners
You deserve nothing more.

and defends himself through misrepresentation,
No, I leave that to you oxymorons.

name calling, and changing the subject.
The first but not the second.

Now run along to mommy and have her change your diaper.

I'm goling to follow the British method of law: Guilty, until proven innocent.

Do you have example of these countries which haf done those 3 things?

And despite the fatc they've gone through all sorts of things, those governments are still her today. Some are not though, but the fact that a government there exists is what is important.

Its funny, because the only reason we need government is because they say we do

I'm goling to follow the British method of law: Guilty, until proven innocent.

Do you have example of these countries which haf done those 3 things?

1. catalonia
2. tons of band and tribe societies throughout history that lived as radical egalitarians for tens of thousands of years, including some still in existence today or in the very recent past.
3. catalonia

One.

One Country.

Hundreds of tribes. There are very few tribes and clans that remain, except for in mainly Africa, and most of those have one ruler, a chief usually.

Now since my questions have been answered in my favor, I am done fighting yet another stupid anarchy thread.

Gooooodbye

Now since my questions have been answered in my favor, I am done fighting yet another stupid anarchy thread.

Gooooodbye

what are you talking about? how was that in your favor?

Hundreds of tribes. There are very few tribes and clans that remain, except for in mainly Africa, and most of those have one ruler, a chief usually.

And they were wiped out by imperialism, an act of government.

Mourez la révolution!

*erects white flag*

Vivent le capitalisme!

*Raises yet another white flag*

Vivent le capitalisme! (Indeed!)

so we have a number of events in the us of interest to anarchist coming up:

first up is the north american anarchist convergence. http://www.naac2004.org/. i had forgotten about this one - it starts tomorrow and goes through sunday. august 13-15 in athens, ohio. wish i had remembered so i could get there. if you are nearby you should go in my place and tell me how it went.

secondly, we have the life after capitalism conference, which is going to be rather immense and probably quite interesting. its in new york city on august 20-22. http://www.lifeaftercapitalism.org/

at the same time, but in colorado, we have the anarchist social retreat. its in del norte, colorado on august 20-22. http://mhr.dbom.net/asr2004/

then we have the republican national convention, also in new york at the end of august/start of september. go there and get your chance to personally give the finger to the wannabe fascist party of america. you'll be there with about 1 million other really pissed off people. a good time had by all - except for the state. http://www.rncnotwelcome.org/

and out on the horizon of the end of september we have the renewing the anarchist tradition conference in plainfield, vermont. if for no other reason, go because a friend of mine is gonna be a panelist. http://www.homemadejam.org/renew/index.html

and of course, a large number of other events that i am unaware of because nobody tells me anything. if you know of something else, here or in crazy foreign lands, feel free to let us all know.

I'll second that.
:confused: :confused:

Thirded
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Vas (only just found this thread).

I like BAAWA's argumentative style.

You're wrong.

It's good to see someone who can see through logical fallacies with efficiency.

That's crap.

I will name BAAWA my advocate for this thread, since even though he prefers the "anarcho" prefix he still manages to make the "capitalist" points stick, and that's what's important.

Prove it.

This also conviniently saves me from feeling obligated to defend capitalism from the rampant anticapitalists, on this thread anyway. :P

Rubbish.

Vas (channelling BWAHAHAHA(where's my bokkle?))

whine whine whine whine
Do you do anything else?

hey fellow anarchists, have you seen our other jolt forum siblings? one of them may be of interest.

1936 - Spain in Flames (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1183)

apparently its a mod for medal of honor.

corporate media coverage of the north american anarchist convergence. and it brings some controversy for us:

Anarchists gathered at OU split on whether to vote against Bush
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Randy Ludlow
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
CHRISTINA EILER | DISPATCH

ATHENS, Ohio — President Bush had best not waste much time on the stump courting the anarchist vote.

But, it’s not a lost cause for the reasons some might suspect.

In seeming contradiction of their rejection of government and its authority, some self-described realists among anarchists plan to cast anti-Bush votes this fall.

The debate on voting against Bush is among the topics being explored during the three-day North American Anarchist Convergence, which attracted about 175 participants to Ohio University.

The discussion continued yesterday morning as anarchists sat cross-legged on the North Green to share melon, vegan bread pudding, apple butter and green tea before scattering to workshops in Ellis Hall.

The notion of voting riles some hard-core anarchists, prompting them to question the commitment of their colleagues to a future with no government.

"Ultimately, those who are voting are either bad anarchists or not anarchists at all," said Lawrence, a "Californian in his mid-40 s" who declined to share his last name.

"No one can represent my interests. We reject political professionals," said Lawrence, who taught a course on treating demonstrators felled by police tear gas and pepper spray.

Others, however, plan to vote for John Kerry, Ralph Nader or anyone else to underscore their opposition to the Republican incumbent and the war in Iraq.

Susan Heitker, 32, of Athens, one of the event organizers, said that though the U.S. government is neither legitimate nor democratic in her view, it will take time to supplant it with self-determination.

"To me, at least, it’s important to vote," she said. "There was a time when I was not going to vote, but I really dislike Bush."

The literal graybeard among the largely young group of anarchists, Howard Ehrlich, editor of Social Anarchism, a 3,000-circulation magazine, also embraces his right to "engage the political system."

"I will certainly vote against George Bush because he is leading the nation to further violence and eroding civil liberties," said Ehrlich, a Baltimore, Md., resident whose anarchist views date to the Vietnam War.

Nate Ebert, 24, of Athens, still is weighing whether to visit the polling place Nov. 2. "Some see voting as very disempowering. They don’t want to participate in a decision-making process that doesn’t work."

Replacing government with self-sufficient cooperative groups is a central theme of the anarchists’ convergence, which ends today.

"Anarchy doesn’t mean disorganization and chaos," said Erika Hedin, 19, an OU student. "It has to do with empowering small groups to take control of their own lives. Everybody has a say; everybody has the same power."

Some anarchists declined to give their names or ages and objected to being photographed at the state-supported university.

Workshop sessions included "Work is a Dictatorship," "Dealing with the FBI and State Repression," "Street-Level Propaganda" and "Anarchism is Christianity."

so, to vote or not to vote? and why?

that's just silly. the american state only barely made it to 100 and now clocks in at just over 200.
The American state lasted 80 years before being destroyed in the second American revolution (civil war) and replaced by Abraham Lincoln's constitutional imperialism (I just made that term up but it's pretty cool, eh?)

so, to vote or not to vote? and why?
If voting brings you closer to statelessness yes, if it doesn't then no.

Reasons why it might: you might win the vote, you might win publicity, you might encourage mainstream partys to adopt a more libertarian to avoid losing votes (the american socialist party are probably the most successful party in the country's history, despite never winning anything better than the mayorship of Milawauke)

Reasons why it might not: it helps legitimise the rule, few if any partys are libertarian.

A judgement call based on time and place.

so, to vote or not to vote? and why?
I say vote. Even if you don't find the idea of a government to be legitimate, if you live under one, voting still affects things.

Other reasons not to vote - you have to register, you're vote will decidedly not change anything (either your guy will win by one more or lose by one less, if it's close enough to count it'll be settled by courts anyway)

I'm goling to follow the British method of law: Guilty, until proven innocent.

That's the French method of law [and isn't even that any more]. British law is innocent until proven guilty.

so, to vote or not to vote? and why?

to answer my own question, i will be voting. this is because i view the bush administration as particularly evil - and kerry voted with them on nearly everything i oppose most. as such i want to go on official record voting for neither of their openly imperialist crypto-fascism. i'm not sure whether i'll be voting for david cobb of the green party (some of my best friends are green party members...) or just writing in nobody, but in either case i will be voting for the lesser evil.

as for 'costing kerry the election' - well fuck him. at least the bush crowd is a pack of incompetent liars who barely even try to conceal their horrific abuses.

The American state lasted 80 years before being destroyed in the second American revolution (civil war) and replaced by Abraham Lincoln's constitutional imperialism (I just made that term up but it's pretty cool, eh?)

Yeah, that is pretty cool. But the South deserved to have the crap kicked out of it...what a miserable place...the only good thing is North Carolina BBQ sandwiches....mmmm....

But the South deserved to have the crap kicked out of it

the south both totally deserved to have the living crap kicked out of it (they got off easy if you ask me) and totally should have been able to leave the us if they really wanted to.

the south both totally deserved to have the living crap kicked out of it (they got off easy if you ask me) and totally should have been able to leave the us if they really wanted to.
I know you aren't entirely serious here. The southern soldiers weren't fighting to keep slavery, they were fighting to keep free from federal interference. The general point (in which the south was right) is more important than the specific of slavery (on which the north was right.)

to answer my own question, i will be voting. this is because i view the bush administration as particularly evil - and kerry voted with them on nearly everything i oppose most. as such i want to go on official record voting for neither of their openly imperialist crypto-fascism. i'm not sure whether i'll be voting for david cobb of the green party (some of my best friends are green party members...) or just writing in nobody, but in either case i will be voting for the lesser evil.

as for 'costing kerry the election' - well fuck him. at least the bush crowd is a pack of incompetent liars who barely even try to conceal their horrific abuses.
Why not libertarian, the only party that opposes govt on principle? You'd have more chance of getting to ansoc from ancap than from any other system, plus we wouldn't invade your communes if you started them on your own land, unlike the feds.

