AnarchyBoard

Existenz wrote:

I believe it's much worse for an Anarchist to be socialist, then to be nationalist.

The states of balloon wrote:

Well that's a given, as nothing is worse than socialism

People, I really hate to break the news to you. But anarchism is socialism. It has historically been one of the main movements within the broader socialist category, next to Marxism and social democracy (if you consider the latter socialism).
All types of anarchism propose some form of social ownership and workers' self management of the means of production, which without any doubt makes anarchism a socialist school of thought.
Anarchism is at its core the opposition to all hierarchies. Capitalism is built on exploitative hierarchies, and is thus incompatible with anarchism.

Existenz wrote:

Facsism sux, yeah. Because of its statism.

Existenz wrote:

So yeah, I'm not joking. Maybe about fascism, but tbh I don't really against them. It's just their choice and a choice of some nations. If you don't like IRL fascism you are always able to fight it or avoid.

I'm getting mixed messages here. And that's the only reason I'm even responding to you. Fascism isn't "just a choice". Fascism in all its practized and proposed forms is a tremendous crime against humanity. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can ask what is wrong with it. Were you homeschooled in the US or something?

If one proposes fascism, considers it as an option, vindicates or apologizes for it, they have to be stopped by any means.

I would like to seriously encourage you people to click a few of the links in our World Factbook Entry and educate yourselves.

East Angria wrote:

People, I really hate to break the news to you. But anarchism is socialism. It has historically been one of the main movements within the broader socialist category, next to Marxism and social democracy (if you consider the latter socialism).
All types of anarchism propose some form of social ownership and workers' self management of the means of production, which without any doubt makes anarchism a socialist school of thought.
Anarchism is at its core the opposition to all hierarchies. Capitalism is built on exploitative hierarchies, and is thus incompatible with anarchism.

That's a tad reductive. I could just as easily say that socialism is incompatible with anarchism because rooting out exploitative hierarchies and socializing industry necessitates the establishment of a planned economy and the redistribution of wealth by the state, and in anarchy there can, of course, be no state.

Both capitalism and socialism involve the exploitation of man; in the former, the poor are held hostage by the rich, and in the latter, the rich are held hostage by the poor. An anarchic society - one dedicated to the principle of voluntary association - would look very different from a capitalist one (in which those with power and wealth coerce the destitute into paying into their systems by way of monopoly or deception) or a socialist one (in which those who generate wealth are coerced into relinquishing it to whomever "needs it more"). A world in which people cooperate and trade with one another voluntarily - not out of necessity, or ideological purity, but simply because they want to - is not the world promised by socialism or communism, in which - even in the best case scenario - everyone works together and collectively owns the means of production because they have no other options, except maybe death or exile. Though I doubt, now, that either world is possible.

Far leftist ideologies impose an unspoken hierarchy on society; implemented at their worst, a ruling class of "revolutionaries" pretends to lead everyone to full communism and justifies this immense stratification as a necessity for the redistribution of wealth and the assurance of equality when, in actuality, they have no notions of giving up their power and wealth - not unlike those they took it from. But even at their best? They require those living under them to think in terms of a collective in which all are equal... but as soon as anyone gets the idea that their individual desires and needs are more important, they're suddenly at the mercy of everyone else, effectively placing them on a lower rung until they reconsider their individualism and conform to collectivist thought. That is to say, the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few implies a hierarchy in which "many" and "few" are separate. That is why, for the time I considered myself an anarchist, I posited that the individual is all there is - that a group is not a moral agent in the sense that a single person is, that each individual is likely to act in their own self-interest (even if it means the accrual of capital, as in capitalism, or endeavoring to share the means of production with other individuals, as in socialism), and that hierarchy is impossible if every person stands apart from the concept and only embraces it on a voluntary basis.

I came to understand that even this is deceptive thinking. All ideologies, however noble - however anarchic - are merely abstractions we make to try to comprehend the complexities of human interaction, and as a result of these complexities it is grossly misleading and hubristic to advertise any one ideology as being the cure to society's ills. But I greatly enjoy ideological discussions and debates all the same.

North smolcasm wrote:

That's a tad reductive. I could just as easily say that socialism is incompatible with anarchism because rooting out exploitative hierarchies and socializing industry necessitates the establishment of a planned economy and the redistribution of wealth by the state, and in anarchy there can, of course, be no state.

