[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baphomet / britfeel / hisrol / hwndu / jewtube / jp / ss / tingles ]

/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

No Rulers
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 1466904268582.jpg (17.48 KB, 720x533, 720:533, muh_fallacies.jpg)

 No.10259

In the interest of keeping the board from being cluttered with shitposts about why anarchy wouldn't work: Please post all questions or topics pertaining to debating anarchism here.

This still isn't an excuse to post whatever the fuck you want. Think before you post, and try to put in at least a little effort by doing some research or something. You most likely will find any answer pertaining to how anarchy is supposed to work and how anarchists respond to potential problems with anarchism on An Anarchist FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/book.html

 No.10283

Not really about anarchy, but why is this a specifically leftist board? Below the title, it states (hue),"Anti-capitalist and anti-state". This board should be specifically for anarchists rather than a board for your special form of gommunism. All leftist topics should refer itself to /leftypol/, and with the same to right-leaning topics to /pol/. To create a board that out-groups specific individuals that are housed in a specific area of your ideology makes this board look like a branched off version of /leftypol/ and personally, would make this board somewhat a waste of space.


 No.10284

File: 1466997618793.png (44.17 KB, 428x524, 107:131, gamesphere master race.png)

>>10283

Are you implying that all anarchists aren't anti-capitalist? Are we going to kick off the thread with a shitposting war about why ayncrap isn't anarchism?


 No.10285

File: 1466997952225.jpg (210.03 KB, 623x527, 623:527, 1466746047483.jpg)

>>10284

Of course not! I already know that an-cap exists, and there are an certain amount of people that belong or say they belong to that ideology. I base my entire post on the description under the title. It seems to me like you read like three words of my post and scoffed.


 No.10286

>>10284

Oh, I apologize, I misread your post. Still, however, my point still stands.


 No.10287

>>10285

>>10286

Hmm, okay, well I think I see the point you're making then.

The reason for the description of the board goes back to the early days of /anarcho/ when there were shitposting wars between the anarchists and the ayncraps who wanted to be included here. There was some controversy over the description, and the BO decided to leave it up presumably as a statement against the ayncraps. Because all anarchists - even post-left ones - are anti-capitalist.

I do agree though that this should be a board for anarchists first and foremost, not for "leftists", and it is my hope to distance this board from /leftypol/ and to serve a different function. But that's basing things on my own views on anarchy/anarchism, and on what I feel is the general consensus of contemporary anarchists; I'm not against anarcho-communists or syndicalists, and I'm sympathetic to communism in fact, but there's already enough of a dominance of leftism and leftist bullshit coming from /leftypol/ that has lead to some misconceptions about anarchy and anarchism.

Is that what you're getting at? I can change the description to be something like "Against all hierarchies" to better represent the board as a non-sectarian space for anarchists and anarchists first and foremost.


 No.10289

>>10287

Realistically speaking, there is no description that is going to satisfy everyone. The amount of ideas that come to be regarded as "anarchist" can be quite antagonistic.


 No.10292

>>10287

Ahh, I understand now. It's the history of the board that defines the description, and not a forced definition. The description seems a little biased and conflicting with the main purpose of this board, for what I can understand, this board is about anarchy discussion, and not just simply anarchy discussion minus capitalism.

>>10289

Nice ID


 No.10293

>>10292

Fairly certain all TOR posters get 000…


 No.10294

>>10289

That is true, but I feel like any actual anarchist will agree that anarchy mean the abolition of hierarchy, right?

>>10292

Well, what should the description be then? We do still occasionally get ayncrap shitposters, but I don't think they're enough of a problem anymore that there needs to be any blatant messages on the top of the board to make the point that we're not an ayncrap board.

>>10293

^


 No.10295

>>10294

Probably something like "Anti-state discussion" Something simple


 No.10297

>>10295

See, the problem I have with that is that I feel like it's just way too easy for people to wrongly interpret that as being something compatible with a right "libertarian" or ayncrap position. Or hell, even a Nationalist "Anarchist" position. People tend to think that anarchism is only anti-state, and forget that the State is really only one component of the metastructure of hierarchy in general - or authority in general, maybe.

I don't necessarily feel the need to push a "leftist" identity for the board anymore since we succeeded in pushing out the ayncraps, but I also think that there's still the possibility that the board could be slid by reactionaries if we're not careful. It happens all the fucking time on 8chan.

But then again, there's also the risk of the board being slid by alt-left /leftypol/ people. So basically I'm not sure what to do myself about it.


 No.10298

>>10297

Well, not all definitions of anarchy are going to be the same, and not necessarily "right". My definition of anarchy is anti-state, so already there is a conflict here. I think it should boil down the most simplest definition, which is anarchy is anti-state, and it should branch out from there, continuing adding to the definition.

My first post, however, was answered, so I shouldn't meddle to much into the "politics" of a board I don't subscribe to.


 No.10302

>>10283

>>10287

>>10289

>>10292

>>10294

>>10298

>Thus the word State is often used to describe a special kind of society, a particular human collectivity gathered together in a particular territory and making up what is called a social unit irrespective of the way the members of the said collectivity are grouped or of the state of relations between them. It is also used simply as a synonym for society. And because of these meanings given to the word State, opponents believe, or rather they pretend to believe, that anarchists mean to abolish every social bond, all collective work, and to condemn all men to living in a state of isolation, which is worse than living in conditions of savagery.

