Anarchism

[ramoniac138]

The subject interests me, but I would really like to know abou the details concering MODERN anarchy in today's society...

like what exactly are anarchists against (EXAMPLES)?
what do they intend to do?
whats the alternative to the present system?!

help...discusss...THANKS!

[Der Übermensch]

Theres already a thread for this... do a search for it...

[Der Übermensch]

Or maybe i'll be nice and give you the link :p
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288507

[ramoniac138]

thanks!

[dislocated214]

If you enjoy reading.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarchism

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/iwma/index.htm

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

in short, they want everyone to be poorer

[Der Übermensch]

Don't trust anything that comes from a site with marxist in its name to have a good synopsis on Anarchism.

[Pint of stella]

Surprisingly there are many forms of anarchism. Such as:
Anarcho-Syndacism
Anarcho-Capitalism
Anarcho-Communism etc.
They come in many forms but the general idea is that a state does not exist. It was originally associated with the ideas of people living in communes. Generally there is no state and people have pure freedom of action. There is also a passive stance, where they don't harm others and treat each other like they would treat themselves. Anarchism was not originally associated with chaos, as people perceive it today. Misguided fools.

[Der Übermensch]

As I already pointed out, there is an offical thread for this, the point of which was to contain all debate on Anarchism, as well as to educate people to keep them from making dumb comments. I posted the link... Keep it there, as most questions posed here can probably be already answered there.

[Ghostfire3]

Surprisingly there are many forms of anarchism. Such as:
Anarcho-Syndacism
Anarcho-Capitalism
Anarcho-Communism etc.
They come in many forms but the general idea is that a state does not exist. It was originally associated with the ideas of people living in communes. Generally there is no state and people have pure freedom of action. There is also a passive stance, where they don't harm others and treat each other like they would treat themselves. Anarchism was not originally associated with chaos, as people perceive it today. Misguided fools.

Anarcho-Capitalism? Wtf? I've heard of the others, but not that one. Explain what it is.

[Pint of stella]

We did it breifly, in politics class. Basically the market is unregulated as hell. I don't have a huge knowledge on it. Only really that it exists. I'm sure some website will have some info on it. I promise you that it exists, or existed.

[Der Übermensch]

Anarcho-Capitalism? Wtf? I've heard of the others, but not that one. Explain what it is.
Ask it here and I'll answer :)
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288507

[Ghostfire3]

Fine. Will do.

[dislocated214]

Don't trust anything that comes from a site with marxist in its name to have a good synopsis on Anarchism.
The Marxist links state what Anarchism is, what Anarchism and Marxism share, and why Anarchism fails without an intermediate stage. He/she seemed pro-anarchy, so I decided to shove some anti-Anarchy stuff with the old-school Marx vs Bakunin battles.

[griftadan]

anarchism is impossible, power hierarchies will always exist.

[Zoroaster]

Surprisingly there are many forms of anarchism. Such as:
Anarcho-Syndacism
Anarcho-Capitalism
Anarcho-Communism etc.

Surprisingly, none of them have ever been implemented and, by the looks of things, never will be either. Having said that, I welcome you to explain why anarchism is justified given the welfare creation of capitalism and its unprecedented move to alleviate people out of poverty and the idleness that's inherent in any anarchist system.

[monkeysonmars.]

are you claiming it's thanks to capitalism that there's so little poverty?

[Zoroaster]

are you claiming it's thanks to capitalism that there's so little poverty?

Of course I am.

[monkeysonmars.]

but surely if there were no political influences on capitalism we would have a greater poverty?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

no, why would you think that?

[monkeysonmars.]

i dunno the way i see it, throughout the 20 century capitalism has been restrained by various political movements. we haven't really seen unrestrained capitalism since the industrial revolution. the closest we've come to it to my knowledge is the new right, and the effects of putting inflation at the top of the agenda was large unemployment.
so anyway if we had a completely free market wouldn't it be inevitable that you'd get the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

no, I don't get it - why would the poor inevitably get poorer?

[monkeysonmars.]

well capitalism works by (as far as i understand it anway) having a relationship between a worker and an employer whereby the employer exploits the worker in order to make a profit(in terms of not paying the worker the value of their work). obviously some of this profit would go back to improving productivity etc but a large chunk stays with the employer.

as you get richer it's becomes easier to exploit and you can do it to a greater extent, for example an employer can reduce wages safe in the knowledge people don't want to lose their job and if they do someone else will happily take their place. i mean why else would we have a minimum wage?

[griftadan]

are you claiming it's thanks to capitalism that there's so little poverty?

i would tend to agree, atleast here.

however, capitalists principles over the yearshave been butchered by the government, negating alot of the benefits.

[griftadan]

Purely unrestrained capitalism would be a total trainwreck (much as ideologically pure forms of other economic systems would also be disastrous). Although the idea of a perfectly self-correcting market may sound good in theory, in practice a combination of information asymmetry, overwhelming barriers to entry and exit and a total lack of regulation would lead to massive monopolies, which wouldn't actually be good for the economy at all. In addition to purely economic problems arising from it, total deregulation of the market would inevitably lead to huge negative externalities, such as increased environmental damage, and a lack of worker confidence as they could be fired at any time for any reason whatsoever. I've got no doubt that capitalism broadly works as an economic system. But going into some sort of bizzare anarcho-capitalist fantasy world would be every bit as dangerous as removing any element of private enterprise.

actually regulations only hinder the market exit-entry by increasing start up costs, thus giving larger companies the chance to monoplize.

[dislocated214]

i would tend to agree, atleast here.

however, capitalists principles over the yearshave been butchered by the government, negating alot of the benefits.
Little poverty where? I don't seem to understand the statement. Little poverty in the world or in the Western capitalist nations?

[Iskandar]

i would tend to agree, atleast here.

however, capitalists principles over the yearshave been butchered by the government, negating alot of the benefits.
I would argue that fellow capitalists, especially the most successful and therefore powerful, have butchered the principles more than many governments; but that's just me.

