• Anarchism
    250 replies, posted
[QUOTE=theguydude;41370302]Well do you consider yourself greedy and corrupt? [editline]9th July 2013[/editline] So many people say that anarchism won't work because of greed and corruption but really what creates greed and corruption? I think it's capitalism that does that. Some believe that it's just human nature to be greedy, I think that's pure bullshit. There's been many cultures leading peaceful societies, only shit get's fucked when capitalism becomes integrated into it. [/QUOTE] Ugh... can you provide an example of a culture that hasn't been struggling with corruption? Because any that I know of, have been. Human "nature" is not that easy to explain, nor it is to comprehend, you can't handwave it as "selfish", "selfless" or "hurrdurr capitalism corrupts societies". Any group that is based on one hierarchy or another is going to be endangered by "selfish" people, simply because there's [b]always[/b] a particular subgroup of people who decide how to use limited resources, it is the nature of hierarchy. A lot of people will want to participate in that subgroup simply because they will have power. Capitalism is just another step on an infinite road of evolution of hierarchy. Types and means of using and acquiring power are changing. From "kill/appease the tribe leader"-mentality to "hoarding mentality", it's all pretty much the same thing.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/CO2D77L.jpg[/img] I have nothing to contribute to debate or discussion, only support for an ideal. Sic Semper Tyrannis
[QUOTE=Shadespawn;41369648]Anarchism would not work due to human corruption and greed.[/QUOTE] No society will ever work permanently due to human greed and corruption. All Human societies are doomed to collapse one way or another. This is the reality.
[QUOTE=mchapra;41392656]No society will ever work permanently due to human greed and corruption. All Human societies are doomed to collapse one way or another. This is the reality.[/QUOTE] I disagree. The fact that human societies become corrupt and collapse are because people are dissatisfied- people are dissatisfied because their needs and wants are not met, and their needs and wants are not met in existing societies because our needs are based on sacrificing our wants. We have the ability to maintain all needs, but the current system prevents that from happening through misallocation. We have the ability to control wants, like what current societies do based on education, social propaganda, or social conformity. Will anarchism have all the answers? No. But I offer you this: North Korea currently controls all of its citizens with fear. Undoubtedly, the majority of North Koreans worship the state and KJU. But for all practical purposes, that state will fail and is failing. North Korea is not doomed to fail because of shortcomings in the way it handles its society, it's doomed to fail because of want. There is shortage, of food, of entertainment, of everything reasonable people would need to find themselves happy or at least contented. Because there is not enough, then those with power or in honorable positions become corrupt- they take and steal for themselves based out of want, meeting needs. This shorts others, of course. Of course there is outside factors, like imperialist aggression, American hostility, KJU's idiocy, and the prospects of glowing cities across the border. But North Korea goes to great lengths to use constructivism for its own gains. It lies and slanders, it hides and covers up. Most North Koreans believe they have it good, that America is the bad guy and that KJU truly is the most amazing man. People are losing faith in this because their wants and needs are not met. But because there is a military to control the populace, even those who can stand up otherwise, are prevented from doing so. But now imagine if North Korea was capable of bounty. What if North Korea had access to the technology of the South, the breadbaskets of America and Russia? What if North Koreans had all their needs met and what few wants they have? Imagine then what happens to KJU's fabricated society? Now, contructivism in anarchism isn't about creating false worlds, but building ones with certain values, certain social orders. This is the way that all societies are built. In capitalism, it was constructed that people would be self-interested to promote trade an relations. In fascism, hierarchy an unity were the focuses. Both of these systems worked well in practice when common sense was applied, because they were bountiful of resources (in one way or another). Had Korea had the resources necessary to build the world it wants, then it too would be on this list. The only difference between a successful and failed system is whether it can sustain itself. Often this is the reason why the USSR is cited as failing: because it could not support itself. But communists, anarchists, socialists know that what we want can not be build with only what nations have, we need international support to build socialism. We need the bounty of the world, in order to support the world. As such, we are internationalists. Capitalism has achieved this through trade- we wish to achieve it by allocation. Anarchism will not collapse anymore, I believe, than capitalism will on its own accord. It would have to be an internal shift, a divide from inside the society, but unlike capitalism what we have on our side is the ability to provide for everyone that which makes all happy. While capitalism pressures all to want more and more, and thus creating its own problems of scarcity, we do not. Greed is part of the constructed society. Want is part of the constructed society. In every leftist social experiment this has been proven, when want an need and greed have only become issues when the ability of the state or organization- from external factors, mostly, and in some examples internal shortcomings- to take care of the people's most basic needs are insufficient. [editline]10th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Qaus;41391639][img]http://i.imgur.com/CO2D77L.jpg[/img] I have nothing to contribute to debate or discussion, only support for an ideal. Sic Semper Tyrannis[/QUOTE] Also, this isn't your thread, ancap. Your ideology is contrary to the ideology of anarchism. You're not an anarchist, only a capitalist with ambitions to destroy your competition in coercion and control- the state.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41396540']Also, this isn't your thread, ancap. Your ideology is contrary to the ideology of anarchism. You're not an anarchist, only a capitalist with ambitions to destroy your competition in coercion and control- the state.[/QUOTE] I don't believe in one person having "coercion and control" over another person, that goes against anarchy.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41396540'] Also, this isn't your thread, ancap. Your ideology is contrary to the ideology of anarchism. You're not an anarchist, only a capitalist with ambitions to destroy your competition in coercion and control- the state.[/QUOTE] Anarcho-Capitalism is in the OP. They don't believe in having a state/government so they are Anarchists.
