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

[SonicKoala]

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

See, the examples you are siting are small-scale. When you apply this idea to a society of millions of people, things are going to wrong. And yes, there is something wrong with killing thousands of people to achieve an end - it's incredibly hypocritical, and I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more than just the "bad" people that end up getting killed. When you think about it, people who want to achieve such a utopian ideal wouldn't be capable of pulling off a violent revolution - the ones who are capable of doing that probably have ulterior motives.

Second, how would you implement such a system? How would you ensure that everyone resorts to this co-operative style of living? The answer would have to be some sort of temporary dictatorship that organizes society into these small-scale co-operatives. They did something like that in the USSR, and it never worked. And sure, we have all these new advancements in technology, like the internet, but they would only benefit society provided everybody is completely honest and dedicated to this ideal. Theories like Communism and Anarchism rely FAR too heavily on the belief that this is what all people want, and that humanity in general is "good", which is naive.

 

[Quotation Marx]

And with all this talk of a Utopia, describe one. Describe a society in which everyone could survive, be happy, without conflict, and with human nature intact. I don't see one.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

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.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

Violent revolution is unnecessary for our cause, as well as wasteful and a massive cause of distress and suffering for the loved ones of those lost.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Bah. One problem I have with this is the assumption that all the tribal peoples were such civilized, noble beings, and that those who came into these areas were the horrible savages. They were all evil. Pure and simple. Indians, yes, I'm calling them that, cut off people's genitals and stuck it in the previous owners' mouths. Is that from kind, civilized folks? Hell no. They brutalized, and tortured, and slaughtered-Just the same as the Europeans, and Asians. Stop acting like they're special.
Secondly, any thought ever developed will work in the ideal-Because that's the ideal. But reality is NOT ideal. You said capitalism doesn't work. Doesn't America slap you in the face and say that it can? Bureaucracy and politics has cut it down, just like they turned communism into a life of hell, and always will because of how easy that system is to manipulate.
In a state of Anarchy, the definition of that lone word being a society without ruler or lawlessness, we'd all be screwed, because there's nothing but a person's conscience stopping murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. This works for those committing or punishing the crime. Safety, even its illusion, is shattered, and life becomes chaos.
As for socialism, it may just be my mindset as an American, but why should one person reap the benefits of another person's work? Yes, I understand that a small level needs to exist to keep society bound and running, instead of a state of every man for himself, dead bodies in the streets, rampant disease, etc. but you don't need people living on welfare. Using it as a tool to get back to a job and life? Yes. Using it as a paycheck to continue with? No.

You think capitalism works in America? America isn't even a capitalist nation bro, it's more like tough love, tough for the poor and love for the rich, something of a free-market for the lower class and socialism for the rich. I'd like to see your sources on where you get that Native Americans were such savages. It's easy to paint the victims of your conquest as "evil" to ease your conscience.

I REALLY want to point this out but why should one person reap the benefits of another person's work? (html works here right >_______>)

By this phrase alone you are not a capitalist, and support the very idea's I hold regarding work.

And we're going over the same points again and again, people please read the thread.

You need ANARCHISTS to have an ANARCHIST society, by this very definition your claims of there would be massive violence is null.

You really think that would happen?

Okay, here's the thing. Anarchy is never going to happen. Ever. Even if you destroyed every government, someone would just take power again. Someone who is powerful will gain access to a supply of resources. They will then use these resources to influence people into following them. These people will gather more resources for them, and as they gain more resources more people will join them. And then anarchy is no more. You once again have a society with some form of structure.

Hey bro we all die why bother living? Same logic.

Um, no. I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems like you just completely avoided what I said.

Something like the people decide, oh look that guy is hungry, maybe he might need some of this food. If you're asking to the nature of an economy in an anarchist system, it could be communist, individualist, collectivist, etc.

Oh, brilliant idea. Except for one flaw that you conveniently avoided.


The people can be just as corrupt as the government. Everyone's going to try to take as much wealth as they. When people find out that they can't get as much as they want, conflict will be created. People will cry out Wwhy does he get as much as me, when I do so much more than him?" and "I didn't get enough! Why am I not being treated fairly?". And they will remember that they live in anarchy. And in anarchy, the ideas of what's right and wrong do not exist. The strongest person will get what they want and you can't do anything about it unless you want to get yourself killed.

You claimed it's pointless to go into an anarchist society because eventually someone will turn it into hierarchy again. Same logic as saying why live if you're just going to not exist at some undetermined point in the future. Yes I did avoid your point because of the faulty logic. But the point stems back to the fact that you need anarchists etc etc etc. Lets assume you do have someone who attempts to monopolize a resource in order to get people to follow him. Anarchists, instead of following him will say lolno, attempt to negotiate, then shoot him in the face if he doesn't let go of the resources.

As to your second set of issues, you're assuming anarchy equally distributes wealth, to each according to need, depending on the system, it would distribute wealth according to need and ability. and for the last sentence, anarchists anarchist society etc etc etc etc.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Libertarian Socialism as I've heard it explained is just a nice pipe dream, like Marx's "pure communism". And, like communism--and, for that matter, anarchy--it works best in groups of one or fewer.

Except it's happened before.

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

See, the examples you are siting are small-scale. When you apply this idea to a society of millions of people, things are going to wrong. And yes, there is something wrong with killing thousands of people to achieve an end - it's incredibly hypocritical, and I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more than just the "bad" people that end up getting killed. When you think about it, people who want to achieve such a utopian ideal wouldn't be capable of pulling off a violent revolution - the ones who are capable of doing that probably have ulterior motives.

Second, how would you implement such a system? How would you ensure that everyone resorts to this co-operative style of living? The answer would have to be some sort of temporary dictatorship that organizes society into these small-scale co-operatives. They did something like that in the USSR, and it never worked. And sure, we have all these new advancements in technology, like the internet, but they would only benefit society provided everybody is completely honest and dedicated to this ideal. Theories like Communism and Anarchism rely FAR too heavily on the belief that this is what all people want, and that humanity in general is "good", which is naive.

Well from your first statement I have you on my side against the State then. Because the State is violent by its very nature. The exampsse I cite are small scale because anarchy would only work small-scale, exactly the way humans were meant to live, in a tribal sort of clannish environment.

And if revolution is occurring then OBVIOUSLY the people want it, no need for coercion there.

And with all this talk of a Utopia, describe one. Describe a society in which everyone could survive, be happy, without conflict, and with human nature intact. I don't see one.

I don't advocate a Utopian society, though I am flattered that you think Anarchism is.

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

Violent revolution is unnecessary for our cause, as well as wasteful and a massive cause of distress and suffering for the loved ones of those lost.

I was just baiting him out to show he's against violence so he'd be against the State. Violence is the last resort, but there are cases where it must be used.

 

[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).

 

[Akai Shizuku]

-snip-

I was just baiting him out to show he's against violence so he'd be against the State. Violence is the last resort, but there are cases where it must be used.

Only when necessary, such as in self-defense.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Bah. One problem I have with this is the assumption that all the tribal peoples were such civilized, noble beings, and that those who came into these areas were the horrible savages. They were all evil. Pure and simple. Indians, yes, I'm calling them that, cut off people's genitals and stuck it in the previous owners' mouths. Is that from kind, civilized folks? Hell no. They brutalized, and tortured, and slaughtered-Just the same as the Europeans, and Asians. Stop acting like they're special.
Secondly, any thought ever developed will work in the ideal-Because that's the ideal. But reality is NOT ideal. You said capitalism doesn't work. Doesn't America slap you in the face and say that it can? Bureaucracy and politics has cut it down, just like they turned communism into a life of hell, and always will because of how easy that system is to manipulate.
In a state of Anarchy, the definition of that lone word being a society without ruler or lawlessness, we'd all be screwed, because there's nothing but a person's conscience stopping murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. This works for those committing or punishing the crime. Safety, even its illusion, is shattered, and life becomes chaos.
As for socialism, it may just be my mindset as an American, but why should one person reap the benefits of another person's work? Yes, I understand that a small level needs to exist to keep society bound and running, instead of a state of every man for himself, dead bodies in the streets, rampant disease, etc. but you don't need people living on welfare. Using it as a tool to get back to a job and life? Yes. Using it as a paycheck to continue with? No.

You think capitalism works in America? America isn't even a capitalist nation bro, it's more like tough love, tough for the poor and love for the rich, something of a free-market for the lower class and socialism for the rich. I'd like to see your sources on where you get that Native Americans were such savages. It's easy to paint the victims of your conquest as "evil" to ease your conscience.

I REALLY want to point this out but why should one person reap the benefits of another person's work? (html works here right >_______>)

By this phrase alone you are not a capitalist, and support the very idea's I hold regarding work.

And we're going over the same points again and again, people please read the thread.

You need ANARCHISTS to have an ANARCHIST society, by this very definition your claims of there would be massive violence is null.

You really think that would happen?

Okay, here's the thing. Anarchy is never going to happen. Ever. Even if you destroyed every government, someone would just take power again. Someone who is powerful will gain access to a supply of resources. They will then use these resources to influence people into following them. These people will gather more resources for them, and as they gain more resources more people will join them. And then anarchy is no more. You once again have a society with some form of structure.

Hey bro we all die why bother living? Same logic.

Um, no. I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems like you just completely avoided what I said.

Something like the people decide, oh look that guy is hungry, maybe he might need some of this food. If you're asking to the nature of an economy in an anarchist system, it could be communist, individualist, collectivist, etc.

Oh, brilliant idea. Except for one flaw that you conveniently avoided.


The people can be just as corrupt as the government. Everyone's going to try to take as much wealth as they. When people find out that they can't get as much as they want, conflict will be created. People will cry out Wwhy does he get as much as me, when I do so much more than him?" and "I didn't get enough! Why am I not being treated fairly?". And they will remember that they live in anarchy. And in anarchy, the ideas of what's right and wrong do not exist. The strongest person will get what they want and you can't do anything about it unless you want to get yourself killed.

You claimed it's pointless to go into an anarchist society because eventually someone will turn it into hierarchy again. Same logic as saying why live if you're just going to not exist at some undetermined point in the future. Yes I did avoid your point because of the faulty logic. But the point stems back to the fact that you need anarchists etc etc etc. Lets assume you do have someone who attempts to monopolize a resource in order to get people to follow him. Anarchists, instead of following him will say lolno, attempt to negotiate, then shoot him in the face if he doesn't let go of the resources.

As to your second set of issues, you're assuming anarchy equally distributes wealth, to each according to need, depending on the system, it would distribute wealth according to need and ability. and for the last sentence, anarchists anarchist society etc etc etc etc.

I'm not saying that eventually someone would retake power after the world fell into anarchy. I'm saying that someone would take power almost instantly. And you say that it wouldn't happen because people would resist the dictator? Well those people get killed because the dictator is more powerful than everyone else. Hence why he is capable of taking control.

And your last statement is filled with flaws. You're saying that resources would be distributed based on need and ability? Well who the fuck determines how much someone gets based on their needs and their abilities? Should someone with a broken arm get more than someone with a broken leg? Should they get equal resources? Who decides?

You're probably going to say "the people decide". Well how the hell do they do that? Do the people just shout out what they think is right until everyone else listens to them? That would never work because you would have millions of people all shouting out their demands at the same time.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

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?

 

[SonicKoala]

Libertarian Socialism as I've heard it explained is just a nice pipe dream, like Marx's "pure communism". And, like communism--and, for that matter, anarchy--it works best in groups of one or fewer.

Except it's happened before.

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

See, the examples you are siting are small-scale. When you apply this idea to a society of millions of people, things are going to wrong. And yes, there is something wrong with killing thousands of people to achieve an end - it's incredibly hypocritical, and I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more than just the "bad" people that end up getting killed. When you think about it, people who want to achieve such a utopian ideal wouldn't be capable of pulling off a violent revolution - the ones who are capable of doing that probably have ulterior motives.

Second, how would you implement such a system? How would you ensure that everyone resorts to this co-operative style of living? The answer would have to be some sort of temporary dictatorship that organizes society into these small-scale co-operatives. They did something like that in the USSR, and it never worked. And sure, we have all these new advancements in technology, like the internet, but they would only benefit society provided everybody is completely honest and dedicated to this ideal. Theories like Communism and Anarchism rely FAR too heavily on the belief that this is what all people want, and that humanity in general is "good", which is naive.

Well from your first statement I have you on my side against the State then. Because the State is violent by its very nature. The exampsse I cite are small scale because anarchy would only work small-scale, exactly the way humans were meant to live, in a tribal sort of clannish environment.

And if revolution is occurring then OBVIOUSLY the people want it, no need for coercion there.

