Results 1 to 20 of 257
Opting out of communism?
This is just a question some of my an-cap friends regularly bring up in discussions. In a communist society(yes, I'm talking about after the state disappears and all that) would they be able to op out and create their own an-cap community or would they have to comply to the rules of communism? I know it's directly against what we want, but it's just something they get me thinking about and I am yet to be able to give a satisfactory answer.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
Unfortunately the question involves too many assumptions, simplifications, and abstractions to make much sense. We don't really know what a communist society would look like, nor an anarchist society, nor anything really beyond general outlines of a theory. So wondering about specific issues within this abstraction is rather silly.
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
People will not be "allowed" as such, as an opt out is an attack upon the system.
Lol what? You're hilarious.
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
That is true, it is very hypothetical but they keep asking me. Apparently forcing them to live in a collective society is "initiating force" against them, which they say they're against. However, forcing somebody to starve because they're too poor to buy food because they're unemployed or something is also forceful. Silly an-caps.
I'm genuinely curious how this would work though if they really wanted their own society of "individualism".
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
You're whole hypothetical is founded upon nonsense. No one is "forcing" anyone to live in a collective society as this is self-contradictory. A collective is a society which everyone chooses to be a part of. It seems as though you have not adequately explained communism to them, or they did not understand you when you did, because there are so many misunderstandings involved that it's futile to keep the conversation up and running.That is true, it is very hypothetical but they keep asking me. Apparently forcing them to live in a collective society is "initiating force" against them, which they say they're against. However, forcing somebody to starve because they're too poor to buy food because they're unemployed or something is also forceful. Silly an-caps
I'm genuinely curious how this would work though if they really wanted their own society of "individualism".
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
You going to go massacre tribal villages for not partaking in collective farming and industrial production?
They claim to know what communism is though so I didn't really feel a need to explain, but yet this question keeps coming up. Maybe they're just trying to paint communism as flawed.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
SrA communist, anarchist, whatever society is supposedly democratic. Far more than anythingthat exists today.
Well, who would opt out in such a scenario? It would be people who lose, probably chronically elections. How can a democratic society function if the losers of an election are free to disregard its results?
The question was asked in reference to AFTER the great communist worldwide victory. At this point, tribal villages should be safely incorporated.
Why would their be elections? Even for lenenists, communism comes after the state has withered away. There wouldn't be elections to choose people to make up any state because there wouldn't be any need to.
Last edited by Skyhilist; 1st March 2013 at 21:51. Reason: Spelling error.
They can form their little anarcho-capitalist communities in the insane asylums that we will stuff them into.
People will still need and want things. Production still needs to occurr. Resourced still need to be allocated. Every indication that such things will be decided democratically.
Threre is certainly historical precedence for socialist communities taking such steps...
Yeah, they could if they wanted too. In revolutionary Spain, 30% of the peasants chose not to collectivize, and where free to do so.
Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
-James Baldwin
"We change ideas like neckties."
- E.M. Cioran
Yes but that's the point of federalism under a stateless society. If you disagree that much with decisions relating to those things then perhaps it'd be more suitable for you to live somewhere where you didn't have such disagrrements with the majority. Not that you'd have to, but it's a choice you'd have under federalism (note: not the same as nationalism). So you'd have no right really to dissent given that, if you were of a slim minority and wouldn't leave. Note that federalism means different laws in different areas within reason. Establishing "anarcho"-capitalism wouldn't work because they'd be trying to function under a market economy which would be incompatible with everyone else. We could also just isolate them from recieving resources if they tried to reestablish hierarchy through ancapitalism. They could try, but it wouldn't be successful at all for them.
By the way, democracy and elections aren't the same thing, so you've already moved the goalposts.
Yes... This is what i said. Its not possible because dissent is an attack uppn the system.
Doesn't every system seek to protect itself? If not, what would be the point of establishing that system to begin with? In all honesty though, ancaps represent about as much of a global threat to stateless communism as couch potatoes do to already existing pro-athletes.
Plus An-caps say they don't believe in using force(except to defend private property) so I doubt they would openly attack communists unless we forced them to collectivize or something. Even if they did though I doubt there would be enough to pose a major threat.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
