Anarchist Communism

[Noir]

Righto, I read through the Reading provided, and the idea that such a system could ever work on any sort of scale is simply laughable.

So I'll start off with 3 subjects that came to mind while Reading through the material,

a) Schooling.

A key idea behind all of this is that no one should hold rule over another, in which case how can you school children? Afterall there could be no teacher, no state standard qualifications, no universities ect. And so how do you create a well educated population to become doctors and computer designers ect, do they all have to learn from home?

b)There are rules, but no enforcement.

It is stated there is to be no private property, only enough for everyone to need. i.e. a large family will have a larger house that a small family, but that per person the space will be equal.
Who will regulate this? Afterall there is no state police, infact there is not state at all. And as no one can rule over another, If someone says your house is too big and out should move out and you say no, what happens? Are they allowed to dominate over you by forcing you out?
I would guess a therotical answer would be that 'we all want to help eachother' and so would never refuse to move if asked. But as we well know, theory and reality are very far from cozy with eachother.

C) Economy
This is the most Important of all. Say the state you lived in broke off from the USA and became Anarchist-Communist. So there you are with your own area of land and no state or goverment or currency. I dare say the first thing you would notice is that the lights in your house wouldn't go on, and that the super-markets would be closed, and I won't bother using the toilet too much, after all the sweage treatment plants won't have anyone working in them.

Why will no one be working? Because there is no such thing as money, because there is no state, if a man works all day at the power-plant what will he get for it? Zip.

And even if everyone did decided to work for nothing except to 'help eachother' then you would soon run into problems anyway, like if your power-plants run on Nuke energy, but your 'area' does not have a sorce of uranium...what do you do? I mean, you can't trade with a nation/state that does have uranium, afterall you have no goverment in power to make trading deals.

Those 3 will do for starters, I await your replies with interest.

[Gaffer]

Good points Noir, lets see what agingprostrate has to say in response.

[Mr. P]

Good show KID! :thumb:

[Noir]

Heys, let's not start offering me victory blowjobs just yet, I could well be ripped apart in the next few days, or at the very least expect inteligent responses,

This ideology will surly have faced, and answered, far more complex questions that I will ever pose, I mean if I can pick up on such problems after Reading two websites I'm sure they've been raised before, and if agi is serious about this then he will be well versed in answers.

[CSM]

One man's utopia is another man's hell.

The closest thing to a state based on anarchy these days is Somalia ... seems like a horrible place but then they are obviously missing the "communist" part.

[HogTrash]

Righto, I read through the Reading provided, and the idea that such a system could ever work on any sort of scale is simply laughable.

So I'll start off with 3 subjects that came to mind while Reading through the material,

a) Schooling.

A key idea behind all of this is that no one should hold rule over another, in which case how can you school children? Afterall there could be no teacher, no state standard qualifications, no universities ect. And so how do you create a well educated population to become doctors and computer designers ect, do they all have to learn from home?

b)There are rules, but no enforcement.

It is stated there is to be no private property, only enough for everyone to need. i.e. a large family will have a larger house that a small family, but that per person the space will be equal.
Who will regulate this? Afterall there is no state police, infact there is not state at all. And as no one can rule over another, If someone says your house is too big and out should move out and you say no, what happens? Are they allowed to dominate over you by forcing you out?
I would guess a therotical answer would be that 'we all want to help eachother' and so would never refuse to move if asked. But as we well know, theory and reality are very far from cozy with eachother.

C) Economy
This is the most Important of all. Say the state you lived in broke off from the USA and became Anarchist-Communist. So there you are with your own area of land and no state or goverment or currency. I dare say the first thing you would notice is that the lights in your house wouldn't go on, and that the super-markets would be closed, and I won't bother using the toilet too much, after all the sweage treatment plants won't have anyone working in them.

Why will no one be working? Because there is no such thing as money, because there is no state, if a man works all day at the power-plant what will he get for it? Zip.

And even if everyone did decided to work for nothing except to 'help eachother' then you would soon run into problems anyway, like if your power-plants run on Nuke energy, but your 'area' does not have a sorce of uranium...what do you do? I mean, you can't trade with a nation/state that does have uranium, afterall you have no goverment in power to make trading deals.

Those 3 will do for starters, I await your replies with interest.The simplified version...Communist anarchy would slowly convert to the historic oppressive communism we all know, hate and fear.

When someone acquired too much, neighbors would show up to take it and of course said property would need to be divided which of course would lead to conflict...Mob rule.

It would soon be determined that an organized replacement for mob rule would be necessary to ensure equality and keep the communal peace...Small government.

As complaints of inequality grows and spreads so would small government expand to accomodate the needs of the people as government always does, especially under communism...Large government.

Large government, being unchallenged by any other form of government as communism is famous for, would become all powerful and controlling and spread to every aspect of daily life...Totalitarianism.

And of course those in charge would have more than the others and this would be explained by the statement of the ruling class pigs in the book ANIMAL FARM;

"Of course we are all equal, but some are more equal than others"..........I believe most people who desire communism immagine themselves in the roll of the pigs.

[Gaffer]

Still nothing from the prostrate. Guess he's collecting his talking points. My bet is, if he responds, he will spin and talk around the questions with the biggest words his thesaurus can come up with.

Hog You hit it on the head again. Animal Farm is one of the best examples of how the commies work. I often wonder where these lib-commies think they will be in the hierarchy of hope and change.

[Noir]

Still nothing from the prostrate. Guess he's collecting his talking points. My bet is, if he responds, he will spin and talk around the questions with the biggest words his thesaurus can come up with.

Hog You hit it on the head again. Animal Farm is one of the best examples of how the commies work. I often wonder where these lib-commies think they will be in the hierarchy of hope and change.

Funny, I had the same thought, though I am armed with my own thesaurus, to break down such words inta understandable english again =) and most of all I do hope he bothers to reply, it took me ages to read through all that tosh.

[Gaffer]

Funny, I had the same thought, though I am armed with my own thesaurus, to break down such words inta understandable english again =) and most of all I do hope he bothers to reply, it took me ages to read through all that tosh.

Your better than I am then. I couldn't get through the first paragraph. His belief in that crap shows how truly ignorant and nonsensical he is.

[Nukeman]

I read some and mean SOME of that rambling BS. I especially like this last part I pulled out.

I this great Utopian altruistic society there would be NO production its a good thing all those greedy capitalistic companies ramped up production for everyone to be able to go pick up everything they needed prior to overthrowing those evil capitalist!!!!!!



Kropotkin's earlier writings as to the methods of organizing production and distribution after a revolutionary seizure of property were based on the assumption that there would be sufficiency of goods for each to take what he needed and to work as much as he felt able. After his experience with the Russian Revolution he came to a quite contrary conclusion. He recognized the obstacles to production on a new basis as well as the poverty of the capitalist world and expressed his changed opinion in a postscript to the Russian edition of Words of a Rebel, published in 1919. His method for organizing production follows his previous teaching, but his statement of it after the Russian Revolution adds interest to it.

I find it hard to believe that there are still morons that believe this shit. They remain under the impression that ALL MAN is altruistic and unfortunately it only take a couple to not be for your lovely little fantasy world to come crashing down.....



Here is little aggis ideal world and like I said it only takes ONE to change everything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc79ho-PzeE

[Agnapostate]

As I said to you in another thread, I don't see anything here that's a very impressive or advanced criticism. Nothing beyond an elementary level, really. While you're new at these types of exchanges with me, I'm not new to this sort of anti-anarchist cliche. Answers to effectively all of your "objections" can be found in Section I (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) of An Anarchist FAQ, and while I'll respond to you myself, I don't relish tedious exchanges about basic material. I want elevated, complex debate, but can hardly ever find it from anti-socialists. There's only been one thing that's actually stumped me: this (http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/59067-george-orwell-communist-3.html#post963550). At the time, I wasn't knowledgeable enough to provide a response to it. I am now, but have since been banned. I want to find someone like that again, basically.

170 years of anarchist history behind us. There need to be more theoretically advanced criticisms than this.

[Noir]

As I said to you in another thread, I don't see anything here that's a very impressive or advanced criticism. Nothing beyond an elementary level, really. While you're new at these types of exchanges with me, I'm not new to this sort of anti-anarchist cliche. Answers to effectively all of your "objections" can be found in Section I (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) of An Anarchist FAQ, and while I'll respond to you myself, I don't relish tedious exchanges about basic material. I want elevated, complex debate, but can hardly ever find it from anti-socialists. There's only been one thing that's actually stumped me: this (http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/59067-george-orwell-communist-3.html#post963550). At the time, I wasn't knowledgeable enough to provide a response to it. I am now, but have since been banned. I want to find someone like that again, basically.

170 years of anarchist history behind us. There need to be more theoretically advanced criticisms than this.


Sorry if you consider my questions benieth you, but at the very least you could bother to address them, failure to do so on such bread and butter issues is really laughable.
But hey, it's not my job to try and convince you to care, I bothered to read through the crap you presented me with, and if you don't have the respect to reply then that's your call.

[Agnapostate]

Sorry if you consider my questions benieth you, but at the very least you could bother to address them, failure to do so on such bread and butter issues is really laughable.

Nothing would be more laughable than the primitive nonsense you've begun this thread with, I'm afraid. How many times have I encountered the same tiresome regurgitations (http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/79416-agna.html)?


But hey, it's not my job to try and convince you to care, I bothered to read through the crap you presented me with, and if you don't have the respect to reply then that's your call.

If I could, I'd issue one elementary-level primer to everyone who regurgitates the same platitudinous talking points and be done with it all, but I already stated that I'd be willing to respond to them one more time.

[Trigg]

chicken shit :lame2:

[Agnapostate]

chicken shit :lame2:

Who the fuck invited you, Pigg? We can have an economics debate whenever you name the venue. :slap:

[Gaffer]

He keeps saying he's going to respond to the questions but never does. Nothing but comments about how it is so beneath him to do so and digs at other posters. He can't defend his own beliefs.

[Agnapostate]

He keeps saying he's going to respond to the questions but never does. Nothing but comments about how it is so beneath him to do so and digs at other posters. He can't defend his own beliefs.

