NationStates Jolt Archive

Browsing Wiki, as one sometimes does, I found this:

Anarcho-Primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism)

If anyone here is an anarcho-primitivist (why are you using a PC???), I appologise if I misrepresent the intricate political and social philosophy behind all this...

Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization. Primitivists argue that the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. They advocate a return to non-"civilized" ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of division of labour or specialization, and abandonment of technology....
Primitivists reject modern technology completely. They see it as a complex system involving division of labor, resource extraction, and exploitation for the benefit of those who implement its process. They argue that the interface with and result of technology is always an alienated, mediated, and distorted reality. Technology too, just like science, is seen as not neutral. The values and goals of those who produce and control technology are believed to always be embedded within it.
For primitivists, revolutionary activity questions, challenges, and works to dismantle the entire set-up or paradigm of civilization. Revolution is not seen as a far-off or distant singular event which we build towards or prepare people for, but instead, a life-way or practice of approaching situations.

Perhaps anyone wants to question the fairness of my classification of anarcho-primitivism as an unworkable joke, or my selection of wiki-quotes to illustrate my point.

Or maybe you know of other curious and original theories for a different society? Perhaps we might even be able to crown one "the stupidest of them all"! :D

AP could work, people who subscribe to it just need to drop out of society and find somewhere in the middle of nowhere in which to make it work. Their very own 'shack in the woods' so to speak.

This reminds me of the infantilism discussion in one thread ;)

How about Neo-Victorianism...victorian moral values combined with modern technology?

This reminds me of the infantilism discussion in one thread ;)

How about Neo-Victorianism...victorian moral values combined with modern technology?

So saying 'viewing the internet' is the only socially acceptable way to say 'beating off to porn'?

This reminds me of the infantilism discussion in one thread
LOL, I'm just trying to picture all our politicians running around in diapers....

I reckon we should go for that!

LOL, I'm just trying to picture all our politicians running around in diapers....

I reckon we should go for that!

Are there some who don´t? :D

LOL, I'm just trying to picture all our politicians running around in diapers....

I reckon we should go for that!

*shudders* :headbang:

So saying 'viewing the internet' is the only socially acceptable way to say 'beating off to porn'?

Sorry, didn´t get your point?

Sorry, didn´t get your point?

Because you never look at porn online, or because you don't get how in Victorian ages people would always come up with euphenisms(sp?)?

Because you never look at porn online, or because you don't get how in Victorian ages people would always come up with euphenisms(sp?)?

Euphemisms, I think it's spelt. I could be wrong, I don't use that word much.

Perhaps we could also try and see what some other unusual forms of government might look like...anything that has an "anarcho-" in front of it usually is a good bet :D .

How about Anarcho-Syndicalism? Radical Labour Unions ruling society and abolishing all wages...

How about Anarcho-Masochism-Infantilism...our leaders being elected through acclamation by union members, then getting publicly flogged and getting a free set of diapers as their uniform :eek:

Because you never look at porn online, or because you don't get how in Victorian ages people would always come up with euphenisms(sp?)?

Personally I don´t care much for people simulating a so called "stimulating fuck" on the net..and did you mean euphemism or (eu)phenomenology or penis hypoplasia...look up in your dictionary :rolleyes:

I just couldn´t get the sense of your remark...no insult meant, and remember I brought the victorianism-thing up...youre trying to say I don´t know what I´m writing about?

Perhaps we could also try and see what some other unusual forms of government might look like...anything that has an "anarcho-" in front of it usually is a good bet :D .

How about Anarcho-Syndicalism? Radical Labour Unions ruling society and abolishing all wages...
I don't think that Anarcho-Syndicalism wants to abolishing wages in general. It's more a mean to ensure the self-administration and selforganisation of the workers.

Or how about Anarcho-Mercantilism...protected trade with no paying

I'll nominate this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) form of goverment for "stupidest of them all"

:D

Yup!

AP could work, people who subscribe to it just need to drop out of society and find somewhere in the middle of nowhere in which to make it work. Their very own 'shack in the woods' so to speak.

Yes, Anarcho-Primitivism could work. For a group of 30 people! Now anyone tell me how could 6 billion survive without technology.

Yes, Anarcho-Primitivism could work. For a group of 30 people! Now anyone tell me how could 6 billion survive without technology.

They couldn't. It takes a fair amount of territory per person to be a hunter-gatherer, and there simply isn't that much land on Earth. This could only work if 95% of the population somehow went away.

:rolleyes:

I'll nominate this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) form of goverment for "stupidest of them all"

:D

Yes, but where´s the fun of it, everybody knows already...okay, nominated as honorary participant :D

They couldn't. It takes a fair amount of territory per person to be a hunter-gatherer, and there simply isn't that much land on Earth. This could only work if 95% of the population somehow went away.

:rolleyes:

Maybe they're counting on some sort of nuclear holocaust to wipe out those 95%, leaving the chosen ones alone to start their dream of a society.

Those stupid anarcho-primitivists are as egotist as they come.

Needless to say, I'm not an anarcho-primitivist. I love air conditioning and my washing machine far too much to go back to the "good ol' days." I don't mind if a group of individuals wants to start an anarcho-primitivst collective (one of the many benefits of a free-market society: individuals can voluntarily consent to live in communes and share goods), but nobody's going to force that idiotic lifestyle on me if I have any say about it.

