Beginners Guide to Anarchism!

[veggie 3.14]

Isn't it much more anarchic to borrow the book from a library, that way the book stays public property, not to mention you spend no money and can get as many books as you want. Just a suggestion.

Well, I would, but my library at school barely has any books on politics, let alone Anarchism, and the public one in town has one book on Marxism, which sucks. (The book.)

:(

[ROT]

any ism is an action towards artificial order ithas to be genuine

let it be done without doing
it goes without saying
the greatest action through inaction

[ThisUserIsAPipebomb]

Update on my power. I got the Daniel Guerin book today: Anarchism- From Theory to Practice. I fgure in ahout a month I should be in here answering questions like mein Ubermensch.

[Der Übermensch]

hehe... hope you enjoy it :thumb:

[there_is_no_username]

Alright, now say that there was an anarchal society somewhere, and all the people agreed on guidelines rather than laws. Now theoretically, based on human nature, many people would want just a group of people to represent them in order to make the "guidelines". This would end up being the beginning of a Republican government. These guidelines would become laws, and then it would progress as the lawmaking group gained more power based on laws they made, and eventually it would become a full fledged government. So if you think of it this way, then theoretically, an anarchy would never last for more than a century or two, just because of human nature alone. Humans want people to figure out things for them.

[Der Übermensch]

Ah... duration. Bit rambling, but a good question non the less.

Well first, I am not naive enough to believe something can last for ever. Even the greatest societies fall, and not always due to their own faults.
I do think that people would be to attached to their personal liberty to so easily give it up to the direction of a select few, and while I think that once effectivly established, 100 years would be a bad guess.... in 500 years, who knows what human habits and needs will have changed to by then. I would like to think it can last for a long time, but I cant claim to forsee the long term direction of human development.

[Noku]

I was just thinking... You said something about not denying the importance of organizations. That it is good to have architects to design buildings and doctors to deal with medical problems. Why this excludes politicians? If you study mathematics and constructions, chances are that you won't need an architect to design your house. The thing is that while society gets bigger it is nearly impossible for one person to get the whole picture of things. To avoid unfair processing of issues all the nations have developed rather complex political protocols which has lead to a situation where normal citizens are rather powerless in political scenarios. However, the same has affected every part of human societies. Things have gotten more complex and we are more dependant on other people than before. Professionals tend to know better than you, that's why they are professionals after all.

Your issue with current political methods might be that "we are unable to build our own houses", we aren't asked if we want to have an architect or not. But that is where you got it all wrong. No one is preventing you from getting political carrier and to represent yourself and your followers. In my opinnion my government isn't preventing me from starting a political carrier and representing myself on the politics. It's just that it takes too much effort and I lack the interest. It is a good thing that someone has been devoted enough to study politics and shares some views with me. If I'd study politics I might be able to represent my self, if I'd study something else I'd be able to do something else. That simple.

You might also say that the current system is absolutely too corrupted and that is why "normal" citizens are unable to get their opinnions some voice. However, if you don't like corruption, you'll need complex protocols to prevent corruption. In anarchy everything would be unoffical and absolutely corrupted and I've never liked that. If there is no rules and regulations there is no reason to assume everyone will treat you fair just because you don't look pretty. With laws and regulations that kind of things are impossible. I get student benefits, I get student loans for living, I may study for free, even though I look like a glam rocker, even though I don't have much money, even though I have my political opinnions, even though I am who I am.

Believe it or not, there is an axis where the other end is total corruption and the other end is strict rules and regulations to guarantee equality.

Anyway, I just moved so I don't have internet connection yet and I'll be unable to respond untill I visit my parrents house again.

[Der Übermensch]

In my opinnion my government isn't preventing me from starting a political carrier and representing myself on the politics.
Reading through what you wrote, I think this is the key phrase. True, government, or at least the current government, doesn't prevent this. However, the political system does. Look at pretty much every President this country has ever had. They all had money! Same with Senators and Rep's. Most have money, or at least are able to fundraise MILLIONS of dollars. It costs a lot to be able to represent yourself. I, and most anarchists, believe that there should be no barrier there. If you analize different forms of Anarchism, you will often find substitution for government (except maybe with True Individualism): With Sydicalism you have the Union, with Mutualism you have the communal confederations or federations, and so on. The difference however is that if you wish to have a hand in how things get done, you can. If you would rather leave it to others, you may. What matters that you can make that choice, and their is no constraint upon it.

[Smokey D]

But surely that's a problem with the American system, not the democratic movement in general. In most western countries, seniority in the party membership counts for much more than one's ability to finance an election.

[Der Übermensch]

Key word, Party membership. A party system in government invariably leads to problems. Issues get colored black and white, and lumped together. You vote party A because they believe in 1,2 and 3, which you agree with, but what if they are also against 4, which you also like? Parties can never represent the complete spectrum of its constituency, nor can politicians, no matter how hard they try.

[Smokey D]

But, provided they are democratic, they can represent most of the interests of the majority, while simultaneously protecting the minority.

And for the most important issues, it tends to be a blind ballot. At least, that's how it's done down here.

[Der Übermensch]

Well, where are you located?

[Smokey D]

New Zealand. That's only on really big things though. Generally, it is divided along party lines.

[Der Übermensch]

Hmm.. Can't say I know anything about the governmental system of NZ, so I can't really write any sort of critique.

[Smokey D]

It's Mixed Member Proportional, meaning Parliament is decided upon using both a list (MPs ranked on Party lists, and % of votes for the party corrosponds to what number on the list sit in Parliament) and constituency (MPs elected into seats) system.

Theoretically, it gives a much more accurate representation of what the elecorate wants, with much more power in the hands of the smaller parties. In practise, the country is still largely divided between the centre left and centre right parties. Smaller players often do become kingmakers, though.

[Der Übermensch]

hmm... sounds like an interesting concept... i'll need to read up on it.

[ChittyFingers]

Anarchy is flawed

[Aeaon]

Personally, I think annarchy is bullshit. Besides, it's dead and pointless now.

[Der Übermensch]

thank you for your wonderful, though out, and well expressed post! Please come again!

[Giaeo]

Oh, you're welcome, asswipe. :thumb:

[Futue te Ipsum]

Anarchy is flawed
Personally, I think annarchy is bullshit. Besides, it's dead and pointless now.
Oh, you're welcome, asswipe. :thumb:
Dear god... I can't believe I share views with these morons.

[Der Übermensch]

Hmm... I wonder if I could be given mod powers for just this thread... I'd really like to delete this ****head's posts. I have nothing against people posting an argument against anarchism which I will then refute, but these ****ers just get in the way...
Nice to see that Aeaon got banned though... :thumb:

[Futue te Ipsum]

What we need is somebody like you or the Tway to mod this forum. Pit mods just don't seem to come here.

[Der Übermensch]

Thanks for the support 8-)

Trilemma and Mav are good (usually), but they also are Pit mods... It would be great to have at least one person dedicated only to the PNWI. I'd support Tway, Siva, Danish, maybe even my humble self :D

[Futue te Ipsum]

I really don't think Danish would be a popular or wise decision. Though this is coming from the person who parodied his revolution...
Hah, I loved how people took me seriously.

[Der Übermensch]

Danish probably wouldn't have enough overall support, but he'd have mine :thumb:

[Futue te Ipsum]

I wouldn't have overall support, but I'd have mine :shifty:

[italic zero]

Futue, who'd you used to be?

[Futue te Ipsum]

Rage against the lavigne. A belligerent, misanthropic bastard :(

[Der Übermensch]

lol! I didn't realize u were rage...

[siva_chair]

Rage against the lavigne. A belligerent, misanthropic bastard :(

So you changed again, eh?

[veggie 3.14]

Rage against the lavigne. A belligerent, misanthropic bastard :(
:eek:

It's RATL!

I think that NOXF... sorry, Das Ubermensch would make a good mod, and The Tway, too.

Or Danish. And then Zero can be banished to the pit! Ahahaha!

[Futue te Ipsum]

So you changed again, eh?My new username goes well with what I think most of humanity should do with themselves.

Yes, I changed it again :(

[siva_chair]

My new username goes well with what I think most of humanity should do with themselves.

Yes, I changed it again :(

I thought it was you.

[ROT]

natural order

[insanepunkguy]

Is the IRA a group of anarachist?

No the IRA are total prats, who believe somehow that blowin up 'their' people will make the people united, when all it does them is makes them divided

[RIP Ian Curtis]

the IRA were just responding in the best possible way to an undefeatable occupier. Anarchy is a terrible long term government, but a mandatory 5 year period of anarchy every 20 would be a great way to destablize everything, like lame laws about what you can and can't do. what can I say, I was bottom right hand corner in the political compass. freedom and money, because money is freedom

[Smokey D]

Anarchy is either for ever or never. Any halfway measure in between would be absolutely ridiculous and leave things off worse for both systems.

Your opinion on anarchy seems based around a misconception, where it soley means a society without laws. This is not the case.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I know what the dream is. I just don't believe that it's possible, given human nature. Order has a way of imposing itself. I hate the stabilty of modern life, especially the nanny state and the welfare state and the jingoist moronic religious right state. The way I see it is that 5 years of choas means we can tear all that bull**** down when it piles up too high, without having to live in constant fear.

[ROT]

anarchy is a way of life not an ideology or an alternate system within a system of systems
live it and just be ready to die if you get too far out of line"
soto speak
just live how you would if there was no violent external force of "authority" pressing down on all sides
instead of internalising it and having it push from the inside as well as outside
:(
viva anarchia haha

[Smokey D]

I know what the dream is. I just don't believe that it's possible, given human nature. Order has a way of imposing itself. I hate the stabilty of modern life, especially the nanny state and the welfare state and the jingoist moronic religious right state. The way I see it is that 5 years of choas means we can tear all that bull**** down when it piles up too high, without having to live in constant fear.

Chaos is not anarchy, though.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

not always, but it can be. You're sticking solely to the view of anarchy as a form of "government" (for want of a better word), whereas I'm saying we should heavily mess things up from time to time to stop it all getting complacent. Total chaos is anarchy, just one particular definition of anarachy. The other kind, I feel, cannot exist.

