New to the Anarchist theory

[The Man]

Hi all,

I'm 13 years old, and I came from a Conservative, to a libertarian, to an Anarcho-Capitalist. I now might go to Anarcho-Syndicalism.. So i have a few questions.


1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?

2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?

3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?

4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?

5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?

Thanks! :thumbup1:

[Blackscare]

I don't mean to just send you off to a page instead of answer you, but I'm doing stuff right now and would like to give you a good resource for the time being before I can come back and address your questions personally.

The Anarchist FAQ is a very comprehensive collection that is absolutely excellent for familiarizing yourself with Anarchism. There are links to almost any topic you can think of in relation to anarchism, I would suggest surfing through topics to whatever catches your eye.

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
Every general category holds a lot of subtopics.
I would also recommend looking into the role Nestor Makhno (the guy in my avatar) played in the Russian Civil war, in the Ukraine. There is a book called "Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack". Makhno is an absolute badass and it is fascinating to study the history of the movement that sprang up around him.

[Stephen Colbert]

A comrade here recommended The Conquest of Bread by Kopotkin, which I am still reading, but it's a nice anarchist book.

[Nachie]

You know what has worked really well for me is just developing your own beliefs through life experience, and supporting the things that you have a strong emotional attachment towards in terms of what you think is the healthiest and most nurturing way for you and the people you love to be able to control their own lives and treat each other in a caring, empathetic manner.

As opposed to just trying to find a readymade ideological box to stuff yourself into.

Not tryna hate on you at all, it just seems like you're bouncing around from one completely unrelated idea to the next (anarcho-capitalist to anarcho-syndicalist? how does that work?), trying to find an "identity" that feels right. But the best thing to do is just find what feels right first and then maybe only later start worrying about what to bother calling it.

[Blackscare]

@Nachie

Lack of an ideology is an ideology in itself, it's what keeps capitalism working. Why capitalism isn't challenged isn't necessarily because people avidly support it, it's because they don't see any way to change things and because there is no unified mass movement putting forth solutions. An ideology based around mass movements is important, finding the right one is important, because we're not just talking about self-fulfillment here, we're talking about the future of the planet.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Hi all,

I'm 13 years old, and I came from a Conservative, to a libertarian, to an Anarcho-Capitalist. I now might go to Anarcho-Syndicalism.. So i have a few questions.


1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?

2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?

3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?

4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?

5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?

Thanks! :thumbup1:
Take the Political Compass Quiz first and post your results before having us decide what label to give you: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Raúl Duke]

Hi all,

I'm 13 years old, and I came from a Conservative, to a libertarian, to an Anarcho-Capitalist. I now might go to Anarcho-Syndicalism.. So i have a few questions.


1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?

2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?

3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?

4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?

5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?

Thanks! :thumbup1:

1)It's difficult to know, but most people paint a bleak picture partially based on historical precedence.
Corporations will control the police force, public services, etc. Since the police force is under the control of corporation, and everything is private, they decide the rules. There will perhaps be no semblence of democracy at all and freedom may in fact be limited. Basically, it's only a good society if you have money.
2)I doubt it, most visions do not posit anarcho-syndicalist societies as having taxes since the workplaces (means of production) would be controlled by synidcate(s) and worker's councils.
3)Umm...decisions are just made from the worker's councils. The syndicates, worker's councils, whatever make decisions and put them to action.
4) Depends on the nature of the society, but I imagine not really.
5) Depends, but I think in many visions there will be no private ownership in land per se. Although don't expect there to be seizures of all houses. Personal objects are yours to keep for sure.

For more details, check the anarchist FAQ

[Nachie]

Or maybe he doesn't care enough about you to feel the need to justify his beliefs to you.

aw i care about him just as much as i care about all of god's beautiful children

i just think that lycanthrope should slow down, take a deep breath, and see where his life takes him instead of just trying to hop on whatever wagon looks good. develop your critical thinking and you won't need anyone to explain the benefits/drawbacks of ANY ideology to you.

and yes, of course being anti-ideology is a reactionary ideology in and of itself. i'm not sure where in this thread i encouraged anyone to become a hipster.

[Blackscare]

i just think that that lycanthrope should slow down, take a deep breath, and see where his life takes him instead of just trying to hop on whatever wagon looks good. develop your critical thinking and you won't need anyone to explain the benefits/drawbacks of ANY ideology to you.

and yes, of course being anti-ideology is a reactionary ideology in and of itself. i'm not sure where in this thread i encouraged anyone to become a hipster.

Gotcha, and as I said earlier, fair enough. Upon further review I think that I was wrong in assuming that you were telling him that ideology was essentially bullshit, just to hold on. I just hate that kind of fucking sentiment, that when I catch a whiff of it I tend to jump. My B.

