about Taxes

[hipeter924]

I said capitalism as a whole meaning every type of capitalism.

Rabid anti-socialists are often unable to rationally distinguish between different varieties of capitalism, inaccurately defining liberal and social democratic capitalism as "socialism," and ironically serving as the allies of progressive socialists, since Anglo-Saxon capitalism is doomed to increased inefficiency and social ills.

By the way Soviet state capitalism, there was no such thing. I doubt you can find many people of note (on any side) to back up your theory. The Soviet Union was a Communist state. What idiot said otherwise?

Incorrect. As for those who claimed that the Soviet Union was not a "communist state," you might want to consider the leaders and supporters of the Soviet Union, for one thing, who adopted a Marxist-Leninist conception of transition to stateless communism through a socialist "workers' state" of the Soviet variety. None would have been so absurd as to claim that communism has been established in the Soviet Union. Regardless, there are several grounds for rejecting the myth of the Soviet Union as socialist, the chief reason being that socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. A socialist conception of property rights is typically related in some manner to use-value, which implies that any legitimate form of socialist ownership must necessarily include managerial control in some capacity. Hence, since a party elite and bureaucracy managed the affairs of the Soviet Union rather than any collective body, it therefore did not satisfy the necessary criteria of socialism.

What a load of rubbish. A free market economy is ultimate goal of capitalism, but just like its counterparts of communism and socialism the economy never ended up reaching its ultimate goal. But unlike Communism and Socialism it is thriving and can reach the ultimate goal of a free market economy.

A free market economy is a utopian fantasy with no application whatsoever out of the textbook, and is as effectively as preposterous as the neoclassical conception of perfect competition. Communism has rarely been established and only on a primarily agrarian setting when it has, but it is incorrect to claim that socialism has not been established, since libertarian and democratic forms of socialism have previously enjoyed the benefits of successful existence (at least for a time, in some cases), whilst we can determine what the successes of market socialism theoretically could be by extrapolating empirical data regarding the superior efficiency of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives.

The Capitalist free market is happening...free trade deals aren't for nothing mate. Its the opening up of a new competitive environment...so your idea that free market capitalism stops competition sounds like its straight from a bit of soviet propaganda...its a nice story but not the true one.

Trade liberalization often has similarly adverse impacts and consequences, which accounts for the U.S.'s historical reliance on protectionism rather than adopting the neoliberal formula that the Washington Consensus now prescribes for others. The most obvious example of the benefits brought about by "fair trade" is the protected development of infant industries, which thereby maximizes dynamic comparative advantage in the long run.

I am tearing my hair out about how wrong your statements are. I am beyond the point of arguing with you. From this point on I believe you are insane. Don't worry I meet people like you all the time. I tend to ignore their theories because communism is fantasy nothing more...whereas capitalism is what runs the world. We need to invent a time machine...Stalin would love to meet you.

PS: Anarchist-Communism is the way communism is supposed to end. Stalin and the merry happy figures of communism failed you by keeping all the power to themselves. Communism can only fail...that's what is was built to do.

Note to self: Ignore Nemesis for reasons of continued sanity

 

[Agnapostate]

I am tearing my hair out about how wrong your statements are. I am beyond the point of arguing with you. From this point on I believe you are insane. Don't worry I meet people like you all the time. I tend to ignore their theories because communism is fantasy nothing more...whereas capitalism is what runs the world. We need to invent a time machine...Stalin would love to meet you.

PS: Anarchist-Communism is the way communism is supposed to end. Stalin and the merry happy figures of communism failed you by keeping all the power to themselves. Communism can only fail...that's what is was built to do.

Note to self: Ignore Nemesis for reasons of continued sanity

Anarchist communism? Aside from your continued abuse of vocab, you'll not score many points there, considering that anarchist communists reject the Soviet model as a legitimate means to communism, in keeping with the anarchist/Marxist divergence. For instance, as put by Peter Kropotkin in a letter to Lenin:

Even if the dictatorship of the party were an appropriate means to bring about a blow to the capitalist system (which I strongly doubt), it is nonetheless harmful for the creation of a new socialist system. What are necessary and needed are local institutions, local forces; but there are none, anywhere. Instead of this, wherever one turns there are people who have never known anything of real life, who are committing the gravest errors which have been paid for with thousand of lives and the ravaging of entire districts...Without the participation of local forces, without an organization from below of the peasants and workers themselves, it is impossible to build a new life.

