Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Post-Leftist Anarchy

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by antitude420, Jun 20, 2010.

  1. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    You are not a real anarchist, stop pretending the opposite. Anarchism never had anything to do with capitalism when it appeared, all of the first anarchist philosophers were anti-capitalist. The liberty you believe in is the LIBERALIST CONCEPT OF LIBERTY, you are a stateless liberal capitalist, not an anarchist.

    “Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” ~ Mihail Bakunin

    Anarcho-capitalism is a view that departs from anarchist theory in that it regards only the government as unnecessary and harmful to human society. In its embrace of capitalist economics, Anarcho-capitalism contradicts classical and contemporary anarchism, an anti-capitalist philosophy. Anarcho-capitalists are isolated from the anarchist community. Anarcho-capitalism is considered a paradox by most anarchists.

    There is no form of capitalism that does not rely on the concentration of wealth and the existence of private property, and the need for defense of this property through a public or private state. James Donald and Bryan Caplan have attempted (in the 1990s) to frame their arguments in language and documents that appear to be legitimate because they use certain key phrases and structure and some author's attempts to have some connection to scholarly circles with anarchist legitimacy. None of the big names and figures mentioned in anarcho-capitalist philosophy include actual anarchists (they mention Benjamin Tucker or Fred Woodworth only to grab an occasional condemnation of socialism or seeming advocacy of "anarchist private property", yet once this is established these people quickly disappear to be replaced by more "pure" capitalist individuals such as Bastiat and Rothbard).

    Another major problem with the ideology of anarcho-capitalism is substitution of 'opportunity' for 'freedom', in the philosophical discourse. This allows to ignore the need to maintain the balance of freedoms, balance between positive and negative freedoms, as well as balance between freedoms of different individuals. Concentrating on a select few anarcho-capitalists show how opportunities allowed to those few are lessened by socialism, and thus conclude that socialism is unable to be free. This argument is dominant in the areas where state socialism has been a major ideology gaining or competing for dominance, this happens as a result of the dominance of individualistic element in the rebellion.


    That's also what anarcho-nationalists says. But are they real anarchists? No. Same with you

    Muhahahahahah..... Thats what i had in mind but i didnt know you would lower yourself to quoting this chaotic country as an exemple of anarcho-capitalism..... Nobody wants to live in Somalia, it is a chaotic country with a lot of violence and many many problems. Nothing to do with anarchism. Only a petit bourgeois like you can think it has something to do with anarchism.

    Yeah right, anarcho-capitalist voluntaryist : you are not forced to work, but if you don't you will just die of hunger because this system is a capitalist jungle, and only the strongest survive in the law of the jungle. Work or die, we let you the choice because we are not authoritarian. Haha.

    Bullshit. A laissez-faire capitalism would be even worse than today's capitalism, it is neo-liberalism in the savage term. You really don't know what you are talking about and are not even worth my time. Fuck off, capitalist.




    Interessing links:
    eng.anarchopedia.org/anarcho-capitalism#Criticism_of_Anarcho-capitalism_2

    So i will repeat again that you have nothing to do on this forum, read the "who are we" text.
     
  2. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    In all debates, please always pay attention to mutual respect and stay polite while avoiding personal attacks. Fighting each other will lead us nowhere.

    Maybe you should as well. You constantly make personal attacks on people voicing any opinion that you do not agree with. You resort to name calling and other disrespectful behavior.
     
  3. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    I will read this when i get the time - i apologize, i'm pretty tired right now.

    It all seems interesting, yet still questionable from a logic point of view to me, but i will look deeper into it later
     
  4. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Fuck off, troll.

    I don't have to be polite with someone who has nothing to do on this forum. (and btw i consider i was pretty much polite with him considering of what i think of capitalists)

    If a nazi register on this forum, you are going to cry because i'm not polite with the nazis ?

    Shut the fuck up.

    By the way i've wrote that text, i don't have to read it. DUH.
     
  5. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Oh I see it's your forum so your rules. All hail King Ungovernable!! No one is allowed to dissent. If you don't agree then off with you!!
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    I never said that, you put words in my mouth again, troll. Shut the fuck up.

    He shouldn't even be a member of this forum in the first place. No one is going to critize me if i insult a nazi who registered on this website, it should be the same thing with capitalists, religious peoples, and other idiots who doesnt belong to this community.
     
  7. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    He shouldn't be a member for discussing an idea? Or is it he shouldn't discuss an idea you disagree with. Why is that? Are you so sure that you are correct that you need to silence others? Are your beliefs so sacred that they cannot be questioned?

    What is the point of a forum that only preaches to the choir? If everyone has the exact same ideas what good is it to discuss them? To make yourself feel better? Hey look there are people just like me!! I must be cool! Why not instead engage in a civil debate and try to change minds and ideas? That would be more productive than name calling. But what do I know? I am just a troll after all.
     
  8. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    From the "Who are we" text
    Capitalism is not a idea we recognize ourselves as part of (not even anarcho-capitalism). We demand that you understand that anarcho-capitalism is NOT one of our unification points, so for the sake of productivity please keep this debate for another forum.

    Before telling me to read this text, start by reading it yourself.

    Yes i accept critics, no i don't think that my ideas are perfect but Anarcho-punk.net is a TOOL for peoples sharing the same points of unity. And anti-capitalism is the FIRST of our point of unity. We will not tolerate fascists here just like we will not tolerate capitalism.

    Anarcho-punk.net is not a tool to change minds of the fascists or the capitalists, it is a tool for people fighting against. There will still be a large variety of ideas even if we oppose to fascists and capitalist. We have to focus on points of unity if we want to organize the people and get somewhere with productive debates we have to focus on something. If we accepted anything on this forum, there would be no "who are we" text and it wouldn't be an anarchist forum, it would be a free tribune.

    This is not the first time we explain it to you, now i'm starting to be really sick of it. Now shut the fuck up and don't start the same debate like when you defended freedom of speech for nazis. Yes you are a troll, you just proven it again.

    If you are not happy with the way this website works, JUST LEAVE.
     
  9. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Reading your direct reply to me (I'll read the rest later)

    - First of all, why did you choose this above Anarcho Communism?
    As i see it, there's some elements that are just like anarcho-syndicalism - when you're talking about the exchange of labour, it sounds to me just like in an Anarcho-Syndicalist's society where people choose to let a person benefit from doing jobs that are essential to keep the society running - like being a doctor etc. I can't see why we need Anarcho-Capitalism for that, it's a basic part of the Anarchistic system, that labour is a value, and people are rewarded by the community for doing what they can to help the society.

    When you say Capitalism is nothing more than free trade between individuals, i'll have to disagree - part of the capitalist's system is owning land, which will create authority, and of people employing others - which will create authority, -and those which offers a very needed resource will get to own more - that being labour or money or whatever - thereby being able to employ others and buy the best machines etc., thereby creating monopolism and being able to exploit natural resources just as we see today.

    I can of course see that what Josiah did might have been better than capitalism as it is now, but it doesn't change, that those who can only offer what isn't as popular, will be left behind - and with school, roads, hospitals etc. all being privatized, we will see a lot of people being unable to offer services sufficient enough to benefit from these institutions. A person who is sick can't work, and he might not be able to work for long, if ever work again, especially not enough to be able to pay back the massive cost's of operations, medication etc.

    I understand the idea´s of this, and i can see why some choose to support it, but to me, it seems like monopolism all over again.
    I can't see how it can be called anarchist - In private ownership lies authority, and thereby it's not anarchist.

    Apart from that, how does this theory in any way differs from Libertarianism (Libertarian Capitalism)? That's what it sounds like to me, since the basic anarchistic ideals of the abolishment of authority and direct democracy is left out.

    On the part of wage slavery - i see that there will be more choices to were to be hired and all, but as always with capitalism, you'll have to be hired the place that earns the most profit, in order for yourself to earn more. Thereby, most people will work for the largest's corporation or individual, because the smaller vendors will be unable to compete with the larger, because the larger ones have access to the most expensive machines etc., so that they can maximize their industry. Handcrafted products are more expensive than if you can make a machine make 1000 of them an hour.

    On the part of syndicalism and communism co-existing with capitalism - how? The capitalist's are able to control land, there by forcing anarcho-syndicalist's and anarcho-communist's to buy their land in order to be able to create their community, that being either with goods or with labour - Then that means, that they would essentially have to be part of the capitalist system, to create their own independent system. The Capitalist's will have the power there, setting the prices high and using their labour to buy more land and more profit. Apart from that, syndicalist's and communist's will have to buy goods that they need from capitalist's - thereby having to labour for capitalism and being part of the system again.

    Either that, or the syndicalist's and communist's must once buy land and then stay out of the capitalist's system - there by having communities in opposition of each other. The capitalist's are able to buy all land around them, forcing the syndicalist's and communist's to live on small pieces of land, which will create authority, opposition and essentially war.
    I can't see how these things can co-exist - as always, oppression leads to violence.

    A few monopolist's in the anarcho-capitalist system will be able to exploit the collectivistic anarchist's .

    Without the absence of authority, there will be repression

    On a last note - and i will underline that it's not like i'm personally against you, because i see how this would work on a small scale for those who have the right intentions, i just don't believe in it as a system.
    You write:
    "you're probably starting to see, within these basic ideas there's a lot of room for other anarchist schools of thought. syndicalists could potentially play a major roll in returning state funded businesses to the private sector and running them after."

    Wouldn't that make Syndicalist's part of the capitalistic system? Thereby forcing them to work that system? Then they are not syndicalist's anymore! Then they are labour
     
  10. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Volunraryistpunk:

    Most of your arguments surround Marx and Engels, both of whom wasn't anarchist's.
    Anarchism preaches personal liberty as long as it doesn't physically hurt anybody else - there by not being controlled by the majority on a personal level, and thereby maximizing personal liberty that can be given in a society.
    It's true capitalism can give you more liberty - the liberty to hurt others and control their lives - but that's only for the privileged few, and the rest will then be oppressed. It's all about maximum liberty, without causing oppression, that's what anarchism is.

    Your example with Heaven on Earth is not like anarcho-communism, they didn't have a plan for how to create it, they just improvised. Apart from that, i seems to me like they were trying to decide over other peoples personal liberty. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but to me, that example seems unfulfilling.

    Ghoul:
    I think you should take a look at some of the other debates. I've disagreed with Ungovernable multiple times, without being told to fuck off the website. Multiple people have.
    I won't really join your discussion on the topic, but the criticizing of Ungovernable isn't totally fair.
     
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    For the last time:
    If you want to stay here then focus on what unite us, and stop with your capitalist propaganda. Thanks.
     
  12. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Sorry, I know english isn't your first language, it's not mine either but I wasn't able to understand a damn thing about your comment. Well, I understood you gave your boss a leather wip and a set of plastic vampire fangs, he fired you and then asked you to came back. Not sure about the rest of the post though.

    humble me just tried to say this:
    I think that the collective way to deal with people's needs is our necessary future - so call me a Syndicalist if you need to.
    I don't understand why someone is still believing in the "idea" of private property. 'cause "Anarchism is Freedom" - so you have the Freedom to make the old mistake again and again?
    Private property is a basic aspect of capitalism - you will use your property for your interest first - so you will neglect any other persons need to use it. You will try to expand your profit - starting to exploit others, 'cause even if they accept "freely" to slave for you - you won't give them what their work is really worth - remember ol' Karl M. theory about "added value"? (I know he's not an Anarchist, but the theory has it's point)
    The thing about my boss is:
    I have to slave for him, 'cause there is no alternative like a syndicate/collective in the area I live, so the choice is being exploited or living on public welfare.
    I have to work/slave because I'm responsible for three little daughters - I can't decide freely to do something else instead of accepting my boss exploiting me. It's still hard for me to accept this and other aspects of the way I have to work, so I did the christmas thing - and he threw me out.
    "lucky" me - he was asking for my return, because I'm good for his business - later he told me that he took me back for the sake of my daughters. But guess what happend when I asked him to raise my wage - for the sake of the three little ones? - A clue: We still suffer capitalism...
    Organizing collectives/syndicates before/after abolishing capitalism will be the way out of the whole mess, people meeting their needs without hierarchy, exploitation, added value on the expense/neglect of others - the happy end for everybody:
    Giving up private property to make it collective property - just to prevent the old mistake or start the whole mess again. After my experience with capitalism it's only logical to erase it's basic aspect, it's consequences and prevent it's return.

    I try to tolerate different opinions as long as they keep the rules, so I'm not blaming a individualist/voluntaryist for whatever. Not even for the whiff of petit bourgeois on them - maybe they'll lose it after accepting that private property is more than just a "idea" - it's dangerous and destructive.
     
  13. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunk Member Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     
    it doesn't really differ much. murray rothbard was one of the founders of the libertarian party in the us, however they've gone a long way from where they started. it really just amounts to varying degrees of belief amongst libertarian's themselves. it's not unusual for people to identify themselves as libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, market anarchist, or voluntaryist interchangeably. however, there are right-libertarians that are slightly different. i've purely been offering a left-libertarian perspective. there's actually a documentary here on the video's section that ungovernable posted called "anarchism in america" that dives in to that concept quite well. actually it's amusing that ungovernable was the one that posted that documentary as the interview with karl hess disproves the accusations made in the one article he copied and pasted regarding anarcho-capitalists not being influenced by any real anarchists. karl hess specifically says that it was murray rothbard that introduced him to the work of emma goldman and speaks highly of rothbards knowledge of the american anarchists. the earlier article i linked about rothbard advocating that workers and students take back schools and factories was actually from a discussion within the pages of the libertarian forum between rothbard and hess. i think what karl hess said within those articles best explains the point i was trying to make:

    also, since i've referred to myself as a voluntaryist consistently without actually offering a real explanation of what it means(i've mostly just been defending capitalism which isn't really my primary thing), here's the wikipedia entry on it which is a fairly accurate description:
    if anyone's interested in knowing more, i just launched http://www.voluntaryistpunk.com recently with a lot of free e-books and audio books. i've also got some of the flyers they show in one of the karl hess segments in anarchism in america up.
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Ok you have been warned enough times now. Fuck off with your capitalist propaganda.
     
  15. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    yeah dude one more pro capitalist propaganda post and you will be banned.
     
  16. Probe

    Probe Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    damn....awfully lot of banning happening these days...its sad...but then again....
     
  17. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Well if only those peoples could understand and respect our collective points of unity described in the text they are supposed to have read, it wouldnt happen

    its the members themselves who chosen these "rules"
     
  18. antitude420

    antitude420 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    Yea, lots of banning happening around here... :S

    By the way, when were these "rules" chosen and when will new members be able to vote them again?
    I'm not opposing the points of unity as I agree with them, just asking...
     
  19. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Any member can vote to change the "rules" anytime, its written in the text...

    When the forum started, we asked if the members had anything against the text, everyone agreed to the "rules"....
     
  20. antitude420

    antitude420 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    But maybe the new members don't agree with the points of unity or have something to say about them...

    Idk, maybe some kind of monthly revision of the P.O.U wouldn't be that bad, for the sake of flexibility, I guess...
     
Loading...