Anarchist here

[Anti-Archy]

- Im from Southern CA
- Im an Anarchist
- Im not a leftist

Im still trying to understand the claim of being a leftist and an Anarchist. I look forward to many conversations on here. I love new ideas and information.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

How are you not a leftist?

Explain what you mean by anarchist then?

If you're an "anarcho-capitalist", then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Non-Aligned]

Can you explain in your own words how you don't equate anarchism with Leftism? Not being judgmental, I'm just genuinely curious.:)

[Anti-Archy]

How are you not a leftist?

Explain what you mean by anarchist then?

If you're an "anarcho-capitalist", then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Anti-Ruler. That would include any and all form of government.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Can you explain in your own words how you don't equate anarchism with Leftism? Not being judgmental, I'm just genuinely curious.:)

I DO equate it with leftism. I'm curious as to why you think it's not a leftist concept.

I guess I should ask, what are your general beliefs on things?

[PhoenixAsh]

Ok. Hi :)


So what is your view on capitalism. That is our main concern right now. I don't care if you label yourself left or not.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Anti-Ruler. That would include any and all form of government.

The term left wing implies opposition to social hierarchy

[Non-Aligned]

I didn't say anarchism isn't a Leftist concept. All my readings have pointed towards anarchism mostly being Leftist in nature.

[Loony Le Fist]

Anti-Ruler. That would include any and all form of government.

Would you include any type of large bureaucracy combined with hierarchies like corporations, or just things labeled government.

[Anti-Archy]

Can you explain in your own words how you don't equate anarchism with Leftism? Not being judgmental, I'm just genuinely curious.:)
Well as i said, I know socialism to be far left and zero government to be far right.

[Anti-Archy]

The term left wing implies opposition to social hierarchy
how does socialism and communism fit in with that definition? those are left-wing ideas, are they not?

it seems we perhaps just have different understandings of the left/right spectrum.

[Anti-Archy]

Would you include any type of large bureaucracy combined with hierarchies like corporations, or just things labeled government.
I would include anyone that attempts to tell anyone else what to do with their life, liberty or property that does not violate another's while they do it.

[The Jay]

Hello, welcome. What do you mean by government?

[Q]

Well as i said, I know socialism to be far left and zero government to be far right.
Which is of course bullshit...

Anyway, you are an anarcho-capitalist then?

[Anti-Archy]

Hello, welcome. What do you mean by government?
Thanks,

Well I suppose I would define government as any organization that is funded by the people whether it be voluntary for the most part or forced. I may choose to refine that later but thats a start.

[Non-Aligned]

Zero government is not necessarily far right. There are plenty of Right Wing authoritarian governments. Just look at the theocracies in the MidEast that impose strict conservative laws on their people with death being the punishment. Libertarianism is limited government, maybe a step above anarchism, but it's certainly not far right. They're more in the Center being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

lol what does that even mean

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

the People topkek

[Loony Le Fist]

BTW, Hello welcome to the forums. I look forward to you having a good time. :laugh:

I really ought to learn to say hello.

[Q]

Zero government is not necessarily far right. There are plenty of Right Wing authoritarian governments. Just look at the theocracies in the MidEast that impose strict conservative laws on their people with death being the punishment. Libertarianism is limited government, maybe a step above anarchism, but it's certainly not far right. They're more in the Center being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Not to mention the very fact that capitalism, as a social mode, is unable to exist without a state due to the class society it perpetuates. Communism, the association of free producers, is classless and therefore stateless.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

*rings alarm*

Congratulations. As most of us were at some point in our lives, you have successfully been brainwashed by the corporate media!

But we can fix this.

The left-right spectrum came about during the French Revolution when the bourgeoisie of France overthrew the aristocracy. In meetings, the supporters of the monarchy and the church and whatnot sat on the right. The revolutionaries (bourgeois revolutionaries) sat on the left.

Today the left-right spectrum is just an oversimplified easiest-way-possible method for determining where someone's views might lie. The left, contrary to what the lying media tells you, is NOT for liberals. Liberals are capitalists. The term "more government" is completely meaningless. It has zero meaning whatsoever, so throw it out of your mind.

The left is a wide spectrum, but liberals are not on that spectrum. Remember, many ultra conservatives want "more government." Military spending, etc etc. But that doesn't matter. Us, we want to throw the whole thing out, we don't like the government or capitalists. But the government is composed of capitalists anyway and protects them, so it goes without saying.

