Grievances between Anarchists and Communists

Can't resist -- here's one, from my CouchSurfing profile:



Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

Says the "communist". Yeah that's original alright.

I mentioned my greatest mentor, Nietzsche, so that Gacky, if he felt inclined, might orient himself with what I have learned, and therefore save me the trouble of trying to make futile attempts to undermine his anarchism.

I am no crony to Nietzsche though. I disagree on many points with Nietzsche, but of all philosophers, I agree on more points with him as well.

Gacky, I don't want to continue walking in circles with you so forgive me if I decline the offer. I stand by my position that large scale anarchy will forever be impossible. It might work a while for three thousand indigenous trigger-happy mexican hippies, but never for the entire world. Anarchy is leftist romanticism fit for angry young people or stubborn old people....who stopped intellectually maturing somewhere around the time they realized they wasted the first twenty years of their life sitting around a camp fire stoned on Three Dog Night, and therefore wouldn't become anything but a low wage worker, anyway. One can only ask themself at this point "why stop now"?

I think the main greivance between libertarian communists and all others is that we've moved on from desperately lapping up everything a 'great man' once said whereas they are still stuck doing so, leading to some very rubbish and unimaginative politics on their behalf, and odd positions like bigging up the DPRK.

We rep the class and they rep the state fo sho!

I know Nietzsche somewhat (not a lot, but basic stuff), but I'm not talking to Nietzsche, I'm talking to you, and I brought up points that you seam incabable of addressing, perhaps because Nietzshe did'nt write about them.

You hav'nt once given my any reasoning and backing behind your position.

Again with the condesending bigotrist douche baggery, again, thats not an argument, saing "Its impossible" is'nt an argument.

Ok its clear, that you cannot answer any of my points, and must resort to bullshit stereotyping instead. So ... looks like your not so smart after all.

I'm sorry I brought up points that cannot be answered by jerking off too philosophy books and actually require some mental effort.

Now either answer actual points brought up or go back to jerking off to nietzche, a wonderful mentor, what great footsteps to follow.

Maybe you missed it, Gacky, but in the few words we've exchanged so far I made it clear that I don't believe people are "intrinsically egalitarian" and provided an argument for that. I also gave practical examples of how a communist society would function, and pointed out very simple problems pertaining to property and work. Finally I argued that a "stateless" society would be impossible, and in defining what a state was, I showed that anarchy is an oxymoron- it is a condition of civil contract but without laws. And yet if there are laws, it isn't anarchy.

The facts is, people are not equal, and without an authority base superceding all citizens, life in civilization would be "short and brutish", as Hobbes put it. I admire anarchists, but eventually any society that did not have a rule of law, and an authority licensed to enforce that law, would disintegrate into savage chaos.

My decision to void the argument was made when I realized you are failing to grasp what I am saying. And as I walk away...you shout at my back "you've provided no argument!" I did though. I think you missed it.

What does being "intrinsically egalitarian" have anything to do with it? Why would that be an argument for or against Anarchism? Also that has nothing to do with my arguments such as

As to why Anarchism could and does work.

Also when you talk about eganitarianism or whatever, keep in mind what we are talking about, as I said

Is there any evidence of that? Because right now thats just your opinion. Whereas every anarchist society, even relatively primative ones did'nt disintegrate into savage chaos, so there goes your argument based on simple emperical evidence.

Also your saying that is assuming that governments, capialists, and hiarchies in general actually prevent more violence than they cause, which is empirically not the case first of all, second of all logically its not the case, that is if you believe in the statement "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Which I'm assumin you do.

Those weren't arguments, they were statements, without any backing, simple opinions, which arn't arguments. I grasped exactly what you were saying, thats why I took the time to write responses which have so far been ignored by you in favor of repeasing baseless statements and condesending wordplay.

It significantly changes the basis of the argument if your premise is that people are "naturally selfless". Empathy, sympathy and compassion at the expense of one's own gain are not the original stimulus to any action- and even as secondary effects, they too are prompted by measures to obtain self gratification. One has sympathy and compassion because one "ought to be moral", therefore the charitable act is secretly for advancing oneself. Only in the rarest cases does a true act of "altruistic empathy" occur, and these cases are few and far between. Exceptions like risking one's own safety to save a man from a burning building, or a parents risk to save a child, are examples where such an act is not taken directly to advance one's own image, respectability, reputation....as long as the public opinion is not there to judge.

