The Issue of Anarcho-Liberalism

[James Connolly]

Currently, we are seeing a massive increase in debts owned by various nations.

Some nations, such as Greece, will likely never be able to pay off their debts, and thus their state will collapse.

In our Liberal Western world, we know that means investors will eat up the assets of our countries, as our government representatives are traitors who will never represent the working class.

When the state collapses, this will of course mean investors will be responsible for security, order, and other things, rather than the state.

Anarcho-Liberalism simply boils down to neo-Feudalism, and it will be the massive and unprecedented exploitation of the Proletariat.

This is a real problem, yet no one talks about it. We must address this issue before the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie takes hold.

[Igor]

what the actual fuck is "anarcho-liberalism" supposed to mean lol

And the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has already taken hold coupla centuries ago so you're kinda late there, I'm sorry to say.

[James Connolly]

what the actual fuck is "anarcho-liberalism" supposed to mean lol

Pretty much a country with no central government, and which is completely run by investors and other segments of the Bourgeois class.

Have you ever heard of these so-called charter cities?
Investors literally want to build cities out of the ground, which will also be completely financed by them, and they're going to import labor from 3rd world countries.
http://chartercities.org/concept

It will be something like that, but they will monopolize the right of rule of nations, rather than having to build their own cities.

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarchism is a socialist ideology that seeks to destroy the state.
Liberalism is a capitalist ideology that does not seek to destroy the state.
Anarcho-liberalism is...?

In any case, why would public debt collapse a state? And how high does the debt have to be for this to happen? And how long would such a high public debt need to exist for the state to collapse?

[x-punk]

I think this is referring to a theoretical position where if there is state failure (the state loses control after an economic crises) that we will move to an anarcho-capitalist situation where private corporations openly control everything without a govt via private defense agencies.

[James Connolly]

In any case, why would public debt collapse a state? And how high does the debt have to be for this to happen? And how long would such a high public debt need to exist for the state to collapse?

The point was that a state will have to sell its assets to pay off investors. Will this collapse a state? It depends on how structured the Anarcho-Liberal movement is, otherwise a bunch of individual investors cannot do much damage.

Such people can easily highjack the state and cause neo-Feudal conditions.


I think this is referring to a theoretical position where if there is state failure (the state loses control after an economic crises) that we will move to an anarcho-capitalist situation where private corporations openly control everything without a govt via private defense agencies.
More so investors than cooperations, but yeah.

[Thirsty Crow]

Such people can easily highjack the state and cause neo-Feudal conditions.

No, actually, they cannot since the workings of the capitalist mode of production necessitate a public and political structure otherwise known as the state, for reasons of upholding the conditions of the contract under threat of violence and the perpetuation of, more or less, favourable conditions of social reproduction (as opposed to the enlarged self-reproduction of capital; but this opposition is merely analytical since the two are inexorably connected in reality).

Also, any notion of an anarcho-liberal movement is outright laughable. Can you point one out for me? (an no, assorted anarcho-capitalist propaganda confined to the internet does not constitute a movement)
Indeed, can you point out any group of investors who also argue for the abolition of the bourgeois state?

[x-punk]

I personally dont think this sort of situation is likely. The bourgeoisie already have control and the govt acts a nice little democratic front which gives people the impression they have control and freedom when they dont. Moreover, the govt acts as a nice tool to craft policy and enforce mandates to benefit the bourgeoisie. Thus if there was state failure, i think the bourgeoisie would just reform the govt. I dont personally think many people would warm to having private agencies openly controlling their lives and there is really no need for them from the perspective of the ruling classes.

That being said, it has certainly become more transparent over the last few years just how much control private interests have over the govt.

[James Connolly]

No, actually, they cannot since the workings of the capitalist mode of production necessitate a public and political structure otherwise known as the state, for reasons of upholding the conditions of the contract under threat of violence and the perpetuation of, more or less, favourable conditions of social reproduction (as opposed to the enlarged self-reproduction of capital; but this opposition is merely analytical since the two are inexorably connected in reality).
Read that link I gave to charter cities. I actually posted that expecting some idiot to deny that such a system can't exist, and that was meant to be evidence against such suggestions.

And besides, security is the only thing Capitalists really need. Such security can be afforded by private means, rather than through a state.


Also, any notion of an anarcho-liberal movement is outright laughable. Can you point one out for me? (an no, assorted anarcho-capitalist propaganda confined to the internet does not constitute a movement)

Yeah, CHARTER CITIES.


Indeed, can you point out any group of investors who also argue for the abolition of the bourgeois state?
Those who adhere to principles of Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Liberalism. I had a professor, in college, who adhered to the former.


The bourgeoisie already have control and the govt acts a nice little democratic front which gives people the impression they have control and freedom when they dont.
You don't think they get aggravated by the Social Democrats, who extensively rob them blind out of their earnings?


I dont personally think many people would warm to having private agencies openly controlling their lives and there is really no need for them from the perspective of the ruling classes.
It can't be too hard. People will naturally conform to their conditions as long as it offers subsistence.
The 3rd worlders in charter cities are going to be taken from unsubsistent lives to that of subsistence. They'll move to 1st world standard cities virtually overnight, although the suggestion will never work due to the massive security issues it will cause(cultural mixing isn't a good idea for people conditioned in different ways.)

[citizen of industry]

So what's to keep the people of charterville from rising up and taking over, even in one shop? Prisons, bodies of armed men ala security forces. How will the workers know what they can and can't do? Rules, such as laws. So you have prisons, cops and laws. And a ruling class, the owners of charterville. Wait a minute, I thought this was supposed to be stateless...

Anyway, your link is from a professor who thought up this "concept" and maintains his own website. That's hardly a movement. Where are the investors? Where can I find an actual charter city? Where are the bourgeoisie clamoring for charter cities?

[x-punk]

You don't think they get aggravated by the Social Democrats, who extensively rob them blind out of their earnings?

I can only speak from a UK perspective and the bourgeoisie are certainly not getting robbed blind by anyone here. In fact, its the other way around and thats really the one of the key reasons to push towards socialism. Things like welfare schemes are as much in their interest as in the interests of the recipients.


It can't be too hard. People will naturally conform to their conditions as long as it offers subsistence.

I agree but why provide a system of control which is so blatantly undemocratic when they can have almost as much control with a system which keeps people much happier and thus more productive.

The way i see it. The bourgeoisie want to retain their position of power and control at all costs whilst still keeping the workers content enough to keep them working and being productive. To do this, people have to feel suitably empowered, free and in control of their lives. I dont believe that bringing in private defence agencies would be beneficial towards that goal.

[Thirsty Crow]

Read that link I gave to charter cities. I actually posted that expecting some idiot to deny that such a system can't exist, and that was meant to be evidence against such suggestions.First of all, unnecessaty hostility doesn't help your argument (which could really use some help).

Secondly, it seems that you didn't even think about the phenomenon you so eagerly construct as "evidence" in favour of your argment of failing states ushering in something akin to capitalism without a state:



A charter should describe the process whereby the detailed rules and regulations will be established and enforced in a city. It should provide a foundation for a legal system that will let the city grow and prosper. This legal system, possibly backed by the credibility of a partner country, will be particularly important in the early years of the cityʼs development, when private investors finance most of the required urban infrastructure.You do know what the bolded part actually implies (looking beyond the rhetoric)?

Either way, this little idea is totally unrelated to the issues you bring up. How does it relate to them?



And besides, security is the only thing Capitalists really need. Such security can be afforded by private means, rather than through a state.You're neglecting the issues I brought up. Again, not a help for your argument.
As I said, the state apparatus' function of repression (capitalist newspeak of "security") is only one side of the coin. The other, much more complex issue of social reproduction, which also hinges on the issue of security, is also important, with its aspect of a hegemonic ideology which erases the class division in imagination (particularly nationalism).


Yeah, CHARTER CITIES.


Nope.

Again, you're blatantly disregarding the distinctions I put forward. What makes this website and project a movement?


Those who adhere to principles of Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Liberalism. I had a professor, in college, who adhered to the former.
Really? Well, aren't you a man of tautology.