It would seem that the soviets should have served precisely this function of creating an organization from below. But Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party', that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life. And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. This is what happened to the concept of 'equality' in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

Hence, as far as I can tell, your primary approach seems to revolve around the inaccurate abuse of vocab for rhetorical points, and the utter misrepresentation of political theories and philosophies that you apparently have no familiarity whatsoever with. You'll want to remedy that.

 

[hipeter924]

I am tearing my hair out about how wrong your statements are. I am beyond the point of arguing with you. From this point on I believe you are insane. Don't worry I meet people like you all the time. I tend to ignore their theories because communism is fantasy nothing more...whereas capitalism is what runs the world. We need to invent a time machine...Stalin would love to meet you.

PS: Anarchist-Communism is the way communism is supposed to end. Stalin and the merry happy figures of communism failed you by keeping all the power to themselves. Communism can only fail...that's what is was built to do.

Note to self: Ignore Nemesis for reasons of continued sanity

Anarchist communism? Aside from your continued abuse of vocab, you'll not score many points there, considering that anarchist communists reject the Soviet model as a legitimate means to communism, in keeping with the anarchist/Marxist divergence. For instance, as put by Peter Kropotkin in a letter to Lenin:

Even if the dictatorship of the party were an appropriate means to bring about a blow to the capitalist system (which I strongly doubt), it is nonetheless harmful for the creation of a new socialist system. What are necessary and needed are local institutions, local forces; but there are none, anywhere. Instead of this, wherever one turns there are people who have never known anything of real life, who are committing the gravest errors which have been paid for with thousand of lives and the ravaging of entire districts...Without the participation of local forces, without an organization from below of the peasants and workers themselves, it is impossible to build a new life.

It would seem that the soviets should have served precisely this function of creating an organization from below. But Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party', that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life. And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. This is what happened to the concept of 'equality' in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

Hence, as far as I can tell, your primary approach seems to revolve around the inaccurate abuse of vocab for rhetorical points, and the utter misrepresentation of political theories and philosophies that you apparently have no familiarity whatsoever with. You'll want to remedy that.

One answer mate. Its all bullshit logic and I will hear none of it. I won't even bother to discuss it. Please note before you even talk about Lenin...the whole state changed with Stalin. So anything you can say about Lenin has no relevance whatsoever on what happened from Stalin onwards.

I have full comprehension...its just your bullshit claims drive me insane. I know a communist in the Hungarian Communist party and he says that anarchist communism is the direct result at the end of the tunnel. So really you don't know what you are talking about. Or maybe read this book: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Elaborate ?

Economic efficiency is best brought about by the establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives.

If this were true, then the more efficient worker-owned companies would be able to cut prices and take market share away from conventional companies, or keep prices the same and use the higher profits to buy out conventional companies. This usually isn't the case.

 

[Agnapostate]

One answer mate. Its all bullshit logic and I will hear none of it. I won't even bother to discuss it. Please note before you even talk about Lenin...the whole state changed with Stalin. So anything you can say about Lenin has no relevance whatsoever on what happened from Stalin onwards.

Though many refuse to admit it, Leninism was characterized by many of the same authoritarian elements as Stalinism. It was by the orders of Lenin that the Kronstadt Rebellion was so brutally suppressed, after all. Have you imagined some major distinction between Lenin and Stalin, with the latter somehow ruthlessly betraying the legacy and will of the former? Some have asserted that Lenin was the crueler of the two. I'd ask that you perhaps conduct a little more research into these topics for future reference.

I have full comprehension...its just your bullshit claims drive me insane. I know a communist in the Hungarian Communist party and he says that anarchist communism is the direct result at the end of the tunnel. So really you don't know what you are talking about. Or maybe read this book: What Is Communist Anarchism?

You seem unfamiliar with the divergences between Marxism and anarchism, so perhaps you should examine such concepts in greater detail before making such baseless assertions. In particular, consider the schism that has existed between these two forms of socialism ever since their divergence at the Hague Congress of the First International through the expulsion of Bakunin and his anarchist supporters, which resulted in Bakunin penning On the International Workingmen's Association and Karl Marx.