If you get a group of people who are unequal and naturally selfish and put them into a situation where they must "share" unconditionally, you will have problems, unless there is a power above and beyond to enforce that condition, to provide a threat, to keep the people obedient.

I am a shoemaker, like my neighbor. In one day I produce twice the amount of shoes as he does. Our community has agreed to distribute one TV to every house hold. I wanted to confront the counsel and propose that they let me have two TVs....one for the living room and one for the bed room. The decision was made that everybody would have to get two TVs, to be fair, and that there weren't enough TVs at the time to provide for everyone. I then realized that this means my neighbor, who produces less than me, would get a TV without having increase his rate of production to match the rate of production of myself. Then the though occurred to me: "why am I working so hard and fast when I can get everything I want and need anyway?" I resolved to take my time and work slowly from now on.

In this scenario, there was no incentive for a higher skilled person to work to their best ability. Therefore, in my view, it is an inefficient system.

The formula for decline is here- that the degree of effort required to produce is not determined by contrasting and comparing to the greatest example of productive capacity, as an ideal toward which the worker should aspire, but determined by the bare minimum productive capacity provided by the worst, average worker.

The benefit gained through the costs of the greatest workers does not exceed the benefit gained by the efforts of the worst workers. A formula for the systematic, eventual decline of productive integrity through a complete leveling of the people.

The possibility of disorganization and dissidence in a society increases proportionately to the increase in population and the increase in the complexities of the modes of production.

A small rural group of a few thousand people who's greatest industrial power is baking bread in a stone oven can function quite well in a very primitive social state. But ten million people with immense industrial capabilities and extremely complex modes of production, distribution, management, and administration require rules and regulation as complicated as the material circumstances they find themselves in.

The fact is, in a primitive anarchist society...not much can go wrong, so not much is needed to organize and regulate affairs.

Actually they were. A statement is generally made in an argumentative form, as it is claiming that something is "the case" about the world. Only two kinds of statements cannot be argumentative- commands and questions. The "backing", as you call it, would be the reasoning which leads from the premise to the proposed conclusion. I did that too. You missed that too.

An opinion is a statement and can also be an argument, although the form and implications of the argument are a little different than arguments which propose to prove indifferent conclusions about something. For example, I could argue my opinion that "Mao is a hottie", and you could argue that he is not. However, we cannot argue that the premise "hottie" is true or false, because it is a subjective preference. For you he might look like ass....therefore "hottie" is not an absolute property of Mao that can be correct or incorrect, and we would be wasting our time.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Thats not the premise.

Who said anything about forcing people to share? In a communist society, sharing replaces trade as a nessesary function of society. Without hiarchies sharing is inevitable because life generally requires human interaction and association.

When you say a group of people that are unequal what do you mean by that? Unequal in what sense?

Your assuming that people get no satisfaction from free labor, which is clearly not the case. Your assuming also that there is MORE satisfaction when you are working directly for someone elses profit, as is the case for over 90% of the people in the world under capitalism.

So sure he might take his time in working, I agree, but I doubt that because people in general work better when they are their own boss, and when they are reaping the benefits of their work.

Capitalism people work as little as they can for as much, because the work is'nt for themselves, its for someone else, the only thing that keeps them in line is fear. Now maybe that system is more "efficient" but then you have to ask your self, for whome? Clearly not the 95% who have no control over the means of production and don't have nealy the amount of cash to have any sway on the market. Its "efficient" really only for the capitalist class and the rich (mostly one in the same).

Why is that the case? Anarchism worked both in Chiapas with some rural indians and in barcelona. The whole city did'nt interact and vote on every single issue, only those directly involved really, so the principles stay the same. Population really does'nt matter, what matters is population density, for example, take Los Angeles, if people in Southern LA are deciding what they should do with a park, chances are it does'n concern people who live in Glendale, they really don't care.

Also for tecnology, why does it require hiarchy? If someone is good at certain technology or industry, you don't think people would allow that person responsibility over it? Any less than a "leader" would?

you missed this.

And this

and this

No it was'nt see now that your discussing the same thing as me, and discussing things relevant to the argument we can actually (hopefully) have a productive discussion.

"Sharing" is too ambiguous to be the foundational principle on which commodity exchange and distribution rests. Who decides how much to give, to produce, to deserve? I say I deserve more than you. Who's to say I don't? You? But your word is no better than mine.

Sharing is only feasible where equal powers interact in production. Where there are people who possess unequal talents and skills interacting in production, there are no axioms or principles to refer to when determining what the "proper" act of sharing might be. Where people are unequal in performance, a system must exist where possession of commodities is determined by merit, by what is earned, not by some obscure principle like "sharing".

A monetary system is superior to some abstract notion of "sharing". "Sharing" means- even though I can't produce as much as you....I should still get as much as you. Bullshit. To a skilled worker a comrade can be as much of a parasite as a capitalist.

The pretext to charity and volunteer labor is that first, it is needed and is considered a good deed, and second, that such work for free does not compromise one's own welfare.

In a communist system the first is absent and the second becomes a liability. Only where free labor is an exception do people feel encouraged to provide it, and do so with ethical incentive. In a world where there was no third world poverty, for instance, there would be no exception and therefore no need for charity. In a world where there is no need for virtuous charitable work, but consisting of unequal workers who base their commodity exchanges on the principle of sharing, the welfare of the greater workers is compromised by inferior workers- those who produce less are eligible to have as much as those who produce more.

No. While the capitalist exploits the worker, the worker still has the opportunity to express his superior talents by operating in a competitive system where there are different degrees of wages. This means that although his work profits the capitalist, it still does not profit the inferior worker. Again, there is no difference between being exploited by a capitalist and being subordinate to an inferior worker...through his right to possess and consume as much without producing as much. Absolutely no difference. The capitalist and the inferior worker are synonymous- both absorb the efforts and energy of the superior worker.

You are terribly mistaken. Under any circumstances man will work as little as possible for as much as possible. It is his nature to be efficient- nobody wants to work for the sake of working.

And even in your alternative system, man still isn't working for himself. He is now working for everyone, and this everyone consists of many inferior workers.

Capitalism is more efficient than communism, while state socialism is more efficient than capitalism. The conservative right is divisive and creates a class that fully exploits the productive class...while the liberal left is homogeneous and creates a leveled single class that exploits the superior workers within that class. Both systems are decadent.

And ironically, as I said above, the free market system is generally more advantageous to the working class because although they are being exploited by the parasite capitalist, they are not being exploited by inferior workers too. When I build a house, my work profits my boss....but I make higher wages than the redneck trash that works beside me because I am a master carpenter who has an extraordinary work ethic. I don't stand around avoiding work and telling fishing stories because last night I got drunk and now have a hangover, like the other idiots. I'll be damned if I ever exist in a system where that trash is entitled to have as much as myself.

My goal is to abolish both the capitalist and the decadent proletarian class. Both of them are worms.

The rest of your post is a waste of my time. When you realize one day that the future of global politics will involve international socialism rather than a collage of single countries and nations morphing in and out of various political systems....you will see that anarchy is yesterdays news.

There IS NO FUCKING WAY ten billion people can coexist in an anarchist society. Fagettabout it, pal.

Let me give you an example of my experiences with "inferior workers", and experience that has led me to hold the proletariat in as much contempt as the capitalist.

A few weeks ago I worked for a guy doing a roof-over job. There were four of us in the crew. There was the boss...who didn't lay one shingle and made more money than the other three combined. There was my neighbor, who was an experienced roofer with great skill and work ethic. There was me, and then there was "Adam", some twenty-some year old putz kid from New York who thought he was a gangsta.

The roof was 33 square. I laid 16 square and my neighbor laid 16 square. We did the job in thirteen hours. At the end of the job, I determined that I could of done everything Adam did in addition to what I did, in the same time. Adam was making around ten bucks an hour. I was making fifteen. This means that I was worth twenty-five bucks an hour.

Adam has the "let's milk it" attitude. This is fine to an extent- the worker should in principle take any action possible to put the capitalist at a disadvantage. Adam, as an hourly worker, should work as slow as possible for two reasons- one, to lower the profit margin of the capitalist who is exploiting him....just to spite the parasite. Two, to increase the hours he works, thereby increasing his pay, and to not strain himself or overwork himself.

But there is a point where Adam's lack of work ethic becomes my burden. Adam, in this chain of production, is like a third leg- he does nothing, but accounts for a margin of the payroll of the capitalist. This means that for every hour Adam is on the job, my chances of getting more money is decreased.

