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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just a quick one before I shoot off.

    (Original post by JakePearson)
    x
    Why do you keep talking about economics? I have not mentioned that once.

    You said quite explicitly above that " The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society."

    Go back up an check if you want to. Now suddenly your most recent reply to me is shambolic and entirely worthless because it dodges my point quite entirely. You certainly are not talking just about anarcho-capitalism here. You are talking about anarchism and applying a definition that is intellectually dishonest. You are asserting that it has no other meaning. I am saying that is compelte rubbish. You are rambling on about economics etc..etc...etc...

    So perhaps you can address my point? (Like I say above I'll pick this up in a few weeks.)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Just a quick one before I shoot off.



    Why do you keep talking about economics? I have not mentioned that once.

    You said quite explicitly above that " The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society."

    Go back up an check if you want to. Now suddenly your most recent reply to me is shambolic and entirely worthless because it dodges my point quite entirely. You certainly are not talking just about anarcho-capitalism here. You are talking about anarchism and applying a definition that is intellectually dishonest. You are asserting that it has no other meaning. I am saying that is compelte rubbish. You are rambling on about economics etc..etc...etc...

    So perhaps you can address my point? (Like I say above I'll pick this up in a few weeks.)
    I said "The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society." I did not say that all branches of anarchism adhere to just overthrowing the state. I am aware that anarcho-syndicalists wish to overthrow capitalism too. That is entirely besides the point - I was talking about anarcho-capitalism.

    I will say this again, one last time. I have no desire to continue this pointless waste of time. Anarchism, on the whole, favours the abolition of the state. Right? Got that? Anarcho-capitalism favours the abolition of the state but the retention of capitalism as an economic system because this is in respect of man's natural rights. On the other hand, anarcho-syndicalism/communism/whatever also wish to abolish all forms of authority and hierarchy which is unsustainable and quite frankly stupid. I was talking about economics because you mentioned capitalism when you quoted me, saying anarcho-capitalism favours a "heirachy based around wealth" - i.e. capitalism. This fact does not make the theory any less anarchist than the other forms - we still favour the abolition of the state.

    Again, read what I say before throwing conclusions at me then tap-dancing around my points.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What a load of hypocritical cant 'suffering of the working classes.'
    Communist is bad in theory and murderous in practise just look at rule of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.
    And where would free speech, rights of the individual and democracy be in your poipe dream?
    Non-existent I suppose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    What a load of hypocritical cant 'suffering of the working classes.'
    Communist is bad in theory and murderous in practise just look at rule of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.
    And where would free speech, rights of the individual and democracy be in your poipe dream?
    Non-existent I suppose.
    Either read a good book or go troll elsewhere.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Since when were dictionaries politically sophisticated?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Since when were dictionaries politically sophisticated?
    It's a simple definition. When you want a simple definition, you turn to a dictionary.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    It's a simple definition. When you want a simple definition, you turn to a dictionary.
    The point is that you can't have a simple definition of a word like anarchism. There are scholars who debate the word (and others) extensively. I don't like engaging in such pretentious, petty semantics but a good old quote from a respected author or something would do. You will have to get used to defending anarcho-capitalism as an ideology that exists under the umbrella term considering the amount of mainstream leftist anarchists, like myself, that find themselves hostile to the idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I said "The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society."

    I genuinely cannot resist this. Like Anarchist Nutter says this is all petty semantics and the kind of argument I hate having on TSR. But anarchism quite obviously does have more meaning than the one you ascribe to it. To deny this is either intellectually dishonest, or just plain ignorant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I genuinely cannot resist this. Like Anarchist Nutter says this is all petty semantics and the kind of argument I hate having on TSR. But anarchism quite obviously does have more meaning than the one you ascribe to it. To deny this is either intellectually dishonest, or just plain ignorant.
    I'm going to re-post my last post because any argument on TSR is detestable when someone posts a snippet of what you actually say. It's a tactic I've noticed you using with LH too, needless to say why your debates with him seem incoherent and arrogant.

    "I said "The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society." I did not say that all branches of anarchism adhere to just overthrowing the state. I am aware that anarcho-syndicalists wish to overthrow capitalism too. That is entirely besides the point - I was talking about anarcho-capitalism.

    I will say this again, one last time. I have no desire to continue this pointless waste of time. Anarchism, on the whole, favours the abolition of the state. Right? Got that? Anarcho-capitalism favours the abolition of the state but the retention of capitalism as an economic system because this is in respect of man's natural rights. On the other hand, anarcho-syndicalism/communism/whatever also wish to abolish all forms of authority and hierarchy which is unsustainable and quite frankly stupid. I was talking about economics because you mentioned capitalism when you quoted me, saying anarcho-capitalism favours a "heirachy based around wealth" - i.e. capitalism. This fact does not make the theory any less anarchist than the other forms - we still favour the abolition of the state."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I see that you've not actual answered my question what about civil liberties and democracy in your communist society what happens.
    And Anarchistnutter I am well read and if you were you would have followed the Latin quote-si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses:

    "If you'd kept your mouth shut we might have thought you were clever".

