Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I don't thinks would change geographically. People would still live in towns, villages and cities? I am not sure whether there would be an England, but I don't see why not.
    Thank you for your response! :gah:

    (Original post by Low Profile)
    x
    Just wanted to build on Lord Hysteria's point if I may. Like he says, there are differences present in everything and everyone. I believe that people should accept these differences merely as differences and utilise their respective strengths as opposed to comparing one another. In that way, you get a 'dog-eat-dog' mentality whereas if you respect one another for your respective talents, you get more of a community kind of atmosphere.

    I don't think arbitrary measures should be placed on what anarchy is and what it isn't. The only really hard and fast rule is that there isn't a government and even that is loosened. After all, it's hardly anarchic to shun other ideas to propel one's own. I think capitalism can work with anarchy. In my view, anarchy is great as a social viewpoint for life but floundering in terms of economy. I have my own ideas but there's not any real definitive look at what to do with the economy except from anarcho-capitalist scholars or what have you. I don't see why you can't have, for example, anarchy and a complete free market with a lack of taxes.

    (Original post by JakePearson)
    And you'd let people opt out of these communes?
    I'd disagree slightly with Low Profile's answer here. I mean, what is law? In anarchy, I'd suppose it to be the generally accepted moral code by a specific commune. In the commune I would like to live in, I don't think it would be right to exile people simply because they have broken the law because then there's no way for these people to accept society's way and what you essentially is create bunches of hate figures which will sooner of later encourage an uprising.

    In terms of opting out of communes; I don't think it should be a stringent, binding collective. You should be able to drift in and out of communes as and when you please.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I'd disagree slightly with Low Profile's answer here. I mean, what is law? In anarchy, I'd suppose it to be the generally accepted moral code by a specific commune. In the commune I would like to live in, I don't think it would be right to exile people simply because they have broken the law because then there's no way for these people to accept society's way and what you essentially is create bunches of hate figures which will sooner of later encourage an uprising.
    I believe law is a direct function of states only. I prefer using the term "rules" when talking about the accepted moral codes of specific communes/businesses/establishments. Generally, exiling people wouldn't be necessary as people would join whatever commune that best applied their moral code?

    In terms of opting out of communes; I don't think it should be a stringent, binding collective. You should be able to drift in and out of communes as and when you please.
    Ah that doesn't sound too different from anarcho-capitalism. I'm sure communes, so long as they were voluntary, would be accepted in an-cap societies.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Just a general point to make to everyone - you can now direct questions at me too. I've been seriously questioning my minarchist beliefs over the past few weeks and have concluded that I can no longer defend the state holding a violent monopoly on police, courts and defence. I am an anarcho-capitalist (although I prefer the term 'voluntarist'). As with any new belief or shift in ideology it will take me time to fully understand the system so my answers won't be perfect. It's amazing how much changes when you simply drop three more services from the list of things you believe government should not provide.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Thank you for your response! :gah:



    Just wanted to build on Lord Hysteria's point if I may. Like he says, there are differences present in everything and everyone. I believe that people should accept these differences merely as differences and utilise their respective strengths as opposed to comparing one another. In that way, you get a 'dog-eat-dog' mentality whereas if you respect one another for your respective talents, you get more of a community kind of atmosphere.

    I don't think arbitrary measures should be placed on what anarchy is and what it isn't. The only really hard and fast rule is that there isn't a government and even that is loosened. After all, it's hardly anarchic to shun other ideas to propel one's own. I think capitalism can work with anarchy. In my view, anarchy is great as a social viewpoint for life but floundering in terms of economy. I have my own ideas but there's not any real definitive look at what to do with the economy except from anarcho-capitalist scholars or what have you. I don't see why you can't have, for example, anarchy and a complete free market with a lack of taxes.



    I'd disagree slightly with Low Profile's answer here. I mean, what is law? In anarchy, I'd suppose it to be the generally accepted moral code by a specific commune. In the commune I would like to live in, I don't think it would be right to exile people simply because they have broken the law because then there's no way for these people to accept society's way and what you essentially is create bunches of hate figures which will sooner of later encourage an uprising.

