It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
One revealing mark of how poorly the ordering principle of the market is understood is the common notion that "cooperation is better than competition".Cooperation, like solidarity, presupposed a large measure of agreement on ends as well as methods employed in their particular pursuit. It makes sense in a small group where members share particular habits, knowledge and belief about possibilities. It makes hardly any sense when the problem is to adapt to unknown circumstances; yet it is the adaptation to the unknown which the coordination of efforts in the extended order rests. Competition is a procedure of discovery, a procedure involved in all evolution, that led man unwittingly to respond to novel situations; and through further competition, not through agreement, we gradually increase our efficiency.
The more governments take over for people, making their decisions, paying their bills etc., the more lazy and violent society seems to be getting.
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....
Here’s where there is the most confusion about socialism. Those who really do benefit from capitalism will lie and tell you that under socialism you can’t have your own PERSONAL property. You can’t own your own home or your own boat, etc.
The truth is that your personal property—what you need to enjoy a secure and comfortable life—is a lot safer under socialism than under capitalism...
The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held
in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority. Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.
Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995
humanity will inevitably have to revert (if you will) to its hunter-gatherer nature in order to survive.
The thread addresses a specific ideology regarding the organization of a stateless society that is not representative of many others that would also be considered anarchist.
There wouldn't be liberals and conservatives anymore, there would be no reason to divide people.
Originally posted by dontreally
Who are you to say there wouldn't be "conservatives or liberals". Are you unaware that along the political spectrum anarchists are liberals?
Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.
Who are you to say there wouldn't be "conservatives or liberals". Are you unaware that along the political spectrum anarchists are liberals? That philosophically speaking, many of them hold beliefs, premises, suppositions and feelings towards life's questions that are fundamentally different from those arrived at by a conservative?
the entire notion that equality is more primary than liberty is based on the supposition that the community (abstract) is more fundamental than the individuals which make it up.
Anarchists are not liberals, in the modern sense of Liberalism. Anarchists are liberal, but not liberals.
American versus European use of the term "liberalism"
Main articles: Liberalism and Liberalism worldwide
Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1956), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." In continental Europe, liberalism usually means what is sometimes called classical liberalism, a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economics, and more closely corresponds to the American definition of libertarianism—itself a term which in Europe is instead often applied to left-libertarianism. However this is not consistently the case, as with the: Liberal Democrats (United Kingdom) - especially the Beveridge Group faction, Liberal People's Party (Sweden), Danish Social Liberal Party, and the Democratic Movement (France), for example. Some nominally liberal parties (e.g. VVD in The Netherlands) are actually conservative right wing "law and order" parties.
There are mindsets associated with liberal and conservative, that is certain. I think if we look closer at this certainty we have to ask ourselves if it is cultural or natural. However Anarchists are definitely not Liberal. Words have fixed meanings and one shouldn't philosophically interpret (nor spread those interpretations) the meaning of a word to do so is obfuscation. It is like math... 1 is always 1 and can't be anything else.
Using liberalism and conservative is a relatively modern way to divide people. Prior to WWII liberals and conservatives were not polar opposites.
Originally posted by Logan13
We don't have real capitalism right now and government is not obeying the Constitution. I think if liberties are made the prime focus we should be able to rid corruption and restore checks/balances.
So,priding itself on having built its world as if it had designed it, and blaming itself for having not designed it better, humankind is now to set out to do just that. The aim of socialism is no less than to effect a complete redesigning of our traditional morality, law and language, and on this basis to stamp out the old order and the supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom and justice.