Anarchism is ANTI-CAPITALIST (duh, this a no-brainer)

[IcarusAngel]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/707836/posts

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 46]. In other words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta, "Towards Anarchism," in Man!, M. Graham (Ed), p. 75]

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]

Please pay particular attention to the "are anarchists socialists" section, because it clearly explains the reasons why anarchism is opposed to capitalism. Not only is it very well-written, it's similar to Marxism.

And yes, I realize that's a link to a right-wing website. It's kind of ironic.

(Watch them argue amongst themselves - these conservative trolls actually kind of sound like Dejavu at times, and at other times they admit that anarchism is a rejection of the system.

An admin had to step in:


That is pure unadulterated bullshit. This isn't some site about anarchists written by the government.
It is a site FOR anarchists by them. 9

12 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/707836/posts?page=12#12) posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 2:25:42 PM by Admin Moderator (http://www.freerepublic.com/~adminmoderator/)
)


Right-wingers crack me up. :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I made a video that addresses this concern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwcZbbT910

For the same reason I avoid Stormfront, I don't waste my time giving FreeRepublic hits. When last I ventured into the depths of their poorly-styled forums, I found a thread calling all African Americans racist. I do not doubt most users at FR wouldn't even understand how concepts like "no state" and "socialism" could go hand in hand.

I find to really discover whether one is a serious anarchist or not, you have to first ask if anarchism is only an opposition to the state. If they answer yes, it's best to pursue a follow up question pertaining to rape.

[LOLseph Stalin]

That's funny. Of course Anarchy is Anti-Capitalist. Anarchists want to smash the state and that's one of the main things that keeps Capitalism from collapsing. The state acts as protection for the Bourgeoisie. :P The whole concept of Anarcho-Capitalism makes me laugh. It's so contradictory against what I just said.

[IcarusAngel]

Good video. I'll watch the whole thing so your view count goes above "88" heh.

Yes, Free-Republic is bad and may be racist ("I hate blacks" is a comment that was posted there), but they're no where near as racist as some in the LP. There are still organizations dedicated to advancing "racialism" and they're mostly libertarians, like Murray, Rushton, et al.

You can go to wikibooks to read that whole article, though:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/1.2

whoever wrote it did a good job, I think it's a revised addition of the anarchist faq.

[IcarusAngel]

That's funny. Of course Anarchy is Anti-Capitalist. Anarchists want to smash the state and that's one of the main things that keeps Capitalism from collapsing. The state acts as protection for the Bourgeoisie. :P The whole concept of Anarcho-Capitalism makes me laugh. It's so contradictory against what I just said.

I know. We've recently been invaded by an influx of Dejavu's friends from Skype who think anarchy is everything from capitalism to fascism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I know. We've recently been invaded by an influx of Dejavu's friends from Skype who think anarchy is everything from capitalism to fascism.

Anarcho-Fascism? Haha! Oh the irony...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I made a video that addresses this concern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwcZbbT910

For the same reason I avoid Stormfront, I don't waste my time giving FreeRepublic hits. When last I ventured into the depths of their poorly-styled forums, I found a thread calling all African Americans racist. I do not doubt most users at FR wouldn't even understand how concepts like "no state" and "socialism" could go hand in hand.

I find to really discover whether one is a serious anarchist or not, you have to first ask if anarchism is only an opposition to the state. If they answer yes, it's best to pursue a follow up question pertaining to rape.


That might be the most schizophrenic YouTube video I've ever seen.

Which is quite an accomplishment. :lol:

[danyboy27]

what the point of this whole thread?

[коровьев]

what the point of this whole thread?
Not sure I understand. Something about people who are against private property and against a state arguing over labels with people who are for private property but against the state...

[mykittyhasaboner]

That might be the most schizophrenic YouTube video I've ever seen.

Which is quite an accomplishment. :lol:

I second this comment, that was quite fucking hilarious. :D

[danyboy27]

dinosaur game!


http://www.withak.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/noah-dino.jpg

[IcarusAngel]

what the point of this whole thread?