Why not libertarian, the only party that opposes govt on principle? You'd have more chance of getting to ansoc from ancap than from any other system, plus we wouldn't invade your communes if you started them on your own land, unlike the feds.To be fair I can't see the Greens invading communes either. Unless it's to make them eat lentils. :D

To be fair I can't see the Greens invading communes either. Unless it's to make them eat lentils. :D
Unless of course the commune pollutes or isn't vegetarian or chops down a tree. Why do ansocs assume communes will be environmentally friendly or even environmentally cordial?

Unless of course the commune pollutes or isn't vegetarian or chops down a tree. Why do ansocs assume communes will be environmentally friendly or even environmentally cordial?I think the idea that tree chopping is automatically enviromentally unfriendly is a false one. To your other point (though as you know I'm not an anarchist), I'd say that communes are likely to be smallscale enough that massive enviromental damage (or for that matter battery farming) just aren't pragmatic.

I think the idea that tree chopping is automatically enviromentally unfriendly is a false one. To your other point (though as you know I'm not an anarchist), I'd say that communes are likely to be smallscale enough that massive enviromental damage (or for that matter battery farming) just aren't pragmatic.
I doubt this. Glasgow will have small communes? People won't drive cars, burn coal, drill for oil or do other polluting stuff? Communes won't club together for big jobs (running railways and large industrial concerns)? It just wouldn't happen.

to answer my own question, i will be voting. this is because i view the bush administration as particularly evil - and kerry voted with them on nearly everything i oppose most. as such i want to go on official record voting for neither of their openly imperialist crypto-fascism. i'm not sure whether i'll be voting for david cobb of the green party (some of my best friends are green party members...) or just writing in nobody, but in either case i will be voting for the lesser evil.
You should really consider Cthulhu/Crud Puppy. After all, if you're voting for the lesser evil, why not vote for someone who, if you're good, will eat you last.
http://www.zazzle.com/contributors/products/product/product.asp?cid=238701994818211377&caching=on&product%5Fid=235310076764388771&index=1

I say vote. Even if you don't find the idea of a government to be legitimate, if you live under one, voting still affects things.

As not being american, from my point of view, voting does not effect things as every government is forced to obey general rules dictated by capitalism.

So in fact it does not really matter if you vote or not. It's just about what you feel like on "voting-day". If I would be allowed to cast a vote in the US I might do it. But you would only affect something if you are being politically active. Creating consciousness seems to be the only way of changing something...

edit: Basically discussing this issue on this thread affects more than the actual vote...

I know you aren't entirely serious here. The southern soldiers weren't fighting to keep slavery, they were fighting to keep free from federal interference.

Or so they thought

Unless of course the commune pollutes or isn't vegetarian or chops down a tree. Why do ansocs assume communes will be environmentally friendly or even environmentally cordial?

There is much less motivation to pollute since profit doesn't exist. They have less need to cut costs. They also waste less and experience pollution directly because it is more decentralized.

strange days - http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/178856

Democrats call for probe after FBI questions Lawrence anarchists

By Joel Mathis, Journal-World

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Three Democratic congressmen on Tuesday asked the Justice Department to investigate the FBI's questioning of potential protesters in advance of this summer's political conventions -- questioning that included agents knocking on the doors of Lawrence anarchists.

"We recognize the obvious importance of protecting the conventions from violence and threats of violence," said the letter, signed by three Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. "However, based upon our review of recent media accounts, the FBI appears to be engaged in systematic political harassment and intimidation of legitimate anti-war protesters."

The FBI in late July questioned at least two members of a Lawrence anarchist group prior to the Democratic National Convention. Agents said they were checking out a tip that a group planned to firebomb media vehicles at the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Anti-war activists in other states were also questioned by the FBI in the days preceding the Boston convention.

Lawrence anarchists denied plans for violence, and said they feared the government was seizing an opportunity to investigate or harass them for their anti-capitalist, anti-war views.

Why not libertarian, the only party that opposes govt on principle? You'd have more chance of getting to ansoc from ancap than from any other system, plus we wouldn't invade your communes if you started them on your own land, unlike the feds.

because even when i'm feeling generous toward the libs, i still feel dirty. i do think that should a libertarian paradise come about, it would make a nice and easy transition stage to anarchism. but there is something about a political ideology where the idea that people can legitimately sell themselves into slavery isn't immediately tossed out as ridiculous that just leaves me a bit cold.

I know you aren't entirely serious here. The southern soldiers weren't fighting to keep slavery, they were fighting to keep free from federal interference. The general point (in which the south was right) is more important than the specific of slavery (on which the north was right.)

my honest position on the civil war is that john brown had the right idea.

This is the new anarchist thread. Here is a quick guide to answer questions you may have:

http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70820

Let the flames begin!


have you seen the movie, the village? that seemes semi anarcho communistic to me.

As not being american, from my point of view, voting does not effect things as every government is forced to obey general rules dictated by capitalism.

I assume you mean "mercantilism" rather than the free market, where the govt does nothing by definition. From now on I decree there is no such thing as "capitalism", please either say "mercantilism" or "free market" to avoid confusion.
my honest position on the civil war is that john brown had the right idea.

Pardon my ignorance but I have no idea who John Brown is, unless you mean the Glasgow Rangers central defender of late 80s - early 90s.
There is much less motivation to pollute since profit doesn't exist. They have less need to cut costs. They also waste less and experience pollution directly because it is more decentralized.

Monetary profit doesn't exist but the motivation to produce more for less effort still does (don't be naive, now). I don't see any incentive for Ansoc (TM) to give up wealth for the sake of a few badgers or whatever. I don't understand how they will "experience pollution directly because it is more decentralized". The effect of blowing smoke out of a chimney is the same under any system of govt or non-govt.

so, to vote or not to vote? and why?

I think it is definitely worth voting against someone (I did so recently - voting for a Green candidate to block a BNP candidate), but voting specifically in favour of someone is really against anarchist principles. Also, this only refers to parliamentary elections in representative democracy systems - NOT in referenda or necessarily in local elections (cf. Bookchin on local democracy).

Vas.

To be fair I can't see the Greens invading communes either. Unless it's to make them eat lentils. :D

Oh, I'd be careful about that prediction. Have you read Bookchin's stuff on the splits in the Greem movement? Some of the older European trends come as much from Naziism as from the 60s ecology movements and are very anti-humanist (something shared by the more extreme primitivists).

Vas.

Dis, can you TG me ASAP. Internal matter. (And I can't get your user name to work).

I was wondering if any of you had heard of the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz who fights for the rights mentally impaired people not to be locked up in state mental asylums against their will. Here is an excellent article on him from Reason magazine.

http://reason.com/0007/fe.js.curing.shtml

"The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control." As he put it in his 1990 book The Untamed Tongue, "What people nowadays call mental illness, especially in a legal context, is not a fact, but a strategy; not a condition, but a policy; in short it is not a disease that the alleged patient has, but a decision which those who call him mentally ill make about how to act toward him, whether he likes it or not."

I was wondering if any of you had heard of the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz who fights for the rights mentally impaired people not to be locked up in state mental asylums against their will.

Haven't heard of him, but Michel Foucault has written lots about this, as well as the "psychedelic" philosophers such Stanislav Grof. It's a very difficult question, excessive liberalism in the care of truly ill persons through "care in the community" has led to greater danger to themselves and those around them - people who require help left to fend for themselves. On the flip, there is far too much depency on chemicals these days - children disinterested in school are pumped full of drugs rather than anyone truly examining whether they're either unable to keep up or bored because they've a greater capacity for work, because classes are too big and authoritarian. Depression is now treated largely as a physical problem - a complete reversal of the previous case - rather than being properly examined and established to be either chemical or situational (having suffered from both, there's a big difference - the latter can be combatted by changing your situation, the former is a case of riding the wave and enjoying the mania that balances it out or medicating if it gets too much).

It's no different to the way a hierarchical society deals with crime - rather than trying to get rid of it, it simply expects it and reacts. Prisons are generally multipliers of criminal tendency rather than rehabilitation, but a society based on fear and control needs crime and also needs prisons to show how it flexes its muscles.

Vas.

excessive liberalism

To be clear about what I mean here - social liberalism is, in my view, normally a half measure - an attempt to cover up the outward appearance of oppression without dealing with the core issue. Political correctness is a perfect example of this, stamp out prejudicial language rather than dealing with the social roots of prejudice. "Care in the community" - get people out of mental institutions and dump them, doped to the eyeballs, in social housing among the poor rather than help them truly deal with their problems.

Vas.

The so-called "mentally ill", far from being a danger to others, are statistically MORE law abiding than "normal" people. Those who do commit crimes should be given the same benefit of the doubt others have and not be punished unless they do something wrong. Imagine if the govt incarcerated all the teenage blacks saying that they are statistically more likely to be criminals.

hey fellow anarchists. i'm looking for a good graphic to go on a shirt i'm making. the text of it is gonna say "no one is illegal" and "nadie es ilegal: ¡por un mundo sin fronteras!" (also, would somebody whose spanish isn't rusty and toddler level care to tell me if this is glaringly wrong), but i need a good image to go along with it. anyone know of any or have any artistic ability? the best i've found so far is

http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/images/library/images/cross-borders.jpg

Pardon my ignorance but I have no idea who John Brown is, unless you mean the Glasgow Rangers central defender of late 80s - early 90s.


John Brown led a slave revolt in Harpers Ferry Virginia shortly before the war...i believe they seized an armory...

