Hello, I'm new on /pol/
I wanted to know what the philosophy is behind anarcho-communism. How does it work? Isn't it contradictory, since anarchy is anti-state, while communism is statist?
I'd be cool if someone steered me to a good author on the subject
Generally look on the Spanish Civil War for more examples.
Protip: In Spain when we hear/read communism (or anarchism) we usually think of anarcho-communism. Almost no one knows about anarcho-capitalism, for example.
It is not contradictory. Statism is one strategy to implement the communist society, which is based on common ownership of the means of production and an eventual dismemberment of the state. The Marxist definition of Communist Society implies a stateless society (note that, according to Marxist analysis, communism never happened, what has indeed happened is ultra-statist socialist regimes - Marx predicted that society would first implement a government of the working class, purging bourgeousie, thus creating the dictatorship of the proletariat (not an anti-democratic term, rather more like direct democracy, although it ends up becoming the dictatorship of the communist party too often), evolving from capitalism to a socialized economy that would then function without a state, thus achieving Communism.
Anarcho-capitalism is truly contradictory. Property ensures hierarchy, and hierachy is basically an opposite to anarchy. There's only one way to ensure property, through force, and if that force is not imparcial there is a monopoly of strength, which is anti-anarchist.
anarcho-communism is a tautology. They both mean the same thing. To understand communism you must understand anarchism and vice versa.
What people think of as "communism" is actually a branch of socialism. In the 20th century, most statist totalitarian governments parading as "communist" all branched from Leninism, which asserted that the only way to achieve communism was with a government that had absolute control over society and molded it over time; the communist party is supposed to be a "vanguard" intended to "guide" that evolution from socialism to communism. Leninism put a lot of words in Marx's mouth and used A LOT of manipulation.
Anarchists hated capitalism just as much as socialists/communists but also contended that states were fundamentally immoral as well as completely unnecessary.
Anarchists first and foremost are opposed to hierarchies. Anarchism means "no rulers." Capitalism creates hierarchies, moreover, a corporation is a tyrannical dictatorship, so anarchists are opposed to capitalism
Under communism (anarchist or socialist) there is no government, no leader, money is not used, everyone is -equal- economically.
You asked for a good author. All of the GREAT authors are from the early 20th century and throughout the 19th century so the language may be a bit difficult to understand. If you're insistent, Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Pyotr Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, and Rudolf Rocker are all the well-known ones, but keep in mind that many of them were much better activists than they were writers. Marx is also necessarily fundamental since he heavily inspired Bakunin and Proudhon - they were also personal friends and criticized each other frequently in good faith. Anarchists and socialists were VERY friendly with each other and close allies until Lenin started killing anarchists.
^^ This is a good basic intro to anarchism from a neutral perspective.
Here's from actual anarchists.
The best author that's still around is Noam Chomsky, he's probably the most well-known anarchist that's still alive and he's very well respected. The problem is, he has written a MOTHER FUCKING SHITTON of books, and I don't know where a good place would be to start with him.
>Anarcho-capitalism is truly contradictory. Property ensures hierarchy, and hierachy is basically an opposite to anarchy.
But hierarchy and organization are inherent to reality. All chemical and biological processes are hierarchical and organized, an arm is controlled by the brain, etc. Hell, maths are based on a hierarchy (1<2<3<4...)
There are people more intelligent than others, or more good-looking, or more charismatic, or more learned... all of this ensures that certain people will have more power and influence than others. This is why we have the crazy SJW cult that tries to replace reality and life with their own fantasies. (ironicall causing a hierachy of ideas)
(Just ranting against radical equality and anarchy. I'm against Might makes Right too, I support a reasonable, moderate amount of equality, a middle way)
Hierarchy in the political context means social hierarchy you dense idiot. No anarchist is opposed to organization of inanimate components.They're opposed to people having power over other people.
Moreover, if you're not opposed to hierarchy and you're a capitalist, you can't even claim to be an anarcho-capitalist -even if it wasn't a complete contradiction-
Because what exists is the only thing that can exist.
>Bakunin rekts SJWs
>but not by restricting what a man may acquire by his own skill, productive energy, and thrift
Honestly I could hear this part from AnCaps, too. I don't exactly understand how you equalize personal wealth while at the same time not restricting it, though
Derp, these pictures looked similar from far away. Meant to post this instead.
>Isn't it contradictory, since anarchy is anti-state, while communism is statist?
Communists are aiming to create a Stateless society. They have the same aim as Anarchists.
Socialists do not.
That is the difference.
Bumping with anarchist pictures now.
At the risk of being trolled...If anyone has any questions I'll answer.
Okay...Free Territory of Ukraine and Anarchist Catalonia. They "failed" because someone conquered them, which doesn't really have anything to do with the efficacy of an ideology. Especially when the vast majority of the countries of the world have abandoned military conquest. Moreover, those places didn't send everyone to go fight the war. Plenty of people were running the workers collectives that kept society running - and society ran pretty well under anarchist control.
what does that have to do with my post
my point is that a worker does their part and they get paid for it, maybe they harvested a material or fashioned it in some way, shipped it or stocked it or sold it and that's what they get paid for
Ah, yes, free will...
So you would be fine if you spent time and effort to grow food that I'd just take it from you?
Would you also be fine if I just walk into your house and steal your bed?
>getting conquered doesn't have anything to do with the efficacy of an ideology
Yes it does. It shows you that you can't maintain territorial integrity, which is one of the most important thing if you are a country.
>everything has had to work in some capacity to survive
>therefore not free will
DAMN YOU NATURE STOP OPPRESSING ME
This one is utterly retarded, noone could produce anything ever if he had to pay the same value of a product to EACH of the people involved in making it.
It's not "inherent inequality" in a negative sense, it's common sense. If I get an orange I can split it into 5 oranges for my 5 friends, what the fuck
this one in more interesting.
Problem I see is that it implies that the capitalist boss is inherently bad, and the capitalist workers and the cooperative workers inherently good. This is bullshit, assuming everyone were good people, almost any sociopolitical system could work fine.
On the other hand, the capitalist one is more fucked up IF the boss is an asshole, while if the cooperative has some asshole (you bet there would be people who would join and pretend to work while doing nothing just to get the wealth for free, this is one of the main critics to communists from capitalists) then the others could agree on busting the assholes.
It can lead to tyranny of the masses and propaganda / social engineering, but it's still harder to ruin, and seems more resistent to corruption.
I'm think that people are ridiculously obsessed about >muh socio-political-economic systems, when in reality the real important problem is designing systems able to resist corruption, and the problem of human nature overall.
>Appeal to authority fallacy.
I refer you to the /pol/ sticky.
Except technology has advanced such that, we can grow massive amounts of food on VERY small amounts of land and we have very advanced techniques of keeping ourselves warm. So we'd only really have to work one hour a day if we were talking nature. I'm not sure many people would complain if they only had to work one hour a day.
Oh yeah that's what I did. You must feel so witty. Except I wasn't making any appeal at all you mook.
That's just reality. Work or die. Hunt/farm/fish/steal or starve. That's life. Your bitching will never get you anywhere.
>they have free will to enter and leave the contract
keep telling yourself this, goy. i'm sure it keeps you from blowing your brains out in despair.
>he thinks anyone will cooperate to make that happen
You're not that naive are you? Small collectivist movements can work but they have to remove themselves from the larger society that would prey on them. Same for those wanting to subsist. Better head innawoods.
>Because I was a lazy bum.
You're not that "lazy" if your willing to risk your life intimidating people. It's better to negotiate for resources than just appropriate them.
In an Anarchist society, it's better to ask first.
Okay. Abolish capitalism. Give everyone a yard that can grow their own food, there's enough space for everyone. Everyone is responsible for their own yard.
That's why we conquered nature with TECHNOLOGY.
You don't understand anon, we have no problems with the idea of work. It's how peoples work is exploited by the ruling class. Stop taking a percentage off my earnings, stop taking my money and spending it on whatever the fuck you (the government) feels like spending it on.
Why are you implying I need to rationalize anything? I'm well aware of the economic situation here. I never stated any affection or disdain towards it. You need to wake up.
Oh yeah people will acquiesce to that immediately :^)
yeah totally not possible...except Russians have been doing it for 70 years.
>Except I wasn't making any appeal
It's apparent you don't know what an "appeal to authority" fallacy is... Here's a link, go educate yourself:
>It's how peoples work is exploited by the ruling class.
You're just a tool of this ruling class. They use the strife between classes to consolidate their power constantly. Quit being a fucking tool. The "ruling" class are exploitative in large percentages but you think they are the major cause?
People are the problem. Just any people at all. They can't come together for the greater good for anything. You think there would even be a ruling class if all the underclasses could agree on anything?
Let's not even TALK about automation...
I'd say a certain amount of property (not resources, though) is vital for the psychological well-being of people.
-Say, you are reading a book you love, and before finishing it some guy takes it to read it because there's no property.
(this could be solved by going back to the "usage rights" characteristic of societies with subsistence modes previous of property, like horticultural societies or hunter and seeker societies.)
-Say, you are currently in possesion of something that has a high emotional value to you, and some retard takes it from you to use it. bonus points if you hate that guy.
How the fuck can you handle these sort of things in a property-free society?
>yeah totally not possible...except Russians have been doing it for 70 years.
Totally by choice right? I mean surely this is what they would still find ideal if you told them could have enormous and efficient farms producing everything. Russians are clearly above the pitfalls of humanity experience by the rest of the world.
There is a distinction between your possession and "property". Property can generally be regarded as productive capacity and resources.
The place you live is your personal space, no one can invade it without pissing you off. If they need help, they only need to ask for it.
Private Property is land
Personal Possessions are your umbrella.
A core tennet of anarchist ideology is freedom of association. Your house is yours while you use it and nobody will go fuck with your shit, but you don't -own- the house, you just use it. When you move, the house will be someone elses and you keep your house.
Nobody wants your umbrella though. You can keep it.
there is nothing more baffling than people who actually think we need to limit automation rather than change how our society works.
why not just stop using power tools and have every workshop employ three times as many people?
Unions are really powerful in Germany, right? I could see automation being used more efficiently there than in the U.S.
>speaks of people as "they"
On a serious note though I understand all that, divide and conquer and all, people are easily manipulated on large numbers, I totally agree. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to be honest, how does any of what you have said explain why we need statism to survive? My point was anarchists would have no problem working to sustain themselves in an anarchist society, this "anarchists are lazy" schtick is just nonsensical to me. It's not working we have a problem with, it's people stepping in and forcing us to hand over a percentage of what we produce to contribute to a system we don't agree with. That's the oppressive part of it.
For those who don't know...anarchists usually organize through unions. It's pretty important. Usually associated with anarcho-syndicalism, though other anarchists typically aren't opposed to the notion at all. Syndicalism isn't really meaningfully different except it just -emphasizes- union organization more than others.
>People are the problem. Just any people at all.
Remove >le evil capitalists / jews / commies / imams / leaders / whetever and others will take their place
Human nature is the real problem.
LASER THE GENES
EUGENIC WAR NOW
Do you realize only 6% of the US workforce is Unionized? Unions have zero impact on the US economy.
Just don't let the right wing know this, it kinda destroys their arguments unions are killing America...
A couple of things.
A) Radicals aren't liberals. And liberals aren't leftists. In fact, if you're not a fascist, you're likely some form of liberal. There's social liberalism, conservative liberalism, and classical liberalism. I imagine you're a conservative liberal.
2) While there's not much appeal to emotion in that particular infograph, emotion is a valid part of human experience though it is overemphasized and used to manipulate a lot. Furthermore, I'd say conservative liberals and fascists are MUCH MUCH more apt to appeal to peoples emotions than leftists.
I have my back garden for that.
Also. I can imagine how many hobos will come to this guys house and steal his vegetables.
The difference between liberals and leftists.
I'm surprised "an"caps and libertards haven't tried to troll and takeover this thread. They usually try to with these.
Just be glad you aren't in America. I'm planning on going to grad school for bioengineering in Germany in a couple years. Are there a lot of germans who don't like Angela Merkel?
Okay. Name a power-based hierarchy in anarcho-communist society.
They were conquered because stalinists and republicans stabbed them in the back after the fascists were defeated. I'm not sure what you mean by poverty, nobody died of starvation or exposure to the cold there, everyone had electricity and food and a home. What roaming hoard of lunatics are you referring to exactly?
I still think the problem is human nature.
Biological leverage, genetics... Nature is a harsh mistress, she doesn't know of mercy or any kind of higher value, just
>fight to survive or die
>trample others for your gain, or join groups, whatever it takes to be on the top
Unless we get an enlightened (for real) elite with power to eugenic the fuck out of mankind, we are doomed to be warmongering, arguing, unhappy slave/master monkeys
If you post these on facebook, you're annoying as fuck.
Nigger you don't have to "work to live", you can go inawoods and start hunting your own food
Except you can't. Seriously if you get found out you'll probably be found and accused of breaking several laws unknowable to you (poaching/trespassing etc) and be arrested. Just ask any homeless person how often they get in trouble with police, I'd bet it's pretty fucking often.
>Are there a lot of germans who don't like Angela Merkel?
i wouldnt know really. i havent met anyone who dislikes her but i dont watch mainstream media so i dont know what the consensus is
>Except you can't. Seriously if you get found out you'll probably be found and accused of breaking several laws unknowable to you
The government makes it harder for the poor to get by, who would have thought.
What? are you the retarded guy who thinks any reference to nature automatically means an appeal to nature? are you this brain-damaged?
Or are you a proponent of the Tabula Rasa theory that every human is born equally void of content?
Or are you implying that calling something natural as "a problem" means that I am the problem, effectively making a real appeal to nature?
By evoking "nature" you making an appeal to authority.
>Or are you a proponent of the Tabula Rasa theory
>Or are you implying that calling something natural as "a problem"
People resort to an argument from "nature" in the same way they resort to an argument from God.
I think I might be the only anarchist that's actually opposed to muslims immigrating to the west (Except America, Canada, Austrailia and England)
I see a lot of fascist tendencies in their culture.
It's not really something born out of hate, I just see it as not-constructive to progress. It'd be like a bunch of people from the middle ages moving to your country and being upset about everything that's not like the middle ages was. I understand why liberals are all for it, but I don't understand why other anarchists are for it, when almost no muslims -are- anarchist. Opposing war in the middle east? that's consistent with anarchism. Being in support of them in your country trying to make it more conservative? wtf?
It truly baffles me that the only people willing to fight this are right wing.
I make exceptions with America, Canada and Austrailia because it's not like those governments are going to give the land back to the natives and those countries are BUILT on the idea of cultural diversity.
I don't care about England because they colonized the world and the English aren't even the native people of England so meh.
>not being a Fascist
Its like you enjoy getting cucked.
You should publish this master thesis and convince the world.
No you fucking retard, I'm literally asking you what you meant. Because, you know, with just 2 fucking words like "nature...retard" you can't exactly make a clear point.
>By evoking "nature" you making an appeal to authority.
Jesus christ, so you really are the >muh appeal guy. Go read about the appeal to nature, please.
>An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is GOOD because it is 'natural', or BAD because it is 'unnatural'".
I'm not saying it's acceptable/unacceptable because it's natural you retard. I'm saying NATURE'S INFLUENCE EXISTS.
As, in, I'm a fucking psychologist. Do you think we ignore nature? What the fuck do you think genetic correlation to behaviour is? or epigenetics? or inheritance? Do you even science?
See temperament (INHERITED) and character (LEARNED/DEVELOPED) for example
What I'm saying is, mankind has to deal with the genetic baggage we have from, you know, survival of the goddamn fittest for the entire history of living beings, which has lead us to the current state.
Not to say we can't do better/worse, or that there's nothing to do, just that, MY PERSONAL OPINION, is that genetics conducting to a SHITTY BEHAVIOR will ruin mankind's societies forever AND MANIFEST ITSELF IN SHITTY SOCIAL SYSTEMS for as long as we have this genetic baggage.
Have you lived in Cuba? Have you talked to anyone who lived in Cuba? Derpaherpaderp
Then what exactly are you arguing against, are you arguing against the kind of anarchist who just expects everything to be given to them without lifting a finger? If so we're on the same side. I'm an anarchist and I mean it, the minute I feel I've accumulated enough knowledge to sustain myself outside of societies that rely on statism I will go out and do exactly that. Whether it's building my own shelter and procuring my own food, I will do exactly that.
The problem in this is figuring out a method of doing this without relying on/interacting with the state as at this point states have basically claimed ownership over everything around us in one way or another. If it doesn't belong to the state then it belongs to someone who will use the state against you.
Where do you decide to set up your hermit shelter if every plot of land around you has already been bought and sold and is protected by laws? I want to avoid all of that, I want a vagrant lifestyle and I will embrace the struggle to survive knowing I will be truly independent from the state. Not even kidding, I'll even document it if possible, all I want to set me off on my journey is a survival guide based around the British isles.
Fucking OP never even replied to shit.
>There's only one way to ensure property, through force, and if that force is not imparcial there is a monopoly of strength, which is anti-anarchist.
And how do you enforce that nobody claims property?
>No you fucking retard, I'm literally asking you what you meant
No, you assumed the binary opposite of "nature" is Tabula Rasa. That was "bifurcation fallacy".
>I'm not saying it's acceptable/unacceptable
I didn't say you were, continue reading.
>I'm saying NATURE'S INFLUENCE EXISTS.
>As, in, I'm a fucking psychologist. Do you think we ignore nature?
You haven't defined "nature".
>See temperament (INHERITED)
Since when has "inherited" been defined as "natural"? Have you ever heard of epigenetics? Gene expression is controlled by environmental factors.
You sound like someone who hasn't opened a textbook since 1985.
average poorfag in the US: shit job slaving away for like $8 an hour, can barely afford to pay for weed and going out to the club every weekend after paying the bill on your iphone 6 and the rent for your air conditioned 1br apartment that is safe and meets building codes and your insurance and taxes and internet and cable
average poorfag in Cuba: shit job slaving away for like $4 an hour, dont have to pay rent on the shitty falling down shack the government lets you stay in so if you save up for a few months you can afford a radio and listen to the communist broadcasts
literally everything about being poor in Cuba is shittier except for the healthcare. its simply a poorer country than the US so life is shit for everyone there, the fact that it is communist means being poor vs rich is slightly less shitty than in maybe Colombia but being poor there is still fucking hell.
Hello anon. AnCap economist here. You are correct. Communism means you want the state to control the means of production. Anarchy means no rulers, not to be confused with anomie - lack of law.
AnComs want a stateless society where the community controls the economy. I feel that AnCom should be AnSoc, but it's a somewhat misleading ideal that Capitalism is bad and if only the state/community took over it would be better. I feel most AnComs look at government as perverted by Capitalism.
TL:DR you're correct, AnCom is an uneducated stance.
>Cuba is a much better place to live, if you're poor.
Because there, other people are providing for you, with their own effort.
Are you supporting leeching of others?
the alternative is to work, and you said
>For the majority in America it's a daily slog just to provide food and shelter.
>What I'm saying is, mankind has to deal with the genetic baggage we have from, you know, survival of the goddamn fittest for the entire history of living beings, which has lead us to the current state.
Our genetic baggage includes a lot of altruism. That's how small groups of hunters-gatherers were able to survive (and, remember, we have been hunter-gatherers for at least 2 million years, agriculturalists/pastoralists for 12-15 thousand years, and urbanites for at most 6000 years). Of course, they were also extremely violent towards other groups. So our nature encompasses both selfishness and altruism.
But our nature have also been selected for living in small groups of 100-300 people (google Dunbar number). So is our shitty behaviour determined by our genes or by the lack of fit between our optimal social environment (tribes with hundreds of people) and our current environment (cities with hundreds of thousands of people)? I'd say both.
was waiting for one of these dumbasses to show up.
Looks like this one doesn't even know what communism is by any definition.
Life in cuba is shit.
The average poorfag in the US has a shitty existence relative to the US.
The average poorfag in Cuba has a kind of mediocre existence relative to Cuba.
But the standard of living is so vastly much higher in the US that even the poor live much, much better than the poor in Cuba, they have HDTV and internet access and iphones and air conditioning and quite often even have fucking cars, all those things are completely unheard of in Cuba.
so maybe Cubans don't have to work quite as hard to be dirt fucking poor...still not worth it.
>Life in cuba is shit.
I suggest you visit, and volunteer there sometime.
Life is good for the average Cuban. In the US it's an everyday struggle to pay rent and find enough money for the basics in life.
Examples Word Origin
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
I was correct.
>You have to fucking work to survive.
You do not sell you labor power to someone else in order to "survive".
>You can still be an "Individual" and work for a company 9-5.
You are dependent on others who pay you a small proportion of the profit they make at your expense.
I suggest you get a better source.
Marx was very clear: Communism is a condition characterized by a Stateless, classless society.
The definitions you provide describe authoritarian Socialism and State Capitalism.
>calls me for appeal to nature
>proceed to quote definition of appeal to nature
>"appeal to nature is X is good/bad because of being natural"
>then he says he never said I was calling something good/bad because of natural
>therefore, I wasn't commiting appeal to nature
>Since when has "inherited" been defined as "natural"?
no comment, holy shit
> Have you ever heard of epigenetics? Gene expression is controlled by environmental factors.
At this point either you are trolling, or you are a political sciences uni student with no idea about science and a boner for arguing for the sake of arguing
If the country is supposedly not a complete shithole why do white people from the US which supposedly is a shithole need to come and volunteer our time just to make life slightly less shitty for Cubans?
Obviously it's better than being poor in Haiti or some shit, Cuba is pretty much the least shitty Latin American country but it's still complete shit compared to the US.
Clearly your judgement is based on an edgy teenager anti-US mentality and not on actual observation or evidence. Because the average American lives in a household that makes $50 grand a year and the average Cuban makes under $20 grand. And Americans have access to technology, luxury goods and all sorts of nice things that simply don't exist in Cuba.
But go ahead, carry on being an edgy liberal kiddie, you'll grow out of it sooner or later when you have to get a job for yourself.
Yeah, and the guy you tried to correct understands that too, moron. He was saying that regardless of your situation you still have to "work" in one way or another. There is no point where you do not have to work to get the resources you need to survive.
>You are dependent on others who pay you a small proportion of the profit they make at your expense.
Quit being such a poor-fag. We can't all be rich and dragging down others to wallow in your unhappy and unproductive life style is not the system we should strive for.
Go back to the soviet union if you want to argue on this level.
>Then you understand there is a difference between selling your labor power and working for yourself.
Yes, less financial risk, responsibility and effort required in the former. That's why most people choose it and those who put in the effort get a bigger share of the profit. How that is supposed to be unfair or exploitive, I can't see.
Somalia was never a complete anarchy, but they did advance more in years than their past 200. In fact, compare it to Kenya or other African governments. They advanced almost every metric of standard of living.
If you love the state so much, why not move to North Korea?
>There is no point where you do not have to work to get the resources you need to survive.
Do people hunt for fun? Or, only for food? Or both, maybe?
Not all activity that provides sustenance is "work".
An activity that involves getting up at 6am driving through traffic, sitting in an office for 10 hours, and repeating 5 days a week, just so you can have food and shelter doesn't sound too good.
I guess some people are just "natural-born" cucks.
You're on 4chan, remember. If you want to really change someones mind, I'd recommend expanding your peer group and talking to them. Better use of time.
I was posting because OP seemed to genuinely want to know, but then he abandoned ship or something.
>hey advanced almost every metric of standard of living.
You are conflating Somalia with Somaliland. Somaliland speaks English, they have a judical system, police, standing army, Government and...... TAXES.
Does that sound "libertarian" to you?
These fuckers are strawmanning hard.
The founding fathers of America are who modern American libertarians follow. They believed in a government that restrained the ability of the powerful to infringe on the rights of the individual. They also realized that governments, themselves, were most often the agents of tyranny, and so they implemented the Constitution to bind it down.
Just because people have since disregarded the constitution doesn't mean it couldn't bind the government back up if the right people were put in charge.
Also, just a side note-- libertarians believe in a small government. Socialism is where the government controls all fruits of production. That is not even close to libertarian.
Classical liberalism =! libertarianism, dumbass.
Try looking up the origin of the term Libertarian at any point before the 1950s. Founding fathers were classical liberals and that's what the American Libertarian Party is.
Kind of funny that the founding fathers get brought up in this thread...In their day, nobody had tried classical liberalism. It only existed on paper. It was labeled utopian and that there's nothing wrong with monarchy.
>Founding fathers were classical liberals
The Founding Fathers were anti-free trade. I suggest you read Alexander Hamilton's: "Report on Manufacturers"
Don't tell them that. They'll lose their mind.
>Trying to switch the burden of proof
Where did I ask you for proof? I simply asked if you were serious.
The definition of Communism is well known.
> A communist society is based upon common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless
In the short run, that logic makes perfect sense.
Think about it this way, though-- if we forced companies to employ construction workers who shovel by hand after the steam engine was invented, then we would still be stuck with those kind of workers today, adding nothing to society, and ultimately holding progress back.
Displacing workers currently opens doors for the next generation to have better, higher paying jobs.
Think about the percentage of people in America who currently work in manual labor, and then compare that to the percentage in 1915.
Oy gevalt! its like the Industrial Revolution all over again !
Remember the 6 million workers that had to find anotha job in a different sector
You asked for another source, stating the one I provided was incorrect, I asked you for proof to your claim. Here we are.
I will say, it is interest how that differs from the economic definition, although that definition lacks the concept of scarcity, which would never fly in economics.
>currency not used
>having an economy
fucking pick one, faggot. classic doublethink! :^)
marxists never understand anything about economics, and this is why the ideology never succeeds in building successful civilizations.
So if I own 6 million robots that do the work of 10 gorillan men and I only work my robots that I own I am a bad person because I don't let people work in my factory because I have robots that can do the job faster and better?
No, the American School of Economics that advocated the National System dominated US economic policy for 200 years, until 1980.
The American School of Economics based their approach on Hamiltonian economics, the American School was anti-free trade, they subsidized industry and advised Government to invest in infrastructure.
They turned the USA into an economic superpower.
America became a power because of it's lack of a strong government. Google up the Journal of Economic Growth how federal regulations, alone, have made Americans 75% poorer since 1949. Protectionism doesn't work.
We need people to program the robots and make better ones, bby ;^)
Those people will buy the products.
With enough production, supply will rise high enough that prices will be affordable, even to those with the least amount of income.
It's why, today, poor people can have cars, televisions, internet, eat steak, and take 2 days off each week. Try having even a lower middle class person try that shit 60 years ago.
There's a reason baby boomers are the pickiest eaters-- their parents made the same 3 meals every week, because that's all they could afford.
It seems people reading this image are kind of missing the point, Jacques Fresco isn't a luddite. He embraces technology, his ideas for society fully embrace the capabilities of technology in industry to free the people to do better more fulfilling things, but in our society when this happens it often leaves people without the ability to sustain themselves where as in Jacque's vision, the robots are the ones providing sustenance from the get-go. If anything Jacque's main complaint isn't that there's too many robut takin muh jerbs, it's that there's not enough.
> although the point still stands.
Er.. no the "point" doesn't stand. The metrics you refer to come from Somaliland, not Somalia. There are no metrics from Somalia (or weren't when it was ruled by Warlords).
He's looking at it too small, though.
Give it 2 generations, and the jobs that were being replaced by robots will no longer even be available to people, save for artisans (like blacksmithing). The people who would have otherwise gone into hard manual labor for their entire lives are free to learn math, programming, arts, etc., and feel more fulfilled while being more affluent than their grandparents.
I'm posting this from my office down town, while my grandparents were factory workers.
>Anarcho-capitalism is truly contradictory. Property ensures hierarchy, and hierachy is basically an opposite to anarchy. There's only one way to ensure property, through force, and if that force is not imparcial there is a monopoly of strength, which is anti-anarchist.
Anarcho-Capitalism is a stateless society. By owning property means you have a hierarchy, yes, but it does not automatically mean that a state or governing body is formed.
confirmed for delusional, jealous nigger.
kek. enjoy le ebt and welfare. how's it feel to know you support the very people holding you down? boot-licking faggot liberal cucks will never escape repression.
You are walking in the desert, almost dying of thirst, and you have two buddies with you, Victor, who's alright when he's not being a bitch, and The State, a relatively shady fellow, gun in hand. Victor spots an Oasis.
>Yaay! We can survive?
>What do you mean, "we"? It's my water, amirite, The State?
>Yes, it's your water, Victor. If Anon wants to steal it from you, I shall gladly fucking kill him.
>Give it 2 generations, and the jobs that were being replaced by robots will no longer even be available to people, save for artisans (like blacksmithing). The people who would have otherwise gone into hard manual labor for their entire lives are free to learn math, programming, arts, etc., and feel more fulfilled while being more affluent than their grandparents.
I know, Jacque also knows this, all Jacque wants to do is accelerate this to the point where everyone's time is freed up so we can all focus on progressing as a species, not worrying about putting food on our tables.
fucking sjw mods deleting my posts even though they were political in nature, along with the other anon below me who didn't even say anything offensive. FUCK SJW CUCKS.
this place living proof that authority and government is fucking retarded. YEAH GUYS LETS JUST CENSOR FREE SPEECH HUE HUE HUE HUE LETS REGULATE THE MARKET HUE HUE HUE LETS CONTROL EVERYTHING HUE HUE HUE
Why accelerate it? Why is the life of a single generation so important that you would jeopardize the entire race for an experiment?
People are inherently selfish. You don't need to teach children to take, you need to teach them to share. Who is he to think that he can change human nature?
The Fascists weren't beat you ignorant fuck. The POUM, CNT/FAI, and UGT were utterly incompetent, unsupplied, and were literally pulling hordes of vagrants and children from the streets of Barcelona into their ranks and giving them literally three days of training, no joke.
mine and another anon's replies being deleted for no fucking reason. mods seem to be the ones without meds if being on fucking /pol/ triggers them enough to censor free speech on a cantonese model airplane enthusiast forum. fuck sjw's.
>shitposting about shitposting
watch, now that shitpost above will remain when my contribution to the discussion was removed for no reason. fucking cuckolds.
>It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century. Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies
Not 200 years.
>core principle central bank
1913 and credited with the modern business cycle, along with other government market distortions.
This was one of the main reasons for the South seceding, that and their hatred of Lincoln and desire for the government to enforce slavery. The textile industry faced huge tariffs and was very painful for the South. We know that protectionism leads to higher costs for both parties on import exports.
Then, Lincoln started a war that killed more Americans than all other wars combined.
I suppose raising debt by over 1000% in the name of "job creation" is good. Oh no, it's not. Comparing the great depression with Harding's slashing of the budget that destroyed a depression in 2 years shows the ignorance of statism.
Don't call Wikipedia empirical economic evidence. Try citing some journals, as I did. More proof that government distorts and ruins markets.
>Why accelerate it?
Why the fuck not, how would having a fully automated food industry jeopardize the entire race? Surely producing food automatically as a result of intelligent use of robotics can only be a good thing.
>The State defines property rights in the first place.
I don't need the state to know that what I worked and paid for belongs to me and I certainly don't need a state to respect other people's property. Do you?
>Not 200 years.
Yes, from the time Hamilton published "Report on Manufacturers (1791)" the US abandoned international free trade. The National System dominated from the 1850s onwards.
>1913 and credited with the modern business cycle
The "business cycle" existed long before 1913.
>I suppose raising debt by over 1000% in the name of "job creation" is good.
It's apparent you don't know what "debt" is. Countries with high debt to GDP ratios out perform countries with low debt.
>Don't call Wikipedia empirical economic evidence.
I didn't call wikipedia anything. The achievements of the American School of Economics provide the hard empirical evidence. It is a fact, the American School turned the US into an economic superpower.
>I don't need the state to know that what I worked and paid for
"Property rights" are culturally contingent, they vary from society to society. In some societies there is property at all.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with some classic ethnography, "Argonauts of the Western Pacific" by Malinowski, is a good starting point.
"petty bourgeois" is a derogatory term commies use to describe business owners who don't fit into their "evil oppressive capitalist bastard" narrative. It's their attempt to write them off.
So, basically, you are envious that your parents didn't work their asses off so you could be a rich heir. Gotcha.
Primitive people whose development never got past a certain point, I assume?
Google the following
The Paris commune
The Ukrainian free territories
Have a read of some kropotkin
I'd suggest the conquest of bread to start.
The short of it is that it works extremely well, but requires the ideas to be popularized over time.
People who say shit like "It's a contradiction" haven't done the slightest bit of research into the idea. There are a number of examples of it functioning extremely well. Don't buy the bullshit, read and decide for yourself.
Did I just offend you?
Seriously, advanced societies are hardly possible without property rights. It's just not how animals work. If you can't (even imagine to) work hard for future profit and pass on resources to your offspring there is hardly any reason to do anything beyond mating and sustaining yourself.
I've always liked to be nice, and gradually I've learned to be more open with my goods, just Mike I grew out of pooing underneath the heaters in muh countryhouse when I after my terrible twos.
No, it's not the same.
Not pooing everywhere is beneficial to the individual AND the group.
Sharing CAN be, but it isn't always. My point, anyway, wasn't about sharing. It was about the nature of man. You can create your utopia where everyone shares, but inevitably there will come an individual who does not want to share, and will do everything in his power to break the system.
A system based on the nature of man, on the other hand, will continue to flourish, even with all the hindrances.
buttmad brit getting BTFO
you defend it YOURSELF you fucking statist commie scum.
A huge problem with most collective anarchist's view of Anarcho-Capitalist's is due to the difference in the definition of "capitalism"
To an AnCom, "capitalism" means strict hierarchy, wage-pay always, and subjugation of the poor.
When an AnCap describes "capitalism", they are just taking emphasis on market forces which go above and beyond the theory of the Value of Labor can describe.
tl;dr: words don't really have meaning beside what we project into them
I think during my parents teaching me your standard 'anon, don't be a selfish shitty asshole' lessons when I was a kid I picked up an instinct that if there are people swanning around on fucking yachts while 2bn don't have access to proper sanitation, myself and others should get busy sharing our wealth.
Anyway to this I add the book 'Anarchism and Workers' Self-Management in Revolutionary Spain' by Frank Mintz. I don't know what he was smoking when he organised the book (it's like 1/3 appendixes, at least), but it documents thoroughly how when the fascists retook the collectivized farms and industries from the Anarchists, they found that significant improvements in equipment use and processes had occurred. Contrary to the idea that 'things fall apart' under anarchism, the Spanish anarchists managed to inward-invest successfully, improving industrial performance and farm yields, even while fighting a war. This is what happens when you let workers, who ultimately know how to do their jobs better than managers do, run the show.
Also remember that while Franco got support and arms from overseas, the Catalonian anarchists were left to fend for themselves aside from individual fighters joining voluntarily. It's rightly considered a military feat that they managed to hold out so long, when so effectively outgunned.
>myself and others should get busy sharing our wealth
First of all, use the correct pronoun. It's inappropriate to use "myself" in this context.
Now on to addressing the actual point:
That's your INDIVIDUAL choice. You can look at the world as it is and decide that you ought to share your wealth with those less fortunate. I, for one, donate 15% of my income to charity. I also choose the charities to which I donate.
I would never DREAM of going up to one of those people who own a yacht with a gun and say "either you give me 50% of your wealth so I can redistribute it, or I'll shoot you and redistribute 100%". That's fucking lunacy. It's what you propose governments do, though, to make everything more "fair."
If I have to be coerced into performing a charitable act, is it actually charity? Also, governments in history have a pretty terrible track record of taking care of the poor. The Catholic Church, over history, has done a MUCH better job. I'm not even Catholic, btw.
also it pisses me off no end that *every* discussion of anarchism devolves into this stupid an-com vs. an-cap punch up.
i know it's widely acknowledged that the internet is allergic to grey area, subtlety and nuance but fuck there is SO MUCH MORE to anarchism than the two extreme ends of it.
imo neither an-caps or an-coms are really anarchists, the first because an-caps are okay with and are even pro-hierarchy as long as the hierarchy arises from a free market. an-coms because they don't get that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with getting rich as long as everyone has consistently decent standard of living and equal access to political power. it's like people forget that the point of politics is to convince other people of your opinion, and be pragmatic about what you can achieve. with people so heavily reliant on and indoctrinated into a capitalist system, hoping to fully emancipate people from corporations is a total fantasy. it stands in the way of achieving a heap of meaningful change, because an-coms insist on alienating most people with their historical re-enactment communism bullshit.
read some rocker, or some post-left anarchism. some modern green anarchism. read 'your politics are boring as fuck!' read ome fucking theroux and some bob black! stop creaming over a bunch of academics from 100 years ago, all of whom would be smart enough to adjust their anarchism to meet present day conditions if they saw everything that has happened since the end of WWII.
Face it, thanks to capitalism we actually have enough wealth to regulate our own population in the long-term, and free every goddamn man woman and child from poverty, misery and disease. Without excesses of capital to invest in researching contraception, water purification, disease control, transport and all of the innumerable technological factors, we wouldn't be in this position. We're literally now fully equipped to transcend nature and achieve a high-quality, permanent civilization. cont
there's literally never been more to gain, or more to lose, at any time in human history. how the 21st cenury plays out will affect the course of our species more than any other before or probably since.
the time for pragmatic anarchism is *clearly* now, you fucking idiots.
>imo neither an-caps or an-coms are really anarchists, the first because an-caps are okay with and are even pro-hierarchy as long as the hierarchy arises from a free market.
No, we just deny that it's a hierarchy if people voluntarily enter employment.
>with people so heavily reliant on and indoctrinated into a capitalist system, hoping to fully emancipate people from corporations is a total fantasy.
Remove corporate laws and suddenly they can go bankrupt. Remove protectionism in all its forms and suddenly the one manager with an actual conscience can take most of the employees and become a competitor doing everything the previous corporation did but with less downsides.
Anarcho-capitalism is just anarchism where people are free to trade as they wish, no barriers aside from the customers willingness to pay the price, both monetary and environmentally or whatever else side costs might have to be paid. Even currency would be subject to competition. If one capitalist overlord were to emerge who has all the money in the world, everyone else could just switch to other currencies and his only choice would be to trade off his possessions for their labour and goods.
now if i believed in proscriptivist linguistics I wouldn't be much of an anarchist would I. The way we speak English where I come from, it's not considered unusual in conversation. We also say 'nine while five'. pic related
Anyway yeah, I don't wholly disagree with you. In my vision of an ideal society, there'd probably still be people with yachts and no one would shoot them. But their choice to accumulate wealth instead of doing something worthwhile with their lives has a *minimal, negligible* impact on the freedom of others. This means no coercion in the workplace, and no uneven access to political power or basic services everyone has a right to. Swings and roundabouts.
The point is that's not how things are right now. Pausing to consider the individual freedoms of yacht owners is dandy. The problem is when these are the only people whose individual rights get considered.
Arriving at the conclusions 'white dudes must have yachts', when right now the system by which said white dudes acquire yachts leaves 750m without access to drinking water, 2bn without access to sanitation, 2bn living in slums, 1bn living on less than a dollar a day, mind-bogglingly unequal death rates and so on is the real lunacy. Because to justify it, you have to think 'well fuck 1/2 of humanity, their rights end where white people's right to yachts begins'.
Well, that's the point, employment isn't hierarchical. It's a mutually beneficial agreement. The employer has far more risk to bear so he has some rights that appear to be "hierachical" in nature to you (because he needs to protect both his and his other employees' interests).
You (seem to) only imagine employers to be irresponsible managers, shareholders and rich heirs who never actually work and just let their capital work for them, but the majority of employers aren't like that, at all.
>nine while five
Saying "myself," because you can't remember if it's "I" or "me" isn't so much slang or local dialect as it is lazy.
>This means no coercion in the workplace, and no uneven access to political power or basic services everyone has a right to
Which is why I support term limits and banning private donations to campaigns.
>their rights end where white people's right to yachts begins'
Not at all. My right to property, however, should not be usurped by someone else's supposed right to my property just because they are hungry or thirsty.
I, as an individual, gladly give to those in need and support education programs that enlighten others to the blight of the third world. In this, I hope to encourage the rich to give out of the goodness of their heart rather than coercion. It likely won't produce as much charity at the onset as a forced program (like statist communism), but has the potential to become the new norm over time, just as people used to tith (give 10%) to the Church, and the Church would redistribute it to those in need (and also adorn the houses of worship).
>Arriving at the conclusions 'white dudes must have yachts', when right now the system by which said white dudes acquire yachts leaves 750m without access to drinking water, 2bn without access to sanitation, 2bn living in slums, 1bn living on less than a dollar a day, mind-bogglingly unequal death rates and so on is the real lunacy.
But it's not the same system. Thanks to statism. This delegation of responsibility is the fundamental barrier to getting Africa to change.
>Because to justify it, you have to think 'well fuck 1/2 of humanity, their rights end where white people's right to yachts begins'.
And to justify your system you have to think:
>Let's make some babies so I can get another x percent of everyone else's stuff
Subsidizing their lifestyles is a guarantee to never end their misery.
>it does not automatically mean that a state or governing body is formed.
And you think Communists deny human nature! Hilarious. The first thing that would happen is that these guys would hire a goon army and pummel your face in for talking about free markets.
>Well, that's the point, employment isn't hierarchical.
That's my point. This is why Capitalism is incompatible with Anarchism.
> It's a mutually beneficial agreement.
Your understanding is devoid of any acknowledgement of the asymmetrical power relationship that exists between employer and employed. A person selling their labor is in a weaker position to an owner of Capital, the seller has fewer resources and thus less leverage.
Also, I love the idea of communes, but hate communism.
Want to know why? Communes actually function as part of the free market. Anyone can go to a commune and request entrance. Often times, they will be assessed based on what they believe, how they behave, and what skills they can bring to the table. If enough boxes are checked, they are let in. At any point, that individual is also allowed to leave the commune.
Communism, on the other hand, does not allow people to leave, and rarely allows people to enter. It is total and complete tyranny.
Communes are the basis of Communism.
Before the Bolsheviks seized control of the Soviet Union, the workers were organized into communes working in a meshed network with one another, this is how they operated their industries and services.
At the political level, they elected representatives to a discussion council (called a "Soviet", hence the name of the Soviet Union, it was a union of workers councils).
Unfortunately, this didn't last long. "War Communism" was declared and power was centralized, in the attempt to fight the White Army.
>That's my point. This is why Capitalism is incompatible with Anarchism.
No, it isn't. Anarcho communism is incapable with anarchism because it requires coercion to abolish property.
>Your understanding is devoid of any acknowledgement of the asymmetrical power relationship that exists between employer and employed.
It's non-coercive and only applies to the employer's property.
>A person selling their labor is in a weaker position to an owner of Capital, the seller has fewer resources and thus less leverage.
And less investment so he can just seek different employment. And the employees together have a lot of leverage over their employers.
>The first thing that would happen is that these guys would hire a goon army and pummel your face in for talking about free markets.
So long as you degenerate kike communist fairy cuck faggots died first, I'd be content with this.
America's rich, psychopathic pseudo-Randians are working towards a society in which everything is automated, only the richest are allowed to exist, and everyone with less than a billion dollars is exterminated for being too resource-intensive to keep alive.
So we'll probably die at roughly the same time, I'd say.
And that's the very core of the problem, isn't it?
Communes work when the group is small enough that everyone truly has a say, and anyone can question the authority.
Once you centralize the authority and make things mandatory, you run into problems. There's a reason ballet dancers and gymnasts went into those professions in the USSR: it gave them the opportunity to defect by performing outside the nation.
> Anarcho communism is incapable with anarchism because it requires coercion to abolish property.
Anarchists believe all property is theft. Property rights cannot be enforced without a State. If you abolish the State, you abolish property.
You have a two dimensional understanding of power. The hierarchies in Capitalist production are unequal; those in a negotiation do not have the same leverage. Power is in the hands of the owners of Capital.
>And less investment so he can just seek different employment.
Only if his employer is willing to provide a reference.
>And the employees together have a lot of leverage over their employers.
Only if the employers agree to employ unionized labor.