"Power tends to corrupt," eh? I'm firmly of the opinion that the bigger a corporation gets, the more likely it is to commit unethical actions. It's not too different from your opinion of Big Government.

[griftadan]

Excessive regulation can do that. A reasonable amount prevents mergers taking place that create total monopolies. If markets were utterly deregulated then you'd have a scenario where repeated hostile takeovers would mean that one massive corporation could simply buy out every competitor, which would effectively raise barriers to entry to a level that couldn't be matched.

so what? as long as start up costs are low, the monopolizer has to provide the best service or else competitors can jump and take advantage of that.

[Iskandar]

so what? as long as start up costs are low, the monopolizer has to provide the best service or else competitors can jump and take advantage of that.
Monopolies necessarily undermine the capitalist ideal of opportunity.

Where's my opportunity to start up my own business if some monolithic big-box store has a stranglehold on the market?

[griftadan]

I would argue that fellow capitalists, especially the most successful and therefore powerful, have butchered the principles more than many governments; but that's just me.

"Power tends to corrupt," eh? I'm firmly of the opinion that the bigger a corporation gets, the more likely it is to commit unethical actions. It's not too different from your opinion of Big Government.

yeah but the government can initiate force, which is the difference.

[Reaganista]

The subject interests me, but I would really like to know abou the details concering MODERN anarchy in today's society
wild, wild, wild, wild, wild in the streets wild in the streets wild in the streets wild in the streets in the heat of the summer better call out a plumber turn on the steam pipe cool me off with your big crime fighters and your newspaper writers still need a drugstore to cure my buzz

i would tend to agree, atleast here
I would also agree.

that capitalism has done a great job of hiding poverty from white people

[griftadan]

Monopolies necessarily undermine the capitalist ideal of opportunity.

Where's my opportunity to start up my own business if some monolithic big-box store has a stranglehold on the market?

how exactly does one stranglehold the market and provide bad service and products?

[Iskandar]

yeah but the government can initiate force, which is the difference.
I honestly don't see much of a difference. Governments are in conflict with the market and the people; corporations are in competition with each other. A government can enforce laws; an MGO can initiate market conditions which affect all other (major) businesses. The variables are different but there are many parallels.

[Iskandar]

how exactly does one stranglehold the market and provide bad service and products?
You misunderstand. A monopolizing corporation which provides great service and products still strangles the market by disallowing small businesses to start up and flourish.

[griftadan]

"initiate market conditions?" what, you mean provide better service?

[griftadan]

You misunderstand. A monopolizing corporation which provides great service and products still strangles the market by disallowing small businesses to start up and flourish.

yeah but thats not a problem if they provide great service.

[Iskandar]

"initiate market conditions?" what, you mean provide better service?
No, I mean setting prices indirectly etc.

I will try to provide you with an example for your second point:

Megalo-mart monopolizes the electronics market. Dan Grifta wants to open an electronics store, but he knows it won't go anywhere because of Megalo-mart's epic monopoly of the market. He feels disillusioned at the lack of opportunity; at how the monopoly doesn't allow him to open shop and compete on a real level.

[griftadan]

what?

if he can't compete just because megalo-mart provides better service, he doesn't deserve to be in business.

[Iskandar]

what?

if he can't compete just because megalo-mart provides better service, he doesn't deserve to be in business.
How will he be able to open up his business and get it started? That's all I'm concerned with for now. He can compete later by offering better/different services.

[griftadan]

by pooling capital and starting shop and providing better services?

[Iskandar]

by pooling capital and starting shop and providing better services?
You've explained this very well. Thank you for answering my questions. :)

Now, if only cappies could start seeing merit in my ideology ... :p

[griftadan]

And while that sounds fantastic in theory, a combination of brand loyalty, vastly superior advertising power and economies of scale means that the new small firm would find it immensely hard to compete. Even if it does provide a better service for lower costs, the amount of time that it would take for it to start making profits would mean that in many cases it was already out of business.

it doesn't matter how much brand loyalty people have, if you provide inferior services eventually people will stop buying form you. it doesn't matter how many people loved coke, they hated new coke and coca cola took a hit for it.

plus, the doesn't even answer for cross-industry transfers of companies who already have capital to spare but want to get into a new industry because they think they can compete. plus in the unlikely event that a company will be able to achieve 100% of the market for any particular industry, provide bad services, and no one decides that they want to compete, how long will this last? how long before the service provided becomes inpractical or obsolete? our economy moves at a fast rate now, and with a golbablized economy and promotion of free trade, how long can national monoplies hold 100% market share against international competition?

the whole idea of a real bad monoploy ever existing seems so unlikely that theres really no point in planning for it.

What makes you think that start up costs would necessarily be low?

lower than they would be without higher regulation.

[Smokey D]

plus, the doesn't even answer for cross-industry transfers of companies who already have capital to spare but want to get into a new industry because they think they can compete. plus in the unlikely event that a company will be able to achieve 100% of the market for any particular industry, provide bad services, and no one decides that they want to compete, how long will this last? how long before the service provided becomes inpractical or obsolete? our economy moves at a fast rate now, and with a golbablized economy and promotion of free trade, how long can national monoplies hold 100% market share against international competition?

Quite a long time because high barriers to entry is a defining feature of a monopoly. :p

Besides, any market entity which prevents the market from clearing should be regulated against, even if they aren't a full blown monopoly.

[griftadan]

the government does a pretty good job of that already. then again the government is a monopoly.

probably the biggest government promotion of big monopolies is restrictions of free trade at the border, than the tax code. then probably the labor code. all do a pretty good job at keeping intruders into the market out.

[Smokey D]

the government does a pretty good job of that already. then again the government is a monopoly.

No it's not. It functions as a monopsony on certain goods, though; especially military hardware.

probably the biggest government promotion of big monopolies is restrictions of free trade at the border, than the tax code. then probably the labor code. all do a pretty good job at keeping intruders into the market out.

They probably don't help, but don't imagine that market forces are not capable of producing a monopoly all by themselves.

