Bitcoin Forum

Good one.

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

by definition, anarchy is not based on hierarchy, existent or otherwise. It literally means "no hierarchy". Fail.

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Go back to school and learn to read.

.........EXACTLY........ did you read the actual post?

Because there is no acknowledgment of human hierarchy is the reason why it is fantasy.

Then you need to learn how to write. What you apparently meant and what you wrote are not the same thing. "anarchy [is] based on...hierarchy." doesn't mean the same thing at all as
"anarchy is based on the belief that hierarchy doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, can't exist or doesn't necessarily have to exist."

Its very simple to understand the difference between what someone claims and what they really offer. I know you need to act all cocky and aggressive because of your insecurity, but if you drop the attitude you will understand it.

Go take it up with Wikipedia.

Can you please clarify? I'm genuinely interested your point about how I wrote it.

I wrote  "anarchy [is] based on... [non-existent] hierarchy." ? That is incorrect?
And you acknowledge that what I'm trying to say is: "anarchy is based on the belief that hierarchy doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, can't exist or doesn't necessarily have to exist." ?

Not worth the key-strokes.

You know what, you're right.

I've noticed something similar.

AnCapist: The free market will solve everything.
Other: Well, we've had a very free market and it hasn't solved [issue].
AnCapist: That's because the market wasn't free enough. We've never had a free market.

Communist: Communism will solve everything.
Other: Well, it's been tried and it didn't solve [issue].
Communist: That's because we didn't go far enough. We never had real communism.

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=difference+between+communism+and+anarcho-communism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to It and learn how to ride them.

Social-democrat: Social-democracy will help everybody.
Other: Then why does it always concentrate the wealth in a few hands and hurts the poor?
Social-democrat: Because this is not a real democracy. We need a real democracy.

Oddly enough I've never heard any social democrat say something like that. "Most fair distribution" or "Least unfair distribution" perhaps.

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

Communism: bash people on the head until someone gives.

Just another random thought.

A good teacher is one that can train a pupil to defeat the teacher in any particular discipline. Since the market is full of competitive selfish agents, then what incentive is there to create another agent that can defeat you? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Maybe the market can not solve all of societies needs.

The ideal teacher is someone seeking defeat. Seeking to make someone stronger than themselves. Such an agent can not survive in a free market.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.

You neglect the fact that not all market entities derive value from just the collection of the most monetary profit.

In addition, to say the market cannot solve all of societies needs is to say man is incapable of fulfilling all of his own desires.

Survival within the ideal free market is based upon the ability to create monetary profit. If an agent does not function this way then it will not survive.

And yes I do believe that there are instances that an individual can not solve their own desires. A baby can not. Someone less educated in a particular topic cannot. It is false to assume everyone is an oracle of knowledge, which is what you imply. You imply that the baby has all of the knowledge of the mother. Or the economist has all of the knowledge of the scientist. Therefore there is no need to force anyone else to correct their decision making.

Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

The notion of "free market" is a human construct with value strictly defined as "monetary".

You have been terribly wrong -- whomever taught you this.

So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?

So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?

Empathy -> Charity.

How many charities do you think would survive in the "free market" ?  We are going to live in a donation economy?

They would thrive. People derive a lot of value from helping their fellow man. Free markets are about serving desires and they do not exclude charitable ones.

I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree.  I also think that people derive value from helping there fellow man. They won't care enough for charities to make a meaningful impact. They won't care enough for teachers to educate others to the same extent I outlined prior. (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23047.msg295535#msg295535) How many people would teach someone else to replace them at their current job?

Charity hospitals thrived prior to the 1920s in the United States. There's plenty of historical evidence that charities do in fact work and work better in voluntary societies. To address your teaching argument, look at wikipedia and all of this free information.

Plenty of people now and in the past have taken on apprentices. There's always a constant need for workers as our population expands. There's also an increasing need for innovation. In addition, jobs aren't scarce, when the economy isn't artificially limited. It's not a zero-sum game. Wealth can be created. It isn't limited by matter nor our current paradigm.