    In terms of opting out of communes; I don't think it should be a stringent, binding collective. You should be able to drift in and out of communes as and when you please.
    I never said disregard talents of others! I clearly stated that in order for society to progressive for all we must give back to others who are not so gifted. My ideas which I proposed were taken as an process of social organising, the harmony must be embraced and system guided towards the general wellfare of all is how I directed it. It is clear that without an encouragement of unifying ideas society would collapse.

    If you drift out of communes then you are drifting out of a society which you contributed to. You can't just pin anarchism as "no government" you must specify the alternative and I tried my best to do so.

    Anarchist Law: regulation of public services and protection of individuals in society. The course of a moral code would have to be relative to the society.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Depends on how you mean, if you mean by breaking the Law of course not. However, the opting out of the communes is opting out of societal function.
    What he means is that would a commune be able to compete with a Capitalist?

    Suppose, one guy in the commune factory under-consumes, and saves resources. He then leaves the commune to set-up a business that he owns. Would he be able to buy labour, and compete against the initial commune.

    In anarcho-capitalism, he would be able to.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    I'm afraid Capitalism only wins when you have an effective voice; for the majority we are on a boat with few lifeboats and all control is with the crew(politicians) and the sea(Bourgeoisie). The priviledged get the lifeboats so all's well.
    Remember, we are talking about laissez-faire Capitalism, and not Corporatism.

    In laissez-faire, every single person has the power to vote for a business (and indirectly against another) by using his money. Each person has an equal vote. Capitalism literally empowers the people. The government transfers that power to government bureaucrats who can, apparently, be better at decide for things for you!

    I think you might be defining Capitalism, in terms of class struggle.

    On a more detailed note, you mentioned "traits" which is something I can concure 100% on. However, as Rawls mentioned in an egalitarian society; we should embrace "natural talents" and distribute a fair means of their wealth when it is in an amount where it is a waste to one person. Capitalism strives on greed and diminishes the value that humanity embodies. People should not be exploited when they are less well-off and this is where I believe the key to any harmonious society is through education.
    Why should "natural talents" be any different to "financial talents"? Both give someone an opportunity above the others?

    Capitalism doesn't strive on greed. Humans strive on greed. Are you seriously going to tell me you'd happy with enough-is-enough? What if I asked you now? Would you say 'yes'? Does that mean you genuinely wouldn't like to have a swimming pool, several sexy partners, a mansion, your own plane ..... and so forth? What if your mum got seriously ill? Would you be happy with "enough-is-enough"?

    Thus, laissez-faire Capitalism recognises the human condition and allows us to prosper because of it.

    You mentioned "resources" that people have, this is fundamentally through a system of education not just through school but through public services, media and public facilities. I never stated once to deny opportunity and my suggestions are quite clear. People should not be fed with capitalist desires of greater wealth gives better health and happiness but rather stability and liberty gives this.
    My point was that talk about equality of opportunity - something that I take very seriously - in the mouths of syndicalists, Marxists, and socialists usually involves denying some people opportunity out of the sheer fact that there exists those that don't.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Thank you for your response! :gah:
    What is that smilie? Lol.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Remember, we are talking about laissez-faire Capitalism, and not Corporatism.

    In laissez-faire, every single person has the power to vote for a business (and indirectly against another) by using his money. Each person has an equal vote. Capitalism literally empowers the people. The government transfers that power to government bureaucrats who can, apparently, be better at decide for things for you!

    I think you might be defining Capitalism, in terms of class struggle.
    Capitalism creates "false needs" it makes people think they need more than incentives.
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Why should "natural talents" be any different to "financial talents"? Both give someone an opportunity above the others?
    What is financial talents (if not the exploitation of others)? I say reward should be proportional to talents but not greatly above the average income in society. This allows wealth to be not equal to individual power. Extreme wealth would only corrupt people in society directly or indirectly; wealth has a great presence in politics and this should not be the case.

