NationStates Jolt Archive

Anarchists of all kinds: Where does your emphasis lie?

EDIT: Since it's clear that there's not many members on NS interested in the ideas of limited government, please give an explaination of why you believe what you believe.

I'm a Libertarian. I'm not technically an anarchist, but I respect their ideals.
It's just that, as Stewart remarked, eventually someone steals the conch and kills Piggy.

Libertarian-socialism

if we break up the current borders and stop the continual imperialist actions of power we will finally achieve long-term stability without the need of heavy policing or at worst widespread repression.

Libertarian-socialism

if we break up the current borders and stop the continual imperialist actions of power we will finally achieve long-term stability without the need of heavy policing or at worst widespread repression.
I'd agree with the above statement... but isn't libertarian-socialism just a fancy way of saying communist?

it's the end result without the dictatorship of the proletariat or utopian ideals, because like relgion, anything that promises long-term salvation for short term misery is a fallacy.

Obviously there is no be-all-and-end-all system but this I believe is the most stable while promising to preserve human dignity.

it's the end result without the dictatorship of the proletariat or utopian ideals, because like relgion, anything that promises long-term salvation for short term misery is a fallacy.

Obviously there is no be-all-and-end-all system but this I believe is the most stable while promising to preserve human dignity.
That makes more sense. I never have understood how idealistic communists could believe that an all-pervasive dictatorship would naturally evolve into an anarchic utopia.

I would describe myself as a Libertarian Communist and I would like to see the establishment of an Anarcho-Communist society without the existence of any government. I do however think that a dictatorship of the entire working class (not one party or individual) may be necessary for a short period of time after a revolution in order to destroy all forms of exploitation if the capitalists refuse to follow the will of the people and give up power.

I am a 'l' libertarian. (I would consider myself most closely a Jefferson Democrat)

I believe that a government's sole purpose is to protect the rights of its citizenry from threats (both foreign and domestic) and to act as an impartial 3rd party in disputes between citizens (both criminal and civil).

Typically, I believe that the more power and more freedom the individual has, the more power and free the society has, as a whole. So it is my belief that everything should be legal, up until the point where one individual claims rights over another (I.E. Murder, theft, rape, etc).

In addition, I find the central control required in socialist nations greater than the size of a small tribe to be detrimental to the freedom and power of the individual to make their own choices and run their own lives. I therefore prefer capitalism over socialism as an economic method and would consider myself a free-market capitalism. However, within this, I would require certain limitations that most capitalists would consider severe, and even an anathema to capitalism (like strict environmental policy, and strict controls over inheritance). I believe this way for the same reasons that I believe that laws against murder and the like are just. That an individuals right to act within a free market should be as free as possible, but that their rights exist only unitl the point where they trump the rights of another (or worse, the whole).

But that's just me.

Libertarian-socialism


isn't that an oxymoron?
socialism = government provides citizens with anything they need
libertarian = there should be as phew laws as possible and the government should stay out of a lot of business

I am a 'l' libertarian. (I would consider myself most closely a Jefferson Democrat)
Right on, another Classical Liberal right here.

isn't that an oxymoron?
socialism = government provides citizens with anything they need
libertarian = there should be as phew laws as possible and the government should stay out of a lot of business
You're right and wrong. Yes, the Libertarian Party is for the things you've just mentioned.
The philosophy of libertarianism is understood as the opposite of authoritarianism.

I'd say I closest to Anarcho-Communism. But not quite Anarcho-Communist.

isn't that an oxymoron?
socialism = government provides citizens with anything they need
libertarian = there should be as phew laws as possible and the government should stay out of a lot of business
Not really, your simplifying terms there.

I'm what I would describe as a "proper" libertarian, in the sense that I haven't just put the word "libertarian-" in front of some other philosophy in order to make it sound fancy, I actually believe in small government, few laws, minimal taxation, freedom of exchange and trade and the like.

I really think terms like "libertarian-socialism" and "libertarian-communism" are confused ones. Socialism always involves reduction of rights, whether it's imposed by a huge coalition of factory workers or by some crazy dictator.

Also, I don't see how there can possibly be different types of anarchy. Anarchy as I understand it is a system without government, and thus without laws (Laws can only really be imposed by government, and anything which imposes laws can be counted as government).

Now, in a lawless society, pretty much only one thing is going to happen. People are going to loot. Capitalists and socialists alike would take to the streets and rape, pillage and burn. It would be the only way to survive, since everyone else would be doing it, and if you tried to run any kind of business it would be violently sacked pretty quicky.

So how can there be "Anarcho-communism" and "anarcho-capitalism"? Anarchy contains elements of both - there's the fraternity and public ownership of communism (nobody is there to enforce property law, so everyone runs around and takes what they want), but there's also the inequality and opportunism of capitalism, taken to a greater extreme (with nobody to enforce "don't kill or steal" laws). But anarchy is really only one thing as far as I can see.

I'm a Libertarian. I'm not technically an anarchist, but I respect their ideals.
It's just that, as Stewart remarked, eventually someone steals the conch and kills Piggy.

Based on the assumption that people never mature beyond the point of post-pubescent teenagers who have been educated all their lives to live in heirachical societies, no?

Based on the assumption that people never mature beyond the point of post-pubescent teenagers who have been educated all their lives to live in heirachical societies, no?

But people are like that. Adult people. Granted, not all, maybe not even most would grab at the chance of a lawless society. But once some people started killing and stealing, others would have to join in, because otherwise they'd be on the recieving end of the looting.

Based on the assumption that people never mature beyond the point of post-pubescent teenagers who have been educated all their lives to live in heirachical societies, no?
If by the above statement, you mean people have been somewhat civilized to live in a mass society, than yes.

Anarcho-Communism cannot possibly work, for the simple reason that there will always be those people who would rather work for the betterment of themselves than ignore themselves and better society as a whole. The only way to deal with such people is the intervention of the government, which requires that a government strong enough to be capable of forcing people to act against their own self-interest exist.

Minarchism is basically minimal government all around.

Minarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist).

I can't say any of the choices really fit my ideals. I'm more of a pure anarchist, even in admitting that it usually falls into a despotism of some sort. I like the idea of being truly free to defend myself in any way I see fit.

EDIT: Let me clarify. I would sooner fall into an anarcho-capitalist ideal than a communist one.

Anarcho-Communism cannot possibly work, for the simple reason that there will always be those people who would rather work for the betterment of themselves than ignore themselves and better society as a whole. The only way to deal with such people is the intervention of the government, which requires that a government strong enough to be capable of forcing people to act against their own self-interest exist.

the point of anarcho-communism, and libertarian socialism more generally, is that is that it is a better way for the vast majority of people to work for "the betterment of themselves". much better than working under a system that, without fail, concentrates almost all of the wealth in society into the hands of a tiny elite of capitalists. we can create x amount of wealth by working together now. but under the current system, 60+% of it goes to just 5% of the population. working to better yourself would be much more effective for the overwhelming majority of people if nearly all of their work didn't wind up going to this economic elite.

it is in my self-interest, and your self-interest, and pretty much everyone else you will ever meet's self-interest to prevent this pyramid scheme from perpetuating itself.

it is in my self-interest, and your self-interest, and pretty much everyone else you will ever meet's self-interest to prevent this pyramid scheme from perpetuating itself.
Somewhere within that scheme, I found a niche to collect enough self-interest to lead a relatively happy, secure lifestyle. :p

Libertarian

Based on the assumption that people never mature beyond the point of post-pubescent teenagers who have been educated all their lives to live in heirachical societies, no?
Then why did people leave that pleasant little anarchic state couple thousand years ago? Why did a leader emerge and the people accept that leader? I'd contest that hierarchical societal structure is human nature. Just as the smile as a sign of pleasure is human nature.

Definitely an anarcho-communist.

Somewhere within that scheme, I found a niche to collect enough self-interest to lead a relatively happy, secure lifestyle. :p

of course you did. most people throughout most of history have been more-or-less happy enough with the status quo. humans are nothing if not adaptable.

of course you did. most people throughout most of history have been more-or-less happy enough with the status quo. humans are nothing if not adaptable.
By niche, I thought I made it apparent that I don't fit in with the status quo, by any means. I wake up when I want, work when I want and take off when I want. Not your standard 9-5 lifestyle.

But I refuse to believe that our entire economy can be trivialized and mirepresented with myopic statistics.

I'm a Libertarian, though I like the ideals of Anarcho-communism.

EDIT: Since it's clear that there's not many members on NS interested in the ideas of limited government,


That's kinda strange. Why do many people actually want to have a government or a boss?

And at the same time they talk about freedom? It doesn't really fit.

isn't that an oxymoron?
socialism = government provides citizens with anything they need
libertarian = there should be as phew laws as possible and the government should stay out of a lot of business
I think one problem is people confusing government with society. That´s where we are slaves. "ok, they are there at the white house and we got nothing to do with it because they are government and we are not"
So, if everyone works so everyone can have what everyone needs, it´s still socialism, but there is no government in it.

That's kinda strange. Why do many people actually want to have a government or a boss?

And at the same time they talk about freedom? It doesn't really fit.

