Yeah, which is why I'm saying that "I'm an anarcho-pacifist, not an anarcho-capitalist" doesn't mean anything, they're not mutually exclusive concepts.

Fine, say what you want to say. I know what I am, and I don't need you to make me feel all good and fuzzy inside by agreeing with me. So chill the fuck out already.

Except soldiers.


Conspiracy theories are usually nonsense. When intelligent people are confronted with such unapologetic bullshit, we get mad. Very mad.

Soem of them are, but there still are a few that really do make sense. I'm intelligent as well, but there's no reason to get mad.

I'm chill, I don't understand why you're so against explaining what your actual beliefs are if not anarcho-capitalist but it's not like I'm going to lose sleep over it.

I'm not against explaining them, nobody has asked. I'd be more than happy. But I'd know as soon as I did, several people here would do nothing but critique them and tell me that I "Don't know what I'm talking about."

Then perhaps you should do research, make damn sure you know what you're talking about. It can't possibly hurt.

Also, if you're interested in Anarchism, for all that is good in this world, read The Conquest of Bread. It's absolutely fantastic.

So? If nobody criticises you then you'll never learn anything. Explain to me your beliefs.

I've been doing my reasearch for a while now.

I'll put that book down on my to read list, I'm currently reading "Industrial Society and Its Future", very interesting.

Stop avoiding my question.

Ok, here goes:

I believe that we need to rid the world of both multinational corporations and government. With the multinationals in place, the government is not really in control of anything, the CEOs and Boards of Directors are really in control.

But in removal of these institutions, no violence should be used. Violence only breeds more violence. This would start a wave of bloodshed that would years to finally stop.

I'm against a violent revolution becuase there's no point to having to fight something that can create more violence thatn you. Extend the olive branch, not the gun. It's quite simple.

I also believe that we should have equality and peace among all people. When the government it rid of, when can go pack to a simpler era. Grow what you want, when you want, how you want, etc etc.

I'm not against revolutionary actions or resistance, as long as it does not result in violence.

That's all I can really say for now, if you have questions, I can answer them to the best of my ability.

Well, that was a really drawn out way of saying you're an anarchist and a pacifist.

Pretty much, that's about right.

So when the corporations and government are gone, how is labour organised?

People will organized themselves as they see fit. Like I said, you can be free to do what you want, work when you want, where you want. People will have to learn how to do things by themselves yes, but we can reaquire skills lost in the past, by doing what they see fit to survive.

So you have absolutely no agenda economically at all? You think that the entire infrastructure of society should be brought down and then people wander around aimlessly until a framework spontaneously shoots out of their ass?

People will organize, they will have to in order to survive. I'm saying survival of the fittest here. I believe that anarchy is no government, no economic policy. I don't see how you're not getting this.

People can't just stumble across total social upheaval and then sit around with cups of tea waiting for an idea of economic management to jump into their head. Anarchism is fragile enough when it has a clear framework for society, your idea is nonsense. What do you mean by 'survival of the fittest'? Anarcho-capitalism?

It's a school of thought known as Anarchism without objectives. Though I would rather title it, "an egregious lack of foresight."

Stormtrooper, as any radical school of thought (basically any far left school of thought) will tell you, economics is everything. How labor is organized, how food is distributed, how the means of production are handled are incredibly important. Since you already said you're not a capitalist, you would most likely be fine with Anarchist Communism and Anarchist Syndicalism. You could also be an Individualist Anarchist or an Anarcho-Primitivist but you don't strike me as such a great fool.

"yeah so i think that we should entirely change society without any plan of what to do afterwards"

Hardly the words of a genius.

What I saying if that once we overthrow the government and other institutions, people will decide what's best for themselves. People can organize the way they want.

By survival of the fittest I mean that people will have to learn skills they usually wouldn't know to survive.

I'm still working on the economic part of it. Basically what I'm doing is taking pieces of each school of thought that I like and making my own form of anarchism. Like I said, I'm still in the reseach stage. But I will research your suggestions.

Thinking like this is what made the revolutions in France so fucking disastrous (that and the murderous hordes of Frenchmen). You're not arguing for Anarchism, you're arguing for fucking CHAOS.

People can decide on the way that they want to organize before they go to war on a system that has held the Western world for centuries.

Hold on, I'm not ARGUING with anybody here, I'm just stating WHAT I BELEIVE WILL WORK, not what will actually work.