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Capitalism doesn't strive on greed. Humans strive on greed. Are you seriously going to tell me you'd happy with enough-is-enough? What if I asked you now? Would you say 'yes'? Does that mean you genuinely wouldn't like to have a swimming pool, several sexy partners, a mansion, your own plane ..... and so forth? What if your mum got seriously ill? Would you be happy with "enough-is-enough"?
    How can you draw that conclusion? True capitalism is replacement of value for selfishness. I would be happy with stability and a progressive lifestyle involving health and knowledge. I don't want a mansion or my own plane because I do not have a capitalist mentality where one always wants something over another.

    On the health of a family member, wealth should not be a benefactor towards wellfare.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    ...
    These long drawn out posts do tire one out especially when points get repeated so excuse me if I leave anything out of the discussion as I try to condense my viewpoints when tackling your key arguments. Also, apologies for the delay.

    "Syndicalism" is merely a theory which aims to see the economic betterment of the workers under present day society via worker's organisations (e.g. trade unions) also referred to as "syndicates". Whereas "anarcho-syndicalism" is a theory that seeks to achieve this but also utilise syndicates to create the sort of classless, stateless society (communism) that I have described that is based around the smooth-flowing functioning of autonomous communes which co-operate on a national and international basis.

    When you ask , what is the basis of my anarchism, do you mean previous research, such as the study of philosophy, or life experiences. In either case I agree with Marx that the result history is the result of the story of class struggle and that mind and and material are not wholly seperate but rather one with each other. The world is a smooth flowing organisation of various components: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Life experience wise I have travelled extensively and seen with my own eyes the horrors of poverty (which you will no doubt argue is the result of corporatism but I do not see any reason why a market that is entirely free from restraints and is operated purely by the profit incentive will find a way to exploit both third world and western citizens to the extent that a truly free market will be one which disregards the importance of human society for the benefits of the individuals who make it to the top of the ladder).

    It is hard to say that you "genuinely wouldn't support AC, if [you] felt that they'd become victims and would be marginalised" as an anarcho-capitalist society in its truest form has never truly existed. However one can only speculate the how the course of the free market and how the course of restrictions upon the free market has affected society as a whole so far. Some may argue that freer market economies such as Britain and the US have resulted in better lifestyles overall but that would be to forget about the exploitation of western markets over the third world and their capitalisation on the poor.

    You state that charity would assume the role however even under present day society with the combined efforts of the state and private charity this is still far from sufficient. Of course you will argue that under a free market system there would be less strain on charities due to the increase of living standards however I do not believe that the free market will lead to the increase of living standards. For one thing, we have never had a free market (entirely free from state intervention whatsoever). For another thing this voluntaryism will see workers exploited by their employers who extract a percentage from their labour that is larger than their own (the employer's) work input. Competition, you say will force living standards to improve but the truth is that businesses can co-operate to maximise profit. No employer would welcome the risk of competition from other firms to destroy his own business. This reminds me the rise of feudalism as Kropotkin puts it:

    Let us glance for a moment at the Middle Ages, when great fortunes began to spring up.

    A feudal baron seizes on a fertile valley. But as long as the fertile valley is empty of folk our baron is not rich. His land brings him in nothing; he might as well possess a property in the moon.

    What does our baron do to enrich himself? He looks out for peasants--for poor peasants!

    If every peasant-farmer had a piece of land, free from rent and taxes, if he had in addition the tools and the stock necessary for farm labour, who would plough the lands of the baron? Everyone would look after his own. But there are thousands of destitute persons ruined by wars, or drought, or pestilence. They have neither horse nor plough. (Iron was costly in the Middle Ages, and a draughthorse still more so.)

    All these destitute creatures are trying to better their condition. One day they see on the road at the confines of our baron's estate a notice-board indicating by certain signs adapted to their comprehension that the labourer who is willing to settle on this estate will receive the tools and materials to build his cottage and sow his fields, and a portion of land rent free for a certain number of years. The number of years is represented by so many crosses on the sign-board, and the peasant understands the meaning of these crosses.

