Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Anarchists in the news recently watch

Announcements
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Disabled people against cuts.

    The clues in the name.
    Oh sorry, I forgot that organisations have to choose names that pedantically encompass and describe their entire membership. If you used a tiny bit of common sense...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Oh sorry, I forgot that organisations have to choose names that pedantically encompass and describe their entire membership. If you used a tiny bit of common sense...
    Illegal to be poor has reinvented himself as the protector and patron saint of all disabled people.

    Only to be mocked by those with disabilities who post on here for not being in touch with reality and promoting disability meaning inability.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    I'm not talking about what Illegal to be poor is doing, I'm talking about your question "How can you be a member of 'disabled people against cuts' when you're not disabled?" - which has a very obvious answer, namely you care about the impact cuts are having on disabled people. Maybe you think they should rename themselves to "Disabled people and other members of the public who might not be disabled but still have something to say on the matter, against cuts" but that's not a particularly catchy name.
    Disabled people against cuts?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    The people outside the Manchester Conservative Conference where Disabled People Against Cuts.
    .








    Looks like these poor disabled people are at death's door. Sniffle sniffle.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    That's understandable Bill, since it serves your interests nicely.
    Bill is a troll.


    But raw captlaism doesn't help tech companies. They use technology that is only here because of states funding research. We all pay for this research then Tech companies like Microsoft take it and charge us again for what they do with it. Then they have the nerve to complain about paying tax. They benefit enormously from the public in both the form of our taxes paying for research and as consumers of their products. They should be taxed up to their eye balls at the very least.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Standard of living has improved globally. Not just first world nations.

    Might I recommend reading the book 'Global Shift' by peter Dickens. He objectivity looks at the global economy from a rather balanced viewpoint. By every measure of humanity, the worlds population has improved its standards of living through capitalism.

    Capitalism doesn't survive through authority. When was the last time somebody told you 'you must live by this method?'

    Here's a hint, if you hold a minority opinion, it's normally because the majority have shunned that opinion as flawed.

    People have been espousing the end of the world since the dawn of time. Society is still here because it follows methadologies that work. Capitalism is one such methodology.
    I don't disagree that standards of living have improved for many. It's quite beside the point though.

    Capitalism, in its current form, requires an extremely complex bureaucratic system of police, courts, prisons, councils, magistrates, landlords, business owners, religion if you go back far enough... I could go on... In order to provide authority to enforce the moneymaking system. Are you in favour of an anarchist capitalist system? Ayn Rand? Nobody needs to tell me that I "must live by this method" but if I don't then I would likely end up in jail or on the streets. People no longer need to be actively told.

    Capitalism "works", as in the world doesn't collapse (not quite). If that's all that matters to you then nothing much will convince you otherwise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Nonsense. Only capitalism has been able to bring that many people out of poverty, the Chinese tried and failed using communism for years. This "debate" is so done. I think everyone even those on the left accept capitalism is the only way forward. The rest are delusional. Self interest brings the best outcome for all.
    You probably are a troll and I haven't been around for a while to notice it.

    Capitalism puts people into poverty (or more specifically relative povery in developed countries you might say) and keeps them in out of necessity. It cant function otherwise.

    China is not communist and never has been. It's state capitalism like the USSR at best.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    I don't disagree that standards of living have improved for many. It's quite beside the point though.

    Capitalism, in its current form, requires an extremely complex bureaucratic system of police, courts, prisons, councils, magistrates, landlords, business owners, religion if you go back far enough... I could go on... In order to provide authority to enforce the moneymaking system. Are you in favour of an anarchist capitalist system? Ayn Rand? Nobody needs to tell me that I "must live by this method" but if I don't then I would likely end up in jail or on the streets. People no longer need to be actively told.

    Capitalism "works", as in the world doesn't collapse (not quite). If that's all that matters to you then nothing much will convince you otherwise.
    Communism required all of those plus some more.

    It's the first time I've seen law and order linked as a byproduct of capitalism. Explore historical societies and you'll find that Aztecs and ancient Egyptians had law courts.

    Son you're claiming that you'd end up in ten streets of you chose to ignore capitalism. Maybe that's telling you something.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Communism required all of those plus some more.

