NationStates Jolt Archive

mainly the fact that it has already happened. the first time around, people didn't quite expect it. we know the danger is present and we can prepare for it. so we'll have to make our own protection and create it in such a way that it remains firmly in the hands of everyone and not under the control of a tiny minority. mainly through direct democratic control, as well as getting rid of the idea of military hierarchy - except maybe with a delegate type system.

besides, if we are successful in the first place, that means we will have dismantled the current deeply entrenched structure of oppression. if we can do that, we can do anything.

True. People at that time must have taken the lack of state for granted because they never knew of the state and didn't realize what they had.

As anarchism ever been successfully applied?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

How does that stop people from trying to acquire wealth?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

A <pick a likely resource/product*> generator that is convienient enough for either collective or individual home use (home use is the purpose being designed and marketed for right now, as you probably already knew), produces <whatever> cheaply (or free), quickly, and convieniently enough that no-one can make a monopoly or take control of <a surplus resource>, because EVERYONE has access to <it>.

*ZPE, for example works perfectly :wink:

Sounds like a replicator from Star Trek.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

True. People at that time must have taken the lack of state for granted because they never knew of the state and didn't realize what they had.

This is not an opinion universally shared. Pierre Clastres, for one didn't agree, and his ideas were taken up by Deleuze and Guattari. He basically sees the organisation of the nomad society as a resistance against the formation of the state. I no longer have access to his book "Archeology of Violence", but the following is a reasonable quick summary:

http://norlonto.net/index.cfm/action/reviews.view/itemID/96/type/rvwsBooks

See also '1227: Treatise on Nomadology - the War Machine' in A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism & Schizophrenia by Deleuze & Guattari for a development of the idea in interesting and bizarre directions.

in a hunter/gatherer economic system people live in super-abundance; there is way more food around than anyone could eat - but it can't be stored.

Hmmm. This is only true in the long term: a hunter-gatherer society naturally limits itself so that it is not existing on the boundary of perpetual starvation. Thus a relative abundance comes into existence. However, the cost of this relative abundance is leaving those who are too old or too sick to contribute to gathering activities out to die. Any other reading of the phrase 'super-abundance' can obviously be seen to be mistaken by looking at the food conditions that are prevalent in technically desert areas such as those of the Inuits or the people of 'hot' deserts.

In short: there is only abundance because of the limitation of numbers of those consuming the resources, and the methods of limitation are not obviously a good thing.

Hmmm. This is only true in the long term: a hunter-gatherer society naturally limits itself so that it is not existing on the boundary of perpetual starvation. Thus a relative abundance comes into existence. However, the cost of this relative abundance is leaving those who are too old or too sick to contribute to gathering activities out to die. Any other reading of the phrase 'super-abundance' can obviously be seen to be mistaken by looking at the food conditions that are prevalent in technically desert areas such as those of the Inuits or the people of 'hot' deserts.

So it only works because they throw out the weak? That isn't going to appeal to many people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

So it only works because they throw out the weak? That isn't going to appeal to many people.

Well, that's the way that contemporary nomadic hunter-gatherer societies operate: presumably it is little changed from pre-agrarian times.

It is the model of a swarm of locusts: it eats all it can until the renewable resources are exhausted and then moves on. It can't stay where it is because there is nothing left to eat. Given time, say next year, the land will have recovered, but right now there is nothing. What do you do with the lame and the crippled? If they stay here they starve, if you carry them with you, then your foraging ability goes down. The society must ask what the sick and the old contribute, and whether it is worth the burden.

So how will we get around that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I'm an Anarcho-Communist, I believe in direct democracy rather than a state, with a socialist economic system.
I'm a former Communist, I dislike statism now.

Doesn't forcing the old and sick to leave contradict the idea of voluntary action?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Doesn't forcing the old and sick to leave contradict the idea of voluntary action?

It's not a case of forcing them to leave - it is a case of letting them die where they drop or leaving them in an area denuded of resources.

I'm not the one arguing that a hunter-gatherer society is a good model for an an anarchist society. You'll have to wait for someone else to respond.

It's not a case of forcing them to leave - it is a case of letting them die where they drop or leaving them in an area denuded of resources.

I'm not the one arguing that a hunter-gatherer society is a good model for an an anarchist society. You'll have to wait for someone else to respond.

So an anarchist society isn't actually all that similar?
In my opinion: no. There is also nothing inherent in hunter-gatherer societies which forces them to be non-hierarchical. although the are probably all non-statist to some extent or another. I find the postulation of pre-agrarian societies as non-hierarchical somewhat at odds with my limited knowledge of primate anthropology.

However other societies based on different cultural and ecconomic norms to the ones we are used to in contemporary Western Capitalism at least show that different modes of life are possible.

Also, anarchism seems to hinge on the existance of ZPE. What if it doesn't exist?

Tell that to the anarchists that fought in the Spanish Civil War...

...anarchism is about a different social model for society. To say that it is dependent on some hypothetical aspect of quantum physics seems to be missing the point. Post-scarcity economics are not without bearing on the question, but it is certainly possible to set up small-scale aanrchist communities without recourse to high technology.

It's not about science.

It's not a case of forcing them to leave - it is a case of letting them die where they drop or leaving them in an area denuded of resources.

I'm not the one arguing that a hunter-gatherer society is a good model for an an anarchist society. You'll have to wait for someone else to respond.

So an anarchist society isn't actually all that similar?

Also, anarchism seems to hinge on the existance of ZPE. What if it doesn't exist?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Kewl. I appear to have become precognitive...

Tell that to the anarchists that fought in the Spanish Civil War...

So anarchism was applied in Spain? How successful was it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

all anarchists are socialists, though not all socialists are anarchists.

All Ents are trees, but not all trees are Ents.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself. I blame it on the coffee. Damned caffiene.

*chirp* o_o

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on #nationstates_general
Join the fun! Overdose on espresso!

Right, Moonshine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

in a hunter/gatherer economic system people live in super-abundance; there is way more food around than anyone could eat - but it can't be stored.

Hmmm. This is only true in the long term: a hunter-gatherer society naturally limits itself so that it is not existing on the boundary of perpetual starvation. Thus a relative abundance comes into existence. However, the cost of this relative abundance is leaving those who are too old or too sick to contribute to gathering activities out to die. Any other reading of the phrase 'super-abundance' can obviously be seen to be mistaken by looking at the food conditions that are prevalent in technically desert areas such as those of the Inuits or the people of 'hot' deserts.

In short: there is only abundance because of the limitation of numbers of those consuming the resources, and the methods of limitation are not obviously a good thing.

all societies that don't have some sort of check on their numbers are on the verge of starvation (unless resources are being concentrated in one place from other places). the number of animals around will grow to fit the food supply available. but h&g societies get around this by keeping their numbers low - mostly done through a much lower birthrate than agricultural societies - and by moving around. not many people are so old that they are unable to contribute to food gathering, and there is no inherent reason why they would be left to die even if they couldn't (though i could imagine that some societies did that). but even in the desert conditions that most modern or recent h&g societies live in they can get way more than enough to live on in 3 hours of labor. there really is plenty of food.

besides, the bones tell a different story. in agricultural societies people had shorter life expectancies (up until just a few centuries ago, in the richest parts of the world), higher disease rates, and longer hours of harder labor. it took agriculture to invent the famine and widespread starvation. h&g's rarely, if ever starve. agriculturalists do so regularly - even today.

What are some examples of hunter gatherers?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

In my opinion: no. There is also nothing inherent in hunter-gatherer societies which forces them to be non-hierarchical. although the are probably all non-statist to some extent or another. I find the postulation of pre-agrarian societies as non-hierarchical somewhat at odds with my limited knowledge of primate anthropology.

there may be nothing inherent in them that does, but all the ones we know of are and there is no archaeological evidence that says otherwise. and they are all definitely non-statist. the state is purely an agricultural sociey thing. there are roughly four different types of group structure that we observe in humans. h&g societies are the egalitarian ones without hierarchy or formal power relations - bands or tribes.

besides, we are remarkably egalitarian primates. we have very little sexual dimorphism compared to other apes. we evolved away from the path of domination by an alpha male at some point. but so did bonobo chimps, our closest living relatives (or second closest. depends on what measure you use).

but h&g's aren't anarchists, just anarchical and egalitarian. i am not a primitivist. though if the "anarchism cannot run a complex modern society and economy" criticism is correct, i know what i will give up.

I think I asked this already, but how successful were the Spanish anarchists? Did they really make it work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I think I asked this already, but how successful were the Spanish anarchists? Did they really make it work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Iam not an anarchist, though I often cooperate with anarchists. Iam a non leninist marxist, council communist (Paul Mattick, Anton Pannakoek, etc) with alot of influences from the Italian operaismo marxists (1960-1972), and also got some influences from left communists like Amandeo Bordiga, and groups like autonomia, situationists and socialism ou barbarie.

http://www.endpage.com/Archives/Subversive_Texts/Wright_C/Tendency_Map.jpg

http://www.endpage.com/Archives/Subversive_Texts/Wright_C/Tendency_Text831.html


http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/

What other major anarchist movements have there been besides in Spain?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I think I asked this already, but how successful were the Spanish anarchists? Did they really make it work?

Well, the lost the war, let's put it that way. I'll respond in more detail tomorrow, but for now I'll just note that they were actually the second army organised along anarchist lines (the Makhnovists were the first).

I think I asked this already, but how successful were the Spanish anarchists? Did they really make it work?
Well, the lost the war, let's put it that way. I'll respond in more detail tomorrow, but for now I'll just note that they were actually the second army organised along anarchist lines (the Makhnovists were the first).
Let's not forget the Paris Communards. :wink: Perhaps not an army exactly but they put up resistance.

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/spain-overview.html
This seems to be pretty informative about Spain, but yes, the war was lost.

I await your more detailed responce. I'm interested to see how they had an anarchistic army.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

okay. as long as you don't use any of the benefits of our system then feel free to live as you chose...just be aware that your children may not attend our schools, you may not call our police when you need protection, your homes will not be protected by our emergency services, you may not drive on our roads or use our mass transit, you may not have your home heated or cooled or powered by our fascilities, etc. etc. etc.

if you don't want to live under the "oppression" of capitalism then prove it by giving up everything that comes with capitalism...the good as well as the bad. show that you have the strength of your convictions, rather than being merely another bourgeios hypocrite who whines about inequality while indulging in all the side effects of that "oppression."
I can't tell if you're being serious here Bottle - it seems you were just trying to make AC think - but the gist of your argument seems to be that if you're in one kind of political/economic structure you don't have the right to campaign for a change to something else, because you're part of the present one.

...Hidden premise or two?

Where do you get your "you may not" from? Who are you to say what we may or may not do?
to clarify: the sentences include the premise "...or else be an admitted hypocrite." if somebody is going to blame the evils of the world on 'capitalist oppression' while enjoying all the luxuries of that same capitalism then he/she is a hypocrite and stands on weakened logical ground. when i said "you may not" it also carried that adendum, "...unless you are okay with being a hypocrite."

you certainly may live within one system and work to change it toward your ideals...that's the American way, after all. but you may not go on rants about how everything bad is the fault of capitalism and your system could generate all the good things (it just hasn't so far, ever, at all) and blah blah blah while sitting in your capitalist home, eating food produced by capitalist agriculture, typing on a computer designed and manufactured through the engines of capitalism, and probably sipping a soda which represents some of the biggest tycoons of capitalism, without people like me thinking you are just a tad bit funny. if you really believe capitalism is wrong then stop supporting it and benefitting from it.
This is fatuous. I am not supporting or benefitting from capitalism. My home is not 'capitalist' - you seem to want to tar everything in our society with the brush of being capitalist just because the basic economy is. The "American way" is irrelevant and presumptuous since I am not an American, and could be from any country. I have not said everything bad is the fault of capitalism. Anarchism wouldn't 'generate all the good things', and the fact that it hasn't yet is because it hasn't been put into practice yet, not because it can't.

There is no "may/may not" except inside your head. I am entitled to slag off capitalism all I want. I am entitled to use capitalism towards my own ends if I want. There is no moral objectivity/absolute, remember? We have agreed that in the past. So how come you're talking here as tho you 'know' what's OK and not OK for me to do? Because *you* are a hypocrite, not me?

To be frank, someone could reasonably blame the evils of the world on capitalism while still benefitting from it. Where's the hypocrisy? They don;t believe in the system but they're also looking out for themselves. They'd prefer to live in a different system but in the meantime they don't see why they should sacrifice themselves. After all, what's their motivation for wanting a different system? So they can look after themselves (at least partly).

It's a definition of anarchism which goes back to the origins of anarchism, and has been used by anarchists ever since. More recently some people have thought like you do and wanted to redefine 'anarchism' to exclude opposition to and reform of capitalism. That really is a *re*definition tho. And since those of us who call ourselves anarchists really do want to get rid of capitalism as well as the state, we don't since why we should go along with it.

As far as we are concerned, the "arch" of "anarchism" means "rule" and "authority", not just the state, and that includes the ruling and dominance involved in capitalist companies. That is the usage and interpretation which anarchists have had since the mid-19th century.
Monarchy- Rule of one
Oligarchy- Rule of few
Democracy- rule of the demos (basically the people)
Anarchy- rule of none.

You may not like that anarcho-capitalists have 'taken' this word, but they are perfectly justified in doing so. I don't like that the American left is termed liberal, when it does not really fit in with Liberal (big L ;) ) ideology, but I'm not going to be upset about it, nor claim they are 'abusing' the term in some way.
*How* are the anarcho-capitalists justified?

I am not upset, I am annoyed. It means we have to waste more time establishing what we are, and why we call ourselves by this name, and we already have to do that too much.

And I would say:

Monarchy - one ruler
Oligarchy - a few rulers
Democracy - the people have power
Anarchy - no rulers

What's wrong with using capitalism to defeat itself?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Firstly, I don't think an anarcho-capitalist society would tolerate socialist groups within it, because they are a threat to the maintenance of the capitalist structure, since they offer a fairer, exploitation-free economic status to workers.
Anarcho-capitalists would absolutely tolerate socialist groups. The bottom line for anarchocapitalists is that there can be no binding contract excent that which emerges through explicit consent. Communes are perfectly fine, so long as everybody WANTS to be there. Moreover, anarcho-capitalists would no doubt have faith in the market to ensure they would show higher average living standards.
The bottom line for anarchocapitalists is profit.

The way you are talking it's as tho these capitalists are concerned about human freedoms, rather than capitalistic enterprises being free of oversight, whether by workers or the state.

"Communes are perfectly fine, so long as everybody WANTS to be there", we would say you can't have an anarchist commune built on free association and voluntarism without everyone involved wanting to be there, and state-free capitalistic societies are perfectly fine, so long as everybody WANTS to be there.

Anarcho-capitalists might have faith in the market to ensure they would show higher average living standards, but that doesn't mean they actually *would* have higher living standards! I've got a simple question for you: what's the motivation for workers to live in a society where their fair share of reward is reduced to allow the 'boss' profit? Why would they want to work in an environment where they have no power to make decisions or to renegotiate worting conditions?

Secondly, anarcho-socialism need not involve coercion, if everyone agrees. If you say not everyone will agree... then we'll have to convince them. Or there will be a compromise solution, which may involve allowing some non-anarchic areas for people who want them. Or maybe there *will* be coercion, in the form of revolution, and that's just tough.
Not everyone will agree. There are two possible consequences, which you have correctly identified:

1) Mixed system, in which case it's a 'pure' (that is to say, not socialist or actively capitalist) anarchist movement, concerned only with the abolishment of state coercive power.
2) Coercive power will emerge, which is fundementally at odds with a doctrine of anti-heirarchical consensual living.
I believe eventually everyone *will* agree. It may take a few generations, and some harsh lessons, but eventually everyone will see that egalitarian non-exploitative consensual living is better for everybody, and creates a healthy social environment for all which is better to live in than one of competition and exploitation. It's a matter of evolution; that's why I'm not afraid to live in a future which is partially capitalistic. Some people will need to learn the hard way. We anarchists are those who've learnt without having to go thru the hard way.