[bcbm]

because there is no unified mass movement putting forth solutions.

you're going to start having problems with the bit i emphasized right there. so long as there exist a hundred variations of communism/anarchism/socialism, they are all going to be jockeying for position and trying to jam the world into their version of reality. there are certainly no shortage of movements that wish they were "mass."


An ideology based around mass movements is important, finding the right one is important, because we're not just talking about self-fulfillment here, we're talking about the future of the planet.but until we reach a future where communism actually exists, there is no way to know which set of strategies and methods are the "right" ones that will lead there. it seems likely to me that there might not even be one correct strategy and reaching the future we desire will require many trajectories operating at once and breaking down the old world in their own ways.


i'm not sure where in this thread i encouraged anyone to become a hipster.

i resent that

[Rjevan]

Alright, may I remind everybody about this:

Spam/One-Line Posts
Please do not post any one-line posts like "I agree", "Good point", "Hear, Hear", or whatever to increase your post count. If you have nothing productive to say, don't say it! Notorious spammers/one-line posters will be banned.

So please refrain from bickering and keep it in Chit Chat or your PMs - especially in Learning! Verbal Warning to Nachie for starting this.

[Adil3tr]

wait... hes going from RevRight to RevLeft?
Might I suggest some jim hightower to make you angry against coporations. But honestly, if you actually believed, at any point, that capitalism without a government could work, you have a long way to go. If your wondering how a country would work if one corporation owned everything, look up "Soviet Union"

[Invincible Summer]

Hi all,

I'm 13 years old, and I came from a Conservative, to a libertarian, to an Anarcho-Capitalist. I now might go to Anarcho-Syndicalism.. So i have a few questions.


1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?

In a wholly "free" market, mega corporations would be able to reduce wages to pretty much nothing, destroy as much of the environment as needed, and pretty much do all sorts of heinous things in order to please shareholders and feed the "bottom line."

You know all those dystopian cyberpunk movies where the government pretty much is the corporation? Yeah.

"Voting with your wallet" won't even matter since a monopoly/oligopoly would own everything anyway.

Those who have money would rule over those without.




2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?
Anarcho-syndicalists are communists. They believe in creating a post-scarcity society in which there is a gift economy. I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure they don't advocate using any form of currency.

Therefore, no taxes.

Re-distribution of wealth would happen, but not necessarily through giving everyone money as much as providing equal access to education, health care, etc.



3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?
This is the big problem, as anarchists define the state differently than Marxists.

I won't get into this, as it's too much of a pain in the ass. I'll let someone with more patience do it.


4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?
It depends on the society; anarcho-syndicalists (AFAIK) envision sort of a federation of worker's collectives that would each have their own set of rules and whatnot, much like how every household has a different set of rules.

So in Area A they might have rampant gun ownership, whereas Area B may not.


5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?

Private property would be nonexistent; means of production would be collectively owned and cared for by all the workers in a given collective. Personal property of course would be yours, no idea what kind of communist would argue that no one can have any personal possessions.

I have no clue what you mean by "items."

[fa2991]

Hi all,

I'm 13 years old, and I came from a Conservative, to a libertarian, to an Anarcho-Capitalist. I now might go to Anarcho-Syndicalism.. So i have a few questions.


1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?

2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?

3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?

4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?

5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?

Thanks! :thumbup1:

1. They would operate all things that are currently public institutions, like the police force and courts. Anarcho-capitalism is bullshit.

2. There probably wouldn't be either, as, starting from production itself, things would be distributed equally.

3. Hmmm... not sure what you're asking.

4. They would protect them. Though maybe not the arms so much.

5. To an extent. You have a right to personal effects, but nothing major. No major places of production or corporations or factories or large tracts of land.

[syndicat]

1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?

It would degenerate into a quasi-feudal system with one particular private army domnating. and thus you'd have a state. "anarcho-capitalism" is a self-contradiction. Capitalism is a system of class domination and exploitation. It is inherently hierarchical.



2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?

Means of production would be owned by the whole society and the workers organization that manages an industry would have a use-right but produce for direct benefit, not private profit.



3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?

There'd be a governance structure, based on assemblies and elected councils, both by industry and by area of residence, which would have power to make the basic rules (laws) and would have its popular militia to defend the revolution. It wouldn't be a state because it wouldn't be a hierarchical apparatus effectively beyond the control of the people. It would be direct popular rule by the working class.



4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?

Freedom as an individual is necessary if there is to be authentic democracy and working class in control because people have to be able to hear the different viewpoints, and have the freedom of debate, to reach an informed and collective decision.

The "right to bear arms" in the U.S. Constitution is a hold over from the early militia system (which was replaced by a massive standing army in 20th century because this was needed for U.S. to be an imperialist power). so if the defense of the social order is to be based on a directly armed people's militia, then, yes, this presuposes the right to bear arms.



5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?


Personal possessions should be distinguished from productive property. Productive property is anything that workers use to make goods or services for others in the economy. Productive property would be owned in common by the whole society. But you would be secure in your personal possessions, which could include, say, a boat you use to fish in, or even the dwelling you live in. But the land is part of the natural ecology of the earth that we all depend on. If you use land...to live on, to grow food on...you would have a secure use-right to do that.

