Turn on thread page Beta

D&D PTP&P's "Ask An Anarchist" Thread watch

    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. 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.
    Hey there. Sorry about the delay. This is my favourite thread on the forum. Discussions here can be quite interesting. However, I usually take a few days to respond to posts since they involve some complicated issues, and much more detailed posts than usual.

    Social welfare is a problem that Anarcho-capitalism won't "solve". It will reduce it, but there will always be some very poor people in society. This isn't a fault of Capitalism (or indeed Socialism) but the reality of the scarcity of the world around us. Libertarians and socialists are united in their attempts at improving standards of living and a desire to see man flourish and improve his life. I certainly do. The free-market leads to a more efficient and optimal allocation of resources on the planet. Two people basically come together and undergo voluntary transaction to improve their lives. That is what the "free-market" is. The results are much much better than with central planning. Personally, this is the source of my respect and adoration for the concept of the free-market. It produces better results for all in society. So, overtime the percentage of people in society that are very very poor (can't afford food levels of poverty) would decrease.

    As I said, no system will eradicate poverty. Anyone who says that is talking in theory and NOT reality. Humans are compassionate creatures. For instance, although I don't mean to brag or whatever, I spend 4 hours on Saturday working at Oxfam. I rather enjoy it knowing that someone will have access to hot meal and so forth. People will still donate money to earthquake victims, and help those who are most unfortunate in life. So, the bits that Capitalism doesn't deal with (after all, it isn't even meant to) will be carried on the shoulders of fellow human beings. Both of us are anarchists, I think? Although, my anarchism stems from the fact that I know government is terribly inefficient. When it comes to social welfare, if you calculate the efficiency of government (the amount they take in for social welfare and the amount they pay to those in need) then it is something like 25%!! This is outrageous! Compare that to private charities and they are around 80-90% efficient. I made a post on this here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Hey there. Sorry about the delay. This is my favourite thread on the forum. Discussions here can be quite interesting. However, I usually take a few days to respond to posts since they involve some complicated issues, and much more detailed posts than usual.

    Social welfare is a problem that Anarcho-capitalism won't "solve". It will reduce it, but there will always be some very poor people in society. This isn't a fault of Capitalism (or indeed Socialism) but the reality of the scarcity of the world around us. Libertarians and socialists are united in their attempts at improving standards of living and a desire to see man flourish and improve his life. I certainly do. The free-market leads to a more efficient and optimal allocation of resources on the planet. Two people basically come together and undergo voluntary transaction to improve their lives. That is what the "free-market" is. The results are much much better than with central planning. Personally, this is the source of my respect and adoration for the concept of the free-market. It produces better results for all in society. So, overtime the percentage of people in society that are very very poor (can't afford food levels of poverty) would decrease.

    As I said, no system will eradicate poverty. Anyone who says that is talking in theory and NOT reality. Humans are compassionate creatures. For instance, although I don't mean to brag or whatever, I spend 4 hours on Saturday working at Oxfam. I rather enjoy it knowing that someone will have access to hot meal and so forth. People will still donate money to earthquake victims, and help those who are most unfortunate in life. So, the bits that Capitalism doesn't deal with (after all, it isn't even meant to) will be carried on the shoulders of fellow human beings. Both of us are anarchists, I think? Although, my anarchism stems from the fact that I know government is terribly inefficient. When it comes to social welfare, if you calculate the efficiency of government (the amount they take in for social welfare and the amount they pay to those in need) then it is something like 25%!! This is outrageous! Compare that to private charities and they are around 80-90% efficient. I made a post on this here.
    I think you make an important point here. Too many times when political theory is discussed, people become too wrapt up in exactly that; the theory. Those arguing either for or against seem to forget the common failings that would inherently be present in any functioning society. The system we have right now, for example, is not pure anything but a mixture of statism, capitalism and democracy yet people don't seem to realise this when making an argument (not trying to hit out on you here Low Profile, just a general point).

    With your view on anarcho-capitalism in particular; whilst I see the benefits of a free market economy (I'd go so far as to say that a lack of restriction on trade is essential anarchic), I am unsure as to how fair this would be if there is not social cohesion first of all. So whilst it may be a valid ideology, I'd advocate reforming social structure before economics. Also, that's an interesting point on charities. However, is that due to having a greater efficiency because there are less issues for them to contend with?

