That's a theory of communism? Treat everyone well instead of making them live on streets.
Some series like Tomb Raider demonize communism.
Edit: I actually did read communism instead of capitalism.
If I understood your point, you're anti state. But without a state, you can't protect the people or environment against the entreprises. Without any state left, what would stop these enterprises to make an aristocracy? In a place with no counterpart presented as the State, what would stop the wealthy against the weak? In my opinion a stronger state would be required instead of a non existant one. So I don't get why you advocate for not having a state.
Listen up you Jacobin! :P
That's a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of society I envision or that we have seen in the past. Anarchy is not anomie.
We don't want to abolish power, but rather decentralize it and put it in as many hands as possible by destroying bureaucratic hierarchies. Instead of a stateless wasteland, imagine thousands of autonomous communities that are free to make their own rules and confederate with each other as they see fit.
Anarchy is fundamentally anti-capitalist and opposed to the capitalist power structure. There can be no aristocracy, because there is no intellectual property, rent-seeking or absentee ownership, which precludes huge amounts of capital accumulation. Bloated, centralized corporations would fail without the state keeping their costs artificially low and barriers to competition artificially high. Take the pharmacy industry for example. Some regulation may be necessary, but the state has created an economic cartel in which a few companies run over 97% of our pharmacies. The regulations are no problem for Walgreens and CVS, but they have effectively driven Mom & Pop drug stores out of existence.
Environmental laws are a joke. They do far more to protect destructive businesses than to protect the people. Under the current system, as long as a company meets the basic regulation standards, they can poison the environment as much as they want and government absolves them of wrongdoing.
In a stateless society, a group of people that poison a community would probably be shot or at least made to pay the full cost of the damage they caused.
Just remember. The chaos and death caused by Anarchy is pure conjecture. The chaos and death caused by the state is factually horrific.
If you're willing to hit the books, I have a really good resource about Anarchism. You'll probably find bits and pieces of it interesting.
Ah, the "internal contradictions of Capitalism", as Marx called them. I hope you're right, but state intervention has saved Capitalism every… more time. In the 1870's Bismarck saved Capitalism with Social Democracy. In the 1910's, America stopped the I.W.W with the Sedition Act and Pinkertons, then placated the Socialist/CPUSA/AFL-CIO Juggernaut by passing the New Deal in the 30's. More recently, the state has exported the most unpleasant aspects of Capitalism to the third-world. With the state on its side, Capitalism has proven very resilient indeed.
Nothing is better for big business than government intervention. You gotta have a state to break up the new monopolies, or they might threaten the old ones!
I've the feeling we've got kinda the same reflection but we don't end with the same consequences. Simply put: if you let the big monopolies free, they will attract more money, smash the competition and will get some politcal and economi… [view original content]
So basically, if we check in history, the closer example is something like cities in old times before the creation of State and the french commune (?) Ironically I'm not really aware of this period. So if you do it:
-what will avoid the attacks of others states? A creation of little cities is a military target for others states.
- As the configuration of cities in ancient times vanished because of some people succeeding to unite them, what would it avoid this kind of event?
Under the current system, as long as a company meets the basic regulation standards, they can poison the environment as much as they want and government absolves them of wrongdoing.
That's one of the reason people are against the TAFTA (I'm part of this).
Take the pharmacy industry for example. Some regulation may be necessary, but the state has created an economic cartel in which a few companies run over 97% of our pharmacies
I think Leluch is right when he's talking about our differents views seeing where we're from. For this case aye, the state is passive and let the market put high prices on medecines on the back of the sick. Hence why you need a strong state to regulate it :^)
If I understood your point, you're anti state. But without a state, you can't protect the people or environment against the entreprises. Wit… morehout any state left, what would stop these enterprises to make an aristocracy? In a place with no counterpart presented as the State, what would stop the wealthy against the weak? In my opinion a stronger state would be required instead of a non existant one. So I don't get why you advocate for not having a state.
