NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question to ask.

Communism and capitalism are both economic systems. How can an anarchy be communist or capitalist, when it has no government to enforce an economic system?

Damn, I thought I would at least get a reply from Letila.

I have a question to ask.

Communism and capitalism are both economic systems. How can an anarchy be communist or capitalist, when it has no government to enforce an economic system?

They can't. Both are oxymorons.

I have a question to ask.

Communism and capitalism are both economic systems. How can an anarchy be communist or capitalist, when it has no government to enforce an economic system?
i guess anarcho-capitalism is total free-market - lazais faire economics (however you spell it...)
anarcho-communism must be an oxymoron

They can't. Both are oxymorons.

Except, perhaps, in the extremely improbable case, that everyone in the society shares the same view of economics. Notably, if everyone shared the same opinions, the freedom granted by anarchism would be unnecessary.

I would personally love to hear an explanaition (not a detraction) from a follower of these poliphiloshpies.
They've confused me for some time (especially the anarcho-capitalist one. Even the secretary I talk to in my local party is a member, but "really an anarcho-capitalist"!?!).

Anarcho-capitalism does make a degree of logical sense, as the core principle of capitalism is that the government should interfere in the economy. I suppose an anarcho-capitalist would want to take that to the extreme of absolutely no government action that would effect the economy.

Anarcho-communism I can not really see though, as communism is all about government interference in the economy.

Communism is the only true form of anarchism while capitalism can never be compatible with it. In a capitalist society there always has to be oppression either from the state or from corporations to maintain the present system where workers are exploited in the interests of global capital.

Communism aims to destroy the state which has always been used to oppress the people. In a true Communist society which Marx and Lenin believed in, there will be no government and society will naturally be run in the interests of everyone, not for a small minority of unelected business owners as in the present capitalist society.

"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing." (VI Lenin)

"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." (VI Lenin)

Anarcho-capitalism does make a degree of logical sense, as the core principle of capitalism is that the government should interfere in the economy. I suppose an anarcho-capitalist would want to take that to the extreme of absolutely no government action that would effect the economy.
Well, we get that.

But who the fuck is printing the money??? :confused:

Well, we get that.

But who the fuck is printing the money??? :confused:
:confused: what a horribly logical question :confused:

Well, we get that.

But who the fuck is printing the money??? :confused:
Whoever can back it. (Gold, banks, etc)

Whoever can back it. (Gold, banks, etc)

That would make sense I guess. Or maybe things would go to a kind of barter economy with commodity money.

I don't think anarchy can work, at least not for another few hundred years. Anarcho-capitalism is essentially libertarianism to the extreme. Kind of an every man for themselves system. Anarcho-communism would be a sort of collective society where the means of production are owned and regulated by the people.

I don't think anarchy can work, at least not for another few hundred years. Anarcho-capitalism is essentially libertarianism to the extreme. Kind of an every man for themselves system. Anarcho-communism would be a sort of collective society where the means of production are owned and regulated by the people.

Ditto.Sounds too good to be true, and is until we evolve a lil' more.
Just my opinion though, as I know plenty of anarchists with good arguments and respectable idealism and optimism.

Even if it is kinda naive, it's still good to have a few!

I don't think "Until we evolve a little more", I think it will be increasingly possible the more that industry and agriculture becomes automated.

Communism is the only true form of anarchism while capitalism can never be compatible with it. In a capitalist society there always has to be oppression either from the state or from corporations to maintain the present system where workers are exploited in the interests of global capital.

Communism aims to destroy the state which has always been used to oppress the people. In a true Communist society which Marx and Lenin believed in, there will be no government and society will naturally be run in the interests of everyone, not for a small minority of unelected business owners as in the present capitalist society.

"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing." (VI Lenin)

"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." (VI Lenin)


thanks for explaining it so I don't have to! you did a great job too. Way to be one of the few educated and intelligent members of society.

Communism is the only true form of anarchism while capitalism can never be compatible with it. In a capitalist society there always has to be oppression either from the state or from corporations to maintain the present system where workers are exploited in the interests of global capital.

Communism aims to destroy the state which has always been used to oppress the people. In a true Communist society which Marx and Lenin believed in, there will be no government and society will naturally be run in the interests of everyone, not for a small minority of unelected business owners as in the present capitalist society.

"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing." (VI Lenin)

"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." (VI Lenin)

I fucking love you.

:D
Ditto what Life Skills Children said.
I would have explained it myself, but you did the job so wonderfully.
Thank you.

Communism is the only true form of anarchism while capitalism can never be compatible with it. In a capitalist society there always has to be oppression either from the state or from corporations to maintain the present system where workers are exploited in the interests of global capital.

Communism aims to destroy the state which has always been used to oppress the people. In a true Communist society which Marx and Lenin believed in, there will be no government and society will naturally be run in the interests of everyone, not for a small minority of unelected business owners as in the present capitalist society.

Since there's no government, who's going to "run" society in "the interests of everyone"?

And since theres no state then who is going to stop the corporations, and the framework of new states, reappearing to "oppress" the workers all over again?

By the way you two..can i add you to my list?

buddylist..


love,

Since there's no government, who's going to "run" society in "the interests of everyone"?

And since theres no state then who is going to stop the corporations, and the framework of new states, reappearing to "oppress" the workers all over again?
*points to above*
This guy is pretty sharp for a n00b. Same questions I was too lazy to post.

Unfortunately, this kind of teen idealism only plays out well in thought-experiments, and holds no water in the real world.
:rolleyes:

Since there's no government, who's going to "run" society in "the interests of everyone"?

No government != no governance. Power is distributed amongst the people and they run society in accordance with their own desires. Imagine a direct democracy model.


And since theres no state then who is going to stop the corporations, and the framework of new states, reappearing to "oppress" the workers all over again?

The general idea here is that there will be little or no need for such corporations to arise as the economic, service and material interests of the people will be provided by the people themselves.

Since there's no government, who's going to "run" society in "the interests of everyone"?

And since theres no state then who is going to stop the corporations, and the framework of new states, reappearing to "oppress" the workers all over again?

When there is no government, society will be collectively run by all people and in the interests of all people. In a Communist society the people will have a direct say over everything that affects their lives and will take all decisions by themselves without the existence of any government.

All power will be in the hands of the people who will not allow the return of new states and those who want to oppress them. In a society that develops without capitalism it will also be natural for the world to be run without any greed or selfishness and new forms of exploitation will be unlikely to arise.

By the way you two..can i add you to my list?

buddylist..


love,

Yes, of course :D

My unlce is an anarcho-capitalist, we had a good fun debate (me being a socialist) for about four hours on the subject of how it would work. In the end it goes down to one thing: privitization. Every thing is in the provate sector. Printing money is given to the company that could buy the rights from the (dissolving) government. After that, it would have total market domination in that area, if a competator arose, simply make sure that their currency is seen as worthless and illegitimate. Roads are privitized so are police and fire-fighters. Actually, just take whatever the government does now and give it to a company.

There are some big holes in the theory but it is on at least some level, viable.

Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron.

Fear not, both 'anarcho capitalism' and 'anarcho communism' are fantasies.

You may as well debate whether or not when the Space Angels come to eradicate hunger with their Sacred Magic they are really from space or just called "space angels."

Fear not, both 'anarcho capitalism' and 'anarcho communism' are fantasies.


You keep on making this assertion without any real argument, as far as I can see, to back it up other than 'it hasn't happened in the past, so it can't happen in the future'. Using just this argument we could have confidently claimed that capitalism or feudalism were just fantasies prior to their coming about.

:D :) :D When there is no government, society will be collectively run by all people and in the interests of all people. In a Communist society the people will have a direct say over everything that affects their lives and will take all decisions by themselves without the existence of any government.

All power will be in the hands of the people who will not allow the return of new states and those who want to oppress them. In a society that develops without capitalism it will also be natural for the world to be run without any greed or selfishness and new forms of exploitation will be unlikely to arise.



