Anarchism/Capitalism Thread Split

[Elixir]

It is the height of ignorance to equate Anarchism with anarchy.

So you're advocating for anarchism?
Yah, that has worked out well in the past. Very stable (NOT!) and egalitarian (NOT!).
I remember the communes of the late 60s... a brief shining moment - for some of them. Others were sheer hell, front to back.
At the end of the day, anarchism vs anarchy is only a temporal distinction - mostly without a difference.

The Spanish Anarchists had a large widespread industrial modern society.

To examine it requires looking at it intact and in action.

Snapshots always look good if well-timed. Where is it now, and why did it "go away"? Like I said, it's just a temporal distinction.
Think before answering.

 

[untermensche]

The Spanish Anarchists had a large widespread industrial modern society.

To examine it requires looking at it intact and in action.

Snapshots always look good if well-timed. Where is it now, and why did it "go away"? Like I said, it's just a temporal distinction.
Think before answering.

Anarchism hasn't gone anywhere.

It is principles.

And they are evolving.

Anarchist businesses exist.

No hierarchy. Everything shared equally.

Just within the last 20 years capitalism almost collapsed. Held together through massive government action directed towards saving capitalism.

The unstable system is capitalism.

You just don't care about the millions hurt every time it almost collapses and needs massive resuscitation.

 

[Elixir]

The Spanish Anarchists had a large widespread industrial modern society.

To examine it requires looking at it intact and in action.

Snapshots always look good if well-timed. Where is it now, and why did it "go away"? Like I said, it's just a temporal distinction.
Think before answering.

Anarchism hasn't gone anywhere.

It is principles.

Well isn't that just precious!

And they are evolving.

I wish them all the luck they haven't had in dozens of centuries.

Anarchist businesses exist.

So do anarchist clubs. So what? Businesses and clubs are not countries.

No hierarchy. Everything shared equally.

I know what the 'principles' of idealized anarchism are.

Just within the last 20 years capitalism almost collapsed. Held together through massive government action directed towards saving capitalism.

Yet, held together nonetheless.

The unstable system is capitalism.

Yeah, that's why it endures while every anarchist country... oh wait - that would be anarchy. Not pretty.

You just don't care about the millions hurt every time it almost collapses and needs massive resuscitation.

Kindly don't tell me what I care about; I was advocating when I was sixteen, over a half century ago, for what you are still stuck on today.
The difference between you and me, is that I grew up and faced the facts.
Believe me sonny, if I could snap my fingers and turn the USA into a stable country where there was true equality and all facets of wealth and poverty were shared equally, I'd snap my fingers.
The only reason I don't is because my fingers would tire long before it came to pass. The road from here to there is 100% unpaved, and road workers are few and far between. I do what I can without indulging in wishful exercises in futility.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[Treedbear]

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").

 

[untermensche]

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").

If you have ever met an avid Anarchist you will understand that no two think alike or want the same things.

Anarchism is nothing but theory since the Spanish experiment was crushed with force.

Like capitalism needed government support as it has collapsed over and over to learn certain lessons anarchism will only advance practically by existing with the same government support.

It is very doubtful anarchism will arise in the US. Much more likely to arise in Europe or South America.

A long, wide and strong history of union involvement with widespread union membership is probably necessary.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Wrong and wrong. Telling me what you believe I think in no way validates anarchism or condemns capitalism. Your trumpish tendency to simply repeat your pocket mantras is annoying, but in no way convincing. It’s sophomoric.

 

[untermensche]

This is what YOU said after showing pictures of the violent attack of the Anarchists:

I hope you're not advocating for anarchy. Most thinking people outgrow that impulse by their late teens.

You clearly confuse Anarchism with anarchy.

 

[Elixir]

Grow Up!

This is what YOU said after showing pictures of the violent attack of the Anarchists:

I hope you're not advocating for anarchy. Most thinking people outgrow that impulse by their late teens.

You clearly confuse Anarchism with anarchy.

You’re confused.
Anarchism is a system (featuring lack of systems) or a philosophy.
Anarchy is an outcome.
You need to learn that. I hope you are not advocating for anarchy, but you don’t seem to grasp the relationship. So you probably wouldn’t even know it if you were.

In the 60s there were plenty of people who, like you, equated anarchism with egalitarianism, and most of them soon learned that egalitarian arrangements have to be enforced, and enforcement is anathema to anarchism. The result in the absence of enforcement is anarchy.
I have long attributed that dynamic to "tribe size". A small group of people can be egalitarian, and embrace anarchism to good effect, at least for a while. The larger the tribal group, the more likely that there will an individual or individuals who seek outsized power or access to goods for themselves. When it gets to millions, the chances of it working are miniscule over a period of years. When it's hundreds of millions, those chances are negligible.

But keep on sputtering away about how nobody but you understands "how it works". At least you can maintain that obnoxious condescending attitude, even in the face of the transparently obvious fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is what YOU said after showing pictures of the violent attack of the Anarchists:

I hope you're not advocating for anarchy. Most thinking people outgrow that impulse by their late teens.

You clearly confuse Anarchism with anarchy.

Anarchism... for people that think Libertarianism just isn't foolish enough.

 

[untermensche]

This is what YOU said after showing pictures of the violent attack of the Anarchists:

I hope you're not advocating for anarchy. Most thinking people outgrow that impulse by their late teens.

You clearly confuse Anarchism with anarchy.

Anarchism... for people that think Libertarianism just isn't foolish enough.

Tell me the problems you have with Anarchism.

Libertarianism is a cult with a strange worship of capitalism that ignores the effects of capitalism by saying "That is not real capitalism".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anarchism... for people that think Libertarianism just isn't foolish enough.

Tell me the problems you have with Anarchism.

You mean other than its abundant and catastrophic amount of misplaced trust in people? Anarchism fails the very same way Libertarianism does. Libertarianism breaks down to anarchy, but people don't care as long as they've got there's. Anarchism breaks down into anarchy and everyone looks at one another wondering how things went wrong.

Libertarianism is a cult with a strange worship of capitalism that ignores the effects of capitalism by saying "That is not real capitalism".

Libertarianism isn't about capitalism. It is about ownership.

ETA: I want to step back the Libertarianism comment as there are many wings of libertarian thought... which kind of makes the term "Libertarian" meaningless. So to button up the statement, an economic Libertarian is about ownership.

 

[untermensche]

This is what YOU said after showing pictures of the violent attack of the Anarchists:

I hope you're not advocating for anarchy. Most thinking people outgrow that impulse by their late teens.

You clearly confuse Anarchism with anarchy.

You’re confused.
Anarchism is a system (featuring lack of systems) or a philosophy.
Anarchy is an outcome.
You need to learn that. I hope you are not advocating for anarchy, but you don’t seem to grasp the relationship. So you probably wouldn’t even know it if you were.

In the 60s there were plenty of people who, like you, equated anarchism with egalitarianism, and most of them soon learned that egalitarian arrangements have to be enforced, and enforcement is anathema to anarchism. The result in the absence of enforcement is anarchy.
I have long attributed that dynamic to "tribe size". A small group of people can be egalitarian, and embrace anarchism to good effect, at least for a while. The larger the tribal group, the more likely that there will an individual or individuals who seek outsized power or access to goods for themselves. When it gets to millions, the chances of it working are miniscule over a period of years. When it's hundreds of millions, those chances are negligible.

But keep on sputtering away about how nobody but you understands "how it works". At least you can maintain that obnoxious condescending attitude, even in the face of the transparently obvious fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about.

This is third rate.

You don't have the slightest clue what was happening in the 60's or what Anarchism is.

 

[Elixir]

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.

 

[Elixir]

In the 60s there were plenty of people who, like you, equated anarchism with egalitarianism, and most of them soon learned that egalitarian arrangements have to be enforced, and enforcement is anathema to anarchism. The result in the absence of enforcement is anarchy.
I have long attributed that dynamic to "tribe size". A small group of people can be egalitarian, and embrace anarchism to good effect, at least for a while. The larger the tribal group, the more likely that there will an individual or individuals who seek outsized power or access to goods for themselves. When it gets to millions, the chances of it working are miniscule over a period of years. When it's hundreds of millions, those chances are negligible.

But keep on sputtering away about how nobody but you understands "how it works". At least you can maintain that obnoxious condescending attitude, even in the face of the transparently obvious fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about.

You don't have the slightest clue what was happening in the 60's or what Anarchism is.

You wish.
Where were you in the 60s, Unter? What were you doing?
I knew more about anarchism by 1965 than you ever will.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Spanish Anarchists had a large widespread industrial modern society.

To examine it requires looking at it intact and in action.

Like I said. The Anarchists outproduced the capitalists in Spain.

It is not a rational comment to say something crushed by force is unstable. It was too dangerous for top down systems to allow to grow.

Your silly childish take is embarrassing.

Was the Anarchist movement in Spain similar to labor organizing in the U.S. during about the same era? I have emotional sympathy with these movements. But do you have evidence that "the Anarchists outproduced the capitalists in Spain"?

And whatever our conclusions about this movement, your one-sided rhetoric is confusing.

[YOUTUBE]H7ylKMmvGuU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[untermensche]

In the 60s there were plenty of people who, like you, equated anarchism with egalitarianism, and most of them soon learned that egalitarian arrangements have to be enforced, and enforcement is anathema to anarchism. The result in the absence of enforcement is anarchy.
I have long attributed that dynamic to "tribe size". A small group of people can be egalitarian, and embrace anarchism to good effect, at least for a while. The larger the tribal group, the more likely that there will an individual or individuals who seek outsized power or access to goods for themselves. When it gets to millions, the chances of it working are miniscule over a period of years. When it's hundreds of millions, those chances are negligible.

But keep on sputtering away about how nobody but you understands "how it works". At least you can maintain that obnoxious condescending attitude, even in the face of the transparently obvious fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about.

You don't have the slightest clue what was happening in the 60's or what Anarchism is.

You wish.
Where were you in the 60s, Unter? What were you doing?
I knew more about anarchism by 1965 than you ever will.

What is a guiding principle of anarchism?

Just one.

 

[Elixir]

The Spanish Anarchists had a large widespread industrial modern society.

To examine it requires looking at it intact and in action.

Like I said. The Anarchists outproduced the capitalists in Spain.

It is not a rational comment to say something crushed by force is unstable. It was too dangerous for top down systems to allow to grow.

Your silly childish take is embarrassing.

Was the Anarchist movement in Spain similar to labor organizing in the U.S. during about the same era? I have emotional sympathy with these movements. But do you have evidence that "the Anarchists outproduced the capitalists in Spain"?

And whatever our conclusions about this movement, your one-sided rhetoric is confusing.

[YOUTUBE]H7ylKMmvGuU[/YOUTUBE]

I don't think you know what you're addressing.
This is someone who says "It is not a rational comment to say something crushed by force is unstable."
His sandcastles are very very stable. Until the tide comes in. But that's YOUR fault because you don't understand how beautiful and stable Unter's sandcastles are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You wish.
Where were you in the 60s, Unter? What were you doing?
I knew more about anarchism by 1965 than you ever will.

What is a guiding principle of anarchism?

Just one.

That the people can govern themselves, which has never been shown to work. Its been tried in Utopian societies in the US in the past. The closest one gets to it are the Amish. And they suck from the teat of state and local Government, as well as being within the reach of the judicial system.

An American socialist once said that "There is an inherent flaw in the human mind that makes our cause a pathetic joke." Just looking at the history of Democratic Socialism in the US and you see how the population is not compatible with Anarchism. It is a naive (to be polite) dream that people can pull together and make it work. America couldn't pull together and wear masks and stay at home during a pandemic!

 

[untermensche]

The Spanish Anarchists had a large widespread industrial modern society.

To examine it requires looking at it intact and in action.

Like I said. The Anarchists outproduced the capitalists in Spain.

It is not a rational comment to say something crushed by force is unstable. It was too dangerous for top down systems to allow to grow.

Your silly childish take is embarrassing.

Was the Anarchist movement in Spain similar to labor organizing in the U.S. during about the same era? I have emotional sympathy with these movements. But do you have evidence that "the Anarchists outproduced the capitalists in Spain"?

And whatever our conclusions about this movement, your one-sided rhetoric is confusing.

Like I said the movement was attacked by every major top down power system that existed.

The US favored the fascists to the Anarchists.

Here is what Orwell said when first encountering it.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

Top down fascists still hate Anarchism. They make fictional accounts filled with lies. They tell lies.

And their lackeys eat it up.