Free beer, and a question...

reply to post by ANOK


If you are a person who actually takes the time to write or discuss about your thoughts on being an Anarchist or have the need to prove this to others or have the need to cause debate to bring your ideas into the publics consciousness...THEN YOU ARE NOT AN ANARCHIST!

I ask you again.

Do you know what a 1%er is?

These are the Worlds real and true Anarchists.

Split Infinity

reply to post by ANOK


you are a little insulting.

Why is it that when people provide reasons that are contrary to what socialists, and proponents of communism provide as THEIR reasoning, that they almost always call them ignorant unilaterally? So if we disagree we must be dumb or misinformed?......

I provided my take on socialism AFTER answering your question.

You seem to want to speak at us rather than talk to us.

sorry. next time I will just keep my thoughts to myself. I figured that since you are such an avid proponent of socialism that you could address some honest questions I had about it. I did answer your question though which you did not address, but rather threw a definition at me. Dictionaries are never in short supply when talking about this huh? I provided a means of them being compatible though I ultimately see them being at odds, but you want people to only say what you have already decided as the correct answer.

So you should not pose a question but rather offer a statement.

either way, I will mind my own business now.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
These are the Worlds real and true Anarchists.

LOL there is more to anarchism than that mate. Did I say I was an Anarchist?

We are discussing anarchist theory dude, now answer my question and stop avoiding it. This is getting tedious. You make no effort to understand, or even address what I'm saying. You have made obvious foe pars, and now you start trying to discredit me personally. Makes me wonder what your real motive is.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz

you are a little insulting.

I am just returning the same respect I am receiving. If you would actually discuss what I'm saying, instead of just making swipes at it, and ignoring the point of this thread, then I would be far more congenial.

You try being a commie pinko on this web site for awhile, and see how you feel.

I do appreciate you all bumping my thread though, seriously thanks folks.

reply to post by ANOK

You are well versed in the theory, I respect that even if I don't understand you.

Now just a friendly tip for the next time. It's "faux pas," not "foe pars." One of those silly French expressions.

reply to post by ANOK


I did not insult you nor lose respect for you. I had the courtesy of participating in your thread and taking the time to form a statement so as to provide us with a mutually beneficial dialog.

You try being a commie pinko on this web site

That is entirely in your head and is a complexion YOU have with the world and those NOT like you.

I can not go around assuming you to be anything than what I know you are from my personal experience. That would be ignorant of me to do. I see though that you justify doing the same because that is how it plays out in your head.

You are a mirror bud. You get what you project.

Food for thought.
Stop calling people who disagree with you ignorant and conversations take a whole new direction.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


If I seem insulting I apologize. I try to not be rude when debating but I admit I sometimes fail.

My point is that what you are using as ideas and proofs of what is or is not have all been provided to you by those who believe they know what it is and means to be an Anarchist.

If you get the time...Google one percenter.

It is illuminating.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Me?

I will though.

Oh, bikers...yeah...I get ya.

Thanks for that, great example.

"Anarcho-Syndicalists are of the opinion that political parties are not fitted . . . 1. To enforce the demands of the producers for the safeguarding and raising of their standard of living [or] 2. To acquaint the workers with the technical management of production and economic life in general and prepare them to take the socio-economic organism into their own hands and shape it according to socialist principles . . . According to their conceptions the trade union has to be the spearhead of the labour movement, toughened by daily combats and permeated by a socialist spirit...

ANARCHISM AND ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM by Rudolf Rocker

Johann Rudolf Rocker (March 25, 1873 – September 19, 1958) was an anarcho-syndicalist writer and activist. A self-professed anarchist without adjectives, Rocker believed that anarchist schools of thought represented "only different methods of economy" and that the first objective for anarchists was "to secure the personal and social freedom of men".[2]

Rudolf Rocker

His belief in the people was very genuine, & his vision of socialism quite unlike the State machine pictured in Marx's communist manifesto. Hearing his views, I could not help exclaiming: "Why, Mr. Debs, you're an anarchist!" "Not Mister, but Comrade," he corrected me; "won't you call me that?" Clasping my hand warmly, he assured me that he felt very close to the anarchists, that anarchism was the goal to strive for, & that all socialists should also be anarchists.

Eugene Debs

Eugene Victor "Gene" Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American union leader, one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or the Wobblies), and several times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States.[1] Through his presidential candidacies, as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States.

Eugene V. Debs

The right (and many on the left) consider that, by definition, "socialism" is state ownership and control of the means of production, along with centrally planned determination of the national economy (and so social life). This definition has become common because many Social Democrats, Leninists, and other statists call themselves socialists. However, the fact that certain people call themselves socialists does not imply that the system they advocate is really socialism. We need to analyse and understand the systems in question, by applying critical, scientific thought, in order to determine whether their claims to the socialist label are justified. As we'll see, to accept the above definition one has to ignore the overall history of the socialist movement and consider only certain trends within it as representing the movement as a whole.

...Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council communists, and other libertarian Marxists, as well as followers of Robert Owen, all rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that the means of production did not change their form as capital when the state took over their ownership, and hence that state ownership of capital was a tendency within, not opposed to, capitalism (see section H.2.2 for more on this).

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference...

Anton Pannekoek 1947 Public Ownership and Common Ownership

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by YouSir
Ummm.....What exactly is the point of this thread anyways?

To point out the contradiction of the thinking that socialism means some kind of government.

Another question, who gives a rats ass?

I do. If you don't then there are some threads about the world ending somewhere you can troll in.

The reason for these questions..........There is no such thing beyond the conceptualizing. When has a Socialist, Anarchic, Marxist, or Communist society...moved beyond the transitional phase and left governmental structure behind on the ashheap?................NEVER...

Not the point of the thread. Can you answer the question?

How can Anarchists be socialists if socialism is some kind of state system?

Ummm....Okay, so you care...but your responses are very telling. You propose that Anarchy, like Communism is an end result structure while socialism is the transitional phase between either of those and capitalism. Within the framework of your premise, you presuppose that this transitional phase is only that and not a system in and of itself. Therefore Arnarchy cannot be socialism because it is the evolved end cycle of the transitional phase socialism. In theory, you can claim whatever you wish, but in practice you have to accept the reality that no society has ever moved beyond the transitional phase...........NOT ONE...
Societies, like weather and climate are never static, I would argue that they are and will always remain transitional. Therefore this transitional phase...becomes...a state system and never culminates in the end into the transitioned ideal. This is why I asked what the point of this thread was. You should have been able to see through to the end of my inquiry and you should have considered that in a transitional species any form of structured society would always reflect transformation and not culmination...
Dont be so quick to assume boorish or trollock behavior....sometimes the short answer or question is an attempt to engender questioning the short answer.

YouSir

reply to post by ANOK


still no free beer "disheartened"

en.wikipedia.org...

Here, its on the internet.

Read and discover.

reply to post by ANOK


I understand only too well what you are discussing. You will pardon my rudeness here as this is the only analogy that properly fits.

The people and their professed idealizm whether documented in their speaches or books is akin to a Pastey 60 year old Anarchist wannabe who's only experience and practice of Anarchism has come in the forms of Debates in the Halls of Acadamia and arguements with other self proffessed Enlightened as at the same time they struggle to come to terms with how they were bullied as a child fending off attacks as a TRUE ANARCHIST stole their school lunch money! LOL!

Again...look up 1%er.

Split Infinity

All you can do is attempt to discredit my evidence, you want people to think Anarchists are kids wearing black and breaking things, not the highly intellectual thinkers and authors that actually created the system. If it wasn't for those crusty old Anarchists anarchism would not exist as a political movement. I bet you don't treat your 'founding fathers' with such disrespect?

You need get to get up a bit earlier dude, It's not hard to see what you're doing. You use the same tactic in the 911 forum.

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy, this does not make them supporters of capitalism. Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified "property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered profit, rent and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I favour." [Instead of a Book, p. 400] Because of this and their explicit opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) and capitalist property, they could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist Marxist wing.

Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

So when are you going to answer my question? How can anarchists be socialist by your definition of socialism?

reply to post by wdkirk


I've already supplied many links and quotes explaining why anarchism is socialist, and either people don't read them, or they are too conditioned, or too stupid, to understand it.

Or they are doing it on purpose to simply discredit my thread because it's too close to the truth for them.

Not one reply has shown any evidence that I'm wrong. Nothing but their opinion. I supply links and quotes containing facts, not my opinion. All they can do is attempt to discredit my evidence.

reply to post by ANOK

I'm breaking my own rule about posting again in this thread, but my curiosity is having its effect.

Let's assume that you're correct, Anarchism is Socialism. Where do we go from there? Or, more crudely, so what? Neither Anarchism nor Socialism was an important foundation stone for our country, and they are still out of favor.

Is your goal a purely intellectual dissertation, or do you have something else in mind?

The evidence for what I am saying is never ending...

This shows a fundamental contradiction of capitalism: all of society is organized to produce goods and services; workers work “collectively” to build products, i.e., they work “socialistically,” but the vast majority of the wealth produced goes to a small minority of non-working, very wealthy shareholders. Thus, to correct this problem, the wealth produced by society should be distributed to those who create it, not funneled into the pockets of the rich. This would require transferring the vast majority of the productive machinery from private ownership of a few to the control of vast majority.

The Origins of Modern Socialism

Socialism is divided into three main trends : reformism, anarchism and Marxism...

Anarchism Or Socialism ? 1 December, 1906 — January, 1907

Common ownership is not to be confused with state ownership, since an organ of coercion, or state, has no place in socialism.

Another reason why state ownership and socialism are incompatible is that the state is a national institution which exercises political control over a limited geographical area. Since capitalism is a world system, the complete state ownership of the means of production within a given political area cannot represent the abolition of capitalism, even within that area. What it does mean, and this has been one of the major themes of this book, is the establishment of some form of state capitalism whose internal mode of operation is conditioned by the fact that it has to compete in a world market context against other capitals.