[Adil3tr]

Hi all,

I'm 13 years old, and I came from a Conservative, to a libertarian, to an Anarcho-Capitalist. I now might go to Anarcho-Syndicalism.. So i have a few questions.

1. In An Anarcho-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule? Barbarically.
2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?No, because if everyone shares both the fruits of production and control of society, what would be re-distributed or taxed, and by who?

3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?I'm not a syndicalist so I won't put words in their mouths


4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?No. As long your not burning crosses and atacking people, it should be fine. A lot of older socialists ha no problem with guns, Trotsky even criticized Stalin for banning guns!

5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?Yeah, a personal home and articles would be yours. Land would depend on how close it is to you, and if you use it.

[AK]

Most stuff has been answered already, so I'll just get this done and I'm out:

1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?
Anarcho-cappies want competing private companies to offer security services to consumers. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is just a shitty doomed idea. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be policed by a proper state than directly by capitalists who offer better security for those with more money and completely neglect the safety and well-being of the poor. At least the current state fulfils a few of it's obligations to the working class.

[ContrarianLemming]

welcome





1. In An "Anarcho"-Capitalist society, how would corporations rule?

There would be no barriers/regulation to prevent a monopoly (when a corporation dominates a market), regulations from states are the only things which prevent corporate rule right now.


2. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, would there be taxes? and re-distribution of wealth?

There could be, if desired, but I'd rather a moneyless anarchism


3. How would an Syndicalist society come up without a State?

It would come about through any number of ways, a revolution, general strike, direct action tactics, a war or insurgency. Or it could be evolutionary/pacifist, whatever works.


4. I cherish, my natural-born rights, and my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms. Would this society affect that?

I think your rights wuld be greatly increased, since be cherish autonomy - you are free to do as you wish as long as you do not constrict nothers freedom, the golden rule.


5. Do i have the rights to my personal and private property, in land, and my items?

On your items, yes, however something which produces items (the "means of production") like a factory of a farm field would be either owned communaly or owned by the workers which work at that specific place.
So either the farmers own the farm (in common, equally) or all the locals own it ("communal" ownership).

[Tifosi]

Dude your 13, why the fuck do you need a gun? Why do you "cherish" your 'right' to have a gun?

[AK]

Dude your 13, why the fuck do you need a gun? Why do you "cherish" your 'right' to have a gun?
http://www.dfwmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/cod4_logo.jpg

[Tifosi]

http://www.dfwmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/cod4_logo.jpg

For the wii

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/wii-guns.jpg

[The Douche]

Dude your 13, why the fuck do you need a gun? Why do you "cherish" your 'right' to have a gun?

Why do you need a computer? Why does anybody need anything? Do you want to live in a world where we only have what we need? Count me out, bro.

And what does being 13 have to do with having guns? I was shooting when I was like 10.


An OP-My advice is to think realistically about some of your questions. (how can there be taxes if there is no state?) But the anarchist FAQ is the best place for you to start, and then maybe engage people on this website with questions or things you take issue with. Its always better to have a basic grasp of the ideology before you try and discuss it.


Also, maybe you should try and decide how you would like society to look, and then see if there are past thinkers/ideologies that mesh with that.

[Tifosi]

Why do you need a computer? Why does anybody need anything? Do you want to live in a world where we only have what we need? Count me out, bro.

Same here, it would dead boring but I'd say there is a difference between a gun and a computer, maybe the deadly bullet that comes out the gun being a part in that.


And what does being 13 have to do with having guns? I was shooting when I was like 10.

You where aloud the have your own gun to keep in your bedroom to? There is a difference between going shooting in a controlled environment and having a
gun about the house.

I enjoy shooting to, I've done target shooting before and it's fun. What I have a problem with is people having deadly weapons lying about their homes. I'm sure in an Anarchist society there could be community run gun programs, where guns are stored safely away from the wrong hands, where people can be trained how to handle a gun etc :thumbup1:

[Magón]

I enjoy shooting to, I've done target shooting before and it's fun. What I have a problem with is people having deadly weapons lying about their homes. I'm sure in an Anarchist society there could be community run gun programs, where guns are stored safely away from the wrong hands, where people can be trained how to handle a gun etc :thumbup1:

Of course there would be gun programs, just like there are now, but I don't think in an Anarchistic society, you could have people hand over their guns to the Unions, willingly and have them stashed somewhere else. For myself, in my own little idea of this in an Anarchistic society about guns, you would have an armed populous. But they'd also act as a Militia, so when a call to arms was needed, they'd be their with their weapons. Anyone who was willing or owned a gun, would be apart of the Militia since every gun counts in a War. Of course, this Militia wouldn't just be a collection of Joe Fridays sitting around shooting off their guns, and when the call to arms was needed. They wouldn't be well trained. (That was one of the problems the Trade Unions in Spain during the Civil War had, they didn't have well trained people up against Franco.) So if someone were to buy a gun, or had a gun put into their hands, I'd have it so they were well trained in every aspect of that gun: how to clean it, how to load it, how to unload it, how to properly point when cleaning, how to properly keep it up to fighting standards which is more or less just shooting standards. (Another problem the Trade Union Militias had when handing out guns, they were old and the people hardly knew how to clean or shoot one properly.)

