presidential census

[Ogion]

Hey grey. Funny, i actually heard a german radio station which sent people over there to participate in it, might be the exact same people.

Yes, american politics is important for us too. At least nation-wide politics.
One thing for example is that german politicians (and other people who want to talk in politics) do a lot of imitation of american politics. They look how things get done at yours and then see if they can adapt it and use it here too. America just is looking focus. May it be for pro-americanists or antiamericanists, but they do look over the pond a lot...

Ogion

 

[grey matters]

[ They look how things get done at yours and then see if they can adapt it and use it here too. America just is looking focus. May it be for pro-americanists or antiamericanists, but they do look over the pond a lot...

Ogion[/quote]





Is this a good idea? Lately we seem like a good example of how to fuck things up.

 

[Ogion]

Well, even if you gave a good example (and it would be transferrable to us) oftenly they even didn't get it right, the imitation. For example they exchanged all the 'old' degrees of university to a Bachelor/Master-System, because you Anglo-Saxons do "so!" great at academia, and so they introduced this EU-wide...And you know what? They didn't reach their goal of interchangeability. A Bachelor in Germany isn't what one in France is^^D'uh.

But you know, i am not sure they would have have good ideas on their own, so i don't think it really makes a difference...

Ogion

 

[NoID10ts]

Well, even if you gave a good example (and it would be transferrable to us) oftenly they even didn't get it right, the imitation. For example they exchanged all the 'old' degrees of university to a Bachelor/Master-System, because you Anglo-Saxons do "so!" great at academia, and so they introduced this EU-wide...And you know what? They didn't reach their goal of interchangeability. A Bachelor in Germany isn't what one in France is^^D'uh.

But you know, i am not sure they would have have good ideas on their own, so i don't think it really makes a difference...

Ogion

This is why Ogion and I should run the world. This kind of nonsense won't happen in a NoID10ts/Ogion INTP Camelot run planet. We will come up with all the good ideas and have some INTJ's in the basement to refine our ideas and put them into practice. All the other types will just live to serve us INTP's. They'll be happier that way!

 

[Ogion]

|
|
----> Yup, this guy knows what he's talking about. Vote for him!

Ogion

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Got my vote!!
Can I be Minister of Silly Walks?
Always wanted that job.

 

[Agent Intellect]

i call Secretary of INTPness

 

[FusionKnight]

Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." (Brian Morris)

"when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." (Brian Morris)

"Capital . . . in the political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."

Anarchism is "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government."

"all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists." (Labadie)

What you're describing is social anarchism which rejects capitalism as well as coercive government. However, that does not encompass all anarchist philosophy. The common thread through all anarchist philosophies is that coercive government is a detriment to society. That is the core of anarchism. Everything else is the bells and whistles that determines your particular anarchist "school of thought".

Let me say that again: Anarchism, at its core, is the idea that a coercive state is evil.

I'll even argue that social anarchism is the real hyppocracy because it advocates the abolition private property. As soon as you use words like "abolish", "ban", etc you've entered the world of the coercive state.

Let me ask you, if you think social anarchism is self consistent, who exactly would ban private property? Who would enforce the communal ownership of property? If I wanted to own my own property, who would stop me? Would they use force? That is they very definition of "coercive state".

On the other hand, anarcho-capitalism holds simply that all coercive relationships are equally bad, be they involving the state or not. Every relationship should be voluntary, i.e. free from coercion. There is nothing about anarcho-capitalism that precludes a group of people voluntarily creating communes where property is shared. However, it is absolutely against anyone being forced into such an association.

Anarcho-capitalism is far more logically consistent than social anarchism, which demolishes the existing coercive state, only to institute another one in its place.

 

[ElectricWizard]

What you're describing is social anarchism which rejects capitalism as well as coercive government.

Anarcho-individualism rejects the two as well.

However, that does not encompass all anarchist philosophy. The common thread through all anarchist philosophies is that coercive government is a detriment to society. That is the core of anarchism. Everything else is the bells and whistles that determines your particular anarchist "school of thought".

Let me say that again: Anarchism, at its core, is the idea that a coercive state is evil.

Eh, I wouldn't say so, but whatever. Pesumably we have coercive states now, even though the different states are competing with each other. A lot of private states doesn't change the fact that they are states. Either way, to quote Reclus, "the anti-authoritarian critique to which the state is subjected applies equally to all social institutions." Anarchism as a historical movement has been against hierarchy, authority and the state, and wished to abolish them. 'Anarcho'-capitalism has no problem with them, and wishes to privatize them.

I'll even argue that social anarchism is the real hyppocracy because it advocates the abolition private property. As soon as you use words like "abolish", "ban", etc you've entered the world of the coercive state.

Oh no, not private property. Wait a minute, where did the private property come from in the first place? There's a little bit of coercive force right there. Shit.
Also, presumably since you're not out to abolish the coercive state, you're not entering the world of the coercive state. You're just changing the nature of the coercive state.

Let me ask you, if you think social anarchism is self consistent, who exactly would ban private property?

