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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    ...
    I've found another link on something called anti-dialectics (was Marx really a philospher?) that you might find interesting. http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_...mmies%2001.htm

    This video offers a fairly decent critique on capitalism;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9...eature=related

    This link also offers some of Proudhon's ideas about mutualism: how a collective banking system should work, how economic forces should organise in an anarchist society, etc.:

    http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/gen...he-revolution/

    Cheers.

    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    What would you suggest (if any diagrammatic form at all) instead?
    I prefer essay-style descriptions in a wiki style that can be edited by anyone but of course, that doesn't exist. The political compass is something that can be observed, absorbed and then forgotten before going into deeper analysis of the political spectrum, if you see what I mean.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I've found another link on something called anti-dialectics (was Marx really a philospher?) that you might find interesting. http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_...mmies%2001.htm

    This video offers a fairly decent critique on capitalism;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9...eature=related

    This link also offers some of Proudhon's ideas about mutualism: how a collective banking system should work, how economic forces should organise in an anarchist society, etc.:

    http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/gen...he-revolution/

    Cheers.
    Done! Thanks for the links and I hope you like the way they've been put up.

    I prefer essay-style descriptions in a wiki style that can be edited by anyone but of course, that doesn't exist. The political compass is something that can be observed, absorbed and then forgotten before going into deeper analysis of the political spectrum, if you see what I mean.
    Yes, I agree with you; maybe a more detailed description should be provided when dealing with something like this. Perhaps we could create a wiki (if it's relatively easy and free to do) to allow that to happen?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If people in society didn't agree with the Anarchist political and economic view, what would happen to them. ? Im thinking of Gulags .........
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toon Fan)
    If people in society didn't agree with the Anarchist political and economic view, what would happen to them. ? Im thinking of Gulags .........
    They'd live however they like. So long as their lifestyle isn't harming anyone else's, there wouldn't be a problem. I'm thinking the vast majority would want greater equality and liberty however.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toon Fan)
    If people in society didn't agree with the Anarchist political and economic view, what would happen to them. ? Im thinking of Gulags .........
    As far as I know there were no gulags in the likes of Kronstadt and Petrograd, Catolonia, Aragon or the Ukraine free territories. I don't think that for anarchy to work, everyone needs to agree with it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Done! Thanks for the links and I hope you like the way they've been put up.
    Yep. I think Proudhon should just go under "Social Anarchism" but it doesn't really matter.

    Yes, I agree with you; maybe a more detailed description should be provided when dealing with something like this. Perhaps we could create a wiki (if it's relatively easy and free to do) to allow that to happen?
    I agree but I personally wouldn't know how to create a wiki like that.

    What do you think about anti-dialectics?

    Edit - if you check on a site called RevLeft, there is a user called RosaLichtenstein; she is the author of that link on anti-dialectics I posted and outspokenly against the concepts of the mystical, idealist realm of philosophy in general. Her views are very interesting, I think. Here is her profile. Even if you disagree with the concept of anti-dialectics, I think it gives one a good insight into Marx's reasoning, perhaps making him a lot easier to read.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    What would you suggest (if any diagrammatic form at all) instead?
    I think diagrams are just obfuscatory - they don't help explain anything, and infact make it more difficult to have a reasonable debate (how many people think that politics is only categorisable by two axes thanks to the P. Compass?).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY_)
    Quoted for attention.
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    This video offers a fairly decent critique on capitalism;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9...eature=related
    This video is a joke. See here for a refutation of it. :yy:
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    That Bell-curve thing is ridiculous. Any attempt to reduce the whole of political philosophy or political actors to two axes on a graph is a dumb idea.
    Actually, I think it is rather good. Do you object to the actual graph, or merely because it has 2-dimensions?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Keckers)
    This, however, assumes that everyone would pay for cover by a PPA. What if the offending party was not represented by a PPA?
    Hello there.

