HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Your thoughts on the phil...

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:03 PM

 

Your thoughts on the philosophy of Anarchism...

Good, bad, meh?

Hegel to Bakunin to Marx to Chomsky to Goldman to...

Your thoughts?

88 replies, 10859 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply Your thoughts on the philosophy of Anarchism... (Original post)
Taverner Dec 2011 OP
Remember Me Dec 2011 #1
Taverner Dec 2011 #3
mike_c Dec 2011 #5
TheWraith Dec 2011 #72
WonderGrunion Dec 2011 #77
FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #2
dimbear Dec 2011 #4
Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #6
Cid_B Dec 2011 #7
Countdown_3_2_1 Dec 2011 #8
themadstork Dec 2011 #11
Taverner Dec 2011 #13
Odin2005 Dec 2011 #16
backscatter712 Dec 2011 #18
Leopolds Ghost Dec 2011 #20
joshcryer Dec 2011 #23
Selatius Dec 2011 #33
Owlet Dec 2011 #35
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #36
Selatius Dec 2011 #68
brooklynite Dec 2011 #57
AntiFascist Dec 2011 #79
sibelian Dec 2011 #9
Leopolds Ghost Dec 2011 #21
sibelian Dec 2011 #30
Leopolds Ghost Dec 2011 #42
Taverner Dec 2011 #50
sibelian Dec 2011 #67
Edweird Dec 2011 #10
Romulox Dec 2011 #12
Codeine Dec 2011 #43
AntiFascist Dec 2011 #14
FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #15
joshcryer Dec 2011 #24
Odin2005 Dec 2011 #17
bhikkhu Dec 2011 #19
Leopolds Ghost Dec 2011 #22
Leopolds Ghost Dec 2011 #27
joshcryer Dec 2011 #26
Cid_B Dec 2011 #34
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #37
Cid_B Dec 2011 #38
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #40
malthaussen Dec 2011 #65
joshcryer Dec 2011 #61
Fearless Dec 2011 #25
Leopolds Ghost Dec 2011 #28
sibelian Dec 2011 #31
Fearless Dec 2011 #45
Selatius Dec 2011 #69
Fearless Dec 2011 #74
Selatius Dec 2011 #88
themadstork Dec 2011 #73
Fearless Dec 2011 #75
themadstork Dec 2011 #76
Selatius Dec 2011 #32
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #29
blindpig Dec 2011 #39
Marrah_G Dec 2011 #41
jwirr Dec 2011 #44
Taverner Dec 2011 #49
jwirr Dec 2011 #64
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #46
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #47
Taverner Dec 2011 #48
joshcryer Dec 2011 #60
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #66
Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #86
saras Dec 2011 #51
Chichiri Dec 2011 #52
RevStPatrick Dec 2011 #53
BOG PERSON Dec 2011 #54
Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #82
BOG PERSON Dec 2011 #85
Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #87
izquierdista Dec 2011 #55
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #56
Matariki Dec 2011 #58
Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #59
Puregonzo1188 Dec 2011 #62
arely staircase Dec 2011 #63
T S Justly Dec 2011 #70
backscatter712 Dec 2011 #71
WonderGrunion Dec 2011 #78
Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #80
chrisa Dec 2011 #81
Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #83
Magoo48 Dec 2011 #84

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:04 PM

1. Most people don't understand much about it which means

 

you're likely to get a lot of answers that don't mean much and are worth nothing unless you offer either a description yourself or a really good link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remember Me (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:08 PM

3. Here is a good start:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.

My Bias?

I'm a Socialist who sees some very positive aspects about Anarchist Theory. One rule does not fit all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:13 PM

5. I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, which has its ironies....

A socialist anarchy is pretty much the definition of the most benign and progressive means for people to live together. I personally believe that it's altogether impossible, too. But I'll take a socialist state until we evolve sufficiently to not need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:08 AM

72. Anarchism is a wonderful, beautiful theory that's completely impractical and mostly useless.

The idea of an anarchic state, where there's no government because there's no need for it, is lovely.

The practice would be basically all the worst qualities of savagery, mob rule, and fascism.

Small doses of anti-authoritarianism are good. But it's like salt. Too much will ruin the dish and make you sick, and you get Ron Paul type "libertarianism."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:45 AM

77. Without a state to hold the 1% in check, what hope does the 99% have?

My bias?

I see an American state, led by Democrats, that stopped the march of fascism, that stared down missiles in Cuba and ended Osama bin Laden's ability to finance terror assaults against the United States. The state is the only entity with the power to break monopolies, to protect the rights of unions, to correct the inequalities of bigotry, racism and sexism.