[griftadan]

No it's not. It functions as a monopsony on certain goods, though; especially military hardware.

it monopolizes coercive force.

They probably don't help, but don't imagine that market forces are not capable of producing a monopoly all by themselves.

i am. or atleast undesirable monopolies.

[Iskandar]

it monopolizes coercive force.
Yeah, but it's far from the only outside force that can shape the market.

What about the consumer?

[Reaganista]

consumers who effect the market should be jailed
or at least killed.

effecting the market is a horrible thing

[Iskandar]

consumers who effect the market should be jailed
or at least killed.

effecting the market is a horrible thing
I am now going to effectively affect your spelling by effectively demonstrating the affective differences between "effect" and "affect."

Ffs they begin with different phonemes

[Smokey D]

it monopolizes coercive force.

That's not an economic monopoly, and doesn't really have any bearing on an economic discussion.

i am. or atleast undesirable monopolies.

All monopolies are undesirable, and are you saying monopolies can't arise from market forces?

[Reaganista]

That's not an economic monopoly, and doesn't really have any bearing on an economic discussion.

If it wasn't for the damn government we could commodify violence!

[A Spoonful Supreme]

*rolls eyes*

[Reaganista]

*rolls eyes*
You see it would be a lot easier for me to hire somebody to track you down and kill you for that **** if there was no government.

[Ghostfire3]

*rolls eyes too*

[Reaganista]

*rolls eyes too*
stop spamming!

eurgh

[A Spoonful Supreme]

You see it would be a lot easier for me to hire somebody to track you down and kill you for that **** if there was no government.
sounds like something stalin would do, you're not stalin.... are you?

[Reaganista]

No it doesn't really sound like something stalin would do at all.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

oh thats right, bourgeois dont count as people

[Reaganista]

no I think they do.

[griftadan]

All monopolies are undesirable, and are you saying monopolies can't arise from market forces?

not all monoplies are undesirable and i'm saying that the undesirable ones will not arise in a free market.

[Smokey D]

All monopolies produce at a point other than market equilibrium, thereby preventing the market from clearing and disturbing the pricing mechanism

Therefore, all monopolies are undesirable.

[coheneran]

Do I get to say what anarchism is?

[Der Übermensch]

Nope :p

[coheneran]

Anarchism is taking responsibility for other people, and their actions.

There was also some other stuff about class war and junk, but I gotta go make my sister do my chores:p.

[griftadan]

All monopolies produce at a point other than market equilibrium, thereby preventing the market from clearing and disturbing the pricing mechanism

Therefore, all monopolies are undesirable.

all monoplies?

if they underproduce at a point below market equilibrium, they will not be able to hold 100% of the market share without using legal pressure, which eliminates their monopoly status.

if they do meet the markets needs, then they are not undesirable and can continue to dominate the market for all anyone cares.

[Smokey D]

if they underproduce at a point below market equilibrium, they will not be able to hold 100% of the market share without using legal pressure, which eliminates their monopoly status.

No, you see, their ability to do just that is what makes them a monopoly.

if they do meet the markets needs, then they are not undesirable and can continue to dominate the market for all anyone cares.

Monopolies will always produce at the profit maximising point, which is not market equilibrium.

[griftadan]

... at which point they will be undercut by people who provide better service.

[Smokey D]

Prohibitively high start up costs make it a risky venture, and since the monopoly will invariably use its vastly greater market share and reserves to drop the price below a point which its much smaller rival can operate at, the monopoly is preserved in the long term.

[coheneran]

Why are you talking about (what appears to be) market economics?

[Zoroaster]

Prohibitively high start up costs make it a risky venture, and since the monopoly will invariably use its vastly greater market share and reserves to drop the price below a point which its much smaller rival can operate at, the monopoly is preserved in the long term.

Anti-trust legislation, my friend.

[Smokey D]

Yes, that's what I'm arguing for. Griftadan is arguing for complete deregulation.

Why are you talking about (what appears to be) market economics?

Because in a government free society, the market would be the principle forum for interaction.

[coheneran]

Why?

[Iskandar]

Why?
In a government-free capitalist society it would be.

[coheneran]

In a government-free capitalist society it would be.

Ahhh. Well, here's the major flaw: In a government-free capitalist society, which we will call anarchist capitalism, or ancap for short, there is no government to protect the interests of the companies, and so for people like me, burning down the business headquarters and freeing the exploited workers is that much easier. So, your silly ancap will last just as long as you can convince the workers to protect you and your fellow business men. But then, aren't you just another coercive power which exploits workers? In other words, aren't you a government?

[Smokey D]

Yes

Why?

Because markets exist soley to distribute scarce goods in relation to unlimited wants. Since neither anarchism nor communism can solve the fundemental problems necessitating economic activity (ie, scarcity of resources, oppurtunity cost and comparative advantage), markets shall endure past the end of capitalism.

In a government-free capitalist society, it would be

Nope. In any society.

[coheneran]

It's at times like these that I wish I knew more of Anarchist-Communism, since I am supposed to be an ancommie.

[dislocated214]

It's at times like these that I wish I knew more of Anarchist-Communism, since I am supposed to be an ancommie.
Anarchists and Communists, I believe, share the same goals but differ in how to achieve that goal. Anarchists believe in going directly to communism, while communists believe in establishing socialism first and then going into communism. I believe anarcho-communism is somewhere between the two.

[Reaganista]

there is no government to protect the interests of the companies, and so for people like me, burning down the business headquarters and freeing the exploited workers is that much easier
actually you would be summarily executed by private security forces who didn't have pesky constitutions to worry about

[Iskandar]

Nope. In any society.
But there are vast differences between classic anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is all about providing the market with as much power as possible. Classic anarchism is about fundamental changes to the market so the traditional hegemony doesn't apply.

[Smokey D]

Do tell, pray, how exactly any form of anarchism solves the fundemental problems of economic exchange?

[Against Miik!]

