Capitalism is Anarchy

[space_ice_cream]

Capitalism is darwinian: kill or be killed. It does not serve the majority. Capitalisms power has grown beyond the control of government itself. The motivating factor of capitalism is darwinian: survival of the fittest beyond law and government (or, anarchy which has no government). Anarchy does not work for the people either, it is just survival of the fittest chaos.

Communism, on the other hand, is democratic. It is an economic system created by "the people" for "the people" (the majority). As such it would need a matching democratic system of management. One which exists by the people and for the people.

The difference between the civilized world and the jungle is that the civilized world is designed for the common good (everybody survives), in the jungle everything is pursued for the individuals good (only the strongest survive).

Both anarchy and capitalism are uncivilized (they are for the individuals pursuit of happiness).
But both communism and democracy are civilized (they are for the common pursuit of happiness).

[Mujer Libre]

Anarchy comes from the Greek "an" meaning 'no' and "archy" meaning 'rulers.'
Nothing about chaos there.

Try again.

[southernmissfan]

Space Ice Cream, you do realise a communisty society is described as a classless, stateless society, right? I don't think you have a good understanding of anarchism, or even communism for that matter.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Capitalism could only really be achieved in a state similar to (but different from) anarchy. There would be at most a fragmented government or state force enforcing free trade rules and private property "rights". For a better idea of what actual anarchy is like tried the stickied threads.

[Anarcho-Communist]

Try Reading:

Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Anarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

[space_ice_cream]

<Anarchy comes from the Greek "an" meaning &#39;no&#39; and "archy" meaning &#39;rulers.&#39;>

That is correct. Where did you get that from? The dictionary? The dictionary also lists Anarchy as:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

<Nothing about chaos there.>
<Try again. >

I don&#39;t have to "try". My argument has been proven throughout history. It&#39;s your argument that has no examples from history to support it. People on your side of the argument claim that somehow democracy will fall together at random without any government with a bunch of people sitting around like native american chiefs or something, but it is completely not realistic. Democratic rule is rule for the people and it needs to be established and defended. It does not just form naturally. Anarchy has no rule so it can not be one which supports society, it is one which supports no system at all. It is nothing so therefore it gives society nothing. It is the absence of society. The absence of society is primitive: not made for "the people": made for the animal kingdom. If that is the kind of system you think will support "the people" you are dead wrong.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 12:28 AM
<Anarchy comes from the Greek "an" meaning &#39;no&#39; and "archy" meaning &#39;rulers.&#39;>

That is correct. Where did you get that from? The dictionary? The dictionary also lists Anarchy as:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

<Nothing about chaos there.>
<Try again. >

I don&#39;t have to "try". My argument has been proven throughout history. It&#39;s your argument that has no examples from history to support it. People on your side of the argument claim that somehow democracy will fall together at random without any government with a bunch of people sitting around like native american chiefs or something, but it is completely not realistic. Democratic rule is rule for the people and it needs to be established and defended. It does not just form naturally. Anarchy has no rule so it can not be one which supports society, it is one which supports no system at all. It is nothing so therefore it gives society nothing. It is the absence of society. The absence of society is primitive: not made for "the people": made for the animal kingdom. If that is the kind of system you think will support "the people" you are dead wrong.
erm no. anarchism is a way of obtaining communism, and yes in history there have been instances where it has worked, spain, ukraine, etc. its not nothing, and no he didnt get the greek origin from a dictionary. is the abolishment of hierarchy not the abolishment of society.

[space_ice_cream]

<Space Ice Cream, you do realise a communisty society is described as a classless, stateless society, right?>

Dictionary defintion of communism is:

"A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. "

it clearly says as a part of the definition that communism is "a system of government in which THE STATE plans and controls the economy". Even Karl Marx mentions THE STATE controlling many aspects of his ideas. How can this be possible if, by your definition, there can be no state.

<I don&#39;t think you have a good understanding of anarchism,>

You are wrong. I have a dictionary. The definition of anarchy is:

"Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

So, please tell me where I am mistaken.

<or even communism for that matter. >

I have a crystal clear understanding of communism, I just read the communist manifesto again last week. I don&#39;t remember reading anything about promoting anarchy, but even if there are passages which promote anarchy, it still does not prove that communism is always hand in hand with anarchy.

[space_ice_cream]

<Try Reading:
Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Anarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy>

I know what they are. Now what is your argument.

[violencia.Proletariat]

so what do you want to believe, where the word originated from and its meaning. or a modern dictionary?

[space_ice_cream]

<erm no. anarchism is a way of obtaining communism,>

erm, no. Anarchy is nothing at all, how can it obtain communism? Anarchy is lack of government. "What" would obtain communism if nothing in particular even exists?

<and yes in history there have been instances where it has worked.
spain, ukraine, etc.>

Those were just tiny instances that didn&#39;t even last five years. That is not really an example of something that has been established. Those are only examples of temporary solutions to problems. There are no examples of any established anarchist states that have flourished.

< its not nothing, and no he didnt get the greek origin from a dictionary.>

Well, his exact translation was in the dictionary I looked up (word for word), where I got my full definition. The same definition he claimed that I was completely ignorant of.

<is the abolishment of hierarchy not the abolishment of society.>

The abolishment of state is the abolishment of society as a whole. A government administers public policy.