Listen up you Jacobin! :P
That's a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of society I envision or that we have seen in the past. Anarchy is not anomie.
We don't want to abolish power, but rather decentralize it and put it in as many hands as possible by destroying bureaucratic hierarchies. Instead of a stateless wasteland, imagine thousands of autonomous communities that are free to make their own rules and confederate with each other as they see fit.
Anarchy is fund… [view original content]
I think at heart everyone is a libertarian. But natural human instincts, selfishness and greed often forces people do things that end of fo… morercing people to do what they should of been always doing to begin with. Which is very anti libertarian.
We can look back for example:
Slavery obviously today is a horrible thing, but for a long time we accepted it as a necessary evil, and eventually ended up at war with slavery as one of the catalyst, if not the main catalyst of that war, and it had to be "Forced" out of the picture by the state, as not all local governments wanted to abolish it.
Concept of the Draft. This one bugs me today, as no free state should be allowed to force people to fight/die for their country. Definitely when war is often an extension of politics, and for the USA often fought in the interest of foreign nations more so than our own anymore. To be honest, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam drafts were all to fight politi… [view original content]
I personally have no love for politicians. Politicians are a bunch of lying two-faced crooks. They always tell you what you want to hear, to get into office, but once they actually get there, they don't actually do anything.
And because we have such people running the country, you don't always get a fair deal.
I personally have no love for politicians. Politicians are a bunch of lying two-faced crooks. They always tell you what you want to hear, to… more get into office, but once they actually get there, they don't actually do anything.
And because we have such people running the country, you don't always get a fair deal.
I think Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Josey Wales said it best.
enter link description here
So basically, if we check in history, the closer example is something like cities in old times before the creation of State and the french commune (?) Ironically I'm not really aware of this period. So if you do it:
Anarchist Catalonia and Aragon, Ukraine Free Terrotory, Chiapas are all example. There's also examples that, while not exactly anarchist, are very close, such as Rojava. Even the Vikings had a comparatively libertarian society. The Paris Commune wasn't anarchist. The Balanquists were closer to Marxism and anarchist thinkers criticized them heavily.
what will avoid the attacks of others states? A creation of little cities is a military target for others states
There's various ideas for this, but I personally find Roderick T. long's idea of a three-pronged defense pretty interesting.
1.) Voluntary protection agencies/militia syndicates that are funded by the communities they serve under contract.
2.) Local militias of armed citizens.
3.) Co-ordinated non-violent resistance. A variety of tactics from boycotts to general strikes can greatly hamper a military's ability to occupy territory.
As the configuration of cities in ancient times vanished because of some people succeeding to unite them, what would it avoid this kind of event?
Voluntary confederation is fine as long as it's directly democratic and voluntary. A hierarchical state would be repelled using the means listed above.
That's one of the reason people are against the TAFTA (I'm part of this).
The state is already doing this. No TAFTA required.
think Leluch is right when he's talking about our differents views seeing where we're from. For this case aye, the state is passive and let the market put high prices on medecines on the back of the sick. Hence why you need a strong state to regulate it :^)
Two problems here...
1.) It doesn't relate to what I was talking about, which is the pharmacy monopoly.
2.) It's simple not true. There's nothing passive about the state's role in making drug prices high. Drug companies develop medications using research and development money that we pay for in our taxes. Despite this, the government allows the drug companies to patent new treatments. This creates an artificial monopoly that lets the drug companies get away with charging many times more than the drug would cost if it was forced to compete in a free marketplace.
Repeat after me: there is nothing passive about the government's interactions with big business.
It's your turn to listen girondin boy!
So basically, if we check in history, the closer example is something like cities in old times bef… moreore the creation of State and the french commune (?) Ironically I'm not really aware of this period. So if you do it:
-what will avoid the attacks of others states? A creation of little cities is a military target for others states.
- As the configuration of cities in ancient times vanished because of some people succeeding to unite them, what would it avoid this kind of event?