I certainly hope so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

So you're saying exploitation of workers - such as near-slave labour, long hours, unhealthy conditions, risk of injury, competition between workers being encouraged, no maternity/pension/similar benefits, no job security - is OK if the alternative is them starving to death?

Really?
No, but I certainly don't think anarchism is the answer. I think I've explained by theoretical stance to you before (liberal egalitarian). I think elimination of trade and movement barriers will go a long way to remedying many of these problems, equalizing incomes and ensuring higher average standards of living. Many of the conditions you describe are NOT due to free capitalism, but to tariff and immigration controls. Once capital and labour markers balances out (which they will, if liberalization continues) you will see many of these problems disappear. Coupled with limited redistribution and ensured basic standards of living, I believe it is possible to preserve rights (Including property rights) while stimulating a meritocratic, equal opportunity society.
Then IMO you are in far more of a fantasy-world than any anarchist could ever be accused of being. All of the conditions I listed, and worse, were exactly what happened in the early 19th century thanks to liberal capitalism. Liberalism was seen as tarnished in the eyes of many as a result. Presently economic differences in Western countries have been reduced, and work conditions improved - but at the expense of the Third World. The Third World is now the world's working class. They are not trading on equal terms and so-called "free trade" would make it worse. "Free trade" in practice means "trade unconditioned by protection that will benefit the stronger party" - which is basically the West.

IMO elimination of trade and movement barriers will go a long way to making many of these problems worse.

I don't believe there will be a 'balancing out' under capitalism: I think it needs inequality. There is no commitment to any redistribution or ensured basic standards. The bottom line is profit, and if sufficient power transfers to private economic hands I think we will see a general reduction of living standards, work rights etc. of those on the bottom.

In short, anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Capitalism involves hierarchy and anarchism is fundamentally opposed to hierarchy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Also, anarchism seems to hinge on the existance of ZPE. What if it doesn't exist?

It does and its been proved dozens, if not hundreds of times; there are also other "free" energy inventions...AG's rexresearch.com has quite a few.

So why haven't I heard much about ZPE? Shouldn't it be well known?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

in a hunter/gatherer economic system people live in super-abundance; there is way more food around than anyone could eat - but it can't be stored.

Hmmm. This is only true in the long term: a hunter-gatherer society naturally limits itself so that it is not existing on the boundary of perpetual starvation. Thus a relative abundance comes into existence. However, the cost of this relative abundance is leaving those who are too old or too sick to contribute to gathering activities out to die. Any other reading of the phrase 'super-abundance' can obviously be seen to be mistaken by looking at the food conditions that are prevalent in technically desert areas such as those of the Inuits or the people of 'hot' deserts.

In short: there is only abundance because of the limitation of numbers of those consuming the resources, and the methods of limitation are not obviously a good thing.

all societies that don't have some sort of check on their numbers are on the verge of starvation (unless resources are being concentrated in one place from other places). the number of animals around will grow to fit the food supply available. but h&g societies get around this by keeping their numbers low - mostly done through a much lower birthrate than agricultural societies - and by moving around. not many people are so old that they are unable to contribute to food gathering, and there is no inherent reason why they would be left to die even if they couldn't (though i could imagine that some societies did that). but even in the desert conditions that most modern or recent h&g societies live in they can get way more than enough to live on in 3 hours of labor. there really is plenty of food.

besides, the bones tell a different story. in agricultural societies people had shorter life expectancies (up until just a few centuries ago, in the richest parts of the world), higher disease rates, and longer hours of harder labor. it took agriculture to invent the famine and widespread starvation. h&g's rarely, if ever starve. agriculturalists do so regularly - even today.

Alrighty...population and resources...here we go

As "the system" stands right now, in one to two generations, the majority of humanity will be fundamentally changed...

#1The carrying capacity of the Earth, assuming we lived similar to Japan (sardine can, anyone?), is about 10 billion people; we have about 6 billion now.

#2 IF global warming continues at its present rate or accelerates, than global weather patterns change; this means growing patterns and seasons for food crops are going to be anomolous until global warming stabilizes. This, in turn, means that there will be less food available.

- - - - -

How do you see an h/g society as an anarchistic ideal? Or do you?

As for life expectencies, I have heard/read of three possibilites:

1. A show on longevity (I don't remember the program name, just that it was on either the Discovery channel or TLC) presented a study on a certain type of fly (flies were chosen for the study because of the shorter gap in generations). In the study, the female flies were kept from reproducing until a later age. With each progressive generation of flies, the females were kept from reproducing until a later and later age. The average life expectency of the flies became higher and higher, with each generation.

Apply this to humanity (not forcing it upon anyone, just people interested in having their posterity live longer), and you have a naturally built-in gentic trait of longevity - not a whole lot of scientific effort involved, just a helluva lot of time.

2. The "gerontolgical treatment" described in Kim Stanely Robinson's "Mars Trilogy". Don't remember enough/understand enough about it...(just one more reason for you to read the books yourself!)

3. On another Discovery Channel or TLC documentary (or maybe it was the same one...*scratches head*) about longevity, a genticist was met, interviewed, and his research discussed/mentioned/examined. From what I remember, he said that there is a gene with a "kill-me" (or at least, a "stop/slow down maintaining and repairing me and my cells") switch; once science figures out how to isolate the gene or keep it in the "on" position (I don't remember exactly which), he and his staff predict the average person will live about 400 years before some kind of accident or fatal disease catches up with them.

In my opinion: no. There is also nothing inherent in hunter-gatherer societies which forces them to be non-hierarchical. although the are probably all non-statist to some extent or another. I find the postulation of pre-agrarian societies as non-hierarchical somewhat at odds with my limited knowledge of primate anthropology.

there may be nothing inherent in them that does, but all the ones we know of are and there is no archaeological evidence that says otherwise. and they are all definitely non-statist. the state is purely an agricultural sociey thing. there are roughly four different types of group structure that we observe in humans. h&g societies are the egalitarian ones without hierarchy or formal power relations - bands or tribes.

besides, we are remarkably egalitarian primates. we have very little sexual dimorphism compared to other apes. we evolved away from the path of domination by an alpha male at some point. but so did bonobo chimps, our closest living relatives (or second closest. depends on what measure you use).

but h&g's aren't anarchists, just anarchical and egalitarian. i am not a primitivist. though if the "anarchism cannot run a complex modern society and economy" criticism is correct, i know what i will give up.

I disagree.

I believe science and technology can only make anarchism more practical.

So we will have free energy and immortality? This seems to eliminate all the problems anarchism doesn't address.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

So why haven't I heard much about ZPE? Shouldn't it be well known?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

See http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66091&highlight=

"Energy resource limitations and Industrial civilization"

and

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106142&highlight=

The whole of the power industry would be obsolete, their power and profits gone (some of the oil industry would be affected too), and as we know, "PROFITS!" is the rallying cry of corporate capitalists.

So we will have free energy and immortality?

Free energy, yes. Immortality, impossible; an extremely long life span is a possibility, I don't know enough about it to say "yes" or "no".

This seems to eliminate all the problems anarchism doesn't address.

Not necessarily.

I have to woder that if your life is too long, you might lose an important part of being human. You might end up taking life for granted. The ZPE sounds interesting, if only too good to be true.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I think I asked this already, but how successful were the Spanish anarchists? Did they really make it work?

Well, the lost the war, let's put it that way. I'll respond in more detail tomorrow, but for now I'll just note that they were actually the second army organised along anarchist lines (the Makhnovists were the first).

Really? How were they organized? I thought guerilla warfare was the closest thing to a military parelell to the political theory of horizontal organization.

I have to woder that if your life is too long, you might lose an important part of being human. You might end up taking life for granted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

There's only one way to find out.

Good point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I'll just note that they were actually the second army organised along anarchist lines (the Makhnovists were the first).
Really? How were they organized? I thought guerilla warfare was the closest thing to a military parelell to the political theory of horizontal organization.

"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle, and self-discipline.
* Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.
* The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all the units of the army, including the staff, as well as all the other men who held positions in the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army.
* Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various units; once approved, they had to be rigorously observed on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."

History of the Makhnovist Movement, P. Arshinov, (Freedom Press, 1987, London) p.96

Not perfect, but interesting.

well i don't know about anything bieng totaly free or even unlimited
for that matter, but i do know that real cost bennifit ratios aren't
what is measured by the movement of little green pieces of paper
and economic fanatacism which is what fanatical capitolism is
is just as harmful and destructive as any other form of fanatacism
and non-monitary economies have existed and worked well

and if there is one totaly predictable eminently central reality
of the forseeable future it is that at some point the oil WILL run
out.

i think labels like capitolism and socialism and so on
are convient placeholders for people not having or wanting to
think about what the're actualy saying or meaning by it

while resources are not unlimited, a lot of scarcities are arbitrarily
created for one vested short sight end or another

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

Coupled with limited redistribution and ensured basic standards of living, I believe it is possible to preserve rights (Including property rights) while stimulating a meritocratic, equal opportunity society.

I'll repost something I asked earlier in the thread that still hasn't been responded to: how is the equal opportunity society going to survive after one generation with certain young inheriting benefits from their parents and so destroying the ideal of an 'equal opportunity society?


So, in order to maintain a level playing field of opportunity to excell I take it that parents will not be able to leave inheritances for their children, and that all children will be educated in functionally identical 'state'* operated schools and raised in functionally identical 'state' operated nurseries? That is the problem with meritocracy: it claims to provide a level playing field, but within a generation it becomes a cross country run across mountainous terrain.


*Or corporate run, whatever.

"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle, and self-discipline.
* Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.
* The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all the units of the army, including the staff, as well as all the other men who held positions in the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army.
* Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various units; once approved, they had to be rigorously observed on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."


If there is a commander, how is it anarchist?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Not to interrupt the heated debate going on, but wouldn't it be neat-o if the anarchist/syndicalist nations mentioned in this thread created their own region and showed the rest of the world how it's done?

/Tias,
AC, Neo-Anarchos, others.

Actually, they do have their own region.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle, and self-discipline.
* Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.
* The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all the units of the army, including the staff, as well as all the other men who held positions in the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army.
* Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various units; once approved, they had to be rigorously observed on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."


If there is a commander, how is it anarchist?


Well, they are elected by the mass to a temporary position, and are recallable by the mass. The 'commander' has no more say in how the organization is run than the average footsoldier. The decisions made by the 'commander' are those which are on the basis of information to which they and only they are privy, due to security considerations. The mass have given them temporary authority to make these decisions. It is not so much that they are a 'commander' as such, but rather that the functions now called 'command & control' have been allocated to them. The only privileges they have as 'commander' are access to information which must be jealously guarded and the wielding of temporary authority.

Imagine an anarchist orchestra: there is a mass of musicians, and they decide amongst themselves to elect one of their number as conductor. They will be the one who stands before the rest of the orchestra and beats time and provides cues for the rest of the performers. However, if the musicians are unhappy with the ability or the wisdom of the conductor, then they are able to replace them with another member. Does the orchestra cease to be an anarchist organisation because they have temporarily delegated the conducting duty to a recallable individual?

Personally, I believe that within anarchism it is sometime necessary to establish temporary structures which may appear hierarchical. However, there are ways and means to organise such functions that the primary anarchist beliefs are not compromised.

Not to interrupt the heated debate going on, but wouldn't it be neat-o if the anarchist/syndicalist nations mentioned in this thread created their own region and showed the rest of the world how it's done?

/Tias,
AC, Neo-Anarchos, others.

The problem here is that the NS website is built along statist assumptions: it does not seem to be possible to remove government completely, or to disband police forces completely or to repeal all laws.

I see.

The problem here is that the NS website is built along statist assumptions: it does not seem to be possible to remove government completely, or to disband police forces completely or to repeal all laws.

You can't even get real anarchism without RP.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Well, yes. But like so many other nations - medieval and space nations, for example - we can just ignore statistics on our nation profile that are authoritan or hierarchal.

Well, yes. But like so many other nations - medieval and space nations, for example - we can just ignore statistics on our nation profile that are authoritan or hierarchal.

True, that's what I do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Personally, I believe that within anarchism it is sometime necessary to establish temporary structures which may appear hierarchical. However, there are ways and means to organise such functions that the primary anarchist beliefs are not compromised.

The EZLN/FZLN (better known as the Zapatistas) are similarly organised, a temporary hierarchy for convenience sake completely controlled from below - the people's assemblies. It's not a given in anarchism, Makhno and Malatesta wrote to each other arguing this issue - Vanguardism and Platformism - http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6170/malatesta_project.html.

Vas.

It's interesting that people often argue that anarchism will fail because people have a psychological need for a leader. They forget that the leader doesn't have a leader and seems to do fine, in fact better than everyone else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

It's interesting that people often argue that anarchism will fail because people have a psychological need for a leader. They forget that the leader doesn't have a leader and seems to do fine, in fact better than everyone else.

It's a combination of elitism - ie. "I agree with you that anarchism is a good idea, but it requires people to act in a certain way. You and I might be able to work together like that, but most people aren't as civilised as we are." - and a rather naive faith in the institutions themselves, that the legal system or the parliament provides checks and balances - this, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

Vas.

There are so many misconceptions about anarchism. That will be a big problem, it seems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

There are so many misconceptions about anarchism. That will be a big problem, it seems.

yup. more than half of this thread is dealing with approximately 3 of the main ones. but there are others too. and changing the name doesn't help matters much. ah well, all that means is that we need some good propaganda to give people a clearer idea of what we are about. crimethinc has been doing some good work in this area, even if they are quasi-individualists. i personally distributed a couple hundred copies of "fighting for our lives" (http://www.crimethinc.com/fighting/index.html) (still have a few around actually).

What are some hunter gatherer societies you'd say are anarchial, Free Soviets?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

ah well, all that means is that we need some good propaganda to give people a clearer idea of what we are about.

Propaganda of the word, or propaganda of the deed?
j/k

pretty much all of them that i've ever heard of. the !kung, for example. or the inuit. egalitarianism and lack of political and social hierarchies is a basic part of h&g groups.

Propaganda of the word, or propaganda of the deed?
j/k

haha

though ya know, some "propaganda of the deed" that was meant to show that we aren't all a bunch of bomb tossing lunatics might be worthwhile...

Iam not an anarchist, though I often cooperate with anarchists. Iam a non leninist marxist, council communist (Paul Mattick, Anton Pannakoek, etc) with alot of influences from the Italian operaismo marxists (1960-1972), and also got some influences from left communists like Amandeo Bordiga, and groups like autonomia, situationists and socialism ou barbarie.

http://www.endpage.com/Archives/Subversive_Texts/Wright_C/Tendency_Map.jpg

http://www.endpage.com/Archives/Subversive_Texts/Wright_C/Tendency_Text831.html

that's a good site. it even has an article by flint on it (an anarchist i sorta know). hey sa, add this to the anti-capitalist websites. and that tendency map is just about the most useful thing i've seen in a while. libertarian marxists are a-ok in my book.

speaking of which, i've been meaning to read "workers' councils" by pannakoek. is it any good? ak press put out a new edition of it fairly recently.

ah well, all that means is that we need some good propaganda to give people a clearer idea of what we are about.

Propaganda of the word, or propaganda of the deed?
j/kNo j/k about it. Direct action gets the goods. Political assasinations may not be worthwhile, but stopping an IMF meeting is another story...

Propaganda of the word, or propaganda of the deed?
j/kNo j/k about it. Direct action gets the goods. Political assasinations may not be worthwhile, but stopping an IMF meeting is another story...