[Cybrow]

...what?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

ok. Everyone on here is defining Anarchy as a form of government, a system for running stuff. I'm defining it as total f'ucking chaos (which is what it would become). I say that an anarchic system of "government" is doomed to failure becuase of basic human nature i.e. everyone is an arsehole. But I say that total fuc'king chaos can be good from time to time, to destablize the system, and stop stupid things like safety laws and anti-drug legeslation and far-right religious whacko laws from taking too deep a hold. I am pro-total fu'cking chaos. Anti-anarchic society.

[Der Übermensch]

Everyone on here is defining Anarchy as a form of government, a system for running stuff. I'm defining it as total f'ucking chaos
Which is what this guide is supposed to be dispelling. ANARCHY IS ORDER. Now **** off, or use an arguement that does not define anarchy as chaos.

[Smokey D]

Chaos is never and has never been a good thing.

While chaos may be anarchic, it is not anarchy.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
Dictionary.com

I'm not saying your definition is wrong, why do you have to say mine is?

[Smokey D]

Because it is. Chaos is not the same thing as anarchy in the way we're discussing it. Read the first few posts of this thread if you don't understand the difference.

For the record, dictionary.com's definition is hopelessly inadequate.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

okay, so what your saying is that my definition of anarchy is off topic. No worries, I'll stop.

[Der Übermensch]

anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
Dictionary.com

I'm not saying your definition is wrong, why do you have to say mine is?

Use an encyclopedia... I already made a very extensive post on the subject.
Read it Here (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8627317&postcount=469)
Dictionary's merely represent paractical usage overtime, which here is representative of government propoganda campaigns of the early 20th century (however, Websters print dictionary at least has a good one).

[xgretschx]

haha m,an thats awsome. i'm an anarchist.

[Der Übermensch]

what discipline...?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Use an encyclopedia... I already made a very extensive post on the subject.
Read it Here (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8627317&postcount=469)
Dictionary's merely represent paractical usage overtime, which here is representative of government propoganda campaigns of the early 20th century (however, Websters print dictionary at least has a good one).

refer to last post, I've pulled out of this one. I don't think your kind of anarchy can work, but I'm not going to be a c'unt and waste everyones time slagging half the forum off 24 hours a day.

[Mother]

Im a noob when it comes to anarchism, I thought that it was just "etty acts of violence" before reading this thread, so im not sure if i got the whole logic of it.

People set guidelines, yes. But what if someone doesne want to live by these guidelines?

Should he leave his home?

[Gypsy Campervan]

Im a noob when it comes to anarchism, I thought that it was just "etty acts of violence" before reading this thread, so im not sure if i got the whole logic of it.

People set guidelines, yes. But what if someone doesne want to live by these guidelines?

Should he leave his home?

The commune would expell said offender.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

why can't the commune kill him?

[Mother]

The commune would expell said offender.


he didnt do anything wrong he just doesnt like the guidelines set. why should he be thrown out of his own home for that.

[pooble]

He starts up some sort of political movement to attempt to change the guidelines through a vote, referendum or some other democratic mechanism.

Of course he could leave the commune too, if he’s overly fed up with the way things are.

[pooble]

why can't the commune kill him?

Theoretically they wouldn't want to as it is violating his basic rights.

[Der Übermensch]

Here's a paraphrase of Bakunin that I think answers the question nicely.
"The individual owes duties to society only in so far as he has freely consented to become part of it. Everyone is free to associate or not to associate, and, if he so desires, to go and live in the deserts or the forests among the wild beasts."
In other words, he can stay and participate, he can stay and be self-sufficient (no support from the commune), or go join a commune thats more to his liking.

[Gypsy Campervan]

he didnt do anything wrong he just doesnt like the guidelines set. why should he be thrown out of his own home for that.

My bad, thought it said 'doesn't live by those guidelines.'

[Mother]

Here's a paraphrase of Bakunin that I think answers the question nicely.
"The individual owes duties to society only in so far as he has freely consented to become part of it. Everyone is free to associate or not to associate, and, if he so desires, to go and live in the deserts or the forests among the wild beasts."
In other words, he can stay and participate, he can stay and be self-sufficient (no support from the commune), or go join a commune thats more to his liking.


Ahh so he can stay do as he pleases butwith no support from the commune.

[Der Übermensch]

No one is forcing him to go, or too stay. I would say that it would be better to stay and accept, or leave and join a commune more to his liking, rather then staying without commune support.
However, it is worth noting that, while a large group of people can hold a generaly similar outlook on how the commune should be run, perfecttion for everyone involved is pretty far out there, and that willing compromise is still importent for streamlined success.

[Mother]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up.

[Metallica783643]

if you dont really understand, look at www.anarch.net/docx/intro (www.rotteneggs.com/?refid=127049)
that helped me alot when it comes to understanding the idealism of it....

[Der Übermensch]

looks like total **** if you ask me...

[RIP Ian Curtis]

so this hypothetical killing dude gets to
1. Leave
2. Stay without any help or
3. Stay with help if he promises not to kill anyone else?
so he could hang around and kill whoever he wanted to, just not expect any help from the commune and they wouldn't do shi't because it'd be violating his right?

[Smokey D]

He's violating their right, though, so the commune would force his expulsion and/or execution. There are flaws with the idea, though.

[Der Übermensch]

so this hypothetical killing dude gets to
1. Leave
2. Stay without any help or
3. Stay with help if he promises not to kill anyone else?
so he could hang around and kill whoever he wanted to, just not expect any help from the commune and they wouldn't do shi't because it'd be violating his right?

No one said aything about killing, I was talking about someone who merely doesn't like the guidlines set out.

A killer would most likely be ostrasized from the Commune, perhaps killed if thats how the people saw fit to deal with it.
Unless it was inself defense, I don't see many cases in which the offender would stay...

[On The Edge]

Assuming anarchy would work pretty much only if the ways humans acted and cooperated changed, would you think a 'gradual' move into anarchy would be better then a more revoloution based change? Such as moving from capitalism to socialism to anarchism (this is an example, assuming that on a level of socialism humans are more excepting and feel more equal).

[Der Übermensch]

The Russian Revolution proved that a gradual change isn't going to work. When you get down to it, in theory at least, thats the real difference between Marxism and Anarchism. Marx preached a gradual shift, while Bakunin advocated immediate change over. Bakunin got kicked out of the International not because he didn't share the same end goal as Marx - they were very similar - but because he called Marx a fool for thinking a gradual shift would work (and I would say he was vindicated by history).

[Leftover Jello]

No one said aything about killing, I was talking about someone who merely doesn't like the guidlines set out.

A killer would most likely be ostrasized from the Commune, perhaps killed if thats how the people saw fit to deal with it.
Unless it was inself defense, I don't see many cases in which the offender would stay...

When you guys talk about guidelines in a society, it sounds like you are talking about laws. So far as I can see the only real guideline necessary in society is to respect others, and in an anarchic society no one should tell anyone else how to interpret that.

If someone kills anyone than a society should try to help that person live without whatever drove them to kill. I also think that in a peaceful society it is possible to live without people killing eachother, but even so to retaliate back negatively even to violent acts would not be true to, at least my, anarchic philosophy.

[pooble]

When you guys talk about guidelines in a society, it sounds like you are talking about laws. So far as I can see the only real guideline necessary in society is to respect others, and in an anarchic society no one should tell anyone else how to interpret that.

Well don't you think that there should be objective laws?

[Der Übermensch]

Unless its a purely individualist society, there needs to be an objective agreement on what people want to happen. I already covered that in the Anarchist Law post awhile back. I think I linked it in the main guide. However, I don't see those 'laws' going much further then "don't violate the right of others".

[pooble]

Well different people would have different opinions on what their "rights" would be. Which is where I think objective law should come in. "Don't violate the right of others" can have many meanings.

[veggie 3.14]

what discipline...?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

You make is sound like a martial art!

[Der Übermensch]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You make is sound like a martial art!

you got anarcho-communism, Syndicalism, and anarcho-karate...

Well different people would have different opinions on what their "rights" would be. Which is where I think objective law should come in. "Don't violate the right of others" can have many meanings.

When I talk about rights - when any anarchist talks about rights, you can basicly assume that I mean the following. I have the right to do what I want, as long as it doesn't result in harm of a non-consenting participant (ie violate another rights). Theres an old saying, something along the lines of "Your right to swing your fist ends just before my nose".

[Reaganista]

when any anarchist talks about rights

anarchists aren't supposed to speak for other anarchists.

:p

[Der Übermensch]

In many matters yes, but the concept of individual rights are pretty much the same through out.

[Der Übermensch]

Ever pulled your head out of your ***? You should try it some time.

[England5Germany1]

Anarchy is for idiots that don't know how the world works. Ever taken an economics class well take one.

Economics is not a comparative government class, it (at least at my school) only discusess Capitalism.

[pooble]

Economics is centered on the fact that there are limited amounts of goods and resources. That applies to anarchy.

[Leftover Jello]

Economics is centered on the fact that there are limited amounts of goods and resources. That applies to anarchy.

It is also centered around the fact that everyone is competing to get those goods and resources. At least for me, that is not what anarchy is about at all. Some people seem to take anarchy to mean a form of government, in which it would have to take on some of the principles of economics (distributing limited resources to the people). However I think it is fairly safe to say that money does not exist in any anarchy, and taking that into account there is very little that economics can do to describe anarchy.

[pooble]

It is also centered around the fact that everyone is competing to get those goods and resources. At least for me, that is not what anarchy is about at all. Some people seem to take anarchy to mean a form of government, in which it would have to take on some of the principles of economics (distributing limited resources to the people). However I think it is fairly safe to say that money does not exist in any anarchy, and taking that into account there is very little that economics can do to describe anarchy.

Just because money does not exist does not mean that resources are unlimited. And there must be some system for distributing goods/resources.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

well someone definately deserves to die of cancer....


In response to the last legitimate threads, econmics at my school didn't teach comparitive systems much either. Just on the most basic level of a command, free and mixed economy. I assume any anarchic government would adopt a command structure, that is, the government says what is produced, where, and how much it costs. Free market capitalism doesn't seem to gel with it. Although maybe there'd be some other way of solving the basic economic problem.

[pooble]

well someone definately deserves to die of cancer....

