Property under Anarchism [Archive]

PoliticalNightmare

7th October 2010, 00:01

Peace on Earth

7th October 2010, 00:44

I'll tackle the home-size issue. It depends what you mean, but I'll give you my views. Up until a certain point, people shouldn't be told how big they can build a house or how their house should look. A great aspect of neighborhoods (ones that havent been completely ravaged) is each individual's style of home. Having extremely uniform sizes and styles, and forcing people to adhere to them, would be bland madness, if I can even use that phrase.

However, this does not mean people should be able to own hundreds of acres to build virtual palaces on, complete with enough fittings to provide for hundreds, if not thousands of people. Maybe a community board or a local vote would determine certain size limits. It wouldn't really matter, as it would be democratic any way it is done.

The only people turned off by this idea would be the extremely rich who own the mansions. Anyone else would probably be glad that they have a better, and more fair, opportunity at land ownership.

WeAreReborn

7th October 2010, 00:46

A lot of questions to answer... well first the property issue is solved by Anarchist Communism which is similar to a lease but without a contract. So you live in a house when you need it and if you leave someone else takes over.

I'm somewhat confused about the hierarchy question, I think what you mean is will there be somewhat of a moral dictatorship that you have to follow certain social guidelines? And to some extent yes, but I think in general it will be minimized by the overall excepting nature that anarcho-communism will have to be based on.

Size of homes would be simply people to house ratio. A family of 8 would be in a home that fits their size not in a home built for 10 or 2. Society would just accommodate individual needs and since it is on an individual basis it will be better suited for the people involved.

Adi Shankara

7th October 2010, 01:01

Anarchists have no clue either.

Comrade_Stalin

7th October 2010, 01:43

Here a wiki link to a place that has this from of govermnt and the results, there is no goverment in Somalia and so should be used to show what "Property under Anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/property-under-anarchism-p1887723/index.html#post1887723) " is.

Somalia (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Somalia), from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Stateless_society) and legal system.[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-maccallum-0)[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-nyt-1) Since the fall of Siad Barre (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Siad_Barre)'s government in January 1991, there had been no permanent national government in Somalia[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-cia-2) until the current Transitional Federal Government (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Transitional_Federal_Government). Large areas of the country such as Puntland (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Puntland), and Galmudug (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Galmudug) are internationally unrecognized autonomous regions (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Autonomous_region), while Somaliland (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Somaliland) is a de facto sovereign state. The remaining areas, including the capital Mogadishu (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mogadishu), were divided into smaller territories ruled by competing warlords (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Warlord). In many areas there were (and still are) no formal regulations or licensing requirements for businesses and individuals.

Somalia is currently claimed as the sovereign territory of the Transitional Federal Government (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Transitional_Federal_Government), internationally recognized as the Government of Somalia. Before December 2006, the TFG controlled only the town of Baidoa (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Baidoa), the sixth largest city.[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-cia-2) The intervention of Ethiopian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ethiopia) government forces following the rise of the Islamic Courts Union (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Rise_of_the_Islamic_Courts_Union_(2006)), culminating in the latter's defeat in the Battle of Baidoa (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Battle_of_Baidoa), allowed the TFG to expand its control under the protection of the Ethiopians. The TFG has not been able to effectively collect taxes, has no notable finances or real power base,[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-irin-3) and has struggled to exert control over Mogadishu since an attempted move in late December 2006.[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-cia-2) However, the TFG has since been able to take most of Somalia, and is struggling to cement its control and establish law and order.

Apoi_Viitor

7th October 2010, 02:39

Apoi_Viitor

7th October 2010, 03:00

Also, this:

http://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin6

tl/dr: Yes to personal property (a small house, a personal living space, etc.). The decision on how to divide up wealthy/bourgeios land is up to the community. There would be a social code that prevents people from unjustifiably entering another's personal property. And yes, Anarchism suggests a form of "hierarchy" (if you want to call it that) where society is able to stop a person from doing an 'illegitimate' action.

MagÃ³n

7th October 2010, 03:29

I was wondering if an anarchists (with the exception of mutualists) would be willing to place all property under communal ownership would there be no private property? Well, obviously not but how about own personal space type private property - a roof over your head and a place to sleep - as opposed to owning the means of production. I was wondering whether the answer to this would simply be that anarchist communes would simply lease property to individual members of the public as part of their work-for-provisions agreement or whether they would impose a social code in regards to land use to prevent people from unjustifiably entering other's homes or taking their own planted crops?

People will be able to still have their own home. Everyone needs personal space, even Anarchists, so having a home of your own or to share with your family isn't something Anarchists would/should oppose.

As for someone taking someone else's crops, that would be handled/settled through the people themselves. (Those who the crops were taken from, and the thief. Society would have no reason to get involved.)

Also, I know that this is an obvious question but how do you stop people from doing things like this without imposing some form of hierarchy justified though it may be (I do not mean a structural form of hierarchy such as government but just any form of hierarchy where society in general stops a person from doing an action even though this action may be immoral)?

Look above.

I was also wondering in regards to size of homes (as I would like to see an end to property inequality) how you would go about ensuring that certain people do not have larger homes than others, etc. Would a board, equally accessible to all, of voluntary workers allocate land to the public. If so would this not be at all bureaucratic? If so then would their be rules about the sizes of homes people were able to have with people ending up having to leave their own home because it is deemed too large or whatever by society to inhabit another house. Would this not put the people off the idea of anarchism?

I think the general sized home that most people need, is just a one story, two or three bedroom home with one or two baths, and a kitchen/living room. Families/people would have to have the mindset of population control, so we don't have what we have today which is an out of control population growth. Such as this family have four kids, another ten, and this one with just one kid; then just down the road, another couple of families has ten kids each also. People I think would be under the impression that it's better to just have one or two kids, rather than five or so, to keep the population of these Communes at a reasonable level. If we don't have population control, then we get what we have today which is mass famines in Africa, India, etc. with children on the street that are only 3+ years old, with no family or anyone to help them.

As for land, I suppose it would matter on the Commune's people who decided whether land was given out equally around homes or not. Personally, I wouldn't care if my neighbor had a large plot of backyard than me, because that just means he/she has to take care of more space. So I think it's all up to the personal opinions/directions the Communes take on this and that. Though like population control, I think people will have a mindset that bigger isn't exactly better.

7th October 2010, 09:45

ContrarianLemming

7th October 2010, 10:10

People have already answered the OP's questions, but maybe I wanna say;

People can still have big houses in anarchism, if they earn it or no one else wants it (I certainly wouldn't want a big house)

Workers could still both control and own there workplace, which is a form of private ownership socialism.

revolution inaction

7th October 2010, 13:09

As for someone taking someone else's crops, that would be handled/settled through the people themselves. (Those who the crops were taken from, and the thief. Society would have no reason to get involved.)

i think if someone is taking anotheres stuff without asking then the two people involved have already failed to handle things by them selfs, and so it makes sense to ask for help from the reast of the communist to solve the despute, saying socity will not get involved sounds a hell of a lot like the "every one can just do what they want theres no rules" stereotyp of anarchism

althought the idea that any significat proportion of crops would be grown indervidualy is fucking rediculars

MagÃ³n

7th October 2010, 15:20

i think if someone is taking anotheres stuff without asking then the two people involved have already failed to handle things by them selfs, and so it makes sense to ask for help from the reast of the communist to solve the despute, saying socity will not get involved sounds a hell of a lot like the "every one can just do what they want theres no rules" stereotyp of anarchism

althought the idea that any significat proportion of crops would be grown indervidualy is fucking rediculars

Well let's make it simple, and say that someone steals from a personal crop. Like someone's made their own little personal garden just for the hell of it because they like to grow their own stuff. Someone comes along and takes it, then however the person who's been stolen from handles it, is up to them. Whether that's going to the community/neighbors and getting the person, or them "lone wolfing" it so to speak, and either taking the food back or just shooting the guy is completely up to them. Sure killing the guy might not have been the best way of handling things, but it shows that stealing from people personally isn't going to be tolerated.

I mean, that's what I meant by it. Whether people interpret that by the "no rules" stereotype of Anarchism, then so be it, but that's not how I see it. I see it being someone protecting their personal belongings, and handling it themselves, rather than bothering others on something so small like that. (Which I'm not saying stealing is a small thing, but with this I'd say it's not as important as someone stealing from the Communes whole food crop.) Know what I mean?

Ovi

7th October 2010, 15:40

I think houses should be freely available to everyone. They should be built by common effort and anyone can choose where he wants to live. All anarchists reject property for creating authoritarian relations between people (those who have it vs those who don't). Instead of property, we can talk about possession. It's yours as long as you use it. If you live in that house, then you decide how to decorate it or whatever. If you no longer live there, then someone else can move there instead.
To ensure freedom, it is necessary to have the means to defend it. In an anarchist society, a militia made out of ordinary people is the basis for that. Your freedom ends where mine begins is pretty much spot on. Self defense is not authoritarian, but an act against authority, which makes it legitimate.

If so then would their be rules about the sizes of homes people were able to have with people ending up having to leave their own home because it is deemed too large or whatever by society to inhabit another house. Would this not put the people off the idea of anarchism?

Nobody will be kicked out of their house, unless it's a multi million dollar mansion which can be put to better use (such as house more people). And we don't expect those who own such mansions to support us anyway.

revolution inaction

7th October 2010, 18:34

Well let's make it simple, and say that someone steals from a personal crop. Like someone's made their own little personal garden just for the hell of it because they like to grow their own stuff. Someone comes along and takes it, then however the person who's been stolen from handles it, is up to them. Whether that's going to the community/neighbors and getting the person, or them "lone wolfing" it so to speak, and either taking the food back or just shooting the guy is completely up to them. Sure killing the guy might not have been the best way of handling things, but it shows that stealing from people personally isn't going to be tolerated.

I mean, that's what I meant by it. Whether people interpret that by the "no rules" stereotype of Anarchism, then so be it, but that's not how I see it. I see it being someone protecting their personal belongings, and handling it themselves, rather than bothering others on something so small like that. (Which I'm not saying stealing is a small thing, but with this I'd say it's not as important as someone stealing from the Communes whole food crop.) Know what I mean?

no i don't know what you mean. you seem to be saying that killing some one for stealing you personal possessions is better than asking for some help, but that cant be right because that would be completely mental, and in most ways you seem reasonably sane.

look anarchism is not about people going of living on there own and doing eveything by themselves, its about mutual aid, solidarity, and non hierarchical organisation.

Comrade_Stalin

8th October 2010, 04:29

"no government = capitalism of the most diabolical sort".

You are not a Marxist, but a hypocrite.

It is you who are the hypocrite. No government does not mean capitalism of the most diabolical sort, it mean social anarchism and everything that comes with it. Somalia is in fact under a anarchist system as there is “No government” with all the thing that go with it. Hell it fact one of you anarchist agree with me.

I agree Comrade. When Marx envisioned a state-less communist society, he no doubt imagined something along the lines of Somalia.

I don't think so. It seems to me that its mostly the Stalinists who are unable to grasp Marx's conception of 'communism' - which is why they perceive its necessary to construct a self-perpetuating authoritarian state.

By the Way Marxist does not = anarchist. Hypocrites ask you to “do as they say and not as they do”. Why do you hijack you brain to a school and learn the meaning of the word, instead of hijacking Marxism. If Marxist were out to destroy the state then why do we ask for nationalization and to Take over (not destroy) the state? The answer is that we are for a form of government, namely democracy (which is a form of government).

Apoi_Viitor

8th October 2010, 05:03

By the Way Marxist does not = anarchist. Hypocrites ask you to “do as they say and not as they do”. Why do you hijack you brain to a school and learn the meaning of the word, instead of hijacking Marxism. If Marxist were out to destroy the state then why do we ask for nationalization and to Take over (not destroy) the state? The answer is that we are for a form of government, namely democracy (which is a form of government).

You're forgetting the part that's supposed to come after Nationalization... By the way, do you really think Anarchists are for a complete destruction of all social order? Anarchism is for a form of government, namely democracy, except, in contrast to Marxist-Leninists, we believe in both the ideal and actual implementation of democracy. That requires a system of social organization (a state, if you will...) however, Anarchism is defined as being 'stateless', because under it, there wouldn't be a political hierarchy (like there is in Bourgeios Representation or in Party Vanguard-ism).

Of course, as Emma Goldman noted, "The average Communist, whether of the Trotsky or Stalin brand, knows about as much of Anarchist literature and its authors as, let us say, the average Catholic knows about Voltaire or Thomas Paine. The very suggestion that one should know what one's opponents stand for before calling them names would be put down as heresy by the Communist hierarchy."

But before you critique Anarchism for being utterly separate from Marxism, can you define for me, what exactly is the Anarchist definition of a 'state'? Then what is the Marxist definition, and how are those ideas incompatible? Because honestly, I find that even at the beginning of the sect between Bakuninists and Marxists it was due to a differ in tactics, rather than any substantial differ in theory.

Summerspeaker

8th October 2010, 06:06

Only a Stalinist could attempt to use Somalia as an example of social anarchism.

Unfortunately not. Statists of all stripes apparently think Somalia when they think anarchism. I see this come up way too often.

MagÃ³n

8th October 2010, 08:36

no i don't know what you mean. you seem to be saying that killing some one for stealing you personal possessions is better than asking for some help, but that cant be right because that would be completely mental, and in most ways you seem reasonably sane.

look anarchism is not about people going of living on there own and doing eveything by themselves, its about mutual aid, solidarity, and non hierarchical organisation.

What I'm saying, is it's an alternative for some people. Maybe put as a spur of the moment thing, where if suddenly you hear a noise and see someone's taking your things, you can grab your gun or bat, or whatever, and beat him down if it happens. Just because living in an Anarchist Society means mutual aid, solidarity, etc. doesn't mean people can't handle their own agendas with other people. I'm not trying to imply that everyone's going to be shooting first, asking questions later, but it's a road some people take when being stolen from.

Plus, if I did happen to want to live on my own, be self sufficient by myself, and take care of my own problems, I could do so in an Anarchist Society because there'd be nobody to tell me I couldn't. I don't have to ask everyone every time, to help me out on something, I can take the initiative and handle it myself in whatever way I please.

8th October 2010, 09:04

It is you who are the hypocrite. No government does not mean capitalism of the most diabolical sort, it mean social anarchism and everything that comes with it. Somalia is in fact under a anarchist system as there is “No government” with all the thing that go with it. Hell it fact one of you anarchist agree with me.
This would be correct if not for the fact that we anarchists support the abolition of private property (which was widespread in Somalia throughout the Civil War and earlier and it still is) as well as all social hierarchy (which is obviously existent). Also, there were many warlords and rebel groups acting as small states - as well as the current de jure transitional government and the smaller states Puntland and Galmudug.

ed miliband

8th October 2010, 09:25

By the Way Marxist does not = anarchist. Hypocrites ask you to “do as they say and not as they do”. Why do you hijack you brain to a school and learn the meaning of the word, instead of hijacking Marxism. If Marxist were out to destroy the state then why do we ask for nationalization and to Take over (not destroy) the state? The answer is that we are for a form of government, namely democracy (which is a form of government).

Why did the Marxist Anton Pannekoek say this, then:

They propose beautiful plans for the upbuilding of Socialist production upon the basis of great industries and great agriculture whose support they must have. They do not think about the fact that Socialism is not a question of the nationalisation of industry, but is a question of the power of the proletariat - in the theoretic writings of Kautsky nothing is said about this! The result will be that when the bourgeoisie again assume power it will make an end of all these plans or realise them in its own way as State Socialism.?

I guess he wasn't a Marxist, not being in favour of nationalisation and all.

Or what about this Engels quote:

State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out...Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.I guess Engels was just bluffing.

And uh... who isn't for democracy?

Comrade_Stalin

9th October 2010, 01:21

But before you critique Anarchism for being utterly separate from Marxism, can you define for me, what exactly is the Anarchist definition of a 'state'? Then what is the Marxist definition, and how are those ideas incompatible? Because honestly, I find that even at the beginning of the sect between Bakuninists and Marxists it was due to a differ in tactics, rather than any substantial differ in theory.

In Marxist theory, the state is a mechanism dominated by and utilized in the interests of the ruling class to subjugate other classes, to legitimize the existing socio-economic system and to promote the interests of the dominant class.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)#cite_note-6) After a workers revolution, the state initially becomes the instrument of the working-class. Conquest of the state apparatus by the working class must take place to establish a socialist system. As socialism is built, the role and scope of the state changes as class distinctions (based on ownership of the means of production) gradually deteriorate due to the concentration of means of production in state hands. From the point where all means of production become state property, the nature and primary function of the state would change from one of political rule (via coercion) over men by the creation and enforcement of laws into a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production; that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in the Marxian sense.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)#cite_note-7)

This defines the Marxist view of the “state”, the Anarchist view is that the State=government.

You're forgetting the part that's supposed to come after Nationalization... By the way, do you really think Anarchists are for a complete destruction of all social order? Anarchism is for a form of government, namely democracy, except, in contrast to Marxist-Leninists, we believe in both the ideal and actual implementation of democracy. That requires a system of social organization (a state, if you will...) however, Anarchism is defined as being 'stateless', because under it, there wouldn't be a political hierarchy (like there is in Bourgeios Representation or in Party Vanguard-ism).

Are you trying to say the Anarchism = direct Democracy? Does this mean that Athens was a Anarchist government?

Of course, as Emma Goldman noted, "The average Communist, whether of the Trotsky or Stalin brand, knows about as much of Anarchist literature and its authors as, let us say, the average Catholic knows about Voltaire or Thomas Paine. The very suggestion that one should know what one's opponents stand for before calling them names would be put down as heresy by the Communist hierarchy."

Here a good starting point of on the difference between our two groups. But I will have to ask does the average Anarchist know anything about communist literature and its authors.

Both Marxist and socialist anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism) class analyses are based on the idea that society is divided into "classes", which are created based on the control each class has upon the means of production and hence each class having differing interests. The two differ, however, in where they draw the lines between these groups. Anarcho-primitivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivists) and post-left anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy) reject left wing politics in general (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism#Beyond_Leftism) (and theoretically by extension Marxist class analysis) as they typically see left wing politics as corrupt and in the former case see civilization as unreformable.
For Marxists, the two most relevant classes are the "bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie)", those who own the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production), and the "proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat)", more explicitly, the wage laborers. Marx believed that the industrial workers -and only them- would organize together, abolish the state, take control over the means of production, collectivize them, and create a classless society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society) administered by and for workers. He believed that only the workers have the motive and power to do that. For this reason, he dismissed peasants,the "petty-bourgeois", and the "lumpen-proletariat"—the unemployed "underclass"—as incapable of creating revolution.
The anarchist class analysis predates Marxism and contradicts it. Anarchists argue that it is not the whole bourgeoisie who has control over the means of production and the state, but only a minority of them, which is part of the ruling class, but has its own concerns. Also, traditionally anarchists have rejected Marx's dismissal of the lumpen proletariat and the peasantry as revolutionary and argued that a revolution, in order to be successful, needs the support of the peasants. Classical Anarchists believed that this is only possible through the redistribution of land. That is, they explicitly reject imposing state property of the land, although voluntary collectivization is seen as more efficient and thus supported (indeed, during the Spanish revolution anarchists impulsed hundreds of collectivizations but only a tiny minority had all the land in the area, small peasants were allowed to cultivate their own land without hired labour).

Comrade_Stalin

9th October 2010, 01:25

Why did the Marxist Anton Pannekoek say this, then:

?

I guess he wasn't a Marxist, not being in favour of nationalisation and all.

Or what about this Engels quote:

I guess Engels was just bluffing.

And uh... who isn't for democracy?

First off they are people who call themselfs marxist and are not. Hippes for a long time used many of the Left's words and terms to say why they were better then the group before them. They are far from marxist, but I have found a few that would call themselfs that.

The second is that a "state" is different then how the majority of people define it today. It not even the version that the marxist came up with or even that of the anarchist.

Comrade_Stalin

9th October 2010, 01:26

Unfortunately not. Statists of all stripes apparently think Somalia when they think anarchism. I see this come up way too often.

That or the Wild West, both most people I know call Somalia the Wild West of our times.

Apoi_Viitor

9th October 2010, 06:57

This defines the Marxist view of the “state”, the Anarchist view is that the State=government.

The Anarchist view (or at least my viewpoint), is that the state = political power in the hands of a minority. So when the bourgeios state is abolished, it should be replaced with a form of 'direct democracy', which would act as a dictatorship of the proletariat. As time continues, that dictatorship will fade away, due to the fact that class antagonisms will slowly cease to exist. As far as I can see, that doesn't contradict Marxism in any way.

Are you trying to say the Anarchism = direct Democracy? Does this mean that Athens was a Anarchist government?

Athens was the 'democracy' of a couple hundred rich people - which is hardly democratic. Democracy in its transitional phase, would be political power in the hands of the proletariat.

Here a good starting point of on the difference between our two groups. But I will have to ask does the average Anarchist know anything about communist literature and its authors.

I only adhere to Marx's analysis of social classes.

ed miliband

9th October 2010, 09:00

First off they are people who call themselfs marxist and are not. Hippes for a long time used many of the Left's words and terms to say why they were better then the group before them. They are far from marxist, but I have found a few that would call themselfs that.

The second is that a "state" is different then how the majority of people define it today. It not even the version that the marxist came up with or even that of the anarchist.

Fucking LOL - are you basically calling Pannekoek a hippie? :lol:

WeAreReborn

12th October 2010, 04:19

That or the Wild West, both most people I know call Somalia the Wild West of our times.
Anarchy is more then just the abolition of the state it is also the abolition of forms of hierarchy, and clearly the wild west wasn't anarchist because it had sheriffs and capitalism. That is why the wild west isn't true anarchy, though I agree it does come to many people's minds.

MagÃ³n

12th October 2010, 16:04

Anarchy is more then just the abolition of the state it is also the abolition of forms of hierarchy, and clearly the wild west wasn't anarchist because it had sheriffs and capitalism. That is why the wild west isn't true anarchy, though I agree it does come to many people's minds.

The stereotypical "Anarchy = Chaos" type of Anarchy is what comes to people's minds when they think the Wild West. Not actual Anarchy though. :)

Rafiq

14th October 2010, 01:19

Anarchy is more then just the abolition of the state it is also the abolition of forms of hierarchy, and clearly the wild west wasn't anarchist because it had sheriffs and capitalism. That is why the wild west isn't true anarchy, though I agree it does come to many people's minds.

Not all Anarchists are socialists. There is a pretty good amount of Capitalist Anarchists btw.

MagÃ³n

14th October 2010, 02:19

Not all Anarchists are socialists. There is a pretty good amount of Capitalist Anarchists btw.

They're not actual Anarchists. No actual Anarchist, recognizes Anarcho-Capitalism being actual Anarchy. Like it's been said time and time again, both are too far apart to ever come together in any form of reasoning. It's like "Anarcho-Trotskyism" or "Anarcho-Maoism" <---(Which is a new one I heard on here.)

WeAreReborn

14th October 2010, 02:46

Not all Anarchists are socialists. There is a pretty good amount of Capitalist Anarchists btw.
I honestly don't consider them Anarchists in the truest sense. I consider them more as the American party calls themselves, "libertarians". Where they want to abolish the government only to give liberty to the businesses and not the people. Though you are right in the literal definition, I just feel the term now has moved beyond that, obviously it is all opinion.

Victus Mortuum

14th October 2010, 02:50

WeAreReborn

14th October 2010, 02:58

They're not actual Anarchists. No actual Anarchist, recognizes Anarcho-Capitalism being actual Anarchy. Like it's been said time and time again, both are too far apart to ever come together in any form of reasoning. It's like "Anarcho-Trotskyism" or "Anarcho-Maoism" <---(Which is a new one I heard on here.)
Not to sure of what this means, Anarchism and Communism have a close relationship, even Marx realized this, he obviously just believe in transitions. Afterall, Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy and government no other form of society truly achieves this as much as Anarcho-Communism. Therefore it could be argued Anarcho-Communism can be considered true Anarchy.

MagÃ³n

14th October 2010, 11:03

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because you don't want them to be anarchists doesn't mean they aren't.

No, what you just said is ridiculous. What you just said, is like trying to say that anyone calling themselves Communist, Anarchist, etc. are those things because they say they are. This just isn't true. Capitalism is a far right economic situation, while Anarchy is a far left ideological/economical situation. Neither of the two can ever come together in any form because the two oppose each other in so many ways.

Those who call themselves "Anarcho-Capitalists", are not true Anarchists because they don't follow the basics of Anarchism as everyone who calls themselves an Anarchist do. (Opposing business, Petit-Bougieous, etc.) Sure they want no government, but they want no government because they want their businesses to be in control and free, rather than the workers doing the actual work. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't an actually possible thing in action. It's no doubt bound to fail if people were to seriously take it into consideration, and try to make a commune or something of "Anarcho-Capitalism". You're wrong when you say Anarcho-Capitalism is real Anarchism. End of story.

Not to sure of what this means, Anarchism and Communism have a close relationship, even Marx realized this, he obviously just believe in transitions. Afterall, Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy and government no other form of society truly achieves this as much as Anarcho-Communism. Therefore it could be argued Anarcho-Communism can be considered true Anarchy.

I think you missed my point, or are just not well versed in this little piece. (Which isn't an insult, I'm just taking a swing at it since you seemed to have missed my point.) Yes, Anarchism and Communism have a close relationship. I for one can call myself a Anarcho-Communist, and do, and see Anarcho-Communism as actual Communism. (So did the Spanish Anarchists, NEFAC, IWW, etc.) But like Anarcho-Capitalism, both Anarcho-Trotskyism and Anarcho-Maoism are too far apart to actually come together in a single ideology. (I'm quite sure any Trotskyist, Maoists, and other Anarchist will agree. They might be able to work side by side, which Anarchists and Trotskyists have in the past obviously, but not under the same name like that.)

Anarchists, in any true form of it, (Anarcho-Syndicalism, Communism, Primitivism, etc.) oppose a State and Authoritarian Rule, which both Trotskyism and Maoism support. This is one of the reasons why neither can come together under a title like Anarcho-Trotskyism and Anarcho-Maoism.

Summerspeaker

14th October 2010, 19:03

Unsurprisingly, individualist anarchists also argue their side has the one true claim to anarchism and that, despite history, collectivists aren't part of the club. It always makes me bang my head against a wall. They last I got into such a debate they told me collectivist anarchism was logically contradictory and thus objectively incorrect and incoherent.

I think fighting over the term is a waste of time. Both individualist and collectivist anarchist have a rich historical and current presence. Just be clear about what you're talking about move on.

Apoi_Viitor

14th October 2010, 21:59

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because you don't want them to be anarchists doesn't mean they aren't.

Calling Anarcho-Capitalism a form of 'anarchism', would be like calling National Socialism a form of 'socialism'.

It's like "Anarcho-Trotskyism" or "Anarcho-Maoism" <---(Which is a new one I heard on here.)

Personally, I'm an Anarcho-Stalinist, with a little bit of Anarcho-PolPotism and Anarcho-Obamaism.

Rafiq

14th October 2010, 22:35

Rafiq

14th October 2010, 22:38

Calling Anarcho-Capitalism a form of 'anarchism', would be like calling National Socialism a form of 'socialism'.

No that would be like Calling National Anarchists, 'Anarchists'.

Many prominent Anarchists, were not against Capitalism.

Victus Mortuum

14th October 2010, 22:46

No, what you just said is ridiculous. What you just said, is like trying to say that anyone calling themselves Communist, Anarchist, etc. are those things because they say they are. This just isn't true. Capitalism is a far right economic situation, while Anarchy is a far left ideological/economical situation. Neither of the two can ever come together in any form because the two oppose each other in so many ways.

Those who call themselves "Anarcho-Capitalists", are not true Anarchists because they don't follow the basics of Anarchism as everyone who calls themselves an Anarchist do. (Opposing business, Petit-Bougieous, etc.) Sure they want no government, but they want no government because they want their businesses to be in control and free, rather than the workers doing the actual work. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't an actually possible thing in action. It's no doubt bound to fail if people were to seriously take it into consideration, and try to make a commune or something of "Anarcho-Capitalism". You're wrong when you say Anarcho-Capitalism is real Anarchism. End of story.

No. I'm not. The fact is that the definition of the word Anarchism is "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty" (the first definition on dictionary.com and in all normal English dictionaries and by virtually everyone who speaks English). Therefore, both Social Anarchism and Individual Anarchism, both Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism, are valid forms of anarchism in that they both advocate the abolition of the government. End of story. You are trying to redefine a word in a way that it is not used. Whether or not it could 'actually work' is a different question than definition.

The thing is, if people accepted your definition broadly, or if there was even significant social controversy over the definition, I would grant you the use of the word as such. BUT, there isn't. Words are only as good as the definitions that society gives them (regardless of what you WANT society to give them).

Calling Anarcho-Capitalism a form of 'anarchism', would be like calling National Socialism a form of 'socialism'.

In a way you are right, and in a way you are wrong.

There is currently a social controversy over the definition of the word socialism. Is it "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" or is it "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise". Those are two radically different definitions, and two commonly used definitions. The former implies collective ownership and control, the latter implies ambiguous (potentially bourgeois) government control.

Insofar as Nazism embodies significant government control it does fit the latter definition of socialism. It does not fit the former definition, however. There has been a move towards the use of socialism as an indicator of government control/ownership regardless of which class the government is for. This is obvious from Nazism and Democratic Socialism (this would be unnecessary and redundant under the first definition). Some people want to fight for the use of the word socialism, but I think this fight is rather futile, this is just the direction the definition of words has gone.

On the other hand, you want to fight for the use of your word in a wholly new social way, in a way that it is not used in at all. This is a pointless.

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all TRUE Scotsmen like haggis.

This is your fallacy.

You: All anarchists support socialism.
Other: Anarcho-Capitalists are anarchists, and they don't support socialism!
You: Well, all TRUE anarchists support socialism.

MagÃ³n

14th October 2010, 23:14

Well, I can promise you that they don't consider you real Anarchists, either.

That's true, but my form of actual Anarchism has been considered real Anarchism since Anarchism's creation more than a hundred years ago. These "Anarcho-Capitalists" are just Petit-Bourgeis who want to claim the title of Anarchist to sound cool. When in reality, any true Anarchist, or Leftist can see that these people are not real Anarchists.

No. I'm not. The fact is that the definition of the word Anarchism is "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty" (the first definition on dictionary.com and in all normal English dictionaries and by virtually everyone who speaks English). Therefore, both Social Anarchism and Individual Anarchism, both Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism, are valid forms of anarchism in that they both advocate the abolition of the government. End of story. You are trying to redefine a word in a way that it is not used. Whether or not it could 'actually work' is a different question than definition.]

You see, you just don't understand what Anarchy really is. Maybe after reading some Kropotkin, Goldman, etc. you'll get an idea of what Anarchism really is. You're using one of the weakest fallacy's in the book to try and say that Anarcho-Capitalism is a real thing. By your logic, anyone claiming the name of Anarchism, is an Anarchist. This isn't true in the slightest sense. You're a fool to think so, because anyone with a real knowing of Anarchism can agree that Capitalism and Anarchism don't go well together. It's like this group of Mormon's who call themselves Anarchists, but there's no way that could be because Anarchism opposes religions, as we see them to be oppressive and counter-revolutionary to the people. (Anarchist Ukraine, '36 Spain, etc. will agree with me if you look into their history and read an actual book or see a video on them.)

You clearly don't know anything about Anarchism, and are just grasping at the slightest thing to say that these Petit-Bourgieous are actual Anarchists. Claim I'm trying to redefine a word, but I'm giving you a deeper insight into something you obviously don't know the first thing about, and probably still have the impression that Anarchism = Chaos and Unregulated Bloodshed with people seething at the mouth with the blood of their victims, etc. Give me a break will you? Just because a group is anti-government, doesn't mean they're Anarchists, and just because they claim Anarchism, and say they don't want government, doesn't mean they're Anarchists. There's more to Anarchism than you know. Read up on the matter if you want before spouting off this ridiculousness again to me.

Anarchism cannot, in any way shape or form, come together with Capitalism. It just can't be. Any Anarchist will tell you the same. Do you understand that Anarchists see Capitalism as a system to causes class divides and take from one large class, and give to a smaller class? That Capitalism is something Anarchism has fought against for years and years? Do you really understand Anarchism? Because frankly by your uneducated comments on Anarchism, you don't. So read up first before saying those with Anarchism in their title, are actual Anarchists. :rolleyes:

The thing is, if people accepted your definition broadly, or if there was even significant social controversy over the definition, I would grant you the use of the word as such. BUT, there isn't. Words are only as good as the definitions that society gives them (regardless of what you WANT society to give them).

You just don't know about Anarchism, so this part is just ridiculous unto itself. Read up before shooting off.

ZeroNowhere

14th October 2010, 23:19

Anarchism cannot, in any way shape or form, come together with Capitalism. It just can't be. Any Anarchist will tell you the same.As far as I'm aware, the view that Proudhon was not an anarchist and mutualism is not anarchism is still somewhat idiosyncratic within the anarchist movement. So it would seem that at least a fairly large proportion of anarchists would disagree with you here.

PoliticalNightmare

14th October 2010, 23:19

The thing is, if people accepted your definition broadly, or if there was even significant social controversy over the definition, I would grant you the use of the word as such. BUT, there isn't. Words are only as good as the definitions that society gives them (regardless of what you WANT society to give them).

Why does general social usage necessarily grant the definition of a word and not the definitions used by highly intellectual thinkers who formerly made and/or made significant contributions to the theory behind said word. Mass utilisation of the word socialism has often come to mean state control and as you yourself point out, this is an extremely different meaning to the original word and has extremely dangerous implications regarding persuading the general population towards our way of thinking.

Similarly anarchy has come to be understood as "chaos" and "disorder"; this is not much good either. I think that we should certainly fight hammer and nail against these false depictions.

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all TRUE Scotsmen like haggis.

This is your fallacy.

You: All anarchists support socialism.
Other: Anarcho-Capitalists are anarchists, and they don't support socialism!
You: Well, all TRUE anarchists support socialism.

A scotsman is a scotsman because of his cultural and ethnic identity and therefore this has nothing to do with liking haggis. An anarchist is an anarchist because he opposes all forms of hierarchy within society. Capitalism is a form of hierarchy because it places most of the wealth and technology of society into the hands of relatively few people and is used against the general populace. What's more is that 'anarcho'-capitalism is a political system under which police forces, military forces, judicial systems, etc. would be under private ownership. These corporations could collude to form a state or stay seperate and form many mini states. These states/this state would be a state/s only accessible to a small majority and used coercively against the majority of people. They don't espouse the kind of democracy that we espouse on the left. So you see, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

MagÃ³n

14th October 2010, 23:29

As far as I'm aware, the view that Proudhon was not an anarchist and mutualism is not anarchism is still somewhat idiosyncratic within the anarchist movement. So it would seem that at least a fairly large proportion of anarchists would disagree with you here.

Sure, but Capitalism and Mutualism are two very far different outlooks unto themselves when talking about them. Adding Mutualism to Anarchism isn't a far stretch seeing how Anarchists (who are mutualists) see it as just everyone coming together in a typical Anarchist Theoretical Society. Mutualism can be attached to Communism just as much as Anarchism. Capitalism on the other hand, can be attached to Communism, more than Anarchism, seeing how most who are for "Communism" see Capitalism as a stage in which to get there. Neither Mutualist or Individual Anarchists see Capitalism this way.

WeAreReborn

15th October 2010, 01:06

Sure, but Capitalism and Mutualism are two very far different outlooks unto themselves when talking about them. Adding Mutualism to Anarchism isn't a far stretch seeing how Anarchists (who are mutualists) see it as just everyone coming together in a typical Anarchist Theoretical Society. Mutualism can be attached to Communism just as much as Anarchism. Capitalism on the other hand, can be attached to Communism, more than Anarchism, seeing how most who are for "Communism" see Capitalism as a stage in which to get there. Neither Mutualist or Individual Anarchists see Capitalism this way.
Not sure how many Communists see Capitalism as a phase to Communism... If anything Socialism is considered one but Capitalism is the opposite. Now I agree and I don't necessarily consider no government Capitalism as Anarchist, but I think Anarchy and Capitalism are more closely related then Capitalism and Communism.

In terms of the Scotsman Fallacy, I really don't think it applies. Anarchy as it has been defined by the MOVEMENT, not the dictionary, is more then just abolition of government like I have mentioned multiple times before. It is also to abolish hierarchy, and I think the movement knows much more about themselves then some Capitalists coming up with their idea of what words mean.

Victus Mortuum

15th October 2010, 02:48

You see, you just don't understand what Anarchy really is.

This is patently false. I understand anarchism rather well. Anarchy, as a general concept, as I explained before, is "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty".

Within anarchism there are many schools. There are anarcho-capitalists, mutualists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-collectivists, etc. You probably fall in one of the latter two.

Maybe after reading some Kropotkin, Goldman, etc. you'll get an idea of what Anarchism really is.

That would certainly help me understand anarcho-communism, if I didn't already understand it. Perhaps you should read some Rothbard to at least understand the other positions that are broadly accepted as being under the same general banner that you are (anarchism).

You're using one of the weakest fallacy's in the book to try and say that Anarcho-Capitalism is a real thing.

Name the fallacy I'm using. Of course anarcho-capitalism is a real thing, just as communism is and just as feudalism is. It is a proposed system of social organization where the government is abolished and privatized. That is the abolition of government because it is the abolition of the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force'. Whether or not you agree with it is different than whether or not it is a system that advocates the abolition of the government for the improvement of freedom (which of course we disagree with, but the advocates believe it would).

By your logic, anyone claiming the name of Anarchism, is an Anarchist. This isn't true in the slightest sense.

By my logic, anyone claiming to be an anarchist would not just then simply become an anarchist. This shows you are not reading what I am saying carefully. They would be an anarchist if they support "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty" regardless of what they called themselves.

You're a fool to think so, because anyone with a real knowing of Anarchism can agree that Capitalism and Anarchism don't go well together.

You're a fool to think so, because anyone with a real knowing of anarchism can agree that capitalism and anarchism can go together fine (albeit with bad consequences). See, I can say that too. The thing is, it doesn't make you right just because you appeal to an insult.

It's like this group of Mormon's who call themselves Anarchists, but there's no way that could be because Anarchism opposes religions, as we see them to be oppressive and counter-revolutionary to the people. (Anarchist Ukraine, '36 Spain, etc. will agree with me if you look into their history and read an actual book or see a video on them.)

YOUR BRAND of anarchism opposes religion and YOUR BRAND of anarchism sees religion as oppressive. That doesn't mean other anarchists can't disagree. Opposition to religion and support for the collective ownership of the means of production are not necessary to the definition of anarchism. Opposition to a state is.

You clearly don't know anything about Anarchism, and are just grasping at the slightest thing to say that these Petit-Bourgieous are actual Anarchists.

Haha. This isn't an argument, it is an ad hominem.

Claim I'm trying to redefine a word, but I'm giving you a deeper insight into something you obviously don't know the first thing about, and probably still have the impression that Anarchism = Chaos and Unregulated Bloodshed with people seething at the mouth with the blood of their victims, etc. Give me a break will you? Just because a group is anti-government, doesn't mean they're Anarchists, and just because they claim Anarchism, and say they don't want government, doesn't mean they're Anarchists. There's more to Anarchism than you know. Read up on the matter if you want before spouting off this ridiculousness again to me.

Lol, can you please actually present an argument rather than trying to 'use insurrectionist tactics' (personal attacks) to try to argue for something you have provided no evidence for. I've provided sufficient evidence for my position. I'm sure other anarchists don't appreciate you making them look bad...

Anarchism cannot, in any way shape or form, come together with Capitalism. It just can't be. Any Anarchist will tell you the same. Do you understand that Anarchists see Capitalism as a system to causes class divides and take from one large class, and give to a smaller class? That Capitalism is something Anarchism has fought against for years and years? Do you really understand Anarchism? Because frankly by your uneducated comments on Anarchism, you don't. So read up first before saying those with Anarchism in their title, are actual Anarchists. :rolleyes:

Again. You are making the same fallacy. YOUR BRAND of anarchism. That's like a catholic saying that a protestant isn't a christian because they don't believe the pope is God's rep on earth. It's not the defining characteristic.

You just don't know about Anarchism, so this part is just ridiculous unto itself. Read up before shooting off.

Same bullshit you've been spouting. Claiming I'm wrong and that I don't understand you, but not providing any substantial evidence that this is true.

Why does general social usage necessarily grant the definition of a word and not the definitions used by highly intellectual thinkers who formerly made and/or made significant contributions to the theory behind said word.

Actually, among a SMALL group of people, your definition is usable simply because they happen to define the word the same (although broadly speaking, in the modern world, they define it incorrectly). The truth is, words and definitions are subjective. It matters what it means to who you're trying to talk to. But in general terms, it's not very productive for an incredibly small group to use a strongly different definition than everyone else, and then go and try to both change the social definition of the word and the views of everyone about that NEW definition.

Mass utilisation of the word socialism has often come to mean state control and as you yourself point out, this is an extremely different meaning to the original word and has extremely dangerous implications regarding persuading the general population towards our way of thinking.

This is actually why I don't tend to call myself a socialist without some sort of other attachment to clarify (such as Libertarian Socialist or Democratic Socialist, etc. not that I particularly like those terms, but they get people to ask questions). I actually think there needs to be a shift in terminology on the left due to the slow changing of the meaning of the words we've been using for 200 years. Hell, even Engels said that the word communist was exhausted and should only be used with extensive clarification.

Similarly anarchy has come to be understood as "chaos" and "disorder"; this is not much good either. I think that we should certainly fight hammer and nail against these false depictions.

Eh, I don't think fighting against them will do you any good. You can try, but I find it easier to talk in the language of the workers than to try to get them to talk in the language of the 19th century leftist intellectual.

A scotsman is a scotsman because of his cultural and ethnic identity and therefore this has nothing to do with liking haggis. An anarchist is an anarchist because he opposes all forms of hierarchy within society. Capitalism is a form of hierarchy because it places most of the wealth and technology of society into the hands of relatively few people and is used against the general populace. What's more is that 'anarcho'-capitalism is a political system under which police forces, military forces, judicial systems, etc. would be under private ownership. These corporations could collude to form a state or stay seperate and form many mini states. These states/this state would be a state/s only accessible to a small majority and used coercively against the majority of people. They don't espouse the kind of democracy that we espouse on the left. So you see, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

See, the thing is, the typical definition of anarchism is the abolition of government (in any of the given ways). That's how most people perceive it, at least. People tend to conclude that this would lead to chaos (right or not). Your offered definition simply isn't the broadly socially accepted definition.

In terms of the Scotsman Fallacy, I really don't think it applies. Anarchy as it has been defined by the MOVEMENT, not the dictionary, is more then just abolition of government like I have mentioned multiple times before. It is also to abolish hierarchy, and I think the movement knows much more about themselves then some Capitalists coming up with their idea of what words mean.

But it's not capitalists. It is regular working people who use the word to mean the abolition of government. When you clarify Social Anarchism, or anarcho-communism, or anarcho-collectivism, you're fine and it is clear that you advocate the abolition of class/hierarchy too. But anarchism pure and simple just doesn't mean that to society.

Apoi_Viitor

15th October 2010, 02:52

MagÃ³n

15th October 2010, 04:13

This is patently false. I understand anarchism rather well. Anarchy, as a general concept, as I explained before, is "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty".

It's more than what you get out of a goddamn dictionary. This just proves to me you don't know anything about Anarchism, because you use this cheap little blurb about "all of what Anarchism is". Please, do some actual research, and quit using this little blurb as a piece of Anarchism.

That would certainly help me understand anarcho-communism, if I didn't already understand it. Perhaps you should read some Rothbard to at least understand the other positions that are broadly accepted as being under the same general banner that you are (anarchism).

I've read Rothbard, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything these guys say word for word. I'm not some mindless follower, I actually understand Anarchism. Look at Anarchists today, who aren't "Anarcho-Capitalists" and you'll see why they don't agree with these "Anarchists". It's because Capitalism breeds hierarchy, and when it's the corporations in charge, like Anarcho-Capitalism wants it to be, you get something we call an Oligarchy. Look it up, and try putting the dots together between an Oligarchy and "Anarcho-Capitalism".

Name the fallacy I'm using. Of course anarcho-capitalism is a real thing, just as communism is and just as feudalism is. It is a proposed system of social organization where the government is abolished and privatized. That is the abolition of government because it is the abolition of the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force'. Whether or not you agree with it is different than whether or not it is a system that advocates the abolition of the government for the improvement of freedom (which of course we disagree with, but the advocates believe it would).

You clearly don't see that as turning into an Oligarchy. As for the fallacy you're using, we call that a Strawman because it holds nothing. You're using hollowed accusations of what Anarchism really is, and that's not some sort of Oligarchy.

By my logic, anyone claiming to be an anarchist would not just then simply become an anarchist. This shows you are not reading what I am saying carefully. They would be an anarchist if they support "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty" regardless of what they called themselves.

By your logic, it is, because Anarcho-Capitalists aren't real Anarchists in the sense of what Anarchism means. It doesn't just mean the abolition of government/state, because there are plenty of others on the Left who want a non-State as well. You're trying to categorize these people who don't want a State/Government as all Anarchists. This isn't true.

You're a fool to think so, because anyone with a real knowing of anarchism can agree that capitalism and anarchism can go together fine (albeit with bad consequences). See, I can say that too. The thing is, it doesn't make you right just because you appeal to an insult.

No, Anarchism and Capitalism have never gone together because like I said, Capitalism breeds hierarchy, which Anarchists are opposed to, and which if Capitalism were to be let free to do as it wanted, the world would become some hideous Oligarchy. This just shows how much a fool you are, in understanding Anarchism and what it means beyond the "No Gods, No Masters" Slogan.

YOUR BRAND of anarchism opposes religion and YOUR BRAND of anarchism sees religion as oppressive. That doesn't mean other anarchists can't disagree. Opposition to religion and support for the collective ownership of the means of production are not necessary to the definition of anarchism. Opposition to a state is.

Religions are clearly oppressive. If you can't see that, then you're just a blind fool who can't tell anything now. I bet you throw a dart into a crowd of Anarchists, and ask whichever one the dart hits if he/she thinks religions are oppressive, and he/she will tell you yes. It's not MY brand of Anarchism, it's what Anarchism has been for the past 100+ years. Clearly you don't know about anything Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, Makhno, Durruti, etc. had to say on Religion. If you did, you'd see that actual Anarchists, not these Oligarchs acting as "Anarchists", would say religion is oppressive and detrimental to the people they control and want control over.

Lol, can you please actually present an argument rather than trying to 'use insurrectionist tactics' (personal attacks) to try to argue for something you have provided no evidence for. I've provided sufficient evidence for my position. I'm sure other anarchists don't appreciate you making them look bad...

Clearly you didn't see me tell you to read up on '36 Spain, Anarchist Ukraine, etc. And when did you give sufficient evidence that Anarcho-Capitalism was "real" Anarchism? You haven't, you've just tried generalizing anyone with the line of "no government, and freedom for all" as Anarchists. Communists by the way, if you didn't know, believe that Communism is a no government, and freedom for all system as well. They just call it something different.

Oligarchies are far from any sort of Anarchism and Communism. You've proved nothing, except your inability to understand Anarchism fully. You see these Oligarchs as "Anarchists" when they're clearly not so.

Again. You are making the same fallacy. YOUR BRAND of anarchism. That's like a catholic saying that a protestant isn't a christian because they don't believe the pope is God's rep on earth. It's not the defining characteristic.

The best answer I have for this idiocy, is what the Anarchists in Catalonia, etc. did to all the churches in Spain. (To save you some time, they burned them down.)

Same bullshit you've been spouting. Claiming I'm wrong and that I don't understand you, but not providing any substantial evidence that this is true.

I've told you time and time again, what actual Anarchism means and is. Not this fake pseudo-Anarchist Oligarchy shit.

Victus Mortuum

15th October 2010, 06:11

*sigh*

The problem is, Nin, you and I are operating on different definitions of anarchy.

I am using the generally accepted 'opposition to government' definition.

You are using the intellectually disconnected 'opposition to hierarchy and oppression' definition.

I understand what you are saying, and I do understand the point of Social Anarchism and what it is about.

The point I am making is what I stated earlier.

I don't think fighting against them will do you any good. You can try, but I find it easier to talk in the language of the workers than to try to get them to talk in the language of the 19th century leftist intellectual.

...

See, the thing is, the typical definition of anarchism is the abolition of government (in any of the given ways). That's how most people perceive it, at least. People tend to conclude that this would lead to chaos (right or not). Your offered definition simply isn't the broadly socially accepted definition.

I'm not saying you can't define the word that way if you want. And yes, at certain points historically it meant what you want it to mean. My point is that it doesn't mean that to English-speakers anymore. Say what you want, but it isn't. To your regular working person (and even the educated working person in most instances) both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism fit within the anarchist category.

Again, your insistence of the Left-only use of the word Anarchy is about as odd an the Libertarian Capitalists insistence of the Right-only use of the word Libertarian, from a social definition standpoint.

Apoi_Viitor

15th October 2010, 07:06

I'm not saying you can't define the word that way if you want. And yes, at certain points historically it meant what you want it to mean. My point is that it doesn't mean that to English-speakers anymore. Say what you want, but it isn't. To your regular working person (and even the educated working person in most instances) both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism fit within the anarchist category.

Yeh, and when you talk to most english-speakers, the word communism is synonymous with police-state. And of course, socialism is that thing Obama supports... I'm fairly certain if I started to call Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy 'Communist', it would result in a major shitstorm. But go out onto the streets, and most people would probably agree with that sentiment...

Victus Mortuum

15th October 2010, 07:18

Yeh, and when you talk to most english-speakers, the word communism is synonymous with police-state. And of course, socialism is that thing Obama supports... I'm fairly certain if I started to call Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy 'Communist', it would result in a major shitstorm. But go out onto the streets, and most people would probably agree with that sentiment...

Ah, but you see I don't just call myself a socialist or a communist when discussing these things with others. Those terms are just as linguistically broken as anarchism is. I either accompany these with some sort of qualifier (Libertarian, democratic, etc.) or I choose not to use those terms at all, as they serve as an impediment to discussing these ideas freely with workers. Our goal is not a word, but a concept. What must be broken first is false ideology, that this whole system is not the only way, is most certainly not the NATURAL way, and that it isn't right. That the only solution is radical-democratic worker takeover of the means of production and government.

ZeroNowhere

15th October 2010, 10:52

Proudhon was a mutualist, but not a capitalist... I really think you would have a tough time associating the man who declared "Property is Theft", with a movement that bases itself upon the notion that "Property is Freedom".
I don't think that I'd have a tough time associating a man who adocated generalized commodity production and the law of value with capitalism. Still, this is an argument I'm already in on another thread, so I suppose I'll just let Bordiga summarize.

The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step. It is known that the attempts of workers' producer cooperatives in the last century, even if they did have the merit of showing that one could do without the social person of the capitalist, were a resounding failure because they were not able to stand up to the bourgeois competition. It would be no different if the competition took place no longer between bosses' enterprises and workers' cooperatives but between as many workers' cooperatives as there were enterprises. One of two things would happen: either the workers' cooperatives would try to operate other than as capitalist enterprises and as all the other conditions would remain bourgeois (links by the intermediary of the market) they would be swept aside; or, if they intended to survive, they would only be able to operate as capitalist enterprises with a money capital, wages, profits, a depreciation fund and capital investments, credit and interest etc. The competition between them would not be abolished, so neither would the system of commercial contracts, nor civil law and the state institution needed to uphold it.

MagÃ³n

15th October 2010, 11:38

*sigh*

The problem is, Nin, you and I are operating on different definitions of anarchy.

I am using the generally accepted 'opposition to government' definition.

You are using the intellectually disconnected 'opposition to hierarchy and oppression' definition.

I understand what you are saying, and I do understand the point of Social Anarchism and what it is about.

The point I am making is what I stated earlier.

Maybe this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-work-t141442/index.html?t=141442) thread will show you what, not just Anarchists, but other ideologies on here, think and see Anarcho-Capitalism as. Those who are actually educated on the matter will disagree with you on Anarcho-Capitalism ever being actual Anarchism in practice, than in a pseudo-title.

I'm not saying you can't define the word that way if you want. And yes, at certain points historically it meant what you want it to mean. My point is that it doesn't mean that to English-speakers anymore. Say what you want, but it isn't. To your regular working person (and even the educated working person in most instances) both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism fit within the anarchist category.

Again, your insistence of the Left-only use of the word Anarchy is about as odd an the Libertarian Capitalists insistence of the Right-only use of the word Libertarian, from a social definition standpoint.

So once again you'd rather take the uneducated, unknowing point of view of what Anarchism actually is, and side with those who are clearly still ignorant of Anarchism's real meaning. Big surprise from you. I'm quite sure that even educated persons, like you said, are ignorant of what Anarchism is because they've never actually looked into what Anarchism is.

Maybe you should look into this site (http://libcom.org/) and get an actual understanding of what Anarchism really is to an actual Anarchist, and the Anarchist Movement in the world.

PoliticalNightmare

15th October 2010, 13:50

Actually, among a SMALL group of people, your definition is usable simply because they happen to define the word the same (although broadly speaking, in the modern world, they define it incorrectly). The truth is, words and definitions are subjective. It matters what it means to who you're trying to talk to. But in general terms, it's not very productive for an incredibly small group to use a strongly different definition than everyone else, and then go and try to both change the social definition of the word and the views of everyone about that NEW definition.

I don't actually think words and definitions are subjective at all, in this instance. I think that the definitions used by inetellectuals who originally invented the concepts are the correct ones. You can simplify these definitions, if so desired, when discussing with the general public but the exact definition remains the same. An ice cream is not a bottle of coke just because that is what it has commonly become to be understood as.

This is actually why I don't tend to call myself a socialist without some sort of other attachment to clarify (such as Libertarian Socialist or Democratic Socialist, etc. not that I particularly like those terms, but they get people to ask questions). I actually think there needs to be a shift in terminology on the left due to the slow changing of the meaning of the words we've been using for 200 years. Hell, even Engels said that the word communist was exhausted and should only be used with extensive clarification.

Eh, I don't think fighting against them will do you any good. You can try, but I find it easier to talk in the language of the workers than to try to get them to talk in the language of the 19th century leftist intellectual.

I agree in some ways but disagree in other ways. Certainly it is probably better to avoid using any terminology when discussing with the workers. However, at some point your ideas will be branded as socialism or communism or obamaism (lol). You will have to defend your own (correct) definition from the publically accepted definition of your ideology at this point and try to eliminate the common misconceptions. Also, in a way, by calling yourself a libertarian socialist, you are breaking the myths.

Anarchy ... is "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty"... See, the thing is, the typical definition of anarchism is the abolition of government (in any of the given ways). That's how most people perceive it, at least. People tend to conclude that this would lead to chaos (right or not). Your offered definition simply isn't the broadly socially accepted definition.

However, you see if you look at the exact eytmology of the word anarchism (which is an ancient greek word), you will see that the literal definition, and the definition which should be used, is "without (an) rule, power or coercion (archos)". Any form of economic monopoly is an hierarchy and any hierarchy provides individuals with rule and power and therefore the ability to coerce others. What is more is that, even if you use your definition of 'absence of government' under anarcho-capitalism government is still present (as I mentioned in the form of privatised police and military forces and judicial systems) but with a different word. Thus, you can see that anarcho-capitalism is no absence of government and is thus a contradiction in terms even by your definition.

But it's not capitalists. It is regular working people who use the word to mean the abolition of government. When you clarify Social Anarchism, or anarcho-communism, or anarcho-collectivism, you're fine and it is clear that you advocate the abolition of class/hierarchy too. But anarchism pure and simple just doesn't mean that to society.

I maintain that general utilisation of a word is often incorrect. I think it is fairly obvious in modern day society that many words with scientific meaning are often rendered with a radically different, and false label. For example; "I've got a bug". A bug is an insect. A cold is caused by a virus. I have no problem with this definition though as it is perfectly harmless but anarchism as a capitalist ideology...no.

Rafiq

15th October 2010, 20:59

That's true, but my form of actual Anarchism has been considered real Anarchism since Anarchism's creation more than a hundred years ago. These "Anarcho-Capitalists" are just Petit-Bourgeis who want to claim the title of Anarchist to sound cool. When in reality, any true Anarchist, or Leftist can see that these people are not real Anarchists.

.

Yeah that's true.

I just hope that People can just call themselves "Anarchists" and automatically know they are Socialists or Communists.

Because It's confusing when someone calls them self anarchist and then supports Capitalism.

Victus Mortuum

15th October 2010, 21:25

Maybe this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-work-t141442/index.html?t=141442) thread will show you what, not just Anarchists, but other ideologies on here, think and see Anarcho-Capitalism as. Those who are actually educated on the matter will disagree with you on Anarcho-Capitalism ever being actual Anarchism in practice, than in a pseudo-title.

You are missing my point, Nin. There are not long-term objective definitions of words. What the people on this site have accepted as the definition of anarchism is not my point. SOCIAL DEFINITIONS HAVE CHANGED. End of story. Go ask anyone on the street, seriously anyone, what anarchism supports, what it means. You will, I guarantee you, get the answer I've been talking about.

You aren't getting it. You and a small other group can define it how you want, but everyone else who looks on will see something totally different than what you want. You HAVE to take into account how the people you are trying to reach will perceive your group.

So once again you'd rather take the uneducated, unknowing point of view of what Anarchism actually is, and side with those who are clearly still ignorant of Anarchism's real meaning. Big surprise from you. I'm quite sure that even educated persons, like you said, are ignorant of what Anarchism is because they've never actually looked into what Anarchism is.

So you'd rather take the elitist position about definitions? Whatever. Good luck on your 'revolution'. I encourage you to read the entirety of this post, including my response to political nightmare. You might learn a thing or two about how society and languages work and how to have a non-personal-attack based dialogue.

Maybe you should look into this site (http://libcom.org/) and get an actual understanding of what Anarchism really is to an actual Anarchist, and the Anarchist Movement in the world.

Yeah, you know what's funny? www.libertarianism.com would argue that libertarian communism (the name of the ideology of the site you offered) is not libertarian, just like you say anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism. The point is, you are both identifying the words on a basis that is incorrect. The left-ness or right-ness of the brand of anarchism or libertarianism doesn't change the fact that it is a type of anarchism or libertarianism.

I don't actually think words and definitions are subjective at all, in this instance.

That's nice that you think that, but the truth is that a word means whatever an individual thinks it means (subjective). If the members of your audience define anarchism as X, then you would be misunderstood by using definition Y. If the members of your audience define anarchism as Y, then you would be misunderstood if you use definition X. The thing is, 99% of the individuals in society uses one of those definitions, and 1% uses the other.

I think that the definitions used by inetellectuals who originally invented the concepts are the correct ones. You can simplify these definitions, if so desired, when discussing with the general public but the exact definition remains the same.

When discussion is specifically about what one of those intellectuals believed/thought then you would be correct. But to advocate 'anarchism' in the abstract in an organization or whatever implies only that one wants to abolish government to 99% of people. Besides, by your logic, the intellectuals who defined the phrase anarcho-capitalism to mean what it does would be using the correct definition of it...

An ice cream is not a bottle of coke just because that is what it has commonly become to be understood as.

I don't understand. Who calls ice cream a bottle of coke?

I agree in some ways but disagree in other ways. Certainly it is probably better to avoid using any terminology when discussing with the workers. However, at some point your ideas will be branded as socialism or communism or obamaism (lol). You will have to defend your own (correct) definition from the publically accepted definition of your ideology at this point and try to eliminate the common misconceptions. Also, in a way, by calling yourself a libertarian socialist, you are breaking the myths.

No, libertarian or democratic socialism as terms actually solidify the new definitions of the term. It implies there is such a thing as totalitarian or authoritarian socialism on the other side (which is possible according to the new definition). And you wouldn't have to 'defend' your position from mislabeling for the most part if you labeled yourself properly according to modern (instead of out-dated) words. There's nothing wrong with admitting to being a socialist publicly, given that you strongly qualify what kind of socialism (because what kind of government ownership-control do you mean? radical-democratic).

However, you see if you look at the exact eytmology of the word anarchism (which is an ancient greek word), you will see that the literal definition, and the definition which should be used, is "without (an) rule, power or coercion (archos)". Any form of economic monopoly is an hierarchy and any hierarchy provides individuals with rule and power and therefore the ability to coerce others.

Etymologically speaking, you are both correct and incorrect. The greek/latin roots of the word do indeed mean what you say, I've never denied that. But, words can and often do change from their original or etymological meaning. You are unintentionally making the Etymological fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/etymological_fallacy)

What is more is that, even if you use your definition of 'absence of government' under anarcho-capitalism government is still present (as I mentioned in the form of privatised police and military forces and judicial systems) but with a different word. Thus, you can see that anarcho-capitalism is no absence of government and is thus a contradiction in terms even by your definition.

Actually, the socially accepted definition of government is 'a monopoly on the legitimate use of force'. Anarcho-capitalism advocates the abolition of this monopoly in favor of multiple private policing/courting institutions. This abolishes the monopoly that is government, and therefore abolishes government and is perceived by basically everybody as a form of anarchism.

I maintain that general utilisation of a word is often incorrect. I think it is fairly obvious in modern day society that many words with scientific meaning are often rendered with a radically different, and false label. For example; "I've got a bug". A bug is an insect. A cold is caused by a virus. I have no problem with this definition though as it is perfectly harmless but anarchism as a capitalist ideology...no.

See, you are being logically hypocritical by not accepting the new definition of anarchy, but accepting the new definition of bug/cold (because, etymologically, cold is an adjective not a noun referring to being sick).

Summerspeaker

15th October 2010, 21:39

MagÃ³n

15th October 2010, 21:49

You are missing my point, Nin. There are not long-term objective definitions of words. What the people on this site have accepted as the definition of anarchism is not my point. SOCIAL DEFINITIONS HAVE CHANGED. End of story. Go ask anyone on the street, seriously anyone, what anarchism supports, what it means. You will, I guarantee you, get the answer I've been talking about.

Once again, people on the street are not properly educated on what Anarchism, or even Communism means. By your logic, if someone on the street thinks, like most Americans and people in the Western World think Communism or Anarchism is, that makes it so. This just isn't true at all. I'm not making any long-term objective definitions, I'm making the plain and simple facts of what Anarchism really is, which isn't anything compatible with Capitalism or any other Right-Wing Ideology/Economic System. You're too hung up on what people who are uneducated on a matter, think is fact, when all they need to do is get some education about the matter.

You aren't getting it. You and a small other group can define it how you want, but everyone else who looks on will see something totally different than what you want. You HAVE to take into account how the people you are trying to reach will perceive your group.

If by small group, you mean EVERY Anarchist Organization/Group (IWW, CNT, NEFAC, RAAN, etc.) then yes. But you're a fool to think that those uneducated on a subject are correct. That's like saying the Right-Wing is right about how the Left-Wing is, which by what they say is completely illogical and just made to make the Left look bad. (Wouldn't you agree?) Just because someone, who's clearly uneducated on a subject says something on it, doesn't make it true. It's like the Catholic Church telling Galileo, that he was wrong in saying the Earth isn't the center of everything. (Which, we now know the Earth ISN'T the center of everything.)

This is your type of logic. I don't know how more simplistic I can make it out to you. It's almost like baby talk, with what I'm trying to get through to you.

So to make myself clear, as a metaphor. You're like the Catholic Church, and PoliticalNightmare and I, are like Galileo. Everything we try and get to you is just over the top of your head. What does it take to make this point to you? I'm starting to get the feeling you're some kind of troll with your inability to understand the simplicity of Anarchism and it's inability to work cohesively with Capitalism.

So you'd rather take the elitist position about definitions? Whatever. Good luck on your 'revolution'. I encourage you to read the entirety of this post, including my response to political nightmare. You might learn a thing or two about how society and languages work and how to have a non-personal-attack based dialogue.

I'm not taking any Elitist position, I'm just saying the facts. Wouldn't you agree, that for example, the American people are uneducated/ignorant to what Communism really means and is? Clearly you're obviously just as ignorant to what Anarchism really means and is, as they are.

Yeah, you know what's funny? www.libertarianism.com would argue that libertarian communism (the name of the ideology of the site you offered) is not libertarian, just like you say anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism. The point is, you are both identifying the words on a basis that is incorrect. The left-ness or right-ness of the brand of anarchism or libertarianism doesn't change the fact that it is a type of anarchism or libertarianism.

No, you see, Anarchism is an ideology, that no matter which way you spin it, it's going to come out Left. Anarchism is for the workers, the people who make our clothes, our food, make our everything! No matter where they are in the world, Anarchism is for the WORKERS, not these Petit-Bourgesie who are in charge and call themselves BOSSES over the WORKERS. Anarcho-Capitalism is Oligarchs who want to be called Anarchists.

If tomorrow, for some random reason, Anarchists all around the globe started going against the Workers of the World, they would cease to be Anarchists in any way. Whether in name or action, anyone who sees Hierarchies as a good form of living, is NOT Anarchist. I don't know how old you are, but I do clearly see your knowing of Anarchism, and I can tell you as someone who's been an Anarchist since he was 13 (I'm now quite a bit older now), my definition of Anarchism is what Anarchism has always been, always will be, and can never change. Whether you're an Individual Anarchist or Social Anarchist, you can clearly see that Anarcho-Captialism is NOT Anarchism.

Anarchism, as it says in every history book and book written by Anarchists, Anarchism has no hierarchies, bosses, or anything that would be a means to oppress and step on the WORKER who all true Anarchist support. NOT Petit-Bougieos, but WORKERS. Seriously, if you have never actually looked into what Anarchism really is, then I suggest you start because your definition of Anarchism, where Anarcho-Capitalism is a real thing, is far from what Anarchism really means and is. So please, try and understand what Anarchism really is to those who actually are Anarchists, and who actually know what they're talking about when Anarchism is a the subject of the matter.

MagÃ³n

15th October 2010, 21:51

Out of curiosity, Nin, are you just trying to exclude Rothbardian anarchists or also everyone in the earlier anti-communist but not necessarily capitalist tradition such as Benjamin Tucker? The fact that you want to boot out religious anarchists worries me. Christian anarchists have a long history and considerable presence here in the present.

Again, what's the purpose of all this sound and fury over who can claim anarchism? You don't need this angle to attack anarcho-capitalism.

No, I'm excluding anyone who would call themselves Anarchists, with Capitalist tendencies. I'm not going after Christian Anarchists, they're another matter to be discussed another time. But right now, I'm going after those who claim "Anarchism" but would try and add Capitalism into the idea.

Apoi_Viitor

15th October 2010, 23:13

Why has this debate turned into an argument over linguistics, rather than one of politics?

Here are some general propositions, which I think no-one involved would disagree with.

1. Traditionally speaking - the term Anarchism referred to a radical left-wing movement, which was anti-capitalist and anti-state.
2. Over time however, the term Anarchism was deductively defined to being solely an anti-state movement.
3. Therefore, Anarcho-Capitalists can refer to their movement as being 'Anarchist', and generally speaking, most people wouldn't accuse the Anarcho-Capitalists of using the phrase 'Anarchism' in a way that is contradictory to the common definition of it.
4. Thus 'Traditional Anarchists', have to refer to their beliefs as Anarchist-Socialism or something along those lines, in order to not be misunderstood, in modern times.
5. If Traditional Anarchists want to reverse this situation, they must work to educate the masses on the etymological basis of Anarchism. But until then, Anarcho-Capitalists can refer to their movement as Anarchist, without being seen as 'misusing' the term Anarchism.

It's quite apparent here that pretty much no one, accepts the notion that Anarcho-Capitalism can claim lineage to the Anarchist movement. However, just as Communists need to make additional statements about their beliefs, in order to make it apparent that when they claim support for Communism, they are not for a 'Police State' or 'The Government taking away your house' - Traditional Anarchists must make additional statements in order to make it apparent that they are not simply supporting immature sentiments such as 'The Government has no right to tell me I can't piss in public'.

The function of Words is to communicate ideas. If the general populace thinks Anarchism is simply 'No Government' or Communism is 'A Police State', we're forced to use extra terms and statements in order to differentiate are ideas from what they perceive them to be.

Victus Mortuum

15th October 2010, 23:34

MagÃ³n

15th October 2010, 23:45

Exactly.

And Nin, our discussion is over. You are too hard-headed and unwilling to realize that we no longer live in the 19th century and that the socially accepted definition of anarchism has changed from 'opposition to all hierarchy' to 'opposition to government'. Check ANY dictionary for the contemporary definition.

That's fine, you can end it if you like. I don't care, but just to be clear, Governments are Hierarchies in every sense, no matter what they are when talking about Anarchism. That's why Anarchists oppose Government and Hierarchies still, and anything that is OPPRESSIVE!

Good chat though. :)

Summerspeaker

15th October 2010, 23:47

We've been arguing over economic systems since the start. Anarchism without adjectives appeared way back in the late nineteenth century. Now, anarcho-capitalism should be distinguished as a relatively recently development since earlier individualists still opposed capitalism even if they wanted wages and markets. But the debates were no less bitter.

ZeroNowhere

15th October 2010, 23:54

I think that, given that anarchism has been a significant social movement throughout the years, it makes sense to define the term in accordance with this movement, rather than simply through popular usage.

Victus Mortuum

16th October 2010, 00:12

Good chat though. :)

Certainly :)

Ovi

16th October 2010, 00:13

That would certainly help me understand anarcho-communism, if I didn't already understand it. Perhaps you should read some Rothbard to at least understand the other positions that are broadly accepted as being under the same general banner that you are (anarchism).

As much as I hate responding to trolls, I'll make an exception this time. Perhaps you missed the part where Rothbard said he's not an anarchist (http://mises.org/daily/2801)?

Exactly.
And Nin, our discussion is over. You are too hard-headed and unwilling to realize that we no longer live in the 19th century and that the socially accepted definition of anarchism has changed from 'opposition to all hierarchy' to 'opposition to government'. Check ANY dictionary for the contemporary definition.

You are missing my point, Nin. There are not long-term objective definitions of words. What the people on this site have accepted as the definition of anarchism is not my point. SOCIAL DEFINITIONS HAVE CHANGED. End of story. Go ask anyone on the street, seriously anyone, what anarchism supports, what it means. You will, I guarantee you, get the answer I've been talking about.

Here's a dictionary definition of communism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism).

a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

See, you are being logically hypocritical by not accepting the new definition of anarchy, but accepting the new definition of bug/cold (because, etymologically, cold is an adjective not a noun referring to being sick).
You are an idiot.

Victus Mortuum

16th October 2010, 00:29

As much as I hate responding to trolls, I'll make an exception this time. Perhaps you missed the part where Rothbard said he's not an anarchist (http://mises.org/daily/2801)?

Rothbard said that in 2008. Regardless of what he as an individual thinks NOW, the terminology he used in the seventies has sunk into intellectual discourse. Here's a quote from Rothbard in 1972:

As far as I'm concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism.

Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html)

Here's a dictionary definition of communism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism).

a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

AS I STATED EARLIER:

Ah, but you see I don't just call myself a socialist or a communist when discussing these things with others. Those terms are just as linguistically broken as anarchism is. I either accompany these with some sort of qualifier (Libertarian, democratic, etc.) or I choose not to use those terms at all, as they serve as an impediment to discussing these ideas freely with workers. Our goal is not a word, but a concept. What must be broken first is false ideology, that this whole system is not the only way, is most certainly not the NATURAL way, and that it isn't right. That the only solution is radical-democratic worker takeover of the means of production and government.

See, you are being logically hypocritical by not accepting the new definition of anarchy, but accepting the new definition of bug/cold (because, etymologically, cold is an adjective not a noun referring to being sick).

You are an idiot.

I'm shaking in my boots.

Ovi

16th October 2010, 00:35

Rothbard said that in 2008. Regardless of what he as an individual thinks NOW, the terminology he used in the seventies has sunk into intellectual discourse. Here's a quote from Rothbard in 1972:

So Rothbard himself dismisses what he said a long time ago, yet you still take that as his position? You can't even troll right.

WeAreReborn

16th October 2010, 00:58

Out of curiosity, Nin, are you just trying to exclude Rothbardian anarchists or also everyone in the earlier anti-communist but not necessarily capitalist tradition such as Benjamin Tucker? The fact that you want to boot out religious anarchists worries me. Christian anarchists have a long history and considerable presence here in the present.

Again, what's the purpose of all this sound and fury over who can claim anarchism? You don't need this angle to attack anarcho-capitalism.

I can't accurately speak for him, but I agree that ORGANIZED religion is oppressive. I consider Christian Anarchists just that, Anarchists. Though in a sense it is organized but not in a hierarchical church establishment where whatever the priest or pope tells you is the scripture. Though I am not Christian myself, I respect this view.

Ke Pauk

16th October 2010, 01:01

The problem with Anarchism is that property will be a free for all due to the lack of a organized structural revolutionary organization that would hold state property in place and begin to dismantle the structure of previously owned property by the former Capitalists that had directly owned it previously.

WeAreReborn

16th October 2010, 01:02

Exactly.

And Nin, our discussion is over. You are too hard-headed and unwilling to realize that we no longer live in the 19th century and that the socially accepted definition of anarchism has changed from 'opposition to all hierarchy' to 'opposition to government'. Check ANY dictionary for the contemporary definition.
Who cares about socially accepted? The socially accepted course of action is to be a mindless Capitalist drone. Does that mean we should? Obviously not... Though I do agree with words people should understand you. But if anyone uses Anarchy and does not understand that it has an anti-Capitalist notion, they clearly don't know much about Anarchy. So I think in a place like Revleft, we can safely say Anarchy without someone thinking we are a Capitalist pig.

Victus Mortuum

16th October 2010, 07:41

So Rothbard himself dismisses what he said a long time ago, yet you still take that as his position? You can't even troll right.

You are calling me a troll? Still? I've made and explained my point numerous times and you are expressly misrepresenting that. I'm not going to engage your red herring or your ad hominems anymore.

Who cares about socially accepted? The socially accepted course of action is to be a mindless Capitalist drone. Does that mean we should? Obviously not... Though I do agree with words people should understand you. But if anyone uses Anarchy and does not understand that it has an anti-Capitalist notion, they clearly don't know much about Anarchy. So I think in a place like Revleft, we can safely say Anarchy without someone thinking we are a Capitalist pig.

You misunderstand. I'm not advocating just doing whatever is most popular. I'm rather expressing the need to reconsider what it is your audience is perceiving when you use your terms publicly or in your organizations. That is why what is socially accepted, regarding definitions, matters. Historically speaking, it would indeed be incorrect to say that anarchy was dominantly used to mean 'abolition of government', but it would also be incorrect to say that currently anarchy is dominantly used to mean 'abolition of hierarchy'. If you argue that the way it was used is the way in needs to be used, or that it must be defined in the way it was used, you are committing an etymological fallacy. That's all I'm saying.

ed miliband

16th October 2010, 09:22

Using the flawed definition of anarchism a simply opposition to government allows you to bring everyone from Marx to Thatcher into the anarchist milieu, theoretically at least.

Ovi

16th October 2010, 11:39

You are calling me a troll? Still? I've made and explained my point numerous times and you are expressly misrepresenting that. I'm not going to engage your red herring or your ad hominems anymore.

People think that anarchy and communism are bad things? Welcome to capitalism. People also think that capitalism is fare, wage slavery is actually free contract, market economy means they can vote with money, property is essential for freedom, democracy means that they are in control of the country and so on. Are you going to ignore words such as capitalism and property because people think they're good things? In the end it's not words that matter, but public perception. If people will understand that capitalism is oppressive, that property is theft and that democracy means electing dictators, I don't think a couple of misinterpreted words of today are going to stand in our way.

Apoi_Viitor

16th October 2010, 19:10

In case Victus Mortuum doesn't want to continue this argument, I will for him...

In the end it's not words that matter, but public perception.

Ah, but you see I don't just call myself a socialist or a communist when discussing these things with others. Those terms are just as linguistically broken as anarchism is. I either accompany these with some sort of qualifier (Libertarian, democratic, etc.) or I choose not to use those terms at all, as they serve as an impediment to discussing these ideas freely with workers. Our goal is not a word, but a concept. What must be broken first is false ideology, that this whole system is not the only way, is most certainly not the NATURAL way, and that it isn't right. That the only solution is radical-democratic worker takeover of the means of production and government.

Who cares about socially accepted? The socially accepted course of action is to be a mindless Capitalist drone. Does that mean we should? Obviously not... Though I do agree with words people should understand you. But if anyone uses Anarchy and does not understand that it has an anti-Capitalist notion, they clearly don't know much about Anarchy. So I think in a place like Revleft, we can safely say Anarchy without someone thinking we are a Capitalist pig.

Actually, among a SMALL group of people, your definition is usable simply because they happen to define the word the same (although broadly speaking, in the modern world, they define it incorrectly). The truth is, words and definitions are subjective. It matters what it means to who you're trying to talk to. But in general terms, it's not very productive for an incredibly small group to use a strongly different definition than everyone else, and then go and try to both change the social definition of the word and the views of everyone about that NEW definition.

"...Nietzsche observes that all concepts have a long and fluid history where they have had many different meanings. The meanings of concepts are dictated by a will to power, where concepts are given meanings or uses by the different wills that appropriate them." - This is important

TL/DR - On Revleft you can refer to yourself as an 'Anarchist' without chance of misconception, but amongst people of non-revolutionary consciousness, you need to alter your discourse in order to be understood.

Words don't have absolute meanings, they are limited to the audiences understanding of them, and as such, speaking amongst the non-revleft community, Anarchists can't simply refer to their ideology as 'Anarchist', without the overwhelming chance they'll be misunderstood - and of course, the same thing goes for Communists...