Log in

View Full Version : Anarchism



Capital Punishment
13th June 2005, 23:21
I'm sure this has been a topic many times, but I would like a left-wing opinion of how anarchy works, since i know many anarchists. When ever i ask how it'll work, all i get it "It's a way of life" and other change-the-subject answers. So, how exactly can you justify left-wing anarchy? With no law, how do you keep the peace? How do you prevent crime? Discuss.

Clarksist
14th June 2005, 02:34
It is a much more complicated system then what could fill up this post. (BTW your avatar is not the anarcho-capitalist symbol, that is a symbol used by anarchists).

If you want to know some good ins-and-outs of anarchy and not dodgy answers (which anarchists tend to give) then I suggest you read the following:

The Conquest of Bread
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...nquest/toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)

Anarchist FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

Those are really long, but very fruitful reading ventures that I'm sure you will learn from.

Publius
14th June 2005, 02:44
It is a much more complicated system then what could fill up this post. (BTW your avatar is not the anarcho-capitalist symbol, that is a symbol used by anarchists).

If you want to know some good ins-and-outs of anarchy and not dodgy answers (which anarchists tend to give) then I suggest you read the following:

The Conquest of Bread
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...nquest/toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)

Anarchist FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

Those are really long, but very fruitful reading ventures that I'm sure you will learn from.

Libertatis Æquilibritas is the correct anarcho-capitalist symbol.

It can be used for all anarchisms, but it can be specifically used for market anarchism.

romanm
14th June 2005, 02:55
how does it work?

it doesnt

Eastside Revolt
14th June 2005, 04:38
Originally posted by Capital [email protected] 13 2005, 10:21 PM
I'm sure this has been a topic many times, but I would like a left-wing opinion of how anarchy works..... how do you keep the peace? How do you prevent crime? Discuss.
Look up a few "anarchist FAQ's", that'll give you most of what your looking for.

On the questions of law and crime, I can try to give you a simplistic explaination:

When it comes to serious crimes (rape, murder etc.) there would be no power structure trying to "send a message" so you'd find that an anarchist society would be much more into "harm-reduction" and less into media frenzied witchhunting. An anarchist society would be more concerned with serving society itself. It would make greater efforts to make sure the actual murderer, or rapist was really the one being tried, or detained, reather than persecuting some random suspect in the name of self-serving careerist goals. As for the people who are a serious risk to re-offend, it would be up to psychiatric experts as to what would be the correct line of "rehabilitation", it wouldn't be up to some bloodthursty DA looking to please the local senator.

When it comes to "preventing crime" you have to remember that the majority(not all) of our laws are merely there to protect private property in capitalist interest.

eg: The kid who can get a nice pair of shoes for free, no hasstle, is not going to stick up the other kid for his nice sneakers. The crack addict who can get his fix for free, no hastle, is not going to break into people's cars for pocket change.

As for "keeping the peace" generally people already try to keep the peace all the time, it's just that "it isn't their job", in an anarchist society it would be as long as they were able.

Zingu
14th June 2005, 04:47
Depends what you mean by Anarchism, I have discovered that there are "forms" of anarchism, yes, there are the hard-core smash the state anarchists and then the Libertarian Socialists, that contain several factions, including us Council Communists.

SupportTheALF
14th June 2005, 07:10
Anarchism IS working.

Theres small anarchist communities all around the place, it just hasnt taken place on a large scale.

JazzRemington
14th June 2005, 07:16
THere are two schools of anarchist theory: individual and social. Both are socialist and both are anti-state, they just differ in the means and organization. Both schools also are non-exclusive and tend to overlap in some areas.

Individualist anarchists push for individual ownership of the means of production, or at least ownership by the people who use it. They don't promote any type of social or economic organization and also want a sort-of market for goods and services, a NON-capitalist market. Individualist anarchists generally agree that the State has a monopoly on several things, as outlined by Benjamin Tucker: 1) money production, 2) land, 3) tarrifs, and 4) patents, and banking too. These anarchists tend to create alternative institutions in the hope that the State will wither away. Individualist anarchism is mostly an American school.

Social anarchists is perhaps the largest of the two schools and is comprised of Mutualism, COmmunism, and Collectivism. Social anarchists tend to promote a social revolution through education. Mutualism is essencially a sort-of "individual-social" organization where the means of production are owned by those who use them but cooperate to mutually meet each other's needs. Communism is the communual ownership of the means of production and uses a "gift economy," where goods and services are given away freely. Collectivism is like communism except that an individual is "paid" for the amount of work that is done.

Red Heretic
14th June 2005, 07:29
It doesn't. *chuckle*

Really though, anarchists seek to skip the transition stage to communism and immediatly jump into a stateless and classless society overnight. This is absolutely impossible for several reasons.

For example, even if you eliminate the current bourgeoisie, you still must have a cultural revolution that wipes out all of the inequalities between mental and manual labor, and the city and the country side, or else those who are more advanced than the others excell and become the new rulers of society. To abolish the concept of rulers and ruled one must have a cultural revolution that allows all people in society to develop evenly and equally.