Not that I disagree, but without propaganda of the word to explain and contextualise propaganda of the deed, it's not propaganda. This is a failing of the Black Bloc, without a coherant message and method of expressing that message, they're left wide open to misinterpretation and deliberate disinformation. I'm completely opposed to elitist vanguardism, which many express in their "we're not talking to the media" or "we're not trying to build a mass movement" attitude. There are millions of people in the world who would agree with the message if they ever heard it and far more effort has to be made for spokespersons to be delegated to correctly define their position. Otherwise spokespersons are chosen from those who do not agree with the message. The responsibilty lies with the Black Bloc to counter the claims that they're just vandals and to prove, through their words, that there's more to it.

Vas.

Count me in as one.

It is not true that anarchists don't believe in organisations. Anarchists believe in non-hierarchical organisations, or where a hierarchy becomes necessary or convenient, one where those in the upper echelons act as delegates or representatives for the others, and are directly answerable to them.

Sure, 90% of anarchist history is based around collectives, which qualify as organisations.

Er.. how do you decide on the delegates or representatives ? wouldn't you end up with a sort of representative democracy ? :)

Anarchy is not the absence of organisation but the abscence of a centralised state government. Being an Anarchist doesn't mean being against people joining together for a cause. And as for EU-topia's point, don't know about you but I'd much rather criminals were helped, re-educated and re-habilatated than locked up in a box with other criminals.


Long Live Anarchy - Don't give up the fight.

NO-ONE IS FREE IF BUT ONE IS OPRESSED.

But what if they refuse to be helped, re-educated or re-habilitated ?

Stalinists have given communism a bad name. Nowadays, its evil if you're a communist, all because the actual evil people, the Stalinists, called themselves communists.

Again, ANARCHY IS NOT THE LACK OF ORGANIZATION. I can't stress that enough.

well what is it then ? can someone define 'anarchy' ? :)

Anarchy is not the absence of organisation but the abscence of a centralised state government. Being an Anarchist doesn't mean being against people joining together for a cause. And as for EU-topia's point, don't know about you but I'd much rather criminals were helped, re-educated and re-habilatated than locked up in a box with other criminals.


Long Live Anarchy - Don't give up the fight.

NO-ONE IS FREE IF BUT ONE IS OPRESSED.

But what if they refuse to be helped, re-educated or re-habilitated ?

Well, for a start, most of the crime seen today would simply dissapear in an Anarchy - as the majority of crimes commited today are money/material wealth orientated. In a society that isn't based on money, burgalry(spl), theft, fraud, cheating, stealing, etc., would have no point; no gain for the individual. This (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58) might help.

well what is it then ? can someone define 'anarchy' ? :)

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority.

But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

Rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy, because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state.


Any help?

pretty much all of them that i've ever heard of. the !kung, for example. or the inuit. egalitarianism and lack of political and social hierarchies is a basic part of h&g groups.

The !Kung, fascinating. They speak one of the languages with clicks in it. It's closely related to Ju|'hõasi.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Propaganda of the word, or propaganda of the deed?
j/k

haha

though ya know, some "propaganda of the deed" that was meant to show that we aren't all a bunch of bomb tossing lunatics might be worthwhile...

I think I saw a rebuttal to the "bomb-tosser" image many people have of anarchists. The rebuttal was something like "For every bomb made by an anarchist, millions more have been produced by the state, for every person killed by an anarchist, hundreds of millions more have been killed by the state."

Count me in as one.

It is not true that anarchists don't believe in organisations. Anarchists believe in non-hierarchical organisations, or where a hierarchy becomes necessary or convenient, one where those in the upper echelons act as delegates or representatives for the others, and are directly answerable to them.

Sure, 90% of anarchist history is based around collectives, which qualify as organisations.

Er.. how do you decide on the delegates or representatives ? wouldn't you end up with a sort of representative democracy ? :)

Pick someone at random to be a delegate.

What if the delegate refuses to give up their power?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Then those being represented select a new delegate (by whatever means they agree upon) and infrom the delegation that their former delegate is acting out-of-bounds.

I see. How would education work? It certainly isn't voluntary now. I was speculating that since I seem to learn more on the internet than I do at school about things that I would enjoy working in, like linguistics, some sort of voluntary education in which people chose what they wanted to learn would be possible. If something was useful, they would certainly take the time to learn it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Count me in as one.

It is not true that anarchists don't believe in organisations. Anarchists believe in non-hierarchical organisations, or where a hierarchy becomes necessary or convenient, one where those in the upper echelons act as delegates or representatives for the others, and are directly answerable to them.

Sure, 90% of anarchist history is based around collectives, which qualify as organisations.

Er.. how do you decide on the delegates or representatives ? wouldn't you end up with a sort of representative democracy ? :)


Pick someone at random to be a delegate.

I was speaking about small, temporary organisations in order to address specific issues, not a 'state-wide' government. I much prefer consensus decision making, but sometimes other pressing matters or lack of interest in specific issues requires that people willingly and temporarily delegate others to certain tasks.

Edit: despite the use of the term 'delegate' in this response, I am firmly in favour of representative democratic decisions, rather that delegated democratic decision, if it becomes a case that such are necessary. I originally posted my first response (above) to counter the claim that anarchists don't believe in organisations. I am not simply advocating that anarchism = representative democracy. One of the ironies of anarchism is that we cannot define how a future anarchist society would function: to do so would be negate the freedom of any who may occupy that future anarchist society.*


*see also the problems Marx encountered when trying to describe the conditions of life after the state has withered away: he is reduced to making vague, poetic statements, so as not to proscribe the actions of the free men and women of the future.

What if the delegate refuses to give up their power?

They do not possess power - they possess a temporary authority which has been granted to them. To take it away from them people need only refuse to follow them.

Power = the force to make people do things.
Authority = the right to make people do things.

(Once again I will state that I was not advocating the above model as an answer to everything: just as an example of one kind of temporary hierarchical organisation which does not necessarilly betray anarchist principles.)

I see. How would education work? It certainly isn't voluntary now. I was speculating that since I seem to learn more on the internet than I do at school about things that I would enjoy working in, like linguistics, some sort of voluntary education in which people chose what they wanted to learn would be possible. If something was useful, they would certainly take the time to learn it.


Not my specialised subject: the important things to take away from conventional schooling are the tools to further educate oneself. Education does not stop at the school gates. That and a healthy mistrust of all those in a position of power. However, it seems that the prime concern of education in the western world is not to instill a wonder at how and why the world works but to create a labour force to keep the wheels of industry turning.

Don't just answer their questions: question their answers.

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS! 8)
organise


?????
weres the spirit of the idea?

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS! 8)
organise


?????
weres the spirit of the idea?
????

I would want the delegate system to be used as little as possible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Everything should be used as little as possible- or rather no more then is required. The delegate system would only be used in situations where logistics would require it. And it is certainly suppirior to any 'representitive' set-up.

As far as education goes: as it is now schools assembly lines that churn out university aplicants and universities in turn are assembly lines that churn out wheels and cogs for the corporate machine. After the social revolution, schools and universites would be self and community fullfillment collectives where learning and teaching would take place as it should. You would never recodnize a post SR school for its pre-SR equivilant.

I see. You have a good plan for education.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Yes, but I must admit that I was as high as a kite when I made that post :lol:

An Anarchistic society is i.m.h.o a contradictio in termini. If all are anarchist there will no social binding of any kind. No decisions can be made because all are free to do what they want. Some will work, most won’t. Some will take their responsibilities for society, most will definitely not. It will be a society where the strong rule over the weak. Not because of the system but the main reason is that mankind is not mentally capable to do his duty in such a, in essence, beautiful political system.

An Anarchistic society is i.m.h.o a contradictio in termini. If all are anarchist there will no social binding of any kind. No decisions can be made because all are free to do what they want. Some will work, most won?t. Some will take their responsibilities for society, most will definitely not. It will be a society where the strong rule over the weak. Not because of the system but the main reason is that mankind is not mentally capable to do his duty in such a, in essence, beautiful political system.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Read the rest of the thread

Don't tell us what anarchism means, we'll tell you

EDIT *bangs head against wall*

An Anarchistic society is i.m.h.o a contradictio in termini. If all are anarchist there will no social binding of any kind. No decisions can be made because all are free to do what they want. Some will work, most won?t. Some will take their responsibilities for society, most will definitely not. It will be a society where the strong rule over the weak. Not because of the system but the main reason is that mankind is not mentally capable to do his duty in such a, in essence, beautiful political system.
To be specific, anarchism *absolutely does not mean no social binding or cohesion*

IMO it means far more cohesion than in a state society.

Part of the problem is that the stereotype of anarchists as crazy guys who throw bombs is too strong. No one knows the real anarchists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Read the rest of the thread

Don't tell us what anarchism means, we'll tell you

EDIT *bangs head against wall*


You tell me? No you don’t. Need some good ol’ capitalist pharmaceutics for your headache?

An Anarchistic society is i.m.h.o a contradictio in termini. If all are anarchist there will no social binding of any kind. No decisions can be made because all are free to do what they want. Some will work, most won?t. Some will take their responsibilities for society, most will definitely not. It will be a society where the strong rule over the weak. Not because of the system but the main reason is that mankind is not mentally capable to do his duty in such a, in essence, beautiful political system.
To be specific, anarchism *absolutely does not mean no social binding or cohesion*

IMO it means far more cohesion than in a state society.

Well that’s your opinion. Perhaps you can elaborate some. Why you think it will be? I found my opinion on arguments so please respond to what I have stated.

Part of the problem is that the stereotype of anarchists as crazy guys who throw bombs is too strong. No one knows the real anarchists.

No I don’t think in stereotypes. I only think there are only a few “real anarchists” to make it work. All the other people just want to sit on their ass and let other people work for them. If you want a anarchistic society there have to be a vast majority of “true anarchists” or society will look how I described it. I don’t think you are crazy, just whisper too idealistic.

To GISC: Read the thread and sites mentioned before you post!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Anarchy makes no sense, I could kill you all for fun.

Actually, you couldn't. Just because there isn't a government doesn't mean there aren't things you wouldn't be allowed to do. People would still oppose you if you tried that, it would just be real people instead of the government that opposes you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Anarchy makes no sense, I could kill you all for fun.

people can and do do this now. so i see no difference - except that we won't leave the massive force of violence known as the state in the hands of some of these murderers. which means there will be much less ability for people to kill others for fun than there is currently available.

the state is far and away the largest killer of all time.

How many people outside of the state do you know that commit genocide?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Anarchy makes no sense, I could kill you all for fun.

Let's see: you claim that Anarchism is irrational - solely one the basis of your irrational pleasures?

Question: do the police forces of the world primarily (1) punish offenders after the fact, or (2) prevent them from committing crimes?

Inded. Those who are of a mind to kill for fun tend not to heed the law anyway.

Inded. Those who are of a mind to kill for fun tend not to heed the law anyway.


Yep that kind of people exist in the real world and therefore also in an Anarchistic society. But what are you going to do about it when you have no authorities like for example a police force? Call a hippie? :wink:

Inded. Those who are of a mind to kill for fun tend not to heed the law anyway.
Yep that kind of people exist in the real world and therefore also in an Anarchistic society. But what are you going to do about it when you have no authorities like for example a police force? Call a hippie? :wink:

Much as I would like to, I don't have a prepared answer for that one. It should be borne in mind that police forces as we know them today are a very modern invention - dating back only about 200 years. Hopefully we shall see more debate on this from minds more currently awake than mine...

[quote="Raysia"][quote=Spiritual Anarchy]

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll:

:roll: :roll:

Anarchy isn't a form of government, though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Read the rest of the thread

Don't tell us what anarchism means, we'll tell you

EDIT *bangs head against wall*
You tell me? No you don?t.
No I don't but why should I? You haven't asked! You've come into the thread and told *us* what anarchy is when you don't know and we do!

If you had read any of the thread you would have seen that this has happened many times. People have come into the thread with their ignorance and presumed to tell people who know about the subject as if they know themselves. I'm pig sick of people doing this, it's happened over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You are just the latest. When are you all going to learn? When are people going to stop presuming to tell knowledgeable people about something you don't know about? When are you going to learn to come with an open mind, a preparedness to listen and learn, to ask rather than to tell?

Need some good ol? capitalist pharmaceutics for your headache?
It's these kind of fatuous comments that make me feel there's no point talking to people like you. Pharmaceutics aren't capitalist, they're medical products.

An Anarchistic society is i.m.h.o a contradictio in termini. If all are anarchist there will no social binding of any kind. No decisions can be made because all are free to do what they want. Some will work, most won?t. Some will take their responsibilities for society, most will definitely not. It will be a society where the strong rule over the weak. Not because of the system but the main reason is that mankind is not mentally capable to do his duty in such a, in essence, beautiful political system.
To be specific, anarchism *absolutely does not mean no social binding or cohesion*

IMO it means far more cohesion than in a state society.
Well that?s your opinion.
No it's a *fact* about what anarchism has meant for the last 150 years. That's the point. Your comment is not only a presumption, it's specifically wrong as regards what anarchism believes in and plans for.

Perhaps you can elaborate some. Why you think it will be?
Because an anarchist society specifically designs social organisation! It had never aimed to be just about separating all individuals with no socialo cohesion!

I found my opinion on arguments
I don't even know what you mean here.

so please respond to what I have stated.
Now I think I pretty much have done.

Part of the problem is that the stereotype of anarchists as crazy guys who throw bombs is too strong. No one knows the real anarchists.
No I don?t think in stereotypes. I only think there are only a few ?real anarchists? to make it work. All the other people just want to sit on their ass and let other people work for them. If you want a anarchistic society there have to be a vast majority of ?true anarchists? or society will look how I described it. I don?t think you are crazy, just whisper too idealistic.
Then you don't know the real anarchists, like Letila said. Because that's a totally false impression. Anarchism isn't based on laziness, it's based on disbelief in authority and hierarchy.

Anarchy makes no sense, I could kill you all for fun.
You could kill us all for fun in a state society like this one. In an anarchy you would be properly dealt with, and not only that but you'd have far less desire to do any such thing in the first place.

Inded. Those who are of a mind to kill for fun tend not to heed the law anyway.
Yep that kind of people exist in the real world and therefore also in an Anarchistic society. But what are you going to do about it when you have no authorities like for example a police force? Call a hippie? :wink:
With that last comment you show disrespect for both hippies and anarchists. Who are you, somebody superior?

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll:

:roll: :roll:
Where's that a quote from? And I have to say you made a terrible job of the quoting...

We need a faq that explains misconceptions quickly and easily so that we wouldn't have so many people debating under false assumptions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

We need a faq that explains misconceptions quickly and easily so that we wouldn't have so many people debating under false assumptions.
Or else maybe I could chill out and we should just ignore them. :wink:

Night, Letila. Time for bed.

Bona nocte - goodnight in my language, Ruman.

What about sports? I have to wonder if the idea of winning medals and getting first place, etc. would cause problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What about sports? I have to wonder if the idea of winning medals and getting first place, etc. would cause problems.

http://aaa.t0.or.at/documents/aaarules.htm

I have one final question: What about BDSM?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I have one final question: What about BDSM?

I fear where this may go, but... what about it?

Part of it means Dominant/Submissive, which completely goes against anarchism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Part of it means Dominant/Submissive, which completely goes against anarchism.

Actually, in an entirely free and voluntary system people can be dominant and submissive as long as they understand the consequences of their actions and make their choices rationally.

And I always thought it stood for BonDage/SadoMasochism. :?

Good point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Part of it means Dominant/Submissive, which completely goes against anarchism.
Actually, in an entirely free and voluntary system people can be dominant and submissive as long as they understand the consequences of their actions and make their choices rationally.

And I always thought it stood for BonDage/SadoMasochism. :?
Yes this is what I think. The issue is consent and harm (as in inwanted harm), not particular fetishes. Whatever is consensual, including domination and physical harm is not in conflict with anarchism.