What?

I assume any anarchic government would adopt a command structure, that is, the government says what is produced, where, and how much it costs.

Well there would be no government in an economic sense. The people would produce whatever they want. And even if for some reason there was a command economy "the government says what is produced, where, and how much it costs" is not very promising, or economically sound.

Free market capitalism doesn't seem to gel with it.

Hmmm??

Although maybe there'd be some other way of solving the basic economic problem.

What problem?

[Leftover Jello]

Just because money does not exist does not mean that resources are unlimited. And there must be some system for distributing goods/resources.

There doesn't HAVE to be some system, but a system would probably come into place. Of course resources will not be unlimited so the community will have to accumulate and distribute the goods/resources in some way. It would probably work as a cooperation of people who try to find the most efficient way of dealing with these goods. On a larger scale this might mean a type of industry, but not one governed by a single force, instead one run through a cooperation of people.

[pooble]

There doesn't HAVE to be some system,

Well some system for determing how goods are distributed will always be present. Whether it be the system desired by the people isn't the point.

Of course resources will not be unlimited so the community will have to accumulate and distribute the goods/resources in some way.

I don't understand this relative to the first quote. Read and you'll see what I mean.

It would probably work as a cooperation of people who try to find the most efficient way of dealing with these goods. On a larger scale this might mean a type of industry, but not one governed by a single force, instead one run through a cooperation of people.

I certainly hope it wouldn't be governed by a single centralized force.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

What?



Well there would be no government in an economic sense. The people would produce whatever they want. And even if for some reason there was a command economy "the government says what is produced, where, and how much it costs" is not very promising, or economically sound.



Hmmm??



What problem?


Sorry about the die of cancer thing, I thought I saw a really lame thread just above mine, maybe it got deleted or something. I said command economy because most of the anarchists on here favour the idea of small communes/societies in which the Soviet style "command" model of economy would probably be the only option attractive to people of a far left political persuasion. And the problem is the first thing you learn in economics. The fundamental economic problem, that all economies try to sole is that people have unlimited wants with limited resources.

[Smokey D]

I don't know of any anarchist who would support a command economy.

The way I see it, a commune is the ultimate free market.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Have you guys set up a working model yet? :P

[pooble]

Sorry about the die of cancer thing, I thought I saw a really lame thread just above mine, maybe it got deleted or something.

No problem.


I said command economy because most of the anarchists on here favor the idea of small communes/societies in which the Soviet style "command" model of economy would probably be the only option attractive to people of a far left political persuasion.

If you mean command economy is the sense of one central body controlling all economic activity then I don't think most anarchists would support that at all. It limits freedom and is inefficient.

And the problem is the first thing you learn in economics. The fundamental economic problem, that all economies try to sole is that people have unlimited wants with limited resources.

Well I wouldn't say that’s an economic problem. Like I said earlier, economics focuses around the idea that there are limited resources and unlimited wants. Economics is very aware of that fact. And to solve that "problem" there are systems for determining how resources are to be used and by whom, be it the price system, command economy, or a commune.

[Leftover Jello]

The way I see it, a commune is the ultimate free market.

I agree. Whenever I see the term free market applied to a capitalist economy I always think that it is a stupid term. The economy is controlled by money, and hence by the people who have the money. Wouldn't all the democracy advocates think that it would be more free if the economy were controlled by votes? But overall, it is simply most free when it is controlled by nothing.

[pooble]

But overall, it is simply most free when it is controlled by nothing.

What do you mean?

[Leftover Jello]

What do you mean?

Free - Not controlled by obligation or the will of another (Dictionary.com)
I mean that when there are no rules and no control, the market will be entirely free.

[pooble]

Free - Not controlled by obligation or the will of another (Dictionary.com)
I mean that when there are no rules and no control, the market will be entirely free.

No rules or control? What does this mean in reference to obtaining resources and goods? What system is there to determine how they are distributed?

[Futue te Ipsum]

People will share them when requried. Because it's for the best. Oh yes, they'll do this. Honest! :)

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I haven't really researched the economic problem, but when I took economics in High School, that's the first thing we were taught.

[Smokey D]

I agree. Whenever I see the term free market applied to a capitalist economy I always think that it is a stupid term. The economy is controlled by money, and hence by the people who have the money. Wouldn't all the democracy advocates think that it would be more free if the economy were controlled by votes? But overall, it is simply most free when it is controlled by nothing.

My point was that with no government to regulate the market, it would be much easier for things like monopolies and oligopolies to develop and dominate and take advantage of consumers.

But, whatever, your version might be true to.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

In smaller communes the monopoly thing wouldn't really be a problem. I'm a free market capitalist myself, but not in your particular way, I'm all for money and power and democracy.

[Smokey D]

Some services naturally lead to a monopoly. Whether the firm had influence over one commune or several, it could still wield undue influence over the consumer. With no regulatory agency to demand the monopoly operates in a fashion beneficial for society, not itself, the customer gets shafted; social versus private equilibrium and all that.

[pooble]

My point was that with no government to regulate the market, it would be much easier for things like monopolies and oligopolies to develop and dominate and take advantage of consumers.

But, whatever, your version might be true to.

Well when most people promote free markets they don't mean "absolute free markets" as the one you described, which I personally don't think is freer at all.

[Smokey D]

I know, but I don't see how a community with no government can fight against it, which is why anarchism will be very difficult to put in place properly.

[pooble]

Neither do I. The economics confuses me.

[metallica girl]

hi everybody

[Leftover Jello]

My point was that with no government to regulate the market, it would be much easier for things like monopolies and oligopolies to develop and dominate and take advantage of consumers.

But, whatever, your version might be true to.

That might be true, but it doesn't sound like anarchy. Also remember that without private property, there is ideally no motive to personally attain material wealth.

Some services naturally lead to a monopoly. Whether the firm had influence over one commune or several, it could still wield undue influence over the consumer. With no regulatory agency to demand the monopoly operates in a fashion beneficial for society, not itself, the customer gets shafted; social versus private equilibrium and all that.

Which is why industry should always be controlled by the people.

I know, but I don't see how a community with no government can fight against it, which is why anarchism will be very difficult to put in place properly.

I think you mean is: why anarchism is impossible to put in place properly.
Even though I believe in anarchy, I admit that it can never be put in place. Forcing people to live in an anarchic way is entirely not anarchy. Fundamentally there also could be no checks against those who strive for material wealth. However I do believe that there is no reason to follow any rules or authority or to incorporate myself with a system of material wealth. I don't see why anyone else needs to think like me, but I don't think my beliefs should be persecuted by those who want order and/or money.

[Smokey D]

That might be true, but it doesn't sound like anarchy. Also remember that without private property, there is ideally no motive to personally attain material wealth.

First of all, not all anarchists believe in the abolishing of private property. Secondly, there is always motivation to increase wealth, because wealth is a means to power.

And also, my point was without any government to regulate the market, anarchy would fail economically.

Which is why industry should always be controlled by the people.

When you group individuals together, they tend to get remarkably stupid. I doubt they would understand why a natural monopoly exists or what can be done to change its output to a more beneficial level without people educated in economics to tell them otherwise. The problem is, how can we trust those leaders to act in the interest of society. Besides, any firm controlled by everyone would be very inefficient and cause market failure in itself.

[withering_rose]

obtaining any form of anarchy in full is impossible as long as violence and greed exist

[pooble]

First of all, not all anarchists believe in the abolishing of private property. Secondly, there is always motivation to increase wealth, because wealth is a means to power.

And also, my point was without any government to regulate the market, anarchy would fail economically.



When you group individuals together, they tend to get remarkably stupid. I doubt they would understand why a natural monopoly exists or what can be done to change its output to a more beneficial level without people educated in economics to tell them otherwise. The problem is, how can we trust those leaders to act in the interest of society. Besides, any firm controlled by everyone would be very inefficient and cause market failure in itself.

I agree with that whole post except the bolded part.

True in a market wealth would be the means to power, or at least economic influence, but if some larger body were to take away the power that an individual would receive from wealth than there would be no incentive.

[Smokey D]

True in a market wealth would be the means to power, or at least economic influence, but if some larger body were to take away the power that an individual would receive from wealth than there would be no incentive.

What would would have the authority to take away that wealth but a government?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

obtaining any form of anarchy in full is impossible as long as violence and greed exist


And violence and greed have existed forever and will exist until the end of time.

[pooble]

What would would have the authority to take away that wealth but a government?

Well, you stated that wealth was the road to power. However wouldn't the power that was brought on by money be something that most anarchists would be against and wish to abolish?

And yes, it seems to me like the only body that could curb that power would be a government to establish a Rule of Law.

[Leftover Jello]

And violence and greed have existed forever and will exist until the end of time.

So you assume...

I don't participate in violence or greed and neither should you. Instead of taking such a defeatist attitude, think of what can be done to counter violence and greed. I think that love and generosity counters violence and greed, and I would say that love and generosity have existed forever and will hopefully continue to exist.

Although I douet violence or greed will ever be entirely abolished, it does not have to be a prevalent and central theme to our culture as it is today.

[pooble]

It’s hard to determine what greed is. I don’t see how you can abolish violence as it’s a natural occurrence in the animal kingdom.

[Smokey D]

Well, you stated that wealth was the road to power. However wouldn't the power that was brought on by money be something that most anarchists would be against and wish to abolish?

A road to power, not the road to power.

And the problem is that more skilled people or resource rich regions are naturally wealthier than less skilled or resource poor regions, and it is very difficult to convince those people to give up that wealth and/or power voluntarily.

[pooble]

A road to power, not the road to power.

And the problem is that more skilled people or resource rich regions are naturally wealthier than less skilled or resource poor regions, and it is very difficult to convince those people to give up that wealth and/or power voluntarily.

Yes. I'm sorry so what are we arguing than?

[Leftover Jello]

It’s hard to determine what greed is. I don’t see how you can abolish violence as it’s a natural occurrence in the animal kingdom.

So is eating ****... I don't think that your connection has any relavence. Even if it did, there are a lot of animals that don't participate in violence, like most fish.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I know, but I don't see how a community with no government can fight against it, which is why anarchism will be very difficult to put in place properly.
And why it hasn't been put together properly.