What you don&#39;t seem to understand is that you can abolish both classes and simultaniously have a democracy. But you can never abolish democracy and somehow expect to have a system of equal classes.

Without any public policy, all public anything ceases to exist...And everything becomes private again (unless taken by force). When people stand up and decide to govern themselves, that is democracy not anarchy. When people take the law into thier own hands and go the route of vigilance then that is nothing public, that is not for the people.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:18 AM
<erm no. anarchism is a way of obtaining communism,>

erm, no. Anarchy is nothing at all, how can it obtain communism? Anarchy is lack of government. "What" would obtain communism if nothing in particular even exists?

<and yes in history there have been instances where it has worked.
spain, ukraine, etc.>

Those were just tiny instances that didn&#39;t even last five years. That is not really an example of something that has been established. Those are only examples of temporary solutions to problems. There are no examples of any established anarchist states that have flourished.

< its not nothing, and no he didnt get the greek origin from a dictionary.>

Well, his exact translation was in the dictionary I looked up (word for word), where I got my full definition. The same definition he claimed that I was completely ignorant of.

<is the abolishment of hierarchy not the abolishment of society.>

The abolishment of state is the abolishment of society as a whole. A government administers public policy.

What you don&#39;t seem to understand is that you can abolish both classes and simultaniously have a democracy. But you can never abolish democracy and somehow expect to have a system of equal classes.

Without any public policy, all public anything ceases to exist...And everything becomes private again (unless taken by force). When people stand up and decide to govern themselves, that is democracy not anarchy. When people take the law into thier own hands and go the route of vigilance then that is nothing public, that is not for the people.
there is democracy in anarchism, its just not representative, its direct. wow, i guess you dont get it, anarchism isnt a way to live, its a way of obtaining communism.

[space_ice_cream]

I know I said "anarchist states" above, but I meant "anarchist countries" typo.

[scott eats capitalists]

put down the dictionary and read some kropotkin.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I know I said "anarchist states" above, but I meant "anarchist countries" typo.
there is no such thing as anarchist country. and besides it would be a communist society not anarchist.

[space_ice_cream]

<there is democracy in anarchism, its just not representative, its direct.>

Ok, before we argue any further I need to know *exactly* how you are defining anarchy. I am defining it as absence of political authority. Meaning there is nobody telling anybody what to do. Everybody is free to do whatever they want.

Your definition seems to be different because in your definition people seem to organize and decide on things which need to be done and then impliment them, which means the majority is in control and playing the part of the authority figure.

When the majority play the role of the authority figure that is democracy, not anarchy (at least as far as I have been aware of).

anarchy = no authority figure
democracy = majority rules

<wow, i guess you dont get it, anarchism isnt a way to live, its a way of obtaining communism. >

I really don&#39;t think I am getting it. I don&#39;t understand whether you are promoting an anarchist society or a democracy.

[violencia.Proletariat]

anarchism is a way of obtaining communism, communism is direct democracy, people rule. so yes communism doesnt have authority, there are no "leaders" everyone has a say.

[space_ice_cream]

<there is no such thing as anarchist country. and besides it would be a communist society not anarchist. >

Fine "anarchist LANDMASS" is that better? And can I ask you what you mean by a "communist society not anarchist" weren&#39;t you the one who was trying to argue that communism and anarchy need to be hand in hand?

[space_ice_cream]

<anarchism is a way of obtaining communism, communism is direct democracy,>

Ok, we are really getting somewhere now. I think maybe you are starting to understand where I am coming from now. Communism must go hand in hand with democracy. (it doesn&#39;t have to take the form of modern democracies, it does however have to take the form of people rule united, not people rule individually).

<people rule. so yes communism doesnt have authority, there are no "leaders" everyone has a say.>

I realize the problem we are having here. Communism must have an authority figure: the people collectively are the authority figure in itself. I know it must kill you to have to admit it, but communism is not free of an authority figure. Communism is designed for "the people" the same way the idea of democracy is designed for the people, and as such it is the perfect model to work with communism.

Only true anarchy is free of any and all authority figures. Freedom from all authoirty figures (even the collective authority) is individual survival of the fittest darwinian rule. Since capitalists collectively are now becoming more powerful then the governments they live in, they no longer really need to obey the laws of any governments and as such operate on a very similar level to anarchy.

[Clarksist]

it clearly says as a part of the definition that communism is "a system of government in which THE STATE plans and controls the economy". Even Karl Marx mentions THE STATE controlling many aspects of his ideas. How can this be possible if, by your definition, there can be no state.


Yes, I&#39;m going to trust capitalist book makers over Communists... that makes sense... no wait.

And by the way, this Marx "statehood" is in the first "phase" of communism. I don&#39;t care how many times you&#39;ve read the manifesto. You don&#39;t have it right.

A million dictionaries may have that same definition. But it is still the wrong definition.

Socialism does indeed, have a state. And socialism, in Marxist theory, is the "first phase" of communism. When the state is ended because it is "not needed".

When most of the functions of the state are reduced to this accounting and control by the workers themselves, then it ceases to be a "political state," and their "public functions will lose political character and be transformed into simple aministrative functions. - Chapt. IV Engels&#39; Polemic Against the Anarchists

See? The state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) loses its political function it is no longer a state. Anarchism is not a "lawless" or "rules of the jungle" environment. It is abolishing the state so that the people, and not bureaucrats, can rule.

It&#39;s very hard to thing of this as capitalism has fed us lies about communism and anarchism over-and-over-and-over.

But you mustn&#39;t block yourself in a corner and just defend yourself to the death. You must read what we post. I know where your coming from, but I mean to put it bluntly: I realized I was COMPLETELY wrong.

There is no compromise. You are wrong. At least try to rectify that by learning.

[LSD]

Ok, before we argue any further I need to know *exactly* how you are defining anarchy. I am defining it as absence of political authority. Meaning there is nobody telling anybody what to do. Everybody is free to do whatever they want.

And that&#39;s not what political anarchism means.

An anarchist society is not free of rules, it&#39;s just that the rules are collectively decided by the entire community, without the nead for "leadership". But people are not free to do "whatever they want", they are free to do a lot, but not that which hurts others as decided by the community.


When the majority play the role of the authority figure that is democracy, not anarchy (at least as far as I have been aware of).

No, its political anarchism, so long as there is no institutional state.


anarchy = no authority figure
democracy = majority rules

"authority figure" means leader. Elite groups with power above the people, not the people themselves&#33;

I think that clearly your understanding of anarchism as a political theory is quite warped and tainted by bourgeois definitions. I would suggest that you do some research on what exactly Anarchism is&#33;

Anarchism FAQ (http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secIcon.html)

[space_ice_cream]

<Yes, I&#39;m going to trust capitalist book makers over Communists... that makes sense... no wait.>

So, if i can&#39;t use the dictionary to define communism, what will be satisfactory to you?

<And by the way, this Marx "statehood" is in the first "phase" of communism.>

First of all, Marx did not invent communism, only the communist manifesto, which was used as the bible of the russian revolution. So he is not the only source, but I will nevertheless listen to what you have to say anyway.

<I don&#39;t care how many times you&#39;ve read the manifesto. You don&#39;t have it right.>

Maybe you are right, I did not memorize the book.

<A million dictionaries may have that same definition. But it is still the wrong definition.
Socialism does indeed, have a state. And socialism, in Marxist theory, is the "first phase" of communism. When the state is ended because it is "not needed".>

I don&#39;t remember reading that part.

<When most of the functions of the state are reduced to this accounting and control by the workers themselves, then it ceases to be a "political state," and their "public functions will lose political character and be transformed into simple aministrative functions. - Chapt. IV Engels&#39; Polemic Against the Anarchists>

I guess you could take that literally and say he seriously meant that it ceases to be a state, but I think he meant that it would just lose normal political character. By the way, what are these simple "administrative functions" he is talking about? It sounds like another word for what states do.

<See? The state loses its political function it is no longer a state.>

I know what you are saying and I understand what he has written, but it is not accurate to say that this is not a state. Even "simple administrative functions" are operations that require some form of state to accomplish. It would just be a highly democratic state (one with direct control from the people themselves and no hierarchy)

<Anarchism is not a "lawless" or "rules of the jungle" environment. It is abolishing the state so that the people, and not bureaucrats, can rule.>

The problem with your argument and many other folks in this thread is that you are showing me a democracy and then saying "this is anarchy".
Anarchy is a system with authority figure. Democracy is a system where the majority as a whole are the authority figure.

<It&#39;s very hard to thing of this as capitalism has fed us lies about communism and anarchism over-and-over-and-over.>

I don&#39;t believe a system of no rule will work. I believe a system of majority rules will work. Communism needs to stress this. If you guys could only repackage communism people might f-cking buy it. Communism is more American then any other system on earth. SELL IT, don&#39;t wrap it up in words like anarchy&#33; Not only is it inaccurate, it makes it sound CRAZY.

[Clarksist]

So, if i can&#39;t use the dictionary to define communism, what will be satisfactory to you?


Maybe, what Communist theory says Communism is.


First of all, Marx did not invent communism, only the communist manifesto, which was used as the bible of the russian revolution. So he is not the only source, but I will nevertheless listen to what you have to say anyway.


No fucken shit Marx didn&#39;t invent communism. But since you are coming into communism through Marxism (i.e. the manifesto) then you should know what Marx meant, as you are defending your thought via Marx.


I don&#39;t remember reading that part.


Do you seriously think, that because you read a small (extremely tiny in fact) part of Marx and Engels&#39; work, that you have a good grasp of communsim?

Read the German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htm), and The Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm).


I guess you could take that literally and say he seriously meant that it ceases to be a state, but I think he meant that it would just lose normal political character.


So you basically think it means what it does not say, and doesn&#39;t say what it means? And talking about it losing political character, it would then gain an Anarchist political character.

Mwa-ha-ha.


Even "simple administrative functions" are operations that require some form of state to accomplish. It would just be a highly democratic state (one with direct control from the people themselves and no hierarchy)



I don&#39;t believe a system of no rule will work. I believe a system of majority rules will work. Communism needs to stress this. If you guys could only repackage communism people might f-cking buy it. Communism is more American then any other system on earth. SELL IT, don&#39;t wrap it up in words like anarchy&#33; Not only is it inaccurate, it makes it sound CRAZY.


Well saying Anarchism is the same as the final "stage" in Communism IS accurate, and selling it like a prostitute won&#39;t gain SERIOUS ground.

Please read some about Anarchism before you throw around the word in such a poor context.

[space_ice_cream]

<And that&#39;s not what political anarchism means.>

Isn&#39;t the term "political anarchism" a contradiction? *at least, as far as modern dictionaries define it as* Anarchy is a lack of a political system.

<An anarchist society is not free of rules, it&#39;s just that the rules are collectively decided by the entire community,>

Well then I am arguing "wording" with everybody on this message board, not any particular political argument. The people I argue against do not trust the dictionary, so I can not even refer to that.

<without the nead for "leadership". But people are not free to do "whatever they want", they are free to do a lot, but not that which hurts others as decided by the community.>

there is no way we can prove one another wrong since even the ancient greek definition "without a ruler" is vague enough for either one of us to be right since you could say "a ruler" means one single ruler (which would define most modern countries as anarchist), and I could say "a ruler" means any ruling body "even the collective will of the people".

But keep in mind that if we take the first definition, even America is anarchist since we are not "ruled" by any one person in particular (since the president is not the only ruler). But whatever, until we can all agree upon the defintions I can no longer argue this because we are wandering into wierd territory and I feel like I am wasting alot of my time sitting here arguing about the definitions of words.

<"authority figure" means leader. Elite groups with power above the people, not the people themselves&#33;>

Authority figure can be any "figure" as long as it has authority. The people in general can be an authority figure over an individual. And let me ask you...why can&#39;t they?

<I think that clearly your understanding of anarchism as a poliical theory is quite warped and tainted by bourgeois definitions.>

I don&#39;t think so. I think you and possibly a group of other people have made up your own definition of anarchism and are running with it, one which does not go hand in hand with any definition of the word anarchy at all. If I am being lied to, it must be by the dictionary and the facts of reality...Not by you, right?

[LSD]

Isn&#39;t the term "political anarchism" a contradiction?

No.


But whatever, until we can all agree upon the defintions I can no longer argue this because we are wandering into wierd territory and I feel like I am wasting alot of my time sitting here arguing about the definitions of words.

How about we stop discussing semantics and get down to politics?

Can you just accept that, whatever your particular dictionary says, there is a strong and historically valid political Anarchist tradition going back well into the 19th century?


But keep in mind that if we take the first definition, even America is anarchist since we are not "ruled" by any one person in particular

No you&#39;re ruled by a bunch of people, which is certainly not ruler-less&#33; :lol:


I don&#39;t think so. I think you and possibly a group of other people have made up your own definition of anarchism and are running with it

The definitions we&#39;re using go back to the mid eighteen-hundreds. We&#39;re not "running" with anything.

But, again, who the fuck cares?

Certainly there is enough literature on the internet to educate you on what exactly political anarchism is, so why have this endlessly frustrating debate on semantics?

Anarchism as a political theory is stateless direct democracy ...let&#39;s move on from there.

[Forward Union]

I don&#39;t think so. I think you and possibly a group of other people have made up your own definition of anarchism and are running with it, one which does not go hand in hand with any definition of the word anarchy at all. If I am being lied to, it must be by the dictionary and the facts of reality...Not by you, right?

"Anarchism is the political philosophy of those who believe that a society based on shared ownership and voluntary agreements among individuals and groups is possible and that without each person&#39;s consent and involvement in the social order all established forms of government essentially rest upon the threat of force. As a result, some anarchists believed in the use of violence to bring about change."

If its not, then what shall we call this ideology? the ideas are the same regardless of what you call them. For hundreds of years these ideas have been refereed to as Anarchism, your telling me now, that these ideas are no longer anarchism, but that anarchism is something else. Ok fine, what you call it doesn&#39;t matter much to me.

Tell me what we should go about calling these ideas now that you&#39;ve decided Anarchism is something else. We&#39;d also better get the news out to all anarchist movements&#33;: &#39;we&#39;re not fighting for anarchism anymore&#33; that word means something else now&#33;&#39;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

http://www.anarco-nyc.net/beginners/anarchismdef.html

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

[Donnie]

Anarchy does not work for the people either, it is just survival of the fittest chaos.
I&#39;m sorry you have no concept of Anarchism, I&#39;m an Anarchist Communist. Anarchy is just the same as Communism. Anarchy is the absence of authority and government; this sounds exactly the same as communism. Communism is a classless stateless society.

The only difference between Anarchism and Marxism is that we do not believe in state seizer, we believe the destruction of the state is needed for the emancipation of the working class.


I don&#39;t have to "try". My argument has been proven throughout history. It&#39;s your argument that has no examples from history to support it.
Erm, have you herd of the Spanish Civil War? Anarchism was rife on the Aragon front and from what I&#39;ve read Anarchism was used in Aragon.


Anarchy has no rule so it can not be one which supports society, it is one which supports no system at all.
Rubbish, most Anarchism are Libertarian Communist, I have many comrades like my self who are Anarchist Communist. The only ideology I can think of that supports no system at all is Nihilism and there are not many nihilists although I have come across a few.


"A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Same principles as what Anarchist Communists advocate. As I said the only difference between Anarchism and Marxism is state seizer by the Marxist proletariat. Both Marx and Bakunin (Anarchist) both said communism would be anarchic.


The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. "
Yes, but that is the Leninist way on how to achieve communism, I’m not a Marxist I&#39;m and Anarchist, I don&#39;t believe in state seizer of the proletariat.


it clearly says as a part of the definition that communism is "a system of government in which THE STATE plans and controls the economy".
Wrong, Communism is a classless stateless society, Karl Marx clearly state&#39;s this.


Even Karl Marx mentions THE STATE controlling many aspects of his ideas. How can this be possible if, by your definition, there can be no state.
In this bit you state Marx was talking about Socialism not Communism, he said the Socialism (State ownership) would be used as a transition to Communism from Capitalism.


You are wrong. I have a dictionary. The definition of anarchy is
A dictionary produced by an authoritarian western capitalist system, don&#39;t you smell propaganda?


"Absence of any form of political authority.
This dictionary has got it right on this part, but communism has the same feature. Do you think the guy or computer that wrote this had the whole concept of Communism and Anarchism in mind?


Political disorder and confusion.
The person or computer who produced clearly has no concept of human behavior.

You have only used a dictionary, you need to read Anarchist and Communist literature, maybe when you have done we could have a sensible discussion on the two concepts.


Ok, before we argue any further I need to know *exactly* how you are defining anarchy. I am defining it as absence of political authority. Meaning there is nobody telling anybody what to do. Everybody is free to do whatever they want.
I take it You&#39;re dictionary has not told you one of the principles behind Communism/Anarchy and that is freedom with personal responsibility.

[space_ice_cream]

<Maybe, what Communist theory says Communism is.>

No...where ---&#62;EXACTLY<--- are we defining our words now? If we are arguing over wording, where should I be getting my definitions from, if I can&#39;t use the dictionary?

<No fucken shit Marx didn&#39;t invent communism. But since you are coming into communism through Marxism (i.e. the manifesto)>

I&#39;m not "coming into it" I&#39;ve been reading about it and thinking about the philosophy of it for years. I did however read the manifesto again last week.

<then you should know what Marx meant, as you are defending your thought via Marx>

I&#39;m not defending my thoughts through Marx, I thought you folks were defending YOUR thoughts throughts Marx.

<Do you seriously think, that because you read a small (extremely tiny in fact) part of Marx and Engels&#39; work, that you have a good grasp of communsim?>

I&#39;m sorry, when did I say I only read the communist manifesto? And second of all, it is THE MANIFESTO. Third of all, I have read a couple of works about Communism and I have taken a few economics classes, I think this is sufficient to have an opinion on the subject.

<So you basically think it means what it does not say, and doesn&#39;t say what it means?>

You are trying to be tricky but it doesn&#39;t work. I don&#39;t claim to know what it means because I did not write it. But whether you take it literally or whether you accept that it should not be taken literally, you are still confronted with problems. If any type of government "without a leader" is to be taken literally as the definition of the greek version of anarchy, as you seem to support intensely, judging by the above statement, then America would be an anarchist country since we do not have "a leader" we have "leaders" PLURAL. Since most other countries have "leaders" PLURAL, that would make most modern countries Anarchist regimes. In fact the only countries which seem to have "a leader" SINGULAR, seem to be modern communist countries.

So I don&#39;t think you want to take this to the "literal" definition, because it only proves that this definition can not be the true definition of Anarchy...but whatever, if you guys want to call yourselves this silly term so be it. Nobody will take you seriously. The modern image of an Anarchist is either some crazed sweating wierdo dork, a rebellious idealist teenager with a mohawk and a switchblade, or a goth chick highschool girl with pink marker on her book bag and skull and bones t-shirt. You think you will set off a revolution with that?

[space_ice_cream]

<I&#39;m sorry you have no concept of Anarchism, I&#39;m an Anarchist Communist. Anarchy is just the same as Communism. Anarchy is the absence of authority and government; this sounds exactly the same as communism. Communism is a classless stateless society.>

You are confusing "lack of authority" with "the majority being the authority".

<The only difference between Anarchism and Marxism is that we do not believe in state seizer, we believe the destruction of the state is needed for the emancipation of the working class.>

I believe the people should have all of the power, and I think everybody else in this message board agrees with me. We are just arguing over words and definitions mostly.

You yourself above say anarchy is lack of any authority, it sounds like you are promoting a wasteland. There is no escape from authority in civilized collective society because the wants of the individual are always at odds with the wants of the masses. Only an authority figure can keep the individuals wants from jeopardizing the majorities wants.

[Clarksist]

If we are arguing over wording, where should I be getting my definitions from, if I can&#39;t use the dictionary?


Perhaps from the Communist Manifesto you talk so much about reading:

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels.

Isn&#39;t reading what we&#39;ve said we&#39;ve already read, fun?


I&#39;m sorry, when did I say I only read the communist manifesto? And second of all, it is THE MANIFESTO. Third of all, I have read a couple of works about Communism and I have taken a few economics classes, I think this is sufficient to have an opinion on the subject.


Well, I suppose you "skimmed over" the parts about the withering away of the state. This is common as Marx usually only emphasized the socialist society, so as not to be utopian.

Many others followed suit.


If any type of government "without a leader" is to be taken literally as the definition of the greek version of anarchy, as you seem to support intensely, judging by the above statement, then America would be an anarchist country since we do not have "a leader" we have "leaders" PLURAL. Since most other countries have "leaders" PLURAL, that would make most modern countries Anarchist regimes. In fact the only countries which seem to have "a leader" SINGULAR, seem to be modern communist countries.


Ok, this one is quite top-heavy.

Firstly, I am using Anarchism when I say Anarchism, Anarchy, etc. That means democracy and no bureaucratic organ of governing.

Secondly, America is not near political Anarchy, as bureaucracy exists, and capitalism exists. Capitalism is based on hiearchy, and that is not what Anarchism is about.

Thirdly, there are no communist COUNTRIES. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. The state ceases to be the state in its proper sense under communism, when the state is not serving the ruling class&#39; antagonism.


Nobody will take you seriously. The modern image of an Anarchist is either some crazed sweating wierdo dork, a rebellious idealist teenager with a mohawk and a switchblade, or a goth chick highschool girl with pink marker on her book bag and skull and bones t-shirt. You think you will set off a revolution with that?


Wow, I can make generalizations too. But I won&#39;t, because I have an argument that justifies itself, I don&#39;t have to justify my argument.

The modern idea of a Communist is this: an idealist 15 year old who has no sense of propriety, or responsibility.

Thing is, we don&#39;t need to "set off revolutions", as you put it, with how society thinks of us NOW. We can, however, "set off revolutions" with extensive education, which we will have to do in ANY SITUATION OF REVOLUTION.


You are confusing "lack of authority" with "the majority being the authority".


You are confusing "capitalist&#39;s anarchy" with "anarchist theory".


You yourself above say anarchy is lack of any authority, it sounds like you are promoting a wasteland. There is no escape from authority in civilized collective society because the wants of the individual are always at odds with the wants of the masses.


Do you consider yourself a communist? If so, why do you even believe in the old "human nature" aspect of capitalist apolegetics?


Only an authority figure can keep the individuals wants from jeopardizing the majorities wants.


Zieg-fucking-hiel... :rolleyes:

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:40 AM

If we are arguing over wording, where should I be getting my definitions from, if I can&#39;t use the dictionary?


Perhaps from the Communist Manifesto you talk so much about reading:

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels.

Isn&#39;t reading what we&#39;ve said we&#39;ve already read, fun?


I&#39;m sorry, when did I say I only read the communist manifesto? And second of all, it is THE MANIFESTO. Third of all, I have read a couple of works about Communism and I have taken a few economics classes, I think this is sufficient to have an opinion on the subject.


Well, I suppose you "skimmed over" the parts about the withering away of the state. This is common as Marx usually only emphasized the socialist society, so as not to be utopian.

Many others followed suit.


If any type of government "without a leader" is to be taken literally as the definition of the greek version of anarchy, as you seem to support intensely, judging by the above statement, then America would be an anarchist country since we do not have "a leader" we have "leaders" PLURAL. Since most other countries have "leaders" PLURAL, that would make most modern countries Anarchist regimes. In fact the only countries which seem to have "a leader" SINGULAR, seem to be modern communist countries.


Ok, this one is quite top-heavy.

Firstly, I am using Anarchism when I say Anarchism, Anarchy, etc. That means democracy and no bureaucratic organ of governing.

Secondly, America is not near political Anarchy, as bureaucracy exists, and capitalism exists. Capitalism is based on hiearchy, and that is not what Anarchism is about.

Thirdly, there are no communist COUNTRIES. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. The state ceases to be the state in its proper sense under communism, when the state is not serving the ruling class&#39; antagonism.


Nobody will take you seriously. The modern image of an Anarchist is either some crazed sweating wierdo dork, a rebellious idealist teenager with a mohawk and a switchblade, or a goth chick highschool girl with pink marker on her book bag and skull and bones t-shirt. You think you will set off a revolution with that?


Wow, I can make generalizations too. But I won&#39;t, because I have an argument that justifies itself, I don&#39;t have to justify my argument.

The modern idea of a Communist is this: an idealist 15 year old who has no sense of propriety, or responsibility.

Thing is, we don&#39;t need to "set off revolutions", as you put it, with how society thinks of us NOW. We can, however, "set off revolutions" with extensive education, which we will have to do in ANY SITUATION OF REVOLUTION.


You are confusing "lack of authority" with "the majority being the authority".


You are confusing "capitalist&#39;s anarchy" with "anarchist theory".


You yourself above say anarchy is lack of any authority, it sounds like you are promoting a wasteland. There is no escape from authority in civilized collective society because the wants of the individual are always at odds with the wants of the masses.


Do you consider yourself a communist? If so, why do you even believe in the old "human nature" aspect of capitalist apolegetics?


Only an authority figure can keep the individuals wants from jeopardizing the majorities wants.


Zieg-fucking-hiel... :rolleyes:
Summed up Nicely, Clarksist :)

[Donnie]

You yourself above say anarchy is lack of any authority, it sounds like you are promoting a wasteland. There is no escape from authority in civilized collective society because the wants of the individual are always at odds with the wants of the masses. Only an authority figure can keep the individuals wants from jeopardizing the majorities wants.
You&#39;re twisting my words, when I say there will be no authority in a communist society I mean no state or in this hierarchical authority. I think the individual in the commune can decide for themselves what’s acceptable for them to do without infringing on their freedom. Many people who critises the anarchist ideology (most of them on the right) tend to say that humans cannot decide for themselves and that if there was no order or authority then things would be "chaos" in their view.

But seriously I think people on this forum can enjoy there ultimate freedom in a communist society and still have regard for others freedom. I mean I&#39;m not going to go around stabbing people when we have no authority.
When I went up to the G8 summit I stayed at a camp that was basically run round communist principles, and there was no fighting or killing when people did something at the camp they has regard for other in their mind, there were no accidents and everyone was friendly. Maybe one of the reasons why they were friendly and didn’t fight each other was because they didn’t have to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week and were not bossed around some authority figure?


Only an authority figure can keep the individuals wants from jeopardizing the majorities wants.
So if you&#39;re taking the view that people in a communist society will infringe on other people&#39;s freedom what’s stopping you&#39;re "authority figure” from infringing on the rest of the mass&#39;s so that he can get his own personal gain?

Also what happens if you’re authority figure pass’s his power onto someone else and they start abusing the system and the people? Its rubbish, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Patchy]

Wow, this is a pretty damn good argument. I think I&#39;ll just stay out of it by keeping my point short and sweet.

Capitalism = Business = Bosses.

Bosses = Authority figures.

Authority Figures + Subordinates = Not Anarchy.

Bye.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, Ice Cream from Space seemed to be originally saying that "Capitalism is Chaos&#33;". I don&#39;t think anybody could really object to that. The first problem, of however, arose when he began spouting bullshit bourgeois "Anarchy is chaos&#33;" rhetoric.

This, of course, was quickly run into the ground. Anarchists do not advocate chaos, or some sort of perverse "social darwinism".

This is when the Milkshake in the Sky took a different course, if I may paraphrase, "Even if anarchy does describe not chaos, but a society without entrenched hierarchical structures of domination, this would be de facto chaos."
Of course, communists share the goal of a stateless, classess, and radically free society.

What can we conclude? Space Ice Cream is not a communist . . . perhaps a liberal with red-pretentions.

Space Ice Cream - I believe you can change.
I believe in you.
Now&#39;s the time to start rereading Marx in earnest . .

[space_ice_cream]

<So, Ice Cream from Space seemed to be originally saying that "Capitalism is Chaos&#33;". I don&#39;t think anybody could really object to that. The first problem, of however, arose when he began spouting bullshit bourgeois "Anarchy is chaos&#33;" rhetoric.>

Ok, what I meant was "anarchy, as the modern defintion defines it (which could easily be bullshit), is chaotic" that was my true meaning, and if you look at the defintion I was going by, I&#39;m confident that you would agree with me that based on that definition it is chaotic.

<This, of course, was quickly run into the ground. Anarchists do not advocate chaos, or some sort of perverse "social darwinism".>

I don&#39;t know if I would even really classify that as "my mistake" as much as it is incorrect information I received through the dictionary and society as a whole...Someone pointed out that I should have read the encyclopedia...maybe they were right.

<This is when the Milkshake in the Sky took a different course, if I may paraphrase, "Even if anarchy does describe not chaos, but a society without entrenched hierarchical structures of domination, this would be de facto chaos."
Of course, communists share the goal of a stateless, classess, and radically free society.
What can we conclude? Space Ice Cream is not a communist . . . perhaps a liberal with red-pretentions.>

I don&#39;t know if I am a communist. I do believe that society needs to develop a system in which every living person (of a resonable age) has the ability to make direct political decisions on a daily basis. I believe the entire society should be in charge of governing itself instead of politicians. Everything else is kinda meaningless. The people as a whole will decide what&#39;s best for them...I don&#39;t want to speak for them, but I suspect it will be something like Communism.

<Space Ice Cream - I believe you can change.
I believe in you.
Now&#39;s the time to start rereading Marx in earnest . >

I actually plan on reading more books on anarchy. Thanks for believing in me, I am not a capitalist...

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:59 PM
I actually plan on reading more books on anarchy. Thanks for believing in me, I am not a capitalist...
As already suggested, try looking at the, Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/), that should make anarchism clearer for you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don&#39;t know if I am a communist. I do believe that society needs to develop a system in which every living person (of a resonable age) has the ability to make direct political decisions on a daily basis. I believe the entire society should be in charge of governing itself instead of politicians. Everything else is kinda meaningless. The people as a whole will decide what&#39;s best for them...I don&#39;t want to speak for them, but I suspect it will be something like Communism.

Sorry about being a pretentious jerk wad in my last post, comrade.
I was having a bad day, and the teeth always come out on messageboards.

In any case, in a much better frame of mind now, let me be first to congratulate you on giving yr first accidentally-distinctly-anarchist speech. Continue this train of thought across several years, a few shifts at a crappy job, a lease with a crappy landlord, and shitloads of books, and you&#39;ll know you&#39;re an anarchist . . .

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:59 AM



Ok, what I meant was "anarchy, as the modern defintion defines it (which could easily be bullshit), is chaotic" that was my true meaning, and if you look at the definition I was going by, I&#39;m confident that you would agree with me that based on that definition it is chaotic.

Since you failed to acknowledge my last post...please read these before continuing an argument on "definition"

Wikipedia explanation of Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

Anarchism for dummies (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421)

TATs Dictionary definition (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

Google definition of Anarhcism (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:Anarchism)

Finished reading what Anarchism IS? good, now stop pestering us with your ignorance.


I don&#39;t know if I would even really classify that as "my mistake" as much as it is incorrect information I received through the dictionary and society as a whole...Someone pointed out that I should have read the encyclopaedia...maybe they were right.

Yes, they were, but alas, I cannot demon someone who sees the error of their ways. Hope you enjoy learning about new ideas.


I don&#39;t know if I am a communist. I do believe that society needs to develop a system in which every living person (of a reasonable age) has the ability to make direct political decisions on a daily basis. I believe the entire society should be in charge of governing itself instead of politicians. Everything else is kinda meaningless. The people as a whole will decide what&#39;s best for them...I don&#39;t want to speak for them, but I suspect it will be something like Communism.

You sound like a Socialist, im not going to be patronising, but if you think you want a good definition of what socialism is, refer back to this link...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786


I actually plan on reading more books on anarchy. Thanks for believing in me, I am not a capitalist...

I too believe in you, enjoy your reading.

[Donnie]

actually plan on reading more books on anarchy. Thanks for believing in me, I am not a capitalist...
I believe this will certainly help you with understanding anarchism. This e-book is called "Mutual Aid (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)" and it was written by Peter Kropotkin.

[space_ice_cream]

<Sorry about being a pretentious jerk wad in my last post, comrade.
I was having a bad day, and the teeth always come out on messageboards.
In any case, in a much better frame of mind now, let me be first to congratulate you on giving yr first accidentally-distinctly-anarchist speech. Continue this train of thought across several years, a few shifts at a crappy job, a lease with a crappy landlord, and shitloads of books, and you&#39;ll know you&#39;re an anarchist . . .>

Thank you for realizing that I am not a capitalist trying to put down anarchy as a system. I guess I might be an anarchist but I just didn&#39;t know it. But I will restrain from calling myself an anarchist, temporarily, until I have read the FAQ and at least one book about anarchy.

It actually feels most of all that I identify with these two ideas, the greek version mind you, not the english versions: demokratia (the people to rule) and anarchia (the state of having no leader).

So far I don&#39;t feel like I identify with the word "anarchy" because the dictionary defines it as a society without any order (implying that it is not a system in which the majority rules, but instead as a system of no rules at all), I also don&#39;t identify with the modern form of democracy because it is defined as people rule through elected "representitives", something I strongly do not support...

My idea is that here in America, we keep a similar system to the one installed, except that instead of electing "representitives" into office for years to speak for us we should hold daily votes on all issues, both state and federal, tally up the votes and have a group of randomly selected individuals count them manualy in addition to a machine counting, next have another randomly selected group of people verify the results and read them. Each step in the process would need to have another group shuffle to avoid any corruption. These "people" would be summoned and paid like jury duty.

Yes this type of government would require more footwork on the part of the public, since most people would be summoned for this type of work once or twice per year, but people would have the option to vote on a daily basis...And play an active and constant role in politics.

Ok, I&#39;ll shut up for now and read about Anarchy. See you guys later.

[space_ice_cream]

<You sound like Socialist, im not going to be patronising, but if you think you want a good definition of what socialism is, refer back to this link...
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=25786> (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786>)

I don&#39;t feel like I am a socialist because the system of socialism because (according to the definition in the link you provided), socialism is a stage which includes a dictator. I do not believe in a dictator or any dictator, at all, ever.

I believe in a system in which the people rule through a system of randomly selected individuals who (after being reshuffled plenty of times) count votes twice over (using randomly selected machines for random political topics), which are held every day to be read the next day.

Or ANY SYSTEM with no leaders at all that works and allows the people to vote on all issues on a daily basis. I honestly do not care about anything else after that or what it becomes...

[Donnie]

Or ANY SYSTEM with no leaders at all that works and allows the people to vote on all issues on a daily basis. I honestly do not care about anything else after that or what it becomes...
What you seem to be talking about there is Communism. Also you seem to frown upon a stage where there should be a dictator; you should look into Anarchism if Marxism is not you&#39;re thing.

Anarchists believe that people can organise themselves and decide among issue&#39;s themselves therefore we believe that there is no need for a state dictatorship in order to achieve communism. Also we believe that if you set up something that has a lot of power like a dictatorship it is open to corruption.

[Seeker]

Democracy is not a political philosophy, it is a way of making decisions.

Anarchy is a political philosophy that uses democracy to make decisions.

The absence of permenantly institutionalized positions of power (ie, an &#39;owner&#39; of a factory having absolute control over the lives of the people forced to work there or starve) from which the leaders are free to coerce and exploit those with no power is anarchy.

The absence of all organization is chaos.

Anarchy is organized from the bottom up. The "democracy"s of today are organized from the top down.

There is likely to be far more order in anarchy than there is in any non-tribal society today.

There is plenty of literature out there. Put down Websters, do some reading, then try again.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:12 AM
Socialism is a stage which includes a dictator. I do not believe in a dictator or any dictator, at all, ever.

Socialism is a broad term, but most socialists tend to support a state whereby the power is decenteralised and most decisions are made by the people. They believe that instead of peoples wages and comodoties values being calculated by supply and demand, it should be on the basis of who needs what to survive. The socialist party in the UK supports a democratic leadership. They want the 400 largest companies to be nationalised and power over these to be given to the people. The resources that these companies produce can then be distribusted by a democraticaly decided; planed economy, rather than on a free market principals. This is a way of creatign equality.

Infact if I can take a short quote from a political dictionary "Socialism: A form of Goverment wherein production and distribution of goods are determined by equality rather than market principals"

[Bannockburn]

Or ANY SYSTEM with no leaders at all that works and allows the people to vote on all issues on a daily basis

That sounds like a form of anarco-syndicalism