Anarcho-Capitalism [Archive]

Guest1

18th May 2004, 21:27

There is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarchism isn't just about no leadership, it is also no hierarchy. As long as there are bosses and classes, there is hierarchy. Those who use this term are attempting a hijacking of the movement and should be viewed with distrust.

There is no Anarchism without Socialism.

A nice quote by Brian Morris:

The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations. Contemporary 'right-wing' libertarians . . . who are often described as 'anarchocapitalists' and who fervently defend capitalism, are not in any real sense anarchists.

Quote from the Anarchist FAQ:

Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho", their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. Because of this any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

For more info:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html

Daniel Karssenberg

18th May 2004, 21:58

Anarchism is used to refer to a political ideology as put forth by various writers. It has no authority--no state--but through balanced power and goodwill everything moves swimmingly.
Who makes sure that such power is justly balanced, people, if not regulated somewhere will do anything in self-interest, I like that about humans. Too much laws and regulations or denying the uniqueness of the individual directly leads to intellectual sloth. Though, when brought to the extreme people will abuse the fact they have too much control about balancing.

So you say we all get the same chances, but dont make the same money, so somebody who works his ass off will get more than a lazy ****?

Do you call my mother a lazy **** because she’s an headmaster of a school, eh? Or is she included in the illusive workers’ class? And no laziness is not promoted but some people who lack the intelligence to understand that certain managers or business owners are in fact hard workers think that laziness, under capitalism is promoted.

The State takes care of it's people (medical, education, security).
Sounds good to me, communism has always been somewhat extreme to me, but so is capitalism.

I think in order to allow most principles of capialism to put into practice (e.i Freedom of the individual, equal values), protection of citizens from a poverty stricken death is necessary. And yes, extremism has been what lead stupid (or unintelligent or people unaware of the world) to get power hungry people into power.

As for anarchism, I’ve seen during my short stay here some few good and intellectual thinkers and supporters of anarchism. Though the average: YOU FILTHY CAPPIE YOUR A TRAITOR TO THE CAUSE!!!! YOU CAPITALIST PIG YOU SHOULD HANG, SO SHOULD YOUR BOURGEOISE FAMILY people will ultimately screw up your Utopia in no time.

Professor Moneybags

18th May 2004, 22:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:28 PM
equal rights? most rights for those who can afford it, the State doesnt do anything, lets everybody find out for themselves
Individual rights are not determined by the size of your bank balance. Everyone should have them as legitimate rights do not cost anything.

anarcho-capitalism is just free market to the max, or at least that what i thought.

Sort of. It's free to the point that you can shoot the competition, which would be an infingement of their rights and contradictory to the overall idea. Hence the need for a minimalistic government to protect it's citizens from force.

And yes, extremism has been what lead stupid (or unintelligent or people unaware of the world) to get power hungry people into power.

What do you mean by "extremism" ?

Nyder

19th May 2004, 14:25

The only 'government' you need for capitalism to work is an effective court system to deal with disputes and figuring out the appropriate punishment to for the crime (hopefully based on Richard Posner's framework).

Police and army can be contracted (under legal obligations set by the court).

There would be no taxes or any forceful seizure of property, unless determined by the courts.

'Anarcho-communism' is a contradiction in terms and if you don't see that you must be daft.

thatCHEr

19th May 2004, 16:56

As has been said anarcho-capitalism is extreme free-marketism. It in the long run is flawed I feel, with no government at all then any market failures such as a monopoly emerging could not be prevented. Also laws preventing corporate media, etc, could not be enforced.
While the government shouldn't interfere in the market too much in my opinion, there is still a need for it to maintain law and order I personally think.

Though anarcho-communism is very much a contradiction. The basis of anti-authoritarianism is that the government should not have any say over lifestyle choices, or how people act. Communism on the other hand is the command economy system, which obviously inhibits freedom. If a person was to attempt to trade, they wouldn't be allowed to, otherwise it would undermine the planned economy and cause a hidden free market economy to emerge.

Oh I just read nyders post, yes, I agree with that completely.

thatCHEr

19th May 2004, 17:00

Capitalism: promotes fair trade,theocratically, by giving everyone equal rights and giving most the opportunity to buy, sell or start a business (though in practice this can be controlled by certain rich companies)
Anarchism: Disrespects fair trade, as there is no law to protect fair trade, the lack of control and self protection of teh individual leads to that.
I disagree. 'Capitalism' can be seen as simply trade and allowing price/quantity/distribution to be set by the market. Anarchism is taking to the extreme the idea that government intervention distorts and causes inefficiancy in the market. It's debatable whether this is true or not though. I personally don't see how there being a government enforced legal system affects the markets in any bad way.

Daniel Karssenberg

19th May 2004, 18:01

What do you mean by "extremism" ?

An extremist ideology is one in which people with an other ideology can not live safely in a state run by an extremist ideology, or an intolerant ideology. Fanatics who are blinded and simply follow a great leader or revolutionary because of their lack of intellectual skills.

There would be no taxes or any forceful seizure of property, unless determined by the courts.

Though, every now and then I change from no taxes to taxes on local level, which makes much more sene than central taxes as they do not ensure the money stolen will be used as benefit for the person who “gives” his own worked money away. Of course, in a system where taxes do exist I am in favour of a flat tax.

'Anarcho-communism' is a contradiction in terms and if you don't see that you must be daft.

Agreed

Guest1

19th May 2004, 19:19

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 19 2004, 01:01 PM
'Anarcho-communism' is a contradiction in terms and if you don't see that you must be daft.
You're the ones who are daft. Communism is not a planned economy, it is a free economy, with no markets but based on a free exchange of ideas and products without the limits of value trade and currency. Furthermore it liberates people from the hierarchy imposed by Capitalism and the Capitalist system.

I would just like to ask, did any of you even fucking read my post or the link?

Read some Bakunin, some Emma Goldman, som Kropotkin, read about Anarchism, then I can try to take your comments about it made to an Anarchist seriously.

For the last time, there is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism.

thatCHEr

19th May 2004, 19:49

For the last time, there is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism
Thanks, the first time you said it I wasnt convinced, but the repetition has totally won me over.

How, with no government or market controls, do you plan on stopping 'value trade' to occur.

Guest1

19th May 2004, 19:53

First read this.

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 18 2004, 04:27 PM
There is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarchism isn't just about no leadership, it is also no hierarchy. As long as there are bosses and classes, there is hierarchy. Those who use this term are attempting a hijacking of the movement and should be viewed with distrust.

There is no Anarchism without Socialism.

A nice quote by Brian Morris:

The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations. Contemporary 'right-wing' libertarians . . . who are often described as 'anarchocapitalists' and who fervently defend capitalism, are not in any real sense anarchists.

Quote from the Anarchist FAQ:

Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho", their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. Because of this any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

For more info:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html

Next, it's pretty simple. If someone had a vote in their workplace, a vote in the running of the community and everything they need for free so long as they worked for free... why would they decide to use money and return to having a boss and hierarchy?

So obviously, given the choice, they wouldn't do it. The only option left is being forced. In which case, the community would respond in kind and show the offender the meaning of "Democratic justice". Ever had a jury you tried to kill?

Daniel Karssenberg

19th May 2004, 22:09

You're the ones who are daft.
It was not my text, but thank you, I assume this as a great contribution to the discussion.

Communism is not a planned economy, it is a free economy, with no markets but based on a free exchange of ideas and products without the limits of value trade and currency.

Communism, unless you are one of the people who claim there never have been Communist states (at least let us say the states that were avowedly claiming to be Communist) have actually planned their economy leaving only little space open for the individual and his or her own interests or share in the market.
And if I have made a great invention, let us say I invented a way to bottle a certain liquid which, before could not been bottled, am I forced to sell or give away or allow others to steal this idea I worked on a lifetime? For all my inputs I desire outputs, I believe in voluntary exchange, but if one does not want to sell his or her idea for practically nothing (like me) he/she should be able to demand money for it.

Furthermore it liberates people from the hierarchy imposed by Capitalism and the Capitalist system.

Practically Communism has led to much stricter hierarchies in this world: the bourgeoisie and proletariat are replaced by the Dictatorship elite and the individuals.

I would just like to ask, did any of you even fucking read my post or the link?Read some Bakunin, some Emma Goldman, som Kropotkin, read about Anarchism, then I can try to take your comments about it made to an Anarchist seriously.

Yes I did, but I have been exposed to a lot more, similar information as well, basically we just very much disagree with our views on this world. I can accept that, though you rather call me unlearned I assume and a filthy pig for believing in certain parts of Capitalism. You just cannot go around and say anyone who is against your views is not serious, unless, of course, if you feel attracted by the one-sided and blind fanatici I’ve seen here.

For the last time, there is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism.

Finally we agree somwhere.

Next, it's pretty simple. If someone had a vote in their workplace, a vote in the running of the community and everything they need for free so long as they worked for free... why would they decide to use money and return to having a boss and hierarchy? So obviously, given the choice, they wouldn't do it. The only option left is being forced. In which case, the community would respond in kind and show the offender the meaning of "Democratic justice". Ever had a jury you tried to kill?

If a businessman puts a lot of effort in setting up a company I do not see why he should get equally as much power on the firm or more powers allowed by the businessman and the legal law. They’d like money to buy products of their own interests, you cannot expect people to be hard working when cared for as babies, that is the problem, you might be willing to do so, but I know a lot who will certainly not cooperate with your illusive system (I am not sure whether I can use the word system here, however)

Nyder

20th May 2004, 03:22

But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations.

In other words people are free to enter or exit any relationship they please. It's called freedom of association. Does this apply to 'anarcho communism'? READ this next quote:

Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

Firstly, there is no exploitation - that is based on the ltv which is not a viable scientific theory. Go here for an in-depth discussion: http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23856

Secondly, private property is arrived at through exchange (as are interest, rent, profits, etc). An exchange-based relationship is when two parties voluntarily agree to trade with eachother. Freedom of association means that no one is 'forced' (ie: coerced with violence or threat of violence, extortion or fraud) to enter the trade.

So 'commie-anarchists' really do oppose freedom of association. Therefore they can't call themselves anarchists, because they would use force to stop exchange based on freedom of association.

Guest1

20th May 2004, 03:40

No, exchanges of that sort will totally disappear, because no one would wanna trade when they can have it for free.

Those that really truely want to trade like that are allowed to, they can set up a little community of their own and no one will bother them. However, they must allow everyone in that community to come and go as they please, or leave permanently if they want, which they surely will.

Practically Communism has led to much stricter hierarchies in this world: the bourgeoisie and proletariat are replaced by the Dictatorship elite and the individuals.
I'm a reasonable guy, believe me. I don't think you're a pig. However, don't pull this change of definitions stuff on me if you want to have a real conversation. Allow people to define their own beliefs, don't attribute your own view of those beliefs to them.

The reality is, it's not Communism. I know it pisses you off, but it's true. Just as "The People's Democratic Republic of North Korea" is not and never was Democratic, those "Communist states" aren't and never were Communist.

So let's start from there, admitting Communism has nothing to do with that, then we can have a civil and educational discussion about this.

Communism is just about firing the bosses and setting up democratic workplaces, it's about eliminating currency and establishing a gift economy. Furthermore, it is about the elimination of the state as much as it is about the elimination of capital, though Anarcho-Communism is much more heavily concentrated on that than most forms of Communism.

