Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarkRennie)
    Lol, that's not very fair of you :cry:

    Lucky I am just about to goggle it
    (Original post by Profesh)
    .
    Honestly...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gerd Loki)
    Honestly...
    I take offence to you Sir. I demand satisfaction at dawn, pistols shall be our weaponry!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarkRennie)
    Can everyone use smaller words please?
    Unfortunately communism is quite complex and uses big words. However, you can always type into google define:*insert complex word*. That helps me a lot. What ideas do you not understand?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tenhornedbeast)
    I am not going to read any of the nonsense in this thread, nor argue with you. I merely want to point out that, had communism been introduced to Britain for example, you would NOT have had the privilege to openly discuss the current political status quo and propose radical changes.
    Actually you would be able to openly discuss those topics as everyone would have the equal right of free speech in a communist society, unlike in our current system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Unfortunately communism is quite complex and uses big words. However, you can always type into google define:*insert complex word*. That helps me a lot. What ideas do you not understand?
    It's when people start talking about the very detailed and deep parts of capitalism and communism, perhaps because I am not that clued up, but they just appear to be ranting pointlessly. Using big words just to confuse other people may be the only way they can think of explaining it but it would be a more effective argument if they were able to form an argument which everyone could understand. Just my view, people might mock me for being not that educated on this subject but that can't be helped.

    Thank you for your reply, and your offered assistance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarkRennie)
    It's when people start talking about the very detailed and deep parts of capitalism and communism, perhaps because I am not that clued up, but they just appear to be ranting pointlessly. Using big words just to confuse other people may be the only way they can think of explaining it but it would be a more effective argument if they were able to form an argument which everyone could understand. Just my view, people might mock me for being not that educated on this subject but that can't be helped.

    Thank you for your reply, and your offered assistance.
    I found a site that cuts out most of the jargon: http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/

    Obviously, I haven't read everything on there but if you scroll down to the "Defining Theory Collection", there's a lot of good stuff there written out in layman's terms.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    All anarchists are left-wing aren't they?
    Not at all. You will find anarcho-capitalists such as myself who many describe as "right wing."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gerd Loki)
    Honestly...
    You guys should make a TSR Communist Party
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Not at all. You will find anarcho-capitalists such as myself who many describe as "right wing."
    That is confusing and sort of defeats the whole point of Anarchism if you're still under a capitalist system.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    That is confusing and sort of defeats the whole point of Anarchism if you're still under a capitalist system.
    How does it? The point of anarchism is to overthrow the state. The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society." It is only once we break down anarchism into its sub-beliefs such as anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism do we develop theories on how the economy would work without a state. I believe that capitalism works better without the state - indeed, anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. The view of anarcho-capitalists is that the state should be abolished because it is founded and carries out its actions through the initiation of force, which we believe is immoral. Capitalism is a fully free and voluntary system, with no force, in which people can trade value for value, with mutual benefit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    How does it? The point of anarchism is to overthrow the state. The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society."


    That's incorrect, the Greek anarchia translates roughly as 'without ruler'. That implies a society without heirachy. The concept of a state doesn't even come in to it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    That's incorrect, the Greek anarchia translates roughly as 'without ruler'. That implies a society without heirachy. The concept of a state doesn't even come in to it.
    The meaning of words change as time goes on. The ancient Greeks have a different understanding of the word than we do because the word has taken on a different meaning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    The meaning of words change as time goes on. The ancient Greeks have a different understanding of the word than we do because the word has taken on a different meaning.