    So the poor wretches swarm over the baron's lands, making roads, draining marshes, building villages. In nine years he begins to tax them. Five years later he increases the rent. Then he doubles it. The peasant accepts these new conditions because he cannot find better ones elsewhere; and little by little, with the aid of laws made by the barons, the poverty of the peasant becomes the source of the landlord's wealth. And it is not only the lord of the manor who preys upon him. A whole host of usurers swoop down upon the villages, multiplying as the wretchedness of the peasants increases. That is how things went in the Middle Ages. And to-day is it not still the same thing? If there were free lands which the peasant could cultivate if he pleased, would he pay £50 to some "shabble of a duke"(1) for condescending to sell him a scrap? Would he burden himself with a lease which absorbed a third of the produce? Would he--on the métayer system--consent to give the half of his harvest to the landowner?

    But he has nothing. So he will accept any conditions, if only he can keep body and soul together, while he tills the soil and enriches the landlord.
    Of course you will argue that under feudalism the peasants were bound to the land from birth. However I see no reason why this would not eventually become the case under anarcho-capitalism with families living on the land-owners for generations until they eventually sign a contract binding all later, unborn members of the family to his land.

    You can see then why I see "anarcho-capitalism" as a contradiction in terms as I believe that private property itself is authority.

    My next point is about capital. I do not wish to obliterate capital rather I wish to socialise it. As I believe that whilst the world's wealth and technology is generated into so few hands and sold for profit this actually decreases progress and technological advancements. As communism is a progressive ideology, I wish to see the expansion of technology, not the destruction of it. I believe this is far more practical to do so and for the worlds wealth, agriculture and technology to truly be used in the benefits of society if it is placed into the hands of society. Indeed capital is no bad thing.

    You state that resources are scarce thus seeing the need for risk-taking however this is far from the case. Resources are huge and can be improved (e.g. via renewable energy) if technology is truly socialised. Developments are often hindered by capitalism as progress in the scientific field is minimalised if it does not present itself with a possible opportunity to create profit for the entrepeuner. It may seem that resources are scarce but this is only the case because they are generated into so few hands.

    I believe that under society, communes would organise the workers who make them up to build the means of production because it will be beneficial to society as a whole. The workers will truly be able to reap the benefits of their own product (as well as truly seeing the benefits to society as a whole) and will thus be "incentivised" to build the means of production.

    "The economic race should not be arranged so that everyone ends up at the finish line at the same time, but so that everyone starts at the same time."

    I have problems with this statement because people do not start at the same place as others are born with greater wealth and therefore begin ahead in the "economic race".

    The whole risk-taking scenario is not so relevant to communism as it is to capitalism since the workers will be incentivised to work hard due to their guarantee of a decent living (provided they work) and free time to truly engage in activities which will see the expansion of the human race as a direct result of their own actions. Communes will simply organise business because it is in the interests of society rather than because it might bring them profit.

    Could you explain to me how you "democratically decide upon the distribution of goods and services based upon labour"?

    So, factory A makes 100 chocolate bars, do they make elections? Who decides - the workers? What about a guy who didn't want to work @ the factory? He has nothing? Does each person's entitlement to x depend on how many hours he works?
    It would not have to be intensely beauracratic like that. Sure decisions that the company would make (how many chocolate bars, etc.) would be decided democratically but the company would redistribute it's wealth in reasonable rations to all working members of the communes. If you work, then goods and services are rationed to you (a) as you need them, (b) according to your line of work (a farmer needs more land, etc.) and (c) provided you work. A rough note is taken by members of the commune of what is taken and what work is being done but there will only be intervention if people go over the top. A bit like an all you can eat buffet, perhaps?

    Yeap. I also dislike corporatism. They're an extension of the state, operating under the veil of the free-market.
    You avoid my point which is that it is still profitable for Shell to pollute Nigeria (as they still have consumers elsewhere who are apparently blind to the destruction their actions cause) and that they would not go bust in the free market. Even if they were to go bust in the free market this would not necessarily stop them in the first place. For instance, does the "crime deterrent" of prison necessarily prevent criminals committing crime in the first place? No, because not everyone considers the consequences.

    I will answer other points at a later time.

    Edit - I will resume answering posts. Phew this is hard work. Hopefully this way of discussion will narrow down the argument to a few basic points.

