Anarchists?

TheBrutalTruth said:

Have you actually spoken to a person in a third world nation, and asked them their opinion?

Nothing here is anything more than conjecture, though I would say that your side has considerable less proof when it comes to backing their opinions. Perhaps they have better work ethics than we do, and don't mind the long hours. Or maybe they believe it beats the alternatives, namely farming, and hunting with out a guarantee that they'll eat everyday, or even be able to get a decent price in the markets for what they grow or catch.

Of course, those on the left do not have a leg to stand on here either as it's their mandates for Corn Ethanol being used as a fuel that have done incredible amounts of damage to the poor of the entire world by jacking up food prices. I'm sure Archer Daniel's Midland enjoys having Daschle in their pocket.

Irony, Democrats tend to be Socialists/Fascists that support giant corporations, while Republicans are accused of it for supporting free enterprise.

No one is forced to work where they work involuntarily, they are free to try going into business for themselves at any time. It really wouldn't take all that capital to build a machine shop to manufacturer tools, furniture and other consumer goods for marketing, the problem is that such a company could not expand, because it could not compete with the third world and its low labor costs.

Which of course is yet another argument for replacing the means of government funding with excise taxes as was originally intended, withdrawing from GATT, the WTO, and ignoring the whining of the rest of the world while preserving jobs, and economic growth that our country needs.

Click to expand...

Why do you bring in all this crap about taxes, and the 'left','corn ethanol'.

The government lets us voice our opinions on these minor issues, most of them probably artificial, so we don't form an opinion about the totality of it all and realise that the real problem is government itself.

You talk about economic growth like it's the life force that keeps society going, but all that happens is people get trod on even more by the rich. Society actually makes no progress at all in this system.

ViRedd said:

And by the way ... working in a "sweat shop" in India is a hell of a lot better than having to resort to digging through the dumps in Calcutta trying to eke out a living. You can bet your ass that those people working in those "sweat shops" thank their God every day that they are able to put food on the table for their families.

Vi

Click to expand...

That's just what I've been saying, they don't work in the sweatshops because they want to, it's because they have to, otherwise they die.

And I think they'll be cursing because they lead such a shit life of endless work and being shat on by the CEOs and the rich in the West. They'll be thinking "Why do we live in such a horrible system, where I work all day and still my family is starving, while a privelged few afford themselves all the luxuries in the world, yet they have never worked a hard day in their life - just decieved and cheated on others to get to the top."

magicSpoons said:

That's just what I've been saying, they don't work in the sweatshops because they want to, it's because they have to, otherwise they die.

And I think they'll be cursing because they lead such a shit life of endless work and being shat on by the CEOs and the rich in the West. They'll be thinking "Why do we live in such a horrible system, where I work all day and still my family is starving, while a privelged few afford themselves all the luxuries in the world, yet they have never worked a hard day in their life - just decieved and cheated on others to get to the top."

Click to expand...

Nope, you've missed my point. If it weren't for the capitalists in the West who opened the factories in India, and the consumers in the West who buy the goods made in the factories in India, the workers in the "sweat shops" would be right back scrounging on the trash heaps in the dumps of Calcutta from where they came.

Come on man ... those menial jobs are the second rung on the ladder on the way out of poverty. The dumps in Calcutta being the first.

Vi

ViRedd said:

Nope, you've missed my point. If it weren't for the capitalists in the West who opened the factories in India, and the consumers in the West who buy the goods made in the factories in India, the workers in the "sweat shops" would be right back scrounging on the trash heaps in the dumps of Calcutta from where they came.

Come on man ... those menial jobs are the second rung on the ladder on the way out of poverty. The dumps in Calcutta being the first.

Vi

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's slightly better than being in the streets of Calcutta (And arguably life was more free before the economic domination created by globalization) the fact is that it's still shit, and the system is unjust because the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. The ladder of capitalism is just a stupid preconception that peoples' heads are filled with that they can be the best and reach the top of the ladder and be rich and happy and all the rest. But the truth is only a few get to the top, and the rest have to suffer.

magicSpoons said:

Why do you bring in all this crap about taxes, and the 'left','corn ethanol'.