And with all this talk of a Utopia, describe one. Describe a society in which everyone could survive, be happy, without conflict, and with human nature intact. I don't see one.

I don't advocate a Utopian society, though I am flattered that you think Anarchism is.

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

Violent revolution is unnecessary for our cause, as well as wasteful and a massive cause of distress and suffering for the loved ones of those lost.

I was just baiting him out to show he's against violence so he'd be against the State. Violence is the last resort, but there are cases where it must be used.

Lol you think you tricked me or something into agreeing with you? I'm against violence when it's in the name of establishing a fucking retarded system that couldn't possibly work. And yeah, anarchism could only work in small-scale communities, but since there's over 6.5 billion people on earth, people have become accustomed to living in large-scale communities. How could ANYBODY possibly reorganize a population that large into efficient co-operatives? And I notice you didn't address my question of HOW such a system would be implemented, because it WOULD require some form of dictatorship (which is just going to go to shit eventually) We have become accustomed to existing in large-scale societies, and that is not going to change.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

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

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.

-snip-

I was just baiting him out to show he's against violence so he'd be against the State. Violence is the last resort, but there are cases where it must be used.

Only when necessary, such as in self-defense.

Even then sometimes it'd be better to die as a peaceful martyr if you know you have no chance of winning a fight.

Bah. One problem I have with this is the assumption that all the tribal peoples were such civilized, noble beings, and that those who came into these areas were the horrible savages. They were all evil. Pure and simple. Indians, yes, I'm calling them that, cut off people's genitals and stuck it in the previous owners' mouths. Is that from kind, civilized folks? Hell no. They brutalized, and tortured, and slaughtered-Just the same as the Europeans, and Asians. Stop acting like they're special.
Secondly, any thought ever developed will work in the ideal-Because that's the ideal. But reality is NOT ideal. You said capitalism doesn't work. Doesn't America slap you in the face and say that it can? Bureaucracy and politics has cut it down, just like they turned communism into a life of hell, and always will because of how easy that system is to manipulate.
In a state of Anarchy, the definition of that lone word being a society without ruler or lawlessness, we'd all be screwed, because there's nothing but a person's conscience stopping murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. This works for those committing or punishing the crime. Safety, even its illusion, is shattered, and life becomes chaos.
As for socialism, it may just be my mindset as an American, but why should one person reap the benefits of another person's work? Yes, I understand that a small level needs to exist to keep society bound and running, instead of a state of every man for himself, dead bodies in the streets, rampant disease, etc. but you don't need people living on welfare. Using it as a tool to get back to a job and life? Yes. Using it as a paycheck to continue with? No.

You think capitalism works in America? America isn't even a capitalist nation bro, it's more like tough love, tough for the poor and love for the rich, something of a free-market for the lower class and socialism for the rich. I'd like to see your sources on where you get that Native Americans were such savages. It's easy to paint the victims of your conquest as "evil" to ease your conscience.

I REALLY want to point this out but why should one person reap the benefits of another person's work? (html works here right >_______>)

By this phrase alone you are not a capitalist, and support the very idea's I hold regarding work.

And we're going over the same points again and again, people please read the thread.

You need ANARCHISTS to have an ANARCHIST society, by this very definition your claims of there would be massive violence is null.

You really think that would happen?

Okay, here's the thing. Anarchy is never going to happen. Ever. Even if you destroyed every government, someone would just take power again. Someone who is powerful will gain access to a supply of resources. They will then use these resources to influence people into following them. These people will gather more resources for them, and as they gain more resources more people will join them. And then anarchy is no more. You once again have a society with some form of structure.

Hey bro we all die why bother living? Same logic.

Um, no. I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems like you just completely avoided what I said.

Something like the people decide, oh look that guy is hungry, maybe he might need some of this food. If you're asking to the nature of an economy in an anarchist system, it could be communist, individualist, collectivist, etc.

Oh, brilliant idea. Except for one flaw that you conveniently avoided.


The people can be just as corrupt as the government. Everyone's going to try to take as much wealth as they. When people find out that they can't get as much as they want, conflict will be created. People will cry out Wwhy does he get as much as me, when I do so much more than him?" and "I didn't get enough! Why am I not being treated fairly?". And they will remember that they live in anarchy. And in anarchy, the ideas of what's right and wrong do not exist. The strongest person will get what they want and you can't do anything about it unless you want to get yourself killed.

