• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I'm Starting to Lead Towards Anarchism

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yes you read that right. I've been picking all different kinds of books on the subjects. I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn recently. I will be picking up Rudolph Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism soon.

As for what particular branch of anarchism I'm leaning to, I'm not so sure. I've had some interest in Anarcho Syndicalism but it seems too socialist for me. While on the other hand, Anarcho-Capitalism is too capitalist. So, I'm kinda not sure right now. But I am starting to believe that it could be possible to be rid of government.
 
T

The Real McCoy

FinnMacCool said:
Yes you read that right. I've been picking all different kinds of books on the subjects. I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn recently. I will be picking up Rudolph Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism soon.

As for what particular branch of anarchism I'm leaning to, I'm not so sure. I've had some interest in Anarcho Syndicalism but it seems too socialist for me. While on the other hand, Anarcho-Capitalism is too capitalist. So, I'm kinda not sure right now. But I am starting to believe that it could be possible to be rid of government.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is a fantasy that cannot possibly work outside the confines of the human imagination.

Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Real McCoy said:
Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
Let's not be so quick to assume so much in such a short span of opinion.

Capitalism as it exists today is more like a form of systematic corporate exploitation backed by collusion with the state.

A true free market is not intertwined with politics, economic authors, and legions of banks who are more into profiteering than they are the redistribution of wealth for the prosperity of the whole nation.

Game theory and the form of "corporate" capitalism we are seeing is a subtle form of monopoly. None of this was ever intended by our founding fathers. THe concept of a coin economy was the initial subscription.

Our constitution was not built to facilitate the "winner take all" aspect of economics that has been standing for too long now. Life is not a game.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Conflict said:
Let's not be so quick to assume so much in such a short span of opinion.

Capitalism as it exists today is more like a form of systematic corporate exploitation backed by collusion with the state.

A true free market is not intertwined with politics, economic authors, and legions of banks who are more into profiteering than they are the redistribution of wealth for the prosperity of the whole nation.

Game theory and the form of "corporate" capitalism we are seeing is a subtle form of monopoly. None of this was ever intended by our founding fathers. THe concept of a coin economy was the initial subscription.

Our constitution was not built to facilitate the "winner take all" aspect of economics that has been standing for too long now. Life is not a game.

That part I boldened speaks volumes on your views. But I digress.

I never said anything about "capitalism as it exists today."

My point still stands.

Without a government (anarchy) the market would be free (capitalism.)
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Real McCoy said:
Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
I corrected some of your problems. And when I say does not equal, I mean as does not always equal, unless your saying anarchy can only be capitalist, which is so untrue. Also "free-market" is not the only type of capitalism.

Anarchy=no government=/="free-market"=/=capitalism.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Real McCoy said:
Anarcho-Syndicalism is a fantasy that cannot possibly work outside the confines of the human imagination.
I too think Anarcho-syndicalism is somewhat utopian, as are most anarchists.
But I admit I am not very familiar with anarcho-syndicalism so I guess I couldn't exactly say for sure.

But with your later notion that capitalism=anarchism is completely wrong. Probably the largest reason that capitalism is still around is because the state defended its institutions, as any state does whatever society its in. E.g. anti-capitalists and radicals have traditionally been suppressed from the state, as too are capitalists who want relations to be changed slightly to favor the worker more. Also the state does redistribute wealth, albeit a little, and does small other things to reinsure the current society to be intact, this is why I think anrcho-capitalism is also utopian, is because capitalism can not survive without the state, because capitalism is a class-system and the state always defends the current state of things, and the ruling class. Another example is schools teach kids and stuff to grow up under a certain system, not to mention I find that they often times teach the positive results of the current state of things with little or no negativity, and things that are different they usually teach only negative things nothing positive, and also usually can't even tell what is what.
 
Last edited:

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Yes you read that right. I've been picking all different kinds of books on the subjects. I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn recently. I will be picking up Rudolph Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism soon.

As for what particular branch of anarchism I'm leaning to, I'm not so sure. I've had some interest in Anarcho Syndicalism but it seems too socialist for me. While on the other hand, Anarcho-Capitalism is too capitalist. So, I'm kinda not sure right now. But I am starting to believe that it could be possible to be rid of government.
For a really good picture of anarchy, read the Anti-Federalist Papers.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
galenrox said:
No, don't you be confused, the United States is only capitalist in the loosest possible definition of the word. With billions and billions in subsidies towards grain and oil, price floors in labor markets and price ceilings in real estate, nowhere close.
Economics is the study of distributing limited resources in response to insatiable demand. Capitalism is the system of using money to distribute these resources through a system of supply and demand. Thus, in anarchy, it is capitalism. Now if a group of people want to buy some farms, grow all they need, and live together in a commune independently, that's perfectly fine, but by and large the economic structure would be capitalism.