So I wouldn't restrict the people from owning guns in their homes.

[The Douche]

Same here, it would dead boring but I'd say there is a difference between a gun and a computer, maybe the deadly bullet that comes out the gun being a part in that.

Or the dangerous ability to post child pornography? Guns can ruin lives in the hands of foolish people or the hands of dangerous people. Just like computers can.


You where aloud the have your own gun to keep in your bedroom to? There is a difference between going shooting in a controlled environment and having a
gun about the house.


Yeah, always had guns around, once I had proven to my parents I knew how to safely use them. I have guns around the house now as well, but no children currently.


I'm sure in an Anarchist society there could be community run gun programs, where guns are stored safely away from the wrong hands, where people can be trained how to handle a gun etc

Wouldn't want the unwashed masses exposed to that kind of power now would we? Better keep those dangerous means of production well regulated as well.

[this is an invasion]

The only way to keep people safe from guns being in the wrong hands is to put guns in everyone's hands.



An armed society is a polite society.

[The Douche]

The only way to keep people safe from guns being in the wrong hands is to put guns in everyone's hands.



An armed society is a polite society.

USA! USA! USA! FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!



But for real, it would be inherently unanarchist to prevent individuals from owning their personal property, which easily includes firearms, or butter knives, both deadly weapons.

[Boboulas]

How would more guns make anything safer? Thats like saying if every nation had a nuke, world peace would ensue. People arent perfect, all it would take is for one person to get pissed off for another 10 to die.

We need to teach people that guns shouldnt be necessary in a socialist society.

[this is an invasion]

How would more guns make anything safer? Thats like saying if every nation had a nuke, world peace would ensue. People arent perfect, all it would take is for one person to get pissed off for another 10 to die.

We need to teach people that guns shouldnt be necessary in a socialist society.

Because most people aren't going to try to fuck with someone they know is most likely armed and has an understanding of how to defend themselves and fire a gun.


I would say guns are always necessary. Not just for self-defense but also for getting food.

[Magón]

Because most people aren't going to try to fuck with someone they know is most likely armed and has an understanding of how to defend themselves and fire a gun.

That's true, if people knew how to properly protect themselves, and knew that others could be armed out there in the world, they wouldn't dare go rob a bank. Because they'd know that anyone in that bank could be packing some sort of firearm, and through this, people would be more careful of such things.

I agree.

[this is an invasion]

That's true, if people knew how to properly protect themselves, and knew that others could be armed out there in the world, they wouldn't dare go rob a bank. Because they'd know that anyone in that bank could be packing some sort of firearm, and through this, people would be more careful of such things.

I agree.

This is sort of unrelated, but I would like there to be more bank robberies.

[Raúl Duke]

We need to teach people that guns shouldnt be necessary in a socialist society. guns isn't the motive for murder/violence, social or psychological factors are.

I imagine everyone will have access to guns in an actual socialist society. We need an armed populace.

[Peace on Earth]

But there wouldn't be such a need for crime (with the use of guns) in a relatively good socialist society, as rampant poverty wouldn't exist. However, the right to own some sort of firearm isn't a bad idea in itself. After all, the revolution probably won't be won with sticks.

[Magón]

This is sort of unrelated, but I would like there to be more bank robberies.

In a Capitalist world, of course. I have no problem with it. But in a Socialist or Anarchist world, where people are living by the support of one another, it doesn't only hinder them, but the robber themselves. But I agree with you, bank robberies now I don't have a problem with.


But there wouldn't be such a need for crime (with the use of guns) in a relatively good socialist society, as rampant poverty wouldn't exist. However, the right to own some sort of firearm isn't a bad idea in itself. After all, the revolution probably won't be won with sticks.

You're right, there wouldn't be, but there would be a need for a well trained populous because there's always the threat of invasion from some Fascist/Totalitarian regime! Especially if you're sitting on some fine natural resources that they want. Or they're just power hungry fools like usual.

[this is an invasion]

Why would there be banks in an anarchist society?

[Magón]

Why would there be banks in an anarchist society?

I think banks would just be like they are now, but without all the crap banks throw at you to make their own money. It'd just be a place for people to place money that they don't want to keep in their pocket all the time. And maybe a place to hold money for trips? But then again, I'm for a non-monetary society, so I'm not sure. But if there was a monetary system, I think banks could still be useful.

[Nachie]

Why would there be money in an anarchist society?

