Anarchy =~ Communism - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

josell

full member

Activity: 308

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:57:51 PM

Quote from: josell on July 12, 2011, 09:53:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:44:00 PM

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

I don't follow. Could you explain the logic of that one?

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: josell on July 12, 2011, 09:53:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:44:00 PM

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

I don't follow. Could you explain the logic of that one?

josell

full member

Activity: 308

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:44:00 PM

Quote from: josell on July 12, 2011, 09:33:31 PM

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.

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

Of course, but no one can play a game is each of them have their own rules ;-) if every of them deal with each other, then there is no individual thinking anymore.

qbg

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 10

Quote from: lemonginger on July 12, 2011, 09:06:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:02:09 PM

Quote from: qbg on July 12, 2011, 08:52:45 PM

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

This. The boss/employee model will have to face competition with other models in the labor market.

As for collectives, there is nothing stopping from collectives from having leadership; its just that the nature of the leadership would be different.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: josell on July 12, 2011, 09:33:31 PM

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.

Real Anarchism is just letting everyone pick their own 'Game rules' to use your classroom analogy, and not forcing one game on everybody.

josell

full member

Activity: 308

Merit: 100

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: lemonginger on July 12, 2011, 09:06:53 PM

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

Without a doubt, especially with the advent of 3d printing.

lemonginger

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

firstbits: 121vnq

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 09:02:09 PM

Quote from: qbg on July 12, 2011, 08:52:45 PM

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.

No, it could just be that less efficient-or-no, workers with a free and easy choice to work somewhere that they have a say in the governance and the decisions that affect their lives will find that option so much more desirable that you will not be able to convince any to work for a boss. It likely wouldn't be a binary, rather you could say the equilibrium point would make small scale co-ops and other arrangements much more likely than it is today.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: lemonginger on July 12, 2011, 08:56:34 PM

But you have a Lockean view of property and I don't, so my examples of a coercive hierarchy will often seem perfectly acceptable to you, but not to someone with a different understanding of property (Proudhon of course, and quite a few others as well)

Stipulated.

Try and find one that would strike even me as coercive.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: qbg on July 12, 2011, 08:52:45 PM

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

So your argument is that a boss/employee relationship is less efficient than a worker's collective?

I would argue that you'll never steer a ship with a dozen rudders.

lemonginger

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

firstbits: 121vnq

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 08:14:59 PM

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

But you have a Lockean view of property and I don't, so my examples of a coercive hierarchy will often seem perfectly acceptable to you, but not to someone with a different understanding of property (Proudhon of course, and quite a few others as well)

qbg

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 10

Quote from: myrkul on July 12, 2011, 08:14:59 PM

Quote from: qbg on July 12, 2011, 08:05:40 PM

As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

The standard boss-worker relationship of today could in theory arise in a free society (though it would likely fail in the labor market with appropriate competition). As for arise from, it would seem unlikely except possibly from individuals with certain mental conditions.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: lemonginger on July 12, 2011, 08:42:41 PM

Quote from: steelhouse on July 12, 2011, 05:18:19 AM

Is this topic a joke. Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government. in summary they are complete opposites.

Funny since the vast majority of the original anarchist theorists identified as either explicitly anarcho-communist or strongly collectivist in other ways.

Yeah. Proudhoun, among others.

lemonginger

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

firstbits: 121vnq

Quote from: steelhouse on July 12, 2011, 05:18:19 AM

Is this topic a joke. Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government. in summary they are complete opposites.

Funny since the vast majority of the original anarchist theorists identified as either explicitly anarcho-communist or strongly collectivist in other ways.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: qbg on July 12, 2011, 08:05:40 PM

As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

I'm curious. I always see these Commies and AnCommies spouting about 'coercive power relationships' and 'coercive hierarchies'.

Could you outline one for me, specifically one that could arise in and from a voluntary society?

qbg

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 10

Quote from: LokeRundt on July 12, 2011, 03:28:44 AM

mutually consenting self-organization (even if it has a hierarchy). . .what's the issue? I have a company, so I hire you. I am the owner, and you are the employee. You are free to leave and I am free to fire you (unless we've entered into contractual agreement otherwise). *fails to see the problem*

As long as the proletariat has dissolved it is okay as workplaces built on coercive power relationships will have to face competition with workplaces that aren't. Until then, wage slavery remains a risk.

CNMOH

member

Activity: 266

Merit: 10

Quote from: steelhouse on July 12, 2011, 05:18:19 AM

Is this topic a joke. Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government. in summary they are complete opposites.

anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

No, they are not complete opposites. A communist society is stateless.

yk

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

Quote from: The Script on July 12, 2011, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: steelhouse on July 12, 2011, 05:18:19 AM

Is this topic a joke. Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government. in summary they are complete opposites.

anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Could you not have voluntary communism without a State?

This depends on your definition of state Wink

In Communism you do not have the distinction between private companies and communities (aka state). So your workplace will also have to organize public services (like road building and security). In an anarchy this needs to be organized by a voluntary group of interested people (in practice likely aligned with companies). So if you think that the private sector should also provide essential public services, then you would call yourself a capitalist anarchist. If you think that the state should take over production of goods, then you are a communist. But one entity would in the end produce both.

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: steelhouse on July 12, 2011, 05:18:19 AM

Is this topic a joke. Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government. in summary they are complete opposites.

anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Could you not have voluntary communism without a State?

steelhouse

hero member

Activity: 717

Merit: 501

Is this topic a joke. Communism is more collectivism and anarchy is no government. in summary they are complete opposites.

anarchy - small government - big government - socialism- communism

anarchy <> communism

Topic: Anarchy =~ Communism - page 2. (Read 9682 times)