If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[Zarathustra]

The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.

[1714171680]

1714171680

[1714171680]

1714171680

[1714171680]

1714171680

[MoonShadow]

The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.

This statement is false.  Many of the modern legal/corporate structures are finely grained in their differences in specifying both the possession and control of the collectively owned and maintained capital of the company.

Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.

Only in the sense that said appropration is by force, against the will or consent of those with a prior claim to that capital.  We do have corporate structures that are specificly designed to limit corporate ownership to present and/or former members of the corporate workforce.

Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on


 wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?

Can a capitalist enply non-coercive methods to maintain control of his capital?  Yes.  But the strawman you set up above should be set alight, because those are all examples of coercive methods.  Just because the cops are private thugs doesn't make it a non-coercive solution.

Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.

How are you going to afford the service robot?

I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

Good God, where do you people come up with this crap?

[MoonShadow]

The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.

Show me this ideal culture that you refer to.

[Zarathustra]

The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.

Show me this ideal culture that you refer to.

That was human reality (and still is at some unmissioned territories) most of the time in history, until the birth of the tragedy around 10'000 years ago, with the submission of the bovine first and the human later: the patriarchy.

Show me the place
where the word became a man
Show me the place
where the suffering began

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCtoVoE5Mm4

[conspirosphere.tk]

Re: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

"Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know."

[MoonShadow]

The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.

Show me this ideal culture that you refer to.

That was human reality (and still is at some unmissioned territories) most of the time in history, until the birth of the tragedy around 10'000 years ago, with the submission of the bovine first and the human later: the patriarchy.

That's just bullshit.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, a society that did not value "capital".  You just don't know what the hell capital actually is.  There have been a number of different cultures that treated personal property in a different manner that I can think of, but none failed to "accumulate capital" and managed to survive long enough to develop writing, or at least be noticed by a culture that had already developed writing, in order to be noticed by history.  If you can name a culture that you believe satisfys your conditions, name it so that I can point out your errors of fact. Otherwise your  just another socialist troll.

[Anon136]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

[Biomech]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

dunno if it's true, but we are certainly more vocal in the last couple years!

[Anon136]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

dunno if it's true, but we are certainly more vocal in the last couple years!

oh yea, we are growing much faster than they are, im sure of that. the big question though is do we outnumber them right now? i would be VERY interested to know that.

[myrkul]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

No hard numbers, no. Just a general sense of the community.

[Anon136]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

No hard numbers, no. Just a general sense of the community.

unfortunate. i have a feel for the size of our community but i dont have much of a feel for the size of their community so i personally have no idea how many of them there are.

[TomUnderSea]

"Because of Iceland's geographical location there was no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a national military force was absent.  "

Seems like the existence of the "other" always brings about the creation of military force and a government.

[Biomech]

"Because of Iceland's geographical location there was no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a national military force was absent.  "

Seems like the existence of the "other" always brings about the creation of military force and a government.

Knowing where the problems lie helps to formulate solutions, does it not ?

Yes, isolation has helped

[Anon136]

"Because of Iceland's geographical location there was no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a national military force was absent.  "

Seems like the existence of the "other" always brings about the creation of military force and a government.

it is my understanding that whales was borderline anarchic for about 100 years during which time they were under constant attack from the centralized state of brittan.

it is also my understanding that the Icelandic civilization collapsed due to internal corruption within the legal system (power that had been highly decentralized for years came under the control of a cartel of 5 prominent families). the invasion was a product of societal collapse not the other way around.

[myrkul]

it is my understanding that wales was borderline anarchic for about 100 years during which time they were under constant attack from the centralized state of Britain.

Ireland stood up for 600 years (out of a 1000 or more as a stateless society) under the assault of the Britons, finally falling when their technology lagged.

[Anon136]

it is my understanding that wales was borderline anarchic for about 100 years during which time they were under constant attack from the centralized state of Britain.

Ireland stood up for 600 years (out of a 1000 or more as a stateless society) under the assault of the Britons, finally falling when their technology lagged.

another good example. how about afganistan today? obviously its not an anarchist paradise but it may suffice to reiterate the point. their society is highly decentralized and subject to numerous attacks which they have had great success defending themselves against.

