Who Are the Real Anarchists?

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74

 

I have read the article and your comments.
The article as well as yourself dismiss anti-capitalists.

Yes, the one thing that keeps us from embracing the term anarchists is the association with anti-capitalists. Since that ideology will simply not supercede free trade, it is therefore not a threat.

Capitalism NOT A THREAT????

Seriously? And you wonder why people don't read your "article". Do we need to give you a history lesson on how capitalism is one of the biggest threats to freedom since the beginning days of railroads?

onthedownlow

thisguyrighthere
There's a lot of daylight between anarchy and chaos. So much so that one has nothing to do with the other.

Those who don't, can't or won't get that are retarding humanity and themselves.

Like a parent who wont let their child play in the yard because of all the dangers outside.

Government is a misguided, inconsistent, often selfish parent and we are all unfortunate enough to be the children who arent allowed outside so we grow fat, soft, dumb and develop unhealthy co-dependent relationships with our parent filled with hate, fear and ignorance. Then we die.

Who moderates in an anarchy? The most level headed, least coercive of the society? Tribal law? I'm not sure if I am retarding humanity or if I am just the product thereof.

The real question... who created this notion we need to be moderated?

You're walking into a cage and holding your key out to someone saying... "any takers? I'm just going to sit in my cage and wait for someone to lock me in here and feed me when they feel like it"

Since we have our own stomachs and only we can know when we are hungry WE MUST NOT BE MODERATED! It is against not just humanity but nature itself!

Which is EXACTLY why capitalism or anarcho-capitalism is simply taking steps backwards... the profit game is the game of the controlling mind. Those who thirst for control and profit upon others freedoms are the philosophies that feed those in power RIGHT NOW. The ones who's bellies are never full and ultimately suck your blood dry for your starving child's last breadcrumb!!!!

reply to post by Kali74

Well since anarchism is actually anti-capitalist, I don't think you're going to get the discourse you are looking for.

The point being (and the assumption is) that you don't have to agree and we both still get what we want.

Brilliant! No?

MikhailBakunin

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74

 

I have read the article and your comments.
The article as well as yourself dismiss anti-capitalists.

Yes, the one thing that keeps us from embracing the term anarchists is the association with anti-capitalists. Since that ideology will simply not supercede free trade, it is therefore not a threat.

Capitalism NOT A THREAT????

Seriously? And you wonder why people don't read your "article". Do we need to give you a history lesson on how capitalism is one of the biggest threats to freedom since the beginning days of railroads?

Again, you are going to have to read my comments from this thread to get up to speed on the exchange.

I will re-post this for convenience:

At the risk of sounding condescending, I think there are some truths that you have not been made aware of (boy, that sounds really patronizing).

I have been thinking of doing an expose on capitalism to put the term in context or rather, to take the term out of context since it really is to economics as anarchy is to organized government.

Essentially, capitalism is the way the free market system reaches exchange ratios and prices without direction. It isn't a system but it is the lack of a system. The praxeological theory is known as cattalactics. It was coined several centuries ago and cattalaxy is preferred over the term economy for the etymological reason that the root of economics implies a shared goal among all interested parties which is not true. Whereas the root of cattalactics is to exchange, bring into the community and to change from an enemy to a friend.

The negative connotations that you attribute to it more appropriately belong to the terms mercantilism or corporatism.

Also, I should point out (given your user name) that the reason I prefer the term 'free market' is because the term 'capitalism' was a disparaging term coined by Karl Marx that was embraced in defiance much like the 'N' word, not a term that would otherwise be chosen by devotees of the open and free exchanges of products and services.

OK, now you can rant.

reply to post by greencmp


As an anti-capitalist how exactly do I get what I want?

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74

 

Well since anarchism is actually anti-capitalist, I don't think you're going to get the discourse you are looking for.

The point being (and the assumption is) that you don't have to agree and we both still get what we want.

Brilliant! No?

Let's look further down the road... and the majority become naturalists or capitalists... what then? Those that have well-honed their hunting abilities who don't care about contracts and paper escapades (money) will meet their opposition in 3 piece business attire sipping their Starbucks and fancy upper class verbal rants about this and that....

Who will win?

So your capitalist march upon the freedoms of this nation is moot! Can you not see this from the beginning?

Lesson... don't bring starbucks to a battle for humanity.

greencmp

MikhailBakunin

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74

 

I have read the article and your comments.
The article as well as yourself dismiss anti-capitalists.

Yes, the one thing that keeps us from embracing the term anarchists is the association with anti-capitalists. Since that ideology will simply not supercede free trade, it is therefore not a threat.

Capitalism NOT A THREAT????

Seriously? And you wonder why people don't read your "article". Do we need to give you a history lesson on how capitalism is one of the biggest threats to freedom since the beginning days of railroads?

Again, you are going to have to read my comments from this thread to get up to speed on the exchange.

I will re-post this for convenience:

At the risk of sounding condescending, I think there are some truths that you have not been made aware of (boy, that sounds really patronizing).

I have been thinking of doing an expose on capitalism to put the term in context or rather, to take the term out of context since it really is to economics as anarchy is to organized government.

Essentially, capitalism is the way the free market system reaches exchange ratios and prices without direction. It isn't a system but it is the lack of a system. The praxeological theory is known as cattalactics. It was coined several centuries ago and cattalaxy is preferred over the term economy for the etymological reason that the root of economics implies a shared goal among all interested parties which is not true. Whereas the root of cattalactics is to exchange, bring into the community and to change from an enemy to a friend.

The negative connotations that you attribute to it more appropriately belong to the terms mercantilism or corporatism.

OK, now you can rant.

is "cattalactics" built on the business-for-profit protocol?

reply to post by Kali74

As an anti-capitalist how exactly do I get what I want?

Not exactly sure but, it is none of my business is it?

Kali74
reply to post by greencmp

 

As an anti-capitalist how exactly do I get what I want?

he's trying to persuade you to shut up and you will get your anarchy... he's just throwing around this word "capitalism" to reel in real world people who automatically associate the term "capitalism" with money and wal-mart.

That's all... it's the ole bait'n'hook scheme business of the like use all the time in commercials and all things capitalist.

Wolf in sheep wool much?

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74

 

As an anti-capitalist how exactly do I get what I want?

Not exactly sure but, it is none of my business is it?

If you tend to eat as a capitalist what she WANTS should be your BUSINESS? Right? or are you lost in your own texts?

theoretically of course

reply to post by MikhailBakunin

Let's look further down the road... and the majority become naturalists or capitalists... what then? Those that have well-honed their hunting abilities who don't care about contracts and paper escapades (money) will meet their opposition in 3 piece business attire sipping their Starbucks and fancy upper class verbal rants about this and that....

If you want to barter for food or goods, that's fine and vice versa. There is nothing stopping you from engaging in trade with free market advocates. If you have a commune that supports the better part of your needs it isn't a problem, right?

reply to post by MikhailBakunin

is "cattalactics" built on the business-for-profit protocol?

No.

That said, because free markets of any scale do require some form of currency there will be profit and therefore banks (I know awful huh?). However, these will not be centralized banks and they will come and go based upon their utility and efficacy. Indeed only through profitable operations can it be worthwhile to engage in building or growing things not directly consumable by the builder/grower.

reply to post by MikhailBakunin

he's trying to persuade you to shut up and you will get your anarchy...

Well, yeah but, I'm not being sneaky about it. It is all laid out for inspection and posterity.

reply to post by MikhailBakunin

If you tend to eat as a capitalist what she WANTS should be your BUSINESS? Right? or are you lost in your own texts?

theoretically of course

I will probably not be able to buy food from her since currency will have no value in her commune and her commune will likely not be able to spare any food anyway.

She will likely not need anything from me, I tend to produce inedible or intangible products. She may want to listen to some of my music in which case she will have to give me an equitable number of acorns or whatever (assuming I need acorns on any given day that she wants my music).

reply to post by greencmp


Like a true capitalist. You want my labor but will concede nothing.

greencmp
reply to post by MikhailBakunin

 

If you tend to eat as a capitalist what she WANTS should be your BUSINESS? Right? or are you lost in your own texts?

theoretically of course

I will probably not be able to buy food from her since currency will have no value in her commune and her commune will likely not be able to spare any food anyway.

She will likely not need anything from me, I tend to produce inedible or intangible products. She may want to listen to some of my music in which case she will have to give me an equitable number of acorns or whatever (assuming I need acorns on any given day that she wants my music).

edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

How many acorns for Nevermind the Bollocks?

reply to post by Kali74

Like a true capitalist. You want my labor but will concede nothing.

What makes you think I want your labor? I have nothing to give you for it that you value even if I did.

reply to post by greencmp


Do Any Anarchists Believe in a Society Ruled by Law and Order where Honest Free Men have a Voice that is Not Ignored by their Elected Leadership when an Injustice is Perpetrated against the Innocent ? If not , then they are Nothing but Foolish Rabble Without a Clue to the Concept of Righteousness.....

reply to post by MikhailBakunin

How many acorns for Nevermind the Bollocks?

Hmm, that's a classic. What condition is it in? Is it playable?

BTW, Johnny is a sellout ya know... not that Maggie was all that much of a free market advocate
Sex Pistol Johnny Rotten attacks hate mobs celebrating Baroness Thatcher's death as 'loathsome' and calls for respect

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by greencmp

 

Do Any Anarchists Believe in a Society Ruled by Law and Order where Honest Free Men have a Voice that is Not Ignored by their Elected Leadership when an Injustice is Perpetrated against the Innocent ? If not , then they are Nothing but Foolish Rabble Without a Clue to the Concept of Righteousness.....

edit on 14-9-2013 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

Yes and no but, it is somewhat irrelevant since I am proposing that we use the threat of anarcho-capitalism to 'settle' for getting our constitutional republic back.

Check out the thread and read the article at the beginning to get up to speed on the development of the dialog (if you can call it that at this point).