[Futue te Ipsum]

What would would have the authority to take away that wealth but a government?
That's the irony of anarchism. For it to start it would have to be forced upon people.

[pooble]

So is eating ****... I don't think that your connection has any relavence. Even if it did, there are a lot of animals that don't participate in violence, like most fish.

Humans eat each other’s feces? Or are you referring to other animals? I'm sure some species do eat feces but how successful would you or anyone be at stopping them from doing so?

Most fish don't participate in violence because they are really unable to compared to other species that may have larger teeth or claws. However they do still participate in competition for resources, food, mates, and habitat. Violence is simply using physical contact or damage to compete against other individuals within the environment instead of using other techniques such as body display or seeing who can roar louder.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Greed and Violence are both a means to aquire power, and you will never remove the desire for power from humanity. If you ever successfully did (lobotomies?) your commune would be weak, shiftless and pathetic, ripe for being taken over by somebody else.

[Leftover Jello]

Most fish don't participate in violence because they are really unable to compared to other species that may have larger teeth or claws. However they do still participate in competition for resources, food, mates, and habitat. Violence is simply using physical contact or damage to compete against other individuals within the environment instead of using other techniques such as body display or seeing who can roar louder.

Looking at my hands and mouth, it doesn't seem like I evolved to be particularly violent. As for competition for resources, that will only happen when there are not enough resources. And by no means is competition necessary. We have the means to get everyone necessary resources. We don't, because we live in a society where it is believed that competition is good for everyone and hence violence is an essential part of our culture as we compet against each other. If our society was not focused on this competition we would not have problems with violence, although it might still exist in isolated events.

[pooble]

Looking at my hands and mouth, it doesn't seem like I evolved to be particularly violent.

No, therefore you evolved a brain to help you be just as ruthless with sticks and stones instead of claws and teeth. The same way whales survive by being enormous in size.

As for competition for resources, that will only happen when there are not enough resources.

There have never been enough resources.

And by no means is competition necessary.

Different people and animals have different needs, wants, opinions, ideals and values. Not all of these can be fulfilled, so individuals compete over whatever they think is necessary to bring about their way of things.

We have the means to get everyone necessary resources.We don't, because we live in a society where it is believed that competition is good for everyone and hence violence is an essential part of our culture as we compet against each other.


Competition is not only in "our society" like I stated earlier its all encompassing in the animal kingdom. And competition certainly does not mean violence or require it.

If our society was not focused on this competition we would not have problems with violence, although it might still exist in isolated events.

What can I say? I really don't see how such a system would work. How I see it "competition" in the sense of this discussion is when two or more individuals meet and have opposing ideas or plans for the way things should be done. However if we did not wish to engage in competition or "get rid of it" I see two possibilities.

The first one is for all people to think alike have the same needs and requirements, and society to have complete homogeneousness in thought and desire.

The second one would be simply abolishing all opposition of ideas. Basing society off one single idea or plan and abolishing any other sets of values shared by people because that would result in competition. Something so harmful that it must be eradicated.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Looking at my hands and mouth, it doesn't seem like I evolved to be particularly violent.Looking at the history of your species, it does.
As for competition for resources, that will only happen when there are not enough resources.not enough resources to do what? There are always too few resources for something, whether that be living or successfully managing to build a castle on sand. I find it infeasible to imagine an occasion where everybody has all the resources that they require to do whatever they wish. Until such a time arises, we will have to deal out resources. We appear to have a natural disposition towards doing this via competition.
And by no means is competition necessary. We have the means to get everyone necessary resources. We don't, because we live in a society where it is believed that competition is good for everyone and hence violence is an essential part of our culture as we compet against each other.We have the means to create enough food for the world, but to suggest that we could feed it is something quite different (and untested). Food produced in America could feed Ethiopia if it was in Ethiopia. It isn't. To get it there would require something I would term "a horrific logistical nightmare". Plane, boat or loaded mule, it would take a lot of effort, capital and labour to move the resources from a to b so often, and I doubt we have that much in terms of resources to repeat this throughout the third world (which appears to grow in size when people talk about how horrible the situation is, and shrink when they propose radical solutions to the problem.)
If our society was not focused on this competition we would not have problems with violence, although it might still exist in isolated events.Incidentally, I could provide an alternative hypothesis with equal validity. It goes as follows: If our society was not focused on this competition, it would make a blind bit of difference.

Why are these equal? because neither of us have attempted to justify our claims.


Apology in advance for any delay in responding to people who question me on this. I'm going to uni tomorrow and will not have my shiznit sorted for a fair while.

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

Hey Das, I've broadened the projecty thing I'm doing to anarchy in the Russian Revolution (cos there's more to write about) do you know of any good websites/books (preferably books) on the subject, or just about the Kronstadt?

[Der Übermensch]

The Nestor Makhno site is the only one I know of thats is specific to what you are looking for.
For books, try Guerin's 'No Gods, No Masters' Book 2. Has both Nestor and the Kronstadt.

[flam_flam]

no!

[Leftover Jello]

What can I say? I really don't see how such a system would work. How I see it "competition" in the sense of this discussion is when two or more individuals meet and have opposing ideas or plans for the way things should be done. However if we did not wish to engage in competition or "get rid of it" I see two possibilities.

The first one is for all people to think alike have the same needs and requirements, and society to have complete homogeneousness in thought and desire.

The second one would be simply abolishing all opposition of ideas. Basing society off one single idea or plan and abolishing any other sets of values shared by people because that would result in competition. Something so harmful that it must be eradicated.

I don't mean to get rid of competition, but to base my life on cooperation rather than competition. As for you, you can be as competitive and as violent as you want. But you know what I would guess? I would guess that you are not violent. Looking around my middle class suburban neighborhood, there is no violence. Not only is no one shooting each other, but no one is even joining the army to shoot others. If you live a violent life style I would be suprised because you probably would not be peacefully discussing your ideas over the internet.

Now you blame violence on human nature, but really isn't violence generated from poverty, ignorance, and greed?

[Leftover Jello]

We have the means to create enough food for the world, but to suggest that we could feed it is something quite different (and untested). Food produced in America could feed Ethiopia if it was in Ethiopia. It isn't. To get it there would require something I would term "a horrific logistical nightmare". Plane, boat or loaded mule, it would take a lot of effort, capital and labour to move the resources from a to b so often, and I doubt we have that much in terms of resources to repeat this throughout the third world (which appears to grow in size when people talk about how horrible the situation is, and shrink when they propose radical solutions to the problem.)

Of course it is a horrific logistical nightmare, but we have the math and engineering to sort out these logistical nightmares. Transportation is done extensively throughout the first world (and in the third world although not to the extent that it is needed.) I can eat apples from New Zealand, bananas from some banana republic where the people cannot afford the bananas they grow, and drink coffee from Columbia where they drink **** coffee and starve after a bad harvest. There is little doubt in my mind that if the entire world made a concerted effort we could return enough resources to the rest of the world to keep everyone out of desperate poverty. The problem is that in America we spend all our resources on ourselves while third world countries are in debt to us and exporting all of their resources to us while corporations make all the profit. Of course it would take a lot of effort to end poverty, but there are billions of people on the world, and everyone has the capability to do something to help if they stop competing for their own self-gain.

[Smokey D]

Violence can, in many ways, be blamed on the fact that there are in any economy limited resources distributed in accordance with essentially unlimited wants. Fortunately for us, we live in a society advanced enough to devise a system of co-operation (that is, sharing). A problem arises, however, when there is only enough of a vital good to supply a certain number of participants in the market.

For example, many political sciences have identified ready access to clean water as a potential cause for much conflict this century. Why? Because in the face of a burgeoning world population and an increasingly dry planet, water becomes a vital commodity very much in demand. No country is going to allow their people to die of dehydration (hence the impetus for war), while no country is going to give water to other countries thereby allowing their own citizens to die of thirst (hence the impetus to defend).

[pooble]

I don't mean to get rid of competition, but to base my life on cooperation rather than competition. As for you, you can be as competitive and as violent as you want. But you know what I would guess? I would guess that you are not violent. Looking around my middle class suburban neighborhood, there is no violence. Not only is no one shooting each other, but no one is even joining the army to shoot others. If you live a violent life style I would be suprised because you probably would not be peacefully discussing your ideas over the internet.

Certainly, most humans resort to violence as a last resort and that is a marvelous thing. It’s marvelous that we have evolved enough to find more peaceful and less destructive ways of resolving conflict and disagreements than lions in the African Sahara.

And you are correct. I am a peaceful person, just as I'm sure you are. I would resort to violence as a last resort just as any sensible person would. But just because people can grow enough restraint to hide basic primal instincts doesn't mean that we should assume that everyone else would always do their best to do so. I would resort to violence as a last resort just as any sensible person would.

Now you blame violence on human nature, but really isn't violence generated from poverty, ignorance, and greed?

Well like I said. I think violence is simply competition between individuals taking on a physical form. People are aggravated by poverty and often resort to violence due to ignorance and greed simply because once they've tried all the other options that are known to them they will simply use the most basic means to accomplish their ends.

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

The Nestor Makhno site is the only one I know of thats is specific to what you are looking for.
For books, try Guerin's 'No Gods, No Masters' Book 2. Has both Nestor and the Kronstadt.
Cool, thanks. A book is better than a site anyway, so I'll see if I can find that.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Despite all of your points on how to end world poverty, you are yet to prove why we should end world poverty.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Of course it is a horrific logistical nightmare, but we have the math and engineering to sort out these logistical nightmares. Transportation is done extensively throughout the first world (and in the third world although not to the extent that it is needed.) I can eat apples from New Zealand, bananas from some banana republic where the people cannot afford the bananas they grow, and drink coffee from Columbia where they drink **** coffee and starve after a bad harvest. There is little doubt in my mind that if the entire world made a concerted effort we could return enough resources to the rest of the world to keep everyone out of desperate poverty. The problem is that in America we spend all our resources on ourselves while third world countries are in debt to us and exporting all of their resources to us while corporations make all the profit. Of course it would take a lot of effort to end poverty, but there are billions of people on the world, and everyone has the capability to do something to help if they stop competing for their own self-gain."no, you're wrong, it can't".

