Lets talk real Anarchy - Page 2 - 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.
User avatar
By noemon
#15257986
ckaihatsu wrote:Landlords don't *necessarily* have mortgages.

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


The particular demographic that sustains F.I.R.E. Obviously. The demographic that pushed for lower interest rates and higher taxes at the highest level.
#15257989
noemon wrote:
The particular demographic that sustains F.I.R.E. Obviously. The demographic that pushed for lower interest rates and higher taxes at the highest level.



Even landlords *without* mortgages have regular financial / economic needs for *insurance*, just like any *other* owner of capital, since there's a real risk of possible property damage or loss. Moreover, landlords could have potential needs for *finance*, as for renovations to rental units. Additional *real estate*, requiring finance, would also be a real business possibility if the owner wanted to *grow* the company into the future.
#15258002
Morgan Le Fey wrote:"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.

What is forcing these individuals to always adhere to right and wrong? There's a whole bunch of bad, selfish people in every society and if there's nothing to stop them, like rules that are enforced, they will steal, or murder, rape etc. Why do you think laws and police & militaries exist? Because everyone willingly follows right and wrong? Your assumption of human nature is not correct and is disproven many times every day in every society in existence or has ever existed to our knowledge.

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

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?

Ok so communities will form, like tribes or cities. And they will have people (soldiers) to protect them from outside threats. And some communities will be more powerful than others, and some of the more powerful ones will invade some of the weaker ones to take their resources and/or territory, or will simply dominate them in trade and push them around. And they will form alliances and trade pacts. This is how the international community works. We've already run this experiment since the beginning of mankind. The solution to fear of violence was to organize

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.

There's no difference within or outside the West. So what do you think happened with every indigenous society before western colonialism and before capitalism? How did indigenous people live without a state pre-Columbus? It existed in anarchy, there was no government ruling all of the Americas or Africa, so they all formed their own tribes. There were warriors in each of the tribes that protected the tribe from attacks from outside tribes. Sometimes different tribes formed alliances for protection and trade.

Does this sound familiar? This is exactly how the anarchic international system works. This is the same as Russia attacking Ukraine over territory, and Ukraine trying to form an alliance with NATO for protection and trade. Russia and Ukraine have their own warriors (soldiers) to protect their tribe.
#15258035
Lol, you still don't get it babe.

I have said specifically there will be communities, I will support them. I don't need an experiment, I can go by history longer and older than anything you've yet quoted.

Why do you presume we would throw out the baby for the bath water?

Why do you presume we are emerging from the primordial muck.

We aren't. We have everything we have today. We are organized without government and we only produce for need, not profit


The real issue none of you can escape is that Capitalism is wrecking our environment. When Europeans changed the New World from that cultivated by Indigenous Turtle Islanders they began this wreck.

You can't fix what you broke because Capitalism and manipulating the planet is always a zero sum game.

When the Americas were permacultured the O2 sustained haesh Eurasian monoculture even though... you know, it turned the middle east into a frickin desert!

Lol.

Have your leaders and your Capitalism and leave us to our autonomy. We will be organized and we will still rule collaborately, without the need to venerate unnecessary leaders who are effectively middle men.

Unthinking Majority wrote:What is forcing these individuals to always adhere to right and wrong?


Man you're weird. You assume so much nonsense off jumpstreet we speak two languages and you don't get mine but I know yours well.

I never made such a stupid, overarching comment about humanity. Go back and re-read the preamble to my question.

Again, you're in the thread where I've proposed a specific question and you want to wax on about whether Anarchy is legit.

If you don't think so, end of debate babe! I'm not interested in arguing for ages. Otherwise entertain it for our exercise and give something less fucking boring to sink my teeth into.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15258041
@Morgan Le Fey

Your utopia.

A study I found on Jstor found that around 50% of intentional communities - what we'd call communes - collapse within 2 years with 75% failing within 10.


:)
User avatar
By ingliz
#15258042
^
Correction

"... with 75% failing within 10"

... with 75% of those still standing failing within 10.
#15258043
ingliz wrote:@Morgan Le Fey

Your utopia.

A study I found on Jstor found that around 50% of intentional communities - what we'd call communes - collapse within 2 years with 75% failing within 10.


:)


Ok I know better than to argue with you, but in fairness, I never meant any Utopia. Neither tribal, nor Communist, nor even my Autonomous principles will ever be a human Utopia. You must know our only real differences are cops and the need to wait on the state to whither away.

I'm not fixing any worlds. Just helping local folks realize you don't need the government to work, live, and love together.

I mean, we lived it in Denver is the funny thing. It's grand. Sure there's a Capitalism constantly running around us, but living off of it rather than the opposite is quite a pleasure. Anyway, I got old, I couldn't do that forever. ;)

Furthermore, I'm related distantly to the Amish. I fail to see any major differences from what I propose relative to their already successfully living similar lives without fail for a very long time now. I'm no Luddite, however.

Without trying or talking about it, the Amish in the states are de facto semi-autonomous simply due to geographic isolation and socal cohesion. It's interesting to me how they did so, yet no one ever seems to think of them when they start thinking someone means Utopia.

I'm not so foolish comrade. :)
User avatar
By ingliz
#15258044
@Morgan Le Fey

The problem I see is if you have a group with no ideological or religious reason to work together and say you can do as you please, they will.


:lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#15258051
Morgan Le Fey wrote:living off of it

Is that real anarchy, though?

In my eyes, you are just piggybacking off a state that enforces capitalist law. To put it bluntly, parasitically piggybacking off those rough men employed by the state that stand ready to do violence on your behalf.
#15258061
Unthinking Majority wrote:What is forcing these individuals to always adhere to right and wrong? There's a whole bunch of bad, selfish people in every society and if there's nothing to stop them, like rules that are enforced, they will steal, or murder, rape etc. Why do you think laws and police & militaries exist? Because everyone willingly follows right and wrong? Your assumption of human nature is not correct and is disproven many times every day in every society in existence or has ever existed to our knowledge.

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


In the vast majority of cases, police and military do nothing to help or save people. They definitely do not function as enforcers of any morality.

People follow basic morality because most of us are decent people, and for those of us that are not, police and military do nothing to stop immoral behaviour.

There's no difference within or outside the West. So what do you think happened with every indigenous society before western colonialism and before capitalism? How did indigenous people live without a state pre-Columbus? It existed in anarchy, there was no government ruling all of the Americas or Africa, so they all formed their own tribes. There were warriors in each of the tribes that protected the tribe from attacks from outside tribes. Sometimes different tribes formed alliances for protection and trade.

Does this sound familiar? This is exactly how the anarchic international system works. This is the same as Russia attacking Ukraine over territory, and Ukraine trying to form an alliance with NATO for protection and trade. Russia and Ukraine have their own warriors (soldiers) to protect their tribe.


Again, anarchy was not really a thing in the Americas before Columbus.

Indigenous nations had (and still have) their own laws and government.
#15258067
Unthinking Majority wrote:
This is how the international community works. We've already run this experiment since the beginning of mankind. The solution to fear of violence was to organize


Unthinking Majority wrote:
This is exactly how the anarchic international system works.



Okay, so you're pointing to the *arbitrariness* and open-sky / 'top-of-the-world' quality of global bourgeois international relations.

I've said as-much *myself*, in occasionally referring to global geopolitics as being 'playground politics' -- again, the *arbitrariness* of it all.

What do you think the 'UN population', or 'UN staff', should *do* about this outstanding arbitrariness -- ? In what way(s) should the 'international community' *be* organized -- ?
#15258099
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, anarchy was not really a thing in the Americas before Columbus.

Indigenous nations had (and still have) their own laws and government.


I have specified Autonomous Anarchy. Which claims some grand legacy to Euro this or that, but the truth of what is envisioned is indeed similar to that crafted by Indigenous Turtle Islanders.

Ultimmately what we call it doesn't matter as long as some form of #landback occurs, and from there... I couldn't speculate.

I am familiar with Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz' work: An Indigenous People's History of the US. I've also read The Dawn of Everything, I get better than many Euro-Americans what was taken from Turtle Islanders.
#15258100
ingliz wrote:Is that real anarchy, though?


Pretty sure free rent, food, meds, and spreading the wealth to people on the street is pretty anti-capitalist. If you expect me to be revolutionary your way, its seems like a foolish expectation on your part.

I know very well what Reds and MLs value and that they view Anarchists as little other than lumpenproletariat.

But again, why do I care? I don't disregard Reds like I would Nazis or Conservatives, but I realize in advance what our differences are and will likely remain.
#15258104
Morgan Le Fey wrote:
Sure there's a Capitalism constantly running around us, but living off of it rather than the opposite is quite a pleasure.



ingliz wrote:
Is that real anarchy, though?

In my eyes, you are just piggybacking off a state that enforces capitalist law. To put it bluntly, parasitically piggybacking off those rough men employed by the state that stand ready to do violence on your behalf.



Morgan Le Fey wrote:
Pretty sure free rent, food, meds, and spreading the wealth to people on the street is pretty anti-capitalist. If you expect me to be revolutionary your way, its seems like a foolish expectation on your part.

I know very well what Reds and MLs value and that they view Anarchists as little other than lumpenproletariat.

But again, why do I care? I don't disregard Reds like I would Nazis or Conservatives, but I realize in advance what our differences are and will likely remain.



'Piggybacking [on] rough men', ingliz -- ? Is that what you did last weekend?


= D


Just kidding -- on the *serious* side, though, your 'critique' is actually *inaccurate*, misplaced, and therefore *moralistic*, ultimately.

The critique is *supposed* to be that the chronically unemployed, the 'lumpenproletariat', are effectively a *burden* to the working class and its wages, and that they tend to be *reactionary* politically.



Lumpenproletariat (/ˌlʌmpənproʊlɪˈtɛəriət/) refers – primarily in Marxist theory – to the underclass devoid of class consciousness.[1] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels coined the word in the 1840s and used it to refer to the unthinking lower strata of society exploited by reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces, particularly in the context of the revolutions of 1848. They dismissed the revolutionary potential of the Lumpenproletariat and contrasted it with the proletariat. Among other groups, criminals, vagabonds, and prostitutes are usually included in this category.



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



---


I'm gonna readily side with MLF on this one, that anyone doing for themselves what *rentier capital* does as a matter of *function* -- extracting value from the pre-existing economy -- can't really be criticized on any *moral* grounds, because they're simply looking out for their own *persons*.

Just as food, rent, healthcare, and charity are *necessities* / costs, for the *individual*, for consumption, so are interest and rent payments to *rentier* capital also categorical 'overhead' costs that are strictly *subtractive* of value from the larger economy.

Rentier capital is an everyday subtractive *expense* for both equity capital and labor, and the entire economy is currently *rewarding* rentier assets and resources with a raised interest rate regime (rewarding *non-productive* assets and resources with *inflated* interest rates and rent payments, just for existing).

So if the world's political-economy / polity can reward rentier capital ownership *redundantly*, with *monthly* payments on its valuation that was created *once* historically in the past, then certainly a *live human being* should be able to *likewise* cover *their* monthly fixed-costs of *living* and/or *employment* (which is *commodity-productive* economic activity), since the rentier-capitalist enjoys that very treatment for their *inert property*, increasing its valuation over time while collecting dust.
#15258116
Pants-of-dog wrote:In the vast majority of cases, police and military do nothing to help or save people. They definitely do not function as enforcers of any morality.

People follow basic morality because most of us are decent people, and for those of us that are not, police and military do nothing to stop immoral behaviour.

This is obviously nonsense and you have no stats to back this up. Are you saying people are not arrested for crimes?

Again, anarchy was not really a thing in the Americas before Columbus.

Indigenous nations had (and still have) their own laws and government.

The Americas existed in anarchy prior to Columbus, in that there was no overarching government in America, or Canada, or South America. Individual nations had their own rules/government but there was no continent-wide government to regulate relations between all nations, which is why there was war between nations. At best there were alliances/confederacies between some nations. This is what happens with anarchy. Groups will always form for protection because of insecurity. This is why countries formed. If France didn't have a government and French individuals or small communities just existed in anarchy then Spain and Germany would have easily conquered them long ago.
#15258118
Morgan Le Fey wrote:Lol, you still don't get it babe.

I have said specifically there will be communities, I will support them. I don't need an experiment, I can go by history longer and older than anything you've yet quoted.

Why do you presume we would throw out the baby for the bath water?

Why do you presume we are emerging from the primordial muck.

We aren't. We have everything we have today. We are organized without government and we only produce for need, not profit


The real issue none of you can escape is that Capitalism is wrecking our environment. When Europeans changed the New World from that cultivated by Indigenous Turtle Islanders they began this wreck.

You can't fix what you broke because Capitalism and manipulating the planet is always a zero sum game.

When the Americas were permacultured the O2 sustained haesh Eurasian monoculture even though... you know, it turned the middle east into a frickin desert!

Lol.

Have your leaders and your Capitalism and leave us to our autonomy. We will be organized and we will still rule collaborately, without the need to venerate unnecessary leaders who are effectively middle men.



Man you're weird. You assume so much nonsense off jumpstreet we speak two languages and you don't get mine but I know yours well.

I never made such a stupid, overarching comment about humanity. Go back and re-read the preamble to my question.

Again, you're in the thread where I've proposed a specific question and you want to wax on about whether Anarchy is legit.

If you don't think so, end of debate babe! I'm not interested in arguing for ages. Otherwise entertain it for our exercise and give something less fucking boring to sink my teeth into.

I'm weird? You keep calling me "babe".
#15258119
Morgan Le Fey wrote: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.

Stealing is a bad idea because you can get caught and go to jail. Most places don't just let people steal and get away with it, like far-left loony parts of California. If you feel entitled to steal other people's property feel free, you'll probably get caught at some point and get locked behind bars.

If more theft occurs insurance rates will go up, which means cost of goods will go up. Inflation is not a good idea as we've seen.

The looting thieves like the anarchists during the George Floyd riots are total antisocial morons and took glee in destroying their cities and cost everyone including themselves (taxpayers) a lot of money. The anarchists who created CHAZ/CHOP are also antisocial morons who had no right to commandeer public and private property without the consent of the people, which makes those anarchists tyrants.
#15258121
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so you're pointing to the *arbitrariness* and open-sky / 'top-of-the-world' quality of global bourgeois international relations.

I've said as-much *myself*, in occasionally referring to global geopolitics as being 'playground politics' -- again, the *arbitrariness* of it all.

What do you think the 'UN population', or 'UN staff', should *do* about this outstanding arbitrariness -- ? In what way(s) should the 'international community' *be* organized -- ?

That's an extremely difficult question to answer. I really don't know. They tried to solve the issue with the UN and various international organizations like the WTO to bring law to the lawless international realm. It's very imperfect, but maybe better than nothing.

The UN could maybe work, it just need to be redesigned, and have real teeth for countries that break the law. The EU is kind of a regional model, but may have gone beyond its original mandate.

If you want peace in the world you need collective security: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_security

What should happen in the case of Ukraine is that if any country breaks international law and attacks another then all other countries in the world come to their defense. So every country should be equally fighting to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. No country can win a war vs the entire world, so they would never try. This was the idea of the UNSC, but it's a flawed organization with the vetos. Russia and others can veto anything.

Also, international law should be minimal, because central control can be dangerous and overreach. You call me a statist but I believe in local self-determination where possible and reasonable, even within countries.
#15258122
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.

But there was no "American government" to create or regulate any law between indigenous nations pre-Columbus. That means any indigenous nation could invade or steal territory from any other nation if it was powerful enough. Might makes right because anything goes. Anarchy means "might makes right".

Which is why the USA can get away with a lot of mischief against less powerful countries. Who is going to stop them, or will anyone care enough to try? In anarchy, would you risk your life to save your neighbour?

Yes, but *applied science* is not MORE science,[…]

I told you how bad planning is. Now you propose[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

What is the state of that bridge? Full repaired? […]

@QatzelOk , your "what if" questions ar[…]