Same reason they'd be trying to take my guns away :laugh:

[Magón]

Why would there be money in an anarchist society?

Same reason they'd be trying to take my guns away :laugh:

You have to buy stuff somewhere. Your nation/society isn't going to have it all, so obviously you'd have to make some kind of currency to at least by from outside sources? I mean, not every leftist idea goes against having no monetary resource. So to survive, you'd have to have at least one to buy something from another.

[this is an invasion]

You have to buy stuff somewhere. Your nation/society isn't going to have it all, so obviously you'd have to make some kind of currency to at least by from outside sources? I mean, not every leftist idea goes against having no monetary resource. So to survive, you'd have to have at least one to buy something from another.

That sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me.

one of the basic premises of communism is that everyone has access to the things they need to survive.

[Magón]

That sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me.

one of the basic premises of communism is that everyone has access to the things they need to survive.

Having to buy a vital resource from somewhere else is bad? It can't be helped. You have to think realistically here. The space in which you occupy as a nation, isn't going to have everything your people need to survive and sustain themselves at a decent level. (Not a gluttonous level, but a reasonable self sustaining level.) Let's say my Anarchist society is located in the Netherlands, or Greece. I'm not going to have that many resources to sustain my population for very long, without some sort of outside resource coming in as well. It's a trade, in which a meaningless monetary source is sent to another place for a more valuable resource. It's not Capitalism, it's a bartering system in sorts.

[Raúl Duke]

In communism, there's no banks...no means to accumulate cash/capital.

In socialism, I imagine there will be a community-managed something like a "bank" (where people can store their cash, etc) similar to a mutual/co-op but it would be totally different in function from the banks (and mutuals/co-ops) we have now.

[Magón]

In communism, there's no banks...no means to accumulate cash/capital.

In socialism, I imagine there will be a community-managed something like a "bank" (where people can store their cash, etc) similar to a mutual/co-op but it would be totally different in function from the banks (and mutuals/co-ops) we have now.

I agree, and I think that the "banks" of any Anarchist or Socialist society would operate differently. Like I said, they'd be just a place for people to put extra cash for say something like a trip, or maybe an emergency fund. But you wouldn't have overdraft fees, and things like that that banks nowadays pile onto people.

[Boboulas]

Because most people aren't going to try to fuck with someone they know is most likely armed and has an understanding of how to defend themselves and fire a gun.

Really? I guess theres never been a shootout before then? People attack other people they know have guns because they think they are "faster" or more acurate or have some kind of suprise element. If anything more people having guns would be more killings not less.


I would say guns are always necessary. Not just for self-defense but also for getting food.

Where do you get your food? Most people go to a super market.

[Boboulas]

guns isn't the motive for murder/violence, social or psychological factors are.

What do you means guns isnt the motive? I didnt say that, that doesnt really make any sense.

If anything, in a socialist society where there may be no "laws" or at least "fairer" laws, what use would a gun have? To protect from what?


We need an armed populace.

For what? People dont want to walk down the street and see people toking AK-47s and pistols. People dont want to live in a society where they are abundent and easy to acsess because people will use them, simple as that.

[this is an invasion]

Really? I guess theres never been a shootout before then? People attack other people they know have guns because they think they are "faster" or more acurate or have some kind of suprise element. If anything more people having guns would be more killings not less. Wow, so you're saying that "bad" shit is gonna happen regardless of anything and that there isn't a perfect solution?! Holy shit dude.

And I disagree that more guns equals more killings. Shootouts are a rare occurrence and to say otherwise is stupid. Statistically, cities in the US with strict gun control laws are more violent than cities with lax gun control laws.

Is arming everyone or giving everyone the decision to arm themselves going to fix everything? No. But it's the most logical option.




Where do you get your food? Most people go to a super market.

Yeah forgot there are supermarkets everywhere. What about people who don't want to go to a supermarket to get their food?

[this is an invasion]

If anything, in a socialist society where there may be no "laws" or at least "fairer" laws, what use would a gun have? To protect from what? fascists, capitalists, rapists, wild animals, etc.




For what? People dont want to walk down the street and see people toking AK-47s and pistols. People dont want to live in a society where they are abundent and easy to acsess because people will use them, simple as that.

That sounds awesome to me.

[Magón]

For what? People dont want to walk down the street and see people toking AK-47s and pistols. People dont want to live in a society where they are abundent and easy to acsess because people will use them, simple as that.


Just because people could freely carry around a weapon, doesn't mean they'll do it all the time. I'm pretty sure you're acting on the opposite of Common Sense, which is a key thing I think in an Anarchist society. People wouldn't be toting their guns around, but if they wanted to, they could, but there wouldn't be any real reason to do so, unless they wanted to show off their new gun. But really, who's going to show off their gun to a bunch of strangers? You're acting against Common Sense, and people in a Anarchistic society have to run on Common Sense or they cease to be much of an Anarchist.