    P.S. Glad to know you think that of the thread! I've added a link to my OP that you might find useful/informative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you guys think that taxation is theft?
    Would you agree with the following video?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfVMF_FptaU
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Do you guys think that taxation is theft?
    Would you agree with the following video?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfVMF_FptaU
    Yes. People believe taxes are there to help us live a stable lifestyle. I'd say, mostly, that's a lie. Like the video says, people are not without compassion or morals. It seems that it's the government which has the least faith in people - ironic because that's who they represent - and so they feel the need to forcefully levy taxes, theft, whatever you want to call it to make sure that people are ok.

    What I think a lot of people forget is that there are two approaches for either left or right wing ideologies (although I'd argue that right wing ideology is harder to maintain in the latter); statism and populism. For some reason, at least in this country, we have associated populism with the right wing and statism with the left. The view could not be more wrong. So long as there is basic human compassion and love, I hardly see how a reduction in taxes would screw anyone over.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Yes. People believe taxes are there to help us live a stable lifestyle. I'd say, mostly, that's a lie. Like the video says, people are not without compassion or morals. It seems that it's the government which has the least faith in people - ironic because that's who they represent - and so they feel the need to forcefully levy taxes, theft, whatever you want to call it to make sure that people are ok.

    What I think a lot of people forget is that there are two approaches for either left or right wing ideologies (although I'd argue that right wing ideology is harder to maintain in the latter); statism and populism. For some reason, at least in this country, we have associated populism with the right wing and statism with the left. The view could not be more wrong. So long as there is basic human compassion and love, I hardly see how a reduction in taxes would screw anyone over.
    I personally feel populism and statism go hand in hand. It is populism that gives individuals power over others in present day society. Their imposition of moral ethics either leads society into the belief that (a) morals do not exist or (b) morals are a concept which exist outside of the mind. Neither philosophies give humans the power to actually criticise these morals and instead we follow like sheep to the given concepts of morality as proposed by populist politicians and capitalists. Indeed, it is populism that gives rise to the powers of statism and the only way to defeat it is to give way to the thought that it is necessary to question all concepts of ethics as created in society. Individuals within society must begin to question the ideas of authority, the capitalist economic order, the logical reasoning behind power and exploitation of the masses and so forth. Populism and statism are merely two sides of the capitalist coin: we have the delusion of the populism of "right wing" capitalism and the statism of "left wing" capitalism when really and truly, there is no scale of left-right in the capitalist economic system. It is merely a delusion. The pro-capitalist ideologies are all right wing and these include Leninism (state capitalism), social democracy, liberalism, conservatism, right-wing "Libertarianism", etc. They all support a state whether it be a collective body of powerful corporations or the government itself.

    The reduction in taxes can only be put into place when we have worker's solidarity: that is mutual aid between workers in strong labour associations within society. The Libertarian-right argument that we must do away with taxes but without the necessary infrastructures to allow members within society to be able help each other help themselves will ultimately result in poverty and starvation. Hence despite the fact that the underlying ideas behind taxation are evil and ultimately empower the government and therefore capitalism we cannot oppose the welfare state: not as of yet anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I personally feel populism and statism go hand in hand. It is populism that gives individuals power over others in present day society. Their imposition of moral ethics either leads society into the belief that (a) morals do not exist or (b) morals are a concept which exist outside of the mind. Neither philosophies give humans the power to actually criticise these morals and instead we follow like sheep to the given concepts of morality as proposed by populist politicians and capitalists. Indeed, it is populism that gives rise to the powers of statism and the only way to defeat it is to give way to the thought that it is necessary to question all concepts of ethics as created in society. Individuals within society must begin to question the ideas of authority, the capitalist economic order, the logical reasoning behind power and exploitation of the masses and so forth. Populism and statism are merely two sides of the capitalist coin: we have the delusion of the populism of "right wing" capitalism and the statism of "left wing" capitalism when really and truly, there is no scale of left-right in the capitalist economic system. It is merely a delusion. The pro-capitalist ideologies are all right wing and these include Leninism (state capitalism), social democracy, liberalism, conservatism, right-wing "Libertarianism", etc. They all support a state whether it be a collective body of powerful corporations or the government itself.

    The reduction in taxes can only be put into place when we have worker's solidarity: that is mutual aid between workers in strong labour associations within society. The Libertarian-right argument that we must do away with taxes but without the necessary infrastructures to allow members within society to be able help each other help themselves will ultimately result in poverty and starvation. Hence despite the fact that the underlying ideas behind taxation are evil and ultimately empower the government and therefore capitalism we cannot oppose the welfare state: not as of yet anyway.
    I may have got the definition of populism confused. I always thought it meant to mean the empowerment of the people within a small community and statism to mean the empowerment of a few within a huge community. If I take your definition to be true, however, then as you say, the two most certainly do go hand in hand. As you say, there is no left or right wing in capitalism because capitalism does not promote solidarity but individual, often selfish, desires (although I presumed statism and populism to be separate from this particular ideology).