Wow, it took me all of 3 seconds to write an equal reply to you. C'mon man, if you're going to post then justify your arguments. Where and what's the maths we have to do it? How do the billions of people, most of which living in third world conditions, have the ability to "help"?


They aren't exporting all their resources to us. Either you're careless in your english, or gravely mis-informed.
Corperations, also, do not take all the profit (insofar as they're taxed). In countries where they do, it is the fault of the government rather than the company, as either their checks are not sufficient, or they don't ask tax from the company. Beyond that we should be talking about revenue instead of profit; which is something they certainly don't keep all of.
America doesn't spend all its money on itself. See: aid to Europe after world war two, and the economic aid given to other nations. This can all be found at www.google.com

[pooble]

Despite all of your points on how to end world poverty, you are yet to prove why we should end world poverty.

I certainly don't see why people should live in overbearing poverty.

[Leftover Jello]

"no, you're wrong, it can't".

don't be a douchebag or I'll stop replying to you.

Wow, it took me all of 3 seconds to write an equal reply to you. C'mon man, if you're going to post then justify your arguments. Where and what's the maths we have to do it? How do the billions of people, most of which living in third world conditions, have the ability to "help"?

My mom is an industrial engineer. Some of what she does is work to optimize logistical problems like the one that you described as "a horiffic logistacal nightmare" If you look at the problem piece by piece math and engineering can find solutions to it.

The billions of people have the ability to help, by helping themselves. Working collectively they can gather resources and stuff. My point is that the first world does not have to do all the work to help the third world. The workers in the third world can work to help end their own poverty.

They aren't exporting all their resources to us. Either you're careless in your english, or gravely mis-informed.
Corperations, also, do not take all the profit (insofar as they're taxed). In countries where they do, it is the fault of the government rather than the company, as either their checks are not sufficient, or they don't ask tax from the company. Beyond that we should be talking about revenue instead of profit; which is something they certainly don't keep all of.

Obviously I didn't literally mean all. But I hope that you understand the point that I'm trying to make. You didn't make it clear to me that you because you didn't even discuss my point and instead discussed my grammer. My point is that workers in third world countries are working for the gain of the first world. This can be seen by the export economy of third world nations and the trade deficit in rich countries. The product of most of the workers labor does not go back to the people but is rather exported. In this system, the corporations are making profit. I agree that it is the governments fault for allowing free trade but most economists argue that tariffs are bad for the economy. Would you care to explain about the revenue and why we should be talking about it?

America doesn't spend all its money on itself. See: aid to Europe after world war two, and the economic aid given to other nations. This can all be found at www.google.com

America spends the least amount of money per capita on foreign aid than any other first world nation.

Most of the money that America spent as aid to these poor countries during the cold war went to prop up corrupt governments in defense against communism. Earlier I believe that you blamed these curropt governments for some of the problems.

As for the IMF and the World Bank I won't get into much detail, but if I had the time I would argue that the loans given by these organizations do not help the people of third world countries.

Hopefully I have clarified my post enough that you can respond to the points that I address.

[Hep Kat]

read please kill me and you will learn everything about anarchism......

[Smokey D]

What are your thoughts on the erasure of $40 billion worth of debt, Jello?

[Der Übermensch]

read please kill me and you will learn everything about anarchism......

Isn't that that book on the early Punk scene?

OmG! sEX pIStoLs R sOO aNarCHy!!




If so, go **** yourself or read the **** thread.

[Leftover Jello]

What are your thoughts on the erasure of $40 billion worth of debt, Jello?

I think that it is a great step. I don't really know much about the specifics, but I have heard that it won't be all to effective because it is tied in with conditions that I don't know much about, and that the numbers are skewed so that the actual relief will be much less than it seems.

However, until I learn more it is at least a beginning to address the problems of poverty.

[pooble]

As for the IMF and the World Bank I won't get into much detail, but if I had the time I would argue that the loans given by these organizations do not help the people of third world countries.

I'm certainly no expert in this field, but I would say that it really depends on where this money is being sent wouldn't you? Obviously giving money to corrupt regimes to boost a countries economy is useless, I'm rather sure we can agree on that.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I certainly don't see why people should live in overbearing poverty.


Granted. But why is it our problem?

[Smokey D]

Because we all share certain moral obligations?

[pooble]

It isn't really. One more person dieing of an easily preventable sickness doesn't affect me, but we should all at least take some action to help those in need.

[Noku]

It isn't really. One more person dieing of an easily preventable sickness doesn't affect me, but we should all at least take some action to help those in need.

Why?

The thing is that of course if you don't have any other problems in your life you could as well devote your time for doing something for others. World hunger is easily fixed problem but the political scenario wouldn't benefit the ones who could fix the problem. Politics are far from moral idealism, time to accept that.

Did you know that instead of doing some useless bashing about world issues in some internet forum you could make the world much better place by helping your mother with her everyday tasks... Because I highly doubt that this will lead you to successful political career.

[pooble]

Why?

The thing is that of course if you don't have any other problems in your life you could as well devote your time for doing something for others. World hunger is easily fixed problem but the political scenario wouldn't benefit the ones who could fix the problem. Politics are far from moral idealism, time to accept that.

Did you know that instead of doing some useless bashing about world issues in some internet forum you could make the world much better place by helping your mother with her everyday tasks... Because I highly doubt that this will lead you to successful political career.

When did I say that politics involve moral idealism or is even based off it? Politics are not the only thing you can channel help through. When I give 2 dollars to a charity or pick up something an old lady dropped while walking and hand it to her it doesn't benefit me but I do it anyway.

As for internet forums, their point, at least political ones such as this, is to spread information, ideas and opinions about different things in order to maybe get people to see things a certain way or try to educate them about a given issue. I hardly think exchanging ideas or educating people has no effect on the world.

I often help my mother with every day tasks.

[Leftover Jello]

I'm certainly no expert in this field, but I would say that it really depends on where this money is being sent wouldn't you? Obviously giving money to corrupt regimes to boost a countries economy is useless, I'm rather sure we can agree on that.

Right. A lot of the loans from the IMF and World Bank come with conditions where 90% of the money has to be spent on western corporations. In this way the money they lend helps western economies, but generally does not help the people as much as it could.

I think that this is also an issue with the debt relief. We are going to relieve these countries of some debt, but they have to privatize their utilities.

These catches make it hard for me to believe that they really have the people of the third world in mind when they make these decisions that are supposed to help them.

(How does helping your mother with everyday tasks make the world a better place?)

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Because it makes her feel better, and making one person feel better is the only way one individual person can actually change the world. F'uck all mass charity and political movements, just be a nice enough bloke coz it's all you can do.

[ilikedeathmetal]

True anarchism, like communism, is impossible. The need to lead and be led will always be factors of human nature. What will happen when the government is taken away? It would be like bestiality, except instead of having sex with animals, the world would eventually and inherently turn back toward a system of a ruler and the ruled

[RebelMusic]

True anarchism, like communism, is impossible. The need to lead and be led will always be factors of human nature. What will happen when the government is taken away? It would be like bestiality, except instead of having sex with animals, the world would eventually and inherently turn back toward a system of a ruler and the ruled

There is no such thing as "human nature". Prove to me that there is. You can't.

Communism has never been tried so I don't see how it is "impossible".

[coheneran]

It has been tried, and worked, but only in small communities. When you need to implement a communist or socialist government (in a large country) that gives people complete freedom, then you need to set up a beaurocratic system to handle the little things, and this leads to corruption by officials, abusing loopholes in the beaurocratic system to do/get what they want.

[ilikedeathmetal]

There is no such thing as "human nature". Prove to me that there is. You can't.

Communism has never been tried so I don't see how it is "impossible".

Human nature is what we inherently do and how we inherently act to certain stimuli. Human nature is feeling shock and sadness when a natural disaster strikes, human nature is sticking to what is familiar and not travelling too far from our comfort zones. Human nature is living and interacting in a society. Human nature isaccepting that someone has to 'take care of business', so to speak, also known as government.

Communism has indeed been tried. Stalin and the U.S.S.R?? Castro and Cuba? Ring any bells mate? Its called fact. Ill admit that communism in some forms is possible to a certain degree (see above examples). However true communism, under Marxist theory, makes too many assumptions about mankind, namely the fact that workers want to be free from so-called 'oppression'. Which comes back to the idea of human nature and that government is naturally accepted as a necessary social component

[RebelMusic]

Human nature is what we inherently do and how we inherently act to certain stimuli. Human nature is feeling shock and sadness when a natural disaster strikes, human nature is sticking to what is familiar and not travelling too far from our comfort zones. Human nature is living and interacting in a society. Human nature isaccepting that someone has to 'take care of business', so to speak, also known as government.

Wrong. I said prove there is such a thing called human nature and you didn't. When you say human nature it implies that it is inherent in every human. All of those things that you just listed are not inherent in every human being.

Communism has indeed been tried. Stalin and the U.S.S.R?? Castro and Cuba? Ring any bells mate? Its called fact. Ill admit that communism in some forms is possible to a certain degree (see above examples). However true communism, under Marxist theory, makes too many assumptions about mankind, namely the fact that workers want to be free from so-called 'oppression'. Which comes back to the idea of human nature and that government is naturally accepted as a necessary social component

Communism has certainly not been achieved in any of those states. They never claimed to be communist. They have all claimed to be socialist (that's why it was called the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic) but that isn't even true. Communism is a stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned by everyone.

There have been societies in human history where there has been no state. These are called pre-communist societies.

[Smokey D]

It's a common fallacy that because we can't prove something it doesn't exist. Human nature necessarily exists, otherwise we wouldn't be human.

[RebelMusic]

It's a common fallacy that because we can't prove something it doesn't exist. Human nature necessarily exists, otherwise we wouldn't be human.

It is human nature to try and stay alive and to eat.

Saying that something is human nature implies that it is inherent in every human. What you capitalists say is "human nature" is not.

[Smokey D]

Saying that something is human nature implies that it is inherent in every human. What you capitalists say is "human nature" is not.

Of course human nature is inherent in humanity. That's patetnely obvious.

And secondly, I'm not a capitalist and I haven't defined human nature.