    We probably would have (!)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    I see that you've not actual answered my question what about civil liberties and democracy in your communist society what happens.
    And Anarchistnutter I am well read and if you were you would have followed the Latin quote-si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses:

    "If you'd kept your mouth shut we might have thought you were clever".
    You know a bit of Latin *round of applause*.

    The majority of communists don't want to restrict civil liberties and such but it is a divided ideology so I can't speak for everyone, however you proved your ignorance with your initial quote (it is improbable that you would find pre-Bolshevik communist literature that describes what you have). I don't care if you think I'm clever (define intelligence). What's more is that libertarian communism (all/most schools that are anti-Bolshevik) is about workers peacefully managing their own labour without the interference of private monopolies or coercive political regimes - a society in which, ironically, you would have far greater civil liberties and democracy (grass roots worker's organisations in my own strand of communist-anarchism with direct democracy extended through the use of delegates and a worker run state under left-communism and other communist ideologies) so forth. The Leninist type of communism is a vanguard party seizes the state, nationalises all institutions and works in the interests of the working class (until the state can be done away with or passed into the hands of the worker) but this is not exactly the same as a democratic worker's state. Lenin was preferable to other communist figureheads, though.

    I didn't answer your question because I didn't think it worth answering (though ironically I am answering it now). I would suggest you stop basing your definition of communism upon the authoritarian communist-in-name-only practices of the USSR and China. Obviously it would be in the interests of the various divisions of state owned and capitalist media to make the population believe that communism = 100% state control (ironically, true communism would be the opposite). Your question was:

    "where would free speech, rights of the individual and democracy be in your poipe dream?
    Non-existent I suppose"

    which aggrevated me because it ignored basic communist fundamentals and the history of an extremely diverse movement.

    p.s. "communism" has its roots in the word "community".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I'm going to re-post my last post because any argument on TSR is detestable when someone posts a snippet of what you actually say. It's a tactic I've noticed you using with LH too, needless to say why your debates with him seem incoherent and arrogant.

    [I]"I said "The word "anarchism" has no other meaning than "a stateless society." I did not say that all branches of anarchism adhere to just overthrowing the state. I am aware that anarcho-syndicalists wish to overthrow capitalism too. That is entirely besides the point - I was talking about anarcho-capitalism.

    I will say this again, one last time. I have no desire to continue this pointless waste of time. Anarchism, on the whole, favours the abolition of the state. Right? Got that?

    Jake ffs! I am going to highlight the part of your argument which renders the rest unmitigated nonsense.

    has no other meaning than

    Now, what the **** does that statement mean other than ascribing no other meaning whatsoever to anarchism bar your own!?

    That was my original point of contention, that is the utterly simple point you keep on fatuously missing time after time after time, I do not give a fig for your blabber about anarcho-whatever that was never part of my argument, instead it was a strawman thrown by you to dodge my point. You have obviously forgotten you bought it up and have subsequently become confused by it. (No doubt that it why you tried to get a dig in about LH. He does the exact same thing)

    Anarchism quite obviously does have a different meaning to the one you have so ridiculously ascribed it. That alone renders your original point obliterated. I have named it over five times now, the original Greek translation: Without rulers. Quite obviously to anyone with half a pound of grey matter, that is more than the "no other meaning" bar one you ascribed it.

    You asserted that anarchism has NO OTHER MEANING bar a stateless society. Do you still stand by that statement?

    I have put my main point in red so there is no further confusion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    I see that you've not actual answered my question what about civil liberties and democracy in your communist society what happens.
    And Anarchistnutter I am well read and if you were you would have followed the Latin quote-si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses:

    "If you'd kept your mouth shut we might have thought you were clever".

    We probably would have (!)
    I think that phrase sums you up nicely. Knowing a Latin sentence does not constitute to being well read.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Count me in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does understanding that one of the authors of the Communist Manifesto & Das Kapital-Friedrich Engels was a very well off & highly sucessfull capitalist who enjoyed fox hunting mean I'm not well read?
    Does understanding that more people were killed by Joseph Stalin than Hitler and Genghis Khan put together mean I'm stupid?
    You talk about the suffering of the working class but how many of you on this thread are?
    How many are you limp wristed guardian reading middle class Marxist so-called horny handed sons of toil, who don't actually understand what it means to be working class and having to listen to the most pompous, self-rightous cant about how they actually live from commissars of the People's republic of Hampstead?
    None of you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    Does understanding that one of the authors of the Communist Manifesto & Das Kapital-Friedrich Engels was a very well off & highly sucessfull capitalist who enjoyed fox hunting mean I'm not well read?
    Reading my reply to your post might be a good start (also learn to use the quote function).

    Does understanding that more people were killed by Joseph Stalin than Hitler and Genghis Khan put together mean I'm stupid?
    Stalin was not a communist - read my post.

    You talk about the suffering of the working class but how many of you on this thread are?
    Myself.

