Anarchy

[blind2d]

I'm sorry, but I've read and experienced enough about political ideas and history to have formed my own definite opinion regarding what kind of world I want to live in. I'll take the unfair wage gaps of capitalism any day over the unavoidable tyranny and political and social instability over anarchism or communism. Ah! I see where our misunderstanding stems from now! 1) You don't believe wages to be tyranny. 2) You keep forgetting about the toll taxed on the planet/environment when discussing capitalism. 3) You think I'm advocating for anarchy OR communism, but not both together (which is in fact the case)! Am I wrong? (Also, PS, racism and sexism are directly tied to capitalism)

[EvilNed]

1) Correct. 2) No, I don't, I'm very much pro-enviromentalist. 3) No, I'm pretty sure you're advocating for both even if your grasp of either seems limited to purely abstract theoretical application rather than practical one. To suggest that racism and sexism are tied to capitalism is just another example of poor understanding of idealogical history on your part. They are inherently human, unfortunately.

[blind2d]

1) Correct. 2) No, I don't, I'm very much pro-enviromentalist. 3) No, I'm pretty sure you're advocating for both even if your grasp of either seems limited to purely abstract theoretical application rather than practical one. To suggest that racism and sexism are tied to capitalism is just another example of poor understanding of idealogical history on your part. They are inherently human, unfortunately. 1) Alright, I'll bite... Why not? 2) Oh? Sorry I didn't catch that. Hm, then how can you justify also being pro-capitalism? 3) LOL! Okay, fair enough, but since your ideas seem to be... Wait, what are they again? What? Um, no? Again, white people from Europe developed BS pseudo-science to justify enslaving Asian and African peoples, and the genocide of indigenous folk. This was to support their colonialist efforts, all of which are tied directly to their capitalistic tendencies. I mean, if you think "human" means "rich white culture"... That says something, wouldn't you say? Going back to indigenous peoples of the Americas, they were decidedly less sexist/racist in almost all cases. Also they were not capitalist, funnily enough. Interesting, eh? Maybe you should, like, read stuff, IDK.

[EvilNed]

1) There's no reason it would be. 2) Because the alternative is worse. Incorrect, white people did not develop racism, and it exists in every culture. Including native americans. Even our earliest writings about native americans are from the vikings and the armed conflict between the two groups. There's racism in India, Japan, China, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Brazil. And in each country it existed long before white people came. Just ask the Tlaxcans.

[blind2d]

1) There's no reason it would be. 2) Because the alternative is worse. Incorrect, white people did not develop racism, and it exists in every culture. Including native americans. Even our earliest writings about native americans are from the vikings and the armed conflict between the two groups. There's racism in India, Japan, China, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Brazil. And in each country it existed long before white people came. Just ask the Tlaxcans. 1) Oh, you've never heard of taxes... Or money, which without the system forces you to basically die. Or become imprisoned in a cage. You can't seriously be this foolish. 2) How can you say that? Oh no, people NOT in cages, being murdered in the streets, or oppressed by an abusive and parasitic minority elite class! How horrid!! (???) "Humans didn't invent the wheel. Rocks were already round by nature before primates even arrived on the planet!" - That's you. The point isn't that capitalism "invented" anything (again I guess I misspoke, Capitalism invented new uses for racism and sexism. NOT these concepts in general, no. That would be silly. But does capitalism use the worst of us for its own gain? Abso-fucking-lutely). Which is the real point. It's evil. Prove me wrong. How could freedom, equality, compassion... How could these things possibly be worse than tyranny? I just don't comprehend your reasoning one iota, I'm afraid. My apologies.

[EvilNed]

1) Oh, you've never heard of taxes... Or money, which without the system forces you to basically die. Or become imprisoned in a cage. You can't seriously be this foolish. 2) How can you say that? Oh no, people NOT in cages, being murdered in the streets, or oppressed by an abusive and parasitic minority elite class! How horrid!! (???) "Humans didn't invent the wheel. Rocks were already round by nature before primates even arrived on the planet!" - That's you. The point isn't that capitalism "invented" anything (again I guess I misspoke, Capitalism invented new uses for racism and sexism. NOT these concepts in general, no. That would be silly. But does capitalism use the worst of us for its own gain? Abso-fucking-lutely). Which is the real point. It's evil. Prove me wrong. How could freedom, equality, compassion... How could these things possibly be worse than tyranny? I just don't comprehend your reasoning one iota, I'm afraid. My apologies. 1) Of course I've heard of taxes and money. I gladly pay taxes and I gladly accept money for my work. 2) I say that because there is no alternative which doesn't impose a stricter tyranny on it's people. Communism, for instance, is more tyrannical and oppressive. As is feudalism, socialism and fascism. So thus I prefer liberalism. For all it's faults it is the least harmful. As for the second part of your post, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It is completely incomprehensible.