In an anarchist state it is simply too easy for someone to pay half of the poor to kill the other half of the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:08 PM

2. I'm fascinated by many aspects of it such as these:

http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78

Not sure about the complete theory of it but I can sometimes let my mind wander into what kind of world it would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:09 PM

4. Works great until population reaches excessive level, which is 2. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:13 PM

6. lol

two is definitely critical mass in a group of anarchists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:14 PM

7. That one...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:15 PM

8. It should not be tied to OWS.

OWS is peaceful.
Anarchy is vandalism, and invites a forceful police response. The anarchists break laws and melt into a larger protest to hide. This makes them part of the protest, and the protest an accessory to their crimes. The police see no difference between anarchists and protesters.

To me, anarchists are less interested in a cause and more interested in excuses for mayhem.

anarchists bring only trouble to peaceful protests and offer nothing in exchange. They need to act on their own and face the consequences alone.

I don't want to see innocents pepper-sprayed because of anarchist cowards hiding in a crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:33 PM

11. Just as post #1 predicted.

Why do people feel compelled to hold forth on subjects they know nothing about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 11:06 PM

13. There is a huge difference between Anarchy and Anarchism

 

OWS is not anarchy

But OWS borrows its philosophy from socialist, anarchism, democracy, demarchy, communism, capitalism, egalitarianism, republicanism and critical theory. This is a good thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 11:58 PM

16. Go read up on Anarchism before you spout ignorant nonsense.

Those violent people are not Anarchists, they are police infiltrators who start a riot so the pigs have an excuse to attack protestors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:09 AM

18. No, it's the agent provocateurs that vandalize and provoke the pigs.

They're a distinctly different group than anarchists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 03:50 AM

20. Actually there are plenty of "moderate" anarchists involved in starting the Occupy movement.

Such as Anonymous, who are basically left libertarians.

It sure as heck isn't a statist, pro-central government movement.

The basic thesis of left libertarianism is that the bigger centralized gov't gets the more in bed it gets with the financial institutions it was created to regulate. This is seen, e.g. in the statements that expansion of central authority is needed to PRESERVE the corporate system and protect it from the unrest that would follow deregulation and market instability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:00 AM

23. OWS is tied to anarchism, not the other way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 06:01 AM

33. OWS is an example of left-wing anarchism.

The fact that protesters gather almost daily and call for the convening of a General Assembly whereby members of the assembly propose rules or propositions, propose amendments to those rules or propositions, debate those rules and propositions, and finally vote to approve those rules or propositions outside the purview of any city council or police authority or any entity of the state is an example of anarchism, a form of self-governance outside any control of formal state organs of power. The nature of the propositions coming out of these assemblies also plainly shows them to be left-wingers to varying degrees.

People who regularly confuse the historical tendencies of anarchism with simple chaos are confusing anarchism and anomie. It is pretty distressing seeing this mistake made over and over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 07:19 AM

35. Well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 07:25 AM

36. But this typifies the Tyranny Of The Majority.

And what if the Majority opinion is incorrect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:40 AM

68. Typically, the assemblies operate upon consensus, as opposed to simple-majority rules.

This is exactly why these assemblies are so time consuming. It takes a lot of time to get up to 60 or 70% approval for any proposition being debated. From what I've seen, none of them are down for the Bush method of deciding things, which is simply get 51% of the vote and then assume that's a mandate to ram whatever through the assembly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 06:23 PM

57. Um, no it's not...

...The "Occupy" Assemblies are an example of a group, but not a community. No different than a meeting of any non-profit group, if perhaps a bit less efficient. They are not, however, a substitute for "any city council or police authority or any entity of the state", because they do not carry with them the authority of the greater community to enforce decisions. If someone is a disruptive force, the Community can ignore them, but it cannot penalize their behavior because it lacks either the power or authority to do so. While, academically speaking, an Assembly of the entire community could delegate such authority, it's completely unrealistic because of the difficulties engaged in getting the entire communities agreement in an "anyone can participate in decision-making" process. This is why elected councils and elected officials evolved into our political system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:04 AM

79. In this case....


anarchism is a response to a corrupt state, but the state, in and of itself, does not necessarilly need to be corrupt. The term "self-governance" implies that a particular form of governance is desired: in this case, that of a true democracy. As I argue elsewhere, I believe we are battling anarcho-capitalism, a form of anarchy where those who possess all the wealth have simply had it with democracy and desire to establish something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:19 PM

9. Having been involved in what might be called "anarchic" or "self-organising" groups...


they do work, and sometimes they work beautifully, but:

1. The population of the group must be small or (if inevitably large for some reason) composed of a larger group divided into smallish sub-groups, 15-20 is best,
2. The fact that leadership of some kind will always emerge somehow must be understood and related to properly by all concerned,
3. If there is a set of binding beliefs or value structures ("anarchy" itself is not enough) that everyone's on the same page with within the anarchic community it's *vastly* more effective and easier to live in,
4. There can be no assholes.

