NationStates Jolt Archive

Just had to republish this piece from one of those anarchist sports links:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/15/BA306794.DTL

"Soccer teams go on a revolutionary kick
Communists play anarchists in Berkeley

Monday, September 15, 2003


In some ways, the soccer game played in North Berkeley Sunday afternoon was a typical matchup with cheerleaders, hearty competition, a rousing band and proud parents on the sidelines.

But the anarchists vs. the communists soccer match veered off pretty quickly from there.

The Brass Liberation Orchestra, a patchwork band of musicians, played everything from saxophones to drums and a tuba, getting the crowd going with a lively rendition of "Internationale," an anthem of communists and socialists, while players jumped up and down and raised their fists in the air.

The cheerleaders chanting "Give me an A, A, A for Anarchy," wore black motorcycle boots and fashioned their pom-poms from strips of a black garbage bag. One shimmied into a makeshift black skirt -- and because of the cold, donned a friend's black pullover, which she said reeked of the puke-like smell of aged spilled beer.

Instead of advertising, the sign on the sidelines of Gabe's East field was painted half black for the anarchists and half red for the communists, reading "For a World Without Borders. For a World Without Bombs."

And there was gloating at the game -- over the collapse of the World Trade Organization talks.

But the idea behind the game was a noble one, players said: to bring people together from across the political spectrum to build a community around the values they share -- and to have fun, of course.

The two teams were born from the protests against the war in Iraq earlier this year. Many of the soccer players had protested in the streets together during the days before and after the start of the war and they wanted to make sure they stayed together.

"There is a history of political tension between the anarchists and the communists, but we are united on our opposition to U.S. wars abroad and at home on poor people, working people, people of color," said Chris Crass, 29, of San Francisco, a member of the anarchist team and an organizer of anti- racist and political workshops.

And so, the activists -- men, women and even a 6- year-old boy -- settled on the creation of two teams.

The anarchist team, Kronstadt FC, was named for the 1921 revolt of workers of the Kronstadt army base against the Communist government in Russia. The players wore black T-shirts with the insignia of an A with a circle around it, a black star and a soccer ball.

The communist team, Left Wing, sported shiny jerseys in Communist red, of course, with a fist holding a flag with a red star.

There were players from various organizations across the Bay Area, from the San Francisco Women Against Rape to SOUL, a youth organizing group, and the Campaign for Renters Rights.

Sunday's game was actually the second match.

The first game, held Aug. 17 in Piedmont, tied 2-2 after it was shut down by local officials because the teams were playing on the field without permission.

Almost all the players work as political organizers in some way, and the result on the field was that the teams were very disciplined and organized. They have practiced for up to six hours a week and have uniforms and even a medic.

The game took engineer Daniel Murphy, 48, of Lafayette by surprise. Seeing a game forming, he had plunked his folding chair down on the sidelines while he waited for his son to finish skateboarding at the adjacent skate park.

"It sounds like a typical Berkeley soccer game," he said. "I'll have to think about who I'll root for. It is a grand thing."

True to the communist ideals, everyone got an equal chance to play, with the game split into quarters instead of halves to allow for more players.

"People here have different ideological ways they see the world achieving peace, but we think everybody who is against the war should work together," said Maria Poblet, 27, of Oakland, a tenant organizer on the communist team. "It is also just for fun. Millions of people across the world love soccer. We are no exception just because we are activists."

In the end, it was a victory for the anarchists, with Kronstadt FC winning 4-2.

The communists will have one more chance during the third and final game, to be played sometime in October.

"People are serious about having fun, but the community building is more important than who wins," Crass said.

And what were the teams going to do after the game?

"Celebrate the hopeful demise of the U.S. government," he said.

***
Yes! 4-2 to the anarchists! Result!

Nice collection of anarchist sport links. Huge Sct. Pauli fan myself.

"Der FC St. Pauli is schuld, dass Ich so bin.
Pauli Pauli Pauli, das schuld dass ich so bin.
Gegen racismus, gegen nazismus, gegen fasiscmus,
Sct. Pauli go go go!"

;)


/Tias.

Nice collection of anarchist sport links. Huge Sct. Pauli fan myself.



At the hardcore festival that we used to host in Belfast the Sunday morning Punks v. Skins football game was always a highlight. Imagine forty or fifty very hungover crusties staggering around on the tarmac whilst drinking white cider and buckfast. 'twas a sight to behold.

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."

All right...we can go over this AGAIN, as we have before, with several other people (which you would know or would have seen IF YOU'D READ THE REST OF THE F----ING THREAD)

The words "anarch-y/ist/ism" were all *CREATED* by people calling themselves "anarchists". The term was meant to mean or stand for "no rulers" or "no rules". *That* was the intention and original meaning of the creators. The *popular* definition of "anarch-y/ism/ist" means simply "no state" or "no government". The definition *we* stand by and are debating (and which you refuse to recognize) is the first, original definition.

Are there any links by geographic region?

Are there any anarchist communities currently in existance? How long as the longest one lasted?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Watch out DUTCH lanuage ONLY speaking fascist about!!!!!!!

Flemish DUTCH language ONLY football Fascists: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?topic=71742

They use the word N*ger and Joden (N*gger and Jew a great deal!)......

Watch out DUTCH lanuage ONLY speaking fascist about!!!!!!!

Flemish DUTCH language ONLY football Fascists:http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=flandria

In region: Flandria they use the word N*ger and Joden (N*gger and Jew a great deal!)......

What are you talking about?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Actualy, as Orwell describes in the previously mentioned Homage to Catalonia, the Anarchists in that war were able to organize and effectivly mobilize and entire Army- nevermind a sportsteam. And the army is the most hierarchial institution I can think of.

As he describes it, all memebers of the militia were dressed the same (no decorations), paid the same, and though there were unoffical officers who did give orders, were officaly of the same rank. But because of this, the "officers" didn't have any real binding power over the soldiers- so what did they do when a person didn't want to follow a certain order? They appealed to him by saying, "Do it for the working class." Which, though no capatalist would ever believe it even if they were to see it, worked most of the time. As well, they were reported to have very few desertions, even during the bitter winters when they were woefully undersupplied for both munitions and food.

Furthermore, the claim that Anarchism isn't abotu orginization shows the true depths of your ignorance. The anarchist symbol- which has sadly been misused and commercalized to no end- was originaly created by one of Anarchisms founders, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The A, of course, stood for anarchy, and the O in which the A is inscribed stands for- you guessed it- order.

So, your claims about anarchims are, you know, absurd, Thanks for playing, please try again.

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.

Also worth having a look at are Laurie Lee's As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning and Ken Loach's film Land & Freedom. All three take certain liberties with events and history for the sake of fictional clarity/drive, but aren't bad starting points.

I'll keep those in mind.

I have a very tough question, now. What about mentally ill people? Won't that pose a problem in a society based on voluntary action?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 a very tough question, now. What about mentally ill people? Won't that pose a problem in a society based on voluntary action?


Well, one of the big thrusts of the anti-psychiatry movement in the 60s and 70s was that mental illness was a socially constructed concept: basically as long as you function within the standard parameters of social acceptance and capitalist society you are mentally healthy. Once this is no longer the case you are a deviant case of some kind, and quite possibly mentally ill. The response of capitalist society is to brand you as an other and to exclude you from the mainstream: thus the existence of asylums - they were seen as being not for the good of the individuals inside, but the good of society outside.

I fail, however, to see why you think that mental illness would be a particular problem in a society based on voluntary action. The vast majority of those currently receiving treatment for mental illness do so of their own accord.

Care to expand on why you think it would be such a problem?

What about psychopaths 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.

What about psychopaths and such?

Not to be too simplistic, but everything is about power :) Issues such as psychopathy (when it leads to dangerous actions) are about imbalances of power. By levelling the power relations in society, anarchism should reduce these problems as the imbalances are reduced.

That aside, in the hypothetical case of a psychopathic murderer on the loose in an existing anarchist society, the only answer can possibly be: "ask the hypothetical inhabitants of that society". To paraphrase Kropotikin (as I can remember the exact quote):
"Let not we who are no free dictate to those in the future who will be free".

Vas.

What about psychopaths and such?

Not to be too simplistic, but everything is about power :) Issues such as psychopathy (when it leads to dangerous actions) are about imbalances of power. By levelling the power relations in society, anarchism should reduce these problems as the imbalances are reduced.

That aside, in the hypothetical case of a psychopathic murderer on the loose in an existing anarchist society, the only answer can possibly be: "ask the hypothetical inhabitants of that society". To paraphrase Kropotikin (as I can remember the exact quote):
"Let not we who are no free dictate to those in the future who will be free".

Yeah, I'm mainly in agreement with most of what you said there, however it should be pointed out that the mentally ill are used as a scpegoat in modern society. The popular image of the psychopath in modern society has very little relation to the actual condition of antisocial personality disorder.

Here is a link which might promote a bit of better understanding of the actual condition:

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx7.htm

Also, the suggestion that psychic ill-health is always tied to issues of distributive justice is simplifying somewhat. There also exist neurological and physiological conditions of the brain which are responsible for (at least) a tendency to mental illness.

What do you say to objections that there can't be individuality without capitalism? Will there still be money 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.

What do you say to objections that there can't be individuality without capitalism?

Well, hsitory gives record of a long line of individuals prior to the rise of contemporary capitalism - the diaries of a literate farmer's wife from the C16th show as much individuality as that belonging to any indvidual now living. Simialrly, looking at other cultures which are still only marginally touched by global capitalism, or records of those prior to contact, we see once again that the 'individual' is not a creation of capitalist living.

Those against communism/socialism tend to set up a false opposition between society and the individual. Margaret Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society", whilst promoting her vision of a capitalist society - it was as patently untrue a statement as declaring that under communual living there is no such thing as the individual.

Will there still be money in anarchism?

Once again this is a matter for those establishing anarchist communities to decide for themselves - certainly during the SCW there were dockets issued for trade between those within collectives and those without and there was also in some palces a coin based economy - however, these micro-coinages and exchange systems were not particualrly similar in fucntion to current macro-economics. Under capitalism the possession of money is primary - under anarchism it can be seen as a curio: a way of distributing luxury goods or the like - it should never come down to someone starving of suffering merely because they lack an arbitrary token when there is grain still in the granary...

Here is another view on Anarchism & money from Berkman's ABC of Anarcho-Communism:

http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/ace/abc/abc12.html

I'd like to see an end to money, myself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Yeah, I'm mainly in agreement with most of what you said there, however it should be pointed out that the mentally ill are used as a scpegoat in modern society. The popular image of the psychopath in modern society has very little relation to the actual condition of antisocial personality disorder.

Very true, the point being that the only issue that any free society would have to deal with is that of people with mental illnesses that make them a danger to others, not necessarily those currently included in the definition.

Also, the suggestion that psychic ill-health is always tied to issues of distributive justice is simplifying somewhat. There also exist neurological and physiological conditions of the brain which are responsible for (at least) a tendency to mental illness.

True, but the expression of such is social. The condition itself does not define the actions, those are environmental. Given a different environment, the actions of those with similar conditions would likely be very different.

Vas.

What will stop people from using personal possesions to get 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.

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.

Yet we were talking about collectives qua collectives, and you have to take the good with the bad. Can't count the hits and ignore the misses. That's another fallacy.

Still, if the collective doesn't own you, then how can it (metaphorically for the overarching overall decisions) say what is going to be produced where and by whom (how else will the decisions be made? any clue?)

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,

No, WE weren't obviously doing any such thing.

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).

What you think was being talked about...wasn't.

There's your problem.

Learn reading comprehension.

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

I don't. But you have to take the good with the bad. Counting hits/ignoring misses doesn't work for an argument, right?

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).

I thought it was quite clear that it was collective qua collective.

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).

If that happened, you would have a point.

I'd like to see an end to money, myself.

Then, as many (like Rothbard) have pointed out, you resort to the inefficient barter system.

What do you think money actually *is*?

What do you think money actually *is*?

A symbol of today's oppressive capitalist world.

Still, if the collective doesn't own you, then how can it (metaphorically for the overarching overall decisions) say what is going to be produced where and by whom (how else will the decisions be made? any clue?)

Members vote and discuss the decisions. They don't just appear out of the blue and effect the members. You can leave if you don't like the decision in anarchist communities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 do you think money actually *is*?

Personally, I think money is a system of credit notes produced by banks, normally under licence from the state, or by the apparatus of the state itself which is either (a) for printed notes -a promise to pay the bearer a certain amount of coinage, or (b) a set of coinage which has no fixed value and corresponds to no fixed resource. Of course this simplistic description is further complicated by such phenomena as credits and debits which exist only in the pages of a ledger or floating around in cyberspace. How is that for a start?

Ideally it could be described as an arbitrary system of arbitrary exchange values which allow one to compare the value at which one person holds a certain resource to the value another person holds that resource at, and so allows for the undertaking of such exchanges as are awkward under the barter system. I believe the phrase the "double occurence of wants" is sometimes used to describe the conditions which are necessary for smooth operation of the barter system. Money is, if nothing else, a way around that problem.

What will stop people from using personal possesions to get power? What if someone rents out their house in exchange for extra food or something?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 do you think money actually *is*?

A symbol of today's oppressive capitalist world.

Good thing it's only your opinion. Otherwise we'd be stuck in barter.

Money is a medium of exchange to facilitate trade, and is a commodity.

But you just keep thinking in terms of bumper-sticker philosophy. That will get you places.

Still, if the collective doesn't own you, then how can it (metaphorically for the overarching overall decisions) say what is going to be produced where and by whom (how else will the decisions be made? any clue?)

Members vote and discuss the decisions. They don't just appear out of the blue and effect the members. You can leave if you don't like the decision in anarchist communities.

Someone or group still has to make the decisions, right

What do you think money actually *is*?

Personally, I think money is a system of credit notes produced by banks, normally under licence from the state, or by the apparatus of the state itself which is either (a) for printed notes -a promise to pay the bearer a certain amount of coinage, or (b) a set of coinage which has no fixed value and corresponds to no fixed resource.

And you would be relatively correct in today's fiat-currency world. However, when gold was the standard, the unit of currency was fixed in terms of weight of gold. Much better (and protected against rampant inflation)

Of course this simplistic description is further complicated by such phenomena as credits and debits which exist only in the pages of a ledger or floating around in cyberspace. How is that for a start?

But it all starts someplace, doesn't it.

Ideally it could be described as an arbitrary system of arbitrary exchange values which allow one to compare the value at which one person holds a certain resource to the value another person holds that resource at, and so allows for the undertaking of such exchanges as are awkward under the barter system. I believe the phrase the "double occurence of wants" is sometimes used to describe the conditions which are necessary for smooth operation of the barter system. Money is, if nothing else, a way around that problem.

Close.

And you would be relatively correct in today's fiat-currency world. However, when gold was the standard, the unit of currency was fixed in terms of weight of gold. Much better (and protected against rampant inflation)

Provided, obviously, that the amount of gold remains a relatively fixed, or slowly varying factor. I can imagine that when the Conquistadors returned from the new world they must have upset a couple of applecarts. Similarly with the gold rushes in the American west... here it was a more pronounced effect as there was greater geographical isolation. A boomtown economy leads to some particularly interesting trades taking place: "exactly how many bags of gold will buy a horse this week?" I exagerate somewhat - but, those rare historical occurences where gold did suddenly become more plentiful did lead to rampant inflationary situations.