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/39/news-mikulan.php
Anarchist, Interrupted
Sherman Austin may face state charges
by Steven Mikulan

Last Friday the 13th was Sherman Austin’s lucky day. After serving a one-year sentence for distributing explosives information over the Internet, the 21-year-old anarchist walked out of an Echo Park halfway house and into a summer’s morning a free man. He was met by his mother, girlfriend and the family dog — which he took for a walk before leaving for home. Austin had finished his federal term in the Gateway correctional facility after spending most of it in a medium-security lockup near Tucson. During the job searches that were part of his Echo Park regimen, Austin got a taste of problems that may lie ahead when he was forced to turn down a canvassing job that required using a company cell phone.

Under the terms of Austin’s three-year probation, the Raise the Fist Webmaster may only use a cell phone that is owned in his name; he may use a computer — but only a laptop that he must bring in for government examination at any time, and he cannot associate with individuals thought to advocate political violence. In other words, don’t expect him to show up at the Republican convention in New York.

Worse, according to his new attorney, William Paparian, Austin is still subject to state prosecution not only for the same count for which he was indicted, but also for an incendiary-devices charge that the feds had agreed to drop as part of a plea bargain. Unfortunately for Austin, that agreement didn’t include immunity from future California indictments. Deputy L.A. County District Attorney Jonathan Fairtlough is currently reviewing documents on the case prepared for him by the FBI. When contacted, Fairtlough declined to answer questions about Austin’s possible case, saying, “The District Attorney’s Office cannot comment on cases that have not been filed.”

“It offends anyone’s fundamental feelings of fairness,” Paparian told the Weekly by phone. In addition to guiding Austin through his probation, Paparian is trying to get the government to return computer hardware seized from Austin’s home during a 2001 raid.

“Sherman could be in violation of his parole,” the Pasadena lawyer said, “if he’s at a meeting of the Daughters of the American Revolution and they’re talking about the Declaration of Independence. There’s a myth being perpetuated here — the stereotype of the black-masked anarchist breaking the plate-glass windows of Starbucks. It’s part and parcel of the demonization of [Sherman’s] anarchist philosophy.”

Indeed, Austin has come to represent an American radicalism endangered by post-9/11 crackdowns on civil liberties. So much so that he has become a kind of touchstone to the young left (even Hustler ran a spread on his case) — sometimes to the ire of older radicals who don’t view him as an Angela Davis or a George Jackson.

“Celebrity feels kinda weird,” Austin told the Weekly a few days after his release, shortly before a homecoming party at his mother’s Valley Village apartment. “My reason for starting Raise the Fist wasn’t to be a celebrity.”

While in Tucson he played in prison rock bands and moved from his old love, the drums, to bass guitar. In between looking for work and enrolling in Harbor City College, Austin has busied himself by recording songs he wrote in Tucson and honing his new bass skills. Meanwhile, he must navigate between expressing his beliefs and abiding by the terms of his probation — as well as his relative fame.

“I don’t mind speaking in public, but there’s a certain point where someone might use you as a poster for their own agenda. I don’t want to only talk about my case or because I went to prison. I want to move forward to find solutions.”

Today the drummer who learned bass is adapting to a different personal environment, one that could drastically change should the deputy D.A. decide to prosecute him.

“I’m just trying to get back on my feet,” Austin said before his party began. “I’m still going to do organizing, but I have to watch out what scenery I’m around.”

hey fellow anarchists. i'm looking for a good graphic to go on a shirt i'm making. the text of it is gonna say "no one is illegal" and "nadie es ilegal: ¡por un mundo sin fronteras!" (also, would somebody whose spanish isn't rusty and toddler level care to tell me if this is glaringly wrong), but i need a good image to go along with it. anyone know of any or have any artistic ability?

where's the love, y'all?

in a universe that is more diverse then any of us could ever
possibly begin to immagine
nothing
is ever completely inevitable.

in carlemnaria we are peacefuly content to avoid as much
ever as possible the imposition of virtical hierarchy on
social organization. prefering instead, to achieve such
coordination as is neccessary by horizontal proccessess
whenaver and wherever as best we can.

we cannot claim to have perfected this
universal self dicipline is never completely universal or
perfected.
yet a great deal is well within the perview of even human
potential.

in a culture that accords honor prestige on the recognition
of generosity and creativity
we have found the introduction of disruptive and artificial
stimuli totaly gratuitous and impertinent

it is of course the perceptions and values of the culture
itself that is key to achieving this

we know that our way of life is not immune to disruption
yet we have found that to harm others does nothing to
protect either them or ourselves or their ways of life,
freedoms and dignities, or our own.

some may immagine it a myrical that it is possible for us
to exist as we do
perhapse in such an era as most of you reading this live
this may have been less redily achievable
and indeed some may argue not at all

yet there are avenues we feel convinced have never been
adiquitely explored

when the oil ran out it bacame a matter of survival to do so

we have since gone on to more then to survive but to thrive
in an environment and atmospher of abundance

created not by struggle
but by the self dicipline to avoid undermining and distorting
it for transitory and illusory symbolic so called gain

we have learned that symbolic value is like a picture of a cat
while gratification
which comes from accomplishment, generosity and beauty
is the cat itself

it is thus that we are able to live in such harmony with
our surroundings as to deny dignity and abundance to none

=^^=
.../\...

where's the love, y'all?

http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/logo.jpeg

"It is the Classes which made the Revolutions -- not the Individuals.

Nay, even the really revolutionary minded individuals, if they remain isolated, turn toward this Individual. But Anarchism of the bourgoise which is nothing but the epicureans let it go of the economists, spiced with a few "terrific" phrases of Nihilsm --- good to frighten the Philistines, --- which it would really be time to leave to the Nitzeche'ists, the German Slav'ists, and all the familiar arch-Philistine "ists"

-Kropotkin in a letter to Berkman

I'm just glad the cappies haven't flooded this thread.

I'm just glad the cappies haven't flooded this thread.
never heard "cappies" before. Well, take your government issue spoon and take your words and distribute them out to your neighbors in equal portions, then eat your tiny share.

I'm just glad the cappies haven't flooded this thread.
We're busy kicking your ass in other threads, as usual.

haha, check it out

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/681-FRONT_BIG.jpg

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/225855p-193988c.html

an article that is rather hilariously wrong in many ways, yet kind of disturbing because they actually use names and therefore sounds legit to people who don't know any better.

we really need to get our own media up and running again. i want to see anarchist daylies and weeklies, instead of this quarterly journal thing we've got going. and we've got to stop talking to ourselves and get back to talking to everyone else with our publications.

never heard "cappies" before. Well, take your government issue spoon and take your words and distribute them out to your neighbors in equal portions, then eat your tiny share.

That's not my spoon. My spoon is bigger...and full.

I'm just glad the cappies haven't flooded this thread.
I've been working. You know what that is, right?

Vital reading for all units in the ansoc collective.

http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismcapitalismandanarchocapitalism.htm

Including the quotation...

"“if a man has labor to sell, he has a right to a free market in which to sell it.”

from Ben Tucker.

The question is :
If a man has no labor to sell, does he have the right to a free market in which to sell the labor of other people?

I've been thinking about Anarchy ever since my nation was classified as one. In game it is the best UN category you can have (well... that is if you want the highest of all your freedoms).

The main problem that I see with Anarchy is actually getting to it. Would the only way be for some disaster to happen that wiped out much of the Earth's population and government?
No. I think "anarchy" is a very misunderstood concept. Concentration of power in an elite class relates much less to the form of the political system than to concentration of participation and of awareness. Therefore, any such disaster would not be very likely to lead to anarchy. It would lead to chaos, which is entirely different. The idea of anarchy is basically a constantly evolving social contract, rather than a one-time agreement to surrender self-determination to an authority that in most cases is abusive.

Vital reading for all units in the ansoc collective.

http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismcapitalismandanarchocapitalism.htm

Including the quotation...

"“if a man has labor to sell, he has a right to a free market in which to sell it.”

from Ben Tucker.

Well, first of all, what is a "free market"? Any capitalist system inherently is based on very strict rules:

1) property ownership, which requires societally sanctioned individual control of land and capital, given to the first comer
2) no stealing, or there would be no profit motive,
and I could probably think of other rules. The point is, our system is based on the rules that profit those in control and help them maintain control, not on some mystical "free market". We have massive taxpayer subsidies to big business--agribusiness, the military-industrial complex, etc. So, yes, within a narrow framework, I suppose we ought to give a person with labor to sell the opportunity to sell it, but this talk about a "free market" is 99% rubbish.

The question is :
If a man has no labor to sell, does he have the right to a free market in which to sell the labor of other people?
No, that is not the question.

Well, first of all, what is a "free market"? Any capitalist system inherently is based on very strict rules:

1) property ownership, which requires societally sanctioned individual control of land and capital, given to the first comer
2) no stealing, or there would be no profit motive,
and I could probably think of other rules. The point is, our system is based on the rules that profit those in control and help them maintain control, not on some mystical "free market". We have massive taxpayer subsidies to big business--agribusiness, the military-industrial complex, etc. So, yes, within a narrow framework, I suppose we ought to give a person with labor to sell the opportunity to sell it, but this talk about a "free market" is 99% rubbish.
There is no such thing as capitalism. It is a term invented by Marx, probably because he couldn't spell "mercantilism". You are confusing mercantilism and the free market, a confusion deliberately introduced by Marx and others.

Your definition of property ownership is wrong and the reason stealing is forbidden is nothing to do with the profit motive but is to do with repecting other people (for example, stealing was illegal before Adam Smith elucidated the role of the profit motive).

The rest of your post was a criticism of mercantilism which has nothing to do with the discussion.

Vital reading for all units in the ansoc collective.

http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismcapitalismandanarchocapitalism.htm

Including the quotation...