As for what BDSM stands for, I think it's "Bondage, Domination, Submission, Sadism and Masochism", in other words they reuse the S.

What about sports? I have to wonder if the idea of winning medals and getting first place, etc. would cause problems.
http://aaa.t0.or.at/documents/aaarules.htm
Wow what a great idea!

What will prevent people from making low quality products?

Also, what about gangs? Won't they become a problem?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Also, what about gangs? Won't they become a problem?


Dateline: Belfast, Northern Ireland.
You mean they aren't anyway under government?
Not so much 'become' as 'continue' to be a problem.

This is a short and apparently pessimistic post. I'll be back up to speed in a couple of days and have a look at some of the questions left hanging over the last few pages.

Good point, though won't they use the lack of laws to their advantage?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Good point, though won't they use the lack of laws to their advantage?


Well, how many middle-class gangs do you know?

It seems to me that the source of much gang related violence, whether it be in LA or Belfast is poverty and unequal distribution of wealth. Hopefully by rectifying the glaring inequalities of distribution of resources and opportunities this problem can be tackled at the root. Speaking in outrageous generalisations: gang members tend to come from ghettos or economically deprived communities and see gang involvement as (a) a glamorous existence, (b) a way out of poverty, (c) an empowering social position.

The fact that gang related crime is prevalent in certain areas and not in others seems to suggest that they are tied strongly to socio-economic factors. By restructuring society so that all share resources equally thee should be less pressure for gangs to form.

Of course, the creation of an anarchist society will probably herald a new type of gang - those who recognise that they can either have an equal share and make an equal contribution, or alternatively they can extort extra resources from the rest of society through use of force. In this case it is up to society to react and stand up to such threats.

Again, an incomplete and garbled answer, but I'm really not on the ball today.

I never thought of that.

What will prevent people from making low quality products?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I never thought of that.

What will prevent people from making low quality products?

nothing. But what will force anyone to buy them instead of getting the better one from a different producer?

nothing. But what will force anyone to buy them instead of getting the better one from a different producer?

But there's no capitalism in anarchism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Why does there have to be capitalism to have multiple producers. Surely you don't think a product would only be produced in one, centralized location for an entire population?

What is a anarchy?

Why does there have to be capitalism to have multiple producers. Surely you don't think a product would only be produced in one, centralized location for an entire population?

No, but what is the motive for producing good products if there isn't money?

What is a anarchy?

A society in which there is no hierarchy, especially government.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

A society in which there is no hierarchy, especially government. Oh. An odd brand of thinking but oh.

A society in which there is no hierarchy, especially government. Oh. An odd brand of thinking but oh.

What will prevent lynching or mobs killing people? With no government, won't people be likely to kill someone they don't like?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

No, but what is the motive for producing good products if there isn't money?

well, the point of producing things is making things that you use. which means making quality stuff. otherwise you are just shortchanging yourself. i'd say that getting rid of the whole concept of profit would increase quality by itself -no need to profit means no need to cut corners.

I see. What about the mobs?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Hey wasup, thought I'd say "Hi"

bump

No, but what is the motive for producing good products if there isn't money?

well, the point of producing things is making things that you use. which means making quality stuff. otherwise you are just shortchanging yourself. i'd say that getting rid of the whole concept of profit would increase quality by itself -no need to profit means no need to cut corners. No need to work either.

No, but what is the motive for producing good products if there isn't money?

well, the point of producing things is making things that you use. which means making quality stuff. otherwise you are just shortchanging yourself. i'd say that getting rid of the whole concept of profit would increase quality by itself -no need to profit means no need to cut corners. No need to work either.

... unless of course you want anything done. Not everyone can just sit on their ass all day in front of a computer.

No need to work either.

You'd still have to work. Do you think food is going to grow itself?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

No need to work either.

You'd still have to work. Do you think food is going to grow itself? Not if the goverment hands it out to you. If the goverment gave people everything, then people wouldn't work.

Not if the goverment hands it out to you. If the goverment gave people everything, then people wouldn't work.

First, there is no government in anarchism. Second, the government consists of people who must do all the work for people not in government.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

No, but what is the motive for producing good products if there isn't money?

well, the point of producing things is making things that you use. which means making quality stuff. otherwise you are just shortchanging yourself. i'd say that getting rid of the whole concept of profit would increase quality by itself -no need to profit means no need to cut corners. No need to work either.

... unless of course you want anything done. Not everyone can just sit on their ass all day in front of a computer. Then what the hell have you been doin? Growin crops? Makeing blankets? No surfing the net.

No, but what is the motive for producing good products if there isn't money?

well, the point of producing things is making things that you use. which means making quality stuff. otherwise you are just shortchanging yourself. i'd say that getting rid of the whole concept of profit would increase quality by itself -no need to profit means no need to cut corners. No need to work either.

... unless of course you want anything done. Not everyone can just sit on their ass all day in front of a computer. Then what the hell have you been doin? Growin crops? Makeing blankets? No surfing the net.

Me? A lot more than siting on my ass surfing the net thanks.

nothing. But what will force anyone to buy them instead of getting the better one from a different producer?

But there's no capitalism in anarchism.

Yes there is.

http://www.anti-state.com

Yes there is.

http://www.anti-state.com

Not in real anarchism where all authority, not just the state, is gone.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Commerce or Trading will still exist but not be regulated, controlled, or limited by corporate entities.

sorry forgot to add the "not" up there

Commerce or Trading will still exist but not be regulated, controlled, or limited by corporate entities.

And people can take advantage of them to get rich at the expense of workers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Not in real anarchism where all authority, not just the state, is gone. Are you sane? I just finaly understood what anarchism is. That would never work. All order gone would cause any organized power to compleatly take over the people. A street gang could rule all of the western seaboard insted of just bits of LA.

Are you sane? I just finaly understood what anarchism is. That would never work. All order gone would cause any organized power to compleatly take over the people. A street gang could rule all of the western seaboard insted of just bits of LA.

And would we let them? Would we simply ignore them while they did this? I think not. After defeating the government, other, weaker forces of authority won't pose any threat. It isn't even in their best interest to try that, anyway. If they have any sense, they'll realize that they benefit more from coöperating than trying to rule over a staunchly anti-authority populace.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Yes there is.

http://www.anti-state.com

Not in real anarchism

Yes, it is. Don't try a No True Scotsman fallacy.

where all authority, not just the state, is gone.

Then you couldn't have socialism or communism or a family or anything like that.

Silly you. Learn what anarchism is.

Then you couldn't have socialism or communism or a family or anything like that.

Silly you. Learn what anarchism is.

An anarchist opposes all authority and hierarchy, not just the state. Learn that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

[quote]And people can take advantage of them to get rich at the expense of workers.

Not if it's worker run, and all workers take a part in not only the work but management of the company. No CEOs, no slavemasters. That's the idea.

I'm no Anarchist (don't know very much really) but (from what I do know) I have affinities with some ideas. I have a Rudolf Rocker booklet on the floor. There used to be an infoshop around where I live and the guy used to come out to crust shows and give out information on Anarchism.

Then you couldn't have socialism or communism or a family or anything like that.

Silly you. Learn what anarchism is.

An anarchist opposes all authority and hierarchy,

No, it doesn't. Just government. Learn that.

No, it doesn't. Just government. Learn that.

Corporations would become governments that also turned profit on the side. Would you really want to be ruled by Microsoft?

To the real anarchists: What would keep people from lynching and such?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Yes there is.

http://www.anti-state.com

Not in real anarchism

Yes, it is. Don't try a No True Scotsman fallacy.

where all authority, not just the state, is gone.

Then you couldn't have socialism or communism or a family or anything like that.

Silly you. Learn what anarchism is.
We have done. We're teaching *you* what it is.

[quote]And people can take advantage of them to get rich at the expense of workers.

Not if it's worker run, and all workers take a part in not only the work but management of the company. No CEOs, no slavemasters. That's the idea.

I'm no Anarchist (don't know very much really) but (from what I do know) I have affinities with some ideas. I have a Rudolf Rocker booklet on the floor. There used to be an infoshop around where I live and the guy used to come out to crust shows and give out information on Anarchism.
That's more like it... I don't know much about Rudolf Rocker but he's one of the 'names' in early 20th century American anarchism.

Then you couldn't have socialism or communism or a family or anything like that.

Silly you. Learn what anarchism is.

An anarchist opposes all authority and hierarchy,

No, it doesn't. Just government. Learn that.
Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.

No, it doesn't. Just government. Learn that.

Corporations would become governments that also turned profit on the side.

They would not become governments. Governments are monopolistic entities claiming the exclusive use of legitimate force within a given territory. There would be no way to gain a monopoly like that without a pre-extant government, since ONLY a government may grant and enforce a coercive monopoly (this is the type everyone thinks of when they hear "monopoly". There are, of course, two types: natural and coercive.)

[Would you really want to be ruled by Microsoft?

Why would they "rule"?

[To the real anarchists: What would keep people from lynching and such?

Private police agencies.

If you really want to know, and would like to do a little research, I point you to two essays. They are both Adobe PDF (I assume you have the free Acrobat reader. If not, you can download it from here (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf).

Private Police: A Note, by Patrick Tinsley (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf)

The Private Production of Defense, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf)

(note, IRL, I have met Professor Hoppe twice, and have personally-signed copies of his two latest books: Democracy: The God That Failed and The Myth of National Defense)

Yes there is.

http://www.anti-state.com

Not in real anarchism

Yes, it is. Don't try a No True Scotsman fallacy.

where all authority, not just the state, is gone.

Then you couldn't have socialism or communism or a family or anything like that.

Silly you. Learn what anarchism is.

We have done. We're teaching *you* what it is.

*laughs*

Suuuuuuuuuuure you are.

Left-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.

Then you couldn't have socialism or communism or a family or anything like that.

Silly you. Learn what anarchism is.

An anarchist opposes all authority and hierarchy,

No, it doesn't. Just government. Learn that.

Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.

Learn that trying that means you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents cannot make decisions for the children because that is to RULE over them. Socialism and communism fail because SOMEONE has to decide SOMEHOW as to what to make and how to make it, which is to RULE over someone else's ideas.

Silly you. Think of the logical extension of what you're trying to say. Don't make me hit you with another reductio ad absurdum again.

And would we let them? Would we simply ignore them while they did this? I think not. After defeating the government, other, weaker forces of authority won't pose any threat. It isn't even in their best interest to try that, anyway. If they have any sense, they'll realize that they benefit more from coöperating than trying to rule over a staunchly anti-authority populace. The words "rule by force" come to mind.

We have done. We're teaching *you* what it is.
*laughs*

Suuuuuuuuuuure you are.

Left-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.
*laughs*

Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Right-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.

The words "rule by force" come to mind.

It won't be necessary, anyway. They'd have no motivation as they'd get everything they need by coöperating. Their only possible motivation is power.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.
Learn that trying that means you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents cannot make decisions for the children because that is to RULE over them. Socialism and communism fail because SOMEONE has to decide SOMEHOW as to what to make and how to make it, which is to RULE over someone else's ideas.

Silly you. Think of the logical extension of what you're trying to say. Don't make me hit you with another reductio ad absurdum again.
Learn that trying that *doesn't* mean you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents don't need to rule over the child. Socialism and communism don't fail because they don't require individuals or privileged groups to decide for others what to make and how to make it, which is to rule over someone else's ideas; instead they can be agreed upon collectively.

Silly you. Think of the lack of logical consequence in what you're trying to say. Don't make me hit you with another counterexample denial again.

The words "rule by force" come to mind.

It won't be necessary, anyway. They'd have no motivation as they'd get everything they need by coöperating. Their only possible motivation is power. And wealth. The power to hold the life or death of every citazen in a empire is the ultamite dream of any dictator wanna-be.

Corporations would become governments that also turned profit on the side.
They would not become governments. Governments are monopolistic entities claiming the exclusive use of legitimate force within a given territory. There would be no way to gain a monopoly like that without a pre-extant government, since ONLY a government may grant and enforce a coercive monopoly (this is the type everyone thinks of when they hear "monopoly". There are, of course, two types: natural and coercive.)
What does 'legitimate' mean here? For the record, there is no such thing as legitimacy really. It is a fiction in the minds of officialdom.

If a group or organisation of any kind gains effective political power to enforce its desires over people whether they like it or not, it is effectively government, or at least a state. This is how states and government were themselves first created. There was no pre-existing purveyor of 'legitimacy' that handed it to rulers. They took it by force - 'naturally' in your terms, I suppose. If a corporation had effective power in an anarcho-capitalist society they would be becoming a government as well.

ADDITION: Corporations already have state-like power in some Third World countries, such as Colombia, Burma, Indonesia. They are granted it in out of the way places by the 'legitimate' government of the country either in return for some favour or due to the economic power they wield. If you are in those places you are not under the 'rule of law' of the 'legitimate government', but rather the rule of the whim of the illegitimate quasi-state power of the private corporation.

[To the real anarchists: What would keep people from lynching and such?
Private police agencies.
What would be preventing the private police agencies from doing the lynching?

And wealth. The power to hold the life or death of every citazen in a empire is the ultamite dream of any dictator wanna-be.

And how is this dictator wanna-be going to get people to help him take over with policies like that? He won't have anything to start with.

To the genuine, real, non-phony, non-capitalist anarchists: What will prevent mobs and lynching?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

To the genuine, real, non-phony, non-capitalist anarchists: What will prevent mobs and lynching?
Nothing except other people, I guess... why would someone want to lynch in the first place? Because they are white racists in the south-east of America who hate blacks? Well long-term what's needed is a change in people's attitudes, so that everyone in the society accepts everyone else instead of hating some type. That's not something you can force on people (whether you want to or not), it can only come thru campaigning, social change, education, private initiatives. In a situation where there *is* such hatred in an anarchy any group that might be victims needs to organise to protect itself and concerned parties would need to organise with them. There need to be at least sanctions against any offending group, if not complete disassociation.

I don't think we could guarantee there would be no such ugly acts in an anarchy. Just because there's an anarchy doesn't mean everyone is sweet as pie in love with each other. People would still have differences, clashes, conflicts, personality issues, feuds, etc. It is just that we would have removed the greatest injustices and impositions, political authority and economic exploitation and inequality.

However, I don't think the fact that sometimes unpleasant behaviour would happen in an anarchy is not an argument against anarchism, since such actions happen quite frequently in state societies... such as that of the southern states of America with the lynching of blacks. Not only did horrible lynchings happen rather often in what was a state society, but they often did with the connivance or involvement of the police and other official authorities. Yet nobody considers this an argument against the state.

I think the thing to try and make sure of in an anarchy would be that there is less malevolent treatment of such kinds than under states. I think the spirit of an anarchy is to treat everyone as equals and to accept other people's freedoms and rights such that yours are provided in return. If people start lynching they are tearing up the fabric of the society in a very serious way, leading to very serious consequences in how the rest of the society treats them in response.

Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.

Learn that trying that means you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents cannot make decisions for the children because that is to RULE over them. Socialism and communism fail because SOMEONE has to decide SOMEHOW as to what to make and how to make it, which is to RULE over someone else's ideas.

in any group enterprise, anything that involves multiple people, decisions that affect all of those people are going to be made. there are two options on making those decisions: involve everyone in the making of them to the greatest extent possible, or allow a tiny minority of people to make them and make the rest follow orders. which of these options is more a case of some ruling others?

and oddly enough, anarchists do call for less authoritarian family structures. funny how that works. parenting would be a process of granting more and more autonomy to children as they grew up and giving them a real voice in the decisions that affect their lives (and teaching them responsibility in using their autonomy and decision making power) - which is pretty much good parenting anyway.

Not only did horrible lynchings happen rather often in what was a state society, but they often did with the connivance or involvement of the police and other official authorities. Yet nobody considers this an argument against the state.

well, except for me.

but yeah, its a lot like the supposed "violence" of anarchists. in our entire history - even including the "of the deed"ists - we've caused far less death and destruction than what regularly happens in a single day of any state's wars (minus the spanish anarchist militias and the makhnovshchina, who were actually fighting wars). and yet no one, except us, considers this to be an argument against the state - though somehow it winds up being an argument against us.

Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.
Learn that trying that means you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents cannot make decisions for the children because that is to RULE over them. Socialism and communism fail because SOMEONE has to decide SOMEHOW as to what to make and how to make it, which is to RULE over someone else's ideas.

Silly you. Think of the logical extension of what you're trying to say. Don't make me hit you with another reductio ad absurdum again.

Learn that trying that *doesn't* mean you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure.

I proved that it does.

The parents don't need to rule over the child.

Yes, they do. The say where the child will live. They determine where the child will be schooled. They determine a lot for the child and make rules for the child.

Socialism and communism don't fail because they don't require individuals or privileged groups to decide for others what to make and how to make it, which is to rule over someone else's ideas; instead they can be agreed upon collectively.

Which means a group of individuals decides what to make and how to make it, which is to rule over those who don't want to do it that way.

THINK!

Don't make me have to keep hitting you with that blatant fact.

We have done. We're teaching *you* what it is.
*laughs*

Suuuuuuuuuuure you are.

Left-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.


Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Right-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.

*yawn*

Wake me when you have something of value.

Corporations would become governments that also turned profit on the side.
They would not become governments. Governments are monopolistic entities claiming the exclusive use of legitimate force within a given territory. There would be no way to gain a monopoly like that without a pre-extant government, since ONLY a government may grant and enforce a coercive monopoly (this is the type everyone thinks of when they hear "monopoly". There are, of course, two types: natural and coercive.)

What does 'legitimate' mean here?

Main Entry: 1le·git·i·mate
Pronunciation: li-'ji-t&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law
Date: 15th century
1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <legitimate advertising expenditure> <legitimate inference>
5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·git·i·mate·ly adverb

For the record, there is no such thing as legitimacy really. It is a fiction in the minds of officialdom.

Then there's no such thing as theft or murder or rape or slavery, since you can *legitimately* own your body and other sundry property.

Didn't think of that, did you?

If a group or organisation of any kind gains effective political power to enforce its desires over people whether they like it or not, it is effectively government, or at least a state.

Where's the political power in anarchism?

This is how states and government were themselves first created. There was no pre-existing purveyor of 'legitimacy' that handed it to rulers. They took it by force - 'naturally' in your terms, I suppose. If a corporation had effective power in an anarcho-capitalist society they would be becoming a government as well.

Impossible. There's no structure for it.

ADDITION: Corporations already have state-like power in some Third World countries,

Granted by the existing governments, as you state.

such as Colombia, Burma, Indonesia. They are granted it in out of the way places by the 'legitimate' government of the country either in return for some favour or due to the economic power they wield.

The former only.

If you are in those places you are not under the 'rule of law' of the 'legitimate government', but rather the rule of the whim of the illegitimate quasi-state power of the private corporation.

It'd be nice if you had some examples.

[To the real anarchists: What would keep people from lynching and such?
Private police agencies.

What would be preventing the private police agencies from doing the lynching?

Law. Contracts. Reputation. Things like that.

A private police agency that just went around arbitrarily whacking people would find that people wouldn't want to contract with it because they (the people) might find that the police agency would whack them. Without the funding, the police agency would shrivel.

It's called Business 101.

And wealth. The power to hold the life or death of every citazen in a empire is the ultamite dream of any dictator wanna-be.

And how is this dictator wanna-be going to get people to help him take over with policies like that? He won't have anything to start with.

To the genuine, real, non-phony, non-capitalist anarchists: What will prevent mobs and lynching?

Lovely No True Scotsman fallacy.

Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.

Learn that trying that means you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents cannot make decisions for the children because that is to RULE over them. Socialism and communism fail because SOMEONE has to decide SOMEHOW as to what to make and how to make it, which is to RULE over someone else's ideas.

in any group enterprise, anything that involves multiple people, decisions that affect all of those people are going to be made. there are two options on making those decisions: involve everyone in the making of them to the greatest extent possible, or allow a tiny minority of people to make them and make the rest follow orders. which of these options is more a case of some ruling others?

Both.

What you're asking is the same as asking "Someone breaks into your house and steals everything, or someone breaks into your house and steals just your TV. Which is more of a case of theft?". Theft is theft. Ruling is ruling. There's no "degrees" here, and you can't try to weasel out like that. Won't work.

and oddly enough, anarchists do call for less authoritarian family structures.

But not no authority there. The children live in the house the parents say. Isn't that *authority* (gasp!).

funny how that works. parenting would be a process of granting more and more autonomy to children as they grew up and giving them a real voice in the decisions that affect their lives (and teaching them responsibility in using their autonomy and decision making power) - which is pretty much good parenting anyway.

I'll grant that, but there are many decisions over which the parents have sole control.

A corporation will turn into a government if it has a police force and military.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

in any group enterprise, anything that involves multiple people, decisions that affect all of those people are going to be made. there are two options on making those decisions: involve everyone in the making of them to the greatest extent possible, or allow a tiny minority of people to make them and make the rest follow orders. which of these options is more a case of some ruling others?

Both.

What you're asking is the same as asking "Someone breaks into your house and steals everything, or someone breaks into your house and steals just your TV. Which is more of a case of theft?". Theft is theft. Ruling is ruling. There's no "degrees" here, and you can't try to weasel out like that. Won't work.

in order to have people work together on projects (be it a corporation or a collective or a commune or a decemberween party) there must be some collective decision making structure in place. to be without one would mean that collective action could not happen except by accident. so there really are only two basic options, minority decision making or majority decision making (ranging up to consensus decision making).

"anarcho"-capitalism explicitly proposes decision making by a tiny minority in every spehere of life because it keeps and radically expands capitalist property relations. i am glad that you acknowledge this power structure as unjust. and since dictatorship by a minority is a ridiculous thing to call freedom, we are left with decision making by everyone. of course straight majority rule wouldn't be much better than minority rule for freedom (but it is still better, just not by much), because then the majority could just impose its will on everyone else and force them to go along with it. which means we have to get rid of the 'rule' bit. which leads us to working towards consensus and protecting the ability of dissenters to dissent without being forced to go along with the majority. a form of majority decision making is the only possible path of freedom within collective projects. anything else is at best merely choosing between the choices others have made for you - and usually you don't even get that, just "obey or suffer the consequences".

A corporation will turn into a government if it has a police force and military.

Nicely unsubstantiated.

What makes a social class defined by wealth less desireable than one defined by political power?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

in any group enterprise, anything that involves multiple people, decisions that affect all of those people are going to be made. there are two options on making those decisions: involve everyone in the making of them to the greatest extent possible, or allow a tiny minority of people to make them and make the rest follow orders. which of these options is more a case of some ruling others?

Both.

What you're asking is the same as asking "Someone breaks into your house and steals everything, or someone breaks into your house and steals just your TV. Which is more of a case of theft?". Theft is theft. Ruling is ruling. There's no "degrees" here, and you can't try to weasel out like that. Won't work.

in order to have people work together on projects (be it a corporation or a collective or a commune or a decemberween party) there must be some collective decision making structure in place. to be without one would mean that collective action could not happen except by accident. so there really are only two basic options, minority decision making or majority decision making (ranging up to consensus decision making).

Or individual decision making in other cases.

In your way, you're still GOING TO HAVE SOME RULING OVER OTHERS. Can't escape that.

"anarcho"-capitalism explicitly proposes decision making by a tiny minority in every spehere of life

No, it doesn't. It proposes individual decision making.

If you want to talk about something, be informed about it and don't strawman.

because it keeps and radically expands capitalist property relations.

You mean property ownership itself?

i am glad that you acknowledge this power structure as unjust.

What power structure? And how is it unjust?

and since dictatorship by a minority is a ridiculous thing to call freedom,

Which is why socialism/communism != freedom.

we are left with decision making by everyone. of course straight majority rule wouldn't be much better than minority rule for freedom (but it is still better, just not by much), because then the majority could just impose its will on everyone else and force them to go along with it.

Which is why socialism/communism != freedom.

which means we have to get rid of the 'rule' bit. which leads us to working towards consensus and protecting the ability of dissenters to dissent without being forced to go along with the majority.

Not possible in a socialist/communist society. They MUST because "society wills it" and that's how things will be done!

a form of majority decision making is the only possible path of freedom within collective projects. anything else is at best merely choosing between the choices others have made for you - and usually you don't even get that, just "obey or suffer the consequences".

Which is what socialism/communism is all about: obey. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what the collective says. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what society says. Obey. Obey. Obey.

Which is what socialism/communism is all about: obey. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what the collective says. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what society says. Obey. Obey. Obey.

I know. I'd so rather obey a boss obsessed with profit than a collective that I have a say in. :roll:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Which is what socialism/communism is all about: obey. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what the collective says. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what society says. Obey. Obey. Obey.

I know. I'd so rather obey a boss obsessed with profit than a collective that I have a say in.

And that means.....that you're whining because you don't get your own way.

Childish.

And that means.....that you're whining because you don't get your own way.

Childish.

So you'd rather be at the mercy of a boss than coöperate voluntarily.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

in order to have people work together on projects (be it a corporation or a collective or a commune or a decemberween party) there must be some collective decision making structure in place. to be without one would mean that collective action could not happen except by accident. so there really are only two basic options, minority decision making or majority decision making (ranging up to consensus decision making).

Or individual decision making in other cases.

In your way, you're still GOING TO HAVE SOME RULING OVER OTHERS. Can't escape that.

"anarcho"-capitalism explicitly proposes decision making by a tiny minority in every spehere of life

No, it doesn't. It proposes individual decision making.

If you want to talk about something, be informed about it and don't strawman.

when you have "individual decision making" on decisions that affect other people you have dictatorship. collective work require decisions that affect groups of people. either all of those people have a direct say in those decisions or they don't. and if they don't then clearly there are rulers and ruled, decision makers and order followers.

under anarcho-capitalism you've got a tiny minority of people that own the factories and own the distribution systems and own the housing and own the land and own the law itself. so you've got a tiny minority of people making all the big important decisions about how to run the society, decisions that massively affect everyone. and the vast majority of people will get to individually choose between pepsi and coke, individually choose between the choices that are presented to them by the rich and powerful. fuck that.

because it keeps and radically expands capitalist property relations.

You mean property ownership itself?

no, i mean capitalist property relations. there are other ways that a society could handle ownership and control of capital. capitalist property rights were not sent by god down from heaven. they were created.

we are left with decision making by everyone. of course straight majority rule wouldn't be much better than minority rule for freedom (but it is still better, just not by much), because then the majority could just impose its will on everyone else and force them to go along with it.

Which is why socialism/communism != freedom.

which means we have to get rid of the 'rule' bit. which leads us to working towards consensus and protecting the ability of dissenters to dissent without being forced to go along with the majority.

Not possible in a socialist/communist society. They MUST because "society wills it" and that's how things will be done!

a form of majority decision making is the only possible path of freedom within collective projects. anything else is at best merely choosing between the choices others have made for you - and usually you don't even get that, just "obey or suffer the consequences".

Which is what socialism/communism is all about: obey. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what the collective says. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what society says. Obey. Obey. Obey.

that may be the case under statist conceptions of socialism, but it doesn't hold for anarchism. of course you do what the collective says. you are part of the collective, and what you say is part of what the collective says. and if you strenuously object to what the rest of the collective wants, you can not take part in that particular instance. or leave that collective for some other collective. you are part of the collective, but the collective does not own you. free association and equality are the keys. 'anarcho'-capitalism at best offers free association (though it's version of it looks like a hollow farce to me). but free association without equality merely means choosing between masters. freedom is more than that.

in an 'anarcho'-capitalist firm you must obey the arbitrary orders of the boss or suffer the consequences. you have no input into the nature and content of those orders what so ever. you must merely obey. and every 'anarcho'-capitalist firm will be the same. follow orders. do what you are told. conform. obey. or take your punishment. and to get from your house to that firm, you'll have to use somebody else's roads. they will have rules that you will have to follow on their roads. rules you have no say in. obey. obey. obey or be punished. and in your apartment you will be subject to the absolute rule of the landlord and the private law that the landlord chooses for you, with no power and no control other than being able to choose a different landlord. but one landlord is much the same as another. obey. obey and conform. obey or be punished. or maybe you'll get a loan from the 'anarcho'-capitalist bank to buy your own house. but first you must agree to the terms of the loan from the bank. which means agreeing to the private law chosen by the bank owner (and created by him and his buddies). which you will have to obey. obey. obey or be punished.

'anarcho'-capitalism has infinitely more obeying to it than anarchism. it won't even be libertarian. it would just be privatized tyranny - but with the 'freedom' to choose between a few different tyrants. at least until some real anarchists organize against it and destroy it. freedom invovles power over your life and the decisions that affect it. freedom requires equality. 'anarcho'-capitalism grants 'freedom' without respect to the power relations. and that only means that the powerful are 'free' to exploit and rule the powerless through their monopoly hold on the vital parts of society.

The words "rule by force" come to mind.

It won't be necessary, anyway. They'd have no motivation as they'd get everything they need by coöperating. Their only possible motivation is power.



Power is a pretty good motivator. And herein lies the problem with EVERY possible political and socio-economic structure. There will always be people involved, and you can never, ever make everybody cooperate.

I'm not saying that anarchism is a bad idea, at least it wouldn't be any worse than what we've got now. But there will be people who manipulate themselves into positions of "power" in a way that is an overall benifit to the general population and as such they won't face much oposition.

To suggest that worker control over production is all well and good, but all the same it can't oppose laws of supply and demand. Simply put capitalism WILL take place on some level in an anarchist society because people are greedy. If someone makes a superior product than someone else they will be sought out more often for that product and therefore have more goods and services at their disposal.

And asserting that we can somehow convice all of humanity to be compassionate, selfless, and cooperative is a pipe-dream. It'll never happen.

The words "rule by force" come to mind.

It won't be necessary, anyway. They'd have no motivation as they'd get everything they need by coöperating. Their only possible motivation is power.



Power is a pretty good motivator. And herein lies the problem with EVERY possible political and socio-economic structure. There will always be people involved, and you can never, ever make everybody cooperate.

I'm not saying that anarchism is a bad idea, at least it wouldn't be any worse than what we've got now. But there will be people who manipulate themselves into positions of "power" in a way that is an overall benifit to the general population and as such they won't face much oposition.

To suggest that worker control over production is all well and good, but all the same it can't oppose laws of supply and demand. Simply put capitalism WILL take place on some level in an anarchist society because people are greedy. If someone makes a superior product than someone else they will be sought out more often for that product and therefore have more goods and services at their disposal.

And asserting that we can somehow convice all of humanity to be compassionate, selfless, and cooperative is a pipe-dream. It'll never happen.

alright, i've had enough arguing with outsiders. we've got developments in the movement. so read it and post your thoughts. and if you've got something to say that you want even more anarchists to read, go to the infoshop.org page here:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/01/01/0303286


Draft Proposal for a Continental Anti-Authoritarian Anti-Capitalist Network

North America – January 1, 2004

On this tenth anniversary of the emergence of the Zapatistas from the Lacandon jungle, we call for the formation of a continental anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist network for North America. Our movements for liberation and freedom have met many challenges and our resistance continues to grow. It is now time to organize ourselves better through a de-centralized continental network of anti-capitalists.

We are everywhere, and yet we remain alienated from each other. Confined to the margins of our communities, we live our daily lives without evidence of daily resistance. We know that we are everywhere. In the margins of cyberspace, we constantly communicate. On the city's walls, we scrawl our slogans. At the barricades, we lock eyes, knowing exactly why we are there: social revolution. We want a world free from capitalism and institutional hierarchy.

We see that the class war being waged against the working class and the poor is growing ever more intense. The U.S. Empire is literally destroying the planet. The Empire has made it clear that they will use endless amounts of capital to finance war regardless of the costs to working people. Not only are these wars for Empire being waged with the lives of the working class, but the Empire is conducting blatant assaults on the working class via cuts in the social safety net, tax cuts, downsizing, outsourcing, and the corporate defrauding of workers' retirement, health care, and other benefits. The recent events in Miami showed us that the regime will pursue economic empire and neocolonialism by assaulting not just the working class and people of color in other countries, but very much also here in the U.S. using military might and violence to do so. The U.S. Empire speaks hollow words about terrorism, yet fails to act against white supremacy in our police departments, the continued use of the racist death penalty, the criminalization of drugs, institutional racism in distribution of wealth, terrorism against the homeless and people without papers, and violence against women and lesbian-gay-bi-transgendered folks. The U.S. Empire continues to build its police state complete with PATRIOT Acts, the militarization of the police in major cities, COINTELPRO programs against dissenters, constant surveillance, Orange Alert fear-mongering--all leading to greater public awareness of the true nature of the State and growing discontent with it.

We have no choice but to fight back, and by putting forward an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist analysis and making our resistance visible, more and more people will join the struggle.

Seattle, in 1999, marked the popular appearance of our movement. Yet, our struggle precedes Seattle and extends far beyond the United States. We oppose capitalist globalization while celebrating the globalization of resistance to capitalism. We belong to a protest movement. We choke on tear gas, curl from striking batons, dodge rubber bullets. When they march, we dance. When the ruling class announces the date and location of its next toast to capitalist domination, we converge to tear down their cowardly fences.

Since 1999, we in North America have consistently mobilized against capitalist summits, including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement, and the World Economic Forum. Our strategy has been to confront the administrators of global capitalism wherever they meet. For a while, this strategy appeared to be yielding positive results. Even if we were not altering the progress of global capitalism, we were certainly inspiring great interest in our movement- interest which was reflected in the attention we received and still receive from corporate media and law enforcement. The strategy of protesting summits also sustained the momentum of our movement. The impact of momentum arguably culminated in July 2001 with the widescale rioting in Genova and the death of Carlo Guliani. The following September, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were scheduled to meet in Washington, DC. An unprecedented buzz, many will remember, surrounded these protests.

Then, September 11th, 2001.

While the fundamental organization of our society- based upon capitalism and hierarchy - has proceeded uninterrupted since September 11th, the levels of violence and suffering which result from this organization (mess) have only become more extreme, both domestically and worldwide. Yet, our movement has mostly failed to adapt to the changes in our world since September 11th. In January, 2002, we boldly confronted the World Economic Forum in midtown Manhattan, just months after the attacks, just miles from Ground Zero. We were greeted by a formidable police-state which even used an ancient statute to forbid our wearing of masks. In January 2002, on the cold streets of Manhattan, we should have realized that our strategy needed to adjust itself to the post-911 climate.

Fast forward. Two years later, we meet in the streets of Miami. We recall the spirit of Seattle and Quebec City and Cancun. At the front lines, our understanding of the world crystallizes in a familiar spectacle: a sensationalist media hungry for a riot, an overbearing show of force by authorities, union members unwilling to embrace confrontation, liberals encouraging peace and calm, and angry young white kids dressed in black. After everybody returns home, we write and read furious critiques of the protests. We even find ourselves shocked by the extremity of police brutality. We convince ourselves that we won a small battle, that we are winning, that we will win.

We may be winning.

If we are indeed winning, we must consider the blunders of the ruling class- some might prefer to call it the 'crisis of global capitalism' - as a significant reason. Before September 11th, we often had to convince others that something was not entirely correct within America, that we lived in a decadent, violent society. Now, few Americans would disagree with this assertion. The system is rotten; now, we witness the process of rotting. It's in the headlines: interminable warfare, the layoffs, the corporate scandal, the erosion of civil liberties, the failure of the press, the corruption.

The most pressing challenge, then, for our movement, is how we should proceed in these volatile times. The strategy of summit-hopping, alone, cannot sustain a true movement for social revolution. If we must rely upon the ruling class to set the dates and locations of our manifestation, then we will remain an inherently reactive movement. If we rely upon moderate protest organizations to set the dates and obtain the permits to the protests that we attend, then we will remain marginalized as 'a fringe element' conducting 'break-away marches'.

Until now, anarchists and anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists in North America have lived as alienated fragments, relying upon mass mobilizations to make our greater existence evident to ourselves. Until now, reaching beyond the ghettos of our radicalism has proven extremely difficult. In the streets, we hide our faces. In cyberspace, we hide our names. How might we, as anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists and anarchists, establish trust and solidarity--with organized labor, for example--when our collective identity is plagued by the popular portrayal of corporate media and the anonymity that we require of ourselves?

It is in the belief that we can best extend and escalate our resistance if we maintain constant communication, coordination, and support throughout North America, that a continental network is hereby proposed, with the ultimate goal of creating social revolution in North America promoted by the following means:

- organizing protests and actions on our own terms
- agitating, utilizing various forms of media and distribution, street-level propaganda
- building relationships with local communities and groups
- supporting comrades in need of legal/fundraising
- sharing skills, such as medical training, self-defense, communication (i.e. low power radio), and technology
- intervening in ongoing struggles, such as strikes and labor unrest

The organizing principles for such a network would presumably mirror those used by People's Global Action. These organizing principles can be read at the following URL:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/cocha/principles.htm

Some of you may ask the question: who is behind this call? We are several anti-capitalists who have collaborated to write this call. The next steps are now up to you and your friends. The creation of this network—if it happens—will be up to the people who read this call, agree to it’s spirit and direction, and organize with other anti-capitalists to make its vision a reality.

The proposal of a continental network surfaces now because echoes within the movement and critiques of the movement, indicate that we live in urgent times which are ripe for revolutionary thought and social change within North America, and that we are not doing enough to promote revolutionary thought and social change. The proposal of a continental network assumes that individuals and groups, from coast to coast, are willing to participate in the creation, formation, and sustenance of a continental network.

We are everywhere.
Now let's prove it.

Please copy and distribute widely for suggestions, objections, and discussion.

If you can translate this call into additional languages for us, please contact us at deathofcats@ziplip.com.

This document is being discussed at the following web page:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/01/01/0303286

------------------

NOTES ON THE PROPOSED NETWORK

Meetings to Set Up Network

This network can only work if we meet face-to-face. We propose that a series of regional meetings happen in early 2004 that would set the groundwork for the first continental meeting in late 2004. For example, regional meetings could be called for Western Canada, Southern Mexico, Northern Mexico, American Southwest, the Great Plains, and so on. It’s up to those of you who agree to this call to arrange these meetings—there is no current coordinating committee to organize these meetings for you.

Many Currents in the Anti-Capitalist Struggle

This continental network is not being organized to be THE organizer of anti-capitalism in North America. It must be recognized that there are going to be groups and individuals who desire to continue their work without participating in a continental network. The real threat of government repression also stipulates that a continental network not be the only voice in the growing clamor against international capitalism. Just as we fight against the capitalist monoculture on our farms, so must we be wary of any continental organization that puts too many eggs in one anti-capitalist basket.

The Many Faces of Our Struggle

It is all too easy for those of us who are in anti-capitalists in the United States to think that our activism and dissent is the center of the universe. As dissenters in the heart of American Empire, it is our duty to model another world that is possible by fighting the hegemony of American political dissent on other anti-capitalist struggles around the continent. This network will conduct its business in the many languages of the continent as much as possible. We will prioritize the everyday struggles of people of color around the continent and remind ourselves that North America includes Mexico and the areas of North America that look more like the Global South than our rich, comfortable U.S. suburbs.

Organizational

We propose that this network closely follow the excellent model used by People’s Global Action that prioritizes communication and facilitation over organization building. Like PGA this network will serve as “an instrument for co-ordination, not an organization.” This continental anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist network will only work if it serves to empower grassroots anti-capitalists and not the movement politicians and cliques that seek to use our networks and organizations to manipulate us. It’s also important that the internal work of maintaining and forming the network not take time or work from the external work of fighting capitalism.

E-mail list

Comments about this proposal can be posted to Infoshop News and/or the acc-intl@lists.mutualaid.org mailing list. A working list for this network will be set up soon.

And that means.....that you're whining because you don't get your own way.

Childish.

So you'd rather be at the mercy of a boss than coöperate voluntarily.

At the mercy of a boss? What a silly thing to say.

Does the "boss" force you to work there?

At the mercy of a boss? What a silly thing to say.

Does the "boss" force you to work there?

With the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power.

"hey, wanna start a band? mr. moneybags and the anarcho-capitalist band. we'll have songs entitled "whose streets? my streets!" and "freedom (to privatize everything)"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

"anarcho"-capitalism explicitly proposes decision making by a tiny minority in every spehere of life

No, it doesn't. It proposes individual decision making.

If you want to talk about something, be informed about it and don't strawman.

when you have "individual decision making" on decisions that affect other people you have dictatorship.

I have a decision to make.

I want to decide where to eat lunch.

I can choose from a myriad of places.

I choose, for instance, McDonalds.

That choice, multiplied over time, affects other people.

Am I a dictator?

NO!

QED.

collective work require decisions that affect groups of people. either all of those people have a direct say in those decisions or they don't. and if they don't then clearly there are rulers and ruled, decision makers and order followers.

Which is what socialism/communism has.

under anarcho-capitalism you've got a tiny minority of people that own the factories and own the distribution systems and own the housing and own the land and own the law itself.

You've got people who own factories. You've got people who own houses. You've got people who own land. You've got people who own trucks and such. You've got privately-produced legal codes which are purchased.

so you've got a tiny minority of people making all the big important decisions about how to run the society,

No, you don't. You're forgetting: they can't do anything without the other consumers. And if people don't like something that is produced, they won't buy it. Surely, you're not FORCED to eat at McDonalds, are you? You can go elsewhere or stay at home, can't you? Surely you must realize that.

Big, huge, major flaw on your part. Maybe you should go back and think before you post.

decisions that massively affect everyone. and the vast majority of people will get to individually choose between pepsi and coke, individually choose between the choices that are presented to them by the rich and powerful. f--- that.

They are free to purchase or abstain or go into business for themselves as they see fit. You wish to deprive them of that ability. F--- that. THAT is dictatorship, m'laddio.

because it keeps and radically expands capitalist property relations.

You mean property ownership itself?

no, i mean capitalist property relations.

Meaning?

there are other ways that a society could handle ownership and control of capital.

And none of them work.

capitalist property rights were not sent by god down from heaven. they were created.

And?

Did you have a point?

If so, please make it.

[snip]



a form of majority decision making is the only possible path of freedom within collective projects. anything else is at best merely choosing between the choices others have made for you - and usually you don't even get that, just "obey or suffer the consequences".

Which is what socialism/communism is all about: obey. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what the collective says. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what society says. Obey. Obey. Obey.

that may be the case under statist conceptions of socialism, but it doesn't hold for anarchism.

The only way to have socialism w/o a state is in VERY SMALL communities. Otherwise, a state is required to make the decisions about what will be produced and where and by whom.

of course you do what the collective says. you are part of the collective, and what you say is part of what the collective says.

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

and if you strenuously object to what the rest of the collective wants, you can not take part in that particular instance. or leave that collective for some other collective. you are part of the collective, but the collective does not own you. free association and equality are the keys. 'anarcho'-capitalism at best offers free association (though it's version of it looks like a hollow farce to me).

So being able to choose where you want to work is a hollow farce? Being able to choose where to live is a hollow farce? Being able to choose where to bank is a hollow farce? Being able to choose what to eat is a hollow farce? Being able to choose your doctor is a hollow farce? Being able to choose your court is a hollow farce?

Want me to continue, or have you had it thrown in your face enough?

but free association without equality merely means choosing between masters.

No masters. Just freely-chosen contracts.

freedom is more than that.

It sure as hell isn't your newspeak for freedom, which really is slavery.

In an 'anarcho'-capitalist firm you must obey the arbitrary orders of the boss or suffer the consequences.

Arbitrary?

Proves you don't know what the hell you're talking about right there.

you have no input into the nature and content of those orders what so ever. you must merely obey.

In socialism and communism, you must obey society/the collective's arbitrary whims. You have no input if you dissent. You must merely obey. If you agree, you are ruling over those who don't agree. Thus, they must obey you. You are their boss.

See how it gets turned right around on you?

and every 'anarcho'-capitalist firm will be the same. follow orders. do what you are told. conform. obey. or take your punishment.

Just like socialism and communism. Obey the collective. Obey society.

and to get from your house to that firm, you'll have to use somebody else's roads. they will have rules that you will have to follow on their roads. rules you have no say in. obey. obey. obey or be punished. and in your apartment you will be subject to the absolute rule of the landlord and the private law that the landlord chooses for you, with no power and no control other than being able to choose a different landlord. but one landlord is much the same as another. obey. obey and conform. obey or be punished. or maybe you'll get a loan from the 'anarcho'-capitalist bank to buy your own house. but first you must agree to the terms of the loan from the bank. which means agreeing to the private law chosen by the bank owner (and created by him and his buddies). which you will have to obey. obey. obey or be punished.

Obey society or be punished. Obey the collective or be punished.

You're not really making a point.

And you're conflating force with freely-chosen contracts. Silly you.

'anarcho'-capitalism has infinitely more obeying to it than anarchism.

Nah. You're now just thinking that anarchy is chaos, which is what you really want.

You really have no clue, do you? You just spout some sort of inane teenage-angst view of anarchy and think that it's correct.

Boy, are you in for a shock.

At the mercy of a boss? What a silly thing to say.

Does the "boss" force you to work there?

With the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power.

Does he?

Care to show it?

Didn't think so.

Nice try, bumper-sticker.

In socialism and communism, you must obey society/the collective's arbitrary whims. You have no input if you dissent. You must merely obey. If you agree, you are ruling over those who don't agree. Thus, they must obey you. You are their boss.

:roll: You have a say in what the decision is. If you don't like it, you can leave.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

In socialism and communism, you must obey society/the collective's arbitrary whims. You have no input if you dissent. You must merely obey. If you agree, you are ruling over those who don't agree. Thus, they must obey you. You are their boss.

:roll: You have a say in what the decision is. If you don't like it, you can leave.

And if you don't like what your boss is doing you can find another job. And if you don't like what some business has to offer, you can shop elsewhere. And if you don't like what the police agency you've contracted with is doing, you can find another one.

Pretty easy.

As far as leaving the collective---tends to be frowned upon by the collective. History shows this. Big time.

here's an article that I found that should be helpfull to those who want to know what Anarchism is


Defining Anarchism

Anarchism has been defined many ways by many different sources. The word
anarchism is taken from the word anarchy which is drawn from dual sources in
the Greek language. It is made up of the Greek words av (meaning: absence of
[and pronounced "an"] and apxn (meaning: authority or government [and
pronounced "arkhe"]). Today, dictionary definitions still define anarchism
as the absence of government. These modern dictionary definitions of
anarchism are based on the writings and actions of anarchists of history and
present. Anarchists understand, as do historians of anarchism and good
dictionaries and encyclopedias, that the word anarchism represents a
positive theory. Exterior sources, however, such as the media, will
frequently misuse the word anarchism and, thus, breed misunderstanding.

A leading modern dictionary, Webster's Third International Dictionary,
defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to
all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary
cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to
satisfy their needs." Other dictionaries describe anarchism with similar
definitions. The Britannica-Webster dictionary defines the word anarchism
as, "a political theory that holds all government authority to be
unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary
cooperation of individuals and groups." Shorter dictionaries, such as the
New Webster Handy College Dictionary, define anarchism as, "the political
doctrine that all governments should be abolished."

These similar dictionary definitions of anarchism reflect the evolution of
the theory of anarchism made possible by anarchist intellectuals and
movements. As a result, dictionary definitions, although fair, only reflect
watered down definitions of the word anarchism. Professor Noam Chomsky, in
fact, has refuted the definition, as written in the New American Webster
Handy College Dictionary, describing anarchism as a "political doctrine."
According to Chomsky, "...anarchism isn't a doctrine. It's at most a
historical tendency, a tendency of thought and action, which has many
different ways of developing and progressing and which, I would think, will
continue as a permanent strand of human history." Other modern definitions
of anarchism are thoroughly explained, not as a word, but as a history of
movements, people and ideas. The Encyclopedia of the American Left, in fact,
gives a three page history of anarchism, yet does not once define the word.

Prior to the existence of the word anarchism people used the term
"Libertarian Socialism," which meant the same thing as anarchism.
Libertarian socialism was used largely by Mexican radicals in the early
eighteenth century. William Godwin was the first proclaimed anarchist in
history and the first to write about anarchism. He was born in 1756 in
Weisbech, the capital of North Cambridgeshire. He later married feminist
Mary Wollstonecraft and had a daughter, Mary Shelley - author of
Frankenstein. Godwin published a book called Political Justice in 1793 which
first introduced his ideas about anarchism, Godwin was forgotten about,
however, and after his death Pierre Joseph Proudhon became a leading
anarchist figure in the world. His book What is Property? incorporated
greater meaning to the word anarchism; anarchism became not only a rejection
of established authority but a theory opposing ownership of land and
property as well.

Anarchism fully blossomed as a defined theory when Russian anarchists
Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921 started to write
and speak. Bakunin had a major influence in the world and introduced
anarchism to many people. Kropotkin was one of the many people inspired by
Bakunin. Kropotkin wrote many books on anarchism, including Muitual Aid,
Fields Factories and Workshops, and The Conquest of Bread, and greatly aided
in the evolution of the theory of anarchism. Kropotkin wrote the first adept
encyclopedia definition of anarchism in the eleventh edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica in 1910. His definition was fifteen pages long. He
started the definition by introducing the word anarchism as:

the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under
which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a
society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience
to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various
groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the
sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction
of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a
civilized being, In a society developed on these lines, the
voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields
of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to
substitute themselves for the state of its functions.

Following Kropotkin, Leo Tolstory furthered the ideas which make up the
meaning of the word anarchism. Tolstoy introduced Christian anarchism
(rejecting church authority but believing in God) and broadened anarchism's
meaning. Tolstoy, in favor of the growth of anarchism, wrote "The anarchists
are right in the assertion that, without Authority, there could not be worse
violence than that of Authority under existing conditions."

As the 20th century emerged anarchism began to peak and the definition of
anarchism became concrete with the growth of new anarchist writers and
movements. The execution and imprisonment of eight anarchists in Chicago in
1886 sparked anarchism's growth in the United States. The "Haymarket Eight"
flourished anarchists such as Voltairine de Cleyre and Lucy Parsons. Parsons
was born into slavery and later became an anarchist and an ardent speaker
and working class rebel; the Chicago police labled Parsons, "...more
dangerous than a thousand rioters." Emma Goldman also became a part of the
anarchist movement due to the Chicago Martyrs. Described as a "damn bitch of
an anarchist," Goldman also broadened the meaning of anarchism and
introduced the greatest and most important ideas of anarchist feminism in
history which prevail, as a result of Goldman, to this day.

Emma Goldman's life long comrade, Alexander Berkman, played a major part in
helping to define the word anarchism. He wrote a book called ABC of
Anarchism which defined and describes anarchism and is still read today.
Berkman wrote, "Anarchism means you should be free; that no one should
enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means you should be
free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled
to do what you do not want to do."

Anarchism was put into action by giant movements throughout history which
proved its definition was more than theoretical. The communal efforts of
anarchism were seen in the Paris Commune in the early 19th century, the
revolutionary organizing of Mexican working class rebels was proven possible
by anarchists such as Ricardo Flores Magon and revolutionaries like Emiliano
Zapata, and the Spanish Revolution of 1936-39 proved anarchists' capability
of creating anarchism within small sectors of the world. Certainly today we
can see anarchism in action in places like Mondragon, Spain, where
anarchists are working in collectives and trying to live free of authority.

Although the word anarchism is understood by many in its classic sense (that
defined by dictionaries and by anarchists of history), the word is often
misused and misunderstood. Anarchism, because of the threat it imposes upon
established authority, has been historically, and is still, misused by power
holders as violence and chaos. As anarchist historian George Woodcock put
it, "Of the more frivolous is the idea that the anarchist is a man who
throws bombs and wishes to wreak society by violence and terror. That this
charge should be brought against anarchists now, at a time when they are the
few people who are not throwing bombs or assisting bomb throwers, shows a
curious purblindness among its champions." The claim that anarchism is chaos
was refuted long ago by Alexander Berkman when he wrote:

I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not. It is not
bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery or murder. It is not
a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarianism or
to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all
that.

These refutations of stereotypes associated with anarchism are sometimes
trampled by the popular misuse of the word anarchism. It is not uncommon for
a Middle Eastern nation in the midst of U.S.-imposed turmoil to be labeled
by the media as "complete anarchy," a phrase which undermines the true
definition of the word anarchism and all those who toiled, and who do toil,
to make the word anarchism mean what it does today.

Modern anarchists still work hard to help anarchism maintain its validity
and history. Anarchism today is being used to find solutions to the problems
of power; not just state power, but corporate power and all immediate forms
of domination among individuals and organizations. Anarchists such as L.
Susan Brown have introduced ideas such as existential individualism, while
other anarchists remain loyal to anarcho-syndicalism and class struggle.
Anarchism has also been spread around the world through music and bands such
as Crass, introducing anarchism and anti-speciesism and urging
self-sufficiency among workers and community members. Other anarchists such
as Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, an ex-Black Panther, are introducing new means of
organizing and directly challenging racism. Furthermore, anarchism has
become integrated into ecological issues thanks in part to eco-anarchist
ideas and freethinking organizations such as Earth First! Also, we see
anarchists working to keep anarchism, in theory and practice, alive and well
around the world with anarchist newspapers such as Love and Rage in Mexico
and the United States, anarchist book publishers such as AK Press in the
U.S. and the U.K., and political prisoner support groups such as the
Anarchist Black Cross.

As documented, the word anarchism has a long history. Although the word is
simply derived from Greek tongue, the philosophy and actions of anarchists
in history and present give the word anarchism proper definition. Dictionary
definitions, as quoted, are sometimes fair to anarchism, but far from
complete. The misuse of the word anarchism is unfortunate and has been a
problem anarchists have had to deal with for the last century. Because of
the misuse of anarchism, the simple dictionary definitions of anarchism, and
the different interpretations of anarchism the word can take on many
meanings, but the truly accurate meaning of the word anarchism can be found
in anarchist history, anarchist writings and anarchist practice.

THE NEXT MOVE IS YOURS
Written by Jason Justice
PLEASE REPRINT AND DISTRIBUTE

With the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power.

Does he?

Care to show it?

Didn't think so.

Nice try, bumper-sticker.

So, BAAWA, you appear to be arguing that either (a) the power of business is in no way affected by the existence of government, or (b) the existence of government lessens the limits on power of business. Really? Surely the existence of a single piece of legislation, whether it be the legislation that stipulates that businesses operate in premises with fire safety certificates or the existence of the sex-discrimination act shows you to be mistaken. No?

As far as leaving the collective---tends to be frowned upon by the collective. History shows this. Big time.

Unless you're watching Best of Both Worlds in Star Trek, that is a highly flawed argument. How many collectives can you name?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Anarchists blow the big one.

Don't turn a light argument on whether women with hips as narrow as their waists are attractive into an attack on a political ideology.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.
Learn that trying that means you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents cannot make decisions for the children because that is to RULE over them. Socialism and communism fail because SOMEONE has to decide SOMEHOW as to what to make and how to make it, which is to RULE over someone else's ideas.

Silly you. Think of the logical extension of what you're trying to say. Don't make me hit you with another reductio ad absurdum again.
Learn that trying that *doesn't* mean you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure.
I proved that it does.
No you didn't - you just claimed it!

Socialism and communism don't fail because they don't require individuals or privileged groups to decide for others what to make and how to make it, which is to rule over someone else's ideas; instead they can be agreed upon collectively.
Which means a group of individuals decides what to make and how to make it, which is to rule over those who don't want to do it that way.
No, 'collective agreement' means that everyone agrees, after discussion taking into account everyone's input. Where there is disagreement some compromise or adjustment needs to be made.

THINK!

Don't make me have to keep hitting you with that blatant fact.
Part of the problem with your approach is that you keep talking as tho you *know* what you believe, whereas actually it's just your opinion.

We have done. We're teaching *you* what it is.
*laughs*

Suuuuuuuuuuure you are.

Left-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.
Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Right-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.
*yawn*

Wake me when you have something of value.
*yawn*

Ditto.

What will make people do unpleasant work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Corporations would become governments that also turned profit on the side.
They would not become governments. Governments are monopolistic entities claiming the exclusive use of legitimate force within a given territory. There would be no way to gain a monopoly like that without a pre-extant government, since ONLY a government may grant and enforce a coercive monopoly (this is the type everyone thinks of when they hear "monopoly". There are, of course, two types: natural and coercive.)
What does 'legitimate' mean here?
Main Entry: 1le·git·i·mate
Pronunciation: li-'ji-t&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law
Date: 15th century
1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <legitimate advertising expenditure> <legitimate inference>
5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·git·i·mate·ly adverb
This is typical of a certain kind of mind - you've dumped a dictionary entry into your post without any reference as to which bits are relevant to our debate.

With the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power.

Does he?

Care to show it?

Didn't think so.

Nice try, bumper-sticker.

So, BAAWA, you appear to be arguing that either (a) the power of business is in no way affected by the existence of government, or (b) the existence of government lessens the limits on power of business.

Or c) that government imposes needless regulations, increases the cost of doing business, causes resources to be expended in areas where they should not, and generally sends false signals to the market by creating avenues that never should be.

IOW: false dichotomy.

Really? Surely the existence of a single piece of legislation, whether it be the legislation that stipulates that businesses operate in premises with fire safety certificates or the existence of the sex-discrimination act shows you to be mistaken. No?

No.

Corporations would become governments that also turned profit on the side.
They would not become governments. Governments are monopolistic entities claiming the exclusive use of legitimate force within a given territory. There would be no way to gain a monopoly like that without a pre-extant government, since ONLY a government may grant and enforce a coercive monopoly (this is the type everyone thinks of when they hear "monopoly". There are, of course, two types: natural and coercive.)
What does 'legitimate' mean here?
Main Entry: 1le·git·i·mate
Pronunciation: li-'ji-t&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law
Date: 15th century
1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <legitimate advertising expenditure> <legitimate inference>
5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>
synonym see LAWFUL
- le·git·i·mate·ly adverb

This is typical of a certain kind of mind - you've dumped a dictionary entry into your post without any reference as to which bits are relevant to our debate.

The whole thing. That's why it's there.

And, typical of your cowardly type, you snipped the rest.

Thanks for playing, bumper-sticker.

As far as leaving the collective---tends to be frowned upon by the collective. History shows this. Big time.

Unless you're watching Best of Both Worlds in Star Trek, that is a highly flawed argument. How many collectives can you name?

USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Albania, Romania....

Want me to continue?

Care to tell me how easy it was to get permission to emigrate from the USSR? Please, tell me it was easy so I can laugh at you. I'd love to.

Learn that anarchism is opposed to all forms of rule, not just government.
Learn that trying that means you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure. The parents cannot make decisions for the children because that is to RULE over them. Socialism and communism fail because SOMEONE has to decide SOMEHOW as to what to make and how to make it, which is to RULE over someone else's ideas.

Silly you. Think of the logical extension of what you're trying to say. Don't make me hit you with another reductio ad absurdum again.
Learn that trying that *doesn't* mean you get rid of socialism, communism, and the family structure.
I proved that it does.
No you didn't - you just claimed it!

No, I showed it. Notice that I gave reasons why socialism and communism fail as anarchism, and how in a family structure there is authority and heirarchy.

If you wish to deny it, that's fine. It won't change the fact that I did.

Socialism and communism don't fail because they don't require individuals or privileged groups to decide for others what to make and how to make it, which is to rule over someone else's ideas; instead they can be agreed upon collectively.
Which means a group of individuals decides what to make and how to make it, which is to rule over those who don't want to do it that way.

No, 'collective agreement' means that everyone agrees, after discussion taking into account everyone's input. Where there is disagreement some compromise or adjustment needs to be made.

Compromise=someone getting overruled.

OOOOOOOPS! Too bad for you.

THINK!

Don't make me have to keep hitting you with that blatant fact.

Part of the problem with your approach is that you keep talking as tho you *know* what you believe, whereas actually it's just your opinion.

Whereas it's fact.

Get back to me when you've read Rothbard and the Tannehills.

What will make people do unpleasant work?

And you don't know Marx' answer?

And you don't know Marx' answer?

Not Marxist.

USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Albania, Romania....

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

And you don't know Marx' answer?

Not Marxist.

Didn't say you were. I just commented that you didn't.

USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Albania, Romania....

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

They were communist. Collectives. Like it or not.

You love the NTS fallacy.

Do mine eyes decieve me or is there another anarcho-capitalist in the house?

They were communist. Collectives. Like it or not.

You love the NTS fallacy.

They called themselves communist, but that doesn't mean they were. What is the no true Scotsman fallacy, anyway?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

They were communist. Collectives. Like it or not.

You love the NTS fallacy.

we are not talking about the damn statist socialists or anything to do with them. we propose different structures entirely. we do not say of leninists and stalinists that "they aren't real anarchists". they actually aren't anarchists and have very little in common with us when it comes down to it. in order to be the scotsman fallacy we have to remove some people from a group they are obviously a part of for ad hoc reasons. but they are not part of the group we are discussing so you trying to put them in like that is fallacious. a lame attempt at guilt by association really.

What is the no true Scotsman fallacy, anyway?


from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/No-true-Scotsman

The "no true Scotsman" argument is an argument of the form: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory to the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Some behaviors are actually contradictory to the label; "no true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the definition of "vegetarian".

which, of course, explains why its stupid to conflate statist socialists with anarchists and try to claim "no true scotsman" fallacy when anarchists disassociate themselves from them.

I see. Before baawa interrupts us, what will make people do unpleasant work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

i'd assume that number one, we would get rid of as much unpleasant work as possible. whatever was left that was essential would probably be dealt with through some sort of rotation system. something like everybody in the community has to do 1 day a month of "shit work".

I see. Before baawa interrupts us, what will make people do unpleasant work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.What makes you clean your house?

What will ensure that people do it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What will ensure that people do it?

the same thing that ensures that the garbage gets taken out eventually. if it has to be done, it has to be done. and if some one isn't doing their fair share, other people get sort of resentful and tend to let them know.

They were communist. Collectives. Like it or not.

You love the NTS fallacy.

They called themselves communist, but that doesn't mean they were. What is the no true Scotsman fallacy, anyway?

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots

"The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertion; you might call it a combination of fallacies."

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

They were communist. Collectives. Like it or not.

You love the NTS fallacy.

we are not talking about the damn statist socialists or anything to do with them.

Certainly we are. I don't know where you have been, but we certainly are.

we propose different structures entirely. we do not say of leninists and stalinists that "they aren't real anarchists". they actually aren't anarchists and have very little in common with us when it comes down to it.

This wasn't about statism/anarchism. The NTS was that they weren't "true communist/collectivist".

