NationStates Jolt Archive

What he means is that fairytale communism, the made-up kind,

Yeah, I heard that some guy called "Karl Marx" or something said that the state would "wither away".

But who ever heard of "Karl Marx" anyway? He certainly doesn't have anything to do with Communism, that's for sure!

Yeah, I heard that some guy called "Karl Marx" or something said that the state would "wither away".

But who ever heard of "Karl Marx" anyway? He certainly doesn't have anything to do with Communism, that's for sure!

Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh
Splotila naveki velikaya Rus'!
Da zdravstvuyet sozdanny voley narodov
Yediny, moguchy Sovetsky Soyuz!


CHORUS:

Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,

Druzhby narodov nadyozhny oplot,

Znamya sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye

Pust' ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!

Skvoz' grozy siyalo nam solntse svobody,
I Lenin veliky nam put' ozaril,
Nas vyrastil Stalin — na vernost' narodu,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdokhnovil!


CHORUS:

Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,

Schast'ya narodov nadyozhny oplot,

Znamya sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye

Pust' ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!

My armiyu nashu rastili v srazhen'yakh,
Zakhvatchikov podlykh s dorogi smetyom!
My v bitvakh reshayem sud'bu pokoleniy,
My k slave Otchiznu svoyu povedyom!


CHORUS:

Slavsya Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,

Slavy narodov nadyozhny oplot,

Znamya sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye

Pust' ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!

1) That's what the revolution is for.

2) The working class, through direct action and general strikes, appropriates the means of production, ending private ownership of productive property, and creating socialism. At the same time, direct action is taken to severely weaken the power of the state to shore up bourgeious interests.

3) This is where direct democracy and public ownership comes in. One cannot conspire against the community, as political and economic decision making are distributed more or less equally.

4) The state is abolished by making it irrelevant. It can no longer control the means of production, the majority of the populace no longer heeds its decrees. It becomes irrelevant and either withers away (not in a Marxist fashion) or is abolished outright.

5) It is the majority of people's interest to establish anarchy because the state exists solely as a means of hierarchal control. It serves the interests of the ruling class, who stand to lose much with anarchy. But the majority of people have everything to gain (freedom, equality, self-management, solidarity)


so youre talking about something that would happen far in the future, not something to be worked on and acheived in your lifetime.

Yeah, I heard that some guy called "Karl Marx" or something said that the state would "wither away".

But who ever heard of "Karl Marx" anyway? He certainly doesn't have anything to do with Communism, that's for sure!

oh did some state somewhere wither away and i missed it?

sure karl marx predicted that it would happen. it hasnt happened and none of any of his followers have even tried to have it happen. they just used the idealism of people of good will to set up their own dictatorships.

its a quick and strong lesson of why communism and anarchism wont work. not because no one wants it but because evil men have no compunction about using those people's ideals against them. while the good people are working toward equality, the bad man is planning their liquidation.

oh did some state somewhere wither away and i missed it?

You're clearly confused. The argument wasn't "Did Karl Marx predict the future?", it was "Is Anarchy a form of Communism?"

Try actually reading the thread next time, Ashmoria.

You're clearly confused. The argument wasn't "Did Karl Marx predict the future?", it was "Is Anarchy a form of Communism?"

Try actually reading the thread next time, Ashmoria.

You didnt respont to the fact that the comparison was between fairytale anarchism and fairytale communism.

You didnt respont to the fact that the comparison was between fairytale anarchism and fairytale communism.

You say fairytale communism, I say Marxism.

You say fairytale communism, I say Marxism.

And what does that contribute to the discussion?

And what does that contribute to the discussion?

Oh please. Don't play the "I don't understand where this is going so I'm going to call you a hijacker" card.
You said that "real" Communist theory was removed from "fairytale" Communist theory. I pointed out that so-called "fairytale" Communism is in fact classical Marxism.

I was correcting an error you made in failing to understand basic Marxism and how it relates to Communism and Anarchy in general. That's what it contributes to the discussion.

Yeah, I heard that some guy called "Karl Marx" or something said that the state would "wither away".

But who ever heard of "Karl Marx" anyway? He certainly doesn't have anything to do with Communism, that's for sure!

You're clearly confused. The argument wasn't "Did Karl Marx predict the future?", it was "Is Anarchy a form of Communism?"

Try actually reading the thread next time, Ashmoria.

oh im sorry did the top quote mean "there is a difference between communism and anarchism"? if so, i dont see it.

oh im sorry did the top quote mean "there is a difference between communism and anarchism"? if so, i dont see it.

Yes, a certain degree of scrolling in an upwards motion may be required to fully understand what's going on in a thread. Try Jello Biafra's post and the replies.

Anyone else sense a flame-fest coming on?

In the spirit of it, and since my post count labels me as a newb:

:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Yes, a certain degree of scrolling in an upwards motion may be required to fully understand what's going on in a thread. Try Jello Biafra's post and the replies.

does that explain how your post means "anarchy isnt the same as communism"?

does that explain how your post means "anarchy isnt the same as communism"?

:confused:

That's not what my post means. I suspect there's been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

:confused:

That's not what my post means. I suspect there's been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

i was kinda hoping you would explain what the post means and how it addressed jello biafra's post and new grenada's response.

Anarchism - abolishment of state

necessary, but not sufficient

Communism - the state controls all aspects of the economy to keep things equal.

not even close

capitalism (i.e. trading goods and services)

that's not even wrong

i was kinda hoping you would explain what the post means and how it addressed jello biafra's post and new grenada's response.

or better yet, stop pretending that MY post wasnt on point and either respond to it or ignore it.

i was kinda hoping you would explain what the post means and how it addressed jello biafra's post and new grenada's response.

JB said that anarchy was a form of communism.
NG said that this was only the case with "fairytale communism"
I pointed out that this so-called "fairytale communism" and its relation to Anarchy is in fact Marxism, pretty much the basis for classical communism, and as such is hardly a "fairytale".


Hope that clears it up for you.

or better yet, stop pretending that MY post wasnt on point and either respond to it or ignore it.

Again, I wasn't. Just calm down.

Again, I wasn't. Just calm down.

you neither responded to my point nor ignored it. you pretended that it wasnt relevant to the discussion.

you neither responded to my point nor ignored it. you pretended that it wasnt relevant to the discussion.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about now. I've answered every one of your questions, including a summary of the recent debate, which was requested.

I wish you'd calm down and read the posts that I've made. We won't get anywhere if you keep acting like this.

You didnt respont to the fact that the comparison was between fairytale anarchism and fairytale communism.

the fact that you think them to be fairytales doesn't have any bearing on the meanings of the terms

I honestly don't know what you're talking about now. I've answered every one of your questions, including a summary of the recent debate, which was requested.

I wish you'd calm down and read the posts that I've made. We won't get anywhere if you keep acting like this.

i did.

no i didnt need a summary of the debate, i read all the posts. i wanted you to explain what your post meant since your response to MINE indicated that i had gotten it wrong.

if you didnt want to respond to my post, you could have ignored it instead of pretending. its your right to ignore any post.

i did.

no i didnt need a summary of the debate, i read all the posts. i wanted you to explain what your post meant since your response to MINE indicated that i had gotten it wrong.

if you didnt want to respond to my post, you could have ignored it instead of pretending. its your right to ignore any post.

If you'd just tell me what this post is, I'd be happy to rectify any misunderstanding.

the fact that you think them to be fairytales doesn't have any bearing on the meanings of the terms

Fairytale communism is the kind that exists in fairy tales, but not the real world.

Its sort of like how there are fairy tale animals, like flying unicorns, that exist in fairy tales but not in the real world.

There are plenty of real animals, just like there is plenty of real communism, but not fairy tale animals, and not fairy tale communism.

Fairytale communism is the kind that exists in fairy tales, but not the real world.

Das Kapital isn't really considered to be on a par with Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty.

the fact that you think them to be fairytales doesn't have any bearing on the meanings of the terms

it is a bit flamey to call it fairytale but the fact remains that the only communist countries have quickly turned into a horrorshow of oppression.

you can wish that it would turn out differently but the truth is that the soviet union and communist china had plenty of real communists in the beginning. men and women who wanted just the sort of ideal society that our forum anarchists desire. it was not a failure of their goodwill that made those countries turn out so badly. it was a failure of human nature.

until someone can explain how we get past human nature, their dream of anarchism is just a fairytale they tell themselves.