Socialism, being based on the common ownership of the means of production by all members of society, is not an exchange economy. Production would no longer be carried on for sale with a view to profit as under capitalism. In fact, production would not be carried on for sale at all. Production for sale would be a nonsense since common ownership of the means of production means that what is produced is commonly owned by society as soon as it is produced. The question of selling just cannot arise because, as an act of exchange, this could only take place between separate owners. Yet separate owners of parts of the social product are precisely what would not, and could not exist in a society where the means of production were owned in common.

The Alternative To Capitalism

According to Marx, capitalism is merely a stage of historical development. It will eventually collapse under the weight of a laboring class (the proletariat) which increasingly becomes poorer and more numerous. The inconsistency of fewer and fewer people controlling more and more of the means of production will lead to capitalism’s collapse because eventually it will become too great an interference with production. At that time, the proletariat will create a rational society with no wages, no money, no social classes, and, eventually no state - “a free association of producers under their own conscious and purposive control.” McInes, Neil “Karl Marx,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 5 & 6, MacMillan Publishing Co. (NY: 1967) p. 172.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Actually he is untwisting decades of maligning the words. The words have been deliberate maligned to subvert the intentions of those who practice their true meanings who's goals are respectively: No boss/private owner, no state.

Anarchism = No State/Government, no centralized authority... 100% Liberty.

Socialism/Communism = The means of production are owned by the people who work the production. The means of production, ie a factory, would never be permitted to be owned by anyone but the public. Private property would only be for private use, ie your home, car, currency etc.

The result of worker ownership is simply exactly what it sounds like, each individual owns the fruits of their labor. If my skill set enables me to work in a car factory, I own an equal portion of the profit the sale of the car made or I own the car to sell/barter with on my own. It can be broken down in many different ways... If I work in an orchard, every piece of fruit I pick is mine to consume or sell/barter as I see fit.

Russia never did this, China never did this, N.Korea or any nation that ever claimed to be socialist/communist. Every example in recent history such as those I mentioned above never put the means of production in the hands of the people and each respective State only grew and became more oppressive.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

Russia never did this, China never did this, N.Korea or any nation that ever claimed to be socialist/communist. Every example in recent history such as those I mentioned above never put the means of production in the hands of the people and each respective State only grew and became more oppressive.

edit on 17-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Ummm...Precisely, and more to the point NO society ever reached beyond their transitioning phase and fulfilled the ideal....NONE...The better Question is WHY? And I have already provided that answer in my previous posts...
To re-cap, it only takes a little consideration, a short look at what it means to be human, what the ingredients in such an exploration reveal. We are very impatient as individuals. We try to hurry along the process of evolution and convince ourselves that we had indeed evolved. Such is not the case and any non-emotive inquiry will affirm this. This is the scientific objectivity that must accompany any consideration. It's like the process of meditation, one doesn't achieve inner quietude by "thinking" not-thinking, the process simply requires one to not...think.
I've stated this in other threads, yet it bears continued repeating......Humans are territorial animals....Think about that statement for awhile and then consider that we can never seperate ourselves from our nature.
Anyone that claims that they can rise above their genetic structure into some enlightened state is suffering from delusion and existing on emotion and not reason or logic. As territorial animals we are predisposed to gather, not merely in a group sense, but to gather together things, artifacts, baubles, technologies and claim them in ownership. In this sense we also protect the owned in an alpha-beta structure that influences response to existensial and exterior threat. These pattterns are written into our makeup, we can no more leave them aside without relief than we can exist without breath or fuel. The reason that society never moves beyond the trasitional becomes obvious and a further consideration of these inherent patternings will evince an understanding of what constitutes societal ills and pressures.
The challenge will be to construct a society in which the urges of our natures have exhaustive outlets in a natural sense and that these recognitions become inclusive in structure seeking and not thwarted by an unnatural belief that somehow we had grown out of and above ourselves. To be honest, this is evolution, not some attempt to excise out or ignore the reality of our code.

YouSir

reply to post by ANOK


That's not what I am saying at all. I am trying to give you a picture of what a TRUE ANARCHIST is. Such people are not anyone who would be writting a book about what the tenaments of being an Anarchist would be.

Here is a list of ANARCHISTS.

Hell's Angel's or any 1%er Biker.
Vikings
Saxons
Ganghis Khan
Kublai Khan

History is LOADED with such people and groups of people who believed that the STRONG were entitled to do as they wish and take whatever and whoever they wanted by FORCE.

THIS is the definition of an ANARCHIST and for some mealy mouthed self proclaimed Intellectual who is so STUPID as to attempt to make a connection to SOCIALISM and ANARCHISM as these two things have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON OR IN CONNECTION TO EACH OTHER...and for anyone to actually take either interest in his words or even believe them is BEYOND BELIEF.

Split Infinity