"“if a man has labor to sell, he has a right to a free market in which to sell it.”

from Ben Tucker.

hey, anarchism.net has changed a bit since a couple years ago. it no longer looks like a web store for libertarian party merch. interesting.

anyway, this all depends on how we are defining a free market and the conditions that market is operating under. in a certain sort of sense i advocate a particular sort of free market in labor - no one will be ordered to work at any particular job for any particular collective, they will be free to choose the work that best suits them (if the collective in question has any need for their help at least), including working alone. and each collective will strive to attract the best people it can to join it to do the work that needs doing. though in a social economy this 'market' will operate differently than markets do under a class system.

but as far as i'm concerned, the only just system of organization for a collective enterprise is one with the lowest level of hierarchy possible, where all involved have a meaningful say in the day-to-day running of it. and that means more than merely choosing to ratify decisions made by others or to stop being part of that collective enterprise. this is the bedrock of freedom for individuals who are engaged in a collective project. freedom on an individual level means having control over your life and not being subject to arbitrary restraints or exercises of authority; likewise freedom on a collective level means that each individual has a just amount of control over and say in collective decisions, instead of being ordered around by an elite.

Fortunately I've seen a working co-operational and I was very impressed. That was my first real-life experience with Anarchists. Sadly, our society demands that there be one person or a small group of persons whom are responsible for the whole group, for example some ignorant f00 calls them and demands to speak to the boss, they throw the phone around until someone feels like talking. Quite funny actually.

There is no such thing as capitalism. It is a term invented by Marx, probably because he couldn't spell "mercantilism". You are confusing mercantilism and the free market, a confusion deliberately introduced by Marx and others.
What's your evidence for Marx inventing the term capitalism? (And if capitalism doesen't exist surely it follows then anyone calling themselves an anarcho-capitalist is also wrong?)

What's your evidence for Marx inventing the term capitalism?
Someone once told me so. I have no interest in doing any research into anything Marx since reading the communist manifesto made me feel sick to my stomach.

(And if capitalism doesen't exist surely it follows then anyone calling themselves an anarcho-capitalist is also wrong?)
It's a silly label and I've stopped using it. The word "capitalism" should be eliminated from all intelligent discussion since it is a nebulous and perjurative term. It also implies "rule by capitalists" which doesn't apply to the free market, though it does apply to mercantilism in a roundabout sort of way.

The words "anarchism", "need", "hierarchy" and "class" should also be eliminated. "Anarchism" is a silly label because our problem is convincing people that statelessness is NOT anarchistic. Proudhon was rubbish at PR. "Need" just clouds clear thinking. "Hierarchy" is again a nebulous term much abused and basically irrelevant to the real issues. "Class" is a sophist obfuscation which leads to invalid social science theorems by assuming that the social actors are classes and not individuals.

Someone once told me so.

Now that is a weak argument.

It's a silly label and I've stopped using it. The word "capitalism" should be eliminated from all intelligent discussion since it is a nebulous and perjurative term. It also implies "rule by capitalists" which doesn't apply to the free market, though it does apply to mercantilism in a roundabout sort of way.

Fine. Capitalism should be called wage-based slavery. That works for me.

The words "anarchism", "need", "hierarchy" and "class" should also be eliminated. "Anarchism" is a silly label because our problem is convincing people that statelessness is NOT anarchistic. Proudhon was rubbish at PR. "Need" just clouds clear thinking. "Hierarchy" is again a nebulous term much abused and basically irrelevant to the real issues. "Class" is a sophist obfuscation which leads to invalid social science theorems by assuming that the social actors are classes and not individuals.

I agree to some extent. Classes aren't capable of action, they are just categories. Still, you'd have to be an idiot to deny that certain people consistantly get a great deal of power over others.

Now that is a weak argument.

Not if it's a person I trust. As a physicist I accept that the mass of the W boson is ~80 Gev although I never measured it myself. I was expecting some idiot to try and accuse me of making a weak argument and if I'd thought about it I would've guessed it'd be you.

Fine. Capitalism should be called wage-based slavery. That works for me.

That's because you are an idiot. I'm not just being petty here. I've explained very slowly and carefully to you how you are wrong on this point and you still come out with this twaddle. I can only conclude that you are an idiot.

I agree to some extent. Classes aren't capable of action, they are just categories. Still, you'd have to be an idiot to deny that certain people consistantly get a great deal of power over others.
Which is nothing to do with fictional "classes" of people.

Not if it's a person I trust. As a physicist I accept that the mass of the W boson is ~80 Gev although I never measured it myself. I was expecting some idiot to try and accuse me of making a weak argument and if I'd thought about it I would've guessed it'd be you.


Since we don't know this anonymous person who gave you this information, it would be silly of us to automatically trust that your statement is correct. It's been a long time since I did any Physics but I'm assuming there is heaps of evidence supporting the theory that the mass of W boson is 80 Gev.

Since we don't know this anonymous person who gave you this information, it would be silly of us to automatically trust that your statement is correct. It's been a long time since I did any Physics but I'm assuming there is heaps of evidence supporting the theory that the mass of W boson is 80 Gev.
Look it up yourself. I don't see why I'm drawing so much abuse for the simple statement that Marx invented the word "capitalism". Do you find the idea somehow implausible? Do you even care? My point was it is a stupid term which introduces confusion and prejudices in facts so it should be abandoned.

Not if it's a person I trust. As a physicist I accept that the mass of the W boson is ~80 Gev although I never measured it myself. I was expecting some idiot to try and accuse me of making a weak argument and if I'd thought about it I would've guessed it'd be you.

I would never be taken seriously, even by other anarchists, if I made that kind of claim in defense of anarchism. I don't see why you should be. "Someone told me once." :p Is that the best you can do?

That's because you are an idiot. I'm not just being petty here. I've explained very slowly and carefully to you how you are wrong on this point and you still come out with this twaddle. I can only conclude that you are an idiot.

Either reality is subjective or you were dead wrong because I know I'm not an idiot.

Which is nothing to do with fictional "classes" of people.

That's what a class is, a social category based on privilege and power.

Look it up yourself. I don't see why I'm drawing so much abuse for the simple statement that Marx invented the word "capitalism". Do you find the idea somehow implausible? Do you even care? My point was it is a stupid term which introduces confusion and prejudices in facts so it should be abandoned.
It's not abuse. It's simply a question of how credible you are. Remember you didn't say it might be the case, you stated it as a fact.

It's not abuse. It's simply a question of how credible you are. Remember you didn't say it might be the case, you stated it as a fact.
If I provided a website would that be more credible? How would an anonymous internet stranger be more credible than a trusted friend? Jeez.

That's what a class is, a social category based on privilege and power.
Of course you can define such a thing. But it's a pointless and even counter-productive thing to do. Class analysis has no predictive power and offers no insights, it is just a meaningless boundry reflecting the prejudices of whoever defines it.

Right fine, here goes

"Das Kapital
by Karl Marx (1818 - 1883)
Commentary
In the mid-nineteenth century, when Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital - an exhaustive work of more than one thousand pages - factory conditions were often intolerable, wages were at best barely adequate, and there were few groups or governments who advocated reform. Therefore, Marx took it upon himself to **define "Capitalism,**,, explain and condemn Capitalist methods, predict the inevitable doom of the system, and issue the rallying cry, "Workers of the world, unite!" "

from

http://www.awerty.com/das2.html

However, this seems to contradict.

"A society is capitalist if most production is carried on by employees working with means of production (equipment and materials) belonging to their employer, producing commodities which belong to the employer. (Employees: those whose services are treated as commodities. 'Labour is a commodity like any other', 'an article of trade' - Edmund Burke, Thoughts on Scarcity, 1795.)"

Edmund Burke being the father of the libertarian streak of conservatives, which at least backs up my main point that the word just exploits a confusion between free markets and mercantilism.

Who invented the word isn't important and I can't believe I just wasted 10 minutes of my life investigating it.

So Marx didn't invent the word after all. Glad we've got that one cleared up.

So Marx didn't invent the word after all. Glad we've got that one cleared up.
Fine, who cares?

Well...apparently you did. :D

If Letila were given one billion dollars in cash, would he

a) Ignore or throw it away, since money is meaningless
b) Instantly be catapulted into the Upper Class and begin his new life's work of oppressing workers and hoarding gold in a huge swimming-pool like vault.
c) Neither throw it away, ignore it or use it for Evil Capitalism, but instead somehow spend it without compromising his basic money-is-evil philosophy (impossible, but hey)
d) EXPLODE?

Let me know on this one. If it's a, he's a fool but idealogically pure (if he could, in fact, go through with it). If it's b, he is only making his main points about how evil wealth inequality is because of his own suppressed desire to use wealth for evil. If it's c I'd like to know how he could do that but no one else with wealth apparently can or does.

And if it's d I understand, and have a billion dollars to end these threads. ;)

If Letila were given one billion dollars in cash, would he

a) Ignore or throw it away, since money is meaningless
b) Instantly be catapulted into the Upper Class and begin his new life's work of oppressing workers and hoarding gold in a huge swimming-pool like vault.
c) Neither throw it away, ignore it or use it for Evil Capitalism, but instead somehow spend it without compromising his basic money-is-evil philosophy (impossible, but hey)
d) EXPLODE?

Let me know on this one. If it's a, he's a fool but idealogically pure (if he could, in fact, go through with it). If it's b, he is only making his main points about how evil wealth inequality is because of his own suppressed desire to use wealth for evil. If it's c I'd like to know how he could do that but no one else with wealth apparently can or does.

And if it's d I understand, and have a billion dollars to end these threads. ;)Couldn't he donate it to charity?

No, because 'property is theft.' Charity organizations would use it to buy property and other material things (thus aiding capitalism and the economy). Even if it's for others!

Similarly the anticapitalist viewpoint is that any form of capitalism is bad, even if it's good.

Couldn't he donate it to charity?
no, because according to Letila money has no meaning and is an evil creation that corrupts. charity involves giving that will help others, but Letila's definition of money makes it impossible for giving money to be a good thing or a beneficial thing.

I support Anarchy, but in some forms of Anarchy, you wouldnt need to donate, because it would be free... aka Anarcho-Communism.

Anarchists are lazy militant adolescent leftists.

Heavy accent on the "adolescent" part.

no, because according to Letila money has no meaning and is an evil creation that corrupts. charity involves giving that will help others, but Letila's definition of money makes it impossible for giving money to be a good thing or a beneficial thing.
I guess I will have to let Letila answer the question then. :)

I guess I will have to let Letila answer the question then. :)
yeah, good luck with that...i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a straight answer. :P

Viva la revolucion!

No, because 'property is theft.' Charity organizations would use it to buy property and other material things (thus aiding capitalism and the economy). Even if it's for others!



Or they could form their own to ensure this doesn't happen...unlikely, I know.

Anarchists are lazy militant adolescent leftists.

Heavy accent on the "adolescent" part.

Cool, that's (at least) 11 years off my life. Good stuff.

Vas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Anarchists are lazy militant adolescent leftists.

Heavy accent on the "adolescent" part.


Cool, that's (at least) 11 years off my life. Good stuff.

Vas.

I know many adolescent 60+ year olds.

But I'm glad I've given you more time on the planet..! :)

"Ooooo... how do I bottle this 'youth formula'?! Must,... work... harder...! Must exploit the anarchistic desire for youth to make MONEY..! Must... sell delapidated clothing and 'Dumpster Stench' perfume and body wash...!" Iakeokeo thought feverishly to himself.

I know many adolescent 60+ year olds.

But I'm glad I've given you more time on the planet..! :)

"Ooooo... how do I bottle this 'youth formula'?! Must,... work... harder...! Must exploit the anarchistic desire for youth to make MONEY..! Must... sell delapidated clothing and 'Dumpster Stench' perfume and body wash...!" Iakeokeo thought feverishly to himself.hmmm... Who is the adolescent?
When you grow up and get wiser, you loose focus on money and really care about the important things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I know many adolescent 60+ year olds.

But I'm glad I've given you more time on the planet..!

"Ooooo... how do I bottle this 'youth formula'?! Must,... work... harder...! Must exploit the anarchistic desire for youth to make MONEY..! Must... sell delapidated clothing and 'Dumpster Stench' perfume and body wash...!" Iakeokeo thought feverishly to himself.
hmmm... Who is the adolescent?

When you grow up and get wiser, you loose focus on money and really care about the important things.

When you grow up and get older, you have your accumulation of "stuff", and your descendents to take care of you so that you can perform "the function of the wise elderly".

The wise old ones are those who understand the nature of things, and prepare their descendents to deal with it.

That is "really caring about the important things" that real grown ups exhibit.

Just so you know.

Just so you know.

"Just so I know" what..? :)

When you grow up and get older, you have your accumulation of "stuff", and your descendents to take care of you so that you can perform "the function of the wise elderly".

The wise old ones are those who understand the nature of things, and prepare their descendents to deal with it.

That is "really caring about the important things" that real grown ups exhibit.
Indeed.

"Just so I know" what..? :)
My post doesn't make any sense anymore now that you have edited yours.

Couldn't he donate it to charity?

no, because according to Letila money has no meaning and is an evil creation that corrupts. charity involves giving that will help others, but Letila's definition of money makes it impossible for giving money to be a good thing or a beneficial thing.

Donating to charity is good in itself, but it's really making up for the failure of capitalism to provide for the recipient's needs.

Donating to charity is good in itself, but it's really making up for the failure of capitalism to provide for the recipient's needs.
And what makes up for communism's failure to provide for my socio-economic mobility? At least in capitalism there are checks to try fixing the failures.

Have any of you guys read the autobiography Black Boy by Richard Wright?

At one point, Wright joined the Communist party - he and his friends remind me of you guys

Have any of you guys read the autobiography Black Boy by Richard Wright?

At one point, Wright joined the Communist party - he and his friends remind me of you guys
Who guys?

Who guys?

The anarchists here on The Anarchist Thread

And what makes up for communism's failure to provide for my socio-economic mobility? At least in capitalism there are checks to try fixing the failures.

You don't need socio-economic mobility in communism. Social classes are abolished.

You don't need socio-economic mobility in communism. Social classes are abolished.

The lack of mobility is depressing. No matter what you do - you can't improve your lot in life.

The lack of mobility is depressing. No matter what you do - you can't improve your lot in life.

false. the entire point of all socialistic ideas (under the broad definition) is to improve pretty much everyone's lot in life. you just can't improve your lot at the expense of others or off the work of others.

the point letila was making is that the idea of socio-economic mobility relies on the concept of a class society - the existence of different social classes in a ranked order between which you can move. no classes = no socio-economic mobility between them.

perhaps it would make sense to think of it in terms of a hypothetical theocracy. in it your position in society is determined by your position in the religious hierarchy. there is mobility between the various grades of the hierarchy based on your religiousness (and, of course, how well you play the game of those already above you). now imagine that a group of radical religious egalitarians showed up and demanded the abolition of the religious hierarchy and declared that all are equal in the eyes of the gods and that we don't need a hierarchy of religious leaders to run our lives and tell us what they claim the gods want us to do. trying to criticize them by saying that their system will get rid of the possibility of moving up the religious hierarchy would only result in puzzled and amused stares from people who will politely tell you that that is the entire point; that there won't be mobility up the hierarchy becaue the religious hierarchy itself is wrong and against the gods. there will be no chance for some to be placed above others and that this is a good thing.

likewise with us, when we say that we wish to abolish classes and all the privileges and power that go with them (and the drudgery and servitude that go for everyone in the lower classes), we mean exactly what we say. and we think that the existence of privileged classes is actually a great hinderance to the general project of improving our lots in life, and that a society based on the privileges of a class structure is not a good idea - socio-economic mobility or not.

And what makes up for communism's failure to provide for my socio-economic mobility?What makes up for capitalism's failure to provide for my socio-economic mobility? At least in capitalism there are checks to try fixing the failures.Like what?

Donating to charity is good in itself, but it's really making up for the failure of capitalism to provide for the recipient's needs.
There is no such thing as "capitalism". Of course, no system "provides" for people, in the end other people must. If this is based on voluntary gifts and exchange the system is called the free market. Other systems, which by definition must be based on some sort of plunder, go under the generic label "socialism". The strain of socialism called "anarcho-socialism" (an oxymoron) is based on the plunder of what they mistakenly refer to as "capital" goods.

Generally, self proclaimed socialists have trouble dealing with the idea of a self organising system and thus cannot conceive of large scale order which was not conciously created such as the historically verified ability of people to care for each other without some state (often referred to as a commune if it is a small state) to make sure they do.

It often confuses me why socialists believe that people won't give to charity but will be willing to slave all day for the good of some commune. This reflects their general disdain for real people.

There is no such thing as "capitalism". Of course, no system "provides" for people, in the end other people must. If this is based on voluntary gifts and exchange the system is called the free market. Other systems, which by definition must be based on some sort of plunder, go under the generic label "socialism". The strain of socialism called "anarcho-socialism" (an oxymoron) is based on the plunder of what they mistakenly refer to as "capital" goods.

Generally, self proclaimed socialists have trouble dealing with the idea of a self organising system and thus cannot conceive of large scale order which was not conciously created such as the historically verified ability of people to care for each other without some state (often referred to as a commune if it is a small state) to make sure they do.

It often confuses me why socialists believe that people won't give to charity but will be willing to slave all day for the good of some commune. This reflects their general disdain for real people.Or maybe this reflects their realism.
I'm a member of the red cross and I participated in a national collect recently and I don't believe in charity.

Or maybe this reflects their realism.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't since it is unrealistic.

I'm a member of the red cross and I participated in a national collect recently and I don't believe in charity.
I don't understand what a national collect is or what you're trying to say here.

I don't understand what a national collect is or what you're trying to say here.
It is a national money collect.
You go to the supermarkets with red cross clothes. There was advertising on TV all the week before saying that the red cross would do a national money collect so people do not think we are lazy unemployed in disguise but the red cross. And we ask people to give some money for the red cross.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't work. People don't want to give money if their neightbour doesn't.

It is a national money collect.
You go to the supermarkets with red cross clothes. There was advertising on TV all the week before saying that the red cross would do a national money collect so people do not think we are lazy unemployed in disguise but the red cross. And we ask people to give some money for the red cross.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't work. People don't want to give money if their neightbour doesn't.
That's because they think the govt is supposed to do all that. If you look back to when the govt didn't do things you'll find people gave generously considering the wealth of society at the time, especially in America. Socialism crowds out private charity. Your argument is like saying the free market doesn't feed North Koreans.

That's because they think the govt is supposed to do all that. If you look back to when the govt didn't do things you'll find people gave generously considering the wealth of society at the time, especially in America. What evidence of this do you have? I don't remember the settlers giving large amounts of charity to Native Americans, unless you consider smallpox to be a worthwhile gift.

What makes up for capitalism's failure to provide for my socio-economic mobility?
There is lots of socio-economic mobility in the better forms of capitalism. The form of capitalism that has taken over America today doesn't have much mobility, but a hell of a lot more than anyone would have in communism. Thanks for not answering my question though.
Like what?
The ability for people to do with their money as the please, which means Bill Gates can donate some of his wealth to the poor or to whoever he feels needs it so that they don't starve and die. Additionally, the fact that capitalism and socialism can be incorporated...etc.

What evidence of this do you have? I don't remember the settlers giving large amounts of charity to Native Americans, unless you consider smallpox to be a worthwhile gift.
Try looking back a page or two.

That's because they think the govt is supposed to do all that. If you look back to when the govt didn't do things you'll find people gave generously considering the wealth of society at the time, especially in America. Socialism crowds out private charity. Your argument is like saying the free market doesn't feed North Koreans.
Really?
You should tell that to Louis XIV. He built Versailles during starving times.

The ability for people to do with their money as the please, which means Bill Gates can donate some of his wealth to the poor or to whoever he feels needs it so that they don't starve and die. Additionally, the fact that capitalism and socialism can be incorporated...etc.How much wealth does Bill Gate use and how much does he give to charity?
BTW : a charity giving windows OS to schools doesn't count as a charity. It is advertising.

What does Louis XIV have anything to do with capitalism/communism/anarchism?

How much wealth does Bill Gate use and how much does he give to charity?
Q: How much wealth does he use? A: Less than he earns.

Q: How much does he give to charity? A: More than he's obligated and he's setting a great example.

How much do you donate to charity?

What does Louis XIV have anything to do with capitalism/communism/anarchism?
Louis XIV didn't have socialism and yet he kept all that wealth for himself. It negates the point that without socialism people are not greedy.

Q: How much wealth does he use? A: Less than he earns.

Q: How much does he give to charity? A: More than he's obligated and he's setting a great example.

How much do you donate to charity?
I'm a member of the red cross. I donate 1 out of 2 week ends to the red cross.

Bill Gates doesn't do charity.

Louis XIV didn't have socialism and yet he kept all that wealth for himself. It negates the point that without socialism people are not greedy.
It doesn't prove anything for the masses.
Anyway, I have school. I'm going to learn something and not sit here listening to people blow steam.

Bill Gates doesn't do charity.
Source?

How about this source: http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html

Source?

How about this source: http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.htmlThis is advertising. It is cheaper than a prime time TV ad.

It doesn't prove anything for the masses.
Anyway, I have school. I'm going to learn something and not sit here listening to people blow steam.
It proves that one man can grasp all the wealth and keep it for himself.

There is lots of socio-economic mobility in the better forms of capitalism. The form of capitalism that has taken over America today doesn't have much mobility, but a hell of a lot more than anyone would have in communism. Thanks for not answering my question though.Britain doesn't either- http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk:81/eursoj/hdb/Volume_17/Issue_02/abstacts/170081.sgm. Can you think of anywhere that does? Surely communism addresses the issue by raising the socio-economic class of the vast majority of people.

Try looking back a page or two.I did but I genuinely can't find it. Which poster was it- I'll use the search post facility.

Britain doesn't either- http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk:81/eursoj/hdb/Volume_17/Issue_02/abstacts/170081.sgm. Can you think of anywhere that does? Surely communism addresses the issue by raising the socio-economic class of the vast majority of people.
No it doesn't. Every govt in the world protects it's cronies. It's called mercantilism. The solution is a free market.

I did but I genuinely can't find it. Which poster was it- I'll use the search post facility.
Sorry, must've been a different thread. I referred to Alexis de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" as a source, amoungst others.

This is advertising. It is cheaper than a prime time TV ad.
So?

So?
It doesn't help.
In communism the wealth of Bill Gates would help several billion people.

It doesn't help.
In communism the wealth of Bill Gates would help several billion people.
Giving free stuff to people if it's to advertise something doesn't help? In communism Bill Gates' wealth wouldn't exist, something leftists seem blinkered to.

Giving free stuff to people if it's to advertise something doesn't help? In communism Bill Gates' wealth wouldn't exist, something leftists seem blinkered to.
Giving free OS to children so they buy it when they get older doesn't help.
They can have linux for free as well.
It would exist. It would be spread though. which specific wealth do you think would not exist?

It doesn't help.
In communism the wealth of Bill Gates would help several billion people.

How, by giving them each a couple bucks?

Or should he invest his money into corporations so they can prosper, hire people, and create products that benefit mankind? Bill Gates uses his wealth to create more wealth - for himself and for others.

How, by giving them each a couple bucks?

Or should he invest his money into corporations so they can prosper, hire people, and create products that benefit mankind? Bill Gates uses his wealth to create more wealth - for himself and for others.let's see...
No, that's more than $10 for each people on earth (for some it's their monthly salary).

Create product? Who? Microsoft? which product did they create which did not exist before?
They don't create products, they create copyrights and kill superior products, that's what they do.
Bill Gates did not create wealth. He stole it.

Giving free OS to children so they buy it when they get older doesn't help.
They can have linux for free as well.
It would exist. It would be spread though. which specific wealth do you think would not exist?
The one you're typing on, for a start.

The one you're typing on, for a start.
Choose another one. I'm not using any Microsoft product since I'm boycotting the bastards at Microsoft.
If you're talking about the server, it's php, not asp and it doesn't run any Microsoft OS or it would be dead by virus right now.

let's see...
No, that's more than $10 for each people on earth (for some it's their monthly salary).

Create product? Who? Microsoft? which product did they create which did not exist before?
They don't create products, they create copyrights and kill superior products, that's what they do.
Bill Gates did not create wealth. He stole it.


So what? What are they going to do with it, and how will their position be improved once it is gone?

At the same time you must liquidate Gates' assets to give this money away. He won't be worth nearly as much if this happened; his stock would plummet. It would also screw over anyone else with investments in those companies (not to mention the companies/employees themselves). Great idea.

What does microsoft produce...how about 3,000 patents in the past year

http://news.com.com/Gates+wants+patent+power/2100-1014_3-5288722.html?tag=nefd.top

So what? What are they going to do with it, and how will their position be improved once it is gone?

At the same time you must liquidate Gates' assets to give this money away. He won't be worth nearly as much if this happened; his stock would plummet. It would also screw over anyone else with investments in those companies (not to mention the companies/employees themselves). Great idea.

What does microsoft produce...how about 3,000 patents in the past year

http://news.com.com/Gates+wants+patent+power/2100-1014_3-5288722.html?tag=nefd.topPatents are not production. I already said Microsoft produced copyrights. Come on! Amazon.com patented the "click to buy" concept! What good is that?
BTW software patents do not exist in Europe and we don't want it.

The wealth Microsoft monopolizes could be used in a much much more clever way. We could give their software for free to every single man on this planet and it would cost even less in man resources. Their software's quality standard could easily be raised as well. We could open the source code for the greatest good. Their wealth could be used for the common good instead of for destroying the software industry.

Choose another one. I'm not using any Microsoft product since I'm boycotting the bastards at Microsoft.
If you're talking about the server, it's php, not asp and it doesn't run any Microsoft OS or it would be dead by virus right now.
I meant the computer.

As you said in another post, the patent system is totally abused and is another example of mercantilist policiticians screwing the public over for the benefit of a few cronies. It is debateable whether patents are even compatible with a free market.

Hmm...speaking of Microsoft...

**checks computer** Yep, it's a PC and it's got XP
**checks for virii** No, sorry. It appears to be that I know how to use a computer.

* $1 billion over 20 years to establish the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, which will support promising minority students through college and some kinds of graduate school.
* $750 million over five years to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which includes the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, Unicef, pharmaceutical companies and the World Bank.
* $350 million over three years to teachers, administrators, school districts and schools to improve America’s K-12 education, starting in Washington State.
* $200 million to the Gates Library Program, which is wiring public libraries in America’s poorest communities in an effort to close the “digital divide.”
* $100 million to the Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, which will accelerate delivery of lifesaving vaccines to children in the poorest countries of the world.
* $50 million to the Maternal Mortality Reduction Program, run by the Columbia University School of Public Health.
* $50 million to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, to conduct research on promising candidates for a malaria vaccine.
* $50 million to an international group called the Alliance for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer.
* $50 million to a fund for global polio eradication, led by the World Health Organization, Unicef, Rotary International and the U.N. Foundation.
* $40 million to the International Vaccine Institute, a research program based in Seoul, South Korea.
* $28 million to Unicef for the elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus.
* $25 million to the Sequella Global Tuberculosis Foundation.
* $25 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which is creating coalitions of research scientists, pharmaceutical companies and governments in developing countries to look for a safe, effective, widely accessible vaccine against AIDS.

That's just incase you guys didn't want to click the link of the break down of where he gives money to (Bill Gates that is). It seems to be that he doesn't just give OSes to little kids so they'll grow up and use it when they're big. Tools.

Patents are not production. I already said Microsoft produced copyrights. Come on! Amazon.com patented the "click to buy" concept! What good is that?
BTW software patents do not exist in Europe and we don't want it.

The wealth Microsoft monopolizes could be used in a much much more clever way. We could give their software for free to every single man on this planet and it would cost even less in man resources. Their software's quality standard could easily be raised as well. We could open the source code for the greatest good. Their wealth could be used for the common good instead of for destroying the software industry.


Do you honestly believe that computing would be at its current level without the likes of Apple and Microsoft?

I meant the computer.

As you said in another post, the patent system is totally abused and is another example of mercantilist policiticians screwing the public over for the benefit of a few cronies. It is debateable whether patents are even compatible with a free market.