    You argue that the economic laws of supply and demand will minimise wastage of scarce resources however I believe that in an anarchist society, the workman would not recklessly throw away valuable resources. I believe the rich are more inclined to take what they want (often to the detriment of the vaster population of society) and claim ownership to goods and property via investment, inheritance, etc. This allows far greater accumulation of goods (which are wasted on one person) whereas such goods could be distributed amongst society more fairly. Sure you will argue that wealth creates wealth (we don't live in a sub-zero economy) and to an extent I agree but I believe that to maximise the production of wealth it is far easier to do so if the technology is in the hands of society. I am, by no stretch of the imagination, an anarcho-primitivist as I truly do believe in capital. This should answer many of your later points. It is accumulation of capital but not capital itself that I am opposed to.

    "renewable sources of energy" ~ awesome! But doesn't that require *gasp* capital ?
    See above

    (1) What about the sacrifice the doctor undertook in spending 6+ years in medical school? Why would he go to uni, have a massive debt, if he'll get paid the same rate as a cleaner? He'd just go to cleaner's school!
    The vast majority of doctors would not spend 6 years studying for their profession if they did not really and truly care about helping people. I believe that it is largely the profit incentive which helds back the development of technology, science etc., where progression cannot be made if the capitalist owning the firm does not deem it to be immediately profitable and research projects of dearest value to society are stopped short. The scientists (the workers) have no means of control over their laboratory (the means of production) in such a system. Also you forget that he wouldn't have a massive debt for going to uni as education would be free

    I believe that this Noam Chomsky extract is of relevance:

    So they're granted rights way beyond persons. They are immortal, they are extraordinarily powerful, they are pathological by legal requirement, and that's the contemporary form of totalitarianism. They are not truly competitive, they are linked to one another. So Siemens and IBM and Toshiba carry out joint projects. They rely heavily on state power; the dynamism of the modern economy comes mostly out of the state sector, inot the private sector. Almost every aspect of what's called the "New Economy" is developed and designed at public cost and public risk: computers, electronics generally, telecommunications, the internet, lasers, whatever...

    Take radio. Radio was designed by the US Navy. Mass production, modern mass production was developed in armories. If you go back to a century ago, the major problems of electrical and mechanical engineering had to do with how to place a huge gun on a moving platform, namely a ship, designing it to be able to hit a moving object, another ship, so naval gunnery. That was the most advanced problem in metallurgy, electrical and mechanical engineering, and so on. England and Germany put huge efforts into it, the United States less so. Out of associated innovations comes the automotive industry, and so on and so forth. In fact, it's very hard to find anything in the economy that doesn't rely critically on the state sector.

    After the Second World War this took a qualitative leap upward, particularly in the United States, and while Alan Greenspan and others make speeches about "entrepreneurial initiative" and "consumer choice," and things you learn about in graduate school, and so on, this has almost no resemblance to the actual working economy. In fact a striking example of all this which we see very clearly at MIT, a main technological scientific university, is a recent shift in funding. When I got to MIT 50 years ago, it was Pentagon funded, almost one hundred percent. That stayed true until about 1970. Since then, however, Pentagon funding has been declining and funding from the National Institute of Health and the other so called health-related national institutes has gone up.

    The reason is obvious to everybody except maybe some highly theoretical economists. The reason is that the cutting edge of the economy in the fifties and the sixties was electronics-based, so therefore it made sense for the public to pay for it under the pretext of defense. By now the cutting edge of the economy is becoming biology-based. Biotechnology, genetic engineering and so on, and pharmaceuticals, so it makes sense for the public to pay for that and to take the risks for it under the pretext of, you know, finding a cure for cancer or something. Actually what's happening is just developing the infrastructure and insights for the biological-based private industries of the future. They are happy to let the public pay the costs and take the risks, and then transfer the results to private corporations to make the profits. From the point of view of corporate elites it is a perfect system, this interaction between state and private power. There's plenty of other interactions as well. For example, the Pentagon isn't just for developing the economy, it's also for making sure that the world follows corporate friendly rules. So the linkages are quite complex.
    I know that the above article is about the importance of the state sector but Noam Chomsky is, like me, a libertarian socialist and views the state sector as preferable to the private sector. Ideally though, there would be no state and the means of production would be under the common ownership of society.