[The Douche]

For what? People dont want to walk down the street and see people toking AK-47s and pistols. People dont want to live in a society where they are abundent and easy to acsess because people will use them, simple as that.

You and I clearly come from, and exist in two very different places.


Not to mention you clearly don't understand the first thing about guns, and gun ownership within a culture.

I have AKs and pistols, guess you won't be coming to dinner at my house, and thats fine if you don't want to. But you're out of your mind if you think that total emancipation means forcing your values on me.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

How would more guns make anything safer? Thats like saying if every nation had a nuke, world peace would ensue.

who would fuck with a nation that had nukes?

[Peace on Earth]

A nation who knows the other one wouldn't use a nuke. Although, in the case of guns, it's more likely someone would use a gun than a nuke if they possess it. People are thinking too far to the extremes with regard to guns. If people had access to guns, it wouldn't be like walking through a military base when you take a stroll down Main Street. I wouldn't always carry my gun, others would. But if the proper precautions were taken (courses, licenses, etc.) the increased amount of firearms would not be a detriment to society.

[AK]

You have to buy stuff somewhere. Your nation/society isn't going to have it all, so obviously you'd have to make some kind of currency to at least by from outside sources? I mean, not every leftist idea goes against having no monetary resource. So to survive, you'd have to have at least one to buy something from another.
Didn't you ever hear of a gift economy? Besides, why would we even have borders?

In communism, there's no banks...no means to accumulate cash/capital.

In socialism, I imagine there will be a community-managed something like a "bank" (where people can store their cash, etc) similar to a mutual/co-op but it would be totally different in function from the banks (and mutuals/co-ops) we have now.
Why should there be cash in a socialist society?

People dont want to live in a society where they are abundent and easy to acsess because people will use them, simple as that.
They will just use them? Why? What is their motivation? Under capitalism its to murder people in cold blood (sometimes due to a bad financial situation or because of mental illness or hate usually triggered by the bad bits of class-based society; poverty, depression, racism, nationalism, homophobia, etc.) or other times it is to fight for the ruling class (which also includes the murdering and the cold blood).

But in an anarchist society, where is the motivation? Poverty, depression (most often (directly or indirectly) caused by a bad financial situation, etc.) and extreme hate (on an ethnic or gender/sex level) would be gone. You think I'll just pick up a gun and blow Fred's brains out for the hell of it?

[Raúl Duke]

Why should there be cash in a socialist society?Because it ain't communism.

Socialism will have cash/labor vouchers/whatevers which I'm guessing are accumulative. It's what will be established immediately from the time the majority of workplaces in an area are under worker's control.

Communism will not have accumulative cash.It may be a gift economy, something like the technocratic non-accumulative "energy credit" scheme, or etc.

It's in our interest to quickly transition the economy of an anarchist society to a communism one ASAP after revolution/etc. However, it also depends on the will of the people if they want said transition. They may decide just to stick with anarcho-socialism. But as long as there are anarcho-communists, I imagine they will continue to advocate for the transition towards communism.

[Magón]

Didn't you ever hear of a gift economy? Besides, why would we even have borders?

I never said there couldn't be a gift economy in the Anarchist/Socialist society. But outside and on a "government level" there'd be some need for some form of currency, because the whole world isn't going to be run on a gift economy. I go to one country asking for salt, or cotton, or whatever, they probably don't work on the gift economy. But I don't see why printing countless amounts of money, that are worthless to you, but vital to someone else is a bad thing? In a way, you're just trading one commodity for another. Salt for money, but to you you can give up the money no problem since in your society it has no meaning or use.

And of course there'd still be borders, not everyone's nation is going to be Anarchist/Socialist where there are no borders. That's just fact, and truth to how the world is in some places. Plus, you're not always going to be so lucky in where your Anarchist/Socialist utopia is going to be at. If you wanted it in America, then good luck, because America would be the last place for a successful Anarchist/Socialist place. Anywhere where else, like Latin America you'd also have a hard time, but it'd be a lot easier than the US.

You have to stop living in the fantasy land, and realize that just because you're an Anarchist, doesn't mean that every nation around you is going to be too. It takes time, and in that time you're going to have to make some kind of dealings with outside nations who deal in the green stuff.

[RebelDog]

who would fuck with a nation that had nukes?

A nation that had more nukes? Do you think the wheels of imperialism would come off just because every nation had nuclear weapons?

[ContrarianLemming]

That sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me.

here stands the number one annoyance in the learning section: people think "money" and "trade" and "rationing" is CAPITALISM!
C'mon people..that's stupid, none of those are traits of capitalism, and never have been.

[ContrarianLemming]

If anything, in a socialist society where there may be no "laws" or at least "fairer" laws, what use would a gun have? To protect from what?

a criminal silly.

[Raúl Duke]

It takes time, and in that time you're going to have to make some kind of dealings with outside nations who deal in the green stuff.

