My journey to Christian Communism; reflections - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14959954
One of the problems many devout Christians have with Socialism/Communism, even if that Socialism/Communism is not of a secularized and atheistic sort, is that it may if implemented encourage a false Pelagian and overly optimistic outlook in people. Efforts to create a ''Heaven on Earth'' generally fail because of our propensity towards egoism, towards sin.

But if we truly love one another and bear each other's burdens, as Christians should we not try also to build better lives for each other and ourselves? More just and more befitting our needs as human beings?

Maybe there will never be complete full Communism without God's intervention. Human depravity is such that this is very probable, and I do believe that there is a certain level of compatibilist determinism in play here. But i'm talking about what good people should do, organized and actively in control of a society.

Perhaps the end state of all Statism is Communism (that is, Socialism, the full communal ownership by the laboring classes of the means of production in a society) as my good friend @Victoribus Spolia believes, although he does not see that as a good thing. While on the other hand, Capitalism and Anarchism are trending in my mind together, another direction for a society to take but in my view towards Barbarism.

I see ''Religion'', Capitalism and Anarchism coming together into a future nexus. I see Orthodox Christianity, Socialism, and the State doing the same. One side is temporally speaking political Barbarism, rule by private and personal ''rights'' by virtue of birth or wealth, private ownership or religious Dictat. The other side is political Civilization/Republicanism/Socialism, the rule of law and public trust, the rule of common good with duties and responsibilities to one another. A Society fully spiritually informed by genuine Orthodox Christianity. Economic Self Interest and Exploitation against a Society that fully invests in the Laboring and Producing classes receiving their due.

I see the world of the next 100 or more years, during what the writer James Kunstler calls the ''Long Emergency'' (another issue of concern), dividing up into these two general camps.
#14965683
What is the eschatological dimension of the Bolshevik Revolution? If one had asked Leon Bloy, one might perhaps been horrified of his answer, as much as he hated with a supernatural hatred the Bourgeoisie. In this their age, after the Great Patriotic War, even greatness in Evil has been exiled from history.

Too much has been written of Communism's ''Satanism'', when the modern exponents of real Satanism express approval of Ayn Rand and Max Stirner, Friedrich Neitzsche and his acolytes. When rather perhaps something can be written of Socialism/Communism as the impatience and despair at waiting for the Kingdom of Heaven, and wanting to seize it with, it is true, considerable violence and bear it away....

And now not even that is left, for the most part.

Much to think about on my sabbatical from the computer and social media, which I'm taking a break from for about a month. I've got a reading list to focus my thoughts on though, including poetry;

1. J.K. Huysmans

2. Leon Bloy

3. Alexander Blok

4. Fyodor Dostoevsky

5. Blaise Pascal

6. Henri Gregoire

7. John Milton

8. Soren Kirkegaard

9. Joseph de Maistre

10. Holy Scripture
#14973588
annatar1914 wrote:What is the eschatological dimension of the Bolshevik Revolution? If one had asked Leon Bloy, one might perhaps been horrified of his answer, as much as he hated with a supernatural hatred the Bourgeoisie. In this their age, after the Great Patriotic War, even greatness in Evil has been exiled from history.

Too much has been written of Communism's ''Satanism'', when the modern exponents of real Satanism express approval of Ayn Rand and Max Stirner, Friedrich Neitzsche and his acolytes. When rather perhaps something can be written of Socialism/Communism as the impatience and despair at waiting for the Kingdom of Heaven, and wanting to seize it with, it is true, considerable violence and bear it away....

And now not even that is left, for the most part.

Much to think about on my sabbatical from the computer and social media, which I'm taking a break from for about a month. I've got a reading list to focus my thoughts on though, including poetry;

1. J.K. Huysmans

2. Leon Bloy

3. Alexander Blok

4. Fyodor Dostoevsky

5. Blaise Pascal

6. Henri Gregoire

7. John Milton

8. Soren Kirkegaard

9. Joseph de Maistre

10. Holy Scripture


@Victoribus Spolia and @Political Interest

Well, I'm a few days shy of completing my break from PoFo posting, which I did not completely do in any case, lol. But it's alright, i'm willing to re-enter the fray.