Ya ok, I'll concede half a point on the wikipedia and other internet sources of info. But there is a difference between quality and quantity.  I mean all this free information has done is raised the baseline level of education, assuming you have access to the net and can read. But there is still a gap created by the mode of delivery. I.e Private schools are more likely to be able to better deliver the content than say a struggling public school.

But I disagree with your second statement( of course !). Once all entitlements to essential resources within an economy are delegated, then there is no mechanism to force sharing with new inhabitants. So employment is dictated by those who hold entitlements to essential resources. And sure people had apprentices, but their intention wasn't to have them become better than themselves. The apprentice usually had to perform menial tasks before being taught, therefore providing an economic incentive to teach an apprentice. Nonetheless there would have been instances when an apprentice was taught out of good heart, but I do not believe this would have been common.

Also technology, generally removes employment. Sure there is some forms of technology that increase employment, like say a water-slide with lifeguards, but that is a form of individual consumerism. There is no mandatory mechanism forcing anyone to use the pool. If you have a collapse in consumer confidence then they are out of the job. Only those working to distribute essential resources will retain their job.

Charity and Business a two different things.

Charity is an entity that exists to make a loss. If it is not making a loss then it is not a charity. A charity's goals and a business's goals are completely opposite. When given cash a charity has to weigh-up weather to "waste" the cash, or re-invest in the hope of increasing "market-share". A business on the other hand can invest the cash to create future profit, and use the cash to further increase market-share. A business can grow at an exponential rate, a charity can not due to it's mandate.

What about Nordic public schools? They have no incentive, except from the electorate. They seem to be doing alright.

When an entity fails the entitlements will go to someone else who already has entitlements to essential resources, they will trade essential resource for non/essential or essential resources. Therefore the subset of the population that was initially allocated the essential resources will retain the essential resources.

Your assuming that the new technology actually needs people. Look at the outcomes from the industrial revolution. The technology your talking about is based on the demand from individual consumerism. Any technology that makes it easier to acquire new resources, reduces the need for people.

If there is a collapse in consumer confidence, that means people will be out of work and less likely to spend.

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

I'm asking the same question I asked here:

It's a non-question. People naturally trade and are always willing. Everyone perishes without trade.

I'm asking the same question I asked here:

On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?

billyjoeallen, thank you for raising my IQ by a point or so.

Never heard of these voluntary societies, sounds like communism.

Are you disputing the point? Is it an unreasonable assumption? The whole point of the hypothetical was apparently to argue that huts, fishing equipment, firewood and clothing just magically appear, that coconuts gather themselves, fish jump into frying pans, and Unicorns poop skittles, thereby obviating the need to work. Such a hypothetical is useful for rationalizing a flawed ideology, but not for much else. It is entertaining, though.

Okay I could have made it clearer. All essential resources have been split-up. The 5 people harvest the produce and trade between themselves. They are all shrewd dealers and will not give something for nothing. How is the 6th person has nothing to offer, how are they suppose to get non-essential resources?

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   

Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.

Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

I can take it further, will it be a fair trade? Those 5 are the ones with power. They dictate the terms of the contract.

Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.

Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

Flatly, No. It is not possible that someone has nothing to offer, unless that person is a quadriplegic simpleton. Labor is always in demand, and one can always trade a little sweat of the brow for a chunk of the pie.

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.

Ever read lord of the flies?

(Socialist) anarchists do not oppose hierarchical structure, but rather coercive power relationships.

This sounds interesting, this flavor in my mind may actually work! So who decides what is a coercive power relationship? My initial impression is that this is something like decentralized socialism.

I respectfully decline.

No, seriously. Not only will that help you see how your island scenario is flawed, when you get assigned the book in 8th grade, you'll have already read it!

Oh but I am steadfast in my disapproval at such a request.

I fail to understand how this is relevant. As you say Lord of the Flies is about how a group of school boys on an island. Everything falls apart, right? How does that support your perspective? If anything it shows that these "children" needed a state to govern them.

Are you assuming everyone knows this in the island scenario therefore they will not take the path of the school boys?

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

Okay, so your saying that if the 5 people were anarchists(not the socialist flavor), and they collude according to above then there is nothing stopping the 5 from exploiting the stranger ?

