Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 10:27 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  And without Due Process of law what exactly is going to hold corporations accountable for anything?

What would prevent said corporations from just becoming the de-facto government?

Judging by past answers?
Magical Thinking™.
For when real-world problems are just too hard to solve!

Anarchists and Marxists are alike in the sense that their respective systems both require all humans to act in harmony with the system or it all falls apart.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 12:56 PM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Judging by past answers?
Magical Thinking™.
For when real-world problems are just too hard to solve!

Anarchists and Marxists are alike in the sense that their respective systems both require all humans to act in harmony with the system or it all falls apart.

Yep. That's what I said all the way back in post #3...

Cool

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 01:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 12:56 PM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  Anarchists and Marxists are alike in the sense that their respective systems both require all humans to act in harmony with the system or it all falls apart.

Yep. That's what I said all the way back in post #3...

Cool

Pretty sure I have been banging that drum rather consistently.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 01:18 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 01:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yep. That's what I said all the way back in post #3...

Cool

Pretty sure I have been banging that drum rather consistently.

I guess that'll teach me to read the 1st page.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 02:52 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
OK so ,I simply said that anarchism can adapt changes for itself ,that's why I gave Michel Onfray as an example who is an anarchist but believes in central powers and private property . (anarchism doesn't say you have to agree with all of what I say it's much more flexible ... ) but saying then he is not an anarchists ...Wink no ...we simply differ on that point ...

but just to see if I'm on the same page as you ,tell me if you're agree with what I say in each example :

1- although Stalinism wan't communism , Trotskyism was wasting their time to warn people (that this isn't communism but Stalinism) because they didn't want to accept the reality and we're stuck in a fallacy

2-Stalinism was communism and Trotskyism was wasting their time to warn people (that this isn't communism but Stalinism) because didn't want to accept the reality and we're stuck in a fallacy

3- isn't it more realistic to say : communism wasn't Stalinism and Trotskyism (tried to show that both with protesting to the way america was representing communism and the Russian government )

after that answer these :

1- can you give me an example about an anarchist society that when it reached 200 or 300 people after that it lost control ?
2- what is your political view .. liberal , republican ....?


I never said don't compare it to A-syndicalism I said don't generalize (mix them together)
I just need a much more clear understanding if your objections
no English isn't my first language I was born in a wrong country ...well maybe Undecided - sorry for my bad English

"Dare to think!"
-Kant
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 02:52 PM)apolemicist Wrote:  OK so ,I simply said that anarchism can adapt changes for itself ,that's why I gave Michel Onfray as an example who is an anarchist but believes in central powers and private property . (anarchism doesn't say you have to agree with all of what I say it's much more flexible ... ) but saying then he is not an anarchists ...Wink no ...we simply differ on that point ...

You can call yourself whatever you want but at a point words have meaning, an anarchist that disagrees with the main tenant of anarchy (no central authority) is no longer an anarchist. It would be like a communist that disagreed with collectivism. It does not parse.


(23-06-2014 02:52 PM)apolemicist Wrote:  but just to see if I'm on the same page as you ,tell me if you're agree with what I say in each example :

1- although Stalinism wan't communism , Trotskyism was wasting their time to warn people (that this isn't communism but Stalinism) because they didn't want to accept the reality and we're stuck in a fallacy

2-Stalinism was communism and Trotskyism was wasting their time to warn people (that this isn't communism but Stalinism) because didn't want to accept the reality and we're stuck in a fallacy

3- isn't it more realistic to say : communism wasn't Stalinism and Trotskyism (tried to show that both with protesting to the way america was representing communism and the Russian government )

I'm not sure what you were trying to say with #3 but "In the Real World" #2 is closest to correct. Is it possible that a Trotskyist form of communism could flourish? I don't know but it has never happened, where as Stalinist forms have, almost exclusively. The problem with Trotskyist communism is this

Step 1: Overthrow the Ruling Class
Step 2 Instal New Autocratic Regime
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Utopia

There is never a real plan to move to the stateless society that Marx was espousing.

(23-06-2014 02:52 PM)apolemicist Wrote:  after that answer these :

1- can you give me an example about an anarchist society that when it reached 200 or 300 people after that it lost control ?
2- what is your political view .. liberal , republican ....?

1: New Orleans after Katrina

2:Hard Left and Rather Anti-Authoritarian I self identify as a Progressive. I think governments should be restrained when dealing with their own people but is necessary to prevent abuse of the system by those with money and power.