Under the current system, as long as a company meets the basic regulation standards, they can poison the environment as much as they want and government absolves them of wrongdoing.
That's one of the reason people are against the TAFTA (I'm part of this).
Take the pharmacy industry for example. Some regulation may be necessary, but the state has created an economic cartel in which a few companies run over 9… [view original content]
Dang, I said it before and I will say it again: your state ain't mine dude.
The state is already doing this. No TAFTA required.
It's rather well protected here. TAFTA would allow companies to do shit to our environment.
For medecine, my state is passive toward their prices for people in huge need of them. It's the companies who set up the prices to sell it. It's them who do lobbies to keep it that way. Others common medicines aren't high.
We don't agree seeing who is responsible; mainly because we have differents cultures. Let's end this here.
It's your turn to listen girondin boy!
Proudhonian, get it right!
So basically, if we check in history, the closer example is … moresomething like cities in old times before the creation of State and the french commune (?) Ironically I'm not really aware of this period. So if you do it:
Anarchist Catalonia and Aragon, Ukraine Free Terrotory, Chiapas are all example. There's also examples that, while not exactly anarchist, are very close, such as Rojava. Even the Vikings had a comparatively libertarian society. The Paris Commune wasn't anarchist. The Balanquists were closer to Marxism and anarchist thinkers criticized them heavily.
what will avoid the attacks of others states? A creation of little cities is a military target for others states
There's various ideas for this, but I personally find Roderick T. long's idea of a three-pronged defense pretty interesting.
1.) Voluntary protection agencies/militia … [view original content]
Dang, I said it before and I will say it again: your state ain't mine dude.
The state is already doing this. No TAFTA required.
… more It's rather well protected here. TAFTA would allow companies to do shit to our environment.
For medecine, my state is passive toward their prices for people in huge need of them. It's the companies who set up the prices to sell it. It's them who do lobbies to keep it that way. Others common medicines aren't high.
We don't agree seeing who is responsible; mainly because we have differents cultures. Let's end this here.
With the election discussion going on, it seems as good a time as any to bring this thread back. There's lots of new people in those threads and it would be cool to see where you stand.
I'm still a Libertarian Socialist, more or less, though my attitudes toward certain things have hardened somewhat. I'd say this election has made me even more rabidly anti-statist than before.
Comments
Heavy pressure on ,,theory" when it comes to communism
We are an alternate version of each other.
This is not related to the thread, but I had to point it out,
Muahaha! That's what I wanted you to think!
Seriously though, I'm a Mutualist. I think it does an adequate job of reconciling Socialism and Individualism.
I'm confused, lol
Ur just being undialectical, comrade. The state will wither away, we promise. /s
"No Going Back" was going to be called "Better To Sleep."
No problem. It's a common misconception that's often used to dismiss Anarchism as "chaos".
Ohhh. I see now
Satanism.
Listen up you Jacobin! :P
That's a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of society I envision or that we have seen in the past. Anarchy is not anomie.
We don't want to abolish power, but rather decentralize it and put it in as many hands as possible by destroying bureaucratic hierarchies. Instead of a stateless wasteland, imagine thousands of autonomous communities that are free to make their own rules and confederate with each other as they see fit.
Anarchy is fundamentally anti-capitalist and opposed to the capitalist power structure. There can be no aristocracy, because there is no intellectual property, rent-seeking or absentee ownership, which precludes huge amounts of capital accumulation. Bloated, centralized corporations would fail without the state keeping their costs artificially low and barriers to competition artificially high. Take the pharmacy industry for example. Some regulation may be necessary, but the state has created an economic cartel in which a few companies run over 97% of our pharmacies. The regulations are no problem for Walgreens and CVS, but they have effectively driven Mom & Pop drug stores out of existence.
Environmental laws are a joke. They do far more to protect destructive businesses than to protect the people. Under the current system, as long as a company meets the basic regulation standards, they can poison the environment as much as they want and government absolves them of wrongdoing.