It's point 4. that really kills anarchy. Otherwise it's lovely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 03:51 AM

21. There are ways around the no assholes thing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 05:33 AM

30. I am curious.


What is your way???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:45 AM

42. Well, I'm only a moderate left-libertarian.

So I'm only involved in so-called "non-heirarchical" (I prefer the term collectively run, which has
some positive non-leftist connotations) projects at a local level. Generally speaking, it is like any
other system of self-organization. Just, you know, not top-down.

They are all prone to abuse by assholes. In fact, the person who said that it works great until you get
2 or more people together was being overly specific. This is true of human society in general; that's the problem.

Don't forget that anarcho-utopians existed before the hard left came along and made it seem all ooo scary.

It wasn't supposed to be a left-right thing; that's a gloss applied by the major political parties over
direction they want to see the gov't. Of course when you look at party alignment, "left" libertarians
are naturally aligned with the left these days, but I prefer to associate with populism, especially since
I'm a spiritual person and most folks on the hard left are anti-religious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:54 PM

50. Outvote the assholes

 

Granted, that is an oversimplification. Often times the assholes band together in a confederacy of dunces, and strong-arm their bullying over everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 04:38 PM

67. Have you read "The Dispossessed", Taverner?


Ursula Le Guin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:25 PM

10. Government of some sort is necessary. That's reality.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:33 PM

12. Juvenilia. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:49 AM

43. succinct and accurate. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 11:21 PM

14. Anarcho-capitalism is bad!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 11:22 PM

15. aka FrightWing anarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:01 AM

24. "anarcho"-capitalism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:00 AM

17. I'm a socialist with some Anarchist leanings.

Though I do not advocate the abolition of the state, I think the state is more often than not a tool of the ruling class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:14 AM

19. Anarchy was abolished by early hunter-gatherer societies

...come to think of it, even chimpanzees have little use for anarchy in their societies. We have laws, we have customs, traditions, guidelines, expectations, and so forth. Imagining that things would improve if we did not is a mistake. Back in 1900 or so there was such a problem with inequality that the rule of law and government itself was seen as "the problem", but we have come a long way since then.

If inequality is the problem, the answer is good government, not no government. Anarchy ignores human nature, and fails miserably in the real world. Not to dismiss or disrespect the good intentions of writers long passed, but I think it is almost always a mistake to look to the old dead to solve our current problems. Circumstances change, and their thinking cannot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 03:53 AM

22. I think you're confusing left-libertarianism (aka Thomas Jefferson) with Nihilism.

Left-libertarians rely on customs, traditions, and social institutions in place of the State. That's the whole point.

Occupy is an example of a self-governing social institution.

Obviously there are many anarcho-punks who casually subscribe to nihilist notions. These people are silly and
make it difficult to have a reasonable discussion about the issue. (e.g. groups like Crimethnc that publish tracts
in lefty bookstores about abolishing all institutions and belief systems). They are silly.



Jeffersonian democrat (small d) vs. Anarchist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:27 AM

27. A more moderate example would be classical (d)emocracy,

i.e. direct rule by the people -- not really anarchism but
only a couple steps above it in terms of how its supposedly run.

Of course, "we live in a democracy not a republic" precisely because small-d democracy
is considered by opinion-makers to be either anarchy or mob rule, depending on how it's enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:05 AM

26. Hunter gatherer societies are not post-anarchy.

That assumes Zerzan's idiotic view that pre-history = anarchy, which is bullshit. Almost every mammalian society has packs and hierarchies. Even Kropotkin doesn't go so far to suggest that animal societies are themselves anarchistic, in Mutual Aid. Kropotkin's observations are interspecific as opposed to intraspecific and he lays the basis for anarchism through interspecific cooperative relationships that exist in nature.