I found one thing interesting, though. I agree with the anarcho-primitivists that the transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence (and intensive agriculture) led to the hierarchical stratification of society. That's obvious. Once societies became sedentary and grew food (rather than relying on following herds of animals or roaming distances to pick fruits and vegetables), these same societies were able to store food to a certain degree. This also led to food surpluses sometimes. That means these societies had the ability to feed people who weren't directly responsible for food production. That led to the development of stratified society--the rulers, the tradesmen, etc. The difference between the anarcho-primitivists and me is that I think that's a good thing.

Marxist-Sexual Primitivism
FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS/HER ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS/HER NEED

Basically, everyone in society is expected to submit to any sexual act imposed upon them by any number of people near them who say they "need" it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy

Now that's the stupidest theory of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy

Now that's the stupidest theory of government.

That description would seem to fit the current US adminstration qute well. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy
The best part of the article is when it reminds that people who are stupid can be greedy to. REALLY?! No shit, Sherlock? As if watching the monarchs of ancient Eurasia piss away the power that their forebearers collected wouldn't have shown me this. Does anyone on the Interweb really believe that "Stupid" and "Greedy" are mutually exclusive? (Please, I know that yoou have a whole rollodex of George Bush jokes, but I really don't care, and nobody else does either.)

So, yeah, Anarcho- anythings pretty much suck, because Anarchy can't mix with things, its like a noble gas. Anarcho-capitalists are the worst, as they realy aren't anarchists, and they really aren't capitalists either, but these Anarcho-Primitavists are even more batty, for one thing, it can't happen. In fact, the degree to which Anarcho-Primitavism can't happen is signifigantly greater than the degree to which Communism/Socialism can't happen because at least Socialism is inwardly consistent.
Anarcho-Primitavists biggest problems, though, can be summed up as follows:

They are completely ignorant of Primitive society (Even the most basic society has divisions, men hunt, women breed, and the witchdoctor gets wealth and power in exchange for scaring people about the Great Bear he controls)
They would have no method of enforcement (How do you keep someone from discovering technology? With no structure in place to prevent it, someone might accidentally happen upon technology. A gun, for instance, would royally screw the whole system up if someone ended up with it.)
They would require to much to get started (All that land and animals that wwould have to be completely cut off, you telling me that someone is going to become that successful simply so he can piss it away?)

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

That description would seem to fit the current US adminstration qute well. :D

I was waiting for somebody to say that. I almost said it in the vain hope that I could head others off at the pass.

The best part of the article is when it reminds that people who are stupid can be greedy to. REALLY?! No shit, Sherlock? As if watching the monarchs of ancient Eurasia piss away the power that their forebearers collected wouldn't have shown me this. Does anyone on the Interweb really believe that "Stupid" and "Greedy" are mutually exclusive? (Please, I know that yoou have a whole rollodex of George Bush jokes, but I really don't care, and nobody else does either.)

So, yeah, Anarcho- anythings pretty much suck, because Anarchy can't mix with things, its like a noble gas. Anarcho-capitalists are the worst, as they realy aren't anarchists, and they really aren't capitalists either, but these Anarcho-Primitavists are even more batty, for one thing, it can't happen. In fact, the degree to which Anarcho-Primitavism can't happen is signifigantly greater than the degree to which Communism/Socialism can't happen because at least Socialism is inwardly consistent.
Anarcho-Primitavists biggest problems, though, can be summed up as follows:

They are completely ignorant of Primitive society (Even the most basic society has divisions, men hunt, women breed, and the witchdoctor gets wealth and power in exchange for scaring people about the Great Bear he controls)
They would have no method of enforcement (How do you keep someone from discovering technology? With no structure in place to prevent it, someone might accidentally happen upon technology. A gun, for instance, would royally screw the whole system up if someone ended up with it.)
They would require to much to get started (All that land and animals that wwould have to be completely cut off, you telling me that someone is going to become that successful simply so he can piss it away?)


Hmm. Interesting. How are anarcho-capitalists not capitalists? (Sorry, I've just never heard anyone make this argument before, so I'm curious about your reasoning.) Also, I see capitalism (private and mutual contracts, free market system, property in private hands) as the only economic system even remotely compatible with anarchy for one simple reason. A free market system allows for the existence of a communal system since everyone would have the right to band together and share resources, as long as membership within the commune is voluntary. In other words, even anarcho-socialism, if such a thing exists, would be permitted in an anarcho-capitalist world. Anarcho-socialism would be anarcho-capitalism because anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean you can't live in a voluntary commune. It's sort of the ultimate system as it permits an individual to pursue his or her own path without infringing on the liberty of others. But getting back to the point, I really enjoyed your post and I'd just like to understand what you mean about anarcho-capitalists. Thanks.

Hmm. Interesting. How are anarcho-capitalists not capitalists? (Sorry, I've just never heard anyone make this argument before, so I'm curious about your reasoning.) Also, I see capitalism (private and mutual contracts, free market system, property in private hands) as the only economic system even remotely compatible with anarchy for one simple reason. A free market system allows for the existence of a communal system since everyone would have the right to band together and share resources, as long as membership within the commune is voluntary. In other words, even anarcho-socialism, if such a thing exists, would be permitted in an anarcho-capitalist world. Anarcho-socialism would be anarcho-capitalism because anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean you can't live in a voluntary commune. It's sort of the ultimate system as it permits an individual to pursue his or her own path without infringing on the liberty of others. But getting back to the point, I really enjoyed your post and I'd just like to understand what you mean about anarcho-capitalists. Thanks.