Here's an example (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213233) of what I can do to an entire forum that opposes me...even when I'm eventually banned for dissension. That forum, at least, was at an intermediate level though. The rightist hacks on here are more elementary. :slap:

[Nukeman]

Here's an example (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213233) of what I can do to an entire forum that opposes me...even when I'm eventually banned for dissension. That forum, at least, was at an intermediate level though. The rightist hacks on here are more elementary. :slap:

Ohhh I'm so impressed a log-in screen, did you get that all by yourself Gosh I hope some day i can do that as well. Jerk off:slap:

[Agnapostate]

Ohhh I'm so impressed a log-in screen, did you get that all by yourself Gosh I hope some day i can do that as well. Jerk off:slap:

Ah, forgot it was moved to a members' section of the forum. Go ahead and register if you doubt me, idiot. :slap:

[Nukeman]

Ah, forgot it was moved to a members' section of the forum. Go ahead and register if you doubt me, idiot. :slap:

Why would I care what YOU write!!!??? You have nothing that I would consider meaningful to my life in any way! Your wrong on your beliefs of "anarchist communism" so your just another moron with a thesaurus and new college education that needs real life experience before anything you say can be even remotely considered credible

[Agnapostate]

Why would I care what YOU write!!!??? You have nothing that I would consider meaningful to my life in any way! Your wrong on your beliefs of "anarchist communism" so your just another moron with a thesaurus and new college education that needs real life experience before anything you say can be even remotely considered credible

For one thing, I could instruct you in the ancient techniques of accurate spelling and grammar. For another thing, you don't know anything about me or my biography, so your ad hominem is misinformed in addition to being logically fallacious. It would be idiotic to place too much stock in personal experiences anyway, though, as the spectrum of human experiences is so widely varying that individual anecdotes are rendered quite irrelevant.

[Noir]

Who the fuck invited you, Pigg? We can have an economics debate whenever you name the venue. :slap:

Well you invited me...and I set the venue, right here, right now...and yet nothing, just insults and dodging =/

[Agnapostate]

Well you invited me...and I set the venue, right here, right now...and yet nothing, just insults and dodging =/

Lad, if you'd provided complex criticisms and a balanced perspective, I'd have replied to you immediately. Instead, you threw out platitudinous regurgitations and an arrogant attitude ("laughable"), so I'll reply when I'm inclined, and would encourage you to read the section of the FAQ that I linked to in the meantime, so as to improve your own understanding.

[Noir]

Lad, if you'd provided complex criticisms and a balanced perspective, I'd have replied to you immediately. Instead, you threw out platitudinous regurgitations and an arrogant attitude ("laughable"), so I'll reply when I'm inclined, and would encourage you to read the section of the FAQ that I linked to in the meantime, so as to improve your own understanding.

:laugh2:
So my questions are just tooooo easy for you to reply to, so you won't, srsly dude for all the talk of bow amazing you are why not just put me in my place and rather than link to other pages where you've made amazing posts, post one here.

I've already read plenty of that crap, no more for me thank you kindly.

I am honestly disapointed, I thought this was going to a an interesting topic, alas not.

[Agnapostate]

:laugh2:
So my questions are just tooooo easy for you to reply to, so you won't, srsly dude for all the talk of bow amazing you are why not just put me in my place and rather than link to other pages where you've made amazing posts, post one here.

Distaste for repetition.


I've already read plenty of that crap, no more for me thank you kindly.

I am honestly disapointed, I thought this was going to a an interesting topic, alas not.

See, this is the kind of snobbish arrogance that only dilutes my patience more and more. While I might make allowances for someone that acknowledges their ignorance of the topic, and asks because of legitimate curiosity, you're both ignorant and arrogant, never a good combination. Distaste for repetition has admittedly made me more arrogant than I should be, but I'm also not ignorant of the topic.

[Nukeman]

distaste for repetition.



See, this is the kind of snobbish arrogance that only dilutes my patience more and more. While i might make allowances for someone that acknowledges their ignorance of the topic, and asks because of legitimate curiosity, you're both ignorant and arrogant, never a good combination. Distaste for repetition has admittedly made me more arrogant than i should be, but i'm also not ignorant of the topic.


pot meet kettle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Agnapostate]

Fuck yeah; I bake that shit into all my brownies.

[Noir]

Distaste for repetition.



See, this is the kind of snobbish arrogance that only dilutes my patience more and more. While I might make allowances for someone that acknowledges their ignorance of the topic, and asks because of legitimate curiosity, you're both ignorant and arrogant, never a good combination. Distaste for repetition has admittedly made me more arrogant than I should be, but I'm also not ignorant of the topic.


You're taking the piss, right?
I spent plenty off my time, what I now realize was too much, reading up on this stuff, and you expect me to keep reading and reading in the hope that you may bother to reply? I don't think so.
You're only making yourself look a fool, and considering it's your 'prime subject' I thought you'd be more than ready to beat me to a pulp with your knowledge of it.

[Agnapostate]

You're taking the piss, right?
I spent plenty off my time, what I now realize was too much, reading up on this stuff, and you expect me to keep reading and reading in the hope that you may bother to reply? I don't think so.

I've stated several times now that I'll reply. However, I'm not going to drop everything and race to respond to an arrogant and dismissive post that illustrates only a very elementary understanding of the philosophy that you attempt to criticize.


You're only making yourself look a fool, and considering it's your 'prime subject' I thought you'd be more than ready to beat me to a pulp with your knowledge of it.

It's not. Economics in general is my "prime subject," but I'm more focused on anti-capitalism than advocacy of communism. Since I don't particularly care about your opinion, I'm not particularly concerned with what you think I look like.

[Noir]

I've stated several times now that I'll reply. However, I'm not going to drop everything and race to respond to an arrogant and dismissive post that illustrates only a very elementary understanding of the philosophy that you attempt to criticize.



It's not. Economics in general is my "prime subject," but I'm more focused on anti-capitalism than advocacy of communism. Since I don't particularly care about your opinion, I'm not particularly concerned with what you think I look like.


Righto, PM me when you do reply, I shan't hold my breath.

[Gaffer]

Righto, PM me when you do reply, I shan't hold my breath.

I gotta spread the rep around Noir. He could have answered you many times over if he wasn't so busy insulting everyone and thumping his chest.

You called him on his bullshit and he bailed. Noir wins.

[Agnapostate]

Righto, PM me when you do reply, I shan't hold my breath.

Why bother? You're subscribed and you come running back every time I post a response. You'll get around to it.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




I gotta spread the rep around Noir. He could have answered you many times over if he wasn't so busy insulting everyone and thumping his chest.

You called him on his bullshit and he bailed. Noir wins.



1. Yah Noir, you nailed this Indian, just like in the old days, back in 1492!.... You ol pirate!!!
2. Priceless!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Noir]

Why bother? You're subscribed and you come running back every time I post a response. You'll get around to it.

Whatever, as has been said, you have spent plenty of time typing out reason why you haven't posted a reply. Time which you could have spent answering the questions, but whatever ticks your clock.

[SassyLady]

I'm also not ignorant of the topic.

And how would we know this unless you answer the questions? :slap:

If you are as well versed in this as you claim you are, then you should be able to deconstruct anything us little 'ol ignorant anti-socialist pea-brains throw at you.

Personally, I think you took a critical thinking class and think you've become this great debater because you can now talk in circles.

Why don't you try explaining to me, a granny who owns her own business, why I should become an anarchist like yourself? Break it down for me in small bites cause I'm very ignorant of the subject. :slap:

[SassyLady]

Here's an example (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213233) of what I can do to an entire forum that opposes me...even when I'm eventually banned for dissension. That forum, at least, was at an intermediate level though. The rightist hacks on here are more elementary. :slap:

Well, if we are so "elementary", why do you continue to come here? Surely you should be going to the advanced level. I thought a "genius" would have moved from "elementary" to "intermediate" to "advanced" at some point. What happened to you that you would sink so low as to dust it up with us rightist hacks when you could be smoozing with the more sophisticated leftist hacks in the anarchist communities?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....little pebble in big pond or big pebble in little pond..........yep!!!! I got it!!! You like being the only anarchist here because you stand out like a sore thumb........much more exciting than just being one of the vast, faceless crowd!

No matter, it's fun playing with you.:cheers2:

[Agnapostate]

And how would we know this unless you answer the questions? :slap:

If you are as well versed in this as you claim you are, then you should be able to deconstruct anything us little 'ol ignorant anti-socialist pea-brains throw at you.

Very well.


Righto, I read through the Reading provided, and the idea that such a system could ever work on any sort of scale is simply laughable.

So I'll start off with 3 subjects that came to mind while Reading through the material,

I'd much rather you started with substantive criticism instead of a baseless snide remark. Just my perverse obsession with arguments and logic and what not, y'know.


a) Schooling.

A key idea behind all of this is that no one should hold rule over another, in which case how can you school children? Afterall there could be no teacher, no state standard qualifications, no universities ect. And so how do you create a well educated population to become doctors and computer designers ect, do they all have to learn from home?

You first begin with a false premise, but you should instead realize that the libertarian recognizes legitimate applications for hierarchical authority in a limited sense, with childcare being one of those critical areas. As put by Noam Chomsky, "[f]or instance, when you stop your five-year-old kid from trying to cross the street, that's an authoritarian situation: it's got to be justified. Well, in that case, I think you can give a justification."

However, I'm of the opinion that the current degree of hierarchical authoritarianism that characterizes schools is excessive, that it has its origins in preparation of students for industrial wage slavery, and that it still conditions students to some extent, as the top-down and regimented nature of the classroom is a reflection of that of the capitalist workplace. To that end, I look to the libertarian tradition of opposition to this system, such as that of Francisco Ferrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Ferrer) and his Escuela Moderna. This spawned the Modern Schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_School_%28United_States%29) of the U.S. and the free schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school) that were a logical extension of the principle, with the longest-lasting and most famous being Summerhill School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School), which reflected a parallel interest in more libertarian education methods in the UK. The essential thrust of my opposition to the rigidly hierarchical nature of schools is found in John Darling's comment in A. S. Neill on Democratic Authority: A Lesson from Summerhill? (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050383):


[There is a] common-sense perception, endemic in our culture, of children as rather silly and immature, unfit to be given responsibility. Yet such a view is clearly in danger of being self-confirming; for where children are seen as silly and immature, they will not be given responsibility, and where they are not given responsibility, they are likely to remain silly and immature...Schooling is, and has been at least since it became compulsory, a way of insulating young people from the world of work. It is also an important mechanism for stopping young people from growing up, in the phraseology of today's society, 'too quickly'. It is not entirely clear why tardy development should be seen as a virtue, but it seems likely that one reason for disliking rapid maturation is that this upsets our low-level expectations of what is possible. Because our society has these low-level expectations, it is entitled to treat children with an enveloping paternalism, which in turn fosters the infirm condition previously assumed.

So while it is reasonable to assume that children will be somewhat less competent than their elders, a significant amount of their "incompetence" is also an arbitrary condition bred by ageist socialization, which is self-justifying, as Darling noted, since the incompetence bred by this socialization is a "cause" for stricter, more authoritarian controls.


b)There are rules, but no enforcement.

It is stated there is to be no private property, only enough for everyone to need. i.e. a large family will have a larger house that a small family, but that per person the space will be equal.
Who will regulate this? Afterall there is no state police, infact there is not state at all. And as no one can rule over another, If someone says your house is too big and out should move out and you say no, what happens? Are they allowed to dominate over you by forcing you out?
I would guess a therotical answer would be that 'we all want to help eachother' and so would never refuse to move if asked. But as we well know, theory and reality are very far from cozy with eachother.

You seem to have confused an absence of a state with an absence of social organization, which is a common error among anti-anarchists. I certainly advocate quite extensive social organization, but social organization characterized by horizontal confederations of decentralized collectives and communes rather than any top-down organization, meaning that I look to grassroots efforts.

Your objection is also one common among Marxists, who assert that since a revolution is by its very nature a forcible, coercive thing, an anarchist revolution is not actually "non-hierarchical." Our general response to that is that the forcible expropriation of productive resources from the financial class (if they refuse to surrender control of them and attempt to violently resist) is an instance of justifiable force, since it is a means to a greater end of diminished coercion. That principle is in practice through the ability of law enforcement officers and the criminal justice system to forcibly arrest and incarcerate violent criminals; though this is indeed an establishment of force, it is one intended to result in the consequence of diminished force/coercion in the total sense, since the establishment of force/coercion by the violent criminal is prevented. Similarly, we regard it as acceptable for an anarchist militia (subject to the same horizontal, democratic organization as other aspects of anarchist society; consider the Makhnovists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine) or the Durruti Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column), for example), to forcibly expropriate productive resources that are seized, hoarded, and violently dominated by the financial class if it should come to that.


C) Economy
This is the most Important of all. Say the state you lived in broke off from the USA and became Anarchist-Communist. So there you are with your own area of land and no state or goverment or currency. I dare say the first thing you would notice is that the lights in your house wouldn't go on, and that the super-markets would be closed, and I won't bother using the toilet too much, after all the sweage treatment plants won't have anyone working in them.

Why will no one be working? Because there is no such thing as money, because there is no state, if a man works all day at the power-plant what will he get for it? Zip.

And even if everyone did decided to work for nothing except to 'help eachother' then you would soon run into problems anyway, like if your power-plants run on Nuke energy, but your 'area' does not have a sorce of uranium...what do you do? I mean, you can't trade with a nation/state that does have uranium, afterall you have no goverment in power to make trading deals.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you read absolutely none of the links that I provided to you. Let's go over this slowly; anarchism is based on the economic system of socialism. Socialism entails remuneration based on measurement of labor itself; generally speaking, market socialism entails remuneration based on the product of one's labor (with provisions on the basis of needs perhaps also forming a safety net of sorts at times), collectivism entails remuneration based on one's labor effort and democratically determined wages, and communism entails allocation of labor based on abilities and of goods and resources based on needs with a provision for deprivation of public resources for those able but unwilling to work. As put by my fellow anarcho-communist, Peter Kropotkin:


Is it not evident that if a society, founded on the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it would protect itself without the authoritarian organization we have nowadays, and without having recourse to wagedom?

Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will, save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post. Must they on his account dissolve the group, elect a president to impose fines, and work out a code of penalties? It is evident that neither one nor the other will be done, but that someday the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be told: "Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently, we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up with your indifference!"

This way is so natural that it is practiced everywhere, even nowadays, in all industries, in competition with all possible systems of fines, docking of wages, supervision, etc.; a workman may enter the factory at the appointed time, but if he does his work badly, if he hinders his comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he is quarrelsome, there is an end of it; he is compelled to leave the workshop.

And again, I'm not sure why you're under the mistaken impression that elimination of the state entails elimination of all social organization whatsoever.


Those 3 will do for starters, I await your replies with interest.

Are you sure that you read the literature that I provided? Your snide remarks have effectively diminished any intentions I had of being polite, so I really must say that your "criticisms" seemed rather uninformed, and something that I would expect from someone who had not read any material on the topic. Again, I'd recommend consulting the linked section of the FAQ; that really addresses many of these more elementary "objections."


One man's utopia is another man's hell.

The closest thing to a state based on anarchy these days is Somalia ... seems like a horrible place but then they are obviously missing the "communist" part.

Very common and basic fallacy. "Anarchy" has never been related to "chaos" or "disorder" in the political sense, nor to the mere absence of a recognizable central government as much as horizontal social organization based on the elimination of hierarchies. Look up Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin, and stop bothering with these common misconceptions.


The simplified version...Communist anarchy would slowly convert to the historic oppressive communism we all know, hate and fear.

That anarchism is compared to the "communism" of the USSR and other pseudo-socialist countries when anarchists were the first critics of those regimes, the first persecuted by those regimes, and the first to have their ideology banned by those regimes, is nothing more than obscene and crude perversity, an idiotic association that should be nothing more than a gruesome joke. It's somewhat akin to announcing that Malcolm X was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.


Hog You hit it on the head again. Animal Farm is one of the best examples of how the commies work. I often wonder where these lib-commies think they will be in the hierarchy of hope and change.

It's one of the best examples of how George Orwell's legacy has been twisted in one of the most Orwellian ways imaginable, as Orwell was himself a socialist, a soldier in the Spanish Civil War, fighting with the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification, and a supporter of the anarchist social revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) that occurred. His anti-totalitarianism and anti-authoritarianism was consistent with his opposition to capitalism.


I read some and mean SOME of that rambling BS. I especially like this last part I pulled out.

I this great Utopian altruistic society there would be NO production its a good thing all those greedy capitalistic companies ramped up production for everyone to be able to go pick up everything they needed prior to overthrowing those evil capitalist!!!!!!

The "post-scarcity" trend is one I frown on to some extent, but it is true that the primary cause of scarcity is not some deficiency of extraction or production, but a deficiency in allocation. That said, are you under the impression that capitalism is somehow productive? Capitalism is characterized by an abundance of negative externalities, market concentration, and asymmetric information, all efficiency killers.


Why don't you try explaining to me, a granny who owns her own business, why I should become an anarchist like yourself? Break it down for me in small bites cause I'm very ignorant of the subject. :slap:

Any large business owner will typically be resistant to any socialist ideology because of a natural desire to preserve his or her power. I was in a shouting match with a multimillionaire fat cat who manages a multi-billion dollar mutual fund only a few months ago. Naturally, he supported the extreme economic rightism of the Austrian school and passionately argued that progressive taxation was unconstitutional because of his interest in protecting his own wealth. Little will convince someone like that except an M-16 in his face when it comes time to expropriate his assets.

Small business owners are different. They'll have a greater understanding of the barriers to firm entry that characterize the capitalist labor market, and the limited social mobility that makes it so difficult to stay afloat and rise up the economic ladder. Why not just try reading An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) at first?


Well, if we are so "elementary", why do you continue to come here? Surely you should be going to the advanced level. I thought a "genius" would have moved from "elementary" to "intermediate" to "advanced" at some point. What happened to you that you would sink so low as to dust it up with us rightist hacks when you could be smoozing with the more sophisticated leftist hacks in the anarchist communities?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....little pebble in big pond or big pebble in little pond..........yep!!!! I got it!!! You like being the only anarchist here because you stand out like a sore thumb........much more exciting than just being one of the vast, faceless crowd!

No matter, it's fun playing with you.:cheers2:

An intolerance for boredom, actually; I don't find much entertainment in preaching to the choir. I'm certainly registered on the premier anarchist and socialist forum on the Internet, but am not as active as I could or should be. If I do increase my activity on the socialist forum, RevLeft, it will be to debate the Marxists more.

[Noir]

I'd much rather you started with substantive criticism instead of a baseless snide remark. Just my perverse obsession with arguments and logic and what not, y'know.

Hold the bus mate, how long have you been studying this stuff? Given that i never knew such a thing as Anarchist Communism existed a week ago you expect me to have a full understanding of it for substantive criticism? As i said on the first page i expect to be vastly out gunned here,



You first begin with a false premise, but you should instead realize that the libertarian recognizes legitimate applications for hierarchical authority in a limited sense, with childcare being one of those critical areas. As put by Noam Chomsky, "[f]or instance, when you stop your five-year-old kid from trying to cross the street, that's an authoritarian situation: it's got to be justified. Well, in that case, I think you can give a justification."

Interesting, right of the bat, Its interesting that Chomsky used the word 'justified' because that word has much more meaning and depth than it may appear, for if you are to label some actions Justified and others not, then you must surly have a framework upon which to base what is or is not just. For if there is no framework then everything and anything is justified, simply buy the fact that it is being done. This gives rise to the idea that there must be rules. But ofcourse you must start putting limits on these rules, for example in the case of child care, at what point does the child break from being a child, and thus are no longer subject to the Hierarchical rule of elders? When they are of sound mind? Whenever they decide they want to be free? Whenever their parents decide they should be free?


However, I'm of the opinion that the current degree of hierarchical authoritarianism that characterizes schools is excessive, that it has its origins in preparation of students for industrial wage slavery, and that it still conditions students to some extent, as the top-down and regimented nature of the classroom is a reflection of that of the capitalist workplace. To that end, I look to the libertarian tradition of opposition to this system, such as that of Francisco Ferrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Ferrer) and his Escuela Moderna. This spawned the Modern Schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_School_%28United_States%29) of the U.S. and the free schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school) that were a logical extension of the principle, with the longest-lasting and most famous being Summerhill School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School), which reflected a parallel interest in more libertarian education methods in the UK. The essential thrust of my opposition to the rigidly hierarchical nature of schools is found in John Darling's comment in A. S. Neill on Democratic Authority: A Lesson from Summerhill? (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050383):

I have no doubt there are problems made by the 'top-down' style of schools, however that does not mean that your system is better, just that the current system is not without flaws.
I'm also sure you can point me to a dozen separate schools that use the model you like and that work just fine, but to pretend that it would then work when spread over a whole state or a nation is making a massive leap that i personally do not think has merit.




So while it is reasonable to assume that children will be somewhat less competent than their elders, a significant amount of their "incompetence" is also an arbitrary condition bred by ageist socialization, which is self-justifying, as Darling noted, since the incompetence bred by this socialization is a "cause" for stricter, more authoritarian controls.

Damn right they will be less competent, and their children will be less competent still, and so on until you're back to the stone age, or someone sees sense and sets up a state.



You seem to have confused an absence of a state with an absence of social organization, which is a common error among anti-anarchists. I certainly advocate quite extensive social organization, but social organization characterized by horizontal confederations of decentralized collectives and communes rather than any top-down organization, meaning that I look to grassroots efforts.


Social Organisations? Sounds like Mob rule to me, with the most powerful and dominant organisations being able to bully smaller organisations.


Your objection is also one common among Marxists, who assert that since a revolution is by its very nature a forcible, coercive thing, an anarchist revolution is not actually "non-hierarchical." Our general response to that is that the forcible expropriation of productive resources from the financial class (if they refuse to surrender control of them and attempt to violently resist) is an instance of justifiable force, since it is a means to a greater end of diminished coercion.

The ends justify the means, tis the mantra of terrorists worldwide.


That principle is in practice through the ability of law enforcement officers and the criminal justice system to forcibly arrest and incarcerate violent criminals; though this is indeed an establishment of force, it is one intended to result in the consequence of diminished force/coercion in the total sense, since the establishment of force/coercion by the violent criminal is prevented. Similarly, we regard it as acceptable for an anarchist militia (subject to the same horizontal, democratic organization as other aspects of anarchist society; consider the Makhnovists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine) or the Durruti Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column), for example), to forcibly expropriate productive resources that are seized, hoarded, and violently dominated by the financial class if it should come to that.