[A]ll power entices the ambitious, and Mr. Marx and company, it seems, having never taken into account the nature and source of this prodigious power of the International, imagine that they can make it a stepping-stone or an instrument for the realization of their own political pretensions.

I doubt that the rational analyst would assert that such remarks are an indication of the full-fledged unification of anarchism and Marxism. And that doesn't even begin to describe the doctrines of Leninism and Stalinism that significantly diverged from Marxism.

If this were true, then the more efficient worker-owned companies would be able to cut prices and take market share away from conventional companies, or keep prices the same and use the higher profits to buy out conventional companies. This usually isn't the case.

Incorrect. Your conception of the market seems excessively utopian, since you've evidently not considered the realities of market concentration and related negative externalities generated by capitalist economic structure that discriminate against the establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives. For instance, no less a libertarian authority than John Stuart Mill observes the point well in this letter:

Sir, I beg to enclose a subscription of [10 pounds] to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it.

But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.

Hence, more efficient firms may simply be overcome by larger firms' greater raw access to capital and productive resources rather than their greater ability to utilize such assets efficiently. Capitalism thus encourages inefficiency in permitting such market concentration to occur. Socialism's radical re-organization of property rights into the collective ownership of the means of production and egalitarian distribution of ownership and managerial control thus eliminates such a problem and actually encourages more competitive market enterprise than capitalism does. Indeed, as noted by socialist economist Jaroslav Vanek, "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market."

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Hence, more efficient firms may simply be overcome by larger firms' greater raw access to capital and productive resources rather than their greater ability to utilize such assets efficiently. Capitalism thus encourages inefficiency in permitting such market concentration to occur.

But why would suppliers voluntarily give them access to cheaper raw materials? Because of high volumes. Why do they prefer high volumes? Because it's a more efficient (read: cost effective and profitable) way to sell. It's a better use of resources to sell a million tons of steel to a few huge firms, rather than starting and stopping for a hundred different botique manucturers. As for companies that sell "loss leaders"...oh no, save me from lower prices! And anyway, their other products will have to be more expensive to cover the cost of the subsidy, thus creating opportunities for other companies.

Also, I noticed you are using terms for big companies/capitalist-owned interchangeably, and small/worker-owned interchangeably, which is basically correct. People with money don't like to put their money into something they don't control. And people who control things without having their money at stake tend to get sloppy. This is the real reason why worker-owned companies don't thrive, aside from local farmer's co-ops and the hippies selling hemp wallets at the flea market. Well that, plus the fact that there are many, many people in this world who have no clue about making successful business decisions.

There is nothing "progressive" about Marxism. Communal ownership of production is a regression to the sort of farming arrangements of the dark ages. This system was still lingering around when the Pilgrims landed. They had communal farms and almost starved because of it; once they set up private property they had bountiful harvests and the first thanksgiving.

 

[Iriemon]

...miserable pathological prick...

Ignored.

When you have to resort to name calling it's clear you have nothing to contest about what I wrote.

I'll come back when you can act like an adult.

 

[neurosport]

Decided to ignore my "elaboration," did you?

i read it. you sound like a poser. but more importantly that argument is just not that interesting to me.

i generally follow Austrian school but i think that Austrians underplay the role of monopolies in bringing about market inefficiencies. Austrians, like everybody else, are not 100% honest. Their IDEOLOGICAL support of free market has led them to deny some of the inefficiencies of a truly free market - such as a monopoly.

Austrians think there is nothing wrong with monopolies. And while i heard their arguments and they are reasonably convincing they are still nothing but arguments. Common sense and personal experience is telling me otherwise.

in this respect i disagree with them. i think monopoly and price fixing has to be violently fought. for example i am not at all comfortable with the prospect of Intel driving AMD out of business and becoming THE ONLY choice for desktop and laptop processors. that would be pretty bad !

 

[hipeter924]

Hence, more efficient firms may simply be overcome by larger firms' greater raw access to capital and productive resources rather than their greater ability to utilize such assets efficiently. Capitalism thus encourages inefficiency in permitting such market concentration to occur.