The situation as it stands for me, upon reflection, calls for a more precise public definition of ''Freedom'' to be laid out to fill in the observable gaps in my political philosophy.

To be more exact, there is actually more internal structure to my thinking than one might grasp from my more recent posts;

1. At it's core is a fundamental embrace of the teachings of the Orthodox Fathers, particularly the Scythian Monks, Blessed Augustine of Hippo, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe and St. Prosper of Aquitaine, in that I hold to a Deterministic Compatibilism as far as people's liberty is concerned. Politically this has led me to regard the sad truth that indeed man must be made to be ''happy'' and ''good'' in the social sense, if there is to be any progress or civilization at all. Willing quite freely to will what we are compelled to will, ''Liberty'' is in fact the absence of exterior compulsion from creatures and creation in general, nothing more or less, to carry out or not carry out moral actions. Most will evil, and will it continually, being swept hither and yon by the tides of our disordered passions, leading us to sin, and sin quite willfully, without the countering effects of God's life of grace

Such a society composed of the beings which we certainly are, must have at it's basis restraints for the common good of all, to force us to live together in peace, otherwise we would exterminate each other in our greed and selfishness in short order (which is really what we are doing for the most part worldwide right now). And so at this stage of human civilization and moving forwards from the present organization of productive forces, the best system for progress and civilization is in my opinion, Socialism/Communism. Not the godless evolutionary optimism of the Marxist-Leninist, oh no, but equally deterministic in my own way, it is realism about human nature drawn from Scripture and the Fathers of the Orthodox Christian Faith (particularly in the West before the Schism of 1054 AD), from which I set my foundation.


2. Another element which has increasingly been a factor in the development of my political thought has been a sharp turn towards Personalist rather than inorganic Statist structures, possessing these following traits;

Orthodox Autocracy/the Third Rome. This is not Romanov era ''Tsarism'', but the form of government which prevailed in Holy Russia from 1453 AD to 1653 AD, two centuries in which the Land and was owned personally by the Tsar by grace of God, to do with as he pleased (albeit informed spiritually by Orthodoxy) and distributed for use by every strata of society in a manner he deigned to organize. An example of this would be the division of Russia into lands held by the Boyars and the lands held collectively by the Oprichnina during the reign of Tsar Ivan Grozny...

Not too far from the ''Tsar and the Soviets'' of Alexander Kazim-Bek and his Mladorossi in the 1920's and 1930's

Is this universally applicable? I believe that far from being paradoxical nonsense it has the virtue of being the form of society best suited for a man's peaceful existence and the best suited for his eternal salvation, if carried out in Christian love. Not Reaction, not Revolution.

So, in my opinion, ''Tsar and the Soviets'' is not some grotesque aberration but the reflection of the feeling that Autocracy and Soviet Democracy, People and Tsar, being able to mutually reinforce and protect the other from selfish and innately centripetal forces...
#14976291
So, in light of what i've said earlier in this thread and in more recent threads with @Victoribus Spolia , how do I (if there is indeed an internal logical structure to my thought) reconcile the fact that the Wisdom literature of Scripture clearly is embedded within a culture that held ''private property'' and the ''free market'' to be regarded as a matter of course, with the clear notions regarding the same in the New Testament being evil and implying that it is to change?

One unifying mark of both covenants is regarding the Rich as being Wicked, almost a synonym...

The answer lies with the State in it's pre-modern Christian form, under the Roman Imperium, of the Dominate, the Second Empire, and the Third Rome and other iterations of Romanity (which I denote ''civilization'' in the political sense; outside is ''Barbarism'' and Barbarians...) The only person who truly has complete private domain is the Tsar, the Caesar, the Basileous. The Land is his to do with as he pleases, to distribute as he wishes in whatever form he finds necessary for the good of his legal Household, which are everyone on his Domain. While Communalism is necessary in Christianity for the full and complete exercise of the Kingdom of Heaven, no force can be initiated with free persons, it is entirely voluntary... There is a stewardship that always devolves into an intermediate ownership of the means of production in the Roman Imperium as elsewhere, with the Rich, the ''Boyars'' and ''Aristocrats'' or ''Optimates'' of whatever name or title and other such having de Facto ownership with or without the presence of a Tsar or Caesar. This state of affairs has been permitted, it is a concession and like any concession it can be revoked by the one with the requisite authority.

Thus, legally in the Roman Imperium, with a Christian Tsar, only one man in what is his private domain and no other, can be considered as fully legally ''free'', the Tsar himself. Is it therefore absolutely necessary (if under the legal rule of the Roman Imperium) that all lands of the Domain be administered as no longer possessing any intermediate private ownership?

As Caesar and Caesars and Tsars in general came into Power in the Roman Imperium and ''Res Publica'' as the leadership and tribune of the People (the ''Populares'') and anointed by God to be shepherds of the flock, it is in their present absence that the People must eventually revoke the conditional concession of ownership of those who place themselves over them, and safeguard their well-being and common good with a Caesar, a Tsar, the perpetual Dictatorship of one man, for even in the term ''Dictatorship of the Proletariat'', ''Dictatorship'' implies one man, and this is true as sovereignty is always One.

And so too, is full ownership...

Note for @PoliticalInterest @Victoribus Spolia @Potemkin if they wish to respond.
#14976549
All of this is by way of now saying that the God-Anointed Sovereign has in his domain, the complete allodial property right to see to the good of his Household and all those servants and family that inhabit and make use of his land as well. That isn't ''Socialism'' so much in my conception anymore, but Servitude with relative scales of freedom and responsibility. I've read my George Fitzhugh and more besides, I know of what I speak. People need to be taken care of, but they have responsibilities, duties, and should return to the Land, return to the Earth.

@Victoribus Spolia ,I've followed the rabbit trail of the truth in the worldly sense, inverted and reverted my position, synthesized and analyzed in fine reflective detail all the angles...

To return to a traditional, and patriarchal concept of earthly order, Orthodox Autocracy in the common understanding in Holy Russia prior to say, 1653 A.D., 7161 A.M. One man's Anarcho-Capitalist Dominion writ large into a Monarchy, rule over a whole Land. Call it a betrayal, whatever. Call it regressive and reactionary ''neo-feudal'' Barbarism and a turning away from defending a civilization I so long labored to help defend and restore, I don't care. This Western Civilization, what Oswald Spengler would have called ''Faustian'' very aptly, is evil and leading to the destruction of the human race.

Not only is it right and just and in keeping with human nature as an organic development, to return to a ruder yet freer and more virile and meaningful Culture, it's coming back, to a greater or lesser degree around the world in this Age we're settling into now. ''Barbarism'' is going to save Mankind through the Age that we're heading into.

That' s the end of this thread.
#14987380
@Political Interest, @Potemkin;

Not quite the ''end of this thread''. Sometimes you get angry enough at recent events, you remember who and what you are, or are not, embedded though you might be in the most Capitalism-impregnated society on Earth. Sometimes you go on a journey, physically and spiritually, and then you try to forget what you have seen, and did not see. Sometimes, you look at the richness of your faith and the greatness and grandeur of it all, dragged through the slime and the garbage, and your people degraded and beaten down, defeated, worse than in a war. You ask yourself; ''Why?'' and the answer is; ''Why not?'' Why can't people progress in a real way, even if they are made too? There's a reflection on God's grace there for sure. We are moved, and we then will what we are moved to...