And to FinnMacCool's concerns, we are not ready for anarchy now. The reason that anarchy is an ideal as opposed to a reality is because it would require a strong moral humanist movement, and most people don't think highly enough of mankind to think such a considerate movement could ever come about, but I think differently.
In 2004 all of the poorest states went for George W. Bush, a man who clearly is not concerned about the economic well being of the poor. This was primarily because of religious issues. People were willing to vote against their own self-interest to save what they percieve to be children in the womb.
Now however much I disagree with their decision, this points out a major thing, which is many people value their religion over their economic well-being. With this you have to keep in mind that christianity preaches very clearly the need to feed, clothe, and house the poor, tend to the sick, and preserve the environment, while it's only under some interpretations that the bible says anything about abortion at all.
This leads me to believe that it is definately possible to get society to the point where they value the lives of the born at least as much as they value the preborn, which is what's neccisary for anarchy to exist successfully.
So you really don't believe that there is any collusion with the state in terms of economic interest?
 

Bustabush

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
Broward Community Collage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Galenrox man looks like we clash on ecnomics again... Nice post by the way.

Capitalism definately isn't a perfect system, but it's BY FAR the best system.
Why not perfect?
 
T

The Real McCoy

Bustabush said:
Galenrox man looks like we clash on ecnomics again... Nice post by the way.



Why not perfect?
Because we're human beings.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Capitalism definately isn't a perfect system, but it's BY FAR the best system.
I agree with the first part, NO system is perfect, or if there is it would probably take millions of years to develop. Its the second part that I disagree.
Why not perfect?
Because we're human beings.
Correct.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
Anarcho-Syndicalism is a fantasy that cannot possibly work outside the confines of the human imagination.

Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.

Agreed. Those of you who claim to be anarchists while supporting socialism, let me ask you this: Who will redistribute the wealth, if there is no government? And if your answer is "society" or "the people" or something similar, you're really talking about a government.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Those of you who claim to be anarchists while supporting socialism
Anarchists are very rare, and I don't think there are any anarchists here on thses forums that identify with being socialist, most are anarcho-capitalists, which I also find somewhat surprising considering the fact that most anarchists are also anti-capitalist.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,757
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Real McCoy said:
Anarchy = no government = free markets = capitalism.
Capitalism requires legal recognition of property rights, which requires a government.

A society without a government cannot properly be called capitalist or socialist; it will also never acheive communist ideals, but it's useless to tell them that.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and there's nothing human nature abhors more than a power vacuum. Anarchism, as a philosophy of non-interference and non-exploitation, would acheive nothing more than anarchy, a condition of chaos and destruction, which would then be replaced by government by feudal warlords.
 

Bustabush

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
Broward Community Collage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Capitalism requires legal recognition of property rights, which requires a government.

A society without a government cannot properly be called capitalist or socialist; it will also never acheive communist ideals, but it's useless to tell them that.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and there's nothing human nature abhors more than a power vacuum. Anarchism, as a philosophy of non-interference and non-exploitation, would acheive nothing more than anarchy, a condition of chaos and destruction, which would then be replaced by government by feudal warlords.
I support this completely!

Because we're human beings.
That is your reasoning? Come on.....
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,757
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
galenrox said:
That's where you're mistaken, it doesn't require legal recognition of property rights, it requires societal recognition of property rights.
Society is never objective; someone, somewhere, is going to disagree and do whatever he damned well pleases.

The law is objective, at least to an extent. It is written in clear and specific language and enforced by men with guns. While this isn't perfect-- it's enforced by men-- it does a much better job than leaving every man alone to defend what's his.

Without the law, you don't have property. You only have posessions, and you only have those as long as you can defend them.
 

fooligan

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Location
G.R. MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
Yes you read that right. I've been picking all different kinds of books on the subjects. I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn recently. I will be picking up Rudolph Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism soon.

As for what particular branch of anarchism I'm leaning to, I'm not so sure. I've had some interest in Anarcho Syndicalism but it seems too socialist for me. While on the other hand, Anarcho-Capitalism is too capitalist. So, I'm kinda not sure right now. But I am starting to believe that it could be possible to be rid of government.

