Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

it is becoming increasingly apparent that the ideas of egalitarianism need to be combined to ensure a future for an anarchist movement. a anarchist society without a resistance to a patriarchy will end up subjugating women. an anarchist society without a healthy anti-racist attitude will fall into apartheid. subjugation needs to be fought on all fronts, and anarchists are realizing this fact. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43137125] I think you just made that up. [/QUOTE] [img]http://samambreen.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/anarchismfeminismsymbol.jpg?w=119[/img] [img]http://robertgraham.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/anarchism-freedom-women.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137155]it is becoming increasingly apparent that the ideas of egalitarianism need to be combined to ensure a future for an anarchist movement. a anarchist society without a resistance to a patriarchy will end up subjugating women. an anarchist society without a healthy anti-racist attitude will fall into apartheid. subjugation needs to be fought on all fronts, and anarchists are realizing this fact.[/QUOTE] So in your perfect society with no crime, no laws, no military, and no force, how the hell are you supposed to fight anything? Like, if I decide some race is inferior and needs to die, in your ideal society apparently there's jackshit that can be done and it just shouldn't happen in the first place because apparently xenophobia is a product of capitalism too?

[img]http://www.clker.com/cliparts/E/t/n/M/o/j/anarcha-feminism-md.png[/img] [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;43137175]So in your perfect society with no crime, no laws, no military, and no force, how the hell are you supposed to fight anything? Like, if I decide some race is inferior and needs to die, in your ideal society apparently there's jackshit that can be done and it just shouldn't happen in the first place because apparently xenophobia is a product of capitalism too?[/QUOTE] you are approaching the idea from the wrong perspective. it isn't about "doing jackshit", it's about a society in active resistance to these ideas.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137190][img]http://www.clker.com/cliparts/E/t/n/M/o/j/anarcha-feminism-md.png[/img] [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] you are approaching the idea from the wrong perspective. it isn't about "doing jackshit", it's about a society in active resistance to these ideas.[/QUOTE] I love how you fight for a oxymoron. Two things that dont mix at all.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;43137222]I love how you fight for a oxymoron. Two things that dont mix at all.[/QUOTE] what is the oxymoron? anarchism and feminism?

I would be an anarchist, but having read history and economics the best I am hoping for is a society in which nations cease to exist along with standing armies while everyone gets their basic needs provided for.

i don't understand the "people are too selfish and greedy for communism to work" argument. if that's the case then surely capitalism is colossal failure? it's a greedy person's wet dream. you are given exclusive private ownership over almost anything you want, limited only by laws and how much capital you can accumulate and bargain with. and we have to trust these people to create well-paid and well-regulated jobs instead of just hoarding it all to themselves like the selfish greedy humans they apparently are? sounds like a pipe dream tbh.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43137557]if that's the case then surely capitalism is colossal failure?[/QUOTE] Because it harnesses peoples' greed and self-interest to be as productive as possible, with enough regulation (enforced by a strong central authority) to ensure that it is not unduly at the expense of others? Not really a failure, all things considered. In fact, it's funny you should bring up trust. The underlying principle of capitalism is that we don't trust each other and we're in it for ourselves, which is why we use strong regulation to keep it viable. That's why libertarianism is exploitative, because giving people the means to pursue their own self-interest stops working if you don't have an authority to prevent people from seizing power for themselves. As opposed to the anarcho-communist idea yawmwen is proposing, which explicitly requires that people decide on their own to work together for the common good because there is no recourse whatsoever for even something as simple as lazy people slacking off, let alone one community deciding it could live a lot better if it went and murdered the next community over.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137233]what is the oxymoron? anarchism and feminism?[/QUOTE] Anarchism - Communism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137120]the anarchist movement in general is trying to synthesize these ideas into a greater movement already. there is already the popular motto "there is no anarchism without feminism".[/QUOTE] Synthesize doesn't mean jackshit if most people aren't for it. You can push for this, it sounds fantastic but I don't see it working in the next century, let alone the next 50 years. For something like this to happen, you'll need massive societal upheaval which is only produced by two things, war and economic collapse. The latter usually causes the former, and with nukes it would spell the end of humanity. For your plan to work, a dedicated group of people would have to keep pushing and pushing, convincing generation after generation and slowly meek it out so its the will of the people. That kind of societal change requires centuries. Its a noble goal, but its a pipe dream considering the decades long coordination, taking into account back steps, mistakes and political snafus.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43137626]Because it harnesses peoples' greed and self-interest to be as productive as possible, with enough regulation (enforced by a strong central authority) to ensure that it is not unduly at the expense of others? Not really a failure, all things considered. In fact, it's funny you should bring up trust. The underlying principle of capitalism is that we don't trust each other and we're in it for ourselves, which is why we use strong regulation to keep it viable. That's why libertarianism is exploitative, because giving people the means to pursue their own self-interest stops working if you don't have an authority to prevent people from seizing power for themselves. As opposed to the anarcho-communist idea yawmwen is proposing, which explicitly requires that people decide on their own to work together for the common good because there is no recourse whatsoever for even something as simple as lazy people slacking off, let alone one community deciding it could live a lot better if it went and murdered the next community over.