Any Anarchists out there?

Original post by felamaslen

Dressing up as smurfs isn't something most people feel inclined to do. However, most people do feel inclined to trade, because trade means wealth

Why? (I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, at least not at this point, but how you arrive at this is important)

Also, what about the possibility that other forms of economic interaction than trade could create more wealth or happiness than trade could?

Private property is a human right.

Funny human right that most people don't have. And to pre-empt the response, no, 'private property' is not the same thing as 'your stuff'. It has a more specific legal/ethical conceptual meaning.

Most people would agree. You would have to use violence to abolish it.

That's a non sequitur. Whether most people agree or disagree with something has no bearing on the violence of it.

And I know full well that most people support or at least passively accept state and capitalist authoritarian structures. That's why we have them right now. Social systems don't stick around forever.

Reply 223

anarchism101

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Ew. They are the worstest libertarians.

The idea that not all property is the same, some is legitimate some is illegitimate seems interesting.

Well to be honest I prefer to only use the term 'property' for capitalist private property. Generally I use 'possessions' for personally owned stuff in anarchism and 'common ownership' for stuff owned collectively by co-ops, associations, etc.

Some people use different terms for similar concepts though, which can get annoying.

Reply 224

anarchism101

Original post by James Milibanter

I feel like that Noam Chomsky's ideas may have been watered down slightly for the US libertarians...

I'd say Chomsky is more watered down for centre-lefties and Marxists rather than US libertarians.

Reply 225

young_guns

1

You're kidding? Anarchists? :lol:

The political tendency who wants our life to be like the siege of Leningrad, or Holodomor, or the Arduous March of North Korea in the mid-1990s... I would be publicly ashamed to show my face proclaiming such a political adherence

No thanks

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 226

OP

Original post by young_guns

You're kidding? Anarchists? :lol:

The political tendency who wants our life to be like the siege of Leningrad, or Holodomor, or the Arduous March of North Korea in the mid-1990s... I would be publicly ashamed to show my face proclaiming such a political adherence

No thanks

Do one. You know less than Jon Snow, mate.

Reply 227

young_guns

1

Original post by James Milibanter

Do one. You know less than Jon Snow, mate.

Are you even capable of expressing a statement that can be understood? What does that even mean?

Reply 228

OP

Original post by young_guns

Are you even capable of expressing a statement that can be understood? What does that even mean?

It means that you have no place on an anarchy thread IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ANARCHY IS.

Reply 229

OP

Original post by anarchism101

I'd say Chomsky is more watered down for centre-lefties and Marxists rather than US libertarians.

Well either way, it was clear he was watered down.

Reply 230

felamaslen

15

Original post by James Milibanter

Trade is human nature, trade for profit is not. :eek:

That makes no sense. Why would somebody trade unless they made a good deal out of it? :confused:

Reply 231

felamaslen

15

Original post by anarchism101

Why? (I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, at least not at this point, but how you arrive at this is important)

Also, what about the possibility that other forms of economic interaction than trade could create more wealth or happiness than trade could?

That is simply how people got rich over the years, decades and centuries. Our lives are based around the concept of different people, making different things and selling them to people who want them, for a profit. Milton Friedman made that point using the example of a pencil, listing all of the different sources of the ingredients used to make a pencil, and how not one person could produce one on their own, without trade. The known alternatives to this include subsistence farming and hunter gathering. Neither of those has been shown to produce anything like the kind of wealth we have in capitalist societies. I don't see how economic interaction is possible without trade; aren't they more or less synonymous?

Funny human right that most people don't have. And to pre-empt the response, no, 'private property' is not the same thing as 'your stuff'. It has a more specific legal/ethical conceptual meaning.

Everyone has a right to private property, otherwise the system is flawed (I don't deny that every society is flawed in some way, though). What makes you say that some people don't have this human right? There are good examples of nominally "capitalist" societies where this doesn't apply, e.g. in fascist states. But I'm talking about capitalist liberal democracies, not fascist (or slave) states, which I oppose.

That's a non sequitur. Whether most people agree or disagree with something has no bearing on the violence of it.

And I know full well that most people support or at least passively accept state and capitalist authoritarian structures. That's why we have them right now. Social systems don't stick around forever.