    But you are then claiming it with some bias as your own. By insisting it means stateles society (Which it quite obviously doesn't) you shed the negative connotations associated with heirachy. A state is not the only ruler or form of heirachy and what you claim to be 'anarcho capitalism' is rather distinct from the many other forms in that it does have a heirachy based around wealth. What anarchism means and has meant rather consistently for thousands of years is without ruler. It is only really propertarians or anarcho capitalists like yourself who will insist this is not so and this 'change' you speak of is only decades old and certainly not accepted beyond a small ideological coven.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But you are then claiming it with some bias as your own. By insisting it means stateles society (Which it quite obviously doesn't) you shed the negative connotations associated with heirachy. A state is not the only ruler or form of heirachy and what you claim to be 'anarcho capitalism' is rather distinct from the many other forms in that it does have a heirachy based around wealth. What anarchism means and has meant rather consistently for thousands of years is without ruler. It is only really propertarians or anarcho capitalists like yourself who will insist this is not so and this 'change' you speak of is only decades old and certainly not accepted beyond a small ideological coven.
    I'm still not sure you actually understand what the theory is about - we are opposed to the initiation of force, not wealth or hierarchies. Capitalists cannot be classed as "rulers" because they lack the means to forcefully impose their will and edicts on other humans via a monopoly on coercion in a specific area. Words are human concepts and insofar as humans attach different meanings to them then their definitions change - ergo, "anarchism" no longer has the same meaning as it did in ancient Greece. It's much like the word "liberalism" and "libertarianism."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gerd Loki)
    I have just founded this society. Would any of you be interested in joining?



    Supporting a historic social system in a modern world is beyond futile.


    Combine the best elements of all systems mentioned and form a new one based on reasoning and logic based on what we have now that every other model did/does not.

    Something like this http://www.thevenusproject.com/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I'm still not sure you actually understand what the theory is about - we are opposed to the initiation of force, not wealth or hierarchies.

    That's exactly what I said in my last post, in fact it was my main point in contending your assertion that anarchism was simply a stateless society :confused:


    Words are human concepts and insofar as humans attach different meanings to them then their definitions change - ergo, "anarchism" no longer has the same meaning as it did in ancient Greece. It's much like the word "liberalism" and "libertarianism."

    :facepalm2: Since when did ancient greece come into this. I am talking about a definition that may have its origin in ancient greece but is still widely accepted in political philosophy. Your definition is exactly that. It is your own minority interpretation accepted by a small coven of free market theologians.

    The fact remains that asserting anarchism simply means 'stateless society' is intellectually dishonest. That is not what it 'simply' means. In its most simple form it means without ruler. One can infer a far broader meaning from that translation and if you take one look at any history of political philosophy, especially anarchism. You will realise that is exactly what has happened. What you are doing is applying your own interpretation to it, it's rather shabby that you are trying to pass it off as some accepted consensus because that is imply not the case, far from it in fact.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :facepalm2: Since when did ancient greece come into this. I am talking about a definition that may have its origin in ancient greece but is still widely accepted in political philosophy. Your definition is exactly that. It is your own minority interpretation accepted by a small coven of free market theologians.

    The fact remains that asserting anarchism simply means 'stateless society' is intellectually dishonest. That is not what it 'simply' means. In its most simple form it means without ruler. One can infer a far broader meaning from that translation and if you take one look at any history of political philosophy, especially anarchism. You will realise that is exactly what has happened. What you are doing is applying your own interpretation to it, it's rather shabby that you are trying to pass it off as some accepted consensus because that is imply not the case, far from it in fact.
    Princeton Dictonary defines it as, "a political theory favoring the abolition of governments." Oxford Dictionary defines it as, "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." These are not my definitions. As I say, anarchism is about abolishing government - not about any specific economic theory. Those belong to the subsets of anarchism, of which anarcho-capitalism is one. You may be opposed to the philosophy but it is rather dishonest for you to resort to attacking the meaning of the bloody word as a way to discredit us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Princeton Dictonary defines it as, "a political theory favoring the abolition of governments." Oxford Dictionary defines it as, "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." These are not my definitions. As I say, anarchism is about abolishing government - not about any specific economic theory. Those belong to the subsets of anarchism, of which anarcho-capitalism is one. You may be opposed to the philosophy but it is rather dishonest for you to resort to attacking the meaning of the bloody word as a way to discredit us.