When Dejavu makes an absurd claim about anarchism being historically supportive of private property you think he should be left uncorrected? Anarchists, wise as they be, knew from the beginning the faulty arguments of capitalism.

Their worked was picked up on by famous intellectuals like Russell and Chomsky as well. Russell has his own musings on anarchism, for example.

This is like when Dejavu claimed that private diploma mills are responsible for creating the most programmers, which is false.


Something about people who are against private property and against a state arguing over labels with people who are for private property but against the state...

Private property comes from the state as much as corporations and the other institutes libertarian tyrants favor.

True private property comes in the forms of possessions, which is closer to nature, closer to true human happiness yet still allows for the mass production of utilities through cooperation.

You yourself seem like you could use a history lesson. The links are provided above for you to read.

[IcarusAngel]

Here's a good video that supplement's gene costa's:

bWkhlxX3xUs

If humans were naturally selfish and uncooperative and unwilling to contribute to society as Rand, Rothbard, and Paul assume, how come these people say they would continue to help the community?

[коровьев]

Private property comes from the state as much as corporations and the other institutes libertarian tyrants favor.

True private property comes in the forms of possessions, which is closer to nature, closer to true human happiness yet still allows for the mass production of utilities through cooperation.

You yourself seem like you could use a history lesson. The links are provided above for you to read. Private property predates states. States were created in part to protect private property



f humans were naturally selfish and uncooperative and unwilling to contribute to society as Rand, Rothbard, and Paul assume, how come these people say they would continue to help the community?.

you simply do not understand the arguments that Rand, Rothbard and Paul are making.

[IcarusAngel]

Private property predates states. States were created in part to protect private property.

lol. Yes, I'm sure before the state came along when man invented new tools or discovered things like fire he went to the US patent office and filed for a patent to claim his invention.

Get real. Early humans had no conception of private property.

[коровьев]

I'm sure before the state came along when man invented new tools or discovered things like fire he went to the US patent office and filed for a patent to claim his invention.
intellectual property is not what I am talking about.



Early humans had no conception of private property. Sure they did, they accepted the fact that some things belonged to them and some did not.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Sure they did, they accepted the fact that some things belonged to them and some did not.Property and possession are not interchangeable terms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wID4bidr5qg

[коровьев]

that still doesn't change the fact that private property preceded states.

[IcarusAngel]

It does change it, and good video.

The fact is that "property" in the modern conception is earned by inheritence or what have you, and it is "earned" by competition in the market place in capitalism, or in feudalism, or what have you, where it is state protected.

That is 180 degrees different from the personal possessions that early humans acquired that were used for their survival, and which did not threaten the survival of the species by them making a claim to it.

Maybe this is why one of the most famous anthropologists alive, David Graeber, is an anarchist (a real one), because he understands this.

So yes, it is clear they didn't exist within a framework of property.

[коровьев]

It does change it, and good video.

Did not see the video now, will probably watch it later.


The fact is that "property" in the modern conception is earned by inheritence or what have you, and it is "earned" by competition in the market place in capitalism, or in feudalism, or what have you, where it is state protected.

That is 180 degrees different from the personal possessions that early humans acquired that were used for their survival, and which did not threaten the survival of the species by them making a claim to it.
what? I do not understand your argument at all. The fact that people can do a lot more things with their property now, means that property is completely different?

[danyboy27]

When Dejavu makes an absurd claim about anarchism being historically supportive of private property you think he should be left uncorrected? Anarchists, wise as they be, knew from the beginning the faulty arguments of capitalism.

Their worked was picked up on by famous intellectuals like Russell and Chomsky as well. Russell has his own musings on anarchism, for example.

This is like when Dejavu claimed that private diploma mills are responsible for creating the most programmers, which is false.



Private property comes from the state as much as corporations and the other institutes libertarian tyrants favor.

True private property comes in the forms of possessions, which is closer to nature, closer to true human happiness yet still allows for the mass production of utilities through cooperation.