Capitalism is inherently hierarchial and has some kind of authority, so it isn't compatable with anarchism.

Hmm. Interesting. How are anarcho-capitalists not capitalists? (Sorry, I've just never heard anyone make this argument before, so I'm curious about your reasoning.) Also, I see capitalism (private and mutual contracts, free market system, property in private hands) as the only economic system even remotely compatible with anarchy for one simple reason. A free market system allows for the existence of a communal system since everyone would have the right to band together and share resources, as long as membership within the commune is voluntary. In other words, even anarcho-socialism, if such a thing exists, would be permitted in an anarcho-capitalist world. Anarcho-socialism would be anarcho-capitalism because anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean you can't live in a voluntary commune. It's sort of the ultimate system as it permits an individual to pursue his or her own path without infringing on the liberty of others. But getting back to the point, I really enjoyed your post and I'd just like to understand what you mean about anarcho-capitalists. Thanks.

Well, anarchy is opposed to all hierarchies, so the concentration of wealth and power that goes along with free market capitalism is not in any way an anarchy. Anarcho-capitalists seem to concentrate on the tyranny of governments to the exclusion of any other form of tyranny.

The main problem is that anarchy itself is impossible, all human interaction will form hierarchies. Anarcho-capitalism would eliminate governemtns as much as possible, but this void would inevitably be filled by the wealthy.

Capitalism is inherently hierarchial and has some kind of authority, so it isn't compatable with anarchism.

Anarchy, in its strictest sense, just means absence of government, not necessarily absence of authority or influence. Anarcho-socialism, not anarcho-capitalism, is concerned with eliminating all hierarchy. That's fine, but that in no way means anarchism itself is anti-hierarchical. Also, capitalism is a system, a means, for distributing scarce resources through voluntary and mutual contracts in the free market. Capitalism often results in an economically hierarchical structure, but that doesn't mean it's inherently hierarchical. As I pointed out in my original point, an anarcho-capitalist society would permit individuals to voluntarily live in a commune and redistribute resources. The catch, of course, is that every member must consent and that no individual can initiate force on another to seize property. Since that's the case, capitalism can't be inherently hierarchical.

Well, anarchy is opposed to all hierarchies, so the concentration of wealth and power that goes along with free market capitalism is not in any way an anarchy. Anarcho-capitalists seem to concentrate on the tyranny of governments to the exclusion of any other form of tyranny.

The main problem is that anarchy itself is impossible, all human interaction will form hierarchies. Anarcho-capitalism would eliminate governemtns as much as possible, but this void would inevitably be filled by the wealthy.

As I said before, anarchy isn't the absence of authority, it's the absence of government.

If you remove government subsidies and government regulations, 1) most companies wouldn't be able to gain much economic power or might because of the up-and-down nature of the free market and 2) individuals and smaller businesses would have much more success breaking into the free market.

You'll have to explain to me why private and mutual contracts can ever be tyrannical. If the government disappeared tomorrow, there'd presumably be no currency. Maybe bank notes. If that's the case, companies wouldn't be able to effect change without individuals consenting to the exchange of labor or services for those bank notes. If a company tried to initiate force because of its economic might (something that only exists if people acknowledge its existence), there'd be nothing stopping other individuals from banding together and fighting off that force.

Also, I see capitalism (private and mutual contracts, free market system, property in private hands) as the only economic system even remotely compatible with anarchy for one simple reason.

Although in casual conversation it is perfectly acceptable to lump in free-markets with capitalism, that is not technically correct. Capitalism is specifically the private ownership of capital. Now historically speaking, free-markets and capitalism have coexisted and, in fact, complement each other. However, they are not the same and in the context of this debate I think there is some value to recongnize the difference.

A free market system allows for the existence of a communal system since everyone would have the right to band together and share resources, as long as membership within the commune is voluntary.

Yes, that would be a market based socialism. So you yourself demostrated the differances between capitalism and the free market.

In other words, even anarcho-socialism, if such a thing exists, would be permitted in an anarcho-capitalist world. Anarcho-socialism would be anarcho-capitalism because anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean you can't live in a voluntary commune.

I don't think that anarcho-socialism can possibly exist. In socialism, there must be public ownership of the means of production. You would need a specific entity to own the property so that even if you had no government for other purposes, you would be creating a government for the purpose of owning and managing the property.

Also, I'm not quiet sure there can be such a thing as a anarcho-capitalist commune. Commune implies either public ownership of property or no property at all. Capitalism requires, it is, private ownership of the means of production.

Although in casual conversation it is perfectly acceptable to lump in free-markets with capitalism, that is not technically correct. Capitalism is specifically the private ownership of capital. Now historically speaking, free-markets and capitalism have coexisted and, in fact, complement each other. However, they are not the same and in the context of this debate I think there is some value to recongnize the difference.



Yes, that would be a market based socialism. So you yourself demostrated the differances between capitalism and the free market.



I don't think that anarcho-socialism can possibly exist. In socialism, there must be public ownership of the means of production. You would need a specific entity to own the property so that even if you had no government for other purposes, you would be creating a government for the purpose of owning and managing the property.

Also, I'm not quiet sure there can be such a thing as a anarcho-capitalist commune. Commune implies either public ownership of property or no property at all. Capitalism requires, it is, private ownership of the means of production.