Perhaps you ought to learn how to read and comprehend English.

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

They were communist. Collectives. Like it or not.

You love the NTS fallacy.

we are not talking about the damn statist socialists or anything to do with them.

Certainly we are. I don't know where you have been, but we certainly are.

we propose different structures entirely. we do not say of leninists and stalinists that "they aren't real anarchists". they actually aren't anarchists and have very little in common with us when it comes down to it.

This wasn't about statism/anarchism. The NTS was that they weren't "true communist/collectivist".

Perhaps you ought to learn how to read and comprehend English.

I"m not sure this is really a good example of a NTS fallacy... I would assume the anarcho-socialists would define their philosophy (and consequently the terms commune or collective) in such a way that those practiced historically by state socialists would not really be 'communes' at all. It seems obvious, to me, that as anarchists clearly the supporters of this line of thought would certainly reject any form of collectivism which predicates hierarchical control.

we are not talking about the damn statist socialists or anything to do with them.

Certainly we are. I don't know where you have been, but we certainly are.

we propose different structures entirely. we do not say of leninists and stalinists that "they aren't real anarchists". they actually aren't anarchists and have very little in common with us when it comes down to it.

This wasn't about statism/anarchism. The NTS was that they weren't "true communist/collectivist".

Perhaps you ought to learn how to read and comprehend English.

you made it about statism vs anarchism by attempting to use examples of authoritarian statists against us - guilt by association is a fallacy. you are talking about the leninists and stalinists as if they were the same as anarchists. but we are talking about anarchism here. and when we talk about collectives and communes and such, we are talking about anarchist collectives and communes and such. after all, this is what you claimed was the scotsman fallacy:

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

we are making a real distinction based on theory and practice. no definitions have been equivocated on, and no assertions have been fixed by ad hoc exclusions. the term 'collective' when used in the context of anarchism definitionally excludes dictatorship. in fact, it refers to a specific functional unit of society (such as a book publishing collective), not society as a whole as you keep wanting to use it.

so perhaps you ought to understand the terms and ideas within the specific context being discussed (in this case the socialist political and social theory called anarchism) before running around shouting "the commies are coming, the commies are coming!"

With the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power.

Does he?

Care to show it?

Didn't think so.

Nice try, bumper-sticker.

So, BAAWA, you appear to be arguing that either (a) the power of business is in no way affected by the existence of government, or (b) the existence of government lessens the limits on power of business.

Or c) that government imposes needless regulations, increases the cost of doing business, causes resources to be expended in areas where they should not, and generally sends false signals to the market by creating avenues that never should be.

IOW: false dichotomy.

So, in defense of your assertion that "with the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power" is false, you assert that the existence of government limits the power of the boss.

Am I following correctly?

Your original position:
With the government gone the boss does not have less limits on his power.

Your supporting evidence:
With the government present the boss has more limits on his power.

Am I parsing this correctly? Or are you asserting that the extent of power of the boss just happens to be the same, whether government exists or not?

As far as leaving the collective---tends to be frowned upon by the collective. History shows this. Big time.

Well, in my personal experience working with collectives, there comes a time when collectives are only too happy for people to leave when they no longer fit into the collective.

we are not talking about the damn statist socialists or anything to do with them.

Certainly we are. I don't know where you have been, but we certainly are.

we propose different structures entirely. we do not say of leninists and stalinists that "they aren't real anarchists". they actually aren't anarchists and have very little in common with us when it comes down to it.

This wasn't about statism/anarchism. The NTS was that they weren't "true communist/collectivist".

Perhaps you ought to learn how to read and comprehend English.

you made it about statism vs anarchism by attempting to use examples of authoritarian statists against us - guilt by association is a fallacy.

Except that I did no such thing. I gave examples of collectives, and you don't like that. Tough. Get over yourself. Don't try to whine about it because I'm not interested in your pathetic little tripe.

you are talking about the leninists and stalinists as if they were the same as anarchists.

No, I was not.

but we are talking about anarchism here.

We were talking about collectives.

and when we talk about collectives and communes and such, we are talking about anarchist collectives and communes and such. after all, this is what you claimed was the scotsman fallacy:

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

we are making a real distinction based on theory and practice.

Yes: divorcing your words from reality. That's very bad.

no definitions have been equivocated on, and no assertions have been fixed by ad hoc exclusions. the term 'collective' when used in the context of anarchism definitionally excludes dictatorship. in fact, it refers to a specific functional unit of society (such as a book publishing collective), not society as a whole as you keep wanting to use it.

We were talking about collectives qua collectives.

Maybe you should READ.

Here's a copy of Dick and Jane Go To The Beach for you to start with.

With the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power.

Does he?

Care to show it?

Didn't think so.

Nice try, bumper-sticker.

So, BAAWA, you appear to be arguing that either (a) the power of business is in no way affected by the existence of government, or (b) the existence of government lessens the limits on power of business.

Or c) that government imposes needless regulations, increases the cost of doing business, causes resources to be expended in areas where they should not, and generally sends false signals to the market by creating avenues that never should be.

IOW: false dichotomy.

So, in defense of your assertion that "with the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power" is false, you assert that the existence of government limits the power of the boss.

No. I'm saying it increases it and/or creates inane rules that have no business being there.

Those were socialist dictatorships, not federations of communes or collectives as envisioned by anarchists.

They were communist. Collectives. Like it or not.

You love the NTS fallacy.

we are not talking about the damn statist socialists or anything to do with them.

Certainly we are. I don't know where you have been, but we certainly are.

we propose different structures entirely. we do not say of leninists and stalinists that "they aren't real anarchists". they actually aren't anarchists and have very little in common with us when it comes down to it.

This wasn't about statism/anarchism. The NTS was that they weren't "true communist/collectivist".

Perhaps you ought to learn how to read and comprehend English.

I"m not sure this is really a good example of a NTS fallacy... I would assume the anarcho-socialists would define their philosophy (and consequently the terms commune or collective) in such a way that those practiced historically by state socialists would not really be 'communes' at all. It seems obvious, to me, that as anarchists clearly the supporters of this line of thought would certainly reject any form of collectivism which predicates hierarchical control.

They can define it how they like. But when "that's not a true collective" is implicitly stated, that's NTS. And that's what was done.

Well, in my personal experience working with collectives, there comes a time when collectives are only too happy for people to leave when they no longer fit into the collective.

There are really collectives now?

This wasn't about statism/anarchism. The NTS was that they weren't "true communist/collectivist".

They don't fit the definition. It's not a fallacy, they simply aren't anarchist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

no definitions have been equivocated on, and no assertions have been fixed by ad hoc exclusions. the term 'collective' when used in the context of anarchism definitionally excludes dictatorship. in fact, it refers to a specific functional unit of society (such as a book publishing collective), not society as a whole as you keep wanting to use it.

We were talking about collectives qua collectives.

Maybe you should READ.

Here's a copy of Dick and Jane Go To The Beach for you to start with.

oh were we now? funny, i seem to recall this being entitled "the anarchist thread" and i also seem to recall you getting involved in this bit about collectives with me at first. it went something like this:

a form of majority decision making is the only possible path of freedom within collective projects. anything else is at best merely choosing between the choices others have made for you - and usually you don't even get that, just "obey or suffer the consequences".
Which is what socialism/communism is all about: obey. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what the collective says. Obey. Obey. Obey. Do what society says. Obey. Obey. Obey.
that may be the case under statist conceptions of socialism, but it doesn't hold for anarchism. of course you do what the collective says. you are part of the collective, and what you say is part of what the collective says. and if you strenuously object to what the rest of the collective wants, you can not take part in that particular instance. or leave that collective for some other collective. you are part of the collective, but the collective does not own you. free association and equality are the keys.

and then there is this other bit that came out of that string of posts,

In socialism and communism, you must obey society/the collective's [fs: emphasis mine, and notice the explicit equivocation] arbitrary whims. You have no input if you dissent. You must merely obey. If you agree, you are ruling over those who don't agree. Thus, they must obey you. You are their boss.
:roll: You have a say in what the decision is. If you don't like it, you can leave.
As far as leaving the collective---tends to be frowned upon by the collective. History shows this. Big time.
How many collectives can you name?
USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Albania, Romania....


first off, we obviously were talking about collectives in the sense of a group project, and specifically group projects within the principles of anarchism. you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation (well, you didn't use two different definitions yourself, but you didn't use the one that was being talked about because it didn't suit your needs). and worse than that, its some sort of reverse scotsman fallacy, because the concepts you claim flow from the definition of 'collective' don't. you claim that people must obey the collective and are not allowed to leave the collective. additionally, you claim that entire countries are a collective. other than this not fitting with what we are proposing collectives be structured like, it has nothing to do with any relevant definition of 'collective' or 'collectivism'.

col·lec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lktv)
adj.
1. Assembled or accumulated into a whole.
2. Of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group: a collective decision.
n.
1. An undertaking, such as a business operation, set up on the principles or system of collectivism.
2. Grammar. A collective noun.

collective
adj 1: done by or characteristic of individuals acting together; "a joint identity"; "the collective mind"; "the corporate good" [syn: corporate] 2: forming a whole or aggregate [ant: distributive] 3: set up on the principle of collectivism or ownership and production by the workers involved usually under the supervision of a government; "collective farms" n : members of a cooperative enterprise

col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

so you are the one doing the "no true collective" bit. you made an ad hoc change to the definition in order to defend your position. not us. your entire argument is riddled with fallacies. not ours. and you are no fun to argue with, which is why i stopped. but i also don't like people running around all smug because they know the names of a few logical fallacies, especially when they are the ones guilty of them.

Well, in my personal experience working with collectives, there comes a time when collectives are only too happy for people to leave when they no longer fit into the collective.

There are really collectives now?

yeah. lots of them. ranging from a group of friends that organize local projects together to publishing and distributing companies like ak press (http://www.akpress.org/about_bottom.php). though in my opinion there aren't enough running actual workplaces as of yet - though we have a fairly good lock on the zine producing industry.

With the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power.

Does he?

Care to show it?

Didn't think so.

Nice try, bumper-sticker.

So, BAAWA, you appear to be arguing that either (a) the power of business is in no way affected by the existence of government, or (b) the existence of government lessens the limits on power of business.

Or c) that government imposes needless regulations, increases the cost of doing business, causes resources to be expended in areas where they should not, and generally sends false signals to the market by creating avenues that never should be.

IOW: false dichotomy.

So, in defense of your assertion that "with the government gone, the boss has a lot less limits on his power" is false, you assert that the existence of government limits the power of the boss.

No. I'm saying it increases it and/or creates inane rules that have no business being there.


Obviously, I'm being slow today:

So, under government the boss, if he wises to retain his liberty/avoid becoming involved in litigation, must obey certain regulations. How is this not a limit on the power of the boss?

yeah. lots of them. ranging from a group of friends that organize local projects together to publishing and distributing companies like ak press. though in my opinion there aren't enough running actual workplaces as of yet - though we have a fairly good lock on the zine producing industry.

What other anarchist ideas have been put into practice?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[size=9]Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.[/size

This wasn't about statism/anarchism. The NTS was that they weren't "true communist/collectivist".

They don't fit the definition. It's not a fallacy, they simply aren't anarchist.

We were talking about collectives qua collectives, AFAIK. Therefore, it would be the fallacy.

If you were talking about collectives in general, then you might have an argument, but what makes you think all collectives are alike?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

They can define it how they like. But when "that's not a true collective" is implicitly stated, that's NTS. And that's what was done.

Not really, since there is no clear definition of what is meant when the term collective is used (clearly the make up is in question). Consequently, you are incorrect to claim he made a NTS fallacy, since it is in fact you that tried to typify collectives in a sense he is not prepared to accept. It's more like if you said 'Anarcho-capitalism does not harbour oppression', and I said 'Well, people have historically been oppressed in anarcho-capitalist regimes (such as Saga Iceland, or the Wild West)', and you consequently dismissed them as not true anarcho-capitalist societies (which I certainly think you would be justified in doing).

Are there any descriptions of anarchist life written by people who lived through the Spanish revolution?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

You know if people would just became more accepting of each other and learned to care a little more about people -- the need for a "protective" government would cease. I support anarchy in this respect. Lets become more accepting of others Okay?

Are there any descriptions of anarchist life written by people who lived through the Spanish revolution?

Yes. George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia does a good job of explaining what life was like during 7 months of the Revolution.

I would like to see you try an experiment for me. Get 20 of your fellow anarchists, and build a house without organization or leaders. I bet you couldn't do it. With anarchy, i'd hate to see your sports teams or even telephone books.

I would like to see you try an experiment for me. Get 20 of your fellow anarchists, and build a house without organization or leaders. I bet you couldn't do it. With anarchy, i'd hate to see your sports teams or even telephone books.

Anarchists have built houses or rehabilitated horribly damaged ones, such as in Detroit, which they have turned into wholly self-sustaining communities. And, we also have Anarchist Soccer Leagues. You can see the website of the DC Anarchist Soccer League here: http://www.infoshop.org/dc/asl.html

Anarchists publish thousands of zines and books and directories each year detailing where free events and stuff are given away, social justice issues.

We even have our own social service programs - Food Not Bombs provides free vegetarian food for everyone.

Contemporary anarchists, like yippie Abbie Hoffman and his crew organized the Days of Resistance in Chicago where millions fought the police and the democratic national convention in 1968 to bring the message of no business as usual.

We've organized protests against every Republican and Democratic National convention since then. We've also been responsible for the demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle, Cancun, Miami, Prague, Genoa and hundreds of other citys where we've had major infrastructure set up, with communications teams, water distribution, a housing network, food, medical teams of doctors, nurses, and paramedics, a media welcome center, etc.

Anarchists are VERY organized, it's just that we take longer to finalize decisions because everyone has such good ideas, and we can't always implement or agree on them all, and that is why we operate on a consensus-based model, so that everyone agrees on what everyone works on.

We even have our own Trade Union. Going back at least a century ago. They are called the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW.org), or more commonly known by most US high school students as "the Wobblies". The Anarchist union encompasses Maritime workers, communications workers, construction, retail, education workers. It's probably the only union that publicly refuses to sell out their members.

It's first strike was in 1906 when federal troops were sent to crush the strike of 3,000 miners.

Hear hear!

Oh Mr. Block, you were born by mistake
You take the cake
You make me ache
Tie a rock to your block and jump in the lake
Kindly do that for Liberty’s sake
Pfffft!

Alas the IWW isn't all that it used to be. It was crushed by the state in the name of couter-insurancy. The bosses don't mind most cases of state intervention, because for the most part the state intervenes for their sake.

With anarchy, i'd hate to see your sports teams...

General anarchist sports links:
http://www.infoshop.org/sports.html

Anarchist Football Association:
http://www.infoshop.org/afa.html

Anarchist Football League:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/8894/

1in12 Club Anarchist Football team: Bradford, England:
http://www.pighannah.freeserve.co.uk/

Easton Cowboys Anarchist football team:
http://eastoncowboys.com/

Recreativo radical football club:
http://www.recreativofc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

FC St Pauli:
http://www.fcstpauli.de/cgi-bin/WebObjects/SPFrontApp.woa/wa/?random=08667256691183203

I would like to see you try an experiment for me. Get 20 of your fellow anarchists, and build a house without organization or leaders. I bet you couldn't do it. With anarchy, i'd hate to see your sports teams or even telephone books.

Well, your misconception here is that anarchists don't believe in organisation. We do - what we are opposed to is organisation imposed from above. Thus we may have no leaders, but we certainly have organisation. Therefore, I'm going to have to decline on taking up your challenge...

I have never actually built a house, but I have worked in anarchist collectives and worked on refitting buildings. We did quite well, thank you.

I know anarchist plumbers, brickies, roofers, electricians: they are able to work together not because they have leaders (which they don't) but because they can work together in non-hierarchical frameworks.