Anarchy =~ Communism | Bitcointalksearch.org

fommes86

jr. member

Activity: 64

Merit: 1

Quote from: BADecker on October 26, 2018, 05:48:17 PM

Quote from: fommes86 on October 26, 2018, 03:47:51 PM

Quote from: BADecker on October 26, 2018, 07:46:27 AM

Anarchy is a family unit governing itself.

I don't agree. Anarchy is when in a family unit everyone does whatever he/she dares. Wink

No anarchy there, except when the hand tries to strangle the body that it is attached to.

There is daring in every form of government, just to make governmental control over others exist.

Cool

You are right about the daring.

But regarding the family unit I did not explain myself well. I will try to make my point again: usually a family has strict rules and therefore a family uses a form of governance that is different to Anarchy. A family that is anti authoritarian could qualify as Anarchy. Marriage and schooling by definition can not qualify as Anarchy.

This argument is fun, keep on Grin

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: fommes86 on October 26, 2018, 03:47:51 PM

Quote from: BADecker on October 26, 2018, 07:46:27 AM

Anarchy is a family unit governing itself.

I don't agree. Anarchy is when in a family unit everyone does whatever he/she dares. Wink

No anarchy there, except when the hand tries to strangle the body that it is attached to.

There is daring in every form of government, just to make governmental control over others exist.

Cool

fommes86

jr. member

Activity: 64

Merit: 1

Quote from: BADecker on October 26, 2018, 07:46:27 AM

Anarchy is a family unit governing itself.

I don't agree. Anarchy is when in a family unit everyone does whatever he/she dares. Wink

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

When you get down to the basics of it...

Communism is a form of socialism. The individual family unit is a form of socialism.

Anarchy is a family unit governing itself. Socialism is a group of family units working together voluntarily.

Sometimes voluntary family units get controllers who are more dictatorial than simply working together. That's the start of Communism.

Cool

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: fommes86 on October 26, 2018, 06:13:44 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 25, 2018, 05:07:10 PM

I find people who call themselves Anarchists are usually just Socialists and they simply can't define either one. Communist dictators are well known to have supported Anarchism as a method of tearing down the existing system to make way for Communism. The two are inexorably linked.

It is funny when people label themselves but don't really get what it means what they are subscribing to.

Ok, Anarchism or simply put chaos as a way to establish Communism as a solution, that has happened.

But in my opinion Anarcho Communism is not practically possible. It's in the nature of people to want to own things. And how then if there is no rule of law can there be no private ownership, which Communism is by definition.

Well put. I don't claim small communities of Anarchists or even Communists can't exist sustainably given the right circumstances. However Anarchism and Communism both leave themselves vulnerable to a power vacuum. As opposed to a leader leading in public accountable to them, they rule in secret accountable to no one, inevitably resulting in authoritarianism.

fommes86

jr. member

Activity: 64

Merit: 1

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 25, 2018, 05:07:10 PM

I find people who call themselves Anarchists are usually just Socialists and they simply can't define either one. Communist dictators are well known to have supported Anarchism as a method of tearing down the existing system to make way for Communism. The two are inexorably linked.

It is funny when people label themselves but don't really get what it means what they are subscribing to.

Ok, Anarchism or simply put chaos as a way to establish Communism as a solution, that has happened.

But in my opinion Anarcho Communism is not practically possible. It's in the nature of people to want to own things. And how then if there is no rule of law can there be no private ownership, which Communism is by definition.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

I find people who call themselves Anarchists are usually just Socialists and they simply can't define either one. Communist dictators are well known to have supported Anarchism as a method of tearing down the existing system to make way for Communism. The two are inexorably linked.

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

Anarcho communism is the only communism. Communism requires a stateless society. You can not have a stateless, authoritarian society as the top left of the spectrum suggests.

They labeled communism there because that is what every "communist" government that has controlled a major nation has done. Venezuela is not communist and neither was the USSR or Mao. Saying those governments were communist is like saying catholics are rapists.

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Anarchy and communism can coexist the same way anarchy and capitalism can coexist.

Anarcho-commuism exists, but it's way too extreme.