But why would suppliers voluntarily give them access to cheaper raw materials? Because of high volumes. Why do they prefer high volumes? Because it's a more efficient (read: cost effective and profitable) way to sell. It's a better use of resources to sell a million tons of steel to a few huge firms, rather than starting and stopping for a hundred different botique manucturers. As for companies that sell "loss leaders"...oh no, save me from lower prices! And anyway, their other products will have to be more expensive to cover the cost of the subsidy, thus creating opportunities for other companies.

Also, I noticed you are using terms for big companies/capitalist-owned interchangeably, and small/worker-owned interchangeably, which is basically correct. People with money don't like to put their money into something they don't control. And people who control things without having their money at stake tend to get sloppy. This is the real reason why worker-owned companies don't thrive, aside from local farmer's co-ops and the hippies selling hemp wallets at the flea market. Well that, plus the fact that there are many, many people in this world who have no clue about making successful business decisions.

There is nothing "progressive" about Marxism. Communal ownership of production is a regression to the sort of farming arrangements of the dark ages. This system was still lingering around when the Pilgrims landed. They had communal farms and almost starved because of it; once they set up private property they had bountiful harvests and the first thanksgiving.

Finally some sense here. I have given up on Nemesis. He lives in fairy tale communist world where all the Stalins, Lenins and Bolsheviks do a happy dance, thinking they are gods on earth.

 

[Agnapostate]

But why would suppliers voluntarily give them access to cheaper raw materials? Because of high volumes. Why do they prefer high volumes? Because it's a more efficient (read: cost effective and profitable) way to sell. It's a better use of resources to sell a million tons of steel to a few huge firms, rather than starting and stopping for a hundred different botique manucturers. As for companies that sell "loss leaders"...oh no, save me from lower prices! And anyway, their other products will have to be more expensive to cover the cost of the subsidy, thus creating opportunities for other companies.

I don't believe you understand the nature of market concentration. How do you assume that gargantuan firms initially gained such power to begin with? It's a simple matter of widespread private ownership of the means of production being an inheritance of an openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation of capital.

Also, I noticed you are using terms for big companies/capitalist-owned interchangeably, and small/worker-owned interchangeably, which is basically correct. People with money don't like to put their money into something they don't control. And people who control things without having their money at stake tend to get sloppy. This is the real reason why worker-owned companies don't thrive, aside from local farmer's co-ops and the hippies selling hemp wallets at the flea market. Well that, plus the fact that there are many, many people in this world who have no clue about making successful business decisions.

A rather odd analysis. Worker-owned and managed firms are successful precisely because an egalitarian distribution of ownership and democratic management power in the hands of the workforce is a component in the elimination of the principal-agent problem, since ownership by the financial class and management by the coordinator class are not factors. Since compensation is determined by equitable distribution of profits, there's a strong motivation to work efficiently and effectively.

Your comment about workers' ownership is thus inaccurate, particularly considering the empirical literature almost always indicates that workers' ownership (and management), results in efficiency and related productivity gains. For instance, we could examine Doucouliagos's Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis. Consider the abstract:

Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).

We can thus see that worker ownership's positive effects on productivity are augmented by the establishment of democratic management of workplaces.

There is nothing "progressive" about Marxism. Communal ownership of production is a regression to the sort of farming arrangements of the dark ages. This system was still lingering around when the Pilgrims landed. They had communal farms and almost starved because of it; once they set up private property they had bountiful harvests and the first thanksgiving.

I made no mention of Marxism. I've made it clear that though I'm a communist, the more important reality is that I'm an anarchist, which necessitates consideration of the fact that anarchism is the "no-government system of socialism," as Kropotkin termed it. Collective ownership of the means of production does little more than extent democracy into the economic realm rather than permit it to be governed by a financial class that effectively replicates an authoritarian state in its manner of social arrangements.

i read it. you sound like a poser. but more importantly that argument is just not that interesting to me.

i generally follow Austrian school but i think that Austrians underplay the role of monopolies in bringing about market inefficiencies. Austrians, like everybody else, are not 100% honest. Their IDEOLOGICAL support of free market has led them to deny some of the inefficiencies of a truly free market - such as a monopoly.

Austrians think there is nothing wrong with monopolies. And while i heard their arguments and they are reasonably convincing they are still nothing but arguments. Common sense and personal experience is telling me otherwise.

in this respect i disagree with them. i think monopoly and price fixing has to be violently fought. for example i am not at all comfortable with the prospect of Intel driving AMD out of business and becoming THE ONLY choice for desktop and laptop processors. that would be pretty bad !

A somewhat oversimplified summary, but basically correct. Austrians' ignorance of market failure is a component in their inability to construct coherent theory. That being said, I'm generally of the opinion that though the Austrians are marginal even for a heterodox school and have provided little to economic theory, it's true that "Hayek and the Austrians provide a richer theory of market processes than the utility-maximizing, equilibrium approach of neoclassical economics," as put by Theodore Burczak.

Finally some sense here. I have given up on Nemesis. He lives in fairy tale communist world where all the Stalins, Lenins and Bolsheviks do a happy dance, thinking they are gods on earth.

More inaccurate reference to state capitalism. You're really doing little more than exposing your own ignorance of political economy and theory.

 

[garyd]

No anarchy has ever lasted more than a decade and seldom half that. Everyone that has appeared has shortly after it's appearance been over taken by an authoritarian of some sort. Both politics and nature abhor a vaccuum. And both will attempt to fill it with the lightest available crap first.

YOur system as described would be as much if not more subject to this phenomenon as any other.

 

[Agnapostate]

"Vacuum"? Anarchism is a political philosophy involving the establishment of horizontal federations of decentralized collective and communes managed through non-hierarchical direct democracy and libertarian socialist economic principles. It's not, as is commonly and fallaciously assumed, "chaos," "disorder," or a mere "law of the jungle."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy."

it has already been found. its called the constitution.

constitution should have never allowed for amendments. that was a mistake.

you start out with a document that outlines some ideas that are NOT to be challenged. the rest your stupid ass can vote on.

some things are too important to be left up to idiots like you to get democratic about.

No I would say THIS is the STUPIDEST post of the Year.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Vacuum"? Anarchism is a political philosophy involving the establishment of horizontal federations of decentralized collective and communes managed through non-hierarchical direct democracy and libertarian socialist economic principles. It's not, as is commonly and fallaciously assumed, "chaos," "disorder," or a mere "law of the jungle."

WAIT, we have a contender for DUMBEST ever.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anarchism
Part of the Politics series on
Anarchism
"Circle-A" anarchy symbol
Schools of thought
Agorism · Buddhist · Capitalist
Christian · Collectivist · Communist
Crypto-anarchism · Feminist
Free market · Green
Heathian · Individualist
Infoanarchism · Insurrectionary
Leftist · Mutualist · Pacifist
Pananarchist · Philosophical
Platformist · Post-anarchist
Post-colonial · Post-left
Primitivist · Social · Syndicalist
Vegan · Without adjectives · Zen
Theory · Practice
Anarchy · Black bloc
Class struggle · Communes
Consensus democracy
Decentralization · Deep ecology
Direct action · Direct democracy
Dual power · Especifismo
Horizontalidad · Illegalism
Individual reclamation · Law
Participatory politics
Permanent Autonomous Zone
Prefigurative politics
Private defense agency
Propaganda of the deed
Refusal of work · Rewilding
Social ecology
Spontaneous order
Issues
Anarcho-capitalism · Animal rights
Capitalism · Criticisms · Islam
Lifestylism · Marxism · Nationalism
Orthodox Judaism · Religion
Violence
History
1999 WTO Conference protest
Amakasu Incident
Anarchist Catalonia
Anarchist Exclusion Act
Anarchy in Somalia
Australian Anarchist Centenary
Barcelona May Days
Carnival Against Capitalism
Escuela Moderna · Hague Congress
Haymarket affair
High Treason Incident
Congress of Amsterdam
Kate Sharpley Library
Kronstadt rebellion
Labadie Collection · LIP
Manifesto of the Sixteen
May 1968 · May Day
Paris Commune
Provo · Red inverted triangle
Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine
Spanish Revolution
Third Russian Revolution
Tragic Week · Trial of the thirty
Culture
Anarcho-punk · Arts
Black anarchism · Culture jamming
DIY culture · Freeganism
Independent Media Center
Infoshop · The Internationale
Jewish anarchism · Land and liberty
Lifestylism · Popular education
Property is theft!
Radical cheerleading
Radical environmentalism
Squatting · Symbolism
Terminology · A las barricadas
Economics
Agorism · Capitalism · Collectivism
Communism · Co-operatives
Counter-economics · Free market
Free school · Free store
Geolibertarianism · Gift economy
Market abolitionism · Mutual aid
Mutualism · Participatory economics
Really Really Free Market
Self-ownership · Syndicalism
Wage slavery
Workers' self-management
By region
Africa · Austria-Hungary · Brazil
Canada · China · Cuba · England
France · Greece · India · Ireland
Israel · Italy · Japan · Korea
Mexico · Poland · Russia · Spain
Sweden · Turkey · Ukraine
United States · Vietnam
Lists
Anarcho-punk bands · Books
Communities · Fictional characters
Jewish anarchists · Musicians
Organizations · Periodicals · Poets
Russian anarchists
Related topics
Anti-capitalism · Anti-communism
Anti-consumerism · Anti-corporatism
Anti-fascism · Anti-globalization · Antimilitarism
Anti-statism · Anti-war · Autarchism
Autonomism · Labour movement
Left communism · Libertarianism
Libertarian perspectives on revolution
Libertarian socialism
Situationist International