    It's the first time I've seen law and order linked as a byproduct of capitalism. Explore historical societies and you'll find that Aztecs and ancient Egyptians had law courts.

    Son you're claiming that you'd end up in ten streets of you chose to ignore capitalism. Maybe that's telling you something.
    Presumably you're referring the the authoratarian state communism of the USSR and such like. What's the relevance of that?

    A system that pitches people against each other and creates rifts in society needs authority. Now youre being driven to compare our system to those slave-ridden, human sacrifice worshipping early civilizations? Bravo.

    Daughter, If I didn't pay my rent and wanted to live as a free man providing for myself I would end up on the street. What it tells me is that I would have to make someone else money or live a miserable existence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    Presumably you're referring the the authoratarian state communism of the USSR and such like. What's the relevance of that?

    A system that pitches people against each other and creates rifts in society needs authority. Now youre being driven to compare our system to those slave-ridden, human sacrifice worshipping early civilizations? Bravo.

    Daughter, If I didn't pay my rent and wanted to live as a free man providing for myself I would end up on the street. What it tells me is that I would have to make someone else money or live a miserable existence.
    Go live on a commune. But please be principaled and refuse to accept benefits in the process.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Bill is a troll.


    But raw captlaism doesn't help tech companies. They use technology that is only here because of states funding research. We all pay for this research then Tech companies like Microsoft take it and charge us again for what they do with it. Then they have the nerve to complain about paying tax. They benefit enormously from the public in both the form of our taxes paying for research and as consumers of their products. They should be taxed up to their eye balls at the very least.
    Microsoft has their own research facilities you know, and they have to pay for patents issued by universities. Not all the research is done by public institutions, especially in computer science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Microsoft has their own research facilities you know, and they have to pay for patents issued by universities. Not all the research is done by public institutions, especially in computer science.
    Yes the private sector does research but it is normally research of a particular kind. The research is geared around the short term profit motive. A drug company will spend vast amounts of money researching a drug that can kill a tumour as there is a market for it. It wont spend those resources doing pure chemistry research where there is no predictable quick money to be made. Then even when they do do research a lot of the time they have/had help from the state making them semi public funded.

    Some random internet commentator I saw say this somewhere which sums it up well.

    "You posted your comment using technology that exists only because of a chainof discoveries and insights that began with fascination-driven research in thelate 19th century.

    If Balmer hadn't studied spectral lines, Planck may not have proposed thequantum. Then Bohr may not have conceived his model of the atom, which meansHeisenberg and Schrödinger wouldn't have developed their formulations ofquantum mechanics. That would have left Bloch without the tools he needed tounderstand the nature of conduction in metals, and then how would Schottky havefigured out semiconductors? It's hard to imagine, then, how Bardeen, Brattain,and Schockley would have developed transistors. And without transistors, Noyceand Kilbey couldn't have produced integrated circuits.

    Almost every major technological advance of the 20th and 21st centuriesoriginated with basic research that presented no obvious or immediate economicbenefit. That means no profit motive, and hence no reason for the privatesector to adequately fund it. Basic research isn't a waste of tax dollars; it'sa more reliable long-term investment than anything else in the Federalgovernment's portfolio."

    ~ fellow internet traveller


    No transistors = no computers as we know it. No Microsoft. No Apple etc.

    Even Transistors would not have been developed if it were not for the american state.

    "Transistors, in fact, were developed in a private laboratory - Nell Telephone
    Laboratories of AT&T - which also made major contributions to solar cells, radio
    astronomy, information theory, and lots of other important things. But what is the
    role of markets and consumer choice in that? Well, again, it turns out zero. AT&T
    was a government supported monopoly, so there was no consumer choice, and as
    a monopoly they could charge high prices: in effect, a tax on the public which
    they could use for institutions like Bell Laboratories, where they could so all the
    work. So, again, it's publicly subsidized. As if to demonstrate the point, as soon as
    the industry was deregulated, Bell Labs went out of existence, because the public
    wasn't paying for it any more: its successors work mostly on short-term applied
    projects. But that's only the beginning of the story. True, Bell Labs invented
    transistors, but they used wartime technology, which, again, was publicly
    subsidized and state-initiated. Furthermore, there was nobody to buy transistors at
    that time, because they were very expensive to produce. So, for 10 years the
    government was the major procurer, particularly for high-performance transistors." ~ Noam Chomsky


    http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data...raud_4648.html

    Contrary to the notion that all innovation comes from the entrepreneurial private sector it almost always relies on or comes directly out of the public sector.