Ideally it could be described as an arbitrary system of arbitrary exchange values which allow one to compare the value at which one person holds a certain resource to the value another person holds that resource at, and so allows for the undertaking of such exchanges as are awkward under the barter system. I believe the phrase the "double occurence of wants" is sometimes used to describe the conditions which are necessary for smooth operation of the barter system. Money is, if nothing else, a way around that problem.

Close.

And your answer is to the $64,000 question is...?

[quote=BAAWA]What do you think money actually *is*?

A symbol of today's oppressive capitalist world.

Good thing it's only your opinion. Otherwise we'd be stuck in barter./quote]

Or free distribution - the main characteristic of anarchist communist economy of need.

Vas.

What do you think money actually *is*?

A symbol of today's oppressive capitalist world.

[Good thing it's only your opinion. Otherwise we'd be stuck in barter.

Or free distribution - the main characteristic of anarchist communist economy of need.

Ah yes. The inane "production for need/use rather than production for profit". I've heard that before.

Trouble is--there's this thing called scarcity of resources.

Baawa doesn't understand real anarchism much, does he?

What will stop people from using personal possesions to get 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.

And you would be relatively correct in today's fiat-currency world. However, when gold was the standard, the unit of currency was fixed in terms of weight of gold. Much better (and protected against rampant inflation)

Provided, obviously, that the amount of gold remains a relatively fixed, or slowly varying factor. I can imagine that when the Conquistadors returned from the new world they must have upset a couple of applecarts. Similarly with the gold rushes in the American west... here it was a more pronounced effect as there was greater geographical isolation. A boomtown economy leads to some particularly interesting trades taking place: "exactly how many bags of gold will buy a horse this week?" I exagerate somewhat - but, those rare historical occurences where gold did suddenly become more plentiful did lead to rampant inflationary situations.

There was inflation, but not on the scale seen by fiat currency. Examples: in Weimar Germany, marks were pumped out so fast that eventually the dollar/mark ratio was 1:4,000,000,000,000,000. That's one dollar for four quadrillion marks.


Ideally it could be described as an arbitrary system of arbitrary exchange values which allow one to compare the value at which one person holds a certain resource to the value another person holds that resource at, and so allows for the undertaking of such exchanges as are awkward under the barter system. I believe the phrase the "double occurence of wants" is sometimes used to describe the conditions which are necessary for smooth operation of the barter system. Money is, if nothing else, a way around that problem.

Close.

And your answer is to the $64,000 question is...?[/quote]

A most important truth about money now emerges from our discussion: money is a commodity. Learning this simple lesson is one of the world's most important tasks. So often have people talked about money as something much more or less than this. Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a "claim on society"; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity. It differs from other commodities in being demanded mainly as a medium of exchange. But aside from this, it is a commodity?and, like all commodities, it has an existing stock, it faces demands by people to buy and hold it, etc. Like all commodities, its "price"?in terms of other goods?is determined by the interaction of its total supply, or stock, and the total demand by people to buy and hold it. (People "buy" money by selling their goods and services for it, just as they "sell" money when they buy goods and services.)

What Has Government Done To Our Money.

The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that companies will replace government. They have no restrictions on them and can do whatever they want as long as they still get business.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that companies will replace government. They have no restrictions on them and can do whatever they want as long as they still get business.

Ludicrous.

You really have a hatred of success, don't you?

Baawa doesn't understand real anarchism much, does he?

And you know what *real* anarchism is? Still trying for that NTS fallacy, are you? Or do you just like to define terms for your use in some Humpty-Dumpty manner?

What will stop people from using personal possesions to get power?

You can only have power where there is a structure for it.

Ah yes. The inane "production for need/use rather than production for profit". I've heard that before.

Trouble is--there's this thing called scarcity of resources.

Is that supposed to be a critique? Because it isn't even close. Scarcity of resources is - a. a constant in all systems to one degree or another; and b. often a result of mismanagement or deliberate manipulation. Neither of these are in any way a valid critique of the economy of need.

a. If scarcity is a constant, then it defines how much is available to distribute, NOT how it is distributed. A capitalist system distributes based on the ability to pay, thus the richest get first pick. A true communist system would distribute based on need first, thus those most in need would get first pick. The scarcity is irrelevant (as well as dealt with in "Conquest of Bread").

b. Mismanagement, such as the over-reliance on mono-agriculture to produce cash crops, or deliberate manipulation, such as the EU Intervention scheme (whereby excess produce is put into storage to keep the price inflated), are symptoms of the capitalist system. Enough food is produced in the world to feed every living person and have a considerable amount left over. Free distribution would solve many of the worlds problems, as the main reason for false scarcity is the need for profit.

Vas.

Baawa doesn't understand real anarchism much, does he?

And you know what *real* anarchism is? Still trying for that NTS fallacy, are you? Or do you just like to define terms for your use in some Humpty-Dumpty manner?

It's very, very simple and your constant reffing of the NTS is rubbish. NTS only applies when the characteristic cited is NOT a defining characteristic. In the case of anarchism, so-called "anarcho-capitalism" is NOT true anarchism because opposition to capitalism is a defining characteristic of anarchism. Much as every true Scotsman was born in Scotland (as the place of birth is THE defining characteristic of nationality), every true anarchist is an anti-capitalist.

Why? Because anarchism as a political ideology was first defined by Proudhon's phrase "property is theft". While much of Proudhon is no longer valid, that fundamental element remains central to anarchism. The anarchism opposition to the state is not because the state is itself an intrinsic evil, it is because the state exists to defend the interests of the rich. It is economic inequality that is the fundamental evil that anarchism opposes, the state is a symptom, not the cause.

Thus, anarcho-capitalists, who oppose the state, but NOT economic inequality and capitalism, are not true anarchists. They are libertarians, pure and simple.

Vas.

To ANTI-CAPITALIST anarchists:

What will stop people from using personal possesions to get 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.

Baawa doesn't understand real anarchism much, does he?

And you know what *real* anarchism is? Still trying for that NTS fallacy, are you? Or do you just like to define terms for your use in some Humpty-Dumpty manner?

It's very, very simple and your constant reffing of the NTS is rubbish. NTS only applies when the characteristic cited is NOT a defining characteristic. In the case of anarchism, so-called "anarcho-capitalism" is NOT true anarchism because opposition to capitalism is a defining characteristic of anarchism. Much as every true Scotsman was born in Scotland (as the place of birth is THE defining characteristic of nationality), every true anarchist is an anti-capitalist.

Why? Because anarchism as a political ideology was first defined by Proudhon's phrase "property is theft". While much of Proudhon is no longer valid, that fundamental element remains central to anarchism. The anarchism opposition to the state is not because the state is itself an intrinsic evil, it is because the state exists to defend the interests of the rich. It is economic inequality that is the fundamental evil that anarchism opposes, the state is a symptom, not the cause.

Thus, anarcho-capitalists, who oppose the state, but NOT economic inequality and capitalism, are not true anarchists. They are libertarians, pure and simple.

Vas.

A frindely critique, if you will.

Firstly, its true, this notion of "Anarcho-Captialism" is insane. Not only would such a system be completely insustainable for any length of time, and becaue even if it could, it would be little mroe than the institutionalization of anti-social behavior on a mass-scale. However, your wrong about exactly why real anarchism opposes the state and capitalism. Saying, "Its because of Proudhon" isn't an argument, without explaining and defending the philosolophical basis from which he argued. (On a merely historical note, I might add that proudhon was not the first anarchist as we know them; that credit goes to William Godwin, though the enitre anarchist movement was largely born out of enlightenment-era principles).

That being said. The reason anarchism opposes capitalism is quite simple- it is a detriment to liberty. Under it, the means of production- which are very, very important to an industrialized society- are in private hands, and under totalitarian control- meaning that the public has no say in their decisions, and even interanally, attempts by workers to guide their fate via Unions is forever opposed by the owners. Anarcho-capitalism only makes the vastly more terrible in scope. Under it, even the public services that do exist would be in control of private tyranny- which is no better than the tyranny of the state. It is for this reason that anarchsits oppose capitalism,a nd espcialy that kind of extreemly degenerate for of it; though as I say, it's a horribly misbegotten system that isn't taken seriously by, well, anyone but a few nutjobs and only in this country- none of whom posses any political power. I'd also like to take this oppoertunity to note that the term libertarian is not applicable to these people, either. In the rest of the world, being a libertarin generaly signifies a range of political beliefs, from Anarchism through a sort of independant socalist vision a la Bertrand Russel and George Orwell, and Progressiveives like John Dewey. Asociating the people I was originaly discussing with liberty is an utter and cruel mockery of the principle of liberty, and it is only becuase the political spectrum is so skewed in the United States that they have achieved such and unfitting title. It any group here did deserve the title of "libertarians" in the sense it originaly ment, it would be the Green party.

Now, secondly, your wrong in stating that anarchsim opposes the state only on the grounds that it defends the rich. Anarchists see the state as immoral and another form of oppression that would be quite willing to take the place of capitalism if overthrown- in this, thus, are the miserable failures of Authoritarian/State Socalism, and from the debate over the existance of the state was the divide between the Authoritarians, such as Marx, and the Libertrians, such as Bakiunin, formed. The state is seen by anarchism as being just as potentialy repressive as private control over the economy.

As for your question- "What will stop people from using personal possesions to get power?" I'm not quite sure I understand. The way a capitalsit maintains his power is through the insecurity of the workers; everyone must eat, and to do what it takes to provide food is not a choice. The requirements of life (and the wants of life which become requirements) are held in the control of those who own the means of production. Take those from them, and let the public control the means of production, and share their goods among themselves freely, and you in so doing liberate men; without the requirement of eating contsantly being a worry to people, they will be able to do as they please without having to worry that they wont be able to eat tomorrow. Give them what they need to survive, and they will never again be forced into wage slavery, never submit to authority again. Personal possesions, which most anarchsitic visions retain at least to some extent, hold no power over people in of themselves.


Edited for typos. Well, one of them anyway. I appologize for any others, which I'm sure there are manny.

Ah yes. The inane "production for need/use rather than production for profit". I've heard that before.

Trouble is--there's this thing called scarcity of resources.

Is that supposed to be a critique? Because it isn't even close. Scarcity of resources is - a. a constant in all systems to one degree or another; and b. often a result of mismanagement or deliberate manipulation. Neither of these are in any way a valid critique of the economy of need.

Actually, the former more than the latter. In fact, rarely the latter.

a. If scarcity is a constant, then it defines how much is available to distribute, NOT how it is distributed. A capitalist system distributes based on the ability to pay, thus the richest get first pick.

Not necessarily.

A true communist system would distribute based on need first, thus those most in need would get first pick. The scarcity is irrelevant (as well as dealt with in "Conquest of Bread").

Somehow the things have to be produced, right?

Scarcity is a factor.

And what about items that aren't produced in a manner we think? What about, for example, body organs. People need a kidney. Do we make people give up a kidney due to need? (No, this isn't a silly question. If it's all based on need, then it must ALL be based on need. Consistency).

b. Mismanagement, such as the over-reliance on mono-agriculture to produce cash crops, or deliberate manipulation, such as the EU Intervention scheme (whereby excess produce is put into storage to keep the price inflated), are symptoms of the capitalist system.

No, those are symptoms of the INTERVENTIONALIST system. You should read up on it. Mises explained why it's a crap "third option" and invariably devolves into socialism.

Enough food is produced in the world to feed every living person and have a considerable amount left over. Free distribution would solve many of the worlds problems, as the main reason for false scarcity is the need for profit.

Someone needs to produce the items. Why should they not receive compensation?

Why can't you understand that a company with an army is no safer than a government with an army?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Baawa doesn't understand real anarchism much, does he?

And you know what *real* anarchism is? Still trying for that NTS fallacy, are you? Or do you just like to define terms for your use in some Humpty-Dumpty manner?

It's very, very simple and your constant reffing of the NTS is rubbish.

Oh really? Watch and learn, grasshopper.

NTS only applies when the characteristic cited is NOT a defining characteristic. In the case of anarchism, so-called "anarcho-capitalism" is NOT true anarchism because opposition to capitalism is a defining characteristic of anarchism.

WRONG!

That would be like saying a defining characteristic of atheism is hatred of god or hard materialism. You've added more to anarchism than is there. Anarchism is simply about there not being a ruler or chief or government. HAS NOTHING TO DO with capitalism.

Tough on you.

Why? Because anarchism as a political ideology was first defined by Proudhon's phrase "property is theft".

Which, as many people (like Rand and Branden) have pointed out, is a Stolen Concept fallacy (please do note that I am not a Randian Objectivist, though).

In this article, I shall confine myself to the analysis of a single principle ? a single fallacy ? which is rampant in the writings of the neo-mystics and without which their doctrines could not be propagated.

We call it "the fallacy of the stolen concept."

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."

"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property" ? and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft" while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use "theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right ? that is, as a stolen concept.

All of man's knowledge and all of his concepts have a hierarchical structure. The foundation or ultimate base of this structure is man's sensory perceptions; these are the starting points of his thinking. From these, man forms his first concepts and (ostensive) definitions ? then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale. It is a process of building one identification upon another ? of deriving wider abstractions from previously known abstractions, or of breaking down wider abstractions into narrower classifications. Man's concepts are derived from and depend on earlier, more basic concepts, which serve as their genetic roots. For example, the concept "parent" is presupposed by the concept "orphan"; if one had not grasped the former, one could not arrive at the latter, nor could the latter be meaningful.

The hierarchical nature of man's knowledge implies an important principle that must guide man's reasoning: When one uses concepts, one must recognize their genetic roots, one must recognize that which they logically depend on and presuppose.

Failure to observe this principle ? as in "All property is theft" ? constitutes the fallacy of the stolen concept.

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html

You really shouldn't try to have a system based on a fallacy, m'laddio. For, much like the concept of god, it falls apart at the root. And a system based on something that cannot be is no system at all. It's just strings of symbols with no meaning.

Not to mention that again, anarchism is simply about there not being a ruler or govermnent or chief. It's not about an economic system, much as silly left-anarchists wish it to be.

While much of Proudhon is no longer valid, that fundamental element remains central to anarchism. The anarchism opposition to the state is not because the state is itself an intrinsic evil, it is because the state exists to defend the interests of the rich.

No, the state exists to defend the interests of those in the "state/government". Anyone else that is defended is purely and solely coincidental.

It is economic inequality that is the fundamental evil that anarchism opposes, the state is a symptom, not the cause.

And who says that economic equality is what should be strove for? What makes that proper?

Again, it is the state that anarchism opposes, not economic inequality. That's introducing something to anarchism that isn't there.

Thus, anarcho-capitalists, who oppose the state, but NOT economic inequality and capitalism, are not true anarchists.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Why can't you understand that a company with an army is no safer than a government with an army?

Because a company wouldn't have an army as you are thinking. It would contract with a defense agency.

Because a company wouldn't have an army as you are thinking. It would contract with a defense agency.

So what keeps a defense agency from using it's army to control other companies?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 can't you understand that a company with an army is no safer than a government with an army?

Because a company wouldn't have an army as you are thinking. It would contract with a defense agency.

Three things:
1.) with whom does the defense agency contract?
2.) in what way is the defense agency not a company?
3.) what prevents a company from having its own private army?

Because a company wouldn't have an army as you are thinking. It would contract with a defense agency.

So what keeps a defense agency from using it's army to control other companies?

Other defense agencies. Reputation. Resource expenditures.