What is a gift economy? Some examples from WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy):

The open source software community can be thought of as an example of an information gift economy. Programmers make their source code available to the programming community, and anyone can modify and improve the code. Individual programmers gain prestige and respect, and the community as a whole benefits from better software.

.....

Anarcho-communism uses a gift economy, as there is no money or market. Products are given away and freely distributed.
Why would such a system have to be forced? It wouldn't. So long as you worked for free and gave to the community, your community would work for free and give to you. Slack off, and they "vote you off the island", so to speak. Basically cutting you off from the free flow of goods till you shape up.

apathy maybe

20th May 2004, 03:46

redstar2000 wrote a really good definition of communism at one stage (can someone find it and sticky it please).

Basily communism is a classless society, this is similer to anarchism - no hierachy.
In my opinion the two ideas are the same (or very similar) politicly and only economicly do they differ.
So while states have claimed to be Communist, generally they have claimed that rather 'they were moveing towards communism'.

As to anarchism/communism, I call my self an anarchist/communist, so don't I exist?

And anarchism/capitalism, as has been said, this is a contradiciton. No hierachy vs some form of meritocracy. No rulers vs Merit rulers.

And on anarchism alone, "No rulers does not mean No rules". This quote is a must if you want to understand anarchism.

Don't Change Your Name

20th May 2004, 04:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 03:22 AM
Firstly, there is no exploitation - that is based on the ltv which is not a viable scientific theory.

Secondly, private property is arrived at through exchange (as are interest, rent, profits, etc). An exchange-based relationship is when two parties voluntarily agree to trade with eachother. Freedom of association means that no one is 'forced' (ie: coerced with violence or threat of violence, extortion or fraud) to enter the trade.
Let's imagine this situation: I dont have any valuable property so my only option to survive is to "get a job". You have capital and you are hiring people. So I accept your offer and I work for you. You pay me $5 for making a product. You spent $5 in the necessary capital to make it. You then sell each product for, let's say $17. You wouldnt have sold that product for less than $10 as you would be losing money, and if you would have sold it for $15 or less I dont think you would have paid me my $5. You have got $7 for doing nothing at all, while I only got 5 for making that product. If we take a look at it based on the value of what you invested and what I "invested" (supposing that those $5 were the exact value if my job), both sides should receive the same ammount of money out of that profit.
But the real issue here is that here, the one owning the means of production (you) considers that the fact the he spent material things is a more important thing than the poor worker who had no other choice that work for him to get a living, but he still gets less money, and the owner will pay the fewest ammount of money as possible to the worker, but if the worker demands more, he can be fired, and even if he realizes that he is not paid enough, he wont just go around waiting for a much better wage, he will try to get a job as soon as possible, as he doesnt really have any money. (Note that this situation is just an invented one which is not meant to happen every single time).

Bakunin had to say this about the "free contract between employer and employee":

"We see that the richest property owners . . . are precisely those who work the least or who do not work at all."

"Juridically they are equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer.... The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer.

The worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom. lacking any means for its possible realization. ant consequently it is only a fictitious liberty. an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom--"voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense--broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery."

"We see that the richest property owners . . . are precisely those who work the least or who do not work at all."

"This equality does not exist because in modern society where wealth is produced by the intervention of capital paying wages to labor, the growth of the population outstrips the growth of production, which results in the supply of labor necessarily surpassing the demand and leading to a relative sinking of the level of wages. Production thus constituted, monopolized, exploited by bourgeois capital, is pushed on the one hand by the mutual competition of the capitalists to concentrate evermore in the hands of an ever diminishing number of powerful capitalists, or in the hands of joint-stock companies which, owing to the merging of their capital, are more powerful than the biggest isolated capitalists."

And Proudhon said that:

"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'"

So 'commie-anarchists' really do oppose freedom of association.

For the reasons I mentioned above, I don't think such a thing really exists under capitalism on a "fair" way.

Therefore they can't call themselves anarchists, because they would use force to stop exchange based on freedom of association.

"Therefore they can't call themselves anarchists, because they would use force to defend themselves from imperialist fascists trying to enslave them".

Guest1

20th May 2004, 06:04

Not to mention Anarchists aren't against violence.

If someone is enslaving, and the community decides to take action, whatever aciton they take is justified.

So long as it is democratically decided, and no one has to pick up a bat unless they want to :P

Nyder

20th May 2004, 07:37

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20 2004, 03:46 AM
redstar2000 wrote a really good definition of communism at one stage (can someone find it and sticky it please).

Basily communism is a classless society, this is similer to anarchism - no hierachy.
In my opinion the two ideas are the same (or very similar) politicly and only economicly do they differ.
So while states have claimed to be Communist, generally they have claimed that rather 'they were moveing towards communism'.

As to anarchism/communism, I call my self an anarchist/communist, so don't I exist?

And anarchism/capitalism, as has been said, this is a contradiciton. No hierachy vs some form of meritocracy. No rulers vs Merit rulers.

And on anarchism alone, "No rulers does not mean No rules". This quote is a must if you want to understand anarchism.
When you say 'heirarchy' or 'class' you make it out as if this is some terrible thing which is 'enforced' by capitalism. It alludes to some kind of sentient organisation.

The only extent where 'heirarchy' and 'class' exist in capitalism is that people have differing levels of wealth, which makes sense because not everyone is the same.

Your mythical society of 'equality' can only happen if you reduce everyone to poverty. The communist answer to poverty - create more of it!

Nyder

20th May 2004, 08:05

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 20 2004, 04:01 AM

Let's imagine this situation: I dont have any valuable property so my only option to survive is to "get a job". You have capital and you are hiring people. So I accept your offer and I work for you. You pay me $5 for making a product. You spent $5 in the necessary capital to make it. You then sell each product for, let's say $17. You wouldnt have sold that product for less than $10 as you would be losing money, and if you would have sold it for $15 or less I dont think you would have paid me my $5. You have got $7 for doing nothing at all, while I only got 5 for making that product. If we take a look at it based on the value of what you invested and what I "invested" (supposing that those $5 were the exact value if my job), both sides should receive the same ammount of money out of that profit.
But the real issue here is that here, the one owning the means of production (you) considers that the fact the he spent material things is a more important thing than the poor worker who had no other choice that work for him to get a living, but he still gets less money, and the owner will pay the fewest ammount of money as possible to the worker, but if the worker demands more, he can be fired, and even if he realizes that he is not paid enough, he wont just go around waiting for a much better wage, he will try to get a job as soon as possible, as he doesnt really have any money. (Note that this situation is just an invented one which is not meant to happen every single time).

A product can make a profit, a loss or break even. It is not the worker who causes this, it is the manager of the capital.

Again you are repeating the ltv fallacy. What values labour? In this case it was subjectively determined that the price value was $5 per product (which is pretty damn good, what if the worker could make 100 products a day?).

"Juridically they are equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer.... The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer.

Not if the worker is competitive, then employer's will compete and he can earn more. That's why the workers who have the best skills and experience can earn better wages. Those that don't are probably in the wrong industry.

And it is the individual's decision how they manage their finances but if they have a regular income they can invest part of that money and/or get out a loan to invest into commodities that may return future profits or give them a passive income. You'll notice that in many rich countries the socialist system of pensions has failed so many more people are turning to investing their money early so that they are financially secure in the future.

And anyone can become a successful entrepreneur - just find a marketable good or service, do your research and invest some money.

The worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom. lacking any means for its possible realization. ant consequently it is only a fictitious liberty. an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom--"voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense--broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery."

Guess what? Under communism people would have to work to feed themselves too. Food just doesn't magically appear out of thin air.

At least in capitalism there is freedom of association of what employer you work for. If you don't like your job you can find another one.

"This equality does not exist because in modern society where wealth is produced by the intervention of capital paying wages to labor, the growth of the population outstrips the growth of production, which results in the supply of labor necessarily surpassing the demand and leading to a relative sinking of the level of wages.

Automatic fallacy. The growth of the population increases production because more people will demand more goods and services. For example, will 100 people demand more goods and services then 100000? NO.

Production thus constituted, monopolized, exploited by bourgeois capital, is pushed on the one hand by the mutual competition of the capitalists to concentrate evermore in the hands of an ever diminishing number of powerful capitalists, or in the hands of joint-stock companies which, owing to the merging of their capital, are more powerful than the biggest isolated capitalists."

Mergers are only a problem when there is a lack of viable competition. Sometimes mergers are necessary to create economies of scale.

"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'"

Rhetorical nonsense.

"Therefore they can't call themselves anarchists, because they would use force to defend themselves from imperialist fascists trying to enslave them".

Slavery has nothing to do with freedom of association.

The Feral Underclass

20th May 2004, 09:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 09:37 AM
When you say 'heirarchy' or 'class' you make it out as if this is some terrible thing which is 'enforced' by capitalism.
You say this, and then you say...

The only extent where 'heirarchy' and 'class' exist in capitalism is that people have differing levels of wealth

Which is it?

which makes sense because not everyone is the same.

This is true. People have varying skills, interests and other material considerations. Children etc.

Because someone has a certain skill does not mean they should have anymore importance than someone who doesn't have that skill. There is a difference having 'authority of' and having 'authority over'. One should be embraced and the other should be rejected.

One individual having billions of pounds in the bank while millions of people starve to death does not make sense. No matter how you attempt to rationalise it. Corporations who amass billions of pounds by exploiting their work force while that very work force scrape out an existence, does not make sense. Governments spending billions of pounds on bombing other countries or building the potential to do that, while billions of people have no clean running water does not make sense. 5% of the worlds population controlling 95% of the world resrouces while the other 95% control only 5% of the worlds resources does not make sense. Pharmacutecal companies refusing to allow poorer countries to produce HIV drugs on the basis that the companies will loose money, while in Botswana alone, 1 out of every 3 people has HIV, does not make sense. For one person to have a total sum wealth of $60,000,000,000 while tens of millions of people in the world live on $1 a day and have no formal education or reliable health service does not make sense.

Your mythical society of 'equality' can only happen if you reduce everyone to poverty.

That must be very convinient for you. Now demonstrate please why this is the case?

The communist answer to poverty - create more of it!

The capitalist answer to poverty is to find out how to make a profit from it.

Daniel Karssenberg

20th May 2004, 10:34

No, exchanges of that sort will totally disappear, because no one would wanna trade when they can have it for free.

All right, I understand that. And I understand a lot of Aarchists and Communists believe that Capitalists think the only reward is MONEY CASH DOLLARS. I disagree for I would do certain things for my friends for free or for a nice handshake, but on national level I believe that is not possible. Anyway, let us state that Capitalists all believe money is the only reward, what is your alternative for rewarding people who provide the state (I assume I’d better say community) with work?

I agree with that, in the society I encourage, people are mostly free to go anywhere they want, unless they are charged for a crime committed which has not yet been discussed in court.

I agree those nations are not really Communist, but either their leaders claimed to have started a Communist revolution or they really believed they did but it didn’t work out. Poor people are usually attracted by such leaders and fight for them under the name of a “Communist revolution”. Sometimes these were truly Communists who fought or just people who wanted to have a better life than the ruling class. This usually led to the creation of another elite, a dictatorship elite. Even though these states are not truly Communists they have (ab)used communism over and over again. Secondly I’d encourage you to tell this to certain young “Communists” around here.

Those who resist to believe in democratic workplaces will they be made believe in it by means of force? I have no problems with a democratic workplace only if the one who has established the workplace agrees with it, neither do I have problems with workplaces where bosses are making **** times more money, after all it is voluntary to join a workplace. And I assume in your society work is also voluntarily, right? Or does Anarcho-Communism like dictatorships and certain democracies force people to work?