Das Kapital isn't really considered to be on a par with Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty.

Communist utpoia, where the state "fades away" and "real communism" obtains, where people live equally in peace and cooperateive harmony is at the most generous on par with The Wizard of Oz.

Communist utpoia, where the state "fades away" and "real communism" obtains, where people live equally in peace and cooperateive harmony is at the most generous on par with The Wizard of Oz.

Why? Because it hasn't happened?

Why? Because it hasn't happened?

No, because it is inane and unreasonable and in exactly equal measure fantastic.

it is a bit flamey to call it fairytale but the fact remains that the only communist countries have quickly turned into a horrorshow of oppression.

you can wish that it would turn out differently but the truth is that the soviet union and communist china had plenty of real communists in the beginning. men and women who wanted just the sort of ideal society that our forum anarchists desire. it was not a failure of their goodwill that made those countries turn out so badly. it was a failure of human nature.

until someone can explain how we get past human nature, their dream of anarchism is just a fairytale they tell themselves.

You speak as though there were just one human nature. Human nature is many things, and it is very malleable. People behave according to certain genetic probabilty patterns, but nuture largely determines how people use their innate genetic instincts. The failure of the revolutions you speak of was not a failure of human nature, it was a failure of the methods certain individuals chose to bring about the future that most Russians or Chinese wanted. Those methods are those of the Classical Marxism and Leninism that Saint-Newly speaks of. Thus, fairy-tale communism is the belief that state action can bring about anarchy.

you can wish that it would turn out differently but the truth is that the soviet union and communist china had plenty of real communists in the beginning. men and women who wanted just the sort of ideal society that our forum anarchists desire. it was not a failure of their goodwill that made those countries turn out so badly. it was a failure of human nature. It was because of the methods that they used - 'democratic' centralism - amongst others, that they failed. Bakunin and Emma Goldman both predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long before it actually happened.

No, because it is inane and unreasonable and in exactly equal measure fantastic.

Inane and fantastic? Now I'll give that to you, that does sound like the Wizard of Oz.

Why is human co-operation so hard to believe in? Humans have co-operated throughout history, typically without coercion. There have been Anarchist collectives, which were typically destroyed by outside forces.

I'd love it if you provided some real arguments though, because the phrase "fairytale" and the comparisons it entails are getting a little stale.

You speak as though there were just one human nature. Human nature is many things, and it is very malleable.
According to whom? I am not partial to either side on the nature/nurture debate, but as far as I know genetics play a major role, and human nature is far from being "very malleable" (although it is to an extent malleable indeed).

You speak as though there were just one human nature. Human nature is many things, and it is very malleable. People behave according to certain genetic probabilty patterns, but nuture largely determines how people use their innate genetic instincts. The failure of the revolutions you speak of was not a failure of human nature, it was a failure of the methods certain individuals chose to bring about the future that most Russians or Chinese wanted. Those methods are those of the Classical Marxism and Leninism that Saint-Newly speaks of. Thus, fairy-tale communism is the belief that state action can bring about anarchy.

if you are willing to wait thousands of years for human nature to change and the state to wither away on its own, fine.

until then you have to guard against the very sort of people who are attracted to revolution. violent powermongers who have no regard for the rule of law and will pretend to want something good in order to position themselves at the top of the new order.

It was because of the methods that they used - 'democratic' centralism - amongst others, that they failed. Bakunin and Emma Goldman both predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long before it actually happened.

i completely agree with you.

You speak as though there were just one human nature. Human nature is many things, and it is very malleable. People behave according to certain genetic probabilty patterns, but nuture largely determines how people use their innate genetic instincts. The failure of the revolutions you speak of was not a failure of human nature, it was a failure of the methods certain individuals chose to bring about the future that most Russians or Chinese wanted. Those methods are those of the Classical Marxism and Leninism that Saint-Newly speaks of. Thus, fairy-tale communism is the belief that state action can bring about anarchy.

Certain individuals acting the way individuals are very strongly disposed to act, they way they've acted as long as people have been able to pass along history, they way they act every day, and they way they will, in all reasonable likelihood, always act.

fairy-tale communism is the belief that there is progress toward "real communism" where without the structure of a state, people in the real world and on a grand scale somehow get along and keep things organized.

Why, at the end of the day, we must ask, should people be expected to forgo gain at the expense of others, to forgo their desire to have dominance or to forgo their desire to increase their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their familes?

if you are willing to wait thousands of years for human nature to change and the state to wither away on its own, fine.

until then you have to guard against the very sort of people who are attracted to revolution. violent powermongers who have no regard for the rule of law and will pretend to want something good in order to position themselves at the top of the new order.

That is the failing of individuals, not of all of humanity. You under estimate how diverse human nature is, and how dependent it is on circumstances and education.

i completely agree with you.

You agree that it was the fault of the Soviet regime? A couple of posts ago you were saying it was the fault of human nature!

i completely agree with you.Of course, simply because Marxist communism is likely to fail doesn't mean anarchist forms would.


Why, at the end of the day, we must ask, should people be expected to forgo gain at the expense of others, to forgo their desire to have dominance or to forgo their desire to increase their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their familes?Why would other people associate with this type of person?

You agree that it was the fault of the Soviet regime? A couple of posts ago you were saying it was the fault of human nature!

they go hand in hand. they chose a communist revolution in one of the least appropriate countries in the world. they wanted it so much that they invented new justifications for how it could work. the justifications stunk and they were used because of the powermongering of those at the top of the revolution.

You're clearly confused. The argument wasn't "Did Karl Marx predict the future?", it was "Is Anarchy a form of Communism?"

Try actually reading the thread next time, Ashmoria.

Marx often argued with the Anarcho-syndicalists. While Marx thought that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would fall into peaceful anarchy with time, this is NOT the same as saying "anarchy is a subset of communism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism

^Is that communism to you?

Certain individuals acting the way individuals are very strongly disposed to act, they way they've acted as long as people have been able to pass along history, they way they act every day, and they way they will, in all reasonable likelihood, always act.

fairy-tale communism is the belief that there is progress toward "real communism" where without the structure of a state, people in the real world and on a grand scale somehow get along and keep things organized.

Why, at the end of the day, we must ask, should people be expected to forgo gain at the expense of others, to forgo their desire to have dominance or to forgo their desire to increase their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their familes?

You can't generalize the failings of some individuals (Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Mao, etc.,) as the failings of humanity as a whole.

Anarchism has worked before. People can get a long without hierarchy to enforce it. Most people instinctively don't like hierarchy (think teenage rebellion).

they go hand in hand. they chose a communist revolution in one of the least appropriate countries in the world. they wanted it so much that they invented new justifications for how it could work. the justifications stunk and they were used because of the powermongering of those at the top of the revolution.

But none of that suggests anything inherently "wrong" in the nature of humans.

That is the failing of individuals, not of all of humanity. You under estimate how diverse human nature is, and how dependent it is on circumstances and education.

how would you keep bad men out of your anarchy?

there sure are a lot of assholes in the world now. uncooperative people. those whose nature causes them to rise to the top of criminal gangs. people who cant seem to see their own best interest and instead spend their time screwing up their lives and the lives of everyone around them

how do you keep "stalin" from rising to the top of your new anarchy?

You can't generalize the failings of some individuals (Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Mao, etc.,) as the failings of humanity as a whole.

Anarchism has worked before. People can get a long without hierarchy to enforce it. Most people instinctively don't like hierarchy (think teenage rebellion).

Anarchy 'worked before' only in the sense that it prevailed before there were enough people to need a government.

Teenage rebellion is the part of people that "dont like heirarchy," and not coincidentally the segment of society most likely to be 'anarchists.'

When people grow up and learn a bit more about life and how the world works, they start to see that it isnt by accident that things are arranged the way they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism

^Is that communism to you?

No, and it's not anarchy to me either. With Anarcho-Capitalism, people are still being ruled, but it's by their bosses rather than a government.