Keep reading, dude.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,757
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
galenrox said:
I think you're speaking more about chaos than anarchy. You're talking about the elimiation of order, not law, the two don't neccisarily go hand in hand.
Yes, they really do.

galenrox said:
Now of course there'd be some douchebag who tries to claim someone else's land, but if the prevailing theme throughout society is the respect for property rights those people will be dealt with...
This is, of course, true. However, in the absence of law, they must either catch him in the act to stop him, or engage in retaliatory force. This isn't their full-time job, so they can't drop everything to go chase this bastard down; they've got to manage their own lives. Since it's a lot easier to get away with criminal behavior, more people will engage in it.

There are always douchebags, and douchebags are going to do whatever they think they can get away with. The idea that there are armed men whose sole purpose in life is to prevent you from getting away with stuff is the biggest reason that douchebags do not force us to defend our lives and our property every day; this concept is also one of the major motivating factors in growing up to not be a douchebag. We learn that we will be punished for crime, and thus we learn that crime is wrong-- which is the only reason that we do not engage in criminality when police presence is not immediately apparent.

Right now, because of the law, my roommates can own a house in another town. They rent it out to someone who lives there, who regularly mails rent checks to them. If this person stopped paying rent, my roommates could have them evicted without travelling down there and doing it themselves. We can put our money in banks and trust that it will be there when we go to withdraw it. We can own stock in a corporation run by people we have never seen.

None of these things would be possible without the law.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox said:
Are you joking? Do you have any idea how little of our order stems from law?
Almost all of it.

galenrox said:
For the VAST majority of people the standards by which they live aren't "legal" and "illegal". The reason that we have seperate words before "legal" and "right, "illegal" and "wrong" is because we acknowledge that they are different things.
For the VAST majority of people, things are defined as "right" and "wrong" by what they've been able to get away with. Law itself is nothing but an extension of the rules parents establish for their kids, which became extended to the clan, the tribe, the village, the city-state, the nation, and now the world.

That law is invisible to most people is because most laws affecting them are common sense extensions of they learned from their parents, which is what any society needs for stability.

Also, most people don't like to make waves because it's human nature to go along with the mob, to not stand out in a shameful way. But there always has been and always will be the Bonnies and Clydes, and it's those people that we need laws for.

galenrox said:
Or a private police force. Private police forces would be FAR more efficient than the current, non-competitive police force that we have today.
A private police force. That's a novel concept. Will they be applying their own private rules (can't call'em laws), and so if one privatepolice force has a rule against jay-walking, but someone who isn't contracted to that private agency, who has his own private police contract with an agency that permits such dumb things, crosses in traffic and causes an accident for a driver who is a client, does the jay-walker's personal private police force rules apply, or do the rules of the driver who's contracted to the private police force that bans jay walking apply?


galenrox said:
All of them would be possible. What you are doing is underestimating humanity, not just in the sense that you're expecting the worst in humans, but also you're not giving credit to humans' ability to adapt. I'm not calling for the immidiate elimination of government or law, and definately not calling for the end of having an infrastructure. I'm calling for the gradual elimination of government, training society to pick up the slack where the government leaves off.
You have the idealist's warped notion of humanity. Spend more time watching the chimps at the zoo. They'll rip your balls off if you come in and give a birthday cake to only one of them. That's what people are really like, given the opportunity.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Almost all of it.



For the VAST majority of people, things are defined as "right" and "wrong" by what they've been able to get away with. Law itself is nothing but an extension of the rules parents establish for their kids, which became extended to the clan, the tribe, the village, the city-state, the nation, and now the world.
I agree.

Don't know if you are familiar with the works of folks like Kohlberg or Hayakawa in terms of moral reasoning, but I would add to your comment by referring to their work. Your mention of how the majority of people perceive right and wrong reminded me of the Kohlberb hierarchy.
 

Bustabush

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
Broward Community Collage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Scarecrow Akhbar,

A private police force. That's a novel concept. Will they be applying their own private rules (can't call'em laws), and so if one privatepolice force has a rule against jay-walking, but someone who isn't contracted to that private agency, who has his own private police contract with an agency that permits such dumb things, crosses in traffic and causes an accident for a driver who is a client, does the jay-walker's personal private police force rules apply, or do the rules of the driver who's contracted to the private police force that bans jay walking apply?
Hey you bet me to the punch man. I was sooo planing to nial galenrox with this one. ;)

But Back to our argument.

What's wrong with this reasoning
Plenty...

Name a perfect human being, name one.
Just so I know were you stand before I continue. Are you suggesting that science we as humans are imperfect we can't do any thing right?
 
T

The Real McCoy

Bustabush said:
Just so I know were you stand before I continue. Are you suggesting that science we as humans are imperfect we can't do any thing right?
No, it means we can't do everything right.
 
Top Bottom