What is a gift economy? Some examples from WikiPedia:
I read it, but I still see one problem: what if someone refuses to trade by means of the free gift economy, and desires to see money for his or her product? What if a scientist only wants to publish his or her work and inventions for money? What will you do with them, “eliminate” them?

So long as it is democratically decided, and no one has to pick up a bat unless they want to
That is no different from the society I believe in. And I encourage violence by means of self-defence against those who take property/rights/life from someone.

Guest1

20th May 2004, 19:15

All right, I understand that. And I understand a lot of Aarchists and Communists believe that Capitalists think the only reward is MONEY CASH DOLLARS. I disagree for I would do certain things for my friends for free or for a nice handshake, but on national level I believe that is not possible. Anyway, let us state that Capitalists all believe money is the only reward, what is your alternative for rewarding people who provide the state (I assume I’d better say community) with work?
Naitonal? Who said anything abou a national level? Think globally, act locally my friend. First, can you see it happening in your neighbourhood? You would have to grow to know your neighbours of course, but it can happen. From there, let's say the collective is a few neighbourhoods, then we can go up and say it's a whole city.

Could it happen? I think so. Would it be difficult to implement, of course it would. Implementation would rely on you and your neighbours though. You would be responsible for finding out if someone's contributing or not. If not, then you bring it up to everyone else, and they'll vote on what to do.

As for the national level, there is no need to think nationally, there is no national. All the national would be is just different collectives cooperating. If a collective needs something, they'll say so, and any collective with a surplus will send what they can.

Those who resist to believe in democratic workplaces will they be made believe in it by means of force? I have no problems with a democratic workplace only if the one who has established the workplace agrees with it, neither do I have problems with workplaces where bosses are making **** times more money, after all it is voluntary to join a workplace. And I assume in your society work is also voluntarily, right? Or does Anarcho-Communism like dictatorships and certain democracies force people to work?
You are not forced to work. If you are able to and choose not to, your wishes will be respected, but you won't be given anything from the community.

As for the one who established the workplace, that's not an option. He will be given the option to continue working there and have a vote and be accepted into society, but his opinion on whether to democratize or not matters not.

No one will be made to believe in it by force, they just won't matter any more. Democracy won't stop for those who want to keep their power.

Imagine if Saddam's opinion was asked before the US decided to give Iraq "Democracy".

Professor Moneybags

20th May 2004, 22:05

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 20 2004, 03:40 AM
no one would wanna trade when they can have it for free.
No one would want to work either, when they all get the same things regardless.

Daniel Karssenberg

20th May 2004, 22:23

My father has been in a Israeli Kibbutz, which I assume is the best example in real world I can take, a Kibbutz can be successful, but any Communist ideal tried to be realised on larger scale did (intentionally) fail. In my society a community you support could exist as long as all the individuals within the community agree with it, but never an national level.

What will they vote if someone does not cooperate within the community you describe? You seem as a principle person to me, unlike the average person I’ve seen here around calling me a Capitalist Pig before I even pressed the first reply button. What will you do with people who have no principles? People who intentionally do wrong?

If my community has a surplus of grain I’d rather have some money for the hard labour I put in to produce that grain.

You are not forced to work. If you are able to and choose not to, your wishes will be respected, but you won't be given anything from the community.

That is an individualist view, okay, I’m glad. At least we agree there.

As for the one who established the workplace, that's not an option. He will be given the option to continue working there and have a vote and be accepted into society, but his opinion on whether to democratize or not matters not.

And here we come to a great disagreement, if I set up a fruit-shop, which I earned by selling fruits a successfully harvested from my kitchen garden. And I set 2 people to work in my shop, I believe I should be able to choose how long they work and how much they own (as long as the working hours will not become excessive of course and the wage not so low they will have to live in poverty, such laws to prevent that will be enforced by the government).

Imagine if Saddam's opinion was asked before the US decided to give Iraq "Democracy".

Saddam did not rule a company, and if Iraq would be considered a company he did not fairly acquired his job as boss of the company and would not have an opinion as an unfair boss in the first place, if you ask me.

DaCuBaN

20th May 2004, 22:32

if I set up a fruit-shop, which I earned by selling fruits a successfully harvested from my kitchen garden. And I set 2 people to work in my shop, I believe I should be able to choose how long they work and how much they own (as long as the working hours will not become excessive of course and the wage not so low they will have to live in poverty, such laws to prevent that will be enforced by the government).

Without the help your 'business' would be stuck - if you had to do everything then you would never be able to expand, regardless of how much custom you received. As such, these 'employees' are absolutely vital to your operation. Do they not deserve, as such a fundemental part of the enterprise, an equal return?

Bearing in mind you are not being penalised you in any way shape or form, you believe that you deserve the lions share? That somehow you are 'better' than your employees?

You are not forced to work. If you are able to and choose not to, your wishes will be respected, but you won't be given anything from the community

alas though, you will starve. You have every right to, but it's rather a waste don't you think? ;) :D

Guest1

20th May 2004, 23:06

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 20 2004, 05:23 PM
Saddam did not rule a company, and if Iraq would be considered a company he did not fairly acquired his job as boss of the company and would not have an opinion as an unfair boss in the first place, if you ask me.
Ah, but that is my point, a boss has established the workplace, just as any dictator has led and developed the country for years. However, just the fact they contributed does not keep us from overthrowing dictators to establish Democracies. If they agree to step down and help of their own accord, great. If not, well history isn't kind to those who try to slow progress, and fail.

It would be the same with the bosses. They may have contributed, but they are not necessary. Thus, every boss is an "unfair" boss. No matter how good or nice they are, just as there are no "fair" dictators, there are no "fair" bosses.

They will however, be compensated for this loss of course. They will, if they so choose, be given the option of receiving everything they need so long as they work for the community. I would say that's a pretty good compensation.

My father has been in a Israeli Kibbutz, which I assume is the best example in real world I can take, a Kibbutz can be successful, but any Communist ideal tried to be realised on larger scale did (intentionally) fail. In my society a community you support could exist as long as all the individuals within the community agree with it, but never an national level.
As for if it can work on a higher level, I see no reason why not. It worked in Spain during the Spanish Civil War for 4 years or so.

The government collapsed, it was a state of total civil war, and far from the economy collapsing and losing to the Fascists right away, Anarchists took over and the economy grew. Collectivization happened all over the country.

What will they vote if someone does not cooperate within the community you describe? You seem as a principle person to me, unlike the average person I’ve seen here around calling me a Capitalist Pig before I even pressed the first reply button. What will you do with people who have no principles? People who intentionally do wrong?
That's not for me to decide. That's for the community to decide. They may give him a plot of land and some seeds and tell him to fend for himself. They may vote to kick him out of the community. In the most heinous case, multiple murders or something, I suspect they may make him pay the ultimate price. Though I hope that doesn't happen too often.

apathy maybe

21st May 2004, 01:45

Originally posted by Nyder+May 20 2004, 06:37 PM--> (Nyder @ May 20 2004, 06:37 PM)
apathy [email protected] 20 2004, 03:46 AM
redstar2000 wrote a really good definition of communism at one stage (can someone find it and sticky it please).

Basily communism is a classless society, this is similer to anarchism - no hierachy.
In my opinion the two ideas are the same (or very similar) politicly and only economicly do they differ.
So while states have claimed to be Communist, generally they have claimed that rather 'they were moveing towards communism'.

As to anarchism/communism, I call my self an anarchist/communist, so don't I exist?

And anarchism/capitalism, as has been said, this is a contradiciton. No hierachy vs some form of meritocracy. No rulers vs Merit rulers.

And on anarchism alone, "No rulers does not mean No rules". This quote is a must if you want to understand anarchism.
When you say 'heirarchy' or 'class' you make it out as if this is some terrible thing which is 'enforced' by capitalism. It alludes to some kind of sentient organisation.

The only extent where 'heirarchy' and 'class' exist in capitalism is that people have differing levels of wealth, which makes sense because not everyone is the same.

Your mythical society of 'equality' can only happen if you reduce everyone to poverty. The communist answer to poverty - create more of it! [/b]
"The only extent where 'hierarchy' and 'class' exist in capitalism is that people have differing levels of wealth."

And because they control different amounts of money (money=resources) they control and can dictate to others what to do (control of resources=power). Therefore there is a hierarchy, therefore anarchists don't like it. Simply really.

You are either, stupid, ignorant, or deliberately trying to confuse the issue (or more then one of these). Where has anyone said that communism will lower everyone to the same level? We advocate raising most people to a higher standard of living. Only those who currently control a large amount capital and thus living in obscene luxury need worry about their living standard being lowed. Please try and understand this, it is rather simple. Even if you are stupid, if your not, you should be able to understand it with little thinking at all.

Professor Moneybags

21st May 2004, 08:01

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 21 2004, 01:45 AM
"The only extent where 'hierarchy' and 'class' exist in capitalism is that people have differing levels of wealth."

And because they control different amounts of money (money=resources) they control and can dictate to others what to do (control of resources=power). Therefore there is a hierarchy, therefore anarchists don't like it. Simply really.
Can I dictate to someone who earns £10 less than me what he can/cannot do just because I have "more money" ? Lol.

Daniel Karssenberg

21st May 2004, 10:58

My grandfather had a company which helped people transporting furniture when they moved to an other home, when he started he had nothing: only a small house with barely any basic facilities. He worked hard (and though during WWII the nazis made it practically impossible for him to work and finally deported him to a terrible concentrationcamp, he picked it up afterwards) and later on managed to purchase 2 lorries, I did not know my grandfather but I assume it never made him terribly rich, though it is an example of someone you call a dictator. BUT he created this company and everyone working for it made that decision him or herself, right? So isn’t it the choice of my grandfather in this case to decide how much (if not too low) he/she earns and how long (if not too long) he/she works?

there are no "fair" bosses.

I completely disagree with that, I happen to know some people how actually are bosses and they made it to there by work not by means of exploitation of the workers.

They will however, be compensated for this loss of course. They will, if they so choose, be given the option of receiving everything they need so long as they work for the community. I would say that's a pretty good compensation.

If that is less than they could earn by being a “fair” boss of a company I completely disagree there, if one finds a creative way by means of working hard to make a lot of money. He or she should be encouraged not discouraged.

As for if it can work on a higher level, I see no reason why not. It worked in Spain during the Spanish Civil War for 4 years or so.

Recources please

That's not for me to decide. That's for the community to decide. They may give him a plot of land and some seeds and tell him to fend for himself. They may vote to kick him out of the community. In the most heinous case, multiple murders or something, I suspect they may make him pay the ultimate price. Though I hope that doesn't happen too often.

So in the society you describe, there is no such thing as a court or protection from murder (death penalty is ultimately murder, but please let us not discus that.

cubist

21st May 2004, 11:19

Guest1

21st May 2004, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 06:19 AM
there are no fair bosses, PAH....

you my friend need to do business studies a wee bit more

the thought that you think everyone who is of managerial levels is unfair oppressive and ignorant astounds me,

my old boss was sound, infact he was about the only sound one in the company
You're on the wrong side of the barricades... not to mention your lack of theoretical understanding on the most basic Socialist concept of all is astounding <_<

If you'd read my post:

They may have contributed, but they are not necessary. Thus, every boss is an "unfair" boss. No matter how good or nice they are, just as there are no "fair" dictators, there are no "fair" bosses.
So the reality is, there may be some "better" bosses, or "reasonable" bosses, but there are absolutely no "fair" bosses.