But there are vast differences between classic anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is all about providing the market with as much power as possible. Classic anarchism is about fundamental changes to the market so the traditional hegemony doesn't apply.

I've never posted in here before.

Do you actually believe in Anarcho Capitalism, or are you just defining it?

[Iskandar]

Do tell, pray, how exactly any form of anarchism solves the fundemental problems of economic exchange?
The market functions similarly as it does in capitalism, except for the major difference of there being exchanges of purely goods, not goods for capital. Therefore, one group cannot gain a significant advantage over the other and begin to exploit it.

That seems like a major difference to me.

I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad idea; I'm just stating the theory.

What more do you want from me? I'm not an expert on anarchism.

[Iskandar]

I've never posted in here before.

Do you actually believe in Anarcho Capitalism, or are you just defining it?
Defining it. I am very much opposed to the idea.

You should post in here more often. We welcome new faces. :wave:

[Against Miik!]

I know nothing about Anarchism as far as specifics, but I know the general pros and cons. I'll hit up wikipedia or somethin and get to know a little.

[Smokey D]

The market functions similarly as it does in capitalism, except for the major difference of there being exchanges of purely goods, not goods for capital. Therefore, one group cannot gain a significant advantage over the other and begin to exploit it.

The problems that necessitate economic activity still exist, and until a solution arises to solve, not merely mitigate, them, the market and all its attendent issues will persist.

That seems like a major difference to me.

Major? Yes.

Major enough? Debatable.

[Iskandar]

The problems that necessitate economic activity still exist, and until a solution arises to solve, not merely mitigate, them, the market and all its attendent issues will persist.
The only real solution to the problem would be an even distribution of the world's resources and the means to extract them.

I don't have the mindset that "markets = evil." There's nothing wrong with facilitating the exchange of goods. It's just a different kind of market that I believe in.
Major enough? Debatable.
Major enough for what?
I know nothing about Anarchism as far as specifics, but I know the general pros and cons. I'll hit up wikipedia or somethin and get to know a little.
There's a good thread kicking around. Read the first couple of posts by the user Das Übermensch.

[griftadan]

Prohibitively high start up costs make it a risky venture, and since the monopoly will invariably use its vastly greater market share and reserves to drop the price below a point which its much smaller rival can operate at, the monopoly is preserved in the long term.

well if start up prices are high, then added regulation won't help.

if they drop prices, then there isn't really a problem.

[Iskandar]

well if start up prices are high, then added regulation won't help.
Well, to what kind of regulations are you referring? Do you believe that all regulation results in impedements to starting a business?

[griftadan]

The market functions similarly as it does in capitalism, except for the major difference of there being exchanges of purely goods, not goods for capital. Therefore, one group cannot gain a significant advantage over the other and begin to exploit it.

thats not the defining quality for capitalism. capital is a generic term used to represent any form of wealth or means of production, it is present in every economic system. what makes capitalism capitalism is how the capital is owned and operated.

capitalism calls for private ownership of capital as opposed to public under socialism.

[griftadan]

Well, to what kind of regulations are you referring? Do you believe that all regulation results in impedements to starting a business?

yeah pretty much all of them make business harder to operate therefore adding costs. i'm not saying we should get rid of all of them i'm just stating the way it is.

[Iskandar]

thats not the defining quality for capitalism. capital is a generic term used to represent any form of wealth or means of production, it is present in every economic system. what makes capitalism capitalism is how the capital is owned and operated.
I wasn't defining capitalism or socialism. I was just describing the main difference in how the markets (are supposed to) work.
yeah pretty much all of them make business harder to operate therefore adding costs. i'm not saying we should get rid of all of them i'm just stating the way it is.
Well, it depends. Some regulations are clearly inane. Some I would shudder to imagine business without.

[Smokey D]

well if start up prices are high, then added regulation won't help.

if they drop prices, then there isn't really a problem.

You can reguate the market to operate at S=D if need be.

And they only drop prices in the short term. In the long term, the monoply endures.

The only real solution to the problem would be an even distribution of the world's resources and the means to extract them.

Exactly.

I don't have the mindset that "markets = evil." There's nothing wrong with facilitating the exchange of goods. It's just a different kind of market that I believe in.

It's the only kind of market that can ever exist.

Major enough for what?

The paradigm shift you're suggesting.

[Iskandar]

It's the only kind of market that can ever exist.
Wait, what is?

[Smokey D]

A market which exists to transfer goods from one party to another.

[coheneran]

It's people like you that take the fun out of revolutions!:p

Let's remember that anarchism isn't a system to fit around people, it's a wholly different mindset.

Smokey D, coming up to 3000 posts.:thumb:

[griftadan]

You can reguate the market to operate at S=D if need be.

yeah but the market will always be more effecient than a central planner.

And they only drop prices in the short term. In the long term, the monoply endures.

they have to drop prices as long as their is a threat of competition. which is... always.

[lfantwister]

Let's remember that anarchism isn't a system to fit around people, it's a wholly different mindset.

What do you do if some unanarchist country wants to take over your ancap one? Where do you get the army? And who leads it?

[Smokey D]

yeah but the market will always be more effecient than a central planner.

Not when it operates at a monopolistic profit maximising line. By enforcing marginal cost pricing (requiring the monopoly to produce at point MC=D), the market operates at equilibrium.


hey have to drop prices as long as their is a threat of competition. which is... always.

No they don't. If they had to worry about competition in the long term, they wouldn't be a monopoly.

[griftadan]

Not when it operates at a monopolistic profit maximising line. By enforcing marginal cost pricing (requiring the monopoly to produce at point MC=D), the market operates at equilibrium.

except the government has always done a a horrible job at predicting demand and prices and production, just look at every single time it was tried.

No they don't. If they had to worry about competition in the long term, they wouldn't be a monopoly.

which is why we don't have to worry about bad monopolies, because bad busienss doesn't last in the market.

[Smokey D]

except the government has always done a a horrible job at predicting demand and prices and production, just look at every single time it was tried.