Of course, simply because Marxist communism is likely to fail doesn't mean anarchist forms would.


Why would other people associate with this type of person?

I think you could spend your whole life and never manage to get away from "this type of person," him being in the majority.

But none of that suggests anything inherently "wrong" in the nature of humans.

i dont know that i would call it wrong but many people are naturally uncooperative and naturally powermongering.

anarchy..i love the damn stuff!rebellion and other things...it is hte way of the world and it will rule!

anarchy..i love the damn stuff!rebellion and other things...it is hte way of the world and it will rule!

how would you keep bad men out of your anarchy?

there sure are a lot of assholes in the world now. uncooperative people. those whose nature causes them to rise to the top of criminal gangs. people who cant seem to see their own best interest and instead spend their time screwing up their lives and the lives of everyone around them

how do you keep "stalin" from rising to the top of your new anarchy?

That's radically simple. There simply is no "top" of society. That's the idea of ending hierarchy. To keep assholes from ruling other people.

Anarchy 'worked before' only in the sense that it prevailed before there were enough people to need a government.
Or in the sense that it prevailed when there were enough people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia)

Human nature is not malleable at all - that is why it is "nature."

Human behavior is very much malleable, but in general, a society whose foundation is the exploitation of this malleability is incompatible with human freedom.

When advocates of capitalism talk about capitalism being able to deal with human nature, what they are really talking about is the capability of capitalism to forcibly overcome human nature and get the individual to accept her place in the industrial machine. Humans being naturally lazy, it is argued, the only way to maintain this condition is by adopting capitalism and threatening them with poverty and marginalization.

This is undoubtedly true of capitalism, but it is true of socialism with financial incentives as well, and quite possibly of social indoctrination-based industrial communism. So, for those who would sacrifice freedom for productivity, there remain modes of social organization where the population will be properly controlled and will enjoy a more egalitarian distribution of the product of production.

That's radically simple. There simply is no "top" of society. That's the idea of ending hierarchy. To keep assholes from ruling other people.
In a democracy a majority can still tyranise the minority, and can also consist of assholes. Forms of anarchism that rely on "democratic" control of resources are themselves authoritarian in my view too, in the sense that democracies are.

You can't generalize the failings of some individuals (Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Mao, etc.,) as the failings of humanity as a whole.

Anarchism has worked before. People can get a long without hierarchy to enforce it. Most people instinctively don't like hierarchy (think teenage rebellion).

when you say that anarchism has worked before what anarchies do you have in mind?

the inability to survive being attacked by an outside force is also a problem with anarchy. its not enough to say "it was going great until some government/army/outsideforceofsomekind destroyed it"

In a democracy a majority can still tyranise the minority, and can also consist of assholes. Forms of anarchism that rely on "democratic" control of resources are themselves authoritarian in my view too, in the sense that democracies are.

That's why decision making is limited and decentralized. It maximizes solidarity and helps stop tyranny of the majority situations.

I think you could spend your whole life and never manage to get away from "this type of person," him being in the majority.In certain conditions, yes, in others, no. If everyone lived comfortably, this person would be in the vast minority. If there were huge gaps in wealth, where some live opulently and others barely live, then yes, this person would be the majority. Anarchism strives to bring about the former.

when you say that anarchism has worked before what anarchies do you have in mind?

the inability to survive being attacked by an outside force is also a problem with anarchy. its not enough to say "it was going great until some government/army/outsideforceofsomekind destroyed it"

The Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution.

Their failing was that not quite enough people participated to completely transform the country. Not a failing of anarchy itself, but rather a failing of the situation.

That's why decision making is limited and decentralized. It maximizes solidarity and helps stop tyranny of the majority situations.
In theory, yes. There is nothing that guarantees this in fact though. Granted, this is true of all forms of anarchism.

That's radically simple. There simply is no "top" of society. That's the idea of ending hierarchy. To keep assholes from ruling other people.

yeah

supposing that you have some guys whose job it is to keep the assholes in their place.

then those guys are the top because they have the power over the rest of the group. i wonder how many of the people who want that job would be assholes.

supposing that you have some guys whose job it is to keep the assholes in their place.


Well, you wouldn't, as that's not anarchy, that's a police state.

when you say that anarchism has worked before what anarchies do you have in mind?

the inability to survive being attacked by an outside force is also a problem with anarchy. its not enough to say "it was going great until some government/army/outsideforceofsomekind destroyed it"Does this mean that the fall of France during WWII means that representative democracy is a failure?

yeah

supposing that you have some guys whose job it is to keep the assholes in their place.

then those guys are the top because they have the power over the rest of the group. i wonder how many of the people who want that job would be assholes.Why can't it be everybody's job to keep the assholes in line?

yeah

supposing that you have some guys whose job it is to keep the assholes in their place.

then those guys are the top because they have the power over the rest of the group. i wonder how many of the people who want that job would be assholes.

That's the job of the entire community, not some minority. You arguing from a perspective that someone has to be in control. That's what anarchy seeks to overcome.

In certain conditions, yes, in others, no. If everyone lived comfortably, this person would be in the vast minority. If there were huge gaps in wealth, where some live opulently and others barely live, then yes, this person would be the majority. Anarchism strives to bring about the former.

So what you're proposing is that everyone live opulently? How's that going to work?

It sure seems like people, given the choice between all living as peons or living on a spectrum of wealth and poverty prefer the latter, if only because it allows for the possibility of advancement and variety.

Why can't it be everybody's job to keep the assholes in line?
Inevitably, the "assholes" will lure over some with the seduction of power. There are always lackeys when one needs them. Unless a fundamental shift in human nature occured, I doubt this would simply cease to be so.

The Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution.

Their failing was that not quite enough people participated to completely transform the country. Not a failing of anarchy itself, but rather a failing of the situation.

failure is still failure.

either not enough people were interested in participating or they just werent strong enough to fight off the "whateverthefuckfranco'sguyswerecalled"

the paris commune doesnt seem all that anarchic to me. in any case it didnt last long enough to put anything to the test.

That's the job of the entire community, not some minority. You arguing from a perspective that someone has to be in control. That's what anarchy seeks to overcome.
More appositely, she is arguing from the perspective that someone will desire to be in control.

Or in the sense that it prevailed when there were enough people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia)



That certainly worked out well!

Why, I flew to AnarchoSpain last summer for a couple weeks' vacation, ad by golly there was no government!

failure is still failure.

either not enough people were interested in participating or they just werent strong enough to fight off the "whateverthefuckfranco'sguyswerecalled"

the paris commune doesnt seem all that anarchic to me. in any case it didnt last long enough to put anything to the test.

So, in your view, they get it right the first time, or it will never work? Seems to me that you're applying a stupid standard to an ideology you don't agree witht that you wouldn't apply to another ideology. Attempts at representative democracy failed many times before it succeeded. So did every social change in human history.

Well, you wouldn't, as that's not anarchy, that's a police state.

which is why the "communist" countries of the world ended up as they did and cant really be called communist anymore.

So, in your view, they get it right the first time, or it will never work? Seems to me that you're applying a stupid standard to an ideology you don't agree witht that you wouldn't apply to another ideology. Attempts at representative democracy failed many times before it succeeded. So did every social change in human history.

The reasons that anarchism and communism fail are what make them unrealistic.

The idea of voting to decide what gets done has been going on for a loooong time, the greeks managed it at the dawn of history.

Democracies have been overthrown before, but democracy wins out again and again, probably because it is the form of government most amenable to human nature.

Anarchism makes a clean break from everything in history and supposes that we live in some way that people en masse have never shown an inclination to live.

It is not by accident that in every case ever observed anarchism has made the transition to non-anarchism, and that it is not a two-way street.

That's the job of the entire community, not some minority. You arguing from a perspective that someone has to be in control. That's what anarchy seeks to overcome.

i understand that thats what anarchy seeks to overcome. but HOW do you overcome it?

its hard enough to keep assholes in line now when we have the full force of the government behind us. how do you do it in an anarchic system? wont there be a majority of people who resist the idea of telling someone else how to live?

The idea of voting to decide what gets done has been going on for a loooong time, the greeks managed it at the dawn of history.