Yes, of course :D





jolly well then!


good of you to respond to their questions in such a detailed yet timely fashion! Do you find yourself having to explain such matters often?
I do. Especially in my white predominately christian right wing conservative school!
oh shit i almost forgot that i dont go there any more!
that was in Georgia; in the horror that is the south of America!
back here in the uk there isnt much of a problem with the rightist people; they tend to keep their pitifully not backable statements to themselves!

love,

You keep on making this assertion without any real argument, as far as I can see, to back it up other than 'it hasn't happened in the past, so it can't happen in the future'. Using just this argument we could have confidently claimed that capitalism or feudalism were just fantasies prior to their coming about.


i concur!




freakin idiots! Gosh!

My name is Pedro.
I think we need to see more Santos in the hallways.
Vote for me.
All of your wildest dreams will come true.

*holds up picture of a liger*
This is a Liger. It is part lion, part tiger.
It's, its probably my favorite animal.


Hello?
Do you have any Ligers?
zoo employee's voice : No, but we do have some Tigons.
What!? ok, bye!

love,

thanks for explaining it so I don't have to! you did a great job too. Way to be one of the few educated and intelligent members of society.

Oh my. Another anarchist elitist. Who would've thought? :rolleyes:

Why don't you take your stupid fucking superiority complex and shove it. :upyours:

Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron.

only if all communism is oxymoronic.

You keep on making this assertion without any real argument, as far as I can see, to back it up other than 'it hasn't happened in the past, so it can't happen in the future'. Using just this argument we could have confidently claimed that capitalism or feudalism were just fantasies prior to their coming about.



capitalism and feudalism are both extensions of existing social modes.

there have been merchants since we have recorded history, this was capitalism.

feudalism is simply a mode of heirarchical organization, different in certain incidentals from absolute monarchies with local governing officers.

anarchy on the other hand has no basis in anything that has ever succeeded before and takes its best historical antecedents from prehistoric bands and clans.

It is telling that these societies ceased to exist everywhere in the world that had geography suitable for large populations.

The ideas of 'anarcho communism' run contrary to the whole of observed group behavioral patterns. The idea is fantasy because it based on faith in assertions which lack any historical or reasonable basis.

Oh my. Another anarchist elitist. Who would've thought? :rolleyes:

Why don't you take your stupid fucking superiority complex and shove it. :upyours:


Dont fret over the 'anarchists.'

They are on all fours with the fundementalists, and the fundementalists are the dangerous ones, so fret about them.

When there is no government, society will be collectively run by all people and in the interests of all people. In a Communist society the people will have a direct say over everything that affects their lives and will take all decisions by themselves without the existence of any government.

All power will be in the hands of the people who will not allow the return of new states and those who want to oppress them. In a society that develops without capitalism it will also be natural for the world to be run without any greed or selfishness and new forms of exploitation will be unlikely to arise.






And then the Space Angels will descend to earth and grant the human race freedom from hunger and thirst using their Sacred Magic.

Thus shall earth be paradise again.

Dont fret over the 'anarchists.'

They are on all fours with the fundementalists, and the fundementalists are the dangerous ones, so fret about them.

Ugh. You're right. But I've had it up to here *makes gesture with hand well above head* with their arrogance.

Ugh. You're right. But I've had it up to here *makes gesture with hand well above head* with their arrogance.


Most adolescents and people with the mentality of adolescents have as part of their psyche grandiose arrogance.

Anarchists are no different, the same feeling of being 'fed up' comes about if you try to argue reasonably with religious maniacs like christians.

Anarchists either grow up (I readily admit to being an anarchist when I was a first year high school student) or are dismissed by society as loons, which they are if they cannot at a certain point see the fundemental stupidity of 'anarchism' as a social philosophy.

capitalism and feudalism are both extensions of existing social modes.

The same is true of anarcho-communism.

there have been merchants since we have recorded history, this was capitalism.

Since the beginning of recorded history there have been groups that have shared their wealth and skills amongst themselves, this is the root of communism. Claiming that the existence of trade is evidence of the existence of capitalism is fluffing the issue of modern (post-Adam Smith/C16th) capitalism somewhat. Mere exchange of goods for monetary recompense is not sufficient a definition of capitalism.

feudalism is simply a mode of heirarchical organization, different in certain incidentals from absolute monarchies with local governing officers.

