[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872375]Also I'd like to discredit your claim that "no one wants to be poor so they'd work hard", well you know that's true, and they do work pretty hard, but they don't work hard when it's most effective. [B]Often poor people do poorly in school for whatever reason[/B], and that leads them to a life of menial labor where it's difficult to make very much money, but that's our society, you need to put work in to reap the benefits, and that's not a bad thing at all.
Too bad people often don't work hard enough and get fucked over, but I don't think it's fair to blame the system, the individual should and can be considered for blaming.
But of course, being poor is never that person's fault, it's always the big mean systems, right?[/QUOTE]
Holy shit try to apply some critical thinking skills for once in your fucking life. WHY do poor people do poorly in school? Yeah some people can be blamed individually (strawman more by the way) but are you going to tell me that even though over 50 million people are in poverty the system doesn't have serious problems? They should all just get a job and put in work and everything will be fucking dandy?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872366]mechanical quoted proudhon earlier and it pretty much applies. "anarchy is order without power". there is no government in an anarchist system. at least, not a traditional government.
anarchism is about people managing their own affairs individually and collectively. the factory is managed by managers voted in by the workers. the community makes decisions based on democratic and consensus voting. rules are decided with direct consent of the people, not by any arbitrary or coercive body.
communism, put simply, is a stateless and classless society. equality is a major part of that equation, but uniformity is not. goods are distributed fairly and evenly by the people who produce and the people who consume co-operating together. communism does not necessarily mean "no incentives" in all cases though. if there is a shortage of doctors and incentives were needed to encourage them, then people might vote to give up some of the resources they receive to go to doctors and help encourage their work.
the difference is that any inequality is chosen with direct consent by the people involved. it is not forced upon them.[/QUOTE]
So anarchy is a society run by peasants? Wonderful. You must realize that our power structure society serves an extremely useful purpose right? The people in charge of us all are extremely knowledgeable and intelligent and often competent in their job (congressmen are competent whether you want to believe it or not, there are often so many factors that gridlock is inevitable), such knowledgeable and "elite" individuals allow our society to be very well directed.
I don't really think communism is very plausible, viable, or effective. Why bother to have a society that will probably eventually devolve back into capitalism anyway? No one will want to stay "equal or inequal to certain people" forever, those advantaged few will attempt to keep their advantage, leading to an elite of severe corruption. Might I add that uniform and equal are synonyms of a sort, but I suppose I understand what you mean.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872419]You must realize that our power structure society serves an extremely useful purpose right? The people in charge of us all are extremely knowledgeable and intelligent and often competent in their job (congressmen are competent whether you want to believe it or not, there are often so many factors that gridlock is inevitable), such knowledgeable and "elite" individuals allow our society to be very well directed.[/QUOTE]
That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all week. I'm saving that one.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872377]anarchism continually "works" under the surface of every western democracy around. there are co-operatives, shared living spaces, communal gardens, intentional societies, and worker-managed companies throughout the usa.
anarchism cannot flourish in a pure form with capitalism around, but it flourishes in a compromised form in the presence of capitalism already.
You have no slight idea what Anarchy is, at all.
Anarchy is every man and his family for themselves.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
if everyone got a good education and worked really hard would the system be able to support absolutely no one doing menial labor?[/QUOTE]
You have no slight idea what Anarchy is, at all.
Anarchy is every man and his family for themselves.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872214]google communism and anarchism and then make a new post because i think you are having serious trouble identifying what either of these two terms mean on even a basic level.
it's like you took the shit explanation your bourgeois government fed you and accepted it at face value.
i'll help you out a little bit. these are quotes by anarchists, socialists, and communists throughout the ages. see if you can spot where your preconceived notions fall short.
"The free expression of the hopes and aspirations of a people is the greatest and only safety in a sane society." - emma goldman
"Political Freedom without economic equality is a pretense, a fraud, a lie; and the workers want no lying." - mikhail bakunin
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." - noam chomsky
"Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; it does not mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all." - august spies
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners." - edward abbey
communism and anarchism are ABOUT individualism, they are about being different. these philosophies see the failure of capitalism to account for the individual's yearning for freedom and expression, and seek to remove that barrier in their life. it is something that would have the control over production and consumption given to people instead of large corporations.[/QUOTE]
Are you like some kind of robot created to be the ultimate pathos spewing machine?
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;40872412]Holy shit try to apply some critical thinking skills for once in your fucking life. WHY do poor people do poorly in school? Yeah some people can be blamed individually (strawman more by the way) but are you going to tell me that even though over 50 million people are in poverty the system doesn't have serious problems? They should all just get a job and put in work and everything will be fucking dandy?[/QUOTE]
How can you say I'm not applying critical thinking skills when we're both here arguing one of the more difficult concepts in human society? Sure you can say that since we're not professionals it isn't really worth anything, but at least we're showing the ability to maintain coherent beliefs and arguments. Just saying, don't accuse me of something you know very well isn't true just because you don't like what I say.
Poor people do poorly in school, and people who do poorly in school typically become poor people. If you don't adhere to our society's way of making money (through education, understanding, skills, etc), then you will fail, and that would come down to that individual invariably.
And yes there are a lot of people in poverty, but there are also a lot of lazy people because of past problems our society has had with the populations that generally constitute impoverished populations (minorities are a good example), and I honestly believe that that will lessen in being an issue over time, but even if it doesn't, that's a problem of our society, not of the system.
We SHOULD be attempting to pick them up out of poverty, but it's difficult for so many reasons, and our government (or really, any force) is doing things to help, but it's a slow and difficult process.
[editline]1st June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;40872427]That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all week. I'm saving that one.[/QUOTE]
Well it's good to see that we're all mature here
I think only thing we can do is have Obama go over there and say, "Mr. Jinping, tear down this wall"
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872419]So anarchy is a society run by peasants? Wonderful. You must realize that our power structure society serves an extremely useful purpose right? The people in charge of us all are extremely knowledgeable and intelligent and often competent in their job (congressmen are competent whether you want to believe it or not, there are often so many factors that gridlock is inevitable), such knowledgeable and "elite" individuals allow our society to be very well directed.[/quote]
our legislature is anything but competent. it isn't necessarily their fault. i don't think people are meant to, no are they equipped to rule over large populations of people competently. it isn't just gridlock that plagues our system, it's the fact decisions are made behind closed doors without our approval. 80% of people approved a public option for the health care reform a few years back but that idea was scrapped almost immediately. most people believe in downscaling the war on drugs but it still continues to sap large amounts of money and effort.
not to mention most laws are common sense and not really needed anyways. don't murder? don't rape? give me a fucking break! are you to say that without these laws, humanity would devolve into a race of murderous rapists?
[quote]I don't really think communism is very plausible, viable, or effective. Why bother to have a society that will probably eventually devolve back into capitalism anyway? No one will want to stay "equal or inequal to certain people" forever, those advantaged few will attempt to keep their advantage, leading to an elite of severe corruption. Might I add that uniform and equal are synonyms of a sort, but I suppose I understand what you mean.[/QUOTE]
but again, these are democratic forms of distribution. if people don't like the way that goods are distributed they can vote to change it, and in extreme circumstances, quit their association with that community entirely. in the usa, i can't just choose not to associate anymore. if i own property, i must pay property taxes. if i make income, i must pay income taxes. if i buy goods, i must pay corporate and sales taxes. it doesn't matter if i agree or not, if i object i am thrown into prison. that is not free, that is tyrannical by its very nature.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872278]This is without a doubt the most ignorant and naive thing I have ever heard in my entire life
[editline]1st June 2013[/editline]
"I enjoy my job therefore I'd totally be okay with not getting anything in return for my hard work", you're a fucking liar.[/QUOTE]
Lol. Thanks for the name calling and the great argument.
Now, yes, if every morning I could wake up, without having to be pressured to think about feeding my family, paying the house or clothes... you get the idea,
I'd simply love letting my creative self out and try solving what problems faces us. If you know that you would have a great repercussion with the things you do, if you know you are doing good for others,
why would you need a porsche?
What happens is that you have been educated all your life now, to become the self-appointed protector of the status quo you now are.
How obscure it is to think that you have a hard time believing me when I say that I have concerns for others.
It is not true that a human naturally feels more inclination towards money and material goods than for his fellow man.
Deep seated in us is a need to communicate, to work, to engage with others cooperatively and this is why capitalism ''works'' right now.