Most investors and capitalists really don't give a fuck about the delusional ramblings of such"intellectuals".
And it is symptomatic that you think both that some anecdote about your professor constitutes evidence (obviously, he's an investor as well, except you didn't explicitly say so while I asked for information not on an isolated individual actually, but on a whole group of capitalists actively advocating this idea) and that you bring up the example of an intellectual, a propagandist.

Anyway, try to think harder, and try also not to be scared of quirky intellectuals with their quack ideas.

[Raúl Duke]

As much as you see their lackeys decry everything government-based...the elites still need a state for a whole variety of reasons. One of them, as can be seen in the mainstream political rhetoric of countries like the US, is as the role of the scapegoat.

"anarcho"-capitalism would make it very obvious to everyone at the bottom who the oppressors are; the state, particularly so-called "democracies," play an important role in the "subtle propaganda" that keeps the people in line.

[The Jay]

I think that you are very confused. I would recommend that you - in order to understand the opposing ideologies - read from the mises site and pay attention to what the US government does. They are not supporting no government. What they are supporting in weak countries is the submission of those nations to the economic interests of the US. This means that it is not statelessness that the US is pushing, but economic dominance.

[James Connolly]

It seems this thread has been infiltrated by trolls and ultraleftists who aren't addressing the actual topics. I highly recommend people stay on the topic, which doesn't seem to be a trait of this forum.

I think that you are very confused. I would recommend that you - in order to understand the opposing ideologies - read from the mises site and pay attention to what the US government does. They are not supporting no government. What they are supporting in weak countries is the submission of those nations to the economic interests of the US. This means that it is not statelessness that the US is pushing, but economic dominance.
Where in the hell did I talk about Imperialism or neo-Liberalism... The topic was about ANARCHO-LIBERALISM.


First of all, unnecessaty hostility doesn't help your argument (which could really use some help).
My 'hostility' was in retaliation to the poor excuse for a reply you presented. And you are wrong, coercion has a deep psychological affect.


Secondly, it seems that you didn't even think about the phenomenon you so eagerly construct as "evidence" in favour of your argment of failing states ushering in something akin to capitalism without a state:
That's because I'm not making arguments... I don't support Anarcho-Liberalism, rather I made this thread for informative purposes.


Either way, this little idea is totally unrelated to the issues you bring up. How does it relate to them?
I noted earlier how it was related.


You're neglecting the issues I brought up. Again, not a help for your argument.
Your twaddling isn't equivalent to bringing up issues. Besides, I'm not a proponent of Anarcho-Liberalism, so I don't have an incentive to defend it.


As I said, the state apparatus' function of repression (capitalist newspeak of "security") is only one side of the coin. The other, much more complex issue of social reproduction, which also hinges on the issue of security, is also important, with its aspect of a hegemonic ideology which erases the class division in imagination (particularly nationalism).
This is a Jacobin Liberal point. This assumes they(the Bourgeoisie) aren't capable of keeping order through private means.
Is a state a tool for the Bourgeoisie? Yes! Are there segments of the Bourgeois class that are being aggravated? Yes! Even Marx wrote that in the Manifesto.

[Камо́ Зэд]

"Anarcho-liberalism" isn't a thing. Liberalism implies private ownership, which does not exist without a state. Perhaps you're thinking of "anarcho-capitalism," which is a contradictory ideology when we consider the role the state plays in capitalism. In any case, no such thing as "anarcho-capitalism" or "anarcho-liberalism" has ever existed in history. Indeed what is happening is imperialism and neo-liberalism. Please be open to the advice of comrades with more experience.

Comrade, I'm a little disturbed by your theory, especially since you imply in your opening post that you don't see the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as having already "taken hold" of the entire planet.

[Ostrinski]

I always thought "anarcho-liberal" was a pejorative to describe the likes of Chomsky and Zinn.

[Lynx]

Warlords can maintain control through private means, so can drug cartels. Is this Anarcho-Liberalism in action?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Currently, we are seeing a massive increase in debts owned by various nations.

Some nations, such as Greece, will likely never be able to pay off their debts, and thus their state will collapse.

In our Liberal Western world, we know that means investors will eat up the assets of our countries, as our government representatives are traitors who will never represent the working class.

When the state collapses, this will of course mean investors will be responsible for security, order, and other things, rather than the state.

Anarcho-Liberalism simply boils down to neo-Feudalism, and it will be the massive and unprecedented exploitation of the Proletariat.

This is a real problem, yet no one talks about it. We must address this issue before the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie takes hold.

I don't think this situation is materially possible on a large-scale. There can be charter-cities (and in fact "company towns" where everything from the apartments to stores to schools and the local church were owned by the company everyone worked for existed in the US for a long time, and in some ways still do - more often "industry towns" now) or there can be areas where there are worker-controlled firms and yet the overall capitalist system and state remain. Exceptions to the rule exist.

But in the larger sense, this scheme is not possible on a larger level and in fact company towns in the past needed and called-on state police and state troops to put down labor uprisings. On top of that these company towns relied on the larger state in other ways such as granting charters or building the infrastructure necessary for industry.

In fact I think it is likely that we will see increased overt use of state power both domestically and abroad due to conditions surrounding the economic crisis. For one thing Neo-liberal countries are looking at some of the state-capitalist policies of China and arguing for more long-term state planning. The "Economist" did a whole issue about how in some ways the China model is better for business in the long run. Second, increased class struggle and instability for business means that the need for both state repression against protests and strikes and riots is more necessary and companies need state policies in order to restructure things during the crisis and basically manage and enforce austerity. If Greek capitalists didn't want a state, they could save themselves a lot of trouble and do it right now. Instead we see that they are actually INCREASING state powers and decreasing any reforms or democratic pressures on the austerity process.

[Thirsty Crow]

I
My 'hostility' was in retaliation to the poor excuse for a reply you presented. And you are wrong, coercion has a deep psychological affect.Kid, get a grip.
You've got some issues if you think that calling people idiots is going to provoke a deep psychological effect. Sure, my pants are shaking, shock and awe and all that jazz.



That's because I'm not making arguments... I don't support Anarcho-Liberalism, rather I made this thread for informative purposes.


Yes, you most certainly are making an argument.

Your argument amounts to misrepresenting online anarcho-capitalist quacks as a movement, and one which has the potential to cause significant social, economic, and political change (financial crisis and debt - failed states - charter cities).

Your informative purposes are really hard to glean. We know there are quacks online, and that they have all sorts of ideas.

It seems you don't take yourself so seriously, so I'm wondering why I'd doing so. But hey, benefit of doubt, right?


I noted earlier how it was related.
It might seem like a real shocker, but not every piece of imagination spewed by your rampant fantasy (no wonder, I guess everyone would have problems with teachers like that) does not amount to a demonstration of possible relationship between the establishment of charter cities and failed states.


Your twaddling isn't equivalent to bringing up issues. Besides, I'm not a proponent of Anarcho-Liberalism, so I don't have an incentive to defend it.
You obviously have an incentive of sorts to defend the notion that what you call "anarcho-liberalism" is a real movement and a real threat since that's what you are doing here.

It would be fun to speculate on all sorts of bases for this defence but it's irrelevant in the end, much like your "argument".


To repeat, your supporting evidence amounts to a website run by a single person and your anecdote of a professor you had. Did that professor any chance teach you what constitutes evidence (I doubt it since he subsrcibes to this idealist bullshit; which also implies a lot)?



This is a Jacobin Liberal point. This assumes they(the Bourgeoisie) aren't capable of keeping order through private means.
Is a state a tool for the Bourgeoisie? Yes! Are there segments of the Bourgeois class that are being aggravated? Yes! Even Marx wrote that in the Manifesto.

Wow, I've never been accused before of making Jacobin Liberal points :lol:
Great, a cute slur to add to the inexhaustible list of quacks-say-the-dumbest-things.

[James Connolly]

"Anarcho-liberalism" isn't a thing. Liberalism implies private ownership, which does not exist without a state. Perhaps you're thinking of "anarcho-capitalism," which is a contradictory ideology when we consider the role the state plays in capitalism. In any case, no such thing as "anarcho-capitalism" or "anarcho-liberalism" has ever existed in history. Indeed what is happening is imperialism and neo-liberalism. Please be open to the advice of comrades with more experience.
Jacobin Liberalism, and its successor ideologies, have addressed the need of a state. Anarcho-Capitalism is a system of economics, while Anarcho-Liberalism is an actual ideology.