[blind2d]

1) Of course I've heard of taxes and money. I gladly pay taxes and I gladly accept money for my work. 2) I say that because there is no alternative which doesn't impose a stricter tyranny on it's people. Communism, for instance, is more tyrannical and oppressive. As is feudalism, socialism and fascism. So thus I prefer liberalism. For all it's faults it is the least harmful. As for the second part of your post, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It is completely incomprehensible. 1) Why? 2) You didn't mention anything here about anarchy, which is of course liberation and the actual topic of this thread. Curious. Seems you've forgotten the very title. Communism... in an authoritarian dictatorship, yeah. NOT what I'm advocating for, now is it? So, no. Your way of doing things promotes the continuation of detrimental facets of society. We would still have prisons, money, melting ice caps, racism, sexism, all other forms of bigotry (oh, but maybe not as much as our parents!), unjust hierarchies, and again the majority of the population with little to no wealth. Is that really the best we can do? Is that really the world you want to live in? I'll speak slower. Capitalism is evil, and I dare you to try and prove me wrong about that. How do you not understand that capitalism is oppressive to you directly and literally everyone who is not in the top 0.1% of elite rich assholes? Are you simply ignorant of this fact?

[EvilNed]

1) Why? 2) You didn't mention anything here about anarchy, which is of course liberation and the actual topic of this thread. Curious. Seems you've forgotten the very title. Communism... in an authoritarian dictatorship, yeah. NOT what I'm advocating for, now is it? So, no. Your way of doing things promotes the continuation of detrimental facets of society. We would still have prisons, money, melting ice caps, racism, sexism, all other forms of bigotry (oh, but maybe not as much as our parents!), unjust hierarchies, and again the majority of the population with little to no wealth. Is that really the best we can do? Is that really the world you want to live in? I'll speak slower. Capitalism is evil, and I dare you to try and prove me wrong about that. How do you not understand that capitalism is oppressive to you directly and literally everyone who is not in the top 0.1% of elite rich assholes? Are you simply ignorant of this fact? 1) So that we may have a functioning economy, welfare and common infrastructure. 2) Yes, I believe it is the best we can do as all alternatives are worse and more oppressive, including anarchism. I do not believe in the concept of "evil". It is a very simple concept which cannot be used to explain anything in this world. I do not have a black and white wordview.

[blind2d]

1) So that we may have a functioning economy, welfare and common infrastructure. 2) Yes, I believe it is the best we can do as all alternatives are worse and more oppressive, including anarchism. I do not believe in the concept of "evil". It is a very simple concept which cannot be used to explain anything in this world. I do not have a black and white wordview. 1) Which would be much easier without money or abusive hierarchies, no? 2) You keep saying this... But never provide any scientific evidence to support this claim. Making it very spurious, to say the least. Do you have any real-world examples to bolster this notion? ...And yet your username is "EvilNed". Do you believe in the concept of "detrimental"? I also do not have a black and white worldview, but I do have a moral conscience. Do you? I hope that question isn't too rude, but... You're honestly making me question it, Ned. So, must I change my wording yet again? Can you prove to me using evidence that capitalism is not detrimental to this planet and the majority of the human population? I'm really getting tired of having to repeat these questions. "Durr, my way is better! Different things are scary!" is not a convincing argument, just FYI. PS, if you don't believe in "evil", do you also not believe in "good"? If so... What is your personal motivation to do literally anything? I'm not trying to sound religious here, just... Trying to figure you out, I guess. Sorry about that.

[EvilNed]

1) Which would be much easier without money or abusive hierarchies, no? 2) You keep saying this... But never provide any scientific evidence to support this claim. Making it very spurious, to say the least. Do you have any real-world examples to bolster this notion? ...And yet your username is "EvilNed". Do you believe in the concept of "detrimental"? I also do not have a black and white worldview, but I do have a moral conscience. Do you? I hope that question isn't too rude, but... You're honestly making me question it, Ned. So, must I change my wording yet again? Can you prove to me using evidence that capitalism is not detrimental to this planet and the majority of the human population? I'm really getting tired of having to repeat these questions. "Durr, my way is better! Different things are scary!" is not a convincing argument, just FYI. PS, if you don't believe in "evil", do you also not believe in "good"? If so... What is your personal motivation to do literally anything? I'm not trying to sound religious here, just... Trying to figure you out, I guess. Sorry about that. 1) No, on the contrary. 2) Yes. Every attempt at establishing an anarchy or communism in history has led to an authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorship. I do not believe that anything is inherently good or evil. One cannot prove or disprove any one thing when it comes to ideologies. All I can say is that history has proved that liberalism has done more for humans than any other ideology.