[/QUOTE] obviously there's not enough regulation in our case. and if we truly are so evil and greedy then i wouldn't trust any amount of regulation, because the strong central authority is also human and susceptible to corruption, bribery, and abusing its position. the recourse to lazy people slacking off is they will probably be barred from participating in the community, in the John Smith way of "he who does not work does not eat." but i think you're grossly overestimating laziness of people in general. as for the whole murder thing, that sounds a lot like a nation deciding it could get a lot more capital if it went and murdered the small nation next door and took all their land and resources. which i'm sure you know was the driving force behind imperialism in the 19th century.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;43137665]Anarchism - Communism.[/QUOTE] communism is anarchist in nature. [QUOTE=Swilly;43137674]Synthesize doesn't mean jackshit if most people aren't for it. You can push for this, it sounds fantastic but I don't see it working in the next century, let alone the next 50 years. For something like this to happen, you'll need massive societal upheaval which is only produced by two things, war and economic collapse. The latter usually causes the former, and with nukes it would spell the end of humanity. For your plan to work, a dedicated group of people would have to keep pushing and pushing, convincing generation after generation and slowly meek it out so its the will of the people. That kind of societal change requires centuries. Its a noble goal, but its a pipe dream considering the decades long coordination, taking into account back steps, mistakes and political snafus.[/QUOTE] the 19th century shows that technological growth can also fuel rapid societal change. we need to learn the possibilities of new technology to create a better society. capitalism is outdated, and it will soon be replaced. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] i don't know if it will be replaced by communism. however, i think the ideals of communism can at least guide and influence the direction of society enough that we might have a better world from its guidance. even if we don't have communism, a communism-influenced world is still a better outcome than a capitalism-influenced world.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43126136]where?[/QUOTE] Modern-day Germany is the most upfront example I can think of. Workers get very extensive protections there.

Yeah, but that rapid technological growth also spurred wars to feed economies and people. It also led to the very empires that used them heavily because they didn't have the resources from within to continue it. Its a flip of the coin, it can end well or horribly, but its usually badly.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43137885]Yeah, but that rapid technological growth also spurred wars to feed economies and people. It also led to the very empires that used them heavily because they didn't have the resources from within to continue it.[/QUOTE] from those wars was sparked a societal consciousness of war and brutality. anti-war movements began to form and humans are becoming more resistant to the idea of war as time goes on.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43137759]obviously there's not enough regulation in our case. and if we truly are so evil and greedy then i wouldn't trust any amount of regulation, because the strong central authority is also human and susceptible to corruption, bribery, and abusing its position.[/QUOTE] That is correct, we do not have enough regulation. Look to Europe, Canada, or Australia to see successful examples of social welfare programs coupled with regulated capitalism. Of course there will always be the threat of corruption, but a central authority composed of people and answerable to the people provides some defense. It's better than nothing. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43137759]the recourse to lazy people slacking off is they will probably be barred from participating in the community, in the John Smith way of "he who does not work does not eat." but i think you're grossly overestimating laziness of people in general.[/QUOTE] So how is a slacker going to be prevented from taking his food anyways? In our hypothetical scenario, what's to stop someone from making a weapon and taking however much food he wants? Sometimes people are going to want to exploit others- even if you believe people can be fundamentally altruistic, you can't seriously think that nobody will ever be self-interested, and anarchism/Marxism has no institution for dealing with these people. And using the example of someone who doesn't want to work is just an example. Maybe someone only feels like doing a few hours of work but wants to be well-fed. You can take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need but eventually people are going to want more than they're providing, because altruistic incentives really aren't very good motivators. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43137759]as for the whole murder thing, that sounds a lot like a nation deciding it could get a lot more capital if it went and murdered the small nation next door and took all their land and resources. which i'm sure you know was the driving force behind imperialism in the 19th century.[/QUOTE] Of course. But if we're admitting that imperialism will be a fact of life even down to the level of small communities in this political system, then that kind of invalidates the 'conflict is a class struggle entirely the fault of capitalism' argument.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137898]from those wars was sparked a societal consciousness of war and brutality. anti-war movements began to form and humans are becoming more resistant to the idea of war as time goes on.[/QUOTE] Because their lives are getting better. Note how the economy has gone to shit in the US, and we almost immediately became racist?