As Asimov says, "Specialization is for insects."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 06:15 AM

34. Ahem...

 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Anarchy as a concept is for children...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cid_B (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 07:28 AM

37. Heinlein earned his living as a specialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:12 AM

38. Having a profession...

 

... does not exclude one from possessing other skills.

Are you claiming that writing was the only thing he could do? Also, if it is true, he still needed a plethora of skills to have the knowledge base to write how he did.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cid_B (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 10:17 AM

40. He was a novelist. None of the other stuff paid the bills or put food on the table.

He specialized in writing speculative fiction.

If you are claiming that one needs knowledge of what *might* transpire in a created future of his own design is a knowledge base, then I cannot change your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 04:34 AM

65. You do understand the difference between specialization and being a specialist?

As for RAH, he was a naval cadet, a naval officer, an engineer, a novelist, a pundit, a husband, a fencer, and probably many other things. As are most human beings. I've always considered that the quote cited was really just Heinlein channeling Terence.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cid_B (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:30 PM

61. Oops, thanks for the correction.

Been falsely assuming Asimov for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:03 AM

25. Any unchecked power is dangerous... anarchy is the greatest tool by which powers rise.

In short, anarchy is absurd. The only people who are for it seem to be the people who think they can rise up above everyone else if given the opportunity--fairly similar to libertarians now that I think of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:31 AM

28. Most anarchists are small-d democrats. They are left-libertarians by definition n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 05:34 AM

31. I don't really know what you mean by this.


Could you elaborate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:34 PM

45. In society there are two or more pieces to a properly balanced puzzle

The "public" and the "state" are two that are common today. The Church was common in place of the state hundreds of years ago. (A vast improvement regardless of if you approve of the state at all!) Each group serves as a counterbalance of power to the other, or at least should in a properly working system. If you have to much power in the state you get authoritarianism or communism. If you get too much power in the public then you get rampant abuses by those who have the resources to become more powerful than other members of the public.

There needs to be a balance between the two. One needs to check the other's power evenly. We as a society have not yet figured how to do this properly. What is needed is little tweaks, not systemic overhaul. We need to find a way to ensure that the state doesn't trounce public opinion but that the public opinion doesn't run rampant hurting other people in society.




On review, the graph lines should be inverted... concave instead of convex... but I'm not making a new graphic now. Lol. Essentially between the two economic models, the polar opposites are communism and capitalism... rule by state and rule by free market. The potential for injustice rises as the existence of autonomous regulation (checks and balances to power) decrease. Autonomous regulation decreases the further unbalanced power is held between the state and the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:57 AM

69. Your model seems to ignore differences on the left and right themselves.

Mainly, with the left you have authoritarian leftism and libertarian leftism. On the right, you have authoritarian rightism and libertarian rightism.

Sure, Gandhi was very far left on economic issues, but nobody serious would say he would use the same methods as another far leftist, Joseph Stalin, to achieve the same goal.

The same could be said of Adolf Hitler and Augusto Pinochet. Unlike Pinochet, Hitler's economic policies were pretty centrist with elements of leftism and rightism incorporated, while Pinochet's economic policies were hailed by the far-right as the model to emulate, going so far right as to privatize the nation's Social Security system entirely and advocating total deregulation of the markets in true law-of-the-jungle capitalism, yet in common parlance both are considered right-wingers because both advocate capitalism. It's just that Pinochet advocates totally pure capitalism.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:57 AM

74. The graph represents the location of power... gov't or private.

From left to right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:51 PM

88. My main objection is the notion that capitalism is synonymous with "free market"

The idea of a free market is taken as a truism in too many circles, yet the US is an example of anything but free market capitalism. In many markets in the US, oligopolies and outright monopolies exist. There's very little competition. Health care is one of the worst examples of this. Lack of competition is why health care premiums rise at astonishing levels. Worse yet, they tend to lobby Congress to keep things that way with the amount of wealth they've accrued. The problem--I believe--is capitalists are mixing the power of the state and the power of private capital in something that can only be described as corporatism, not that there is an issue of too much public control. I guess the main point is you can have capitalism without a free market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:09 AM

73. holy crap, this is astoundingly ill-informed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to themadstork (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:58 AM

75. Mighty strong statement without supporting evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:00 AM

76. true, and point taken

as far as that goes. I'm not trying to win a debate, merely signaling that you (like many on this thread) haven't really done your homework, and you're running roughshod over the concepts you purport to explain.

but really, i'm not sure it matters. i don't have the time or energy to offer my own little breakdown of where i think you erred and where you would benefit from further research, so maybe i should just shut up, eh. sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 05:53 AM

32. Let me give you an example of elements of anarchism.

You elect a Congress to represent you. They writes the laws, and the President signs them into law or vetoes them.

