Let's break the anti-communist taboo

[Playball40]

An American Socialist in the very early 20th century said, and this is a paraphrase as I don't remember the exact wording, 'There is an inherent flaw in the human psyche that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' This was back when labor unions were having all sorts of troubles with the Government, militias, blacklisting, etc...

Anyone counting on the kind spirit and/or wisdom of human beings to make things work out are brutally naïve. Attempted utopian societies in the US all failed. Even weak centralized Federal governments failed in the US under the Articles of Confederation.

The idea that anarchism can work is just uneducated, naïve, bizarrely hopeful, and completely incompatible with history. That, oh... things would just work better if... is a fairy tale that'd be considered a fairy tale in a fairy tale.

Ultimately, our form of government is inefficient and flawed, but it seems to be the most stable and effective that can be put together shy of a Sci-fi public awakening that doesn't seem due at any time soon.

I disagree! Anarchism would work just fine in a society where everyone has the exact same motivation and goals. Any individuality would quickly crush anarchy...

This happened in the Spanish Civil War (George Orwell wrote about it first hand in Homage to Catalonia). Anarchists ruled for about 5 minutes.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Introducing the nuances of socialism is like Mickey Mouse trying to disassociate himself with Disney.

I disagree. In Ukraine, anarchists were among the fighters that helped to fight back AGAINST the Soviets, and they were partly responsible for producing the relatively independent Ukraine that is there today. They are still trying to get a stronger political foothold, but I believe that once they have done so, they will become a very powerful part of Ukraine's political left. Unlike conventional communists, they are extremely anti-authoritarian.

Proudhon did not give us a finished product, but he gave us an inspiration to build on. Kropotkin was just one of many philosophers that helped to build upon it.

Sorry, I was really talking about how difficult having the discussion with most Americans is (myself included).

*snaps her tail playfully*

I love challenges.

Americans deserve to know that one of the most prominent organizations that have been influenced by anarcho-communism has been Alcoholics Anonymous. The reason why that statement is confusing, to most Americans, is that they do not really know what anarcho-communism is at all. To acknowledge that is the first step to learning something new.

If someone is not interested in learning something new, then why the hell should anyone want to know them?

 

[Bomb#20]

The idea that anarchism can work is just uneducated, naïve, bizarrely hopeful, and completely incompatible with history. That, oh... things would just work better if... is a fairy tale that'd be considered a fairy tale in a fairy tale.

I disagree! Anarchism would work just fine in a society where everyone has the exact same motivation and goals. Any individuality would quickly crush anarchy...

This happened in the Spanish Civil War (George Orwell wrote about it first hand in Homage to Catalonia). Anarchists ruled for about 5 minutes.

One of the great lessons people need to remember from the five minutes Anarchists ruled revolutionary Spain is that the Anarchists were never crushed by Franco. They were crushed by the Communists. (And then the Communists were crushed by Franco.) And the reason the Communists were able to crush the Anarchists is because the Communists were able to get the common people on their side. And the reason the Anarchists weren't able to keep the common people on their side is because the Anarchists were such assholes.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Myth: anarcho-communists are advocating a new and untested idea and want to force it on everybody.

Reality: organizational types influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy have been around worldwide for several generations, and in the USA, there is already a regulatory structure for them. While they are still a continuously evolving concept, they are also well established institutions that have their own company culture. Not all of them are particularly liberal, though most are, and members often have strong libertarian views of one kind or another. Only a few are edgy enough to call themselves anarchists, though the term would be somewhat accurate in dome cases if one merely acknowledged that there could be such a thing as a "moderate anarchist."

Reality: Slapping new labels on things that have failed doesn't make them work any better.

I would hardly call the success of Android's underlying software a "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. The open source community that took part in designing that software is literally influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Alcoholics Anonymous was influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. The gay rights movement, the broader free love movement, and feminism have all been influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Those movements have done what had appeared, at one time, to be impossible.

It might sound odd that I call the gay rights movement an example of anarcho-communism, by the way, but gay rights advocacy is really an energy-intensive process. That process has nevertheless created an outcome that the entire LGBTQIAA community share in common, which is political and social change that has made our lives substantially easier and more fair. We own that consequence of our labors in common. Nobody and everybody owns it. It might not be a good or a service in the traditional sense, but this is why I am trying to educate people on the idea of a hybrid economy: anarcho-communist strategies can get things done that otherwise would barely even be possible, but I do not necessarily recommend it as a Maslow's hammer.

The open source community has successfully hybridized the concept of a creative commons with capitalism: the contents of the creative commons are treated a little bit like fish in ocean currents. Access to those ideas is shared collectively, but the ideas are turned into goods or other ideas that can be sold for profit. This has been a highly successful idea.

However, you cannot really participate in this discussion, @Loren Pechtel, until you acknowledge that anarcho-communism owes more to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon than it does to Karl Marx. What I see you doing, here, is trying to treat everything that has the word "communism" in its name as if it were a remix of the Communist Manifesto, and it's like nothing else really exists in this conversation for you. Until you actually acknowledge all of the pieces that are in play, here, then you are going to struggle to keep up. I really feel like I am having this conversation without you, at this point.

Also, you have been implying the assumption that I must be advocating anarcho-communism as a Maslow's hammer. Like most ignoramuses that I have attempted to talk to about this topic, you cannot accept the idea that a variety of different strategies for production or bringing about change can exist in the same economy. In a way, you remind me of a homophobe that thinks I am trying to force homosexuality upon him just by being openly queer. It's childish and autistic thinking.

Catch up with the adults, and I will continue to have this discussion with you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Myth: anarcho-communists are advocating a new and untested idea and want to force it on everybody.

Reality: organizational types influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy have been around worldwide for several generations, and in the USA, there is already a regulatory structure for them. While they are still a continuously evolving concept, they are also well established institutions that have their own company culture. Not all of them are particularly liberal, though most are, and members often have strong libertarian views of one kind or another. Only a few are edgy enough to call themselves anarchists, though the term would be somewhat accurate in dome cases if one merely acknowledged that there could be such a thing as a "moderate anarchist."

Reality: Slapping new labels on things that have failed doesn't make them work any better.

I would hardly call the success of Android's underlying software a "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. The open source community that took part in designing that software is literally influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Alcoholics Anonymous was influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. The gay rights movement, the broader free love movement, and feminism have all been influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Those movements have done what had appeared, at one time, to be impossible.

It might sound odd that I call the gay rights movement an example of anarcho-communism, by the way, but gay rights advocacy is really an energy-intensive process. That process has nevertheless created an outcome that the entire LGBTQIAA community share in common, which is political and social change that has made our lives substantially easier and more fair. We own that consequence of our labors in common. Nobody and everybody owns it. It might not be a good or a service in the traditional sense, but this is why I am trying to educate people on the idea of a hybrid economy: anarcho-communist strategies can get things done that otherwise would barely even be possible, but I do not necessarily recommend it as a Maslow's hammer.

The open source community has successfully hybridized the concept of a creative commons with capitalism: the contents of the creative commons are treated a little bit like fish in ocean currents. Access to those ideas is shared collectively, but the ideas are turned into goods or other ideas that can be sold for profit. This has been a highly successful idea.

However, you cannot really participate in this discussion, @Loren Pechtel, until you acknowledge that anarcho-communism owes more to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon than it does to Karl Marx. What I see you doing, here, is trying to treat everything that has the word "communism" in its name as if it were a remix of the Communist Manifesto, and it's like nothing else really exists in this conversation for you. Until you actually acknowledge all of the pieces that are in play, here, then you are going to struggle to keep up. I really feel like I am having this conversation without you, at this point.

Also, you have been implying the assumption that I must be advocating anarcho-communism as a Maslow's hammer. Like most ignoramuses that I have attempted to talk to about this topic, you cannot accept the idea that a variety of different strategies for production or bringing about change can exist in the same economy. In a way, you remind me of a homophobe that thinks I am trying to force homosexuality upon him just by being openly queer. It's childish and autistic thinking.

Catch up with the adults, and I will continue to have this discussion with you.

I much prefer the Anarcho-Communist model as applied to interest group communities as you have done here.

Trekkies are Anarcho-Communist. So are Furries, or Scalies, or Skater Punks or Weebs.

There is no central structure, and the core concepts, the information assets, are largely shared freely. It is similar with respect to most cultural phenomena of "the left".

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Myth: anarcho-communists are advocating a new and untested idea and want to force it on everybody.

Reality: organizational types influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy have been around worldwide for several generations, and in the USA, there is already a regulatory structure for them. While they are still a continuously evolving concept, they are also well established institutions that have their own company culture. Not all of them are particularly liberal, though most are, and members often have strong libertarian views of one kind or another. Only a few are edgy enough to call themselves anarchists, though the term would be somewhat accurate in dome cases if one merely acknowledged that there could be such a thing as a "moderate anarchist."

Reality: Slapping new labels on things that have failed doesn't make them work any better.

I would hardly call the success of Android's underlying software a "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. The open source community that took part in designing that software is literally influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Alcoholics Anonymous was influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. The gay rights movement, the broader free love movement, and feminism have all been influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Those movements have done what had appeared, at one time, to be impossible.

It might sound odd that I call the gay rights movement an example of anarcho-communism, by the way, but gay rights advocacy is really an energy-intensive process. That process has nevertheless created an outcome that the entire LGBTQIAA community share in common, which is political and social change that has made our lives substantially easier and more fair. We own that consequence of our labors in common. Nobody and everybody owns it. It might not be a good or a service in the traditional sense, but this is why I am trying to educate people on the idea of a hybrid economy: anarcho-communist strategies can get things done that otherwise would barely even be possible, but I do not necessarily recommend it as a Maslow's hammer.

The open source community has successfully hybridized the concept of a creative commons with capitalism: the contents of the creative commons are treated a little bit like fish in ocean currents. Access to those ideas is shared collectively, but the ideas are turned into goods or other ideas that can be sold for profit. This has been a highly successful idea.

However, you cannot really participate in this discussion, @Loren Pechtel, until you acknowledge that anarcho-communism owes more to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon than it does to Karl Marx. What I see you doing, here, is trying to treat everything that has the word "communism" in its name as if it were a remix of the Communist Manifesto, and it's like nothing else really exists in this conversation for you. Until you actually acknowledge all of the pieces that are in play, here, then you are going to struggle to keep up. I really feel like I am having this conversation without you, at this point.

Also, you have been implying the assumption that I must be advocating anarcho-communism as a Maslow's hammer. Like most ignoramuses that I have attempted to talk to about this topic, you cannot accept the idea that a variety of different strategies for production or bringing about change can exist in the same economy. In a way, you remind me of a homophobe that thinks I am trying to force homosexuality upon him just by being openly queer. It's childish and autistic thinking.

Catch up with the adults, and I will continue to have this discussion with you.

I much prefer the Anarcho-Communist model as applied to interest group communities as you have done here.

Trekkies are Anarcho-Communist. So are Furries, or Scalies, or Skater Punks or Weebs.

There is no central structure, and the core concepts, the information assets, are largely shared freely. It is similar with respect to most cultural phenomena of "the left".

Going even beyond that, the way that a potluck is done actually adds value to labor by bringing together the talents of many. You do not spend an additional dime, but if you have several talented amateur chefs in attendance, you end up with better fare than you would have at most restaurants. Well, if a group of people did that every week and brought their children to play together, it would give them a large benefit that they otherwise would have to pay substantially more money for.

Well, these fandoms really work in a lot the same way. As for why we would go to the trouble of writing such endless reams of fan fiction and creating incredible amounts of fan art and even composing surprisingly good music, the reason why is that we enjoy creating those things.

The idea that the preferred state for the human race is to be idle and worthless unless paid to act is just categorically untrue. There is only so long that a genuinely creative person can sit still before they either go on a homicidal rampage or create something just for something to do. These fandoms and clubs and things just give them a focus for their natural creative restlessness.

There are certain types of jobs that someone would only do if someone paid them to do those jobs. Math-heavy fields, accounting, and other types of jobs of the kind that people creatively avoid doing are ones that take well to the capitalist system. Nobody really wants to do those jobs, but I can guarantee they like money.

This is why I talk often about the idea of a hybrid economy. We already have one, to be fair, but talking about the benefits of this hybrid model could help us hedge against ideological extremists that would simply outlaw any other way of thinking.

 

[Swammerdami]

Pyotr Kropotkin. I you don't like the way that I talk about it, then get it from his books. They are free.

SigmatheZeta, you may have misunderstood the nature of many exchanges on message-boards. For some of us, the object of participation is not to LEARN but to "teach." Kropotkin, being dead, cannot be taught, so reading him is pointless. It's better to force you to recapitulate ideas in hopes an apparent fallacy can be found!

I find the defense of anarchism by you (and another Infidel) quite interesting and educational. There is a new book, The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber and David Wengrow. I've not yet read the book, but a review makes it sound very interesting. How do the ideas Graeber and Wengrow have uncovered relate to ideas like yours and Kropotkin's?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Pyotr Kropotkin. I you don't like the way that I talk about it, then get it from his books. They are free.

SigmatheZeta, you may have misunderstood the nature of many exchanges on message-boards. For some of us, the object of participation is not to LEARN but to "teach." Kropotkin, being dead, cannot be taught, so reading him is pointless. It's better to force you to recapitulate ideas in hopes an apparent fallacy can be found!

I find the defense of anarchism by you (and another Infidel) quite interesting and educational. There is a new book, The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber and David Wengrow. I've not yet read the book, but a review makes it sound very interesting. How do the ideas Graeber and Wengrow have uncovered relate to ideas like yours and Kropotkin's?

The idea that anarchists are all trying to force everybody to live in an "anarchist state," which is almost a contradiction in terms for one thing, is like assuming that all proponents of capitalism want to force you to pay rent on your own front door.

"But somebody worked hard to design that front door!" some extremists might say, "so why should that person not have a right to benefit from the product of their labors?" I am sure that there are extremists that are that mentally handicapped, but they are not really that demented as a rule.

Anarchism, likewise, can be exercised in a sensible, everyday sort of fashion.

I have not read that book, yet, but I looked at the article for a while. It looks interesting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would hardly call the success of Android's underlying software a "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. The open source community that took part in designing that software is literally influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Alcoholics Anonymous was influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. The gay rights movement, the broader free love movement, and feminism have all been influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Those movements have done what had appeared, at one time, to be impossible.

The problem here is that you are looking at what works with small self-selected groups (open source projects) and thinking that means it can work with a population.

And I suggest taking AA out of your list--it doesn't work. The rest of your list is movements, not productive enterprises.

However, you cannot really participate in this discussion, @Loren Pechtel, until you acknowledge that anarcho-communism owes more to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon than it does to Karl Marx. What I see you doing, here, is trying to treat everything that has the word "communism" in its name as if it were a remix of the Communist Manifesto, and it's like nothing else really exists in this conversation for you. Until you actually acknowledge all of the pieces that are in play, here, then you are going to struggle to keep up. I really feel like I am having this conversation without you, at this point.

Also, you have been implying the assumption that I must be advocating anarcho-communism as a Maslow's hammer. Like most ignoramuses that I have attempted to talk to about this topic, you cannot accept the idea that a variety of different strategies for production or bringing about change can exist in the same economy. In a way, you remind me of a homophobe that thinks I am trying to force homosexuality upon him just by being openly queer. It's childish and autistic thinking.

Catch up with the adults, and I will continue to have this discussion with you.

I don't care about it's genetics. I care about what happens in the real world.

I don't care if you are part of an anarcho-communist group. I'm not going to try to stop you. I just object to the idea that it works at the level of society. The comparison is not being openly queer, it is expecting me to be queer, also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The idea that anarchists are all trying to force everybody to live in an "anarchist state," which is almost a contradiction in terms for one thing, is like assuming that all proponents of capitalism want to force you to pay rent on your own front door.

"But somebody worked hard to design that front door!" some extremists might say, "so why should that person not have a right to benefit from the product of their labors?" I am sure that there are extremists that are that mentally handicapped, but they are not really that demented as a rule.

Anarchism, likewise, can be exercised in a sensible, everyday sort of fashion.

I have not read that book, yet, but I looked at the article for a while. It looks interesting.

In most cases if the person who designed the door doesn't get adequate compensation he's not going to do it.

Contribute to open source stuff? I've looked into three things and in each case decided it was sufficiently far outside my area of expertise to do anything. It doesn't pay the bills, though--if I wasn't paid the industrial stuff I've written wouldn't exist.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I would hardly call the success of Android's underlying software a "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. The open source community that took part in designing that software is literally influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Alcoholics Anonymous was influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. The gay rights movement, the broader free love movement, and feminism have all been influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Those movements have done what had appeared, at one time, to be impossible.

The problem here is that you are looking at what works with small self-selected groups (open source projects) and thinking that means it can work with a population.

And I suggest taking AA out of your list--it doesn't work. The rest of your list is movements, not productive enterprises.

However, you cannot really participate in this discussion, @Loren Pechtel, until you acknowledge that anarcho-communism owes more to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon than it does to Karl Marx. What I see you doing, here, is trying to treat everything that has the word "communism" in its name as if it were a remix of the Communist Manifesto, and it's like nothing else really exists in this conversation for you. Until you actually acknowledge all of the pieces that are in play, here, then you are going to struggle to keep up. I really feel like I am having this conversation without you, at this point.

Also, you have been implying the assumption that I must be advocating anarcho-communism as a Maslow's hammer. Like most ignoramuses that I have attempted to talk to about this topic, you cannot accept the idea that a variety of different strategies for production or bringing about change can exist in the same economy. In a way, you remind me of a homophobe that thinks I am trying to force homosexuality upon him just by being openly queer. It's childish and autistic thinking.

Catch up with the adults, and I will continue to have this discussion with you.

I don't care about it's genetics. I care about what happens in the real world.

I don't care if you are part of an anarcho-communist group. I'm not going to try to stop you. I just object to the idea that it works at the level of society. The comparison is not being openly queer, it is expecting me to be queer, also.

It's actually a fallacy to assume that anarcho-communists always call themselves such or even know the term. LGBTQIAA activism is based on anarchist principles. If someone has been involved in it, then they have been involved in anarchism, even though they might object to it being CALLED anarchism. In a way, it is a type of pedantery to call it anarchism, even though it is technically accurate.

Even secular activism can be thought of along the same lines. Laboring to protect YOUR liberty to not be forced to give lip-service to a religion that you really think is bonkers, it still counts as labor. You derive a collective benefit from that labor. You probably like having that benefit. Anarchist principles are still at work. You have the idea that you have the ability and the right to do that because of a man named Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

The core tenant of anarchism is the concept of "mutualism." It is defined thus:

A social system based on equal freedom, reciprocity, and the sovereignty of the individual over himself, his affairs and his products; realized through individual initiative, free contract, cooperation, competition and voluntary association for defense against the invasive and for the protection of life, liberty and property of the non-invasive.

If this is close to anything that you have ever done, then you are an anarchist, even if you reject that label. Again, it is arguably pedantery, but I am not going to be intimidated into giving up words that I happen to like just because some douche-rocket gets triggered over them and cries.

Anarcho-communism merely implies the use of a collectively owned creative commons that anybody that chooses to do so may labor to add something to. You would not be the first person in history to laugh at this idea, but the creator of Wikipedia laughed back and got the world to conspire to write the world's most widely read encyclopedia. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO WRITE AS A HOBBY, it works. The reason why it works is that it is a destructive myth to assume that human nature is defined by sloth. Sloth is really a product of depression. Humans like to create things with their hands. It's what they do.

The stigma that surrounds anarchist and communist philosophy is unjust and naive.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Myth: anarcho-communists are advocating a new and untested idea and want to force it on everybody.

Reality: organizational types influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy have been around worldwide for several generations, and in the USA, there is already a regulatory structure for them. While they are still a continuously evolving concept, they are also well established institutions that have their own company culture. Not all of them are particularly liberal, though most are, and members often have strong libertarian views of one kind or another. Only a few are edgy enough to call themselves anarchists, though the term would be somewhat accurate in dome cases if one merely acknowledged that there could be such a thing as a "moderate anarchist."

Reality: Slapping new labels on things that have failed doesn't make them work any better.

I would hardly call the success of Android's underlying software a "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. The open source community that took part in designing that software is literally influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Alcoholics Anonymous was influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. The gay rights movement, the broader free love movement, and feminism have all been influenced by anarcho-communist philosophy. Those movements have done what had appeared, at one time, to be impossible.

It might sound odd that I call the gay rights movement an example of anarcho-communism, by the way, but gay rights advocacy is really an energy-intensive process. That process has nevertheless created an outcome that the entire LGBTQIAA community share in common, which is political and social change that has made our lives substantially easier and more fair. We own that consequence of our labors in common. Nobody and everybody owns it. It might not be a good or a service in the traditional sense, but this is why I am trying to educate people on the idea of a hybrid economy: anarcho-communist strategies can get things done that otherwise would barely even be possible, but I do not necessarily recommend it as a Maslow's hammer.

The open source community has successfully hybridized the concept of a creative commons with capitalism: the contents of the creative commons are treated a little bit like fish in ocean currents. Access to those ideas is shared collectively, but the ideas are turned into goods or other ideas that can be sold for profit. This has been a highly successful idea.

However, you cannot really participate in this discussion, @Loren Pechtel, until you acknowledge that anarcho-communism owes more to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon than it does to Karl Marx. What I see you doing, here, is trying to treat everything that has the word "communism" in its name as if it were a remix of the Communist Manifesto, and it's like nothing else really exists in this conversation for you. Until you actually acknowledge all of the pieces that are in play, here, then you are going to struggle to keep up. I really feel like I am having this conversation without you, at this point.

Also, you have been implying the assumption that I must be advocating anarcho-communism as a Maslow's hammer. Like most ignoramuses that I have attempted to talk to about this topic, you cannot accept the idea that a variety of different strategies for production or bringing about change can exist in the same economy. In a way, you remind me of a homophobe that thinks I am trying to force homosexuality upon him just by being openly queer. It's childish and autistic thinking.

Catch up with the adults, and I will continue to have this discussion with you.

I much prefer the Anarcho-Communist model as applied to interest group communities as you have done here.

Trekkies are Anarcho-Communist. So are Furries, or Scalies, or Skater Punks or Weebs.

There is no central structure, and the core concepts, the information assets, are largely shared freely. It is similar with respect to most cultural phenomena of "the left".

Going even beyond that, the way that a potluck is done actually adds value to labor by bringing together the talents of many. You do not spend an additional dime, but if you have several talented amateur chefs in attendance, you end up with better fare than you would have at most restaurants. Well, if a group of people did that every week and brought their children to play together, it would give them a large benefit that they otherwise would have to pay substantially more money for.

Well, these fandoms really work in a lot the same way. As for why we would go to the trouble of writing such endless reams of fan fiction and creating incredible amounts of fan art and even composing surprisingly good music, the reason why is that we enjoy creating those things.

The idea that the preferred state for the human race is to be idle and worthless unless paid to act is just categorically untrue. There is only so long that a genuinely creative person can sit still before they either go on a homicidal rampage or create something just for something to do. These fandoms and clubs and things just give them a focus for their natural creative restlessness.

There are certain types of jobs that someone would only do if someone paid them to do those jobs. Math-heavy fields, accounting, and other types of jobs of the kind that people creatively avoid doing are ones that take well to the capitalist system. Nobody really wants to do those jobs, but I can guarantee they like money.

This is why I talk often about the idea of a hybrid economy. We already have one, to be fair, but talking about the benefits of this hybrid model could help us hedge against ideological extremists that would simply outlaw any other way of thinking.

I really liked your analogy of a potluck being an example of anarchy! It's very fitting. Yes, potlucks work. People bring their food and it's all shared jointly by the group to benefit all. If someone makes something uniquely good, it's praised, and there is group pressure for everyone else to try to equal that for the next potluck. I love potlucks. Most of the time. But not all the time. My wife is an unbelievable cook. When she makes a 7-course meal, it's an all-day event. While we help her prepare, she is the boss. She has all the knowledge. It wouldn't work unless we follow her orders and are in unison. It's the same way in business. I do think that there are some businesses which may do well in an anarchy system. But not all businesses. Businesses that are large and/or complex must have bosses directing activity and uniting everyone to completing the project. I manufacture a dental device. It has to be made to precise parameters. An anarchy system wouldn't work for most manufacturers. I think that it could work in many professional firms. 2 or 3 attorneys probably could get together without much structure and/or rules.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's actually a fallacy to assume that anarcho-communists always call themselves such or even know the term. LGBTQIAA activism is based on anarchist principles. If someone has been involved in it, then they have been involved in anarchism, even though they might object to it being CALLED anarchism. In a way, it is a type of pedantery to call it anarchism, even though it is technically accurate.

Even secular activism can be thought of along the same lines. Laboring to protect YOUR liberty to not be forced to give lip-service to a religion that you really think is bonkers, it still counts as labor. You derive a collective benefit from that labor. You probably like having that benefit. Anarchist principles are still at work. You have the idea that you have the ability and the right to do that because of a man named Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

You're still missing the fundamental problem: It works when people choose to be part of a group after some goal. You have a self-selected group, not the population at large.

It's like looking at bra-wearers and concluding that the human species is overwhelmingly female.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The reason there is an anti-communist taboo is the same as the reason there is an anti-fascist taboo and anti-pedophiliac-rape taboo.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

It's actually a fallacy to assume that anarcho-communists always call themselves such or even know the term. LGBTQIAA activism is based on anarchist principles. If someone has been involved in it, then they have been involved in anarchism, even though they might object to it being CALLED anarchism. In a way, it is a type of pedantery to call it anarchism, even though it is technically accurate.

Even secular activism can be thought of along the same lines. Laboring to protect YOUR liberty to not be forced to give lip-service to a religion that you really think is bonkers, it still counts as labor. You derive a collective benefit from that labor. You probably like having that benefit. Anarchist principles are still at work. You have the idea that you have the ability and the right to do that because of a man named Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

You're still missing the fundamental problem:

You are missing the fundamental courtesies of good faith debate. It is not okay to talk to people like this.

t works when people choose to be part of a group after some goal. You have a self-selected group, not the population at large.

Anarchist philosophy is not intended for dealing with the "population at large." The point of it being "anarchist" is that you take part if you choose to, but you are also being taught that you always really had the liberty to choose if you had wanted to. Anarchism is based at least partly on calling into question the validity of power structures that you have accepted, yourself, as part of the status quo.

Some anarchists question the validity of property, and they see property as a type of power structure. I have a nuanced view on that, and I will not get into it with you.

It's like looking at bra-wearers and concluding that the human species is overwhelmingly female.

I don't wear bras. I think they are idiotic except in cases of severe giganticomastia.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're still missing the fundamental problem:

You are missing the fundamental courtesies of good faith debate. It is not okay to talk to people like this.

Two things:

(1) It is absolutely okay to talk to people like this. The fundamental courtesies of good faith debate are not up to you to decide unilaterally, and what Loren wrote was easily courteous enough to qualify. If that was enough to offend you, grow a thicker skin.

(2) Don't dish it out if you can't take it. What Loren said to you was light-years more courteous than what you said to Angra Mainyu.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

You're still missing the fundamental problem:

You are missing the fundamental courtesies of good faith debate. It is not okay to talk to people like this.

Two things:

(1) It is absolutely okay to talk to people like this. The fundamental courtesies of good faith debate are not up to you to decide unilaterally, and what Loren wrote was easily courteous enough to qualify. If that was enough to offend you, grow a thicker skin.

(2) Don't dish it out if you can't take it. What Loren said to you was light-years more courteous than what you said to Angra Mainyu.

My main problem with what you are saying, here, is that it is patently false. Reconsider how you think at a fundamental level.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You're still missing the fundamental problem:

You are missing the fundamental courtesies of good faith debate. It is not okay to talk to people like this.

Two things:

(1) It is absolutely okay to talk to people like this. The fundamental courtesies of good faith debate are not up to you to decide unilaterally, and what Loren wrote was easily courteous enough to qualify. If that was enough to offend you, grow a thicker skin.

(2) Don't dish it out if you can't take it. What Loren said to you was light-years more courteous than what you said to Angra Mainyu.

My main problem with what you are saying, here, is that it is patently false. Reconsider how you think at a fundamental level.

No, it is patently true.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't wear bras. I think they are idiotic except in cases of severe giganticomastia.

How is that relevant to the arguments you are replying to?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anarchist philosophy is not intended for dealing with the "population at large." The point of it being "anarchist" is that you take part if you choose to, but you are also being taught that you always really had the liberty to choose if you had wanted to. Anarchism is based at least partly on calling into question the validity of power structures that you have accepted, yourself, as part of the status quo.

Then you can't have an anarchist society.

Some anarchists question the validity of property, and they see property as a type of power structure. I have a nuanced view on that, and I will not get into it with you.

In other words, another version of eat the rich.

It's like looking at bra-wearers and concluding that the human species is overwhelmingly female.

I don't wear bras. I think they are idiotic except in cases of severe giganticomastia.

Logic error: p -> q doesn't mean q -> p.

Saying those who wear bras are overwhelmingly female says nothing about how many females wear bras. Simple counterexample: Those who wear burqas are overwhelmingly female, but most females do not wear burqas.