Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarchy and FSP together???  (Read 28890 times)

Karl

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2004, 08:49:44 am »

A few of you seem to be rather mystified as to how socialism and anarchism could coexist let-alone flourish together.  I'll try to break it down here.

ebola,

What you are describing is voluntary "socialism", not political socialism as most of us understand it.  This is compatible with the FSP philosophy, because it is based on voluntary mututal consent, not force or fraud.  If someone voluntarily wants to live by the Marxist creed with others, they should be free to do so, as long as they don't force the unwilling to partcipate.

But you should realize that voluntary communes have a long and colorful history of self-destruction.  They are fundamentally incompatible with human nature -- the Communists had murder millions of people to maintain it, because the most productive of society would not voluntarily submit to it.  Successful communal structures tend to be bound by strong social ties, such as with families.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2004, 08:51:41 am by Karl Beisel »
Logged

bostnfound

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 227
  • llama's are tasty!
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2004, 03:59:11 pm »

Quote
shit jobs: they would be distributed equally throughout society

Anarchy means "without rule".  That sure as hell sounds like rule to me.

Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary before defining the meaning of Anarchy.  Anarchy means "without GOVERNMENT" not without rule.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2004, 04:00:22 pm by bostnfound »
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2004, 04:13:36 pm »


Anarchy means "without rule".  That sure as hell sounds like rule to me.

Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary before defining the meaning of Anarchy.  Anarchy means "without GOVERNMENT" not without rule.

Words can have more than one meaning.  Anarchy has many.  It comes from a Greek word (or two Greek words) and its etymology means something like without a ruler.  Some people take that to mean government and some dictionaries might use the word government.

http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Anarchy
http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/A0282000.html


Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2004, 04:21:28 pm »

I think ebola's idea of libertarian socialism implies that the people, not the government, will control production and distribution.

Isn't that a pretty picture?

That is exactly what libertarians want.  If the people control production and distribution that is called a free-market economy (the type of economy we are fighting for.)  Long life the birth of capitalism in NH.
Logged

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2004, 05:06:52 pm »

Capitalism!
A Free Market Economy!
 Free Enterprise!
Thrive Taco Bell!

I don't want people to dictate production and distribution!
I want the Free Market to dictate those terms!!

CAPITALISM IS NEXT TO GODLINESS!!!!!
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2004, 05:10:06 pm »

Quote
CAPITALISM IS NEXT TO GODLINESS!!!!!

Indeed

Christianity's Free Market Tradition.
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1267&month=58

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2004, 05:32:29 pm »

Christianity's Free Market Tradition.
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1267&month=58

How do have all this information at the tip of your fingertips, Tracy? Damn, your fast.

Another enjoyable link, which i'll be sure to reread. Thanks.
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2004, 05:34:59 pm »

:-)

Part two is here

"Profits vs Society: Must We Choose?"
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1270&month=58

Glad to be of help.

I have a fairly good memory, so I usually can remember pretty quickly where I've read something.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2004, 12:31:14 am »

<<
This is an example of a parasitic philosophy. It depends on capitalism to get things started, then takes over and redistributes the profits in a different manner. There's a term for it, but the name escapes me at the moment.

It's all the same BS that socialists want.
>>

I am not a mututalist and accordingly am not an expert in mutualist economics.  However, given that the world in which we live has followed a singular, definite course of development, shouldn't we now be asking whether mutualism would be an appropriate politico-economic arrangement for present times, not whether mutualism would have spurned us on the same developmental path had it existed in place of capitalism?

>>As far as you guys being sufficiently satisfied with roof/food/ leisure activities, that is fine as far as it goes. **I** am not satisfied with such. Why not just get some Soma, and go to a feelie? ("Brave New World") and be done with it?

I'm sure a job at McDonalds will give you enough mental stimulation - not to mention nourishing food - to get you through the day.
>>

I'm not satisfied either and I am not advocating that we submit to authority for our own good.  What are you getting at?

>>How could one maintain a sense of  individual freedom and unrestricted Liberty while being told to pick up trash on the streets for an hour every week? >>

Within anarchism, specifically within anarcho-communism, the idea is not that someone else tells you do do a certain task.  The idea is that we share certain problems, mututally, and we have to decide a fair way to go about solving these problems.  The group using the streets in an area, for example, would have to decide how to clean those streets.  this decision could perhaps be voted on...voluntary democracy is a useful concept.

>>Oh, gee, a gift economy? I can't wait to make a gift of everything i've earned in life for the sake of the people. >>

Of course not everything would be a gift, of course people would have possessions.  You do have a point in that for anarchism to work, it would necessarily be voluntary.  the majority of people in an area would need be anarchists...

>>So you intend to solve this by the people taking over the federal government, so the people are working in the interests of capital? >>

You're thinking of Lenin, not me. :)


>>Or maybe it would be better solved by destroying capital?
>>

in which way?  I do not advocate destorying the factories, but I do advocate an end to the split between capitalist and worker and an end to wage-labor.  I say that the workers seize the factories...

>>shit jobs: they would be distributed equally throughout society
 

Anarchy means "without rule".  That sure as hell sounds like rule to me.

>>

We, ourselves, would distribute these jobs amongst ourselves...there would be no ruler enforcing some distribution schedule.

>>Okay, let's play "Make up our own definitions!"!  Sorry "comrade", but communism has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with control by an elite state.>>

You have fallen prey to the cold-war era propaganda propagated by both the US and the USSR (both regimes' distortions of the ideas of Marx were surprisingly similar).  The USSR was not communist; it was not even socialist.  Various people have proposed that we call the USSR "state-capitalist", but I think this creates more confusion than clarity.  We can agree, though, that the USSR was rife with classist exploitation...

Even within the very writings of Marx is the idea that communism is anarchic.  He thought that after socialism had developed past a certain point, the state would "wither away" (this is my major disagreement with him)...at that point, laborers would be completely unalienated and the economy would be a "gift-economy" like I described.  this is communism.

>>No, they are mutually exclusive.

Libertarianism means free markets, freedom of association, and little to no government.

Socialism means control of the market and means of production by government. >>

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.  what I meant was that libertarian socialism is anarchism...not that libertarianism is socialism.

libertarianism doesn't necessarily entail a market-economy.  People as free should be free to choose group-strategies in production and consumption.  Your definition of socialism is to narrow.  Socialism is simply ownership of the means of production in groups.  Historically, people have attempted to acheive this through the state, but the state is a power unto itself, and when socialist ownership has been claimed, it has truly been totalitarian ownership.

>>But you should realize that voluntary communes have a long and colorful history of self-destruction.>>

I would argue that this has been due to prior monopolization of the means of production in the surrounding societal context.  With our present level of technological development, it is rather tough to build a self-contained productive economy on a tiny plot of land.  That, and it isn't easy to maintain a commune outside of the market-economy when the state demands taxes, especially taxes in currency.

>>They are fundamentally incompatible with human nature >>

As a side note, when most people posit a "human nature", it is really a projection of their particular cultural nature onto humanity at large...

>>the Communists had murder millions of people to maintain it, because the most productive of society would not voluntarily submit to it.>>

I would argue that the USSR had to murder millions to maintain itself precisely because it was NOT truly communist.  People were simply being exploited by their state under the banner of egalitarianism.

>>Successful communal structures tend to be bound by strong social ties, such as with families. >>

This is an empirical question which I hope anarchists will someday have a chance to answer.

>>Words can have more than one meaning.  Anarchy has many.  It comes from a Greek word (or two Greek words) and its etymology means something like without a ruler.  Some people take that to mean government and some dictionaries might use the word government.>>

To me, and to many anarchists, anarchy means without authority, without hierarchy.  Without rule puts the point across, I think.

>>I don't want people to dictate production and distribution!
I want the Free Market to dictate those terms!!>>

I would argue that under the world-capitalist system, the productive lives of the workers are dictated by what is most profitable for capital.  This results in an extreme loss of freedom and economic wealth on the part of the workers.  The decisions of the capitalists, on the other hand, are dictated by what is most profitable for the firm in competition with other firms.  This has lead to extremely irrational outcomes in the macroeconomy.

this topic is really beyond the scope of this post.  I have written a few essays on this kind of thing, if anyone is interested, And, of course, other people have written on this topic far more insightfully than I.

ebola
np: autechre
Logged

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2004, 12:33:30 am »

Quote
However, given that the world in which we live has followed a singular, definite course of development

It has?  Their have been a multitute of economic and political philosophies that have been document throughout history.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

Eddie Willers

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
  • "Neo" Objectivist
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2004, 01:16:13 am »

So many bogus points, so little time.

First, to put "USSR" and "capitalist" in the same sentence shows a profound lack of economic knowledge.

It appears that you are confusing "capitalist" with "wealth" and anything that puts money in one place therefore must be capitalism. This is not true. Dictators collect lots of wealth via taxation and direct plunder. They may even "own" businesses that sell stuff. None of this is "capitalism". It goes under various names, including totalitarianism, National Socialism, socialism, fascism, communism, mercantilism, "third way", aristocracy, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Any wealth building WITHIN such a system, but not benefitting FROM such a system is an "island of capitalism" within an ocean of looting.

Quote
Socialism is simply ownership of the means of production in groups. 

This is an incredibly vague "definition". Who are the groups? What is "means of production?", Who divides the "profits"? etc.etc.

For example, in Fascism, the "group" that "owns" the "means of production" are a small group of very wealthy that sell stuff primarily TO the State with all kinds of special laws preventing competition. However, that same State has the power to seize the means of production any time it wants on a whim. This is the system we have now in America. The whims are usually couched in environmental, social, or for breaking arcane rules.

Please read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", and then you'll understand a modicum of economic theory and will get your definitions right. As I've said before - you and protovack (?) are just green nazis.

'nuff said

Eddie
Logged
Take care of the means and the End will take care of itself.

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #56 on: March 06, 2004, 08:22:21 am »

You've got moxie, ebola, and you seem to be pretty informed in your beliefs, which I can admire, yet...

                        Capitalism=Individualism.

If I care about myself and my life, capitalism is the only economic system which not only allows, but actively promotes, the concept that my life belongs to me to do with it what I will.

What attracts you to socialism? Do you view it as all inclusive?
Did you check out the link Karl Biesel posted earlier? Here it is again:

                               http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

« Last Edit: March 06, 2004, 08:23:17 am by thrivetacobell »
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #57 on: March 06, 2004, 05:08:15 pm »

>>However, given that the world in which we live has followed a singular, definite course of development
 

It has?  Their have been a multitute of economic and political philosophies that have been document throughout history. >>

my apologies.  I was speaking unnecessarily vaguely.
What I meant is that the history into which we are born is given.  So the question is, "what do we do now?"

>>So many bogus points, so little time.

First, to put "USSR" and "capitalist" in the same sentence shows a profound lack of economic knowledge.
>>

There is a reason I said that I would avoid defining the USSR as "state-capitalist". :)

>>It appears that you are confusing "capitalist" with "wealth" and anything that puts money in one place therefore must be capitalism.>>

We are on the cusp of a fruitless semantic argument here, but it will be necessary for us to define our terms to avoid speaking past each other.  To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.  Capitalism flourishes best when commodity trade is utterly free, when property is owned privately and may be bought and sold at will.  It could be argued, though, that the govt. of the USSR acted as a single capitalist in relation to the many proletarians of the country.

>>Socialism is simply ownership of the means of production in groups.  
 

This is an incredibly vague "definition". Who are the groups? What is "means of production?", Who divides the "profits"? etc.etc.>>

I was so vague because I wanted to include the many socialist variants.  The owning group would be large and composed of common people, perhaps on the level of a single factory, perhaps on the level of all society.  They would devide profits amongst themselves.

>>For example, in Fascism, the "group" that "owns" the "means of production" are a small group of very wealthy that sell stuff primarily TO the State with all kinds of special laws preventing competition. However, that same State has the power to seize the means of production any time it wants on a whim. This is the system we have now in America. The whims are usually couched in environmental, social, or for breaking arcane rules.>>

This, here, is pretty insightful, although I would say that the state is more apt to lay its hand on the productive process in order to stimulate imperialist expansion by way of the military.

>>Please read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", and then you'll understand a modicum of economic theory and will get your definitions right.>>

I might check it out although I doubt this book will end all semantic arguments. :)  I think I do understand a modicum of economic theory, only my analysis begins from the standpoint of production whereas, it would seem, that yours begins with commodity-trade.

>>As I've said before - you and protovack (?) are just green nazis.>>

Hah...I thought the green Nazis were a joke. :)

>>You've got moxie, ebola, and you seem to be pretty informed in your beliefs, which I can admire, yet...>>

why thank you.  It is not so often that I am told I have "moxie".

>>If I care about myself and my life, capitalism is the only economic system which not only allows, but actively promotes, the concept that my life belongs to me to do with it what I will.>>

I disagree.  On a systemic level, capitalism's promises of ownership and autonomy are rendered false for the vast majority of individuals.  The majority are forced to sell their labor in the marketplace, putting their activity under the control of another individual four the majority of their waking ours, all for the profit of that individual.

>>What attracts you to socialism? Do you view it as all inclusive?>>

I believe that socialism, anarchic socialism specifically, allows for the free expression of the indivdual.  Laboring in a socialist economy, the laborer him or herself has free access to the means of production and is able to control his or her laboring activity and reap its fruits.  Also, what do you mean by "all inclusive"?

>>http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf>>

I watched it just now although flash-animation is not my prefered medium for communication of politico-economic theory. :)

ebola
Logged

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #58 on: March 06, 2004, 05:18:22 pm »

I think any type of government that people want to try is great, just as long as there is a voluntary peaceful way for people to opt out of one strategy and try another.

Quote
...perhaps on the level of all society...

So I would have to personally rule out the one size fits all concept.  We're seeing that lack of flexibility currently in government and want to avoid it.
Logged
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren.  Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere.  Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile.  But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."

Eddie Willers

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
  • "Neo" Objectivist
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2004, 04:27:09 am »

Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie
Logged
Take care of the means and the End will take care of itself.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Up