An anarchist would propose several things to that arrangement. Mainly, he would propose ways to decentralize that power, as opposed to centralizing that power. He may propose the ability to recall the legislator or President if the people wish to exercise that authority. He may propose the ability to call a referendum on an act of Congress. He may even propose the ability to pass laws through an initiative process despite what Congress would say. All of these proposals serve to decentralize power and give some of it back to people.

Somebody who has studied anarchism would not support the absence of any rules. They merely support the decentralization of rule-making power and the over-turning of rules derived from excessive centralization of rule-making power. Anybody else who advocates nothing short of chaos is silly, not to be taken seriously, and likely ignorant of the history of left-wing anarchism.

They are advocating anomie, not anarchism.

Whereas a state socialist would say that it is best if the government established a single health insurance entity owned by the state to give everybody affordable health care without tacking on a profit mark-up like a private entity, a left-wing anarchist would likely propose the establishment of a health insurance co-op, also non-profit, as an alternative to for-profit health insurance. Provided the health insurance co-op becomes large enough to provide economies of scale to its participants, both avenues would achieve the twin objectives of removing the profit mark-ups on the costs and also providing wider coverage than previous. Admittedly, a single national health insurance co-op would be harder to establish than single-payer health care in a functioning republic, but I wouldn't exactly call the US functional the way the Founders had anticipated.

Daily examples of socialism outside the government proper would be a credit union, essentially a bank owned by its depositors, or a labor co-op, a business enterprise owned by its respective employees. These are pretty common examples of socialism that people don't recognize as "socialism" in the traditional sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:42 AM

29. Society, at it's most basic level, is or should be an agreement among people

maybe the thing to do is not think in terms of labels or systems or 'who is going to be in charge, if anyone, and who is going to control this and that and the other', but to think about different ways to look at, frame and structure the consensual universal agreement ---the 'deal', if you will--- in completely new ways that haven't been formulated or tried previously.

I think OWS was going for that, to a certain extent, and it was sort of neat to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 09:32 AM

39. Inadequate.

 


While the end goal is the same as communism the method for getting there won't cut the mustard.

Bakunin was a great revolutionary but a poor theorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 10:29 AM

41. I'm never quite sure what is meant by the term

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:14 PM

44. It seems to me that anarchy is a form of eveyone out for themselves and there is no one to protect

the weaker members. Not so different than what we have going today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:52 PM

49. There is a difference between Anarchy and Anarchist Theory

 

Even your most die-hard Anarchist would argue that collapse of government with no plans for transition would be a bad thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:53 AM

64. That is good to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:43 PM

46. Hegel to Bakunin to Marx to Chomsky to Goldman to...Gandhi and Tolstoy.

 

Just thought I'd add those two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:47 PM

47. I think anyone who says they have both anarchist and socialist ideas

needs to spell out what their thoughts on tax are, and on the services that a socialist would want provided for by state-levied taxes (health, a welfare net, perhaps housing ...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:51 PM

48. I guess a clarification would be that I am a Socialist receptive to Anarchist Theory

 

Bakunin's thoughts on collectivization are more fleshed out than Marx's - and in my opinion more organic.

Also I do think Social Anarchism is a good thing - that is, authority is earned, not simply given by fiat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:29 PM

60. Taxes are necessary for social services that require monetary recompense.

You can have social services provided by collectives and communities that are free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 08:13 AM

66. That would mean all their inputs would have to be free too

That, for instance, would mean you need someone who will supply you fuel for free - or solar panels, wind turbines etc. The stretch of this stateless area would have to be very large, with a huge number of people deciding this is the better way to live, and being able to keep up the level of production to supply all needs in the area. I think the human race is far from being so altruistic - look at the level which is now anarchistic, ie between countries. Despite the obvious imbalances, transfers of aid between countries are still pretty small, and people are happy with that.