"Anarcho-capitalists" are NOT anarchists, nor will they ever be. Some of us want a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (a government that is owned and represents the proletarian class) and some of us want to skip that and go directly to a stateless communist society. But in the end, we want a STATELESS communist society.

There, the end.

[Loony Le Fist]

Not to mention the very fact that capitalism, as a social mode, is unable to exist without a state due to the class society it perpetuates. Communism, the association of free producers, is classless and therefore stateless.

Fascinating. So you see a full communist society as a bunch of freely associating classless producers? Would you say that prosumer might be an accurate term?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

hello tho welcome <3

[Tim Cornelis]

There's this popular video by some right-wing idiot who explains why the left-right spectrum should be, or is, far-left is big government and far-right is no government. Then puts communism at far-left and anarchism at far-right. This nonsense has spread like a disease around the internet-based libertarian circles.

The left-right divide arose out of the French revolution, and roughly was radicals and progressives on the left, reactionaries and conservatives on the right. This evolved to something roughly:

Far-Left: egalitarianism (anarchism, communism)
Left-Wing: equality of opportunity, a bit equality of outcome (antineoliberal social-democracy 'democratic socialism')
Centre-Left: equality of opportunity (modern social-democracy)
Centre-Right: government providing (rudimentary) safety net (conservative liberalism)
Right-Wing: government affirms inequality; gov't not involved in inequality (liberal conservatism and Christian democracy; free market capitalism)
Far-Right: gov't affirms inequality; or exacerbates social inequality (fascism, para-fascism, ultra-conservatism)

EDIT: didn't see psycho p's post. Pretty much that.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

he got you there Q, owned

[Anti-Archy]

Which is of course bullshit...

Anyway, you are an anarcho-capitalist then?
As far as I can say today. The definitions can get foggy as hell as things overlap all over.

Im pretty sure im an individualist Anarchist, rather than a Social Anarchist.

perhaps it would be more useful to have definitions explained to me or ask my views on things rather then assume I know what the definition of a word and attempt to use it. Im here to learn.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

idk you're the one throwin round words, you should prolly define em

[Non-Aligned]

What do you believe in?

[Anti-Archy]

idk you're the one throwin round words, you should prolly define em
I pretty much did define my understanding of anarchism as without rulers. I dont really care where I land on the fictitious left/right spectrum ive just never heard of it described as I am reading now.

[Q]

I pretty much did define my understanding of anarchist as without rulers. I dont really care where I land on the fictitious left/right spectrum ive just never heard of it described as I am reading now.
That is fair enough then. Partially the reason why people are reacting the way they do is thinking that you are a troll.

And I'm still not entirely sure... We shall see.

[Anti-Archy]

So my next question that might help me better grasp the bigger picture is this. How can Anarchism and Communism go hand and hand? Is this a particular version of Anarchism? In my version a ruler has no right to my personal property. As im reading it seems thats not the case with Anarcho-Communism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

to be fair, revleft has horrible troll-senses so don't take it personally

[Anti-Archy]

to be fair, revleft has horrible troll-senses so don't take it personally
Noted

[Anti-Archy]

Zero government is not necessarily far right. There are plenty of Right Wing authoritarian governments. Just look at the theocracies in the MidEast that impose strict conservative laws on their people with death being the punishment. Libertarianism is limited government, maybe a step above anarchism, but it's certainly not far right. They're more in the Center being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Conservatism is middle of the road in my opinion. As you stated they support more government in many cases.

[Non-Aligned]

Conservatism is middle of the road in my opinion. As you stated they support more government in many cases.
What type of conservatism are you speaking of? There are Constitutional Conservatives who espouse pretty the same ideals as Libertarians and then you have the Social Conservatives who espouse anti-gay marriage rhetoric, anti-abortion, anti-any religion that isn't Judeo-Christian.

[RedWorker]

First of all, communists respect personal property. Communism does not mean a society in which people steal each other's shoes.

Private property refers to property used in the process of production, which can be used to exploit workers. There is no right for anyone to own such property. Private property must be maintained through some form of authority.

Anarchism is a movement which seeks to remove any form of authority.

When the authority that maintains private property is removed, it becomes part of the common.

If you just removed "the government", there would still be a decentralized authority, which would mean that rule of some by others has not been removed. Therefore, this is why anarcho-capitalism (where private property is considered a right) is not anarchism.

[Skyhilist]

Not sure if ancap or troll...

[Anti-Archy]

First of all, communists respect personal property. Communism does not mean a society in which people steal each other's shoes.

Private property refers to property used in the process of production, which can be used to exploit workers. There is no right for anyone to own such property. Private property must be maintained through some form of authority.

Anarchism is a movement which seeks to remove any form of authority.

When the authority that maintains private property is removed, it becomes part of the common.

If you just removed "the government", there would still be a decentralized authority, which would mean that rule of some by others has not been removed. Therefore, this is why anarcho-capitalism (where private property is considered a right) is not anarchism.
Ok so lets take my house, which is private property rather then personal property right? If we do away with all authority, who then enforces the idea that my house is the collective property of all?

[Anti-Archy]

Is it a 10 Posts count restriction or a 10 Topic count restriction. I ask because ive posted well over 10 posts now and it still appears to be sending them pending for review.

[Anti-Archy]

Not sure if ancap or troll...
Don't be so paranoid. Its not like were going to pants you in front of all the girls if you fall for a troll.

[#FF0000]

Ok so lets take my house, which is private property rather then personal property right? If we do away with all authority, who then enforces the idea that my house is the collective property of all?

Folks would consider a house personal property. You're living in it, after all.

[Anti-Archy]

Folks would consider a house personal property. You're living in it, after all.
Oh ok. The "legal" definition I found states personal property as anything you can move. a house or land wouldn't qualify.

What would be an example in your definition of private property, if a house and less does not qualify?

[Q]

Is it a 10 Posts count restriction or a 10 Topic count restriction. I ask because ive posted well over 10 posts now and it still appears to be sending them pending for review.
You can read the answer to your question in the thread which says to "read this first" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/introduction-forum-rules-t180696/index.html).

[Anti-Archy]

You can read the answer to your question in the thread which says to "read this first" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/introduction-forum-rules-t180696/index.html).
I did, thats why I posted.

Why is this showing up here?

[Q]

I did, thats why I posted.

Why is this showing up here?
You might have missed a bit then:


Note that any posts in the non-political forums don't count towards your postcount. So if you want to reach the 10th post in your count, start posting in the regular forums! In general the Learning forum is a great way to start out :)Original emphasis.

[motion denied]

Massive intro thread. :thumbup1:

Welcome.

[Anti-Archy]

You might have missed a bit then:

Original emphasis.
Aha!

Yeah since im on a phone my interaction via tapatalk is less clear. I dont get as good of a sense for the sections I suppose. I realize now that I was posting mostly in introduction so thanks for that.

[#FF0000]

Oh ok. The "legal" definition I found states personal property as anything you can move. a house or land wouldn't qualify.

What would be an example in your definition of private property, if a house and less does not qualify?

When communists talk about private property, they're talking about the means of production which are controlled by a small class of people to the exclusion of the people who actually use the property.

So what we want is social control of the means of production, i.e. the factories, farms, workshops, warehouses, transportation, etc. Everything that we use for industrial production.

Obviously, if you have a house or something, it's on a plot of land, but if you're using that land to live on, then that's totally fine.

[Anti-Archy]

When communists talk about private property, they're talking about the means of production which are controlled by a small class of people to the exclusion of the people who actually use the property.

So what we want is social control of the means of production, i.e. the factories, farms, workshops, warehouses, transportation, etc. Everything that we use for industrial production.

Obviously, if you have a house or something, it's on a plot of land, but if you're using that land to live on, then that's totally fine.
When you say "Social control" do you mean government control that is controlled by the people through democracy?

[RedWorker]

When you say "Social control" do you mean government control that is controlled by the people through democracy?

A certain kind of people who call themselves socialists do want that. Some argue that such a model constitutes in some or all cases, state capitalism; a common critique of the Soviet Union, or states using a similar system is that it had not established socialism, but rather, state capitalism. Other socialists do not want that, but rather are basically indistinguishable from communists: they want the means of production to be at the behest of society, and not of the government which claims to represent it. Some may go as far as claiming that the earlier form of socialists are, in fact, not socialists.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean there are elections or a government.

[#FF0000]

When you say "Social control" do you mean government control that is controlled by the people through democracy?

If by government, you mean "state", then no. If you consider a community coming together to work towards a common goal a "government", then I suppose so.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Oh ok. The "legal" definition I found states personal property as anything you can move. a house or land wouldn't qualify.

What would be an example in your definition of private property, if a house and less does not qualify?
Essentially if you're a landlord, you can make money off people purely because they live in a home that you have a piece of paper claiming you own in the form of rent (or, as a bank, they have to pay a mortgage to you, for example). This is the personal property of the people who live in the house because they use it in a personal capacity. It is also the private property of the landlord because they use their claim to ownership to accumulate private wealth.

Anarchists and communists believe that this economic relationship is irrational and inherently exploitative and want to do away with the private property part of the equation so that the people who actually live in the house are not beholden economically to another person.

[Blake's Baby]

Some of us blieve that any attempt on your part to seperate anything from the community as a whole is expropriation from the community.

Property is theft, after all.

[Anti-Archy]

Some of us blieve that any attempt on your part to seperate anything from the community as a whole is expropriation from the community.

Property is theft, after all.
Unless it is owned collectively apparently?

That refers me back to the point that communism and capitalism can't coexist because that makes the collective ownership of a communist system a collective group of owners. unless every human alive is part of the system then they become the owners of Private property collectively and are then being violent by their standards.

[RedWorker]

Unless it is owned collectively apparently?

If it's owned by everyone, then it's non-owned, and it's not an expropriation of anything from anyone.

[Blake's Baby]

... unless every human alive is part of the system then they become the owners of Private property collectively and are then being violent by their standards.

And what part of communism don't you understand? How could it be anything other than that every human alive is 'part of the system'? It's the world human community. Of course we're all part of it.

[Anti-Archy]

And what about what I said after that?


....That refers me back to the point that communism and capitalism can't coexist because that makes the collective ownership of a communist system a collective group of owners. unless every human alive is part of the system then they become the owners of Private property collectively and are then being violent by their standards.

[Anti-Archy]

And what part of communism don't you understand? How could it be anything other than that every human alive is 'part of the system'? It's the world human community. Of course we're all part of it.
Well for example i would never be a part of a communist society because im a free individual. So so long as im breathing any communist society that tries to exist would collectively have ownership of Private property and therefore be violent towards me per communist standards. Its no different then 5 guys owning a ford factory.

[Blake's Baby]

The 'free individual' is a myth. Everthing you do is conditioned by your interaction with other people. The language you're using was invented by other people, your food was grown by other people, your clothes were made by other people, your ideas come from other people.

Try living on your own without anything made by the rest of us (including your knowledge). If you can manage that I'll admit you have a point. If not, you should admit that are as much a product of society (ie, your interactions with other people) as anyone else is.

Essentially, what you're saying is, 'even if all of you want communism, you can't have it because I don't want it; you all have to have capitalism because I'm a selfish shit'.

Well, in the end, we don't, because if you want to fuck up everyone's future just to be an asshole, we can shoot you in the face. We won't necessarily do it gladly, we'll probably try to convince you you're being an asshole first.

[Anti-Archy]

The 'free individual' is a myth. Everthing you do is conditioned by your interaction with other people. The language you're using was invented by other people, your food was grown by other people, your clothes were made by other people, your ideas come from other people.

Try living on your own without anything made by the rest of us (including your knowledge). If you can manage that I'll admit you have a point. If not, you should admit that are as much a product of society (ie, your interactions with other people) as anyone else is.

Essentially, what you're saying is, 'even if all of you want communism, you can't have it because I don't want it; you all have to have capitalism because I'm a selfish shit'.

Well, in the end, we don't, because if you want to fuck up everyone's future just to be an asshole, we can shoot you in the face. We won't necessarily do it gladly, we'll probably try to convince you you're being an asshole first.

Well lets pretend that there is another slightly different collective system and its people agrees that they are not a free individuals. Still communism couldn't exist unless they forced the other system to take part right?

But no I never said you must have capitalism. You are free to do as you wish, so long as it dosent effect my life liberty or property or any other person not interested in participation. But if your ideology REQUIRES 100% participation by force if necessary, then you've assumed that you know best and for the good of the human race you must do everything necessary to implement your ideology. To assume you are all knowing would be foolish and dangerous to the human race you insist you are here to help prevail.

You can only decide whats best for yourself.

[RedWorker]

How does it require 100% participation any more than capitalism does? The only difference is that in capitalism there's states recognizing your right to private property, and in communism there's not.

[Anti-Archy]

How does it require 100% participation any more than capitalism does? The only difference is that in capitalism there's states recognizing your right to private property, and in communism there's not.

Well capitalism does not require a state. In fact a state recognizing anything is just an unfortunate system attacking free individuals.

The reason I say communism requires 100% participation is that under communist ideology, private property is a violent attack(as I understand it) So if even one human on earth is resistant to a communist system then that system is the collective owners of Private property and are then being violent towards the one man who is not part of their system.

Without 100% participation then its just a lot of part owners of Private property.

[RedWorker]

The reason I say communism requires 100% participation is that under communist ideology, private property is a violent attack(as I understand it) So if even one human on earth is resistant to a communist system then that system is the collective owners of Private property and are then being violent towards the one man who is not part of their system.

The reason I say capitalism requires 100% participation is that under capitalism, private property exists. So if even one human on Earth is resistant to a capitalist system, the individual owners of private property are being violent to the one man who is not part of their system.

[Anti-Archy]

The reason I say capitalism requires 100% participation is that under capitalism, private property exists. So if even one human on Earth is resistant to a capitalist system, the individual owners of private property are being violent to the one man who is not part of their system.

But you are applying communist ideology to a non communist system. Supporters of capitalism do not believe that private property is a violent act. Under a communist system the supporters of that system would have to view themselves as violent in order to stay true to their ideology.

obviously supporters of capitalism would not view communists as violent solely for their collective ownership of Private property. Communists would.

[RedWorker]

But you are applying communist ideology to a non communist system. Supporters of capitalism do not believe that private property is a violent act. Under a communist system the supporters of that system would have to view themselves as violent in order to stay true to their ideology.

And with your argument you were applying capitalist ideology to a communist system. So where is the difference?

[synthesis]

But no I never said you must have capitalism. You are free to do as you wish, so long as it dosent effect my life liberty or property or any other person not interested in participation.

First of all, how is your definition of "effect" not entirely arbitrary? Someone can cut off the supply of all the resources you use to prop up your lifestyle as long as they don't point a gun at you yourself? I think that "affects" you just as much as any application of direct physical force. (And no, I'm not trying to be a douche about effect/affect.)

From there, if communism is the dominant mode of production then all other modes become obsolete. There is no reason for anyone to provide you with wage labor, for example, if all their needs are being met without it. There's no reason for anyone to purchase your goods, or rather that wouldn't be an issue because it's unlikely you're going to be able to create anything worth buying (besides perhaps art) without the cooperation of the rest of society in providing you with the materials to build something worth buying.

[Anti-Archy]

And with your argument you were applying capitalist ideology to a communist system. So where is the difference?
No im not. Can you explain where?

Communists believe private property is violent. A collective group of people in control of private property would be collective owners of said property.

If you feel that im applying capitalist ideology in there by assuming that a collective group could be considered owners then ill refer you to the opinion of a communist that 3 guys owning a business are owners of Private property. If that weren't true then to get rid of Private property we'd only have to create part ownership for all private property.

[Anti-Archy]

First of all, how is your definition of "effect" not entirely arbitrary? Someone can cut off the supply of all the resources you use to prop up your lifestyle as long as they don't point a gun at you yourself? I think that "affects" you just as much as any application of direct physical force. (And no, I'm not trying to be a douche about effect/affect.)

From there, if communism is the dominant mode of production then all other modes become obsolete. There is no reason for anyone to provide you with wage labor, for example, if all their needs are being met without it. There's no reason for anyone to purchase your goods, or rather that wouldn't be an issue because it's unlikely you're going to be able to create anything worth buying (besides perhaps art) without the cooperation of the rest of society in providing you with the materials to build something worth buying.
Yes but you forgot to consider his life, liberty and property. My rights end where his begin, His end where mine begin. He can do what he wishes with his property. He is free not to trade with me.

[synthesis]

Yes but you forgot to consider his life, liberty and property. My rights end where his begin, His end where mine begin. He can do what he wishes with his property. He is free not to trade with me.

Okay, but what's the difference, in practice, between "forcing" communist relations upon you by pointing a gun at you and taking all your shit, and "forcing" communist relations upon you by making it impossible to survive autarchically? (Note the parallels to the issue of "force" under capitalism.)

[Anti-Archy]

Okay, but what's the difference, in practice, between "forcing" communist relations upon you by pointing a gun at you and taking all your shit, and "forcing" communist relations upon you by making it impossible to survive autarchically? (Note the parallels to the issue of "force" under capitalism.)

Well there wouldn't be a difference if were talking communism. But again you are implying that private property ownership is rule under a capitalist system. Thats a Communist idea applied to a Capitalist ideology. Plus in a truely free market without government or rulers(in capitalist ideology and definition) No one person could force submission through restriction. Their would simply be too many other options. That attempt to restrict and rule would only hurt the owner.

[synthesis]

Well there wouldn't be a difference if were talking communism. But again you are implying that private property ownership is rule under a capitalist system...

I thought we were talking communism? You said:


But no I never said you must have capitalism. You are free to do as you wish, so long as it dosent effect my life liberty or property or any other person not interested in participation.

And that's what I was responding to.

[Anti-Archy]

I thought we were talking communism? You said:



And that's what I was responding to.



my apologies. I am having several conversations on this topic. You got me twisted up between you and red at some point I think.

As I understand communism I don't think it would matter but neither should happen as to force through regulation or at gunpoint would both be ruler based and against the ideology no?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Aren't an-caps supposed to be restricted?

[Blake's Baby]

Well lets pretend that there is another slightly different collective system and its people agrees that they are not a free individuals. Still communism couldn't exist unless they forced the other system to take part right? ...

Not sure what you mean here I'm afraid. Does property still exist? If it does there is still a class system (a class system being ultimately about differential access to property). If there is a class system, there is no 'communism'. By claiming that you have an exclusive right to property, you are instituting a class system (a hierarchy) which means you're not an anarchist. How is this even debatable?


...But no I never said you must have capitalism. You are free to do as you wish, so long as it dosent effect my life liberty or property or any other person not interested in participation...

It's not your property, it's everyone's property, that you are attempting to expropriate from the rest of humanity (in violation of the NAP, if you care).



...
But if your ideology REQUIRES 100% participation by force if necessary, then you've assumed that you know best and for the good of the human race you must do everything necessary to implement your ideology. To assume you are all knowing would be foolish and dangerous to the human race you insist you are here to help prevail...

Well, all production is social, so distribution should be social. If it's a question of what you want, or what the rest of humanity wants, then in my book you only have 1/7,000,000,000 of the votes of the rest of us. You don't get to stand in the way of the whole of the rest of the human race.

We don't require 100% participation, by force if necessary (unlike capitalism, which does). But what we won't put up with is people who think they have the right to fuck with the rest of us just because they're sociopaths with an entitlement complex.



...You can only decide whats best for yourself.

What is best for the individual is what is best for the community. You may think it's better to be a king than a commoner, a policeman rather than a criminal, a rapist rather than a victim. But we want to do away with the system that produces commoners and kings, policemen and criminals, rapists and victims. To refuse to be raped is not the same as wanting to be a rapist, it really isn't.

[Anti-Archy]

Im going to leave the current replies as is being ive said mine and you all have said yours. Plus its getting tough to respond to it all on my phone.

My next question is this. In a communist system, what is to happen with the unintelligent elderly? The mentally retarded? The bed ridden? I would argue that supporting them is not beneficial to the collective group. They can't do any sort of physical labor and being unintelligent means their mind has nothing to offer. They would be considered a drag on the commune.

[RedWorker]

My next question is this. In a communist system, what is to happen with the unintelligent elderly? The mentally retarded? The bed ridden? I would argue that supporting them is not beneficial to the collective group. They can't do any sort of physical labor and being unintelligent means their mind has nothing to offer. They would be considered a drag on the commune.

Well, they'd have free access to goods, just like anyone else.

The only alternative would be this, which is quite worrying:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

[Anti-Archy]

Well they'd have free access to goods just like anyone else.

The only alternative would be this, which is quite worrying:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

Yeah Community being a keyword here...you can just remove "money" and insert Labor. But in a communist state there is no concern for the individual. The only logical thing is to put down any and all humans that no longer benefit the community. If its for the good of the community how can you justify keeping the helpless alive? You cant.

[RedWorker]

Yeah Community being a keyword here...you can just remove "money" and insert Labor. But in a communist state there is no concern for the individual. The only logical thing is to put down any and all humans that no longer benefit the community. If its for the good of the community how can you justify keeping the helpless alive? You cant.

Uh, there is concern for the individual. The concern for the community comes out of concern for each and every individual. If there was no concern for individuals, then concern for the community would be pointless.

I haven't ever heard of a communist who wouldn't care for these "helpless" people.

How would you ensure that they live in "anarcho"-capitalism? Charity? (doesn't work)

[JPSartre12]

Welcome to Revleft, comrade. I look forward to seeing you around the forum.


I would include anyone that attempts to tell anyone else what to do with their life, liberty or property that does not violate another's while they do it.

That said, what are you thoughts on property and property relations? Would you consider yourself and advocate of private property, and if so, in what context?

[Anti-Archy]

Uh, there is concern for the individual. The concern for the community comes out of concern for each and every individual. If there was no concern for individuals, then concern for the community would be pointless.

I haven't ever heard of a communist who wouldn't care for these "helpless" people.

How would you ensure that they live in "anarcho"-capitalism? Charity? (doesn't work)
I cannot guarantee that all humans would live until they die of old age, in an AnCap system. However I can guarantee that they wont be put down in order to benefit a greater good. Any and all free individuals are free to help them as they wish. In an AnCap system they are free to survive if possible regaurdless of the drag it puts on any who choose to help them. Individuals matter and free people are aware of that.

[RedWorker]

I cannot guarantee that all humans would live until they die of old age, in an AnCap system. However I can guarantee that they wont be put down in order to benefit a greater good. Any and all free individuals are free to help them as they wish. In an AnCap system they are free to survive if possible regaurdless of the drag it puts on any who choose to help them. Individuals matter and free people are aware of that.

In a communist system, they are guaranteed to survive.

You can only say that someone is "free" to do something, if that something is guaranteed.

If you are "free" to eat, but someone blocks all of your attempts to get food because you don't have enough money, because he's also "free" to do that, then you aren't really "free". That is no freedom. If we continue with this illogical interpretation of such terminology, we would end up with nonsense like "someone being free to put someone else into prison", or "someone being free to violate someone else's freedom". That is why communism is the optimal system to guarantee people's freedom - when freedom is correctly understood, and not just as some meaningless word.

[Anti-Archy]

In a communist system, they are guaranteed to survive.

You can only say that someone is "free" to do something, if that something is guaranteed.

If you are "free" to eat, but someone blocks all of your attempts to get food because you don't have enough money, because he's also "free" to do that, then you aren't really "free". That is no freedom. If we continue with this illogical interpretation of such terminology, we would end up with nonsense like "someone being free to put someone else into prison", or "someone being free to violate someone else's freedom". That is why communism is the optimal system to guarantee people's freedom - when freedom is correctly understood, and not just as some meaningless word.

But your interpretation of freedom is that others MUST help you. Thats not freedom for those being forced. If you base your freedom on what others do for you then how you cannot see that you are infringing on their freedom is beyond me.

You use the example of others not helping as an attack. Attacks require you to make another do something. Its not a BLOCK to refuse to do business. Its an attack to require them to trade.

You seem to have this image of one guy owning all the food and me saying hes free to not trade with others. In a free market there can't be just one guy... its never going to happen in a million years. The current system is NOT an example of a free market. The more regulation the less freedom.

[RedWorker]

But your interpretation of freedom is that others MUST help you. Thats not freedom for those being forced. If you base your freedom on what others do for you then how you cannot see that you are infringing on their freedom is beyond me.

I guess starving people are really glad that they have the "freedom" to eat.


You use the example of others not helping as an attack. Attacks require you to make another do something. Its not a BLOCK to refuse to do business. Its an attack to require them to trade.


Communism doesn't require anyone to do anything. It just so happens that if you want to take part in collective work then you have to agree with society's rules. To understand this, remember that you're using "someone else's" property, in this case nobody's, or everyone's. Otherwise you can go live in the woods.

So indirectly mass murdering people by specified criteria (e.g.: not enough money) is not an attack?


You seem to have this image of one guy owning all the food and me saying hes free to not trade with others. In a free market there can't be just one guy... its never going to happen in a million years. The current system is NOT an example of a free market. The more regulation the less freedom.

So? They are all going to use the same criteria to block: no money, you starve, etc.

It really doesn't matter how decentralized it is.