Except it doesn't need to predict anything. It only needs to require the monopoly to operate at point MC=AR.

which is why we don't have to worry about bad monopolies, because bad busienss doesn't last in the market.

They can and do when they're monopolies. Their ability to do that is what makes them monopolies.

[coheneran]

What do you do if some unanarchist country wants to take over your ancap one? Where do you get the army? And who leads it?

Hey hey hey, let's not go calling each other hateful names:p. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, I'm wholly anti-capitalist.

We get the militias the same way we did in Spain; volunteers. Contrary to what people believe, the anarchist militias were the toughest ones, but they didn't have backing from the other factions. They would run into battle, kick the crap out of everyone, makes a giant hole in the lines, and then would look behind them and see that no one was there to support them, so they had to leg it back as fast as they could. Obviously the battles were slightly more complex than that, but to the same effect.

As for leading the militias, I think we do it the same way we did in Spain. I'm not sure what the exact logistics of that were, but I'm sure they definitely had no hierarchical structures of command. I imagine something along the lines of a democratically-elected (by the unit) leader, who serves more as a coordinator than an actual commander. That is what's done in large-scale modern direct actions that require more complex tactics.

The real point is, though, that the revolution will not be a country-by-country "domino effect." It will start a long time before any actual fighting, it will start by a change of mindset and behaviour in individuals, as it did in Spain. Their revolution wasn't a sudden "Grab your guns comrades, to arms!", it was preceded by more than seventy years of strikes, organisation of workers, formation of ideological groups, small-scale collectivization etc.. People themselves changed before any of the conventional war-fighting started. Like I said, it will happen slowly, worldwide, with more worker organisation, more radical ideological groups and more radical tendencies among the lower classes themselves. Something along those lines.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

I imagine something along the lines of a democratically-elected (by the unit) leader, who serves more as a coordinator than an actual commander.Changing the names you give to commanders will not get rid of the inherent heirarchical structures in any military organization.

[coheneran]

Changing the names you give to commanders will not get rid of the inherent heirarchical structures in any military organization.

You could think about what I said in the context of military hierarchy before you dismiss it as "cosmetic semantics." A coordinator would have an expanded perspective of the situation, the same as a general does, and can therefore offer wiser advice to her own militia, as well as confer with other militias and/or their coordinators. It's completely up to the militia to take their coordinator's advice, but simply the fact that the coordinator has a different/expanded take on the situation adds extra weight to her advice.

[Smokey D]

If military units don't need to follow commands, they would fail against an organised force. Pretty much exactly how the anarchist militas of revolutionary Spain and the Ukraine failed against the tightly disciplined Fascist (later backed by Nazi) movement and the Red Army respectively.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

who makes decisions? who gives out orders? Surely you're not sugesting that military operations could be organized by democratic vote?

[Der Übermensch]

What do you do if some unanarchist country wants to take over your ancap one? Where do you get the army? And who leads it?
In ancap, since you specificly adressed that, there are private defence companies who one hires for protection services. I will not debate that though, as I have nothing to do with it.
Generally speaking, there would be peoples miltias, with officers who have the position by popular consent of the unit they are leading, and who's orders are not binding. Its is understood of course that the orders should be followed for the effective ness of battlefield cohesion, but no one has to follow them if they find them unwarrented.

anarchist militas of revolutionary Spain and the Ukraine failed against the tightly disciplined Fascist (later backed by Nazi) movement and the Red Army respectively.
Thats adressed more fully in the BGA, but to sumerise, the Anarchist Militas were destroyed by infighting and sabatoge at the provocation of the COMINTERN backed milita's, who, because of Russia's monopoly on supplying Spain, were basicly made the official army of Spain.
In the Ukraine, the Mackhovintchina militias fought WITH the red army, until Trostky decided they were unneeded. He had all the major figures of the movement (except Nestor Makho, who escaped to France) come to a meeting at his HQ to talk stratagy... and Instead arrested them all and had them shot, and abushed most of the milita units before they even got word of the betrayal.

edit:Surely you're not sugesting that military operations could be organized by democratic vote?
Not direct democracy, but democratically represented. :p

[Smokey D]

And then you only need one unit to disobey and disrupt the whole operation. Which is a stupidly ineffective way to run a military campaign.

Thats adressed more fully in the BGA, but to sumerise, the Anarchist Militas were destroyed by infighting and sabatoge at the provocation of the COMINTERN backed milita's, who, because of Russia's monopoly on supplying Spain, were basicly made the official army of Spain.

That obviously played a role in revolutionary Spain's defeat, but the military supremacy of the Fascists cannot be ignored.

In the Ukraine, the Mackhovintchina militias fought WITH the red army, until Trostky decided they were unneeded. He had all the major figures of the movement (except Nestor Makho, who escaped to France) come to a meeting at his HQ to talk stratagy... and Instead arrested them all and had them shot, and abushed most of the milita units before they even got word of the betrayal.

That's because Trotsky knew how to get things done.

[Der Übermensch]

And then you only need one unit to disobey and disrupt the whole operation. Which is a stupidly ineffective way to run a military campaign.
If you don't believe a group of likeminded people can work together for a common goal, then this is a pointless argument, since you won't be swayed... Other people however, do believe in that.

That obviously played a role in revolutionary Spain's defeat, but the military supremacy of the Fascists cannot be ignored.
I am firmly set in the belief that if the differnt factions had left bickering aside, and just fought the Fascists, they would have won, and I am hardly alone in that view.
The COMINTERN lost the war, the not Spanish people.

That's because Trotsky knew how to get things done.
I won't disagree there, the Mackovitchina was a direct threat to the Soviet Union, as it showed that the soviet model was viable without need for Bolshevik control, and needed to be eliminated, same as the Kronstdat. I'm pointing out that in a more even fight, the Ukraine could probably of stayed autonomous.

[coheneran]

If military units don't need to follow commands, they would fail against an organised force. Pretty much exactly how the anarchist militas of revolutionary Spain and the Ukraine failed against the tightly disciplined Fascist (later backed by Nazi) movement and the Red Army respectively.