[myrkul]

it is my understanding that wales was borderline anarchic for about 100 years during which time they were under constant attack from the centralized state of Britain.

Ireland stood up for 600 years (out of a 1000 or more as a stateless society) under the assault of the Britons, finally falling when their technology lagged.

another good example. how about afganistan today? obviously its not an anarchist paradise but it may suffice to reiterate the point. their society is highly decentralized and subject to numerous attacks which they have had great success defending themselves against.

It's certainly a fine example of how hard it is to "win" against a decentralized foe.

[Biomech]

it is my understanding that wales was borderline anarchic for about 100 years during which time they were under constant attack from the centralized state of Britain.

Ireland stood up for 600 years (out of a 1000 or more as a stateless society) under the assault of the Britons, finally falling when their technology lagged.

another good example. how about afganistan today? obviously its not an anarchist paradise but it may suffice to reiterate the point. their society is highly decentralized and subject to numerous attacks which they have had great success defending themselves against.

Since a guy named Alexander was kicking around. The Hill Men have never been defeated in the long run. They understand what the American military has forgotten, even though the lesson has been thrust upon them again and again. Armies are made to fight armies. Militias are made to fight invaders.

A generally armed and competent polity is unbeatable. The goal of a militia is not to gain points on a scoreboard, like it is for two armies. It's goal is to make the invasion unsustainable.

This tactic has generally been called guerilla warfare until just a bit after September 11, 2001. Now it's called terrorism, which is only an element of the strategy to begin with. Terrorism is intended to demoralize an enemy and render them so afraid that they overreact and overcommit. For an easy modern example, look to the United States. In the name of protecting "us", by which the sons of bitches mean themselves, agencies such as the KGBDHS come into existence. The likelihood of them stopping or even slowing a determined guerilla unit is almost nil, but that doesn't stop them from oppressing the peoplesheep. The very existence of such agencies is a victory for the terrorist tactic, and neither prevents nor aids the guerilla warfare. But the heightened fear and excessive police state will eventually lead to the downfall of the targeted government.

In a more direct militia confrontation, that is a minor element. The major element is attrition. Militia perform terribly on a set-piece battlefield. Armies perform terribly against militia who are properly utilized. A man with a rifle cannot stand against an armored division. But sooner or later the people in those tanks will have to take a piss. Then that man, and his confederates, will take ONE shot. One less tank crewmember, and the militiaman has faded back into the general populace.

The Army will then escalate, committing more atrocities, but doing nothing to make themselves more secure. They further inflame the populace, leading to active recruiting to the militias without any effort on the side of the defenders. Where this is organized, such as Switzerland, the nation becomes literally uninvade-able. I cannot recall the names of the generals involved, but during World War Two, there were a million Nazi troops on the Swiss border. The Swiss general and German general spoke to one another. This is paraphrased cuz I don't feel like looking it up right now. But it's close.

"What will you do now sir, with your vaunted 500,000 man militia, with a million german troops on your border?"

"Well sir, my men will fire twice and go home."

Bravado? Perhaps. The Germans stayed on their side of the border!

But it also illustrates the point! The State soldier, while possibly idealistic, is fighting for the State's goals. I won't debate the merit of that right now, my sig should tell you where I stand on the issue. But nevertheless, the state soldier is fighting for an abstract, whereas the militiaman is fighting for his home, wife, children, and property. Who do you think is the more motivated?

And of course there is the issue of sheer numbers. You cannot defeat the entire population of an area without exterminating them. That is usually infeasable and usually political suicide. Genocide, while bandied about quite a bit, always proves unpopular with the neighbors.

Knowing the foregoing, it is wise for EVERY man to get well trained and adequately armed, regardless of the current state of his affairs and that of his current rulers. Things can and do change for the worse overnight. Fortune favors the prepared, and the most prepared tend to be individualists, the most prepared individualists (IMAO) are anarchists.

[myrkul]

Well, that can't really be improved upon, except to recommend this excellent book as further reading.

[NewLiberty]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

dunno if it's true, but we are certainly more vocal in the last couple years!

oh yea, we are growing much faster than they are, im sure of that. the big question though is do we outnumber them right now? i would be VERY interested to know that.

Anarchy is not a democracy.