    Only through the constant and consistent criticism of the proposed democracy we have can the average person achieve any form of liberty. I agree with you and have said many times that tax reduction will only work with solidarity and social cohesion. I suppose the best way to do this is through gradual autonomy. What do you think?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I may have got the definition of populism confused. I always thought it meant to mean the empowerment of the people within a small community and statism to mean the empowerment of a few within a huge community. If I take your definition to be true, however, then as you say, the two most certainly do go hand in hand. As you say, there is no left or right wing in capitalism because capitalism does not promote solidarity but individual, often selfish, desires (although I presumed statism and populism to be separate from this particular ideology).

    Only through the constant and consistent criticism of the proposed democracy we have can the average person achieve any form of liberty. I agree with you and have said many times that tax reduction will only work with solidarity and social cohesion. I suppose the best way to do this is through gradual autonomy. What do you think?
    No, I do not think you had got the definition of populism wrong. I merely meant that using populist tactics have collectivist goals but inevitably result in authoritarian individualism with the populist "few" actually seeking power using the anger and hatred amongst the masses to empower himself and inevitably result in statism. This can be seen with Lenin. State capitalists are often under the delusion that they are towards the left wing, in some cases (e.g. Lenin) that they even oppose the system but in actuality they promote the system. Thus we cannot have a few using populist tactics but we must give power to the heart and soul of the community so that all citizens have political and economic powers but also control over their own labour.

    I agree that autonomy is the only way to achieve liberty, equality and solidarity as you state. I think the only way in which we differ is that where you believe we can achieve this through reform, I do not believe anarchism can be brought about solely by tinkering with the system (although by no means to I reject the ideas of making capitalism a little bit more humane).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why should taxation be theft if the Anarchist consensus requires the community to come together and not disperse?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Hey there. Sorry about the delay. This is my favourite thread on the forum. Discussions here can be quite interesting. However, I usually take a few days to respond to posts since they involve some complicated issues, and much more detailed posts than usual.

    Social welfare is a problem that Anarcho-capitalism won't "solve". It will reduce it, but there will always be some very poor people in society. This isn't a fault of Capitalism (or indeed Socialism) but the reality of the scarcity of the world around us. Libertarians and socialists are united in their attempts at improving standards of living and a desire to see man flourish and improve his life. I certainly do. The free-market leads to a more efficient and optimal allocation of resources on the planet. Two people basically come together and undergo voluntary transaction to improve their lives. That is what the "free-market" is. The results are much much better than with central planning. Personally, this is the source of my respect and adoration for the concept of the free-market. It produces better results for all in society. So, overtime the percentage of people in society that are very very poor (can't afford food levels of poverty) would decrease.