No, the key difference between feudalism in this context is an economic one: the monarch owns all the territory of a land, and passes deed to it out to his vassals, in return for their military allegiance and some economic return. The vassals then grant rights to work the land to farmers and livestock keepers, in return for a tithe they are given protection. The key difference between feudalism and an absolute monarchy is that we see a network of interconnected responsibilities and agreements: the monarch is responsible to the vassals and the peasentry for international affairs and protection of the nation, in return they are responsible to him in that they must provide miltary assistance and economic support. Down a step to the vassals and we see that they are responsible for protecting their social lessers and providing them with the basis of a living, in return for a tithe, while also being responsible to the monarch in passing on wealth to him and rendering military aid. The peasents are thus responsible for working the land, and generating wealth, and passing some of this up the ladder. In an absolute monarchy there is no such network of responsibilities: instead the monarch's word is simply law and he owes nothing to those beneath him in the social ladder.


anarchy on the other hand has no basis in anything that has ever succeeded before and takes its best historical antecedents from prehistoric bands and clans.

I reject this: if anything the best historical antecedents are to be found in the anarchist communities and armies of the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars.

The ideas of 'anarcho communism' run contrary to the whole of observed group behavioral patterns. The idea is fantasy because it based on faith in assertions which lack any historical or reasonable basis.

History records that not only have the social conditions of humanity changed throughout it, but also that the nature of humanity has a certain fluidity which is shaped by those social and economic conditions.

The same is true of anarcho-communism.



Since the beginning of recorded history there have been groups that have shared their wealth and skills amongst themselves, this is the root of communism. Claiming that the existence of trade is evidence of the existence of capitalism is fluffing the issue of modern (post-Adam Smith/C16th) capitalism somewhat. Mere exchange of goods for monetary recompense is not sufficient a definition of capitalism.



No, the key difference between feudalism in this context is an economic one: the monarch owns all the territory of a land, and passes deed to it out to his vassals, in return for their military allegiance and some economic return. The vassals then grant rights to work the land to farmers and livestock keepers, in return for a tithe they are given protection. The key difference between feudalism and an absolute monarchy is that we see a network of interconnected responsibilities and agreements: the monarch is responsible to the vassals and the peasentry for international affairs and protection of the nation, in return they are responsible to him in that they must provide miltary assistance and economic support. Down a step to the vassals and we see that they are responsible for protecting their social lessers and providing them with the basis of a living, in return for a tithe, while also being responsible to the monarch in passing on wealth to him and rendering military aid. The peasents are thus responsible for working the land, and generating wealth, and passing some of this up the ladder. In an absolute monarchy there is no such network of responsibilities: instead the monarch's word is simply law and he owes nothing to those beneath him in the social ladder.




I reject this: if anything the best historical antecedents are to be found in the anarchist communities and armies of the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars.



History records that not only have the social conditions of humanity changed throughout it, but also that the nature of humanity has a certain fluidity which is shaped by those social and economic conditions.

Capitalism is a theory which describes the mechanisms of trade and exchange, and the small communes to which you refer have almost universally been amalgamated into or conquered by larger or better organized groups.

--

Feudalism is nonetheless another mode of non-anarchist social organization, one in which there are strict heirarchies of power and control over rescources and compulsion to follow social norms by force of arms. The incidentals of the arrangement in the societies that practiced feudalism lose relevence in this context. Feudalism was not a revolutionary social organization as would be anarchism (and, incidentally, communism was not because it failed at its revolutionary aims and degenerated into military totalitarianism everywhere it has been earnestly practiced [except perhaps cuba, though dissidents are still jailed and shot there, and it is a tourist destination]) .

--

The failed anarchist experiments in russia and during the spanish civil war are faring well today, arent they.



Not in the entire course of human history has a large population ever regressed from social organization (referring to what is observed to be so) to 'anarchy.' Not a single large society has ever maintained itself in accordance with the ideas of 'anarchism.' People have in not a single instance successfully taken to "working together towards the common good" and "maintaining peaceful law and order through mutual agreement or self-correcting social pressures."

Capitalism is a theory which describes the mechanisms of trade and exchange, and the small communes to which you refer have almost universally been amalgamated into or conquered by larger or better organized groups.