What about the lower class. They will suffer the hardest in this system, even more so than they do now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 can't you understand that a company with an army is no safer than a government with an army?

Because a company wouldn't have an army as you are thinking. It would contract with a defense agency.

Three things:
1.) with whom does the defense agency contract?

Individuals and companies.

2.) in what way is the defense agency not a company?

I dealt with that above. It's not in the way he's thinking in that each company would have a private army.

3.) what prevents a company from having its own private army?

Nothing, but there's no real reason why it would.

What about the lower class. They will suffer the hardest in this system, even more so than they do now.

Nicely unsupported.

Hint: substance is good.

Nicely unsupported.

Hint: substance is good.

Apparently, you've never heard of poverty. Basically, capitalism has always been bad for the lower classes. Poverty is the result of capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Nicely unsupported.

Hint: substance is good.

Apparently, you've never heard of poverty.

Poverty was around LONG before capitalism. Try again.

You can only have power where there is a structure for it. Explain North Veitnam then.....

Because a company wouldn't have an army as you are thinking. It would contract with a defense agency.

Three things:
1.) with whom does the defense agency contract?

Individuals and companies.

Ah, we have misunderstood each other: I was asking "with whom does the defense agency contract for its own defense?"

2.) in what way is the defense agency not a company?

I dealt with that above. It's not in the way he's thinking in that each company would have a private army.

You don't appear to have explained how the defense agency is not a company - or, are you saying that some, but not all, companies will have their own private armies.

3.) what prevents a company from having its own private army?

Nothing, but there's no real reason why it would.

Well, rather than contracting out the work to a defense agency they might find it more economical to institute their own defense services - although this might be initially more expensive, in the long run it is likely to be cheaper, and the advantages of not being entirely dependent on what are in essence mercenaries seems clear to me.

You can only have power where there is a structure for it. Explain North Veitnam then.....

Possibly BAAWA meant 'authority' here, that is the only way I can understand this comment.

Poverty was around LONG before capitalism. Try again.

If by capitalism, you mean huge corporations, exploitation of poor countries, etc. then yes. If by capitalism, you mean buying and selling things using some form of money and owning a business of some sort, then that has existed for a long time, since the begining of poverty.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 can only have power where there is a structure for it.

Explain North Veitnam then.....

What about it do you need to have explained?

Because a company wouldn't have an army as you are thinking. It would contract with a defense agency.

Three things:
1.) with whom does the defense agency contract?

Individuals and companies.

Ah, we have misunderstood each other: I was asking "with whom does the defense agency contract for its own defense?"

It most likely would have mutual aid agreements.

2.) in what way is the defense agency not a company?

I dealt with that above. It's not in the way he's thinking in that each company would have a private army.

You don't appear to have explained how the defense agency is not a company - or, are you saying that some, but not all, companies will have their own private armies.

I'm saying that the defense agency is a company and that most other companies will not simply have their own private army, which I know is what Letila is thinking (some sort of silly Hollywood version).

3.) what prevents a company from having its own private army?

Nothing, but there's no real reason why it would.

Well, rather than contracting out the work to a defense agency they might find it more economical to institute their own defense services - although this might be initially more expensive, in the long run it is likely to be cheaper, and the advantages of not being entirely dependent on what are in essence mercenaries seems clear to me.

Oh certainly they could, but it depends on the company.

Poverty was around LONG before capitalism. Try again.

If by capitalism, you mean huge corporations, exploitation of poor countries, etc. then yes.

I mean the system whereby the means of production are privately owned, and individual rights are respected.

If by capitalism, you mean buying and selling things using some form of money and owning a business of some sort, then that has existed for a long time, since the begining of poverty.

False.

Fine, so poverty existed before capitalism as we know it existed, but it's precursors, which existed in ancient times, caused poverty and capitalism continues this tradition.

I'm saying that the defense agency is a company and that most other companies will not simply have their own private army, which I know is what Letila is thinking (some sort of silly Hollywood version).


Why will the defense agency do business with the other companies when it could take them over? It has the ability to easily.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'm saying that the defense agency is a company and that most other companies will not simply have their own private army, which I know is what Letila is thinking (some sort of silly Hollywood version).

Whether you believe that Coca-Cola employed death squads against Union leaders in Colombia, or not, do you allow that once defense devolves to commercial defense agencies or to the private cadres of companies, there are less obstacles to such events taking place?

Here is a report on the incident I am using as an example: for the sake of this discussion whether such death squads were actually employed by Coca-cola is irrelevant - instead it is just a scenario:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1448962.stm

I assume that the standard respone here is that the threatened workers trying to organise a union should contract with a defense agency themselves: however, if they feel the need to organise as a union to protect themselves from the company in the first place, they are probably not particularly well supplied with the finances neccessary to employ such an agency.

The whole 'private defense agencies' idea struck me as little more than a protection racket when I first encountered it in "Anarchy, State & Utopia". I still haven't been convinced otherwise, and even in Nozick there is always the spectre floating in the back ground of certain rules which will safe-guard from the worst abuses of the system he proposes - it always strikes me as just a shadow state lurking behind his anarcho-capitalist vision. It has been about 10 years since I read this, so I may be somewhat rusty on the details.

I also have visions of the Belgian Congo under Leopold... true, it was a state run corporation that was behind the atrocities, but I find it easy to imagine that such a situation could easily occur under anarcho-capitalism.

I'm saying that the defense agency is a company and that most other companies will not simply have their own private army, which I know is what Letila is thinking (some sort of silly Hollywood version).

Whether you believe that Coca-Cola employed death squads against Union leaders in Colombia, or not, do you allow that once defense devolves to commercial defense agencies or to the private cadres of companies, there are less obstacles to such events taking place?

Obstacles to WHAT? Please elaborate.

[snip]

The whole 'private defense agencies' idea struck me as little more than a protection racket when I first encountered it in "Anarchy, State & Utopia". I still haven't been convinced otherwise, and even in Nozick there is always the spectre floating in the back ground of certain rules which will safe-guard from the worst abuses of the system he proposes - it always strikes me as just a shadow state lurking behind his anarcho-capitalist vision. It has been about 10 years since I read this, so I may be somewhat rusty on the details.

Then you might want to read The Market For Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill, For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard, and this essay (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

And if you want to talk about protection racket, let's look at the idea of a monopolist entity which says "you WILL pay me to defend you and do all sorts of other things, or I will take it by force and throw you in jail". Oh wait--that's called GOVERNMENT.

One thing that strikes me about everyone who makes the claim as you do is that they have the Malevolent Universe Principle at the center of their idea. That the universe is out to get them and is evil. No, that's not an ad hom fallacy. That's fact. And manifested in the Hobbesian myth of homo homini lupus est, which is shown to be false by the fact that we can get along without someone making us.

If you get rid of government without getting rid of capitalism, there will be severe social class development. That will effectively eliminate freedom for a lot of people, thus neutralizing any gains made by eliminating overnment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Fine, so poverty existed before capitalism as we know it existed, but it's precursors, which existed in ancient times, caused poverty and capitalism continues this tradition.

That's a very nice stretch. Won't work, though.

In ancient times, there was despotism.And there was poverty. There was monarchy.And there was poverty.

Capitalism doesn't cause poverty, you dolt.

I'm saying that the defense agency is a company and that most other companies will not simply have their own private army, which I know is what Letila is thinking (some sort of silly Hollywood version).


Why will the defense agency do business with the other companies when it could take them over? It has the ability to easily.

Yet there are other defense agencies, which would step in to curb the rogue agency out of their own interest to keep their contracts and order.

If you get rid of government without getting rid of capitalism, there will be severe social class development. That will effectively eliminate freedom for a lot of people, thus neutralizing any gains made by eliminating overnment.

Nicely unsupported. And purely arbitrary wrt "social classes".

Bumper-sticker sloganeering won't get you anywhere with anyone except the superficial.

That's a very nice stretch. Won't work, though.

In ancient times, there was despotism.And there was poverty. There was monarchy.And there was poverty.

Capitalism doesn't cause poverty, you dolt.

Will there be poverty in anarcho-capitalism?

Yet there are other defense agencies, which would step in to curb the rogue agency out of their own interest to keep their contracts and order.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ally together, then? They have a lot more to gain by taking power than by following unenforced rules.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

If you get rid of government without getting rid of capitalism, there will be severe social class development. That will effectively eliminate freedom for a lot of people, thus neutralizing any gains made by eliminating overnment.

Nicely unsupported. And purely arbitrary wrt "social classes".

Bumper-sticker sloganeering won't get you anywhere with anyone except the superficial.

In defence of Letila, and from the examples you've provided me in the past, this seems to be what has occured. For instance, Saga-period Iceland did in fact devolve in an economic sense; within a century, virtually all land ended up concentrated in the control of 6 ruling families. We also sometimes see this 'widening class gap' in many economies unburdened with labour laws; early 18th century britain is a good example, as are many third world nations today (note: I am not saying that third world 'exploitation' is bad per se, merely that we do seem to see class gaps widening in these situations, as best as we can tell).

I think since you are making an argument (presumably) based on ideology rather than consequence (you think anarcho-capitalism is simply morally correct rather than simply beneficial) it would be important for you to justify your own beliefs (and listing sources doesn't count).

I forsee a war between defense agencies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Saying, "Its because of Proudhon" isn't an argument, without explaining and defending the philosolophical basis from which he argued.

Well, that's not strictly what I said, I said that the principle "Property is theft" was one of the founding elements of political anarchism. It's not "because of Proudhon", it's "it's been part of the ideology since the beginning, with Proudhon".

(On a merely historical note, I might add that proudhon was not the first anarchist as we know them; that credit goes to William Godwin, though the enitre anarchist movement was largely born out of enlightenment-era principles).

Not quite. Firstly, Proudhon is regarded as the first political anarchist (I did make that distinction), Godwin is regarded as the first individual anarchist. And, while the latter is largely a product of the enlightenment, the former is far more a product of the Reformation. Proudhon's ideas come largely from anti-authoritarian Christian sects - "No masters but God" is the antecedent of "No Gods, no masters" that came with Bakunin.

Now, secondly, your wrong in stating that anarchsim opposes the state only on the grounds that it defends the rich. Anarchists see the state as immoral and another form of oppression that would be quite willing to take the place of capitalism if overthrown- in this, thus, are the miserable failures of Authoritarian/State Socalism, and from the debate over the existance of the state was the divide between the Authoritarians, such as Marx, and the Libertrians, such as Bakiunin, formed. The state is seen by anarchism as being just as potentialy repressive as private control over the economy.

True, but this is only true because a political revolution, such as that recommended by Marx, cannot bring about the social revolution it has as its aim. The modern state was created to defend the rights and privileges of the bourgeoisie, replacing the monarchical systems that defended the rights and privileges of the aristocracy. The reason why the state is seen as immoral and oppressive is because it unequally defends the interests of the ruling class over the majority, but it is the inequality that is the true evil.

As for your question- "What will stop people from using personal possesions to get power?"

Not my question :)

Vas.

bump

That's a very nice stretch. Won't work, though.

In ancient times, there was despotism.And there was poverty. There was monarchy.And there was poverty.

Capitalism doesn't cause poverty, you dolt.

Will there be poverty in anarcho-capitalism?

Probably some. But that in no way shows that capitalism causes poverty, considering that there's been impoverished in all governmental systems.

Yet there are other defense agencies, which would step in to curb the rogue agency out of their own interest to keep their contracts and order.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ally together, then? They have a lot more to gain by taking power than by following unenforced rules.

Most likely they would have mutual defense alliances and such like that. But why would they band together and take over? They're making money.

If you get rid of government without getting rid of capitalism, there will be severe social class development. That will effectively eliminate freedom for a lot of people, thus neutralizing any gains made by eliminating overnment.

Nicely unsupported. And purely arbitrary wrt "social classes".

Bumper-sticker sloganeering won't get you anywhere with anyone except the superficial.

In defence of Letila, and from the examples you've provided me in the past, this seems to be what has occured. For instance, Saga-period Iceland did in fact devolve in an economic sense; within a century, virtually all land ended up concentrated in the control of 6 ruling families.

And this eliminated freedom for a lot of people how?

We also sometimes see this 'widening class gap' in many economies unburdened with labour laws; early 18th century britain is a good example, as are many third world nations today (note: I am not saying that third world 'exploitation' is bad per se, merely that we do seem to see class gaps widening in these situations, as best as we can tell).

Point of fact: most 3rd world nations are coming out of colonialism and many have various flavors of welfare statism/socialism.

As for 18th century Britain...take it up wit' da' king.

I think since you are making an argument (presumably) based on ideology rather than consequence (you think anarcho-capitalism is simply morally correct rather than simply beneficial) it would be important for you to justify your own beliefs (and listing sources doesn't count).

I think anarchocapitalism is simply the the best and only viable system. Just so's y'know.

I forsee a war between defense agencies.

Not economically good for them. War costs. A lot. If they are at war, they aren't making money.

I consider myself sorta anarcho-socialist, I have a few questions about complete absence of government though.
What protects the people/their rights?
What is there to stop corporations from forming and it becoming laissez fare (sp?) capitalist?
What is to stop someone from gaining control and becoming a dictator with totalitarian government?
Do you think it is practically applicable to modern society?

Most likely they would have mutual defense alliances and such like that. But why would they band together and take over? They're making money.

Not economically good for them. War costs. A lot. If they are at war, they aren't making money.

They would have to when resources start to run out, as they certainly will when everyone is competing. It really comes down to whether they will take the risk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 defence of Letila, and from the examples you've provided me in the past, this seems to be what has occured. For instance, Saga-period Iceland did in fact devolve in an economic sense; within a century, virtually all land ended up concentrated in the control of 6 ruling families.

And this eliminated freedom for a lot of people how?

Well, if all property is concentrated in the hands of a few, and you're born into suffering and misery through no fault of your own, there is a serious problem with the political/economic system. Clearly you're defining freedom in a somewhat different sense than I would. Autonomy, in my mind, is a necessary component of any consensual agreement, and autonomy may not be possible in a socio-economic system so clearly arbitrary as what occured in previous 'anarcho-capitalist' flavoured experiences.

We also sometimes see this 'widening class gap' in many economies unburdened with labour laws; early 18th century britain is a good example, as are many third world nations today (note: I am not saying that third world 'exploitation' is bad per se, merely that we do seem to see class gaps widening in these situations, as best as we can tell).

Point of fact: most 3rd world nations are coming out of colonialism and many have various flavors of welfare statism/socialism.

How does this address my point? Are you blaming colonialism, socialism or neither?

As for 18th century Britain...take it up wit' da' king.

This doesn't really respond to my point. I don't think one can reasonably blame the Royalty for what has perpertrated on the working class by an unrestrained (clearly uncaring) capitalist factory owners.

I think since you are making an argument (presumably) based on ideology rather than consequence (you think anarcho-capitalism is simply morally correct rather than simply beneficial) it would be important for you to justify your own beliefs (and listing sources doesn't count).

I think anarchocapitalism is simply the the best and only viable system. Just so's y'know.

Again, you didn't respond to my point at all.

I consider myself sorta anarcho-socialist, I have a few questions about complete absence of government though.
What protects the people/their rights?
What is there to stop corporations from forming and it becoming laissez fare (sp?) capitalist?
What is to stop someone from gaining control and becoming a dictator with totalitarian government?
Do you think it is practically applicable to modern society?

1. The people.
2. That is for the people to decide, but as one of the people I would be pushing for anarcho-communism rather than anarcho-capitalism.
3. The people.
4. At the very least it provides a counterbalance to the more authoritarian trends which we have seen developing in recent years in the western world.

I completely agree with your #4 there. But let me see if I understand 1 and 2, would that mean vigilante-style justice and protection?

I completely agree with your #4 there. But let me see if I understand 1 and 2, would that mean vigilante-style justice and protection?

server troubles

server troubles.

Most likely they would have mutual defense alliances and such like that. But why would they band together and take over? They're making money.

Not economically good for them. War costs. A lot. If they are at war, they aren't making money.

They would have to when resources start to run out, as they certainly will when everyone is competing. It really comes down to whether they will take the risk.

Why would resources run out?

Because there are so many companies in direct competition with eachother. They make a lot of stuff each just to be safe from running out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 completely agree with your #4 there. But let me see if I understand 1 and 2, would that mean vigilante-style justice and protection?Am I right?

Why would resources run out?
Err... this is a fundemental principle of capitalist economics (limited resources). A better way of expressing Letila's point might be to say "What happens when it becomes more profitable, all things considered, to coercively take resources than to engage in fair trade?".

Seriously though, as a capitalist you should realize that, basically by definition, economics is focused on the distribution of scarce resources.

I completely agree with your #4 there. But let me see if I understand 1 and 2, would that mean vigilante-style justice and protection?Am I right?

That depends on your definition. Most anarchists regard the police as being unrepresentative guardians of the political and economic system - defending the ruling class against the masses. Basically, the private security forces of the state.

A peoples militia, answerable directly to the people (eg. the Zapatistas), would be very likely in an anarchist system under threat from a minority force (for an anarchist system to exist, it would have to be supported by the majority as it cannot be enforced and be an anarchist system).

What does vigilante mean? Is it closer to the former or the latter. That's your choice, really, which would you prefer.

Vas.

Because there are so many companies in direct competition with eachother. They make a lot of stuff each just to be safe from running out.

That's just restating your premise. Can't do that.

What I find to be the biggest folly behind the anarchist thinking is the inherent unorganisation of a decentralized state. If we were to be an "anarchist nation" in which small communities trade what they have that others need, for what others have that they need. The problem being without the proper organisation of a centralised organ that can administer what goes where, you'd have the chaos of thinkings not making it to their destinations in time, the wrong quantity of items arriving etc. (this becomes a more present issue depending on whether it's a large country and the quantity and location of the natural resources). Now if someone has an answer to this I'd like to see it. Perhaps my sources are out of date, I haven't read any anarchist material published passed 1920.

What I find to be the biggest folly behind the anarchist thinking is the inherent unorganisation of a decentralized state.

Rubbish, two words - SNAFU principle http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/SNAFU-principle.html

Vas.

What I find to be the biggest folly behind the anarchist thinking is the inherent unorganisation of a decentralized state. If we were to be an "anarchist nation" in which small communities trade what they have that others need, for what others have that they need. The problem being without the proper organisation of a centralised organ that can administer what goes where, you'd have the chaos of thinkings not making it to their destinations in time, the wrong quantity of items arriving etc. (this becomes a more present issue depending on whether it's a large country and the quantity and location of the natural resources). Now if someone has an answer to this I'd like to see it. Perhaps my sources are out of date, I haven't read any anarchist material published passed 1920.

Well, the following response isn't a knockdown argument against that possibility, but: examples of centralised organisations also suffer from the same problems - "the chaos of things not making it to their destinations in time, the wrong quantity of items arriving" can be used as a pretty good description of some of the things which used to occur under centralised control in the Soviet Union and overly-authoritarian Eastern Bloc states. Therefore, it appears to be a problem which isn't limited merely to decentralised systems.

The only potential problem I can see is that people will quickly take the enjoyable jobs and few will do the less enjoyable jobs. I suppose that we all have different ideas of what an enjoyable job would be, so there will be people who will build houses or ships. That and the fact that smart people will do unenjoyable jobs for long term benefits (like building military vehicles so they will be safer from attacks).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

...(like building military vehicles so they will be safer from attacks)...


Do you really consider contributing to an escalation of armaments an ideology that wasn't discredited by the history of twentieth century conflicts?

Do you really consider contributing to an escalation of armaments an ideology that wasn't discredited by the history of twentieth century conflicts?

Very good point, though what I was meaning was that people would think ahead far enough to do something boring if it would benefit them in the long run. As a side note, I would be very surprised of an anarchist society wasn't under any threats from various states who knew their existance was at risk, given that the existance of an anarchist society would discredit statism rather well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

The only potential problem I can see is that people will quickly take the enjoyable jobs and few will do the less enjoyable jobs.


Of course, if there are such things as jobs which no-one enjoys, and those jobs must be done there is no reason why certain people should do them full time: they can be shared between people, or a system could be worked out where those who really enjoy one job get to do it some of the time, and work on the unpleasent jobs the other time.

As far as the idea of "unpleasent jobs" goes, do we have examples of such work that nobody likes, or at least not enough people to cover the necessity of such tasks? At present certain jobs are unpleasent not because of the actual work involved in them, but the conditions which surround them.

As far as the idea of "unpleasent jobs" goes, do we have examples of such work that nobody likes, or at least not enough people to cover the necessity of such tasks? At present certain jobs are unpleasent not because of the actual work involved in them, but the conditions which surround them.

Good point. Are there many people who would build houses, for example?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

As far as the idea of "unpleasent jobs" goes, do we have examples of such work that nobody likes, or at least not enough people to cover the necessity of such tasks? At present certain jobs are unpleasent not because of the actual work involved in them, but the conditions which surround them.

Good point. Are there many people who would build houses, for example?


Hmm. Strange example of an "unpleasent job". I certainly wouldn't put it into that category.

What do you say to the objection that people have an inherent desire to get rich or powerful? What happens if someone becomes famous?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property is theft.
I like big butts.

What do you say to the objection that people have an inherent desire to get rich or powerful? What happens if someone becomes famous?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property is theft.
I like big butts.

What do you say to the objection that people have an inherent desire to get rich or powerful? What happens if someone becomes famous?


Well, they can become rich and powerful in soldiarity with the rest of their community, rather than as measured against them: I see co-operation as a greater way of ensuring success than competition.

I fail to see why fame should be problematic in an anarchist society. Why do you think it would be a problem?


(You will have noticed that at no point have I answered your other question about people becoming more rich/powerful through their personal possessions. Call me slow, but I fail to see why this should be a problem - especially if instead of the zero-sum game trading which is pushed under capitalism is replaced by a view of exchange which leaves all parties feeling they have benefited from a trade. Can't for the life of me remember the appropriate term for this kind of trading though... anthropologists have shown that the Western (capitalist) methodology of exchange is just one way of structuring trade, and other societies operate in other ways)

Wouldn't fame create hierarchy?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property is theft.
I like big butts.

Wouldn't fame create hierarchy?

Only if people act in a consistantly immature manner around those that possess fame.

What will prevent a hierarchy based on intelligence, strength, etc.? If someone grows more food than others, for example,what will keep them from taking control? You can't take their excess food.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 prevent a hierarchy based on intelligence, strength, etc.?

Funny, isn't that what I've been saying over and over again with no answers except "Capitalism creates hierarchy?"

Well, if the rest of the people, who are working collectively, are still producing enough to support themselves, why would they worry?

Here is another description of the way the collectives in the SCW dealt with the land-owners that wanted to remain independent:

http://www.spunk.org/library/places/spain/sp000110.txt

Basically, the land owners are still in need of industrial or other resources, and so do not trade food with individuals, but with the collective as a whole.

So basically, if someone tried to institute hierarchy because they were really smart or something, the other people could simply ignore them them? Why isn't it unfair for smarter/stronger/etc. people to not benefit from their abilities?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'm not an anarchist but I do hate capitalism. I have one website of particular importance. The Refugee Action Collective's Victorian (Australia) website. It has heaps of info the Howard government's brutal treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are shipped off to the desert or impovrished pacific nations by the Australian government. Many people in these detention centres haven't seen freedom in over three years.
Well, here is the website www.rac-vic.org

It seems to me like anarchism would punish those who are more productive by refusing to support them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 prevent a hierarchy based on intelligence, strength, etc.?

Funny, isn't that what I've been saying over and over again with no answers except "Capitalism creates hierarchy?"

Well, I believe that in order for an anarchist society to work the people working together would have to be stronger, smarter, etc. than those who seek to lord it over them. Something of a circular definition, I am aware of that, but there youy have it: I don't believe there is a simple mechanism that can be described here and now which would allow such problems from occuring.

It seems to me like anarchism would punish those who are more productive by refusing to support them.

In what way would it fail to support them? The basic principle in anarcho-communism is "from each according to ability: to each according to need". It is in the interests of the community to support those who are able to produce more than others in their efforts, but it does not follow that just because they produce more they should be rewarded with more for individual consumption.

In what way would it fail to support them? The basic principle in anarcho-communism is "from each according to ability: to each according to need". It is in the interests of the community to support those who are able to produce more than others in their efforts, but it does not follow that just because they produce more they should be rewarded with more for individual consumption.

In capitalism, those who produce more would get rewarded more. (I'm guessing that this is not actually true and that is the solution)Wouldn't that be an incentive to leave? If there isn't capitalism, why can't they create 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.

In capitalism, those who produce more would get rewarded more. (I'm guessing that this is not actually true and that is the solution)Wouldn't that be an incentive to leave? If there isn't capitalism, why can't they create it?


It is only true to a certain extent that under capitalism those who produce more are rewarded more - yes, there are efficiency bonuses and promotions for those who are more productive, but such scraps pale in comparison to the benefits accrued by those that control the means of production: the factory/plantation/company owner or its shareholders. Capitalism is a system where people are rewarded purely for holding capital and resources.

Would this be an incentive to leave? Well, if they leave they are going to have to be pretty self-sufficient: they might be the best farmer/factory worker/poet/whatever in the world, but that isn't going to help them much when they need to make use of produce or skills which they do not themselves possess. They are free to re-invent capitalism with others who consider that the rewards of anarchist life do not reward them sufficiently for their labours, but, simplisticly speaking, it should be borne in mind that capitalism has always depended on the division between the haves (the bourgeoise) and the have-nots (the proletariat). Where would the exploitable human resources (the have-nots) come from in this new arrisal of capitalism?

Okay, 'nother question; how can an apt and orderly system of criminal rehabilitation and detainment be developed in anarchy? (I see this as necessary for protection)

I feel that most crime is either caused by social inequality or the psychologically harmful effects of authority. As for how the remaining criminals would be delt with, I'm not entirely sure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 feel that most crime is either caused by social inequality or the psychologically harmful effects of authority. As for how the remaining criminals would be delt with, I'm not entirely sure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.Oh in many cases you're right, which is another great reason anarcho-capitalism causes problems, but otherwise there needs to be something. This is why I believe in a government only large and powerful enough to protect the people and try and even out inequality.

The problem is that once you institute an elite upper class intended to protect us from our stupidity(Even though they are otherwise ordinary humans like you or me) is that they start to serve themselves. They want to keep their power and will do whatever they can to keep 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.

Noam Chomsky, a great anarcho-socialist speaker and political philosopher, made a great analogy about the necessary evil of government. He said one day in his neighborhood was a stray dog, they did everything they could to help the poor animal, but in any situation, it didn't work, the only thing left to do was have the dog put down, nobody liked the solution, but it was the only way. This shows that criminals and the corporate elites' only solution s not a very good one, but the only true way to do it: government.

Then Noam Chomsky is hardly an anarchist. The problem is that the cure is worse than the disease. You lowered (but not eliminated) crime, but now you have a ruling class that you can't do anything about except possibly shuffle the members of it(elections). The worse part is that crime is still around and probably increases as stupid laws are passed, like anti-porn laws and selective service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

He's considered THE major modern anarchist philosopher, he does believe government should be eliminated but only so slowly, until then minimal government is necessary, or the disease becomes as bad. What would gang-order and capitalist dominion bring? Nothing I'd want.

What would gang-order and capitalist dominion bring? Nothing I'd want.

Gangs would be a lot less common due to the lack of poverty, which seems to be a big factor in them. There won't be capitalism, either. That's one of the basic premises of 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.

Oh? And how would you stop capitalism from developing? Eventually, with absolutely no government it arises, with capitalism; gangs, crime, inequality and systems of power, it would be wonderful to eliminate all government therefore all power but I'm not so naïvé as to think it can be completely accomplished, instead I am, as I said earlier loosely anarcho-socialist, nothing else can be maintained.

People will reject capitalism. I rejected it when I learned the truth and when others learn the truth, they will reject it as well. It's kind of like The Matrix, actually.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'd only reject it as much as they already have, or as much as they've rejected government or any power for that matter. And if they do it won't be until after capitalism and corporations have already developed, at which time the people may be powerless to remove them.

A corporation has no way of forming in anarchism because it needs people to exploit. All people have to do to prevent the rise of corporations is refuse to work for them or support them. There's nothing that requires them to and without support, any capitalism would quickly die.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 doubt it, why do you think the people would reject it if some want it?

Only the upper class will want capitalism when people learn the truth about it. It only benefits the upper class.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Well I agree with you there, but the point is people haven't rejected it before, why would they then? By the time they DID learn the truth it will have developed.

When people realize that capitalism is wrong, they will reject it and it will die with no one to exploit. In an anarchist society, there would be few people willing to support it as they will probably hear a lot of stories about it being bad the way we hear stories about dictatorships being bad, so it wouldn't develop again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

But until people agree with us it will not develop as that, we're talking about the current day, not a future where we tell our kids why capitalism is so bad. Until then the upper class, bourgeois and corporate elite need to be maintained with something, i.e. a government, preferably a minimalist one.

What do you mean "maintained"? Do you mean protected? They certainly don't need that. Do you mean kept under control? The key is that the people could defeat capitalism and statism by rejecting it. Without people to exploit, the ruling elite will wither away.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 kept under control... sorry I've had very little sleep. But the point I'm making is it would not be rejected, because afterwords people would create other systems of power. It would belike the russian revolution, nothing would truly change, no true revolution, just a transfer from one power system to another.

For one thing, a strong state and weak corporations isn't all that much better than a weak state and strong corporations. The Russian revolution was done by Marxists who believed that a dictatorship founded by workers was necessary before real communism could be carried out. Anarchists don't believe 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.

Oh I agree, that was what I was saying, but a minimalist government is necessary, it needs to be very well kept in check and democratic so it doesn't just become a system to be used for the power of the few. It would also have to keep the power-hungry capitalists from becoming powerful, as they would exploit the people. You see, what I'm saying is until everyone agrees with us, anarchism wo't work in application. I'm an anarchist in ideal, green in application.

I see. What you're proposing is how the government should work until enough people have rejected hierarchy for anarchism to be successfully implimented.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Exactly, so untilanarchy can be mutually accpeted... there needs to be a necessary evil, hopefully one day anarchy may work though.

So do we agree?

I think we do. I think the anarchist movement has gained a new member.

I think I've already asked this somewhere, but I don't remember if I got a responce. What about religion? Isn't it too hierarchial?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 think we do. I think the anarchist movement has gained a new member.

I think I've already asked this somewhere, but I don't remember if I got a responce. What about religion? Isn't it too hierarchial?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.Sorry I left. Religion can be too hierarchal and definitely has been exploited, but it doesn't need to be. I've found religions spirituality should be found on ones own, I have no god, but do have religion, not a very hierarchal one though, religion should always be choice.

That's what I was thinking, though I'd like to hear from other 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.

You should also remember that one of the major anarchist thinker was Tolstoy. Tolstoy based a large part of his belief on the new testement. Also Christian Anarchists, a phenomena only really found in America, based their whole philosophy on the new testment.

How did they get anarchism from the New testament?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Say no to drugs. Say no to Anarchy.

Is that the best you can do? You need logic to oppose something. A foolish comparision of a political ideology to a drug isn't enough. Besides, you haven't even proven that drugs are bad. :wink: Develop some arguments and then come back and try them on us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 think we'd agree on a lot of things Letila.

Tolstoy got his anarchic Ideas by analyzingwhat Jesus said on "Blessed are the meek" and things like that as well as things like "equal in the eyes of god" and realized Jesus went against a system keeping him down, and that it took government to kill him again and came to a conclusion: Anarchy. I've always liked the russian style of writing too. Dostoyevsky's one of my favourites.

Oh, he definitely was. And I'm proud to say- so was Buddha!

That reminds me of the quote on some site that someone said they studied the Bible heavily and quoted certain parts. When he quoted those parts, he was accused of communism by a fundamentalist Christian. That would certainly imply that Jesus was actually economicly left wing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Err... wtf, I just replied to that post before you posted it!

"This thread is for you. Come and say hello, debate and discuss, ORGANIZE, meet one another here, even role-play if you like... "


aaaahhaha dumb.

"This thread is for you. Come and say hello, debate and discuss, ORGANIZE, meet one another here, even role-play if you like... "


aaaahhaha dumb.Do you often get such shameless spammers in here Letila?

"This thread is for you. Come and say hello, debate and discuss, ORGANIZE, meet one another here, even role-play if you like... "


aaaahhaha dumb.Do you often get such shameless spammers in here Letila?

All the time, Reem. It's quite annoying.

To the crawl: Try learning something about anarchism. It's hierarchy and not all organization we oppose.

They come in and say "It can't work. People have an inherent need for leaders" and I'm thinking "Wow, that's such a great argument. We anarchists have been thinking about the ideology for a long time and we somehow overlooked that fact. NOT!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

hello

Are you here to learn about anarchism? I think you'll find it a good 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.

Letila, no offense, but you really aren't the best spokesperson for this cause. You're relatively new and you're still so enamoured with the potentialities of the movement that you can't see the immediate and important details that need attention. When your rose colored glasses wear off then you can talk, but until then you'll only bring false hope to yourself and to other.

I suppose you have a point. I'm still learning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Oh I agree, that was what I was saying, but a minimalist government is necessary, it needs to be very well kept in check and democratic so it doesn't just become a system to be used for the power of the few. It would also have to keep the power-hungry capitalists from becoming powerful, as they would exploit the people. You see, what I'm saying is until everyone agrees with us, anarchism wo't work in application. I'm an anarchist in ideal, green in application.

I'd recommend that you read some of what Bookchin has written about local direct democracy and also, look into the self-organisation structure in Chiapas, Mexico. Government involves control and power, no matter what the good intentions in forming it, every historical example has shown that the taste for power overtakes the wish to do good. A direct democratic delegate system, however, means that there are no representatives, nobody speaks "for" you, they speak your words. True delegacy carries so many real checks and balances (for example, a properly run union will involve an official negotiating with the boss, but the product of that negotiation will be brought back to the floor and the whole thing will be picked over. No simple vote on the whole thing, but a line by line work-through.) Any attempt by a delegate to move away from the wishes of those s/he's representing would mean automatic removal of the delegacy AND, most importantly, a lack of recognition of any decisions made due to the misrepresentation by the delegate.

My point is that this system could replace representative democracy tomorrow if people wanted it. The issue is to wake people up and get them to take responsibility for their lives and the world around them. Like trying to form a union in a disorganised workplace, once it starts, it's very hard to stop.

Vas.

Are there anarchist communities actually in existance right now?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Anarchy doesn't work out.

Do some research before you make that conclusion. www.infoshop.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Are there anarchist communities actually in existance right now?

There are a few anarchic communities, from really small scale across the planet (some, like Italian Ya Basta! are deliberately political, others, like peasants' groups in Latin America, are less conscious of the politics and just live like they live - though the MST http://www.mstbrazil.org/ are politically active), to larger Autonomous Zones like http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1402.html or Chiapas http://www.zmag.org/chiapas1/index.htm. Are they anarchism in action? What is anarchism in action? These are all pockets of relative freedom within the system, so they're not perfect in any way, but they do show that another world is possible.

Vas.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

There have been anarchist communities all the way through human history. It is natural foir people to get fed up with being ordered around and descide to leave by themself or a few other people. Even Jesus had a run in with anarchists, and was arguably influeced by them.

Noam Chomsky, a great anarcho-socialist speaker and political philosopher, made a great analogy about the necessary evil of government.

chomsky, while very smart and a good writer and arguably many people's intro to anarchism, is something of a lapsed anarchist. he was one of a very few anarchists in the us a few decades ago and so had to spend a lot of time with the various leninists and liberal democrats that were around. he's still a left libertarian, but i don't tend to think of him as a full out anarchist really. also, he's pretty much disconnected from the current anarchist movement and anarchist organizations - we all more or less still love him, but he's a bit of an outsider.

My point is that this system could replace representative democracy tomorrow if people wanted it.

exactly. that's my thing against the argument that "humanity isn't ready for anarchism yet". besides the authoritarian thinking behind that line of thought (they aren't ready, therefore i should get to decide for them until i decide they are ready), the structures we are proposing are not entirely alien and do not require "a change in human nature".

the real problems are in getting enough people into the movement and then dealing with the entrenched power of the state and capital - and their armed enforcers. when you get enough people in favor of the change, at least in a given area, and are able to hold off the state and capital from that area an anarchistic system becomes entirely achievable. see the spanish revolution - the revolution in spain was uneven, parts of it were more anarchist than others. you could say that it formed a continuum based on how solid the support for anarchism was in an area and how well each area held off the various statist groups (the republicans, the stalinists pretending to be republicans, the facsists). the stronger the anarchists were in an area, the more complete the revolution was.

Dostoyevsky's one of my favourites.

My point is that this system could replace representative democracy tomorrow if people wanted it.

"And yet how simple it is: in one day, in one hour everything could be arranged at once! The chief thing is to love others like yourself, that's the great thing, and that's everything; nothing else is wanted - you will find out at once how to arrange it all. And yet it's an old truth which has been told and retold a billion times - but it has not formed part of our lives! The consciousness of life is higher than life, the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness - that is what one must contend against. And I shall. If only everyone wants it, it can all be arranged at once."

Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Dream Of A Ridiculous Man, trans. Constance Garnett.

How are resources distributed in anarcho-communism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Dostoyevsky's one of my favourites.

My point is that this system could replace representative democracy tomorrow if people wanted it.

"And yet how simple it is: in one day, in one hour everything could be arranged at once! The chief thing is to love others like yourself, that's the great thing, and that's everything; nothing else is wanted - you will find out at once how to arrange it all. And yet it's an old truth which has been told and retold a billion times - but it has not formed part of our lives! The consciousness of life is higher than life, the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness - that is what one must contend against. And I shall. If only everyone wants it, it can all be arranged at once."

Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Dream Of A Ridiculous Man, trans. Constance Garnett.Amazing stuff.

Yeah, I gotta take more of a look into this but let me at least say for right now- even if only in Ideal, I am an anarchist. The only problem is in application, since not all would want it, I may have to believe in only as little government possible... essentially for right now I'm green party.

Of course it would work if people wanted it, so would world peace (of peace I am very strongly in advocacy of), the blunt truth is, as you and I may want it, until more people want it, it cannot be done.

Dostoyevsky's one of my favourites.

My point is that this system could replace representative democracy tomorrow if people wanted it.

"And yet how simple it is: in one day, in one hour everything could be arranged at once! The chief thing is to love others like yourself, that's the great thing, and that's everything; nothing else is wanted - you will find out at once how to arrange it all. And yet it's an old truth which has been told and retold a billion times - but it has not formed part of our lives! The consciousness of life is higher than life, the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness - that is what one must contend against. And I shall. If only everyone wants it, it can all be arranged at once."

Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Dream Of A Ridiculous Man, trans. Constance Garnett.Amazing stuff.

Yeah, I gotta take more of a look into this but let me at least say for right now- even if only in Ideal, I am an anarchist. The only problem is in application, since not all would want it, I may have to believe in only as little government possible... essentially for right now I'm green party.

Of course it would work if people wanted it, so would world peace (of peace I am very strongly in advocacy of), the blunt truth is, as you and I may want it, until more people want it, it cannot be done.

So, how would an anarcho-communist economy work? If property is held in common and people get what they need, how does that work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

So, how would an anarcho-communist economy work? If property is held in common and people get what they need, how does that work?

a more detailed answer can probably be found here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html). it is, after all, a rather broad question. care to narrow it down a bit? but anyway:

first we'd try to figure out what we need. then we'd produce what we need (and then some). after we had stuff to distribute we could go down to the commune distribution center or whatever and get what we want. and we'd use the information of how much and what was used from the distribution center to inform the various collectives of what and how much we need to make. lather, rinse, repeat.

a common objection to this whole system is that people would take as much as they possibly could - because our desires are claimed to be infinite and without a price mechanism we would consume everything that we could.

first off, this could easily be gotten around by some form of equitable rationing for anything where demand really did vastly outstrip supply (which serves somewhat the same function as currency only in a much more fair manner).

and secondly, the idea that our desires are infinite is obviously false. to use the standard example, public libraries allow you to read all the books and magazines you want for free. do you go in and take out all the books you can carry a few times a day? do you ever go in and take out all the books you can carry? of course you don't; you take what you need and only that. another example, in chicago a ride on the el costs the same whether you go 1 stop or ride back and forth the whole day. but almost nobody ever rides past their stop to "get their money's worth". you go as far as you need to - in fact you would be seen as slightly crazy to do otherwise. the same idea is at work in a non-capitalist system of distribution.

What ensures that people produce more than they need for themselves?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Ohhh, it's been proven that peoiple typically produce more than they can sume, that's one aspect of marxism everyone can agree upon.

What ensures that people produce more than they need for themselves?

everybody producing only what they need wouldn't be bad - though a bit risky if something unforeseen were to happen. but since nobody really can make everything they personally need by themselves that means producing more than what you need. as i've already mentioned, for things where there is a shortage we'll probably use a system of need-based or equal rationing.

let's say you make widgets down at the widget making factory. you decide that you are only going to make widgets for yourself and so only make as many as you personally need - you'll have access to all the other goods you need anyway. except that now the collective/commune/federation doesn't have enough widgets to fullfill the needs of the community. and if there aren't enough widgets to go around then you won't wind up with all the widgets you personally need either, because they will be shared out amongst the community based on what part of the community needs them the most. so in order to have as much as you want for yourselves, your collective has to produce enough widgets to meet the needs of the community. it works the same with food or any other productive industry.

essentially all production up to a certain point must be done for the community to have enough for everybody. your share of that is the actual level of producing what you need for yourself. and all production beyond that directly improves the standard of living for everyone in your community, including yourself. so people will produce enough to get to the level that they are happy at out of enlightened self-interest. the general concensus guess that i've heard is that this level will be well below the current (overworked) rates of production but well beyond mere survival.

we do live in a world of material super-abundance after all. they have to invent new needs and desires for us every year just to keep us believing in economic scarcity. we don't need to work any harder. we need to work at levels that really seem reasonable to us, not profitable to the boss.

Do you believe in retaining the wage system and money system, because the wage system provides incentive?
Or abolishing the wage and money systems, and expecting everyone to fulfil their potential and "quota" for the good of society?

Do you believe in retaining the wage system and money system, because the wage system provides incentive?

Nope, monetary "incentive" is divisive and promotes greed.

Or abolishing the wage and money systems, and expecting everyone to fulfil their potential and "quota" for the good of society?

That's more than a little bit simplistic. Firstly, in an anarchist commune, there wouldn't be a distinction between the "good of society" and personal good. This is a false dichotomy created to prop up divisive systems. Selfishness and refusal to co-operate deprives the individual of the co-operation of others to improve their lot. In a monetary system, this is overcome by "wages", the exploitation of others for a small share of the resources of those who refuse to co-operate. In a non-monetary system, co-operation is the only reasonable way of working.

Vas.

Do you believe in retaining the wage system and money system, because the wage system provides incentive?

Nope, monetary "incentive" is divisive and promotes greed.

Or abolishing the wage and money systems, and expecting everyone to fulfil their potential and "quota" for the good of society?

That's more than a little bit simplistic. Firstly, in an anarchist commune, there wouldn't be a distinction between the "good of society" and personal good. This is a false dichotomy created to prop up divisive systems. Selfishness and refusal to co-operate deprives the individual of the co-operation of others to improve their lot. In a monetary system, this is overcome by "wages", the exploitation of others for a small share of the resources of those who refuse to co-operate. In a non-monetary system, co-operation is the only reasonable way of working.

Vas.


I believe the second case. Because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the communal living and abolition of the wage-system has worked before, eg Spain in the Civil War. But I have also read Anarchists who have argued that the wage-system should remain, and the £ $ etc. will represent work because it provides incentive, humans don't really want to work so incentive is needed.
I feel I'm of the school that believes that a sence of Solidarity will build up in a free society so work stops being toil but nearer to 'fun'
I understand this simplistic, but I don't have my sources at the moment.
Also what do you think should be done with the work-shy? Should the be expelled from the community, should the community provide for them still or do you think is a case of the right person working in the wrong place?

let's say you make widgets down at the widget making factory. you decide that you are only going to make widgets for yourself and so only make as many as you personally need - you'll have access to all the other goods you need anyway. except that now the collective/commune/federation doesn't have enough widgets to fullfill the needs of the community. and if there aren't enough widgets to go around then you won't wind up with all the widgets you personally need either, because they will be shared out amongst the community based on what part of the community needs them the most. so in order to have as much as you want for yourselves, your collective has to produce enough widgets to meet the needs of the community. it works the same with food or any other productive industry.

essentially all production up to a certain point must be done for the community to have enough for everybody. your share of that is the actual level of producing what you need for yourself. and all production beyond that directly improves the standard of living for everyone in your community, including yourself. so people will produce enough to get to the level that they are happy at out of enlightened self-interest. the general concensus guess that i've heard is that this level will be well below the current (overworked) rates of production but well beyond mere survival.

How do you get people who don't make enough stuff for the rest of the community share what they have without force?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Ohhh, it's been proven that peoiple typically produce more than they can sume, that's one aspect of marxism everyone can agree upon. I can't agree with it.

I'm guessing the answer to my question is that the point of communities in the first place is to solve problems that one person can't handle. If the community dies, then the person has to solve the problems by themselves. Is that about right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I'm guessing the answer to my question is that the point of communities in the first place is to solve problems that one person can't handle. If the community dies, then the person has to solve the problems by themselves. Is that about right?

Pretty much, however, I'd argue that the question is moot. Without the solidarity and co-operation necessary to continue an anarchist commune, the commune wouldn't have been created. People are unlikely to create an anarchist society and then decide they're not bothered trying. If they decide it's not working, that's another issue. Maybe their kids will all become accountants, but still.

Vas.

bump

Ohhh, it's been proven that peoiple typically produce more than they can consume, that's one aspect of marxism everyone can agree upon. I can't agree with it.

Care to explain why the human race hasn't starved to death then?

What is the gift economy? I've heard it mentioned, but I'm not sure what it is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Ohhh, it's been proven that peoiple typically produce more than they can consume, that's one aspect of marxism everyone can agree upon. I can't agree with it.

Care to explain why the human race hasn't starved to death then? :lol: I considered asking him the same thing, he's just a stupid anti-commie who has no Idea what he's talking about, I'm sure this thread is used to the type, look at what Cuneo has said in here.

Ohhh, it's been proven that peoiple typically produce more than they can consume, that's one aspect of marxism everyone can agree upon. I can't agree with it.

Care to explain why the human race hasn't starved to death then? :lol: I considered asking him the same thing, he's just a stupid anti-commie who has no Idea what he's talking about, I'm sure this thread is used to the type, look at what Cuneo has said in here.

What is the gift economy? I've heard it mentioned, but I'm not sure what it is.

a gift economy is a system of distribution based on reciprocal gift giving. its kind of a complex topic, but the basics of it are that the main form of exchange is gift giving - not market based, that the exchange of goods and services is not done mainly to get wealth but also as means to further social relationships, and that the giving is generalized within the group - you give and you expect you generosity to be reciprocated, but not necessarily right now and not necessarily from the person you gave to.

Has a gift economy ever existed in any culture?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Has a gift economy ever existed in any culture?

Yes, the classic anthropological study by Marcel Mauss was based on the Trobriand Islanders. A related variation of the idea is the concept of Potlatch as undertaken by the natives of the North-West coast of America.


Letila: do you really have no access to either a library or a search-engine?

I have access to a search engine, but it's hard to sift out useful information. Are there any other examples of gift economies?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

in letila's defense, a google search on it turns up a bunch of copies of the three or four "internet and/or open source = gift economy" articles. which are cool, but not the most helpful. though at least one of them makes the link to anarchism (its been a while since i read any of them though, so i don't remember if it was any good). so it probably is kind of a pain to sort through all that when there are people who will give the answers right here.

anyway, gift economies seem to be what you have before you have chief-based redistribution or market based economies. so pretty much all "primitive" cultures were running a gift economy to some extent - though these blur off into forms of centralized redistribution where stuff is first given mainly to one person or family and then given back out to others.

in the modern world there are claims that parts of the internet, such as this forum, are gift economies - i keep answering people's questions even though they don't pay me to do so. and people claim that the open source community is a gift economy. and nearly everyone agrees that the scientific community is pretty much explicitly run on one.

Could it really work on a large scale?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Could it really work on a large scale?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.My thoughts exactly.

Communism would never work. It lacks any method of economic calculation.

You don't need a price system if there isn't money.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Communism would never work. It lacks any method of economic calculation.

two problems. the calculation argument doesn't address libertarian versions of socialism at all, only the more authoritarian socialism of the social democrats. and beyond that, in so far as its assumptions are true, various socialist economists have dealt with it (mainly marxists, but also some more libertarian socialists).

see the relevant bits of the anarchist faq for a brief but good treatment of the subject.
I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises's "calculation argument" prove that socialism can not work? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI1.html#seci11)
and
I.1.2 Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI1.html#seci12)

Could it really work on a large scale?

hard to say, its never been tried. though gift economies did work on fairly large geographic scales, just with fairly small population scales, and certainly with much less complex economies. but we could do at least as well as that, and i see no reason to believe we couldn't do much better

i personally favor a mixed gift economy/decentralized redistribution system. generalized or loosely balanced reciprocity within collectives and communes, and a balanced one between groups, all within a cultural context of aiming for a fair distribution in order to maintain a mutual aid based society.

term defining time:
generalized reciprocity = gift giving for which no accounts are kept and no immediate or specific return is expected.
balanced reciprocity = gift giving that clearly carries the obligation of an eventual and roughly equal return.

How will the redistribution system work?

----------------------
Anarchism!

How will the redistribution system work?

----------------------
Anarchism!

in essence, i picture each community having its own distribution center, where some (fairly small) percentage of everything that is produced in the community goes. and each community will be involved in relationships with other communities, so some (rather large) percentage of what each produces will go elsewhere. what's in the distribution centers is free to anyone within the community (though possibly rationed if there isn't enough to go around). within each community there will also be social pressures against accumulation for accumulation's sake and in favor of gift giving to maintain relatively equal distributions. and the communities will work together within their federations to maintain a relatively equal distribution between them.

and if things get to far skewed, the few proto-rich will have to explain to a bunch of pissed off anarchists why they should get to have so much more than others.

there's a lot more to be said, but to get beyond this point of vague generalities requires a lot more writing than i'm willing to put into it.

ATTENTION:

My nation is hosting an in-game debate for libertarian socialist(ie. Anarchist) nations and Christian nations to come and debate. Although it will 'only' be in-game, I hope to draw a lot of informed people to come and talk. The objectives of the debate is in the IC thread that spawned the idea, here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2680760#2680760)!

Consider your nations invited by the "government"(snicker) of Neo-Anarchos if you're either a strongly devout christian(catholic, protestant) nation or an anarchist, syndicalist or very liberal socialist nation. Every other nation is welcome as well to voice their opinions.

ATTENTION:

My nation is hosting an in-game debate for libertarian socialist(ie. Anarchist) nations and Christian nations to come and debate. Although it will 'only' be in-game, I hope to draw a lot of informed people to come and talk. The objectives of the debate is in the IC thread that spawned the idea, here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2680760#2680760)!

Consider your nations invited by the "government"(snicker) of Neo-Anarchos if you're either a strongly devout christian(catholic, protestant) nation or an anarchist, syndicalist or very liberal socialist nation. Every other nation is welcome as well to voice their opinions.

Thanks for the page. I'll try to debate tehre, if the server doesn't stop me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

news post time:

Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:32:09 +0100 (CET)
From: FdCA International Relations Office <internazionale@fdca.it>
Subject: (en) Brazil, Sao Paulo, Final Declaration of the 2nd Forum of Organized Anarchism 2003 14 - 16 November 2003

________________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
News about and of interest to anarchists
http://ainfos.ca/ http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
________________________________________________

This is an account of the discussions carried on in the workgroups during the
2nd FOA based on the agenda established during the preparatory plenaries.
These texts were approved by consensus during the plenary of November 16.
CONCEPTION OF ORGANIZATION
In the discussions on the first point of the FOA agenda, it was pointed
out that anarchism should organize itself politically and that, like
propaganda, this organization is a means for political practice and not
an end in itself. Programmatic unity is required in this organization,
owing to the existence of differing conceptions of anarchism, something
which could hinder the elaboration of strategies and compromise this unity.

Within that axis, it is important to point out the existence of two
basic methods, one specifically anarchist and political, the other of
social militancy, not necessarily anarchist.

On the political level, it was stressed that the organization needs to
develop strategies, to elaborate a programme of action and propaganda
whose aim is to encourage a revolutionary process to break with
capitalism and build a libertarian socialist society. It is part of
strategy to encourage the social movements towards a revolutionary
direction, preserving the autonomy of the movement and not taking it
over as most of the left does. The organization should reflect on its
militants' involvement in the social movements, taking care that the
winning of immediate demands does not fall into reformism and lose its
revolutionary nature. During the discussions, the possibility was
considered of an alliance on a political and social level with groups
having different ideas.

ORGANIZATIONAL METHODS

Regarding the methods of anarchist organization, it was agreed that it
is necessary to establish membership criteria at a political level:
personal commitment; the development of social practices; a progressive
increase in participation and responsibility; coherence in political
action and education (presentation and discussion of the programme,
documents and reference texts, all this accompanied by a militant). On
a social level the criteria are more flexible and contextualized to the
practice.

Regarding decisional methods, the search for consensus is a priority.
When there is no consensus, the method used is the vote, but always
noting the minority position for subsequent assessment, guaranteeing
unity in action.

Regular meetings of the organization should take place - something that
reflects on the organized nature of the group - and care should be
taken to observe punctuality, frequency, agenda-writing and
minute-taking, the delegation of tasks. As far as discipline is
concerned, the following should be guaranteed: the carrying out of
tasks, implementation of the group's policies, punctuality, collective
responsibility; it is the responsibility of each group to decide how it
will solve ethical and discipline problems.

An organization or group should have a financial policy with fixed
individual dues and/or the production of material and events, and
should maintain contact with other groups and establish security
criteria.

The operations of an anarchist organization should be regulated through
federalism, which uses direct democracy and delegation in the basic
mechanisms of operation. Delegates defend the decisions of the group
and not their individual considerations; therefore the mandate is
momentary, revocable and should rotate in order to avoid overload and
centralization (imperative mandate).

SOCIAL MILITANCY

Social militancy arises and is based in the society of classes - a
consequence of the capitalist system - and should therefore: stimulate
the development of class consciousness and of the struggle which exists
between them; combat bourgeois ideology; promote popular participation
in the process of rupture. This makes it possible to put political
ideas into practice in pre-existing social bodies, to create other
autonomously-regulated bodies, and to encourage the involvement of
people and direct action, besides eventually establishing alliances
with other actors in the social movement. Militants (including those
who have opted to fight for the exploited classes in the present
society, regardless of their origins) must not take on any centralizing
function within the movement they take part in, and must ensure the
real participation of the people. Because this participation stems from
the population's real needs, militants' work must be centred on
material demands without losing sight of the revolutionary project, and
must seek to increase the level of class war on all fronts, thereby
avoiding a fall into reformism.

Differently from activism, social militancy implies responsibility,
regularity, constancy, self-discipline and an absence of separation
between those who act in the social realm and those who act only at the
political level. In order to better define their strategies for action
and build their priorities for struggle, these militants should analyze
the current situation, recognize their means and establish goals and
priorities for the short term and medium term. Furthermore, they need
to promote political education within the social militancy in order to
complement practice and should, as far as possible, promote the
anarchist view of concepts which have been disfigured by other
ideologies such as liberty, social transformation, libertarian
education, self-management, the masses, revolution, and so on.

In conclusion, all the workgroups during the FOA pointed to the need to
give continuity to the debate, to create regional bodies that involve
social and political practice activities, for which common agendas can
be arranged.

The FOA affirms that anarchist practice is rooted in the class struggle
as a revolutionary practice.

ANARCHISM IS STRUGGLE!!!!

Organizations present at the FOA Plenary: Luta Libertária (Sao Paulo),
União Popular (Goiânia, Goiás), Federação Anarquista Gaúcha (Rio Grande
do Sul), Federação Anarquista Insurreição (Rio de Janeiro), Rede
Libertária da Baixada Santista (Santos, Sao Paulo), AR-S26 (Mogi das
Cruzes, Sao Paulo), RNT-1936 (Guarulhos, Sao Paulo), CRL (Sao Paulo),
TEAR (Sao Paulo), Utopia Socialista (Sao Paulo), GARRA (Sao Paulo),
CCMA (Sao Paulo), CELMA (Sao Paulo) and various individuals.

Translation by FdCA International Relations Office

____________________________

FEDERAZIONE DEI COMUNISTI ANARCHICI
http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen

Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:18:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>
Subject: (en) US, Lansing, Michigan, More on the Midwest Regional Anarchist Network Gathering

________________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
News about and of interest to anarchists
http://ainfos.ca/ http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
________________________________________________

Lansing Midwest Radical Gathering of Anarchist, Anti-Authoritarian and Autonomist
Group and Individuals Friday, February 6 - Sunday, February 9 Lansing, Michigan
Over New Year’s holiday over 20 people from 12 differnt
groups came to Chicago to form a Midwest Network.
Our meeting focused on:
* Becoming a network. This is being done through the Midwest Unrest web site,
www.MidwestUnrest.net/local.html and through a weblog
discussion, www.livejournal.com/users/revolutiontv
* Working on joint projects. Several ideas were discussed,
including a zine that gives a general introduction to radical
activism and anarchism. We want to see if we can work
effectively together even though we are miles apart.

* Supporting regional actions. We want to be able to
mobilize our respective cities when an important regional
action or event is taking place.

The Lansing meeting will continue to build the Network and
will be a place to discuss regional projects, actions and
ideas.

Location:

The Brighter Days Infoshop will be hosting the meetings.
We are located at 1914 E. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI
48912. Phone # 517-367-6069

Directions:

From Chicago take 94 East to 69 just past Battle Creek. Go
North towards Lansing. Take 496 thru downtown and take
the Pennsylvania Ave. exit and turn left. Go to Michigan
Ave. about 1/2 mile. Go right at Michigan, we are at the
corner of Clemens and Michigan, we are across the street
from a Speedway gas station. There is a stoplight.

From Detroit take 96 West to 127 North. Take the East
Lansing/Michigan Ave/Kalamazoo exit. Go left at
Kalamazoo and go about 5 blocks or so and you will hit
Clemens st. There is a stoplight. Go to the next street which
is Regent. Take a right and if you go a couple blocks you will
hit Michigan Ave. and take another right and you will be at
the shop.

Housing:

People who need housing should email
brighterdays@sbcglobal.net to get that set up.

Schedule: Friday - Arrive in the evening, settle in. Saturday
AM - meetings (topics for the agenda can be discussed on
the Saturday PM - A guy from Direct Action will be DJing at
the Temple Club Saturday night, it is 18 and up. It is a benefit
for the local FTAA arrestees. After the show, we will have
an after party/get together.

Food:

We will have a list and directions to good places for food
that is affordable. It would be great if people could bring food
to share.

Brighter Days Infoshop
www.geocities.com/lansing_infoshop
brighterdays@sbcglobal.net 517-367-6069


Link: http://www.MidwestUnrest.net/local.html

i hate this thread, someone please lock it

i hate this thread, someone please lock it

Oh stop it please, I'm about to split my sides.

i hate this thread, someone please lock it

Oh stop it please, I'm about to split my sides.
you are about as cool as Howard Dean's wife in a bikini

you are about as cool as Howard Dean's wife in a bikini

Yeah, you see you made a number of mistakes here.

1). You used the word 'cool', which in a display of unwitting irony, isn't very 'cool' at all.

2). You made a 'you are as about as...' joke

3). You made an unfunny 'you are as about as...' joke

4). You comapred me to people I neither know or care about

5). You did it on a public forum. Now many, many people know you that you made an unfunny 'you are about as...' joke.

You know, if I were you, I'd work on that.

Its been a pleasure.

If you like, you can turn the exact same comments on me. Problem is, the only person who would care is you.

Now, why don't you and I let the nice people have their thread and debate in peace.

New Auburn>> Noone's forcing you to read it, so fuck off and spam somethread else.

i hate this thread, someone please lock it

this thread is older than you are, so either contribute to the discussion or frell off.

new topic - anarchist organization. the followinging is the introduction to the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (https://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html). this document is one of the most controversial things within the anarchist movement today (as it was when it was written by a bunch of russian anarchists in exile in france in 1926). so what are anyone's opinions on anarchist organization and organizations? should we have large, permanent, and formal organizations (like any other political and social gorup) or does anarchism mean that we use informal and spontaneous groups? or should we just forget about it all and send mailbombs to low level government officials?



It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the forthrightness and integrity of anarchist positions in the facing up to the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle for libertarian communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and has appeared, very often, in the history of working class struggles as a small event, an episode, and not an important factor.

This contradiction between the positive and incontestable substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the anarchist movement vegetates, has its explanation in a number of causes, of which the most important, the principal, is the absence of organisational principles and practices in the anarchist movement.

In all countries, the anarchist movement is represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them.

Taken as a whole, such a state of revolutionary anarchism can only be described as 'chronic general disorganisation'.

Like yellow fever, this disease of disorganisation introduced itself into the organism of the anarchist movement and has shaken it for dozens of years.

It is nevertheless beyond doubt that this disorganisation derives from from some defects of theory: notably from a false interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism: this theory being too often confused with the absence of all responsibility. The lovers of assertion of 'self', solely with a view to personal pleasure. obstinately cling to the chaotic state of the anarchist movement. and refer in its defence to the immutable principles of anarchism and its teachers.

But the immutable principles and teachers have shown exactly the opposite.

Dispersion and scattering are ruinous: a close-knit union is a sign of life and development. This lax of social struggle applies as much to classes as to organisations.

Anarchism is not a beautiful utopia, nor an abstract philosophical idea, it is a social movement of the labouring masses. For this reason it must gather its forces in one organisation, constantly agitating, as demanded by reality and the strategy of class struggle.

"We are persuaded", said Kropotkin, "that the formation of an anarchist organisation in Russia, far from being prejudicial to the common revolutionary task, on the contrary it is desirable and useful to the very greatest degree." (Preface to The Paris Commune by Bakunin, 1892 edition.)

Nor did Bakunin ever oppose himself to the concept of a general anarchist organisation. On the contrary, his aspirations concerning organisations, as well as his activity in the 1st IWMA, give us every right to view him as an active partisan of just such an organisation.

In general, practically all active anarchist militants fought against all dispersed activity, and desired an anarchist movement welded by unity of ends and means.

It was during the Russian revolution of 1917 that the need for a general organisation was felt most deeply and most urgently. It was during this revolution that the libertarian movement showed the greatest decree of sectionalism and confusion. The absence of a general organisation led many active anarchist militants into the ranks of the Bolsheviks. This absence is also the cause of many other present day militants remaining passive, impeding all use of their strength, which is often quite considerable.

We have an immense need for an organisation which, having gathered the majority of the participants of the anarchist movement, establishes in anarchism a general and tactical political line which would serve as a guide to the whole movement.

It is time for anarchism to leave the swamp of disorganisation, to put an end to endless vacillations on the most important tactical and theoretical questions, to resolutely move towards a clearly recognised goal, and to operate an organised collective practice.

It is not enough, however, to establish the vital need of such an organisation: it is also necessary to establish the method of, its creation.

We reject as theoretically and practically inept the idea of creating an organisation after the recipe of the 'synthesis', that is to say re-uniting the representatives of different tendencies of anarchism. Such an organisation, having incorporated heterogeneous theoretical and practical elements, would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals each having a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on encountering reality.

The anarcho-syndicalist method does not resolve the problem of anarchist organisation, for it does not give priority to this problem, interesting itself solely in penetrating and gaining strength in the industrial proletariat.

However, a great deal cannot be achieved in this area, even in gaining a footing, unless there is a general anarchist organisation.

The only method leading to the solution of the problem of general organisation is, in our view, to rally active anarchist militants to a base of precise positions: theoretical, tactical and organisational, i.e. the more or less perfect base of a homogeneous programme.

The elaboration of such a programme is one of the principal tasks imposed on anarchists by the social struggle of recent years. It is to this task that the group of Russian anarchists in exile dedicates an important part of its efforts.

The Organisational Platform published below represents the outlines, the skeleton of such a programme. It must serve as the first step towards rallying libertarian forces into a single, active revolutionary collective capable of struggle: the General Union of Anarchists.

We have no doubts that there are gaps in the present platform. It has gaps, as do all new, practical steps of any importance. It is possible that certain important positions have been missed, or that others are inadequately treated, or that still others are too detailed or repetitive. All this is possible, but not of vital importance. What is important is to lay the foundations of a general organisation, and it is this end which is attained, to a necessary degree, by the present platform.

It is up to the entire collective, the General Union of Anarchists, to enlarge it, to later give it depth, to make of it a definite platform for the whole anarchist movement.

On another level also we have doubts. We foresee that several representatives of self-styled individualism and chaotic anarchism will attack us, foaming at the mouth, and accuse us of breaking anarchist principles. However, we know that the individualist and chaotic elements understand by the title 'anarchist principles' political indifference, negligence and absence of all responsibility, which have caused in our movement almost incurable splits, and against which we are struggling with all our energy and passion. This is why we can calmly ignore the attacks from this camp.

We base our hope on other militants: on those who remain faithful to anarchism, having experienced and suffered the tragedy of the anarchist movement, and are painfully searching for a solution.

Further. we place great hopes on the young anarchists who, born in the breath of the Russian revolution, and placed from the start in the midst of constructive problems, will certainly demand the realisation of positive and organisational principles in anarchism.

We invite all the Russian anarchist organisations dispersed in various countries of the world, and also isolated militants, to unite on the basis of a common organisational platform.

Let this platform serve as the revolutionary backbone, the rallying point of all the militants of the Russian anarchist movement! Let it form the foundations for the General Union of Anarchists!

Long Live the Social Revolution of the Workers of the World!

The DIELO TROUDA GROUP Paris. 20.6.1926.

Let us look less to documents and declerations and more to actual anarchist praxis. Let us consider the non-hiarchical and yet resiliant organizational methods of the anti-globalist movement and the burgening syndicalism of the Argentinian Autonomistas among other expereinces. Complex and wide ranging associations are inevitable and even welcome but these must be based soly on non-authoreterian industreal democracy with full and ultimate respect for the right of secession.

This is in response to something in a thread in the nation states 2 section that free soviets wrote, I just wanted to see what you guys thought about these ideas.

I think I may have a few things to add to this post. Firstly, all of those theorists that you mentioned are not anarchists. Why? Because they conform to systems. They eat victuals, not rocks. Why? Because the laws of nature govern that rocks do not give nourishment when ingested, but lettuce does. By eating lettuce, one is folowing the rules of nature. If one were to exist on a diet of rocks, he would be an anarchist-disregarding the natural heirarchy and living without nature or his own body as a ruler.

Secondly, how can an anarchistic theory have existed for over 160 years? Has that system not become an oppressive ruler, dictating what you can and cannot believe that it is? You refuse to accept that anarchism could be anything other than what it has been for 160 years. Have you not entered into a system? Have the rules and definitions of anarchy that you cannot step outside of not become your governing body?

To use free soviet's emboldened definitions,

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
-How can you be "advocating a society" without "governmental authority"?

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
-Don't the principles of "anarchy" govern this society? What about the tragically hip circle-c patch wearing minority that wish for a capitalist utopia? How is that situation dealt with?

1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
-Once again, how can full social liberty be obtained through a doctrine?

anarchism [Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals...
-This definition comes right out and contradicts itself. Having no government, yet having a governmental theory? What is another word for a free AGREEMENT? The definition was too kind to come out and say it, I think, but I would call it a type of GOVERNMENT.

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
-Do we not have this cooperation now? If you don't want to buy Nike shoes, you don't have to. You don't have to vote. No one forces you from making the type of asociations that you wish, and our associations with teh Federal Government, AOL, YOUR internet service provider, and any number of other corporations, though they may not be benign or ideal associations, make up teh greatest part of our lives. And the best part is, we are not forced into ANY of them.

It looks as if FS was trying to bolster his numbers, because that one appears twice.

The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals
-This definition is wrong, according to FS and others' beliefs, because of the word "existing". It actually implies that a new government will be set up in its wake, a government of free associations. This definition admits that these free associations constitute a government, wherein the rules of those associations govern the lives of those involved.

This is by no means a be all and end all argument. I have more to say, if anyone wishes. But what I think this boils down to is, after all of this posting, Read Locke's 2nd treatise on Government, anarchists. You will see exactly what you have described, called the "state of nature", and how quickly it deteriorates.

But back to the semantics of this argument, "anarchy" as your political belief contradicts itself on a basic level simply because to advocate or construct an anarchist society is to advocate and build upon a theory of government, which is fundamentally against "anarchy's" principles.

But back to the semantics of this argument, "anarchy" as your political belief contradicts itself on a basic level simply because to advocate or construct an anarchist society is to advocate and build upon a theory of government, which is fundamentally against "anarchy's" principles.

Anarchism is NOT, for the upteenth time, an ideology that opposes governmnent full stop. Anarchism is an ideology that opposes authority, one person or group having power over another person or group. Representative government, rather than a direct democracy, is a system of authority, which is why anarchists oppose it. Free association is the opposite of authority.

That is it, 'nuff said, now can new posters PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE FUCKING BOARD BEFORE MAKING THEIR POINTS???

Vas.

I think I may have a few things to add to this post. Firstly, all of those theorists that you mentioned are not anarchists. Why? Because they conform to systems. They eat victuals, not rocks. Why? Because the laws of nature govern that rocks do not give nourishment when ingested, but lettuce does. By eating lettuce, one is folowing the rules of nature. If one were to exist on a diet of rocks, he would be an anarchist-disregarding the natural heirarchy and living without nature or his own body as a ruler.

Secondly, how can an anarchistic theory have existed for over 160 years? Has that system not become an oppressive ruler, dictating what you can and cannot believe that it is? You refuse to accept that anarchism could be anything other than what it has been for 160 years. Have you not entered into a system? Have the rules and definitions of anarchy that you cannot step outside of not become your governing body?

somebody has either watched slc punk a few too many times or been talking to a few too many absolute nihilists. any sort of human society or even interaction will by its very nature have a system to it. we cannot be against systems in general because that makes no sense. we can, however, be against any system of authority and be for a system of liberty and equality.

as for anarchist theorists and theory being unanarchistic, that's just stupid. we made up the damn word to go with the theory and it has nothing to do with opposing all systems of every type.

This is by no means a be all and end all argument. I have more to say, if anyone wishes. But what I think this boils down to is, after all of this posting, Read Locke's 2nd treatise on Government, anarchists. You will see exactly what you have described, called the "state of nature", and how quickly it deteriorates.

But back to the semantics of this argument, "anarchy" as your political belief contradicts itself on a basic level simply because to advocate or construct an anarchist society is to advocate and build upon a theory of government, which is fundamentally against "anarchy's" principles.

none of the big three "states of nature" (hobbes, locke, or rousseau) ever existed. humans never lived like that - though locke and rousseau both come much closer than hobbes did. don't think that anarchists haven't read locke just because we don't accept his conclusions.

and if you want to call the structures anarchists advocate 'government' fine. i think its stupid to do so because they are clearly different from any government that has ever existed, but still fine. all that means is that we aren't against 'government'. we are just against authority, hierarchy, rulers, classes, and anything else contrary to freedom and equality. nothing changes and the word anarchism means the same thing it always has.

Let us look less to documents and declerations and more to actual anarchist praxis. Let us consider the non-hiarchical and yet resiliant organizational methods of the anti-globalist movement and the burgening syndicalism of the Argentinian Autonomistas among other expereinces. Complex and wide ranging associations are inevitable and even welcome but these must be based soly on non-authoreterian industreal democracy with full and ultimate respect for the right of secession.

well, i bring it up because there are a bunch of platformist (or platform influenced) groups running around. and there is the on going argument between them and the people at anarchy mag and the primitivists and such.

anyway, long time no see. where've you been recently?

The whole "state of nature" argument. :roll: The most irritating one I've heard. We don't need leaders to force us not to kill. How many people do you know that are about to kill but don't because of government?

As for the platform, I'm against it.

---------------------
Anarchism!

It is not the State of Nature;
It's the Nature of the State

That's a good quote, CO.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

No one forces you from making the type of asociations that you wish, and our associations with teh Federal Government, ... we are not forced into ANY of them.

Emphasis added.

Partyhood, you might want to rethink what you have just claimed here. It is patently untrue.

I'm guessing that he thinks capitalism is voluntary, too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I think I may have a few things to add to this post. Firstly, all of those theorists that you mentioned are not anarchists. Why? Because they conform to systems. They eat victuals, not rocks. Why? Because the laws of nature govern that rocks do not give nourishment when ingested, but lettuce does. By eating lettuce, one is folowing the rules of nature. If one were to exist on a diet of rocks, he would be an anarchist-disregarding the natural heirarchy and living without nature or his own body as a ruler.

As if you didn't already know it: this laughable argument is based on the equivocation involved in the term 'laws'. You assert that the 'laws of nature govern', and claim that this somehow invalidates the anarchist project of living without laws.

Okay, so what are the 'laws of nature'? They are either those rules as formulated through science, or they are the underlying mechanisms which govern how the world physical world operates. In the first sense they are merely observations of what usually occurs, in the other they are the logos - the way in which things must occur. It is the aim of science to fit its predictive observations to this logos - and so to be able to describe perfectly the mechanisms which structure physical reality. 'Laws of nature' describe what can take place, and under what conditions.

Okay, so what are the 'laws' that anarchists are opposed to? They are either restrictions based upon human behaviour, generally carrying penalties should they be transgressed. There is nothing in a societal law that prevents it from being broken, in fact it is the very possibility of its being broken that gives it its valid existence as a law. A second type are laws which constitute methods of operation within society: thus if I want to declare myself and my partner to be married within a society, then we must follow the laws which govern such a process. It is entirely possible to break such laws, but if they are broken then the process is invalidated and no reward accrues.

So we have one set of laws (those of nature) which are expressions of physical mechanisms - the logos - and which cannot be broken, and we have another set of laws (those of society) which are arbitrary human constructions and in order to be valid must be able to be broken.

As I said, it all comes down to an equivocation that you have used in connection with the word 'law'.

Let us look less to documents and declerations and more to actual anarchist praxis. Let us consider the non-hiarchical and yet resiliant organizational methods of the anti-globalist movement and the burgening syndicalism of the Argentinian Autonomistas among other expereinces. Complex and wide ranging associations are inevitable and even welcome but these must be based soly on non-authoreterian industreal democracy with full and ultimate respect for the right of secession.

well, i bring it up because there are a bunch of platformist (or platform influenced) groups running around. and there is the on going argument between them and the people at anarchy mag and the primitivists and such.

anyway, long time no see. where've you been recently?
Ah! This is what I get for being completly and utterly out of the Anarchist loop. I really need to plug myself into the modern currents of Anarchist thought, word and deed more. My involvement in Anarchist culture is limited to the sporadic study of century-old books, strikes and assasinations and even more sporadic reading of month-old issues of The Industreal Worker.

Good to see you too. I've been staying away from the web for a bit. Most of my puppets died quietly, but I still have my three favorite nations. had to come back to keep FOE alive when a friend of mine whom I had intoroduced to NS observed that my imagined Anarchist society seemed to parallel Bakunin's mostly imaginry "International Alliance" as a pleasant tool in the shaping of my own ideas. Where have I been? In my home state of New York for the most part. I have been reading, writing, thinking, agitating for insuffcient but nessesary political reform (My inner struggle between Reformist and Revolutionist action is heating up though), attending the odd class here and there and smoking not nearly enough pot. I'm going to have to drop by the CACE forums at some point... I'm taking my studies more seriously this semester though so I won't be around much...


As for the topic at hand:

The only method leading to the solution of the problem of general organisation is, in our view, to rally active anarchist militants to a base of precise positions: theoretical, tactical and organisational, i.e. the more or less perfect base of a homogeneous programme. Sounds like the very sort of secterian dogmatism that Bakunin had fought Marx over way back in the 1st International. Marx won and the International was mortally wounded. Such an organization would be yet another association of like-minded Anarchists. This is no reciepe for a popular Anarchist front.

A Syndicalist labor organization with popular forums where ideas can be shared and fused (The Commune of Ideas rather than the capitalist "Marketplace" sham) by the workers to form a common culture of thought and common languege is what we need to build. These Russian exiles seem to have wanted to build the roof before they had a basement. Anarchist praxis must build from the ground up.

That's a good quote, CO.
Thanks. It's an original "Eugene" as far as I know :D

-Eugene
(Sometimes known Gensec Khan the Great and the Terrible of the United Socialist Hordes of the Communist Orks)

The whole "state of nature" argument. :roll: The most irritating one I've heard. We don't need leaders to force us not to kill. How many people do you know that are about to kill but don't because of government?

As for the platform, I'm against it.

---------------------
Anarchism!

What are you talking about? People act within their best interests. Interests conflict. These conflicts turn violtent and then you have total chaos until a new system asserts itself.

People act within their best interests. Interests conflict. These conflicts turn violtent and then you have total chaos until a new system asserts itself. The goal of Anarchism ought to be to build a system (yes you heard me right to build a system) out of the conflict that will destroy this one. The conflict is primerlly a class conflict; the competing interests of Capital and Labor. In making the revolution we must build a system that fosters freedom, justice and industreal as well as political, social and civil democracy. We must build the new order in the very workers' organizations that will break the capitalist hold on power through direct industreal action so that rather then bringing about your 'chaos' the downfall of capitalist hegemony will be more like the shedding of an empty shell that will reveal the shining fruit of a society organized on free, fair, rational and egaliterian principles.

People BTW do not act within their best interests but rather in their percieved best interests.

I've been talking about why capitalism is wrong to a friend, but he just doesn't seem to get it. He thinks that the rich earned their money, but I explained that they get it by simply owning industry and forcing workers to work to live. He says they only get ownship of factories and such by working hard earlier in their lives. What would be some good arguments to use?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>Freedom>capitalism and the state</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I've been talking about why capitalism is wrong to a friend, but he just doesn't seem to get it. He thinks that the rich earned their money, but I explained that they get it by simply owning industry and forcing workers to work to live. He says they only get ownship of factories and such by working hard earlier in their lives. What would be some good arguments to use?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>Freedom>capitalism and the state</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpgTell your misguided friend the life story of GW Bush. A rich man's grandson 'earns' nothing. Then ask him why a robber does not deserve to keep his spoils and a high place in society to boot. obbing people is after all HARD work. The robber steals the work of others, and no matter how hard he works at his trade, his profits are misbegotten as they are sucked out of the gains made by others in honest trades.

It looks like the founder of this thread, Spiritual Anarchy, is about to get auto-deleted for inactivity. It's a shame; he was one of the most intelligent people I've seen on this forum.

well, i bring it up because there are a bunch of platformist (or platform influenced) groups running around. and there is the on going argument between them and the people at anarchy mag and the primitivists and such.

Not that I'm a platformist as such, though I have no serious problem with a voluntary platform freely accepted by a group based on free association, but I've gotta say - primitivists have NOTHING to do with anarchism. Primitivism is a ridiculous apocalyptic nonsense based on historically inacurracies, outdated romanticism and a very high level of misanthropy.

Vas.

It looks like the founder of this thread, Spiritual Anarchy, is about to get auto-deleted for inactivity. It's a shame; he was one of the most intelligent people I've seen on this forum.

Nooo!! SA was the most intelligent IMO, and one of the nicest folk here. Damn.

It looks like the founder of this thread, Spiritual Anarchy, is about to get auto-deleted for inactivity. It's a shame; he was one of the most intelligent people I've seen on this forum.

Nooo!! SA was the most intelligent IMO, and one of the nicest folk here. Damn.
if this is the case then assuredly the autodemurage duration needs to be extended. anyone can suffer viccesitudes and these machines are not infallable. the first time i was off line myself, well other then prior to ever having been online that is, was nearly ten years during which this internet went from being arpa/darpa net to becoming the public resource it has. i've also blown a mother board at one time several years ago, without a back up sysetem or way to access one, and was down for more then a month.

as those in regeon anarchy know, i have been pondering in my mind a truely anarchest in the an-archy sense, roll play for the roll playing forum, but remain in a slight quandry as to weather to begin as a new immigrant, thus a rational excuse to visibly introduce concepts that would be taken for granted familiar to someone growing up there, or with the dayly life of someone who'se lived there all their lives. and of course i must make the caveat that the nature of an-archy being nearly as limitlessly diverse as existence itself, any environment i and or others verbaly create can never be more then a small thin slice/sample of this range of possibilities.

i make no promises as i am still pondering, and a ponderous pondering it is, and if someone else 'beats me out of the gate' i shal be as pleased as were it myself. this is not however an insistence that someone else do so, only a disclaimer and a suggestion not to hold one's breath.

i do hope though that others will feel inclined to join in. this will be, what i'm pondering that is, individual charicter level rollplay IN one or more of the 'nations' in our regeon, and being as my own is the most familiar to me ...

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

Tell your misguided friend the life story of GW Bush. A rich man's grandson 'earns' nothing. Then ask him why a robber does not deserve to keep his spoils and a high place in society to boot. obbing people is after all HARD work. The robber steals the work of others, and no matter how hard he works at his trade, his profits are misbegotten as they are sucked out of the gains made by others in honest trades.

I tried that. He insists that the business owner personally manages the business.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

It looks like the founder of this thread, Spiritual Anarchy, is about to get auto-deleted for inactivity. It's a shame; he was one of the most intelligent people I've seen on this forum.

Nooo!! SA was the most intelligent IMO, and one of the nicest folk here. Damn.

And now he's gone...

As for the platform, I'm against it.

any particular reason?

It seems too complex and almost beaurocratic, though I admit that I don't know a whole lot about it.

Has anyone succeeded in proving to a friend the evils of capitalism? How did you do it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Tell your misguided friend the life story of GW Bush. A rich man's grandson 'earns' nothing. Then ask him why a robber does not deserve to keep his spoils and a high place in society to boot. obbing people is after all HARD work. The robber steals the work of others, and no matter how hard he works at his trade, his profits are misbegotten as they are sucked out of the gains made by others in honest trades.

I tried that. He insists that the business owner personally manages the business.


In some cases this is true, but in most cases the shareholders of corporations do no actual work for their profits: instead they invest money and sit back in the hope that they shall turn a profit.

Once one has money within capitalism it is much easier to earn money than if one does not have initial capital. Inherited wealth exacerbates this effect: people are successful merely because they inherited money from their parents.

As far as persuading your friend of the evils of capitalism goes: what is his current political stance? Any socialist/communist leanings?

As far as persuading your friend of the evils of capitalism goes: what is his current political stance? Any socialist/communist leanings?

He basically believes in the saying "My country, love it or leave it." He insists that if someone is rich and doesn't work, "they already did their work." He also believes that investing in the stock market is work because it supports the economy. He certainly doesn't have any socialist or communist leanings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

He basically believes in the saying "My country, love it or leave it." He insists that if someone is rich and doesn't work, "they already did their work." He also believes that investing in the stock market is work because it supports the economy. He certainly doesn't have any socialist or communist leanings.

already did their work?! investing is work?! wtf dude, that's crazy talk, that is.

lots of things "support the economy". such as spray painting buildings (they do get cleaned, which means more money circulating and more jobs and such). you could try going after the idea of stock ownership from another angle. like so, perhaps:

it is impossible for everyone in a capitalist society to earn a living off of ownership alone. somebody has to actually make things. the making things bit is what allows the stock market to even exist. we could (and did) have a society where things are made without a stock market, but we could not have a society based around stock ownership with no people actually making things. stock ownership is a completely seperate kind of thing from actual labor. especially because ownership of the productive and other important bits of society could be handled differently, but work must still be done.

but economics is a complex starting point. i usually work starting from freedom in general to the economics of free and equal people. people are a little too caught up in neoliberalism=freedom (though americans wouldn't use that term) to just jump straight in to the "capitalism bad" argument in my experience. you're better off working your way up through obvious oppression and exploitation - things go better when you are more or less agreeing with somebody than if you head straight into confrontational mode.

Not that I'm a platformist as such, though I have no serious problem with a voluntary platform freely accepted by a group based on free association, but I've gotta say - primitivists have NOTHING to do with anarchism. Primitivism is a ridiculous apocalyptic nonsense based on historically inacurracies, outdated romanticism and a very high level of misanthropy.

Vas.

heh, don't mind me, i just bring the controversy. speaking of which, i just saw this on infoshop (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/02/07/4689994)


Liberation, Not Organization

posted by Green Anarchy Collective on Saturday February 07 2004 @ 02:58PM PST

If I Have to Pay Dues or Carry a Membership Card, I Don’t Want to Be In Your Revolution. (from GREEN ANARCHY#15 - Winter 2004)

I desire liberation, not organization. While most leftists would claim that the two go hand-in-hand, or at least that the second is necessary to achieve the first (and for some the second might even “wither away” sometime after “The Revolution”), to me, the two seem contradictory. I am not fighting for a world which is run better (more efficiently and more fairly), I am fighting for a world which doesn’t need running (one which is radically decentralized). Here lies the contradiction between the Left, and those fighting for autonomy and anarchy.

If the politics of the left (including leftist-anarchists) could be distilled into one phrase, it might be “Social Justice” – a vague longing for a social system which ensures equality (socially and economically, although not necessarily politically) for everyone, and the political apparatus necessary to ensure/enforce their particular notion of what that would mean. But only by people controlling their own lives, and all decisions which pertain to them, will people ever be free. This should be a basic concept, at least for anarchists, but unfortunately for those still tied to a leftist mode of operation and thinking, it is not. In fact, this simple notion is attacked for being too “individualist” or “unrealistic”. I guess some people just think they know what is best, especially for the “lumpen” and “the masses.” They wish to plug everyone into an infrastructure which adheres to the “correct” ideology (a notion anarchists should reject at face value): as Michael Albert (Z Magazine) has said, the “good morality”. These notions of “the way” are an insult to independent thinking and openness, and stand in direct opposition to anarchy, and deserve only disdain.

Only WE can fully understand what WE are fighting for, and our own interests and skills. We waste too much time trying to form affinity and artificial unity with those with whom there is very little meaningful agreement. Decentralized autonomous groups, making all of their own decisions, are the key to effectiveness and to staying motivated. Only when resistance comes from our hearts can we have any chance of fulfillment. I am not just “two arms for the revolution,” as some guilt-ridden, uncritical, and uninspired leftists and leftist-anarchists have proclaimed. I am not a foot soldier for a vanguard or an “oppressed people.” And, the last thing we need is more standardization, mechanization, and militaristic approaches...the logic which projects this whole system forward.

I am fighting for my own liberation, and from this stems my support for my family, my community, others’ struggles, and the rest of life. Does this mean we cannot learn from others, share ideas, or join together in projects of resistance? Certainly not, but these junctures MUST be without coercion, manipulation, and domination. They should be seen as temporary and organic, and their continued connection cannot be at the expense of our autonomy. We need to prioritize the deep and meaningful relationships over the superficial and political ones. We must avoid the “lowest common denominator” approach to liberation, one which sums up our collective desires and struggles in vague catchwords like “freedom”, “equality”, and “justice”, or the “One Big Union” approach, which superficially embraces diversity, yet in reality, works to diminish all individuality and autonomy.

Some anarchists, and all leftists, propose large monolithic federations, parties, and structures to “get shit done” and “hold people accountable.” We must reject this fetishization of organization and control. Our liberation should not be dependent on a political or economic structure – it should come from our own desires and willingness to fight for another world. A leftist-anarchist friend of mine wants to know how we hold people accountable when they continually “flake.” To which I respond, learn the patterns of those you work and live with, and know what you can depend on, and what you cannot. If they are continually unreliable, then don’t rely on them. It’s simple. It all comes down to bringing about a deeper understanding of one another, not some adjudication process to enforce agreements…that is how the state works. Even in regard to abusers, some would like established policies and rigid methods for dealing with people, but each scenario is different, and each victim and community demands a different outcome. It is taking the easy way out, when we attempt to programmatically apply a solution to a problem. Taking responsibility for a situation and working towards the most effective outcome takes time, energy, and commitment to one another, and while it may seem difficult at the time, in the end it is usually the most meaningful.

Smaller groups are more able to make decisions which are relevant to the individuals involved, while large organizations require tremendous amounts of resources and bureaucracy just to perpetuate themselves. Constant decisions need to be made just to keep them “running,” and this will inevitably lead to representation and hierarchy. The further we are from any decision-making process, the more alienated we are from the decisions it makes. This is not a healthy model for taking control of our own lives, it is a model for being controlled. As anarchists, we need to take responsibility for our own decisions and their outcomes. This is not to say that we should only be concerned with decision-making on an individual level (although there are certainly decisions which only apply here), but also as small, decentralized communities. Here, decisions are made face-to-face, with each member of our family, band, or collective deeply entwined with one another and our environment – a bio-regional perspective which reflects how natural ecosystems function. We only need organizations and large structures if we want to keep most of the racket known as civilization going (including technology, production, the military, mass society, globalized reality, etc), but if we reject all of this, we can bring our lives back to a human scale, lives worth living.

by A. Morefus

People act within their best interests. Interests conflict. These conflicts turn violtent and then you have total chaos until a new system asserts itself. The goal of Anarchism ought to be to build a system (yes you heard me right to build a system) out of the conflict that will destroy this one. The conflict is primerlly a class conflict; the competing interests of Capital and Labor. In making the revolution we must build a system that fosters freedom, justice and industreal as well as political, social and civil democracy. We must build the new order in the very workers' organizations that will break the capitalist hold on power through direct industreal action so that rather then bringing about your 'chaos' the downfall of capitalist hegemony will be more like the shedding of an empty shell that will reveal the shining fruit of a society organized on free, fair, rational and egaliterian principles.

People BTW do not act within their best interests but rather in their percieved best interests.

The flaw in your logic is that your revolution is by necessity coercive.

You are right about people not always being aware of their best interests though.

The flaw in your logic is that your revolution is by necessity coercive.

so?

coercion to end oppression is not generally considered a bad thing unless you take a pretty strict pacifist stance. in the same way that it would be ok to shoot hitler, it is ok to disband the institutions of power and hierarchy. more so even.

The flaw in your logic is that your revolution is by necessity coercive.

so?

coercion to end oppression is not generally considered a bad thing unless you take a pretty strict pacifist stance. in the same way that it would be ok to shoot hitler, it is ok to disband the institutions of power and hierarchy. more so even.

Firstly, shooting Hitler wouldnt have done a lick of good.

And secondly, you plan to oppress people into not being oppressed? I hope that I need not point out the intrinsic flaw in that reasoning.

And secondly, you plan to oppress people into not being oppressed? I hope that I need not point out the intrinsic flaw in that reasoning.

no. we plan to end oppression - by force if necessary (personally i'd prefer it didn't, but somehow i don't see the ruling class and the bosses just backing down).

imagine a person holding a bunch of other people hostage. is it 'oppression' to hit that person to free the others?

anarchist are morons.

anarchist are morons.

no worse than people of any other political persuasion.

actually, i find anarchists on the whole to be some of the more intelligent people around.