Also, without a state, it is absolutely impossible to defend a revolution from foreign imperialist states. There is absolutely no way that a society that functions in the way that a stateless and classless society function to be able to stand up to militaries backed with state power. To fight the imperialist military, it takes revolutionary state power.

The difference is that communists seek to abolish the state through the dialectical and scientifica method of removing the contradictions that create the need for a state, whereas anarchists seeking to go against dialectics and abolish it overnight, which leads to the creation of a new state.

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th June 2005, 08:32
Nice to see the statists come out and confess that they're afraid they won't be getting a cushy job and a nice car.

You might dress it up in fancy words but that's the thrust of the message.

Enragé
15th June 2005, 23:36
you're an anarcho capitalist? You fucking moron, thats fuckin old-school liberalism. Your system existed in england when the bourgeoisie completely controlled the country and laisser faire was took to the extreme (1850's-90's). It created immense suffering, and almost caused a communist revolution. This was prevented by introducing small improvements in the lives of the workers.

Publius
16th June 2005, 02:24
You fucking moron, thats fuckin old-school liberalism.

They're totally different ideologies.

Name one classical liberal who was an anarchist. Name one anarchist who was a classical liberal.

Classic liberalism is an ideologoy that relies on the state for the upholding of basic rights, anarcho-capitalism does not agree that a state is necessary.

They are opposites.



Your system existed in england when the bourgeoisie completely controlled the country and laisser faire was took to the extreme (1850's-90's).

Lassiez faire was NOT taken to the extreme, the government in England was very restrictive towards trade with restrictions and laws.

Remember mercantalism? The guild system? Apprenticeships? How was England at that time Laissez-Faire when it encroached on the market in almost every way?



It created immense suffering, and almost caused a communist revolution.

It created immense suffering by making the lives of the workers better? That makes sense.



This was prevented by introducing small improvements in the lives of the workers.

Capitalism provided the improvements.

Urban Rubble
16th June 2005, 03:46
They're totally different ideologies.

Name one classical liberal who was an anarchist. Name one anarchist who was a classical liberal.

You're right, classic liberalism and anarchism are two different ideologies, but this guy is not an anarchist, he is a laissez faire Capitalist. Call it "Anarcho-Capitalism" if you like, but all it is is unregulated Capitalism (which has proven a complete a total disaster).

But you're right in the fact that old school liberalism relies on a state (the argument could also be made that many of the prominent "old school" liberals were anti-Capitalist, but that is a different debate).


Lassiez faire was NOT taken to the extreme, the government in England was very restrictive towards trade with restrictions and laws.

Maybe not to "the" extreme, but if you are going to tell me that they didn't have a remarkably free market I'm going to laugh in your face. What happened in England happened because big business was, for the most part, allowed to do whatever it wanted.


Capitalism provided the improvements.

No, the resources for those improvements were always there. It isn't as if Capitalism finally began getting profitable in the 1900's. Capitalism was always profitable, those improvements could have been made at any time, but weren't because of a fairly unregulated economy. The improvements were given (and continue to be) everytime things started to get a bit too unstable, then they loosen the collar for a few decades until the working class demands more. They will only give what they are forced to give, and I think you're intelligent enough to know that.

Publius
17th June 2005, 14:17
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 16 2005, 02:46 AM



You're right, classic liberalism and anarchism are two different ideologies, but this guy is not an anarchist, he is a laissez faire Capitalist. Call it "Anarcho-Capitalism" if you like, but all it is is unregulated Capitalism (which has proven a complete a total disaster).

But you're right in the fact that old school liberalism relies on a state (the argument could also be made that many of the prominent "old school" liberals were anti-Capitalist, but that is a different debate).

How did unregulated capitalism prove a diaster?



Maybe not to "the" extreme, but if you are going to tell me that they didn't have a remarkably free market I'm going to laugh in your face. What happened in England happened because big business was, for the most part, allowed to do whatever it wanted.


What happend in England? You mean how industrial production increased, material wealth increased drastically, the quality of in turn increase as health, entertainment, food, and every other type of product was improved by capitalism, happend because business was allowed to do what it wanted (Please the consumer)?

I agree.


No, the resources for those improvements were always there. It isn't as if Capitalism finally began getting profitable in the 1900's. Capitalism was always profitable, those improvements could have been made at any time, but weren't because of a fairly unregulated economy. The improvements were given (and continue to be) everytime things started to get a bit too unstable, then they loosen the collar for a few decades until the working class demands more. They will only give what they are forced to give, and I think you're intelligent enough to know that.

They will only give what they're forced to give? Less than 8% of the American workforce is at or below minimum wage, meaning the other 92% are payed MORE than what they are 'forced' to give. This flies in the face of your assertion.

KptnKrill
17th June 2005, 14:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:44 AM
Libertatis Æquilibritas is the correct anarcho-capitalist symbol.
*sigh* anarcho-capitalism is somewhat of an oxymoron you realise... :|

My friend you're just another neo-liberalist. Go whorship your greed.