Of course it's technically correct. You yourself said that capitalism and free markets aren't exclusive concepts. Since they're not exclusive, capitalism can include the existence of the free market. I never said capitalism had to include the free market, though, did I? In fact, here's a definition:

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

If my opponent disagrees with my definition, and if his position in this thread rests on his own definition, he should bring that up. I defined what I mean by capitalism in my very first response, though. And since capitalism and the free markets are compatible, often go together, and are included in the above definition, it's technically correct as long as I define my terms, which I did.

No, it's not market-based socialism. It's market-based voluntary socialism. There's no real difference between anarchosocialism and anarchocapitalism except for how people pursue their own good. As long as economic interactions are voluntary, anarchocapitalism allows for the existence of anarchosocialism.

Free-market capitalism only requires consent, so it is plausible.

Anarcho-Primitivism was Tyler Durden's ideal form of society in Fight Club, and the crazy bastard thought culture jamming and eventually terrorism were the best ways to achieve it. It made for a great book/movie, but the idea is laughable in the real world (of course, if you got the joke, the author thought so too).

As I said before, anarchy isn't the absence of authority, it's the absence of government.

If you remove government subsidies and government regulations, 1) most companies wouldn't be able to gain much economic power or might because of the up-and-down nature of the free market and 2) individuals and smaller businesses would have much more success breaking into the free market.

You'll have to explain to me why private and mutual contracts can ever be tyrannical. If the government disappeared tomorrow, there'd presumably be no currency. Maybe bank notes. If that's the case, companies wouldn't be able to effect change without individuals consenting to the exchange of labor or services for those bank notes. If a company tried to initiate force because of its economic might (something that only exists if people acknowledge its existence), there'd be nothing stopping other individuals from banding together and fighting off that force.

I guess there are different definitions of anarchy. However, I'd say that an anarchy that rejects one hierarchy and accepts another is hypocritical.

I don't think the free market creates a situation where businesses remain small. Government subsidies can maintain monopolies, but I don't see how regulation affects this. Regulation limits externalities, or upholds standards that would not be kept by the free market, I'm not sure how this would contribute to the concentration of wealth. The free market leads to the concentration of wealth because large companies can outcompete small companies. They can afford expensive advertising, research, can get the benefit of economies of scale and can even afford to make a loss and drive competitors out of business.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with private and voluntary contracts, but if government is shrunk and the dominance of the market is increased then one hierarchy will just be replaced with another. I agree with your final paragraph, but the same arguments apply to governments. Corporations could have the same degree of control over society that governments currently do.

So we've already had one person saying Communism is even more unworkable than AP... :(

Try not to say such things without actually justifying them, okay?

Capitalism is inherently hierarchial and has some kind of authority, so it isn't compatable with anarchism.

:rolleyes: Anarchy is hierarchical as well. The lack of regulation and law leads to even more hierarchy.

So we've already had one person saying Communism is even more unworkable than AP... :(

Try not to say such things without actually justifying them, okay?

Well, I'm not the one who said it, but I'll take a stab at it...

Communism "worked", to one degree or another, in the Soviet Union from 1918 to 1992, making it the longest-lived Communist state to date. A few other nations, such as China, Cuba and Viet Nam, are still claiming to be Communist, but they started later, so haven't surpassed the Soviet Union's record yet. (I will pass on the argument that none of these states was truly "Communist", and simply accept that any state that claims to be Communist is Communist.)

As for Anarcho-Primitivism - it has worked for exactly 0 years in 0 places.

However, if you look at the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which is what Anarcho-Primitivists claim they want to return to, it was the dominant lifestyle on Earth from the birth of the human species until the invention of agriculture. There are still isolated pockets of hunter-gatherers in various parts of the world today. Therefore it has "worked" for the entire existence of Homo sapiens. So, if you accept that Anarcho-Primitivism and a hunter-gatherer lifestyle are essentially the same thing, then Anarcho-Primitivism has the longest track record of any form of human association.

It's still not viable for the majority of the human species, though. As I said earlier, the planet simply isn't big enough for everyone to live like that.

:p

I'd like to see a crypto-oligo-gerontocracy.

Capitalism is inherently hierarchial and has some kind of authority, so it isn't compatable with anarchism.
Well, anarchy is opposed to all hierarchies, so the concentration of wealth and power that goes along with free market capitalism is not in any way an anarchy.
I don't think either of you answered Orangian's first question:
Hmm. Interesting. How are anarcho-capitalists not capitalists? (Sorry, I've just never heard anyone make this argument before, so I'm curious about your reasoning.)

:rolleyes: Anarchy is hierarchical as well. The lack of regulation and law leads to even more hierarchy.

There are different definitions of anarchy/anarchism. It can simply mean the absence of a state, or it can mean an opposition to all forms of hierarchy. I think that as a political ideal, opposing the state while ignoring other forms of hierarchy would be highly hypocritical. When talking about political philosophies, I'd say it's more likely to mean an opposition to all hierarchy.

Anarcho-monarchism hands down.

So we've already had one person saying Communism is even more unworkable than AP... :(

Try not to say such things without actually justifying them, okay?

How about the fact that every communist society has inevitably led to social woes, famine, failing economies, and a strict police state?

The main problem with communism is that it creates too large a government to be workable. Big governments = inefficient.

At least in AP there cannot be any form of hierarchy whatsoever, because they reject division of labour.
Everyone is supposed to do everything by himself, thus I don't see how it would even be comparable with primitive hunter-gatherer (see, two different professions...) societies.
Might I also add that I think division of labour is natural to humans...

I'd like to see a crypto-oligo-gerontocracy.



I don't think either of you answered Orangian's first question:

I guess I wasn't paying attention... They certainly are capitalists. Whether they are anarchists depends on your deinition of 'anarchist'.

How about the fact that every communist society has inevitably led to social woes, famine, failing economies, and a strict police state?
And yet it has worked (or at least something that called itself communism) for quite a while.
AP yet couldn' possibly work, even for a few hours. People would immediatly reorganise, specialise in some sort of activity etc etc

Big governments = inefficient.
That's mighty dogmatic of you, isn't it?

In hunter-gatherer economies you had four positions. Hunter, Gatherer, Shaman, or dead. Seems pretty class stratified to me.

And yet it has worked (or at least something that called itself communism) for quite a while.
No it hasn't, the only two that are really halfway working, China and Vietnam, oddly enough have taken on quite a few aspects of capitalism.

No it hasn't, the only two that are really halfway working, China and Vietnam, oddly enough have taken on quite a few aspects of capitalism.
Well, Cuba still exists, and the USSR existed for what, 70 years?

I agree wholeheartedly when you say that that isn't real actual communism as written in the theory (which seems a lot more coherent and thought-out than the theory behind AP), but nonetheless it was more successful at creating a state of millions than AP could ever be.

A distinction should be drawn between tools (or implements) and technology. Perlman shows that primitive peoples develop all kinds of tools and implements, but not technologies: 'The material objects, the canes and canoes, the digging sticks and walls, were things a single individual could make, or they were things, like a wall, that required the cooperation of many on a single occasion .... Most of the implements are ancient, and the [material] surpluses [these implements supposedly made possible] have been ripe since the first dawn, but they did not give rise to impersonal institutions. People, living beings, give rise to both.' Tools are creations on a localised, small-scale, the products of either individuals or small groups on specific occasions. As such, they do not give rise to systems of control and coercion.
More can be found here (http://www.eco-action.org/dt/primer.html). AP has my vote, communism looks extremely pragmatic compared to this.

Capitalism is inherently hierarchial and has some kind of authority, so it isn't compatable with anarchism.
Of course it is. As long as there is no government, it's anarchism.

Of course it is. As long as there is no government, it's anarchism.

That's anarchy. 'Anarchism' is a philosophy, and does not necessarily limit itself to governments.

That's anarchy. 'Anarchism' is a philosophy, and does not necessarily limit itself to governments.
No, I meant "anarchism", because I was talking about the philosophy.

Of course it's technically correct. You yourself said that capitalism and free markets aren't exclusive concepts. Since they're not exclusive, capitalism can include the existence of the free market. I never said capitalism had to include the free market, though, did I?

The way you wrote it it appeared that you meant capitalism was free-markets. If that's not what you meant, that's fine, my mistake.

No, it's not market-based socialism. It's market-based voluntary socialism.

There's no differance between market-based socialism and voluntary market-based socalism. Any actor participating within a society should be assumed to consent to some degree to the system he/she is a part of.

It seems that you are stuck on the whole 'socialism is theft' thing and that making voluntary would change everything. It changes nothing.

There's no real difference between anarchosocialism and anarchocapitalism except for how people pursue their own good. As long as economic interactions are voluntary, anarchocapitalism allows for the existence of anarchosocialism.

They are polar opposites. As I previously stated, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

It is possible to have a mixed system, and I suppose anarcho-capitalism can "allow" for anarcho-socialism in that way. Nevertheless, there are certainly more differances than just how people pursue their own good.

Finally, the whole discussion about the compatibility of anarcho-capitalism and socialism may be quite senseless. As I have already pointed out, anarcho-socialism is simply impossible, the two ideologies are as opposite as are capitalism and socialism.

Finally, the whole discussion about the compatibility of anarcho-capitalism and socialism may be quite senseless. As I have already pointed out, anarcho-socialism is simply impossible, the two ideologies are as opposite as are capitalism and socialism.

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I think anarcho-socialism is extremely hard to define. How does one control the economy and centralize regulatory functions without much of a government? Anarcho-capitalism has always appealed to me in theory. Again, I don't think it would ever work. Radical capitalism maybe, but there needs to be some sort of government. I wouldn't mind the privatization of more things though, thats for sure.

Well, Cuba still exists, and the USSR existed for what, 70 years?

Existence does not denote success. Cuba can't even continually supply power to it's residents. Castro hasn't distributed the chinese kitchen appliances he got for his country because the power network won't take the load.

I got one!

"Enlightened Comatosism".

We could put 3/4 of the world's population into a comatose-like state for three years, and then, every year, a new 1/4 comes out of their sleep to take care of the 3/4 still asleep.

As long as you could figure out a way to get 6.2 billion people to agree to living out most of their lives in total and complete lethargy, you will have world peace and human equality: everybody is equally useless.

Of course, it would be incredibly boring. And SOMEBODY would eventually "ruin" the perfect peace gained through englightened comatosism. Then you'd have anarchy.

We could put 3/4 of the world's population into a comatose-like state for three years, and then, every year, a new 1/4 comes out of their sleep to take care of the 3/4 still asleep.

Kinda reminds me of the crop rotation agricultural practice. :D

I like it! :p

Haha... People rotation!!!!!!!! ;)

Or how about this -

learn about working from age 5-15
work from 15-40
spend the rest of your life in a lsd induced triorgy.