(well more so) Any negative change gets put on the easiest and most recent target.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43138076]Because their lives are getting better. Note how the economy has gone to shit in the US, and we almost immediately became racist?(well more so) Any negative change gets put on the easiest and most recent target.[/QUOTE] so as technology continues to transform and improve our lives, concepts like capitalism, war, and racism will become undesirable in human society.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43138115]so as technology continues to transform and improve our lives, concepts like capitalism, war, and racism will become undesirable in human society.[/QUOTE] But what makes anarchy and or communism better? Capitalism can be abused, yes and when not properly watched it can destory people's lives. But you can say the same for anarchy and communism. Any system, sounds great on paper(well except facsism), but those pieces of paper are stuck in a vaccum. We've never seen an anarcho-communisitic society before, and how will that come about? Having a leading individual defeats its purpose but when you have a directionless blob of people who are worried about each other but also for themselves, how do they work in a constructive manner? Its the same issue that Occupy Wallstreet had, they didn't have a clear concise message or a figure head to represent them. The aimed to go that route and no one could tell what the hell they wanted.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43138016]So how is a slacker going to be prevented from taking his food anyways? In our hypothetical scenario, what's to stop someone from making a weapon and taking however much food he wants? Sometimes people are going to want to exploit others- even if you believe people can be fundamentally altruistic, you can't seriously think that nobody will ever be self-interested, and anarchism/Marxism has no institution for dealing with these people.[/QUOTE] what's stopping somebody from doing that right now? nothing at all. you'll probably say "the police" but the police is mostly a reactionary force. in our ideal hypothetical, a person wouldn't compromise his position in a community over some food anyway. altruism is a good motivator, else why did we even form tribes in the early days to begin with? cooperation contributes to increased survival. and barring that, who's to say the community doesn't elect some form of militia? or they just group together and run the thieving shit out of town? [quote]Of course. But if we're admitting that imperialism will be a fact of life even down to the level of small communities in this political system, then that kind of invalidates the 'conflict is a class struggle entirely the fault of capitalism' argument.[/quote] my point is that "what if people start killing each other" isn't a legitimate criticism specific to communism because it can be applied to literally any scenario. what if people start killing each other in capitalism? [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43138162]But what makes anarchy and or communism better? Capitalism can be abused, yes and when not properly watched it can destory people's lives. But you can say the same for anarchy and communism. Any system, sounds great on paper(well except facsism), but those pieces of paper are stuck in a vaccum. We've never seen an anarcho-communisitic society before, and how will that come about? Having a leading individual defeats its purpose but when you have a directionless blob of people who are worried about each other but also for themselves, how do they work in a constructive manner? Its the same issue that Occupy Wallstreet had, they didn't have a clear concise message or a figure head to represent them. The aimed to go that route and no one could tell what the hell they wanted.[/QUOTE] Occupy's issue was that it challenged the status quo and authority and the authority didn't like that so it was dismantled by force.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43138115]so as technology continues to transform and improve our lives, concepts like capitalism, war, and racism will become undesirable in human society.[/QUOTE] Technologism isn't really going to end those things. All too often does a certain leader become hooked on some technology as bringing about their goals and dreams to be realized.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43138172] Occupy's issue was that it challenged the status quo and authority and the authority didn't like that so it was dismantled by force.[/QUOTE] That's part of it, you also forget that no one could figure out what they wanted. Even organizations like NPR and PBS couldn't dismantle to even examine the issues that Occupy were going for, and both of those groups are very very good at keeping themselves neutral.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43138162]But what makes anarchy and or communism better? Capitalism can be abused, yes and when not properly watched it can destory people's lives. But you can say the same for anarchy and communism. Any system, sounds great on paper(well except facsism), but those pieces of paper are stuck in a vaccum. We've never seen an anarcho-communisitic society before, and how will that come about? Having a leading individual defeats its purpose but when you have a directionless blob of people who are worried about each other but also for themselves, how do they work in a constructive manner? Its the same issue that Occupy Wallstreet had, they didn't have a clear concise message or a figure head to represent them. The aimed to go that route and no one could tell what the hell they wanted.[/QUOTE] this is where i think "primitive" society(i.e. pre-agriculture) can help guide our ideology. humans were not a "directionless blob of people" before the state arose. people obviously had direction and a cooperative nature otherwise we would have never survived. the idea is that we are naturally inclined to work together towards something greater than ourselves without a rigid hierarchy. communism embraces that concept and says that we can create a society inspired by that concept in the context of an industrial or post-industrial world. we use the technology available to us to make authority an unnecessary part of society. we nurture a mindset that is skeptical of all forms of subjugation(whether it's capitalism, sexism, or racism) because our society is able to provide for the needs of people without continued subjugation.

Except we literally we have no information on these 'primitive' societies because they didn't have any of the technology to even mark themselves down. They were mainly nomads who did substance farming and some culture with a side of a lot of sex. Industrial society and post industrial are the FURTHER points from this.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137778]communism is anarchist in nature.[/quote] no it isnt. not by a long shot of the imagination.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43138223]That's part of it, you also forget that no one could figure out what they wanted. Even organizations like NPR and PBS couldn't dismantle to even examine the issues that Occupy were going for, and both of those groups are very very good at keeping themselves neutral.[/QUOTE]Actually, the Occupy movement did have pretty clear desires originally. It was largely about holding financial institutions more accountable and more stringent regulations being put in place on corporations in general for the most part. The problem is that, many people broke off in to other smaller and more focused groups. What remained was a number of people who were not involved in the more organizational and directional aspects of the movement and were fairly quiet on their own, and a vocal minority that pushed itself to the forefront and sought to just destroy the entire system and basically all systems altogether.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;43138690]no it isnt. not by a long shot of the imagination.[/QUOTE] Communism and socialism are two different things: pears and oranges. The former does have more roots embedded (or is at least comparable) in anarchistic philosophy because it devalues private ownership.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;43138690]no it isnt. not by a long shot of the imagination.[/QUOTE]Communism can exist in an anarchist form. It does not have to however, and they are not inseparable entities from one another.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;43138690]no it isnt. not by a long shot of the imagination.[/QUOTE] go read some marx or kropotkin plz. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43138452]Except we literally we have no information on these 'primitive' societies because they didn't have any of the technology to even mark themselves down. They were mainly nomads who did substance farming and some culture with a side of a lot of sex. Industrial society and post industrial are the FURTHER points from this.[/QUOTE] we have no information on them? we have a lot more than you think, especially considering there are plenty of pre-agricultural societies to learn from that exist today.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43138172]what's stopping somebody from doing that right now? nothing at all. you'll probably say "the police" but the police is mostly a reactionary force. in our ideal hypothetical, a person wouldn't compromise his position in a community over some food anyway. altruism is a good motivator, else why did we even form tribes in the early days to begin with? cooperation contributes to increased survival. and barring that, who's to say the community doesn't elect some form of militia? or they just group together and run the thieving shit out of town?[/QUOTE] Well, the police catching people is a pretty good deterrent to antisocial behavior, as opposed to this hypothetical lawless society where you have absolutely nothing to lose. And why would it compromise your position when you can just take what you want through force? It worked for our ancestors, which is why they grouped together out of necessity, not pure benevolence towards their fellow man. Cooperative behavior is ultimately self-serving, it's an act of necessity that benefits the individual. Just look at how fragile civilization is when natural disasters hit. When people are confronted with trouble, and there's no longer any law or authority, and no longer a direct interest in cooperation, people start taking advantage of each other. Militia or coordinated behavior like you describe presupposes acceptable standards for behavior that people prefer to have spelled out and codified in the form of law. This is all well and good but it's markedly different from the anarchy that yawmwen was describing.