(edit: obviously I'm addressing the starter of this post, and not you publius :) )


For example, even if you eliminate the current bourgeoisie, you still must have a cultural revolution that wipes out all of the inequalities between mental and manual labor, and the city and the country side, or else those who are more advanced than the others excell and become the new rulers of society. To abolish the concept of rulers and ruled one must have a cultural revolution that allows all people in society to develop evenly and equally.
Social (cultural) revolution is funny in that it has the word "social" in it, hmm similar to society. That's the difference. The state is merely a false mask of officiality over the already existing laws and rules of society. From what I can tell your "cultural revolution" seems to be nothing more than a cleansing... Whether I agree with the concepts behind it is irrelevant, the state is still 100% a gimmick and unnecessary with not practical reason for existing other than that it provides a method for the greedy to manipulate power.

Enragé
17th June 2005, 15:06
It created immense suffering by making the lives of the workers better? That makes sense.


only from 1890 onwards. Before that the proletariat was being screwed. They still are. But back then way more. Research it.

and yeh ok i was just bullshittin away about anarcho-capitalism being old liberalism, point is, the results are similar.

The Feral Underclass
20th June 2005, 17:29
There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism, it's an oxymoron, used by morons.

Professor Moneybags
20th June 2005, 17:49
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 04:29 PM
There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism, it's an oxymoron, used by morons.
Both anarchism and capitalism imply lack of regulations and governance. Where's the contradiction in "anarcho-capitalism" ?

LSD
20th June 2005, 18:29
Both anarchism and capitalism imply lack of regulations and governance.

No.

Anarchism implies a lack of hierarchy, whereas capitalism is predicated on it.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
20th June 2005, 22:23
Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 20 2005, 05:49 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 20 2005, 05:49 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 04:29 PM
There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism, it's an oxymoron, used by morons.
Both anarchism and capitalism imply lack of regulations and governance. Where's the contradiction in "anarcho-capitalism" ? [/b]
As someone put it neatly, "it's the end of oppression of man by man". So called "anarcho-capitalists" only want to increase the power of economical capitalists. "Anarcho"-Capitalists only seek to move governmental power to themselves. No, anarchism doesn't mean a lack of regulations.

The Ghost of Tom Joad
21st June 2005, 20:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:29 AM
It doesn't. *chuckle*

Really though, anarchists seek to skip the transition stage to communism and immediatly jump into a stateless and classless society overnight. This is absolutely impossible for several reasons.

For example, even if you eliminate the current bourgeoisie, you still must have a cultural revolution that wipes out all of the inequalities between mental and manual labor, and the city and the country side, or else those who are more advanced than the others excell and become the new rulers of society. To abolish the concept of rulers and ruled one must have a cultural revolution that allows all people in society to develop evenly and equally.

Also, without a state, it is absolutely impossible to defend a revolution from foreign imperialist states. There is absolutely no way that a society that functions in the way that a stateless and classless society function to be able to stand up to militaries backed with state power. To fight the imperialist military, it takes revolutionary state power.

The difference is that communists seek to abolish the state through the dialectical and scientifica method of removing the contradictions that create the need for a state, whereas anarchists seeking to go against dialectics and abolish it overnight, which leads to the creation of a new state.
I'm glad this was brought up. First of all, marxist communism (which is the proper name for what you refer to as "communism" -- bear in mind that Peter Kropotkin existed, and it's truly upsetting to hear one of the greater minds of the left so blatantly disregarded) believes in a dictatorship of the proliteriat -- that is, a working class' state. It does not take into account (as ironic as this may sound) Hegel's belief in the change of human nature. When you truly boil it all down, most of the working class does not want a revolution, just more money. While I know this may offend quite a bit of people here, it's a reality that we all must face. As revolutionaries, we must realize that people have been brainwashed on a daily basis; we are constantly told how much better our lives will be if we only buy this, or acquire that much capital. The American Dream may be a twisted nightmare to us, but to many it is still a comforting state of slumber.
Factor in the utilization of patriotism and fear, and you have yourself a bloody disaster. Nobody wants to become ordinary; "The worst day of your life is when you realize that you're just like everybody else."-Grant Morrison. Set up your proliterian state, and you will only be left with a new ruling class. This occured before with the bourgeosie, and before that with feudalism, and so on. So many warn of anarchy resulting in despotic rule, and yet the only time said "despotic rule" has formed was the result of statist ambitions: Mao, Castro, Stalin...the list goes on and on.
My friend, you assume that we (anarchists) plan on using Marx's outline of social revolution! This is not the case at all, that would be anarcho-syndicalists, who wish for a worker's economy and a PEOPLE'S nation. However, that is a matter for another time. The fact of the matter is that revolution is NOT an event as you claim we view it. It is a process; whether the final push into true socialism takes place in an instant or not is irrelevant. It takes push after push, re-education, and demonstrations to get where we plan on going. It seems, that anarchists have the most absolutely absurd notion that one's means and ends should hold consistent. While we wish to abolish the state by putting an end to all rule, marxist communists wish to abolish the state by augmenting said rule. As the old saying goes, "The king is dead, long live the king!" Call it scientific or dialectic, I simply call it insane and destructive.