Anarchist militia? Is this another one of these Social Organisations?...i can't see anyway in which this group would be able to dominate over anyothers and get there way /sark


I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you read absolutely none of the links that I provided to you. Let's go over this slowly; anarchism is based on the economic system of socialism. Socialism entails remuneration based on measurement of labor itself; generally speaking, market socialism entails remuneration based on the product of one's labor (with provisions on the basis of needs perhaps also forming a safety net of sorts at times), collectivism entails remuneration based on one's labor effort and democratically determined wages, and communism entails allocation of labor based on abilities and of goods and resources based on needs with a provision for deprivation of public resources for those able but unwilling to work. As put by my fellow anarcho-communist, Peter Kropotkin:
And again, I'm not sure why you're under the mistaken impression that elimination of the state entails elimination of all social organization whatsoever.

Well i can only assure you i did,
The little Story from Kropotkin also does nothing to address the point i was trying to make. With no State there is no currency, and thus no economy, so how would you therefore trade with other nations to get needed resources?



Are you sure that you read the literature that I provided? Your snide remarks have effectively diminished any intentions I had of being polite, so I really must say that your "criticisms" seemed rather uninformed, and something that I would expect from someone who had not read any material on the topic. Again, I'd recommend consulting the linked section of the FAQ; that really addresses many of these more elementary "objections."

Indeedy i'm certain i did, and i tell you the reading here has made me much more unsure of what exactly you are propsing,

You want not hierarchy, except for special cases of-course *roll eyes*
You concur that younger generations will not be as competent as older generations, and that is desirable?
You do not want a state telling people what they can and can't do, yet you believe in 'Social Organisations' one of which is a military wing that can do whatever needs done, after-all the ends will justify the means, right?
and you completely failed to address the problem of resources that do not dwell within your nation.

[SassyLady]

You seem to have confused an absence of a state with an absence of social organization, which is a common error among anti-anarchists. I certainly advocate quite extensive social organization, but social organization characterized by horizontal confederations of decentralized collectives and communes rather than any top-down organization, meaning that I look to grassroots efforts.

Your objection is also one common among Marxists, who assert that since a revolution is by its very nature a forcible, coercive thing, an anarchist revolution is not actually "non-hierarchical." Our general response to that is that the forcible expropriation of productive resources from the financial class (if they refuse to surrender control of them and attempt to violently resist) is an instance of justifiable force, since it is a means to a greater end of diminished coercion. That principle is in practice through the ability of law enforcement officers and the criminal justice system to forcibly arrest and incarcerate violent criminals; though this is indeed an establishment of force, it is one intended to result in the consequence of diminished force/coercion in the total sense, since the establishment of force/coercion by the violent criminal is prevented. Similarly, we regard it as acceptable for an anarchist militia (subject to the same horizontal, democratic organization as other aspects of anarchist society; consider the Makhnovists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine) or the Durruti Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column), for example), to forcibly expropriate productive resources that are seized, hoarded, and violently dominated by the financial class if it should come to that.


Can you give an example where this type of social organization is operative and successful?



Let's go over this slowly; anarchism is based on the economic system of socialism. Socialism entails remuneration based on measurement of labor itself; generally speaking, market socialism entails remuneration based on the product of one's labor (with provisions on the basis of needs perhaps also forming a safety net of sorts at times), collectivism entails remuneration based on one's labor effort and democratically determined wages, and communism entails allocation of labor based on abilities and of goods and resources based on needs with a provision for deprivation of public resources for those able but unwilling to work.

Aggie - what would be your assignment in this new anarchist/communistic society you speak of? What are your abilities - the ones that actually would produce something of value to the social organization you belong to.



Any large business owner will typically be resistant to any socialist ideology because of a natural desire to preserve his or her power. I was in a shouting match with a multimillionaire fat cat who manages a multi-billion dollar mutual fund only a few months ago. Naturally, he supported the extreme economic rightism of the Austrian school and passionately argued that progressive taxation was unconstitutional because of his interest in protecting his own wealth. Little will convince someone like that except an M-16 in his face when it comes time to expropriate his assets.

And you said that anarchy was not associated with chaos.......if you start putting M-16's in people's faces there will be chaos. Especially if you come to take away my hard earned assets. I am not a large business owner Aggie, but I still don't understand why I would prefer your type of society over what I've built for myself.

Once again, please explain to me why I would be happier under your plan?


Small business owners are different. They'll have a greater understanding of the barriers to firm entry that characterize the capitalist labor market, and the limited social mobility that makes it so difficult to stay afloat and rise up the economic ladder. Why not just try reading An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) at first?

Aggie - I don't need to read some theorist's ideas about why a small business owner would have a greater understanding of the barriers.........I am a small business owner and I've worked with small business owners world-wide and none of them want to live in a world as you describe. All of us took advantage of the capitalistic society to provide more for ourselves and our families.........we want them to have more than the average joe..........what you are proposing is that we still work as hard but it gets us nowhere. I still have the same size house as the other families of like size, we all still wear the same clothes, eat the same type of food and let the community decide for us what we read and do for entertainment. What I cannot see in your society is room for the individualist or self-actualization.

[Noir]

*puts on robe and wizard hat*
*casts revive*
...

[fj1200]

Section I (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) of An Anarchist FAQ,

Such silliness.


"He [sic!] will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and so on, which he owes to society as his contribution to the general production. And he will employ the second half of his day, his week, or his year, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his hobbies." [Conquest of Bread, p. 111]

I choose to satisfy golf needs during my second half. Either that or my Capitalist hobby.

[blackandred1936]

Yo, got lost on the intertubes and ended up here for some reason. Anywayz, seems there might be some unanswered q's regarding Anarchism. I'll do my best to fill in the blanks.

[NightTrain]

Yo, got lost on the intertubes and ended up here for some reason. Anywayz, seems there might be some unanswered q's regarding Anarchism. I'll do my best to fill in the blanks.

Welcome, B&R

Hopefully you'll be more user-friendly than Angry Prostate was.

[Noir]

Yo, got lost on the intertubes and ended up here for some reason. Anywayz, seems there might be some unanswered q's regarding Anarchism. I'll do my best to fill in the blanks.

Mkay, starter for ten.
Education; without a state and any form of hierarchical rule, how would you suggest we educate the next generation of Doctors, Chemists and (ironically) teachers etc?

[fj1200]

Yo, got lost on the intertubes and ended up here for some reason. Anywayz, seems there might be some unanswered q's regarding Anarchism. I'll do my best to fill in the blanks.

Why would an Anarchist create rules against Capitalism?

[blackandred1936]

Sorry, I just skimmed this thread so I apoligize if some of this is repeating itself.

1. Why would an Anarchist create rules against Capitalism?

A. First of all hi to everyone. Well the term "anarchism" actually describes a wide range of political ideas, but to keep on track lets stick with the libertarian socialist that stem from the traditions of say Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others (like Agnapostate mentioned).

Anarchist typically advocate simular ideas to which so-called socialist/communist advocate which include:

1. Abolition of wage slavery.
2. Workers in direct control of the means of production.
3. Resistance to the bourgeoisie.

What seperates the socialist/communist from the anarchist ideals is what Karl Marx refered to in his Communist Manifesto as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This has always been a faux pas if you will in the anarchist community (probably in the world as well).

From what I gather, there seems to be some understanding of Anarchist Communism, but hesitant on how a society would function in practice. Such an example would be, as Agnapostate pointed to, was in Barcelona 1936. One of the best detailed description of that period was George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. Not just in the atomsphere in Barcelona, but also a detailed history of the of the early events in the Spanish Civil War. There's loads been written on the subject, but I also noticed some resistance to reading a little bit so I wont give any other references unless asked.

Q2. Education; without a state and any form of hierarchical rule, how would you suggest we educate the next generation of Doctors, Chemists and (ironically) teachers etc?

This Q is a little more hard to answer. Anarchism isn't a strict doctrine, it has it's basic tendencies but I'm personally hesistant of "drawn out" plans. Lets take for example Diego Abad de Santillan's 1937 book,After the Revolution. De Santillan was close to the Spanish anarchist in catalonia, and wrote a very detailed description of how they should organize society after the revolution. It was very critical of the Spanish anarchist and of what they were doing and in his book you'll find an extremely detailed account of what he thought society out to look like. In my view, its too detailed; we don't know enough to start detailing what life will be like after the so-called revolution.

IMO, Rudolph Rocker rightly states to 'reject all absolute schemes and concepts' and appreciate that we can set no'definite goals for human development', but can only contemplate 'an unlimited perfectibility of social arrangements and human living conditions, which are always staining after higher forms of expression', based on new understandings and insight.

Hmm, I know William Godwin wrote a little bit on education a while back. Can't say that i've read any of his stuff yet (although he is next on my list). Here's Peter Marshall's interpretation of Godwin's idea's on education. Take it for what you will. (I have my own personal critizism as well):

Education-

The principal means of reform for Godwin is through education and his original reflections on the subject make him one of the great pioneers of libertarian and progressive thought. Godwin, perhaps more than any other thinker, recognizes that freedom is the basis of education and education is the basis of freedom. The ultimate aim of education is to develop individual understanding and to prepare children to create and enjoy a free society.

In keeping with his view of human nature, he believed that education has far greater power than government in shaping our characters. Children are thus a 'sort a raw material put into our hands, a ductile and yielding substance.' Just as nature never made a dunce, so genious is not innate but acquired. It follows that the so-called vices of youth derive not from nature but from the defects of education. Children are born innocent: confidence, kindness and benevolence constitute their entire temper. They have a deep and natural love of liberty at a time when they are never free from the 'grating interferance' of adults. Liberty is the 'school of understanding' and the 'parent of strength'; indeed children probably learn and develop more in their hours of leisure than at school.

For Godwin all education involves some form of despotism. Modern education not only corrupts the hearts of children, but undermines their reason by its unintelligible jargon. It makes little effort to accomodate their true capacities. National or State education, the great salvation of many progressive reformers, can only make matters worse. Like all public establishments, it involves the idea of permanence and actively fixes the mind in 'exploded errors': as a result, the knowledge taught in universities and colleges is way behind that which exists in unshackled members of the community.

In addition, a system of national education cannot fail to become the mirror and tool of government; they form an alliance more formidable than that of Church and State., teaching a veneration of the constitution rather than of truth. In these circumstances, it is not suprising that the teacher becomes a slave who is constantly obliged to rehandle the foundations of knowledge; and a tyrant, forever imposing his will and checking the pleasures and sallies of youth.

Godwin admits that education in a group is preferable to solitary tuition in developing talents and encouraging a sense of personal indentity. In existing society, he therefore suggests that a small independent school is best. But Godwin goes further to question the very foundations of traditional schooling.