The government lets us voice our opinions on these minor issues, most of them probably artificial, so we don't form an opinion about the totality of it all and realise that the real problem is government itself.

You talk about economic growth like it's the life force that keeps society going, but all that happens is people get trod on even more by the rich. Society actually makes no progress at all in this system.

Click to expand...

Now you're just talking out of your ass, economic growth in the United States from 1800 - 1912 was 9,600% (96 fold increase) this was a period marked by the dominance of a capitalistic system that generated real improvements in living standards, saw the perfection of the light bulb, electric generators, eletric transmission (AC.) and set the stage for the modern era.

About the only portion of the economic record that gives any credence to what you are saying is the inflation/deflation rate, which stood at -15% in 1912. That is the U.S. Dollar (which was still gold at the time) was worth 15% more than it was in 1800, indicating that the federal protection of the Federal Reserve and its bankers is an abberation as its insistence upon inflation. The purchasing power of the gold backed dollar would have likely continued to increase, leading to an improvement of the quality of living for everyone, as a benefit of the capitalist system that the United States had.

From 1913 on we've had a Federal Reserve that has consistently attempted to control the money supply, the end result has been 2200% inflation, a real growth rate of 1,600% for the period from 1913 - 2007, indicating that the increasing bureaucratic size backed by the imbecilic policies of a socialist agenda is not only decreasing America's ability to compete internationally in the global markets, but harming the ability of employees to find good jobs that pay decent wages instead of the bullshit mcjobs that are really only suitable for inexperienced teenagers and adults just entering the workforce.

From 1913 on the United States has seen a depression or recession every decade, and the continued atrophy of the industrial sector which is the sector that manufacturers goods that generate wealth for a nation. Wealth that often makes its way through the economy as more jobs, means more competition among employers which leads to labor being bid up even as prices continue to fall.

The rhetoric of socialism fails when examined against real world data.

magicSpoons said:

It doesn't matter if it's slightly better than being in the streets of Calcutta (And arguably life was more free before the economic domination created by globalization) the fact is that it's still shit, and the system is unjust because the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. The ladder of capitalism is just a stupid preconception that peoples' heads are filled with that they can be the best and reach the top of the ladder and be rich and happy and all the rest. But the truth is only a few get to the top, and the rest have to suffer.

Click to expand...

Now, the ladder that you are portraying is a fact of life. Even under your socialist system some people would find their services are valued more by others than the services provided by others.

Though once again you are now verging on the imbecility of talking about using force, fraud and coercion to control prices, which implies a Socialistic Tyranny, not the absence of a government. Like I said when I first posted, incompatible ideologies. Anarchy implies Capitalism, because Capitalism is the only system that will result when all threats of force and coercion are removed.

Communism implies a tyranny, because everything has to be regulated by some one, because if its not the world will suddenly revert back to being being "unfair."

Life is fair, it has never been fair, except maybe when humanity was still in the Garden of Eden. Of course you'd probably take umbrage at that, because God forced Adam and Eve to get off their asses and pick their own food.

All of which doesn't really touch your mention of this ladder, that you think is unique to Capitalism. Even under Communism there were a lower, middle and upper class, and this was a result of the fact that bureaucrats and party members were able to force the citizenry to pay them more using force.

In the absence of force, no one is going to voluntarily charge less than they need to make a profit, and pay off the credit extended to them when they were pursuing their degrees in Medicine, Law or Science.

Though, revisiting the arguments about National Socialism and Communism being the same. Same BS Rhetoric, Same Track Record of misery, and murder.

--------------

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...."

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture.... The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call-to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."

These statements were made in our century by the leader of a major Western nation. His countrymen regarded his view point as uncontroversial. His political program implemented it faithfully.