Even back then, Plato denigrated as fourth worst political system in The Republic. It wasn't a political treatise, but democracy was certainly not a favourite of Plato's. Many of the problems he described in a democracy are in fact what we encounter nowadays even.

As for the Greek democracy, wasn't it more like an aristocracy that voted on matters? I believe not even 5% of the population participated?

So, in your view, they get it right the first time, or it will never work? Seems to me that you're applying a stupid standard to an ideology you don't agree witht that you wouldn't apply to another ideology. Attempts at representative democracy failed many times before it succeeded. So did every social change in human history.

dammit im getting behind!

nooo im saying that you cant use those as an example of success.

Even back then, Plato denigrated it to fourth worst political system in The Republic. It wasn't a political treatise, but democracy was certainly not a favourite of Plato's. Many of the problems he described in a democracy are in fact what we encounter nowadays even.

As for the Greek democracy, wasn't it more like an aristocracy that voted on matters? I believe not even 5% of the population participated?

If i remember right, I dont think that slaves could vote or peons and the like, but that doesnt preclude it from being a democracy, free people voted for the policies they wanted, and the majority ruled rather than a king.

Bakunin and Emma Goldman both predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long before it actually happened.

i don't know about 'fall' per se, but certainly the failure of such a system to ever be able to achieve it's alleged ends. and more importantly, they understood this in a way that essentially all non-socialist 'anti-communists' have never been able to get their heads around. to this very day, essentially all criticisms i see of the marxist-leninist/stalinist systems just fundamentally do not understand what those systems actually were or how they got that way.

Even back then, Plato denigrated as fourth worst political system in The Republic. It wasn't a political treatise, but democracy was certainly not a favourite of Plato's. Many of the problems he described in a democracy are in fact what we encounter nowadays even.

As for the Greek democracy, wasn't it more like an aristocracy that voted on matters? I believe not even 5% of the population participated?

i seem to have forgotten everything i knew about greek democracy. it certainly didnt include women, children and slaves.

besides plato thought that PHILOSOPHERS would make the best rulers. how unrealistic is that??

i understand that thats what anarchy seeks to overcome. but HOW do you overcome it?

its hard enough to keep assholes in line now when we have the full force of the government behind us. how do you do it in an anarchic system? wont there be a majority of people who resist the idea of telling someone else how to live?

Assholes you speak of are often the ones who have the reigns of power. Destroy hierarchy, and empower individuals and grant decision making ability to everyone, and the community can stop assholes like that from taking over.

Even back then, Plato denigrated as fourth worst political system in The Republic. It wasn't a political treatise, but democracy was certainly not a favourite of Plato's. Many of the problems he described in a democracy are in fact what we encounter nowadays even.

As for the Greek democracy, wasn't it more like an aristocracy that voted on matters? I believe not even 5% of the population participated?

Athens was indeed an oligarchy. Only the citizens (males only who made up a scant 10% of the population.) could vote. Everyone else (slave, refugee, woman, serf, immigratn) could not vote.

i don't know about 'fall' per se, but certainly the failure of such a system to ever be able to achieve it's alleged ends. and more importantly, they understood this in a way that essentially all non-socialist 'anti-communists' have never been able to get their heads around. to this very day, essentially all criticisms i see of the marxist-leninist/stalinist systems just fundamentally do not understand what those systems actually were or how they got that way.

i think the problem is how to keep it from happening in your future anarchic revolution.

not that i have a handle on what you (free soviets) think a future anarchy would be like, how it would be acheived and when it might happen.

if it has to be done by violent revolution, it will fail.

the greeks managed it at the dawn of history

the greeks existed at the dawn of history?

Anarchism makes a clean break from everything in history and supposes that we live in some way that people en masse have never shown an inclination to live.

no it doesn't. in fact, this is directly at odds with anarchist theory.

if it has to be done by violent revolution, it will fail.

define 'violent revolution', and explain how 'violent revolution' ensures the failure of progress towards more egalitarian social systems.

Assholes you speak of are often the ones who have the reigns of power. Destroy hierarchy, and empower individuals and grant decision making ability to everyone, and the community can stop assholes like that from taking over.


as with any idea that has not been successful yet, i will believe it when i see it.

with 6 billion people in the world, the likelihood that every community will be democratically and justly run is more remote than my possibility of winning the lottery jackpot. just ONE hierachical militaristic community per former country can ruin the whole thing for the rest of the communities.

besides plato thought that PHILOSOPHERS would make the best rulers. how unrealistic is that??
Keep in mind, it's a moral inquiry. ;) He meant that the rational part of the mind should be dominant over one's passions and needs. From the way Plato wrote though it's plainly clear he had a bitter taste for democracy.


Athens was indeed an oligarchy. Only the citizens (males only who made up a scant 10% of the population.) could vote. Everyone else (slave, refugee, woman, serf, immigratn) could not vote.
Yes, so I am not sure why it's referred to as a democracy. It might've been based on such a notion, but it itself was anything but.

the greeks existed at the dawn of history?

Kind of puts an interesting spin on the whole "makes a clean break from everything in history," doesn't it?

define 'violent revolution', and explain how 'violent revolution' ensures the failure of progress towards more egalitarian social systems.

one that involves killing people

you cant force people to be nice by killing them eh?

(not unlike how you cant force iraq to be democratic by invading it)

the greeks existed at the dawn of history?


didnt the greeks invent history?





stupid database errors came early tonight.

Keep in mind, it's a moral inquiry. ;) He meant that the rational part of the mind should be dominant over one's passions and needs. From the way Plato wrote though it's plainly clear he had a bitter taste for democracy.


hmm now im at a loss to know what it would mean to have a democratic control over myself. would that mean giving my emotions and desires as much say as my intellect? seems like a good idea.

Contrary to popular belief, Anarchism by my definition does not mean no laws. It means no state. Laws and punishment can be supplied on the free market. Don't believe me? Look at medieval Ireland and Iceland. I'm not going to bother taking on the stupid "college know-it-all" Marxist types. Take a course in economics before you start tearing down the very system which gave us every piece of technology available today (yes, they were economically motivated).

Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.

Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.

1) no, it isn't

2) doesn't it concern you that people supposedly interested in abolishing the state say things like that? i mean, the state is about as inegalitarian an arrangement as you can get. so if the drive for more egalitarian relations is a 'revolt against nature' (and that is a bad thing), then surely opposing the state must be too.

to say nothing of the fact that rothbard came out swinging against fucking equality between the sexes and gay rights in that article...

one that involves killing people

you cant force people to be nice by killing them eh?

(not unlike how you cant force iraq to be democratic by invading it)

so what happened with that american revolution thing?

Athens was indeed an oligarchy. Only the citizens (males only who made up a scant 10% of the population.) could vote. Everyone else (slave, refugee, woman, serf, immigratn) could not vote.

Not really. Athenian citizens could still make binding decisions as a body. For example the ostracism of Themistocles. Sparta is a better example of an oligarchy.

1) no, it isn't


Has there ever been an egalitarian group of primates? I'll concede that small independant groups are 'flatter' in structure than complex kleptocracies, but there's always a 'big' man? It's inevitable eventually.

hmm now im at a loss to know what it would mean to have a democratic control over myself. would that mean giving my emotions and desires as much say as my intellect? seems like a good idea.
Plato identified that as the source of immorality if I recall correctly. For him, only the rule of reason would suffice. His analogy was interesting - the "Philosopher-Kings" would be those who least desired to rule. Likewise, reason is usually one of the faculties people shy away from using. For Plato a balanced, morally healthy person had to subjugate desire to passion (as in a sense of ego, of personhood) and passion to reason.

Has there ever been an egalitarian group of primates? I'll concede that small independant groups are 'flatter' in structure than complex kleptocracies, but there's always a 'big' man? It's inevitable eventually.
Indeed. In the world of mammals I believe only the purely individualistic animals, such as tigers or snakes, lack any social hierarchy, for they lack social organisation altogether. Even with lions, there remains a strong degree of independence, but the lions definitely have a more hierarchical structure in their prides. The same with wolves.

So what you're proposing is that everyone live opulently? How's that going to work?No, I'm proposing that everyone live comfortably. THis will work because there are already enough resources for it to work.

It sure seems like people, given the choice between all living as peons or living on a spectrum of wealth and poverty prefer the latter, if only because it allows for the possibility of advancement and variety.Why would all live as peons?
Either way, I disagree, the majority would choose to live comfortably instead of risking being the ones starving to death.

Inevitably, the "assholes" will lure over some with the seduction of power. There are always lackeys when one needs them. Unless a fundamental shift in human nature occured, I doubt this would simply cease to be so.This would only be because the assholes have some amount of institutional power over others in the first place. Even if they can persuade someone to come over, it's still everyone else against the assholes.

This would only be because the assholes have some amount of institutional power over others in the first place. Even if they can persuade someone to come over, it's still everyone else against the assholes.
It wasn't always so. If an individual can convince a group to band with them, for the promise of conquest and the benefits it'd reap, there is no reason to assume that they wouldn't go ahead. This pretty much characterises Western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Warchiefs gradually established themselves as sovereign monarchs. If these individuals succeed, they could eventually bring back more authoritarian systems. This is I believe what Ashmoria and some others are trying to say.

Humans are NOT completely selfish. This is a myth disconfirmed by modern psychology&other social sciences. Some people fear law,but there also others who fear God,also - many types idealists, and do not forget social norms wchich are intuitive for most human beings,usually fully integrated with personality.. moreover,social simulations and game theory suggest there is a good chance of social order arising even among fully selfish beings - we need only some reputational enforcement mechanisms.

so what happened with that american revolution thing?

im not sure what your point is. the american revolution was 1/3 of the people forcing revolution on the other 2/3. many people died. many were forced to leave their homes and flee to canada or other non revolutionary states.

through an incredible stroke of luck, we substituted one state for another very similar state whose basic difference was local (non-foreign) control and lack of hereditary rulers. it worked out well but it was still a minority of people forcing violent change on the rest. in the end, people went about their lives pretty much the same way as they had before but with a different set of leaders. they werent required to be of any different character than they had been before the revolution.

Humans are NOT completely selfish. This is a myth disconfirmed by modern psychology&other social sciences. Some people fear law,but there also others who fear God,also - many types idealists, and do not forget social norms wchich are intuitive for most human beings,usually fully integrated with personality.. moreover,social simulations and game theory suggest there is a good chance of social order arising even among fully selfish beings - we need only some reputational enforcement mechanisms.

yeah. for example in somalia where the government fell apart, a new social order arose around warlords.

new social orders will arise. there is no guarantee that the ones you get will be the ones you want.

It wasn't always so. If an individual can convince a group to band with them, for the promise of conquest and the benefits it'd reap, there is no reason to assume that they wouldn't go ahead. This pretty much characterises Western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Warchiefs gradually established themselves as sovereign monarchs. If these individuals succeed, they could eventually bring back more authoritarian systems. This is I believe what Ashmoria and some others are trying to say.Certainly. It would help to reduce the chances of this happening. For instance, training everybody in the community in the use of firearms would be a start.

Has there ever been an egalitarian group of primates?

yeah, there has been. humans. as far as the anthropological evidence allows us to determine, radical (and fully conscious, actively chosen, and aggressively maintained) egalitarianism is the generalized baseline for human societies around the world. hierarchal structures can be imposed on top of this baseline, but that appears to require special circumstances and the failure of the various leveling mechanisms such societies normally use. and even then, the egalitarian impulse remains.

to a lesser extent, bonobos are relatively egalitarian compared to other members of the apes, and probably work as something of an analogous model for how we got this way, with male domination restricted by female alliances and the like. and while you didn't mention it, it should be noted that the despotic structure of most of our close relatives shows that it is not the scale of a society alone that determines it's relative level of egalitarianism - there is something else at work.

im not sure what your point is. the american revolution was 1/3 of the people forcing revolution on the other 2/3. many people died. many were forced to leave their homes and flee to canada or other non revolutionary states.

through an incredible stroke of luck, we substituted one state for another very similar state whose basic difference was local (non-foreign) control and lack of hereditary rulers. it worked out well but it was still a minority of people forcing violent change on the rest.

and it worked in making egalitarian progress. a rather dramatic amount of it, actually. but earlier you said:
if it has to be done by violent revolution, it will fail.

this seems to be a fundamental disconnect

they werent required to be of any different character than they had been before the revolution.

and who says they would be so required after the anarchist revolution? we seek to change institutions and social conditions. people behave differently under different institutions, obviously, but that doesn't amount to forcing people to behave in ways counter to what is possible for them.

Contrary to popular belief, Anarchism by my definition does not mean no laws. It means no state. Laws and punishment can be supplied on the free market. Don't believe me? Look at medieval Ireland and Iceland. I'm not going to bother taking on the stupid "college know-it-all" Marxist types. Take a course in economics before you start tearing down the very system which gave us every piece of technology available today (yes, they were economically motivated).

1) Medieval Iceland and Ireland were communalist, not an-capitalist. They lived in clans and had no concept of private posessions nor a market for goods.

2) If an uncle molests you, and then sends you to college, is his crime any less? That's the problem with capitalism. The negatives outweigh past advances that could have happened without its existence. No evidence exists to suggest that capitalism is the sole reason why civilization has made its progress.

1) Medieval Iceland and Ireland were communalist, not an-capitalist. They lived in clans and had no concept of private posessions nor a market for goods.

ah, but to many ancappies all persons, places, and things are capitalism - unless they want to argue against them, at which point they are not. so you'll see arguments that, for example, the mbuti pygmies are capitalist despite their radical egalitarianism and internal gift economy, while the united states isn't really capitalism because it has taxes or some such.

ah, but to many ancappies all persons, places, and things are capitalism - unless they want to argue against them, at which point they are not. so you'll see arguments that, for example, the mbuti pygmies are capitalist despite their radical egalitarianism and internal gift economy, while the united states isn't really capitalism because it has taxes or some such.

I find it my patriotic anarchist duty to "educate" them.

1) Medieval Iceland and Ireland were communalist, not an-capitalist. They lived in clans and had no concept of private posessions nor a market for goods.
Not that this really makes a difference, but got evidence to substantiate this?

2) If an uncle molests you, and then sends you to college, is his crime any less? That's the problem with capitalism. The negatives outweigh past advances that could have happened without its existence. No evidence exists to suggest that capitalism is the sole reason why civilization has made its progress.
What if others disagree with you? Would you force them to engage in such a society? Or would you let them be (assuming they don't threaten it)?

Not that this really makes a difference, but got evidence to substantiate this?

What if others disagree with you? Would you force them to engage in such a society? Or would you let them be (assuming they don't threaten it)?

Wiki is sourced on that subject. Check the AnCap page or the Iceland page.

If they disagree, that is their prerogative. If they want to do something else, so long as it doesn't adversely effect others, then they can do what they want.

What evidence is there to suggest that people will forgo colluding to increase their wellbeing at the expense of others?

What evidence is there to suggest that people will forgo their desire to have power?

Why should people be expected to do either?

1) Medieval Iceland and Ireland were communalist, not an-capitalist. They lived in clans and had no concept of private posessions nor a market for goods.
.

they lived in CLANS. clans are family groups. much like having a family farm that instead of being divided up is taken over by the children of the original farmer and farmed as a corporation.

clans held property. its not like some new guy could suddenly start using clan lands without permission and without legal reprocussions.

private property is not the same as private posessions. im pretty sure that a woman own her own clothes, for example.

they lived in CLANS. clans are family groups. much like having a family farm that instead of being divided up is taken over by the children of the original farmer and farmed as a corporation.

clans held property. its not like some new guy could suddenly start using clan lands without permission and without legal reprocussions.

private property is not the same as private posessions. im pretty sure that a woman own her own clothes, for example.

Clans are more than just a family, there a large social group that includes relatives and non-relatives.