[blind2d]

1) No, on the contrary. 2) Yes. Every attempt at establishing an anarchy or communism in history has led to an authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorship. I do not believe that anything is inherently good or evil. One cannot prove or disprove any one thing when it comes to ideologies. All I can say is that history has proved that liberalism has done more for humans than any other ideology. 1) Evidence? 2) Hm. I can't recall a time where anarchists willingly established anything authoritarian (which is the polar opposite of anarchy) or totalitarian (also an opposite). Please, refresh my memory, if you can. *narrows eyes* Nor do I. But I think certain actions are evil. Such as enslaving others and/or exploiting their labor. Fair enough. And all I can say is that you're quite wrong about that and seem to again be speaking from a place of privilege. Did liberalism keep the indigenous peoples from being driven to near extinction? Is liberalism currently turning the tide in the fight against climate change? Again it wasn't liberals who took the first steps in freeing the slaves or helped to give women more rights. It was radical leftist activists and that trend is continuing into the modern day. I mean, do you think Obama is/was a liberal? The man who failed to close Guantanamo, who did more drone strikes than acceptable limits would suggest, who deported more people than W? He didn't hardly even do any reform on prison policy! Yet you think liberals/liberalism is "the best"? Why? Because it's YOUR ideology? Because it's good for you personally, and people like you? Fuck that elitist crap. None are free until ALL are free.

[JDP]

As it suits ME? Am I seriously the only anarchist you've ever met in your life? I haven't conjured up anything out of thin air here. Hence my long list of sources. If you hadn't noticed, dictionary definitions do not do most concepts justice, especially things like political ideologies, which are often if not always very nuanced and complex. Wikipedia does much better on it, but still of course doesn't tell the whole story. So you got frustrated with me because I'm not a one-dimensional stereotype? Or what? My thoughts exactly (except I'm the only one here who's NOT a brick wall). Again, wtf is "common sense"? You've yet to define your take on that phrase. Here are some facts: Capitalists are actively destroying the environment of this planet. The oceans, the rain forests, the polar ice caps, etc. Are you saying it's wrong to have any hopes? Any dreams for a better future? Then again, why are any of us still alive? Still doing things? And YOU fail to understand that money is a negative construct that must be abolished if we are to have any kind of future. Why are you still talking if you haven't yet read Marx or Kropotkin? It'd be like me weighing in on a discussion of quantum physics. Meet me at my level, so you don't look like an absolute ignoramus. Do I need to link you to gift economy too? Fucking bootlicker. Yes, eliminating the police and impractical laws (most of the ones on the books currently) would drastically reduce crime, especially in conjunction with equality for all. Which is the goal. A bad goal, would you say? Do you believe that not everyone deserves consideration or care? Laws were invented to restrain the masses and keep us from overthrowing the tyrants in power, and still are to this day. You fool. Has Trump been punished yet, for his many many counts of fraud, and other heinous acts? No. The laws don't work if you have enough money and influence. It's fucking rigged. How can you not see that? Again, you've watched The Purge one too many times, methinks. If everyone behaved as a violent hermit, our species would quickly die out. And hell, would that be so bad? Look what we've done to our own planet. Now I'm not trying to kill anyone here, but you gotta admit... We kinda suck. And capitalism (greed, self-centeredness, exploitation of the weaker, etc) is the greatest offender. Where are your links? Why am I the only one posting links? Am I the only one here who actually reads? Maybe if you didn't repeat meaningless phrases so much, I'd take you more seriously. You don't know what common sense is? Dictionaries are your friends, not your enemy, so use them: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/common_sense Donald Trump is a clown and an a-hole, but he sure ain't no Stalin, that's for sure. I prefer having to deal with a smaller shit-head than with a Titanic one any day of the week! Marx et al. were a bunch of dreamers, their ideas have never worked and will never work in the real world. Workers/laborers are good at what they do, but managing things and doing business is NOT their "thing". Every time that such ideas as communal farms or the government and its supporters taking over the private sector have been put into practice they have led to a worsening of the situation, not betterment. Case in point, the recent communist/socialist "experiments" in Venezuela. Yes, that country that we can tell sends chills down your spine every time I bring it up, only to try to deny and ignore it because it clearly shows that such ideas never work in the real world. Back when it was a democracy, Venezuela used to produce plenty of sugar, for example, more than enough for its own domestic market and surplus to export to other countries back when the sugar cane plantations were in private hands. After the bogus "revolution" of Castro's The Two Stooges (Chavez & Maduro) now Venezuela can't even produce enough sugar and other goods to satisfy its own domestic market and has to import them: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/venezuela-food That's what your much admired communist ideals always eventually lead to. It failed in Russia, it failed in Venezuela, and it will continue to fail everywhere. Heck, Venezuela was in way better shape even when it was in the hands of military dictators like General Perez Jimenez (and yes, he was an oppressive a-hole too, like all dictators, but he and his entourage sure knew how to run the country way better than any of these communist muppets who have plunged Venezuela into total chaos. Venezuela had one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world in the 1950s.) You keep talking about "capitalism" as being the enemy of environmentalism, but you fail to see the atrocities that the communists did in that regard. Example: https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-...ntal-disaster/ The Soviet Union turned that place into a wasteland. So no, "capitalists" are not the only offenders even by a stretch.

[EvilNed]

1) Evidence? 2) Hm. I can't recall a time where anarchists willingly established anything authoritarian (which is the polar opposite of anarchy) or totalitarian (also an opposite). Please, refresh my memory, if you can. *narrows eyes* Nor do I. But I think certain actions are evil. Such as enslaving others and/or exploiting their labor. Fair enough. And all I can say is that you're quite wrong about that and seem to again be speaking from a place of privilege. Did liberalism keep the indigenous peoples from being driven to near extinction? Is liberalism currently turning the tide in the fight against climate change? Again it wasn't liberals who took the first steps in freeing the slaves or helped to give women more rights. It was radical leftist activists and that trend is continuing into the modern day. I mean, do you think Obama is/was a liberal? The man who failed to close Guantanamo, who did more drone strikes than acceptable limits would suggest, who deported more people than W? He didn't hardly even do any reform on prison policy! Yet you think liberals/liberalism is "the best"? Why? Because it's YOUR ideology? Because it's good for you personally, and people like you? Fuck that elitist crap. None are free until ALL are free. 1) Cash is nothing but the pooling of resources, something which becomes cumbersome in a society lacking in it. Likewise, hierarchy allows for specialization - which makes decisions not only more expedient and efficient, but also well informed. I do not want a person who has specialized agriculture to have a say in what we should do with our welfare. 2) In an attempt to establish a communist economic model, every single society has failed to do so. A communist economic model relies on the same principles as anarchism - the communal owning of all assets. It has been proven to be impossible. To suggest that liberals were not the ones who fought for the rights of slaves shows that you do not know anything about ideological history at all. It was in fact, liberals who did just that. Again, I cannot discuss this further with you because you simply do not know what you are talking about and your definition of a liberal seems to be "Obama". If you want to begin reading up on it I suggest you start with the Diggers of the English revolution, then reading on the ideas behind the American and later French revolutions. Liberalism does not begin and end with the modern american democratic party - as you seem to think. Your scope is very narrow and very black and white.

[blind2d]

You don't know what common sense is? Dictionaries are your friends, not your enemy, so use them: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/common_sense Donald Trump is a clown and an a-hole, but he sure ain't no Stalin, that's for sure. I prefer having to deal with a smaller shit-head than with a Titanic one any day of the week! Marx et al. were a bunch of dreamers, their ideas have never worked and will never work in the real world. Workers/laborers are good at what they do, but managing things and doing business is NOT their "thing". Every time that such ideas as communal farms or the government and its supporters taking over the private sector have been put into practice they have led to a worsening of the situation, not betterment. Case in point, the recent communist/socialist "experiments" in Venezuela. Yes, that country that we can tell sends chills down your spine every time I bring it up, only to try to deny and ignore it because it clearly shows that such ideas never work in the real world. Back when it was a democracy, Venezuela used to produce plenty of sugar, for example, more than enough for its own domestic market and surplus to export to other countries back when the sugar cane plantations were in private hands. After the bogus "revolution" of Castro's The Two Stooges (Chavez & Maduro) now Venezuela can't even produce enough sugar and other goods to satisfy its own domestic market and has to import them: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/venezuela-food That's what your much admired communist ideals always eventually lead to. It failed in Russia, it failed in Venezuela, and it will continue to fail everywhere. Heck, Venezuela was in way better shape even when it was in the hands of military dictators like General Perez Jimenez (and yes, he was an oppressive a-hole too, like all dictators, but he and his entourage sure knew how to run the country way better than any of these communist muppets who have plunged Venezuela into total chaos. Venezuela had one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world in the 1950s.) You keep talking about "capitalism" as being the enemy of environmentalism, but you fail to see the atrocities that the communists did in that regard. Example: https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-...ntal-disaster/ The Soviet Union turned that place into a wasteland. So no, "capitalists" are not the only offenders even by a stretch. Right, so it's subjective. Basically meaningless. Thanks for clarifying your vagueness. If Trump had military training, he'd be on Stalin's level, maybe. But again, that's authoritarianism: the opposite of anarchy. How is Stalin at all relevant to this conversation? Tesla was a dreamer. But his stuff worked. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Do you think progress just materializes out of nowhere? People have to dream of a better future, then act to effect change. There are currently businesses in Greece and Spain that are worker-owned cooperatives, and they're doing just fine. What is the "private sector"? Privatization is a tool of capitalism. Like landlords, it's complete oppressive bullshit. Again, Venezuela isn't communist/socialist currently, so, irrelevant. Please do your research. Also you're conveniently ignoring all the Western meddling there. I do appreciate your links, however. Thank you. Yet after some reading of this first site... I'm disgusted. A capitalist blog from London? That talks about "profits of recycling"?? Are you kidding me? Hardly a reputable source, I'm afraid. Again, communism's goal is to abolish the state. If it ain't doing that, it ain't communist, now is it? I don't care about "running a country". That's a meaningless phrase, as countries are mere concepts. Run machines. Care for people. This isn't complicated. Abolish money. Alright, I'll bite on your second link, despite my skepticism... Ah. You've erred. This was done by capitalists, for capitalist motivations. Because it's the fucking Soviet Union. Do I need to tell you again that I'm not a tankie? Soviets used money, were a state, were authoritarian... Not exactly fighting capitalism. And again, this is about anarchy, and the Soviet Union is about as far from anarchy as you can get. - - - Updated - - - 1) Cash is nothing but the pooling of resources, something which becomes cumbersome in a society lacking in it. Likewise, hierarchy allows for specialization - which makes decisions not only more expedient and efficient, but also well informed. I do not want a person who has specialized agriculture to have a say in what we should do with our welfare. 2) In an attempt to establish a communist economic model, every single society has failed to do so. A communist economic model relies on the same principles as anarchism - the communal owning of all assets. It has been proven to be impossible. To suggest that liberals were not the ones who fought for the rights of slaves shows that you do not know anything about ideological history at all. It was in fact, liberals who did just that. Again, I cannot discuss this further with you because you simply do not know what you are talking about and your definition of a liberal seems to be "Obama". If you want to begin reading up on it I suggest you start with the Diggers of the English revolution, then reading on the ideas behind the American and later French revolutions. Liberalism does not begin and end with the modern american democratic party - as you seem to think. Your scope is very narrow and very black and white. 1) *raises eyebrow* Why would resources need to be pooled? Why couldn't specialization exist without hierarchy? What does that have to do with information sharing? Is the internet an hierarchy? (Hint: No) And why not? Wouldn't they have a unique perspective worthy of consideration? 2) Gross, fuck the economy. Right, because no one "owns" anything. It's all common! The earth is not a dead thing you can claim. Do you know what the Overton Window is? Well then I'll ask you, (and sorry for not doing this earlier) what is YOUR definition of a liberal? Then enlighten me. At least JDP provided links, spurious though they were (I take it back. That second one seemed good. Credit where it's due).

[EvilNed]

1) *raises eyebrow* Why would resources need to be pooled? Why couldn't specialization exist without hierarchy? What does that have to do with information sharing? Is the internet an hierarchy? (Hint: No) And why not? Wouldn't they have a unique perspective worthy of consideration? 2) Gross, fuck the economy. Right, because no one "owns" anything. It's all common! The earth is not a dead thing you can claim. Do you know what the Overton Window is? Well then I'll ask you, (and sorry for not doing this earlier) what is YOUR definition of a liberal? Then enlighten me. At least JDP provided links, spurious though they were (I take it back. That second one seemed good. Credit where it's due). 1) Welfare is the pooling of resources in order to redistribute for the greater good. I want welfare. And as for specialization, we've gone through that already so just backtrack a few pages and you'll have your answer. 2) I own plenty of things. A link to wikipedias page of liberalism, which is as good a place as any to start reading up on the ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism