Anarchism/Capitalism Thread Split

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. The only thing you are consumed by is the claim the Anarchists without masters produced more than the shrunken capitalists with their learned helplessness.

You can't believe it is true.

As if someone told you your god was a fraud.

Anarchism is better than capitalism because it has a moral foundation.

Ultimately, a government is only as good as the power it has to enforce something, and you are completely ignoring this flaw. How does anarchism peacefully take the illegitimate power structure away, when said power structure says no?

You are talking of capitalism as a bad actor and immoral and spiteful. You think it isn't going to put up a fight?

 

[untermensche]

Yes. The only thing you are consumed by is the claim the Anarchists without masters produced more than the shrunken capitalists with their learned helplessness.

You can't believe it is true.

As if someone told you your god was a fraud.

Anarchism is better than capitalism because it has a moral foundation.

Ultimately, a government is only as good as the power it has to enforce something, and you are completely ignoring this flaw. How does anarchism peacefully take the illegitimate power structure away, when said power structure says no?

You are talking of capitalism as a bad actor and immoral and spiteful. You think it isn't going to put up a fight?

You cannot say that reducing power structures to as small as necessary and eliminating all power structures that can't justify themselves is bad strategy.

You can say that capitalists have shown themselves over and over again to be evil and destructive actors.

I think decency will win over evil. People need to have that choice.

I am an optimist.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm glad this thread was "hijacked." Spanish Anarchism is far more interesting a topic than Liz Cheney!

And a big thanks to untermensche who finally posted a link to a useful source. I have a tab opened to the book and may eventually skim through it. (But my To-Do list is very long.)

But interaction among TFTers is also interesting, and arguably more relevant to whatever than Spanish Anarchism.

I did not take sides in the sub-debate about Anarchism except to note that attributing the inequities in ancient feudal or oligarchic societies to "capitalism" was a confusing Humpty-Dumptyist reductionism. (One of us has also confused another thread with Humpty-Dumptyist notions of "information" and "color.")

In fact it was I who wrote, before any evidence was presented

"Spanish Anarchism may have been a joyful movement, worthy of admiration and emulation."​

For which I received the less-than-encouraging response

"A man born blind cannot know what it is like to look at a sunset."​

Of course I didn't try to find YOUR source.

As for the excuse that you were "running to work," the following was posted more than a day before your eventual response:

By the time you were 30 hours late for work, it might have been simpler to call in sick!


But Kudos to untermensche for being able to extract three relevant excerpts from his source, all in less than three seconds!

Yes. The only thing you are consumed by ...
You can't believe it is true.
As if someone told you your god was a fraud.

[blah blah blah]

In other words, you have failed to read and/or been unable to comprehend even any single thing that I've written in this thread.

Got it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. The only thing you are consumed by is the claim the Anarchists without masters produced more than the shrunken capitalists with their learned helplessness.

You can't believe it is true.

As if someone told you your god was a fraud.

Anarchism is better than capitalism because it has a moral foundation.

Ultimately, a government is only as good as the power it has to enforce something, and you are completely ignoring this flaw. How does anarchism peacefully take the illegitimate power structure away, when said power structure says no?

You are talking of capitalism as a bad actor and immoral and spiteful. You think it isn't going to put up a fight?

You cannot say that reducing power structures to as small as necessary and eliminating all power structures that can't justify themselves is bad strategy.

You can say that capitalists have shown themselves over and over again to be evil and destructive actors.

I think decency will win over evil. People need to have that choice.

I am an optimist.

Saying you are an optimist is an unintellectual cop out to answering the question, "How does anarchism peacefully take the illegitimate power structure away, when said power structure says no?" Because it is going to say no.

You say people should have a say, just not the people you want to have a say. That's tyranny.

 

[Elixir]

You cannot say that reducing power structures to as small as necessary and eliminating all power structures that can't justify themselves is bad strategy.

You can say that capitalists have shown themselves over and over again to be evil and destructive actors.

I think decency will win over evil. People need to have that choice.

I am an optimist.

Saying you are an optimist is an unintellectual cop out to answering the question, "How does anarchism peacefully take the illegitimate power structure away, when said power structure says no?" Because it is going to say no.

You say people should have a say, just not the people you want to have a say. That's tyranny.

"Yabut I'm right so people should listen to me."
That's all you're going to get.
You can't argue with that. He IS right.
People SHOULD listen to him.
People should favor egalitarianism, multi-billionaires should devote them majority of their fortunes to furthering the common good, raising up the least fortunate and providing access for all to the best possible education, working conditions, food, shelter and clothing.

Lacking a mechanism to make all that happen, whining about it on backwater internet fora is the best alternative.

 

[untermensche]

If people want to be wage slaves there is nothing an Anarchist can do for the poor fools.

If they employ wage slaves there is little an Anarchist can do to help them. They are lost.

But human progress is possible.

It is possible to move from immoral exploitative violent destructive capitalism.

And Anarchism is a much better alternative.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your silly strawman is noted.

Eliminating illegitimate power structures only requires humans wanting to do it.

You don't care.

You have been made good and useless by a system that does not care.

The issue is that really almost all successful entities require some kind of power structure! A couple years ago, I volunteered for our kids school PTA group (for lack of a better name for it). It was a pretty minor sub group. We were several parents with very busy work/kids lives. We decided that we'd make all decisions by consent with no one in charge. Nothing got done! Nothing. Very successful group needs someone to take charge, to run the agenda; be responsible; report the results, allocate resources, make requests and be accountable. Anarchy dosn't work.

Leadership is not the same thing as illegitimate power.

But a leader is not a boss.

A leader is looking after the interests of the people they lead.

A boss is looking after the interests of the business.

"It's not a government when we say it is."

Once again unter defends his version of Anarchy by saying we will have people in charge but don't you dare call it a government. This from the guy who was horrified when I dared utter the phrase "voluntary hierarchy".

The ironic thing is that if he were to get his ideal system, the "we aren't a government" people would say "tell unter he just volunteered to grow potatoes, we have enough sensitive poets and power structure deconstructionists already."

 

[lpetrich]

On the subject of the Spanish anarchists, we don't know for sure how sustainable their social experiment is, because after a few years, they were crushed by the Francoites.


But returning to something like the OP, I note this: George P. Bush courts Trump in bid for Texas attorney general, despite family history - The Washington Post

George P. Bush’s campaign video does not mention the Republican political dynasty that preceded him. Not his father, the former governor of Florida. Nor his uncle, the 43rd president of the United States. Nor his grandfather, the 41st.

The video does pay homage to former president Donald Trump.

“Under the leadership of President Trump our country was strong and vibrant again, but because of the failed leadership of liberal ideas, our country is suffering,” said George P. Bush, who this week launched a 2022 bid to become Texas attorney general. The state land commissioner is channeling and courting Trump despite the 45th president’s past attacks on elder members of the Bush family — a sign of Trump’s still-strong hold on a transformed GOP.

Scott Braddock on Twitter: "I missed out on the @georgepbush swag yesterday: The koozie says "this is the only Bush that likes me. This is the Bush that got it right. I like him" - Donald Trump #txlege (pic link)" / Twitter

Trump has said that Jeb and George W. Bush’s mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, had good reason to dislike him.

“Look what I did to her sons,” he said.

Trump had particular derision for Bush’s father, Jeb Bush, nicknaming him “Low Energy Jeb” as they jockeyed for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. In 2015, Trump took aim at George P. Bush’s mother as well: He tweeted that Jeb Bush “has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife,” who immigrated from Mexico. (“This is ludicrous,” Jeb Bush responded at the time).

Seems like George P. Bush is joining Ted Cruz in meekly accepting attacks on his family members.

Trump has also criticized George W. Bush over the Iraq War, and that Bush joined other living ex-presidents this January in denouncing the storming of the Capitol. In a statement, George W. Bush did not name Trump but condemned the politicians who “inflamed” the rioters and said, “This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic — not our democratic republic. I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election.”

 

[untermensche]

Leadership is not the same thing as illegitimate power.

But a leader is not a boss.

A leader is looking after the interests of the people they lead.

A boss is looking after the interests of the business.

"It's not a government when we say it is."

Once again unter defends his version of Anarchy by saying we will have people in charge but don't you dare call it a government. This from the guy who was horrified when I dared utter the phrase "voluntary hierarchy".

The ironic thing is that if he were to get his ideal system, the "we aren't a government" people would say "tell unter he just volunteered to grow potatoes, we have enough sensitive poets and power structure deconstructionists already."

Anarchism says that large central governments are not needed.

People can govern themselves locally without some huge central authority.

It is really just States rights on steroids.

Read the book I provided you.

Learn your first real thing about Anarchism.

 

[ZiprHead]

..

 

[untermensche]

To care about Anarchism requires first caring about morality.

If you don't care about morality Anarchism will not interest you much.

Is the master/servant relationship a moral relationship?

Is a dictatorship a moral arrangement of power?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Leadership is not the same thing as illegitimate power.

But a leader is not a boss.

A leader is looking after the interests of the people they lead.

A boss is looking after the interests of the business.

"It's not a government when we say it is."

Once again unter defends his version of Anarchy by saying we will have people in charge but don't you dare call it a government. This from the guy who was horrified when I dared utter the phrase "voluntary hierarchy".

The ironic thing is that if he were to get his ideal system, the "we aren't a government" people would say "tell unter he just volunteered to grow potatoes, we have enough sensitive poets and power structure deconstructionists already."

Anarchism says that large central governments are not needed.

People can govern themselves locally without some huge central authority.

It is really just States rights on steroids.

Read the book I provided you.

Learn your first real thing about Anarchism.

You know what would be interesting? If you gave some description of your version of "it isn't a government when we do it" anarchism that doesn't mention capitalism or synonyms, or even the truly bizarre things you think are capitalism or synonyms. Just define it in terms of what it is, not what it isn't.

 

[untermensche]

Anarcho-syndicalism[1] is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society. The end goal of syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labour movement.

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are solidarity, direct action (action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. Anarcho-syndicalists believe their economic theories constitute a strategy for facilitating proletarian self-activity and creating an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production that is centered on meeting human needs. Anarcho-syndicalists perceive the primary purpose of the state as the defense of private property in the forms of capital goods and therefore of economic, social and political privilege. In maintaining this status quo, the state denies most of its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy that springs from it.

Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism is centered on the idea that power corrupts and that any hierarchy that cannot be ethically justified must be dismantled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Your silly strawman about the main concerns of Anarchism doesn't interest me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I said "without mentioning capitalism" and you replied with "as a method for workers in capitalist society".

I must give you credit though, that probably was the best you could do.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism is seen as a moral evolution from present day capitalism.

Just like capitalism saw itself as a moral evolution from feudalism.

Humanity advances.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

At least you acknowledge that capitalism and feudalism are not the same thing. You did the best you could.

I mean, it is possible to define "capitalism" without mentioning "feudalism", but you still did the best you could.

 

[untermensche]

I did nothing for you.

I am not caring much about you.

You have childish strawmen and no ideas.

If you don't care about morality Anarchism will not interest you much.

Is the master/servant relationship a moral relationship?

Is a dictatorship a moral arrangement of power?

Nihilists oppose Anarchism.

And are attracted to capitalism. It is a death cult.

 

[untermensche]

Anarcho-syndicalist aims and principles
Anarcho-syndicalists aim to promote solidarity in our workplaces and outside them, encouraging workers to organise independently of government, bosses and bureaucrats to fight for our own interests as a class. Our ultimate goal is a stateless, classless society based on the principle of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' – a system of free councils made up of recallable delegates from workplaces and communities. This is libertarian communism.

We see such a society based on our needs being created out of working class struggles to assert our needs in the here and now. Our activity is therefore aimed at promoting, assisting and developing such class struggles locally and internationally, which both benefits us now and brings us closer to the society we want to create. We do this according to the following three principles:

Solidarity. As individuals we are relatively powerless in the face of bosses, bureaucrats and the state, but when we act collectively the tables are turned.
Direct action. We do not make appeals to politicians or representatives to act on our behalf, but organise to get the things we want for ourselves.
Self-organisation. We should control their own struggles through mass meetings, learning how to act without bosses or leaders and making sure we can't be sold out or demobilised from above.

https://libcom.org/library/what-anarcho-syndicalism

"Stateless" does not mean without any government or organization.

It means without these man-made monstrosities called nations and states.

It is about local control of as much as possible.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Not one word of that is a rational defense of capitalism or a refutation of anarchism.

You think anarchism and anarchy are the same thing.

You must have been educated in a capitalist mind sink.

That's the great thing about capitalism and anarchism. There are so many varieties of each. And then there's this one:

Anarcho-capitalism – political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").

About that: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/lib...q-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-07-17

“Anarcho”-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist — you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As “anarcho”-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Anarchism breaks down into anarchy and everyone looks at one another wondering how things went wrong.

Obviously it went wrong become *somebody* broke the rules and went all capitalist.
No?
Then it was libertarianism.

The word libertarian actually was a word for anarchist. Murray Rothbard admits this.

One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...
Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right