Topic: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working? - page 6. (Read 17188 times)

Uuhhh, out of time! Yes, you see the difference to the communities in the rainforests? They have plenty of time, because they are not busy!



We can discuss in German, or French, no problem!
Cheers, good luck and good business!

I really wish I hadn't got into this right now! I'm out of time. I leave tomorrow morning and there are a million and one things to be done. So I won't be replying anymore today, and probably won't be back for a couple of weeks. I love it when people make me think.

All of ya, go right on and keep pickin' at me while I'm gone. I'll be working on some stuff to post. Probably start a couple new threads, as this one is going everywhere.

Zarathrusta, I disagree severely with your analysis, though I do see where you're coming from now. I think the language barrier has been my problem. Your english is a bit confusing. At any rate, when I get back online, I'll do a bunch of catching up.

Cheers!

Kevin Biomech.

Hey Biomech,

I quotet, what LvM said. And I wrote, what that means in reality (collapse and catastrophe = end of the production based on credit). And yes, the communities in the rainforests are not building computers. They are building nearly nothing, except that, what they really need. The reason why they have hundredfold less production than collectivist societies (in which everyone has 50 ore more energy slave aequivalents in tow), is because they are not forced to, by tax and interest on debt. There is no market in the rainforest. Self-sufficiency is self-sufficiency! (not to be confused with today's half-civilized communities)

No where did Von Mises say that the economy comes to a standstill. He in fact showed exactly the opposite. He was pointing out that such credit fueled booms are UNeconomic and eventually destroy the currency and credibility of what is being traded.

You also don't see the rainforest populations living to old age, building computers, overcoming famine and disease, or becoming anything greater than they are. As for them not trading?

Dude, check your premises. They trade with other tribes frequently.

Hey, I'm still here for a minute

Anyway, yes that is possible. And yes, I have thought of it. It's a bit beyond the scope of what I have posted.

I cannot recall who said this, but it was one of the wiser abolitionists right around the time of the War Between the States. He said that slavery would likely end in increments, but that the abolitionist must at all times call for full, immediate abolition or be compromised beyond repair. That's a paraphrase, the man in question was more eloquent. This is more or less where I stand. I am a radical even in my own circle. This doesn't mean I would turn down incremental improvements in liberty. Quite the contrary I would applaud them while pointing out how much further we need to go. The agorist goal is to deconstruct the state piecemeal in such a way as to render it redundant, insignificant, and ultimately extinct due to no longer even being PERCEIVED as necessary. A truth that even the die hard statist will acknowledge is that states do not EVER produce anything. There's is the power to confiscate, redistribute, and destroy. Mao was correct when he said that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Money is indeed only one factor. But it's a very large one. If it gets to the point where merchants will only accept a limited currency or a few of 'em (ex. Gold and Bitcoin/hypothetical other) then government becomes restrained in what it does by the very fact that the printing press and it's Keynesian policies are no longer relevant. No matter how draconian a government is, it still works with the consent or apathy of the producers. When they cease to be apathetic and withdraw consent, the government collapses.

Anarchism, like all social theories, is constantly evolving. I am a rather modern anarchist. I don't want to go back to the trees like some of them do, nor do I want society to devolve into warring tribes. What I, and others like me, want is to change the focus of the public from building bigger empires to building better humans. Every man who is able to do two things is a defacto threat to rulership that cannot be eradicated without them revealing their true nature.

1. Stand alone (produce what they need to survive)

2. Trade with others. (produce more than they need, exchange it for goods they want.)

That, then, is the ultimate goal of the individualist. Individualism is by necessity both anarchic and cooperative. Systems of polity based on these ideas preclude the governmental meme of a monopoly of violence over a given territory.

As you have already demonstrated a working mind, you can see that those two straightforward points are neither easy nor simple, but they are achievable. Past societies, regardless of Zarathrusta's (lack of) understanding of history, have achieved this. Voluntary cooperation ALWAYS produces better results than coerced cooperation. Even in the case of actual slavery, it was quickly noted by more civilized societies that the freeman working for a wage outproduced the slave by a significant amount. All humans try to profit by their endeavors, and any system that denies that will ultimately fail. Which is why I am not a socialist. I like a lot of the ideas behind socialism, and have incorporated those that make sense into my personal philosophy, but there is a core to it that doesn't work. A Vow of Poverty, more or less, that makes it impossible to maintain on a large scale. (I think it could work in small groups, but only  if there were an exit strategy for the disaffected and ambitious).

And to Zarathrusta, Patriarchy, regardless of feminist bullshit, means rule by FATHERS, and has been a quite successful paradigm in past societies (e.g. ancient Israel prior to Saul, The Bedouin, The Turks prior to the Ottoman Empire, The Cherokee (my people), and many others. Further, a society that produces no excess starves to death during bad times. We have a common word for such societies. Extinct.

The Feminists use the term Patriarchy in place of Paternalism (substitution for fathers) because they desire to (and have successfully) create a false dichotomy in which you look the wrong way while they are doing exactly what they pubicly decry. In debate, this logical fallacy is known as a red herring. It is very effective against the unprepared.

Hi NewLiberty

My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter). The motor of doing business and creating surpluses is the state enforced tax (census) and its derivative, the interest on debt owed to creditors. Even Ludwig von Mises knew it:

„There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.“

That means: Even if all the debt is going to be replaced by assets, it will only be a crackup boom, but in the end the economy comes to a standstill, because the motor (debt and interest) is missing its fuel.


The stateless communities in the rain forests theoretically could have a barter economy, but in reality, they don't. A blood-community is not economically interacting with people from outside. And if, then in a very minimal amount.  They avoid doing business; there is simply no need for a self-sufficient community of doing business with strangers. Otherwise you would observe growing economies and growing 'capital' in the rain forests, but you don't.

Oh really? Thanks for these brand new informations. I have a house in Russia and relatives.



You even can not read. You have no idea of Patriarchy and Anarchy. There has never been such a thing as a matriarchy. That's feminist science fiction. Matrilineal communities were anarchic, but never archic. It makes no sense to talk about things of which you have no idea. Thanks in advance.

It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.

IF bitcoin achieves a notable measure of success... then by the mechanism you describe above (reducing dependence, et al) we may also serve to AVOID the collapse of the state by lessening its burden, not just prepare for it.  For myself, that would be a very acceptable outcome, and even preferable.  I don't carry any ideal political agenda of what makes for a perfect society, but I would be very happy to discover myself living in a better one, and Bitcoin is hopefully one very small step toward effecting that.  By increasing personal liberty, entering the marketplace of monetary choice with a viable offering suitable for our new world, and by playing well with others.

So by succeeding with Bitcoin, we are not (necessarily) deconstructing the state, but perhaps increasing the resilience of our society and its economy, which may have the effect of saving the state as much as deconstructing it (for example, by allowing it find a more manageable size).  Whether this happens or not is far outside the scope of influence we are likely to have, but either way, Bitcoin provides many social goods.

Consider the example of the USA, it tends to become more like the things that challenge it.  When Communism is its big threat, it adopts more communism; when terrorism is the threat, it adopts more terrorism.  So if personal liberty is ever perceived as such a threat, perhaps it will simply adopt more liberty?  We can not predict the outcome, but our influence on it seems very positive.

Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.

I'm lucky to be able to spell anything correctly.  That has zero bearing on my accuracy.


Autarky is a german word.  It's meaning in English is "self-sufficient", but considering that you regularly used both terms, in English, together to describe your ideal community, I was curious if it had some othermeaning for which I am unaware.  Otherwise you are fond of redundancy, which would imply that you were quite young.


Heh.  Girls and their ideas. 

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4059

You really don't have a supporting argument here, do you?

Okay.

Indeed, they do 'eat themselves'.  Eventually.  Neither of us are likely to live to see that day, however.  And if you do, you won't really enjoy the fall.  Be careful what you wish for; as someone else has already noted, the Soviet Union collapsed upon itself (after decades of "eating itself") and during the 90's the average life expectancy of a Russian male fell by 2 decades.  Said another way, a whole lot of people died, and a whole lot more people suffered for a long time.  The most likely to prosper either had huge families with access to arable land for which to grow food for their extended families, had longstanding ties in the mafia or other criminal trade organizations or both.  The Swiss, quite literally, are too numerous in this modern age to be able to grow enough food to feed their own population.  The Russians could do it, and the US might still be able to do it; but nearly all of Europe will not be able to do it.  Maybe the Greeks and Spanish.  If what you think you want comes to pass, many of you will resort to cannibalism before you get to your stable matriarchy.



Says the matriarchial anarchist looking for others like herself!

You even cannot spell the name of the most famous figure of the entire history of philosophy.


Uhuuuu. Yes, Swiss German spoken and therefore my English language is loaded with some weakness. But you never heard about autarky/autarkic/autarkical? How is that possible not to find it with google? Am I really discussing with somebody who didn't hear anyting about autarky? That explains a lot.


I see, you do know really nothing about anarchy and its opposite: the patriarchy. Collectivism/Patriarchy has always been a complicity between state and church (militarism and religion). Without any knowledge of the patriarchy and its  historical genesis, you will never realise what anarchy is (and always has been). Zero chance. For citizens without any knowlege in anarchy and patriarchy, I can recommend to read here:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html



Completely wrong. All empires did expand and grow rampant, whitout any fiat.
You are story telling on the basic of ahistoric science fiction. The non-business-doing, non-patriarchal, anarchistic communities do not grow and expand, because they are self-sufficient and autarkic. No surpluses are produced, as it is the case in capitalism/collectivism, where the surplus is demanded and forced by the state/church.



Indeed, with your ronpaulian pseudo-anarchism I do have nothing in common. It represents nationalism and christianism, the most monstrous hypercollective ever, regardless if he may be less evil than the Bushs and Obamas. On the opposite, I am a representative of the Nature, while you are a representative of a collectivist organisation of economic destruction of the Planet.



Yes, very difficult to find real anarchists. If Bitcoin, cryptography and other subversive tools do not speed up the end of collectivism/capitalism/economism, it will end in itself, as all societies did in human history.
 
That's the difference between never growing/expanding anarchistic communities on one side, and growing patriarchal expanding/growing/business doing societies and empires (mafia) on the other (your) side. „They eat themselves.“ (quote: @Biomech)




This is a shitty (to speak in your language) statement of somebody who impressively demonstrated, that he has no knowlegde about history, patriarchy and anarchy. So, the statement is worthless.



I knew it: as a collectivist by heart and soul, you think you are speaking not only for yourself, but also for 'most uf us'. Thanks for outing.

Best regards

But that (USSR) is basically because people had become so dependent on the state.  Which btw, is what is starting to happen in the West.   It's a scary pattern.  More and more people becoming dependent on the state until the state buckles under the weight, then you have all these helpless people with no-one to look after them.

That's why we are saying now, let's start preparing for the end of the state NOW.  If we can reduce as many people's dependence on it as possible then when it gets to the point where it is ultimately dissolved, hopefully there won't be too many helpless people and there'll be enough free market independent people and capital that we won't have a great disaster.

It's time to put an end to these risky situations where you have a state which encourages dependence on it and then eventually collapses leading to all kinds of calamity.  The way to get out of this cycle is to work towards the end of the state as a concept.

No such grandiose goals here.  Such a massive failure is not an experience I would much enjoy.  I take my cue on that from those who have been through the USSR dissolution.  Perhaps I'm too optimistic as I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Noted.

I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up.

Empires are rarely conquered from without or fall to revolution. They eat themselves.