I don't want a boss. I want someone there to be an impartial 3rd party in disputes between me and you. I want someone there who can guarantee (well, as close as is possible) that my rights are not stepped on by you, the state, or the foreign infidels (j/k).

There will always be disputes between people. This will never change. In pure anarchism the strongest will always get their way in those disputes. I for one am not arrogant enough to think for one second that there aren't millions of people in the world that could take me in a fight.

Somewhere within that scheme, I found a niche to collect enough self-interest to lead a relatively happy, secure lifestyle. :pLucky you.

I really think terms like "libertarian-socialism" and "libertarian-communism" are confused ones. Socialism always involves reduction of rights, whether it's imposed by a huge coalition of factory workers or by some crazy dictator.

I suppose to believe that, you'd have to believe that there is a right to property, both personal and economic.


Also, I don't see how there can possibly be different types of anarchy. Anarchy as I understand it is a system without government, and thus without laws (Laws can only really be imposed by government, and anything which imposes laws can be counted as government).

Now, in a lawless society, pretty much only one thing is going to happen. People are going to loot. Capitalists and socialists alike would take to the streets and rape, pillage and burn. It would be the only way to survive, since everyone else would be doing it, and if you tried to run any kind of business it would be violently sacked pretty quicky.

So how can there be "Anarcho-communism" and "anarcho-capitalism"? Anarchy contains elements of both - there's the fraternity and public ownership of communism (nobody is there to enforce property law, so everyone runs around and takes what they want), but there's also the inequality and opportunism of capitalism, taken to a greater extreme (with nobody to enforce "don't kill or steal" laws). But anarchy is really only one thing as far as I can see.
You're confusing anarchy with anarchism. Two separate things.

Minarchist

http://enrager.net/forums/images/smiles/StarRBmini.gif

http://enrager.net/forums/images/smiles/StarRBmini.gif
Pardon my ignorance...
Does that star mean something in particular?

Pardon my ignorance...
Does that star mean something in particular?

Yes.

Yes, it does.

Yes.

Yes, it does.
What, if I may ask, might that be?

What, if I may ask, might that be?

It's a red and black star. :D

It's a red and black star. :D
Really?
Wow, just what I always wanted! Thanks RPP!
:D

Really?
Wow, just what I always wanted! Thanks RPP!
:D

you aren't going to get a straight answer out of rpp. unless you ask him about his grooming habits.

to answer your question, it is a combination of symbols. the five pointed star has long been used by various socialist and communist groups. making it red and black refers to the red and black flag used by syndicalists (anarcho or otherwise). which itself is a combination of the seperate red flags and black flags.

the only people i know of who use red and black stars are anarchists, though i guess it wouldn't be utterly impossible for somebody else to take it up. the zapatistas could get away with it if they wanted.

you aren't going to get a straight answer out of rpp. unless you ask him about his grooming habits.
He utterly trounces me in terms of being able to make things impenetrable-sounding.
I think RPP deserves a gold star!
to answer your question, it is a combination of symbols. the five pointed star has long been used by various socialist and communist groups. making it red and black refers to the red and black flag used by syndicalists (anarcho or otherwise). which itself is a combination of the seperate red flags and black flags.

the only people i know of who use red and black stars are anarchists, though i guess it wouldn't be utterly impossible for somebody else to take it up. the zapatistas could get away with it if they wanted.
Ah.
Makes sense, I guess.
I was going to look it up on Google, when I realized I had no idea hwat the hell I'd begin with. Thanks for answering so I don't have to research!

And these days it's more often Libertarian Communists rather than Syndicalists who make use of the red and black, because of the Marxist association.

http://www.tigardchamber.com/members/gold_star.gif
HEY LOOK! IT'S A GOLD STAR FOR RPP!

I reject your arbitrary allocations and your definition of achievement.

http://www.enrager.net/forums/images/smiles/StarRBmini.gif

*raises fist in the air*

I reject your arbitrary allocations and your definition of achievement.
Hmm.
That will make it profoundly tricky to give you a gold star.
Someone would have to slip it in a drink or something...

And these days it's more often Libertarian Communists rather than Syndicalists who make use of the red and black, because of the Marxist association.

i like all the various anarchist variations on the theme that are out there now green/black, purple/black, pink/black, etc.

personally, i have my solid black flag. easier to make, less of a loss if the cops take away my not-unreasonably-thick-flag-pole-that-certainly-couldn't-be-used-for-self-defense.

He utterly trounces me in terms of being able to make things impenetrable-sounding.
I think RPP deserves a gold star!

you down with rpp?

yeah, you know me!

:eek:

21 Anarchists. We must be one of the largest politcal blocs on NS