You claimed it's pointless to go into an anarchist society because eventually someone will turn it into hierarchy again. Same logic as saying why live if you're just going to not exist at some undetermined point in the future. Yes I did avoid your point because of the faulty logic. But the point stems back to the fact that you need anarchists etc etc etc. Lets assume you do have someone who attempts to monopolize a resource in order to get people to follow him. Anarchists, instead of following him will say lolno, attempt to negotiate, then shoot him in the face if he doesn't let go of the resources.

As to your second set of issues, you're assuming anarchy equally distributes wealth, to each according to need, depending on the system, it would distribute wealth according to need and ability. and for the last sentence, anarchists anarchist society etc etc etc etc.

I'm not saying that eventually someone would retake power after the world fell into anarchy. I'm saying that someone would take power almost instantly. And you say that it wouldn't happen because people would resist the dictator? Well those people get killed because the dictator is more powerful than everyone else. Hence why he is capable of taking control.

And your last statement is filled with flaws. You're saying that resources would be distributed based on need and ability? Well who the fuck determines how much someone gets based on their needs and their abilities? Should someone with a broken arm get more than someone with a broken leg? Should they get equal resources? Who decides?

You're probably going to say "the people decide". Well how the hell do they do that? Do the people just shout out what they think is right until everyone else listens to them? That would never work because you would have millions of people all shouting out their demands at the same time.

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.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Libertarian Socialism as I've heard it explained is just a nice pipe dream, like Marx's "pure communism". And, like communism--and, for that matter, anarchy--it works best in groups of one or fewer.

Except it's happened before.

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

See, the examples you are siting are small-scale. When you apply this idea to a society of millions of people, things are going to wrong. And yes, there is something wrong with killing thousands of people to achieve an end - it's incredibly hypocritical, and I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more than just the "bad" people that end up getting killed. When you think about it, people who want to achieve such a utopian ideal wouldn't be capable of pulling off a violent revolution - the ones who are capable of doing that probably have ulterior motives.

Second, how would you implement such a system? How would you ensure that everyone resorts to this co-operative style of living? The answer would have to be some sort of temporary dictatorship that organizes society into these small-scale co-operatives. They did something like that in the USSR, and it never worked. And sure, we have all these new advancements in technology, like the internet, but they would only benefit society provided everybody is completely honest and dedicated to this ideal. Theories like Communism and Anarchism rely FAR too heavily on the belief that this is what all people want, and that humanity in general is "good", which is naive.

Well from your first statement I have you on my side against the State then. Because the State is violent by its very nature. The exampsse I cite are small scale because anarchy would only work small-scale, exactly the way humans were meant to live, in a tribal sort of clannish environment.

And if revolution is occurring then OBVIOUSLY the people want it, no need for coercion there.

And with all this talk of a Utopia, describe one. Describe a society in which everyone could survive, be happy, without conflict, and with human nature intact. I don't see one.

I don't advocate a Utopian society, though I am flattered that you think Anarchism is.

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

Violent revolution is unnecessary for our cause, as well as wasteful and a massive cause of distress and suffering for the loved ones of those lost.

I was just baiting him out to show he's against violence so he'd be against the State. Violence is the last resort, but there are cases where it must be used.

Lol you think you tricked me or something into agreeing with you? I'm against violence when it's in the name of establishing a fucking retarded system that couldn't possibly work. And yeah, anarchism could only work in small-scale communities, but since there's over 6.5 billion people on earth, people have become accustomed to living in large-scale communities. How could ANYBODY possibly reorganize a population that large into efficient co-operatives? And I notice you didn't address my question of HOW such a system would be implemented, because it WOULD require some form of dictatorship (which is just going to go to shit eventually) We have become accustomed to existing in large-scale societies, and that is not going to change.

We were also once accustomed to slave labor (though I'd argue we still use it in the form of wage-slavery but I digress). You just seem to be against change, that anything we've grown accustomed to is something permanent. Ad hominem is not necessary. I can't tell you how the system will be implemented because it's all based around the specifics of what/when/where/how/why/etc. the revolution occurs.

 

[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.

 

[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...

 

[Akai Shizuku]

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).

Not as functional as you think, and you would not be saying that if you were on the lower end of capitalism, as billions are today.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

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.