[ilikedeathmetal]

Wrong. I said prove there is such a thing called human nature and you didn't. When you say human nature it implies that it is inherent in every human. All of those things that you just listed are not inherent in every human being.



Communism has certainly not been achieved in any of those states. They never claimed to be communist. They have all claimed to be socialist (that's why it was called the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic) but that isn't even true. Communism is a stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned by everyone.

There have been societies in human history where there has been no state. These are called pre-communist societies.


Human nature

First of all im not a capitalist, im a student, but im definitly more mature than the stereotypical pseudo-socialists that inhabit most campuses around the globe. Secondly, although maybe i cant prove that human nature is actually a real thing instead of an idea, i think that the majority of people are intelligent enough to believe in the things i mentioned and do indeed show signs of what the 'capitalists' think of as human nature. Prove to me that they dont.

Communism

That is why true communism is impossible. To assume all of the working class wishes to own the means of production is to assume that all workers think alike. Im quite positive under my 'capitalist' shroud of 'falsehood' that workers are not like the Borg off Star Trek who are essentially robots with no personalities or personal views on anything. And to assume that everyone wanted to own the means of production would mean that everyone would have to be willing to work in order to gain the resources to produce commodities. But you try telling a doctor or a teacher or a lawyer to bust their backs to support everyone else. The very fact that some occupations require higher intelligence, education and skill (some of the most necessary tasks eg. medicine) would indeed create a class above the mere peasant-type worker that is out working up a sweat, hence you get another class conflict, exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place

[Reaganista]

It is human nature to try and stay alive and to eat.

Saying that something is human nature implies that it is inherent in every human. What you capitalists say is "human nature" is not.

eh there's some suicidal annorexics.

[RebelMusic]

Human nature

First of all im not a capitalist, im a student, but im definitly more mature than the stereotypical pseudo-socialists that inhabit most campuses around the globe. Secondly, although maybe i cant prove that human nature is actually a real thing instead of an idea, i think that the majority of people are intelligent enough to believe in the things i mentioned and do indeed show signs of what the 'capitalists' think of as human nature. Prove to me that they dont.

Pre-communist societies do not "show signs" of what you mentioned.

Communism

That is why true communism is impossible. To assume all of the working class wishes to own the means of production is to assume that all workers think alike. Im quite positive under my 'capitalist' shroud of 'falsehood' that workers are not like the Borg off Star Trek who are essentially robots with no personalities or personal views on anything.

Who said they were?

And to assume that everyone wanted to own the means of production would mean that everyone would have to be willing to work in order to gain the resources to produce commodities.

What? Under capitalism everyone already works to produce commodities - but for the bourgeoisie. Why wouldn't the workers want to own the commodities they created instead of a small percentage of capitalists?

But you try telling a doctor or a teacher or a lawyer to bust their backs to support everyone else. The very fact that some occupations require higher intelligence, education and skill (some of the most necessary tasks eg. medicine) would indeed create a class above the mere peasant-type worker that is out working up a sweat, hence you get another class conflict, exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place

Why would a doctor or teacher have to bust their backs to support everyone else in a communist society? That doesn't make sense. It would most certainly not create another class. Again, why would it? Just because they may be more intelligent?

I don't think you understand what a class is. A class is a group of people sharing a common relation to the means of production and labor. Just because someone is "more intelligent" than someone else does not make them into a seperate class. Everyone would own the means of production and therefore no class conflict would arise because there couldn't BE any classes.

[Smokey D]

How exactly do you think class develops in the first place?

[RebelMusic]

How exactly do you think class develops in the first place?

Because of one group of peoples relation to the means of production as oppossed to another groups relation to the means of production. How do you think?

[ilikedeathmetal]

Do you think that a doctor, or any other citizen with a similar middle class job, will accept that a janitor or a retail assistant is of equal worth, in terms of labour output? Should saving lives and treating the sick be on the same level as mopping floors or selling clothes behind a counter? If you think yes then the doctor should obviously be shown that his work is more necessary and vital. This would probably be reflected by an increased pay packet, which creates a wage difference between the workers and those of middle class stature. Which would lead to....you guessed it....two different classes (rich and poor) conflicting

[pooble]

The Anarchy thread is reborn yet again!

When you need to implement a communist or socialist government (in a large country) that gives people complete freedom,

Really?

then you need to set up a beaurocratic system to handle the little things, and this leads to corruption by officials, abusing loopholes in the beaurocratic system to do/get what they want.

The more power bureaucrats have the more damage they can do if they are "corrupt". Thus why take the chance of entrusting them with the power that you mentioned above?

[Smokey D]

Because of one group of peoples relation to the means of production as oppossed to another groups relation to the means of production. How do you think?

How does one group gain the advantage in the first place?

[RebelMusic]

Do you think that a doctor, or any other citizen with a similar middle class job, will accept that a janitor or a retail assistant is of equal worth, in terms of labour output? Should saving lives and treating the sick be on the same level as mopping floors or selling clothes behind a counter? If you think yes then the doctor should obviously be shown that his work is more necessary and vital. This would probably be reflected by an increased pay packet, which creates a wage difference between the workers and those of middle class stature. Which would lead to....you guessed it....two different classes (rich and poor) conflicting

First of all, there is no such thing as a "middle class".

Second of all, you need a janitor just as much as a doctor. What would you do if there was no janitor to keep the hospitals clean? They would become dirty and people will start to get infections and different diseases. There would be no such thing as a "sales person" in communism because no one will be selling any commodity. There will be no money in a communist society. So your whole argument about wages is moot.

[RebelMusic]

How does one group gain the advantage in the first place?

Classes emerge in a certain stage of development of the productive forces and the social division of labor. There is a social surplus of production and it is then possible for one class to benefit from the expropriation of another class.

[Smokey D]

People only work for personal incentives. We all like to think that we're alturistic creatures, but at a fundemental level we do what's best for us and ours. Until you can convince the world otherwise, it's useless debating the academics of Communist theory.

Classes emerge in a certain stage of development of the productive forces and the social division of labor. There is a social surplus of production and it is then possible for one class to benefit from the expropriation of another class.

Nice rhetoric. What gives those who expropriate other classes the initial advantage?

[Der Übermensch]

Ya'll know my stance obviously. I really don't feel like typing it out, as it can be found numerous times before in this thread. Specificly, I would reference you to my post on the local Community Supported Agriculture project in application to how jobs work and interact in a closed market environment.

[ilikedeathmetal]

First of all, there is no such thing as a "middle class".

Second of all, you need a janitor just as much as a doctor. What would you do if there was no janitor to keep the hospitals clean? They would become dirty and people will start to get infections and different diseases. There would be no such thing as a "sales person" in communism because no one will be selling any commodity. There will be no money in a communist society. So your whole argument about wages is moot.

So what would be the point of going to university to study for over a decade to become a doctor if it holds as much importance as a janitor?

And dude, wake up. There is a middle class. There are dole bludgers (lazy class), workers (working class), white collar workers (middle class) and the rich fat cats (upper class)

Education is what sets apart the workers from the middle class. To deny there is a middle class is to deny that education is relevant or important in modern society. Without education society would be set back to medieval standards where the majority of people are illiterate peasants who essentially work hard and struggle simply to get enough to eat

And..if there is no money then how do you propose people get their food?? Do they all have to grow their own or will everyone be kind and share what they have got?

[RebelMusic]

People only work for personal incentives. We all like to think that we're alturistic creatures, but at a fundemental level we do what's best for us and ours. Until you can convince the world otherwise, it's useless debating the academics of Communist theory.



Nice rhetoric. What gives those who expropriate other classes the initial advantage?

They start to monopolize the means of production and this gives rise to the state, class society, and private property.

[Dave de Sylvia]

eh there's some suicidal annorexics.
Ahhh, the sound of silence.

[ilikedeathmetal]

They start to monopolize the means of production and this gives rise to the state, class society, and private property.

Everything society needs to function successfully. Add a few individual liberties and reduce the state to only what is necessary (police force, justice system, fair welfare sytem etc.) and youve got yourselves an almost perfect society

[RebelMusic]

So what would be the point of going to university to study for over a decade to become a doctor if it holds as much importance as a janitor?

Because someone might enjoy being a doctor or someone might think that it is noble and prestigous profession.

And dude, wake up. There is a middle class. There are dole bludgers (lazy class), workers (working class), white collar workers (middle class) and the rich fat cats (upper class)

Sure, if you look at it like a capitalist (capitalist's tend to view class as an abstract). The truth is there are really only two classes - the producers and the owners of the means of production.

Education is what sets apart the workers from the middle class. To deny there is a middle class is to deny that education is relevant or important in modern society. Without education society would be set back to medieval standards where the majority of people are illiterate peasants who essentially work hard and struggle simply to get enough to eat

I've already shown you that there isn't really a middle class and I don't deny that education is relevent or important.

[pooble]

They start to monopolize the means of production and this gives rise to the state, class society, and private property.

The state and class society are generally considered outcomes of the beginning of civilization. They originated with the ending of nomadic life and people settling down in small villages and tribes. Considered the start of civilization.

[RebelMusic]

Everything society needs to function successfully. Add a few individual liberties and reduce the state to only what is necessary (police force, justice system, fair welfare sytem etc.) and youve got yourselves an almost perfect society

No. The state is used by the bourgeoisie to violently maintain their rule. The state arises when class antagonism's can not be resolved and is used in the oppression of one class by another.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No. The state is used by the bourgeoisie to violently maintain their rule. The state arises when class antagonism's can not be resolved and is used in the oppression of one class by another.
The state arises before class exists.

[RebelMusic]

The state and class society are generally considered outcomes of the beginning of civilization. They originated with the ending of nomadic life and people settling down in small villages and tribes. Considered the start of civilization.

Well, yeah, everyone knows that.

[RebelMusic]

The state arises before class exists.

Nope. The state is the result of a class society.

[pooble]

The state and class structure arise within the same time. They're simply different characteristics of a society. Why it is necessary to argue such details?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Nope. The state is the result of a class society.
The state, it would seem, arose primarily as a method of preventing and solving disputes, more than likely over land. If you choose to view those disputes as master vs slave, that's your choice.

[ilikedeathmetal]

Because someone might enjoy being a doctor or someone might think that it is noble and prestigous profession.