>The word State is also used to mean the supreme administration of a country: the central power as opposed to the provincial or communal authority. And for this reason others believe that anarchists want a simple territorial decentralisation with the governmental principle left intact, and they thus confuse anarchism with cantonalism and communalism.

>Finally, State means the condition of being, a way of social life, etc. And therefore we say, for instance, that the economic state of the working class must be changed or that the anarchist state is the only social state based on the principle of solidarity, and other similar phrases which, coming from us who, in another context, talk of wanting to abolish the State can, at first hearing, seem fantastic or contradictory.

>For these reasons we believe it would be better to use expressions such as abolition of the State as little as possible, substituting for it the clearer and more concrete term abolition of government.

government = state + bosses/hierarchy


 No.10304

File: 1467135842026.jpg (94.71 KB, 624x322, 312:161, Rgw9kpR.jpg)

>>10298

Best I can do is "Anti-Authoritarian"

I want to create a non-sectarian anarchist space and disassociate the board from being like a hard "leftist" anarchist board (by which I mainly mean classical anarchism), but if this ends up inviting in ayncraps to shitpost about how capitalism isn't authoritarian because it's "voluntary", I'll have to change it back.

>>10302

This also makes a good albeit unrelated point to mine. I think at bottom that the State is also a loaded and possibly vague concept that can be interpreted in different ways, and the anarchist critique of the State is in this context a concrete critique of authoritarian, bureaucratic modes of governance.


 No.10737

>>10302

>implying that any conceivable state of human living other than those which involve all men being isolated from each other will ever lack hierarchy.

Hierarchy is an inherent quality of a universe where resources are scarce, and not all organisms have equal abilities or qualities. So long as both of these facts remain true, all social interactions, human or otherwise, will be hierarchical.


 No.10738

>>10737

What about all the anarchist experiments like the Zapatistas, Anarchist Spain, Free territory in Ukraine? Or daily life interactions like friendship, love or sex? What about coops and anarchist organizations? Surely all of these aren't hierarchical.


 No.10739

>>10738

Are you joking? Those are the exact scenarios I am alluding to. You can abolish the state, and you can pressure people to organize businneses in a communal fashion, but hierarchical qualities still exist. All human relationships are hierarchical and all organizations that have more than one member are hierarchical. Even if the hierarchy is not overt, but a subtle background part of the machination, the hierarchy is still present.

There are leaders whose words are respected. In all relationships one person holds more power in the relationship than the other. Power, even if it is not physical, or the power of traditional corporate hierarchies, is still present in every part of life.

This is fundamentally the beef that "Anarcho" leftists have with voluntaryists or "ayncraps". ayncraps want to abolish illegitimate coercion (coercion by violence, the state) and and leftists want to abolish all coercion. A task which is both impossible and without any logical motivation, since coercion is not inherently evil, it's just something that most people have a sentiment, or emotional resistance towards. If by coercion you mean "pressure to act" then there is nothing inherently wrong or undesirable about "pressures to act" existing.


 No.10740

>>10739

>All human relationships are hierarchical and all organizations that have more than one member are hierarchical. Even if the hierarchy is not overt, but a subtle background part of the machination, the hierarchy is still present.

By which definition of hierarchy? I am part of an anarchist group of about 20 people, and we organize conferences, meetings, we make propaganda and all that jazz. I can assure you that decisions are reached by consensus.

>In all relationships one person holds more power in the relationship than the other.

Can you elaborate? For example in a friendship I don't see how me or my friend have power over the other.


 No.10741

>>10740

In that organization, not everyone plays the same role. There are undoubtedly some people who have more influence over the consensus that is reached than others. (likely those who are seen as the brightest or most capable).

The same goes for interactions with friends. There is always a push and pull in relationships, a give and take. And some can always get away with taking more than they give because they are the one who needs the other less. If, it is true that you are interested in each other for whatever reason. Cool, stories, good sense of humor, friends with many girls, whatever it may be.

Human action is purposeful:

In brief, all conscious human action is done in order to improve circumstances. (Regardless of what one's meaning of improve or desires are)

The power your friend holds over you, is that in order to receive what you desire from him, you must act in a certain way.

For example, you must listen when he speaks, or drive to see him. Some things that he does may be of no interest to you, but in order to continue the friendship, you must do them. Like, laughing at jokes he makes that aren't very funny, or comforting him when he is sad. His leverage, power, or ability to coerce you is what he is able to pressure you into doing in order to receive the things you desire from him.

There is no difference between this relationship and that of the employer and the employee. The employee desires some things from the employer. The employer's power over the employee is his capacity to "coerce" or pressure the employee into giving the employer what he desires, in exchange for what the employee desires. Similarly, the employee's power over the employer (though it may often be disproportionate, it still exists) is the employee's ability to coerce the employer to give the employee what he wants in exchange for what the employer desires.


 No.10747

>>10738

Military hierarchies. And don't give me "they voted" as a response.


 No.10749

>>10741

>There are undoubtedly some people who have more influence over the consensus that is reached than others. (likely those who are seen as the brightest or most capable).

Some have more charisma and more experience, yes, but even a total newbie could put his veto and cancel the decision.

>The power your friend holds over you, is that in order to receive what you desire from him, you must act in a certain way.

Sounds more like exchange than power/hierarchy to me. If I say to my friend "hey let's go to this pub tonight", he can say "yes" and we will go, or he can say "no" and we won't go, if there was power/hierarchy, then his answer wouldn't matter, he would be forced to go anyway.

Maybe I sound dense but it really seems to me that you are stretching the meaning of "hierarchy" a bit too much.


 No.11357

>>10294

> anarchy mean the abolition of hierarchy,

sounds authoritarian. why can't i join a hierarchy voluntarily?


 No.11363

File: d228fe863318728⋯.png (171.72 KB, 684x960, 57:80, Ramon Mercader.png)

>>10289

>Realistically speaking, there is no description that is going to satisfy everyone. The amount of ideas that come to be regarded as "anarchist" can be quite antagonistic.

So … can I has Anarchist Stalin and non-State of USSR?


 No.11463

>>11357

I think the point is, with the word 'hierarchy', that it is non-voluntary by definition. To defer to a doctor's opinion on my health is not what I would call a hierarchy, nor is to defer to the opinion of a strategist in war, or a cobbler in shoemaking. If it were a hierarchy, there would be something in place to keep me from opting out.


 No.11472

Regarding Platformism:

In the Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft), in IV. The Negation of Democracy

>Democracy preserves intact the principle of capitalist private property. In so doing, it reserves the right of the bourgeoisie to control the entire economy of the country, as well as the press, education, science and art, which in practice makes the bourgeoisie the absolute master of the country. […] As a result, democracy is merely one variety of bourgeois dictatorship, its fictitious political freedoms and democratic guarantees are a smokescreen designed to conceal its true identity.

This is refering to *borgeouis* democracy (representative, state democracy, etc.), right? Not democracy without the state or hierarchy, as is commonplace in anarchism, right?

I'm confuse.


 No.11474

>>11472

>

This is refering to *borgeouis* democracy (representative, state democracy, etc.), right? Not democracy without the state or hierarchy, as is commonplace in anarchism, right?

you are correct.


 No.11475

>>11472

Also read more and you wont be so confuse.


 No.11478

>>11475

danks gomrade love u


 No.11607

http://news.infoshop.org/opinion/anarchism-and-nationalism-uri-gordon

Can someone explain in basic terms what this is saying?


 No.11875

>>10259

Apparently no one asked, so here is my question:

What happen if an organised gang/cartel/mafia with weapons and money in their pocket decide you are an easy target for pillaging/fun/slavery?

Do you expect militias without a command chain to counter a real opponent?

I have read most of you guys are anti guns. The Commune of Paris, the Spanish "socialists" and the black army of the Cossack in Ukraine were all about guns. How can you expect to be taken seriously and to exist at all if you don't have some iron to show?


 No.11876

>>11875

What happens if an alien monster comes down and eats everyone? You can talk about hypotheticals like that forever and not get anywhere.

For there to be gun control, there has to be a state, so anarchists aren't anti-gun. The view of anarchists supporting welfare states, gun control etc mainly comes from Noam Chomsky, who said that he doesn't really see himself as an anarchist thinker.


 No.11877

File: 70ba3f5a2403fe4⋯.jpg (613.54 KB, 1500x1159, 1500:1159, Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs….jpg)

>>11876

Organised crime and other countries are more common than aliens. In fact, you should be prepared to deal with them because all of them will see an opportunity.

So, if some of you have guns but not the others, it would require a lot of discipline or morals from everyone with a gun to not take advantage of the situation.

I don't know for you, but if the weather was bad for crops, there is not enough to feed everyone, I have guns and you have food, no matter my political opinion, I will take the food.


 No.11878

>>11877

A social revolution goes a lot deeper than most people assume when making these arguments, it's a complete change of values and the way people relate to each other. Anarchism isn't just magically disappearing the state and then leaving everything te same otherwise, the state is ultimately a way people relate to each other.


 No.11879

>>11878

Wait… Are you thinking that everyone will magically adhere to some values of your choice and defend them with their life? We will whiteness an alien invasion before it happen.

Everyone is against cannibalism and no one can believe thy will eat human flesh in the future, yet, when there is nothing to eat, it happen. People do what they have to do to stay alive. Morals and ideals come after.


 No.11880

>>11879

In the first place, anarchism can't have an impact unless most people believe it.


 No.11881

>>11880

And what if a small number of people with guns don't have anarchist values?


 No.11882

>>11881

Then they'll have to contend with a large number of people with guns I guess.


 No.11883

>>11882

So, you expect a large majority of the people to not only choose to not take advantage of others even if they can, but also to fight for others just because it's the moral thing to do?

You know what, actions are louder than words. You go first.


 No.11884

>>11883

But anarchism is one of the only political movements which has self-interest as one of the main things. Even syndicalism, there's a book on the history of syndicalism called "Fighting for Ourselves". I'm not expecting anything, but I want to work to make what I believe in happen in the ways that it can.


 No.11885

>>11884

I don't know if it will ever happen, but I know it will not be what you want it to be.

We all have dreams. I have political dreams where everyone is nice too, but I won't try to force them on the world because I know people are not going to be nice.


 No.11886

>>11885

The world was forced to be how it is now, we won't be doing anything wrong in standing up for ourselves.


 No.11887

>>11886

Forced by who?

I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying it won't be because people who don't believe in the we take advantage of others, thus, become more powerful and socially reproduce their ways.


 No.11889

>>11887

Forced by the people in charge. The state and all those institutions exist because of force. It might be hard to do something that's worth doing, but giving up doesn't make it easier.


 No.11892

>>11889

Let me rephrase my question. You said:

>The world was forced to be how it is now

The "how it is now" is the use of force needed by the institutions. So, before, when the world was different, who have forced it to become what it is now?


 No.11893

>>11892

Nobody really knows who they were, but they were the first people to create laws and governments.


 No.11894

>>11893

And my point is: other people let them do. They never had to deal with many people with pointy sticks and the next ones are not going to deal with many people with guns.


 No.11896

>>11894

People accept government because civilisation didn't start right away, so they would have developed a view of the world that accepts it. The conflicts on frontiers when the new world was being colonised show that people didn't want to submit to a modern state.


 No.11898

File: 70033f5900484ad⋯.gif (740.89 KB, 670x750, 67:75, Conquest of the west.gif)

>>11896

Excuse me but what are you talking about? For most part of the colonised world, the common people couldn't give two shit if some strange men from another continent were building a fort near their village and used them as an argument for map painting contest in their homeland.

They only see an interest when outnumbered by other tribes and in need of a defender. Then if they had to pretend be a part of an empire to have their cattle safe, why not.

The actual investment in the colonized world that turned them into copies of us came way after the colonisation process.


 No.11899

>>11898

They didn't care because they weren't affected, but when they were affected it brought them into conflict. And it took time for them to fit with this society, the same way that this society developed over time.


 No.11901

>>11899

Not all of them did.

Of course, when the English came in Australia with their guns to make room for settlers, they didn't liked it.

When Netherlander came to make ports to supply the trade ships on their road and bought a lot of food and common items from the locals, they welcomed it.

When the French came and established commercial relations trading furs against kitchen utensils and objects in metal, they welcomed it.

They fought back not because of some shady political point, but because it became "get out of our land now" or "you now have to pay taxes". Should I mention what they did to the undefended settlers with shiny tools and weapons? Not so much against the use of coercion.


 No.11902

>>11901

Well there were a lot of different factors in it, and you're right about it not being political in the same way that anarchism is.

I'm bad at arguing in general, so please don't let me here give you a bad impression of anarchism. Since you're already showing an interest by posting here there are a lot of books you could read in the reading list thread.


 No.11903

>>11901

>They fought back not because of some shady political point, but because it became "get out of our land now" or "you now have to pay taxes".

Also, not to forget, anarchism is against taxes and private property which was what was being forced there.


 No.11904

>>11903

Don't even try to say the native were anarchists. They had hierarchies and all. They knew private propriety. Only a few were not as or more patriarchal than us.


 No.11905

>>11904

But I just said that they weren't. And they didn't know private property because property rights were invented in the enlightenment.


 No.11906

>>11905

>property rights were invented in the enlightenment.

You can't be serious?

The middle age didn't knew private propriety? The antic Rome or Greece, were slavery was common? Even the first forms of scriptures let us know private propriety existed in Mesopotamia or in Ethiopia. Even civilisation who were created far away like in India or China had private propriety.


 No.11907

>>11906

The feudal system was different to capitalism, private property rights are only in capitalism.


 No.11908

>>11907

Tell that to the owner of the mill, or to the merchant, or the worker in the silk factory.

If the land belong to the lord, he will let you use it against a third of the crops you will harvest. It was the traditional price.

Should I mention usury?


 No.11909

>>11908

They didn't have Lockean provisos or anything dude. People generally fit into the guild system and just did their job. Anyway, I don't care to respond anymore.


 No.11910

>>11909

I think the change in the economy you are talking about start with the Colbertism, and that was way before the enlightenment.


 No.11911

>>11910

It was around the same time in history though so the same changes were happening. Anyway, sorry I did such a shit job .


 No.12394

It's misleading when Anarcho-Communists simply call themselves Anarchists.

Communism requires a whole shitload of rules to function, assuming it is all-encompassing throughout the society (as opposed to a group of people that have voluntarily broken off to form a commune with each other).

I've never heard of an ayncrap that had any problem with a group of people voluntarily forming a commune, but AnComs seem to imagine there will be some kind of rule against individuals making voluntary agreements with each other (such as negotiating wages), seemingly oblivious to the fact that they've just elected themselves a ruler of sorts. And for this reason involuntary communism is incompatible with anarchism.


 No.12562

Any practical tips for communication in a small group of people (5-10), who want to work without hierarchy?

I'm going to move in with said group to work on restoring a house and generally to live there. It's close to my workplace (where I live right now, but the owners wife is a cunt who is misusing her power, which is why I'm going to move) and I was wondering if any of you have experience with this and ideas to share.


 No.12564

File: 0fb0fe29fa47664⋯.gif (2 MB, 500x500, 1:1, 02.gif)

Can someone please explain to me how communism would work in an anarchist society? Communism requires the forced redistribution of wealth and resources, but without a governing body to do so, how would one force said redistribution? How could one force wealth redistribution without, in turn, becoming a governing body? Who gets to decide the redistribution policies? How would one deal with someone who refuses to co-operate with the redistribution? What's stopping someone from forming their own group within this anarchist society and trading resources and wealth with one-another, thus negating the retribution? Moreover, what is the incentive to be productive or contribute to the anarchist society if one's ability to do so does not necessarily mean greater rewards?

Sorry if this has been answered before, but every self-proclaimed anarcho-communist I've talked to in person just boasts about their surface level "free money, no rules" ideals.


 No.12565

>>12564

The redistribution would only need to happen ONCE, during the revolution. After that, as people are back on level playing field, you could do what you want. The idea is that if you will want to start stockpiling capital or run your mouth with ideas like "hey, let's bring back money and poverty!" your neighbours will run you out of town.

Also there already EXISTED anarchist socialist societies - look at Makhnovia or Anarchist Catalonia. Read some books about them if you're interested in details.


 No.12566

>>12564

Ok, so to be more in depth and answer your question - as any communism, anarchist communism starts with a revolution.

In this case, in addition to destroying the violent systems of racist and classist oppression (like capitalism) like every other socialist revolution, this one would also use this opprtunity to dismantle government structure, police etc.

Revolutionary forces seize redistribute the property and means of productions to communities they live in. If someone was opposing redistribution, they'd be forced to cooperate - anarchist communism DOES NOT include any form of "NAP".

If violence sounds drastic to you, I should remind you that thousands of people die from starvation, or from exposure when homeless. Hundreds die from easily preventable diseases they couldn't 'afford' to cure.

To anarchocommunist, a rich person looking by as a beggar starves to death is exactly as violent as if he pointed a gun at his head and pulled the trigger - because result is the same, a person is dead.

Currently, worldwide and also in US, we have more homes and food that there is need for them, but people still starve and are homeless. That is violence - and can only be rectified with violence.

Revolutionary army would most likely be structured around elected officers rather than strict hierarchy, and be based on a concept of militia, designed so it can freely dissolve after the end of revolution.

Of course, everyone wants as little deaths and bloodshed as possible. I think if some rich fat cat had a choice on gunpoint of giving up his Subaru and mansion, and dying - I'm pretty sure he would choose the latter, and prefer to reintegrate into society as a regular person.

Anyway, so that's the revolution. AFTER the revolution, property and means of production would be redistributed to local communities, who would decide how to utilize them. See, anarchocommunists hate government and idea of representational democracy - but that doesn't mean we don't believe in organization.

We just believe in voluntary organization, direct action over voting, and direct democracy (where instead of electing representatives, you vote YOURSELF on stuff). We also believe in organization within local communities, versus any 'federal authority'. We also strongly believe in self-sustainability.

The 'forming your own trading group" - nothing would prevent them, except for several possibilites.

One, people will ignore them, because what they have to offer to anyone else? Regardless if they produce food, or any consumer goods, or working machines - there are hundreds of ancom communities that will give it to us for free on good will. WHY would we trade?

Second, edgier option involve that people might get pissed about counter-revolutionaries, take some guns and give them a piece of their mind.

And third - WHY would they form such a group? You can get everything from everyone else for free with willing cooperation - why would you force yourself into arrangement where you stop all your access to benefits of existing in anarchocommunist society?

What is incentive to be productive in such a society? Well, first, there's the fact that people like to work. It's in human nature. If someone doesn't have a chair, they will make a chair. People don't like to be useless burden.

And here's the really, really important part - and if many people don't work? That's ok.

Consider the future - more and more jobs are automated. Most analysts agree that this time, jobs will start slowly disappearing altogether, rather than being replaced. Some countries already have unemployment rates as high as 15% (that's not counting children and elderly, who ALSO contribute nothing!) and still function normally. And as we move towards automation - that number will increase.

So currently, in some places only around 80% of the population needs to work for country to function. Eventually, nation will be able to function normally with 60% of population working. Then 50%. Then 40% - MINORITY of population will need to work to keep everything running. Of course, due to maintenance this will stabilize eventually - but socialism IS the only stable future-proof solution to automation problem.

All solutions to it - higher minimal wage, any kind of guaranteed employment, basic universal income - are varieties of socialism. There simply DOESN'T EXIST capitalist solution to automation problem. Eventually less and less people will need to work - and in socialism, including anarchocommunism - that's ok.


 No.12567

>>12566

>Revolutionary forces seize redistribute the property and means of productions to communities they live in. If someone was opposing redistribution, they'd be forced to cooperate - anarchist communism DOES NOT include any form of "NAP".

Well, again, this revolutionary force of which you speak is governing what people are and are not allowed to do in this scenario, and is able to do so under the threat of violence. I fail to see how this is any different from the power of a state government.

>If violence sounds drastic to you, I should remind you that thousands of people die from starvation, or from exposure when homeless. Hundreds die from easily preventable diseases they couldn't 'afford' to cure.

Okay, but this implies that everyone is under full obligation to help whenever possible. If I am under obligation to help those who can't help themselves, where is the line drawn? Do I have to stop and help old women carry heavy objects at every opportunity? Why are you not under moral obligation to sell whatever internet connected device you're using right now and using that money to buy food for starving people?

>To anarchocommunist, a rich person looking by as a beggar starves to death is exactly as violent as if he pointed a gun at his head and pulled the trigger - because result is the same, a person is dead.

How far does it go? If I have a lower resting metabolic rate than the next person, it takes me slightly longer than them to starve to death. Does this mean I am entitled to less food than them? What if it's the reverse, can I use that as an excuse not to give them food?

>Currently, worldwide and also in US, we have more homes and food that there is need for them, but people still starve and are homeless. That is violence - and can only be rectified with violence.

Homes and food need to be produced and require materials and labor to do so. If homes need to be provided for free to those who need them, then labor is effectively of no value. So shouldn't you be dropping everything you're doing and spending your time building free houses? I assume you have the physical capability of doing so.

>Revolutionary army would most likely be structured around elected officers rather than strict hierarchy, and be based on a concept of militia, designed so it can freely dissolve after the end of revolution.

So we're back to a democracy where the elected hold power over others?

>Of course, everyone wants as little deaths and bloodshed as possible. I think if some rich fat cat had a choice on gunpoint of giving up his Subaru and mansion, and dying - I'm pretty sure he would choose the latter, and prefer to reintegrate into society as a regular person.

Most people would be willing to do a lot of things under the threat of death. I'm confident if I pointed a gun at you, you would embrace any number of my ideas, which is the flaw. If you need to threaten people to conform to your way of thinking, then there are probably holes in your way of thinking. "Well if I can't talk you into it I'll just force you to do what I say under the threat of murder" is what totalitarian, fascist governments do.

cont.


 No.12568

>>12566

>Anyway, so that's the revolution. AFTER the revolution, property and means of production would be redistributed to local communities, who would decide how to utilize them. See, anarchocommunists hate government and idea of representational democracy - but that doesn't mean we don't believe in organization.

Who gets to decide who gets what? What if two communities want total control of a factory or farm?

>We just believe in voluntary organization, direct action over voting, and direct democracy (where instead of electing representatives, you vote YOURSELF on stuff). We also believe in organization within local communities, versus any 'federal authority'. We also strongly believe in self-sustainability.

Wait, what? Direct democracy is the alternative to representative democracy. It still requires voting, which only a few words previous you disavowed. So which is it?

>One, people will ignore them, because what they have to offer to anyone else? Regardless if they produce food, or any consumer goods, or working machines - there are hundreds of ancom communities that will give it to us for free on good will. WHY would we trade?

Let's say I want something you have and you're not going to give it to me. I will then use my ability to manufacture something you want as leverage to get that thing. Also, I feel you're overestimating man's good will to one another. Leveraging you gains me resources and loses me nothing, what possible reason could I have not to do so? Your theory that after a violent overthrow of a country everyone will suddenly be nothing but nice and kind hearted to each other is far fetched at best.

>Second, edgier option involve that people might get pissed about counter-revolutionaries, take some guns and give them a piece of their mind.

Now hold the phone here. First you say there's nothing preventing me from doing this, then you say I don't need to do it because everyone is being nice to each other, and finally you end it with "and we might just kill you if you do it"? That's several degrees of contradiction.

>And third - WHY would they form such a group? You can get everything from everyone else for free with willing cooperation - why would you force yourself into arrangement where you stop all your access to benefits of existing in anarchocommunist society?

I'll say again, leverage. If I want more than I am entitled to as ordained by the commune, for whatever reason I have, I can get it by holding what I am able to manufacture over your head. If I control a car factory, why couldn't I say "no more car parts for you until you give me more food"? Or, shit, if I have a decent foothold in munitions manufacturing, your armed forces would need me to provide them with the ability to overthrow me.

>What is incentive to be productive in such a society? Well, first, there's the fact that people like to work. It's in human nature. People don't like to be useless burden.

Clearly we live on different planets. Many western nations have implemented systems to assist the disenfranchised and I am constantly learning about new, astounding cases in which people have abused them. I have personally met numerous people that have voluntarily crippled themselves (no, seriously) because they would rather receive disability checks from their government than work. These are people that have the ability to work just fine but have chosen to undergo methods that damage their physical health enough that they can claim disability. How would an ancom society deal with such people? In the U.S. and U.K. there are hundreds of thousands of them, look into it.

cont.


 No.12569

>>12566

>Consider the future - more and more jobs are automated. Most analysts agree that this time, jobs will start slowly disappearing altogether, rather than being replaced. Some countries already have unemployment rates as high as 15% (that's not counting children and elderly, who ALSO contribute nothing!) and still function normally. And as we move towards automation - that number will increase.

What you fail to realize is that automation is not a given. A lot of very smart, hard working and well paid people put a lot of effort into figuring out how to make certain manufacturing processes efficient enough for automation. They have been doing so because of the handsome rewards associated, as with any other technological innovation. If your average automation engineer is exactly as well off as your average short order cook, you'll find a lot more people signing up to be the latter because it's considerably easier.

>So currently, in some places only around 80% of the population needs to work for country to function. Eventually, nation will be able to function normally with 60% of population working. Then 50%. Then 40% - MINORITY of population will need to work to keep everything running. Of course, due to maintenance this will stabilize eventually - but socialism IS the only stable future-proof solution to automation problem.

So far the only reasons you've given for people to even be productive is good will towards your fellow man in a scenario where roving armed gangs are supposedly the status quo. Innovation is not a given. There's a reason the United States has been the leader in advancements in technology, medicine, and automation. People get paid for it. Thousands of intelligent people from all over the world flock to the U.S. en masse every year because their hard work and devotion is paid off.

Look, we all know that if you reward a child's poor behavior, that child will continue to behave poorly. If you demonstrate to a population that even if they decide not to contribute they will be taken care of, an overwhelming majority will decide to not work. If you really would work hard to support others that need it, then I thank you, because you are what the world needs more of. However, ask any number of people if they would choose to retire immediately if they could live and eat for free for the rest of their lives, and tell me what percentage of them say they wouldn't.


 No.12571

>>12568

Okay, so one by one.

First - There is no control, there is no ownership. There is only USE. Noone has 'complete control'. You're still thinking in capitalist term of 'private property' - this doesn't exist anymore.

Second - I could've been clearer. There's voting for president, and there's voting to decide a course of action. One is an ineffective measure where you shift responsibility to someone else and HOPE they will do what you want.

The other kind of voting is taking that responsbility themselves.

Third - leveraging loses you something, it loses you communism. You may organize a group of workers who work in car factory to exchange things for cars. But then you're gonna need it for EVERYTHING, because your community will hate you for that! You will want food from your local community? Better make cars! You want some chairs for a house you're living in? Better make cars! You need parts to MAKE the cars? Better make cars!

You box yourself in the same hopeless situation a worker is in a capitalist state, where you have to labour or die.

Also I'm contradicting nothing. "Nothing stopping you" means simply you can do it. I'm not saying people are gonna be happy about it. Anarchism is based around golden rule - you are nice to others, and others are nice to you. When you break that pact and try to take complete control over means of production - you're not being nice, and people don't have to be mean. Your community can easily react in variety of ways, with violence, or by banishing you and rest of factory workers you've banded with.

>Clearly we live on different planets. Many western nations have implemented systems to assist the disenfranchised and I am constantly learning about new, astounding cases in which people have abused them.

AND NOTHING HAPPENED. NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED. Countries STILL stand. They still function. Fuck, children, elderly, disabled people ALSO sit on their asses and contribute nothing to the society - but that is somehow OK. Why is it "wrong" when able-bodied people do this?

Think objectively, in matter of resources being produced and consumed. Disabled, your welfare scammers and elderly also consume resources contributing nothing, but country still works. So why even fucking bother thinking about that?

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Who cares if a tiny minority of people will just sit on their asses? Majority of people don't.

And finally - scientists and engineers generally love their jobs. And contrary to the bullshit you spew, jobs that involve less education are generally harder, more tiring and thankless.

Being an engineer is a job that is less physically tiring, and simply more rewarding than being a cook.

Idk where you get your bullshit where 'being a short order cook is easier' than being an engineer, but I'm assuming you haven't been either.

Besides, capitalism is MUCH more broken in that regard - best paying jobs are landowners and CEOs, who have to do relatively little compared e.g. to sanitations workers - but get paid ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more money.

Hell, if you own a bunch of properties, you don't need to work AT ALL! You can just use your money to hire someone who will work for you. And if you inherited that money and land from your parents - you can comfortably get through your entire lives without working.

Being exactly the same kind of parasite gaming the system as welfare scammers. Why aren't you outraged about THEM?

>Look, we all know that if you reward a child's poor behavior, that child will continue to behave poorly. If you demonstrate to a population that even if they decide not to contribute they will be taken care of, an overwhelming majority will decide to not work.

Yeah, and then resources they rely on will start to dwindle. A community of lazy stoners who only sit on their asses and drink booze all the time will quickly realize they need to at least set up a rotating schedule of people to maintain the distilleries and the cannabis farms. They will EVENTUALLY have to organize and face the facts, a little humbled.

Seriously, actually stoners are a good metaphors. Many stoners will grow weed for personal use, despite not being paid for it - just because they want to smoke weed. Even people who's only interest is being on drugs all the time understand that if you want to be drugs, you gotta make them first.


 No.12572

>>12571

>First - There is no control, there is no ownership. There is only USE. Noone has 'complete control'. You're still thinking in capitalist term of 'private property' - this doesn't exist anymore.

>Second - I could've been clearer. There's voting for president, and there's voting to decide a course of action. One is an ineffective measure where you shift responsibility to someone else and HOPE they will do what you want.

Okay, fair enough.

>Third - leveraging loses you something, it loses you communism. You may organize a group of workers who work in car factory to exchange things for cars. But then you're gonna need it for EVERYTHING, because your community will hate you for that! You will want food from your local community? Better make cars! You want some chairs for a house you're living in? Better make cars! You need parts to MAKE the cars? Better make cars!

Yeah but I'm okay with that. If I were to live alone, independently, in the woods or something, I would have to work towards surviving or die. If I were to fuck off and say "eh, I don't feel like making cars" then I would still be sustained but now people would lose out on cars. Hardly seems fair for me to get something for nothing.

>Your community can easily react in variety of ways, with violence, or by banishing you and rest of factory workers you've banded with.

If you banish your factory workers then you lose the production of the factory.

>AND NOTHING HAPPENED. NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED. Countries STILL stand. They still function. Fuck, children, elderly, disabled people ALSO sit on their asses and contribute nothing to the society - but that is somehow OK. Why is it "wrong" when able-bodied people do this?

Excuse me? How unaware are you? Millions of dollars of resources vanish every year because of these noncontributing consumers. I work hard to earn money but money has to be taken out of my paycheck to pay for people who refuse to work. That's only the people taking advantage of the flaws in the system now, imagine what would happen if the flaws in the system became the system. Millions of people work hard to support themselves and their families and the fruits of their labor are being redirected to the lazy and incompetent. Hell, if the revolution happens, I'm not working. I refuse. I do not want to contribute to the communist society in any way because I dislike it and you claim to allow me that. Will you pay for me? Will you grow my food and purify my water? Will you really do that for me?

>Think objectively, in matter of resources being produced and consumed. Disabled, your welfare scammers and elderly also consume resources contributing nothing, but country still works. So why even fucking bother thinking about that? IT DOESN'T MATTER. Who cares if a tiny minority of people will just sit on their asses? Majority of people don't.

First of all, you don't know what "objectively" means. Secondly, the idea that a problem can be safely ignored because it isn't big enough right now is idiotic. People taking advantage of welfare costs billions of tax payer dollars, and you think making it infinitely easier won't grow the problem? Are you kidding me?

cont.


 No.12573

>>12571

>And finally - scientists and engineers generally love their jobs. And contrary to the bullshit you spew, jobs that involve less education are generally harder, more tiring and thankless. Being an engineer is a job that is less physically tiring, and simply more rewarding than being a cook. Idk where you get your bullshit where 'being a short order cook is easier' than being an engineer, but I'm assuming you haven't been either.

You have got to be shitting me. First of all, not just anyone can be an engineer of any kind. You have to spend years in higher education learning complex mathematics and sciences before you can even start doing anything. It's incredibly difficult and time consuming. I'm assuming that you just see an engineer as someone who sits at a desk all day and therefor, by default, it must be easier than a job that requires you to stand, which is childish.

I've been a short order cook, it's very easy. Eight or so hours a day preparing a small variety of food items. You can learn to do it in a day. There's a reason there's more of them than engineers.

Also, you have to be very smart to undergo a STEM field. If you're smart enough to do that, you're smart enough to realize that the effort required to do so isn't worthwhile when it doesn't net benefits. I'll repeat, years in school to be an engineer, a day in training to be a cook, both result in the same quality of life. Give me one reason other than "good feelings" why anyone, ANYONE, would bother with the former.

>Besides, capitalism is MUCH more broken in that regard - best paying jobs are landowners and CEOs, who have to do relatively little compared e.g. to sanitations workers - but get paid ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more money.

You must be a child. I'll explain to you how to be a sanitation worker. Ready? Here it is: you clean things. No education necessary. I'm sure you knew that. Now, tell me, how do you run a multi-billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees? How do you co-ordinate that? Microsoft, Apple, Ford, Turner, Google, etc. have all made horrendous mistakes that costs enough money to end world hunger because of incompetent CEOs. You don't get vacations, you don't get days off, you don't get to relax. Garbage men get to say "fuck you, it's saturday, I don't have to work". CEOs don't get to do that. Not only that, you need years of experience in the job and a high quality education from a business school to even be considered because of how much is riding on your ability to perform.

But I guess you saw that they wear suits and assumed they're evil or something.

>Hell, if you own a bunch of properties, you don't need to work AT ALL! You can just use your money to hire someone who will work for you. And if you inherited that money and land from your parents - you can comfortably get through your entire lives without working.

Tell that to my mother. She owns rental properties and works approximately 10 hours a day every day. There is no such thing as passive income. Several of her properties are in Florida and were just obliterated by the hurricanes, but I guess they'll just rebuild themselves right? After all, she literally doesn't need to work AT ALL! She has to put absolutely no effort into fixing these problems. You fucking moron.

>Yeah, and then resources they rely on will start to dwindle. A community of lazy stoners who only sit on their asses and drink booze all the time will quickly realize they need to at least set up a rotating schedule of people to maintain the distilleries and the cannabis farms. They will EVENTUALLY have to organize and face the facts, a little humbled.

Why? You just said that you and your buddies will give them everything they need to survive if they want to sit on their asses.

I also just love how you ignored so many of my queries, if I had to guess it's because you couldn't actually think of an answer to them.


 No.12808

>>12571

>First - There is no control, there is no ownership. There is only USE. Noone has 'complete control'.

>You're still thinking in capitalist term of 'private property' - this doesn't exist anymore.

I'm neither a native speaker nor an anarchy pro, so I have to ask: What do you exactly mean by "private property"?

A diary, a photo or painting that shows a family member or an old toy, something of emotional value to me?

An item I personally crafted for my own use, like a cup, a table or a sword?

The house in which I live, that I built by myself or with the help of others?

The land on which the house is built?

As I said: I'm not an anarchy pro, but if someone is trying to tell me that my stuff isn't my stuff anymore and everyone is free to use it, that's robbery or state communism and I have every right to stop this person with words or force, if it's necessary.


 No.12809

>>12808

>What do you exactly mean by "private property"?

WITH!

As I said: Not a native speaker. And a bit tired atm.


 No.12846

>>12573

>CEO's are constantly working, need years of experience and high quality education

False. Many CEOs, such as D Trump, are not constantly working and do not need high quality education. Donald did poorly in his classes at his ivy league school and CONSTANTLY took breaks when he was a CEO.

The myth of CEOs being these high quality smart people is just that. They are usually born into wealth, are lucky, or are good people-persons who can suck up to the other rich better to land contracts and such.

You could say they are socially intelligent, but most of the heavy lifting of organizational management is done by specialists such as CIOs, CFOs, mathematicians (for wall street), and other specialists.

I find it helpful to think of them as neofeudal lords. They help cement alliances between corporate fiefdoms and delegate the other managerial work to the earls and such.

>relatively little work

Not to mention that CEOs ROUTINELY run their businesses into the ground then get them bailed out at the taxpayers expense. Lets not forget who controls the government.

Also your petty bourgeois example about your mother is just that. >>12571 is clearly talking about the bourgeois and not your mum. You know that Trump doesn't Agonize over the countless number of properties he has, he can afford to have many managers who are qualified take care of them.

PS- your mum should get a rental agency or something, 10 hours is not worth it.


 No.12847

>>12846

Oops this part of the site is dead. :DDDDDDDD


 No.13035

>>11875

>Do you expect militias without a command chain to counter a real opponent?

Yes, and better than any other military or militia. Note how during the July Coup the most immediate and most effective response came from the CNT-FAI.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baphomet / britfeel / hisrol / hwndu / jewtube / jp / ss / tingles ]