It is because it sustentate to these basic needs, barely might I say and only because they, the altruistic needs, have been so repressed.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;40872432]You have no slight idea what Anarchy is, at all.
Anarchy is every man and his family for themselves.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ
[url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html[/url]
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872444]How can you say I'm not applying critical thinking skills when we're both here arguing one of the more difficult concepts in human society? Sure you can say that since we're not professionals it isn't really worth anything, but at least we're showing the ability to maintain coherent beliefs and arguments. Just saying, don't accuse me of something you know very well isn't true just because you don't like what I say.
Poor people do poorly in school, and people who do poorly in school typically become poor people. If you don't adhere to our society's way of making money (through education, understanding, skills, etc), then you will fail, and that would come down to that individual invariably.
And yes there are a lot of people in poverty, but there are also a lot of lazy people because of past problems our society has had with the populations that generally constitute impoverished populations (minorities are a good example), and I honestly believe that that will lessen in being an issue over time, but even if it doesn't, that's a problem of our society, not of the system.
We SHOULD be attempting to pick them up out of poverty, but it's difficult for so many reasons, and our government (or really, any force) is doing things to help, but it's a slow and difficult process.
[editline]1st June 2013[/editline]
Well it's good to see that we're all mature here[/QUOTE]
again, if everyone worked hard and got educations and shit would the system be able to support absolutely no one doing low wage menial labor?
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872444]How can you say I'm not applying critical thinking skills when we're both here arguing one of the more difficult concepts in human society? Sure you can say that since we're not professionals it isn't really worth anything, but at least we're showing the ability to maintain coherent beliefs and arguments. Just saying, don't accuse me of something you know very well isn't true just because you don't like what I say.
Poor people do poorly in school, and people who do poorly in school typically become poor people. If you don't adhere to our society's way of making money (through education, understanding, skills, etc), then you will fail, and that would come down to that individual invariably.
And yes there are a lot of people in poverty, but there are also a lot of lazy people because of past problems our society has had with the populations that generally constitute impoverished populations (minorities are a good example), and I honestly believe that that will lessen in being an issue over time, but even if it doesn't, that's a problem of our society, not of the system.
We SHOULD be attempting to pick them up out of poverty, but it's difficult for so many reasons, and our government (or really, any force) is doing things to help, but it's a slow and difficult process.
[editline]1st June 2013[/editline]
Well it's good to see that we're all mature here[/QUOTE]
Yeah, our system works so well and our elite class is so intelligent and competent that 1 in 5 people live in poverty, Congress gets literally nothing done and argues like a high school debate team, teenage pregnancy is #1 among developed nations, wealth inequality has created a gap the size of Russia between the rich and poor, and the education of the general public is nose-diving harder than a kamikaze pilot. Great system you have there. It's just lazy poor people and our society to blame.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872459]our legislature is anything but competent. it isn't necessarily their fault. i don't think people are meant to, no are they equipped to rule over large populations of people competently. it isn't just gridlock that plagues our system, it's the fact decisions are made behind closed doors without our approval. 80% of people approved a public option for the health care reform a few years back but that idea was scrapped almost immediately. most people believe in downscaling the war on drugs but it still continues to sap large amounts of money and effort.
not to mention most laws are common sense and not really needed anyways. don't murder? don't rape? give me a fucking break! are you to say that without these laws, humanity would devolve into a race of murderous rapists?
but again, these are democratic forms of distribution. if people don't like the way that goods are distributed they can vote to change it, and in extreme circumstances, quit their association with that community entirely. in the usa, i can't just choose not to associate anymore. if i own property, i must pay property taxes. if i make income, i must pay income taxes. if i buy goods, i must pay corporate and sales taxes. it doesn't matter if i agree or not, if i object i am thrown into prison. that is not free, that is tyrannical by its very nature.[/QUOTE]
I think we disagree on something very intrinsic, I don't think its tyrannical that we have to pay property, corporate, or sales taxes, I just see that as the only way our government can function. It isn't like the government takes our money without giving it back, while it is true a good amount of money goes into the military, and even greater amount goes back into us, to help us, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and whatever else. That is our sacrifice, that is what we got ourselves into as a race when it comes to making societies, we sacrifice some freedom for safety and stability, and honestly I view it as worth it, but you seem not to, and I honestly don't think that any amount of convincing will change your or my viewpoint on something so intrinsic and basic.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872464]jesus christ
[url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html[/url][/QUOTE]
What's that? A link to a website about anarchy?