Both capitalism and socialism involve the exploitation of man; in the former, the poor are held hostage by the rich, and in the latter, the rich are held hostage by the poor. An anarchic society - one dedicated to the principle of voluntary association - would look very different from a capitalist one (in which those with power and wealth coerce the destitute into paying into their systems by way of monopoly or deception) or a socialist one (in which those who generate wealth are coerced into relinquishing it to whomever "needs it more"). A world in which people cooperate and trade with one another voluntarily - not out of necessity, or ideological purity, but simply because they want to - is not the world promised by socialism or communism, in which - even in the best case scenario - everyone works together and collectively owns the means of production because they have no other options, except maybe death or exile. Though I doubt, now, that either world is possible.

Far leftist ideologies impose an unspoken hierarchy on society; implemented at their worst, a ruling class of "revolutionaries" pretends to lead everyone to full communism and justifies this immense stratification as a necessity for the redistribution of wealth and the assurance of equality when, in actuality, they have no notions of giving up their power and wealth - not unlike those they took it from. But even at their best? They require those living under them to think in terms of a collective in which all are equal... but as soon as anyone gets the idea that their individual desires and needs are more important, they're suddenly at the mercy of everyone else, effectively placing them on a lower rung until they reconsider their individualism and conform to collectivist thought. That is to say, the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few implies a hierarchy in which "many" and "few" are separate. That is why, for the time I considered myself an anarchist, I posited that the individual is all there is - that a group is not a moral agent in the sense that a single person is, that each individual is likely to act in their own self-interest (even if it means the accrual of capital, as in capitalism, or endeavoring to share the means of production with other individuals, as in socialism), and that hierarchy is impossible if every person stands apart from the concept and only embraces it on a voluntary basis.

I came to understand that even this is deceptive thinking. All ideologies, however noble - however anarchic - are merely abstractions we make to try to comprehend the complexities of human interaction, and as a result of these complexities it is grossly misleading and hubristic to advertise any one ideology as being the cure to society's ills. But I greatly enjoy ideological discussions and debates all the same.

Exactly. Very meaningful opinion, thank you.

North smolcasm wrote:

That's a tad reductive. I could just as easily say that socialism is incompatible with anarchism because rooting out exploitative hierarchies and socializing industry necessitates the establishment of a planned economy and the redistribution of wealth by the state, and in anarchy there can, of course, be no state.

First of all, thank you for your post. You seem to take a respectful good-faith debate very seriously.
My response to your first paragraph is that no, rooting out exploitative hierarchies and socializing industry does NOT in fact necessitate the establishment of a planned economy and the redistribution of wealth by the state. The socialization can just as well happen horizontally and democratically, as it did in anarchist Catalonia and Ukraine. Freetown Christiania has no exploitative hierarchies and no state either. Same goes for the Democratic Federation of North Syria and the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities.

North smolcasm wrote:

Both capitalism and socialism involve the exploitation of man; in the former, the poor are held hostage by the rich, and in the latter, the rich are held hostage by the poor. An anarchic society - one dedicated to the principle of voluntary association - would look very different from a capitalist one (in which those with power and wealth coerce the destitute into paying into their systems by way of monopoly or deception) or a socialist one (in which those who generate wealth are coerced into relinquishing it to whomever "needs it more"). A world in which people cooperate and trade with one another voluntarily - not out of necessity, or ideological purity, but simply because they want to - is not the world promised by socialism or communism, in which - even in the best case scenario - everyone works together and collectively owns the means of production because they have no other options, except maybe death or exile. Though I doubt, now, that either world is possible.

Far leftist ideologies impose an unspoken hierarchy on society; implemented at their worst, a ruling class of "revolutionaries" pretends to lead everyone to full communism and justifies this immense stratification as a necessity for the redistribution of wealth and the assurance of equality when, in actuality, they have no notions of giving up their power and wealth - not unlike those they took it from.

You seem to have in your head a set definition of socialism that only accounts for the coercive state-based approaches of societies such as, say, the Soviet Union. I want free, voluntary, bottom-up, democratic socialism. There is such a thing as anarcho-communism, you know.