Good question. You are able to buy and sell patents, and their worth is considered when companies are bought out - not unlike the value of their brand name.

I meant the computer.

As you said in another post, the patent system is totally abused and is another example of mercantilist policiticians screwing the public over for the benefit of a few cronies. It is debateable whether patents are even compatible with a free market.
Are you saying the computers would not exist without Microsoft?
If so, you are outright wrong. Computers existed way before Microsoft. And Microsoft did nothing but kill competitors or buy them. The computer industry would be a lot wealthier without Microsoft and a lot more advanced.

No patents are not compatible with freedom at all.
Patents means you are not allowed to think if you don't have the money to buy a license to do so.

Hmm...speaking of Microsoft...

**checks computer** Yep, it's a PC and it's got XP
**checks for virii** No, sorry. It appears to be that I know how to use a computer.
If you really knew how to use a computer you would not have bought XP.
BTW which firewall are you using?

That's just incase you guys didn't want to click the link of the break down of where he gives money to (Bill Gates that is). It seems to be that he doesn't just give OSes to little kids so they'll grow up and use it when they're big. Tools.
That's the biggest part of it though (the $1 billion).
The rest is nothing (Microsoft's profits are more than $12 billion a year, revenues are more than $28 billion).

Do you honestly believe that computing would be at its current level without the likes of Apple and Microsoft?Comparing Apple to Microsoft?
I believe the computer industry would be a lot more advanced without Microsoft. Apple is a whole different matter.
But I think you don't know enough about computers to know that.
FYI, Windows XP is still primitive. there are OSes which are 20 years old who are still more advanced technically. Microsoft is still trying to catch up but it will never get to that level of quality and technoligy advance. Their only way of selling software is killing or buying the industries making superior products. Fortunatelly, it can't buy linux. It will use it's patents to slow down it's spreading though.
I'm going to write a post about the personnal computer history so you know something about it.

Good question. You are able to buy and sell patents, and their worth is considered when companies are bought out - not unlike the value of their brand name.
Patents... I've found this idea. From now on, anyone using this idea will have to pay royalties to me. God I'm glad nobody patented the fire.

First the genese of M$.
In 1981, it was IBM which decided to make a computer for everybody (the Personal Computer, or PC). It was not the first attempt (the TSX from Sony was a similar attempt but earlier). The difference was that the PC was not copyrighted (hence the PCs of HP, Compaq, DELL and stuff). Several theories about it : some say they just forgot to copyright, others say it was philanthropic, and others say it was calculated in order to maximize profit (since it happened).
IBM contacted Digital Research for the OS of their PC, which made the excellent DR-OS, but after a disagreement over the ownership of the OS, IBM decided to urgently seek an alternative and found M$ (Bill Gates), who said they could produce an OS in a few weeks. Bill Gates then bought an OS already written from SCP (this OS was called "Quick and Dirty Operating System" (QDOS)). It was bought $50 000 and sold $1 billion to IBM. This is how Microsoft made its first billion of dollars. The funny thing is that M$ kept the ownership of the OS (IBM just has a mere license to sell it with the PC). It is funny because IBM didn't want DR-OS because of that. The QDOS was a clone of the uncopyrighted CP/M OS (some more thing to think about : do you have the right to copyright for yourself something which was public domain?) and while I'm at it, I will add that IBM had to fix bugs on this OS provided by M$ (more than 300 bugs) and they wrote the manual themselves.
Of course M$ used that ownership with Compaq, DELL and HP, which could make a PC (since it was not copyrighted) but had to buy the OS from M$.
M$ made a deal with them so that M$ got a tax on every PC sold (with or without MS-DOS).
Then after a while, the industry evolved and the DOS started to be really really old (the Mac had this graphical interface, and there was the Atari OS and the excellent Amiga, with a pre-emptive multi-threading graphical OS, which is still ahead of the present OSes in technical terms). IBM decided to move on and made the OS/2 Warp, which was a very good OS with a graphical interface and they made a big mistake : they hired Microsoft to do part of the code (this time they kept the ownership of it). Microsoft developed 40% of OS/2 warp and got an undisclosed enormous pay-check from IBM for that. Just before the release of OS/2 Warp, Microsoft released Windows 1.0, which was made with the code sold to IBM for OS/2 Warp, and also with some of the code of MacOS (because M$ hired an employee from Apple). Of course this was illegal but IBM let this slip for some obscure reason (maybe for philanthropy or maybe behind the scene mafia-style agreement, nobody knows). Windows was a hit because it was compatible with M$-DOS and because the PC was a hit because it was not copyrighted (and also because M$ got money out of every PC sold, with or without M$ product in it) (this was already a monopoly leveraging).

This is how M$ built its monopoly (not out of inovation or quality of product, but out of luck, out if IBM laissez-faire and out of mafia-style agreements, later found to be illegal but too late, as M$ does now have a de-facto power and nobody want to face M$ and their sanctions).

In the next chapter we will discuss how Microsoft has abused its monopoly for the next several decades.

think the first time M$ abused its monopoly on this scale was in the bureautics application market.

(Note this is before the release of Windows)
After the success of Wordperfect from Corel (several years later, Corel has been bought by Microsoft), M$ decided to sell its own word processing software and called it "ms-word". At first ms-word was way crappier than wordperfect.
This is technical but the point is that a word processing works over an OS and M$ doing the OS had an advantage over Corel and they used it later with Windows. They created hidden APIs (this is a part of the OS) to work with the M$ products and to ensure no competing product could work as well as M$ products with windows (the non-hidden APIs were not as optimized as the hidden ones). This is how The MS-Office suite conquered the market and how M$ built another monopoly : the one of office suites. Now M$ has 2 monopolies which are supporting each other. No M$-Office on anything other than Windows and a Windows specifically designed to work well only with M$-Office.

This was also illegal under the US anti-trust laws and as M$ was starting to appear in the radar of the government, several trials followed in 18 states of the US. Judge Kollar-Kotelly suggested to break Microsoft in 2 distinct companies, so the double monopoly could not be abused by either of them. Microsoft refused and appealed again and again in order to make the judgement as expensive as possible for the states, even threatening some of them (especially the one of Texas) : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/08/22/ms...cal_government/
They ended up with several agreements in several states which sound like a reward for their abuses. For instance, in California, they were "condemned" to give software for free to the schools. This is a bit weird when considering that Apple, which is a california-based computer company, already gave their hardware+soft for free to the school (in order to educate the pupils to use their OS obviously). Believe it or not, Microsoft was then condemned to take the place of Apple and was allowed to brain-wash the pupils with Microsoft software in exchange for the end of the trial. This was the most stupid agreement ever (effectively increasing Microsoft monopoly further), but nobody knows what went behind the scene.

It is getting long but Microsoft then abused its double monopoly widely and several times (with the internet explorer, taking market shares from Netscapes, the inventor of the web browser, 95% of the market before M$, then M$ media player, then m$-java). I think the recent history doesn't need too much explanation as you may already be aware of it. And anyway, Microsoft's abuses are endless.

All it comes down to is that the governments are powerless and that it is we, the consumers who have to do something about it before inovation in the software industry is totally annihilated my Microsoft. So please Boycott Microsoft.

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/

Also note that M$ has never ever gave a penny to its investors. (They originally said that they needed the money to fast expand and that the investors would get more money later).
In fact, Microsoft is currently sitting over more than $50 billions of cash and is saving about $12 billions a year (with a revenue of $28 billions, as a comparison, IBM has a revenue of $90 billions and its profits are about $8 billions, except that the profits of IBM are distributed to the investors whereas M$'s profits are used to increase power, influence and to destroy the industry).

So you see Microsoft is harmful not only to the consumers and to the industry but also to the governments and to the investors and nothing seems able to stop it, especially since they are hiring an army of lawyers and are patenting anything and everything, so that in several years linux will find itself illegal (Red hat has and several linux users have already been trialed by SGO (the inventor of UNIX), just after Microsoft bought it). Fortunatelly they've been ruled innocent of the charges... until now but you can count on Microsoft to harrass until it gets what it wants ... money and power.

History has shown that Microsoft never gives up. They have the most money so they can last longer. The next markets they are planning to take over by force are : the ERP market, the CRM market, the database market, the PDA market (please don't buy windows CE it's crap and there are still better alternatives), the mobile phone market (very scary), the video games market, the messenger market...

So please don't be a stupid consumer and buy clever. In most of those markets, M$ products are usually inferior but they will impose their products by exploiting their monopolies and the stupidity of the consumers until their product becomes unavoidable and until even the clever consumer is required to buy it.

Patents... I've found this idea. From now on, anyone using this idea will have to pay royalties to me. God I'm glad nobody patented the fire.Lol...awesome. I'm going to patent the wheel!

In it's modern form, the person we have to thank for the personal computer is not businessman Bill Gates but impractical visionary Sir Clive Sinclair.

In it's modern form, the person we have to thank for the personal computer is not businessman Bill Gates but impractical visionary Sir Clive Sinclair.
I think there are many people to thank. IBM helped a lot as well to democratize the computer. There were many people who brought their ideas and improvments.
Bill Gates is not one of them and Microsoft as a whole is acting more like a brake or a reverse gear than anything else.

I'm not saying that microsoft created computers, I'm well aware they didn't. I mean that without the incentive to create wealth people wouldn't bother, and certainly wouldn't try as hard. That's why non-market countries lag technologically.

I think there are many people to thank. IBM helped a lot as well to democratize the computer. There were many people who brought their ideas and improvments.
Bill Gates is not one of them and Microsoft as a whole is acting more like a brake or a reverse gear than anything else.
Democratize computers? Ha ha ha.