    As I said, no system will eradicate poverty. Anyone who says that is talking in theory and NOT reality. Humans are compassionate creatures. For instance, although I don't mean to brag or whatever, I spend 4 hours on Saturday working at Oxfam. I rather enjoy it knowing that someone will have access to hot meal and so forth. People will still donate money to earthquake victims, and help those who are most unfortunate in life. So, the bits that Capitalism doesn't deal with (after all, it isn't even meant to) will be carried on the shoulders of fellow human beings. Both of us are anarchists, I think? Although, my anarchism stems from the fact that I know government is terribly inefficient. When it comes to social welfare, if you calculate the efficiency of government (the amount they take in for social welfare and the amount they pay to those in need) then it is something like 25%!! This is outrageous! Compare that to private charities and they are around 80-90% efficient. I made a post on this here.
    You can't just claim there is no system to eradicate poverty and there is no source to support this, just many who have barely attempted it. I feel the capitalist system is the one most likely to cause divide in society. Charity is a great thing but surely the state should contribute to just causes instead of meriting bankers. Charity is only involved in helping people and does not seek profit unlike the forces of a capitalist state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    Why should taxation be theft if the Anarchist consensus requires the community to come together and not disperse?
    We would go by majority decision, not consensus. Also taxation would be voluntary as you would submit your labour to the commune in return for your fair share of the goods or services, voluntarily. You choose which commune you join which is why the minority ultimately do not get suppressed by majority decisions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    We would go by majority decision, not consensus. Also taxation would be voluntary as you would submit your labour to the commune in return for your fair share of the goods or services, voluntarily. You choose which commune you join which is why the minority ultimately do not get suppressed by majority decisions.
    Voluntary taxation seems like something that just won't work! Say one decides not to fund street-cleaners/bin collection and so chooses to dump all their rubbish on the front of their house, it could cause growing disease and be harmful to others. Just because one doesn't care about other people, should they be allowed not to pay taxation? Let's say one disregards the communes and disturbs the peace by spreading extremist messages and having secret-mafia societies what can an Anarchist society do about that? Nothing!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    Voluntary taxation seems like something that just won't work! Say one decides not to fund street-cleaners/bin collection and so chooses to dump all their rubbish on the front of their house, it could cause growing disease and be harmful to others. Just because one doesn't care about other people, should they be allowed not to pay taxation? Let's say one disregards the communes and disturbs the peace by spreading extremist messages and having secret-mafia societies what can an Anarchist society do about that? Nothing!
    No - you don't understand. By submiting the product of your labour to the commune, you are giving them "taxes". You choose which commune you choose. The commune cannot work unless everyone in it is productive. If a person in the commune is not productive (i.e. does not submit the product of his labour) then he does not have a right to the goods and services that everyone else has submitted to the commune. Thus, communes have the ability to organise the things you mention based upon principles of worker's solidarity. However if a commune uses forceful taxation, this is still acceptable as you have signed up to the commune voluntarily and may leave at any point in favour of another commune. The most effective systems of labour distribution would most likely be the ones to "catch fire" and spread to other communes. Communes would only intervene with other communes if they are deemed to be forcefully imposing their will on others.

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The commune cannot work unless everyone in it is productive. If a person in the commune is not productive (i.e. does not submit the product of his labour) then he does not have a right to the goods and services that everyone else has submitted to the commune. Thus, communes have the ability to organise the things you mention based upon principles of worker's solidarity. However if a commune uses forceful taxation, this is still acceptable as you have signed up to the commune voluntarily and may leave at any point in favour of another commune. The most effective systems of labour distribution would most likely be the ones to "catch fire" and spread to other communes. Communes would only intervene with other communes if they are deemed to be forcefully imposing their will on others.

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
    Force Labour/? seems very illiberal. If one does not become part of a commune he/she has no right in a society of Anarchism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    Force Labour/? seems very illiberal. If one does not become part of a commune he/she has no right in a society of Anarchism?
    1) I never said anything about forced labour. Did you just read the first sentence I wrote then draw conclusions about the rest of the post?
    2) I am NOT a liberal
    3) I never said anyone who does not join a commune has no right. However they if they lived within the neighbourhood boundaries of commune without being a member, it is acceptable for the commune to ask for payment for them to use hospitals and certain goods/services (given that they are not contributing to the commune as such). Otherwise they need not live in the neighbourhood boundaries of a commune if they do not wish but they still have rights. Equal liberty is important (liberty but not to the extent that one's own personal liberty can restrain upon the liberty of others). Read the FAQ I posted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    No, I do not think you had got the definition of populism wrong. I merely meant that using populist tactics have collectivist goals but inevitably result in authoritarian individualism with the populist "few" actually seeking power using the anger and hatred amongst the masses to empower himself and inevitably result in statism. This can be seen with Lenin. State capitalists are often under the delusion that they are towards the left wing, in some cases (e.g. Lenin) that they even oppose the system but in actuality they promote the system. Thus we cannot have a few using populist tactics but we must give power to the heart and soul of the community so that all citizens have political and economic powers but also control over their own labour.

    I agree that autonomy is the only way to achieve liberty, equality and solidarity as you state. I think the only way in which we differ is that where you believe we can achieve this through reform, I do not believe anarchism can be brought about solely by tinkering with the system (although by no means to I reject the ideas of making capitalism a little bit more humane).
    Ah. I see what you're saying now. I suppose politicians, even those who are deluded by their own ideology such as Lenin, often hijack and manipulate the general public for the good of themselves. A kind of 'elected' oligarchy perhaps. I agree with you that for complete liberty, power must be given ]directly to the individual and not some representative of it.

    I've changed my views a little in terms of how anarchy can be achieved. I believe that anything for the advancement and integration (if not take over) of anarchy is good. If a revolution occurred, I certainly wouldn't be out there trying to stop it but I think if people naturally ease into the system, it's difficult to revert. This is the only real problem I have with revolution; its immediate repercussions. Also, I advocate 'pseudo-revolutionary' tactics (I'm not sure what you'd call them). For example, a group of workers could club together to purchase a tract of land which they would then subsequently own. From there these workers could invite others to share with them an anarchist way of living. Within that pocket of land, you'd have anarchy and, hopefully, it'd spread.

    Also, interested on what you mean by this

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    2) I am NOT a liberal
    (Original post by F i s)
    Why should taxation be theft if the Anarchist consensus requires the community to come together and not disperse?
    Because it's forced and enforced by the minority. It is not democratic because the public have not been asked whether they want it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Ah. I see what you're saying now. I suppose politicians, even those who are deluded by their own ideology such as Lenin, often hijack and manipulate the general public for the good of themselves. A kind of 'elected' oligarchy perhaps. I agree with you that for complete liberty, power must be given ]directly to the individual and not some representative of it.

    I've changed my views a little in terms of how anarchy can be achieved. I believe that anything for the advancement and integration (if not take over) of anarchy is good. If a revolution occurred, I certainly wouldn't be out there trying to stop it but I think if people naturally ease into the system, it's difficult to revert. This is the only real problem I have with revolution; its immediate repercussions. Also, I advocate 'pseudo-revolutionary' tactics (I'm not sure what you'd call them). For example, a group of workers could club together to purchase a tract of land which they would then subsequently own. From there these workers could invite others to share with them an anarchist way of living. Within that pocket of land, you'd have anarchy and, hopefully, it'd spread.
    I think you should read this article by Kropotkin about why this sort of thing can't work but I will steal a few points from the article, where he gives advice about starting communist settlements, to save you having to read the whole thing:

    "1. Not in distant countries, where they would find, in addition to their own difficulties, all the hardships which a pioneer of culture has to cope with in an uninhabited country (and I only too well know by my own and my friends' experience how great these difficulties are), but in the neighbourhood of large cities. In such cases every member of the community can enjoy the many benefits of civilisation; the struggle for life is easier, on account of the facilities for taking advantage of the mark done by our forefathers and for profiting by the experience of our neighbours; and every member who is discontented with communal life can at any given moment return to the individualist life of the present society. One can, in such case, enjoy the intellectual, scientific, and artistic life of our civilisation without necessarily abandoning the community.

    2. That a new community, instead of imitating the example of our forefathers, and starting with extensive agriculture, with all its hardships, accidents, drawbacks, and amount of hard work required, very often superior to the forces of the colonists, ought to open new ways of production as it opens new ways of consumption. It must, it seems to me, start with intensive agriculture - that is, market gardening culture, aided as much as possible by culture under glass. Besides the advantages of security in the crops, obtained by their variety and the very means of culture, this sort of culture has the advantage of allowing the community to utilise even the weakest forces; and every one knows how weakened most of the town workers are by the homicidal conditions under which most of the industries are now organised.

    3. That the first condition of success, as proved by the anama peasant communities, the Young Icaris, and several others, is to divest communism from its monastical and barrack garments, and to conceive it as the life of independent families, united together by the desire of obtaining material and moral wellbeing by combining their efforts. The theory, according to which family life has to be entirely destroyed in order to obtain some economy in fuel used in the kitchen, or for heating the space of its dining rooms, is utterly false; and it is most certain that the Young Icarians are absolutely correct in introducing as much as possible of family and friendly grouping life, even in the ways they are taking their meals.

    4. It seems to me proved by evidence that, men being neither the angels nor the slaves they are supposed to be by the authoritarian utopians - Anarchist principles are the only ones under which a community has any chances to succeed. In the hundreds of histories of communities which I have had the opportunity to read, I always saw that the introduction of any sort of elected authority has always been, without one single exception, the point which the community stranded upon; while, on the other side, those communities enjoyed a partial and sometimes very substantial success, which accepted no authority besides the unanimous decision of the folkmoot, and preferred, as a couple of hundred of millions of Slavonian peasants do, and as the German Communists in America did, to discuss every matter so long as a unanimous decision of the folkmoot could be arrived at. Communists, who are bound to live. in a narrow circle of a few individuals, in which circle the petty struggles for dominion are the more acutely felt, ought decidedly to abandon the Utopias of elected committees' management and majority rule; they must bend before the reality of practice which is at work for many hundreds of years in hundreds of thousands of village communities - the folkmoot - and they must remember that in these communities, majority rule and elected government have always been synonymous and concomitant with disintegration - never with consolidation."


    So to summarise, if you are to build communes under capitalism, great, but it makes no sense to have them in isolation (where members of society are less likely to know about them and want to get involved) and makes no sense to start from scratch (e.g. a farming collective). The last point is particularly relevant as these were precisely the conditions from which capitalism evolved. Instead, we should use the wealth and technology that is already around to make it easier to start up a new society. In any case, while I think this is all great, I think its better to get involved in trade unions and politics, get your ideas across to the people, organise strikes and organise revolutionary groups in society. Capital will most likely destroy any attempts at small scale "experimentation". We need the basis on which to build such a society and to achieve this, anarchism must be a popular idea around the masses.

    I think the idea of people starting up these communes are great but its like saying "Hey guys, a few ex-slaves went off somewhere and started up a slaveless society!" - well that's excellent but we want to abolish slavery. I agree with the rest of your ideas though.

    Also, interested on what you mean by this
    I subscribe to some liberal beliefs but on the whole I find them excessively idealistic (as in the sense of individualism). They seem to advocate liberties at the expense of others: for instance the freedom to become wealthy and exploit society. In it's traditional sense, classical liberalism was a far right ideology which endorsed the free market, small government, etc. Nanny state social liberalism is something I want nothing to do with either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    1) I never said anything about forced labour. Did you just read the first sentence I wrote then draw conclusions about the rest of the post?
    I have read the FAQs and have a greater understanding but wonder how production shall be maintained equally throughout the citizens of society. What if there are fewer jobs due to the collapse of capitalist corporations?

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I am NOT a liberal

    How can you not be liberal? Are you some kind of right-wing Anarchist? lmao.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    I have read the FAQs and have a greater understanding but wonder how production shall be maintained equally throughout the citizens of society. What if there are fewer jobs due to the collapse of capitalist corporations?
    Well, understand that corporations would not "collapse" as such rather the workers would assume ownership of them. With the free association of workers, we would organise labour in a way that was beneficial to society. Free associations would organise new jobs, the construction of means of production, etc. because these associations would consist of members of society of whom it would be in their best interests to have these measures.

    How can you not be liberal? Are you some kind of right-wing Anarchist? lmao.
    No I am not right wing, in fact I associate the word liberal with the far-right. However, that does not mean I do not share ideas with them. I'm just not a liberal. See above post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would question how it is legitimate to add an adjective to 'anarchist'. Surely the adjective, be it capitalist, communist, or any other, assumes that you may proscribe the rules under which such a society would operate- which kind of defeats the point, right?

    Would you think it fair to say that 'anarcho' is prescriptive, and the adjective is what you think, or hope, would happen after you relinquish government control?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    I would question how it is legitimate to add an adjective to 'anarchist'. Surely the adjective, be it capitalist, communist, or any other, assumes that you may proscribe the rules under which such a society would operate- which kind of defeats the point, right?

    Would you think it fair to say that 'anarcho' is prescriptive, and the adjective is what you think, or hope, would happen after you relinquish government control?
    Fact is, anarcho-capitalism is such a majorly different ideology to say social anarchism or individualist anarchism. In fact when anarchism first arose it actually developed in opposition to capitalism as an economic system which is based around hierarchy: hierarchy of boss over employers, hierarchy of capital-owners over non capital-owners, hierarchy of landlords over tenants and so forth. Most anarchists today do not consider anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism.

    You describe "rules" as such to a society but the fact is, there would be rules under anarchism. I think people misunderstand this because of the way anarchism has been portrayed by the media. The fact that every time a government breaks down without the necessary revolutionary ideas and social infrastructures in place so that members of society can get what they want by helping each other, the media has immediately described it as "anarchy". Truth is, we want society to make the rules. We want people to develop their own sense of ethics based around what is happening in the world around them. We need "rules" because without them no-one truly has liberty: there is no liberty in a society where man has freedom to exploit, terrorise and/or harm another human being.

    However, we don't like the idea of a government making all of our rules for us, from the top-down, telling us what moral ethics we should subscribe, what is "right" and what is "wrong", etc.

    In any case, the main difference between individualist anarchism and branches of social anarchism which include mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism are not that great, they, for the most part, involve a difference in strategy - a strategy to take us to anarchism. I will not go into great detail: you can discover this information if you take a quick look at the FAQ (see first post of thread)

    In answer to your question, there need to be the correct measures in place to achieve anarchism. Just because a government has degenerated and society has gone into chaos (largely due to attempts to reinstall hierarchy in a population which has grown used to the idea of hierarchy in their lives) doesn't mean we have an anarchy.

    p.s. that picture of Fritzl is really creepy.
 
 
 
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
The home of Results and Clearing

3,104

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.