The statements were made by Adolf Hitler. He was explaining the moral philosophy of Nazism.

http://www.peikoff.com/lr/chapter1.htm

jrh72582 said:

No one said that America should develop a complete socialized model.

Click to expand...

MagicSpoons is proposing a completely communist society...

magicSpoons said:

It doesn't matter if it's slightly better than being in the streets of Calcutta (And arguably life was more free before the economic domination created by globalization) the fact is that it's still shit, and the system is unjust because the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. The ladder of capitalism is just a stupid preconception that peoples' heads are filled with that they can be the best and reach the top of the ladder and be rich and happy and all the rest. But the truth is only a few get to the top, and the rest have to suffer.

Click to expand...

You know what, MS ... you remind me of the little poor kid standing outside of the restaurant in the snow looking through the window at all the "rich" people eating their Christmas dinner. And, while your focused upon what the "rich" have, life is going on all around you. There are people hustling to earn a buck. Some work hard, save, invest, then take enormous risks by opening a business, or just striking out on their own and telling the corporate world good bye forever. Some make it and some don't. Some make it really big too. The thing to focus on, is to be sure you are not still looking through that restaurant window twenty-five years from now.

Vi

magicSpoons said:

Why do you bring in all this crap about taxes, and the 'left','corn ethanol'.

The government lets us voice our opinions on these minor issues, most of them probably artificial, so we don't form an opinion about the totality of it all and realise that the real problem is government itself.

You talk about economic growth like it's the life force that keeps society going, but all that happens is people get trod on even more by the rich. Society actually makes no progress at all in this system.

Click to expand...

Wow, I agree with some of what you both said. Government IS the problem. Capitalism IS good. Does that make me an Anarcho / Capitalist?

TheBrutalTruth said:

Now you're just talking out of your ass, economic growth in the United States from 1800 - 1912 was 9,600% (96 fold increase) this was a period marked by the dominance of a capitalistic system that generated real improvements in living standards, saw the perfection of the light bulb, electric generators, eletric transmission (AC.) and set the stage for the modern era.

About the only portion of the economic record that gives any credence to what you are saying is the inflation/deflation rate, which stood at -15% in 1912. That is the U.S. Dollar (which was still gold at the time) was worth 15% more than it was in 1800, indicating that the federal protection of the Federal Reserve and its bankers is an abberation as its insistence upon inflation. The purchasing power of the gold backed dollar would have likely continued to increase, leading to an improvement of the quality of living for everyone, as a benefit of the capitalist system that the United States had.

From 1913 on we've had a Federal Reserve that has consistently attempted to control the money supply, the end result has been 2200% inflation, a real growth rate of 1,600% for the period from 1913 - 2007, indicating that the increasing bureaucratic size backed by the imbecilic policies of a socialist agenda is not only decreasing America's ability to compete internationally in the global markets, but harming the ability of employees to find good jobs that pay decent wages instead of the bullshit mcjobs that are really only suitable for inexperienced teenagers and adults just entering the workforce.

From 1913 on the United States has seen a depression or recession every decade, and the continued atrophy of the industrial sector which is the sector that manufacturers goods that generate wealth for a nation. Wealth that often makes its way through the economy as more jobs, means more competition among employers which leads to labor being bid up even as prices continue to fall.

The rhetoric of socialism fails when examined against real world data.

Click to expand...

You still talk as though economic growth is everything to do with progress but it's not, you may be sitting pretty but the majority of the people in the world aren't, because of capitalism. And I think you'll find all the progresses of technology were down to the ingenuity of individuals and groups, not because of capitalism. There will still be technological progress in an anarchist society as we seek to make our lives easier by reducing work.

magicSpoons said:

You still talk as though economic growth is everything to do with progress but it's not, you may be sitting pretty but the majority of the people in the world aren't, because of capitalism. And I think you'll find all the progresses of technology were down to the ingenuity of individuals and groups, not because of capitalism. There will still be technological progress in an anarchist society as we seek to make our lives easier by reducing work.

Click to expand...

And what motivates these people to pursue their technological advances?

Though more importantly is once again your claims fail against real world data, over 60% of research conducted in the United States is funded by corporations. So much for Capitalism not leading to advances in technology, knowledge and methods.

Fuck anarchy

TheBrutalTruth said:

Now, the ladder that you are portraying is a fact of life. Even under your socialist system some people would find their services are valued more by others than the services provided by others.

Though once again you are now verging on the imbecility of talking about using force, fraud and coercion to control prices, which implies a Socialistic Tyranny, not the absence of a government. Like I said when I first posted, incompatible ideologies. Anarchy implies Capitalism, because Capitalism is the only system that will result when all threats of force and coercion are removed.

Communism implies a tyranny, because everything has to be regulated by some one, because if its not the world will suddenly revert back to being being "unfair."

Life is fair, it has never been fair, except maybe when humanity was still in the Garden of Eden. Of course you'd probably take umbrage at that, because God forced Adam and Eve to get off their asses and pick their own food.

All of which doesn't really touch your mention of this ladder, that you think is unique to Capitalism. Even under Communism there were a lower, middle and upper class, and this was a result of the fact that bureaucrats and party members were able to force the citizenry to pay them more using force.

In the absence of force, no one is going to voluntarily charge less than they need to make a profit, and pay off the credit extended to them when they were pursuing their degrees in Medicine, Law or Science.

Click to expand...

People are forced to work everyday in order to survive in capitalism, that's coercion, the police force and beauracratic institutions are in place to protect the rich using laws and brute force. Globalisation coerces people in another part of the world to submit to the economic domination of the world's rich and sell their lives day by day.

Communism implies fighting for freedom, nothing else. I don't know what you think you know about communism but you are clearly wrong.

Once again you try to revert to the argument that humans have some natural tendency to vy for power among each other, but I've already explained why that's not the case and that there's no such thing as an inbuilt 'human nature'.

And then again you go on about state communism showing that you yourself can't be bothered to actually read my replies. Not only are most of your arguments weak and fallacious, you actually try to tell me what I believe in. When in this thread have I supported state communism? Actually, I think you'll find I explained how state communism is actually capitalism on page 1, and is just another way the powerful exploited the poor. That's why there were classes.

And your last pargraph just seems to go off on a tangent I can't follow, using terms that aren't even applicable to the free society, there is no profit or credit because there is no money. No capital.

TheBrutalTruth said:

And what motivates these people to pursue their technological advances?

Though more importantly is once again your claims fail against real world data, over 60% of research conducted in the United States is funded by corporations. So much for Capitalism not leading to advances in technology, knowledge and methods.

Click to expand...

Maybe because they enjoy it, maybe because they want to see how society truly progresses when their inventions aren't explotied by capitalists for profit.

Of course capitalism funds technology, it makes money from it. And how does that weaken my argument?

ViRedd said:

You know what, MS ... you remind me of the little poor kid standing outside of the restaurant in the snow looking through the window at all the "rich" people eating their Christmas dinner. And, while your focused upon what the "rich" have, life is going on all around you. There are people hustling to earn a buck. Some work hard, save, invest, then take enormous risks by opening a business, or just striking out on their own and telling the corporate world good bye forever. Some make it and some don't. Some make it really big too. The thing to focus on, is to be sure you are not still looking through that restaurant window twenty-five years from now.

Vi

Click to expand...

But for most people they won't be able to move on, and when it comes to the end of their lives they will realise that focussing on an impossible goal was pointless because they had no control over their lives anyway.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Though, revisiting the arguments about National Socialism and Communism being the same. Same BS Rhetoric, Same Track Record of misery, and murder.

--------------

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...."

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture.... The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call-to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."

These statements were made in our century by the leader of a major Western nation. His countrymen regarded his view point as uncontroversial. His political program implemented it faithfully.

The statements were made by Adolf Hitler. He was explaining the moral philosophy of Nazism.

http://www.peikoff.com/lr/chapter1.htm

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with me or my ideology.

magicSpoons said:

That has nothing to do with me or my ideology.

Click to expand...

Has plenty to do with your ideology. Now, I can't blame you for not wanting to admit it.

But what you are ignoring is the fact that if the words nation or homeland, or whatever are replaced with world, or whatever it is that communists use then it describes your ideology to a T.

Nothing but talk about how individuals should sacrifice. Of course, it does seem you might not be as hell bent as some when it comes to allowing people to retain their freedom, but nonetheless you are still seeking to deprive them of their freedoms.

Not everyone wants to make the effort of running their own business, nor does everyone start out with the kind of expertise that is necessary to run a business. Of course, with out a government such pursuits would be infinitely easier, and it would be infinitely easier to save money to purse one's own goals.

On the entire concept of Anarchy, I am in agreement with you, but I do not see anarchy coming through communism, as such a system will either have to be enforced by a tyrannical government, or will lapse into Capitalism. Oh, of course, with out government to interfere people might act with more compassion for others, but that is a natural result of suddenly not having to try gasping for air under the boot hell of government.

Nor do I disagree that such compassion is a bad thing, I just believe it should be completely voluntary. Which, if I remember correctly, you stated that it would be. In truth, I can not see the difference between our adherence to anarchy, just in what we believe the outcome will be.

I do not see anarchy becoming communistic, not in the way you believe with the abolishment of private enterprise, and of business leaders, but more with communities being closer once the threat of government force, fraud and coercion are removed.

magicSpoons said:

People are forced to work everyday in order to survive in capitalism, that's coercion, the police force and beauracratic institutions are in place to protect the rich using laws and brute force. Globalisation coerces people in another part of the world to submit to the economic domination of the world's rich and sell their lives day by day.

Communism implies fighting for freedom, nothing else. I don't know what you think you know about communism but you are clearly wrong.

Once again you try to revert to the argument that humans have some natural tendency to vy for power among each other, but I've already explained why that's not the case and that there's no such thing as an inbuilt 'human nature'.

And then again you go on about state communism showing that you yourself can't be bothered to actually read my replies. Not only are most of your arguments weak and fallacious, you actually try to tell me what I believe in. When in this thread have I supported state communism? Actually, I think you'll find I explained how state communism is actually capitalism on page 1, and is just another way the powerful exploited the poor. That's why there were classes.

And your last pargraph just seems to go off on a tangent I can't follow, using terms that aren't even applicable to the free society, there is no profit or credit because there is no money. No capital.

Click to expand...

People would be forced to work anyway, otherwise they would not eat, as far as your claims that there would be no money. Perhaps you should contemplate just why money would come into being.

First, and of the utmost importance, is the fact that either your system resorts to slavery and enslaves the farmers, or you compensate them for their time. As it does not take a whole lot of people to produce a lot of food then it becomes necessary for other people to find other ways of producing something of value to give in exchange to the farmer.

This might be something as mundane as chopping wood, or as elaborate as making sure that the farmer's books balance. Now, in the case of the first, it might be possible for the forester to state that so many cords of wood are worth a sheep or an oxen, but what if they don't want sheep or oxen, but the farmer still wants the lumber?

The simple solution is for society to develop a method of exchange, in short, money. Now, as the forester doesn't want to be stuck lugging around tons of lumber, it comes around by agreement that they will use something like specially carved woodchips, or gold as currency.

And poof money, an expression of commodities that is used to smooth out irregularities in the markets is born. Instead of having to worry about keeping a sheep or oxen until he is ready to eat it, the forester can hold onto the money that he was given until he wants to buy a sheep or oxen from the farmer, or maybe a cow from a rancher, or another saw from the smith. Thus a commodity (money) becomes adopted as a system of exchange.

Provided that there is no artifical attempts to inflate the quantity of money then the currency that the forester accepted when he sold his lumber to the farmer should retain its value thus assuring the forester that it will hold its value and still be worth a sheep or oxen or two chickens when he goes to spend it.

Money is a necessity to have any kind of functioning society, a barter economy does not have enough liquidity of different commodity types to function with out money. You can't keep half a chicken or a bushel of grain indefinitely, but money (esp. metal) lasts for an indefinite period of time, thus making it the ideal medium of exchange.

Especially when it comes to the accountant mentioned above. How can his time be measured, except in some unit of a commodity (money) that both he and the farmer agree upon? And if he doesn't have a sheep or oxen, what good would it do for him to take another one and then try selling it?

Or perhaps the farmer is still raising new kids to sell off and thus does not want to part with them until they are ready to be butchered?

Once again the liquidity created by currency saves the barter economy from completely collapsing due to non-payment.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Has plenty to do with your ideology. Now, I can't blame you for not wanting to admit it.

But what you are ignoring is the fact that if the words nation or homeland, or whatever are replaced with world, or whatever it is that communists use then it describes your ideology to a T.

Nothing but talk about how individuals should sacrifice. Of course, it does seem you might not be as hell bent as some when it comes to allowing people to retain their freedom, but nonetheless you are still seeking to deprive them of their freedoms.

Not everyone wants to make the effort of running their own business, nor does everyone start out with the kind of expertise that is necessary to run a business. Of course, with out a government such pursuits would be infinitely easier, and it would be infinitely easier to save money to purse one's own goals.

On the entire concept of Anarchy, I am in agreement with you, but I do not see anarchy coming through communism, as such a system will either have to be enforced by a tyrannical government, or will lapse into Capitalism. Oh, of course, with out government to interfere people might act with more compassion for others, but that is a natural result of suddenly not having to try gasping for air under the boot hell of government.

Nor do I disagree that such compassion is a bad thing, I just believe it should be completely voluntary. Which, if I remember correctly, you stated that it would be. In truth, I can not see the difference between our adherence to anarchy, just in what we believe the outcome will be.

I do not see anarchy becoming communistic, not in the way you believe with the abolishment of private enterprise, and of business leaders, but more with communities being closer once the threat of government force, fraud and coercion are removed.

Click to expand...

Anarchist Communists have a long history of anti-fascism and anti-nazism since they came into being, whether its affinity groups or organisations like Antifa, we pretty much do our best to stop fascists,racists, Nazis from destroying the community.

And as for national liberation which is what you seem to describe in your second paragraph, where the working class and the rulers of one country try to throw off the dominance of rulers in another country, we do not support it, because once the country has liberated itself the rulers will just continue to oppress the working class.

No individual has to make a sacrifice, unlike in capitalism, because they are not forced to do anything by any institution or person, if they don't want to work for the community, that's fine. Of course people will have to work a few hours a day - but that's for survival - they won't have to work long hours because they aren't working for the capitalists - for the accumulation of capital. But working for survival is only a coercive issue in the sense that it is a part of nature - unlike in capitalism where they are forced to work long hours and payment is just enough to survive and perhaps buy some more items back from the capitalists. Whatever we do in this life, they always get our money. But of course the struggle for survival will be much lessened if people work together, not because they have to or are being forced to but because it indirectly benefits them too if they do so.

And as for anarcho-capitalism, that could possibly be the worst society to live in. If the coercive institutions are in the hands of the rich and there are no regulatory structures or laws created by a government, then the capitalists will be free to mercilessly exploit people, they could own entire markets and people would be wage salves once more, they could suffer the worst conditions and there would be nothing to save them. Their lives would be completely controlled b mega-capitalist let off their chain. Of course, that isn't anarchy because anarchy has no rulers and the power of these mega-capitlalists would eventually settle down and a new government would be formed.