Well how about this?
BAM
[url]http://www.econlib.org/index.html[/url]
BAM
[url]http://capitalism.org/[/url]
That's right. TWO links. That's twice the links you have!
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872497]It isn't like the government takes our money without giving it back, while it is true a good amount of money goes into the military, and even greater amount goes back into us, to help us, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and whatever else.[/QUOTE]
How many times do I have to say "50 million Americans live in poverty" before you realize that your feelgood rhetoric is not consistent with reality.
It's also an undeniable fact that more money is spent into the military than education and welfare so I don't know what you're even saying.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40872507]What's that? A link to a website about anarchy?
Well how about this?
BAM
[URL]http://www.econlib.org/index.html[/URL]
BAM
[URL]http://capitalism.org/[/URL]
That's right. TWO links. That's twice the links you have![/QUOTE]
is shitposting an acquired skill of yours or does it just come naturally.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;40872511]
is shitposting an acquired skill of yours or does it just come naturally.[/QUOTE]
I learn from the best.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872497]I think we disagree on something very intrinsic, I don't think its tyrannical that we have to pay property, corporate, or sales taxes, I just see that as the only way our government can function. It isn't like the government takes our money without giving it back, while it is true a good amount of money goes into the military, and even greater amount goes back into us, to help us, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and whatever else. That is our sacrifice, that is what we got ourselves into as a race when it comes to making societies, we sacrifice some freedom for safety and stability, and honestly I view it as worth it, but you seem not to, and I honestly don't think that any amount of convincing will change your or my viewpoint on something so intrinsic and basic.[/QUOTE]
i don't even disagree on that. i think safety and stability are absolutely wonderful. however, what i disagree with is that the state is necessary to provide either of those things. human beings are perfectly capable of making rules and organizing society on their own without unaccountable power structures to tell us how. we don't need a state to build a road, we have people who know how to build a road perfectly fine without the state. we don't need the state to provide for the poor, we make enough of a surplus that we can provide for the poor on our own. the state leeches, capitalism leeches. through our own determination and empathy that we can create a more functioning society without the leeches.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872464]jesus christ
[url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html[/url]
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
again, if everyone worked hard and got educations and shit would the system be able to support absolutely no one doing low wage menial labor?[/QUOTE]
Certainly not, that's kind of paradoxical if you think about it, we rely on people doing poorly for our system to work, though I'm sure if everyone did great, the jobs that were once menial labor would become better paying and therefore not really be low wage menial labor anymore.
You are right that capitalism does hurt people whereas communism theoretically doesn't, but I don't think it's fair to compare a theoretical economic/societal system to a system in the real world. Communism will likely never work, it won't adhere to its promises just as capitalism doesn't either. They're all flawed, but I think capitalism at least allows for the least awful flaws. But...that's just my opinion, obviously.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40872507]What's that? A link to a website about anarchy?
Well how about this?
BAM
[url]http://www.econlib.org/index.html[/url]
BAM
[url]http://capitalism.org/[/url]
That's right. TWO links. That's twice the links you have![/QUOTE]
so how do those links show that anarchy means "fend for yourself"?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872544]so how do those links show that anarchy means "fend for yourself"?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't, I'm just showing that I can also post links.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872542]Certainly not, that's kind of paradoxical if you think about it, we rely on people doing poorly for our system to work, though I'm sure if everyone did great, the jobs that were once menial labor would become better paying and therefore not really be low wage menial labor anymore.