Anarchism Portal
Politics portal
v • d • e
Main article: Anarchism

Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid 19th century, with its idea of freedom as being based upon political and economic self-rule. This occurred alongside the rise of the nation-state and large-scale industrial capitalism or state-sponsored corporatism, and the corruption that came with their successes.

Although anarchists share a rejection of the state, they differ about economic arrangements and possible rules that would prevail in a stateless society, ranging from complete common ownership and distribution according to need, to supporters of private property and free market competition. For example, most forms of anarchism, such as that of anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism not only seek rejection of the state, but also other systems which they perceive as authoritarian, which includes capitalism, markets, and private property. In opposition, a political philosophy known as free-market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism argues that a society without a state is a free market capitalist system that is voluntarist in nature.

The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid, voluntary association, and direct action.

A system that can not survive.

Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Agnapostate]

Having fun with Wikipedia, gunny? Why don't you post an actual argument?

 

[editec]

"Vacuum"? Anarchism is a political philosophy involving the establishment of horizontal federations of decentralized collective and communes managed through non-hierarchical direct democracy and libertarian socialist economic principles. It's not, as is commonly and fallaciously assumed, "chaos," "disorder," or a mere "law of the jungle."

I find this discussion rather fascinating.

Here's why...Agna's anarchro-socialism is SORT where the MASTERS seem to be taking us.

They are about the business of defanging governments, that's fairly obvious.

When this if finalized, it will be corporations in control of things instead of governments regardless of what form those governments take

Only instead of worker owned businesses, control over production will still be in the hands of the capital class.

It will be a libertopian world for that class of people, and a neo-feualistic life for the rest of us.

It will be an system of world governace through a sort of anachro-Corporate Capitalism.

Nation states' power will become as titular as monachies' have become, I suspect.

 

[Agnapostate]

That seems quite the opposite.

Though as I've said elsewhere, all it would take to establish market socialism right now is boring old nationalization, not a violent proletarian revolution. Since the financial class would scramble to grab the fair market value for their failing assets and industries, why not?

 

[editec]

That seems quite the opposite.

Though as I've said elsewhere, all it would take to establish market socialism right now is boring old nationalization, not a violent proletarian revolution.

And are you of the opinion that the monied class is going to stand by while the government nationalizes their assets?

More to the point are you of the opinion that the monied classes don't already own the government?

Since the financial class would scramble to grab the fair market value for their failing assets and industries, why not?

Because those with power seldom give it up peacefully, perhaps?

Because the people who control this nation are essantially the same class (in many cases the same families) which have controlled this nation for generations?

Because you cannot find enough working class Americans who can understand what you've been trying to tell them ever since you got here?

All these reasons are why that boring old nationalization of the means of production isn't going to happen the way you hope it might.