The Franco fascists weren't disciplined at all, I think (from what I remember of Homage) their biggest casualties were from desertion, and those who didn't desert didn't do so because they knew their families would be executed or imprisoned if they did.

As for Ukraine, I don't know much about that uprising, so I can't comment.

[Der Übermensch]

The Franco fascists weren't disciplined at all, I think (from what I remember of Homage) their biggest casualties were from desertion, and those who didn't desert didn't do so because they knew their families would be executed or imprisoned if they did.
Heh, its my favorite book, but Orwell is hardly an objective narrator :p
The Loyalist Side was much more undisciplined at the beginning, as most senior army officers, as well the the Army of Africa (the only Units with major combat experience) all sided with the Coup. The Republicans were composed of Junior officers, lower ranks in the Army and Navy, and hundreds of thousands of milita fighters with varying abilities. Eventually it evened out, as both sides continued to bolster their ranks with raw recruits and draftees (more so on the Fascist side though for the latter). Both had serious desertion problems, as Milita members (who felt as volunteers they could come and go at will) would go home to do their planting for a few weeks and the return to the front, to leave again for the harvest; while the Fascists would conscript people who wanted nothing to do with the war, and ran at the first chance they had.

[coheneran]

A friend of mine had this to say on the anarchist militias:

As far as I am aware they were divide in colums, and each column divided in
"centurias", groups of 100 people. Each column covered a section of the
front. There was a militias commitee in Barcelona, which was composed of
members of the different political groups, but mainly unions. I assume that
in the anarchist case the representatives in this body were elected by the
members of the union, the CNT. Each column had a set of delegates who liased
with this body, and who took part in the military planning. In most cases
each column also had a military advisor, who helped with the planning of
attacks, etc. I don't think these were elected, but were members of the army
who had not taken part in the fascist coup, and were then sent to the
different columns. However they were not totally trusted, as they were
suspicious of being sympathetic to the fascists.
On a lower level, the militiamen and women chose their representatives.
People who would attend the planning meetings, convey what part they would
take in the action, and then lead the rest of the group in it. They could be
recalled at any time, but they were people the militiamen and women could
trust, and this was probably a rare occurence. I also would not expect
anyone trying to recall an officer in the midst of a fight. In fact cases of
undiscipline were rare, and people did their best to fulfill what was
expected of them, by their comrades, the centuria, etc.

You need to bear in mind that not all militias were anarchist. There were
lots of socialist workers in UGT columns and different communist parties
ones. Though in Catalonia the columns were overwhelmingly anarchist, in
central spain they were socialist or communist. There's lots of tales of
people in the militias going to the front for the weekend, and then going
back home taking their gun with them. This certainly happened in the start
of the war, in areas around Madrid, were the militias were mainly
socialists. The people who managed to hold the offensive in the mountians
north of Madrid were the anarchists, led by Cipriano Mera.

Anyway, there's a lot to discuss about it, but let's just say that there's
been very little justice done to the militias in official history.

[finnishpunkdudeowns]

Anarchists are simply of lower intelligence. Don't listen to what they say it's just whiny **** about how they want to do what they want without consequences.

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST]

[coheneran]

Anarchists are simply of lower intelligence. Don't listen to what they say it's just whiny **** about how they want to do what they want without consequences.

Dude, I think you should take a longer look at anarchism before you say things like that. One of the main ideals of anarchism is to take responsibility for other people's actions as well as your own. Another major ideal is that of having the freedom to do whatever you want, as long as you don't impinge on someone else's freedom.

[Smokey D]

If you don't believe a group of likeminded people can work together for a common goal, then this is a pointless argument, since you won't be swayed... Other people however, do believe in that.

Even if people can work together, there is no gauruntee that under the pressures of combat, they will continue to do so. Nor is it assured they will do what is best for the campaign rather than what is best for themselves. Of course, this isn't assured in hierarchial military structures either, but the threat of severe punishment (originally it was execution, today a court martial) reduces the risk.


I am firmly set in the belief that if the differnt factions had left bickering aside, and just fought the Fascists, they would have won, and I am hardly alone in that view.
The COMINTERN lost the war, the not Spanish people.

They probably would have beaten Franco's Falange, but once Germany and Italy decided to intervenel, the chances swung firmly in favour of the Fascists.

I won't disagree there, the Mackovitchina was a direct threat to the Soviet Union, as it showed that the soviet model was viable without need for Bolshevik control, and needed to be eliminated, same as the Kronstdat. I'm pointing out that in a more even fight, the Ukraine could probably of stayed autonomous.

Against the full capabilities of Red Army, which managed to defeat the most powerful military nations of the time, probably not. A coherent defence would have delayed assimilation at the most.

[Reaganista]

yeah but the market will always be more effecient than a central planner.

not really. market failure happens a lot

[Der Übermensch]

Even if people can work together, there is no gauruntee that under the pressures of combat, they will continue to do so. Nor is it assured they will do what is best for the campaign rather than what is best for themselves. Of course, this isn't assured in hierarchial military structures either, but the threat of severe punishment (originally it was execution, today a court martial) reduces the risk.
In Spain, the CNT-FAI militias were considered the best fighters for urban combat. When fighting in their home areas, defending their ground, they were unmatched by the Fascists. When sent on the offensive campaigns, they were slaughtered due to the fact they viewed building trenches and other fortifications as cowardly, and paid for it accordingly. So yes, on the one hand, I agree that an army that operates on a non-traditional structure definitly has its set-backs, but defensivly, which is the primary goal of military units in an Anarcho system, they are quite well suited, as a man fighting for his home and beliefs is manifold more effective then one sent off to die on other soil.