Sorry dude but that argument is weak. I go to university and study law. Sure i have an interest in the law but if there was no attraction of higher wages than most, there would be know way i would torture myself like that. Plus half the people i know are going to med school. The reason-the money. Stuff being altruistic. You have to feed yourself and your family.

Sure, if you look at it like a capitalist (capitalist's tend to view class as an abstract). The truth is there are really only two classes - the producers and the owners of the means of production.

Dont worry, i know what a class conflict is all about. Basically it involves the lower class complaining that they dont have enough money, and blame all their woes on the higher class.

I've already shown you that there isn't really a middle class and I don't deny that education is relevent or important.

Of course education is important. It sets apart those who are going to get somewhere with their lives, and those who will be working long and hard just to make ends meet.

[ilikedeathmetal]

No. The state is used by the bourgeoisie to violently maintain their rule. The state arises when class antagonism's can not be resolved and is used in the oppression of one class by another.

There are socialist political parties all over the place. If the working class truly feels like they are being mistreated or oppressed' then they can vote in their soicalist party to come to their rescue. Democracy has some fine perks doesnt it.

And i live in a country where the state does not go round beating people up to maintain their rule. They are elected in through legitimate voting. And these days, since anyone can become a politician (pretty much) we have some real plonkers in government who come from all classes of society. So class oppression by the government is just a feeble excuse to justify socialist unhappiness

btw what country are you from RebelMusic??

[RebelMusic]

The state and class structure arise within the same time. They're simply different characteristics of a society. Why it is necessary to argue such details?

Yes.

The state arose because there was an increase in the productivity of labor and this opened up the possibility of slavery. Very many slaves were aquired and surplus value was extracted from their labor and for the first time in history a special institution of organized violence was created to keep the slaves in check - the state.

[pooble]

Yes.

The state arose because there was an increase in the productivity of labor and this opened up the possibility of slavery. Very many slaves were aquired and surplus value was extracted from their labor and for the first time in history a special institution of organized violence was created to keep the slaves in check - the state.

The first "states" that came into power were kings and warlords that were put into power by the people looking for a powerful leader to protect them from other barbaric nomadic tribes.

[RebelMusic]

There are socialist political parties all over the place. If the working class truly feels like they are being mistreated or oppressed' then they can vote in their soicalist party to come to their rescue. Democracy has some fine perks doesnt it.

And i live in a country where the state does not go round beating people up to maintain their rule. They are elected in through legitimate voting. And these days, since anyone can become a politician (pretty much) we have some real plonkers in government who come from all classes of society. So class oppression by the government is just a feeble excuse to justify socialist unhappiness

btw what country are you from RebelMusic??

It is democracy for the capitalists - not the workers. The state does not have to go around and beat up people to maintain their rule. The government is used by the capitalists to maintain their rule - even if the government is made up of from "all classes".

[RebelMusic]

The first "states" that came into power were kings and warlords that were put into power by the people looking for a powerful leader to protect them from other barbaric nomadic tribes.

No, the state was a direct result of Slave Society. The protection from other tribes is a by-product of this.

[ilikedeathmetal]

No. The state is used by the bourgeoisie to violently maintain their rule. The state arises when class antagonism's can not be resolved and is used in the oppression of one class by another.

You just contradicted yourself with your last message mate (see above quote)
I think you would find that there are alot more working class than there are capitalists. IF THE WORKING CLASS REALLY WANTED CHANGE TO END THIS SO-CALLED 'CLASS OPPRESSION' THEN THEY WOULD GET TOGETHER AND VOTE FOR A GOVERNMENT THAT DOES NOT OPPRESS. HAVE THEY DONE THIS? NO. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? EITHER THEY DONT WANT CHANGE, OR THEY ARE HAPPY TO SIT AROUND AND GROAN ABOUT HOW BAD THEIR LIVES ARE AND DO BUGGER ALL TO HELP THEMSELVES OUT

[ilikedeathmetal]

No, the state was a direct result of Slave Society. The protection from other tribes is a by-product of this.

Where is your proof for this? What history books are you reading? Id like to get my hands on those. I need some humorous light reading material to take my mind off exams. Law sucks:thumb:

[RebelMusic]

You just contradicted yourself with your last message mate (see above quote)
I think you would find that there are alot more working class than there are capitalists. IF THE WORKING CLASS REALLY WANTED CHANGE TO END THIS SO-CALLED 'CLASS OPPRESSION' THEN THEY WOULD GET TOGETHER AND VOTE FOR A GOVERNMENT THAT DOES NOT OPPRESS. HAVE THEY DONE THIS? NO. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? EITHER THEY DONT WANT CHANGE, OR THEY ARE HAPPY TO SIT AROUND AND GROAN ABOUT HOW BAD THEIR LIVES ARE AND DO BUGGER ALL TO HELP THEMSELVES OUT

Most of the workers are not educated on socialism due mainly to the capitalist propaganda.

[RebelMusic]

Where is your proof for this? What history books are you reading? Id like to get my hands on those. I need some humorous light reading material to take my mind off exams. Law sucks:thumb:

Here, maybe I am not explaining it well enough.

The increase of production in all branches – cattle-raising, agriculture, domestic handicrafts – gave human labour-power the capacity to produce a larger product than was necessary for its maintenance. At the same time it increased the daily amount of work to be done by each member of the gens, household community or single family. It was now desirable to bring in new labour forces. War provided them; prisoners of war were turned into slaves. With its increase of the productivity of labour, and therefore of wealth, and its extension of the field of production, the first great social division of labour was bound, in the general historical conditions prevailing, to bring slavery in its train. From the first great social division of labour arose the first great cleavage of society into two classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited

Actually, you should just read chapter nine of Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Engels. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

[pooble]

No, the state was a direct result of Slave Society. The protection from other tribes is a by-product of this.

Once people settled down in villages and hamlets they needed a strong warrior to protect them from invaders and other jealous rival clans. Thus they would pick out the most powerful and courageous leader as their king. Only once the village eventually experienced economic prosperity and military power did slave appear.

The point of slaves was to do work such as working in fields or shops so the economy could be more efficient. However before the nomadic lifestyle ended there was no point to slaves as they were simply an extra burden. Only once people became settled did concepts such as economy appear. However while people were nomadic they did not even consider things such as economic well being, something which could be improved by slaves, and thus had no desire for them.

Protection from other tribes was the reason for the state. Slavery was a side-effect, and not even in all societies. Not the other way around.

[ilikedeathmetal]

Most of the workers are not educated on socialism due mainly to the capitalist propaganda.

Its not hard to learn about socialism, or anything for that matter.
Internet, books, university
Maybe workers simply refuse to take part in socialist movements because they see them as fruitless and ineffective. But hey thats my 'capitalist' viewpoint....

[RebelMusic]

Once people settled down in villages and hamlets they needed a strong warrior to protect them from invaders and other jealous rival clans. Thus they would pick out the most powerful and courageous leader as their king. Only once the village eventually experienced economic prosperity and military power did slave appear.

Yes, they needed to protect other tribes from coming and taking them off to be used as slaves.

The point of slaves was to do work such as working in fields or shops so the economy could be more efficient. However before the nomadic lifestyle ended there was no point to slaves as they were simply an extra burden. Only once people became settled did concepts such as economy appear. However while people were nomadic they did not even consider things such as economic well being, something which could be improved by slaves, and thus had no desire for them.

Of course. It was not until they improved production and started getting surplus value that it was desirable to acquire slaves. The nomadic people were living in a pre-communist society (or primitive communist society, which ever you like). Once the material conditions were met Slave Society was formed.

Protection from other tribes was the reason for the state. Slavery was a side-effect, and not even in all societies. Not the other way around.

It's not just slavery. Whenever society is divided into classes a state must arise to enforce one class's rule over another.

[Smokey D]

They start to monopolize the means of production and this gives rise to the state, class society, and private property.

How do they get to monopolise production without an advantage?

Also, read Guns, Germs and Steel for an analysis of how states arise and what they actually constitute.

[ilikedeathmetal]

Engels wrote his works over 120 years ago. Dont you think they could be a little out of date? And i dont think that slavery has much to do with anything these days. Workers enter into contracts with employers all the time of their own accord, and measures are in place in order to allow workers to resign from their jobs if they so desire. In fact the state passes laws that make workplaces more desirable and safe for the employees. Slaves didnt quite have the same luxuries that modern employees do

[Reaganista]

Anthropologically speaking, government predates homo sapiens.

The Alpha Male is a construct of the band and it is the first class distinction that arose in 'human' history.

[Dave de Sylvia]

How do they get monopolise production without an advantage?

Also, read Guns, Germs and Steel for an analysis of how states arise and what they actually constitute.
My girlfriend read that during the summer, and loved it. I'll have to get around to it myself.

[Reaganista]

do it now.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I just brought it back to the library yesterday, in fact. I simply don't have time right now, perhaps I will over Christmas.

/is behind on all college reading

[Reaganista]

who cares about college reading this is more important

[Dave de Sylvia]

You're right. I'll rebel against authority, quit school and read a science book.

/James Dean'd

[coheneran]

Exactley!

[coheneran]

Pages 25-28 are what happens when people start thinking politics matters. "The bourgiousie was created by the state" "No, the state was created by the bourgiousie" "No, civilisation gave rise to both of them" "No your mum did".
What bollocks! When you're tired of petty arguments that break up the rank and file, then it's time to consider anarchism. It's arguments like these that sabotaged the spanish revolution.

[pooble]

Yes, they needed to protect other tribes from coming and taking them off to be used as slaves.

Other tribes had no need for slaves as they were still living nomadic lifestyles and had no methods for growing or harvesting food in any way that could be compared to settlements. Slaves would be an extra burden. The reason other tribes invaded or attacked settlements was because they wanted that settlements’ food and were jealous of its success. They did not want slaves or economic hegemony. Just food.

Of course. It was not until they improved production and started getting surplus value that it was desirable to acquire slaves. The nomadic people were living in a pre-communist society (or primitive communist society, which ever you like). Once the material conditions were met Slave Society was formed.

Yes. But before people settled they did not know the benefits slaves could bring and only realized this once agriculture and other mass food production kicked in. But this was after rulers and warlords had appeared.

It's not just slavery. Whenever society is divided into classes a state must arise to enforce one class's rule over another.

Classes occurred with specialization and agriculture. Different people did different things. Some made clothes, others grew food, others made weapons, and even others became soldiers or guards to protect the “city”.

Depending on where the city was located different classes received different respect. If a settlement was in a very dangerous region, by dangerous I mean there were many tribes wandering in the region that wanted to sack the village, soldiers would be respected among the people as they were viewed as most important.

However if a settlement was located in a dry region with only small sections of fertile soil, those that grew food were the most respected and again gained influence over others.

[ilikedeathmetal]

Pages 25-28 are what happens when people start thinking politics matters. "The bourgiousie was created by the state" "No, the state was created by the bourgiousie" "No, civilisation gave rise to both of them" "No your mum did".
What bollocks! When you're tired of petty arguments that break up the rank and file, then it's time to consider anarchism. It's arguments like these that sabotaged the spanish revolution.

Argument, or rather freedom of speech, is what makes a liberal society so fantastic. We should cherish his wonderful right, not attack it. Be nice to our rights :wave:

[Futue te Ipsum]

I think the lack of a coherent structure sabotaged the spanish revolution. That and the other army being far superior in terms of allies and weapons.

[Der Übermensch]

I think the lack of a coherent structure sabotaged the spanish revolution. That and the other army being far superior in terms of allies and weapons.

Pretty much... The CCCP supported Communists sabatoged the war basicly, and because the US and Britain blockaded the Republic, the Fascists were vastly better supported by Germany and Italy, who managed to still gove lip service to the Blockade.

[Leftover Jello]

Argument, or rather freedom of speech, is what makes a liberal society so fantastic. We should cherish his wonderful right, not attack it. Be nice to our rights :wave:

I don't understand why you would cherish the rights that the government allows you, but still accept the authority that limits the rest of your rights?

As for me, I trust myself enough that I do not need any authority to tell me what to do.

[Smokey D]

It's more a case of whether you trust everyone else.

[6655321]

would there be a form of currency, or just complete free trade?

[RebelMusic]

would there be a form of currency, or just complete free trade?

There will be no currency.

[Reaganista]

All cultures/societies have currency.

[thedeadwalk!]

Foraging cultures too?

[Reaganista]

Yes. they used things like shells or feathers, usually.

[thedeadwalk!]

I was under the impression, at least with meat, everyone just shared what they could, knowing that in the future when someone else got some, they would have some too. And, that there's really no need for currency as most everybody has the same thing anyway; every thing they needed to live, and their way of life making luxuries a nuisance.

[Smokey D]

Currency was used for inter band trading.

[Reaganista]

I was under the impression, at least with meat, everyone just shared what they could, knowing that in the future when someone else got some, they would have some too. And, that there's really no need for currency as most everybody has the same thing anyway; every thing they needed to live, and their way of life making luxuries a nuisance.

shells and feathers are easily transportable.

[Leftover Jello]

It's more a case of whether you trust everyone else.

If someone is a jackass, that is their problem. I shouldn't try to fix it for them. Maybe I could help them but that is the most that I should interfere in their lives.

I think that our society puts very little emphasis on personal responsibility. Instead of people doing what they think is good, people do what they can get away with. I would hope that if they could get away with anything they would do what they think is good. If not, I still don't think that it is my business to tell them what to do. Although I guess this only goes as far as they are not seriously harming me or others.

[Smokey D]

If someone is a jackass, that is their problem. I shouldn't try to fix it for them. Maybe I could help them but that is the most that I should interfere in their lives.

You're assuming they won't impact upon your life.

[robot]

I hope you guys know that there currently are Anarcho-communes in the United States that are fully functioning and completely self-sufficient.

And have any of you ever heard of the Trancendalist movement? Utopian Communities?

Anarchy does work, and it works quite well.

[rialb]

I hope you guys know that there currently are Anarcho-communes in the United States that are fully functioning and completely self-sufficient.

And have any of you ever heard of the Trancendalist movement? Utopian Communities?

Anarchy does work, and it works quite well.

Who's up for some brain-washing?

[siva_chair]

I hope you guys know that there currently are Anarcho-communes in the United States that are fully functioning and completely self-sufficient.

And have any of you ever heard of the Trancendalist movement? Utopian Communities?

Anarchy does work, and it works quite well.

Most communes in the US are utter failures. When the whole commune thing was trendy, they usually turned into semi-fascist ran little dictatorships. Funny thing is, that seems to happen on the macro scale too....

[pooble]

I hope you guys know that there currently are Anarcho-communes in the United States that are fully functioning and completely self-sufficient.

And have any of you ever heard of the Trancendalist movement? Utopian Communities?

Anarchy does work, and it works quite well.

I read about one in National Geographic. A large part of the people living in the commune (communists I guess) were alcoholics, almost every night there were parties where everyone got drunk thus would basically be worthless for the next day to do any productive work, work was avoided by most of the people, I believe there was a shortage of clothes and there was some debate about a member they wanted to kick out due to some assault he committed on someone else.

[Ghostfire3]

I hope you guys know that there currently are Anarcho-communes in the United States that are fully functioning and completely self-sufficient.

And have any of you ever heard of the Trancendalist movement? Utopian Communities?

Anarchy does work, and it works quite well.

Your wrong about the Transcendentalist movement. The Utopian Communities only lasted for a short period of time, and were later given up by the Transcendentalists, ultimately making them a failure.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Maybe, the place for an anarchist (What I mean is someone against goverment/words/written laws) is where it is only posssible right now. As an entity who doesn't comply with the law in this society. A mind guiltless about it's opposition to the state/word control. My place in my mind is freely throwing words at people in absurd ways because they're used to it coming from more trusted sources.

It seems like this physical anarchy idea where people live without written laws is almost like merely restarting the power race because they came out on the bottom.


I don't think communicating through words will get ideas across to other people. (Like right now for instance:)) So I'm just going to ignore the contents of wordplay in my life, at school, home, MX... make stupid posts, and not feel guilty. Maybe eventually I get to a point where I can actually say something somehow somewhere.

[pooble]

Someone against words?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Someone against words?
Yeah.

(You may or may not know why my message is so short)

[pooble]

Anarchists are against words?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Anarchists are against words?
STAY IN LINE!
SIT DOWN!
STRAIGHTEN UP!
LISTEN!

More or less (mostly less, the more subtle.. and clever ones) these ones.

No, I don't what anarchists are against in a way I can tell you. I'm a verbal anarchist I guess. Whatever. Ever. What. ****kkkkk, Oh. Damn. Alright... Hmmm. Whatever. Man. Okay. Yeah.

[imnotamusician]

Originally Posted by robot
I hope you guys know that there currently are Anarcho-communes in the United States that are fully functioning and completely self-sufficient.

And have any of you ever heard of the Trancendalist movement? Utopian Communities?

Anarchy does work, and it works quite well.
Originally Posted by robot

I don't believe in anarchy.

Anarchy will only work if everyone was "good" to each other, I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't be "good" to others. In the first few post where someone asked "what if someone murders someone, what will happen?". The thread starter of the so called solution said something like "it depends on the commune you live on, they'll either punish, or they'll do nothing.", doesn't this just contradict with anarchy. Sure the general "system" is dead, but other smaller versions got created. Ironic isn't it?

So anarchy will not work, atleast not now.

[Der Übermensch]

I never said 'do nothing'. My exact words were "Depends on the commune. You might be punished, or maybe face ostrization."

[Smokey D]

I don't think communicating through words will get ideas across to other people. (Like right now for instance:)) So I'm just going to ignore the contents of wordplay in my life, at school, home, MX... make stupid posts, and not feel guilty. Maybe eventually I get to a point where I can actually say something somehow somewhere.

Read 1984. It gives a fairly good description about why language is a necessary tool to gain meaningful freedom, and that by limiting your language you limit the possibilities in your thinking.

[loafontheroad]

and its an absolutely brilliant book.

[Dethroned-Emperror88]

Anarchy would never work on any large scale population. For the most part people are happy being told what to do. They like boundaries and they like laws and rules. I am not a zionist or a republican but Anarchy gives people to much freedom, meaning that you could kill rape slaughter steal loot and not get punished for it, and society dwells on order and all Anarchy is, is disorder.

[Der Übermensch]

If I was a mod, I'd ban you for supidity and Spam.
************DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD UNTIL YOU HAVE READ THE FIRST TWO POSTS.*************

[pooble]

I am not a zionist or a republican.

Whaa??? what does that have to do with anything.

[TheNowhereman42]

Probably been discussed earlier, but incase it hasn't, whats everyones opinion on Paris?

[Reaganista]

If I was a mod, I'd ban you for supidity and Spam.
************DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD UNTIL YOU HAVE READ THE FIRST TWO POSTS.*************
no man ajnarchy can't work because someone will try to take power and u cant stop them without taking away there freedom

[Smokey D]

Probably been discussed earlier, but incase it hasn't, whats everyones opinion on Paris?

Do you mean the Paris Commune or the current riots?

[Der Übermensch]

kk, I'd advise putting a link to it in the Forum Rules thread though.

[Futue te Ipsum]

no man ajnarchy can't work because someone will try to take power and u cant stop them without taking away there freedomkqoted 4 tw00f

[griftadan]

kk, I'd advise putting a link to it in the Forum Rules thread though.
wait, are you still an anarchist? i can't even tell anymore

[Der Übermensch]

In the general sense yes. I've shifted into a much more Syndicalist/Mutualist outlook however.

[griftadan]

yeah, i've sort of shifted into objectivist outlook myself. much different then where i started out

[Dave de Sylvia]

yeah, i've sort of shifted into objectivist outlook myself. much different then where i started out
Do you think Ayn Rand was hot?

[griftadan]

Do you think Ayn Rand was hot?
not really

[Dave de Sylvia]

not really
Then you're not an objectivist, ironically.

[griftadan]

...ok?

[Dave de Sylvia]

The old joke is the only difference between objectivists and libertarians is that objectivists think Ayn Rand was hot, which is funny because she's so objectively ugly it might just validate her theory.

[ani_starkiller]

anarchism...
...the retard's philosophy