And although the system has help its grip strong for a long time, does not mean it can't be broken. There are cracks in the foundation, all we need is more elbow grease and we're on out way.

I'm not saying we should have chaos, I'm saying we should be able to think for ourselves, the essence of anarchy, idividual thought!

You're stating what you believe will work. It won't work. It clearly won't work, I can't imagine anyone brainless enough to agree with you on this point.

And your plan afterwards is to look around going "Yo, now what?"

Individual thought can't involve planning?

Individual thought is lovely, but you have to understand: Humans are social creatures. If you don't factor in how the societies will structure themselves after the toppling of government, people will just revert back to what they're most familiar with, and we're back where we started. Also, your beliefs WON'T WORK. You can't just overthrow the government and then say fuck it. That's why I told you to read The Conquest of Bread, he addresses these issues. What of food? You're newly liberated populace will fucking starve unless they get organize. Anarchism is a freedom from government, not society. That's individualist anarchism (also known as FUCK YOU anarchism)

My plan afterwards is to get organized, stock up on what I need.

Sure it can involve planning.

I have to go to class now. So have fun making fun of me when I'm gone. I'll be back at 12:30 central time.

What you need? You think that the structure of society should change for 7 billion people and because you're going to stock up on your baked fucking beans, you've got a plan?

Sometimes I wonder why people think anarchists are nutcases who only want to see society fall into a state of riot-level chaos. Then I remember people like this.

By the way, I'm loving your response jcc.

It's one of the reasons that I prefer to call myself a libertarian socialist.

See, that would confuse people here. Libertarians and Socialists are on the opposite ends of the spectrum to people here and they don't understand that politics and economics can mix and match.

Fucking American Libertarian Party. Those assholes don't even care so much social freedom, they just hate taxes.

Even so, "anarchy" often implies "chaos," so I prefer not to use the term.

Sorry for the belated reply. I've been busy as hell lately, but I did want to get back to this.

Well yeah, that's what I kinda said, though really, I'm not in this thread to push for my own political ideals, that's really another topic for another time.

Well, before we wade into this swamp, let me first point out that my own personal political views are a red herring at best. Furthermore any attempt to invalidate my own critique on anarchism based upon an inability to back up my own political ideas would be ad-hominime. One need not be able to bring a better idea to the table when pointing out flaws in another idea. I don't have to be able to perform a kidney transplant on Humaine Pain to tell you that you probably shouldn't start cutting on him all whilly-nilly.

That said, I feel like biting:

Well, there are alot of reasons behind my high opinion of representational democracy, far more than can be adequately summed up in a single post. Here's a couple of the more glaring reasons I support it as opposed to direct democracy:

I am mainly opposed to the idea because direct democracy tends to have insufficient safeguards against mob rule. You ever notice that anytime politicians want to do something crazy, something that would never pass a legislature, they put it in a refferendum and leave it up to "The People"? Prop. 8 anyone? The masses are, by and large, ridiculously easy to manipulate (as we saw in that documentary) and it's very easy to do some serious legislative damage in a relatively short time. If the legislative process of the United States was more direct, things like the civil rights movement would've at best taken far longer to make any real political changes, and at worst we might be sitting around in a segregationist society today, and you can forget about gay marriage, it wouldn't even be a debate.

Furthermore, not only are "The People" easy to manipulate, but they're also rather ignorant on legislative matters. This isn't me holding a misanthropic opinion, this is simple fact: It is massively unrealistic to expect the working man to be able to hold an educated opinion on enough legal matters to make an educated vote each and every time. Guy's allready working at least 40 hours a week, it only makes sense to elect people who have the same general values as you, someone who's job it is to be educated on these matters and on how lawmaking works. Do people always elect the right guy? of course not, but if you think voting directly on the issues will be a tonic for people voting the wrong way you're dead wrong.

I guess my point is, we need balance in all things, especially politics. It's very important for power to remain in the hands of the people (as I'm sure you're going to try to construe the above post as me being an authoritarian) but the will of the majority needs to be checked just as much as any other political institution.

Because we already tried city-states once and it didn't work out; Going back to Sparta and Athens wouldn't be progress, it would be a regression. Also who's to say communities can't work on their own issues now? You don't need a complete absence of a federal government for a community to sort out it's own problems. That's why we have local governments. It's friggin ridiculous to advocate splitting up into totally independent cities. There's too many people in the world for that, and we moved beyond that kind of political structure centuries ago.
As I said earlier, balance is extremely important. There's alot of good things which come out of capitalism, and competition is very healthy for the humnan race, it's only when this gets out of hand that we see a problem. That's why you need a strong federal government to enforce regulations on the market so that the world doesn't turn into the WOW auction house. The Governmenet checks the market, the people check the government, the constitution checks the people, it's a constant struggle to keep everything working, but it's a damn sight better than what you're advocating.

I have to leave (Happy Halloween to everyone) but this really stands out from that:
The biggest body of your argument is where you defend your idea of representative democracy.
"The masses are, by and large, ridiculously easy to manipulate (as we saw in that documentary) and it's very easy to do some serious legislative damage in a relatively short time."

Tell me how that could be ANYTHING BUT saying that you allow a certain minority of people to actually hold the people's power? How are you not legitimizing power into the hands of the few who you think know what's best for everyone else including you and me?
And then you wonder why people are so "easy to manipulate"

...Because you have a constitution and regular elections to check the powers of those officials who are temporarily given that responsibility.

It's not that hard of a concept guy.

The scales are tipping in Despanan's favour here.

Not really. That social contract is just as applicable to a society that does not need rulers as much as one that does.
What's not that hard of a concept is to realize just how useless state representatives are.

Certain people, by virtue of their experience or their academic field or whatever else, are more qualified to make decisions than others. In these cases, the opinion of a single expert is more valuable than the opinion of ten seamstresses or factory workers or whoever else, despite the fact that you don't want to disenfranchise those people you've got to come to terms with the fact that their numbers don't make them more reasonable. I don't want to make the argument that people's lives should be constantly subject to interference from bigwigs, academics and politicians but you oversimplify things by saying that the majority always deserves the say.

Yes, it's freaking useless to have a guy who's job it is to understand the issues at hand and what effect legislation would have on that issue.

It's far better to just throw legalese proposals at Joe the Plumber and let him sort it out for himself while he's unclogging my drain.

You sir, truly are a visionary.

JCC ++

The argument that I oversimplify things by arguing against 'representation' gets trumped by the simple fact that I mentioned how anarcho-syndicalism DOES need delegates, i.e. representatives of a specific collective/union.
However, this is not the type of representation you're talking about, is it? Challenging your own political beliefs is not a red herring when I first argued for anarchism and against your opinions on it, which was the first thing you quoted about me. Regarding your own political opinions, we still get the arbitrary, non-anarchist, traditional form of representative democracy (seriously, why THAT form of representational democracy that offers undeserved power to the few?) and the idea that a "mixed economy" is the "best" possible economy simply because it's a mix of two economic philosophies that are not compatible, nor are they the only existent ones.

Bahahahaha.

Anyone notice how I brought, you know examples to explain my reasoning, and Jillian responded by getting all butthurt and throwing theory and blind assertions at me?

I noticed.

also:

Yeah, mentioning the word "delegates" offhand to someone else TOTALLY trumps the argument that you oversimplify things. Hats off to you sir.

Wrong again, read the thread, my post was poking holes in your idiotic, (and kinda racist) equivocation between slave owners and capitalists. You were responding to Kontan. You need to stop responding to legitimate complaints about your reasoning by personally attacking your critics and trying to somehow "prove" them hypocrites. That doesn't make you right, it just makes you an asshole. When I throw out personal attacks, queermo, I at least bother to address the position, and that makes me an asshole who's right.

I would say that the power granted by the people, to certain people is not undeserved, nor are capitalism and socialism incompatible. Most of the world currently runs on one form of a mixed economy or another, and officials are still elected so what the fuck?

Your 'mixed economies' are merely capitalist countries that limit this capitalism with socialistic institutions to offer most people a cushion.
How can you not fucking see that there is no "balance" in that? Where exactly are you showing that "balance is extremely important"?
How could you find balance between an economic philosophy that takes private property as necessary and one that does not believe in private property?
Obviously you can't, so you're not trying to find a balance between all economic theories, are you? You're just rationalizing the already established system and claiming it to be a perfect center of everything. Why?


And now, call me slow if you will, but if we're going back to the first posts, tell me exactly what's wrong with this:
The claim is, capitalism can be salvageable if the people that work under capitalism disregard the definition of capitalism and work in more humane manners: bosses don't exploit their workers.
Equally, slavery can be salvageable if the people that work under slavery disregard the definition of slavery and work in more humane manners: slaveowners don't exploit their slaves.

My question is, why is capitalism respectable in this manner but not slavery?
And where did I become a racist? Was it the moment you read "slave" and a black guy immediately popped into your head?

Wait... Huh?

I'm starting to think Jillian is Deadman's Anarchist, yet equally paranoid brother...

I'm just thinking that everything Despanan has always held about Jillian - that he's nowhere as smart as he fancies himself to be, and relies upon Yoda-speak to muddy the issue - is true. I used to think Desp was exaggerating until I actually engaged the guy in debate a couple of times and realized there's VERY little upstairs. Just a bibliography of books about the relative merits of anarchy and capitalism and a disproportionate view of his own intellectual importance. He's an okay guy when he's not talking politics, but since he speaks of precious little else that point is moot.

i am gonna have to side with jcc and desparan on this one. alan i admire your spirit and your conviction and faith in what you believe is right but i fail to see how anarcy (no government no police no checks and balances no one to go to if you need help no checks on the economy if some fat bastard is gouging scicne hes the only one who has a product member opec yeah its called a monopoly) would be better that the curent state of things. its not perfect nothing is but its also keeping alot of powerful people in check. Also limiting capitalism (you got the money you buy it, you got it you set the price) by a government organisasion (socialism) is mixed economics.(duh) also there is not a single person in america that dosent think of black people when they hear the word slave(depending on your sexual tastes) and what a concept slavery=exploitation if the owner dosnt pay his workers and can buy sell and trade people yeah its slavery. capitalism is exceptable because it gives everyone a choice, you can choose to go to school get and ed. and then work your way to the top slavery is no choices. the business amn whom exploits his employees is not above justice. his workers can unite (hmm they could call it a work UNION 1930s ring a bell??) and demand better treatment pay etc. the greedy business man is only fucking himself in the long run. Also have you not heard of idont know certin organisation like OSHA? a regulatory body that can impose harsh penalties and even take your business in the event that you break labor laws? i am not saying your argument is without merit, i am saying that your being naieve to think that people would have the intelligence or means to develop a spontanious economy. communisim is a great idea in theroy but you forget all systems of government will be flawed due to the inherit flaws in man. It is only everyone watching everyone that we can make our best attempt at making sure no one gets away with anything. anarcho-whatever will be subject to the same amount, if not more injustice, crime, and insufficency to the people as centralised government

A for effort, but it really seems like you're trying to explain things you don't fully understand.

What he's trying to say is that capitalism can't be trusted to be held in check. I had a huge long post earlier on examples on where mixed economies failed to make capitalism "safe" for people, using a lot of examples such as "Increasing minimum wage increases the odds of a company outsourcing", and it just got too long and I was too cranky to edit it down.

A big one I learned about recently was that even Sweden, which is one of the most egalitarian countries in the world and fits the bill of mixed economy, had to criminalize prostitution again because they just couldn't guarantee that women and children would not be exploited as a result, in fact when it was legal and regulated, there was an increase of foreign women being trafficked to fill the niche of sex worker slavery. So they had to criminalize the act of buying sex but to make things fair to sex workers, its not illegal to sell sex. As long as there is a profit to be made there are people who will want to take that opportunity. One of the criticisms against anarchy was that people are too greedy to make it work, when thats actually the big problem with capitalism, it makes all of us greedy and willing to compete with each other, and work for wages that are a fraction of what profit and value we create.

Are mixed economies better than straight up capitalism? Absolutely. But they still fail to make things egalitarian and classless.

That's your conclusion? Maybe I'm really bad at expressing myself. Isn't that a simpler conclusion?
Kontan said that there's nothing wrong with Capitalism, ONLY by taking away everything that defines capitalism.
So the solution to Capitalism is to have people that aren't profit-driven, that have a more communitarian mentality. That's how you solve capitalism. But let's not do away with capitalism, right?
My argument to that is that if we ignore the necessary rules of capitalism to make it defensible, you can say the same thing about slavery. Take away everything that slavery means and put people that care about each other. But just like capitalism, let's not do away with slavery.

If it sounds fucking ridiculous, it's because it SHOULD. But don't fucking call me a racist when I'm merely doing the same thing to one term Kontan did to another.