Existence does not denote success.
Communism: Exists, but maybe not very well.
Anarcho-Primitivism: Doesn't exist and is impossible to create.

I still think AP is more stupid and more unworkable than Communism.

Communism: Exists, but maybe not very well.
Anarcho-Primitivism: Doesn't exist and is impossible to create.

I still think AP is more stupid and more unworkable than Communism.
At least I still get to keep my commuter in Communism. Though, I can’t really fathom how things like the internet would function in an anarcho-communist society.

Browsing Wiki, as one sometimes does, I found this:

Anarcho-Primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism)

If anyone here is an anarcho-primitivist (why are you using a PC???), I appologise if I misrepresent the intricate political and social philosophy behind all this...


Or maybe you know of other curious and original theories for a different society? Perhaps we might even be able to crown one "the stupidest of them all"! :D

I knew some anthropologists that believed in anarcho-primitivisim, but they were smart enough to admit that going back wasn't fessible. An anthropology TA thought leaving hunting and gathering was a mistake, but she thought the world was too crowded to be sustained that way anymore. I personally think they were a little crazy.

I have mixed feelings on modern technology. I think its helped us a lot, but that it can lead to alienation. Like the IPods everyone has. Instead of talking to people while on the train or at work people just drown out the world with music. And those who crave social interaction but are afraid of it use computers instead of talking to people in person.

Has anyone mentioned the idea of an anarcho-syndicate commune where people take turns acting as a sort of executive officer of the week. Or how about a system derived from strange women lying in ponds distributing swords and watery tarts lobbing scimitars at people?

:p

Has anyone mentioned the idea of an anarcho-syndicate commune where people take turns acting as a sort of executive officer of the week. Or how about a system derived from strange women lying in ponds distributing swords and watery tarts lobbing scimitars at people?

:p
I should think that would be a rather farcical aquatic ceremony.

Now I think it's about time to show the violence inherent in the system and repress you.

Anarcho-Primitivism: Doesn't exist and is impossible to create.

I'd dispute that. If a group of people reverted to a tribal lifestyle and began living off the land, seperate from the outside world, there's no reason that wouldn't work.

"The most terrifying words in the
English langauge are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

I'd dispute that. If a group of people reverted to a tribal lifestyle and began living off the land, seperate from the outside world, there's no reason that wouldn't work.


Also, if a group of magicians decided that people no longer should need to eat, and used their magical powers to bring this about, we could probably save a lot of lives and the world would certainly be a better place.

Also, if a group of magicians decided that people no longer should need to eat, and used their magical powers to bring this about, we could probably save a lot of lives and the world would certainly be a better place.

Huh?

No, i'm talking about a group of say, 100 people. If they wanted to be real anarcho-primitivists, they could go start their own tribe or something. Why not?

Huh?

No, i'm talking about a group of say, 100 people. If they wanted to be real anarcho-primitivists, they could go start their own tribe or something. Why not?

because the only successful and sustainable human lifestyle we've yet tried out and that worked for 99% of human history is fundamentally 'unworkable'.

obviously.

because the only successful and sustainable human lifestyle we've yet tried out and that worked for 99% of human history is fundamentally 'unworkable'.

obviously.

Exactly. I'm not a primitivist myself, but I see no reason why people can't follow and act on that philosophy.

I knew some anthropologists that believed in anarcho-primitivisim, but they were smart enough to admit that going back wasn't fessible.

it's because lots of modern anthropologists are either from the generation that overthrew the old nonsense about foraging cultures, or are their students. wipe out the nonsense and even unromanticized foraging cultures are really appealing to most people. colin turnbull almost didn't come back to write his thesis after living with the mbuti.

Communism: Exists, but maybe not very well.
Anarcho-Primitivism: Doesn't exist and is impossible to create.

I still think AP is more stupid and more unworkable than Communism.

at least the primmies 'actually existing' primitivism is at least a worthwhile way of life, rather than the nearly unmitigated disaster of 'actully existing communism'.

and why would it be impossible to create? some stupid idea that "we can't go back"?

Exactly. I'm not a primitivist myself, but I see no reason why people can't follow and act on that philosophy.

the knee-jerk reaction against that people have is because most everyone is a good partisan of the neolithic revolution. primmies are counter-revolutionaries.

You know, AP isn't all too differant than communism, structurally speaking.

Communism would be AP dealing with modern technology.

You know, AP isn't all too differant than communism, structurally speaking.

Communism would be AP dealing with modern technology.

They're also both impossible pipe dreams, barring Star Trek-like scenerio where WWIII wipes out all but the leftists and they start over with all their "peaceful space exploration" and crap :p :D

They're also both impossible pipe dreams

impossible except for the fact that one of them is essentally the way all of our ancestors lived for the majority of human existence, and the other is an attempt to update some of the institutions of that existence to fit in with a technological society based on agriculture?

impossible except for the fact that one of them is essentally the way all of our ancestors lived for the majority of human existence, and the other is an attempt to update some of the institutions of that existence to fit in with a technological society based on agriculture?

Didn't you know? Anything that isn't modern American capitalism is completely unworkable! No other form of government has ever lasted more than a few days! :rolleyes:

Isn't there a thread going on here where Jesus gets elected as the leader of a country?

Didn't you know? Anything that isn't modern American capitalism is completely unworkable! No other form of government has ever lasted more than a few days! :rolleyes:

heh

what i've always liked about these arguments is they essentially wind up having to say that the old "empire headed by a god-king and run by the priests" state is the clear winner as far as state-organizations go.