In a stateless society, a group of people that poison a community would probably be shot or at least made to pay the full cost of the damage they caused.
Just remember. The chaos and death caused by Anarchy is pure conjecture. The chaos and death caused by the state is factually horrific.
If you're willing to hit the books, I have a really good resource about Anarchism. You'll probably find bits and pieces of it interesting.
An Anarchist FAQ
You're se left man I almost left the thread.
I'm actually slightly less left on economic issues than I was few months ago, though I've also become more anti-authoritarian.
Objectivism then?
If you remove the silly faux-evil stuff from Satanism, you're basically left with Ayn Rand.
Same place I've been on this specific test since I discovered it in 2011.
It's your turn to listen girondin boy!
So basically, if we check in history, the closer example is something like cities in old times before the creation of State and the french commune (?) Ironically I'm not really aware of this period. So if you do it:
-what will avoid the attacks of others states? A creation of little cities is a military target for others states.
- As the configuration of cities in ancient times vanished because of some people succeeding to unite them, what would it avoid this kind of event?
That's one of the reason people are against the TAFTA (I'm part of this).
I think Leluch is right when he's talking about our differents views seeing where we're from. For this case aye, the state is passive and let the market put high prices on medecines on the back of the sick. Hence why you need a strong state to regulate it :^)
Dayum, your dedication is 10/10.
I personally have no love for politicians. Politicians are a bunch of lying two-faced crooks. They always tell you what you want to hear, to get into office, but once they actually get there, they don't actually do anything.
And because we have such people running the country, you don't always get a fair deal.
I think Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Josey Wales said it best.
enter link description here
And how do you suppose we change that?
Proudhonian, get it right!
Anarchist Catalonia and Aragon, Ukraine Free Terrotory, Chiapas are all example. There's also examples that, while not exactly anarchist, are very close, such as Rojava. Even the Vikings had a comparatively libertarian society. The Paris Commune wasn't anarchist. The Balanquists were closer to Marxism and anarchist thinkers criticized them heavily.
There's various ideas for this, but I personally find Roderick T. long's idea of a three-pronged defense pretty interesting.
1.) Voluntary protection agencies/militia syndicates that are funded by the communities they serve under contract.
2.) Local militias of armed citizens.
3.) Co-ordinated non-violent resistance. A variety of tactics from boycotts to general strikes can greatly hamper a military's ability to occupy territory.
Voluntary confederation is fine as long as it's directly democratic and voluntary. A hierarchical state would be repelled using the means listed above.
The state is already doing this. No TAFTA required.
Two problems here...
1.) It doesn't relate to what I was talking about, which is the pharmacy monopoly.
2.) It's simple not true. There's nothing passive about the state's role in making drug prices high. Drug companies develop medications using research and development money that we pay for in our taxes. Despite this, the government allows the drug companies to patent new treatments. This creates an artificial monopoly that lets the drug companies get away with charging many times more than the drug would cost if it was forced to compete in a free marketplace.
Repeat after me: there is nothing passive about the government's interactions with big business.
Dang, I said it before and I will say it again: your state ain't mine dude.
It's rather well protected here. TAFTA would allow companies to do shit to our environment.
For medecine, my state is passive toward their prices for people in huge need of them. It's the companies who set up the prices to sell it. It's them who do lobbies to keep it that way. Others common medicines aren't high.
We don't agree seeing who is responsible; mainly because we have differents cultures. Let's end this here.
Ohhh. For some reason I didn't realize you were still talking about France in particular. My bad.
Doesn't France has taxpayer-funded healthcare though?
With the election discussion going on, it seems as good a time as any to bring this thread back. There's lots of new people in those threads and it would be cool to see where you stand.
I'm still a Libertarian Socialist, more or less, though my attitudes toward certain things have hardened somewhat. I'd say this election has made me even more rabidly anti-statist than before.