Why? Well it's like how a dictator, no matter how benevolent, is a dictator.

No matter how good a person the guy may be, the conditions dictate what he is. He is a boss, plain and simple. A boss is unnecessary, and a boss's only role is plain old theft.

You may not necessarily blame the person, some bosses are simply victims of economic circumstance as much as we are, but you can never say they are "fair".

If they were "fair", they wouldn't be bosses.

So in the society you describe, there is no such thing as a court or protection from murder (death penalty is ultimately murder, but please let us not discus that.
No, I wanna discuss that. That's the only weakness I find in Anarchism, but I would rather murder by Democracy than murder by a state.

I completely agree with you, death penalty is murder, but there's no way around it. If enough people want it, it will happen.

I believe though, that we will have learnt enough about it to avoid it. Only the most heinous crimes, where people lose their tempers when they vote, will bring the death penalty.

Daniel Karssenberg

21st May 2004, 21:21

there are no fair bosses, PAH....you my friend need to do business studies a wee bit more
the thought that you think everyone who is of managerial levels is unfair oppressive and ignorant astounds me,my old boss was sound, infact he was about the only sound one in the company

Trying to think as an Anarcho-Communist myself now: I do not think that managers would be necessarily found oppressive or ignorant, bosses and managers are not the same by definition either, one can manage a company but not own it nor make all the vital decisions. Within an Anarcho-Communist workplace, those with managerial skills also have a vote. And – from my own observations of Che y Marijuana - have no seen him/her mentioning that Anarcho-Communists are against freedom of speech so this will mean that, if a manager expresses his or her views within the workplace and it is any good his or her idea will certainly get a lot of votes.
- I am by any means not an Anarcho-Communist, so I advise Che y Marijuana to correct me here if I am wrong.

In that case I am in favour of reasonable bosses, in my society, you could have both the “oppressive” and the “democratic” workingplaces, it is the individual who chooses which one he or she prefers to join. But I believe neither the “oppressive” one nor the “democratic” one should be enforced. If a boss prefers to make choices over his or her company so be it, if otherwise he chooses to give all the employees (I rather use that term instead of workers) a vote, so be it.

No, I wanna discuss that. That's the only weakness I find in Anarchism, but I would rather murder by Democracy than murder by a state. I completely agree with you, death penalty is murder, but there's no way around it. If enough people want it, it will happen. I believe though, that we will have learnt enough about it to avoid it. Only the most heinous crimes, where people lose their tempers when they vote, will bring the death penalty.

Let us say we have a community of 500 people (excluding mister x and misses y and let us state they can all vote, no matter their age, sex or whatever) realised after (at least what I so far assume to know from your ideas) your ideas. Now mister X has done a terrible crime he has raped and murdered Misses Y and taken from her property she justly acquired (that is possible, right? Property acquired by the vote of the community, anyway let us consider she has justly acquired property) without asking her permission. Here we talk about using someone as a sex-slave (enslaving), taking someone’s life (murder) and property (theft).
The community’s members are all very shocked, but separated: Group A consisting out of 400 members want him to be punished and pay with his life, the relatively small minority: Group B is completely against death penalty and says he must be punished otherwise. Conclusion Mister X will be hung, the majority has voted. This, I see as a terrible flaw within the system, the majority oppresses an minority, ultimately making their vote of non-use and non-representative. Secondly a majority combined by A and B are dealing with the life of an individual, though a wrong one, an individual. Now here I believe group C must come in, group C is, like a fair court, group C has set some basic rules to protect people from murder: that includes death penalty. One might think of group C as a government, well yes it is to some point, but not one with authority, but one which sets laws to protect every individual: the hard working labourer and the robbing thief.

Guest1

21st May 2004, 21:51

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 21 2004, 04:21 PM
Trying to think as an Anarcho-Communist myself now: I do not think that managers would be necessarily found oppressive or ignorant, bosses and managers are not the same by definition either, one can manage a company but not own it nor make all the vital decisions. Within an Anarcho-Communist workplace, those with managerial skills also have a vote. And – from my own observations of Che y Marijuana - have no seen him/her mentioning that Anarcho-Communists are against freedom of speech so this will mean that, if a manager expresses his or her views within the workplace and it is any good his or her idea will certainly get a lot of votes.
- I am by any means not an Anarcho-Communist, so I advise Che y Marijuana to correct me here if I am wrong.
No, you're pretty much right there. The people with good ideas will still have a big impact, but it'll be based on how good their ideas are, no on how much of the place they own.

Let us say we have a community of 500 people (excluding mister x and misses y and let us state they can all vote, no matter their age, sex or whatever) realised after (at least what I so far assume to know from your ideas) your ideas. Now mister X has done a terrible crime he has raped and murdered Misses Y and taken from her property she justly acquired (that is possible, right? Property acquired by the vote of the community, anyway let us consider she has justly acquired property) without asking her permission. Here we talk about using someone as a sex-slave (enslaving), taking someone’s life (murder) and property (theft).
The community’s members are all very shocked, but separated: Group A consisting out of 400 members want him to be punished and pay with his life, the relatively small minority: Group B is completely against death penalty and says he must be punished otherwise. Conclusion Mister X will be hung, the majority has voted. This, I see as a terrible flaw within the system, the majority oppresses an minority, ultimately making their vote of non-use and non-representative. Secondly a majority combined by A and B are dealing with the life of an individual, though a wrong one, an individual. Now here I believe group C must come in, group C is, like a fair court, group C has set some basic rules to protect people from murder: that includes death penalty. One might think of group C as a government, well yes it is to some point, but not one with authority, but one which sets laws to protect every individual: the hard working labourer and the robbing thief.
I believe all murder, even the death penalty, is a tragedy. However, in this case you speak of someone hoarding. That's what taking from someone else would be. This is an attack on the community as a whole, because the whole society is based on trust. Combine that with rape, which would be a return to the crimes against women of the past to this society, and murder, and you have a very heinous crime.

One thing most people don't realize is that no rulers does not mean no rules. So if the Collective wants to, they can decide off the bat that they would never have the death penalty as an option.

I personally prefer that, as the death penalty, just like war, corrupts society and rots it to the core.

However, if that doesn't happen, it will be up to the cooler heads to diffuse the situation. Afterall, this is a society that has overcome racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty and war, for them to fall into the trap of murder now, after defeating much bigger plagues, would be tragic.

As well as ironic.

I don't believe it'll happen too much, and I hope it doesn't happen at all, but it may in some communities and it's stupid not to expect it to.

Don't Change Your Name

22nd May 2004, 03:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:05 AM
A product can make a profit, a loss or break even. It is not the worker who causes this, it is the manager of the capital.
So? Why does the boss have the means of production? And why the materials are more important than the work? That makes no sense.

Again you are repeating the ltv fallacy. What values labour? In this case it was subjectively determined that the price value was $5 per product (which is pretty damn good, what if the worker could make 100 products a day?).

That was just a number I made up. The real value of work can't be determinated, and something like that happens with everything. Numbers are just made up to try making so, but honestly, I would scrap the use of money and maths for economical issues in this kind of issues, and search alternatives.

Not if the worker is competitive, then employer's will compete and he can earn more. That's why the workers who have the best skills and experience can earn better wages. Those that don't are probably in the wrong industry.

But still their bosses earn more.

And it is the individual's decision how they manage their finances but if they have a regular income they can invest part of that money and/or get out a loan to invest into commodities that may return future profits or give them a passive income.

That's true. But still they dont really have many chances of competing with those already established competitors. Too risky.

You'll notice that in many rich countries the socialist system of pensions has failed so many more people are turning to investing their money early so that they are financially secure in the future.

It's hard for me to find any proof of those "public sector collapses" that is not biased. So I can't really hold any kind of argument about this until I find an absolute proof of that. Those who claim that such services are working well are "Welfare liberals", and those who claim they suck are "laissez-faire capitalists".

And anyone can become a successful entrepreneur - just find a marketable good or service, do your research and invest some money.

That's true, but not that probable.

Guess what? Under communism people would have to work to feed themselves too. Food just doesn't magically appear out of thin air.

What does that have to do with that quote?

At least in capitalism there is freedom of association of what employer you work for. If you don't like your job you can find another one.

Most people wont wait until they find the "perfect boss".

Automatic fallacy. The growth of the population increases production because more people will demand more goods and services.

Although that's possible, it's not always going to happen. The producers can just pick not meeting the demand and inflate the prices to get more money for less products sold.

For example, will 100 people demand more goods and services then 100000? NO.

Unless they are rich cappies :rolleyes:

Please note that most growth happens in the poorest sectors, usually uneducated and they tend to end up being criminals.

Mergers are only a problem when there is a lack of viable competition. Sometimes mergers are necessary to create economies of scale.

Mergers lead to monolopies.

Rhetorical nonsense.

Makes more sense than all the "natural right to property" rethoric.

Slavery has nothing to do with freedom of association.

"Freedom is slavery" again. All this "we are the real freedom defenders" is boring and never leads to a good discussion.

Professor Moneybags

22nd May 2004, 13:35

And why the materials are more important than the work? That makes no sense.

They're not. They're both important, but some are easier to obtain than others. Anyone can provide "labour", for instance, so it carries less value.

Nyder

23rd May 2004, 11:59

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+May 22 2004, 03:27 AM--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ May 22 2004, 03:27 AM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 08:05 AM
A product can make a profit, a loss or break even. It is not the worker who causes this, it is the manager of the capital.
So? Why does the boss have the means of production? And why the materials are more important than the work? That makes no sense.

[/b]
Why does the boss have the means of production? Sometimes he/she does, sometimes he/she doesn't. The manager is not necessarily the buyer of the capital. And the reason whoever owns it, 'owns' it is because they PAID FOR IT! Which means they obtained that money through other means of trade. Yes, good old voluntary trade.

Why are the materials more important then the work? The management of the capital, labour and technology that goes into production is more important. A large corporation might have several tiers of management. Think of it like a Government, where people make policies and then policies are implemented. You need direct decision making by those whose job it is to direct the resources of the business. Of course the more levels of management you have, the more inefficient as decisions are much harder to make. The difference between a corporation and a Government is that you have freedom of association with a corporation (IE. you can leave a corporation any time you want).

Anyway that is all irrelevant as to why labour is valued less then management. Basically it is valued less because that is what human beings decide when they allocate value based on price.

Again you are repeating the ltv fallacy. What values labour? In this case it was subjectively determined that the price value was $5 per product (which is pretty damn good, what if the worker could make 100 products a day?).

That was just a number I made up. The real value of work can't be determinated, and something like that happens with everything. Numbers are just made up to try making so, but honestly, I would scrap the use of money and maths for economical issues in this kind of issues, and search alternatives.

The real value of work can't be determined - that is correct, because there are two types of values: intrinsic and extrinsic values (however much the commies like to deny it). Intrinsic values are personal values that are not tangible, such as someones love for their spouse or satisfaction with their job. Extrinsic values are subjectively decided amounts used for exchange, for example, using money or bartering.

And please tell me how a society without money would work. Everyone would share? It wouldn't work for obvious reasons (see my thread on the tragedy of the commons).

Not if the worker is competitive, then employer's will compete and he can earn more. That's why the workers who have the best skills and experience can earn better wages. Those that don't are probably in the wrong industry.

But still their bosses earn more.

So what?