If only that Anarcho-Capitalism flag had some blue in it. Transhumanism is needed to continue the evolution of humanity.
[QUOTE=Qaus;41406081]I don't believe in one person having "coercion and control" over another person, that goes against anarchy.[/QUOTE] And is a staple of capitalism. [url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefore-conclude-that-we-are-not-anarchists[/url] <<<if you read none other, read this one, which features discussions on the matter from prominent anarchist thinkers and the founder of anarchist capitalism himself. [url]http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daibhidh-anarcho-hucksters-there-is-nothing-anarchistic-about-capitalism[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGq_CB-ffLc[/url] [url]http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-anarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-cant-be-allies/[/url] [url]http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/are_anarcho_capitalists_really_anarchists/[/url] [url]http://c4ss.org/content/4043[/url] [url]http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1[/url] [url]http://www.gonzotimes.com/2012/05/anarcho-capitalists-are-not-anarchists/[/url] [editline]11th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;41406678]Anarcho-Capitalism is in the OP. They don't believe in having a state/government so they are Anarchists.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIeDjjwOFxA[/media] You just pretty much declared your own ignorance on the matter of anarchism. And you should recall that the OP has thusfar agreed with most of my posts on the matter.
Down with capitalism. Down with the US two party state. Socialism is the only way. Social prosperity and power to the workers. Revert currency as a simple tool, not the ruler of the planet. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jn12BSB.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/GGuNv1R.gif[/IMG] Equality for all! [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/GGuNv1R.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jn12BSB.gif[/IMG]
I don't see why you are going all out on this. If the OP agrees with you, he can take down Anarcho-Capitalism in the "schools of anarchy", but to outright deny the existence because it doesn't agree within your own concepts would be asinine.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41410919]I don't see why you are going all out on this. If the OP agrees with you, he can take down Anarcho-Capitalism in the "schools of anarchy", but to outright deny the existence because it doesn't agree within your own concepts would be asinine.[/QUOTE] It's not a form of anarchism. Sure it exists, and I made no claims otherwise, but it shouldn't be represented as a form of anarchism. Mostly because it, y'know, isn't and is the direct opposite of every other form of anarchism and the basic fundamental tenets of the philosophy of anarchism. Ancaps and agorists are not and have never been anarchists. Back before Rothbard took a dookey on the entire thing, we didn't call them libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, we called them objectivists and capitalists, the ideologies that some of the big names in anarchist philosophy and ideology created their theories around opposing.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41406678]Anarcho-Capitalism is in the OP. They don't believe in having a state/government so they are Anarchists.[/QUOTE] anarcho-capitalists are only anarchists in name. their ideology does not endorse dismantling coercive authority or statist control, so they cannot be anarchists in any real sense. anarcho-capitalists are the only people who claim anarcho-capitalism is anarchist.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41410919]I don't see why you are going all out on this. If the OP agrees with you, he can take down Anarcho-Capitalism in the "schools of anarchy", but to outright deny the existence because it doesn't agree within your own concepts would be asinine.[/QUOTE] It is in the OP because it is somewhat related to anarchism. For the most part, it flies against all other schools of thought and is only considered anarchist purely because of its name.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41413133]anarcho-capitalists are only anarchists in name. their ideology does not endorse dismantling coercive authority or statist control, so they cannot be anarchists in any real sense. anarcho-capitalists are the only people who claim anarcho-capitalism is anarchist.[/QUOTE] An "anarcho-capitalist" society cannot exist because property rights cannot exist in the absence of a state. The right to hold property is a positive right, not a negative one.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41433957]An "anarcho-capitalist" society cannot exist because property rights cannot exist in the absence of a state. The right to hold property is a positive right, not a negative one.[/QUOTE] it could in a "might makes right" sense; i own a gun so i can enforce rules on my private property. that isn't anarchist though. a system of enforcing property rights with guns is pretty much just a very stripped down, decentralized form of government.