''Leaven in the Dough'', that's what the ''Kingdom of Heaven'' is supposed to be like unto. We can tolerate some things in this world out of the hardness of people's hearts, but some things, must they truly be tolerated, actual evils?

Defeated by my own selfish considerations, worn down by the world, tired of fighting in a lost cause...

Willing to burn down the whole thing if it can't be saved or save itself... Not the proper attitude.


Alexander Blok was right. I'll join the campfire of the Scythians, and sing the songs they play along to upon a barbarian lyre.

And I will reveal to any who might ask this political question; ''who are the truly Anti-Statist ideologues in the world?" And I will say; the true Communists. More to come on that question.
#14987383
I also want to point out that Fascism is very real, although people have abused the term so much it's losing it's meaning and usefulness almost. But the Marxist Leninist definition, specifically the Stalinist one (after all they did the bulk of the fighting against the Fascists) is the correct one.

It's the final phase of Capitalism in it's Imperialist form, loosened of all restraints towards protecting itself because of the sensed emergency of it's collapse.

Silly persons believe that we're experiencing it now, no, but we will. And not quite like before, either.

This is important for me to say. Only a superior socio-economic system could have endured the blows of the Fascists upon the world in the first half of the 20th century. And that wasn't the ''representative democracies'' of the West. It too was fatally flawed, but not in the particular means it had to beat the Nazi scum. So there must have been something right, to have endured.
#14987768
Earlier on another thread I posted about the ''Long Depression'' which began in the 1870's and ended in the 1890's;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

Specifically 1873 to 1896. And then the Great Depression which people are more familiar with, almost now out of living memory;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Which lasted from 1929 to about 1940.

What happened to ''fix'' the problem? War and Finance Capital. Laissez-Faire or Classical Capitalism ceased to exist, is dead, cannot be brought back without ever-worsening cyclic conditions of boom and bust returning and then possibly finishing everything.

But Finance Capital has run out of tricks, fiat money injected into the economy isn't having the effects that it used to, say in 2008. Capitalism had just basically run through the monetized loot of the former Soviet Bloc by then, and the scheme of the Housing market was closing everything down... What could be done? The fiat money fix, to mask the collapse of the real world economy and buy time until war could be made to clear the books and restore real fortunes for those outside Finance Capital, the fortunes of the regular Capitalist, the Petit-Bourgeoisie.

War and Fascism was their answer. War and Fascism was decided on, just as it was in the 1930's.

This next phase will be marked by signs; tariffs and economic autarky, trade wars and new economic and political alliances. Nationalism and Populism. Wars for resources and wars for outright conquest.
#15022899
annatar1914 wrote:Earlier on another thread I posted about the ''Long Depression'' which began in the 1870's and ended in the 1890's;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

Specifically 1873 to 1896. And then the Great Depression which people are more familiar with, almost now out of living memory;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Which lasted from 1929 to about 1940.

What happened to ''fix'' the problem? War and Finance Capital. Laissez-Faire or Classical Capitalism ceased to exist, is dead, cannot be brought back without ever-worsening cyclic conditions of boom and bust returning and then possibly finishing everything.

But Finance Capital has run out of tricks, fiat money injected into the economy isn't having the effects that it used to, say in 2008. Capitalism had just basically run through the monetized loot of the former Soviet Bloc by then, and the scheme of the Housing market was closing everything down... What could be done? The fiat money fix, to mask the collapse of the real world economy and buy time until war could be made to clear the books and restore real fortunes for those outside Finance Capital, the fortunes of the regular Capitalist, the Petit-Bourgeoisie.

War and Fascism was their answer. War and Fascism was decided on, just as it was in the 1930's.

This next phase will be marked by signs; tariffs and economic autarky, trade wars and new economic and political alliances. Nationalism and Populism. Wars for resources and wars for outright conquest.


@Potemkin , and @Political Interest;

So... If none of this changed, the material circumstances of anything I've mentioned on this post or even on this whole thread, why did I seem to change? Or did I on a fundamental level?

I fall upon the realization that I have every right as a Christian, by the mental lights that I have, to follow that political and socio-economic ideology which best reflects man's best efforts-as seems to me personally-to organize his social life with the common good of his fellow man in a higher regard.

If everything falls apart, then some may think to each his own and everyone for themselves, in a political and economic Autarky, but to others might it not present an opportunity to get things a little more right and good?

My earlier concerns I illustrate this way by analogy; if I have a plumbing problem, I consult plumbers. It would be nice if they were good Christian men one and all but I just want a really good plumber who knows the problems of plumbing inside and out... No truth or facts for that matter are alien to He Who is the Rational Logos Himself, so ''Plumbing'', or dropping the analogy an Anti-Capitalist critique, is not against Him at all.

Now sure, these men of the 19th and early 20th centuries who critiqued Capitalism, who were Socialist/Communists like Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, they all had wonky ideas on religion and faith, and were infected with the modernist Bourgeoisie mentality of unbelief, of scientism and Darwinian evolution and ''progress'', etc... But did they know a better way of organizing modern society, politically and economically, than those who came before them?

And also, I reflect on the idea that these were ideologues and revolutionaries, dreaming and organizing for something that had little to no prior experience in reality with; being heads of a government, running a society in the real world not in theoretical terms but contact with the truth. They found out, or others found out at their own expense, where they were wrong and why.

Isn't that a bit like real political science and economics, albeit with real flesh and blood people at a real cost one way or another, both good and bad?

So there's all that.

But on the Christian side of my questioning has been the Orthodox Christian duty of obedience to earthly rulers in all things but sin, even the worst and most illegitimate heathen of rulers; Nero, Nebochadnezzer, Antiochus, all the rulers of ancient history who have been set over the people of God for mercy or for chastisement, or both. So evil men revolt, and place themselves over the people, and their socio-economic-political arrangement is to be followed, by the mystery of Divine Providence of He Who orders all things well.

The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar, who abdicated and then the monarchy was overthrown by the Provisional Government in 1917 with none to uphold it and none to claim the monarchy and fight for it as a righteous Orthodox Tsar. No, the Bolsheviks overthrew the self-proclaimed ''Provisional Government'' in favor of the ''Soviets'', the organically developed self-governing councils of the people, the laboring classes.

Much evil was done after, but men can be evil, and so while the Bolsheviks were ''Internationalists'' the Russian people rightfully fought against the Whites/Foreign Interventionists during the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War, for the survival of the Russian Nation. The Nation was Collectivized and Industrialized, much could have been avoided in sin during this time, much intrigue and terror and purges and bloodshed, godlessness and blasphemy. But survival was at stake and a renewal of the war against Russia to destroy the Russian people was inevitable.

After the Great Patriotic War, there was no question, the Soviet Union, a Union of Republics (from ''Res Publica'', the ''Common Good''....) was the ''Great Russia, welded forever to stand'', and Russia was the Soviet Union. This was in the mind of millions of good people, and that which is believed in everywhere by all cannot entirely be false... And the alien symbols of Marxist Leninism by way of the war and the struggle, were made something good and right by almost all; hammer and sickle, the red army, the scarlet banner of the Soviet Union, the fight against Fascism, in Socialism. And no examination of Marxist Leninism even as an Orthodox Christian-or even especially as an Orthodox Christian-can be right without placing it firmly and quite specifically (despite Marxist Leninism's apparent alien foreign origins) within the larger meaning of the 1000 year history and culture of the Russian and Orthodox people.

What this means for today and the future I'll have to ponder and explore later.
#15022935
Palmyrene wrote:@annatar1914

You should journey to Christian Anarchism. It's the next step after all. If you're this far left you can go even farther till you get out of the left-right dichotomy.