North smolcasm wrote:

But even at their best? They require those living under them to think in terms of a collective in which all are equal... but as soon as anyone gets the idea that their individual desires and needs are more important, they're suddenly at the mercy of everyone else, effectively placing them on a lower rung until they reconsider their individualism and conform to collectivist thought. That is to say, the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few implies a hierarchy in which "many" and "few" are separate. That is why, for the time I considered myself an anarchist, I posited that the individual is all there is - that a group is not a moral agent in the sense that a single person is, that each individual is likely to act in their own self-interest (even if it means the accrual of capital, as in capitalism, or endeavoring to share the means of production with other individuals, as in socialism), and that hierarchy is impossible if every person stands apart from the concept and only embraces it on a voluntary basis.

I'm having trouble conjuring up such a situation in my head. Many anarchists hold dead the principles of Freedom of Association and individual freedoms - freedoms upon which no majority may infringe. If you don't like the game everyone else is playing, go and play a different game. Why would anyone want to stop you?
I get from your post that you think that conceptualizing the collective and the individual as fundamentally different entities is harmful. At least that is what I believe. It would be very enlightening for me to find out where this conflation of collectivism and socialism (or left wing ideologies in general) is coming from. That seems to be a very common pattern of thinking these days and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

North smolcasm wrote:

I came to understand that even this is deceptive thinking. All ideologies, however noble - however anarchic - are merely abstractions we make to try to comprehend the complexities of human interaction, and as a result of these complexities it is grossly misleading and hubristic to advertise any one ideology as being the cure to society's ills. But I greatly enjoy ideological discussions and debates all the same.

Very true. You can't eat, live inside, or be friends with an ideology. An ideology cannot fulfill human needs. Only our individual actions can. Getting together and talking to one another, growing food, paving roads, inventing bicycles, recording music - those are the things that solve our problems and make our lives better. The just happen to work better or worse with different ideologies in place.

Existenz wrote:

But state planned economy is 100% anti-anarchic. And you can't run a competitive socialist country without it. How do you imagine your 21th century society without free trade or state distribution center? Anarchism is about de-centralization. It's not about socialism because of that. Free trade can allow people to run their housekeep, their district, their town with no need for taxation or government. Communities with free trade are far more effective, then monopolized, centralized and socialist ones.

I am not advocating for a state-planned, centralized economy. I am saying that socialism is a very broad term that encompasses many things - one of those things being anarchism. Neither state planning nor centralization nor monopolies are necessary characteristics of a socialist society.

East Angria wrote:

You can take some of the ideas of anarchism and connect them to the ideas of those ideologies, yes - but they stop being anarchism at that point.

Anarchy is simply the lack of a government. As capitalism is a system built on voluntary exchange with no mention of a government, it's a lot more compatible with anarchy than a system based on forceful redistribution of wealth.

East Angria wrote:


Capitalism: Private property, workplace hierarchies, exploitation of labor, value extraction, state violence to uphold the status quo, consumerism, brand identity, ravishing of the environment, more empty homes than homeless... 
Anarchism: Personal and collective property only, democratic management of the workplace, no bosses, voluntary work, emergency response services and antifa, free culture and expression, cooperative protection of the environment, no homeless at all...

That's a bullshit and demagogue. These are not even arguments.

East Angria wrote:

Capitalism: Private property, workplace hierarchies, exploitation of labor, value extraction, state violence to uphold the status quo, consumerism, brand identity, ravishing of the environment, more empty homes than homeless...
Anarchism: Personal and collective property only, democratic management of the workplace, no bosses, voluntary work, emergency response services and antifa, free culture and expression, cooperative protection of the environment, no homeless at all...

This just proves to me that you're a boneheaded neanderthal, which probably also explains why you're an anarchist

East Angria wrote:

Sorry buddy, but Poe's law applies here. Unless you put a big fat disclaimer in your factbook, your signature, and your profile, you are a fascist to me.

I don't care what your actual intention is. If you brandish a Nazi flag with a David's star in place of the swastika, you're mocking holocaust victims and survivors, and you're equating the Jewish religion with fascism. Your intentions are irrelevant to the perlocutionary force of your utterances. For all intents and purposes, you're practicing hate speech.

You can't just excuse anything you're doing with 'sarcasm' and 'irony'. This mindset gave us shltholes such as /pol/, and effectively bred a new generation of hip cool fascists, just because the irony was lost on them. Stop it. I have nothing against free speech and satire, but your nation's profile is indistinguishable from one advocating fascism. And that just doesn't fly.