As to the term collectivism, my first exposure to it was in the writings of Ayn Rand, and later, Murray Rothbard. Both used it as a generic term for socialist/communist "people's republics" and their ilk. I think your definition is of some utility as well, as I've long liked the idea of a capitalist commune. Again, something I'll go into in detail after I get moved. I'm kinda lurking on the forum between moving heavy shit right now Probably the computer will go in the box tomorrow morning, so if you don't get a reply from me on anything for a couple weeks, I'm not ignoring anybody. Just moving 2200 miles.

Thank you for sharing your understanding of these terms.  I would be more likely to use the word "communist", or "socialist" society to describe common property social systems, and to use "collectivist" to refer to group decision making and social cohesion irrespective of property rights, though I respect that collectivism may engender the former (or not).  For example, I would view Japan (especially the older generation) a collectivist but not communist and only somewhat socialist society.

My view of Bitcoin is also more like a group of philosophically and technically savvy vanguard taking steps to provide a more resilient alternative for commercial interactions more suitable to the digital age.  It does not seem any more overtly political than something like twitter or Facebook, which could certainly be used for subversive activities but are by no means dedicated toward it beyond the individual actions of those that employ the technology, so I agree that it has that potential.

Generally collectivist refers to those who view everything as common property. Your view above, cooperation, is more along the lines of voluntaryism. Other than that I largely agree with your conclusions here.

Except one thing. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin is potentially subversive, simply because it is nearly impossible to be centrally controlled.

Are anarchism and collectivism exclusive?
My understanding of collectivism is simply that people work together, depend on each other, help each other, trade, interact, cooperate, etc.
My understanding of anarchy is that there is no use for a perpetual governing body.
Not that I see myself as any of these -isms, so I welcome learning if your understandings of these terms are different.  It seems there may be many definitions of the labels you are using.

I don't know that Bitcoin is in any way subversive in and of itself.   It seems more of a backstop that provides economic resilience in case of the failure of that which all too-big-to-fail failures are aggregated, fiat currencies.  Getting it to a point of full utility in advance of any such failure is a collectivist endeavor by its very nature so perhaps it would be surprising to find non-collectivist subversives in abundance in this forum, would it not?

More likely I imagine that the mission you maintain as your own (ending economies) will not ever be complete, and thus Bitcoin will not become obsoleted, but I can't see tomorrow, much less such a distant future.  It would seem a de-evolution to stop collecting ourselves into cooperative groups, but to each their own.

It can be measured pretty well in years. An average person is a proper adult (brain fully developed) at around 23-25 years of age.

Still - as you point out, some are more mature at a younger age than their peers.

Ah, yes.  The classic issue of children in an anarchy.  This is where Myrkul and I have had great disagreements in the past.  It's not a simple question.  If a child is born, does s/he have full rights immediately?  If so, who may excercise those rights on their behalf?  For how long, with what limits?  Under what conditions can the child assume their own rights entirely?  The standard answer is that parents have those rights in an 'escrow' of sorts, and that the child assumes those rights upon reaching an arbitrary age of maturity.  But what about those children who mature early, or those adults who will never mature completely?  What about the parents that violate the rights of their own children?  There is a huge rabbit hole here, and before this goes further, please consider whether or not another thread would be more appropriate.

Simply repeating or restating your, already circular, definition does nothing to change the issue of understanding.  We, apparently, don't see the world in remotely similar contexts.  Our worldviews are, thus, incompatible.  Without some degree of effort towards reconciliation of our worldviews, and use of language, we are almost literally speaking different languages.  Your half-assed answer above does nothing to improve the reader's comprehension of what an economy is, and thus is not a real definition.  Please try again.


I am looking for anarchists in this forum. But I met hero collectivists who are enthusiastic to interact and doing business with unknown people in the globalized hypercollectiv. As for me, I view Bitcoin as a subversive tool to end the state and with it the economy (homo oeconomicus). As soon as the mission is accomplished, Bitcoin will be obsolet.