Anarchists here?

Revoltingest · Oct 4, 2015

vaguelyhumanoid said:
Both the "noble savage" and the "violent/oppressive savage" are stereotypes and generalizations. Some hunter-gatherer cultures were pretty authoritarian; others were quite egalitarian and decentralized. The word "tribe" also means something more like "ethnic group" than "state"; it doesn't really say anything about how a society is organized. Often a chief would have a mostly ceremonial position with little political power.

Also, a "minimal state" preserves the state's potential for brutality (police, armies etc) without its beneficial functions (health care, education etc). Say the state is an iron gauntlet with an oven mitt over it. "Minarchism" is saying that getting punched will hurt us all less if you take off the oven mitt and leave the gauntlet on.

We have our preferences for an ideal world....mine is anarchy.
But in a real world filled with a diverse variety of imperfect humans, anarchy doesn't appear to be practical or possible.
Organized states would conquer anarchist societies because they'd be unable to resist.
So how do we balance our idealistic goals with survivability in a real world filled with rapacious enemies?
I favor minarchy.
But even that isn't gaining major traction anywhere.
The closest embodiment is the Libertarian Party, & it garners only a percent or so of votes.

Shadow Wolf · Oct 4, 2015

Revoltingest said:
This is demonstrably false, as shown in westward expansion, with goods & gold serving as ersatz currency.

People still do that today, albeit not as often, but back then there was a gold boom and gold could be exchanged for money. And even in the "Old West" they still had a standard currency, which was fueling the booms of railroad expansion, cattle drives, and other operations. The federal government cleared the way through oppression, war, and dirty deals, and the likes of Rockefeller were able to claim monopolies and vast chunks of wealth for themselves (several tactics they used then are today considered unethical and even illegal). Our modern concept of the corporation was even born during that time.

Revoltingest said:
Capitalism just naturally arises when individuals are free to associate & aggregate for commercial purposes.

People have long been free to make these associations, but capitalism was not always around. Capitalism is more of a remnant of feudalism, but instead of nobles and lords we have executives who own everything and give it to those who can rise up high enough to be granted their own land (which is still typically owned by the one selling it, such as a bank, for several more years), while everyone else works and toils for scraps and anything else than can get a hold of. Today some of us can choose which "lord" to work for, but the fruits of the labor still go to the lord and are redistributed to the workers. And today you don't have to rally an army and invade another lord to acquire their territory, as all you need is enough money to take over the assets of another lord.

Revoltingest · Oct 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
People still do that today, albeit not as often, but back then there was a gold boom and gold could be exchanged for money. And even in the "Old West" they still had a standard currency, which was fueling the booms of railroad expansion, cattle drives, and other operations. The federal government cleared the way through oppression, war, and dirty deals, and the likes of Rockefeller were able to claim monopolies and vast chunks of wealth for themselves (several tactics they used then are today considered unethical and even illegal). Our modern concept of the corporation was even born during that time.

People have long been free to make these associations, but capitalism was not always around. Capitalism is more of a remnant of feudalism, but instead of nobles and lords we have executives who own everything and give it to those who can rise up high enough to be granted their own land (which is still typically owned by the one selling it, such as a bank, for several more years), while everyone else works and toils for scraps and anything else than can get a hold of. Today some of us can choose which "lord" to work for, but the fruits of the labor still go to the lord and are redistributed to the workers. And today you don't have to rally an army and invade another lord to acquire their territory, as all you need is enough money to take over the assets of another lord.

That capitalism has not always been around, doesn't mean that it doesn't naturally arise in the modern world.
That government currency has been & is used doesn't mean that the private market won't provide alternatives.
That government misbehaves to the advantage of capitalism doesn't mean that government is necessary or that capitalism itself is bad.
Capitalism is fundamentally different from feudalism (which is why there are the 2 different terms.)
Feudalism involves warrior services to the king in exchange for land, & provides great authority over vassals.
This is not the level of freedom afforded by capitalism. If you wanted, you could start a business without permission of the king or your lord.
Socialist types have the option under of capitalism to form their own socialist enclaves.
That this is so seldom done, especially by the loudest complainers (who choose instead to work for capitalists) is telling.

Shadow Wolf · Oct 4, 2015

Revoltingest said:
That capitalism has not always been around, doesn't mean that it doesn't naturally arise in the modern world.

That's like saying democracy is a natural outcome of social progress, which isn't the case. Rather than a natural outcome that just happened, there was a precursor to capitalism, it seems to be feudalism.

Revoltingest said:
That government misbehaves to the advantage of capitalism doesn't mean that government is necessary or that capitalism itself is bad.

That is true, however, without the state to enforce a trade standard of currency, people will flock to what works for them rather than a system that is needed to pay the bills. The state also protects many of the worst behaviors, such as pharmaceutical companies that get way too involved between a doctor and patient and what is prescribed, or companies that prey upon and manipulate the minds of children in order to get them to pressure their parents into buying them things. Or you could be like Walmart or the Gap and not be aware of what your suppliers do and get their stuff from (or, at least that's what they claim). Or Nestle, Mars, and Hershey, who have faced no legal consequences for purchasing chocolate ingredients that were procured via child slave labor. And, if things are done, companies like Phillip Morris International sue the state.

Revoltingest said:
Capitalism is fundamentally different from feudalism (which is why there are the 2 different terms.)

I didn't say they were the same, but that there are many similarities.

Revoltingest said:
Socialist types have the option under of capitalism to form their own socialist enclaves.

Only if the state allows it. Capitalism can't say or do anything for or against it. If the state allows it, we can. If the state says we can't, it sends people underground.

Revoltingest said:
That this is so seldom done, especially by the loudest complainers (who choose instead to work for capitalists) is telling.

Why leave when the system can be changed and improved? It's like telling people to leave America if they don't like it, rather than staying to improve things.

Revoltingest · Oct 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
That's like saying democracy is a natural outcome of social progress, which isn't the case. Rather than a natural outcome that just happened, there was a precursor to capitalism, it seems to be feudalism.

I don't see the point of your making this analogy.

Revoltingest · Oct 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
....without the state to enforce a trade standard of currency, people will flock to what works for them rather than a system that is needed to pay the bills.

Huh?
Why can't private currency pay the bills?
This has been & is still often done now in preference to using state currency.
http://blog.ted.com/10-alternative-...-to-berkshares-to-sweat-to-laundry-detergent/
And there are also barter systems.
Do you use only US government money?
How ordinary!

Shadow Wolf · Oct 4, 2015

Revoltingest said:
I don't see the point of your making this analogy.

Capitalism didn't just naturally happen.

Revoltingest said:
Do you use only US government money?

I sometimes use Canadian currency not realizing it's Canadian. What other money would I use? It's not like I can go spend the 20 Naira bill I have at the gas station (it's not worth much when converted anyways).
I have traded, and done things for people for stuff, but that's not money.

Revoltingest · Oct 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
Capitalism didn't just naturally happen.

I sometimes use Canadian currency not realizing it's Canadian. What other money would I use? It's not like I can go spend the 20 Naira bill I have at the gas station (it's not worth much when converted anyways).
I have traded, and done things for people for stuff, but that's not money.

If capitalism didn't occur naturally, then this suggests someone caused it.
Where there was no government, why did it arise?
The people who started & ran the companies didn't do it themselves?
This seems a strained argument of the Obama variety, ie, "You didn't do that...someone did it for you.".

I use bartering all the time.
You don't?

Frolicking_Fox · Oct 6, 2015

I am an Anarchist. The thing that sucks is that I am in America... Stupid governments...

Shadow Wolf · Oct 6, 2015

Revoltingest said:
If capitalism didn't occur naturally, then this suggests someone caused it.

Someone did cause it. Not really a single particular someone, like our other contemporary ideas we have in practice, capitalism has its roots in older ideas. Since at least Medieval Europe it has been a back and forth struggle between the state and merchants to be in control and in power, with every body else being at the mercy of the whims and desires of either group.

Revoltingest said:
This seems a strained argument of the Obama variety, ie, "You didn't do that...someone did it for you.".

That's not really how Obama put it, and what he was pointing out is that society is a collective effort, from the teachers who teach people, construction workers who build the roads and buildings we use, electricians who make it possible for us to use much of what we have; no matter how you look at it, no one ever does it all entirely on their own.

Revoltingest · Oct 6, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
Someone did cause it. Not really a single particular someone, like our other contemporary ideas we have in practice, capitalism has its roots in older ideas. Since at least Medieval Europe it has been a back and forth struggle between the state and merchants to be in control and in power, with every body else being at the mercy of the whims and desires of either group.

That's not really how Obama put it, and what he was pointing out is that society is a collective effort, from the teachers who teach people, construction workers who build the roads and buildings we use, electricians who make it possible for us to use much of what we have; no matter how you look at it, no one ever does it all entirely on their own.

Of course, what Obama exactly said was not what he intended, but neither is the common interpretation you present his real agenda.
By minimizing the value of the contributions by entrepreneurs, by crediting others for the bulk of the work, by saying everyone else works hard too, & by saying everyone else is just a smart, his intent is to create a greater sense of entitlement to the fruits of the labor of successful entrepreneurs. His real goal is higher concentration of power in government, & a demand to take from those who have serves this purpose.

Anyway, capitalism certainly has roots, but this in no way defeats my claim that it arises naturally.
I see it all the time in ambitious people who start businesses.
And historically, it has arisen in the complete absence of government.
It is the ultimate in anarchy, ie, people freely associating & cooperating to effect commerce & survive.

Some people may also freely choose socialism or a similar system, but to become writ large, it requires a state to impose it upon the unwilling.
But as I've pointed out before, under even a large system of capitalism (eg, USA), socialists may choose localized socialism or communism.
They seldom take this road though, preferring to work for some hierarchical organization.
Socialism is theoretically attractive, but in practice capitalism has a greater draw..

vaguelyhumanoid · Oct 6, 2015

Revoltingest said:
If capitalism didn't occur naturally, then this suggests someone caused it.
Where there was no government, why did it arise?
The people who started & ran the companies didn't do it themselves?
This seems a strained argument of the Obama variety, ie, "You didn't do that...someone did it for you.".

I use bartering all the time.
You don't?

Capitalism emerged in a specific cultural context, i.e. colonialism and industrialization.

Markets have existed for several thousand years (though gift economies are older) but capitalism as a system is a feature of the modern age.

ScottySatan · Oct 6, 2015

I've lived in communities small enough where there really was no government presence at all. No cops, no mayor, money was as good to barter as a chicken. People were happy. Happier than I notice in large cities.

Revoltingest · Oct 6, 2015

vaguelyhumanoid said:
Capitalism emerged in a specific cultural context, i.e. colonialism and industrialization.
Markets have existed for several thousand years (though gift economies are older) but capitalism as a system is a feature of the modern age.

Think of capitalism as being an emergent property (of human society) which is similar to science, religion or even socialism.....each arose at the opportune time in human development. Such systems arise naturally, even if not at the same stage. The real question is this.....what political & economic systems allow for the greatest amount of anarchy?

Shadow Wolf · Oct 6, 2015

Revoltingest said:
Think of capitalism as being an emergent property (of human society) which is similar to science, religion or even socialism

They don't just arise naturally. It's like trying to say democracy was a natural outcome from the progress of society, but that isn't the case. Science did not just happen on its own, but rather because people came together and set standards for empirically gathering and evaluating data and studying natural phenomena. Religion didn't just happen, but rather it happened because people try to find answers to questions and make sense of their world. Socialism, capitalism, communism, democracy, and other political ideologies do not just happen, but they happen because people have ideas, things happen, wars happen, and none of it just happens "naturally."

Revoltingest · Oct 6, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
They don't just arise naturally. It's like trying to say democracy was a natural outcome from the progress of society, but that isn't the case. Science did not just happen on its own, but rather because people came together and set standards for empirically gathering and evaluating data and studying natural phenomena. Religion didn't just happen, but rather it happened because people try to find answers to questions and make sense of their world. Socialism, capitalism, communism, democracy, and other political ideologies do not just happen, but they happen because people have ideas, things happen, wars happen, and none of it just happens "naturally."

I disagree completely.
All the things I listed arose independently around the world.
This points towards their being natural human tendencies.
People having "ideas" is a natural thing too.

vaguelyhumanoid · Oct 6, 2015

Revoltingest said:
Think of capitalism as being an emergent property (of human society) which is similar to science, religion or even socialism.....each arose at the opportune time in human development. Such systems arise naturally, even if not at the same stage. The real question is this.....what political & economic systems allow for the greatest amount of anarchy?

A gift economy, syndicalism or market socialism.

leibowde84 · Oct 7, 2015

Saint Frankenstein said:
Are there any other anarchists here? I'm an anarcho-communist, myself. I'm anti-Marxist, pro-religion, egalitarian but recognize that we're not all equal in ability and that diversity isn't a bad thing, environmentalist, against many aspects of the modern world and conservative/traditionalist on some matters.

So, are there any others here? (No, libertarians don't count and I'll laugh if someone says they're an "anarcho-capitalist".)

So ... what is your economic theory? You mentioned a few that you didn't adhere to.

Saint Frankenstein · Oct 7, 2015

leibowde84 said:
So ... what is your economic theory? You mentioned a few that you didn't adhere to.

Communism/communalism as Jesus preached.

leibowde84 · Oct 7, 2015

Saint Frankenstein said:
Communism/communalism as Jesus preached.

So just the basics? From each to their ability, to each according to need, and what not?

Anarchists here?

Pragmatic Libertarian

Certified People sTabber

Pragmatic Libertarian

Certified People sTabber

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Certified People sTabber

Pragmatic Libertarian

Artemis, Athena, and Buddha. Anarcho-Communist.

Certified People sTabber

Pragmatic Libertarian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Certified People sTabber

Pragmatic Libertarian

Active Member

Veteran Member

Wanderer From Afar

Veteran Member