You could always do tit-4-tat trading where you give materials in exchange for other materials without the recourse towards cash/etc.

[ContrarianLemming]

A nation that had more nukes? Do you think the wheels of imperialism would come off just because every nation had nuclear weapons?

ONE nuke is enough to fuck up the world, ONE nuke vs FIFTY nukes is an EQUAL fight. That's how powerful they are, we can't even comprehend.

[Tifosi]

Because most people aren't going to try to fuck with someone they know is most likely armed and has an understanding of how to defend themselves and fire a gun.

America is a perfect example of this idea working:rolleyes:

[ed miliband]

If anything, in a socialist society where there may be no "laws" or at least "fairer" laws, what use would a gun have? To protect from what?



Boredom, for one. I've never shot a gun but I assume it's fun, there's some use.

The funny thing is re: guns it's actually easier and more logical to support gun ownership from a left-wing position than it is from a right-wing one. Liberals who oppose popular gun ownership always do so with a sneering snobbery - the masses simply can't be trusted with guns! They'll kill eachother! But the police and the military can be trusted of course. Guns will always exist and in not supporting popular ownership of arms you must essentially support a minority ownership of them, and an armed minority is a very powerful minority. I've raised this problem with people who support very strict gun laws because they are oh so liberal and they are perfectly fine with such an arrangement - they even see it as sensible.

[ContrarianLemming]

Boredom, for one. I've never shot a gun but I assume it's fun, there's some use.

The funny thing is re: guns it's actually easier and more logical to support gun ownership from a left-wing position than it is from a right-wing one. Liberals who oppose popular gun ownership always do so with a sneering snobbery - the masses simply can't be trusted with guns! They'll kill eachother! But the police and the military can be trusted of course. Guns will always exist and in not supporting popular ownership of arms you must essentially support a minority ownership of them, and an armed minority is a very powerful minority. I've raised this problem with people who support very strict gun laws because they are oh so liberal and they are perfectly fine with such an arrangement - they even see it as sensible.

Either everyone has a gun or no one does, paradise.

[Magón]

You could always do tit-4-tat trading where you give materials in exchange for other materials without the recourse towards cash/etc.

True, you could, but if you're trading with a nation that has something vital that your nation needs, and their own way of selling things is to get cash, then you'd obviously have to give them cash. But of course, like I already said, giving cash which isn't something needed in an Anarchist/Socialist society on the person to person, "civil level", but is important for trade on the national "government" level, the production of cash money wouldn't be a big deal. Most people would probably only have cash for like I also said earlier, traveling around in a nation that only has such acceptance of a cash currency, etc. But there'd be no need for it in the rest of society.

Of course, this only applies to nations where currency is needed. You could trade this good for that good, with any other nation that doesn't run on a cash currency at any level. "Civil" or "Government".

[Boboulas]

fascists, capitalists, rapists, wild animals, etc.After a sucsessful revoultion all over the planet capitalists would not have much in the way of social power. Obviously im not argueing that we should throw down our guns before we even start to change society. Facists? Yea cus there a millions of them, cant walk down the road without seeing some, then obviosuly they would try to rape me. Rape is an entirely seperate subject froms guns. And after the facists are finsished raping me, a wild animal will come and attack me? Are you suggesting that wild animals are a serious problem after the revoultion? I do tend to see gun toking paranoid people in the countryside of england, what if a badger came and ate my babies?!?!?!



Statistically, cities in the US with strict gun control laws are more violent than cities with lax gun control laws. America, with the culture of violence and crime? Look at it from an international perspective and you will see places with stronger gun laws have far less violent crime than places with lax gun laws.


Is arming everyone or giving everyone the decision to arm themselves going to fix everything? No. But it's the most logical option.Why are you assuming that i think we dont need guns before a revoultion? Never stated that once. After the capitalist social relations are gone and their hierarchies removed, where then is this enemy? Or are we to turn paranoid and think everyone could potentialy be a counter revoultionary?


Yeah forgot there are supermarkets everywhere. What about people who don't want to go to a supermarket to get their food?So the logical option would be go out and kill what? Cows? Horses? Chickens? Fish? Arent farmers going to do this for us, if anything you would be inconveniencing them by killing the collectively owned livestock.


That sounds awesome to me.Yea, amurica FUCK YEA. Grow up dude :D :D :D


I'm pretty sure you're acting on the opposite of Common Sense, which is a key thing I think in an Anarchist society. [QUOTE]

[QUOTE=nin] People wouldn't be toting their guns around, but if they wanted to, they could, but there wouldn't be any real reason to do so [QUOTE]

Yea, talk about common sense, by doing something with no real reason to do it. I mean what kind of world are you invisioning? A peaceful world where guns are for some reason needed more than ever or a not so peaceful world where clearly our task as socialists isnt done yet.

[QUOTE]Not to mention you clearly don't understand the first thing about guns, and gun ownership within a culture.