The point is that they continue to emerge, however.
--

Feudalism is nonetheless another mode of non-anarchist social organization, one in which there are strict heirarchies of power and control over rescources and compulsion to follow social norms by force of arms. The incidentals of the arrangement in the societies that practiced feudalism lose relevence in this context. Feudalism was not a revolutionary social organization as would be anarchism...

I disagree here about the revolutionary nature of feudalism: compared to what had gone before it was a major paradigm shift. I certainly concede that it was very much a heirarchical social organisation, but what was truly revolutioanry here was that there were responsibilities other than just the nominal which were held not only by the lower social orders to the higher social orders, but also vice versa.

--

The failed anarchist experiments in russia and during the spanish civil war are faring well today, arent they.

The paradox here is that such operational experiments seem to arise in the midst of such turmoil at all - we could look at the Zapatistas for a similar phenomenon today. They do however show that relatively large scale anarchist communities are feasible for a certain period of time, and it is interesting to note that for both the RCW and SCW examples it was military conquest that spelled their ends, rather than an identifiable cause which is inherent in the ideology itself. Both the examples here fielded moderately successful armies organised along anarchist principles and it seems that the main reason for their defeats (other than being stabbed in the back by authoritarian communists each time) were the conventional ones of facing superior numbers in opposition.



Not in the entire course of human history has a large population ever regressed from social organization (referring to what is observed to be so) to 'anarchy.'

I'm not talking about 'anarchy' here, nor the lack of social organisation: anarchism is instead a different mode of organisation.

Most adolescents and people with the mentality of adolescents have as part of their psyche grandiose arrogance.

Anarchists are no different, the same feeling of being 'fed up' comes about if you try to argue reasonably with religious maniacs like christians.

pot, kettle. black you say?

Anarchists either grow up or are dismissed by society as loons

or are award winning authors and historians. or make important contributions to linguistic theory. or wind up being commemorated on postage stamps or having cities named after them. etc.

Oh my. Another anarchist elitist. Who would've thought? :rolleyes:

Why don't you take your stupid fucking superiority complex and shove it. :upyours:
Now, why assume this is a superiority complex? An educated person should at least understand what a political theory is, whether or not he agrees with it, and not simply say "it's an oxymoron" and give it no thought. A communist is uneducated if he can't explain Adam Smith, and a capitalist is uneducated if he has no understanding of Marx. It's basic, and if you hold an opinion you should be able to at least back it up. That requires being able to at least define the arguments of those that you disagree with.

Now, why assume this is a superiority complex? An educated person should at least understand what a political theory is, whether or not he agrees with it, and not simply say "it's an oxymoron" and give it no thought. A communist is uneducated if he can't explain Adam Smith, and a capitalist is uneducated if he has no understanding of Marx. It's basic, and if you hold an opinion you should be able to at least back it up. That requires being able to at least define the arguments of those that you disagree with.

I never said I disagree with anarchists. I said they should lose their hoity-toity attitude. I actually don't know what I think about anarchism as a political theory because more than half the "literature" I've encountered is nothing more than one anarchist patting another on the back and saying how smart they all are and that it's really such a shame everyone else is so stupid and misguided and why don't we all just work together for the (vapourous) "good of all" and ban all those nasty corporations.

I never said I disagree with anarchists. I said they should lose their hoity-toity attitude. I actually don't know what I think about anarchism as a political theory because more than half the "literature" I've encountered is nothing more than one anarchist patting another on the back and saying how smart they all are and that it's really such a shame everyone else is so stupid and misguided and why don't we all just work together for the (vapourous) "good of all" and ban all those nasty corporations.


sounds horrific. would you care for some reading recommendations or weblinks that aren't like that?

