[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Idealism is stupid. But if it makes you happy…[/quote]
Defeatism is stupid. But if it makes you happy…[/quote]
Someone please remind me in the future to check the OP’s age before reading threads like this.[/quote]
Being 21, I hate to agree with you but… Yeah.
You old fuckers better get used to it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You old fuckers better get used to it.[/quote]
I think we are much too familiar with it.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Idealism is stupid. But if it makes you happy…[/quote]
Defeatism is stupid. But if it makes you happy…[/quote]
Someone please remind me in the future to check the OP’s age before reading threads like this.[/quote]
I hope my age doesn’t make me less credible.
And I hope you learn something from our thread.
As you are hopefully much more wise than me and have more experience in life, please share your opinion on the matter and please stop personally attacking me for bringing up an important subject like this.
Ideas have consequences.
Keep at it, Erasmus.
Good thread.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Well, you may be right here. I think we would have to go back to the origins of the state and why it first was created in order to see whether it was really created on need, or on superstition (as is implied by many anarchists).
Also, I just want to point out that I wasn’t the one who said this was the natural state of man. In fact, if I was an anarchist, I might say that fear-mongering and superstition was the more accurate normal state of mankind. I mean, historically speaking, big states are very regular and normal occurrences.
[/quote]
I disagree with Dabba.
The state emerged AFTER civilisation. There has to be civilisation before a state can develop.
Mankind evolved from hunter-gatherers to farmers which lead to specialisation which led to trade.
With trade came the neccesity of writing. All this occured without a state.
In archeological digs in Mesopotamia they found villages without a social hierarchy ( i saw this on tv so unfortunaly i can’t give you a link)
No building more important then the other, no palaces or no temples.
The explanation the archeologist came up with is that is was an egalitarian society without big differences in status or wealth.So the obscene aquisition of wealth and power was froned upon.
That might be true but that tells us something more. The state is not neccesery for civisation and civilisation predates the state.
Perhaps it’s because these guys are funded by the state that they are pissing around the pot (dutch version of the expression beating around the bush). Their great discovery was that the initial rise of civilisation occurred in anarchy. Because enormous wealth and power were considered bad, it was regulated as people regulate what they consider bad behaviour.
The state is a person or persons whom is agreed that they can aquire property in a different way as everyone else.
And in this way while you and I must exchange our labour for something of value, the state can just “tax”.
This is why the state can not be voluntary for if it is voluntary certain people will just decide not to pay for it and live free and prosperous lives, proving that the state is not neccesery. The people will come together and provide these so called “public services” it was originally thought only the state could provide. And that will be it for the state.
So force must be used to prevent ANY cracks in the dam which will lead to the breaking of the dam and then the beautiful river of freedom will flow.
I don’t care about spelling because, honestly, I’d better spend my time studying auto-immune diseases for my exam next week then talk about anarchism. I find it just as interesting though! That’s also the reason why I don’t respond on every question. Gotta do what I’ve gotta do!
And, the first “state” came about using organised religion and centered around the building of temples. Even back then the state was a big waiste! Religion destroys the cost-benefit analysis of the individuals causing everyone to be stupid together.
Why were the farao’s demi-gods? And even earlier it was used but I forgot where or when. haha
Either way, when everyone is being stupid together, REEEAAALLLY stupid things can happen. Like war, genocide, …
…how many people were there on earth 2500 years ago? A couple of hundred million? The increase in scale necessitates a governing body. Granted, those bodies should not be the size they’re now, but they’re needed nonetheless. I ask again Erasmus, how do your propose we go from our current system to yours?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…how many people were there on earth 2500 years ago? A couple of hundred million? The increase in scale necessitates a governing body. Granted, those bodies should not be the size they’re now, but they’re needed nonetheless. I ask again Erasmus, how do your propose we go from our current system to yours?[/quote]
Sorry I didn’t answer the first time.
Why can’t many people live without a government? I don’t think that the number of people justifies a government.
Small government is not better then a big government. Sure the bully will punch you less but the thought behind it’s creation is where my problem is. Ofcourse I would like to live under a small government but my grandgrandgrandchildren then will live under tyrrany.
Governments do what they are good at, that is growing.
Achieving anarchy is only possible in one way in my opinion.
It is very hard and will take many generations.
We need to outgrow the state in our minds. A lot of people I know think they have outgrown religion.
They have outgrown Santa claus, the eastern bunny, toothferry, … The next step is to outgrow another abusive myth.
The neccesity of the state is that myth. To see evil is to reject evil. But I’m not smart or knowledgable enough to talk about things like that.
Achieving liberty through political action is useless. Completely and utterly useless. It has never worked and it will never work.
EDIT: necessary is spelled necessary LOL
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…how many people were there on earth 2500 years ago? A couple of hundred million? The increase in scale necessitates a governing body. Granted, those bodies should not be the size they’re now, but they’re needed nonetheless. I ask again Erasmus, how do your propose we go from our current system to yours?[/quote]
Sorry I didn’t answer the first time.
Why can’t many people live without a government? I don’t think that the number of people justifies a government.
Small government is not better then a big government. Sure the bully will punch you less but the thought behind it’s creation is where my problem is. Ofcourse I would like to live under a small government but my grandgrandgrandchildren then will live under tyrrany.
Governments do what they are good at, that is growing.
Achieving anarchy is only possible in one way in my opinion.
It is very hard and will take many generations.
We need to outgrow the state in our minds. A lot of people I know think they have outgrown religion.
They have outgrown Santa claus, the eastern bunny, toothferry, … The next step is to outgrow another abusive myth.
The neccesity of the state is that myth. To see evil is to reject evil. But I’m not smart or knowledgable enough to talk about things like that.
Achieving liberty through political action is useless. Completely and utterly useless. It has never worked and it will never work.
EDIT: necessary is spelled necessary LOL
[/quote]
Yes, it is only through ideas that a naturally ordered hierarchy will be able replace coercive authority. It will take a long time.
The human mind just needs to become enlightened enough to start minding its own business and come to understand that it is immoral to force other people to live under some arbitrary collective will.
And I agree, politics is the most evil thing ever conjured by the human mind. It is essentially the idea that someone other than us knows what is best for us and yet and we still have to be forced at gun point into because we are too stupid/willful to do it on our own.
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…how many people were there on earth 2500 years ago? A couple of hundred million? The increase in scale necessitates a governing body. Granted, those bodies should not be the size they’re now, but they’re needed nonetheless. I ask again Erasmus, how do your propose we go from our current system to yours?[/quote]
Sorry I didn’t answer the first time.
Why can’t many people live without a government? I don’t think that the number of people justifies a government.
Small government is not better then a big government. Sure the bully will punch you less but the thought behind it’s creation is where my problem is. Ofcourse I would like to live under a small government but my grandgrandgrandchildren then will live under tyrrany.
Governments do what they are good at, that is growing.
Achieving anarchy is only possible in one way in my opinion.
It is very hard and will take many generations.
We need to outgrow the state in our minds. A lot of people I know think they have outgrown religion.
They have outgrown Santa claus, the eastern bunny, toothferry, … The next step is to outgrow another abusive myth.
The neccesity of the state is that myth. To see evil is to reject evil. But I’m not smart or knowledgable enough to talk about things like that.
Achieving liberty through political action is useless. Completely and utterly useless. It has never worked and it will never work.
EDIT: necessary is spelled necessary LOL
[/quote]
erasmus what kind of anarchist are you. are you a anarko-capitalist or a anarko-socialist?
I’m an anarchist.
I’ve always found it strange to call yourself an anarcho-capitalist or syndicalist, which implores imo that if there was anarchy, people would be forced to use this system of trade or system of organisation. Maybe it isn’t true but that is what I make of it.
I think people are free to organise themselves as they want. People might want to for some socialist community or whatever. It’s up to them.
Me personally I would be what one could call a anarco-capitalist. I believe that the free market means order and is good for everything.
Well, how does one argue against a shining example of the perfect system for humankind. Especially since, as admitted here, it only exists as speculation. Made only possible by some far flung future human-being, whose mind has travelled the necessary paths of enlightenment through our future, and Human X’s history. Yeah, you got me convinced.
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
I’m an anarchist.