The aim of education, he maintains, must be to generate happiness. Now virtue is essential to happiness, and to make a person virtuous he or she must become wise. Education should develop a mind which is well-regulated, active and prepared to learn. This is best achieved not by inculcating in young children any particular knowledge but by encouraging their latent talents, awakening their minds, and forming clear habits of thinking.

Godwin, however, goes on to suggest that if a pupil learns only because he or she desires it the whole formidable apparatus of education might be swept away. No figures such as teacher or pupil would then be left; each would be glad in cases of difficulty to consult someone better informed, but they would not be expected to learn anything unless they desired it. Everyone would be prepared to offer guidance and encouragement. In this way, a mind would develop according to its natural tendencies and children would be able to develop fully their potential.

Sorry I couldn't help anymore in this area.

[fj1200]

1. Why would an Anarchist create rules against Capitalism?

Anarchist typically advocate simular ideas to which so-called socialist/communist advocate which include:

1. Abolition of wage slavery.
2. Workers in direct control of the means of production.
3. Resistance to the bourgeoisie.

What seperates the socialist/communist from the anarchist ideals is what Karl Marx refered to in his Communist Manifesto as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This has always been a faux pas if you will in the anarchist community (probably in the world as well).

From what I gather, there seems to be some understanding of Anarchist Communism, but hesitant on how a society would function in practice. Such an example would be, as Agnapostate pointed to, was in Barcelona 1936. One of the best detailed description of that period was George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. Not just in the atomsphere in Barcelona, but also a detailed history of the of the early events in the Spanish Civil War. There's loads been written on the subject, but I also noticed some resistance to reading a little bit so I wont give any other references unless asked.

So you emphasize communism over anarchy then? And to control the citizens so that they adhere to your ideals you create rules, and presumably an enforcement power, that ensures compliance?

It seems to me that there would be no progress in this type of society as an individuals contribution to progress would not be valued in any type of way that would encourage its development. Likewise an individual would not be able to hire anyone if that development required more labor than one individual could provide.

Coincidentally, while reading ap's links and subsequently deeming its silliness, I found that much of the basis for the theory relied on definitions, of economics for example, that completely defied reality. Thus, it could be proven that AC was a superior system simply because it defined itself that way. Perfect example is your use of words, "wage slavery" defines a labor relationship in a purposefully negative light.

Count me dubious.

[blackandred1936]

Q. So you emphasize communism over anarchy then?

A. I was trying to emphasize freedom and equality.

Q. And to control the citizens so that they adhere to your ideals you create rules, and presumably an enforcement power, that ensures compliance?

Coincidentally, while reading ap's links and subsequently deeming its silliness, I found that much of the basis for the theory relied on definitions, of economics for example, that completely defied reality. Thus, it could be proven that AC was a superior system simply because it defined itself that way. Perfect example is your use of words, "wage slavery" defines a labor relationship in a purposefully negative light.


A. I might be reading into this wrong so correct me please, but are you suggesting that workers are naturally 'voluntary wage-slaves' and such an idea as to abolish it would require a highly despotic nation/state?

[fj1200]

A. I was trying to emphasize freedom and equality.

You specifically limit freedom by what I can/can't do and limit the associations that I might otherwise make. You can only emphasize equality down, not up.


A. I might be reading into this wrong so correct me please, but are you suggesting that workers are naturally 'voluntary wage-slaves' and such an idea as to abolish it would require a highly despotic nation/state?

I reject your "wage slave" premise, I can just as easily define your ideal as a "labor slave" simply because I say so. People are better off when they freely choose to associate with whomever they please.

I suggest that any large scale AC society is doomed to failure. If I understand Kropotkin correctly he allows for success if the commune can deliberately disassociate from an individual which by my extension means that individuals must freely associate with the same commune in the first place.


but he did agree that a freely associated anarchist commune could, and probably should, deliberately disassociate from those not fulfilling their communal agreement to do their share of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

It seems to me that the freedom of association that is disallowed for AC society to exist must be utilized so that the AC society can self-select in the first place.

[blackandred1936]

FJ: You specifically limit freedom by what I can/can't do and limit the associations that I might otherwise make. You can only emphasize equality down, not up.

A: You mean the relationship between master/slave..then yes. Please expand on why I emphasize equality down

FJ:I reject your "wage slave" premise, I can just as easily define your ideal as a "labor slave" simply because I say so. People are better off when they freely choose to associate with whomever they please.

A: Is wage-labourer a more proper term? Maybe employee?

I suggest that any large scale AC society is doomed to failure.

A: What are your thoughts on what happend in Barcelona in 1936?

If I understand Kropotkin correctly he allows for success if the commune can deliberately disassociate from an individual which by my extension means that individuals must freely associate with the same commune in the first place.

"but he did agree that a freely associated anarchist commune could, and probably should, deliberately disassociate from those not fulfilling their communal agreement to do their share of work."

A: I'm surely reading this wrong. Are you asking if you can go to a different commune.

It seems to me that the freedom of association that is disallowed for AC society to exist must be utilized so that the AC society can self-select in the first place.

A: Tried to answer but was flagged.."You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 5 posts or more."

....o for fucks sake.

[fj1200]

A: You mean the relationship between master/slave..then yes. Please expand on why I emphasize equality down

No, you cannot make everyone equal unless you make everyone equal to the lowest commend denominator. i.e. You can't make everyone rich. Are you acknowledging that you limit freedom?


A: Is wage-labourer a more proper term? Maybe employee?

At least it's not a loaded term. But your scheme doesn't seem to pay "wages."


A: What are your thoughts on what happend in Barcelona in 1936?

I know little to none of Barcelona in '36 other than they are no longer around. I can however point to many western societies that have come before and are still in existence.


A: I'm surely reading this wrong. Are you asking if you can go to a different commune.

Any commune is only successful if the participants freely associate with each other. I was trying to point out the irony of your system specifically disallowing freedom of association. Apparently I was not successful in that. Did I understand Kropotkin correctly?


A: Tried to answer but was flagged.."You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 5 posts or more."

....o for fucks sake.

One more post, you're almost there. And please don't link to a website with about 100 pages a la agna without specific reference.

[blackandred1936]

No, you cannot make everyone equal unless you make everyone equal to the lowest commend denominator. i.e. You can't make everyone rich. Are you acknowledging that you limit freedom?

Well I must say that I'm opposed to compulsory work. Though the only way to counter this is through workers themselves in a collective action.


At least it's not a loaded term. But your scheme doesn't seem to pay "wages."

I can handle that.


Any commune is only successful if the participants freely associate with each other. I was trying to point out the irony of your system specifically disallowing freedom of association. Apparently I was not successful in that. Did I understand Kropotkin correctly?

OIC now, ya if I'm understanding it right as well. I think the equivalent in a libcom society is free association. lol, are you afraid your going to get kicked out the commune by your peers?


I know little to none of Barcelona in '36 other than they are no longer around. I can however point to many western societies that have come before and are still in existence.

Ok, well I dont want to beat a dead horse with this one but the Spanish Civil War was a huge part of world history. I would encourage you read up on it. Or I could post youtube links if reading isn't your thing.

[fj1200]

Well I must say that I'm opposed to compulsory work. Though the only way to counter this is through workers themselves in a collective action.

How does that address what I said?

So there's no compulsory work in AC? I thought that was a requirement for those in the commune.


I can handle that.

OK.


OIC now, ya if I'm understanding it right as well. I think the equivalent in a libcom society is free association. lol, are you afraid your going to get kicked out the commune by your peers?

Not if I keep the wife happy. So AC wouldn't be a solution for the entire world?


Ok, well I dont want to beat a dead horse with this one but the Spanish Civil War was a huge part of world history. I would encourage you read up on it. Or I could post youtube links if reading isn't your thing.

"Barcelona in '36" is different than the "Spanish Civil War." You might want to be more specific in how it relates to the conversation. Either way it doesn't discount what I said.

Besides, I said to be specific in what you link to rather than your apparent shotgun approach.

[blackandred1936]

How does that address what I said?

OK, so would characterize 2 conflicting social classes such as an administrative (or an employing) class and a prolateriat class (working class) as freedom? If i'm missing the point of the this please correct me.


So there's no compulsory work in AC?

Not in the typical time and motion study kinda scenario. It's equaly divided based on the "to each according to his need" BS. For the life of me, I think Malatesta, Reclus or some fuckin guy who went even further than that about working. I cant find the reference though, and frankly I dont want to go to in depth anyways. Ok I'm just going to ask, are you trying to get out of work all together?


So AC wouldn't be a solution for the entire world?

Huh? why wouldn't it be federated, and international? What did I say to make you think that?


"Barcelona in '36" is different than the "Spanish Civil War." You might want to be more specific in how it relates to the conversation. Either way it doesn't discount what I said.

It has a lot, although I would say that the "Spanish Civil War" would need to be on a seperate thread. At this moment, I dont have the energy to start it.

I wasn't trying discount what you said. Although it's important to note that the revolution was simply crushed by force by communist/fascist/...ect.

[fj1200]

OK, so would characterize 2 conflicting social classes such as an administrative (or an employing) class and a prolateriat class (working class) as freedom? If i'm missing the point of the this please correct me.

Who says they're conflicting? Why is the employing class is not married to the working class for example. I don't see the job you do as the class you are in. Freedom is many things, as in freedom of association we've been discussing, but your definition is limited to social class while at the same time restricting freedom of almost everything else.


Not in the typical time and motion study kinda scenario. It's equaly divided based on the "to each according to his need" BS. For the life of me, I think Malatesta, Reclus or some fuckin guy who went even further than that about working. I cant find the reference though, and frankly I dont want to go to in depth anyways. Ok I'm just going to ask, are you trying to get out of work all together?

Regardless there is compulsory work. In your limited definition of freedom there should be no specialization of work otherwise some will enjoy work more than others and that's unacceptable right?

I'm working.


Huh? why wouldn't it be federated, and international? What did I say to make you think that?

You acknowledge freedom of association to join/leave a commune, that must mean there are other options for people to undertake.


It has a lot, although I would say that the "Spanish Civil War" would need to be on a seperate thread. At this moment, I dont have the energy to start it.

I wasn't trying discount what you said. Although it's important to note that the revolution was simply crushed by force by communist/fascist/...ect.

Please, try to discount what I said otherwise it seems that your argument relies on "well it just hasn't really been tried yet..."

FYI, I'm not sure the SCW is going to get many comments, you never know though.

[blackandred1936]

Who says they're conflicting? Why is the employing class is not married to the working class for example.

So wait, are you talking about a classless society?


Regardless there is compulsory work. In your limited definition of freedom there should be no specialization of work otherwise some will enjoy work more than others and that's unacceptable right?

I'm in favor of balenced job complexes. OK, so in libcom society would you see yourself working more or less?


You acknowledge freedom of association to join/leave a commune, that must mean there are other options for people to undertake.

lol, ok so this so called scenerio do you see libcom as the NWO with an 'invisable dictorship'. If this is the case, i'm failing horribly in trying to explain tendencies in anarchism and should probably stop talking (its not very contructive).