When I first saw the word "kakistocracy", I pictured a country ruled by people wearing khaki shorts. *shudders*

AP could work, people who subscribe to it just need to drop out of society and find somewhere in the middle of nowhere in which to make it work. Their very own 'shack in the woods' so to speak.

If returning to the hunter-gathering society, then that also includes -

-No language, only grunts and hand signals
-No writing
-Hardly any knowledge, only simple logic.

--

I have to agree, Anarcho-Primitivism is stupid.

If returning to the hunter-gathering society, then that also includes -

-No language, only grunts and hand signals
-No writing
-Hardly any knowledge, only simple logic.

what the fuck are you on about?

When I first saw the word "kakistocracy", I pictured a country ruled by people wearing khaki shorts. *shudders*

What's even more weird is a Paedarchy - A Government ruled by Children, lol.

Also, a Infantocracy (Government run by an Infant) is very, very unusual.

what the fuck are you on about?

What do you think I'm on about? Just adding to your list, baka-seki.

What do you think I'm on about? Just adding to your list, baka-seki.

hunter-gatherers had fully complex spoken languages.

they also had encyclopedic knowledge of the environment they lived in and all of the skills necessary to survive, as well as a huge body of orally-transmitted culture.

and most societies, foraging or domesticated, never came up with writing.

so again i ask, what the fuck are you on about?

The point is these people (like all anarchists) want to be free. Not free in the meaning: "America, land of the free" but in the true essential form, no government, no useless regulations, just the pure living.
I fail to see what's stupid about that

"The most terrifying words in the
English langauge are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Close, but not quite - the words are "I'm a lawyer, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

Close, but not quite - the words are "I'm a lawyer, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

Sometimes I think I should become one just to punish myself for all the shit I've done over the years. God knows I'd make a damned good lawyer.

But I really don't want to. I have no idea what to do with myself.

Off-topic but oh well....

What's even more weird is a Paedarchy - A Government ruled by Children, lol.

We've got a good approximation of that going on in the US right now.

and why would it be impossible to create? some stupid idea that "we can't go back"?
a) We really can't go back, unless you're ready to kill off the majority of humans on the planet (which is what their revolution would have to look like realistically).
b) AP goes further than simply moving into hunter-gatherer society: They reject division of labour. Division of Labour/Specialisation is natural to humans - even the most primitive of groups had some sort of hierarchy. Primitivism itself may be workable in small groups, Anarcho-primitivism is not.
c) Their justification for why technology is evil and tools aren't is very flimsy indeed. I think it's little more than a hypocritical excuse for the unworkability of living without technology. Humans have been given brains - it's all we have. We don't have claws, we don't have teeth, we don't even have fur. If we're condemned to not using our brains by this philosophy, we'll either die out or simply reject it.

a) We really can't go back, unless you're ready to kill off the majority of humans on the planet (which is what their revolution would have to look like realistically).

actually, they tend to either think that the coming ecological collapse™ will take care of the population issue without anything anyone can do about it (like went down with the maya), or that we should engage in a program of voluntary negative population growth in order to get down to sustainable levels. it really depends on how millenarian they feel.

b) AP goes further than simply moving into hunter-gatherer society: They reject division of labour. Division of Labour/Specialisation is natural to humans - even the most primitive of groups had some sort of hierarchy. Primitivism itself may be workable in small groups, Anarcho-primitivism is not.

the only real divisions of labor that we see are by sex and age. but except for the biologically necessitated divisions, the particular breakdown of who does what even in actually existing foraging cultures wasn't exactly locked into place for all time. the mbuti, for example, involve the entire group in the hunt, women and children included.

and the sexual division of labor was/is not a hierarchical division in these societies, but rather one of autonomy between different tasks. one was not better than the other - these people took their egalitarianism seriously.

c) Their justification for why technology is evil and tools aren't is very flimsy indeed. I think it's little more than a hypocritical excuse for the unworkability of living without technology. Humans have been given brains - it's all we have. We don't have claws, we don't have teeth, we don't even have fur. If we're condemned to not using our brains by this philosophy, we'll either die out or simply reject it.

eh, i think zerzan and pals jumped the shark on a lot of that shit (check out his papers on the oppression of symbolic thought), but the distinction between technology as social institutions that enable command and control structures and tools that don't seems like it has something to it. to quote john moore's a primitivist primer (http://www.eco-action.org/dt/primer.html):

Tools are creations on a localised, small-scale, the products of either individuals or small groups on specific occasions. As such, they do not give rise to systems of control and coercion.

Technology, on the other hand, is the product of large-scale interlocking systems of extraction, production, distribution and consumption, and such systems gain their own momentum and dynamic. As such, they demand structures of control and obedience on a mass scale - what Perlman calls impersonal institutions. As the Fifth Estate pointed out in 1981: 'Technology is not a simple tool which can be used in any way we like. It is a form of social organization, a set of social relations. It has its own laws. If we are to engage in its use, we must accept its authority. The enormous size, complex interconnections and stratification of tasks which make up modern technological systems make authoritarian command necessary and independent, individual decision-making impossible.'

Rotovism, pretty much revolves around you all being my bitchs.

impossible except for the fact that one of them is essentally the way all of our ancestors lived for the majority of human existence,
Until, of course, there were suddenly 6+ billion of us sharing the same biosphere. You really think a hunter-gatherer society can survive with those kinds of conditions?