If a clan holds property, it is not private, it is communal property. Furthermore, clan members possessions could be used by others without asking, just like native american tribes.

my basic idea of what anarchy would be is that every community is organised on it's own principles while respecting the right of neighbouring communities to organise on their own principles. members of particular communities are free to choose what kind of community they wish to live in and communities are free to choose what other communities they wish to exchange with and on principles that they agree on between them. that way you can have rabid capitalists, with workers who are fool enough to give up their self-determination, trying to sell their wares at inflated prices to make a profit competing in trade with other communities who can trade their produce at cost price in exchange for produce they need. i'd probably prefer to live in a community run on anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist principles but i change my mind all the time. the basic thing is i'd want to live in a community run on principles i am comfortable with, and in this sort of society i'd have that choice.

Clans are more than just a family, there a large social group that includes relatives and non-relatives.

If a clan holds property, it is not private, it is communal property. Furthermore, clan members possessions could be used by others without asking, just like native american tribes.

clans are extended family. family uses each others things. who gets to use them, for how long and which ones are governed by rules. that it not the same as no posessions. my son can use my printer paper any time he wants. its still mine.

there are 2 good reasons for a communal group to work long term. family and religion. iceland had them both.

so do the amish and i certainly wouldnt want to belong to their anarchy.

clans are extended family. family uses each others things. who gets to use them, for how long and which ones are governed by rules. that it not the same as no posessions. my son can use my printer paper any time he wants. its still mine.

there are 2 good reasons for a communal group to work long term. family and religion. iceland had them both.

so do the amish and i certainly wouldnt want to belong to their anarchy.

And I'm telling you that the concept of private property (i.e. this is mine, that is yours, keep your hands off) did not exist in their society.

my basic idea of what anarchy would be is that every community is organised on it's own principles while respecting the right of neighbouring communities to organise on their own principles. members of particular communities are free to choose what kind of community they wish to live in and communities are free to choose what other communities they wish to exchange with and on principles that they agree on between them. that way you can have rabid capitalists, with workers who are fool enough to give up their self-determination, trying to sell their wares at inflated prices to make a profit competing in trade with other communities who can trade their produce at cost price in exchange for produce they need. i'd probably prefer to live in a community run on anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist principles but i change my mind all the time. the basic thing is i'd want to live in a community run on principles i am comfortable with, and in this sort of society i'd have that choice.

hyow do you think that such a system could ever come about?

Wiki is sourced on that subject. Check the AnCap page or the Iceland page.
I have. So I am guessing you haven't looked into the sources? Also, the page says nothing of Ireland, the other mentioned example.

And I'm telling you that the concept of private property (i.e. this is mine, that is yours, keep your hands off) did not exist in their society.

you can tell me anything you like. you didnt live there.

I have. So I am guessing you haven't looked into the sources? Also, the page says nothing of Ireland, the other mentioned example.

It did last time I was there. I'll dig up the source later, right now I'm a little hurried. Sorry 'bout that. Ireland wasn't brought up by me, I accidently lumped them together in my fit of anger at the poster.

EDIT: I know you hate it, but the Anarchist FAQ has a section on it that is sourced. Check it out, and see what you take of it.
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secF9.html
you can tell me anything you like. you didnt live there.

I can tell you what history tells us.

I can tell you what history tells us.

let me quote a few things from this webpage. http://members.aol.com/jdowl33910/jwilhelm1.html id let you read it for yourself but the author has put a bg pic on the page that makes it very hard to read.

Every society must have a system of government that creates laws and structures the actions of that society. Iceland during the tenth and eleventh centuries (the 900s and 1000s) was no exception. However, discovering what the system of government at this period in the history of Iceland was like is not as easy as looking it up in the library, mainly because there were few or no written records during that time in Iceland's past. Obviously (or otherwise this would be a very short paper) there must be another source of information on the government of this period, and this source comes in the form of the sagas that were written nearly three-hundred years later.


Another group of laws that were rather important at this point in time were laws concerning divorce. Men (or women) could be divorced for any number of reasons ranging from failure to care for their spouse to wearing clothes of the opposite sex. Women were also entitled to all her dowry money if she divorced her husband and won the court case. The fact divorce was allowed and that women could divorce their husbands shows that Iceland was a pretty progressive society for the period. These divorce laws even provided the possibility for women to live independently as widows, something that was virtually unheard of at this time, because, since dowry money was not returned to an unmarried, widowed or divorced woman, women of this sort in other societies had no means of supporting themselves.

The laws concerning settlements that were made as a result of murder, divorce or theft, seem to be rather sketchy but have a lot to do with the honor of those involved. There was a "jury" system that existed, but the jury's function was more to ascertain if there was a case to be heard and if the case had been brought to court in correct fashion. "Sentences" were usually provided by those who had been wronged, in the case of murders and theft, and the amount of the bride's dowry was awarded in the case of divorces. If the judge found in favor of the plaintiff at the Althing then the defendant usually asked the plaintiff to name his price, which was then paid to him. This brought honour not only to the plaintiff for his handling of the court case, but to the defendant for allowing his foe, if you will, to name his own settlement.


i deduce the following from what i quoted

1) no one knows the day to day life of these people. no one knows if a woman owned her own cookpots or if any one in the family might come along and take one for their own use. all that is known is gleaned from sagas written well after the fact.

2) there are laws providing for divorce and the return of dowry to the ex-wife if she wins her case in court. returning dowry implies posessions.

3) there are laws against theft. if there were no posessions, there could be no theft.

let me quote a few things from this webpage. http://members.aol.com/jdowl33910/jwilhelm1.html id let you read it for yourself but the author has put a bg pic on the page that makes it very hard to read.

i deduce the following from what i quoted

1) no one knows the day to day life of these people. no one knows if a woman owned her own cookpots or if any one in the family might come along and take one for their own use. all that is known is gleaned from sagas written well after the fact.

2) there are laws providing for divorce and the return of dowry to the ex-wife if she wins her case in court. returning dowry implies posessions.

3) there are laws against theft. if there were no posessions, there could be no theft.

Though the source is dubious, I will give it credence. As far as we can tell, such a society still by definition was not capitalistic (no private ownership of land) but private possessions still exsited to a degree. Theft can be defined as theft against the community, as I suspect it is. Thus, someone can't take more then their fair share, or someone's personal possessions.

EDIT: I know you hate it, but the Anarchist FAQ has a section on it that is sourced. Check it out, and see what you take of it.
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secF9.html
I don't hate it. I simply disagree with it. Anyway, I'll give the source a look. I am always highly dubious of authors refering to ancient/ medieval societies as examples of their ideology in practice, mainly because interpretation is subjective and knowledge on these societies tends to be limited.

I don't hate it. I simply disagree with it. Anyway, I'll give the source a look. I am always highly dubious of authors refering to ancient/ medieval societies as examples of their ideology in practice, mainly because interpretation is subjective and knowledge on these societies tends to be limited.

I don't think Iceland qualifies as anything besides a primitive communalist society. Some anarchists might think it fits their ideology, but I think it is too authoritarian for that. AnCaps love to use it to back their claims, but I don't think that is founded, either.

I don't think Iceland qualifies as anything besides a primitive communalist society. Some anarchists might think it fits their ideology, but I think it is too authoritarian for that. AnCaps love to use it to back their claims, but I don't think that is founded, either.
Yes, but primarily for its legal nature, to counter the argument that a State is necessary to provide law. I haven't read Friedman's book yet, but if he writes of Iceland as does Rothbard of Ireland it's specifically for that purpose he evokes the example.

Though the source is dubious, I will give it credence. As far as we can tell, such a society still by definition was not capitalistic (no private ownership of land) but private possessions still exsited to a degree. Theft can be defined as theft against the community, as I suspect it is. Thus, someone can't take more then their fair share, or someone's personal possessions.

except for that dowry thing.

i do agree with you that it wasnt capitalist. capitalist isnt an appropriate term for anything in the middle ages.

not that any of this matter. we cannot recreate medieval iceland in the modern world. its not a large scale possibility.

Yes, but primarily for its legal nature, to counter the argument that a State is necessary to provide law. I haven't read Friedman's book yet, but if he writes of Iceland as does Rothbard of Ireland it's specifically for that purpose he evokes the example.

Which I think is quite true, but I don't think a free market in laws existed in Medieval iceland. It would be interesting to have a time machine right now, wouldn't it?