    First of all, there is no reason to suppose that everyone will be able to afford PPA prices - for the same reason that some people won't be able to afford food. But in both cases, we can solve the problem. I think it is desirable to arrange for communal protection. A system like neighbourhood watch - where everyone contributes for the whole street or something of that sort. But you're forgetting the great deterrence to crime - which is the personal protection of having weapons to defend oneself. In anarcho-capitalism, if you try to steal my TV, you’re assuming I don’t have a handgun under my sofa. In other words, the risks associated with theft aren’t removed by government. Of course, some PPAs would have an economic interest in having private charitable department where they reduce rates for certain people, or offer protection donation schemes, and so forth. It is not that big a problem tbh.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    As far as I know there were no gulags in the likes of Kronstadt and Petrograd, Catolonia, Aragon or the Ukraine free territories. I don't think that for anarchy to work, everyone needs to agree with it.
    Don't you tell me they'll be driven out of the commune, and hope a different commune will take them (although, I don't see why they would)?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Don't you tell me they'll be driven out of the commune, and hope a different commune will take them (although, I don't see why they would)?
    You are mistaking the commune for a fixed geographical area rather than a free association of workers. Exile would be an option if the person in question somehow affected the civil liberties of others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Actually, I think it is rather good. Do you object to the actual graph, or merely because it has 2-dimensions?

    Graph. Political ideologies are much more complicated than "state intervention in economy vs. less state intervention in economy" and "authoritarian socially vs. liberal socially". Look at the problems they have with regards to classical anarchism (or any left-wing but anti-state philosophy). The graphs don't explain anything, really, in anything like enough detail (you can say Stalin and Hitler were authoritarian but to plot them on the same line of a graph is a massive oversimplification of what they each did - so big, infact, that it's basically meaningless).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Actually, I think it is rather good. Do you object to the actual graph, or merely because it has 2-dimensions?
    It's terrible. It has communism and fascism in the centre (communism is left wing and fascism goes way beyond the typical left-right dimension but it would be best summarised as centre-right and max government control - as can be done on the politcal compass) and both at the graph's highest percentage for government control (this isn't necessarily the case for communism and whatever, communism and fascism are vastly different - to just pair them together as communism/fascism is lunacy but I suppose that's how most people think nowadays). It also has classical liberalism on the left and libertarianism on the right (??). There are other things, for instance, I object to having Max Stirner further left than Proudhon and Bakunin and Locke is on the left? What?

    The political compass ain't perfect but its vastly superior to that piece of tripe.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You are mistaking the commune for a fixed geographical area rather than a free association of workers. Exile would be an option if the person in question somehow affected the civil liberties of others.
    Then what is a commune? Isn't it structures of communities where everyone votes on everything? Doesn't that necessarily require geographical restrictions?

    The person being evicted would have to put his wishes and desires above the democratic decision? Suppose people decide they don't want any more bakers, and John really wants to be a baker. Then he has to leave his friends & family, and find a new home. The democracy has voted him out?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    It's terrible. It has communism and fascism in the centre (communism is left wing and fascism goes way beyond the typical left-right dimension but it would be best summarised as centre-right and max government control - as can be done on the politcal compass) and both at the graph's highest percentage for government control (this isn't necessarily the case for communism and whatever, communism and fascism are vastly different - to just pair them together as communism/fascism is lunacy but I suppose that's how most people think nowadays). It also has classical liberalism on the left and libertarianism on the right (??). There are other things, for instance, I object to having Max Stirner further left than Proudhon and Bakunin and Locke is on the left? What?

    The political compass ain't perfect but its vastly superior to that piece of tripe.
    Communism is only 'left-wing' because it's economic ideology amounts to a centralised economy; which is exactly the same thing as what fascists generally espouse.

    However, when one considers how Communism's aims are to be achieved, it does involve -in real terms- violence (or force, in the context of the curve [you have pointed out the need for revolution several times in this thread]). Again, which is indistinguishable to Fascism.

    That being said though, that curve is very odd.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Graph. Political ideologies are much more complicated than "state intervention in economy vs. less state intervention in economy" and "authoritarian socially vs. liberal socially". Look at the problems they have with regards to classical anarchism (or any left-wing but anti-state philosophy). The graphs don't explain anything, really, in anything like enough detail (you can say Stalin and Hitler were authoritarian but to plot them on the same line of a graph is a massive oversimplification of what they each did - so big, infact, that it's basically meaningless).
    I know. I used to also find graphs generally rather poor & ineffective, but something about that graph appeals to me.

    As far as I see it, at the moment, there are only two visions on politics - namely, the use of force or freedom. Somehow, it doesn’t seem to matter, to me, what Hitler & Stalin did. The fact that these two supreme authoritarians believed in the use of force against man in order to achieve a vision, is all that is necessary to define them. For me, the distinction over what kind of force (and to what extent) they used seems frivolous, and, I am inclined to think, missing the point!

    Anyway, it’s just a graph … don’t feel like a heated discussion .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Then what is a commune? Isn't it structures of communities where everyone votes on everything? Doesn't that necessarily require geographical restrictions?
    In short a free association of workers who democratically own a collective of industrial trade centres. The real question is whether or not you live within the neighbourhood boundaries of which a commune exists (I address this point below).

    The person being evicted would have to put his wishes and desires above the democratic decision? Suppose people decide they don't want any more bakers, and John really wants to be a baker. Then he has to leave his friends & family, and find a new home. The democracy has voted him out?
    The person being evicted would not be evicted unless he did something serious. People in communes wouldn't behave like that, though, because to have a commune, you need a revolutionary mindset among the people. If the citizens did start using unjustifiable force by "democracy", then other communes (with revolutionary mindsets) would intervene.

    "No more bakers". Lol. If the commune doesn't need bakers they will just stop providing for bakers. In reality, though, everyone would do a mixture of labour so that "popular" work and "unpopular" work is shared.

    Fact is, for millions of years before the uprising of capitalism (the system of private property and wage labour was enforced by the state, hence Adam Smith's objections but it is too late now to say to continue with the system without regulation), we were all living in communes similar to what I describe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Communism is only 'left-wing' because it's economic ideology amounts to a centralised economy
    Yeah, yeah.

    Communism is only 'left-wing' because it's economic ideology amounts to a centralised economy; which is exactly the same thing as what fascists generally espouse.
    Fact is, communism is not even on the left on the graph (its in the centre!!). What's more is that the American Democrats are to the left of communists!!!

    Anyway, practice and theory are different, and in theory, fascism advocates a centralised economy; communism doesn't. The graph should reflect theory, not practice (which is a subjective value that I oppose, anyway).

    However, when one considers how Communism's aims are to be achieved, it does involve -in real terms- violence (or force, in the context of the curve [you have pointed out the need for revolution several times in this thread]). Again, which is indistinguishable to Fascism.
    And revolution necessarily equates to violence?

    Workers' lock-ins, refusion to co-operate with the capitalist system, dissassembling the state is violence?

    Anyway, are we discussing the means or the ends? The ends should be what is reflected by the graph.

    That being said though, that curve is very odd.
    Agreed.

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    As far as I see it, at the moment, there are only two visions on politics - namely, the use of force or freedom.
    This is your deep analytical view of politics?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Hello there.

    First of all, there is no reason to suppose that everyone will be able to afford PPA prices - for the same reason that some people won't be able to afford food. But in both cases, we can solve the problem. I think it is desirable to arrange for communal protection. A system like neighbourhood watch - where everyone contributes for the whole street or something of that sort. But you're forgetting the great deterrence to crime - which is the personal protection of having weapons to defend oneself. In anarcho-capitalism, if you try to steal my TV, you’re assuming I don’t have a handgun under my sofa. In other words, the risks associated with theft aren’t removed by government. Of course, some PPAs would have an economic interest in having private charitable department where they reduce rates for certain people, or offer protection donation schemes, and so forth. It is not that big a problem tbh.
    :facepalm: It had completely slipped my mind that there would be no restrictions on firearms and thus a further means of protecting property.

    However, I suppose the main issue with anarchism is how i would be implemented. How do you drawn away the influence of government from day to day lives? Would it have to be a gradual process which would see government slowly removing its powers and allowing businesses to compete to provide services or would there have to be some sort of revolution in which government is swept aside and the free market fills the spaces left behind?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.