@Palmyrene ;

I regard the State, as bad as it clearly is, as a positive good in that it restrains mankind from exterminating themselves and enables social existence. For me the only true and consistent Anarchists are the Anarcho-Capitalists like my friend @Victoribus Spolia , as Anarchism is most consistently in my opinion an Individualist Ideology for those influenced by thinkers like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand, Freidrich Neitzsche, and Max Stirner... Those who regard the State as an impediment to their Individual freedom, and rightfully so.

As I reject the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) on theological and philosophical grounds, and actively desire the State to place a rational check on individual freedom, or rather selfishness, I am a Statist. Nor do I shrink it seems from @Victoribus Spolia 's contention that the Social Contract theory necessarily leads to Socialism/Communism, I am in perfect agreement with this.

On the Christian end of my argument, I believe that the Statist/Communist/Socialist beliefs will merge politically in the world with what remaining true Christian remnant exists in the future.

I do believe in fact, that the future will be a time of increasing lawlessness, and expression of Anarchism all along that political spectrum but chiefly of the Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian/Objectivist strains.
#15022939
@annatar1914

The big issue with anarcho capitalism is it isn't fundamentally not free. Allow me to illustrate why:

Say Billy started mowing lawns. Billy's a hard worker and is pretty clever, so he eventually realizes that he's expanded his client base so much that he'd benefit from hiring on workers. These workers don't get a say in how the business is run, but no matter. Billy pays them what he thinks of as a fair wage. There's no minimum wage, and his workers can't pay the bills without working two or three jobs and can't save money, but Billy thinks it's fair.

His workers do, however, generate quite a bit of profit for Billy. For every one dollar Billy spends on labor he gets five dollars in return. Regardless of the specific figures, this is the norm within successful capitalist enterprise. Eventually Billy builds a small empire.

Some of his people want to organize a union, and Billy is insulted. Doesn't he give them jobs? Doesn't he pay them a fair wage? Hasn't he built this business with his own two hands? Well, no, he hasn't. Not really. But Billy thinks so, and Billy's in charge.

Billy realizes that without a state to enforce his will, he's going to need some muscle of his own. He employs a private security firm. There is no system of oversight. As was the case with many labor actions throughout history, with or without state intervention, a lot of people end up getting shot. Maybe there's a protest. Maybe a couple low-level security drones are put on leave. Nothing fundamentally changes.

A hundred years down the line, Billy IV inherits his great-grandfather's businesses, including a private military. He doesn't have to do any work at all. His workers are in even worse conditions than they were when Billy Sr. was starting out. Over time his family would have woven its way into government, buying up politicians - if this were a statist society.

Billy IV, however, is in ancapistan. There is no nation-state here, only what Billy IV owns, alongside his economic peers. That's who he concerns himself with. That's who benefits from the NAP: those in economic power. Aside from Crazy Bob, a trustafarian whom nobody really likes, nobody gives a shit about the workers.

Billy's family has made the rules here for generations. You cannot buy land without a deed from one of Billy IV's companies. You cannot have a child without being genetically inspected. Why not? Businesses need rules, right? And why shouldn't Billy IV make them unilaterally? Or perhaps he has a board he answers to. Perhaps he has feudal franchisees who represent real power. Who knows. All that matters is that those at the top rule with an iron fist. And they call it anarchism.
#15022943
Palmyrene wrote:@annatar1914

The big issue with anarcho capitalism is it isn't fundamentally not free. ... All that matters is that those at the top rule with an iron fist. And they call it anarchism.


Ah, but as you can see, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I merely said that they were the truly logically consistent ones despite the flaws you point out in your illustration.

As to the forms of the State, I'm content with Soviet Democracy with a Supreme Soviet at the top, etc..
#15022946
annatar1914 wrote:Ah, but as you can see, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I merely said that they were the truly logically consistent ones despite the flaws you point out in your illustration.

As to the forms of the State, I'm content with Soviet Democracy with a Supreme Soviet at the top, etc..