You and I clearly come from, and exist in two very different places.2 different places, 2 different cultres. You said it yourself.


who would fuck with a nation that had nukes?Someone allready said, the nation with more nukes, or someone who belives they can win after total nuclear war.


You think I'll just pick up a gun and blow Fred's brains out for the hell of it? Could be argued both ways. What i said was pretty stupid looking back because people will use them, simple as that. And i retract that statement. When i say argued both ways, its fairly obiovus that capitalism causes social unrest and crime, but what im argueing against is making them easy to acsess after our task is done. No one has yet to say why guns are needed so badly after the end of global capitalism, after the last capitalist elements are removed from society, there will surely be no vast enemy of the people who wants to re-instate global capitalism which would be impossible after a global revoultion.


a criminal silly.Alpha cappa allready explained this. Capitalism causes social inequality, social unrest and crime. What would i gain by robbing the local grocieries store if there is no till and the necessities i need are free anyway? Ofcourse theres no way of knowing if someone is willing to commit armed robbery for an xbox in a communist society, lets find out. But thats another issue entirely.


Boredom, for one. I've never shot a gun but I assume it's fun, there's some use.
I have never shot a gun either, ive allways wanted to do so too for the fun value of shooting targets. Not because im scared im gonna get raped by facists and then have a wild animal attack me.

I think some of you got slightly confused with my position.

[Boboulas]

Mods please fix my post, its pissing me right off:laugh:

[The Douche]

You're neglecting to adress my points. The arguement of guns for self defense in a post-revolutionary society is relative easy to enage.

The fact is I participate in a harmless hobby with my personal posessions, and you think it is perfectly compatible with emancipatory politics to prevent me from doing so. Should we also ban the building of models because you can huff the glue?

[Boboulas]

Who said anything about banning guns? I sure didnt.


The arguement of guns for self defense in a post-revolutionary society is relative easy to enage.

Do it then.

[bcbm]

Mods please fix my post, its pissing me right off:laugh:

you can edit your own posts boss

[robbo203]

I never said there couldn't be a gift economy in the Anarchist/Socialist society. But outside and on a "government level" there'd be some need for some form of currency, because the whole world isn't going to be run on a gift economy. I go to one country asking for salt, or cotton, or whatever, they probably don't work on the gift economy. But I don't see why printing countless amounts of money, that are worthless to you, but vital to someone else is a bad thing? In a way, you're just trading one commodity for another. Salt for money, but to you you can give up the money no problem since in your society it has no meaning or use.

And of course there'd still be borders, not everyone's nation is going to be Anarchist/Socialist where there are no borders. That's just fact, and truth to how the world is in some places. Plus, you're not always going to be so lucky in where your Anarchist/Socialist utopia is going to be at. If you wanted it in America, then good luck, because America would be the last place for a successful Anarchist/Socialist place. Anywhere where else, like Latin America you'd also have a hard time, but it'd be a lot easier than the US.

You have to stop living in the fantasy land, and realize that just because you're an Anarchist, doesn't mean that every nation around you is going to be too. It takes time, and in that time you're going to have to make some kind of dealings with outside nations who deal in the green stuff.

Socialism/communism/anarchism - whatever you want to call it - presupposes majority understanding and support. It also presupposes the global dissemination of revolutionary ideas. In fact it is unrealistic to assume that such ideas could suddenly take of in one part of the world and remain inconsequential in another. Heard of the "global village"? We are living in it today. The revolutuonary movement will moreover not simply passively reflect the spread of these ideas but will pro-actively work to minimnise spatial inequalities in revolutionary consciousness deploying its growing resources to that end. We refuse to recognise national boundaries

Production today is globalised socialised process. It is for this very reason that the new society has itself to be a global alternative to capitalism. You can to an extent transcend the capitalist commodity relationship locally - some intentional communities do it today - but this can only ever be a partial solution. We need to be able to see the wood for the trees. Global capitalism is what we need to overthrow and what we put in its place can only truly be a global alternative to capitalism - a communist gift economy in its full blown sense

[Boboulas]

you can edit your own posts boss

Tried like 10 times to get the quoting to work but it wouldnt, i feel a mod may do a better job.

[this is an invasion]

America is a perfect example of this idea working:rolleyes:

Actually Canada is.

[The Douche]

Who said anything about banning guns? I sure didnt.



Do it then.

Aren't you arguing for a ban on the personal ownership of weapons though? Maybe I'm confused.

[727Goon]

For what? People dont want to walk down the street and see people toking AK-47s and pistols. People dont want to live in a society where they are abundent and easy to acsess because people will use them, simple as that.

Ever heard of the Black Panther Party bruh?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

A nation that had more nukes? Do you think the wheels of imperialism would come off just because every nation had nuclear weapons?

Why else do you think the west is so concerned about Iran, North Korea, etc trying to develop nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer.

It doesn't matter how many. A single nuke can have devastating effects.