    Firstly you are only giving part of the definition because my trusty Oxford also has

    "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority"

    My Cambridge international:

    "resistance to all forms of authority or control"

    But that doesn't matter one bit. Jake you are summarising and incredibly expansive and diverse political philosophy from a dictionary! I think that says it all. The literature on this is incredibly vast which is why I have not attempted to provide any universal summary, unlike yourself. I have provided a translation which adequately forms an inclination for what anarchism is about and has nothing to do with economics or any of the strawmen you throw above.

    I am not attacking anarcho capitalism. I am attacking your claim in the very first post to have summarised anarchism as a stateless society. Read anything about the philsophy that is more than the standard three lines in a dictionary and you will find that a large part of the anarchist school is opposed to all forms of authority, others to the concept and practice of heirachy itself. Some others accept small parts of this and then anarcho capitalism actively embraces authority and heirachy as necessary. The same goes for other controversial things like violence etc..etc... There are instrinsic differences that negate your claim to have taken the definition down to its base level. The original greek is still adequate to give the broadest indication necessary as to what anarchism is about: 'Without rulers' There is nothing biased whatsoever in this definition.

    As far as you are concerned the state embodies all coercive control and authority and once it is abolished authority is abolished. Which is why I accused you of being intellectually dishonest by applying this belief to the entire philosophy. I doubt many who identify as anarchist would agree with you, because.. well otherwise they would all be anarcho-capitalists wouldn't they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We'll pick this up (If you want to) In a few weeks, I wont be on here for a while.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Firstly you are only giving part of the definition because my trusty Oxford also has

    "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority"

    My Cambridge international:

    "resistance to all forms of authority or control"

    But that doesn't matter one bit. Jake you are summarising and incredibly expansive and diverse political philosophy from a dictionary! I think that says it all. The literature on this is incredibly vast which is why I have not attempted to provide any universal summary, unlike yourself. I have provided a translation which adequately forms an inclination for what anarchism is about and has nothing to do with economics or any of the strawmen you throw above.
    I am not basing anything on what is written in a dictionary. You came on here and threw around the statement that anarchism means "abscence of rulers" in the ancient Greek view. I am not interested in definitions - you were the one who mentioned it. Then, when I give you a definition back, you run around saying "ooh how can you based an incredibly diverse philosophy from a dictionary?!" Then, of course, you move onto your traditional arguments against capitalism - it being supported by "theologians" etc.

    I am not attacking anarcho capitalism. I am attacking your claim in the very first post to have summarised anarchism as a stateless society. Read anything about the philsophy that is more than the standard three lines in a dictionary and you will find that a large part of the anarchist school is opposed to all forms of authority, others to the concept and practice of heirachy itself. Some others accept small parts of this and then anarcho capitalism actively embraces authority and heirachy as necessary. The same goes for other controversial things like violence etc..etc... There are instrinsic differences that negate your claim to have taken the definition down to its base level. The original greek is still adequate to give the broadest indication necessary as to what anarchism is about: 'Without rulers' There is nothing biased whatsoever in this definition.
    I am aware of this. As I say, I am talking about anarcho-capitalism specifically and not anarchism as a whole. Yes, anarchism seeks to abolish the state, however it does not have a general theory on economics which is devolved, if you like, to the individual schools of anarchist thought.

    As far as you are concerned the state embodies all coercive control and authority and once it is abolished authority is abolished. Which is why I accused you of being intellectually dishonest by applying this belief to the entire philosophy. I doubt many who identify as anarchist would agree with you, because.. well otherwise they would all be anarcho-capitalists wouldn't they?
    I did not apply this belief to the entire philosophy. Why don't you read what I have already said instead of jumping to unnecessary conclusions. Read: "As I say, I am talking about anarcho-capitalism specifically and not anarchism as a whole. Yes, anarchism seeks to abolish the state, however it does not have a general theory on economics which is devolved, if you like, to the individual schools of anarchist thought."
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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