I’ve always found it strange to call yourself an anarcho-capitalist or syndicalist, which implores imo that if there was anarchy, people would be forced to use this system of trade or system of organisation. Maybe it isn’t true but that is what I make of it.
I think people are free to organise themselves as they want. People might want to for some socialist community or whatever. It’s up to them.
Me personally I would be what one could call a anarco-capitalist. I believe that the free market means order and is good for everything.[/quote]
how does this anarko-capitalisme look like? are there still classes. and how doe you organize
stuff like money, defending of the privat property?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, how does one argue against a shining example of the perfect system for humankind. Especially since, as admitted here, it only exists as speculation. Made only possible by some far flung future human-being, whose mind has travelled the necessary paths of enlightenment through our future, and Human X’s history. Yeah, you got me convinced.[/quote]
Why reject virtues of the future because of wrongs in the past? Should the founders have said, “Ah fuck it, we’ve had tyrannical states for pretty much the course of human history, so I guess we shouldn’t revolt and try to change that after all.” Again, one of the reasons I’m fascinated by anarchy is because it seems to recognize the mistakes of the past more so than other systems. We shouldn’t be oblivious of the past, but if we can improve upon our freedoms, why not? You seem to think that the idea of market anarchy is some utopian vision, when it is far from it. There are examples of anarchy, but they are far from perfect (due to non-anarchist elements, such as slavery) and certainly wouldn’t be satisfactory for one already skeptical of the idea.
[quote]florelius wrote:
defending of the privat property?
[/quote]
If you’re interested at all, I kind of gave an idea for this some posts above.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
defending of the privat property?
[/quote]
If you’re interested at all, I kind of gave an idea for this some posts above.[/quote]
I checked and I think I found it, but it gave no clare answer.
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme. Marx called them “ancient-communist society`s” or “ur-kommunisme” in norwegian. well let us put it this way, its impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. capitalisme is based on a huge amount of people without property who does the labour, while the property owning elite rule the place/society. the reason this is possible is because of the state( read police and army ).
its one left-anarchist branch that can exist with a “market”, its called syndicalisme. its many forms of it, but one is that the productive side of society is organized in coopratives owned by the people who work in them. so-called democratic workplaces. one real life example of this is the waldorf school. it was organized after anarchist ideals. it had a flat structure. this is not a capitalist society, it is a society with a market. remember that markets existed before capitalisme. the rest of the society would be organized in free communes.
[quote]florelius wrote:
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme.[/quote]
I’m not so sure that the stateless societies were really “socialism”, though may have often been communal.
You’re right, it is impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. This is why right anarchists want to abolish the state. So it cannot force people to work for others through social welfare schemes. Capitalism is not based on any definitive distribution of property. If a million small businesses can survive, then so be it, but it is generally not in the interest of consumers for this to happen, so it doesn’t. If left anarchism is ruled by a democratic majority, then right anarchism still has rule, but it is in the form of private courts and defense agencies. This means that if the private courts recognize the property rights of the capitalist, then private defense companies will enforce it. The law is a product on the market that people choose to purchase in order to be protected, and they choose the system that they would like best. Right anarchism is based on a voluntary society that exists without coercion. That means that if people want to form their own communes, then that’s fine, but you can’t force me to join as well.
Agreed, and if people want to form communes that is absolutely their right. But they do not have the right to steal capital from others in order to do this. All a capitalist is, is someone who has labored in the past and is now using the capital he labored for to make profit.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme.[/quote]
I’m not so sure that the stateless societies were really “socialism”, though may have often been communal.
You’re right, it is impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. This is why right anarchists want to abolish the state. So it cannot force people to work for others through social welfare schemes. Capitalism is not based on any definitive distribution of property. If a million small businesses can survive, then so be it, but it is generally not in the interest of consumers for this to happen, so it doesn’t. If left anarchism is ruled by a democratic majority, then right anarchism still has rule, but it is in the form of private courts and defense agencies. This means that if the private courts recognize the property rights of the capitalist, then private defense companies will enforce it. The law is a product on the market that people choose to purchase in order to be protected, and they choose the system that they would like best. Right anarchism is based on a voluntary society that exists without coercion. That means that if people want to form their own communes, then that’s fine, but you can’t force me to join as well.
Agreed, and if people want to form communes that is absolutely their right. But they do not have the right to steal capital from others in order to do this. All a capitalist is, is someone who has labored in the past and is now using the capital he labored for to make profit.
[/quote]
privat courts and defence agencies will be a form of state ( a body of violence who force people to obey them ). its sounds really bad, freikorps comes to mind.
exploitation has to sides: tax as you talk about and direct exploitation of labour as socialists talk about ( se wageslavery ). In a anarchist society non exists. people dont exploit eachother they trade, give or loan stuff/capital among eachother.
In a classless society ( this is what anarchy means to me and the original anarchists from the 1800`s ) I am ok with a market economy, but I dont see it as realistic. I do believe that society where the production are organized in communes and workers councils(sovjets) as a more realistic and a more natural way of organizing a anarchy.
But hey I am a marxist and belive that anarchy/communisme cant be reach without an period of socialisme ( a society where the common property of the workers are defended by a state).
If you are interrested in the roots of anarchisme, read “anarchisme” by Guerin. It tells the story of the anarchist movement from Prodhoun, Bakunin, Stirner, Marx, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta to Dany Cohen and the upprising in paris 1968. Guerin called himself a libetarian marxist.
Also read “the communist manifesto” by Marx and Engels. remember they wrote it for a party wich consisted of both statist and anarchist socialists. both group called themself communist back then ( 1848 ). After the first international split, the statist communist started to call themself socialdemocrat. communisme was made a label again when the socialdemocrats split between reformists and revolutionaries after the russian revolution.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme.[/quote]
I’m not so sure that the stateless societies were really “socialism”, though may have often been communal.
You’re right, it is impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. This is why right anarchists want to abolish the state. So it cannot force people to work for others through social welfare schemes. Capitalism is not based on any definitive distribution of property. If a million small businesses can survive, then so be it, but it is generally not in the interest of consumers for this to happen, so it doesn’t. If left anarchism is ruled by a democratic majority, then right anarchism still has rule, but it is in the form of private courts and defense agencies. This means that if the private courts recognize the property rights of the capitalist, then private defense companies will enforce it. The law is a product on the market that people choose to purchase in order to be protected, and they choose the system that they would like best. Right anarchism is based on a voluntary society that exists without coercion. That means that if people want to form their own communes, then that’s fine, but you can’t force me to join as well.
Agreed, and if people want to form communes that is absolutely their right. But they do not have the right to steal capital from others in order to do this. All a capitalist is, is someone who has labored in the past and is now using the capital he labored for to make profit.
[/quote]
privat courts and defence agencies will be a form of state ( a body of violence who force people to obey them ). its sounds really bad, freikorps comes to mind.
exploitation has to sides: tax as you talk about and direct exploitation of labour as socialists talk about ( se wageslavery ). In a anarchist society non exists. people dont exploit eachother they trade, give or loan stuff/capital among eachother.
In a classless society ( this is what anarchy means to me and the original anarchists from the 1800`s ) I am ok with a market economy, but I dont see it as realistic. I do believe that society where the production are organized in communes and workers councils(sovjets) as a more realistic and a more natural way of organizing a anarchy.
But hey I am a marxist and belive that anarchy/communisme cant be reach without an period of socialisme ( a society where the common property of the workers are defended by a state).
If you are interrested in the roots of anarchisme, read “anarchisme” by Guerin. It tells the story of the anarchist movement from Prodhoun, Bakunin, Stirner, Marx, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta to Dany Cohen and the upprising in paris 1968. Guerin called himself a libetarian marxist.
Also read “the communist manifesto” by Marx and Engels. remember they wrote it for a party wich consisted of both statist and anarchist socialists. both group called themself communist back then ( 1848 ). After the first international split, the statist communist started to call themself socialdemocrat. communisme was made a label again when the socialdemocrats split between reformists and revolutionaries after the russian revolution.
[/quote]
The “exploitation of labor” is the conclusion of economic theories that have been debunked centuries ago.
There is no such thing, other than slavery and servitude which both have coercive elements and are not based on mutual consent.
However, it has provided an excellent excuse for socialists for centuries now to be violent themselves, after all they “only defended themselves against the systemic violence of capitalism”.