(23-06-2014 02:52 PM)apolemicist Wrote:  I never said don't compare it to A-syndicalism I said don't generalize (mix them together)

I was mostly referring to Hippy Collectives in America and had only mentioned the European squatters in passing thus my confusion.

(23-06-2014 02:52 PM)apolemicist Wrote:  I just need a much more clear understanding if your objections
no English isn't my first language I was born in a wrong country ...well maybe Undecided - sorry for my bad English

It's ok I'm sure your english is far better than my german would be (I only speak the 2 and german not very fluently after so long not using it) I just don't want to lose meaning in translation so I would rather ask you to restate something than assume I know what you mean. I'm not Frankksj or Luminon so I lack the ability to read your mind and "KNOW" what you mean.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
23-06-2014, 04:24 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 02:52 PM)apolemicist Wrote:  OK so ,I simply said that anarchism can adapt changes for itself ,that's why I gave Michel Onfray as an example who is an anarchist but believes in central powers and private property . (anarchism doesn't say you have to agree with all of what I say it's much more flexible ... ) but saying then he is not an anarchists ...Wink no ...we simply differ on that point ...

What is this I don't even...
So you want the trappings of government and the mechanics of government but you don't want to call it government basically.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 04:57 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 10:10 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  Why would you suppose that and what does it have to do with what he said?
Noone is claiming that humans are evil.
Yes, they claim that, but then they shift goalposts and claim that we somehow still need centralized watchmen of the society who represent public good and are immune from punishment themselves.

(23-06-2014 10:24 AM)cjlr Wrote:  FFS.

There are thousands of distinct and highly variable governments on this planet of ours.

To reify them all into a single abstracted monolithic ur-entity is a paranoid delusion.

Your repeatedly doing so is not exactly aiding your credibility.
Max Weber defined "government" as a monopoly on legitimate violence. If you want to have any point, which governments don't fit that definition? (besides Somalia)

(23-06-2014 10:27 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  And without Due Process of law what exactly is going to hold corporations accountable for anything?

What would prevent said corporations from just becoming the de-facto government?
The same institutions as everyone: free market competing companies called Dispute Resolution Organizations, which are something like an insurance company, that insures contracts and mediates conflicts.
DROs depend with their profit on representing well-behaved individuals and corporations. Those who misbehave would get much more expensive insurance or even lose ability to make insured contracts. And nobody would take seriously someone who is shunned by the DROs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_res...ganization

As for the danger of government, what makes the government? Govt is a monopoly on violence, it is a top power within some range. Fair enough. But violence is extremely expensive, soldiers, weapons and so on. This is why historically (after the fall of Roman empire), kingdoms never held unless they also had a monopoly on looting a given area. This is how taxes were re-created again.
But what made that really bad is the ability of government to violently force people to pay taxes in a given currency and no other. Because then they can print that currency endlessly.
This is as if they could steal from people endlessly without them even noticing, without raising taxes. This is how ALL modern wars are financed, since the Roman empire. Paper money made it easier. Digital banking made it easier yet.

But today, if we have Bitcoin or other things that can't be printed, we can defend ourselves very easily from anyone who would want to institute a violent monopoly. People have guns and attacking is nearly infinitely more expensive than defense. The very existence of cryptocurrencies prevents governments from ever appearing again. If a government would theoretically start producing infinite amounts of any currency, people would just switch to another and leave them with worthless paper. And nobody can pay an army with worthless paper. There would be no modern wars if there was no government central banking and state currency.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 04:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 10:10 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  Why would you suppose that and what does it have to do with what he said?
Noone is claiming that humans are evil.
Yes, they claim that,

Quote them then.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2014, 01:40 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2014 02:10 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 05:46 PM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 04:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, they claim that,
Quote them then.
I don't have to. There is no reason to have a centralized monopoly of power, much less democratically elected. Why? Because it's self-contradictory, no matter which way you cut it.

Are people bad? Then how can they make just laws?
Are people good? Then why do we need government?
Are some people good and some bad? Then how do we separate them?
Do evil people crave power? Then why put all the power in few hands?
If people are selfish, then how can in representative democracy few represent many?
If people are in between, some good, some bad then how can be government different? How is that an improvement?

Yeah, I think I know how government works. Let's write the nicest things on paper, but enforce them with violence, cross our fingers and hope that works. If it doesn't, write more papers, confiscate more money, print them and hire more enforcers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: