They Are Back and Other Tidbits.

[Revoltingest]

Not exactly since anarchist do have a conception of natural humans rights at the core of their ideology.

There is wide disagreement about what are & aren't rights.
Without a body of law enforced by government limited by
a constitution, it would be a mess of anarchy & oppression.

No it doesn't. (though a militia on call to protect's people natural rights would exist)

And competing interests would raise their own armies.
Essentially, order would be enforced by these various
groups.

You can make all the economic association of your choice and start any business of your choice whenever you want. The only trick is that you own wht you use which means all your employees, all your partners, if you have any and aren't a one person business, would have an equal share in the process and interest of your business.

This isn't clear.

It depends on the type of anarchism and the circumstances. It could indeed transform in a number of thing from a more classical representative democracy with a decentralised structure to a brutal dictatorship ruled by some crazed warlord, but that can be true of any form of government or organisation. They are all subject to changes and risks.

Anarchy doesn't appear to have the stability of other
systems. I prefer a constitutional democratic republic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, anarchist proto-states and communes proved to be no more criminalised than the any other society or community.

Proposing anarchism for Ameristan, eh.
Where has this worked on the scale of a country?

 

[epronovost]

There is wide disagreement about what are & aren't rights.
Without a body of law enforced by government limited by
a constitution, it would be a mess of anarchy & oppression.

Anarchist States do have a constitution/social contract and a code of law and principles. Anarchism, as political theory, isn't lawlessness.

And competing interests would raise their own armies.
Essentially, order would be enforced by these various
groups.

Anarchist proto-state were indeed vulnerable to invasion. That's actually their biggest weakness as they are pacifist by nature and don't have the capacity nor the interest to develop a large military-industrial complex. Much like socialist States, they suffer and crumble easily in armed competitions be they cold or shooting wars.

This isn't clear.

What's not clear? I can try to rephrase.

 

[epronovost]

Proposing anarchism for Ameristan, eh.
Where has this worked on the scale of a country?

Anarchism could work in a federation system else it would be mostly small states akin to regionnal governments or small States like Luxembourg for example. Most of Catalonia was administered by anarcho-socialist during the Spanish Civil War as was North-Eastern Syria until the invasion of Turkey in 2019. The US would end up largely "balkanised" in such a system.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anarchist States do have a constitution/social contract and a code of law and principles. Anarchism, as political theory, isn't lawlessness.

It doesn't sound so "stateless" to me.

Anarchist proto-state were indeed vulnerable to invasion. That's actually their biggest weakness as they are pacifist by nature and don't have the capacity nor the interest to develop a large military-industrial complex. Much like socialist States, they suffer and crumble easily in armed competitions be they cold or shooting wars.

Sounds unstable to me.
And we should abandon capitalism & our government
for this airy fairy hodge podge of committees & councils?

What's not clear? I can try to rephrase.

I didn't understand it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anarchism could work in a federation system else it would be mostly small states akin to regionnal governments or small States like Luxembourg for example. Most of Catalonia was administered by anarcho-socialist during the Spanish Civil War as was North-Eastern Syria until the invasion of Turkey in 2019. The US would end up largely "balkanised" in such a system.

Again, we should abandon our current system for this?
If you want a UBI, why not just advocate it now...without
overthrowing the government & economy?

 

[epronovost]

Again, we should abandon our current system for this?
If you want a UBI, why not just advocate it now...without
overthrowing the government & economy?

I do, but our current governmental and economical systems won't survive our rising level of technology and ecological pressure in my opinion. They will change, probably quite profoundly or they will collapse. You can already see the cracks growing. Before my natural death, in 50 years or so, my country will be quite different. The transition might be swift and brutal or slow and steady or some sort of in between.

 

[epronovost]

It doesn't sound so "stateless" to me.

Since it's governed by direct means there is no "state" or it's a minimal one (minarchism for short).

 

[Audie]

Like those found in the Anarchist communes and proto-state of history. It's a form of grassroot direct democracy based around community councils, worker assemblies or, in the case of 11th century Island, "Thing", which is some sort of people's assembly, the ancestor of modern parliements.

Try it. Your proto state will get eaten alive
by a organized one.

 

[epronovost]

Try it. Your proto state will get eaten alive
by a organized one.

Right now, no doubt it would unless they have few hungry neighbours. Imperial powers are still alive and well though their raw agression has been a bit muted by globalisation of communication, trade and higher education of the masses. If those trend continue, and it seems they will, conquest might finally lose it's biggest interest and drive and then more pacifist rulling bodies might stand a chance to emerge. It's that or we are heading toward a giant bloodbath again. I prefer to be a bit more optimistic about the state of the world in my twilight years.

 

[Audie]

I don't blame you for seeing it this way. Capitalism as many qualities and has helped produce a lot of great things. Any system can be awesome when you are in a privileged position within it. If you were a noble, feudalism is great. It built cathedrals, castles, mills, roads, it sponsored artists who made marvels so beautiful that looking at them could make you weep. When you are a dirty peasant lving in fear of taxes or the next war, it sucks big time, so does the life of a "wage-slave" living in an impoverished zone (or country) working a dead-end job with depts and livin paycheck to paycheck, living in fear of bein layed off or of the next war that would see you be conscripted. (I exagerate a bit for the theatrics, but I think you can agree on the rough point that someone's view of a system often depends heavily of their condition within it).

PS: If one day I come to Hong Kong and we cross path I promise I'll ennoy you with my opinions on the best sort of Maple Syrup (don't worry I always bring some for sharing) and how I really hate "traditionnal chinese medecine".

Of course it looks good from the hillside over
Repulse Bay. And the conveniences!
The Chanel and Gucci and LV, I get for
free! Ridiculous. I donr even care about
them, and their value just keeps going up.

But to the point, while I get to play tai tai,
I pay attention and take part. I know
how things work here and only one
on the inside does.

Standing outside of wealth or poverty
and reading does not seem real world to me.

Of course I know about the unfortunates.
Far better acquainted with same than you'd
ever guess. You definitely don't need to tell
me and it's worse than you described.
For one-
When I was ten yrs old I was taken by
special arrangement to see the Walled City.
I still dream about it. It was a lesson that shocked
me to the core and out the other side.

No feature of capitalism caused any of that.
No way they would have been better off if
HK was poor, which it would be, sans
business and finance.

Who has a wider derper and truer view
of capitalism in action? I know who I think does.

 

[Kooky]

For reference....
Definition of capitalism | Dictionary.com
Excerpted....
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

And finally, you have been shown that capitalism is opposed to co-operative economics.

 

[Revoltingest]

And finally, you have been shown that capitalism is opposed to co-operative economics.

You aren't in business, are you?
Cooperation is crucial to capitalism.
Naive & anti-capitalist folk think there's only competition.
That would never work.

 

[Kooky]

You aren't in business, are you?
Cooperation is crucial to capitalism.
Naive & anti-capitalist folk think there's only competition.
That would never work.

You literally quoted a definition of capitalism that ended with "especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth".

Did you miss that?

 

[Revoltingest]

You literally quoted a definition of capitalism that ended with "especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth".

Did you miss that?

I think you missed the underlined part, & don't
understand cooperatives.

"Cooperatively owned" is still be capitalistic when
the owners are private parties (not government).
There are many coops in Ameristan.
Cooperation is essential between owners, employees,
contractors, customers, & suppliers. Sure, businesses
compete for customers, but that is just one elemnet.

 

[Kooky]

I think you missed the underlined part, & don't
understand cooperatives.

Whereas I think you are backpedalling because you didn't actually read your own link closely enough.
Both theories sound plausible, don't you think?

"Cooperatively owned" is still be capitalistic when
the owners are private parties (not government).
There are many coops in Ameristan.
Cooperation is essential between owners, employees,
contractors, customers, & suppliers. Sure, businesses
compete for customers, but that is just one elemnet.

You got it completely wrong. Capital comes from the Latin word for "cow head" (capita). Therefore, "capitalism" means cattle herding.
Since you don't need banks, employees, or businesses for that, none of those are not really capitalist.

American is a capitalist nation because there is a lot of cattle herding going on there.
China, by comparison, has very few cows, so it is not capitalist.

 

[Audie]

You aren't in business, are you?
Cooperation is crucial to capitalism.
Naive & anti-capitalist folk think there's only competition.
That would never work.

We have a Cantonese saying but it's not very nice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whereas I think you are backpedalling because...

Trying to rationalize your claim that capitalism
has no cooperation still, eh. Good luck with that.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have a Cantonese saying but it's not very nice.

Translation by PM, please?

 

[Kooky]

We have a Cantonese saying but it's not very nice.

Translation by PM, please?

Please don't be afraid to tell me how you really feel about me and my opinions!