And it is the individual's decision how they manage their finances but if they have a regular income they can invest part of that money and/or get out a loan to invest into commodities that may return future profits or give them a passive income.

That's true. But still they dont really have many chances of competing with those already established competitors. Too risky.

Life is all about risks and taking chances.

You'll notice that in many rich countries the socialist system of pensions has failed so many more people are turning to investing their money early so that they are financially secure in the future.

It's hard for me to find any proof of those "public sector collapses" that is not biased. So I can't really hold any kind of argument about this until I find an absolute proof of that. Those who claim that such services are working well are "Welfare liberals", and those who claim they suck are "laissez-faire capitalists".

I don't need to prove to you the inefficiency of bureacracy. Just read any newspaper.

Please note that most growth happens in the poorest sectors, usually uneducated and they tend to end up being criminals.

WTF?????

Mergers lead to monolopies.

Sometimes but not always. In a globalised economy the threat of mergers is much less. Can you name one corporation that has achieved a total monopoly over the industry? Mergers don't necessarily work either unless there is an economy of scale, in which case having a merger would be more efficient (ie. you can't have 500 producers of boeing 747s - the cost would be too much for a small producer, and you can't merge all the fast food restaurants).

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your mediocre rebuttal.

apathy maybe

23rd May 2004, 12:18

Can I dictate to someone who earns £10 less than me what he can/cannot do just because I have "more money" ? Lol.
Maybe not, but you can dictate to your maid what to do. You can dictate to the bum on the street what to do (i.e. "I'll give you money if you clean up", or "I'll give you money if you vote for Bush"). Your corporate boss can dictate to you, your maid, that bum and various other people.

Professor Moneybags

23rd May 2004, 13:53

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23 2004, 12:18 PM
Maybe not, but you can dictate to your maid what to do. You can dictate to the bum on the street what to do (i.e. "I'll give you money if you clean up", or "I'll give you money if you vote for Bush"). Your corporate boss can dictate to you, your maid, that bum and various other people.
No I can't. Just because she works for me doesn't mean I own her. I can't dictate to the bum on the street; he is free to accept my offer or to tell me to get lost. That's trade, not dictatorship.

Osman Ghazi

23rd May 2004, 14:11

The real value of work can't be determined - that is correct, because there are two types of values: intrinsic and extrinsic values (however much the commies like to deny it).

Wasn't it Misodoctakleidist that said to you in the LTV thread that there is a use-value (intrinsic) and an exchange value (extrinsic). And you were arguing against him. Now you are agreeing to what he said and saying that we deny it. That's pretty fucked up right there.

Don't Change Your Name

23rd May 2004, 18:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:59 AM
Why does the boss have the means of production? Sometimes he/she does, sometimes he/she doesn't. The manager is not necessarily the buyer of the capital.
I forgot about that small difference. I was actually talking about the real owner.

And the reason whoever owns it, 'owns' it is because they PAID FOR IT! Which means they obtained that money through other means of trade. Yes, good old voluntary trade.

Oh, I see. So, if we are back to "primitive" times, and someone just goes and takes a cow, an claims "this is mine!", that means he bought it! Unless you mean that buying = enslaving, that makes no sense.

Why are the materials more important then the work? The management of the capital, labour and technology that goes into production is more important. A large corporation might have several tiers of management. Think of it like a Government, where people make policies and then policies are implemented. You need direct decision making by those whose job it is to direct the resources of the business.

That doesn't seem to respond to what I said.

Of course the more levels of management you have, the more inefficient as decisions are much harder to make.

I agree

The difference between a corporation and a Government is that you have freedom of association with a corporation (IE. you can leave a corporation any time you want).

You can also "leave" a government. The only difference is that you have to move to another place (which is wrong)

Anyway that is all irrelevant as to why labour is valued less then management. Basically it is valued less because that is what human beings decide when they allocate value based on price.

?

The real value of work can't be determined - that is correct, because there are two types of values: intrinsic and extrinsic values (however much the commies like to deny it). Intrinsic values are personal values that are not tangible, such as someones love for their spouse or satisfaction with their job. Extrinsic values are subjectively decided amounts used for exchange, for example, using money or bartering.

I don't disagree but I find the "extrinsic" value not accurate, and even biased.

And please tell me how a society without money would work.

I would but it would be a long essay.

Everyone would share? It wouldn't work for obvious reasons

Not necessarilly sharing, but more like a local communal assembly determinates who should control a certain part of the economy and those are responsible to manage it and distribute those goods. Some associations will exist to ensure that things work well. If they don't, after a certain period, those responsible for that must be taken out, and left unemployed, losing the benefits that only those with a job or a special license can have. Of course this is up to be discussed, modified, etc.

So what?

So I make your product, or I manage your business, but you get everything but meanwhile you play golf?

Life is all about risks and taking chances.

Life is all about nothing if you asking me. You are not always going to have to take risks, although people always have to decide. The idea of "if you dont risk you dont win" is not always going to happen.

I don't need to prove to you the inefficiency of bureacracy. Just read any newspaper.

Large corporations are also "bureaucratic" to an extent. As you said: "Of course the more levels of management you have, the more inefficient as decisions are much harder to make".
And I don't really trust newspapers, they are biased too, so they usually attemp to modify things to get their point straight (doesn't always happen however).
And still, it's not like a lot is spent on those "social welfare" programs. If someone is to be blamed, is of course the government. They do not spend enough on it, while they live in mansions. And of course they only listen to the people when their interests are in danger. Maybe people should control such systems in some way.

WTF?????

I was talking about population growth, in case you misunderstood it.

Sometimes but not always. In a globalised economy the threat of mergers is much less. Can you name one corporation that has achieved a total monopoly over the industry? Mergers don't necessarily work either unless there is an economy of scale, in which case having a merger would be more efficient (ie. you can't have 500 producers of boeing 747s - the cost would be too much for a small producer, and you can't merge all the fast food restaurants).

Of course it won't always happen. But monopolies and oligopolies tend to destroy the free competition, the smaller businesses tend to fall, and finally things don't get very efficient, which is dangerous considering how important such businesses are.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your mediocre rebuttal.

I still don't know why I respond to what cappies post. I should be posting this kind of things to prove them wrong! :lol:

Nyder

24th May 2004, 01:51

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 02:11 PM

The real value of work can't be determined - that is correct, because there are two types of values: intrinsic and extrinsic values (however much the commies like to deny it).

Wasn't it Misodoctakleidist that said to you in the LTV thread that there is a use-value (intrinsic) and an exchange value (extrinsic). And you were arguing against him. Now you are agreeing to what he said and saying that we deny it. That's pretty fucked up right there.
Let me explain. Many people on this site believe that we should trade entirely on intrinsic value (you cannot be paid because that would create inequality). Therefore I meant that communists are leaving extrinsic value out of the equation.

And the way he used 'use value' was wrong. He claimed that labour creates all value unless the labour made something with no use value. That is faulty reasoning because that statement means that labour does not create all value.

I never said there was no 'use value' or 'exchange value'.

refuse_resist

25th May 2004, 08:51

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 18 2004, 02:25 PM
Okay, I am to some point capitalist myself (though not the fascist bourgeoise pig, like many accuse my of being), but I still do not understand the terms Anarcho-Capitalism:

First of all, for discusion's sake could everyone stay of spamming and swearing eachother? We should make love not fights, thank you.

Capitalism: Has a government, not to care but to protect peoples rights, life and property.
Anarchy: Has no legal government, and corporations or certain powerful individuals/criminals stand above the law (for there is not one), life, rigths and property are not respected.

Capitalism: promotes fair trade,theocratically, by giving everyone equal rights and giving most the opportunity to buy, sell or start a business (though in practice this can be controlled by certain rich companies)
Anarchism: Disrespects fair trade, as there is no law to protect fair trade, the lack of control and self protection of teh individual leads to that.
By this statement, you have no idea what capitalism, as well as anarchism, are all about.

How are someones rights protected under capitalism? :lol: The only rights who are respected under capitalism are the rights of the rich and wealthy elitist while the working class are the ones who suffer for them.

As far as Anarchism goes, you have no idea what you're talking about. I highly suggest you do more research on the subject.

Daniel Karssenberg

25th May 2004, 17:43

To Che y Marijuana:
I am sorry I wasn't able to continue this debate, I had a busy time these days, again sorry. I like the debate with you've taught me a lot, though I still disagree a nit with you, sorry I am tough in my fundamental principles.

To refuse_resist:
I understand that my definition of what capitalism is about, or at least where my capitalism is about makes you think I am a complete idiot. And I also understand that you disagree fully with what I said about anarchism. Though, I do not really consider your reply as a contribution because you've told me by your reply twice I do not know what I am talking about. But twice you do not provide me with sufficient arguments to back that up.

Guest1

25th May 2004, 19:30

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 25 2004, 12:43 PM
To Che y Marijuana:
I am sorry I wasn't able to continue this debate, I had a busy time these days, again sorry. I like the debate with you've taught me a lot, though I still disagree a nit with you, sorry I am tough in my fundamental principles.
No worries. At the very least I believe I have positively influenced your definition of what is Anarchism. Even if you still disagree with me about it, that's a start. Who knows, maybe one day you'll change your views, but it'll take alot of reading.

I would suggest you read the "Che-Lives Who's Who" and "Che-Lives Dictionary" stickies in this forum, and the "Anarchism for Dummies" sticky in the theory forum for more info.

Daniel Karssenberg

25th May 2004, 20:30

Thank you, tomorrow I'll take some time and read it. Just purely Capitalist tea rarely tastes good, you need sugar and milk from other ideas to make it delicious. Not to forget a spoon to mix all the ingredients.

Professor Moneybags

26th May 2004, 06:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 08:51 AM
The only rights who are respected under capitalism are the rights of the rich and wealthy elitist while the working class are the ones who suffer for them.
Do me a favour and prove that you haven't just been brainwashed by explaining how this happens.

apathy maybe

26th May 2004, 11:23

An example being Alan Bond here in Australia. Bond was jailed in August 1996 for a $15 million fraud involving the Manet painting La Promenade. He was then sentenced to a further four years for a $1.2 billion fraud on the shareholders of Bell Resources, which was increased to seven years on appeal.

His release after 1,298 days means that he has spent roughly one day behind bars for every million dollars he stole.

In the Northern Territory in 2000 a young Aboriginal man was sentenced to a year in prison for stealing $23 worth of cordial and biscuits. Had the same formula been applied to Mr Bond, he would have been locked away for 50 million years.*

And why do you need proof anyway? Anyone who isn't brain damaged or a fool can see that there are two sets of laws; one for the rich and one for the poor. Anyone who isn't brain damaged or a fool can see that capitalism treats the rich better then the poor. Anyone who isn't brain damaged or a fool can see that the rights of the rich are more then the rights of the poor, even if it is only because the rich have easier access to resourses to fight legal battles.

*If you want more info some websites are
http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law309/bond.htm
http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/20000310barrysmhau.htm

Professor Moneybags

26th May 2004, 18:59

An example being Alan Bond here in Australia. Bond was jailed in August 1996 for a $15 million fraud involving the Manet painting La Promenade. He was then sentenced to a further four years for a $1.2 billion fraud on the shareholders of Bell Resources, which was increased to seven years on appeal.

His release after 1,298 days means that he has spent roughly one day behind bars for every million dollars he stole.