owning a gun isn't any form of government. if you own something, it's yours whether it's a personal belonging, currency, or property. there's no system or authority that confirms the ownership, only you do. if someone forcefully takes it from you, it's theirs until you (or someone else) can take it back. if you give it to someone, it's theirs without any legal process. an anarchistic (lack of) state can exist with property so long as there's personal (i.e. not centralized, systemic, etc.) regulation. this isn't that hard to understand, owning something isn't imposing law or on otherwise unlawful people. [editline]13th July 2013[/editline] and personal rules aren't law either just so you know. if people do something you don't like: respond appropriately. you won't go to jail.
[QUOTE=Qaus;41441016]owning a gun isn't any form of government. if you own something, it's yours whether it's a personal belonging, currency, or property. there's no system or authority that confirms the ownership, only you do. if someone forcefully takes it from you, it's theirs until you (or someone else) can take it back. if you give it to someone, it's theirs without any legal process. an anarchistic (lack of) state can exist with property so long as there's personal (i.e. not centralized, systemic, etc.) regulation. this isn't that hard to understand, owning something isn't imposing law or on otherwise unlawful people. [editline]13th July 2013[/editline] and personal rules aren't law either just so you know. if people do something you don't like: respond appropriately. you won't go to jail.[/QUOTE] this means that, with a gun, a landowner enforces that profits made in a factory go to him. he is, in practice, the dictator of that factory. that is government in action, it is NOT anarchist in nature. anarchy cannot be enforced through violence because the state is the one that enforces rules through violence.
Might makes right is how the state and property came to be anyhow. Private property by its very definition require it to be exclusive, and as such it is taken from the common pool of resources. In order for property to be considered private, someone has to have enforced a claim on their exclusion of others from property. States came about when those with the property and the power formed bands to enforce their collective claim to property, and eventually complete governments built around the enforcement of property. You no longer need guns or might to enforce property because the state uses its might and its guns to do so. Stateless capitalism infers the same concept of contructivism that all other anarchist strains do, in that everyone in the society lives off of certain ground rules. Rothbard and his kin (I have a certain person in mind but I forget their name and don't have access to my books right now) come from the standpoint that the ground rules of stateless capitalism will inherently include access to private property. Personal property is something different and isn't the same as private property, because personal property is not based out of exclusion so much as use and occupancy. [editline]13th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Qaus;41441016]owning a gun isn't any form of government. if you own something, it's yours whether it's a personal belonging, currency, or property. there's no system or authority that confirms the ownership, only you do. if someone forcefully takes it from you, it's theirs until you (or someone else) can take it back. if you give it to someone, it's theirs without any legal process. an anarchistic (lack of) state can exist with property so long as there's personal (i.e. not centralized, systemic, etc.) regulation. this isn't that hard to understand, owning something isn't imposing law or on otherwise unlawful people. [editline]13th July 2013[/editline] and personal rules aren't law either just so you know. if people do something you don't like: respond appropriately. you won't go to jail.[/QUOTE] This is a pretty good example of what anarchism is not about and absolutely should not be.
does anyone find primitivism slightly concerning? i was listening to zerzan today, and while i certainly agree with the view that humans are out of touch with nature, it seems like his vision that humanity should "re-wild" and forego the use of most technology would end in a genocide of billions of people. also, it seems like the use of technology is in our nature. we are one of the only animals capable of constructing tools to make our life easier, and we are by far the best at it. we aren't just hunters and gatherers, we are builders. and also the fact that primitivists seem to disconnect themselves completely from the anarchist tradition. their attitudes almost seem more geared against socialism, syndicalists, anarchists, etc., then it is against the state or domination in general. i'v even heard it said that no one is an anarchist except primitivists because it would leave us all under the dominion of technology...