I don't think Iceland qualifies as anything besides a primitive communalist society. Some anarchists might think it fits their ideology, but I think it is too authoritarian for that. AnCaps love to use it to back their claims, but I don't think that is founded, either.

now why do you make me debate you when we agree on the fundamentals?

its an interesting society but its not analogous to any desired anarchist system that modern anarchist would propose to start.

how did it EVER get put into the anarcho-capitalist category?

Though the source is dubious, I will give it credence. As far as we can tell, such a society still by definition was not capitalistic (no private ownership of land) but private possessions still exsited to a degree. Theft can be defined as theft against the community, as I suspect it is. Thus, someone can't take more then their fair share, or someone's personal possessions.Sounds fairly mutualist to me, except for their not being any Labor Theory of Value.

Which I think is quite true, but I don't think a free market in laws existed in Medieval iceland. It would be interesting to have a time machine right now, wouldn't it?
I'm not sure about Iceland. Rothbard uses Ireland because something analogous to this existed, where one could pretty much select the person settling their dispute. I think the specifics of this were brought up a few pages ago.


how did it EVER get put into the anarcho-capitalist category?
I don't think anyone did so. It was referenced by an author in favour of anarchocapitalism due to its legal system.

The question is, who would want anarchy? Only the very strong would thrive, eventually setting themselves up as leaders - in which case, you no longer have anarchy.

The question is, who would want anarchy? Only the very strong would thrive, eventually setting themselves up as leaders - in which case, you no longer have anarchy.

hmmm thats a good question to ask our forum anarchists.

what attracts you to the idea of anarchism? what do you think you would get out of it?

hmmm thats a good question to ask our forum anarchists.

what attracts you to the idea of anarchism? what do you think you would get out of it?

I'm not attracted to it. I'm a 60ish retired female, I would get nothing good out of it.

hmmm thats a good question to ask our forum anarchists.

what attracts you to the idea of anarchism? what do you think you would get out of it?

What attracts me? The end of hierarchy, the end of capitalism and the substitution by a balance of collectivism and individualism.

What attracts me? The end of hierarchy, the end of capitalism and the substitution by a balance of collectivism and individualism.

yeah but what benefit to YOU get from that?

what do you care about hierarchy? you arent at the top or at the bottom now. in collectivism you would be in the same position.

you dont own the means of production now, you wouldnt under anarchism

you have now great opportunity for individualism. how would a less organized system give you more?

what attracts you to the idea of anarchism? what do you think you would get out of it?It appeals to me because it makes it more likely that I will be able to make a living doing something that I enjoy, and also it appeals to me because nobody has any institutional power over me.

It appeals to me because it makes it more likely that I will be able to make a living doing something that I enjoy, and also it appeals to me because nobody has any institutional power over me.

what kind of living were you hoping to make?

It appeals to me because it makes it more likely that I will be able to make a living doing something that I enjoy, and also it appeals to me because nobody has any institutional power over me.

You would make a living doing what was wanted or needed, not necessarily what you enjoy. No one will give you resources in exchange for something unless they want it. Perhaps no one will have institutional power over you, but there will always be someone stronger who will take power over you unless you have the strength and will to stop him/her. You'll spend most of your existence struggling for existence.

You would make a living doing what was wanted or needed, not necessarily what you enjoy. No one will give you resources in exchange for something unless they want it. Perhaps no one will have institutional power over you, but there will always be someone stronger who will take power over you unless you have the strength and will to stop him/her. You'll spend most of your existence struggling for existence.

The idea, at least as I understand Bakunin, was that the state is just another instrument by which the dominant social and economic system oppresses us. Yes, it protects your resources, but it does so much a better job of protecting the have mores than it does the haves, and it freely authorizes theft so long as that theft is from the laborers to the bourgeouisie in the form of "profit". As such, after the revolution, not only is the state not necessary; it is a dangerous relic of the old social order that will attempt to destroy the new socialist system. Therefore, the state must be destroyed, and after the revolution, people will have no need for the state.

Now, you can easily have some serious problems with this. Marx himself thought this too radical and a case of putting the cart before the horse, because it led to focusing on destroying the state over destroying the economic system that gave rise to the state and a de-emphasis of the material base upon which that state rests. But I believe that is the general idea.

yeah, there has been. humans. as far as the anthropological evidence allows us to determine, radical (and fully conscious, actively chosen, and aggressively maintained) egalitarianism is the generalized baseline for human societies around the world. hierarchal structures can be imposed on top of this baseline, but that appears to require special circumstances and the failure of the various leveling mechanisms such societies normally use. and even then, the egalitarian impulse remains.

to a lesser extent, bonobos are relatively egalitarian compared to other members of the apes, and probably work as something of an analogous model for how we got this way, with male domination restricted by female alliances and the like. and while you didn't mention it, it should be noted that the despotic structure of most of our close relatives shows that it is not the scale of a society alone that determines it's relative level of egalitarianism - there is something else at work.

But as far as I am aware, humans aren't egalitarian. In every human group I have ever heard of there is always some heirarchy. I'll admit it's a much flatter distribution in small groups, but there is always a big man, shaman &c. Even if it is relatively benign there is alway one or a few members of the group whose voice carries more say or can take the lions share of things, even if this arrangement seems relatively consensual.

But as far as I am aware, humans aren't egalitarian. In every human group I have ever heard of there is always some heirarchy. I'll admit it's a much flatter distribution in small groups, but there is always a big man, shaman &c. Even if it is relatively benign there is alway one or a few members of the group whose voice carries more say or can take the lions share of things, even if this arrangement seems relatively consensual.

Yes, in every Anthropology class I've ever taken and every book on the subject I've ever read, the trend is always towards some sort of hierarchy. The more intelligent and/or stronger will always take power over the less intelligent and weaker. Anarchy isn't viable and will never last.

you want to return us to 1649?

no thanks

Well we could always go back to some time BC which was pre-agriculture... Like Anarcho-primitivism supports. *dreams*

Well we could always go back to some time BC which was pre-agriculture... Like Anarcho-primitivism supports. *dreams*

are you saying that that is what you would like? to go back to a hunter gatherer kind of existence?

kinda risky in the era of global warming isnt it?

are you saying that that is what you would like? to go back to a hunter gatherer kind of existence?

kinda risky in the era of global warming isnt it?

Yeah well maybe if this had happened earlier... Or we never came this far at all. This wouldn't be an issue. :(

But as far as I am aware, humans aren't egalitarian. In every human group I have ever heard of there is always some heirarchy. I'll admit it's a much flatter distribution in small groups, but there is always a big man, shaman &c. Even if it is relatively benign there is alway one or a few members of the group whose voice carries more say or can take the lions share of things, even if this arrangement seems relatively consensual.

that's not what the anthropologists say.

and even big man societies, which are far more hierarchal than many, are comparatively not hierarchal at all. a big man's position is only as stable as his ability to be ridiculously generous and not be an asshole. people will generally go along with the big man on some things because he has shown solid leadership in the past, but if he does anything that people don't like then he can lose all of his influence in one fell swoop. in other words, the big man actually sits towards the bottom of a reverse hierarchy, and his only power amounts to being popular.

Yeah well maybe if this had happened earlier... Or we never came this far at all. This wouldn't be an issue. :(

its my understanding that in neolithic times, back before places like egypt created a classed society, but after the start of agriculture, people were more or less self sufficient, living in groups with everyone pretty much providing for the needs of their families. the only division of labor being male/female. in those days the average man worked about 10 hours a week and the average woman worked about 30.

then some fool invented "civilization" and its all been downhill since.

of the 4000ish years since, only the last 100 have been better than what we gave up.

kinda risky in the era of global warming isnt it?

far less risky than for agriculturalists

I'm not attracted to it. I'm a 60ish retired female, I would get nothing good out of it.

I'm a 20ish college edumacated American indian male, and still not attracted to it.

what attracts you to the idea of anarchism? what do you think you would get out of it?

freedom, equality, and more human social relations. all things which are good in themselves.

freedom, equality, and more human social relations. all things which are good in themselves.

what form of anarchy are you wishing for and what guarantees you more freedom, equality, and better social relations?

we who exist in the middle are the equals of the vast majority of our countrymen. we are free to choose anything that falls inside the law. there are some things that that leaves out for sure but there is no guarantee that your new group would allow them either. and your relationships are as human as you make them be.

what form of anarchy are you wishing for and what guarantees you more freedom, equality, and better social relations?

anarcho-communism, with a sort of soft-primmie backup plan

we who exist in the middle are the equals of the vast majority of our countrymen.

the same can be said of any hierarchal system - "ignoring the fascist dictator and those that work in the fascist state, we're all pretty much equal". but that isn't an instance of equality at all.

we are free to choose anything that falls inside the law.

and again, when isn't this the case?

anarcho-communism, with a sort of soft-primmie backup plan



the same can be said of any hierarchal system - "ignoring the fascist dictator and those that work in the fascist state, we're all pretty much equal". but that isn't an instance of equality at all.



and again, when isn't this the case?

the point is not that there are laws and hierarchy in current societies. of course there are

the question is how do you avoid that in anarchocommunism? you are still subject to the law of the group. you still only have the power of one and might easily be overruled by the rest of your group.

how are you better off?

that's not what the anthropologists say.

I'm not an anthropologist, so I can't comment. But that is at variance with everything I have ever read or experienced. I'll take your word however.

and even big man societies, which are far more hierarchal than many, are comparatively not hierarchal at all. a big man's position is only as stable as his ability to be ridiculously generous and not be an asshole. people will generally go along with the big man on some things because he has shown solid leadership in the past, but if he does anything that people don't like then he can lose all of his influence in one fell swoop. in other words, the big man actually sits towards the bottom of a reverse hierarchy, and his only power amounts to being popular.

Yes, with a but. To start, I admit the structure of a big man society is far flatter than a larger more complex one, I've never denied that.

But, even if the individual in the big man slot sits uneasy on the throne, the society is institutionally hierachal. In other words a 'bad' big man will be replaced by a 'good' big man. And the way you couch things, almost any society wherein the leader could lose all his influence by popular fiat would count as a reverse hierarchy. Which simply can't be the case. See pre-revolutionary Russia.

what kind of living were you hoping to make?I know I would enjoy writing or playing music, but neither career path makes it easy to make a living, so I can't easily pursue it. I think I might enjoy something to do with mathematics or even psychology, but those require schooling, which I don't have.

You would make a living doing what was wanted or needed, not necessarily what you enjoy. No one will give you resources in exchange for something unless they want it. Perhaps no one will have institutional power over you, but there will always be someone stronger who will take power over you unless you have the strength and will to stop him/her. You'll spend most of your existence struggling for existence.In the current system, people, except for the independently wealthy, need to do what the market says is wanted or needed. In an anarchist system, it would be much easier for me to convince the people that what I want is also what they want or need. Also, education would have to be free, which means I would have unlimited access to it, making it easier for me to find something that I want that is also wanted or needed.
Certainly, there will always be people who will try to take power over us, just as with any system, but if you make it difficult or not worth their time, this creates a disincentive to try to do so.

I know I would enjoy writing or playing music, but neither career path makes it easy to make a living, so I can't easily pursue it. I think I might enjoy something to do with mathematics or even psychology, but those require schooling, which I don't have.

In the current system, people, except for the independently wealthy, need to do what the market says is wanted or needed. In an anarchist system, it would be much easier for me to convince the people that what I want is also what they want or need. Also, education would have to be free, which means I would have unlimited access to it, making it easier for me to find something that I want that is also wanted or needed.
Certainly, there will always be people who will try to take power over us, just as with any system, but if you make it difficult or not worth their time, this creates a disincentive to try to do so.

an·ar·chy (nr-k) KEY

NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without ; see a- 1 + arkhos, ruler ; see -arch


Given the previous definition(s) of anarchy, I don't see that your contentions hold water.

I know I would enjoy writing or playing music, but neither career path makes it easy to make a living, so I can't easily pursue it. I think I might enjoy something to do with mathematics or even psychology, but those require schooling, which I don't have.
.

off the topic.

arent you young? it seems to me that people who have writing skills are going to be more and more in demand as our culture moves farther from literacy. we need people who can put together a coherent paragraph or two.

Given the previous definition(s) of anarchy, I don't see that your contentions hold water.

hi and welcome to the wonderful world of technical usages

what you have just done is the functional equivalent to hearing that the local waste management people have gone on strike and then remarking that you didn't even know they had a baseball team.

I'm not an anthropologist, so I can't comment. But that is at variance with everything I have ever read or experienced. I'll take your word however.

no need to take my word - i can offer a few citations that i happen to have at hand. for example, "egalitarian societies" by james woodburn, in man 17, no. 3, 1982, 431-51. or most of the articles contained in "the cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers", edited by richard lee and richard daly.

But, even if the individual in the big man slot sits uneasy on the throne, the society is institutionally hierachal. In other words a 'bad' big man will be replaced by a 'good' big man.

the issue is that there is no throne. the big man isn't higher in a hierarchy in any real sense - they gain no advantage from the position, and actually eat less well and work harder than everyone else in order to get and maintain the position. they just get to be popular.

i don't find big man societies to be as appealing to my egalitarian sensibilities as i find the true radical levelers, but it is wrong to think of big men as holding anything comparable even to the power of the lowliest school board member of today.

And the way you couch things, almost any society wherein the leader could lose all his influence by popular fiat would count as a reverse hierarchy. Which simply can't be the case. See pre-revolutionary Russia.

well, the other aspect is that such a leader also wouldn't count more than anyone else even while they are popular and would be unable to do anything other than persuade and lead by example.

you still only have the power of one and might easily be overruled by the rest of your group.

how are you better off?

because i am the equal of everyone in the group. my position is not that of being required to follow orders from on high like now, but of taking an active role in the decision-making process. this is just fundamentally better than the alternative.

because i am the equal of everyone in the group. my position is not that of being required to follow orders from on high like now, but of taking an active role in the decision-making process. this is just fundamentally better than the alternative.

i should be taking notes in this thread....


are you an "if i had my druthers" anarchist or do you plan to work toward a working anarchy in your lifetime?

the issue is that there is no throne. the big man isn't higher in a hierarchy in any real sense - they gain no advantage from the position, and actually eat less well and work harder than everyone else in order to get and maintain the position. they just get to be popular.

I'm not so sure. If that was the case, then only the stupidest would vie for the 'big man' position. While maybe there is some sacrifice in respect of food and effort - though I am agnostic on that point of fact - I would imagine that there are other perks that more than compromise for that loss; increased choice of sexual partners for example. So, it still would be a hierarchy, all things considered.


ti don't find big man societies to be as appealing to my egalitarian sensibilities as i find the true radical levelers, but it is wrong to think of big men as holding anything comparable even to the power of the lowliest school board member of today.

I don't disagree. At some level you and I both agree. In other words we both see that societal institutions = kleptocracy. Unlike you however I don't believe that there is any alternative to the kelptocratic hierarchy, and the best people can hope for is the most benign form of kleptocracy.

but if you convince me otherwise, I might become an anarchist.

an·ar·chy (nr-k) KEY

NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without ; see a- 1 + arkhos, ruler ; see -arch


Given the previous definition(s) of anarchy, I don't see that your contentions hold water.
Anarchism: "The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals."

(From the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.)

off the topic.

arent you young? it seems to me that people who have writing skills are going to be more and more in demand as our culture moves farther from literacy. we need people who can put together a coherent paragraph or two.Young enough, perhaps, but if our culture moves further from literacy, wouldn't literacy be in less demand?

Young enough, perhaps, but if our culture moves further from literacy, wouldn't literacy be in less demand?

you would think so but NO. someone still needs to write up the scripts for the video we drown in. someone still needs to write the user manuals.

the crappy system we have been using to teach kids to read and write means that writing skills are poorer than ever. there will be more openings in the future for people who know how to put a paragraph together.

you would think so but NO. someone still needs to write up the scripts for the video we drown in. someone still needs to write the user manuals.

the crappy system we have been using to teach kids to read and write means that writing skills are poorer than ever. there will be more openings in the future for people who know how to put a paragraph together.I suppose that's conceivable, yes.