In the Northern Territory in 2000 a young Aboriginal man was sentenced to a year in prison for stealing $23 worth of cordial and biscuits. Had the same formula been applied to Mr Bond, he would have been locked away for 50 million years.*

[QUOTE]And why do you need proof anyway? Anyone who isn't brain damaged or a fool can see that there are two sets of laws; one for the rich and one for the poor. Anyone who isn't brain damaged or a fool can see that capitalism treats the rich better then the poor. Anyone who isn't brain damaged or a fool can see that the rights of the rich are more then the rights of the poor, even if it is only because the rich have easier access to resourses to fight legal battles.

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of court room dramas. It's got FA to do with capitalism; a farmer gets jailed for five years for shooting a burglar, while some person who claimed he was attacked and pushed into the gutter (and just so happened to find a combat knife just lying there :rolleyes: ) then stabbed his "attacker" : two year probation order.

WHOSE BEEN FUCKING WITH MY POSTS ?

Professor Moneybags

26th May 2004, 19:03

This was not the issue I was addressing. He said :

The only rights who are respected under capitalism are the rights of the rich and wealthy elitist while the working class are the ones who suffer for them.

Impying that the rich have rights, while everyone else suffers because of those rights. Last time I checked, murder and fraud was illegal regardless of the size of your bank balance.

apathy maybe

28th May 2004, 03:37

and I was making the point that the rich had 'rights' because they were rich. They can afford better legal protection, have easier access to politicions(sp?) etc. People who are poor don't get these 'rights', it is simply a matter of money. As to fraud being illegal, if you are rich, you get a lesser sentence compared to a poor slob. I don't know why, but I bet it has something to do with the bank balance.
Murder is something else as well, sure it is illegal, but if you have a good lawyer you can get off (or make a whole heap of appeals). To get a good lawyer you need lots of money. And the same goes for suing someone. If your poor you can't sue anyone rich 'cause they will be able to last longer.
Face the facts, if you're rich, you get a better deal in almost all areas of society in most (Swedan is an exception, they have a great legal system compared to the US) 1st world countries. Nothing you say will change that fact.

Hoppe

29th May 2004, 12:09

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28 2004, 03:37 AM
and I was making the point that the rich had 'rights' because they were rich. They can afford better legal protection, have easier access to politicions(sp?) etc. People who are poor don't get these 'rights', it is simply a matter of money. As to fraud being illegal, if you are rich, you get a lesser sentence compared to a poor slob. I don't know why, but I bet it has something to do with the bank balance.
Murder is something else as well, sure it is illegal, but if you have a good lawyer you can get off (or make a whole heap of appeals). To get a good lawyer you need lots of money. And the same goes for suing someone. If your poor you can't sue anyone rich 'cause they will be able to last longer.
Face the facts, if you're rich, you get a better deal in almost all areas of society in most (Swedan is an exception, they have a great legal system compared to the US) 1st world countries. Nothing you say will change that fact.
Very funny this answer. According to this post, capitalists should be very much in favour of the present day system. Then how come people exist who call themselves anarcho-capitalists? Do they think without the state it will be even easier to "rule and exploit the working class"?

Leftist anarchist don't have ownership over the definition of anarchism. Your anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are fundamentally based on different views. If you want to debunk these views please do, but not with meaningless anti-capitalist rethoric.

Btw, those leftist anarchist here who oppose freedom of association and deny people to opt out of any democratic ruling aren't real anarchists. Check Maletesta if you like.

Sometimes but not always. In a globalised economy the threat of mergers is much less. Can you name one corporation that has achieved a total monopoly over the industry? Mergers don't necessarily work either unless there is an economy of scale, in which case having a merger would be more efficient (ie. you can't have 500 producers of boeing 747s - the cost would be too much for a small producer, and you can't merge all the fast food restaurants).

Of course it won't always happen. But monopolies and oligopolies tend to destroy the free competition, the smaller businesses tend to fall, and finally things don't get very efficient, which is dangerous considering how important such businesses are.

To elaborate on this, mergers don't lead to monopolies, they never did. If you would actually know something about the M&A market (I don't mean you Nyder) you would know that with every merger there are spin-offs, sales of assets etc etc.

Globalization actually decreased marketconcentration in even the most capital-intensive industries.

Guest1

29th May 2004, 18:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:09 AM
Very funny this answer. According to this post, capitalists should be very much in favour of the present day system. Then how come people exist who call themselves anarcho-capitalists? Do they think without the state it will be even easier to "rule and exploit the working class"?
No they are misguided and believe that without a government exploitation will end. They forget about the other two institutions that prop it up though: religion and capital.

Which means they are not Anarchists.

Leftist anarchist don't have ownership over the definition of anarchism. Your anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are fundamentally based on different views. If you want to debunk these views please do, but not with meaningless anti-capitalist rethoric.
I don't care about debating the views, they are just not Anarchist. There is no "Anarcho-Capitalism", no matter how many times you try to say there is.

This is not based on Leftist Anarchists "owning" the definition, this is based on historical content and the movement. Anarchism has always been Socialist. There's alot of disagreement amonsgt Anarchists, but they all agree about standing against Capitalism in one form or another.

If "Anarcho-Capitalism" is fundamentally different on that, then it isn't Anarchism.

Btw, those leftist anarchist here who oppose freedom of association and deny people to opt out of any democratic ruling aren't real anarchists. Check Maletesta if you like.
If they want to opt out of a Democratic ruling, depending how important it is, they opt out of society. Freedom of association alone is not enough, because people don't have the freedom to enslave others. They also lose freedom of association if they "choose" to be enslaved.

So there's more to it than that.

Hoppe

29th May 2004, 18:41

No they are misguided and believe that without a government exploitation will end. They forget about the other two institutions that prop it up though: religion and capital.

Well unfortunately for you, the whole notion of exploitation has been thouroughly refuted so you have little fundament.

And devouring yourself to God is the same as following the writings of Marx. If everyone would act according to the same principle it would be paradise on earth.

This is not based on Leftist Anarchists "owning" the definition, this is based on historical content and the movement. Anarchism has always been Socialist. There's alot of disagreement amonsgt Anarchists, but they all agree about standing against Capitalism in one form or another.

Most anarchist are so blinded by their hate of capitalism that they can't tell fact from fiction.

If they want to opt out of a Democratic ruling, depending how important it is, they opt out of society. Freedom of association alone is not enough, because people don't have the freedom to enslave others. They also lose freedom of association if they "choose" to be enslaved.

Ow yes, wage slavery :rolleyes:

So, after a democratic ruling that I should clean the sewers I cannot opt out? Sounds a lot like slavery to me. Real slavery.

So there's more to it than that.

No, there really isn't.

Guest1

29th May 2004, 19:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:41 PM
So, after a democratic ruling that I should clean the sewers I cannot opt out? Sounds a lot like slavery to me. Real slavery.
No, that you have the option of opting out of. You have the option of opting out of almost everything, so long as you work and respect others. If you wanna opt out of work, that's your choice, but you opt out of the collective's aid too.

No one will force you to do a certain job, that would be stupid.

Daniel Karssenberg

29th May 2004, 20:03

Every system has its flaws, or at least there are always flaws which are said to be due to a certain system.

The problem I see with Anarcho-Communism is, how do you stop people who are, by means of violence persuading people to vote on a certain issue the way they want. How do you crack down on abusers of democracy? Secondly, I think that minorities will be oppressed as well by majorities, especially the individual.

Guest1

30th May 2004, 00:12

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 29 2004, 04:03 PM
The problem I see with Anarcho-Communism is, how do you stop people who are, by means of violence persuading people to vote on a certain issue the way they want. How do you crack down on abusers of democracy?
Kick them out. There will be no tolerance for that kind of abuse in Anarchist society. Anyone attempting to do such a thing is attemtping to have authority, and authority is the enemy of Anarchist society.

Secondly, I think that minorities will be oppressed as well by majorities, especially the individual.
That's better than the majority being oppressed by the minority, which is what we have now. Even if you don't buy the stuff about the rich having more power, less than 50% of people vote, and barely 50% of those are needed to take power.

At least with this system, it's gonna actually be the majority, and everyone will have an equal say.

Besides, I don't see much room for "oppressing the minority", how exactly would there be oppression? Anyone in the collective is allowed to leave at anytime they want, so I don't see why there would be oppression. It's pointless, as the collective risks being attacked by other collectives if they indulge in racism, sexism, homophobia or anything of the sort.

Hoppe

30th May 2004, 10:17

If everyone can opt out any time they want you'd have a serious problem. Unless you think that everyone is really going to subject himself to the general interest, people will only take the nice things.

DaCuBaN

30th May 2004, 10:26

Unless you think that everyone is really going to subject himself to the general interest, people will only take the nice things

This point is entirely valid - and this is why we speak of the 'Revolution of the mind'

Most people who believe in socialism are the kind of people who would take the rough with the smooth... After all, if someone else has to clean my sewers for me, surely it's only fair that I do my share as well?

The problem is those who have not yet evolved a sense of social consciousness... Until that time this is all gravy and no meat.

Hoppe

30th May 2004, 10:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 10:26 AM
This point is entirely valid - and this is why we speak of the 'Revolution of the mind'

Most people who believe in socialism are the kind of people who would take the rough with the smooth... After all, if someone else has to clean my sewers for me, surely it's only fair that I do my share as well?

The problem is those who have not yet evolved a sense of social consciousness... Until that time this is all gravy and no meat.
I entirely agree.

But you have to acknowledge that the chances of this revolution of the mind going to happen are small. So that's why I don't understand why some wouldn't want to take one step back and direct their efforts to the common enemy, the state.

Communism is much easier with willing people so why waste your time educating others? If their not cooperating your going to kick them out of your society anyway.

DaCuBaN

30th May 2004, 10:41

I don't understand why some wouldn't want to take one step back and direct their efforts to the common enemy, the state

Neither do I... I can see all the hardships that are caused by various national entities the world over, and I comment on them - but I would never go as far as to say I 'attack' them. Attack someone/thing and they/it will become defensive - pushing us further from our goal.

you have to acknowledge that the chances of this revolution of the mind going to happen are small

Yes. Damnit. :(

but...

Communism is much easier with willing people so why waste your time educating others?

This 'evolution' that I speak of can only come through education - I do not consider it futile to debate with those who oppose. Surely by being reasonable and discussing it amicably we can help root out the falacies about communism being the 'big bad regime' that it's so frequently made out to be. This is, in my mind at least, the first step towards the evolution of social conscience.

I am defeatist by my nature, and as such do not expect to see socialism in this world - but it would be a sad day if the ideals behind it were to be lost in history... This reason alone is enough to keep digging away, trying to make a few others reach that moment of epiphany that is the 'revolution of the mind'.

Professor Moneybags

30th May 2004, 19:42

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 30 2004, 12:12 AM
Kick them out. There will be no tolerance for that kind of abuse in Anarchist society. Anyone attempting to do such a thing is attemtping to have authority, and authority is the enemy of Anarchist society.
But....isn't the act of "kicking them out" the same as "attempting to have authority" ?

This point is entirely valid - and this is why we speak of the 'Revolution of the mind'

Most people who believe in socialism are the kind of people who would take the rough with the smooth... After all, if someone else has to clean my sewers for me, surely it's only fair that I do my share as well?

The problem is those who have not yet evolved a sense of social consciousness... Until that time this is all gravy and no meat.

You mean we will evolve to enjoy shovelling shit ?

Nyder

3rd June 2004, 09:17

The same experiment can work in any household. The Government (parents) can ask the kids (citizens) to clean the toilet (sewers), but they will avoid it or divert responsibility. So either they threaten them (no dinner for a week), and they do it out of fear, or offer them incentives (pocket money).