I'm not saying that microsoft created computers, I'm well aware they didn't. I mean that without the incentive to create wealth people wouldn't bother, and certainly wouldn't try as hard. That's why non-market countries lag technologically.Are you aware who invented the satellite? Are you aware the military invented the computer and the internet (yes, the military, funded by tax dollars). Do you know the NASA is funded by public funds?

Democratize computers? Ha ha ha.Wat's funny?

Oh and BTW. France has the minitel since the 80's. Do you know what the minitel is?

Are you aware who invented the satellite? Are you aware the military invented the computer and the internet (yes, the military, funded by tax dollars). Do you know the NASA is funded by public funds?
Did you know a major causes of death in the USSR was faulty tvs exploding? The internet was invented at CERN, the particle accellerator in Geneva. The fact remains that free market societies advance more rapidly than slave pens, whichever way you cut it.

Wat's funny?
What does "democratise computers" mean? That computers get to vote, or that we all vote to decide which semiconductors to put on the chips? Seems like leftist buzz speak to me. Let's make computers green, tolerant, compassionate and democratic!

Did you know a major causes of death in the USSR was faulty tvs exploding? The internet was invented at CERN, the particle accellerator in Geneva. The fact remains that free market societies advance more rapidly than slave pens, whichever way you cut it.I know that and the particle accellerator in Geneva is public.
Free market societies : Chile, Brazil, Angola...
Socialist societies : Germany, Japan, USA, UK, France...

What does "democratise computers" mean? That computers get to vote, or that we all vote to decide which semiconductors to put on the chips? Seems like leftist buzz speak to me. Let's make computers green, tolerant, compassionate and democratic!Demos means people. Democratize means make it available to the people. You can democratize a government and you can democratize a technology.

I know that and the particle accellerator in Geneva is public.
Free market societies : Chile, Brazil, Angola...
Socialist societies : Germany, Japan, USA, UK, France...
You lefties are all over the place! Try telling Letila that USA is socialist! How can we debate when you shift definitions?

BTW which firewall are you using?
Primarily the one built into my router that I float in and out of, but I've used software firewalls before (Like BlackIce, etc.)--by the way, I've used computer without installing firewalls before and stayed safe from virii (just had problems with getting DoSed a few times, but I guess I shouldn't've pissed off those people, eh?)

Demos means people. Democratize means make it available to the people. You can democratize a government and you can democratize a technology.
That's crazy!

You lefties are all over the place! Try telling Letila that USA is socialist! How can we debate when you shift definitions?It doesn't matter. Cooperation works better for technology than competition.
US may be socialist or not, most ground-breaking inventions are done with public funds anyway. The inventions coming from the private sectors are usually useless and harm the consumer more than anything (like those anti-piracy useless technologies).

Primarily the one built into my router that I float in and out of, but I've used software firewalls before (Like BlackIce, etc.)--by the way, I've used computer without installing firewalls before and stayed safe from virii (just had problems with getting DoSed a few times, but I guess I shouldn't've pissed off those people, eh?)
Well maybe you don't have problems because you don't download porn.
The fact remains XP is poor security.

That's crazy!
That's what I meant to say anyway. Sorry if I was not clear or if I did not use the right word.

Cooperation works better for technology than competition.
Classic leftish mumbo-jumbo. You take the technical economics word competition and take it to mean like playing monopoly. Sheer rubbish. Most market activity is cooperative. As for technology, you obviously haven't been introduced to the cut-throat world of academic research.

**BUMP**
http://subvertise.org/img_med/356.gif

Classic leftish mumbo-jumbo. You take the technical economics word competition and take it to mean like playing monopoly. Sheer rubbish. Most market activity is cooperative. As for technology, you obviously haven't been introduced to the cut-throat world of academic research.
Well yes I have. Here in Europe most academic research is done with public funds, just like there in the USA and in Japan. When the new founding are shared, technology progress is faster.
When the market activity is shared, it works better.

Well yes I have. Here in Europe most academic research is done with public funds, just like there in the USA and in Japan. When the new founding are shared, technology progress is faster.
When the market activity is shared, it works better.
I don't really understand the way you are using the words "cooperate" and "compete" and "share". Is English your first language? For the record, I'm British, not American.

I don't really understand the way you are using the words "cooperate" and "compete" and "share". Is English your first language? For the record, I'm British, not American.No I'm french. I may use french words sometimes or an "englishcized" version of french words which do not exist in the dictionary. I usually edit my posts 3 or 4 times because the right words are coming to my mind afterwards.
Actually originally, I was on those forum to improve my english, which is very bad. All appologies for the inconvenience. I will try to spend more time on my posts so that they are a little clearer.

What I meant is that when ideas are spread without limit, technology progress faster than when it is limited to those who can pay for it.
I hope my sentence makes sense.

No I'm french. I may use french words sometimes or an "englishcized" version of french words which do not exist in the dictionary. I usually edit my posts 3 or 4 times because the right words are coming to my mind afterwards.
Actually originally, I was on those forum to improve my english, which is very bad. All appologies for the inconvenience. I will try to spend more time on my posts so that they are a little clearer.

What I meant is that when ideas are spread without limit, technology progress faster than when it is limited to those who can pay for it.
I hope my sentence makes sense.

Your english is quite good...it's your ideas we need to work on....

What I meant is that when ideas are spread without limit, technology progress faster than when it is limited to those who can pay for it.
I hope my sentence makes sense.
Yes, your English is very good. What exactly is it you are criticising in the above quote?

Which quote please?

What I meant is that when ideas are spread without limit, technology progress faster than when it is limited to those who can pay for it.

This one. What is it a criticism of?

Your english is quite good...it's your ideas we need to work on....
Please go on. I want to learn more (well if you have time of course, I don't want to waste it if you have more important things to do).

This one. What is it a criticism of?
It is a critic of capitalism, or at least I think it is.

I'm not saying that microsoft created computers, I'm well aware they didn't. I mean that without the incentive to create wealth people wouldn't bother, and certainly wouldn't try as hard. That's why non-market countries lag technologically.

Rubbish. Tim Berners-Lee, nuff said.

Vas.

It is a critic of capitalism, or at least I think it is.
There is no such thing as "capitalism". Please distinguish "free market" and "mercantilist" in the future.

Rubbish. Tim Berners-Lee, nuff said.

Vas.
I agree that you've said enough.

There is no such thing as "capitalism". Please distinguish "free market" and "mercantilist" in the future.Capitalism is a system based on the private ownership of the means of production.

Capitalism is a system based on the private ownership of the means of production.
You can label all such things "capitalism" if you want but if you want to be understood and make intelligent points you should distinguish between "free markets" and "mercantilism" As a definition it is quite poor, like if I were to define socialism as "the system where people are so hungry that they start eating each others' children". Technically this is true but it isn't the main point.

You can label all such things "capitalism" if you want but if you want to be understood and make intelligent points you should distinguish between "free markets" and "mercantilism" As a definition it is quite poor, like if I were to define socialism as "the system where people are so hungry that they start eating each others' children". Technically this is true but it isn't the main point.CApitalism has nothing to do with free market or mercantilism.

CApitalism has nothing to do with free market or mercantilism.
It is a confusing term that means everything to everybody. That's why we shouldn't use it.

It is a confusing term that means everything to everybody. That's why we shouldn't use it.You are right.
To some people, capitalism means democracy, or freedom, sometimes it means free market...

Then my critic was the critic of the private ownership of the capital, capital being the means of production.

In a clear way, my critic was the one of the private ownership of the means of production.

In a clear way, my critic was the one of the provate ownership of the means of production.
Hammers, vans, robots, computers, shovels, your kitchen and your right arm should all belong to "the community" (whatever that means)?

Hammers, vans, robots, computers, shovels, your kitchen and your right arm should all belong to "the community" (whatever that means)?
No sorry I meant the means of production of wealth.

No sorry I meant the means of production of wealth.
So did I.

So did I.
Actually, I was more preciselly criticizing the private intellectual property.
But I'm criticizing also all the private properties which are not personnal.
There is problem when more than one person need the property.
Therefore private property of a hammer is OK if nobody else need it.
Private property of a factory with more than 0 employee is not OK.

Actually, I was more preciselly criticizing the private intellectual property.
But I'm criticizing also all the private properties which are not personnal.
There is problem when more than one person need the property.
Therefore private property of a hammer is OK if nobody else need it.
Private property of a factory with more than 0 employee is not OK.
So then 2 people need a hammer. Who gets it?

So then 2 people need a hammer. Who gets it?This is decided democratically.
In this case I think there are enough hammers for eveyone and that democracy will lead to a law saying that everyone can own a hammer, unless there is a shortage of hammers.
If there is not enough hammers for everyone, those who can pay for it will likely get it (unless maybe it is decided that hammers should belong to the ones who have passed the test of hammer usage).

This is decided democratically.
By who? The family, the neighbourhood, the town, the city, the nation or the world? What if I built the hammer myself, what is the "community's" excuse for stealing it?

If there is not enough hammers for everyone, those who can pay for it will likely get it.
Eh?

By who? The family, the neighbourhood, the town, the city, the nation or the world? What if I built the hammer myself, what is the "community's" excuse for stealing it?
I've edited to add more informations.
Anyway, I think the people will democratically decide that those who have build hammers are allowed to have it for themselves.

Eh?Those who have the money. Is that clear? If the hammer costs $50, those who pay $50 will have it.
This can work like this if democracy decides.