Honestly, I like anarcho-socialism. It's like we all work together to create the best product, but we're all trying to make the absolute best because it's still anarchy in industry.

fommes86

jr. member

Activity: 64

Merit: 1

Quote from: smellyBobby on June 26, 2011, 10:41:42 PM

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

You are completely wrong Angry

Communism was (and is, look at Venezuela) in all its real world examples a hierarchic system!!

lemonginger

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

firstbits: 121vnq

that's not really true and greatly depends on how you define government.

Try reading David Graeber's Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology if you are interested.

joepie91

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: josell on July 12, 2011, 08:33:31 PM

I want to, but can't believe in communism or anarchism, because there is no ONE practical evidence they can work, at least in the actual humanity (for tranhumans, maybe).

Even the "primitive" comunities have a basic form government... Even in classrooms students creates their own social structure and "game rules", accepted or not by the most of them.

Sorry. Anarchism and socialism (i mean REAL socialism, not the shit "socialist" governments of China, Korea and Russia) are just illusions that can inspire us, but are not real or sustentable. They are asintotes.

So wait, you are basically saying that because noone has tried to get it to work and/or proven that it works, it's not going to work and thus pointless to try?

Why would you discount an idea based on that?

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 20, 2011, 01:30:11 AM

Quote from: The Script on July 12, 2011, 03:45:52 AM

Ah, thank you. So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over. This is a valid concern. Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond: What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 03:12:00 AM

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

So ??

Yes, as Myrkul says, the other ones. Governments can afford to have large armies because they can forcibly take money from their citizens and amass large amounts of wealth with which to muster and pay armies. Private companies will have a harder time doing this, and will be subject to the laws of the market. Namely, those that do not best serve the consumers will suffer losses, those that best serve the consumers will get profits. Private companies who start building armies and become aggressive will lose customer support and will not be able to afford to keep their armies.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 20, 2011, 01:30:11 AM

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 03:12:00 AM

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

So ??

Simple answer: All the other ones.

smellyBobby

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: The Script on July 12, 2011, 03:45:52 AM

Ah, thank you. So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over. This is a valid concern. Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond: What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 03:12:00 AM

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

So ??

smellyBobby

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 03:12:00 AM

To make it more simple; what stops an organization becoming so powerful that it can use coercion to enslave the rest ?

Quote from: The Script on July 12, 2011, 03:45:52 AM

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 03:21:14 AM

Canarchy -> AnCap

Sanarchy -> Socialist Anarchy

Ah, thank you. So you are concerned that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be nothing to prevent a powerful, malevolent hierarchical organization from assigning itself power and taking over. This is a valid concern. Let me ask you a question before I attempt to respond: What stops a government (even a democratic or constitutional republic) from becoming a dictatorial and draconian nightmere oppressing and enslaving its populace?

Why don't you just answer my question? As usual it is difficult to get a straight answer.

The only thing that stops a subset of the population from enslaving the rest is luck. Luck has allowed the variance of the population's coercive distribution to become large. Therefore some individuals within the population have significantly more coercive power than the rest. Luck has allowed the set of individuals who have significantly more coercive power to form a distinct social group. Now this distinct social group has coercive power that is unrivaled by any other group. Again luck determines that the agenda of this social group involves enslaving the rest unopposed.

Short answer: The variance of the population's coercive distribution became to large. The laws of the universe will do the rest.

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 11:05:04 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:22:35 PM

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.

Canarchy like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

How come you won't answer my question?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: smellyBobby on July 12, 2011, 11:05:04 PM

Anarcho-capitalism like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

You mean, like the status quo?

smellyBobby

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:22:35 PM

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.

Canarchy like communism ‘hopes’ that no aggressor becomes so powerful that they have unchallenged domination over the rest of Society. Therefore acts of self-defense are futile.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: josell on July 12, 2011, 09:16:41 PM

I mean that, from my perspective, we need basic rules or laws to make possible a society, which would not be possible if based only on individual rules. I may be wrong, but I think a balance is the best. Moral values to individual being, and social laws for society.

Of course, thats my perspective, but I have hope in "soft" anarchysm.

There is a basic rule (Again, I'll let Rothbard say it): "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

Beyond that, everyone can play their own game.

Topic: Anarchy =~ Communism (Read 9739 times)