You are right that capitalism does hurt people whereas communism theoretically doesn't, but I don't think it's fair to compare a theoretical economic/societal system to a system in the real world. Communism will likely never work, it won't adhere to its promises just as capitalism doesn't either. They're all flawed, but I think capitalism at least allows for the least awful flaws. But...that's just my opinion, obviously.[/QUOTE]
try finding some anarchist co-ops and ask them how they fare? actually go to meet some people applying anarchist or communist principles in their lives to see how the theory works in practice. it is certainly not without its struggles, but it isn't like the system is destined to fail.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872537]i don't even disagree on that. i think safety and stability are absolutely wonderful. however, what i disagree with is that the state is necessary to provide either of those things. human beings are perfectly capable of making rules and organizing society on their own without unaccountable power structures to tell us how. we don't need a state to build a road, we have people who know how to build a road perfectly fine without the state. we don't need the state to provide for the poor, we make enough of a surplus that we can provide for the poor on our own. the state leeches, capitalism leeches. through our own determination and empathy that we can create a more functioning society without the leeches.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the state allows for a very broad entity to deal with many issues. Yeah you can get individuals to work at things like road construction, but without a power structure like a state to get it going, it is either extremely inefficient or literally impossible.
In theory you can get all people to work towards a beautiful common goal, but without a kind of...grand scheme of things structure...it seems humans don't really work that way.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40872549]It doesn't, I'm just showing that I can also post links.[/QUOTE]
awsom
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872555]Yeah but the state allows for a very broad entity to deal with many issues. Yeah you can get individuals to work at things like road construction, but without a power structure like a state to get it going, it is either extremely inefficient or literally impossible.
In theory you can get all people to work towards a beautiful common goal, but without a kind of...grand scheme of things structure...it seems humans don't really work that way.[/QUOTE]
you are confusing "power structure" with "state". i know that big projects need a lot of organization. the "state" is not the only way to organize. there are more democratic and accountable methods of organization that can properly get work done where it is needed without the excess the state provides.
no no you see you guys are getting it all wrong. what we really need is syndicalism
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872552]try finding some anarchist co-ops and ask them how they fare? actually go to meet some people applying anarchist or communist principles in their lives to see how the theory works in practice. it is certainly not without its struggles, but it isn't like the system is destined to fail.[/QUOTE]
It would be difficult and unfair to find societies that call themselves anarchist, because they would be likely living in a tiny community where everyone is cool with each other, not a 330 million people melting pot country with many different demographics, climates, and stuff. And particular principles don't really say too much about the ideology as a whole, you can obviously live very well using single principles of anything really, but the whole thing, and how it works with a massive society is really where things typically fall apart and show their implausibility.
"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.
"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government." [Objections to Anarchism, pp. 348-9]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872556]awsom
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
you are confusing "power structure" with "state". i know that big projects need a lot of organization. the "state" is not the only way to organize. there are more democratic and accountable methods of organization that can properly get work done where it is needed without the excess the state provides.[/QUOTE]
Like what? When it comes down to it, power structure is impossible to avoid, over time it will be created to centralize people's thoughts and stuff, and it would just start up again. I think anarchy and communism are more of a small-scale economic ideology that will likely eventually morph into other ideologies anyway due to the oddities of human sociology.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872578]It would be difficult and unfair to find societies that call themselves anarchist, because they would be likely living in a tiny community where everyone is cool with each other, not a 330 million people melting pot country with many different demographics, climates, and stuff. And particular principles don't really say too much about the ideology as a whole, you can obviously live very well using single principles of anything really, but the whole thing, and how it works with a massive society is really where things typically fall apart and show their implausibility.[/QUOTE]
if the society has more than ~150 people(dunbar's number), it isn't much of a big deal. organizing 1,000 people is closer to organizing 1,000,000 people than it is to organizing 50 people.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40872580]"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.
"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government." [Objections to Anarchism, pp. 348-9][/QUOTE]
You're going to run out of pages on your quote of the day calendar pretty quickly at this rate.
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;40871039]Your government just never seems to acknowledge them, which is nearly just as bad.[/QUOTE]
Um. We teach it in fucking school.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40872588]Like what? When it comes down to it, power structure is impossible to avoid, over time it will be created to centralize people's thoughts and stuff, and it would just start up again. I think anarchy and communism are more of a small-scale economic ideology that will likely eventually morph into other ideologies anyway due to the oddities of human sociology.[/QUOTE]
"Unless democracy is a fraud and the sovereignty of the People a joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his [or her] industry, each municipal, district or provincial council within its own territory . . . should act directly and by itself in administering the interests which it includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them." [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 276]
i'm basically quoting various things right now since i think other writers have done a better job articulating these ideas than i probably could.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
