Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Keckers)
    What are the views that you guys have on fractional reserve and full reserve banking?
    I am against banking regulation or government policies where unlimited credit (instead of capital) is used for loans. The fractional reserve banking system depends on a central bank and state-granted monopolistic powers to ensure unlimited credit. And there is a big difference between credit and capital.

    I am not entirely sure on full-reserve banking. I'll have to read up on that later.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    For the leftist anarchists, how do you feel about reformation and voting?

    The anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not only a conception that is opposed to the principle of representation (which is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute lack of confidence in the State. And this distrust, which is instinctive in the working masses, is for the anarchists the result of their historical experience with the State and its function, which has, at all times and in all places, resulted in a selfish and exclusive protection of the ruling classes and their privileges. Anarchist abstentionism strips the State of the constitutional fraud with which it presents itself to the gullible as the true representative of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential character as representative, procurer, and protector of the ruling classes. - Luigi Galleani
    Thoughts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    For the leftist anarchists, how do you feel about reformation and voting?



    Thoughts?
    I half agree, half disagree. I do not believe that reformism will ever achieve the ultimate goals of anarchism, and nor can the State play a decent role in the social revolution. The State is counterevolutionary by definition. However I do not think that simply abstaining from voting, unless part of an agreed mass action, will ever achieve anything. If none of the candidates appeal even a little bit then of course don't vote, or spoil your ballot. But sometimes there can be benefit from voting, for example by voting for a party which wishes to legalise gay marriage or recreational drugs or who pledges to withdraw from a particular military campaign etc.
    So, in the short term I do not believe there is much wrong with voting. In the long term other forms of activism should take precedence.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    For the leftist anarchists, how do you feel about reformation and voting?



    Thoughts?
    Do you want an anarcho-capitalist view?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Thought I would post this. What is your responce to this plea for people to report anarchists to the police? There have been no warnings of any other political groups

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ju...eblower-advice


    Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local Police.
    http://www.communitysafe.gov.uk/arti...1/download.pdf
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In other news...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    ^haha, quite true tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Luckily most anarchists are dirty rats who live in underground sewers living off faeces, so they have no neighbours to report them. Or was that Jews? :confused:

    I know it is an exagerration and that we haven't quite reached that stage yet, but this does remind me of the Niemöller poem "First they came..."
    Reporting people to the police for their political beliefs is absurd, luckily most people will take absolutely no notice of this initiative
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The vast, vast majority of anarchists are peaceful folk committed to social change without random acts of pointless violence. Any anarchists promoting the negative stereotype are dicks.

    People shouldn't be reported simply for upholding a particular political philosophy, how ridiculous. It's like reporting all Muslims because the small minority are potential terrorists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I've see some people are now makign a joke of it

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    The vast, vast majority of anarchists are peaceful folk committed to social change without random acts of pointless violence. Any anarchists promoting the negative stereotype are dicks.

    People shouldn't be reported simply for upholding a particular political philosophy, how ridiculous. It's like reporting all Muslims because the small minority are potential terrorists.
    What of Sorel - Reflections on violence? Many, though not all, collectivist anarchists envision some form of inevitable transition phase through revolutionary seizure of property and land - although this is all theoretical and not normative, much like the Marxian 'historical materialism'. (It would be prudent to note that much of syndicalist activism is centred around peaceful and co-operative community organisation which in and of itself is admirable).

    That said, anarchism is just a political ideology, it is not activism as such, so there is no apparent reason behind outlawing thought.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The government fears propaganda by deed and assumes that all anarchists follow Bakunin's call for violence against the government as a means to catalyze revolution. Such generalisations are of no help to the government in identifying their 'true' threats...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedbrar)
    The government fears propaganda by deed and assumes that all anarchists follow Bakunin's call for violence against the government as a means to catalyze revolution. Such generalisations are of no help to the government in identifying their 'true' threats...
    Lets draw a distinction first between propaganda by the deed (random acts of terrorism) and proper revolutionary change, through use of force if necessary - which is not just violence against government but violence against legitimate property owners. Many left-anarchists consider themselves socialists and therefore revolutionaries, since one is not really a socialist unless they suppose upon this kind of reform (with the possible exception of socialism through the ballot box - democratic socialism).

    Otherwise, they are nothing more, really and truly, than just glorified anarcho-capitalists who think society will go a slightly different way through peaceful reform. Peaceful reform is perfectly consistent with this ideology, even if they have different ideas about property rights ('occupancy and use'), this can still be realised through general arbitration in a free society - if it is right. This is where it is hard for most anarchists, even 'Bakuninists' to deny their deep-rooted liberalism and soft spot for political individualism.

    But again, like I said, the whole concept of revolution is not so much normative as it is theoretical - and most anarchists see the present and not too distant future better realised through peaceful community organisation, with revolution as a much vaguer, futuristic alternative.

    [Note that I am not an anarchist of any kind, not any more].
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    [Note that I am not an anarchist of any kind, not any more].
    Hmm. What happened?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Hmm. What happened?
    Do you want the short version or the long version
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Do you want the short version or the long version
    Both, and be sure to include all the sexual moments ...

    And, for what it is worth, I don't think I can call myself an anarchist eventhough I believe in AC.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Both, and be sure to include all the sexual moments ...

    And, for what it is worth, I don't think I can call myself an anarchist eventhough I believe in AC.
    Fair enough.

    The reasons are largely economic. In fact, I wrote two somewhat lengthy posts as Sceptic over on PoFo:

    http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/v...9165#p13769165

    (general theory of aggregate demand and circular flow model plus additional Friedmanite theory about the effect of inflatory spending on wage expectations)

    http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/v...9786#p13769786

    (why central banks need to be set inflation targets to set general discount rates and so forth - and why fractional reserve banking is not so bad [although it must be said that, as a logical conclusion to the general theme of free banking, many, libertarians are open to fractional reserve]).