Until, of course, there were suddenly 6+ billion of us sharing the same biosphere. You really think a hunter-gatherer society can survive with those kinds of conditions?
It'd be funny to watch them try. I forsee a great TV show "Who wants to die in third world conditions?"

the only real divisions of labor that we see are by sex and age.
But there are chiefs, councils of elders or the like, as well as rules on what is allowed and what isn't.
People can be banned from their tribes for doing something that's against tradition, it seems hardly anarchistic to me.

...the distinction between technology as social institutions that enable command and control structures and tools that don't seems like it has something to it...
Well, maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how I need to accept authority to watch TV any more than if I want to watch caveman drawings.
Or that it is somehow different to shoot an animal with a gun rather than beat it to death with a stick - I just can't follow the philosophic differences.

But there are chiefs, councils of elders or the like, as well as rules on what is allowed and what isn't.
People can be banned from their tribes for doing something that's against tradition, it seems hardly anarchistic to me.

chiefs and elders without any special coercive power, with decisions made largely autonomously or through consensus-like procedures for collective decisions. and all societies have rules. some of the rules of some of the actually existing egalitarian societies were not as free as i would like, but that's neither here nor there.

Well, maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how I need to accept authority to watch TV any more than if I want to watch caveman drawings.
Or that it is somehow different to shoot an animal with a gun rather than beat it to death with a stick - I just can't follow the philosophic differences.

build many tv's yourself? drill your own oil to use that to manufacture your own plastics? got your own power generator? create your own content? build your own stations for broadcasting that content you created? no. those things are done by a host of essentially fascist organizations that are all integrated into an overarching system of coercion and control that monitors the actions of each of us and ciphons off the fruits of our labor to give to an elite at every step, with each increasing level of complexity alienating people further from the actual creation and use of things and, in some sense, from an unmediated experience of reality.

it seems just a little bit different from tools that can be made by individuals or a small group.

it seems just a little bit different from tools that can be made by individuals or a small group.
Fair enough I guess.
Maybe that's why I'm not an Anarcho-Primitivist...I just don't get their hatred for modernity.
I'm happy as it is, and the underlying power structure behind my TV program just doesn't bother me all that much.

Close, but not quite - the words are "I'm a lawyer, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."


Either way it belongs in this thread about stupid and unusual theories of government.

Fair enough I guess.
Maybe that's why I'm not an Anarcho-Primitivist...I just don't get their hatred for modernity.
I'm happy as it is, and the underlying power structure behind my TV program just doesn't bother me all that much.

well, i'm not one because i think we can do away with most of the authoritarian bullshit and still have modern medicine and video games. but i see where they're coming from and i understand the impusle.

How about Anarcho-Masochism-Infantilism...our leaders being elected through acclamation by union members, then getting publicly flogged and getting a free set of diapers as their uniform :eek:

Damnit, it just might work. :D
_____________________________________________
As for the whole hatred of modern society? I know where there coming from, i love video games, computers, and tv but going back to a tribal and everyone-supports-everyone sort of deal would be sweet, i.e you farm, your food feeds the smiths who make your tools ext.

It's anarcho-riffic!

How about Mentalhobowhositsatthebackofbusesyellingcursewordsatchildren...cracy

Don't the people from the movie 'The Village' live in a Anarcho-Primitivism society?

And... has anyone read 'Anthem' by Ayn Rand? That society is kind of like communism and AP put together.

As for the whole hatred of modern society? I know where there coming from, i love video games, computers, and tv but going back to a tribal and everyone-supports-everyone sort of deal would be sweet, i.e you farm, your food feeds the smiths who make your tools ext.
;) Wouldn't that be division of labour?

Wouldn't that lead to someone valuing one service (like...a religious one for example) more than your food, and thus some sort of hierarchy?

And wouldn't you in your attempt to make your food better and faster start thinking of cool machines to do it for you?

How about Mentalhobowhositsatthebackofbusesyellingcursewordsatchildren...cracy

:D Just think of ^'s opposition party!

An assortment of theocracies:

Anarcho-theocracy: The priests are in charge, and nobody listens to them.

Theocratic Libertarianism: The government only makes laws on matters of religion.

Corporate Theocracy: I was having a hard time coming up with a description for this one, until I realized that this is basically George W. Bush's domestic policy.

:p

;) Wouldn't that be division of labour?

Wouldn't that lead to someone valuing one service (like...a religious one for example) more than your food, and thus some sort of hierarchy?

And wouldn't you in your attempt to make your food better and faster start thinking of cool machines to do it for you?

{ :headbang: } ::nod::

Don't the people from the movie 'The Village' live in a Anarcho-Primitivism society?

nah, those people were still holding on to the worst mistake humanity ever made. they just got rid of the few benefits that we got out of the deal millenia later.

nah, those people were still holding on to the worst mistake humanity ever made. they just got rid of the few benefits that we got out of the deal millenia later.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Have you seen the movie yet?

I think I Furry technocracy would rule, the leaders suited up as whatever animal they wanted to portray that week, Tony blair as a rabbit, Brown as a hawk <G> or Elmer fudd with a Laser pistol

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Have you seen the movie yet?

yeah.

i was refering to a jared diamond article (available here (http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)). their village isn't anarcho-primitivist because they still practice agriculture, which might as well be the fundamental evil the primmies oppose.