[Kathianne]

So wait, are you talking about a classless society?



I'm in favor of balenced job complexes. OK, so in libcom society would you see yourself working more or less?



lol, ok so this so called scenerio do you see libcom as the NWO with an 'invisable dictorship'. If this is the case, i'm failing horribly in trying to explain tendencies in anarchism and should probably stop talking (its not very contructive).

Please use the quote function so everyone may follow along.

[Indy]

Please use the quote function so everyone may follow along.
Here's how all these communist societies turn out. Professors who never did a days work in their life are big on theory, and short on reality. Everyone is equal, except some are more equal than others. The misery is never spread equally.
http://www.therealcuba.com/index.htm

[fj1200]

lol, ok so this so called scenerio do you see libcom as the NWO with an 'invisable dictorship'. If this is the case, i'm failing horribly in trying to explain tendencies in anarchism and should probably stop talking (its not very contructive).

No offense but... Yes. You claim this is about freedom and equality but have not countered effectively my assertions that freedoms must be taken away to control society and that the only equality that you would be able to muster is an equality where everyone is poorer.

The only freedom you can provide is freedom from "wage slavery" but that is only a semantic argument as everyone will be required to work in what is essentially "labor slavery."

And libcom?

[blackandred1936]

No offense but... Yes. You claim this is about freedom and equality but have not countered effectively my assertions that freedoms must be taken away to control society and that the only equality that you would be able to muster is an equality where everyone is poorer.


Alright, I'll try this from a different angle. You said that you were currently working. Do you work for an employeer?

[blackandred1936]

libcom= libertarian communism...sorry

[fj1200]

Alright, I'll try this from a different angle. You said that you were currently working. Do you work for an employeer?

I'm currently apprenticing for a benevolent dictatorship position. I'm intrigued as to how I can convince my charges to work for the benefit of society while at the same time accepting little in wages.

[fj1200]

libcom= libertarian communism...sorry

Is that substantially different than AC?

... not according to Wikipedia anyway.

[blackandred1936]

I'm currently apprenticing for a benevolent dictatorship position. I'm intrigued as to how I can convince my charges to work for the benefit of society while at the same time accepting little in wages.

So you work in the private sector?

[blackandred1936]

Is that substantially different than AC?

... not according to Wikipedia anyway.

Naw, just funner to say. I'll stick with AC since it's more familiar.

[SassyLady]

So you work in the private sector?

Where do you work Black?

[fj1200]

So you work in the private sector?

Once I attain benevolent dictator status I'll overlook your insolence.

[blackandred1936]

Where do you work Black?

eh, i prefer to stay anonymous because THE MAN watches these threads. Im a tech though.


Once I attain benevolent dictator status I'll overlook your insolence.

God I hope your joking.

[SassyLady]

eh, i prefer to stay anonymous because THE MAN watches these threads. Im a tech though.



God I hope your joking.

I think fj1200 is THE MAN that you are so worried about. Good luck! :poke:

[fj1200]

God I hope your joking.

I contend there will be more freedom under my benevolent dictatorship than your Anarchist Communism.

[fj1200]

I think fj1200 is THE MAN that you are so worried about. Good luck! :poke:

Shhh, only so much insolence will be overlooked.

[blackandred1936]

I contend there will be more freedom under my benevolent dictatorship than your Anarchist Communism.

What kinda freedom is this?

[fj1200]

What kinda freedom is this?

Freedom to associate, freedom to engage in capitalistic endeavors, freedom to engage in a wage paying position.

Oh yeah, plenty of private property rights, including intellectual property, too.

[blackandred1936]

Freedom to associate, freedom to engage in capitalistic endeavors, freedom to engage in a wage paying position.

Oh yeah, plenty of private property rights, including intellectual property, too.

Would freedom of assembly be included in this ideal freedom of yours such as the formation of an anarcho-syndicalist union without state or private repression?

[fj1200]

Would freedom of assembly be included in this ideal freedom of yours such as the formation of an anarcho-syndicalist union without state or private repression?

Sure, but you will be to busy enjoying all your other freedoms to bother with such trivialities. Have you been out protesting actually having to pay for tuition lately?

[blackandred1936]

Sure, but you will be to busy enjoying all your other freedoms to bother with such trivialities.

Great, I think we've found common ground.


Have you been out protesting actually having to pay for tuition lately?

State side or overseas?

[fj1200]

Great, I think we've found common ground.

State side or overseas?

London of course, that's where the fun ones are these days right? Nothing like protesting after getting less free stuff.

[blackandred1936]

I'm in the states, so no.

I think all of the fun has spread through most of western europe.

[fj1200]

Well that's too bad. We had some protests here in GA earlier this year, but alas no royal motorcade to attack.

[blackandred1936]

Well that's too bad. We had some protests here in GA earlier this year, but alas no royal motorcade to attack.

Doesn't suprise me.

[fj1200]

Would freedom of assembly be included in this ideal freedom of yours such as the formation of an anarcho-syndicalist union without state or private repression?

I should expand on this one; You are free to form said union but any and all potential employers are certainly free to NOT engage your union at their discretion.

[blackandred1936]

I should expand on this one; You are free to form said union but any and all potential employers are certainly free to NOT engage your union at their discretion.

OIC what you did there. So in short it means something like this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/1912_Lawrence_Textile_Strike_1.jpg

[fj1200]

OIC what you did there. So in short it means something like this?

No, there won't be any government created Depressions with my benevolency.

[blackandred1936]

No, there won't be any government created Depressions with my benevolency.

Hmmm... like this?

http://www.tourwestamerica.com/Uploads/disneyland6.jpg

[fj1200]

Hmmm... like this?

That doesn't look like a Depression. Depressing maybe but that's when you're being herded like cattle in line for 60 minutes for 2 minutes of fun... Kinda like Anarchist Communism now that I think about it.

[blackandred1936]

That doesn't look like a Depression.

Well your the one advocating private property rights, intellectual property, freedom to engage in capitalistic endeavors, no government created Depressions. I'm just trying to envision this capitalist utopia that your describing. And I can't imagine any place else that fits this description than the magic kingdom.


Depressing maybe but that's when you're being herded like cattle in line for 60 minutes for 2 minutes of fun...

Careful, starting sound like an anti-capitalist there. Better stay on track to whatever party-line you follow.

[SassyLady]

Better stay on track to whatever party-line you follow.

Why?

[blackandred1936]

Why?

You really asking?

[SassyLady]

You really asking?

Yes....why do you insist on someone sticking "to the party line". I thought the whole point of debate was to present all sides and allow people to defend or accept a premise.

Sounds like you want to force someone to remain in a stereotype.

[blackandred1936]

Yes....why do you insist on someone sticking "to the party line". I thought the whole point of debate was to present all sides and allow people to defend or accept a premise.

Sounds like you want to force someone to remain in a stereotype.

Oh sorry, lol, I was handing out a thick dose of sarcasm earlier (thought it was obvious, but I guess not.) I really want to keep this discussion serious, but it keeps going the other direction.

And to clarify, i'm not here to "convert" anyone to AC, but to maybe answer q's the best of my ability.

[fj1200]

Well your the one advocating private property rights, intellectual property, freedom to engage in capitalistic endeavors, no government created Depressions. I'm just trying to envision this capitalist utopia that your describing. And I can't imagine any place else that fits this description than the magic kingdom.

It's not that hard to envision, all you need to do is pay attention to most free-market based capitalist economies. They are the ones that have provided superior living standards to more people than any other model.


Careful, starting sound like an anti-capitalist there. Better stay on track to whatever party-line you follow.

The party line is everyone needs to love Disney World? Seriously, what party line am I following?

[fj1200]

Oh sorry, lol, I was handing out a thick dose of sarcasm earlier (thought it was obvious, but I guess not.) I really want to keep this discussion serious, but it keeps going the other direction.

I've been trying to point out, successfully if you ask me, that there are inherent inconsistencies in AC. You say you want to emphasize 1) Freedom and 2) Equality.

1) Freedom; the only freedom that you allege that you can deliver is freedom from "wage slavery" but at the same time you acknowledge that you need to limit a multitude of other freedoms (hopefully we don't need to rehash the list). And even the freedom from wage slavery is a misnomer because there is still a labor requirement, rightly, in any society.

I would even submit to you that even the right to assemble, freedom of speech, form an anarcho-syndicalist union, etc. would ultimately lead to a further restriction of freedoms because if :laugh: AC didn't create the utopia you envision I wouldn't be able to assemble to protest the diminution of living standards that might :laugh: come about.

2) Equality; it's been shown historically that any attempt to create equality has only served to crush the freedoms (see above) of everyone while at the same time driving standards of living down. As I said previously, you can only drive equality down to which you've not responded effectively.


And to clarify, i'm not here to "convert" anyone to AC, but to maybe answer q's the best of my ability.

What is the point of debate without the effort to convert someone to the correctness of their point of view?

[blackandred1936]

Unfortunatly I'm starting to have car problems and dont have much time for a proper response. So I'm just going to let someone else do the talking for the time being. I'll respond back when I have time. Until then feel free and tell me how lame it was to post u-tube videos for a response. I deserve it.


free markets:
1. SgFlJjnULh0
2. Au2AiBfcxAs
3. 4SWT4QBMUM8
4. gAEAHPaVNNE
5. em1bwo4NHAw


Anarchism (and Ethal Mcdonald) in the Spanish Civil War:


1. A6_X5m32jM0
2. P6GXZYiKWJM
3. P9vwayE-r_I
4. LOOMakqjjgE
5. OqfDVQlRFFk
6. uYG43N2oJhE
7. X4-Ojqu3gF8
8. 9S9WvL7jqb4

[Nukeman]

What most "anarchist/communist" forget is that we will NOT have the same standard of living we are accustomed to under their leadership.. When you take profit out of the equation there is NO motive other the altruism... Now realistically how many altruistic people do you know?????? Who know how to build things and make a difference in your life...

[fj1200]

I'll respond back when I have time.

Yeeeeaaaaahhhh I'm not going to watch those. I'll wait.

[fj1200]

free markets:

Oh geez, I'll admit to not paying too much attention to Chomsky and now I know it's for good reason. He seemed to be spending most of his time complaining about the state's intervention into free markets than the free markets themselves. Something I can agree with but his logic seems to validate what I said when we started all this:


Coincidentally, while reading ap's links and subsequently deeming its silliness, I found that much of the basis for the theory relied on definitions, of economics for example, that completely defied reality. Thus, it could be proven that AC was a superior system simply because it defined itself that way. Perfect example is your use of words, "wage slavery" defines a labor relationship in a purposefully negative light.

I look forward to YOUR thoughts not those of someone else.

[fj1200]

Now here's some Anarchism I can get behind...

Anarcho capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist)

This example seems to be the longest lasting example of any of the Anarchisms.

Icelandic Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth)

[blackandred1936]

Sorry about the wait...

FJ: Anarcho-Capitalism

A: Jesus, I had a feeling it was this. Do you advocate for a night watchman state?

FJ: The party line is everyone needs to love Disney World? Seriously, what party line am I following?

A: Well you might not love Disney World specifically, but since the invisible hand of the freemarket has spoken then its a legit institution? please correct me if i'm wrong.

FJ: I've been trying to point out, successfully if you ask me, that there are inherent inconsistencies in AC. You say you want to emphasize 1) Freedom and 2) Equality.

1) Freedom; the only freedom that you allege that you can deliver is freedom from "wage slavery" but at the same time you acknowledge that you need to limit a multitude of other freedoms (hopefully we don't need to rehash the list). And even the freedom from wage slavery is a misnomer because there is still a labor requirement, rightly, in any society.

A: Anarchist usually emphasis dismantling hierarchal relationships that cant justify themselves (think this has already been mentioned). Well you mentioned AC as a form of labor slavery. Do you feel that all labor is a form of slavery?

FJ: I would even submit to you that even the right to assemble, freedom of speech, form an anarcho-syndicalist union, etc. would ultimately lead to a further restriction of freedoms because if AC didn't create the utopia you envision I wouldn't be able to assemble to protest the diminution of living standards that might come about.

A: Can you give a specific historical example of an AS union that has suppresed an organization in such a manor?

FJ: 2) Equality; it's been shown historically that any attempt to create equality has only served to crush the freedoms (see above) of everyone while at the same time driving standards of living down. As I said previously, you can only drive equality down to which you've not responded effectively.

A: Do you consider strikes for the 8 hour day, the civil rights movement, ect.. as an attempt to crush freedoms? Also would you say it has been historically shown that such movements that have flown under the banner Liberty, Equality, Fraternity but ended up being crushed were due to the hierarchical relationships that existed in such movements?

FJ: What is the point of debate without the effort to convert someone to the correctness of their point of view?

A: I'm fine with people obtaining a fresh point of view. But converting people just makes it sound like i'm a missionary trying to recruit people into my faith. fuck that.

FJ: I look forward to YOUR thoughts not those of someone else.

A: A lot of my own knowledge however has developed from others sharing there own insight. Is this OK with you?

[fj1200]

A: Jesus, I had a feeling it was this. Do you advocate for a night watchman state?

You had a feeling it was what? I was just trying to find some common ground, lighten up brother. :)


The government's responsibilities are limited to protecting individuals from coercion, fraud and theft, to requiring reparation to victims, and to defending the country from foreign aggression.

Advocacy of a minimal state is known as minarchism.[1] Minarchists propose to enforce a night watchman state with a clearly-defined constitution limiting the government's powers.

Yeah, that's a crazy idea isn't it? I'd add enforcement of private property rights, but here's the thing, do you or do you not acknowledge that some sort of state would be required under your utopia?

It also seems to me in your Anarchic world a night watchman would also be required. I'm not sure why you think my state would be more intrusive than your state (pending your acknowledgment of one) which would have the extra responsibility of policing the freedoms that are limited by society.


A: Well you might not love Disney World specifically, but since the invisible hand of the freemarket has spoken then its a legit institution? please correct me if i'm wrong.

It's a legit institution, I'd just rather not spend much time there. But you brought it up, perhaps you can go into more detail as to why.


A: Anarchist usually emphasis dismantling hierarchal relationships that cant justify themselves (think this has already been mentioned). Well you mentioned AC as a form of labor slavery. Do you feel that all labor is a form of slavery?

Just because YOU say that those relationships don't justify themselves doesn't mean they're unjustifiable. Are you implying that there are some hierarchical relationships that DO justify themselves?

I don't think I said AC was "labor slavery" only that any type of labor/wages/etc. could be termed as slavery if one wanted to define it that way. But to answer your question, of course all labor is NOT slavery but am I laboring for myself or am I laboring for someone else? If I'm laboring for myself, and even earning wages in return, then it's not slavery.


A: Can you give a specific historical example of an AS union that has suppresed an organization in such a manor?

I didn't say that an AS union would suppress, I said that those freedoms, including forming an AS union, COULD be suppressed if I was unable to protest presumably lower living standards. My sentence needs to be read in context with the paragraph above in my original post that references the freedoms that are suppressed in AC.

However, there are many instances of suppression in totalitarian communist states and I haven't read of any large-scale AC states last long enough to give a decent track record. In small-scale AC the freedom to associate/disassociate at will would presumably make suppression counterproductive.


A: Do you consider strikes for the 8 hour day, the civil rights movement, ect.. as an attempt to crush freedoms? Also would you say it has been historically shown that such movements that have flown under the banner Liberty, Equality, Fraternity but ended up being crushed were due to the hierarchical relationships that existed in such movements?

No, I'm not sure why you think I would think it an attempt to crush freedoms. Whose freedoms would I think were being crushed? Those movements that were "crushed" I would say were not due to the hierarchical relationship but rather to the lack of power that labor had. If you're referring to the Great Depression, for example, then it was a time where there was high unemployment which gives pricing power over labor to the employer. If you're referring to the '20s, as another example, it would be interesting to see if immigration was expanding the supply of labor in conjunction with automation lessening the need for labor; either way the unemployment rate was very low during the '20s which would have given pricing power over labor to the employee. I don't recall how much labor strife there was during the '20s, certainly less than the '30s, but much of that could have been due to a more "employer-friendly" supreme court.


A: I'm fine with people obtaining a fresh point of view. But converting people just makes it sound like i'm a missionary trying to recruit people into my faith. fuck that.

But without "recruitment to your faith" there is no conversion to an AC society.


A: A lot of my own knowledge however has developed from others sharing there own insight. Is this OK with you?

Nothing wrong with that and we all do it but you're the one who posted an hours worth of Chomsky. Although you did admit to it being a lame act. :laugh:

We should get together and have a drink poured by a wage slave in an unjustifiable hierarchical relationship subjugated to the Bourgeoisie. It'd be fun.

[blackandred1936]

FJ: You had a feeling it was what?

A:Well you just sound like a person who advocates anarcho-captialism

FJ: I was just trying to find some common ground, lighten up brother.

A: Well like I mentioned anarchism extends to a wide political thought, but their are some folks who regard themselves as anarchist though I wouldn't fit them in such a catagory or at least serious anarchist. Call me sectarian if you will. Take for example these fucking lunatics:
SBi_SvDX3XM

FJ: Yeah, that's a crazy idea isn't it? I'd add enforcement of private property rights, but here's the thing, do you or do you not acknowledge that some sort of state would be required under your utopia?

It also seems to me in your Anarchic world a night watchman would also be required. I'm not sure why you think my state would be more intrusive than your state (pending your acknowledgment of one) which would have the extra responsibility of policing the freedoms that are limited by society.

A: Firstly, I should say that I'm always hesitant of ideas such as a utopia . As I've previously stated before in agreement with Rudolph Rocker to 'reject all absolute schemes and concepts' and appreciate that we can set no'definite goals for human development', but can only contemplate 'an unlimited perfectibility of social arrangements and human living conditions, which are always staining after higher forms of expression', based on new understandings and insight. Secondly, why would it be necessary to have a night watchman state? property is abolished..

FJ: I'm not sure why you think my state would be more intrusive than your state (pending your acknowledgment of one) which would have the extra responsibility of policing the freedoms that are limited by society.

A: Well from my understanding the only government that would exist would be police/military to protect private proporty. This sounds like a privitised police state.

FJ: Just because YOU say that those relationships don't justify themselves doesn't mean they're unjustifiable. Are you implying that there are some hierarchical relationships that DO justify themselves?

A: But what if its just not me. Take say a relationship between employee/employeer. The constant threat of fear if you come in a little late, making a small screw up, constantly being watched by cameras, or just general fear of the boss. Do these things concern you at all?

FB: I don't think I said AC was "labor slavery" only that any type of labor/wages/etc. could be termed as slavery if one wanted to define it that way. But to answer your question, of course all labor is NOT slavery but am I laboring for myself or am I laboring for someone else? If I'm laboring for myself, and even earning wages in return, then it's not slavery.

A: So would it be fair to say that you dont want the fruits of your labor stripped away from you?

FJ: I didn't say that an AS union would suppress, I said that those freedoms, including forming an AS union, COULD be suppressed if I was unable to protest presumably lower living standards. My sentence needs to be read in context with the paragraph above in my original post that references the freedoms that are suppressed in AC.

A: Sorry, i'm still a bit confused by this TBH. Who would be suppressing your ability to protest against your trying to raise your standerd of living? Though in order to achieve this, are you suppressing others at the same time?

FJ: No, I'm not sure why you think I would think it an attempt to crush freedoms. Whose freedoms would I think were being crushed? Those movements that were "crushed" I would say were not due to the hierarchical relationship but rather to the lack of power that labor had. If you're referring to the Great Depression, for example, then it was a time where there was high unemployment which gives pricing power over labor to the employer. If you're referring to the '20s, as another example, it would be interesting to see if immigration was expanding the supply of labor in conjunction with automation lessening the need for labor; either way the unemployment rate was very low during the '20s which would have given pricing power over labor to the employee. I don't recall how much labor strife there was during the '20s, certainly less than the '30s, but much of that could have been due to a more "employer-friendly" supreme court.

A: Well in regards to the 8 hour work day, those actions began before that which peaked around the late 19th century with such events like the Haymarket affair.

FJ: But without "recruitment to your faith" there is no conversion to an AC society.

A: I'm not saying people shouldn't organize, but its not an indoctrinatin process. Its getting people to stand up to real problems that they face everyday such as fear of the boss, not being late by a few minutes, ect... Theres a lot of problem in our daily lives that we just dont face or we look away and ignore the issue.

FJ: We should get together and have a drink poured by a wage slave in an unjustifiable hierarchical relationship subjugated to the Bourgeoisie. It'd be fun.

A: Not bad, but this is the proper way to make fun of an anarchist IMO:
5Xd_zkMEgkI

[fj1200]

A:Well you just sound like a person who advocates anarcho-captialism

Honestly I didn't know someone had put a name to such a thing until a couple of days ago but if we're going to argue unachieved ideals...


A: Well like I mentioned anarchism extends to a wide political thought, but their are some folks who regard themselves as anarchist though I wouldn't fit them in such a catagory or at least serious anarchist. Call me sectarian if you will. Take for example these fucking lunatics:

"Someone call the police." :laugh: I do need to keep reminding myself the difference between Anarchy and Anarchism.


A: Firstly, I should say that I'm always hesitant of ideas such as a utopia . As I've previously stated before in agreement with Rudolph Rocker to 'reject all absolute schemes and concepts' and appreciate that we can set no'definite goals for human development', but can only contemplate 'an unlimited perfectibility of social arrangements and human living conditions, which are always staining after higher forms of expression', based on new understandings and insight. Secondly, why would it be necessary to have a night watchman state? property is abolished..

I only use "utopia" as the highest realization of your goals for society. Interesting quote but it seems to me that encouraging creative endeavors and protecting the resulting intellectual property is a way to encourage and celebrate human expression. I still maintain that you are limiting freedoms, would this not need to be policed?


A: Well from my understanding the only government that would exist would be police/military to protect private proporty. This sounds like a privitised police state.

No, who would enforce assaults on your person in your view?


A: But what if its just not me. Take say a relationship between employee/employeer. The constant threat of fear if you come in a little late, making a small screw up, constantly being watched by cameras, or just general fear of the boss. Do these things concern you at all?

If people have the freedom to associate and sell their labor services to an employer then they have the freedom to sell their labor to a different employer.


A: So would it be fair to say that you dont want the fruits of your labor stripped away from you?

What do you mean, the "fruits of my labor"? The widgets I make every day? They are not my widgets but I do expect to be compensated for the labor that I provide an employer.


A: Sorry, i'm still a bit confused by this TBH. Who would be suppressing your ability to protest against your trying to raise your standerd of living? Though in order to achieve this, are you suppressing others at the same time?

Yeah I don't remember what I was thinking either :laugh: except that there are some who won't be fully realized individuals because they would feel suppressed by society.


A: Well in regards to the 8 hour work day, those actions began before that which peaked around the late 19th century with such events like the Haymarket affair.

I was using those as examples, but my point is in how much power labor has to control their working environment. I should learn more about oppression of the proletariat as part of my benevolent dictator apprenticeship. ;)


A: I'm not saying people shouldn't organize, but its not an indoctrinatin process. Its getting people to stand up to real problems that they face everyday such as fear of the boss, not being late by a few minutes, ect... Theres a lot of problem in our daily lives that we just dont face or we look away and ignore the issue.

OK.


FJ: We should get together and have a drink poured by a wage slave in an unjustifiable hierarchical relationship subjugated to the Bourgeoisie. It'd be fun.

A: Not bad, but this is the proper way to make fun of an anarchist IMO:


:laugh: That's good.

[blackandred1936]

Figured I'd stroll down memory lane. I did notice though that Agnapostate joined the marines. I didn't know him personally, but fuck he must have been desperate. :salute:

[fj1200]

^I can imagine you've been pining for some intellectual debate lo these past two years and it finally drove you to log in. :poke:

[Robert A Whit]

^I can imagine you've been pining for some intellectual debate lo these past two years and it finally drove you to log in. :poke:


I advise you guys to read the folowing book.

The author was an officer in the Army flying helicopters during the Vietnam War. He is super intelligent.

http://www.amazon.com/Theres-Government-Like-nonvoters-manifesto/dp/1553695739 (http://www.amazon.com/Theres-Government-Like-nonvoters-manifesto/dp/1553695739)
<o:p></o:p>
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful <o:p></o:p>
<v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape style="WIDTH: 48pt; HEIGHT: 9pt" id=_x0000_i1025 alt="5.0 out of 5 stars" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0._V192240867_.gif" src="file:///D:/DOCUME~1/Bob/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>Crashing the party, October 30, 2002 <o:p></o:p>
By <o:p></o:p>
Tim Swanson (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/ADOWIB79USH49/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pdp)<o:p></o:p>
This review is from: There's No Government Like NO Government: the nonvoter's manifesto (Paperback) <o:p></o:p>
Actually, Jackney Sneeb didn't just crash the party; he exposed the hosts for what they were: crooks, cons and thieves. <o:p></o:p>
In psychology there is a term referred to as `conditioning' and along with it `reinforcement.' A classic example of mental conditioning is the (in)famous experiment by Pavlov's Dogs. Briefly, in 1904 Dr. Ivan Pavlov trained a group of dogs to associate ringing of a bell with food so they would start salivating. <o:p></o:p>
Contemporaneously, when words such as `abortion,' `taxation,' `democracy,' or `rights' are used, a trigger within the minds of many individuals turns on (or off) creating a ruckus of brow-beating, chest thumpers... similar to Guerilla's in the jungle. <o:p></o:p>
This continuous training, indoctrination and brainwashing of unsuspecting individuals is continually done on a daily basis throughout the world. As he should, Mr. Sneeb takes the reader from the very basic concept of this delusion, this mindset of authoritarianism and meticulously breaks it apart into smaller digestible pieces. <o:p></o:p>
I should warn readers; this is not a hunky dory feel-warm and fuzzy book about a particular realpolitik. No, what Mr. Sneeb does is show the phony belief that the `authority' by which statism, government and coercive force presume to rule does not exist. <o:p></o:p>
Taking no prisoners he is quite candid with the reader, treating the audience as a logical and rational creature. Yet, he does not insult their intelligent by suggesting how as a mortal, he is authorized to initiate force against you or anyone else. <o:p></o:p>
Outrageous, dynamic, bold and even heroic; Mr. Sneeb truly fights for the little man: the individual human fighting for his life against the powers that be. <o:p></o:p>
When this book catches hold of the American psyche (or anyone for that matter), it threatens to erode the very foundations of the world's last remaining superpower. <o:p></o:p>
Some poignant quotes from the book (p. 9&10): <o:p></o:p>
"So, from the authoritarian's conditioned response we see in his philosophy the absurd result that people who do the right thing should be locked up, and people doing the wrong thing should run free -- which is why that so often happens in politics." <o:p></o:p>
"If the [money] is taken out of the taxes you paid without raising your taxes, then the general revenues will be [money] light. The difference must be made up somewhere, and it is: the revenue must come from those who checked "No," obviously. So, in a cynical way the lefties are using the IRS to steal money from the righties. If you don't want [money]of your money to pay for the president's election campaign, you must check "Yes."" <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

[blackandred1936]

^I can imagine you've been pining for some intellectual debate lo these past two years and it finally drove you to log in. :poke:

Naa, not really.

[blackandred1936]

I advise you guys to read the folowing book


Meh...

If it hasn't already been stated, I should probably specify that libertarian politics aren’t just limited to critiques of the state alone.

[fj1200]

Naa, not really.

You missed my biting wit then?

[Robert A Whit]

Read the book first. I would not declare that his book is Libertarian.

I think he admits to being anarchist.

[blackandred1936]

Read the book first. I would not declare that his book is Libertarian.

I think he admits to being anarchist.

Both terms (anarchism/libertarianism) are pretty loaded political terms. Personally, it's a really annoying discussion.

As for the book itself:

Mr. Sneeb truly fights for the little man
Do you think you can summarize how Mr. Sneeb “fights” for the little man?

[blackandred1936]

You missed my biting wit then?
Not really

[Robert A Whit]

Both terms (anarchism/libertarianism) are pretty loaded political terms. Personally, it's a really annoying discussion.

As for the book itself:

Do you think you can summarize how Mr. Sneeb “fights” for the little man?

Yep, he arms them with so much information that it is then up to the little man to stand up for his rights.

[blackandred1936]

Yep, he arms them with so much information that it is then up to the little man to stand up for his rights.
In what way does the little man stand up for himself?

[Robert A Whit]

In what way does the little man stand up for himself?

He joins the fight.

[blackandred1936]

He joins the fight.

What fight?

Also probably need a where, why, and how briefly explained as well. Context helps.

[Robert A Whit]

What fight?

Also probably need a where, why, and how briefly explained as well. Context helps.

If you mean fist fights or killing people, only , then you won't understand the fight I speak of. I speak of a fight of ideals, of ways to take out those trying to be our rulers, our masters.

Sneeb (not his actual name, and he gives it in his book) is very articulate. I spoke to him at length and he cites our talks in his book. But his book is about the fight. Not with violence, but with ideas of liberty.

This reminds me of the time in Germany when I talked to a man who lived under the communists.

Why didn't you revolt i asked. He says, they did not hold guns in my face.

So, why did you abandon communism to go to Berlin I wanted to know.

Because the communinists finally got around to taking my livlihood, my home and so forth he said. When he bailed out, he left nothing that he owned. It was all taken in the name of communism.

I find it strange that so many speak of the constitution who seem not to comprehend true liberty and want me to tell them reasons to keep the current government. I laugh a lot over that. Hail to Jackney Sneeb and I recommend his book.

[blackandred1936]

If you mean fist fights or killing people, only , then you won't understand the fight I speak of. I speak of a fight of ideals, of ways to take out those trying to be our rulers, our masters.

You're right, I don't understand. Because I have no idea who, what(specifically) or how (other than the occasional martre of there oppressers whom ever they may b) they are fighting against. Possibly some streetfighting with some tankies maybe?

[Robert A Whit]

You're right, I don't understand. Because I have no idea who, what(specifically) or how (other than the occasional martre of there oppressers whom ever they may b) they are fighting against. Possibly some streetfighting with some tankies maybe?

Many if not most Americans are in the dark about government. The book I cited explains Government.

Government oppresses. You may not notice, but those sensitive to this matter do and have noticed.

Jackney Sneeb compares the US Government to the Mafia.

[blackandred1936]

Many if not most Americans are in the dark about government. The book I cited explains Government.

Government oppresses. You may not notice, but those sensitive to this matter do and have noticed.

Jackney Sneeb compares the US Government to the Mafia.


O ffs, this is y i said meh. That book sounds very limited to some weird right-wing critique of the government. Libertarians, like myself, are critical of much more than that (trade unions, nationalism, wage labour, the Left, Capital, ect.)

[fj1200]

Libertarians, like myself...

Have you changed your political viewpoint?

[blackandred1936]

Have you changed your political viewpoint?

no

[Robert A Whit]

O ffs, this is y i said meh. That book sounds very limited to some weird right-wing critique of the government. Libertarians, like myself, are critical of much more than that (trade unions, nationalism, wage labour, the Left, Capital, ect.)

Not only is it not wierd it is purely logical. I did not state he is not against those you are against. He is.

It bumps you off your comfortable stool for sure though.

I may see if I can come up with some excerpts.

Actually, i expected that you would be curious and check out the book. Alas, you depend only on me.

[Robert A Whit]

Not only is it not wierd it is purely logical. I did not state he is not against those you are against. He is.

It bumps you off your comfortable stool for sure though.

I may see if I can come up with some excerpts.

Actually, i expected that you would be curious and check out the book. Alas, you depend only on me.

I went to Amazon.com and pulled up the book. I advise you to open it. Read the first dozen pages and if interested, read more.

He explains your questions.
http://www.amazon.com/Theres-Government-Like-nonvoters-manifesto/dp/1553695739#_

[PostmodernProphet]

sorry....I got tricked into responding before I realized this dated back to 2010.....

[blackandred1936]

Not only is it not wierd it is purely logical. I did not state he is not against those you are against. He is.

It bumps you off your comfortable stool for sure though.

I may see if I can come up with some excerpts.

Actually, i expected that you would be curious and check out the book. Alas, you depend only on me.

I read the preview on google books. I don't see the relevance in that text. It's just some guy rambling on.