    I also made a post on here about oligopolies and price stickiness

    There are also philosophical reasons - although, I must warn you, I am weak on that area. Basically, private property is far from an immaculate concept, though it most certainly leads to the most productive economic outcomes. However, land before it was 'homesteaded' was not produced from any particular act of labour (Georgian mantra) - to exclude others from its resources is justifiable monopolisation [with immense productive outcomes], but one cannot seriously argue against the legitimacy of LVT (for example). Morality is basically just a social construct, along with private property and other societal phenomena.

    Then there are practical problems associated with private defence contractors, and more specifically, neutral arbitration - severe issues emerging from impersonal forces of society and diverse/multiple ethical centres - subsequent difficulty to define and maintain private property rights. Also, there is the issue of the 'pure' public good which is non-rivalrous and non-excludable - that even the non-100% public goods can just be packaged up, etc., etc.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Lets draw a distinction first between propaganda by the deed (random acts of terrorism) and proper revolutionary change, through use of force if necessary - which is not just violence against government but violence against legitimate property owners. Many left-anarchists consider themselves socialists and therefore revolutionaries, since one is not really a socialist unless they suppose upon this kind of reform (with the possible exception of socialism through the ballot box - democratic socialism).

    Otherwise, they are nothing more, really and truly, than just glorified anarcho-capitalists who think society will go a slightly different way through peaceful reform. Peaceful reform is perfectly consistent with this ideology, even if they have different ideas about property rights ('occupancy and use'), this can still be realised through general arbitration in a free society - if it is right. This is where it is hard for most anarchists, even 'Bakuninists' to deny their deep-rooted liberalism and soft spot for political individualism.

    But again, like I said, the whole concept of revolution is not so much normative as it is theoretical - and most anarchists see the present and not too distant future better realised through peaceful community organisation, with revolution as a much vaguer, futuristic alternative.

    [Note that I am not an anarchist of any kind, not any more].
    Is it really possible to draw a distiction between the two because propaganda by deed is supposed to inspire revolutionary change. Malatesta specified that 'revolution consists more of deeds than words', and people often do used the phrase 'actions speak louder than words'. The main targets were often the bourgeous autocrats such as kings and emperors and so were revolutionary acts. To attack autocrats is more appropriate than to attack property owners. In the early Soviet Russia they had the problem of classifying property owners as many rural peasants owned their own land, tools and property but were in no means bourgeous.

    I think the reason that many anarchists have chosen a more peaceful path is that propoganda by deed and other violent methods have failed and only caused to ostracise anarchists from the masses.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)

    I also made a post on here about oligopolies and price stickiness
    What do you see as the answer to natural monopolies? The 25% market share does nothing to prevent natural monopolies from exploiting people. Natural monopolies can not be broken up effectively without waste and duplication of resources.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedbrar)
    Is it really possible to draw a distiction between the two because propaganda by deed is supposed to inspire revolutionary change. Malatesta specified that 'revolution consists more of deeds than words', and people often do used the phrase 'actions speak louder than words'. The main targets were often the bourgeous autocrats such as kings and emperors and so were revolutionary acts. To attack autocrats is more appropriate than to attack property owners. In the early Soviet Russia they had the problem of classifying property owners as many rural peasants owned their own land, tools and property but were in no means bourgeous.

    I think the reason that many anarchists have chosen a more peaceful path is that propoganda by deed and other violent methods have failed and only caused to ostracise anarchists from the masses.
    From what I know, anarchists in the Spainish revolution did not necessarily employ propaganda by the deed (this was mainly a tactic employed in France during the late nineteenth century as revenge against political cronies and property owners who employed violence against revolutionary workers in the Paris Communes) before hand but 90 years (can't remember exact amount of years) or so of labour movement reorganisation (syndicalism) and community reorganisation, as well as general independence of anarchist movements from the broader labour movement. From 1936-39, they seized and collectivised land and property, largely in rural areas (and Spain was admittedly industrialising, to be fair) - mainly in Catalonia and Aragon.

    But, like I said, if it is simple and peaceful community reorganisation they seek, it is just a matter of pure semantics distinguishing themselves from the anarcho-capitalist communities who are so frequently excluded from broader anarchist circles because they espouse 'dirty capitalist' ideas.

    What do you see as the answer to natural monopolies? The 25% market share does nothing to prevent natural monopolies from exploiting people. Natural monopolies can not be broken up effectively without waste and duplication of resources.
    My views on laissez-faire should be taken as seperate from those views on collectivist anarchism, because I would have said something seperate had I been asked to critique collectivist anarchism from a non laissez-faire perspective, if you gather my meaning. I know that the 'answer' is certainly not a socialist economy. I'm too tired to address the issues behind socialism, but it basically boils down to the impossibility of co-ordinated production without pricing mechanisms and general marginalism. Also, a monopoly is not really possible just at 25%. Remember, a monopoly is such that it is able to exclude virtually any competition from the market. As I said in the post, I don't really know what the 'answer' is to non-perfect competition, but then, larger firms (not monopolies) can be more efficient producers with more capital flows, abstracting from the issue of price-stickiness. Its questionable whether 'natural monopolies' are possible, anway (even Standard Oils only had a 90% share and sold at much cheaper prices than competitors). Governments intervene on a microeconomic level and the reality is that western markets trends away from (absolute) monopolisation one way or another.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Monopoly in this sense doesn't mean "Oh, X company locks out competition by large market share..." it would be pretty much irrelevant. Capitalism is always monopoly because the means of production are monopolised in the sense they are owned privately and by the few instead of democratically and by the many.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Which accompaniment is best?
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.