Anarchy derives from Greek an-archos, with "an" being an negating prefix and "archos" standing for ruling. So this means "no ruling" (I'm sure you knew this already, didn't you?)
Well, the classic idea of Communism should not be confused with Leninism or Stalinism. It is true that they claimed to have built up a communist system, and the East-West Conflict, culminating in the Cold War, ist often referred to as the conflict between Capitalism and Communism. To me, in my personal opinion, the totalitarian system(s) of the Warsaw Pact States has nothing to do with Communism, which I rather would describe as Marxism, as one of his mainworks, -besides "Das Kapital"-, composed with Friedrich Engels, is called "Das Kommunistische Manifest (The Communist Manifesto)". The original defintion of Communism is that of an egalitarian society, with no state, no private property (just owned by the community), with one motto being "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
That is hard to imagine in a nation with dozens of millions of people, and that is why nationstates and borders are considered artificial and not natural. In my opinion, Anarchy could work in smaller Communities (ever heard of anarchic communities in Southern Europe?), but unfortunatelly the system (i.e. the capitalist or, in general, totalitarian state), does not tolerate such attempts. Maybe they are afraid of the revelation that people do not need the paternalistic government.
If you are interested in more recently published works concerning Anarchy and overcoming present structures, maybe you should have a look at the works of Foucault and of recently died Derida. Another fine impression (and, by the way, easier to understand :) ) is "Empire" by Hardt/Negri, the latter being a famous Italian radical. I would say Communist, but one has to bear in mind, that the Italian Communists play a specific role in the history of the left/radical movement. The sadder that they are presently "governed" by the most authoritarian regime in Europe.
If you want to discuss the topic, or, even better, criticize me, feel free to contact me. I hope that was sufficient for the beginning.

"Someday there will be the day, when red-black stars will sparkle in the sky"

I never said I disagree with anarchists. I said they should lose their hoity-toity attitude. I actually don't know what I think about anarchism as a political theory because more than half the "literature" I've encountered is nothing more than one anarchist patting another on the back and saying how smart they all are and that it's really such a shame everyone else is so stupid and misguided and why don't we all just work together for the (vapourous) "good of all" and ban all those nasty corporations.
Ah. Well, that is fair enough. I'd suggest looking into Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Godwin for more intelligent arguments (which have nothing at all to do with "nasty corporations, predating them as they do). Of course, these are all more like "Anarcho-Communism", not "Anarcho-Capitalism". Along those lines, you could go with Milton Friedman and other Libertarians who, while admitting the need for a state, argue for the most minimal state possible. I am actually yet to encouter any serious "Anarcho-Capitalists" because property rights and currency pretty well make a government of some sort a necessity.

I am actually yet to encouter any serious "Anarcho-Capitalists" because property rights and currency pretty well make a government of some sort a necessity.

milton friedman's kid, david friedman, argues for anarcho-capitalism. as does bryan caplan. both are university professors (law and econ, i think). i think your point about the protection of capitalist property rights necessitating a state or state-like entity is right on, but they disagree.

milton friedman's kid, david friedman, argues for anarcho-capitalism. as does bryan caplan. both are university professors (law and econ, i think). i think your point about the protection of capitalist property rights necessitating a state or state-like entity is right on, but they disagree.

Lets not forget Robert Nozick, a Harvard university professor, and his Anarchy, State & Utopia. The central argument there against the need for a state to protect property rights is that instead of having 'law' enforcement and protection carried out by the state, you have it carried out by corporations to whom you pay subscriptions - private security firms in other words. He argues that competition between these kind of firms will prevent any one coming to dominate or play less than fair. Somewhat of a fluff if you ask me. It should be noted, however, that he does try to sneak a 'state like entity' in through the back door when he notes that there should be some kind of device in the society which guards against too great a disparity of wealth opening up between the haves and the have nots.

or are award winning authors and historians. or make important contributions to linguistic theory. or wind up being commemorated on postage stamps or having cities named after them. etc.

Tolstoy. Chomsky(?). I'm blanking on the postage stamps* and the cities...



Edit: *"None of my heroes don't appear on no stamp"

I'm blanking on the postage stamps* and the cities...

Edit: *"None of my heroes don't appear on no stamp"

http://melior.univ-montp3.fr/ra_forum/images/timbres/proudhon_timbre.jpg
and a few others
http://melior.univ-montp3.fr/ra_forum/philatelie/philatelie_1.html



http://map.rin.ru/maps_e/krasnodar.gif

kropotkin, population approx. 80,000

he's also got a volcano.