They are not consistent at all. I specifically gave you why they weren't consistent and why they aren't anarchists.

Anarchism is the opposition of hierarchy in favor of free association. Anarcho-capitalism, which Rothbard himself said wasn't anarchism, states that it's for individual freedom but fails to actually provide it as I've shown in the example I gave before.

Anarchism, what you call left anarchism, is consistent because it opposes both the state and hierarchy. "Anarcho"-capitalism will lead to the emergence of another state while "left" anarchism will not. Anarchism opposes private property and wage labour which prevents a state from ever emergening.
#15023072
@Palmyrene ;

They are not consistent at all. I specifically gave you why they weren't consistent and why they aren't anarchists.


How are they not consistent? They have taken the ideology of the free market to it's logical conclusion, for there is not a businessman alive who wouldn't prefer minimal to no government interference or taxation and regulation. The fact that they too fall down because of the very thing you and they hold dear; ''freedom'', is just another fact of life.

Anarchism is the opposition of hierarchy in favor of free association.


I see Anarchism as opposition to the State, not hierarchy. Free association is not a denial of hierarchy.


Anarcho-capitalism, which Rothbard himself said wasn't anarchism


Which means little because Murray Rothbard does not define himself as a Anarcho-Capitalist nor is he the only person who contributed to the genesis of the Ideology.


, states that it's for individual freedom but fails to actually provide it as I've shown in the example I gave before.


That's because it is yet another example of Anarchism being impossible.

Anarchism, what you call left anarchism, is consistent because it opposes both the state and hierarchy.


I gave my reasons above for the internal consistency of Anarcho-Capitalism, the only reason Left Anarchists oppose it being anywhere near them on the political spectrum is that it is a mirror of Left Anarchism's nullity.

"Anarcho"-capitalism will lead to the emergence of another state while "left" anarchism will not.


Ask Nestor Makhno. Nothing has ever come from Anarchists, anywhere, they might as well be and in fact kind of are, a species of reactionary.


Anarchism opposes private property and wage labour which prevents a state from ever emergening.


Not all Anarchism opposes private property and wage labor, it's just that Anarchists on the Left abhor the comparison without any rational statement being proffered why.

Besides, I'm talking Socialism here, not Anarchism really. Best person to talk shop with about these matters would be an Anarcho-Capitalist; @Victoribus Spolia .
#15023074
annatar1914 wrote:@Palmyrene ;
How are they not consistent? They have taken the ideology of the free market to it's logical conclusion, for there is not a businessman alive who wouldn't prefer minimal to no government interference or taxation and regulation. The fact that they too fall down because of the very thing you and they hold dear; ''freedom'', is just another fact of life.


Wage labour, wealth accumulation, and private property rights aren't freedom and require a state to enforce anyways so an Anarcho-capitalist society will fall to feudalism or form another state.

If there was no state, why would anyone have a reason to respect private property rights? Why would anyone respect wage labour? Why would currency have the samr dimensions if anyone could make their own currency?

Ancaps answer none of these questions with the implication being warlordism.


I see Anarchism as opposition to the State, not hierarchy. Free association is not a denial of hierarchy.


Let me explain what hierarchy is:

Hierarchy primarily refers to relationships of command and subordination. It's origins seem to be in descriptions of the mechanics of divine command in the world: ranks of angels, ranks of religious officials, etc., with all ultimately subordinated to a god. We also use the term to describe systemic advantages and privileges granted to individuals on the basis of particular social or economic roles.

Mere individual differences (in capacity, experience, performance, influence,etc.) are not enough to establish hierarchy. Hierarchies involve roles and persist, often whether or not the individual is actually capable of fulfilling the role. (Bad managers still command exceptional employees. Weak or inept rulers may be deposed, losing the role, but it is still always the ruler who rules. Etc.)

Which means little because Murray Rothbard does not define himself as a Anarcho-Capitalist nor is he the only person who contributed to the genesis of the Ideology.