    How many are you limp wristed guardian reading middle class Marxist so-called horny handed sons of toil, who don't actually understand what it means to be working class and having to listen to the most pompous, self-rightous cant about how they actually live from commissars of the People's republic of Hampstead?
    Right, because the liberalism of the Guardian really equates to Marxism and we all use pompous, self-righteous language (and you don't).

    Again, you don't even know what communism is, now stop trolling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anarchistnutter, Just because the word communism has it etymologic route with the word community doesn't mean it represents the same thing.

    What your saying is like saying that the word niggardly (From the Old norse-nigla 'to fuss about small matters') is the same as the word ****** which if you didn't is completely different.
    Communism, Anarchism or Anarcho-syndicalism can never work because they are theory built on ideas with have been discredited. They are also contray to normal human behaviour.

    Answer this question please?

    Imagine you have a daughter. She is the most precious thing in your life and you are determined to do your best for her. You are given a choice:

    1. She lives in Anarchist state (I apologise to pedants since this is a contradiction in terms but just hang in for the minute) in which she will not do well, because society says she has to at the bottom level with everybody else so it is fair. She is miserable; because she has committed a heretically act of just having aspirations, the community does everything to stop her.

    2. She ives in modern capitalist British society. She able to go to university because you have work all your live to make sure to could have the best. She is intelligent and does. She gets a good job and live securely for the rest of her life.

    Here's the conundrum boys, which would you chose, and I mean really when it comes down to it.
    Would you ruin the life of single innocence person to satify your self-rightous, priggish and perverted sense of social justice?

    No, don't answer I already know it.

    'In a Communist/Anarchist society she'd be free to everything and they'd be nobody to stop her.'
    What complete rubbish of course there would be somebody there to stop her. In society there always is a somebody it doesn't matter what society you live in. But at least in our current one there is a chance to get pass it.

    You really do disgust me. You lot spout this rubbish as you take part in the thing you most despise. And I bet when a revolution comes, if it comes you e the first to try and stop it. You like to talk about progress to a better society despite the fact that you are trying to hold it back. You lot make the Tsarists in Russia during the Civil War look like amatuers when it comes to being Reactionary. No not the right word because at least reactionaries stand for something and somebody. Your just idoits in the true Athenian sense-self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private--as opposed to public--affairs.

    And before you smart arses say this description is perfectly suited to me your wrong. I'm a firm believe in the idea of once you have better yourself, you have to help other people. I'm a working class High Tory and I'm a firm believe in the charity and public service. You better people by bettering the country in which they. I'm a Disraeli tory. I, probably unlike any of you, understand perfectly that they're are two nations in this country: the Haves and the Have nots. I know this because I I'm in betwen the two. I believe the haves have the responsiblity to the Havenots something, which both the unreconstructed left in this country (Which is you lot, if you didn't know) and the thatcherite New Right have forgotten.

    I'd also like to point out before you say it that this does sound like socialism, but it isn't. This is Noblese Oblige, the noble obligation. It exsisted long before Karl Marx, Friedrich Engel, Mikhail Bakunin or old prince Peter Kropotkin were born.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, Anarchist Nutter Liberalism does equate to Marxism these days. Modern Liberalism has sod all to do with William Gladstone, the Earl of Grey, Edmund Burke or any of the Liberals or Whigs of the past. The Whigs of the 17th, 18th & early 19th Century & Liberals of the late 19th Century stood for Law & Order, they stood for the rights of Magna Carta and they believed that everybody could make their lives better, not have it handed to them on condition they stayed were they were both politically and socially.

    The tories and conservatives were (And are the same). Disraeli brought in the factory Act and he legalised the trade unions. Lord Shaftsbury passed a raft of acts which improved the lives & working of conditions of Children. Dr Bernados helped hundreds if not thousands of child to live a better life. William Wilburforce ended slave trade in the British Empire and died a month before it was outlawed completely.

    What did Trotsky do?
    As he of the Red Army he killed more red army soldiers & anarchists than the White Russiansd did.

    What did Mao do?

    He carried out the Great Leap Forwards and the cultural Revolution which saw the slaughter of millions.

    And then there is Maximilien Robespierre, not a communist, but a french revolutionary who influence much of communist thought, what did he do?

    He sent thousands to their deaths at the hands of the guillotine during the Reign of Terror.

    And Stalin was a communist, so was Trotsky and Mao. You can escape your own political antecendents however much you try Anarchistnutter.

    Then ofcourse there is Pol Pot, I don't htink I need to explain what he did. Communism is repressive and has the blood of billion on its hands. No, not on its hands, it's drowning in it.

    You give me Benjamin Disraeli, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill and Lord Salisbury over Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Pol Pot, Hoxha or Robespierre any day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Modern Liberalism is doing Big Brother's job keeping everybody down, under surviellance and making sure they don't ask too many difficult questions. Please explain to me how that differs from the communism practise in the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China, Anarchistnutter?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you can either talk idly about bringing in communism, or you can just adjust the currently functioning system. you will never bring in a communist order, better to improve the capitalist one, e.g by pricing carbon, supporting global action to lower banker bonuses, buying fairtrade......

    talking about communism will never achieve anything, especially on this forum
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.