    It says a lot that masterminds like Albert Einstein who played significant importance in the development of science claimed themselves to be socialist.

    (2) Let's suppose there is a shortage of doctors one day in Syndicalism, which isn't hard to imagine , then what signal would be sent to encourage more people to "fill the gap"? Supply and demand curve ensures that resources, including labour, are used most efficiently in the market place. What signals are there going to be, that we need more doctors, or whatever?
    The fact is, we would have more doctors if people had free access to education (have you read my post about a freer system of education, by the way? I gathered that you had from another post you made but you merely stated that this was unrealistic which I found a little surprising considering you are a libertarian, a right wing one but a libertarian all the same. Not having a dig by the way.) I stated above that society would preserve scarce resources in place of supply and demand. As far as signals go, well communes would organise advertising blah, blah, blah saying we need more doctors.

    The fact is that as far as companies not waging war goes, well it is clear that they would not push their prices up immediately as a result of funding a war, rather they would hold back wait until they could extract money (e.g. attacking oil reserves or whatever) then use that to cover the cost. Honestly, the people on the other end wouldn't treat the situation any better. I can see them covering costs in the short term either by bribing the PPA in charge of protecting the oil reserves (in which case they wouldn't have to go to the expense of causing war), or taking a loan from a bank to fund a war (the bank would take the risk it if it could see potential profit as a result of this war. If banks never took risks, then old Gordon wouldn't have had to bail them out - also they risked the potential threat of not being bailed out as not all the banks got bailed out when they cocked up).

    They'll probably do it in the cheapest way. My PPA will phone up the other one, and say "hey, erm, Lord Hysteria is pissed off. You destroyed his garden ... blah blah". My PPA will know the other guy very very well, since they'll be dealing with each other all the time, so they'll arrange a system that meets their demands in the most cost-effective way.
    What happens if they refuse the offer of your PPA? How about if society was able to intervene to prevent businesses doing things like this in the first place without having to go through legal arrangements, etc. (which will inevitably benefit the rich if they can afford an army of lawyers).

    Also it seems that these private protection agencies will simply act as a state, no? I mean they will inevitably enforce the will of whoever pays them the most money a bit like the present day state. If we have 10% owning 80% of the worlds wealth then inevitably we have money buying votes and those with more money have more say in politics. Yes, sure, society will frown upon certain laws but the PPAs will inevitably enforce the laws of the wealthiest as this is the way it is most likely to work out.

    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Ah that doesn't sound too different from anarcho-capitalism. I'm sure communes, so long as they were voluntary, would be accepted in an-cap societies.
    I answered this point in another forum:

    "We can't have small [isolated] communes in an ancap system because hostile monopolies would intervene militarily. Private property must be abolished - it needs to be communal for socialism to function"

    (Bracketed word was to put quote into context of present discussion)

    People have freedom of choice between communes however this is not capitalism because the private accumulation of capital is not possible and whilst you may leave communes, communes have the power to intervene if you infringe upon another man's human rights or damage land (pollute the environment). You are granted personal property but not private property.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I believe law is a direct function of states only. I prefer using the term "rules" when talking about the accepted moral codes of specific communes/businesses/establishments. Generally, exiling people wouldn't be necessary as people would join whatever commune that best applied their moral code?



    Ah that doesn't sound too different from anarcho-capitalism. I'm sure communes, so long as they were voluntary, would be accepted in an-cap societies.
    Hello there and thank you for the response. So, to the first bit; OK I accept that you can say law is a direct function of state but my meaning of it slightly differs and probably fits in more with your definition of rules. I suppose in this case its just a confusion of each other's terms. Exiling people wouldn't be necessary, you're right. But I suppose you could exclude a person from a society or a geographically based commune (if you accept communes should be based around different interests).

    I think so too. That said, the idea of voluntary communes is something I think most anarchists would agree with. I suppose this is a universally accepted anarchist way of thinking but there's nothing to say you can't have some fixed communes.