    So when the Tories cut spending on scientific research they are being moronic and are potentially denying humanity of the next economic revolution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    X
    To sum it up, public institutions do fundamental research, companies do experimental/incremental research. They're complementary, although I think the private sector can also do some fundamental research (Harvard and Yale are private unis for example).

    If the Tories cut research spending, it's because they couldn't cut the NHS without losing votes. So you could also say that people are moronic, they favour their personal care before the future of the country.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I've learned to ignore MatureStudent and his desire to use his paint brush on anyone he chooses.

    So I think I will set the standard again.

    I was born with a rare genetic condition that puts me on the Autistic spectrum. I have bad communication problems but I make up for this with my love for finance, maths and engineering.

    Till a couple months ago I had only started opening up on here but it was a big mistake because it seems that its not what you are its what people want you to be.

    Anyway MS get your paint brush out. You need to keep the propaganda rolling.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I just spotted this article from The Conversation which I think sums it up quickly and gives a good overview..
    The problem with anarchists is that they are never able to explain how their desired society would not lead to intolerable injustice. In the anarchist society, if you are attacked/raped/beaten/robbed, whether you are able to bring the perpetrator to justice would depend on who is richer.

    If a wealthy man raped you, then you would have no justice as his police force and private army would outnumber what you could bring to bear.

    A more prosaic example. You have just arrived in the new anarchist utopia, your head filled with dreams of freedom and good-natured co-operation. You decide to step up a shop selling berries. You sign a contract with a berry supplier, you pay him for the various types of berries and then wait for your delivery. The delivery never arrives. The berry supplier has taken all your startup capital, and now you have nothing to sell. What do you do?

    You cannot take him to court because there are no courts. Even if you could hire mercenaries (which you cannot as he has all your money.. indeed he could use some of the money to pay police to stop you "harrassing" him), the question would arise, by what right do you bring him to account? He could claim that in fact you had agreed a verbal amendment to the contract where if the berry harvest failed, he would not have to give you any berries. It's his word against yours. If anyone tries to hold him to account, he can simply claim that your disagreement is a private contractual dispute between consenting individuals, and in the anarchist utopia nobody has the right to intervene in a private transaction between two people.

    Whatever one's view on the size of government generally, I cannot see any plausible argument for the total abolition of courts and laws. There will always be disputes and disagreements between people; disagreements relating to contracts, to personal injuries, disagreements over wills and property. A legal system and courts are there to adjudicate those points of friction, the points where people bump up against each other, that will always happen in a community of humans. Having an independent arbitrator, adjudicating according to rules that we as a society have agreed, is really the only fair way, the only civilised way, to deal with such things.

    The idea that we can have a society without laws and courts, without a means by which we can settle disputes without violence and according to published and agreed rules, is genuinely mad
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    The problem with anarchists is that they are never able to explain how their desired society would not lead to intolerable injustice. In the anarchist society, if you are attacked/raped/beaten/robbed, whether you are able to bring the perpetrator to justice would depend on who is richer.

    If a wealthy man raped you, then you would have no justice as his police force and private army would outnumber what you could bring to bear.

    A more prosaic example. You have just arrived in the new anarchist utopia, your head filled with dreams of freedom and good-natured co-operation. You decide to step up a shop selling berries. You sign a contract with a berry supplier, you pay him for the various types of berries and then wait for your delivery. The delivery never arrives. The berry supplier has taken all your startup capital, and now you have nothing to sell. What do you do?

    You cannot take him to court because there are no courts. Even if you could hire mercenaries (which you cannot as he has all your money.. indeed he could use some of the money to pay police to stop you "harrassing" him), the question would arise, by what right do you bring him to account? He could claim that in fact you had agreed a verbal amendment to the contract where if the berry harvest failed, he would not have to give you any berries. It's his word against yours. If anyone tries to hold him to account, he can simply claim that your disagreement is a private contractual dispute between consenting individuals, and in the anarchist utopia nobody has the right to intervene in a private transaction between two people.

