by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Anarchy Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12345. . .415416»

Seeya: my point is to show that anarchy - in whatever flavour it comes - is not consistent with collectivism or capitalism.

the only common ground all anarchists share is the negation of any institution above the collective resp. all individuals.
from my view this can only work in communities with a limited size and equal rights for everybody.

so a communist society with all (or most) power at one party is definately not an anarchist society as well as a capitalist society with all (or most) power at one corporation or a conglomerate of them is also absolutely not.

so lets have fun and play the game mmkay? ;)

Hamburg - sankt pauli

thanks for your welcome! (although it already scrolled out the board)
good to be back in here!

Hämbörg is owr frend :)

5th Smallest Public Sector! =D

Post self-deleted by Stanff.

http://anarkos.tumblr.com/

There's an old joke that goes "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2."

You might as well be saying that anarchism can't be communism for very authoritarian values of communism. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Who are you to tell me what is and isn't communism? What if I said communism has nothing to do with how many parties there are, but rather, how much economic equality there is, and what role the concept of "property" plays in society? What if I said that the number of parties only has to do with anarchism, democracy, and authoritarianism, but not communism and capitalism?

A typical anarchist discussions: an anarcho-capitalist blaming an anarcho-syndicalist of being communist...
Anarcho-syndicalists are not communist by definition, they are arguing free organisation of labour. Anarcho-syndicalism is one of the oldest anarchist phylosophies. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the more recent schools of anarchy.
Where anarchism is leading us? Will it be a post-left anarchism?

The syndicate of man

I see, in big American cities at least, a coming together of the old "new-left" forces, info-socialists, and green politik.

The problem is that any new cooperative political blocs that form here get co-opted by the neo-marxists or the "anarcho-primitivist" hipster douchebags.

Hmm... Seeya, I think to meaningfully argue whether or not anarchism is compatible with communism, we'd have to better define both. But, I think all of us here have a good sense of what both mean, and while I would only care to argue that they are not the same, I would never claim that they are necessarily incompatible. So long as "communism" is voluntary.

Sure, I would agree that "communism" should be voluntary.

However, the interesting philosophical question is whether "property" is voluntary. As long as 100% of the universe agrees that Individual X should have full control over something, then that piece of "property" is voluntary. However, as soon as someone attempts to "steal" or "rob" Individual X, then it is no longer voluntary.

Thus in the modern world, with all its theft and robbery, is it even possible for property to be voluntary? I would say no - at least not with our current economic system. It would only become voluntary when people are no longer hungry, homeless, or worried about eviction - in other words, it would only become voluntary in a world quite like what leftists want.

The imperial reichtag

Surely as anarchists/communists, we can agree that private property is theft, and the root of class struggle and capitalist control over the working class.

To say that Anarchism is incompatible with communism is silly. Anarchism is simply the belief that the state and formal governments are unnecessary and harmful, due to the fact that the ruiling class uses the state as a cohersive tool to oppress the masses. This is the same use of the state that Marx himself gave as well.

There are many different schools of though for Anarchism. You will never find anyone who knows what they're talking about describe as simply "anarchists", unless they're just being lazy and don't want to identify to the T what they believe, like I find myself doing sometimes. There's anarcho-communism (the most common school), Anarcho-Syndicalism (Which focuses mainly on the labour movement, and it's roll in pre and post revolutionary society, which is not mutually exclusive btw), Anarcho-Primitivism, Anarcho-Feminism, Anarcho-Queerism, Green Anarchism, Anarcho-collectivism, Anarcho- Individualism (which would eventually turn into capitalism or bourgeoisie socialism), ect. Personally, I hate the terms individualism and collectivism, because they're completely illusionary concepts (true anarchism looks to combine the greatest efforts of the individual of the collective of society, so prioritizing one over the other is pointless).

As for Syndicalism being the oldest form of anarchism, it actually arose around the same time that anarcho-capitalism did, in the early 20th century.

Seeya, I would actually agree, property as we know it is not at all voluntary. It is only sustainable as it is right now, in its gross disproportion, by the State.

But you don't need "100% of the universe" to agree on who owns what for it to be property. You only need this basic agreement on those who would raise claims that it belongs to them. We can all easily imagine a million different scenarios in which there would be struggles over land, factories, houses... anything that can be property, there will be arguments over. In anarchism, this leaves the problem of property wide open to new solutions. If it turns out that property is entirely unsustainable... then that's that. As a "capitalist", I won't go running back to the State just because anarchy didn't turn out like I thought it would!

Also, sorry to double post, but in response to The Imperial Reightag, I would agree that any emphasis on "individual" versus "collective" is meaningless.

If you're willing to use violence against individuals for the collective, you haven't invented anything new and calling it anarchy is a disservice to anarchism. If you're an individual who believes you can do whatever you want and the collective is wrong for doing anything against you... you're not a libertarian or freedom-lover, you're just an idiot because you don't even recognize that the collective is just a group of individuals and you're just a unit of a collective.

The most fundamental part of anarchism, I think, is the voluntary aspect of it. Communists must embrace voluntarism; they cannot seek to impose central planning or collectively owned property on anyone else or the same mistakes will be repeated again and again. And capitalists cannot try to use the State to enforce property, or we get what we have. What most people don't realize though is that in the current system, there isn't even much of a struggle going on... it's an almost symbiotic relationship going on, with the corporate class owning everything and controlling all production then collecting the profits, some of which is stolen from the parasitic class to bribe the poor but it's all just going around in this huge recycling cycle and... wait, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I've made my point, I'll end it here.

What exactly is a "State" enforcing property? As Mao famously said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." In other words, anybody with a gun, for all intents and purposes, might as well be a "State" or "mini-State".

So even if so called "libertarian" capitalists got rid of "The State", as soon as they try to enforce their claims to their factories or land with private security forces, or by taking up arms themselves, they are forming a de-facto state once again.

### There's an old joke that goes "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2."
You might as well be saying that anarchism can't be communism for very authoritarian values of communism. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning ###

What do you want to imply? my statement was quite clear to understand. communism contains authority of only a part of a society, in most cases one partly. so if this is the case we can speak of a one-party-state andnot an anarchist society.

###
Who are you to tell me what is and isn't communism? What if I said communism has nothing to do with how many parties there are, but rather, how much economic equality there is, and what role the concept of "property" plays in society? What if I said that the number of parties only has to do with anarchism, democracy, and authoritarianism, but not communism and capitalism? ###

i told you my premise:
no authority above all individuals or the collective -> anarchy

name me a communist society in which there hasnt been a take-over of power by one party or a dictator.

Seeya, while I absolutely agree with the principle at heart here, that the State is just in fact violence... there is more to it than that.

You're ignoring the most important fact that legitimizes government... the victims of the violence, wrongly or rightly (well, we know that it's wrongly) accept the authority as legitimate. Look at a country like Mexico. Who's to say the mafia there isn't the State? If you ask the people, they will tell you who the State is. Though, it's interesting for sure to consider that in some rural areas, certainly the local gangs control more than the government. They often spend more in bribing the public than their local government can afford to, so in turn they're more popular and received as the more legitimate rulers. But I'm ranting now.

And again, you're ignoring that I admitted property that must be reinforced at the point of a gun isn't property.

Post by The imperial reichtag suppressed by Perrais.

The imperial reichtag

Snow Crash, just the fact that you think that communism is authoritarian shows your grasp on leftist thought.

As for the theory of property rights, surely as leftists, we can agree that private(productive) is only legitimate when noy controlled by the elite, and when in the hands of the working class.

I did have a long, really well thought out response typed, but then it failed the lodge, so it's all gone D:

Now, I have an antifa meeting to go to.

The imperial reichtag

Private(productive) property, I ment to say. lawl

I think anarchy is a phylosophy that promotes freedoms in all aspects. If it is my choice to have property, then I will have property (being it objects, real estate, funds or ideas). I don't think anarchy is about restricting my civil rights, or is it? One should be able to own an own house, if that person whishes to do so. Anarchy is a highly developped political idea, it is not a political party, it is not about a government at all. Anarchy promotes freedoms, most of all personal freedoms in political, economic, human rights affairs. Also anarchy does not search to govern things, it is about abolishing a lot of bureaucratic b#llsh&t. Having a law about prohibiting people to own things, and also executing such a law, I consider rather right-wing and authoritarian. Probably people will develop anarchistic ideas, if confronted with a measure like that. People will try to have private property, private property will become contrabande. In my opinion - my anarchist opinion - private property is a right and it is legitimate as long as no one else proves the property is theirs. To the question wether anarchy and communism are compatible or not: some of the ideas in communism are compatible. And for shure, anarchy is in fact the way to revolution, so communists like to adopt anarchism as a tool. VVVVVRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMM

Post by The imperial reichtag suppressed by Perrais.

The imperial reichtag

Remember, whenever you hear any leftist philosopher talking about Private property, they're not talking personal property (your house, your clothes, ect), they are talking about productive property such as factories, machines, and anything that is used to produce on a large scale.

What is ment by the abolition of private property, is the abolition of the privitization, or control of that property by the elite, who are using it to exploit the working class through wage slavery.

In a communist or anarcho-communist society, the workers would have control over the mean of production, which is the private property that is talked about by Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, ect.

Lands of the lost

It's so cool to be here!

The imperial reichtag

Indeed it is :D

Reichtag, could you explain, in your own words without referring me to works by other writers, what you mean by "workers controlling the means of production"?

The imperial reichtag

Basically, it just means workers havings control over factorys, or anything else used to produce on a societal of communal level. Worker's self management.

«12345. . .415416»

Advertisement