This scenario will never occur? The people with essential resources would never use their power to create a new age of slavery in non-socialist anarchy? And this is a cornerstone of non-socialist anarchy?

So what exactly obligates the four to obey the non-aggression principle? Or do we just assume that all citizens are perfect non-socialist anarchists ?

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

So your scenario is irrelevant.

This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant.

So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?

So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism?

I never fail to find something relevant by hitting up XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/706/

Ha ha, nice. Perhaps that's what I should do next time?

"But in an anarchy what--"

WHAM

"Well, what stopped me in the current society?"

Lol

We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

But if that doesn't happen today, why would it happen in an AnCap society? Oligopolys are broken up regularly.
It seems that basic human greed is what creates an oligopoly, not breaks up one.

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies. It's funny, really. If they'd just left it alone, when the profit margin got high enough, someone would have stepped in and made a good profit breaking up that cartel. Instead, they made a monopoly, and regulated the heck out of it, to keep any competition from coming in.

I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies.

THEY made a monopoly? How do you make a monopoly by fining the companies who broke the law, put those responsible behind bars and tell everyone to follow the rules? That's how we handle oligopolies where I come from. How do you do it? Companies can still continue to operate, just within the rules.
Perhaps you just have a crappy government that needs to be replaced? Start campaigning.

   The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful
   attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price:

                     . . . the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so long as oil
                     comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market
                     for it.

                     ... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; and as to
                     those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great
                     to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to
                     prevent the oil coming at that price ....

   Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state
   governments have succeeded where the oil producers of 1872 failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state
   restrictions on production, they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

   It is widely believed that railroads in the late nineteenth century wielded almost unlimited monopoly power. Actually,
   as Kolko shows, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of
   railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along
   its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes—twenty existed
   between St. Louis and Atlanta, for instance. Railroad rebates, frequently cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually
   the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via a
   competitor.

   Rail executives often got together to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months,
   for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the
   agreement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal
   customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in. J. P. Morgan
   committed his enormous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met with almost
   unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for example, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association to
   control rates among the western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where
   it had been before he intervened.

   By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created by the
   federal government with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's
   original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it to help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

   During the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first in the direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates
   (which, Kolko estimates, were costing the railroads 10 percent of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power
   to set rates.

   The people with the greatest interest in what the ICC did were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they
   dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices that they had been unable to get
   on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker, one of the original appointees to the
   ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the
   board of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads as a cartelizing agent up to the present
   day; in addition, it has expanded its authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, where
   possible, from undercutting the railroads.

Citation needed.

[1] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company)

So AT&T was broken up into a bunch of small companies.  Cool story, I just have a couple questions.


1. How does that prove your point?

2. You said "most" broken up are replaced by monopolies... yet you only give one example.  Where are all the others to prove this "most" statement?

Ah, back to the semantics game.  I guess the McDonald's down the street from me is a monopoly because it is the only dining establishment located on that 100'x100' piece of ground. ::)




LOL at little monopoly.  There's no such thing.  They're little because they're not monopolies.


You said MOST oligopolies (not monopolies) are broken up and become a monopoly instead.  You still have not proved this. Show me an OLIGOPOLY (that's a GROUP of companies) that got broken up and turned into ONE BIG monopoly company.

In order for me to prove anything to you, We'll need to share a language. And while all the words you use are English, I don't think we define most of them the same way.

re·gion/ˈrējən/Noun
1. An area or division, esp. part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
2. An administrative district of a city or country.

Because once you set those laws up, businesses often lobby to change them to their favor. Here's a chunk of text from Machinery of Freedom (http://"http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf"):

'Wall-o-text'-deleted.

It's from reading the occasion news article like this RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases (http://"http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars") which makes me believe the process is still common today.

"100'x100'", huh?

I'm not going to let you skip out on this one.

I think the Federal Reserve may be an example of the government "breaking up" an oligopoly and replacing it with a monopoly.  The Federal Reserve Act was written by a bunch of bankers to give themselves a monopoly on the banking system and passed by the government.

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization ;) . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine (http://www.withurwe.com/) who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)

Oooo... That book looks nice.

Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)

Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  :)

I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us? ;)

;)

Or maybe both you, myrkul, and smellyBobby are satoshi...

We're bound to evolve as a species. There are no set laws.

Canarchy(Anarcho-Capitalist) just like Communism will deviate from the ideal definition. Communism presents an utopian state, just like Canarchy does. So if the utopian state presented by Communism is impossible, then so is the utopian state presented by Canarchy. Don't dismiss the ideal definitions of other ideologies and expect that your definitions are flawless. That the utopian rules that your present are somehow above the utopian rules presented by another ideology.

Sanarchy(Anarcho-Socialist) has presented a mechanism with explicitly dealing with human hierarchy. Canarchy still has no explicit method of dealing with human hierarchy.

So it will not produce utopia? Okay, so what will be the non-utopian elements of Canarchy?

And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human-hierarchy?

Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy? (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24594.msg309819#msg309819)

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?

Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy? (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24594.msg309819#msg309819)

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?

I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

It's hard to say whether anarchism and communism are alike, because there are different flavors of both ideologies. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism, which doesn't really work too well with communist ideals.

Incorrect.  Voluntary communism is perfectly permissible inside of an anarcho-capitalist society.  Just not the other way around ;)

I didn't read the entire thread, but I disagree with the OP.

Anonymous for example can be considered an anarchist organization in the sense that there is no central leadership or hierarchy. However, this does not prevent the forming of cells and networks that have their own internal hierarchy. I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

While this may be stretching the definition of anarchism a bit, I feel that a society that works with 'cells', where every cell has its own structure (be it communist, socialist, or anything else), and the only rule was to not actively interfere with other cells and their structures... would still fit the definition of anarchism, and would definitely have a chance of working.

It would be considerable different from communism, where everyone is forced to adhere to a centralized communist system.

And before people ask - yes, 'humanity/mankind' as a whole could probably be considered anarchist.

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it does not have any explicit mechanism to deal with coercive hierarchies.

mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

Canarchy like communism 'hopes' that no subset of the population forms an organization, and becomes powerful enough to enslave the rest.

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Could you not have voluntary communism without a State?

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.


anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue?  I have a company, so I hire you.  I am the owner, and you are the employee.  You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise).  *fails to see the problem*

As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

Is this topic a joke.  Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government.  in summary they are complete opposites.

Funny since the vast majority of the original anarchist theorists identified as either explicitly anarcho-communist or strongly collectivist in other ways.

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

But you have a Lockean view of property and I don't, so my examples of a coercive hierarchy will often seem perfectly acceptable to you, but not to someone with a different understanding of property (Proudhon of course, and quite a few others as well)

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

I don't follow. Could you explain the logic of that one?

I mean that, from my perspective, we need basic rules or laws to make possible a society, which would not be possible if based only on individual rules. I may be wrong, but I think a balance is the best. Moral values to individual being, and social laws for society.

Of course, thats my perspective, but I have hope in "soft" anarchysm.

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

Ah, thank you.  So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over.  This is a valid concern.  Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond:  What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

So ??

So ??

I want to, but can't believe in communism or anarchism, because there is no ONE practical evidence they can work, at least in the actual humanity (for tranhumans, maybe).

Even the "primitive" comunities have a basic form government... Even in classrooms students creates their own social structure and "game rules", accepted or not by the most of them.

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

I find people who call themselves Anarchists are usually just Socialists and they simply can't define either one. Communist dictators are well known to have supported Anarchism as a method of tearing down the existing system to make way for Communism. The two are inexorably linked.

It is funny when people label themselves but don't really get what it means what they are subscribing to.

Ok, Anarchism or simply put chaos as a way to establish Communism as a solution, that has happened.

But in my opinion Anarcho Communism is not practically possible. It's in the nature of people to want to own things. And how then if there is no rule of law can there be no private ownership, which Communism is by definition.

Anarchy is a family unit governing itself.

I don't agree. Anarchy is when in a family unit everyone does whatever he/she dares.  ;)

No anarchy there, except when the hand tries to strangle the body that it is attached to.

There is daring in every form of government, just to make governmental control over others exist.

8)