Adam is the kind of kid who, in any setting, would still be a putz. Even in the event that he got every dime for the work he did (if he got paid precisely according to the amount of square feet), he would still be the inferior worker....because I would shingle circles around him, and yet he is entitled to "have as much as me"?

Never.

There are workers out there who are inherently worthless. I have no sympathy for this trash, whatsoever. Only in a system where I was able to ascend him, as is my natural right, and where none of my effort went to accommodate his needs/wants at the expense of my own, would I exist with this worm and respect him as I should: as a low ranking worker who must acquire skill and integrity before he has a right to equal share. Instead, the attitude and mentality of this modern consumer/worker is that somehow he has a right to have what everybody else has. Strip away the facade of this dullard, the appearance of "coolness" with his idiom, his dress, his mannerisms, and what you have left is a feeble little worm who struggles to tie his own shoelaces. No, this fuck doesn't "deserve" anything. He is no different than the capitalist when contrasted against me.

Who decides? The people involved, its not so difficult, democracy. Also your assuming that people (in a communist society) would not want to produce, and would want to aquire more than what would make them comfortable, because there is no power with wealth (or even weath) under communism.

Without property laws its really irrelivent, also what do you mean by "unequal talents" different skills are needed for different things. I hope your not saying that Capitalism rewards people based on "useful talents and skills" (unless you change it to useful for the ruling class).

Sharing of excess commodities (more than personal possessions) is really a given without property laws.

Remember people are their own boss under communism, without porperty laws and the power that comes with it, what more than what you need to be comfortable would people want?

There is NO charity involved, your working for yourself, you need the community, thus you interact and cooperate with others.

How is the walfare of so called "greater workers" (however you define that) compromised? Under communism what you call "yours" is just your stuff, like your home, toothbrush, bed, and so on and so forth (things you don't need property laws for), other stuff that is nessessary would be shared, in work and distribution.

Also peoples satisfactio does'nt come from their "charity" it comes from a job well done and useful, it can be anything from fixing something to gardening.

Your argument is really an argument against democracy, let me restate your argument in political terms. "smart voters are compromised by dumb ones, thus democracy can't work."

heres the difference, with the inferoir worker you and him have equal rights and equal say, with the capitalist, he has more rights and much more say (in fact all of it), you don't. Big difference.

One you have to deal with and cooperate with, the other you have to Obay.

First of all, Capitalism (being extreamly inefficiant) makes people work more than nessesary to uphold the massiave wealth of a few, so capitalism is worse in that sense.

second, in my system, man IS'NT working for everyone, however, chances are, if he wants to live a comfortable life, he'll have to cooperate with others.

difference is, he'll have to cooperate with equal rights.

The "but you CAN raise above poverty" argument. In the real world, that requires so much risk, luck, and funds (that most people don't have), that its not even a real option, which is why people under Capitalism work as little as they can for a pay check (not as little as they can to get the job done). Class liquidity is such an overplayed semi-myth it should'nt even be an argument.

Also, in real life, Capitalists WILL ALWAYS pay the least amount they can for the work, which means that for the most part it does'nt matter how good you are, the Capitalist will pay as little as he can get away with.

I think anarchist societies make it much easier to coexist than hiarchal societies, no power, no power struggles, plus people don't need to all "coexist" in the sense that the whole world is holding hands and singing. You only need to cooperate with people to get jobs done, which is better any type of dictatorship (capitalism, the state ect.)

As to the rest of my post being a waste of time ... I have a feeling you only picked the points you could think of responces too, and ignored the "waste of time" points such as.

WHICH IS EMPIRICAL F#@KING EVICENCE, and a pre response to your idiotic post about people not being able to coexist.

Was that point a waste of time? Well I defy you to show why being ruled over is more beneficial than not being ruled over.

More empirical evidence, I guess real world examples are a waste of time for philosophers like you with their head up their asses.

That point too, which I talked about voting. You somehow think having to cooperate with people to get this done is worse exploitation than having to obay someone to eat.

Sounds like someones a little bit bitter.

After the revolution you can build your own little house in the mountain away from everyone else, and not have to deal with the "trash".

But I guess you'd rather be told what to do instead of actually dealing with people you consider "trash".

So far none of what you've talked about shows how anarchism is a worse system then hiarchal systems like capitalism and statism.

We want to abolish a system, it sounds like you want to abolish people, am I right?