Yeah, primitivism can be disturbing especially when it intersects with some deep ecology tenents. Thankfully they don't really have that much clout (relatively speaking).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41445889]does anyone find primitivism slightly concerning? i was listening to zerzan today, and while i certainly agree with the view that humans are out of touch with nature, it seems like his vision that humanity should "re-wild" and forego the use of most technology would end in a genocide of billions of people. also, it seems like the use of technology is in our nature. we are one of the only animals capable of constructing tools to make our life easier, and we are by far the best at it. we aren't just hunters and gatherers, we are builders. and also the fact that primitivists seem to disconnect themselves completely from the anarchist tradition. their attitudes almost seem more geared against socialism, syndicalists, anarchists, etc., then it is against the state or domination in general. i'v even heard it said that no one is an anarchist except primitivists because it would leave us all under the dominion of technology...[/QUOTE] Generally political movements (like some of the weird primitivism ones) which subtly imply/blatantly that a lot of people have to die to make your society appear i find to be inherently evil.
"It is undeniably true that the world’s population cannot be sustained without modern civilization. Of course, it is abundantly clear that modern civilization is not sustainable, either. Given those two facts, then some kind of massive die-off is inevitable...As I said, for those who die, dying quickly of a gunshot may be preferable to dying slowly of hunger and disease, or living to see their cities torn apart by warring gangs of cannibals. However, there is an evolutionary elegance to the collapse that such an alternative violates. Every individual on earth will have a choice. They will be free to choose to remain part of their culture to the bitter end, and die with it; or, they wll have the choice to embrace a new culture, embrace their own humanity, and survive into a new world." [url]http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-5-common-objections-to-primitivism-and-why-they-re-wrong[/url] wtf you say one second that most people will need to die, that the earth cannot sustain the amount of human beings currently on it without agriculture. then the next second that by getting rid of civilization you are creating some [i]choice[/i] for people to re-wild? if most people WILL die in your system, then it is genocide. you can't say we each have a choice to live or die when most people will die regardless of their choice. ugh sry. primitivists just sorta irk me. maybe because it's only been recently that i'v been actually paying any attention to the ideology. still, sickening how someone can casually suggest most people on this earth can, will, and should die so we can go back to throwing spears at our food.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41453098]"It is undeniably true that the world’s population cannot be sustained without modern civilization. Of course, it is abundantly clear that modern civilization is not sustainable, either. Given those two facts, then some kind of massive die-off is inevitable...As I said, for those who die, dying quickly of a gunshot may be preferable to dying slowly of hunger and disease, or living to see their cities torn apart by warring gangs of cannibals. However, there is an evolutionary elegance to the collapse that such an alternative violates. Every individual on earth will have a choice. They will be free to choose to remain part of their culture to the bitter end, and die with it; or, they wll have the choice to embrace a new culture, embrace their own humanity, and survive into a new world." [url]http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-5-common-objections-to-primitivism-and-why-they-re-wrong[/url] wtf you say one second that most people will need to die, that the earth cannot sustain the amount of human beings currently on it without agriculture. then the next second that by getting rid of civilization you are creating some [i]choice[/i] for people to re-wild? if most people WILL die in your system, then it is genocide. you can't say we each have a choice to live or die when most people will die regardless of their choice. ugh sry. primitivists just sorta irk me. maybe because it's only been recently that i'v been actually paying any attention to the ideology. still, sickening how someone can casually suggest most people on this earth can, will, and should die so we can go back to throwing spears at our food.[/QUOTE] Hey man come on now you're just creating factionalism and [I]splitting the movement[/I]. Anarchism without adjectives, man! A united left!! we're all comrades here why you need to bash a different tendency??
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41454172']Hey man come on now you're just creating factionalism and [I]splitting the movement[/I]. Anarchism without adjectives, man! A united left!! we're all comrades here why you need to bash a different tendency??[/QUOTE] they started it by saying that syndicalists couldn't be anarchists :( [editline]14th July 2013[/editline] hell idk if primitivists and syndicalists can be called anarchist in the same sense because their fundamental concepts of domination, authority, and human nature are all radically different. i mean you don't get mad if i talk shit about some anarcho-capitalists, do you? because their ideology and idea of anarchy is almost completely contrary to ours. primitivists are sorta similar, their idea of anarchy is fundamentally different. [editline]14th July 2013[/editline] i mean i can agree with a communist, an individualist, a collectivist, or a mutualist on very broad ideas regarding economic and social order. primitivists and other anarchists have a hard time coming to much common ground.