No, but the fact is, you would have to use violence to abolish the human right of private property. And therefore you would violate your own libertarian principles. I admire that you aren't a violent revolutionary (like Russell Brand, say) but you're still wrong.

Reply 232

Original post by felamaslen

That's why I always put the word "liberal" before democracy, or if I don't, it is implied. If the majority of people vote for a totalitarian, then the majority of people are my enemy and the totalitarian should still be fought and defeated. I don't believe in democracy because I believe in majority rule, I believe in it because I believe in human rights, and one of those human rights is the right to choose your own government (but not the right to violate others' human rights, directly or indirectly). Under an anarchist system, there is an inherent problem with using force, because that implies government. But I don't have a problem with using force against those who wish to destroy (liberal) democracy.

Earlier you stated that people wanted capitalism and that was a defence of yours for capitalism. But really you don't care if people want capitalism or not and therefore shouldn't have made an argument based upon that. Either people accept capitalism, or capitalism should be forced upon them.

Not all anarchists are necessarily against the use of violence, hence the existence of Black Bloc style groups.

Original post by felamaslen

I wouldn't have anything against workers' cooperatives, but try to imagine a company like Apple being run as one. Maybe it could, but I doubt it. There are vastly different roles in a company like that. A few people come up with concepts, quite a lot of people develop code for those concepts, and huge numbers work on production lines implementing the concepts.

We already do have systems in place to ensure that people can put food on their table. Benefits, for instance. I don't have any problem with things like that, as long as we have a capitalist society alongside it.

I can't personally see any reason why Apple couldn't exist. For example, Montdragon Corporation is run as a workers cooperative and yet manages to produce goods for industry which would require vastly different roles such as found in Apple.

Welfare programmes and such are more in line with the likes of Social Democracy than Capitalism.

Original post by felamaslen

That's not true. A slave can never have any luxuries and wealth, because he is not free. Under feudalism, trade is not free. Under colonialism, people are not free. In fact, under all these systems the only people that could have wealth and luxuries were aristocrats and oppressors, who did not gain their wealth legitimately through trade (so were essentially criminals). The tremendous increase in human per-capita GDP over the past few centuries came mainly in the latter 19th and 20th centuries, after slavery and feudalism were abolished. When colonialism was abolished in the mid 20th century, people's wealth continued to increase massively.

Yet is it not the case that Britain has an elite? There are those at the top of society are those whose families have been at the top echelons of society for generations and were the people who acquired wealth through the likes of colonialism. Then there are those who exploit people through paying workers in third world countries with little employee rights below the living wage (essentially slavery), their disregard for communities and the environment that they damage and their exploitation of workers in the west as well. People are exploited under capitalism.

Original post by felamaslen

Slavery doesn't work though. It was only after slavery was abolished that people became free and prosperous. Under capitalism, people are free, since capitalism is an ideology of non-violence. The question is therefore: would anarchy work on a global scale? I highly doubt it. Who would stop the oppressors? Who would fight wars against them? Every war that anarchy has fought, it has lost.

Many people were free and prosperous during the era of slavery. And slavery still exists to this day. Garment factories in third world countries which make capitalists in the West rich are essentially run on slave labour.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 233

OP

Original post by felamaslen

That makes no sense. Why would somebody trade unless they made a good deal out of it? :confused:

I never said they wouldn't. i might want a nice T.V. and someone might want a nice bike, we can swap, it is in mutual interest. however capitalism works in the interests of massive corporations whom fund the political parties that then make policies that give the massive corporations an easier time.
TTIP for example. Can you stop with this senseless argument, you aren't convincing anyone because we all know that your argument makes no sense. Just go and do one, will you?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 234

Original post by young_guns

You're kidding? Anarchists? :lol:

The political tendency who wants our life to be like the siege of Leningrad, or Holodomor, or the Arduous March of North Korea in the mid-1990s... I would be publicly ashamed to show my face proclaiming such a political adherence

No thanks

Please elaborate. You have provided links to wikipedia articles about horrendous events that occurred under Marxist-Leninist totalitarian states. What has that got to do with anarchism?

Reply 235

OP

Original post by The Epicurean

Please elaborate. You have provided links to wikipedia articles about horrendous events that occurred under Marxist-Leninist totalitarian states. What has that got to do with anarchism?

I was already much more blunt with this character... I told him to do one, and he appears to have done.

Reply 236

Original post by felamaslen

That is simply how people got rich over the years, decades and centuries. Our lives are based around the concept of different people, making different things and selling them to people who want them, for a profit. Milton Friedman made that point using the example of a pencil, listing all of the different sources of the ingredients used to make a pencil, and how not one person could produce one on their own, without trade. The known alternatives to this include subsistence farming and hunter gathering. Neither of those has been shown to produce anything like the kind of wealth we have in capitalist societies. I don't see how economic interaction is possible without trade; aren't they more or less synonymous?

I am not too fond of Marxism, but I do find Marx's theory of history interesting. The idea is that there are different stages of development. Whilst I don't believe in the future predictions about how our society will progress from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism, which to me sounds utopian and sounds almost like a religion to me, I do believe it has a point to make regarding historical stages of development. The main one being Capitalism.

For example, as Milton Friedman mentions when discussing about the pencil how rubber was introduced to South East Asia through trade. I think one would have to be ignorant to ignore the progress and developments that have been made because of capitalism. Capitalism has helped to make the world more global and connected thanks to its emphasis on trade.

Original post by James Milibanter

I was already much more blunt with this character... I told him to do one, and he appears to have done.

I am intrigued. Maybe they have a valid point to make and have found an interesting association between anarchism and these events that I was not aware of. In which case I am all ears. Plus I am not too fond of silencing people who disagree with me :tongue:

Reply 237

OP

Original post by The Epicurean

I am intrigued. Maybe they have a valid point to make and have found an interesting association between anarchism and these events that I was not aware of. In which case I am all ears. Plus I am not too fond of silencing people who disagree with me :tongue:

well I have quite the qualifications in the field of Marxist theory, I was a devout Marxist before an Anarchist but that wasn't why I silenced him, I silenced him because this was not supposed to be a platform for debate of anarchy vs. whatever, but more a means of us to collaborate together.

We have thus far done none of that thanks to these Advocates of the devil, and I only engaged in debate with Felamaslen because of the arguments proposed about both anarcho-capitalism and the leftist forms anarchy. Since the topic then deviated into an attack on Anarchy altogether I have been attempting to revert back to the topic at hand.

I do not silence those who disagree with me, this whole thread was started for the purposes of enlightenment. It has been made clear that felamaslen cannot be swayed and any attempt of a productive argument is wasted, so I have grown fed up. I don't want you to think that I am having a go at you or anything, but you did a little bit imply that I was being ignorant. No hard feelings?

Reply 238

Original post by James Milibanter

well I have quite the qualifications in the field of Marxist theory, I was a devout Marxist before an Anarchist but that wasn't why I silenced him, I silenced him because this was not supposed to be a platform for debate of anarchy vs. whatever, but more a means of us to collaborate together.

We have thus far done none of that thanks to these Advocates of the devil, and I only engaged in debate with Felamaslen because of the arguments proposed about both anarcho-capitalism and the leftist forms anarchy. Since the topic then deviated into an attack on Anarchy altogether I have been attempting to revert back to the topic at hand.

I do not silence those who disagree with me, this whole thread was started for the purposes of enlightenment. It has been made clear that felamaslen cannot be swayed and any attempt of a productive argument is wasted, so I have grown fed up. I don't want you to think that I am having a go at you or anything, but you did a little bit imply that I was being ignorant. No hard feelings?

I wasn't implying you were being ignorant and didn't intend for my comment to come across that way. I am just rather staunch in my support of free speech. In context my post might make more sense. The other day I was complaining about how in the Religious debate forum there exist a number of threads which forbid debate and I was stating the irony of there being threads in the debate forum that forbid debate.

So, continuing on from my ramblings made elsewhere it the debate section of TSR, I feel that any thread within the TSR debate section (which this threads happens to be), should be free for every and any member to voice their opinion and criticism on. Possibly the debate forum isn't the best place for your thread based upon your intention, namely a place to collaborate and not a platform for debate.

Reply 239

OP