    Whatever one's view on the size of government generally, I cannot see any plausible argument for the total abolition of courts and laws. There will always be disputes and disagreements between people; disagreements relating to contracts, to personal injuries, disagreements over wills and property. A legal system and courts are there to adjudicate those points of friction, the points where people bump up against each other, that will always happen in a community of humans. Having an independent arbitrator, adjudicating according to rules that we as a society have agreed, is really the only fair way, the only civilised way, to deal with such things.

    The idea that we can have a society without laws and courts, without a means by which we can settle disputes without violence and according to published and agreed rules, is genuinely mad
    It sounds as though you've been speaking to AnCaps, a 'movement' that exists almost solely on the internet and is far removed from the anarchist philosophical tradition as it has existed historically (with its roots in the Paris Commune and the First International).

    Anarchism is an ideology which is socialist (common ownership of the means of production), anti-statist (state meaning an institution with a monopoly on the use of force over a given area) and generally anti-hierarchy. Within this broad spectrum there are numerous theories on how society society might be organised both politically and economically. One proposed method of organising society, known as anarcho-syndicalism, is based upon federations of federations of workers' councils and popular assemblies based upon direct democracy wherever possible, and delegative democracy where it isn't. If you were the victim of a crime, you could bring your grievance to your local commune and it would be dealt with based upon the process that you have collectively decided upon previously. For the more pro-active prevention of major transgressions, again there are a number of proposed options, ranging from a hue-and-cry style system to workers' militias, again it would be up to local communities to decide for themselves, based on consensus direct democracy, which method to employ.

    If you'd like to see examples of anarchism working in practice, I would recommend looking into Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory Of Ukraine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    For the more pro-active prevention of major transgressions, again there are a number of proposed options, ranging from a hue-and-cry style system to workers' militias, again it would be up to local communities to decide for themselves
    I don't see how that's any different what we have now in terms of having a system which agrees rules through a process, and then enforces those rules using physical force.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    I don't see how that's any different what we have now in terms of having a system which agrees rules through a process, and then enforces those rules using physical force.
    1) Said rules are mutually agreed upon via direct consensus democracy.
    2) The primary function of the state is the protection of the interests of the ruling classes and the defence of capitalist property norms.
    3) Enforcement of societal rules is usually held by anarchists to be a collective responsibility rather than one exclusively given to a single institution, which includes diffuse sanctions as well as organised ones.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    1) Said rules are mutually agreed upon
    You mean like in a democracy?

    via direct consensus democracy.
    Why is consensus democracy inherently more worthy than representative democracy?

    2) The primary function of the state is the protection of the interests of the ruling classes and the defence of capitalist property norms.
    If that had even a modicum of truth in it this country never would have had 90% estate taxes. We would never have seen thousands of country houses being demolished by owners who couldn't afford to render up the estate tax to a socialist government

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destru...entury_Britain

    We never would have seen any number is disruptive technologies allowed to thrive and overturn old monopolies if the interests of capital truly controlled society in totality. It's a puerile and childish notion, wholly at odds with the actual historical facts

    3) Enforcement of societal rules is usually held by anarchists to be a collective responsibility rather than one exclusively given to a single institution
    What, you mean like it is now? Where we have the people vote on members of parliament who agree the rules of society, and we have an independent executive agency in the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on prosecuting crime, and an independent judiciary to adjudicate over trials and then 12 of the criminal's peers to decide whether he's guilty? Along with a separate police force which is also democratically accountable?

    Somehow your proposal of some kind of ochlocracy where if the mob votes you die, then you die, with your sentence carried out forthwith by a sinister "Workers Militia", sounds a million times worse than what we have now. Like any institution, the workers councils would tend to some sort of politics, of factionalism. And in a society where this workers council acts essentially as judge and jury, based on the passions of the mob, it sounds like a recipe for revolutionary terror

    If anything that's far more oppressive, so the idea that you can call yourself anything other than another form of statist is ludicrous. Your desired society will have a form of sovereign state which is backed by coercive force
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    If you were the victim of a crime, you could bring your grievance to your local commune and it would be dealt with based upon the process that you have collectively decided upon previously.
    That is fine if you all live in the woods and someone steals your bowl of blackberries but how do you deal with complex issues of contract law or disputes between companies based in different countries etc etc?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.