Yea I know I'm kidding. I agree with your criticisms of primitivism. I was more making fun at the expense of those leftists who are committed to a united left and will refuse to be sectarian or give criticism where it's due to some movements. It's a common trend anymore for man anarchists to be sympathetic and pushing for unity with communists and socialists, but it's as if they've forgotten both the Spanish Revolution and the Russian Revolution, and how well working with the communists did then. It's getting to the point in some circles that open criticism is looked down upon. I say keep up the criticisms of ancaps and primitivists. [t]http://i.imgur.com/OU7Yv7M.png[/t]
yea a united left will work out great until the authoritarians decide to turn on the anarchists. i'll stand in solidarity with most other anarchists, but i can't really justify standing in solidarity with an ideology based on domination(ancap) or that requires a massive population die-off(primitivists). [editline]14th July 2013[/editline] and the past has shown that you can't expect anything from the authoritarian communists/socialists except a knife in the back.
I find it really frustrating that anarcho-communists and marxist communists have such a hard time getting along, when the ideologies both want the same end result, but just differ in the way of establishing it.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;41463412]I find it really frustrating that anarcho-communists and marxist communists have such a hard time getting along, when the ideologies both want the same end result, but just differ in the way of establishing it.[/QUOTE] I once was defending Marx to a group of anarcho-communists and said that the only difference between the movements is the position on the state, at which point someone responded "Yea, [I]just[/I] the state, as if that was a minor detail." I'm a Marxist and a statist, though a libertarian one, and while I am highly sympathetic to anarchists, I find their outright rejection at times of Marxism as silly as the Communist and Socialist rejection of anarchism. All the same, the anarchists have reason to fear and oppose communist control, but yet it seems that it's the anarchists who are once again pushing to unite the left. It's a confusing position to be in the middle of.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41472137']I once was defending Marx to a group of anarcho-communists and said that the only difference between the movements is the position on the state, at which point someone responded "Yea, [I]just[/I] the state, as if that was a minor detail." I'm a Marxist and a statist, though a libertarian one, and while I am highly sympathetic to anarchists, I find their outright rejection at times of Marxism as silly as the Communist and Socialist rejection of anarchism. All the same, the anarchists have reason to fear and oppose communist control, but yet it seems that it's the anarchists who are once again pushing to unite the left. It's a confusing position to be in the middle of.[/QUOTE] we reject the state because we see that the state cannot dismantle itself. people in power will try and preserve their power. we can't trust people in power to give up that power voluntarily. so communism cannot come from central-planning or authoritarian government structures without people forcefully dismantling those institutions. the state can be expedient at times, and i'm not against reform of the system(for example, a uhc system is better than no uhc). what i am against is looking at the state as having the potential to be a tool to lead to a stateless system. if we are going to use the state as an expediency, it should only be used while we are actively in the process of dismantling it: as functions of government are ended in favor of communal organization.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41486549]we reject the state because we see that the state cannot dismantle itself. people in power will try and preserve their power. we can't trust people in power to give up that power voluntarily. so communism cannot come from central-planning or authoritarian government structures without people forcefully dismantling those institutions. the state can be expedient at times, and i'm not against reform of the system(for example, a uhc system is better than no uhc). what i am against is looking at the state as having the potential to be a tool to lead to a stateless system. if we are going to use the state as an expediency, it should only be used while we are actively in the process of dismantling it: as functions of government are ended in favor of communal organization.[/QUOTE] I mostly agree. I think that the goal for communists is that the working class will just out efficient the state to the point that the common social norms and necessary actions will become commonplace without the need of the state, and it will just wither away. It's not so much a reliance on the state to end itself, it's putting all its money on the working class, in a working class state, being able to guide itself using the tools the state provides and will get itself going and eventually disregard the state. I'm not sure I believe that, and ideally I'd like to see a stateless society because I, for the most part, agree with the anarchists' concern- but I agree more with the Marxist view of the state as a tool, and a working class state- a good, functioning one- is sufficient for me. I'd take a working class state over a stateless society for now. If we could at least get that then we could work out the rest from that standpoint. I take the Chomskian view that these differences are ones that can be worked out once we have a mutually beneficial state in hand. Let's at least get our own "Paris Commune" going before we begin the process of infighting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.