He's the one who coined the term and bragged about the theft of the term "anarchism" in his books.

That's because it is yet another example of Anarchism being impossible.


It's an example of Anarcho-capitalism being impossible.

I gave my reasons above for the internal consistency of Anarcho-Capitalism, the only reason Left Anarchists oppose it being anywhere near them on the political spectrum is that it is a mirror of Left Anarchism's nullity.


I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

Anarchists oppose ancaps because ancapism isn't anarchism. The man who coined the term said so as well. It's neo-feudalism not ancapism.

Ask Nestor Makhno. Nothing has ever come from Anarchists, anywhere, they might as well be and in fact kind of are, a species of reactionary.


What about Makhno?

I think you out of all people should not conflate theory with real life people. Especially if you're a communist.

You are not aware of the nature of the anarchist community. I just you walk around and take a look instead of basing your beliefs off of rumors. I believe the Bible has a chapter on slander?

Not all Anarchism opposes private property and wage labor, it's just that Anarchists on the Left abhor the comparison without any rational statement being proffered why.


1. The obvious reason is that private property has no justification whatsoever which is why propertarians rely on religious justification like the social contract for instance to support it.

There is no justification for owning a piece of land, especially absentee ownership. The most basic form of property rights you can have is occupancy and use (which is what anarchism is in favor of) but that's hardly private property.

2. Your lack of familiarity with anarchist arguments does not mean that anarchists have no good arguments. The explanation I gave above is just a small list of anarchist definitions and arguments that they adhere to. In r/DebateAnarchism we're doing a whole Anarchist Encyclopedia detailing anarchist stances and ideas.

Besides, I'm talking Socialism here, not Anarchism really. Best person to talk shop with about these matters would be an Anarcho-Capitalist; @Victoribus Spolia .


My point is that anarchism has alot more to do with communism than you would think.
#15023083
Palmyrene wrote:


My point is that anarchism has alot more to do with communism than you would think.


Marxist Leninists say that they want the State to whither away, but even they see the utility of the machinery of State in the service of the people, in order to counter Bourgeoisie attempts to shut Socialism down.

I see no need for the State to whither away given human nature as it presently is.


But that's more than enough to convince me that while Socialism works and is the best economic arrangement for the common good, any fading away of the State would render all economic and social relationships impossible without law and order to hold people accountable.

But if you want to argue Anarchism, I made my suggestion to you to talk to the man more than capable of stating the case for Anarcho-Capitalism, @ Victoribus Spolia.
#15023087
annatar1914 wrote:Marxist Leninists say that they want the State to whither away, but even they see the utility of the machinery of State in the service of the people, in order to counter Bourgeoisie attempts to shut Socialism down.

I see no need for the State to whither away given human nature as it presently is.


But that's more than enough to convince me that while Socialism works and is the best economic arrangement for the common good, any fading away of the State would render all economic and social relationships impossible without law and order to hold people accountable.

But if you want to argue Anarchism, I made my suggestion to you to talk to the man more than capable of stating the case for Anarcho-Capitalism, @ Victoribus Spolia.


Law imposes itself upon human social relationships. It is not responsible for them. The state takes the relationships we make with one another and exploits them, mutates them, and corrupts them.

This isn't order, it's chaos. A cancer or tumor that must eradicated. And soon we find that the tumor has grown so large it threatens to destroy our planet via global warming.

Enough is enough.
#15023093
SSDR wrote:Laws protecting you from rapists, torturers, underground human traffickers, and domestic abusers is "chaos?"


Rapists rape even when there are laws. Torturers are employed by the state. Human traffickers are protected by capitalists because they profit off the business.

Laws don't prevent anything and often laws are used to defend torture and human trafficking.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Xi isn’t all-powerful and has to carry the Party […]

Trump's Dumb Economics

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Com[…]

Yes. The antisemites have congregated in this thr[…]

When do soldiers commit politically motivated vi[…]