Anarchism chooses the 'ask nicely' option (nothing gets done).
Government chooses 'fear' option (everyone becomes resentful).
Capitalism chooses 'incentive' option (work may be bad but at least it's rewarded).

That's my weird example and I think you know which option is the best.

Guest1

3rd June 2004, 15:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 05:17 AM
Anarchism chooses the 'ask nicely' option (nothing gets done).
Actually Anarchism doesn't give anyone that job, it's probably going to be shared out weekly, and it doesn't exactly ask nicely.

You wouldn't wanna be kicked out of your house for not doing your share of the chores, would you? Then you'd have to get a new house and do all the chores, and clean the toilets every week!

Vìcmælon

6th June 2004, 14:03

Statism is the philosophy that individuals have a right to rule over others, and by delegating this right to representatives, forming the State, this entity assumes that right.

Anarchism repudiates this right. Whether there is an absolute morality or not, humans are left with our own subjective judgment to determine its nature. Individual judgment isn't an option -- it's unavoidable. One cannot accept a moral value without subjecting it to his own judgment, whether he reasoned it out himself or adapted it from someone else.

This is what renders the belief in "authority" -- the right to rule -- impossible.

In other words, anarchism is the belief in freedom of association - that individuals are free to voluntarily and by mutual consent, form relationships. The only means of denying this is coercion (or aggression if you wish) - the initiation or threat of intiation of force. From such, the Non-Agression Principle, or Golden Rule is derived: No individual or group may justly initiate, nor threaten to intiate force against another.

The implications of this are that labels such as "anarcho-communist" or "anarcho-capitalist" are superfluous. As long as indvidual concerned believes in the central tenet of anarchism - freedom of association, one is an anarchist. If one advocates that voluntary relationships of one kind should be ended by force, one ceases to be an anarchist. Thus, someone calling herself an anarcho-communist yet who would forcibly stop an individual from trading his property with another, is not an anarchist at all. Conversely, an anarcho-capitalist who would oppose the formation of voluntary collectives too ceases to be an anarchist. The only required acid test for whether one is a True Anarchist™ is whether they believe in freedom of association.

Yours in solidarity,

Vic

Rational anarchist ;)

Guest1

6th June 2004, 15:32

Unfortunately, utopianism is not required to be an Anarchist. <_<

While voluntary association is necessary, most Anarchists realize that it is not enough on its own. There are limits to where it can lead, most notably in this randian "golden rule" clap trap. The reality is violence is not only necessary to establish Anarchism, it is a duty when oppression is being fought.

To forcibly prevent people from signing ownership of themselves away is not a crime, it is a must. No one can "voluntarily" become a slave. Even if it really is their signature on that contract.

Once again, I point you to Anarchism's most important tenet, which is not voluntary association. It is, in fact, the end of hierarchy. That, my friend, is the end of Capitalism.

So here we are again, back where we started, with Anarchists arguing with non-Anarchists about what is a "real Anarchist".

All of you need to read some more before trying to foist a definition on a movement you aren't a part of.

Vìcmælon

6th June 2004, 16:27

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 6 2004, 03:32 PM
Unfortunately, utopianism is not required to be an Anarchist. <_<

Where exactly did I allude to a Utopia?. My post addressed anarchism, its basis and its logical conclusion. I described anarchism as a philosophical position, I predicted nothing of a utopian anarchy.

While voluntary association is necessary, most Anarchists realize that it is not enough on its own.

I could care less of what most anarchists realise.

There are limits to where it can lead, most notably in this randian "golden rule" clap trap.

If you can show me a legitimate moral justification for coercion or aggression, I welcome you to do so.

The reality is violence is not only necessary to establish Anarchism, it is a duty when oppression is being fought.

Any effort in justifying your position would be welcome here. I find this idea ridiculous. How exactly do you propose "establishing" a philosophical position?!? By initiating force, thus creating hierarchy? Please.

One could move to Antartica, thus existing in an anarchic environment, without the use of force. QED.

To forcibly prevent people from signing ownership of themselves away is not a crime, it is a must. No one can "voluntarily" become a slave.

One cannot voluntarily sign away self-ownership. You speak of an oxymoron. As you say, you cannot voulntarily become a slave.

Once again, I point you to Anarchism's most important tenet, which is not voluntary association. It is, in fact, the end of hierarchy.

What is the difference? A voluntary relationship based on mutual consent could never logically be construed as hierarchical, in any negative sense.

Discussions of this variety have the tiring tendency to replicate detailed examinations of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Live Free,

Vìc

Guest1

6th June 2004, 18:06

Originally posted by Vìcmæ[email protected] 6 2004, 12:27 PM
Where exactly did I allude to a Utopia?. My post addressed anarchism, its basis and its logical conclusion. I described anarchism as a philosophical position, I predicted nothing of a utopian anarchy.

Anarchism, purely as a "philosophical position" is utopianism. Anarchism is not about some day dreaming about the absence of hierarchy, it is a coherent and practical attempt to end it. Thus, anyone saying Anarchy cannot be forced is speaking utopian bull.

I could care less of what most anarchists realise.
Evidently, though you would do well to use some of their knowledge. Too much to hope for?

If you can show me a legitimate moral justification for coercion or aggression, I welcome you to do so.
Coercion and aggression are different things. I don't think we need to coerce people into freedom, but we must be aggressive against those who would seek to halt it. If you are attacked, will you not defend yourself? What if your fellow human beings were attacked? Should you not help them by logical progression?

People don't have a "right" to oppress.

Any effort in justifying your position would be welcome here. I find this idea ridiculous. How exactly do you propose "establishing" a philosophical position?!? By initiating force, thus creating hierarchy? Please.
And here we see the difference between you and Anarchists :rolleyes: As I already said, Anarchism is not a philosophical position, Anarchism is a social movement to end hierarchy. It is nothing if it does not seek to create the conditions it preaches, despite your attempts to turn it into nothing better than any of the religions out there.

Force does not create hierarchy. If you are not willing to fight to liberate others, your freedom means nothing.

One could move to Antartica, thus existing in an anarchic environment, without the use of force. QED.
:lol: Very funny... yeah, ok... you do that... we'll be here in the real world fighting for what's right, and not forgetting about all the other slaves that need to be freed.

One cannot voluntarily sign away self-ownership. You speak of an oxymoron. As you say, you cannot voulntarily become a slave.
I agree, that's why you can't be an "Anarcho"-Capitalist. You don't have the right to take someone's free will, nor do they have the right to cede it. Therefore, voluntary association means the end of Capitalism.

I just thought I would allow the Capitalists to use their definition, becaus they like that word so much. Under that definition, voluntary association is not enough for Anarchism.

What is the difference? A voluntary relationship based on mutual consent could never logically be construed as hierarchical, in any negative sense.
Not if you redefine voluntary as most Capitalists do.

May I ask if you yourself are an Anarchist? Keeping in mind of course that all Anarchism is Socialist.

DaCuBaN

6th June 2004, 18:18

You mean we will evolve to enjoy shovelling shit ?

Again PM, you succeed in missing the entire content of a post. Well played old boy!

You make it quite evident that you think you shouldn't have to shovel your fair share of shit. One day you'll evolve :P

Vìcmælon

6th June 2004, 21:50

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Jun 6 2004, 06:06 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Jun 6 2004, 06:06 PM)
Vìcmæ[email protected] 6 2004, 12:27 PM
Where exactly did I allude to a Utopia?. My post addressed anarchism, its basis and its logical conclusion. I described anarchism as a philosophical position, I predicted nothing of a utopian anarchy.

Anarchism, purely as a "philosophical position" is utopianism. Anarchism is not about some day dreaming about the absence of hierarchy, it is a coherent and practical attempt to end it. Thus, anyone saying Anarchy cannot be forced is speaking utopian bull. [/b]
I see anarchism to be a philosophical position - that authority is immoral, whereas you see it as a movement, which any linguist worth his salt would refute. I don't see any commond ground here. Moving on...

Coercion and aggression are different things. I don't think we need to coerce people into freedom, but we must be aggressive against those who would seek to halt it. If you are attacked, will you not defend yourself?

In the sense that I meant aggression - the initiation or threat of initiation of force, they are not. Although you have a different understanding of the word, our beliefs are consistent. The use of force in self-defence is of course justified. Your second sentence worries me though - "I don't think we need to coerce people". Is it that you acknowledge coercion is immoral or that it is uneccessary from a utilitarian standpoint?

As I already said, Anarchism is not a philosophical position, Anarchism is a social movement to end hierarchy. It is nothing if it does not seek to create the conditions it preaches, despite your attempts to turn it into nothing better than any of the religions out there.

I disagree. Please back up this concept from first principles.

Force does not create hierarchy.

Again, not to sound dogmatic, but the initiation of force does. If I initiate force against you, I am asserting my right to rule over you, thus creating hierarchy.

"One could move to Antartica, thus existing in an anarchic environment, without the use of force. QED."

Very funny... yeah, ok... you do that... we'll be here in the real world fighting for what's right, and not forgetting about all the other slaves that need to be freed.

Here you are guilty of a post hoc fallacy. Firstly you asserted the use of force was neccessary to establish an anarchic society. When I proved this clearly wrong, you attempted to change the terms of the debate. :rolleyes:

I agree, that's why you can't be an "Anarcho"-Capitalist. You don't have the right to take someone's free will, nor do they have the right to cede it. Therefore, voluntary association means the end of Capitalism.

I just thought I would allow the Capitalists to use their definition, becaus they like that word so much. Under that definition, voluntary association is not enough for Anarchism.

This is an interesting conflict. (It depends of course on your definition of capitalism but let's not get into semantics). Presumably, you're talking about the concept that the employer/employee relationship, although voluntary, is hierarchical, that the employer "rules" over the employee. If this statement holds, then my assertion that freedom of association and lack of hierartchy are the same, is false.

My reasoning in this is that no rule or hierarchy can exist, in any negative sense, if the relationship is voluntary. The two do not gel in my mind. If we accept that hierachy means one party ruling another (as anarchy literally means "no rulers"), is there rule in this relationship?

We cannot answer this without a solid definition of rule.

Via dictionary.com

rule n.

1. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
2. The duration of such power.

It is clear to me that the employer/employee voluntary relationship does not fit this definition.

Peace,

Vìc

Guest1

6th June 2004, 22:42

Originally posted by Vìcmæ[email protected] 6 2004, 05:50 PM
I see anarchism to be a philosophical position - that authority is immoral, whereas you see it as a movement, which any linguist worth his salt would refute. I don't see any commond ground here. Moving on...
:huh:

You can listen to the linguists, I will listen to the historians and political scientists.

In the sense that I meant aggression - the initiation or threat of initiation of force, they are not. Although you have a different understanding of the word, our beliefs are consistent. The use of force in self-defence is of course justified. Your second sentence worries me though - "I don't think we need to coerce people". Is it that you acknowledge coercion is immoral or that it is uneccessary from a utilitarian standpoint?
The problem is I don't see force used to end coercion as coercion. That is where we disagree. I think that when faced with the state, religion and capital, institutions which use violence to oppress, we must use force to break free and liberate others. I also think it is self-defense to do so, in both a philosophical sense and a practical one. I know that once change begins, these institutions will bring all force to bare against us.

