Topic: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working? - page 5. (Read 17155 times)

When did I call you an unsupported "name"?


I haven't been.  I generally give your side every opprotunity to argue your case, but that doesn't happen.  Most of the time; when the claimant doesn't simply assume that the superiority of his position is 'self evident' s/he resorts to 'feelings' of 'fairness'.  Make an argument.  But it has to be your own argument, not just a hotlink to some published somebody.  If you feel said somebody makes a good point, restate that point in your own language.  If you can't, then you didn't understand the point to begin with.


I don't agree that what usually happens "when wage slaves rise up to knock their bosses out of their position" is a fault of capitalism, in practice or in theory.  Therein lies your problem, not everyone agrees with your worldview.  If you want to found a communist collective in the middle of a anarcho-capitalist utopia, you can.  No true anarcho-capitalists would prevent it.  They may not trade with you either, but that's a different issue.  However, your position (anarcho-communism) does not permit a dissenting sub-culture to exist.  The very premises that such a worldview is founded upon cannot ever achieve it's end goal without completely destroying competing worldviews, as the random 'capitalist' would take advantage or undermine the social structure of the communist non-state (a contradiction unto itself).  Ultimately, communism requires a state to enforce the worldview upon the people, because there will always be those who disagree.  


All life is poitics.


Son, you really don't know me, and you are not guessing well either.


My wife graduated from college with a BS in MicroBiology.  Got a job within her field doing product testing at P&G.  Worked there for 6 years, never earned more than $12.50 per hour and hated her job.  After she had our first child, she quit P&G; taking a part time job about a year later as a cashier at WalMart.  She worked there for 4 years, loved that job making $7.75.  She was offered health care coverage, even though she was only part time, as well as other less common perks such as a great employee discount on damn near everything, and a legal assistance benefit.  The discount was so good, the company had to safeguard who all got the discount cards, mine had a photo id on it so that no one else could use it.  My wife was not eligible for health care coverage at P&G because I already had a family coverage plan, and they never offerered legal assistance.

At the time, I was a full on 'drink the cool aid' unionist, and she applied to WalMart, in part, to yank my chain.  She even noted during her interview that she was married to a 'salt' union orgainizer in the construction trades. (I can't remember why that even came up)  It didn't even matter, she got the job without issues.  She was, quite literally, the smartest person in the store anytime she was there.   She was offered management after 9 months, but didn't want full time work.  She only quit that job because the demands of increasing motherhood and homeschooling took precidence, and considering that I have made over $100K every year for nearly a decade now, we really didn't need the (by then) $8.50 an hour cashier's work.

I know from second hand experience that, although WalMart certainly isn't the greatest employer ever, it's nothing like what it's often portrayed as in union propaganda.  I may not have a 'global' perspective, but I certainly do have a 'local' one.  From where I've been standing, your worldview makes no sense.

@MoonShadow
Sup with all the namecalling and aggression?
Don't just dismiss me out of hand.
I'm talking about the blatant imperfections of capitalism in practice, and what happens when wage slaves rise up to knock their bosses out of their position.
As a member of a union, you must have frustrations with union politics, unless youre the person folks are frustrated with.
A global perspective, you don't have.
Get one.
At yer local third world malwart manufacturing plant.
Or office building.

Amen, brother.  I'll show this one to my kids later.

Nike and Coke are not among those as sane and reasonable as you and a number of others.
Threat only occurs in the face of oppression.

Even more appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMSMQHpIEQU

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-answer/

This is strangely appropriate.

The withholding of capital (in this case, the growing forest and the land it grows upon) is using it.  In one sense, it's savings.  In another sense, the growing forest itself is capital at work.  Seriously, you guys don't understand what you are speaking about.

Says you.

Bullshit.  I am not a slave to my employer.  If anything, I am a slave to my government to the same percentage that they take my income in taxes.

More bullshit.  I'm presently a member in two different unions, and own stock in both the company that I work for and several other companies.  You are not prevented from doing the same.


Maybe, maybe not.  The key word is defense.  You don't agree with my views on property and rights; fine, don't work for me.  If yo utry to take my stuff because you think you have the right, expect a vigorous, and perhaps violent, defense.  This would not be different in any socity, no matter how primitive or "ideal" in your view.  What belongs to them, belongs to them.  You can choose to work for them, under their rules, or not.
"Liberated" capital?  Theft is worse.


Derp, Derp.  Some are simply deluded.

Again, I know adults whom I would not put much past such foolish choices. Maturity isn't magically granted at 18. That's just an arbitrary number our society has selected. And worse, by selecting it, we've prevented those under that age from gaining much responsibility.

Capital withheld from those that might use it is sensible in the absence of mutual agreement.
I am happy to provide capital to those that use it well for our mutual benefit, and for some meaningful benefit for others.  
I am not so happy when forced to yield it to others by threat.  
This unhappiness is coupled with a sadness in the notion that what I have built is likely to be unappreciated by those that have taken it from me.  

I think the real issue is when can they voluntarily enter into contracts.  For instance, I'm sure my son would have traded 20 years of service for a box of cookies when he was five.

Using convoluted legalese, some of the "its mine" can appear to be mitigated. In actuality, capital is still withheld from use by those who might use it.
That prior claim is invalid and based on imperialism. The workforce has only force to use. Any basic understanding of union politics wlll show this.
The strawman belongs to anarchocapitalists, not me.
Control of private capital requires violent defense.
With my liberated community capital. Capital is not bad, capitalism is bad.
Derp.
Anarchism has lots of variants. some oppose others. Some are misnomers.

I didn't say that.

Well, that's also true enough.

because history is written by the winner. . . and we all know who won.

Another place barter is alive and well is the school cafeteria and recess yard. Kids trade crap all the time.

They were wrong and provablely so.  While it's true that every society that formed writing also developed commodity money systems, the development of money was always a concurrent development with the rise and growth of the barter economy.  Commodity money just made such barter arrangments more efficient and easier to negotiate.  Barter most certainly did exist in the past, and most certainly still exists pretty much everywhere today; most people don't recognize it as such.  Construction workers do it regularly, as they will oftern trade hours.  For example, a plumber might need his house repainted and the painter needs his toilet replaced.  The only money that moves is in the purchase of the paint and toilet from outside suppliers.

I really wish I could. That's my problem, not yours. Just bear with me :p English is the only language I'm proficient in. I can make myself understood, verbally, in Mexican Spanish, but that's about it.

One last thing, though. As a much younger man, I spent a year homeless, mostly in the wilderness living a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. The circumstances that got me there are long, boring, and not the point. I did choose to do it deliberately, and I had a great deal of fun. In that I was not against a clock, I was not as busy as within human society. But I probably worked harder physically than any other time in my life. I don't regret doing it in the least, and am certain that I could do it again if the need arose, but the desire will not. It's not an ideal life by any means. Though it probably is a good experience for anyone at least once.

All of society is an artificial construct, and that is not in itself a bad thing. Just that the construct needs constant revision and pruning. I think that governance was necessary at one time. I also think we are CAPABLE of growing beyond it while not discarding the things that ARE good in the societal constructs.

And with that, I really must stop with the internet!

Thanks for the well wishes, and the same to you.

Yes, though certainly Zarathustra was jesting, I suspect the day is just as long for them as it is for us.
On the broader point, being less busy/productive/active does not seem as much a virtue as might be their own happiness. 
For my own happiness, I enjoy doing things and not being idle so Biomech's activity is more attractive than the unbusy foresters, though I respect their choice and the choice of any that would join them in that unbusiness.

They still have to do stuff and cannot be two places at one time. They may not be busy, but they are not magical.