They probably would have beaten Franco's Falange, but once Germany and Italy decided to intervenel, the chances swung firmly in favour of the Fascists.
I agree that aid was essential, but if Spain had showed a more unified front, and ergo a better chance of winning, France and England probably would actually go about enforcing the embargo that they had supposidly agreed upon with Germany and Italy, and perhaps even sent aid (France did at first, but stopped when Germany agreed too.. Only France actually did though). Of course the more "what if's" we add, the harder it is to say how possible it would have been, but regardless, Loyalist Spain had every means to win at its disposal at the start, and the Communists, not the CNT or UGT, were the ones to spoil it.

A coherent defence would have delayed assimilation at the most.
All they needed was a delay. The Ukraine was practicing what the rest of the USSR wanted. The Bolsheviks needed to supress it before it became to widley known, and caused revolts in other areas. If they had managed to hang on for just a year, they probably could of had a fair margin of success due to revolts in other areas.

[Smokey D]

In Spain, the CNT-FAI militias were considered the best fighters for urban combat. When fighting in their home areas, defending their ground, they were unmatched by the Fascists. When sent on the offensive campaigns, they were slaughtered due to the fact they viewed building trenches and other fortifications as cowardly, and paid for it accordingly. So yes, on the one hand, I agree that an army that operates on a non-traditional structure definitly has its set-backs, but defensivly, which isthe primary goal of military units in an Anarcho system, they are quite well suited, as a man fighting for his home and beliefs is manifold more effective then one sent off to die on other soil.

Except the militas most decidedly lost, even when defending, against the fully teethed armies of Germany and, to a much lesser extent, Italy. Fighting against a the Army of Africa was bad enough -- fighting the highly industrialised and tightly discplined forces of the Nazis was something else entirely. Being good at urban conflict is all well and good up until the point the city itself becomes the target for destruction (ala Guernica).

I agree that aid was essential, but if Spain had showed a more unified front, and ergo a better chance of winning, France and England probably would actually go about enforcing the embargo that they had supposidly agreed upon with Germany and Italy, and perhaps even sent aid (France did at first, but stopped when Germany agreed too.. Only France actually did though). Of course the more "what if's" we add, the harder it is to say how possible it would have been, but regardless, Loyalist Spain had every means to win at its disposal at the start, and the Communists, not the CNT or UGT, were the ones to spoil it.

I doubt Britain or France would have helped the Anarachists; they were much more concerned with radical left-wing groups at that point than they were with Fascism. Perhaps the loyalists had the ability to defeat the Falange, but that's not my point. Spain, by that point, was not a significant power. Success must be measured by your strongest potential threat -- in this case Germany -- which the revolutionaries proved patently unable to counter.

All they needed was a delay. The Ukraine was practicing what the rest of the USSR wanted. The Bolsheviks needed to supress it before it became to widley known, and caused revolts in other areas. If they had managed to hang on for just a year, they probably could of had a fair margin of success due to revolts in other areas.

Of course, it is possible the Ukraine could have pulled off a David and Goliath -- Poland did something similar in 1921 -- but is unlikely there would have been rebellions within the Reds' heartland (the old Empire's industialised zone between Moscow and St Petersburg), where they would have needed to take place for the Bolshevik regime to have collapsed. Further, by that point, the rest of the countryside was in revolt -- 1919 -24 was the height of the Russian Civil War -- but this did not prove to be to effective in delaying the Bolshevik response. Indeed, delay may have proved even more fatal; as the Allies withdrew, the Reds would have been able to summon their reserves and bring to bear their full military strength. As it was, the Unkraine only faced a portion of Soviet power.

[griftadan]

Except it doesn't need to predict anything. It only needs to require the monopoly to operate at point MC=AR.



They can and do when they're monopolies. Their ability to do that is what makes them monopolies.

the only time they've ever been able to pull that off is by using legal muscle, the market has never been able to produce a lasting monopoly.

not really. market failure happens a lot

i said more effecient than government

[Reaganista]

i said more effecient than government
actually you said a central planner

and a lot of market failure is more ineffecient than government
like the kind where people starve or don't get vaccinated

[griftadan]

how many times does that happen?

[Smokey D]

the only time they've ever been able to pull that off is by using legal muscle, the market has never been able to produce a lasting monopoly.

Except in the case of so called natural monopolies, where the economies of scale are so large it is counter productive to have more than one supplier in the market. Even in normal monopolies, the prohibitive costs of certain industries or the limited nature of the good they're supply makes it extremely difficult to enter into the market, and extremely easy for the monopoly to force a new comer out.


i said more effecient than government

Not when it's operating at a monopolistic profit maximising point.

[Reaganista]

how many times does that happen
a few billion

[Smokey D]

how many times does that happen?

Check out externalities.

[griftadan]

how many people in the world live in a near-pure market based economy?

[Smokey D]

That doesn't answer the question of externalities, which still exist in free markets.

[Der Übermensch]

Except the militas most decidedly lost, even when defending, against the fully teethed armies of Germany and, to a much lesser extent, Italy. Fighting against a the Army of Africa was bad enough -- fighting the highly industrialised and tightly discplined forces of the Nazis was something else entirely. Being good at urban conflict is all well and good up until the point the city itself becomes the target for destruction (ala Guernica).
Guernica was a undefended city in the Basque region (Militant Separatists who had nothing to do with the Republic besides the fact they would be given independence if they won).
The Milita's proved highly susseful in Barcelona and Madrid during the uprising, and the subsequent 3 years. The Nazi's never sent military forces except for air units. (There were possibly small, elite units of shock troops, but more in an advisory position then fighting one).
I'm just wondering though, what your source information is one all this, and how much you have read... cause I assure you have read literally thousands of pages on this subject, most of which supports my position...

I doubt Britain or France would have helped the Anarachists; they were much more concerned with radical left-wing groups at that point than they were with Fascism. Perhaps the loyalists had the ability to defeat the Falange, but that's not my point. Spain, by that point, was not a significant power. Success must be measured by your strongest potential threat -- in this case Germany -- which the revolutionaries proved patently unable to counter.
They would have helped Spain in general. France DID help Spain for the first month or so, but was forced to close the border when they all sined a non-intervention treaty (Which Germany and Italy signed too). French Aid would have gone to the Anarchists, as they controlled pretty much the entire border area.
no, Spain was losing its glory by this point, and was a shadow of itself, still stuck in pseudo-Feudalism...
They couldn't counter it because of the meddeling of the Soviets, but now we're going in circles...