I disagree. Please back up this concept from first principles.
First principles? What I said is that it is no use believing in freedom if you're not willing to do what you can to bring it to people. Religious belief in some pie in the sky, or practical set of principles to end hierarchy?

Your choice.

Again, not to sound dogmatic, but the initiation of force does. If I initiate force against you, I am asserting my right to rule over you, thus creating hierarchy.
I agree with you, but I don't think breaking slavery is an initiation of force. I believe it is an altruistic and honorable act, no matter how forceful. I also believe it is merely a response in kind to the pillars of oppression who use force against us on a daily basis.

Here you are guilty of a post hoc fallacy. Firstly you asserted the use of force was neccessary to establish an anarchic society. When I proved this clearly wrong, you attempted to change the terms of the debate. :rolleyes:
Establishing Anarchist society in the Antarctic is not much of a victory, is it? I'm talking about Anarchism for the majority of the world's people, taking humanity forward. You're talking about a small hardcore group of people who would have to be supplied all they need by others, which is not much of an Anarchist society. Besides, Anarchy is about global change, not change in your dorm or on a little island.

I'm not changing the terms of debate, I just refuse to play childish word games <_<

Again, you go to Antarctica, we're not gonna forget the other slaves. If you want though, I can clap for your oh so clever point :rolleyes:

This is an interesting conflict. (It depends of course on your definition of capitalism but let's not get into semantics). Presumably, you're talking about the concept that the employer/employee relationship, although voluntary, is hierarchical, that the employer "rules" over the employee. If this statement holds, then my assertion that freedom of association and lack of hierartchy are the same, is false.
Unless, of course, you change the definition of freedom of association to include freedom from wage slavery. Which is how it should be, but usually isn't.

My reasoning in this is that no rule or hierarchy can exist, in any negative sense, if the relationship is voluntary. The two do not gel in my mind. If we accept that hierachy means one party ruling another (as anarchy literally means "no rulers"), is there rule in this relationship?
Yes, but if you give away your ability to make decisions for yourself, is that not slavery? Slavery by contract?

We cannot answer this without a solid definition of rule.

Via dictionary.com

rule n.

1. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
2. The duration of such power.

It is clear to me that the employer/employee voluntary relationship does not fit this definition.
Yes it does, though I will have to get into the details of this later on, food now.

Briefly though, your boss is considered your superior, with an ability to fire you and punish you with a form of indirect coercion. That would be the wage system.

DaCuBaN

6th June 2004, 22:47

Just one point....

I agree with you, but I don't think breaking slavery is an initiation of force

Unfortunately it is - as you assert it certainly is a noble cause, but once the force has been used, what then? the means would still exist.

It's a case of whether these people would then use this force for personal gain. The example of the spaniards would point towards the fact that they would not, but I believe most modern anarchists believe that the lack of force used was one of their gravest mistakes...

Guest1

7th June 2004, 09:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 06:47 PM
Just one point....

I agree with you, but I don't think breaking slavery is an initiation of force

Unfortunately it is - as you assert it certainly is a noble cause, but once the force has been used, what then? the means would still exist.

It's a case of whether these people would then use this force for personal gain. The example of the spaniards would point towards the fact that they would not, but I believe most modern anarchists believe that the lack of force used was one of their gravest mistakes...
Slavery is a use of force, thus breaking it is not an initiation of force, but a reply in kind.

My point still stands.

As to Spain, it was a civil war, so don't try to tell me there was no force used <_<

DaCuBaN

7th June 2004, 21:10

Slavery is a use of force, thus breaking it is not an initiation of force, but a reply in kind

I was trying to say it's still force, even if it's only a rebutal

Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth just leaves everyone blind and unable to eat much else but gruel.

My point still stands

Indeed it does, you did not start it - you can however, end it.

As to Spain, it was a civil war, so don't try to tell me there was no force used

The point i was attempting to illustrate was that the anarchists siezed control without direct use of force - they to an extent to advantage of the civil war... but their unwillingness to take on the responsibilites of government, or even to defend their position on it's dismissal meant the fascists took control. As a result of not using force to hold their 'position' (for want of a better word - you know what I'm trying to intimate) they lost out, and we got that bastard in charge instead <_< When we could have had the worlds first true anarchist 'state' (aka oxymoron, but again you know what I mean)

As many anarchists consider this their 'biggest mistake' - the lack of force used to stop the fascists taking control - it kind of points to the fact that they may be increasingly violent in the future. If this is the kind of people who become modern anarchists, then it's perfectly plausable(sp?) that once they have ousted whatever regime was currently in charge that they would mantain the use of force and put themselves in a position of power.

Guest1

7th June 2004, 23:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:10 PM
I was trying to say it's still force, even if it's only a rebutal

Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth just leaves everyone blind and unable to eat much else but gruel.
I never denied it was :huh:

You walked into a debate where we were arguing that it was wrong to initiate force, but not to return it, and told me that breaking slavery was using force. All I had said was that it was justified use of force.

The point i was attempting to illustrate was that the anarchists siezed control without direct use of force - they to an extent to advantage of the civil war...
Uhh... no, they took up arms to smash franco's initial coup, which they did. Then the civil war started, and they fought honourably. I don't see how that's indirect use of force. They literally broke into the arms depots of the army when the government refused to arm them against Franco.

but their unwillingness to take on the responsibilites of government, or even to defend their position on it's dismissal meant the fascists took control.
No actually, most Anarchists agree that it was their willingness to do that, "take on the responsibilities of the state", that doomed them. They agreed to bring back the state and built a coalition government with the Stalinists and Capitalists before the slaughter of the collectives began and Franco won.

DaCuBaN

8th June 2004, 00:11

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spain-rev.html

I know nothing of the source - I just booted up google and got this. Your account of the anarchist revolt differs from that of my memory, so I'm using this for confirmation. Please, if you can find fault with it let me know as it pretty fairly seems to represent my own view of the revolt.

'The guarantee of the revolution is the proletariat in arms. To attempt to disarm the people is to place oneself on the wrong side of the barricades. No councillor or police commissioner, no matter who he is, can order the disarming of the workers, who are fighting fascism with more self-sacrifice than all the politicians in the rear, whose incapacity and impotence everybody knows. Do not, on any account, allow yourselves to be disarmed!'

the Barcelona central telephone exchange, run by the CNT, was attacked. Thousands of workers took up rifles behind their barricades. Fighting spread, and soon the government and communist troops were surrounded in their strongholds. The anarchist militias prepared to quit the front for Barcelona. But instead of directing the struggle, some of the CNT leadership now holding government posts tried to halt the fighting and find a compromise. Meanwhile thousands of government troops converged on the city. Confused and demoralised by their leadership's betrayal, the workers ceased fire and laid down their arms.

I consider this mans take on the situation to be more accurate in all honesty.

When I spoke about direct use of force, I was meaning that they 'hijacked' the scenario to further their revolutionary cause.

Uhh... no, they took up arms to smash franco's initial coup, which they did

Not just the anarchists took up this cause - it was only after this attempted coup that the anarchists became feared and the funding was denied. Before this, they were in no position to make any demands.

As many anarchists consider this their 'biggest mistake' - the lack of force used to stop the fascists taking control

Granted I'm not an anarchist, but to me this does seem like the biggest mistake ;)

Guest1

8th June 2004, 03:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 08:11 PM
'The guarantee of the revolution is the proletariat in arms. To attempt to disarm the people is to place oneself on the wrong side of the barricades. No councillor or police commissioner, no matter who he is, can order the disarming of the workers, who are fighting fascism with more self-sacrifice than all the politicians in the rear, whose incapacity and impotence everybody knows. Do not, on any account, allow yourselves to be disarmed!'
Seems to me that suggests taking up arms, hence, force.

the Barcelona central telephone exchange, run by the CNT, was attacked. Thousands of workers took up rifles behind their barricades. Fighting spread, and soon the government and communist troops were surrounded in their strongholds. The anarchist militias prepared to quit the front for Barcelona. But instead of directing the struggle, some of the CNT leadership now holding government posts tried to halt the fighting and find a compromise. Meanwhile thousands of government troops converged on the city. Confused and demoralised by their leadership's betrayal, the workers ceased fire and laid down their arms.
As I said, it was that they allowed themselves to participate in the state that was the problem, once that happened, force no longer mattered. You were suggesting that they should have taken on government responsibilities. Obviously, they had.

You are trying to disagree with me by showing me proof that I'm right <_<

When I spoke about direct use of force, I was meaning that they 'hijacked' the scenario to further their revolutionary cause.
What are you talking about? Your zigzags are really confusing.

Not just the anarchists took up this cause - it was only after this attempted coup that the anarchists became feared and the funding was denied. Before this, they were in no position to make any demands.
I never said it was just the Anarchists, and wether they were in any position doesn't matter, they made the demands and were denied. As for funding, they never asked for funding, they asked for guns. These were the major unions of course, who were Anarcho-Syndicalist. As these were national unions, I don't think you can dismiss them as easily as you've been trying to.

As many anarchists consider this their 'biggest mistake' - the lack of force used to stop the fascists taking control

Granted I'm not an anarchist, but to me this does seem like the biggest mistake ;)
Still wrong, as one of your quotes said, it was the betrayal by the leadership.

The Anarchist Faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html#seci813) had this to say about what political lessons were learned from spain:

"The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution is that a revolution cannot compromise with existing power structures. In this, it just confirmed anarchist theory."

Nothing about using force, it's about centralizing and becoming a part of the government as the leadership did. Betrayal, that's what most Anarchists complain about, not a lack of force. That came as a result of betrayal.

DaCuBaN

8th June 2004, 04:04

Fair points, but in personal experience, if I am betrayed I kick out. Why would they lay down their arms? To me this seems nonsensical

Seems to me that suggests taking up arms, hence, force.

Indeed... despite the fact that they were told that whatever happens don't give up fighting they did. This is, to me, their downfall. Those in armed defense could have continued, leaders or otherwise. Isn't one of the fundamental points of anarchism that no man is wise enough to lead himself, and hence shouldn't be leading anyone else? (poorly paraphrased - my apologies. The original quote would be appreciated)

"The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution is that a revolution cannot compromise with existing power structures. In this, it just confirmed anarchist theory."

At the point the leadership betrayed them they should have realised that those persons concerned were not anarchists - as you said, this is fundamentally opposed to anarchism. Why then did they lay down their arms? I cannot understand the mentality!

Guest1

8th June 2004, 04:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:04 AM
Fair points, but in personal experience, if I am betrayed I kick out. Why would they lay down their arms? To me this seems nonsensical
They didn't, some continued fighting, but the newly formed government with support from Stalin crushed them.

Indeed... despite the fact that they were told that whatever happens don't give up fighting they did. This is, to me, their downfall. Those in armed defense could have continued, leaders or otherwise. Isn't one of the fundamental points of anarchism that no man is wise enough to lead himself, and hence shouldn't be leading anyone else? (poorly paraphrased - my apologies. The original quote would be appreciated)
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey

It's in my sig :P Anyways, I agree with you, but to be fair the workers didn't all give up just like that. Alot of people were slaughtered when they forced the breakup of the collectives.

At the point the leadership betrayed them they should have realised that those persons concerned were not anarchists - as you said, this is fundamentally opposed to anarchism. Why then did they lay down their arms? I cannot understand the mentality!
It was the idea that they had to form a "common front" with Stalinists and Capitalists against Fascism, even if that meant putting the revolution on hold.

That was the argument, some bought it, many others died cause they didn't.

I can't understand the mentality either, but we learn and continue :)