by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«1234567. . .499500»

'Only the rich can afford the latest medical innovations, the country is preparing for war, thieves are flogged in public for their crimes, and manual labourers must be willing to have cybernetic limbs to get a job'

hmm. i really wonder if these could be reasons for being #1 in 'shortest average lifespan'

The imperial reichtag

LOL

You know when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and proposed saying "life, liberty, and property" instead of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" - and how some were afraid that the poor would misinterpret this to mean that after the revolution, everyone would get some more property out of the deal?

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the right to life is more important than anything else. "Property" is merely a convenient concept, acceptable only when it promotes survival. When it doesn't, then it needs to be dispensed with.

There's no inherent right for anybody to work anywhere or use any resource. They just have the right to live. If that right to live is promoted by having access to some resource, then sure - but remember, it isn't a right in itself - it hangs off the right to live. If they just want to use some resources so they can give themselves fancy hairdos, while others need the same resources to survive, shouldn't it be obvious which side I'd come down on?

Even if you don't believe anybody has the right to live, it's not like you can stop them anyway. Organisms are built to survive, and it would only be natural for them to act to survive. To try to come up with any long-lasting philosophical roadblocks to that, you might as well be tilting at windmills.

Extropian idealists

2 hours ago: The Free Zionist Republic of Mossad Agent H of the region Israel rejected a request from Anarchy to establish embassies.

lol

The syndicate of man

I agree. Even as a machine intelligence I see the irony. Truly amusing.

ugh..
st pats...
this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mquLQAiTJU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMbgM8O5TjI

FREEDOM FOR LIBYA!

ALSO Madison...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqJhY9-qziU
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgGp1iiW91o

Post self-deleted by Hydrarchia.

=-)_~

Also BUY ARMS FROM HYDRARCHIA
we have a special on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgD8TmI96o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwxxY2pf5AU

The imperial reichtag

Top 5% in anarchy for most crime free, top 5% in the WORLD for the most politically free, and top 5% in anarchy for safety.

My country is a civil rights lovefest, civil rights are supurb, Political freedoms are a world benchmark, and my economy is strong.

THAT is how you build an anarcho-communist/syndicalist society 8)

So, Anarchy, what sort of business interests do you foresee entering Libya post-Gaddaffi? American? French? British? Or am I asking the wrong question?

Well pretty sure all those business interests are already represented in Libya. But yes I'd imagine a post Gaddaffi regime will experience more corporate globalization. Whether this will be balanced by a more (directly?) democratic petro-welfare state able to resist some of the consequences of the austerity measures, precarisation, and casualization of the global proletariat of is what is at play with all these north African/ middle East revolts against 'strong man' rulers.

Although that's just my 'real politick' expectations... as anarchists I think we should push for/ be in solidarity with the on the ground developments of workers councils and neighborhood assemblies... as well as the secular and pro-women aspects of the struggle... libertarian proletarian internationalism against neo-liberal globalization for cosmopolitan communization... or thereabouts

Faced with the prospect of losing currently allied dictatorships to democratic revolutions, the current "Western" corpocracies are hoping to at least get a chip back, by taking what used to be a defiant dictatorship and turning it into an allied dictatorship - thereby softening the blow dealt by the forces of the internet.

Adding to Iraq and Afghanistan, this will become "nation-building" (aka. exploitation-building) quagmire #3 - as if their forces weren't stretched thin enough already. It would be quite entertaining to watch another round of incompetency lead to the meltdown of all their efforts, if not just in destroying their own economies to provide a military for their corporate donors. They'll think they can get a good enough return on investment if they keep throwing money at it, but as long as the governments there are repressive, it will just become more and more of a money hole - the same thing led to the fall of the old British Empire.

There were already size able investments made by Western petrocorps into the Libyan oil infrastructure. I imagine this will continue.

On the other hand, the EU has been pushing this concept of solar farms in the Maghreb to supply continental Europe with solar energy via cables across the Med. A democratized and liberalized Libya will likely allow for this sort of construction to advance at a faster pace, especially as the legions of unemployed Libyans, and Maghrebi in general, provide the cheap construction labor for the project.

Given global petroleum dependence, and the European push to take advantage of the sand and sun of the North Sahara, I expect Libya will continue to be a major energy exporter of one flavor or another.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing for the Libyan people, though, and it certainly provides the opportunity for the Libyans to leverage Western investments to improve their job prospects, ultimately, is much of what sparked these revolutions. However, they'd be almost better off without the oil in that regard, building an economy based on exporting electricity and building the massive infrastructure required for Europe's solar dream, for which they can charge a relatively high premium directly, instead of getting whatever the oil majors are willing to pay for their crude. The Europeans will likely be willing to pay a higher premium for the electricity just to ween themselves off their dependence on Russia natural gas.

As long as they get a more open society, the Libyans will take care of the rest themselves, in their own good time.

May I ask a favor of you all?

I feel like "Mutualist Confederation" implies some form of state or authoritarian institution, but it doesn't really lend itself as well to label as syndicalism or or other collectivist flavors of anarchy.

So here's the gist of what I'm going for, as quoted from the Intro on Mutualist.org:

"Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use. We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid. The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept. What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism."

What would you name such a society?

Thoughts? Questions? Vicious slander?

Smash your face in

What is everyone talking about? I want to smash your face in.

Siyyon: in my opinion every essential part of a society like the massproduction of food and goods, army/police, the health system etc... or capitalism itself require direct-democratic control. i dont think anarchic schemes are able to prevent capitalist exploitation on the long term and i also think a mutualist system is more likely to work.

to make it short: best way would be a democratic world federation of small anarchist communities.

A permanent revolution

Hey guys, I'm a wandering puppet of the CIL delegate, TableRase, I stopping by for some debate with other regions.

I think mutualist confederation is a fine term, but if you dislike the confederation part of it then you could go for something along the lines of "The mutualist realms of..."

My opinion with mutualism is I don't think it's a sustainable system, I think that a society built upon private property does not rid a culture of the self interest known before and susceptable to reverting back to authoritarianism, and as industrialisation increases most industry will have to be collectively owned to prevent a capitalist relation to the means of production and thus it becomes impractical for each man to own his own personal little slice of the pie. Whereas syndicalism puts foundations for a lasting system of cooperation.

The imperial reichtag

" or capitalism itself require direct-democratic control. i dont think anarchic schemes are able to prevent capitalist exploitation on the long term and i also think a mutualist system is more likely to work. "

lol wrong for so many different reasons. Capitalism requires exploitation, wage slavery, and authoritarianism to maintain itself. Mutualism cannot work, because not only doesn't it oppose, but it encourages a wage system and private property, which will eventually lead to classes, and back to capitalism (I hope that also answers your question too, Smash.)

Without wage and private property, there is no need for the concept of ownership in relations to the means of productions, and there is certianly no motive to strive to be on top, because there is no top. You're looking at this from a very capitalistic view, and that's not appropriate. In this system, as we saw in Catalonia and the Russianc free territorys, Capitalism becomes impractical, because why would one gain private control over the MoP when there is no money to be made, or no motive what-so-ever? As I said before, if for whatever reason someone DID come to claim a communal farm as soely "theirs" for whatever reason, they would have to use cohersion, which would be met with violence, because everyone has the right to defend themselves. But Again, this wouldn't happen, because with no profit or personal gain to be made, this would be impractical.

This is why ANYTHING with a wage system is dangerous, and why anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism, the biggest school of anarchism, (NOTE: I group Syndicalism and lib.com together because ansynd is a pre-revolutionary idea, while lib.com is post revolutionary, so the two are not mutually exclusive), is the only logical, and most aplicable system.

The imperial reichtag

Reguarding Qadaffi, all that is happening is that the old capitalist puppet has lost his use, and is being replaced by a new one. What you're seeing is the old Western dictators being replaced by new ones for new reasons.

First ones were put in because of their anti-communist stance, they made good cold war puppets.
New ones are being put in because the old ones have lost their use since the fall of the wall, so now the new ones are needed simply for one reason. Money. And LOTS of it.

A permanent revolution

I'm interested to know your opinions on the best method to acheive anarchy. I come from a marxist perspective (dictatorship of proletariat with state socialism untill the state withers away), how about you guys?

The imperial reichtag

I would say Anarcho Syndicalism, because it starts training the working class for post revolutionary society by putting great emphasis on solidarity and direct action. It helps to sort of create the new society within the old one.

This is the symplistic version, anyways.

«1234567. . .499500»

Advertisement