    Also, nice to hear you are now an anarcho-capitalist! I agree, it's quite a hard shift to make, even from minarchism to anarchy but hopefully you find it fruitful for you. I don't know many works I can recommend for reading with anarcho-capitalism but anarcho-syndicalism and parts of anarchy as a whole are covered fairly well by Rudolf Rocker.

    (Original post by Low Profile)
    I never said disregard talents of others! I clearly stated that in order for society to progressive for all we must give back to others who are not so gifted. My ideas which I proposed were taken as an process of social organising, the harmony must be embraced and system guided towards the general wellfare of all is how I directed it. It is clear that without an encouragement of unifying ideas society would collapse.

    If you drift out of communes then you are drifting out of a society which you contributed to. You can't just pin anarchism as "no government" you must specify the alternative and I tried my best to do so.

    Anarchist Law: regulation of public services and protection of individuals in society. The course of a moral code would have to be relative to the society.
    Sorry. I must've misunderstood what you mean. The main gist of what I was saying is that a difference shouldn't be treated as a hindrance but rather as an assest, unless it physically or mentally disables in which case, as you say, we all help one another. I agree with you on the rest of this about social cohesion but where I think I have a difference is your view on communes.

    You can contribute to a society, I feel, and leave it once you are done. I would say that in an anarchist society, people wouldn't do it out of malice but either because their job is done, they no longer feel needed or they no longer feel comfortable. I think when people feel they need to leave, they should be allowed to. Also, I didn't mean to say anarchy is "no government", more that it's one tenet which is agreed upon by every derivative of anarchy and any explanations following that is simply the individual's view of how anarchy should function.

    In terms of law, I'd say regulation and protection are not essential. Whilst I don't agree with it personally, I don't feel it's right for me to stop a commune from functioning in a way which means that people must protect themselves. Public institutions would imply a state which I don't think is present in most, if not all, forms of anarchy. In that respect, I'd assume communes collectively would support whatever institution they feel is mutually beneficial for them all.

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    x
    Hello The code for it is:

    Code:
    [*s]gah[/s]
    Remove asterisk.

    But I don't know the name of the meme is unfortunately.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    Welcome back!

    Sorry to the posts I have not (but wanted to) replied to; unfortunately, I don't have the time to read them at the moment. So I will throw a current issue into the mix. In about January some time, Sudan may split into Northern and Southern Sudan, with the Muslims concentrated in the North and the Christians in the South. Just wondered what people thought of this from an anarchist (or any other) viewpoint. And following on from that, can Pan-Africanism be considered anarchy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Welcome back!

    Sorry to the posts I have not (but wanted to) replied to; unfortunately, I don't have the time to read them at the moment. So I will throw a current issue into the mix. In about January some time, Sudan may split into Northern and Southern Sudan, with the Muslims concentrated in the North and the Christians in the South. Just wondered what people thought of this from an anarchist (or any other) viewpoint. And following on from that, can Pan-Africanism be considered anarchy?
    Hmm...I will have to think about these topics in order to provide you with a decent reply.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Hmm...I will have to think about these topics in order to provide you with a decent reply.
    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

    You may find this interesting. Open to anyone to read out of interest or if we can't give you a good enough response (which I hope isn't the case!).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

    You may find this interesting. Open to anyone to read out of interest or if we can't give you a good enough response (which I hope isn't the case!).
    As it happens I have been reading the Iain McKay FAQ for quite a while now (it is very useful). Thanks anyway though.

    EDIT - Might I suggest, that you edit your first post in this thread to include the FAQ as it is an invaluable research tool for the ideology of anarchism.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    I'll respond in a few days or so. I haven't forgotten .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I'll respond in a few days or so. I haven't forgotten .
    That's cool. To keep the discussion interesting, I'd like to throw in a few questions to be answered when you get round to it (I am allowed to answer you questions too since you claim to be an anarchist ). Since the other discussion is getting tired out, you can scrap that and go straight on to here if you would prefer.

    * Do you think that the individual is more important than society? If so, why?
    * Since you are a libertarian and therefore oppose certain or all forms of authority, why do you support private property or the authoritarian relationships that landlords and capitalists have with those who work on/reside in the land/means of production?
    *I believe that self-governance will help to improve individuality and allow intellect and innovations to flower. This is because of the responsibility provided to the individual when he is provided with control over/a say in how the means of production is run. How would you refute the claims that growth of the individual is maximised in both a non-statist and non-capitalist society?
    *Finally, how can you provide equality of opportunity under capitalism without first creating the equality of outcome to provide future generations with equal opportunity despite their parent's income and resources? Under anarchism, equality of outcome is not necessary to provide equality of opportunity, only social equality which is provided for by self-management.

    Danke

    p.s. any other liberal is free to answer these points.

    Edit: Also do you not feel that human behaviour is shaped by its surroundings? How do you think that the behaviour of society as a whole will be shaped by a system which accepts, even rewards, Darwinian style competition and ruthless lust for materialism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Democratic and collective practices would help sustain social welfare in society and should not be disregarded under a Anarcho-Capitalism. An A' society under a form of capitalism would favour a system where wealth is the benefactor to individual progress but not progress on a general scale. The continuity of this would eventuate a revolution. Capitalism strives on inequality whereas Anarchism doesn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Democratic and collective practices would help sustain social welfare in society and should not be disregarded under a Anarcho-Capitalism. An A' society under a form of capitalism would favour a system where wealth is the benefactor to individual progress but not progress on a general scale. The continuity of this would eventuate a revolution. Capitalism strives on inequality whereas Anarchism doesn't.
    The difficulty here is resources: monopolies would inevitable hold the majority of resources and "hippy-style" communes would find themselves with scarce resources as a result (indeed anarchists like Kropotkin often found themselves hostile to small-scale, utopian experiments with communism). Inevitably, even if these communes had any success they would find it difficult to maintain trade links with the nature of the hostile capitalist surroundings and would possibly find themselves struggling with military intervention (especially given the nature of anarchism as an ideology which does not endorse private property and would therefore anarchists from communes would eventually seek to overthrow the authoritarian principle and take over large scales of unused land). Those who were chewed up and spit out of the capitalist system would try and join communes, adding to the problem of evermore scarcity in resources.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    That's cool. To keep the discussion interesting, I'd like to throw in a few questions to be answered when you get round to it (I am allowed to answer you questions too since you claim to be an anarchist ). Since the other discussion is getting tired out, you can scrap that and go straight on to here if you would prefer.

    * Do you think that the individual is more important than society? If so, why?
    * Since you are a libertarian and therefore oppose certain or all forms of authority, why do you support private property or the authoritarian relationships that landlords and capitalists have with those who work on/reside in the land/means of production?
    *I believe that self-governance will help to improve individuality and allow intellect and innovations to flower. This is because of the responsibility provided to the individual when he is provided with control over/a say in how the means of production is run. How would you refute the claims that growth of the individual is maximised in both a non-statist and non-capitalist society?
    *Finally, how can you provide equality of opportunity under capitalism without first creating the equality of outcome to provide future generations with equal opportunity despite their parent's income and resources? Under anarchism, equality of outcome is not necessary to provide equality of opportunity, only social equality which is provided for by self-management.

    Danke

    p.s. any other liberal is free to answer these points.

    Edit: Also do you not feel that human behaviour is shaped by its surroundings? How do you think that the behaviour of society as a whole will be shaped by a system which accepts, even rewards, Darwinian style competition and ruthless lust for materialism?
    Sure thing.

    Currently watching Spiderman 3, reading a few articles on the wikileaks and trying to make my own opinion, and having popcorn.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Democratic and collective practices would help sustain social welfare in society and should not be disregarded under a Anarcho-Capitalism.
    It would not be disregarded in Anarcho-Capitalism
    I'll post more on this later if you like.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    As it happens I have been reading the Iain McKay FAQ for quite a while now (it is very useful). Thanks anyway though.

    EDIT - Might I suggest, that you edit your first post in this thread to include the FAQ as it is an invaluable research tool for the ideology of anarchism.
    It is done. Tell your friends! :gah:
 
 
 
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.