Of course, it is possible the Ukraine could have pulled off a David and Goliath -- Poland did something similar in 1921 -- but is unlikely there would have been rebellions within the Reds' heartland (the old Empire's industialised zone between Moscow and St Petersburg), where they would have needed to take place for the Bolshevik regime to have collapsed. Further, by that point, the rest of the countryside was in revolt -- 1919 -24 was the height of the Russian Civil War -- but this did not prove to be to effective in delaying the Bolshevik response. Indeed, delay may have proved even more fatal; as the Allies withdrew, the Reds would have been able to summon their reserves and bring to bear their full military strength. As it was, the Unkraine only faced a portion of Soviet power.
Look at the Krondstadt, thats the kind of revolt I mean. People who were devoted to the Soviet cause, but then realized that the Bolsheviks were not in fact behind it as they had claimed. The Civil War was due to White v. Red, and is not what I mean. I mean the Red themselves would rise in opposition to the Bolsheviks.

[Smokey D]

The Milita's proved highly susseful in Barcelona and Madrid during the uprising, and the subsequent 3 years. The Nazi's never sent military forces except for air units. (There were possibly small, elite units of shock troops, but more in an advisory position then fighting one).

The militas weren't successful enough, despite controlling the vast majority of the countryside and having extremely significant representation in the urban centres. And the Nazis contributed upwards of 20 000 men, but on a rotating basis (see our previous discussion on this in the BGtA).

I'm just wondering though, what your source information is one all this, and how much you have read... cause I assure you have read literally thousands of pages on this subject, most of which supports my position...

History or politcs? I've done enough to adequately contend your position.

They would have helped Spain in general. France DID help Spain for the first month or so, but was forced to close the border when they all sined a non-intervention treaty (Which Germany and Italy signed too). French Aid would have gone to the Anarchists, as they controlled pretty much the entire border area.

That kind of aid is not really comparable to the sort the Nazis and Fascists were pouring in. Of all industrialised nations, only the Soviets 'supported' the Republic.

They couldn't counter it because of the meddeling of the Soviets, but now we're going in circles...

They couldn't counter it for fundemental limits in the system. Further, it was the very nature of the system which allowed Soviet meddling to be so influential, so that doesn't really bolster your point.

Look at the Krondstadt, thats the kind of revolt I mean. People who were devoted to the Soviet cause, but then realized that the Bolsheviks were not in fact behind it as they had claimed. The Civil War was due to White v. Red, and is not what I mean. I mean the Red themselves would rise in opposition to the Bolsheviks.

I believe the Allied invasion and the White resistence would have been much more serious than soviet rebellions outside the Red heartland (wherein, if any such rebellions took place, would have been quickly quelled by the Bolsheviks).

[Der Übermensch]

The militas weren't successful enough, despite controlling the vast majority of the countryside and having extremely significant representation in the urban centres. And the Nazis contributed upwards of 20 000 men, but on a rotating basis (see our previous discussion on this in the BGtA).
Almost all the men who were in combat were airmen with the Condor legion. The rest of the men there were mostly sent to train the Spanish in modern tactics, and how to use the new equipment, and to observe; Same as the Russians who were there. The majority of Fascist soldiers from other countries were Italians, who at any given time had up to 50,000 men in Spain (i've heard varying #'s though). Other groups fought too, such as an Irish detachment (who were removed from the front because they were attacked by their own side, who thought they were from the IB) but not in the numbers seen by the Loyalists.

History or politcs? I've done enough to adequately contend your position.
Both I guess. Have you read Beevor or Thomas' books on it? I found both to be excellent... Beevor's presentation esspecially I would say is in agreement with my own perspective.

That kind of aid is not really comparable to the sort the Nazis and Fascists were pouring in. Of all industrialised nations, only the Soviets 'supported' the Republic.
Heh, support should definitly be in quotes :p Don't forget Mexico though, they sent a massive amount of materiél, considering their industrial "might". But of course the other aid isn't comparable, as it never had time to steam roll. The Nazi's started small too. The US also might of sent aid, as FDR supported the Loyalists, but had to maintain a Isolationist policy at the time, and was unprepared to break it if the other major democracies didn't send aid as well.

They couldn't counter it for fundemental limits in the system. Further, it was the very nature of the system which allowed Soviet meddling to be so influential, so that doesn't really bolster your point.
It was the fact that, as pointed out, the Soviets were the principal suppliers of arms. Even though the PSUC was one of the smallest parties at the start, because all Soviet aid came through them, they gained a massivly disproportionate amount of power. Notice that near the end of the war, when the Soviets shut off aid, the Communists were virtually eliminated from power. Had the CCCP sent aid to Spain, not the Spanish Communist Party, and the guns gone to where they were needed rather then used to destroy half the loyalist forces, things would have been different.

I believe the Allied invasion and the White resistence would have been much more serious than soviet rebellions outside the Red heartland (wherein, if any such rebellions took place, would have been quickly quelled by the Bolsheviks).
The Allied landings at Arkangel were halfhearted, and accomplished almost nothing besides a slight pain in Lenins backside. They were illprepared, undermanned, and unwilling to go on the offensive. I don't think they ever posed a serious threat. (You should read Max Boots "Savage Wars of Peace" it has an excellent section on the Russian campaign).
I agree, rebellion would have been suppressed if it happened haphazardly (Look at the Krondstadt, 30,000 people massacred). But if the people saw successful rebellion, the Ukraine managing to stay afloat, rather then being crushed like the Krondstadt (also note that most of the army units refused too attack, and they had to send handpicked men to do the assault, since most still viewed them as compatriots), not only would areas revolt on a much larger scale, but a large portion of the army probably would turn as well.

[Danish]

how many times does that happen?

About as many times as there are poor people on Earth.