You act as if private property is some kind of thing inherent to nature which must thusly be 'banned'. Anyways, the majority of people would have no reason to suddenly work for you just because you say, "This is my factory." How are you supposed to enforce this private property, then?

Who would enforce the communal ownership of property?

There's no need to 'enforce' it. "Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor. That is why an anarchist society need not fear the advent of a Rothschild who would settle in its midst. If every member of the community knows that after a few hours of productive toil he will have a right to all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and to those deeper sources of enjoyment which art and science offer to all who seek them, he will not sell his strength . . . No one will volunteer to work for the enrichment of your Rothschild."

If I wanted to own my own property, who would stop me?

Nobody. If you meant personal property, you could own as much as you want depending on whether either labour credits, free access, mutualism, etc, are being used. Private property? You could offer to hire people, alright? Of course, they then have every right to leave you and join a commune.

As I went rumbling that dusty highway
I saw a sign that said private property
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
This land was made for you and me

Would they use force?

To do what?

Every relationship should be voluntary, i.e. free from coercion.

This requires full employment. Presumably you're going to use the economist remote to freeze time?
The 'consent' argument is useless in times of inequality. Anyways, this would be the case only if everyone voluntarily respected private property rights and abided by the law. Sounds fairly familiar. Ah yes, the modern state.

There is nothing about anarcho-capitalism that precludes a group of people voluntarily creating communes where property is shared.

If you do not have private property then experimentation could prove difficult, not to mention, of course, few areas are completely self-sufficient, meaning that anarchistic associations will be subject to market forces, market forces which stress and reward the opposite of the values these communes were set up to create. If, as anarchists desire, most people refuse to recognise or defend the rights of private property and freely associate accordingly to organise their own lives and ignore their bosses, this would still be classed as 'initiation of force' under 'anarcho'-capitalism, and thus repressed due to the ''libertarian'code of law'.

However, it is absolutely against anyone being forced into such an association.

I am, too.

Anarcho-capitalism is far more logically consistent than social anarchism, which demolishes the existing coercive state, only to institute another one in its place.

The ironing is delicious.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Anarcho-capitalism is far more logically consistent than social anarchism, which demolishes the existing coercive state, only to institute another one in its place....

...by exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society, though strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at yo, 'cause if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away, for there is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.

(...another random M.P. interjection)

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I lieu of the silly post I placed before (sometimes resistance to silliness is futile), I have been reading this discussion with earnest. Anarchism is a subject which has eluded my understanding; first, because I haven't had the time to properly devote to it, and second, I am quite confounded by seemingly contrary branches of it.
So, querying those who know more than I seems beneficial.

Anarchism can't just be defined based on some dictionary, one has to take into consideration the actual anarchist movement in history, along with the actual meaning of the term 'anarchy'. Anyways, I would prefer this one:
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." (Brian Morris)

I get this in its essence.

"when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." (Brian Morris)

And this is no problem.

"Capital . . . in the political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."

And this is clear also.
But this is where it breaks down for me:

Anarchism is "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government."

I do not see the link between private property, i.e. me owning my own plot of land, and capitalism.

And this is confusing:

Labadie... "all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."

Is not Socialism: "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society." (Wikipedia)

The question is: If anarchists are against the State, then how can one be an anarchist and still advocate "state ownership and administration"?
Even a state comprised of 'equals' is still a coersive organisation in that it promotes the agenda of collective ownership in contrast to private ownership.
If I wished to own my own piece of land, I would not be allowed to under a anarcho-socialist state, correct?
What if I, an individual, do not wish to be part of a egalitarian society, or even be 'egalitarian', for that matter? Would I have a choice?
If there is no other choice but this society, am I not being coerced into being 'eglitarian', even if it is not my desire to be so?

 

[ElectricWizard]

By private property, they mean owning the means of production. They don't seek to abolish ownership of, say, a house, or of personal property like mp3 players. Many would, however, advocate that you may only own land if you use it, but this is not necessary.
Also, Wikipedia's article on socialism is fairly bad. For example, it claims that socialism in Marxist theory means some sort of transitional phase between capitalism and communism, though Marx actually used 'socialism' and 'communism' to mean the same thing.
Also, if you, as an individual, do not wish to be part of an egalitarian society, you may, if enough people want to do it, but I don't really see why anybody would want to be a part of it. Basically, anarchism seeks to overthrow capitalism, after which people may implement whatever systems they want. So if you were in an anarcho-communist commune and didn't like it, you could move to an area practicing mutualism if there was one, etc. However, the point is that people generally wouldn't work mainly for your benefit, and capitalism would be impossible without a state to enforce it.

Also, to quote Kropotkin: "o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time."

Edit: Also, that Monty Python reference was awesome.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

By private property, they mean owning the means of production. They don't seek to abolish ownership of, say, a house, or of personal property like mp3 players. Many would, however, advocate that you may only own land if you use it, but this is not necessary.

Fine. Clearer now. I hve read some of Marx and others and touched on Socialism and Anarchism (the 60's), but not enough to claim I know about them. Not subjects which occupied my interest at the time.

Another question: What of a 'cottage industry', say a potter who employed a couple of assistants and sold his own work through his studio? I see this as an independent artist living of his own work and supplying the two assistants mutually agreeable compensation.
How does this fit with Socialism and Anarchism seperately?

