Lets talk real Anarchy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15257654
First none of us want strict chaos. You've been watching too many comic book villains. I suppose in these days you have to clarify somethings related to YOUR brand of anarchy.

Mine is that I'm Anti-Fascist and hard left on top of the Anarchy. I ain't no Anarcho-Capitalist and I am completely Anti-Imperialist, Anti-Hierarchy (hard social hierarchies). Money is the third channel to power and is mostly used to offload exploitation on the lower classes. I am Anti-Neoliberal (Meaning strictly Anti-Capitalist, and "whatever" comes next must move us forward toward Autonomy). Personal Autonomy is the highest goal of humankind.

1. Anti-Fascist means we are forever vigilant for the rise of new fascists. It was never a one-time movement, it is always a permanent duty.
2. Anti-Capitalist: Money is the third channel to power. We reject its necessity and see it as a constant source of state control over your Autonomy.
3. Anti-Imperialist: Nations states like the UK, US, and modern Israel are either Settler-Colonial states or outright Empires depending on your semantics. We oppose the "trick" of Imperialism in all its forms from Turtle Island to Severodonesk. As such we see unity and community in supporting and honoring Indigenous Autonomy seekers. Anything that stems from the Imperium is the enemy of Autonomy.
4. Anti-Hierarchy: No social structure over your head is necessary. You don't need Popes and Presidents to tell you right from wrong you already know right from wrong. The pool of leaders who are picked to lead us is taken from the same pool of people you were born into.

Why cede your Autonomy to imaginary lines on maps or to magic books? Speaking of religion, both instances of the Roman churches are Imperial and always have been. Owning land and wealth means they will do ANYTHING to protect said land and wealth including placing people's lives secondary to their superstitions.
5. Pro-Community in whatever form the humans comprising it choose to run it, without weirdly unnecessary middle people getting sassy with you.
6. Low key number 6: Avoid a lot of overarching political stances. Keep it simple, be you.

So my question for you boot-lickers, liberals, and assorted lovers of the current order:

Why not steal anything you need from any Corporate entity? Due to our thoughts on community we do not see theft from individuals as legitimate, especially while we continue to live in a Capitalism, but Corporations and other large "Legal Social Apparati" that do not materially exist are THE problem today. In many ways Corporations form the core unit in a modern Capitalistic Feudal lanscape. We oppose that order.

Stealing from them hurts their bottom line. Or does it?

Nope, it doesn't. It hurts the insurance company's bottom line as all corporations are covered for theft with insurance. I've seen that stuff work in person, lol. Helluva thing the Capitalists got goin here.

They get paid whether they sell it or you steal it. They only don't get paid if it sits on the shelves unsellable. Of course, they could face higher rates but who cares because... Ain't no one in that business dying because their rates went up from theft! And if you shut one of them down by stealing them to death...see rule 1. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now I don't recommend being an idiot and I truly believe you should limit your stealing to needs as opposed to wants. Though I don't judge those who steal huge televisions because those corps are the enemies too! However, the bigger the item the more attention you bring and you should weigh that against getting caught and the value of the item in question long term. I have no other opinion otherwise.

Q&A:

1. You are proposing and condoning illegal activity.
A. In the context of the discussion I'm talking about open, non-violent resistance to corporatism. The fact it's illegal is a function of their being in existence in the first place. Rule 1 of any Imperium: Always protect the Imperium at all costs.

2. Aren't you just some mad kid rebelling?
A. No.

3. What is Turtle Island?
A. I suggest you Google the answer so you receive the one given by the Turtle Islanders themselves.

4. If your little plan succedes you will put people out of business and poor people will lose their jobs.
A. Retail Employees are some of the most exploited workers in modern Western economies. The jobs are easy to come by, and because most of them are abused at their jobs they end up being very lax over all in security. Again, putting the corps out of business IS the long term goal so... not sure what you want from me?

5. What are you akshually saying?
A. That theft from Western Corporations is a win-win for the little guy, a small boost to their personal lives, a small nick from an insurance company, and the terror that must come from a CEO sweating his christmas bonus based on insurance payments related to theft of retail products.
#15257706
BlutoSays wrote:I suggest you steal from gun stores.

Let's be sensible now.

You would be safer stealing firearms before they get to a gun store and the payoff is the same.

LOS ANGELES — More than 80 newly manufactured guns were among the items stolen from freight trains near Los Angeles in recent months, local police officials say. The pilfered firearms, which included at least 36 pistols and 46 semi-automatic shotguns, were taken from a container car that was burglarized in August.

— NBC News, Jan 2022


Only two have been recovered.
#15257721
Morgan Le Fey wrote:
insurance company's bottom line



---



A financial crisis had developed throughout 2007 and 2008 partly due to a subprime mortgage crisis, causing the failure or near-failure of major financial institutions like Lehman Brothers and American International Group.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency ... ct_of_2008




American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is an American multinational finance and insurance corporation with operations in more than 80 countries and jurisdictions.[4]



Accounting scandal

In 2005, AIG became embroiled in a series of fraud investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Justice Department, and New York State Attorney General's Office. Greenberg was ousted amid an accounting scandal in February 2005.[38][39][40] The New York Attorney General's investigation led to a $1.6 billion fine for AIG and criminal charges for some of its executives.[41]

On May 1, 2005, investigations conducted by outside counsel at the request of AIG's Audit Committee and the consultation with AIG's independent auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP resulted in AIG's decision to restate its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000, the quarters ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2004, and 2003 and the quarter ended December 31, 2003.[42] On November 9, 2005, the company was said to have delayed its third-quarter earnings report because it had to restate earlier financial results, to correct accounting errors.[43]



2008 liquidity crisis and government bailout

Further information: Subprime mortgage crisis and Financial crisis of 2007–08

In late 2008, the federal government bailed out AIG for $180 billion, and technically assumed control, because many believed its failure would endanger the financial integrity of other major firms that were its trading partners--Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, as well as dozens of European banks.[52][53] In January 2011, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission issued one of many critical governmental reports, deciding that AIG failed and was rescued by the government primarily because its enormous sales of credit default swaps were made without putting up the initial collateral, setting aside capital reserves, or hedging its exposure, which one analyst considered a profound failure in corporate governance, particularly its risk management practices.[13]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... onal_Group
#15257828
ingliz wrote:Let's be sensible now.

You would be safer stealing firearms before they get to a gun store and the payoff is the same.


It takes a real communist to grasp these cost free acquisition principles, tee hee.

BlutoSays wrote:I suggest you steal from gun stores. Big payoff there! Why not go all the way? :lol:


Stealing guns is high risk, especially from a retail outlet, although I HAVE seen it happen to a small hunting and fishing store that went out of business because their security was deemed too lax by the FBI.

Also, I don't require one at this time. The only personal threat I ever had in my life is dead now due to his own stupidity.

The question Bluto, is why don't YOU steal a gun?
#15257846
If there's no state then multiple large & powerful gangs will form because people need protection. This is exactly what happened internationally, because the world exists in a situation of anarchy, there is no global government. And gangs will have leaders and rules. Some mob bosses called themselves "kings", and they all fought over territory as all gangs do. Hierarchies form naturally unfortunately because that's how nature operates.

There is no system where powerful organizations who enforce & provide rules and security don't form. Rules prevent people from doing whatever they want and acting like animals, and rules need to be enforced.
#15257848
The OP is against corporations. If there's no government to make & enforce any rules, anyone could build a very large business organization and it would be able to do whatever it wanted. It would have lots of people hired with guns, it could even own tanks & other military equipment. It could pay its employees whatever it wanted, it could decide to not pay them, and the employees would still be forced to work because the business would have goons with guns to make them. And the employees couldn't sue for their paychecks because without government there's court and police to enforce contracts.
#15257849
Unthinking Majority wrote:
If there's no state then multiple large & powerful gangs will form because people need protection. This is exactly what happened internationally, because the world exists in a situation of anarchy, there is no global government. And gangs will have leaders and rules. Some mob bosses called themselves "kings", and they all fought over territory as all gangs do. Hierarchies form naturally unfortunately because that's how nature operates.

There is no system where powerful organizations who enforce & provide rules and security don't form. Rules prevent people from doing whatever they want and acting like animals, and rules need to be enforced.



No, it's not 'nature' -- you're making it sound like humanity is just *doomed* to play king-of-the-hill for all eternity.

Competition instead of cooperation happens to be empirically encouraged when *scarcity*, and uncertainty, prevail -- but the *flipside* is that once there's *sufficiency* and *abundance*, no one *has* to care much about the next meal, etc., so people then do what they themselves *want* to do, with their time.

And which would *you* rather have, UM -- contrived *busywork* and 'the eternal grindstone', or some more *enlightened* societal political economy that actually matches production to real usage by individuals.


Pies Must Line Up

Spoiler: show
Image



Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image
#15257870
Unthinking Majority wrote:If there's no state then multiple large & powerful gangs will form because people need protection.


"The State" is comprised of individuals. Those individuals know right from wrong without a state and its associated hierarchies. Again you folks take Anarchists as comic book villains and your mentality shows that right off the bat.

As serious actors with serious, if mischievous and perhaps foolish and banal to some, we find them poignant, hard-hitting, and necessary.

So, without a state humans will defend themselves as they always have. Communities form for social reasons and that includes protection. Why do you assume we'd all start from a state of chaos rather than Autonymous Order?

Unthinking Majority wrote:This is exactly what happened internationally because the world exists in a situation of anarchy, there is no global government. And gangs will have leaders and rules. Some mob bosses called themselves "kings", and they all fought over territory as all gangs do. Hierarchies form naturally unfortunately because that's how nature operates.


You display a rudimentary understanding of history that is heavily reliant on dominant Western-Power-driven narratives of the history of mankind. Our species is 200,000 years old with very little genetic variance in that time. We know a few thousand years of human history, though some Indigenous Oral Histories date to much older times. This means 200,000-year-old humans were functionally as intelligent as we are now, just as emotional, and just passionate.

So to be honest, unless you know something about the times from 200,000 years ago to 5000 BC you probably oughta rethink your ideas on hard human social hierarchies. You make the same mistake any sophomore analyzing data relies on: The dominant local narrative.

We existed far longer without hard social hierarchies than we have with them. The desire for men to build nations is directly behind the destruction of our habitat and that of many other species. All because Capitalism says to produce forever and throw away what people won't buy or the packaging they do buy, at least.

Yes, for mating and other sexual socializing among humans softer, mating hierarchies will likely always exist, but anyone with so little imagination that they see humans as no more dynamic than ants is really too boring to interact with on a regular basis.

Your second post is something from an 80s Rambo movie. I'd call it Rambo 3.37: Rambo half-asses a youtube thing with guns and bombs! The Movie
#15257885

AIG failed and was rescued by the government primarily because its enormous sales of credit default swaps were made without putting up the initial collateral, setting aside capital reserves, or hedging its exposure, which one analyst considered a profound failure in corporate governance, particularly its risk management practices.[13]



viewtopic.php?p=15257721#p15257721



I'd like to quickly add that the capitalist system has no real way of holding-the-hot-potato -- any time it can't handle the resulting 'negativity' from its own system, as with bad debt or the flow of value from China drying-up (my hypothesis for March 2020), it runs into increasing *liabilities*, as in the '70s, and now, today.

Capitalism's *own* system of risk-management can only apply to its *own*, 'internal' system of financial-type exchange-values, and having more of an insurance / reinsurance 'backstop' means *someone* has to put up the required funds for the collateral. And when natural-world *risk*, as from natural disasters, *overshadows* the real world, the financial 'risk' of *covering* that sudden giant expense goes to *infinity*, effectively, tearing a *sinkhole* in the very fabric of what the capitalist system can *cover* on-the-ground -- 'market failure'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
By Rich
#15257930
Morgan Le Fey wrote:"The State" is comprised of individuals. Those individuals know right from wrong without a state and its associated hierarchies.

Do they?

Did the Lakota know it was wrong to steal land from the Cheyenne?
Did the Comanche know it was wrong to steal land from the Apaches?
Did the Mohawk know it was wrong to genocide the Huron?
Did the Zulus know it was wrong to kill a woman for running away from her husband?
Did the Hill tribes of Papua New Guinea know it was wrong to slaughter people and then eat them in an attempt to enslave their spirits for eternity?

The fact is that what you take for granted as right and wrong is an ideology that required not just states but large states. For the average inhabitant of the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, Asoka's empire, their polity was for all practical purposes a world government. In these multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural empires the old tribal-ethnic- nationalist religions and moral systems no longer made much sense. Hence we see the rise of human universalist ideologies and religions.
Last edited by Rich on 04 Dec 2022 16:13, edited 1 time in total.
#15257934
Rich wrote:
Do they?

Did the Lakota know it was wrong to steal land from the Cheyenne?
Did the Comanche know it was wrong to steal land from the Apaches?
Did the Mohawk know it was wrong to genocide the Huron?
Did the Zulus know it was wrong to kill a woman for running away from her husband?
Did the Hill tribes of Papua New Gurnee know it was wrong to slaughter people and then eat them in an attempt to enslave their spirits for eternity?

The fact is that what you take for granted as right and wrong is an ideology that required not just states but large states. For the average inhabitant of the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, Asoka's empire, their polity was for all practical purposes a world government. In these multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural empires the old tribal-ethnic- nationalist religions and moral systems no longer made much sense. Hence we see the rise of human universalist ideologies and religions.



Yeah, how's the body count on *Christianity* going, Rich -- ?

If we're talking 'track record', I say let's start *there*.


---


Ideologies & Operations -- Bottom Up

Spoiler: show
Image
#15257940
Rich wrote:Do they?


Yes we do. Who's this they?

Rich wrote:Did the Lakota know it was wrong to steal land from the Cheyenne?


Tribal raids amongst Turtle Island nations are nothing like European Total War. In fact, "raids" between Indigenous Nations of Turtle Island were honorable, as a rule, did not involve non-combatants and the like.

Further, the point is not to make some overarching statement about mankind. The point is to carve out a space amongst the riff-raff, (The Black Panthers called it Dual Power).

So of course men like you will continue to exist even in a community-based environment. In that environment however, if one turns out to be a bad actor there is always the ability to send them out.

Anarchy is not a promise of peace for all time any more than your bootlicking guarantees you permanent life security. Bands of humans will be bands of humans. But well-organized humanistic communities WILL and CAN do better, and via community defense repel the raids. You really have a poor understanding of where I'm at and where I'm going.

Especially when we are talking about Autonymous self-supporting communities who base their food sources on permacultured acreage.

Basically, your lists of Indigenous people doing war proves absolutely nothing as all of the nations you mention were AUTOYMOUS! I never said their would be peace on earth if did so goober. What it will do is put each person's destiny in their own hands and that of their local community.

Rich wrote:The fact is that what you take for granted as right and wrong is an ideology that required not just states but large states.


You don't understand what I consider right and wrong and you haven't done anything more than take a cursory glance at what is being proposed and you haven't really answered the question anyway.

I'm not discussing the Native Tribes of Turtle Island, I'm asking here

"Why don't you steal, Rich?" it's to your direct and obvious benefit and even Capitalists hate insurance companies. (Well, except mysteriously you like them directly involved in your health care) So please do try to stay on topic if you want to continue to engage with me.
#15257942
Rich wrote:Do they?

Did the Lakota know it was wrong to steal land from the Cheyenne?
Did the Comanche know it was wrong to steal land from the Apaches?
Did the Mohawk know it was wrong to genocide the Huron?


None of these are examples of anarchism.

No person from any of these groups would describe themselves as anarchists, and they would also point out that all of these nations had laws and government.
#15257945
Morgan Le Fey wrote:
even Capitalists hate insurance companies.



Just f.y.i., I found through past exchanges with TTP the business-'internal' importance of F.I.R.E. (finance, insurance, real estate).

One can simply ask why capitalists *don't* rail at the F.I.R.E. overhead -- it's a *cost*, the cost of capital, alongside the cost of *labor*, yet all we hear is the cacophonous roar against the cost of *labor* in particular, wages, as with the recent uptick in real-economy consumer inflation.

F.I.R.E. isn't even *productive* to the company / corporation, yet there it is, every month, an expense like all the others, a dollar-value. And *silence*.
#15257954
ckaihatsu wrote:Just f.y.i., I found through past exchanges with TTP the business-'internal' importance of F.I.R.E. (finance, insurance, real estate).

One can simply ask why capitalists *don't* rail at the F.I.R.E. overhead -- it's a *cost*, the cost of capital, alongside the cost of *labor*, yet all we hear is the cacophonous roar against the cost of *labor* in particular, wages, as with the recent uptick in real-economy consumer inflation.

F.I.R.E. isn't even *productive* to the company / corporation, yet there it is, every month, an expense like all the others, a dollar-value. And *silence*.


That is an amazing point, the side Rich and Bluto represent has always been the side of the boot lickers. Their arguments are always self-interested sound bytes that protect the current order with zero honest thought given to any other possible outcome. It's a profound fear of the unknown on top of being uncreative, terribly superstitious, small-minded, arrogant, and uncompromising with real life.

Just to hate for the leaders.

Did I mention Fred Ward made me a lifetime fan from when he appeared in Tremors? Didn't go for him before then, but damn... that was good on first watch!
#15257956
Morgan Le Fey wrote:
That is an amazing point, the side Rich and Bluto represent has always been the side of the boot lickers. Their arguments are always self-interested sound bytes that protect the current order with zero honest thought given to any other possible outcome. It's a profound fear of the unknown on top of being uncreative, terribly superstitious, small-minded, arrogant, and uncompromising with real life.

Just to hate for the leaders.

Did I mention Fred Ward made me a lifetime fan from when he appeared in Tremors? Didn't go for him before then, but damn... that was good on first watch!



Yeah, good to have you around now, Morgan.

The culture warriors around here still have to be grounded in *history*, at least, so I tend to look for whatever historical period they tend to *fetishize* as a 'golden era', whether it *was* (materially), or not.

Rich is Christianity / Islamophobia, and BS is basically straight status-quo geographic-nationalist.

I don't think you're going to have much of an issue with them now that Trump's bye-bye -- they're mostly unplugged now.

If they get too turf-settled / one-sided with you on the threads maybe just let them start-up with some identity-politics fronts (since they're always actually to-the-right of their front), and then go to the historical origin of that social-identity -- like with Christianity or Trump, respectively.


---


Also, f.y.i., if it's of any relevance:


Interpersonal Meanings

Spoiler: show
Image
User avatar
By noemon
#15257967
Morgan Le Fey wrote:That is an amazing point, the side Rich and Bluto represent has always been the side of the boot lickers.


It is a disingenuous one. Because ckaihatsu was bootlicking for F.I.R.E. and was told so.

He is trying to turn it on its head by claiming that landlords with mortgages somehow benefit from higher interest rates.

They do not. And that is why they declared war on Truss's government who pushed them the most though unsucessfully, the UK has the highest inflation in the G7 and the lowest base interest rates as well as the highest increase on taxes and the lowest growth.
#15257974
noemon wrote:
He is trying to turn it on its head by claiming that landlords with mortgages somehow benefit from higher interest rates.



Landlords don't *necessarily* have mortgages.

You're indicating *mixed interests* by using the particular demographic of landlords *with mortgages*.

Someone, anyone with a mortgage is a *debtor* in that respect, and would benefit from more, easier, cheaper, face-values -- inflation -- for more-readily paying off the fixed dollar amount.

But the same landlord, as a landlord *only*, would benefit from *lower* interest rates, given that there's no debt to pay off. The landlord's accumulated property value would proportionately *increase* in valuation (appreciation) with *less* economic growth and a *static* pool of economic valuations.


ckaihatsu wrote:
If you [1] *do* have money, then your interests are with the continued and increasing *value* behind whatever given face-values -- appreciation. (*Less* additional value diluting the total pool.) (*Rentier* capital / non-productive / rewarded with interest and/or rent payments from the pre-existing economy.)

If you [2] *don't* have money, then your interests are for *cheap, easy* money, as with more *face-values* / currency, at cheaper terms, to be *flipped* into a higher-rate vehicle as rates rise overall. If employed, wages may become *money*, like pensions, which are then more-*propertied* interests, paradoxically. (*More* additional values streaming into the pool to create velocity.) (*Equity* capital / commodity-productive / rewarded with surplus labor value, possibly indefinitely.)



viewtopic.php?p=15255831#p15255831
#15257985
I can't offer an analysis in regard to this level of internal debate in UK politics. Lol, noemon, you won't agree with me out here often, but its all good.
AOC:Puerto Rico is a Neo Colony?

Puerto Rico and the island colonies of the U.S. ar[…]

Exit Brexit, Part Deux

For the British it's hard to see and treat even t[…]

Again, when was the first time a cop was convicte[…]

There should be military retaliation against Chin[…]