Fascism is a highly developed socio-economic theory. I do not hold the view that this theory is correct, I am a Libertarian, therefore I cannot be a fascist. That's basic logic.

You don't care what my intention is? So it really doesn't matter if I kill one man in order to save the billions of other men and women in the world because my intention doesn't matter. I can logically conclude this from your statement. The fact that I have a star of david emblazoned on a flag that is vaguely reminiscent of a Nazi-era Reichskriegflagge is more likely to be a sign of satire than not, because 99% of Jews would never use such imagery together, and definitely not a Nazi, as they would be just as adverse. I have no need to put a disclaimer, as I don't need to defend my actions to the small minority that wouldn't catch the satire. You obviously didn't see the disclaimer that's been pointed to on multiple occasions, but I'll forgive you for that. For all intents and purposes, hate speech is speech spoken with hate. It's basic addition and logic.

You're right, I can't just excuse everything with irony and sarcasm, but I can excuse sarcastic and ironic actions with such excuses, especially when the irony and sarcasm is clear. I don't need to cater to the bottom of the bucket, if unintelligent folk don't catch the multiple signs left for them, that's not my problem, and any satirist will tell you that, especially if they have a disclaimer which you missed. You have nothing against free speech unless you don't like what is spoken, as made clear in your later messages.

On a different note, this fully shows how our two ideologies are incompatible: whereas mine is based on opposition to coercion, yours is based on coercing thise who disagree with you into falling in line. In your specific case it is Anarchistic communism.

We have many well read and well educated folk on our community discord who have much more time to debate the topic of capitalism vs. communism, but I myself am a busy man with many responsibilities. I most respectfully must retire, and wish to reiterate that Libertatem is neither a fascist region, nor has any malevolent intent towards Anarchy or any other non-aggressive anti-statist region.

The states of balloon wrote:

This just proves to me that you're a boneheaded neanderthal, which probably also explains why you're an anarchist

One could say that the concept of anarchism itself is a time-honored institution dating back to humanity's predecessors, but I get the impression that this is far from the "point" you sought to make.

I find that the adoption of ideological purism comes not from a lack of intelligence, as you seem to be contending, but rather a lack of vision - and even someone who knows not to buy into an ideology in totality cannot hope to believe and express every value and ideal the human condition has to offer. It is not a failure on the part of an intellectual to be an anarchist; as I'm sure many of Libertatem's residents can attest, it is more the direction of their conscience.

North smolcasm wrote:

Ultimately, the big question is "How can the proletariat dismantle the exploitative hierarchies of capitalism?", seeing as the bourgeoisie would not willingly part with their wealth and power. Societies like the Soviet Union answered this with violent and bloody revolution, while social democracies instead used the state as a catalyst for reform; in either case, it took coercion and the establishment of a hierarchy to dismantle another hierarchy (or try to) - the effects of which have greatly shaped the state of world politics today. While anarchic socialists and communists do not seek to eliminate the problem by confronting it with a variation of itself, the examples of horizontal socialization you cite are, while noteworthy and even impressive in my eyes, not the first things I think of when I hear the word "socialism."

anarcho-communism posits a society without money. in a society without money, no one cares about colourful printed papers. thus there can be no forceful redistribution of wealth. it's not about taking away from the rich, it's about creating a society where the "wealth" of the rich becomes obsolete.

less extreme anarchist ideas include the replacement of money with labour certificates, which while functioning more like money still make monetary wealth useless.

just because you don't associate anarchist examples of socialism with your concept of socialism doesn't mean that it is not socialism. you are of course not in the minority here; the soviet union was very successful in suppressing "competition" from other left-wing ideas or groups and portaying itself as the only alternative to capitalism. but that doesn't mean that it's true. the left spectrum is much, much broader and the soviet union and all the "communist" nations based on the soviet union (which was pretty much any such country that came after the soviet union was founded. the soviets expended lots of money and resources on making sure that only those socialist movements that share their ideology gain influnce. in the spanish civil war they did aid the fascists to weaken the anarchists) are pretty bad, non-representative examples. with their authoritarian leanings many anarchists would not consider them left-wing at all. they did not even have much in common with the communist society marx envisioned.

Voluntarists wrote:

Whew I'm back. School's tough. Had to take a month break.

Welcome back!

Why though?