A Force More Powerful

[Lymos]

First off, my apologies for not using the search.

I'm not really sure I can deal with all the information right now. I mean, I haven't even read up on all the authors.

2nd, here is how I discovered this forum and a direct copy of a thread I made in Anarchy Chan:

A Force More Powerful

New to this place. Well, honestly I haven't really visited much Anarchy sites. Might as well consider this my newbie post.

1. Has anyone played this game and how would you rate it's simulation of society? My biggest problem really is that I can't find any strategy guide for this game and I haven't won even on the easiest setting.

My 2nd biggest skepticism though remains the fact that most who praised this don't seem to be the same ones who go out there and do this.

2. Is this site welcome only to left anarchists or are things like anarcho-capitalism accepted?

3. What is the biggest site for discussing Anarchy? What is the most active? What is the friendliest to newbies?

Additional question: What did the Anonymous replier meant by:


There's no such things as right anarchists, and revleft is big, active and relatively friendly for newbs (there's a "learning" section where stupid questions are welcomed and intelligent ones too).Not to offend the leftists. I obviously don't have any knowledge on anarchy but it seems a weird comment. I could understand if the replier said left anarchy was more viable and better if they gave their reasons but to say right anarchists don't exist... seems strange to hear.

Edit: Apparently I can't post links so Anarchy Chan link removed.

Edit #2: Apologies for the formatting. I apparently broke something and it won't turn the quoted section in paragraphs.

Edit #3: For a review/overview of the game, type: "A Force More Powerful Gamers with Job" in Google

[Drace]

I think he meant right anarchists are retarded

And you asked so many questions Im not even sure what the post is about.
Also, its really stupid to make people pay for documentaries.

[GPDP]

Whoever said that most likely meant right-anarchists are not anarchists as such. The only right-"anarchists" I can think of are "anarcho"-capitalists and so-called National "Anarchists." Both propose to abolish the state, but there is far more to anarchism than simply anti-statism. It entails the removal of all unjustified authority, which for the vast majority of the anarchist tradition means the end of private capitalist property relations (which ancaps champion) and the destruction of racial separatism (which National Anarchists are known to advocate).

Thus we "left"-anarchists do not consider those two currents to be part of the anarchist movement, as we repudiate race and the class system. Indeed, they come from different intellectual traditions to us. Ancaps come from classical liberalism and Austrian economics, while National Anarchists are little more than Nazis who supposedly want to abolish the state.

So, what do we do with them here? Well, ancaps are restricted to the OI forum, while National Anarchists are banned as this forum follows a strict "No Platform" rule against fascists. This is a website for the revolutionary left, of which anarchism in its left (and I would argue genuine) form is a part of, as most of us are communists who believe in working class revolution. We do tolerate individualist anarchists and mutualists, who are technically left-wing since they reject capitalist class relations, but they are very uncommon, and apart from some fellow anarchists, are not seen in too kind a manner by many posters here due to them advocating a market economy, albeit a non-capitalist market.

[Lymos]

Well, that's good to hear! I was a bit worried that someone might actually think it doesn't exist. Whew!

The questions aren't really long. It's just that the formatting seems to be anti-paragraph. I don't know how to bypass it. Most forums allow for spaced paragraphs.

It also doesn't help that the link isn't allowed for new users.

Also AFMP here isn't a documentary. It's a simulation game that simulates social conflicts.

My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. I forgot to include the Game Casing Image from the original link. (Although I felt that the reference of "game" should've been clear enough.)

[Lymos]

Thanks GDFP. Yeah, that's more logical and I respect that. Does this mean though that I don't belong here? I prefer more of an anarcho-capitalistic state. ...or does this only refer to OI?

[revolution inaction]

Lymos i'm not sure what you are talking about, but the person who said "There's no such things as right anarchists" is probably referring to the fact that there all anarchists are socialists. Anyone else what ever they call them selfs are not anarchists. You might want to look at the anarchist faq

This is not a anarchist website but anarchists are the largest group here.
Libcom is a good anarchist website, it has a great libery, but the forum not welcoming to anyone if they say some thing they consider stupid. this site might be more friendly for a beginner.

if you brake the links you can post them.

[Lymos]

Ok. Now I'm confused. Your opinion seems to differ from the previous two poster.

Is it a case of differing opinions or simply a statement of fact?

I'm also a bit confused by the usage of an Anarchy FAQ. Isn't these often written by people who are already supportive of a certain view. For example, wikipedia's link on an Anarchy FAQ refers to it as often pertaining more to social anarchism. Not that wikipedia is reliable but in this case, a FAQ does happen to be often written by someone with a certain view without a clear picture of a dissenting view since then the FAQ would contradict unless there are multiple FAQs with multiple people, in this case no such FAQ would be authoritative, simply informative on a basic level.

My apologies if the above seems to make fun of a person's hard work. I'm not saying it completely removes the information a person might have gathered to create said FAQ and to produce it in such a quality.

It just that in things like politics where it is strongly based on a bunch of ideas, it seems citing a book is more authoritative than a FAQ because then at least it would be much easier to get the idea of "Oh you lean this way and these are the reasons you probably strong agree with"; than a FAQ where it could easily be a version you agree with.

Btw apologies again if you are referring to a specific faq on this site. Like I said, I didn't really use the search (or in this case, even browse any of the sections if it should be readily viewable by a sticky.)

Edit: Hmm...again my paragraphs didn't make it through. I apologize again for the formatting. When I posted this there were spaces in certain areas denoting a separate paragraph.

[yuon]

Thanks GDFP. Yeah, that's more logical and I respect that. Does this mean though that I don't belong here? I prefer more of an anarcho-capitalistic state. ...or does this only refer to OI?

What on earth do you mean "anarcho-capitalistic state"? I mean, apart from the whole you can't have anarchist capitalism, you also can't have an anarchist state!

Err, do you mean that you want a minimalist state, and a capitalist economic system? There are lots of people who like that sort of thing.

But, anyway, you aren't welcome here, but you will be tolerated if you stay in OI. There are a few anti-state/minimalist state capitalists or ex-capitalists in OI. I personally don't mind if you hang around (maybe you'll learn something ;)).


Oh, and as for An Anarchist FAQ, generally it would be the one referred to on Wikipedia. The socialist anarchist one. You know, 'cause, well, anarchism is socialist anyway ;). It has a lot of text on why capitalism can't be anarchistic (probably in an appendix).

[Misanthrope]

In short: We reject anarcho-capitalism because they uphold capitalism. Anarchists believe that the capitalists and statists are very close knit in their interests and actions. Both of the ideologies have very different views of what a 'state' is. Anarchism is historically workerist and socialist. To accept a "anarcho"capitalist would be to accept a "socialist-capitalist'', the two are polar opposites.

[revolution inaction]

Ok. Now I'm confused. Your opinion seems to differ from the previous two poster. Is it a case of differing opinions or simply a statement of fact?

my opinion is that it is a fact.




I'm also a bit confused by the usage of an Anarchy FAQ. Isn't these often written by people who are already supportive of a certain view. For example, wikipedia's link on an Anarchy FAQ refers to it as often pertaining more to social anarchism. Not that wikipedia is reliable but in this case, a FAQ does happen to be often written by someone with a certain view without a clear picture of a dissenting view since then the FAQ would contradict unless there are multiple FAQs with multiple people, in this case no such FAQ would be authoritative, simply informative on a basic level. My apologies if the above seems to make fun of a person's hard work. I'm not saying it completely removes the information a person might have gathered to create said FAQ and to produce it in such a quality. It just that in things like politics where it is strongly based on a bunch of ideas, it seems citing a book is more authoritative than a FAQ because then at least it would be much easier to get the idea of "Oh you lean this way and these are the reasons you probably strong agree with" than a FAQ where it could easily be a version you agree with. Btw apologies again if you are referring to a specific faq on this site. Like I said, I didn't really use the search (or in this case, even browse any of the sections if it should be readily viewable by a sticky.)


this faq http://www.anarchistfaq.org/ it's also published as a book.
Everything is written from a point of view, there is no neutral point of view.



Edit: Hmm...again my paragraphs didn't make it through. I apologize again for the formatting. When I posted this there were spaces in certain areas denoting a separate paragraph.

use return

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm also a bit confused by the usage of an Anarchy FAQ. Isn't these often written by people who are already supportive of a certain view.
Everything is always written by people who are already supportive of a certain view.


For example, wikipedia's link on an Anarchy FAQ refers to it as often pertaining more to social anarchism.
"Social anarchism" is the compromise name for what used to be called simply "anarchism."

Until a few decades ago, "social anarchism" was the only kind of anarchism. It was, and remains, the only kind of anarchism that has actual political organizations getting involved in real-life politics. Recently, various people have invented new ideologies that exist only on paper and given them names using the "anarcho-" prefix. Thus you got "anarcho-capitalism," "anarcho-primitivism," "national anarchism" and so on. All of these exist only as theories in the minds of various intellectuals (or pseudo-intellectuals, in most cases) and no one really knows about them except on the internet.

"Social anarchists" regard themselves as the only real anarchists, for several reasons. First, they were the only people calling themselves anarchists for about 150 years after the word "anarchism" was invented. Second, they are the only anarchists that take any practical action in the real world. Third, anarchism is based on a rejection of all authority, not just state authority, and "non-social anarchists" have a tendency of opposing only the state (or the thing they define as "the state") while leaving alone, or even supporting, non-state hierarchy and oppression.


It just that in things like politics where it is strongly based on a bunch of ideas, it seems citing a book is more authoritative than a FAQ
Yes, but the Anarchist FAQ itself is based on a large number of books, and makes numerous references to them.

[Lymos]

What on earth do you mean "anarcho-capitalistic state"? I mean, apart from the whole you can't have anarchist capitalism, you also can't have an anarchist state! Err, do you mean that you want a minimalist state, and a capitalist economic system? There are lots of people who like that sort of thing. But, anyway, you aren't welcome here, but you will be tolerated if you stay in OI. There are a few anti-state/minimalist state capitalists or ex-capitalists in OI. I personally don't mind if you hang around (maybe you'll learn something ;)). Oh, and as for An Anarchist FAQ, generally it would be the one referred to on Wikipedia. The socialist anarchist one. You know, 'cause, well, anarchism is socialist anyway ;). It has a lot of text on why capitalism can't be anarchistic (probably in an appendix).

My apologies. I forgot how sensitive that word is to politics. I merely mean "state"; as in this:

▸ noun: the way something is with respect to its main attributes ("The current state of knowledge")


In short: We reject anarcho-capitalism because they uphold capitalism. Anarchists believe that the capitalists and statists are very close knit in their interests and actions. Both of the ideologies have very different views of what a 'state' is. Anarchism is historically workerist and socialist. To accept a "anarcho"capitalist would be to accept a "socialist-capitalist'', the two are polar opposites.

Maybe I'm just moderate or maybe I just don't know enough but a socialist-capitalist ideology doesn't seem contradictory to me. Separating anarchy from those words and focusing primarily on those two words combined, I've always understood the big picture of socialist-capitalist mindset to be the ideology matching the best with biology.

That is, if we are to look at basic biology, basic ecology and how early ecosystems worked in nature -- there has always been a socialist-like system on top of a capitalist-like system.

That is, animals have this understanding that it is a fend for yourself world and you need to survive but they also view the value in creating communities, mutuality and the luxury of such things like camouflage, habitats and swimming on a grander level to create this balance of maximizing survival with quirkiness.

On a more modern and government based example, a socialist-capitalist mindset could encompass the thinking that one has no problem with universal health care as long as a society isn't based on Keynesian economics or is in debt or is in a state of mass educational ignorance in which universal health care is used as a padding to make the masses "feel good" about free benefits as opposed to a capitalist society stating that "because capitalism have been implemented well in this State that they've gained a large surplus, because education for healthcare has become mass knowledge, because respect for doctors and pediatricians has gone into specifics instead of authority figures, because said state and society has reached a certain high level quality of prosperity, just as one person under a capitalistic state can use their savings to possess a house to alleviate and provide them with a luxury, so can this state now temporarily adapt a universal health care for a few years because like a house bought under the savings of an educated, interested and passionate man living in an educated and open society, the adaptation today of a universal health care would be less likely perceived as an "end result". An unwarranted "gift". Instead the adaptation will open the gateway to a mass scrutiny and practical desire to better improve this system while enjoying but not getting addicted to said system. (Thus simulating a scenario in which universal health care, instead of being welfare, becomes a commodity no different to a computer in which because of mass desire combined with mass knowledge, allows it to be in a constant competitive and improving state.)


this faq it's also published as a book.
Everything is written from a point of view, there is no neutral point of view

Thanks. I haven't read it all but from checking it out, I still don't quite understand how you could still use it as an authoritative conclusion that anarcho-capitalism not existing is a fact.

I hope this doesn't come off as an attack. What I mean by this is simply to point that the core basis of said FAQ (from it's overview) seems to be that "capitalism doesn't work" or "is inferior."

Seems like a far cry from stating it's a fact that anarcho-capitalism doesn't exist.

It seems it would be akin to a capitalist saying that marxism doesn't exist simply because of reading the history of communism - which proves that it doesn't work and erodes on a governmental scale.


use returnNo, it was NoScript. I didn't allow this forum so I guess it distorted the post.


Everything is always written by people who are already supportive of a certain view.

I disagree. If that were the case, then all political ideologies can be accused of being isolationist. Worse, it assumes that no new discovery can change and improve said ideology and that no person with a particular political opinion will ever change their views and write about it even in the face of strong evidence.


Until a few decades ago, "social anarchism" was the only kind of anarchism. It was, and remains, the only kind of anarchism that has actual political organizations getting involved in real-life politics. Recently, various people have invented new ideologies that exist only on paper and given them names using the "anarcho-" prefix. Thus you got "anarcho-capitalism," "anarcho-primitivism," "national anarchism" and so on. All of these exist only as theories in the minds of various intellectuals (or pseudo-intellectuals, in most cases) and no one really knows about them except on the internet.

"Social anarchists" regard themselves as the only real anarchists, for several reasons. First, they were the only people calling themselves anarchists for about 150 years after the word "anarchism" was invented. Second, they are the only anarchists that take any practical action in the real world. Third, anarchism is based on a rejection of all authority, not just state authority, and "non-social anarchists" have a tendency of opposing only the state (or the thing they define as "the state") while leaving alone, or even supporting, non-state hierarchy and oppression.Again, here I have no problem with this statement as you strongly imply that it is an opinion assumed by social anarchists.

What I find disturbing is when a user can believe it is a fact that others don't exist as opposed to an opinion that it doesn't exist.

The core problem I see with the view that it doesn't exist is that it doesn't allow for social anarchist to defend and clarify their views. Where as here, by acknowledging it exists, even if in your opinion it shouldn't count as anarchy, you were able to not only share your views to an outsider but educate him on anarchy's history through your perspective.

If anything this one incident seems to hint that the other branches of anarchy exist factually (though they have their problems which social anarchists reject) because then, it gives social anarchists the benefit to explain why they reject such views to an outsider as opposed to creating a censoring mindset that seems to benefit no one. Not even their own ideology. (For by assuming something doesn't exist even if it does exist, it produces the outside assumption that social anarchists may simply be "blinded". On the other side, in the inner circle, such beliefs could mimic such religious circles in which the group fails to look at their own views critically and starts to believe in the wrong views dogmatically and erodes as a group from within, even if like religion, they remain active in their ideology.)

My apologies for not addressing the other factors you posted. I fear I might get accused of trying to make this into an opposing ideology post if I did. I have some questions for them too though but I would just as much save them until I have done enough research.


Yes, but the Anarchist FAQ itself is based on a large number of books, and makes numerous references to them. Yes, I agree. Which is why in my previous post, I added:


My apologies if the above seems to make fun of a person's hard work. I'm not saying it completely removes the information a person might have gathered to create said FAQ and to produce it in such a quality.

[revolution inaction]

Maybe I'm just moderate or maybe I just don't know enough but a socialist-capitalist ideology doesn't seem contradictory to me. Separating anarchy from those words and focusing primarily on those two words combined, I've always understood the big picture of socialist-capitalist mindset to be the ideology matching the best with biology.

That is, if we are to look at basic biology, basic ecology and how early ecosystems worked in nature -- there has always been a socialist-like system on top of a capitalist-like system.

That is, animals have this understanding that it is a fend for yourself world and you need to survive but they also view the value in creating communities, mutuality and the luxury of such things like camouflage, habitats and swimming on a grander level to create this balance of maximizing survival with quirkiness.

On a more modern and government based example, a socialist-capitalist mindset could encompass the thinking that one has no problem with universal health care as long as a society isn't based on Keynesian economics or is in debt or is in a state of mass educational ignorance in which universal health care is used as a padding to make the masses "feel good" about free benefits as opposed to a capitalist society stating that "because capitalism have been implemented well in this State that they've gained a large surplus, because education for healthcare has become mass knowledge, because respect for doctors and pediatricians has gone into specifics instead of authority figures, because said state and society has reached a certain high level quality of prosperity, just as one person under a capitalistic state can use their savings to possess a house to alleviate and provide them with a luxury, so can this state now temporarily adapt a universal health care for a few years because like a house bought under the savings of an educated, interested and passionate man living in an educated and open society, the adaptation today of a universal health care would be less likely perceived as an "end result". An unwarranted "gift". Instead the adaptation will open the gateway to a mass scrutiny and practical desire to better improve this system while enjoying but not getting addicted to said system. (Thus simulating a scenario in which universal health care, instead of being welfare, becomes a commodity no different to a computer in which because of mass desire combined with mass knowledge, allows it to be in a constant competitive and improving state.)


You clearly do not understand what socialism or capitalism are, things like free health care and nationalised industries are not socialist.
Capitalism is a economic system where one part of the population, called capitalists or the bourgeois, control the means of production and employ workers to operate it for them. The other part of the population, called, the workers or the proletariat, owns virtual nothing and so are left in a position where they have to sell there labour to survive. The defining features are wage labour and commodity production. (commodities are anything produced for the propose of being sold.)
Socialism is a form of society run for the benefit of it members with the workers controlling the means of production. The defining features include workers control of the means of production, democratic decision making and equality.




Thanks. I haven't read it all but from checking it out, I still don't quite understand how you could still use it as an authoritative conclusion that anarcho-capitalism not existing is a fact.

I hope this doesn't come off as an attack. What I mean by this is simply to point that the core basis of said FAQ (from it's overview) seems to be that "capitalism doesn't work" or "is inferior."

Seems like a far cry from stating it's a fact that anarcho-capitalism doesn't exist.


Anarcho capitalism exists its just not anarchist. just like national socialism is not socialist and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic or the peoples.

[Lymos]

You clearly do not understand what socialism or capitalism are, things like free health care and nationalised industries are not socialist.
Capitalism is a economic system where one part of the population, called capitalists or the bourgeois, control the means of production and employ workers to operate it for them. The other part of the population, called, the workers or the proletariat, owns virtual nothing and so are left in a position where they have to sell there labour to survive. The defining features are wage labour and commodity production. (commodities are anything produced for the propose of being sold.)
Socialism is a form of society run for the benefit of it members with the workers controlling the means of production. The defining features include workers control of the means of production, democratic decision making and equality.

Yes, I do not deny that. Which is why I'm in the learning section.

I however cannot understand why both definitions necessarily ran apart even after you gave a basic definition of both.

For example, you state that Socialism is a form of society run for the benefit of it's members with the workers controlling the means of production.

Universal Health Care's core model is so that the workers decide how much they "fund" it. (Control it's means of production)

It is a democratic decision. (As for it to be implemented, there must be a desire for it to be implemented and accepted by a large enough group to reap it's benefits.)

Finally there is a pseudo-sense of "equality". I don't quite agree with this interpretation but it cannot be denied that by making healthcare free for anyone, there's a theoretical model of "equal opportunity".

True, it doesn't really work this way in reality but it seems to have enough quality to be warranted a name of "socialized" medicine by some.



Anarcho capitalism exists its just not anarchist. just like national socialism is not socialist and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic or the peoples.

Oh, I don't have a problem with this comment. At least, it registers something as existing.

My main point of confusion is understanding a view that something like anarcho-capitalism factually does not exist at all.

[revolution inaction]

Yes, I do not deny that. Which is why I'm in the learning section.

I however cannot understand why both definitions necessarily ran apart even after you gave a basic definition of both.

For example, you state that Socialism is a form of society run for the benefit of it's members with the workers controlling the means of production.

Universal Health Care's core model is so that the workers decide how much they "fund" it. (Control it's means of production)

It is a democratic decision. (As for it to be implemented, there must be a desire for it to be implemented and accepted by a large enough group to reap it's benefits.)

Finally there is a pseudo-sense of "equality". I don't quite agree with this interpretation but it cannot be denied that by making healthcare free for anyone, there's a theoretical model of "equal opportunity".

True, it doesn't really work this way in reality but it seems to have enough quality to be warranted a name of "socialized" medicine by some.


I'm not sure what you are saying here, did you think i meant universal health care is unsocialist? I meant that universal health care is not inherently socialist. When the government runs industries that is state capitalism, not socialism.
Workers control of the means of production doesn't mean control how something is funded, it means the workers decide what to produce and how to do it. There is no funding of things in a communist society anyway, everything is free.
The means of production are anything that can be used to produce value, most obviously factories and farms but all kinds of other things count to including hospitals.




Oh, I don't have a problem with this comment. At least, it registers something as existing.

My main point of confusion is understanding a view that something like anarcho-capitalism factually does not exist at all.

but who has said anarcho capitalism doesn't exist? the person you quote says that right wing anarchists dont exist, and that is correct.

[Lymos]

I'm not sure what you are saying here, did you think i meant universal health care is unsocialist? I meant that universal health care is not inherently socialist.Yes, I interpreted the former. You did earlier stated: "things like free health care and nationalised industries are not socialist."


When the government runs industries that is state capitalism, not socialism.Could you explain? I was under the impression that was more state socialism. i.e. the workers give away their rights to the State to enact something that they desire.

As far as I know, capitalism rejects universal health care because it is a production drain rather than a production gain even when implemented properly.


Workers control of the means of production doesn't mean control how something is funded, it means the workers decide what to produce and how to do it. There is no funding of things in a communist society anyway, everything is free.True but you weren't referring to social anarchy. You were simply stating that universal health care is not inherently socialist.

Also in the words you quoted me with, I stated:


Separating anarchy from those words and focusing primarily on those two words combined, I've always understood the big picture of socialist-capitalist mindset to be the ideology matching the best with biology.So I could only assume you weren't specifically thinking of anarchy or communism in that model.


but who has said anarcho capitalism doesn't exist? the person you quote says that right wing anarchists dont exist, and that is correct.Again, I am confused. I don't quite understand the political diamond but as far as I know, capitalism has always been associated with the right aspect of the chart and while mainstream American right wing has for a long time not been about capitalism (the only one I know of that is known by most in the world as "right wings"), it seems strange that saying right wing anarchists don't exist is different from meaning anarcho-capitalists don't exist.

Edit: Oh right, I also forgot. With regards to communism, while it's ideology is that everything is free, isn't by default having a government equivalent to the same scenario as what you call state capitalism? After all, the government is still guiding the country's production and has the monopoly in which direction the production should follow.

True, they aren't what is legitimately considered "nationalized industries" but the models are nearly the same except for the name if I understood communism correctly.

[eyedrop]

Anarchocapitalists aren't anarchist by any decent definition of the word, just as DKPR (North Korea) calls themselves democratic although they aren't.

[revolution inaction]

Could you explain? I was under the impression that was more state socialism. i.e. the workers give away their rights to the State to enact something that they desire.

state socialism is not possible, workers control is an essential component of socialism.




As far as I know, capitalism rejects universal health care because it is a production drain rather than a production gain even when implemented properly.

that would be why people in the uk live longer than in the usa despite less money being spent on health care.






Workers control of the means of production doesn't mean control how something is funded, it means the workers decide what to produce and how to do it. There is no funding of things in a communist society anyway, everything is free.


True but you weren't referring to social anarchy. You were simply stating that universal health care is not inherently socialist.

Also in the words you quoted me with, I stated:


Separating anarchy from those words and focusing primarily on those two words combined, I've always understood the big picture of socialist-capitalist mindset to be the ideology matching the best with biology.

So I could only assume you weren't specifically thinking of anarchy or communism in that model.

what are you talking about?




Again, I am confused. I don't quite understand the political diamond but as far as I know, capitalism has always been associated with the right aspect of the chart and while mainstream American right wing has for a long time not been about capitalism (the only one I know of that is known by most in the world as "right wings"), it seems strange that saying right wing anarchists don't exist is different from meaning anarcho-capitalists don't exist.

There are no anarchists who are capitalists, but there are people who call themselves anarcho capitalists.



Edit: Oh right, I also forgot. With regards to communism, while it's ideology is that everything is free, isn't by default having a government equivalent to the same scenario as what you call state capitalism? After all, the government is still guiding the country's production and has the monopoly in which direction the production should follow.

True, they aren't what is legitimately considered "nationalized industries" but the models are nearly the same except for the name if I understood communism correctly.
You don't understand communism correctly, in a communist society there are no states and no countries.
I would also say there is no government as it seems ridicules to call a organisation including all the people a government.
Also there is no money and no wages in communism unlike what i referred to a state capitalism, and also the workers are the ones in control of everthing, there is no one else to tell them what to do.

[Lymos]

state socialism is not possible, workers control is an essential component of socialism.I have to disagree here. Fascism proved how you can make the workers willingly sacrifice their control while still giving the impression that they are in control.

Democracy to a larger part also does that. Give the majority (often interchangeable with the workers) control and they would also run wild with it and thus proceed to harm their fellow workers rather than give the minority of the same section of workers a voice. A phenomena called "tyranny of the majority".

Let's also not forget that once workers do gain their control, they also often, through human nature, resort to elders and leaders within their group. To reject this notion, would be to enact a state wide law of banning children from listening to their parents or parents from listening to the wiser adults or religious people from following a God, etc. etc.

Yet, without banning these, they (the workers) will continue to follow other leaders even in the non-existence of a state. So if anything, state socialism is possible because the socialists in this case are just willing to defer to the government rather than through the leader of the workers.

The only way I can see state socialism being impossible is if the state is undemocratic because a large part of what "worker control" entitles is similar in effect to "what voting for who you want to lead you" entitles.


that would be why people in the uk live longer than in the usa despite less money being spent on health care.I think this is a poor example for many reasons.

My primary reason is that the US has for so long stopped being a capitalist country other than "by name" and have been mostly a corporatist (a soft fascist) country. Forget health care, just look at how much they're draining themselves on waging wars throughout their history.

My 2nd major reason is that these two are obviously large and rich countries by most standards of the world. Both of them could follow any system of government and as long as they don't pursue wasteful spending, socialist/capitalist/communist... most people are going to live long compared to most 3rd world countries where the proper implementation/understanding and superiority of all these political systems are not just necessary but the difference between life and death for the people under those systems.

My 3rd major reason is that it's unfair to compare a country who's government screwed up so much that they are heading to a recession. That's not a flaw of a political system, that's a flaw of poor and corrupt governing.


what are you talking about?Maybe the formatted quote would make more sense:


Quote:
Workers control of the means of production doesn't mean control how something is funded, it means the workers decide what to produce and how to do it. (i.e no gov't) There is no funding of things in a communist society anyway, everything is free.

True but you weren't referring to social anarchy. You were simply stating that universal health care is not inherently socialist.

Also in the words you quoted me with, I stated:
Quote:
Separating anarchy from those words and focusing primarily on those two words combined, I've always understood the big picture of socialist-capitalist mindset to be the ideology matching the best with biology.
So I could only assume you weren't specifically thinking of anarchy or communism in that model.
You don't understand communism correctly, in a communist society there are no states and no countries.
I would also say there is no government as it seems ridicules to call a organisation including all the people a government.Originally this was true but history proved it wrong:

From Wikipedia:


Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society. The term "Communism", usually spelled with the capital letter C, is however often used to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof, even if the party does not actually claim that the society has already reached communism.
Also there is no money and no wages in communism unlike what i referred to a state capitalism, and also the workers are the ones in control of everthing, there is no one else to tell them what to do.No money and wages doesn't mean there is no need for shoes, clothes and shelter.

There are still the workers who are telling and leading other workers on how and what they should work on.

[Lymos]

Btw has anyone played the game? That's mostly what made me post the original topic.

As much as I'd like learning politics, I'd rather read about it rather than discuss it because of it's flame friendly nature. (especially from a guy like me who knows very little of it.)

[Drace]

Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society. The term "Communism", usually spelled with the capital letter C, is however often used to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof, even if the party does not actually claim that the society has already reached communism.Notice, the word however.

That would be the corrupt definition of communism along with the many others, "People who want to take your freedom away", "A totalitarian regime which controls the economy and the people".

And all these definitions most likely started during the cold war era through the use of mass propaganda.
No communist would agree with that definition.

And give me the torrent for the game and Ill try it out :)

[Lymos]

True. To be honest though, I was a bit frustrated that the whole thing somehow jumped to communism and I just couldn't resist putting that in.

I do understand that some side see it as a corrupt definition, while other sees it as a real implication of communism and still others see it as just a bunch of Marxists who got lured into the name and still others have their own reason.

The thing that got to me though was how in the age when open source has created the paradigm shift in which gratis and libre has entered the mainstream thought of the people, that communism is still being sold on it's gratis-like merits ESPECIALLY in a section aimed at those who don't know much about politics and can be easily impressed by a political stance.

In your post too, I'm a bit bothered that the US propaganda of the movement is addressed but how easy it was to create a corrupt definition of communism (which was one major basic criticism against it) is ignored.

Still I understand, I am bordering on opposing ideology now and I apologize for further pushing the direction of the conversation into this trail but it just bothers me enough that I felt I needed to clarify myself when this was brought up.

As far as the link, it's in Demonoid. (I still can't post links as far as I know.)

Good luck with learning the game without the manual though. I have the original copy but I don't know how to turn a game into a copy optimized for torrents (although I do know how to upload a torrent) and the manual would take a while to type.

[Lymos]

A person from Anarchy chan wrote this:


What the RevLeft members may be trying to say is that anarcho-capitalism is built on the principles of capitalism, where individuals are able to possess private property. A lot of anarchists don't believe in private property since it can only exist when there is a state.

A state doesn't have to be large, like the American state is for example. It's just a coercive force which tries to get another person to abide by its rules. So a man pointing a gun at you telling you not to take his bread, is by definition his own state. Since anarchy is the absence of an established coercive force, and capitalism includes persons are their own individual states, many anarchists do not believe the two philosophies are possible.

Anarcho-capitalists disagree with this. Rather, they claim that anarchy is the absence of a monopolistic state (states which encompass more than one person), and individual states should be allowed.

Personally, I say anarchists should only be concerned with whether or not there is a coercive force acting upon them. I have no problem with two individuals exchanging a good, if both of them voluntarily do it. Thus, I do not believe true anarchists call themselves "anarcho-capitalist" or "anarcho-communist" or any thing other than "anarchist" because those adjectives imply an economic structure which is forced onto its people (thus the society cannot be an anarchy).

If this was the case than thank you for the replies. My issue with the statement of anarcho-capitalists not existing has been clarified.

As I've replied in that topic:


Thanks 112. This is close to what I understand about anarchy though.

(Though I would disagree a bit with regards to the individual states. Sounds a bit more like people see anarcho-capitalists as purely minarchists when things like a guild system is much closer to a commune than a government state.)

Also just to clarify, the original comment of anarcho-capitalism not existing came from this board. (1st replier to my post.)

If this was what they meant, than I'm glad. I was just a bit worried that there was really legitimate facts (rather than opinions) that showed anarcho-capitalism doesn't exist.

[Drace]

The thing that got to me though was how in the age when open source has created the paradigm shift in which gratis and libre has entered the mainstream thought of the people, that communism is still being sold on it's gratis-like merits ESPECIALLY in a section aimed at those who don't know much about politics and can be easily impressed by a political stance.

In your post too, I'm a bit bothered that the US propaganda of the movement is addressed but how easy it was to create a corrupt definition of communism (which was one major basic criticism against it) is ignored.

Im sorry, but could you explain?


As of the game, I found the torrent, but only 2 seeders.

[revolution inaction]

state socialism is not possible, workers control is an essential component of socialism.

I have to disagree here.

it doesn't matter if you agree or not, if the workers are not in control then its not socialism.



Fascism proved how you can make the workers willingly sacrifice their control while still giving the impression that they are in control.

even if that where true, which its's not, it would in no way refute my statement about socialism.




Democracy to a larger part also does that. Give the majority (often interchangeable with the workers) control and they would also run wild with it and thus proceed to harm their fellow workers rather than give the minority of the same section of workers a voice. A phenomena called "tyranny of the majority".

you think that people are not capable of organising themselves and need some one else to tell them what to do? Tyranny of the majority refers to what happens if everything is decided by simple majority vote, and everyone is obliged to bide by all decisions, it doesn't apply to all methods of collective decision making.




Let's also not forget that once workers do gain their control, they also often, through human nature, resort to elders and leaders within their group. To reject this notion, would be to enact a state wide law of banning children from listening to their parents or parents from listening to the wiser adults or religious people from following a God, etc. etc.

there is a difference between respecting some ones opinion and putting them in a position of power over you. Why should a state be needed to stop people appointing rulers over themselves? There are many examples of people organising without rulers, for example during the spanish revolution, in parts of the ukraine during the russian revolution, some of the workers run factories in argentina, and hundreds of other examples.
the thing about a ban being required is clearly bullshit.



Yet, without banning these, they (the workers) will continue to follow other leaders even in the non-existence of a state. So if anything, state socialism is possible because the socialists in this case are just willing to defer to the government rather than through the leader of the workers.

The only way I can see state socialism being impossible is if the state is undemocratic because a large part of what "worker control" entitles is similar in effect to "what voting for who you want to lead you" entitles.

If the workers are not in control then it is not socialism, if there is a state then the workers are not in control, therefor if there is a state there is not socialism.







that would be why people in the uk live longer than in the usa despite less money being spent on health care.



I think this is a poor example for many reasons.

You said


As far as I know, capitalism rejects universal health care because it is a production drain rather than a production gain even when implemented properly.

and i provided an comparison of a none universal health care system with a universal one, admittedly not a properly implemented universal heath care system but still universal. and the universal system is cheaper and produces better results, so its is not correct to claim that universal heath care is a production drain.




My primary reason is that the US has for so long stopped being a capitalist country other than "by name" and have been mostly a corporatist (a soft fascist) country. Forget health care, just look at how much they're draining themselves on waging wars throughout their history.

the usa is capitalist, the primary method of production is wage labour. The USA is not fascist, but if it was it would still be capitalist, because fascism is a form of capitalism.




My 2nd major reason is that these two are obviously large and rich countries by most standards of the world. Both of them could follow any system of government and as long as they don't pursue wasteful spending, socialist/capitalist/communist... most people are going to live long compared to most 3rd world countries where the proper implementation/understanding and superiority of all these political systems are not just necessary but the difference between life and death for the people under those systems.

"socialist/capitalist/communist" are not systems of government. secondly this has nothing to do with whether universal health care is a good use of resources or not. If you want to compare 3rd world implementations of universal and non universal healthcare then i think you will find a far bigger difference, cuba for example has a decent healthcare system, although it may be 2nd rather than 3rd world.



My 3rd major reason is that it's unfair to compare a country who's government screwed up so much that they are heading to a recession. That's not a flaw of a political system, that's a flaw of poor and corrupt governing.

i don't see how it was the government that caused the recession, periodic market crashes are a inevitable result of a market. and i don't see how the recession is relevant since it is affecting the entire world, including the uk.



Maybe the formatted quote would make more sense:

i'm still having trouble seeing a connection between what i say and your responses.







You don't understand communism correctly, in a communist society there are no states and no countries.
I would also say there is no government as it seems ridicules to call a organisation including all the people a government.


Originally this was true but history proved it wrong:

From Wikipedia:


Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society. The term "Communism", usually spelled with the capital letter C, is however often used to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof, even if the party does not actually claim that the society has already reached communism.


A word being miss used is not history proving anything wrong, no communist uses the word that way.




No money and wages doesn't mean there is no need for shoes, clothes and shelter.

There are still the workers who are telling and leading other workers on how and what they should work on.

why should the existence of shoes require one set of people to give orders to another set? you really believe people cant think for themselves don't you. who tells the order givers what orders to give?

[Lymos]

Im sorry, but could you explain?One of the posts, the other poster wrote was:

"Workers control of the means of production doesn't mean control how something is funded, it means the workers decide what to produce and how to do it. There is no funding of things in a communist society anyway, everything is free."

Gratis = zero price in which even if there's consequences to the problem because of it's free quality, they're non-factors.

Most non-socialists are lured through socialism by being seduced by this idea.

I say non-socialists because these are basically people who think donating to charity is good in the long run without even considering how well the charity is at utilizing the money to provide things to the people in need.

Meanwhile, these are also the same people who can see very few things wrong with free healthcare especially for the poor. Often times, not because they understand the pros and cons, but their country is so inefficient that seeing other countries do their other mediocre things seems like a godsend. (See most people who argue for healthcare in America because they're one of the few rich countries who don't implement it. These people view healthcare in America not as an option but as a godsend in the same way some Americans put BBC in the pedestal because their CNN and Fox News are much more biased.)

I hate this because these are the types of over-simplified points that make it difficult for newbies like us to approach and discuss politics with more politically minded people while on the opposite side, most casual people find politics boring and argumentative because of constantly hearing such points to the point that they become apathetic and think politics is for the politician.



As of the game, I found the torrent, but only 2 seeders. Yup the game is rare. That's why I was forced to buy it. It should be enough though. The game is not really that huge in size.


It doesn't matter if you agree or not, if the workers are not in control then its not socialism.It kinda does matter seeing as socialism is a political ideology and not a religion. :p


you think that people are not capable of organising themselves and need some one else to tell them what to do? Tyranny of the majority refers to what happens if everything is decided by simple majority vote, and everyone is obliged to bide by all decisions, it doesn't apply to all methods of collective decision making.I think you misunderstand me here. Tyranny of majority happens because people are capable of organizing themselves!

Also let's not forget that welfare is often legthened as "social" welfare not capital "welfare" :p

Also the voting aspect doesn't really matter. Otherwise minorities would still have a slim chance of getting themselves heard.

The majority in "tyranny of the majority" IS about collective decision making which produces groupthink and hive minds.

It's only strongly associated with democracy because it was made popular as a way of saying that democracy is not perfect but is an ideal that needs to be defended and payed attention to. I.E. the message is about not relying on voting as a way of changing things but viewing voting as a gateway to stairs that produces more opportunities for more liberty.


there is a difference between respecting some ones opinion and putting them in a position of power over you. Why should a state be needed to stop people appointing rulers over themselves? There are many examples of people organising without rulers, for example during the spanish revolution, in parts of the ukraine during the russian revolution, some of the workers run factories in argentina, and hundreds of other examples.
the thing about a ban being required is clearly bullshit.
Again, I think you misunderstand. The statement wasn't to show state vs. no state.

The statement was to show that even in a no state culture, you're not exactly free from this simply because there's no government.

The thing you should be asking is: "Why should not having a state prevent people from appointing rulers over themselves?"

You already understand the answer to the state question, what about the no state question?

AS YOU SAID: There are many examples of people organising without rulers.

What's the difference between a village elder and a ruler? What's the difference between a parent and a ruler? What's the difference between a group leader and a ruler?

Your application of ruler here ignores social hierarchies and merely focuses on government based ones.

Yes, there is a difference between respecting some ones opinion and putting them in a position of power over you. There's also a difference between benevolent rulers and tyrants. Also a difference between a president that was voted in because people voted for the lesser of two evils than when they voted their president because they match with who they want to lead them.


If the workers are not in control then it is not socialism, if there is a state then the workers are not in control, therefor if there is a state there is not socialism.Man, that's scary. I'm not trying to pull an ad hoc insult on you but man... that just came off so "robotic".


and i provided an comparison of a none universal health care system with a universal one, admittedly not a properly implemented universal heath care system but still universal. and the universal system is cheaper and produces better results, so its is not correct to claim that universal heath care is a production drain.It's cheaper compared to a poorly run rich country. Productive gain? Not so much.

This would be like equating "reducing the deficit" with "reducing the debt".


the usa is capitalist, the primary method of production is wage labour. The USA is not fascist, but if it was it would still be capitalist, because fascism is a form of capitalism.
Only by name. Come on, you can't possibly tell me you understand why those corrupt countries weren't fitting your version of communism as you highlighted in this post:

"You don't understand communism correctly, in a communist society there are no states and no countries.
I would also say there is no government as it seems ridicules to call a organisation including all the people a government.
Also there is no money and no wages in communism unlike what i referred to a state capitalism, and also the workers are the ones in control of everthing, there is no one else to tell them what to do."

and

"A word being miss used is not history proving anything wrong, no communist uses the word that way."

Yet, you can't fathom how a strong anti-Nazi country would obviously not admit they're soft fascist? Actions speak louder than words in this case.

And fascism is a form of capitalism???

You just lost me. It's like you've confused capitalism with government.


"socialist/capitalist/communist" are not systems of government. secondly this has nothing to do with whether universal health care is a good use of resources or not. If you want to compare 3rd world implementations of universal and non universal healthcare then i think you will find a far bigger difference, cuba for example has a decent healthcare system, although it may be 2nd rather than 3rd world.Again you lost me.


i don't see how it was the government that caused the recession, periodic market crashes are a inevitable result of a market. and i don't see how the recession is relevant since it is affecting the entire world, including the uk.It's debateable and I don't have enough knowledge to provide you with a paragraph.

You're better off asking someone who knows the Austrian ecomonists' view of the Great Depression.

Their explanation also applies to the entire world.


why should the existence of shoes require one set of people to give orders to another set? you really believe people cant think for themselves don't you. who tells the order givers what orders to give?
I'm sorry. At this point, you're just trying to insult me with no basis or correlation.

Feel free to reply but forgive me if I don't reply to you. Your post is reeking more and more like you have issues beyond this thread and jumping to some unknown conclusions.

I myself am probably also jumping to conclusions in thinking that talking with you further would just lead you to insulting me more but there's a pattern to your threads that remind me of how other rude political posters from all around the internet post like.

[New Tet]

A blurb from the same website (emphasis mine):

Trained in nonviolent action and partially financed by the US and western Europe, they forged a unified political opposition, fought to stop vote fraud, and systematically undermined police and army loyalty.
http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/films/bdd/index.php

I always worry when I read such things, don't you?