You yourself seem like you could use a history lesson. The links are provided above for you to read.

so at the end, beccause dejavu said something provocative somewhere on that forum, you felt it was necessary to provoke him by starting a thread on how wrong he was?
cool.

[Dejavu]

IA, Muster up a bit of courage, spend two cents on a microphone, about 20 seconds downloading skype, and lets have a real conversation. You certainly have a lot to say so I'll be more than happy to talk about it. ;)

Your hissing here is not of much value to me. Put your money where your mouth is.

[danyboy27]

at the end, if you have some kind of personnal struggle with dejavu, it might be a good idea, seriously, i dont see the point of posting that in the OI.

[IcarusAngel]

If Dejavu has evidence that anarchism has generally been supportive of capitalism, hierarchy, and voluntary slavery, he can write it in here. That is what people come here to do - argue, i.e., provide viewpoints and counter-viewpoints to any given discussion.

The fact is, scholars, and others have read the work, and there is a clear hostility to wage slavery, capitalism, and so on. The point of posting it in "OI" was to educate him and others. The article above provides plenty of excerpts, and there is an anarchist FAQ you can read by googling it.

Since Dejavu has no coherent rebuttal, he's already conceded the argument.

[danyboy27]

If Dejavu has evidence that anarchism has generally been supportive of capitalism, hierarchy, and voluntary slavery, he can write it in here. That is what people come here to do - argue, i.e., provide viewpoints and counter-viewpoints to any given discussion.

The fact is, scholars, and others have read the work, and there is a clear hostility to wage slavery, capitalism, and so on. The point of posting it in "OI" was to educate him and others. The article above provides plenty of excerpts, and there is an anarchist FAQ you can read by googling it.

Since Dejavu has no coherent rebuttal, he's already conceded the argument.

still, if you would have been clear in your first posting, it would have been fine.
it seem like all you wanted was to provoke him rather than invite him in a reasonable dialogue.

you know, if i would have done the exact same thing has you did right now i would have been accused of flaming and attacking someone on the board, and my thread would have been closed after 6 posts.

i am all for discussion, but that agressive way of doing thing is just awful. you know, being a bully and saying to everyone they are not right wont fix nothing, even if you are right, the only thing folks will remember is most likely to be your agressivity and hate toward.

[Dejavu]

If Dejavu has evidence that anarchism has generally been supportive of capitalism, hierarchy, and voluntary slavery, he can write it in here. That is what people come here to do - argue, i.e., provide viewpoints and counter-viewpoints to any given discussion.

The fact is, scholars, and others have read the work, and there is a clear hostility to wage slavery, capitalism, and so on. The point of posting it in "OI" was to educate him and others. The article above provides plenty of excerpts, and there is an anarchist FAQ you can read by googling it.

Since Dejavu has no coherent rebuttal, he's already conceded the argument.

Poor job characterizing my position. Wonder what else you have in that bag of straw men? IA, I have stated (coherently) many things in OI which have stimulated conversation and challenged minds. Even most of the communists here have some respect for my inputs though they may disagree with them.

Why do you reject my invitation to skype? GeneCosta even went on skype with me and it was productive. You have nothing to fear.

[Dejavu]

still, if you would have been clear in your first posting, it would have been fine.
it seem like all you wanted was to provoke him rather than invite him in a reasonable dialogue.

you know, if i would have done the exact same thing has you did right now i would have been accused of flaming and attacking someone on the board, and my thread would have been closed after 6 posts.

i am all for discussion, but that agressive way of doing thing is just awful. you know, being a bully and saying to everyone they are not right wont fix nothing, even if you are right, the only thing folks will remember is most likely to be your agressivity and hate toward.

Hissing and spitting his views upon people is the preferred method of communication. I thought you brought up some good points here. This is why I want to get him on skype so we do not engage in these silly little poster battles.

Some of his comrades already agree. The voice interactive method is an excellent way of engaging in debate and discussion.