I really think that we are nowhere near a level of population and production that some form of state isn't vital for sorting out the community's priorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:30 PM

86. I'm a libertarian socialist

 

so speaking for myself: as I do not think radical revolutionary transformation of society is a productive approach to achieving the goals of libertarian socialism, my view is that if tomorrow the libertarian socialists were 'in charge', nothing much at all would change. At least not initially. Initially we would be enabling people at the local level to take control of their own lives through the creation of grass roots democratic institutions in the workplace, in the neighborhood, at every level of social interaction. The goal is to build a voluntary cooperative and sustainable world economy, but that is a long term goal. In the short term it is important to evolve the current social institutions in that direction rather than fall into the pitfall of romantic revolutionary destruction and the nightmare of authoritarianism that is the inevitable consequence. In other words for quite some time there would still be taxes, money, state socialism and state capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:26 PM

51. Anarchism requires a better quality of human than we currently have available...

 

...with education, anarchy (i.e. a functioning technological society with justice, and without a government) MIGHT be possible. For late twentieth-century Americans, not a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:29 PM

52. Anarchists are libertarians who forego police protection from their slaves.

Which makes them more consistent, if nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 03:01 PM

53. I would LOVE anarchism...

 

...if we were a different species.
Unfortunately, we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Not a very sapient species, if you ask me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:25 PM

54. anarchism as agrarian socialism

becomes largely obsolete with industrialization and the withering-away of feudalism. so certain aspects of anarchism could definitely be integrated into the broader revolutionary communist programme of countries where feudalism still exists. but i dont have any idea whether communism or anarchism is better for so-called postindustrial societies like ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:48 AM

82. the syndicalists of spain in the 30's would laugh at that.

 

They ran the free cities of spain under anarchist principals and demonstrated the viability of doing so even under the direst of circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:57 PM

85. they murdered nuns and priests in cold blood

that doesn't sound very "free" or "principaled" to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:33 PM

87. Well that is one history.

 

However your new complaint is different than your prior one, that anarchism is agrarian only. So how about first we settle that issue, based on the facts at hand, and then we can move on to your new complaint. Okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:50 PM

55. I'd write you a detailed response, but......

 

I'd rather go do my own thing. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 06:12 PM

56. Until and unless a dynamic and sustainable culture illustrates that it can work

Until and unless a dynamic and sustainable culture illustrates that it can work for, defend and assist its people, it, like libertarianism is little more than an academic exercise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:05 PM

58. just like Libertarians

most people would pee in their own drinking water if they 'ruled' themselves.

Yeah, I'm cynical, but optimistic that perhaps humanity will evolve to the point where Anarchy (self rule) is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:08 PM

59. I like Chomsky's description of his version of anarchy

where essentially the government can make rules, but like the justice system, the state has the burden to prove those rules are necessary and appropriate. I like that concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 08:59 PM

62. I appreciate it's strands that incorporate a great deal of syndicalist thought into the fold,

the Industrial Workers of the World being the most prominent example of that I can think of.

That being said I still classify myself as a Marxist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 09:02 PM

63. Anarchism is what casts the shadows on my Platonic wall cave.

But operating in our restrictive political system I look for the policies that spread and devolve power - ie I back a government run health system because it removes power from a handful of corporations and puts into the hands of an entity that can represent the people - once we get federally funded elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:02 AM

70. Democratically principled anarchism sounds fine (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:05 AM

71. The anarchists I've met at Occupy Denver are actually pretty cool folks.

As far as anarchism itself, I respectfully disagree with them - I don't think society can function well without government - the asshole problem is too great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:49 AM

78. As long as wealth and property exist in any form, Anarchy is doomed to failure

As such, anarchy is a delusional ideal. As long as anyone owns more or wishes to own more than someone else then anarchy just opens the path for them to exploit the masses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:46 AM

80. decentralized democratic socialism - also known as libertarian socialism -

 

is the only political philosophy that makes sense to me, given the historic failure of marxism and the planet wide catastrophe that is capitalism.

It addresses both the legitimate concerns of those who rightly find the state as the pre-eminent threat to human freedom and those who rightly view capitalism and its requirement for exponential growth a manifest threat to the continuation of civilization as we know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:46 AM

81. What I don't get - Anarchist groups who hate corporations

You would think they would love them, since nothing helps corporations more than a state free of government regulations.

They also seem to not get the fact that many of the services we take for granted - police, firefighters, hospitals, would cease to exist (or become privatized and be another corporation) without government regulation.

I think they're more like the Paulites than Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chrisa (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:54 AM

83. left libertarians view the corporate state as a continuum

 

we are opposed to capitalism and the state, not just the state. You are confused by right libertarians who indeed ignore the power structures of corporations as if they didn't exist and would not replace (and are not now replacing) the nominally democratic institutions of the state with their explicitly authoritarian institutions of corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:26 AM

84. You're not the boss of me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread