New here, how do you guys feel about libertarian socialism?

[microwaviblerabbit]

First nations, as we Canadians are supposed to call the people who were here before the Europeans did not live in Anarchy. In fact, parts of their society were the basis for the American constitution. The 6 nations was the name. It was an empire.

Interesting points. Women were equal to men. In fact, they were higher in some cases. Especially since that Clans were traced through the mother. Also, the women were scarier. The men killed people. The women tortured them.

Also, the chief could be overthrown (think Impeached) by the clan mothers.

 

[Internet Kraken]

What power does the dictator hold exactly? If it's just one guy I'm sure that a group of anarchs could overthrow the bum. If he's got a large army then the revolution was unsuccessful and there was never anarchy anyway.

Yes the people do decide, same way the Iroqouis worked their business out, people get together, have meetings and decide from there, they won't shout because that doesn't work, being calm and civil does, so that's what they'll do.

Okay, how many times do I have to say this for you to understand?

The dictator is more powerful (that's the keyword) than everyone else. He has better weapons, more resources, and more manpower. Hence why he is able to take control.

Now obviously one man can't fight off a large group of people (usually), so he would probably have supporters. Now who would these supporters be? Broken spirits. People that have suffered heavily since the world has fallen into anarchy because there were not enough resources to satisfy everyone. When the dictator promises them a better life if they help him, then it's easy to see how he could get supporters.


And would you stop using small-scale examples? It's stupid. Anarchy might be able to work on a small scale, but we're talking about a population of over 6 billion people all living under anarchy. It simply does not work because they do not have enough resources.

 

[quiet_samurai]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

The Native aMericans did not live in Ararchy. They had tribes and elders and people who made decisions based on how wise they were. They had laws and rules and a form of managing themselves among other peoples and the earth itself.

There is no such thing as true Anarchy. The moment you introduce a single figure head or entity of authority be it a president, king, emperor, parliment, chief, committee, council, or even the biggest guy in the tribe that says he eats first and has first pick of the women, you are no longer living in anarchy. The moment a system of authority shows up, wheter is agreed upon or forced, anarchy is out the window.

Anarcho-communist here.

That's an oxy-moron.

 

[Eisenfaust]

well i'm not an anarchist... though i suppose i do support the whole no-descrimination thing... except for women! HA! (*shifty eyes*)... sorry... though wouldn't lack of heirarchy in any form mean that everyone would have to be exactly equal? anyone who is smarter than anyone else is at a different point on SOME heirarchy, institutionalised or not...

plus i like my materialism... gets me a whole bunch of cool stuff...

Ehh it's not really a hierarchy if someone is better than someone else at any given craft, hierarchy is society organized from the top-down, that's how resources,information,etc. are distributed in a hierarchy. Not sure what you mean by materialism, but anarchy could be described as egoism.

the materialism thing was a reference to the property = theft thing... sorry, i'm getting flashes of zeitgeist... (no i'm not necessarily saying you're the same, just that i'm jumping over things in my head...)

 

[SonicKoala]

Anarcho-communist here.

http://www.communism.org/#faq

^ to those who don't know much about communism, think communism is a totalitarian dictatorship, or say it won't work.

You think capitalism is working? Capitalism kills. Because of capitalism, someone dies of starvation less than every four seconds.

Yeah, capitalism kills, but at least it's functional. Your system is dependent on this belief that humanity is inherently good, which it isn't. Also, you site that the Linux software program as an example that communism can work, which is just stupid. Once again, that is incredibly small scale, and would not work if applied to millions of millions of people in every aspect of society (not just the internet).

So a system that kills people is considered functional by you... why is our system not functional again?

People are going to die in any kind of society, stop being such a pussy idealist. It's not functional because what you are proposing is impossible. You are suggesting that all of society be organized into these small co-operatives. How would this take place? What would become of the infrastructure that is kept functional by the various forms of government we have? What would happen to the police force, or health care? Since each co-operative isn't going to have all the necessities needed for survival, how is trade going to work? What will happen to the economy? What about international relations? I say your system isn't functional because you just have this incredibly vague idea of how it would exist without taking into account the ENORMOUS complexities that are involved in our society today.

You can't really plan how the world is going to happen bro, sorry about that. Ad hominem is uneccessary.

well i'm not an anarchist... though i suppose i do support the whole no-descrimination thing... except for women! HA! (*shifty eyes*)... sorry... though wouldn't lack of heirarchy in any form mean that everyone would have to be exactly equal? anyone who is smarter than anyone else is at a different point on SOME heirarchy, institutionalised or not...

plus i like my materialism... gets me a whole bunch of cool stuff...

Ehh it's not really a hierarchy if someone is better than someone else at any given craft, hierarchy is society organized from the top-down, that's how resources,information,etc. are distributed in a hierarchy. Not sure what you mean by materialism, but anarchy could be described as egoism.

Libertarian socialism just being a nice word for anarchy obviously.

There are usually lots of misconceptions about anarchy so let me clear up what anarchy is. Anarchy is opposition to all forms of hierarchy,Capitalism (no anarcho-capitalism is NOT a form of anarchy), the State, racism, sexism, discrimination upon the basis of sexual preference, etc. Anarchy is opposed to hierarchy because anarchy seeks to maximize liberty, equality, and solidarity (these three all naturally follow each other of course), and hierarchy by nature limits these three.

Property is Theft

*faceplam*

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism, just like there are no square circles. It's just a retarded, but fancy word for communism.

No

THE WISE ONE HAS SPOKEN!

...

Christ, you're pathetic.

You give me a statement with no backing I'll give you one.

Basing this on your "you can't really plan how the world is going to happen, bro" statement, it seems that your argument has completely lost its momentum. Yeah, you can't plan how the world is going to happen, but saying "FUCK IT LETS GO FOR IT ANYWAY" is a TERRIBLE alternative, especially when you are proposing a system that is so vague that the individuals who came up with the idea in the first place can't even tell you what such a society would look like - the most famous example of this? Karl Marx - he never ONCE said what a Communist society would look like. You can go on and on and on about how unjust capitalist society is, but until you come up with something better that would WORK, you should probably devote your attention to IMPROVING our current system. And when I say improving, please keep in mind that CHANGING IT ALL TOGETHER is not a viable option.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

First nations, as we Canadians are supposed to call the people who were here before the Europeans did not live in Anarchy. In fact, parts of their society were the basis for the American constitution. The 6 nations was the name. It was an empire.

Interesting points. Women were equal to men. In fact, they were higher in some cases. Especially since that Clans were traced through the mother. Also, the women were scarier. The men killed people. The women tortured them.

Also, the chief could be overthrown (think Impeached) by the clan mothers.

It was an empire in name only I provided a quote a ways back.

What power does the dictator hold exactly? If it's just one guy I'm sure that a group of anarchs could overthrow the bum. If he's got a large army then the revolution was unsuccessful and there was never anarchy anyway.

Yes the people do decide, same way the Iroqouis worked their business out, people get together, have meetings and decide from there, they won't shout because that doesn't work, being calm and civil does, so that's what they'll do.

Okay, how many times do I have to say this for you to understand?

The dictator is more powerful (that's the keyword) than everyone else. He has better weapons, more resources, and more manpower. Hence why he is able to take control.

Now obviously one man can't fight off a large group of people (usually), so he would probably have supporters. Now who would these supporters be? Broken spirits. People that have suffered heavily since the world has fallen into anarchy because there were not enough resources to satisfy everyone. When the dictator promises them a better life if they help him, then it's easy to see how he could get supporters.


And would you stop using small-scale examples? It's stupid. Anarchy might be able to work on a small scale, but we're talking about a population of over 6 billion people all living under anarchy. It simply does not work because they do not have enough resources.

Well this is obviously wrong because you're assuming that people who aren't well off in a system are going to rebel against a system, yet (psuedo)capitalism is still around. And there would be enough resources to support most everyone so that point is moot. You claim they don't have enough resources, then how the hell are we managing it today with not enough resources.

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

The Native aMericans did not live in Ararchy. They had tribes and elders and people who made decisions based on how wise they were. They had laws and rules and a form of managing themselves among other peoples and the earth itself.

There is no such thing as true Anarchy. The moment you introduce a single figure head or entity of authority be it a president, king, emperor, parliment, chief, committee, council, or even the biggest guy in the tribe that says he eats first and has first pick of the women, you are no longer living in anarchy. The moment a system of authority shows up, wheter is agreed upon or forced, anarchy is out the window.

Anarcho-communist here.

That's an oxy-moron.

The first bit of your first statement is wrong, refer to the quote I posted earlier. The second part's first sentence is wrong. There is such a thing as justified authority (EG the surgeon is the one that will be in charger of surgery)

And the last thing you said is just wrong, though a "worker's state" is an oxy-moron

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

You give me a statement with no backing I'll give you one.

The backing of my statement lies in the very definition of libertarianism. The right to property is one of the two main pillars of this ideology. You can't bend it any way you like and say you're right becuase enough people agree with you to spew out that wrethed term.

Maybe neo-liberalism but under classical liberalism definitely not. But we're beginning to argue semantics, if you REALLY care.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html

Anarcho-communist here.

http://www.communism.org/#faq

^ to those who don't know much about communism, think communism is a totalitarian dictatorship, or say it won't work.

You think capitalism is working? Capitalism kills. Because of capitalism, someone dies of starvation less than every four seconds.

Yeah, capitalism kills, but at least it's functional. Your system is dependent on this belief that humanity is inherently good, which it isn't. Also, you site that the Linux software program as an example that communism can work, which is just stupid. Once again, that is incredibly small scale, and would not work if applied to millions of millions of people in every aspect of society (not just the internet).

So a system that kills people is considered functional by you... why is our system not functional again?

People are going to die in any kind of society, stop being such a pussy idealist. It's not functional because what you are proposing is impossible. You are suggesting that all of society be organized into these small co-operatives. How would this take place? What would become of the infrastructure that is kept functional by the various forms of government we have? What would happen to the police force, or health care? Since each co-operative isn't going to have all the necessities needed for survival, how is trade going to work? What will happen to the economy? What about international relations? I say your system isn't functional because you just have this incredibly vague idea of how it would exist without taking into account the ENORMOUS complexities that are involved in our society today.

You can't really plan how the world is going to happen bro, sorry about that. Ad hominem is uneccessary.

well i'm not an anarchist... though i suppose i do support the whole no-descrimination thing... except for women! HA! (*shifty eyes*)... sorry... though wouldn't lack of heirarchy in any form mean that everyone would have to be exactly equal? anyone who is smarter than anyone else is at a different point on SOME heirarchy, institutionalised or not...

plus i like my materialism... gets me a whole bunch of cool stuff...

Ehh it's not really a hierarchy if someone is better than someone else at any given craft, hierarchy is society organized from the top-down, that's how resources,information,etc. are distributed in a hierarchy. Not sure what you mean by materialism, but anarchy could be described as egoism.

Libertarian socialism just being a nice word for anarchy obviously.

There are usually lots of misconceptions about anarchy so let me clear up what anarchy is. Anarchy is opposition to all forms of hierarchy,Capitalism (no anarcho-capitalism is NOT a form of anarchy), the State, racism, sexism, discrimination upon the basis of sexual preference, etc. Anarchy is opposed to hierarchy because anarchy seeks to maximize liberty, equality, and solidarity (these three all naturally follow each other of course), and hierarchy by nature limits these three.

Property is Theft

*faceplam*

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism, just like there are no square circles. It's just a retarded, but fancy word for communism.

No

THE WISE ONE HAS SPOKEN!

...

Christ, you're pathetic.

You give me a statement with no backing I'll give you one.

Basing this on your "you can't really plan how the world is going to happen, bro" statement, it seems that your argument has completely lost its momentum. Yeah, you can't plan how the world is going to happen, but saying "FUCK IT LETS GO FOR IT ANYWAY" is a TERRIBLE alternative, especially when you are proposing a system that is so vague that the individuals who came up with the idea in the first place can't even tell you what such a society would look like - the most famous example of this? Karl Marx - he never ONCE said what a Communist society would look like. You can go on and on and on about how unjust capitalist society is, but until you come up with something better that would WORK, you should probably devote your attention to IMPROVING our current system. And when I say improving, please keep in mind that CHANGING IT ALL TOGETHER is not a viable option.

You can't plan specifics, but you can get a general idea of how it will look EG without hierarchies, from that you can paint a pretty good idea, but the details will be worked out after/during the revolution.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

its great in theory. But the greed and sheer desire to cause harm to those around them that are part of human nature would make it similar to releasing several half starved rabid bears in a room together.

A year later we're all dead.

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

When discussing politics, think about this. The most effective governments, that is the ones that managed to implement the most of their manifesto, were absolute dictatorships.

Any system has flaws. I think what needs to be done is a bastardization of ideologies.

For example, socialism works well with keeping your citizens from dieing of disease. However it fails when you try to run an country's market in a globalized economy. Personal freedoms in my opinion are best described by the libertarians. "The government has no place in the bedroom".
Actual conservatism, not neo-conservatism, has a long standing place when it comes to property and legality. Communism is needed to balance the power of capitalism. Keep the workers from getting chain to their machines.

Now onto a more controversial point. Fascism, actually had some decent ideas. You'd be surprised of how many of them are present in your lives.

My point is, calling an ideology idiotic or pathetic is a road to your own stupidity. Learn and then steal whatever they do well for yourself.

Heck, Democracy was stolen from the Greeks. Half of the legal system (in anywhere English speaking, and quite a few more places) was taken from a document signed to stop the King from stealing a few baron's castles. The fact you can read this right now is because someone stole the zero from the Arabs, who stole it from someone else.

Be smart. Steal ideas. No one can invent everything.

 

[Captain Picard]

I, and many millions of others, would like to live in a world where there is something greater than one's self to believe in, live under, and conduct ourselves with. The only way you could prevent these people from forming a heirarchy is through lethal force. Don't try to take away our structure and our order, otherwise things will get violent.

This widespread sentiment guarantees that humanity will never exist as you envision it. Technological process on the scale which exists today REQUIRES a highly structured human civilization. It will break for no man, no idea, and anarchy is a threat to the technological and biological advancement of our race.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Hmm, up front it seems anarchy wouldn't work because of an "inherent evil" of humans, or what I think it is, is that when you have enough people, situations are bound to arise where one person's "good" is another person's "bad". If we define laws, then everyone can point at those laws when determining whether someone has done good or bad.

But besides that, without government there is natural selection. Everyone is not equal. Government also provides for large projects like roads that allow us to cross a country. Government provides and enforces standards so, for example, you can feel relatively safe getting on an airplane and knowing the airline didn't cut corners.

As was mentioned before, in a small community, anarchy could work. You could even do democratic votes involving the whole community. But a big place, say, a country. Maybe everyone could vote on every little thing. But if every person concerned themselves with every decision a country could make, no one would have time to do anything else. And if people just voted without investigating for themselves, then that's an empty vote someone won with good marketing.

Humans are clever and selfish and thus hard to wrangle. A government defines a society that we agree to because it keeps us safe.

Hmmm, well maybe these are accurate observations.

Everyone may not be perfectly equal, but people should be afforded equal opportunities. People could make roadsystems if they wanted them bad enough too man. You might feel safe getting on the plane knowing the plane will work, but states and all might have a terrorist there. Safety is good, but not when it restricts liberty equality and solidarity.

Afforded equal opportunities.... and then the ones who can't make it lead horrible, possibly short, lives.
Maybe roads would happen eventually, but they'd be an amalgam of poorly planned cris-crossing tracks made as-needed. Not the sort of quality that can come out of a public transportation system.
Really, guy? States might have terr-rists? First off, what does that mean? And how is that worse than planes falling out of the sky naturally? (it's like saying Windows is bad because it gets viruses. Macs are not magically virus-proof. They reeeeally aren't.)
I was hoping to find out how an anarchist proposes to address these problems, but I feel like you're not even trying.

I'd need an example of the one's who can't make it, there'd have to be some pretty interesting circumstances for when a person is completely unable to work. Yea my arguments are becoming weaker and weaker, I'm going to stop posting for tonight and pick up again tomorrow where I left off with this post. You guys just keep giving me the same arguments I've seen time and time again and it gets tiresome to address them in the same way so I try to be unique. But eff that I'm going to save a notepad file from now on.

 

[Internet Kraken]

What power does the dictator hold exactly? If it's just one guy I'm sure that a group of anarchs could overthrow the bum. If he's got a large army then the revolution was unsuccessful and there was never anarchy anyway.

Yes the people do decide, same way the Iroqouis worked their business out, people get together, have meetings and decide from there, they won't shout because that doesn't work, being calm and civil does, so that's what they'll do.

Okay, how many times do I have to say this for you to understand?

The dictator is more powerful (that's the keyword) than everyone else. He has better weapons, more resources, and more manpower. Hence why he is able to take control.

Now obviously one man can't fight off a large group of people (usually), so he would probably have supporters. Now who would these supporters be? Broken spirits. People that have suffered heavily since the world has fallen into anarchy because there were not enough resources to satisfy everyone. When the dictator promises them a better life if they help him, then it's easy to see how he could get supporters.


And would you stop using small-scale examples? It's stupid. Anarchy might be able to work on a small scale, but we're talking about a population of over 6 billion people all living under anarchy. It simply does not work because they do not have enough resources.

Well this is obviously wrong because you're assuming that people who aren't well off in a system are going to rebel against a system, yet (psuedo)capitalism is still around. And there would be enough resources to support most everyone so that point is moot. You claim they don't have enough resources, then how the hell are we managing it today with not enough resources.

Oh this is hilarious.

First of all, there are people who hate capitalism (like you). And many of them want to destroy it completely (like you). But there are many reasons as to why that does not happen.

One of the major reasons is that many people are unified under capitalism. These are the people that are living bearable lives in a capitalist society. When some group of people tries to take down the government, they see this as a threat to their lives under the capitalist system. Taking capitalism down only harms them. That is why a revolt against capitalism does not take place. It's because capitalism unifies the population. Anarchy doesn't do that. In anarchy, there is no reasons to help someone else unless it directly benefits you. Secondly, it's not like you have to revolt against some major power when trying to create a society in anarchy. You don't have to take down something that is much stronger than yourself. You just have to dispose of the few people that resist your authority. Much easier than destroying an entire army.

And perhaps I should explain the last part about resources more. We do have enough resources to support the current population, but that is only because we have people regulating these resources. We have people that determine how to distribute these resources and to maintain them. Under anarchy, these people do not exist. Resources would not be distributed properly because there is nobody around to prevent someone from taking more than their fair share.

 

[SonicKoala]

You give me a statement with no backing I'll give you one.

The backing of my statement lies in the very definition of libertarianism. The right to property is one of the two main pillars of this ideology. You can't bend it any way you like and say you're right becuase enough people agree with you to spew out that wrethed term.

Maybe neo-liberalism but under classical liberalism definitely not. But we're beginning to argue semantics, if you REALLY care.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html

Anarcho-communist here.

http://www.communism.org/#faq

^ to those who don't know much about communism, think communism is a totalitarian dictatorship, or say it won't work.

You think capitalism is working? Capitalism kills. Because of capitalism, someone dies of starvation less than every four seconds.

Yeah, capitalism kills, but at least it's functional. Your system is dependent on this belief that humanity is inherently good, which it isn't. Also, you site that the Linux software program as an example that communism can work, which is just stupid. Once again, that is incredibly small scale, and would not work if applied to millions of millions of people in every aspect of society (not just the internet).

So a system that kills people is considered functional by you... why is our system not functional again?

People are going to die in any kind of society, stop being such a pussy idealist. It's not functional because what you are proposing is impossible. You are suggesting that all of society be organized into these small co-operatives. How would this take place? What would become of the infrastructure that is kept functional by the various forms of government we have? What would happen to the police force, or health care? Since each co-operative isn't going to have all the necessities needed for survival, how is trade going to work? What will happen to the economy? What about international relations? I say your system isn't functional because you just have this incredibly vague idea of how it would exist without taking into account the ENORMOUS complexities that are involved in our society today.

You can't really plan how the world is going to happen bro, sorry about that. Ad hominem is uneccessary.

well i'm not an anarchist... though i suppose i do support the whole no-descrimination thing... except for women! HA! (*shifty eyes*)... sorry... though wouldn't lack of heirarchy in any form mean that everyone would have to be exactly equal? anyone who is smarter than anyone else is at a different point on SOME heirarchy, institutionalised or not...

plus i like my materialism... gets me a whole bunch of cool stuff...

Ehh it's not really a hierarchy if someone is better than someone else at any given craft, hierarchy is society organized from the top-down, that's how resources,information,etc. are distributed in a hierarchy. Not sure what you mean by materialism, but anarchy could be described as egoism.

Libertarian socialism just being a nice word for anarchy obviously.

There are usually lots of misconceptions about anarchy so let me clear up what anarchy is. Anarchy is opposition to all forms of hierarchy,Capitalism (no anarcho-capitalism is NOT a form of anarchy), the State, racism, sexism, discrimination upon the basis of sexual preference, etc. Anarchy is opposed to hierarchy because anarchy seeks to maximize liberty, equality, and solidarity (these three all naturally follow each other of course), and hierarchy by nature limits these three.

Property is Theft

*faceplam*

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism, just like there are no square circles. It's just a retarded, but fancy word for communism.

No

THE WISE ONE HAS SPOKEN!

...

Christ, you're pathetic.

You give me a statement with no backing I'll give you one.

Basing this on your "you can't really plan how the world is going to happen, bro" statement, it seems that your argument has completely lost its momentum. Yeah, you can't plan how the world is going to happen, but saying "FUCK IT LETS GO FOR IT ANYWAY" is a TERRIBLE alternative, especially when you are proposing a system that is so vague that the individuals who came up with the idea in the first place can't even tell you what such a society would look like - the most famous example of this? Karl Marx - he never ONCE said what a Communist society would look like. You can go on and on and on about how unjust capitalist society is, but until you come up with something better that would WORK, you should probably devote your attention to IMPROVING our current system. And when I say improving, please keep in mind that CHANGING IT ALL TOGETHER is not a viable option.

You can't plan specifics, but you can get a general idea of how it will look EG without hierarchies, from that you can paint a pretty good idea, but the details will be worked out after/during the revolution.

See, the thing with working out the "details" as you call them (which are, essentially, how society will function) during or after the revolution is that these revolutionaries, who had their very high-minded ideals and good intentions at the beginning of the revolution, begin to discover the reality of their situation as they gain power - this has happened in almost every single major political revolution of the last 100 years, and the result is a system that is essentially the same as the last one, and there is plenty of historical evidence to support that claim. Look at every single communist or socialist revolution that took place in the 20th century - The USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Cuba; all of these started out with these high-minded ideals, but ultimately ended in dictatorship. Why? Well, according to Marx, there needs to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in order to transition from Capitalism to Communism.

The thing is, writing that down is so much simpler than actually doing it. What ended up happening was all of these countries got stuck at the "dictator" part because they simply had NO IDEA how to create a communist society. Mao Zedong tried it in China - he actually created a system similar to the one you're talking about. He created a bunch of individual Cooperatives throughout China - these people would work together, share their labour, and be as self-sufficient as possible. The results of this social experiment on such a mass scale? Over 30 million people died. That's why you can't "work out the details" during the revolution - in today's day and age, particularly with the level of complexity inherent in today's society, you have to have an idea of how society is going to function before you embark on such an endeavour.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Resources are used far more efficiently in our modern age. We have made major advancements in our ability to gather and maintain resources. The problem with resource consumption stems more from the current population, not from the method we use to consume these resources.

If the world fell into a state of anarchy, millions of people would die from starvation. With such a limited amount of resources and nobody having any rules about how to gather, distribute, and maintain these resources, we would soon exhaust many of our resources. We would lose most of the luxuries we have come to associate with normal modern life. Overall, life would be a lot worse for everyone.

On the contrary, the top 1% of the world's wealth would fall down to the bottom, and most everyone could live in relative excess.

Except if the world devolved into anarchy who would be regulating what was considered wealth? Complete anarchy means that there's no central governing body to enforce these kinds of things. So your argument that the wealth from the top would fall to the bottom is meaningless.

 

[quiet_samurai]

[

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

The Native aMericans did not live in Ararchy. They had tribes and elders and people who made decisions based on how wise they were. They had laws and rules and a form of managing themselves among other peoples and the earth itself.

There is no such thing as true Anarchy. The moment you introduce a single figure head or entity of authority be it a president, king, emperor, parliment, chief, committee, council, or even the biggest guy in the tribe that says he eats first and has first pick of the women, you are no longer living in anarchy. The moment a system of authority shows up, wheter is agreed upon or forced, anarchy is out the window.

Anarcho-communist here.

That's an oxy-moron.

The first bit of your first statement is wrong, refer to the quote I posted earlier. The second part's first sentence is wrong. There is such a thing as justified authority (EG the surgeon is the one that will be in charger of surgery)

And the last thing you said is just wrong, though a "worker's state" is an oxy-moron

Which of your quotes are you talking about? To live in anarchy means to have zero authority figures or any form of management or govenrment... zero, none, zilch, nada... it's just impossible. The Native Americans had chiefs, elders, wisemen, (people who led and made decisions for others)they followed the rules they believed sent down to them by mother earth. All of those things are a system of government or management. It might not be what we would call "civilization" by modern means, but they were not living in anarchy.

And I don't know what you are geting at when you are talking about the surgeon, maybe you mean the surgeon will always be in charge of surgery no matter the government or lack thereof he is operating in? If so yes, but that is just his title, that is his job. He is a surgeon, he performs surgery, just because he is supervising something he is trained to do does not mean it fits into the grander sceme of things involving political ideals, it is not a position of real authority as far as government goes.

Also "Anarcho-communism" is an oxy-moron. Once again, Anarchy is to live without any form of government or management, be it primitive or modern, essentially every man for himself living how he wants. Communism is complete and total equality in everything. They cancel each other out, you cannot have everyone working together as one equally, and at the same time operating for themselves. You cannot have a political and econmic ideal for the masses and yet simultaneously have no form of management of governing body to apply it... it is just impossible.

 

[lacktheknack]

All that can be said of anarchy, socialism, and capitalism: It won't work while there are people. People in general end up screwing up every good idea.