One those so-called 'Comrades' address the topics I've presented, their comments will be taken into regard. Until such a time, I will continue to act the way in which you criticize me of acting.

Comrade, I'm a little disturbed by your theory, especially since you imply in your opening post that you don't see the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as having already "taken hold" of the entire planet.
I explained why I held that stance in one of my comments with Menocchio. Perhaps it wasn't as good as he may have wished, but it certainly follows a logical line, and I even worked Marx into the picture.


I don't think this situation is materially possible on a large-scale. There can be charter-cities (and in fact "company towns" where everything from the apartments to stores to schools and the local church were owned by the company everyone worked for existed in the US for a long time, and in some ways still do - more often "industry towns" now) or there can be areas where there are worker-controlled firms and yet the overall capitalist system and state remain. Exceptions to the rule exist.

But in the larger sense, this scheme is not possible on a larger level and in fact company towns in the past needed and called-on state police and state troops to put down labor uprisings. On top of that these company towns relied on the larger state in other ways such as granting charters or building the infrastructure necessary for industry.

In fact I think it is likely that we will see increased overt use of state power both domestically and abroad due to conditions surrounding the economic crisis. For one thing Neo-liberal countries are looking at some of the state-capitalist policies of China and arguing for more long-term state planning. The "Economist" did a whole issue about how in some ways the China model is better for business in the long run. Second, increased class struggle and instability for business means that the need for both state repression against protests and strikes and riots is more necessary and companies need state policies in order to restructure things during the crisis and basically manage and enforce austerity. If Greek capitalists didn't want a state, they could save themselves a lot of trouble and do it right now. Instead we see that they are actually INCREASING state powers and decreasing any reforms or democratic pressures on the austerity process.
Thank you, this was by-far the best reply I've gotten. You fully dissected the points I addressed, rather than being disagreeable. It is nice to see someone doesn't adhere to militant sectarianism here.



Kid, get a grip.
You've got some issues if you think that calling people idiots is going to provoke a deep psychological effect. Sure, my pants are shaking, shock and awe and all that jazz.
I request these discussions to be formal, and I won't recognize the term 'kid' as satisfying this. You will address me by my posted name.


Your argument amounts to misrepresenting online anarcho-capitalist quacks as a movement, and one which has the potential to cause significant social, economic, and political change (financial crisis and debt - failed states - charter cities).
Which I explained its significance, and you derailed with a twaddlefest that didn't actually address my argument...


Your informative purposes are really hard to glean. We know there are quacks online, and that they have all sorts of ideas.
Is this not a Opposing Ideology forum? Do these 'quacks' not fall into this category?


It seems you don't take yourself so seriously, so I'm wondering why I'd doing so. But hey, benefit of doubt, right?
How about you rephrase this sentence in such a way that is worthy of being presented to me.


It might seem like a real shocker, but not every piece of imagination spewed by your rampant fantasy (no wonder, I guess everyone would have problems with teachers like that) does not amount to a demonstration of possible relationship between the establishment of charter cities and failed states.
You have yet to disprove how it isn't. You just listed some non-related topics, like the relationship between the state and investors, which I pointed out how it only applies to security, and other essentials for investment.
Very good, but you need to try harder.


To repeat, your supporting evidence amounts to a website run by a single person and your anecdote of a professor you had. Did that professor any chance teach you what constitutes evidence (I doubt it since he subsrcibes to this idealist bullshit; which also implies a lot)?
My objective here was to post the core information on the ideology of Anarcho-Liberalism, and to address the prospects it may have for expansion.

Then some child came on here and asked me for 'proof' that this movement exist, which I had directed him/her/it to an example of charter cities which I had posted earlier.

After he/she/it reviewed the website, they criticized me for not supplying enough evidence...

Do you see what I have to deal with? Do you see how you HAVEN'T addressed anything I've actually posted? It seems your goal here is to be disagreeable(being a troll), which I must ask you to leave if that's your goal.

[Ravachol]

And besides, security is the only thing Capitalists really need.


I think there's a whole host of actual capitalists out there who'd beg to differ with you. The proletariat doesn't reproduce itself as the proletariat out of its own vocation. It is reproduced (and reproduces itself) through a whole host of institutions such as schools, barracks, prisons, universities, etc. with a whole system of social security, healthcare, psychiatric institutions, etc. ready to guarantee they are in optimum shape to function as workers (regardless of their subjective well-being). Without this network of institutions, capital-as-a-process (as opposed to merely the capitalist class which administrates this process) would be severely limited to the point of breaking down. Never mind the actual material infrastructure for the circulation of capital and commodities (roads, airports, harbors, etc.) provided and structured by the state.



The whole apparatus of social control from the outsourcing of “training” from private enterprise to state education, to ceaseless “welfare” interference, to continuous regulation of industrial relations, all prove that the capitalist social relation finds it extremely difficult to reproduce itself when relying on the working class”s “instincts of selfpreservation and of propagation”.

In fact, the intervention of the state in ensuring reproduction of labour power suggests that the working class does not reproduce labour power at all. It seems they cannot be relied upon, they tend to drift from their role. On the contrary, the working class constantly prepares for its “return” to species being, it is perpetually packing its cases and getting ready to depart the scene entirely, but you know, the phone keeps ringing, somebody is knocking at the door, there is constant interruption of this reverting.

The working class does not reproduce itself by itself. In fact it continually reproduces its readiness not to be the working class. Social organisation at present is based upon the abandonment of the cycle of reproduction by both industry and proletariat, and has been taken on by the reforming impulse of the bourgeois state.

This means that if the reproduction of the working class is a necessary condition for the reproduction of capital, the cycle and mechanism of reproduction itself is not a simple matter, and is not easily contained within the capitalist social relation. There are other elements in play, elements that cannot be reduced to “use value” or “labour power”.

The working class is determined by capital, it would not exist without the imposition of the capitalist social relation, just as the relation is dependent on it.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Jacobin Liberalism, and its successor ideologies, have addressed the need of a state. Anarcho-Capitalism is a system of economics, while Anarcho-Liberalism is an actual ideology.

One those so-called 'Comrades' address the topics I've presented, their comments will be taken into regard. Until such a time, I will continue to act the way in which you criticize me of acting.

That any given political theory "addresses" the problem of the state means nothing. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, something you should understand as a Marxist. There is no private property without a state, and liberalism is the support of private property. Any changes that occur to the state in the "market anarchist" conception are superficial; the difference between private monopoly and taxation is semantic. You're not coming from a place of sound Marxist theory if you're willing to accept that private property can exist without a state.

As for the way you treat your comrades, kid, it absolutely doesn't matter whether they're actually addressing your points or if instead they're acting like Trotskyites. You're the only one responsible for your behavior, and you're making an embarrassment of yourself by reacting in the ways you have.

[James Connolly]

That any given political theory "addresses" the problem of the state means nothing. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, something you should understand as a Marxist. There is no private property without a state, and liberalism is the support of private property.Feudalism had a kind of privatization of property, as barons were granted land from their liege. Of course this was overlapping ownership of such property, and not strictly Centralized, so, in some respect, there was Anarchy at the systemic level besides symbolic oaths and blood relations.
I earlier regarded Anarcho-Liberalism as equivalent to Neo-Feudalism.



As for the way you treat your comrades, kid, it absolutely doesn't matter whether they're actually addressing your points or if instead they're acting like Trotskyites. You're the only one responsible for your behavior, and you're making an embarrassment of yourself by reacting in the ways you have.Debating is a game encircled around tactics. I employ tactics that are perhaps taboo for certain political cultures, however I am quite confident in my usage of it. My coercive tactics were developed after years of rhetorical practice, and I hold it as essential for debates.
With that explained, I'm left to wondering why you expect me to recognize this criticism of me. Sure it'll get me purged in the long run, as ideological babies like Emmanuel Goldstein feel they have to report me for "trolling," although I pointed out the irony of such a report.

In the end, I don't recognize the legitimacy of set standards, nor do I compare myself in accordance with them.

Perhaps you'll feel better knowing I only employ such tactics when I'm on defense against senseless onslaughts by pseudo-intellectuals.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Feudalism had a kind of privatization of property, as barons were granted land from their liege. Of course this was overlapping ownership of such property, and not strictly Centralized, so, in some respect, there was Anarchy at the systemic level besides symbolic oaths and blood relations.
I earlier regarded Anarcho-Liberalism as equivalent to Neo-Feudalism.

That's all tantamount to gibberish, unfortunately, because, at a very fundamental level, you've assumed that property and a state to protect it can co-exist with anarchy in the same society. Anarchy is, by its very definition, stateless. Its possible to find zones of human conduct unencumbered by policy, but this is not statelessness. The existence of any kind of state necessarily precludes societal statelessness. Further, your method seems a little weak. For instance, feudalism didn't have "a kind of privatization of property;" it absolutely had private property. Private property is the fundamental feature of class society. So if "anarcho-liberalism" is equivalent to neo-feudalism, than what you're saying is that this kind of anarchism leads to the foundation of a new aristocracy, only to have us enter bourgeois capitalism once again.


Debating is a game encircled around tactics. I employ tactics that are perhaps taboo for certain political cultures, however I am quite confident in my usage of it. My coercive tactics were developed after years of rhetorical practice, and I hold it as essential for debates.
With that explained, I'm left to wondering why you expect me to recognize this criticism of me. Sure it'll get me purged in the long run, as ideological babies like Emmanuel Goldstein feel they have to report me for "trolling," although I pointed out the irony of such a report.

You have a very haughty tone, and I can absolutely assure you that you haven't earned it around here. The main problem isn't that you've "developed" any kind of "tactics" (which you qualify as being "coercive," an odd word given that you have yet to try to persuade anyone through threat of violence); it's that these tactics don't work. No one will take what you assert seriously if you have a reputation of talking down to a critical audience and asserting absolute contradictions in terms. I won't kid myself into thinking that every user on RevLeft will always come to a debate with more than his own prejudices (I've seen my fair share of users throwing a party mix of non-arguments at a thread to see what sticks), but we are a thriving community of seriously dedicated thinking leftists. We are your peers all, and if you would show yourself the kind of disrespect you're showing everyone else now, then something's up.


In the end, I don't recognize the legitimacy of set standards, nor do I compare myself in accordance with them.That's called "being a psychopath." I'm not even joking; Ayn Rand wrote almost those exact same words when she was planning her fanfic about an actual child murderer. In any case, if you're to participate in any community whatsoever, you need to understand that its standards do have legitimacy, earned by its having provided you with a forum for your thoughts.


Perhaps you'll feel better knowing I only employ such tactics when I'm on defense against senseless onslaughts by pseudo-intellectuals.Holy shit, the pretense.

[Thirsty Crow]

I request these discussions to be formal, and I won't recognize the term 'kid' as satisfying this. You will address me by my posted name.I'm terribly sorry Your Highness, and will ensure that I shall adress you so hereafter.


Which I explained its significance, and you derailed with a twaddlefest that didn't actually address my argument...Your Highness didn't explain in any detail whatsoever how charter cities might be established in a failed state (given the immense costs of investment and the fact that the capitalist investors would not see returns on it for a long time, I'm inclined to say that without a significant financial and logistic aid from capitalist states, all of this amounts to a bad dream)



Is this not a Opposing Ideology forum? Do these 'quacks' not fall into this category?You are most right Your Highness.



How about you rephrase this sentence in such a way that is worthy of being presented to me.
Terribly sorry, I shall dispatch a messenger carrying a body part of mine of your own choosing as punishment for lack of clarity, immediately.


You have yet to disprove how it isn't. You just listed some non-related topics, like the relationship between the state and investors, which I pointed out how it only applies to security, and other essentials for investment.If I may point out, the burden of proof is on you, and the relationship between the state and investors can hadly be called a non-related topic (since the charter city dreamscape invokes it explicitly).

What is missing is the recognition of the importance of social reproduction and the states role in serving its ends. Private companies fulfilling this role is best left for the dark domains of anarcho-capitalist imagination, and should not even be dignified as a viable possibility.


Very good, but you need to try harder.
Will do my best, scouts honor.



My objective here was to post the core information on the ideology of Anarcho-Liberalism, and to address the prospects it may have for expansion.
There are no such prospects. Capital accumulates under certain conditions, and in conditions of the state debt crisis it is tantamount to outright idiocy to imagine either that investors would drown their money in this project which would yield profits much too late, or that the state (which is a part of the text of the website) and/or central banks will grant ridiculous loans, preferrably with negative interest rates. Within the global ruling class, there is no movement at all for the dissolution of the inter-state system.


Then some child came on here and asked me for 'proof' that this movement exist, which I had directed him/her/it to an example of charter cities which I had posted earlier.

After he/she/it reviewed the website, they criticized me for not supplying enough evidence...

Do you see what I have to deal with? Do you see how you HAVEN'T addressed anything I've actually posted? It seems your goal here is to be disagreeable(being a troll), which I must ask you to leave if that's your goal.You are quite right, it a mere child's play to ask for evidence, after all there is the divine right.

Now, your little example is no proof of a movement whatsoever. It is a sole individual with a product of imagination, and nowadays everybody with access to the internet can make something which you would call a movement.
What is Marxism 101 is that movements do not develop in a vacuum, and that concrete material conditions aren't changed by the whim of an individual. But we've established already that Marxism is something infinitely malleable in your hands, didn't we?

If you can't see how a website run by an individual does not constitute a movement, no one can help you I'm afraid.

And surely it's your right to pretend that nothing what was written addresses your points. That's why trolls are amusing after all.

[Igor]

I request these discussions to be formal, and I won't recognize the term 'kid' as satisfying this. You will address me by my posted name.

[...]

How about you rephrase this sentence in such a way that is worthy of being presented to me.

you can't be for real, dude. how the fuck do you think people will take you seriously if your posting looks like you're roleplaying the queen

have fun making up words and posting threads about those words on the internet though

[Thirsty Crow]

But okay, troll or not, let's look at the underlying premise:


Currently, we are seeing a massive increase in debts owned by various nations.

Some nations, such as Greece, will likely never be able to pay off their debts, and thus their state will collapse.

You are forgetting a whole lot here.
The fundamental premise of national debt is not that it will be paid off in a certain point in time, but that the state can keep the balance of accounts in a situation which would enable it both to make installment payments (debt is paid off in such a way) to its creditors and to retain funds for social security, education, the repressive apparatus - in short, for those aspects which fall under the category of social reproduction (I strongly advise you, and honestly, to get acquainted with this term which you've been ignoring so far).

In a debt crisis, it is the second aspect that will go, that will be placed under the butcher's axe. But your argument here is doubly false since it doesn't take into account how debt works (never be able to pay off debt) and sinjce it presuposses that wholesale state collapse is even possible due to debt crisis.

The problem here is that you didn't expand on this latter aspect, the necessary collapse of the state.
I for one would say that this is very unlikely since:

1) capital vitally needs the state apparatus, and could not expand at a sufficient rate if private, competing companies were to provide "security"; the inevitable need for disciplining the working class due to capital's inherent limits and crisis-inducing characteristics will lead to the rise of a unified apparatus of violence, organized politically in one way or another, which is something that anarcho-caps cannot grasp

2) for these reasons, and out of other reasons such as the integration of the states in the inter-state system, the potential risks and dangers of a state collapse are undeniable for the ruling class, and thus it is safe to assume that they will act against it; I could envision a new fascism arising, accomodated to the contemporary ideological tasks, much sooner than a private companies rule; also, factor in here nationalist consciousness, which is antithetical to the conditions you imagine



The point was that a state will have to sell its assets to pay off investors. Will this collapse a state? It depends on how structured the Anarcho-Liberal movement is, otherwise a bunch of individual investors cannot do much damage.


This seems like a notion of the state selling itself out of existence.

But this is not a real possibility since the state can be involved in the process of commodification of education, infrastructure etc yet still retain its status.
This ties in with what I sad about debt.
And yet again, the anarcho-liberal movement is not only unstructured, but it isn't a movement at all.


Such people can easily highjack the state and cause neo-Feudal conditions.
Hijacking the state?
No, they can do no such thing, and it is laughable to conclude that they could do it easily. They do not enjoy any support from other states and it is very likely they never will (since the firepower of other states would be needed very much), alongside other reasons.

Really, do you consider yourself a Marxist? Do you consider some basic understanding found in Marxism relating to political struggle and the state as useful? If not, why? Where does this hijacking the state stuff come from?

[citizen of industry]

Man, I subscribed to this thread, but now it feels like the humane thing to do is just let it die.

[James Connolly]

That's all tantamount to gibberish, unfortunately, because, at a very fundamental level, you've assumed that property and a state to protect it can co-exist with anarchy in the same society.
As my Anarcho-Capitalist professor said, Anarchism is really nonexistent. Once one order has fallen, another will take its place. He spoke about how chaos is purely competition for the creation of order. With that explained, I'm sure you can work out how your argument is faulty.


For instance, feudalism didn't have "a kind of privatization of property;" it absolutely had private property.
Over-lapping property relations isn't really private.

So if "anarcho-liberalism" is equivalent to neo-feudalism, than what you're saying is that this kind of anarchism leads to the foundation of a new aristocracy, only to have us enter bourgeois capitalism once again.

Property relations have changed drastically from the feudal age. When I regard Anarcho-Liberalism as neo-Feudalism, it was simply to compare the Anarcho features of the Medieval Duchy. Perhaps a good example of this was Lombardi Italy, where each territory was ruled by different families and the king was pretty much chosen through civil war.

I, unlike you, won't be making any speculations in regards to the evolution of economic systems.



The main problem isn't that you've "developed" any kind of "tactics" (which you qualify as being "coercive," an odd word given that you have yet to try to persuade anyone through threat of violence); it's that these tactics don't work.
Says the guy who is complaining about its usage.


No one will take what you assert seriously if you have a reputation of talking down to a critical audience and asserting absolute contradictions in terms.
I have no ambition to work according to set standards of political cultures, nor do I know why it is being addressed. In regards to 'absolute contradictions,' please share how that holds any water?


I won't kid myself into thinking that every user on RevLeft will always come to a debate with more than his own prejudices (I've seen my fair share of users throwing a party mix of non-arguments at a thread to see what sticks), but we are a thriving community of seriously dedicated thinking leftists.
This gave me a good chuckle. You do know Marxist-Leninists are purged here day-in and day-out, right? You've only been around since August, while I was skimming the forum for several months prior to my joiner. I have no intentions of being friendly, or rather Comradely, to those who use crude and disrespectful language.

Two trolls on my thread are hardly representative of the forum though, and I don't mean any bad wishes for RevLeft. For members that are friendly and make attempts to address issues, I will be more kind, as I've already demonstrated.



That's called "being a psychopath." I'm not even joking; Ayn Rand wrote almost those exact same words when she was planning her fanfic about an actual child murderer. In any case, if you're to participate in any community whatsoever, you need to understand that its standards do have legitimacy, earned by its having provided you with a forum for your thoughts.

My so-called 'psychopathic' tendencies, which you seem to recognize, were created as I developed myself in the intellectual sphere. Being conscious does not equate to being psychopathic...
You simply refer to me as psychopathic because you cannot explain what has confronted you. It is a tendency of poor debaters to equate different styles with mental disabilities...



You didn't explain in any detail whatsoever how charter cities might be established in a failed state (given the immense costs of investment and the fact that the capitalist investors would not see returns on it for a long time, I'm inclined to say that without a significant financial and logistic aid from capitalist states, all of this amounts to a bad dream)
The website gave information about the topic. I simply gave it as an example, which I later discredited if you look back at my earlier posts. My point with the Charter Cities was to show that such a system was compatible with modern capabilities.

The issue with Charter Cities won't be with principles of Anarcho-Liberalism, rather irrelevancies that can be fixed with changes in the sample population. I'm not going to repeat this point, so I suggest reading over my previous posts.


If I may point out, the burden of proof is on you, and the relationship between the state and investors can hadly be called a non-related topic (since the charter city dreamscape invokes it explicitly).
I've more than satisfied what you've asked for(even before you asked for any). How about we come to the realization that you're just being disagreeable?

It is also true that Liberalism is a precursor of Anarcho-Liberalism. A state will be needed before the investor, but the investor that has bought out the state's Means of Production won't need the state. I have never denied this point, although I hadn't been asked.
Why didn't you just ask? That was relatively easy to answer, and I'm sure it satisfies what you've been looking for.


What is Marxism 101 is that movements do not develop in a vacuum, and that concrete material conditions aren't changed by the whim of an individual. But we've established already that Marxism is something infinitely malleable in your hands, didn't we?
Actually, I proved how Marxism tied into this. Do you recall the Manifesto, where Marx wrote that the Bourgeoisie will agitate the petite-Bourgeoisie until they are forced to become members of the Proletarian class. It is through this agitation of the lower Bourgeoisie that the concept of Anarcho-Liberalism was created. It was not the idea of one man, but rather the culmination of an entire segment of a class's interests.

So in fact, it is not I who has misunderstood Marx. Oh no. It is rather the warbands of pseudo-intellectualism that have invaded my thread with their aggressive and non-rhetorical comments, only to be tared down with the same standard that they so dearly claim to adhere to.



If you can't see how a website run by an individual does not constitute a movement, no one can help you I'm afraid.
No where on the sight do they claim to be Anarcho-Liberals. That was rather my example.


And surely it's your right to pretend that nothing what was written addresses your points. That's why trolls are amusing after all.
It must have broken your heart to hear that your comments hold no water to RevLeft1999. Oh and how terrible it is to be utterly defeated by someone with a name like that... It was that same feeling of sheer worthlessness that I wanted my enemies to feel that lead me to choosing such a name.
http://i.imgur.com/VvH9H.gif

[James Connolly]

Just as a note, you aren't very creative nor knowledgeable. Think about it like this: if you are able to think about it, you should assume that I have as well. Most of your points here were already addressed or non-related.


The fundamental premise of national debt is not that it will be paid off in a certain point in time, but that the state can keep the balance of accounts in a situation which would enable it both to make installment payments (debt is paid off in such a way) to its creditors and to retain funds for social security, education, the repressive apparatus - in short, for those aspects which fall under the category of social reproduction (I strongly advise you, and honestly, to get acquainted with this term which you've been ignoring so far).
Is that why the Greek state is liquidating their assets, which they're using to pay off investors? Sure economic nationalism is still the base of most investment, but once security has run out, new trends will be created with the powerful blocs using their assets to create and maintain order.

As I pointed out to that other troll, the base of chaos under Anarchy is the competition to establish order.


or those aspects which fall under the category of social reproduction

In a debt crisis, it is the second aspect that will go, that will be placed under the butcher's axe. But your argument here is doubly false since it doesn't take into account how debt works (never be able to pay off debt) and sinjce it presuposses that wholesale state collapse is even possible due to debt crisis.
Go into some of my prvious posts, where I addressed it.




1) capital vitally needs the state apparatus, and could not expand at a sufficient rate if private, competing companies were to provide "security"; the inevitable need for disciplining the working class due to capital's inherent limits and crisis-inducing characteristics will lead to the rise of a unified apparatus of violence, organized politically in one way or another, which is something that anarcho-caps cannot grasp

Which I addressed already, and I said it was an inherent problem in the Charter Cities. However, the Bourgeoisie will be more capable if offering livelihoods that are relatively good. I don't know what degenerate logic you're using, but people will happily conform to a system when they have no where else to go.
In a state of mass Anarchy, you have death and chaos. War and destruction. People will happily fall in line with whatever they can get.



2) for these reasons, and out of other reasons such as the integration of the states in the inter-state system, the potential risks and dangers of a state collapse are undeniable for the ruling class, and thus it is safe to assume that they will act against it; I could envision a new fascism arising, accomodated to the contemporary ideological tasks, much sooner than a private companies rule; also, factor in here nationalist consciousness, which is antithetical to the conditions you imagine
I actually agreed with this point earlier in this thread, when I concluded that the prospects for Fascism were better than Anarcho-Liberalism.
Very nice, but that doesn't mean the Anarcho-Liberals don't have legitimacy and aren't a capable threat.


This seems like a notion of the state selling itself out of existence.
A Liberal government would happily pay investors back their dues.


Hijacking the state?
No, they can do no such thing, and it is laughable to conclude that they could do it easily. They do not enjoy any support from other states and it is very likely they never will (since the firepower of other states would be needed very much), alongside other reasons.
The relationship between a Liberal government and the Anarcho-Liberal movement is pretty cordial. A Liberal government views the legitimacy of the Bourgeoisie as higher than that of the state and the Proletariat, so they will happily liquidate all fruits garnished by the Proletariat if it means maintaining a Liberal-style economy. The issue, however, is that Anarcho-Liberals are themselves part of the same school as the Liberals, and their interests are much different. In a Liberal economy, it is relatively easy for investors to buy-out assets of the state.

When the state collapses, however, class consciousness among the petite-Bourgeois will be had, and the Anarcho-Liberal movement will gain mass support in that segment of the Bourgeois class, otherwise all of their assets will be eaten up by another movement.


Really, do you consider yourself a Marxist? Do you consider some basic understanding found in Marxism relating to political struggle and the state as useful? If not, why? Where does this hijacking the state stuff come from?
Ironically, I explained that one comment above this. The term 'hijack' was meant to address the Means of Productions of a state, and how investors will buy them out, and not the hijacking of the state itself.

[Камо́ Зэд]

As my Anarcho-Capitalist professor said, Anarchism is really nonexistent. Once one order has fallen, another will take its place. He spoke about how chaos is purely competition for the creation of order. With that explained, I'm sure you can work out how your argument is faulty.

My argument was that the state cannot co-exist with statelessness, so you're going to have to do some spectacular explaining if your response was meant to contradict it.


Over-lapping property relations isn't really private.

Here's the problem with creating your own terms for things. What are "overlapping property relations" and how are they not private? What precedence anywhere in any economic writing do you have for this?


Property relations have changed drastically from the feudal age. When I regard Anarcho-Liberalism as neo-Feudalism, it was simply to compare the Anarcho features of the Medieval Duchy. Perhaps a good example of this was Lombardi Italy, where each territory was ruled by different families and the king was pretty much chosen through civil war.

It baffles my mind how you can define any society with a ruling class and a king as anarchic. Anarchy is not decentralization or deregulation; it is absolute statelessness. There is no kind-of-sort-of-anarchy-but-with-a-state. That you have been told this on more than one occasion and have flatly refused to accept demonstrates the kind of arrogance only the grossly inept have.


I, unlike you, won't be making any speculations in regards to the evolution of economic systems.

That is exactly what Marxism is. Marxism is about understanding how economic systems evolve and the character they will take in the future.


Says the guy who is complaining about its usage.

Even your comebacks come completely out of nowhere. I'm not kidding when I say that the above quoted comment somehow makes even less sense when taken in its context. You're absolutely right that I'm complaining about your ass-backwards idea that being obnoxious, making up your own terminology, and talking down to people are conducive to any serious exchange.



I have no ambition to work according to set standards of political cultures, nor do I know why it is being addressed. In regards to 'absolute contradictions,' please share how that holds any water?

This took me a second, but what I think you're trying to ask me is whether I'm talking about some mind of philosophical concept. Rest assured I'm talking about anarcho-capitalism being an oxymoron, because capitalism implies the existence of a state and anarchy is, by its dictionary definition, the absence of a state. As for not having the "ambition" to "work according to set standards of political cultures," what that says to the rest of us is that you don't have the "ambition" to show any kind of respect to anyone. The problem with this thread isn't that you're spouting nonsense. You're a human being and, since 1999 sounds about right for the year of your birth, you're probably very young, too; you're entitled to be wrong. It's practically a statistical impossibility for you to ever be right about anything, and this isn't a jab at you; it's a sheer numbers game. The problem is that you're so arrogant that you can't seem to accept that you haven't even formed so much as a cogent thought, much less addressed an issue with which we'd be potentially concerned.



This gave me a good chuckle. You do know Marxist-Leninists are purged here day-in and day-out, right? You've only been around since August, while I was skimming the forum for several months prior to my joiner. I have no intentions of being friendly, or rather Comradely, to those who use crude and disrespectful language.

And the fact that you seem to think you're the only person who ever thought to lurk a forum before joining it. But listen to your logic: Marxist-Leninists get banned from this forum frequently, so you've decided to dedicate what little time you have here to being as absolutely obnoxious as possible. You're doing exactly two things here:



you're trying to get banned quickly; and
you're making sure not to leave behind anything of any value to anyone when you succeed.

That is precisely what a troll does.



Two trolls on my thread are hardly representative of the forum though, and I don't mean any bad wishes for RevLeft. For members that are friendly and make attempts to address issues, I will be more kind, as I've already demonstrated.

You are not responsible for any other member's inability to articulate his or her thoughts. You are responsible for your behavior, and your behavior makes potential comrades think you're arrogant and that you don't know anything.


My so-called 'psychopathic' tendencies, which you seem to recognize, were created as I developed myself in the intellectual sphere. Being conscious does not equate to being psychopathic...

Unfortunately, a lot of people cultivate these same attitudes when they've dabbled in something smart-sounding for a while. Psychopathy means one has severe challenges with internalizing social standards, and this is a hindrance.


You simply refer to me as psychopathic because you cannot explain what has confronted you. It is a tendency of poor debaters to equate different styles with mental disabilities...

See, it's stuff like this that convinced everyone you're a troll. There isn't even a word for this magnitude of completely unwarranted self-importance, so I'm tasked with creating one: kanyewestonchandlery. There isn't a word for it because it doesn't exist in nature; it has to be cultivated deliberately.

[helot]

As my Anarcho-Capitalist professor said, Anarchism is really nonexistent. Once one order has fallen, another will take its place. He spoke about how chaos is purely competition for the creation of order. With that explained, I'm sure you can work out how your argument is faulty.


I hope your professor isn't a professor of political science or anything as it's obvious s/he doesn't understand what anarchism is.



It is also true that Liberalism is a precursor of Anarcho-Liberalism. A state will be needed before the investor, but the investor that has bought out the state's Means of Production won't need the state. I have never denied this point, although I hadn't been asked.
Why didn't you just ask? That was relatively easy to answer, and I'm sure it satisfies what you've been looking for.

How would this investor and other members of their class protect themselves from a dispossessed class? They would of course need state functions to exist regardless of whether it's theoretically a public or private form. State functions are a necessity for the maintanance of an exploiter class due to resistance from an exploited class and also within capitalism due to the inherent competition between members of the bourgeoisie.

[James Connolly]

My argument was that the state cannot co-exist with statelessness, so you're going to have to do some spectacular explaining if your response was meant to contradict it.
I already defeated this point in my previous points.




Here's the problem with creating your own terms for things. What are "overlapping property relations" and how are they not private?
I explained this already. I'm not going to repeat things.




It baffles my mind how you can define any society with a ruling class and a king as anarchic. Anarchy is not decentralization or deregulation; it is absolute statelessness. There is no kind-of-sort-of-anarchy-but-with-a-state. That you have been told this on more than one occasion and have flatly refused to accept demonstrates the kind of arrogance only the grossly inept have.

Dammit really, why couldn't you read my reply to that other troll? I explained this exact point, and I sourced my Anarcho-Capitalist professor who said that Anarchy is non-existent, as chaos is the competition for the creation of order.
As I noted to the other troll as well, you are really just repeating points that I've already addressed.

I suggested that he from now on assume that anything he wrights was already addressed by me, as he didn't seem very creative. Seeing that you repeated numerous points, this seems to apply to you as well.



That is exactly what Marxism is. Marxism is about understanding how economic systems evolve and the character they will take in the future.
You aren't using Marx in a proper context there. You see, Marx doesn't apply in your argument, as you are simply deducing a circular swing in class relations. The Dialectic is a spiral, and "we don't jump in the same river twice."

This misunderstanding of Marx consolidates your ignorance on the subject.


Even your comebacks come completely out of nowhere. I'm not kidding when I say that the above quoted comment somehow makes even less sense when taken in its context. You're absolutely right that I'm complaining about your ass-backwards idea that being obnoxious, making up your own terminology, and talking down to people are conducive to any serious exchange.
Good, then you've affirmed that my tactics are successful, which contradict your earlier criticisms.


You're a human being and, since 1999 sounds about right for the year of your birth, you're probably very young, too; you're entitled to be wrong...
It's practically a statistical impossibility for you to ever be right about anything, and this isn't a jab at you
Reported for agism. Whether or not that is my age, you have no precedent for subjugating users in such a way.



The problem is that you're so arrogant that you can't seem to accept that you haven't even formed so much as a cogent thought, much less addressed an issue with which we'd be potentially concerned.

In what way? Much of my time has been spent pointing out contradictions in your criticisms.




Unfortunately, a lot of people cultivate these same attitudes when they've dabbled in something smart-sounding for a while. Psychopathy means one has severe challenges with internalizing social standards, and this is a hindrance.
Glory to groupthink!



See, it's stuff like this that convinced everyone you're a troll. There isn't even a word for this magnitude of completely unwarranted self-importance, so I'm tasked with creating one: kanyewestonchandlery. There isn't a word for it because it doesn't exist in nature; it has to be cultivated deliberately.

So anyone that disagrees with you has mental deficiencies? And their replies against such nonsense are to be regarded as trolling?

See, your issue is that each and every one of your comments is full of senseless contradictions...

[Камо́ Зэд]

I already defeated this point in my previous points.

Nowhere in any of your posts do you demonstrate that statelessness can co-exist with a state in the same society. If I'm misunderstanding something, make that clear.


I explained this already. I'm not going to repeat things.

Then you clearly didn't explain it well enough to be understood. Kid, when you come to this or any other forum, you need to expect to be asked to elaborate on your ideas. It is not our responsibility to understand you right at the outset; it is your responsibility to make yourself understood.


Dammit really, why couldn't you read my reply to that other troll? I explained this exact point, and I sourced my Anarcho-Capitalist professor who said that Anarchy is non-existent, as chaos is the competition for the creation of order.

I understand you naturally want to look up to your professor, but he is wrong. Anarchy is statelessness; there has been a point in human history in which we've existed without a state. That has happened, and it is essentially what Communists hope to achieve: the withering away of the state.


I suggested that he from now on assume that anything he wrights was already addressed by me, as he didn't seem very creative. Seeing that you repeated numerous points, this seems to apply to you as well.

It doesn't matter in the least if you addressed it or not. If anyone is asking, you didn't address it thoroughly enough.


You aren't using Marx in a proper context there. You see, Marx doesn't apply in your argument, as you are simply deducing a circular swing in class relations. The Dialectic is a spiral, and "we don't jump in the same river twice."

This misunderstanding of Marx consolidates your ignorance on the subject.

Then there is no point in pursuing a scientific understanding of human society. That is what all science is: it is a method of understanding what will happen in the future based on what we know to have already happened. I never said the future will assume the exact characteristics of some past human society, but there are things we absolutely can predict about it. That is the purpose of science and how it functions.

And your absolute arrogance is infuriating, because it is as unearned as possible.


Good, then you've affirmed that my tactics are successful, which contradict your earlier criticisms.

So your tactics, then, are exactly as I've described them: saying things that have absolutely no meaning of any kind whatsoever to alienate potential comrades. That is trolling, and you absolutely are doing it successfully.


Reported for agism. Whether or not that is my age, you have no precedent for subjugating users in such a way.

You have this tendency to use words in very strange ways, particularly "deduce" and "subjugate." I have not "subjugated" you in any way, because I have not forced you to submit to any kind of control. What I have done, however, is point out that it is extremely unlikely that you know so much more than anyone else on this board that we're just too stupid to even get what you're saying.


In what way? Much of my time has been spent pointing out contradictions in your criticisms.

What are you talking about? All you've been doing has been acting like an entitled little know-it-all twerp and spouting nonsense. And "nonsense" is no exaggeration here; very little of what you said so far resembles anything like a coherent idea. What is a "circular swing in class relations" and in what way did I "deduce" such a thing? What are "overlapping property relations?" What is anarcho-liberalism is anarchy doesn't exist, and why is this different from mere liberalism? And by what stretch of the imagination are your "tactics" working to create anything like a comprehensible exchange of dieas?


Glory to groupthink!

It's comments like this that make me think you're some kind of Randian troll. Seriously, who says that in response to the fact that you absolutely have to cooperate with other human beings in order to communicate effectively? That's something I could've expected to read from a creationist or something!


So anyone that disagrees with you has mental deficiencies?

Someone who deliberately cultivates undeserved arrogance and a method of communication that intentionally impedes the exchange of ideas and foments hostility as its primary purpose absolutely has some serious psycho-emotional challenges.


And their replies against such nonsense are to be regarded as trolling?

You have, yourself, admitted to trolling a few times in this post alone.

[James Connolly]

Most of your comments are getting repetitive and boring, so I will just address the ones that have some intellectual value.



Then there is no point in pursuing a scientific understanding of human society. That is what all science is: it is a method of understanding what will happen in the future based on what we know to have already happened. I never said the future will assume the exact characteristics of some past human society, but there are things we absolutely can predict about it. That is the purpose of science and how it functions.
When did I say science has no value? I was simply stating that non-intellectual speculation holds no water. Proper analysis is, however, to be held in high regard.
Your speculations were anti-Marxist, as it ignored the Dialectic nature of material development, and I sought to point that out.
In regards to your last few sentences, I suggest reading David Hume.




What is a "circular swing in class relations" and in what way did I "deduce" such a thing? What are "overlapping property relations?" What is anarcho-liberalism is anarchy doesn't exist, and why is this different from mere liberalism?
Sigh... You could have easily taken those observations into account, but instead you've decided to be disagreeable and refute everything I say as nonsensical with no real precedent on your part. It would be against logic to continue a discussion that will continually yield no fruit. So frankly, I suggest viewing my previous posts, and if you disagree, write a compelling reason why and I will thank you for your time.

[Камо́ Зэд]

When did I say science has no value? I was simply stating that non-intellectual speculation holds no water. Proper analysis is, however, to be held in high regard.
Your speculations were anti-Marxist, as it ignored the Dialectic nature of material development, and I sought to point that out.
In regards to your last few sentences, I suggest reading David Hume.

Explain how those speculations were anti-Marxist and ignored dialectic. Also, don't just tell me go read an author, like I'm supposed to carve out a huge chunk of time to slog through someone's entire catalog until I find the point you're trying to make. If David Hume has said something important, cite it in your posts.


Sigh... You could have easily taken those observations into account, but instead you've decided to be disagreeable and refute everything I say as nonsensical with no real precedent on your part. It would be against logic to continue a discussion that will continually yield no fruit. So frankly, I suggest viewing my previous posts, and if you disagree, write a compelling reason why and I will thank you for your time.What do you mean "taken those observations into account?" I just did, by asking you about them. That is what a discussion is. If it's easier for you to create excuses not to explain yourself than to explain yourself, you are absolutely doing something wrong.

[James Connolly]

Explain how those speculations were anti-Marxist and ignored dialectic.

You clearly said Anarcho-Liberalism would lead back to a Bourgeois state, which contradicts what Heraclitus, the founder of Materialism, said about development, in that "we do not jump into the same river twice."


Also, don't just tell me go read an author, like I'm supposed to carve out a huge chunk of time to slog through someone's entire catalog until I find the point you're trying to make. If David Hume has said something important, cite it in your posts.
Humes' ultimate goal was to say man could never predict things, rather they are simple speculations. He used that to say science had no basis.


What do you mean "taken those observations into account?" I just did, by asking you about them. That is what a discussion is. If it's easier for you to create excuses not to explain yourself than to explain yourself, you are absolutely doing something wrong.
As noted, your weak points have already been addressed. It is really hard to attack an ideology, which has strong foundations, simply by addressing some non-related topics, so you didn't really have much of a chance.

Perhaps it is just your ego that perpetuates your arguments. Listen kid, I already addressed your points, even before you asked for them. If you want an elaboration of some of my previous posts, go back and hand pick which ones you'd like me to elaborate on.
These abstract criticisms are really getting boring.

[rti]

OP

I was wondering to this thing if it is possible to such a system to emerge only finally to realize it is impossible.

What i mean it will be defiantly no anarchy just privatively runned states with offices to sell.
The bad side-effects would be , whatever is left somewhat communized will lead to rich elite hands in the name of fake freedom,

And i share your concerns that it can create even greater exploitation , since ongoing economic crisis and other crisises our planet is about to experience the ideologies around the planet will get radicalized and rich elite will definitely try to push world into this radical position.

In fact i hate anarcho-capitalist above all,most of their philosophy make me sick in my stomach.

[Камо́ Зэд]

You clearly said Anarcho-Liberalism would lead back to a Bourgeois state, which contradicts what Heraclitus, the founder of Materialism, said about development, in that "we do not jump into the same river twice."

The thing is, though, that anarcho-liberalism isn't anything separate from the liberalism that already exists. If there were an "anarchic" overthrow of the state, the same basic mode of property relations would still persist. This mode of property relations is what saw the emergence of the modern capitalist state to begin with. The bourgeoisie would not "re-emerge" so much as it would not have vanished to begin with. New blood does not a new species of class make, and it is the ruling class that defines the epoch.


Humes' ultimate goal was to say man could never predict things, rather they are simple speculations. He used that to say science had no basis.

Earlier you said that you weren't claiming science didn't have any value. Since the sole function of science is to make predictions, Humes is saying that its sole function is spurious.


As noted, your weak points have already been addressed. It is really hard to attack an ideology, which has strong foundations, simply by addressing some non-related topics, so you didn't really have much of a chance.

Think about what you're actually saying here: "I win because I mentioned what you said at some point." You haven't actually made any counter-arguments during this whole exchange. You have been filling your posts to the brim with excuses as to why you shouldn't be expected to:



revisit any of your original points for any reason; or
treat other human beings with any semblance of respect.

And not one thing I've yet brought up is unrelated to the topic at hand. Again, just saying, "I win, you lose" over and over is not how it works.



Perhaps it is just your ego that perpetuates your arguments. Listen kid, I already addressed your points, even before you asked for them.
If you want an elaboration of some of my previous posts, go back and hand pick which ones you'd like me to elaborate on.
These abstract criticisms are really getting boring.

Three different things go on in the above passage:


you attribute my persistent questioning to my "ego," rather than to the nature of the forum, which is discussion;
you appropriate something I called you ("kid") despite having reported me for trolling based on my having called you that; and
you make another excuse to evade answering to anything and tell me to pick out what I'd like you to elaborate on despite my having done absolutely nothing but exactly that this whole time.

And it's really number three that sums up this entire thread. Instead of "Here's another way of saying what I'd meant in my original post," we get "Here are all the reasons I don't have to answer to anything I say, ever."

[Ocean Seal]

I'm pretty sure the OP means anarcho-capitalism or neoliberalism. Anyway this is why you don't want a semantic debate on revleft.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'm pretty sure the OP means anarcho-capitalism or neoliberalism. Anyway this is why you don't want a semantic debate on revleft.

The problem is that he refuses to revisit anything he ever says, so we have no way of knowing for sure.

[James Connolly]

You've pretty much lost legitimacy in our debate, as all of your points were leveled to suggestions that were no-related to the original topic, so I will end it where it was left off.

The problem is that he refuses to revisit anything he ever says, so we have no way of knowing for sure.
When I asked you to list what issues my arguments had, you ignored it.

It is hard to take you seriously when you make abstract criticisms.


I'm pretty sure the OP means anarcho-capitalism or neoliberalism. Anyway this is why you don't want a semantic debate on revleft.
I apologize if my anti-troll tactics have made me sound unpluralistic or untransparent.
I don't mind a genuine debate, I rather attack pseudo-intellectuals that feel the need to self-moderate discussions on subjects.

Камо́ Зэд literally walked into this thread with the fallacy of denying the antecedent. He further went on giving an explanation of what Liberalism was, as though Anarcho-Liberalism didn't differ the slightest, even though just a few posts before I had explained to someone else in detail how it differs.

In regards to anarcho-capitalism or neoliberalism, no this is an entirely different school although it adheres to some anarcho-capitalist principles. Neoliberals generally still want a state to exist and moderate, while Anarcho-Liberals want to take over the functions of the state relative to their own society.

Will it work, probably not, which I noted earlier in the thread.

The previous trolls have been so embroidered by sectarianism that they haven't realized that I've been agreeing with them this entire time.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Anarchism is a socialist ideology that seeks to destroy the state.
Liberalism is a capitalist ideology that does not seek to destroy the state.
Anarcho-liberalism is...?


modern anarchism has its roots in western christian theology (Godwin)
socialism has similar origins.



basically, if it is an emancipatory idea, it may have theology somewhere in its origins or theology comes in line with it at some point in its practice.

[Камо́ Зэд]

You've pretty much lost legitimacy in our debate, as all of your points were leveled to suggestions that were no-related to the original topic, so I will end it where it was left off.

One of the reasons everyone is having such trouble understanding you is that you string together words in a bizarre way. What does it mean to "level" something "to suggestions?" And this has got to be my first encounter with "no-related."


When I asked you to list what issues my arguments had, you ignored it.That's because quite literally every single one of my posts before that were doing exactly as you asked. I'll ask again:



What is an "overlapping property relation?"
If anarchy doesn't exist, then why is "anarcho-liberalism" any different whatsoever from liberalism?
Why would "anarcho-liberalism" not simply perpetuate capitalism? Why must it transform property relations in such a way as to be distinct from capitalism?


It is hard to take you seriously when you make abstract criticisms.Forgive me, but it's difficult to make concrete criticisms against something that is entirely abstract.


Камо́ Зэд literally walked into this thread with the fallacy of denying the antecedent.Quote the exact instance of my doing so and explain how it commits that fallacy.


He further went on giving an explanation of what Liberalism was, as though Anarcho-Liberalism didn't differ the slightest, even though just a few posts before I had explained to someone else in detail how it differs.Yeah, it's almost as though I disagreed with your assertion that they are different in any significant way. Maybe if you would ever bother to expand on your original points rather than dismiss any and all disagreement out of hand, this conversation would be over.


In regards to anarcho-capitalism or neoliberalism, no this is an entirely different school although it adheres to some anarcho-capitalist principles. Neoliberals generally still want a state to exist and moderate, while Anarcho-Liberals want to take over the functions of the state relative to their own society.How does that in any way, shape, or form incorporate any notions of anarchy whatsoever?


Will it work, probably not, which I noted earlier in the thread.

The previous trolls have been so embroidered by sectarianism that they haven't realized that I've been agreeing with them this entire time.Which is weird, given how this is the first time you've given any indication of that at all. You'd think that would've been the very first thing you wrote as a response to someone, rather than dismissing their questions out of hand and calling them trolls. (You're also the only person I've ever seen actually use "anarcho-liberal" to mean anything other than "just kind of left-leaning.")

[James Connolly]

Again, redundant posts... No one cares about your childish observation about how RedAlert1999 doesn't debate fairly. Either stay on topic, or leave.


That's because quite literally every single one of my posts before that were doing exactly as you asked. I'll ask again:



What is an "overlapping property relation?"
If anarchy doesn't exist, then why is "anarcho-liberalism" any different whatsoever from liberalism?
Why would "anarcho-liberalism" not simply perpetuate capitalism? Why must it transform property relations in such a way as to be distinct from capitalism?

1. I had actually elaborated that to you earlier. It was also not related to Anarcho-Liberalism, rather Feudalism, so this is actually redundant.
2. They basically adhere to all the principles of Liberalism, but they don't recognize the state as necessary. Does it work? Probably not, but take it up with an Anarcho-Liberal if you want to learn more about it.
3. That I'm not to knowing about- you'll have to ask an Anarcho-Liberal. What I can say is Anarcho-Liberals follow principles of Markets dictating virtually everything, so I don't see how it is different from Capitalism, albeit a more radical version.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Again, redundant posts... No one cares about your childish observation about how RedAlert1999 doesn't debate fairly. Either stay on topic, or leave.
1. I had actually elaborated that to you earlier. It was also not related to Anarcho-Liberalism, rather Feudalism, so this is actually redundant.
2. They basically adhere to all the principles of Liberalism, but they don't recognize the state as necessary. Does it work? Probably not, but take it up with an Anarcho-Liberal if you want to learn more about it.
3. That I'm not to knowing about- you'll have to ask an Anarcho-Liberal. What I can say is Anarcho-Liberals follow principles of Markets dictating virtually everything, so I don't see how it is different from Capitalism, albeit a more radical version.

The problem I have here is that you've yet again evaded number one.