Also, Wikipedia's article on socialism is fairly bad. For example, it claims that socialism in Marxist theory means some sort of transitional phase between capitalism and communism, though Marx actually used 'socialism' and 'communism' to mean the same thing.

I thought so. Some of this article seemed confusing.

Also, if you, as an individual, do not wish to be part of an egalitarian society, you may, if enough people want to do it, but I don't really see why anybody would want to be a part of it.

Umm... needs clarification.
-> I may... what?
-> "why anybody would want to be a part of it" ...a part of what?

Basically, anarchism seeks to overthrow capitalism, after which people may implement whatever systems they want. So if you were in an anarcho-communist commune and didn't like it, you could move to an area practicing mutualism if there was one, etc.

Hmmm... true, but if there is only one set system which was egalitarian, would not system then be the State and would it not enforce its principles in some way? As example: if in an egalitarian society where wealth is shared relatively equally, I decided that I would rather keep the compensation for my labour, say a potter again, would not the egalitarian State insist that I couldn't.
(...this is all hypothetical, of course, for arguments sake and abstract)

However, the point is that people generally wouldn't work mainly for your benefit, and capitalism would be impossible without a state to enforce it.

Why would "capitalism would be impossible without a state to enforce it"?

Also, to quote Kropotkin: "o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time."

This I can see. I think I vaguely remember reading some Kropotkin, among others, but heh, a long time ago.

Edit: Also, that Monty Python reference was awesome.

Thanks. If only these guys ran our governments.

 

[ElectricWizard]

Why would capitalism be impossible without a state to enforce it? It's quite simple. There would be nobody to defend the sacred 'right to private property', as well as enforcing contracts (forcing one to sign off one's liberty in order to live). As Sabatini notes, [w]ithin Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors. . . Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now." (From 'Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchism')

Hmmm... true, but if there is only one set system which was egalitarian, would not system then be the State and would it not enforce its principles in some way? As example: if in an egalitarian society where wealth is shared relatively equally, I decided that I would rather keep the compensation for my labour, say a potter again, would not the egalitarian State insist that I couldn't.

Very abstract. Most anarchists would advocate a gift economy (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, pretty much. This is in stark contrast to the 'anarcho'-capitalist 'from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed'), others advocate the free market (and thus not capitalism), and some advocate labour credits. The first make up the majority of 'social anarchists', the second are the 'anarcho-individualists'. I don't get exactly what you mean. For example, by egalitarian, it doesn't mean that somebody who doesn't work gets as much shit as somebody who does (even a gift economy relies on the community not giving people shit unless they work). Of course, some would perhaps advocate allowing people to take stuff regardless of whether they worked, but most argue that that would be pretty much the same thing as capitalism. Anyways, you would have the right to withdraw from a collective if you wished, and work independently of the democratic collective (presumably you could trade with them for resources). The point being that nobody would have the liberty to sign off their liberty (rather than exercising their freedom and dying of starvation), since this is hardly 'freedom'.

Also, again, as I said, if you didn't want to be part of a democratic collective, which is egalitarian in that everybody has the same civil rights, economic rights, etc, you may feel free to begin a capitalist society, or a white nationalist society, if enough people want to join, but I don't see why anybody would agree to work for your profit, or be discriminated against.

 

[Decaf]

Most anarchists would advocate a gift economy

Citation Needed

'anarcho'-capitalist 'from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed'

Do you feel it necessary to insult your opposition? Clever wording, but not constructive to the argument.

The point being that nobody would have the liberty to sign off their liberty (rather than exercising their freedom and dying of starvation), since this is hardly 'freedom'.

Not have the liberty to give up their liberty. Actually I think that kinda sums up the argument right there. I believe that people should have the liberty to give up their liberty. To behave otherwise is not liberty at all. I believe in restraint in that they should under no circumstances be coerced to do so.

Also, again, as I said, if you didn't want to be part of a democratic collective, which is egalitarian in that everybody has the same civil rights, economic rights, etc, you may feel free to begin a capitalist society, or a white nationalist society, if enough people want to join, but I don't see why anybody would agree to work for your profit, or be discriminated against.

You don't need to find a name to call the dissenters to realize that some people don't like being meddled with. Many will wish to leave simply because they are ambitious and want to be able to earn value according to the excess of work they are willing to put forth even if greater risk is present. Others because they want to live with only those who share their theology. We don't need a straw man.

 

[FusionKnight]

I have a huge problem with differentiating between private "personal" property, and private property classified as "the means of production". Surely any physical item could easily fall into either category. In an anarchic socialist society, who is the authority in determining which is which? Examples could be:

The potter's wheel
The musician's guitar
The programmers computer

Another issue I have is when you say that capitalism and the coercive state are synonymous. Surely in the modern United States these two have significant overlap (much to our detriment) but as long as the market remains free from coercion, I don't understand how you can advocate for the abolition of capitalism and still call yourself an anarchist. It requires coercion to ban anything...

Also, a freely negotiated contract is not precluded by anarchy. How is this coercive?