Anarchism Discussion Thread

[Kubra]

I often eat pickles because they are a low carbohydrate food, due to my diabetes I cannot safely consume high carb food in-between meals. However these meals are not sporadic because the state intervenes and lowers the price of insulin for me.

the salt tho
for my part sodium is one thing in my diet that I don't watch that much (cuz it's IMPOSSIBLE) but still pickles are really salty aren't they

[A man is no one]

Do any Anarchists here have some sort of moral justification for their beliefs?

Yeah, very much so. I trace my entire ideology back to morality.

[Meryuma]

Market anarchists are obviously anarchists. Capitalists are not market anarchists, though. Rothbard showed occasional anarchist leanings but in general he supported a very authoritarian social structure unabashedly. I can source this if need be.

Please do.

4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

source (note also his apologism for a former KKK leader)

We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

source

Rothbard flirted with anarchism for a time and would sometimes refer to his ideology as "anarcho-capitalism" but in the end he was basically an extreme free-market paleoconservative.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Im sure someone already pointed it out, but just in case they didn't, they left out "free-market" on the poll thing.

Market anarchism fits into several of the categories. As a mutualist, I am entirely fine with a market.

First one to say that Free-Market Anarchists are not Anarchists agrees to forever suck Satan’s scaly, flaming, dong in hell.

FOREVER.

No one says that. There's nothing non-anarchist about a free market.

Capitalism, however, is obviously incompatible with anarchism.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Im sure someone already pointed it out, but just in case they didn't, they left out "free-market" on the poll thing.

First one to say that Free-Market Anarchists are not Anarchists agrees to forever suck Satan’s scaly, flaming, dong in hell.

FOREVER.

2spooky4me

*Stirner's ghost hovers overhead*

this is oddly ironic

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Is it okay to derail the thread since there's no organized government that makes rules against it?

Yes.

Actually, we have this thing called the Moderation Team that would have something to say about that.

[Conscentia]

Then what do you mean by "large population"? The US has a large population because that's how the borders are defined. If there's no state, the question is a bit incoherent without further specification.

Large enough that it ceases to be feasible to be acquainted with everyone in one's population. Dense enough that individuals in the population would be likely to interact with strangers on a daily basis. Although, perhaps a lower density population that migrates and mixes a lot might also qualify. I feel like the regular direct interaction with strangers is more important than a specific density threshold - the individuals need to interact enough to justify being considered a single population. I was thinking of densely populated areas like towns and cities when I wrote that.

[Meryuma]

I often eat pickles because they are a low carbohydrate food, due to my diabetes I cannot safely consume high carb food in-between meals. However these meals are not sporadic because the state intervenes and lowers the price of insulin for me.

You wouldn't have to pay for insulin in an anarchist society.

Then what do you mean by "large population"? The US has a large population because that's how the borders are defined. If there's no state, the question is a bit incoherent without further specification.

Large enough that it ceases to be feasible to be acquainted with everyone in one's population. Dense enough that individuals in the population would be likely to interact with strangers on a daily basis. Although, perhaps a lower density population that migrates and mixes a lot might also qualify. I feel like the regular direct interaction with strangers is more important than a specific density threshold - the individuals need to interact enough to justify being considered a single population. I was thinking of densely populated areas like towns and cities when I wrote that.

I picture a lot of neighborhood-level assemblies that could choose delegates by consensus for city-wide meetings.

[Maqo]

I picture a lot of neighborhood-level assemblies that could choose delegates by consensus for city-wide meetings.

Now this is the thing I don't 'get'.
We already have this structure : its called representative democracy.

But say I live in an anarchist community that has this structure. My community elects a delegate. I voted against the winner. Actually say I don't vote at all because I don't recognize the legitimacy of the system. How and why do his decisions on the council have any authority over me? What stops me from acting directly in opposition to the decisions the council makes? (Apart from tyranny of the majority aka mob rule?)

Apart from that, IMO the 'localized community' model really doesn't represent current societal structure anymore. I know my neighbours, but go 4 doors down and I doubt I've ever seen those people. I pass a hundred people a day that I've possibly seen before but never interacted with: at work i interact with a hundred people a day that I don't know their name or what community they belong to. Just within this one ROOM at work , I work with people I've never talked to, and within our complex there would be enough people to fill 10 anarchist communities. I vote in my local elections for people I've never seen/met /heard of, but only because voting in compulsory for me.. I have no idea how you would expect nearly the entire population to participate I the democratic process to elect 'totally non hierarchical' leaders, expect people to listen to /obey those leaders, with anything even approaching the efficiency we enjoy today.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I picture a lot of neighborhood-level assemblies that could choose delegates by consensus for city-wide meetings.

Now this is the thing I don't 'get'.
We already have this structure : its called representative democracy.

But say I live in an anarchist community that has this structure. My community elects a delegate. I voted against the winner. Actually say I don't vote at all because I don't recognize the legitimacy of the system. How and why do his decisions on the council have any authority over me? What stops me from acting directly in opposition to the decisions the council makes? (Apart from tyranny of the majority aka mob rule?)

Apart from that, IMO the 'localized community' model really doesn't represent current societal structure anymore. I know my neighbours, but go 4 doors down and I doubt I've ever seen those people. I pass a hundred people a day that I've possibly seen before but never interacted with: at work i interact with a hundred people a day that I don't know their name or what community they belong to. Just within this one ROOM at work , I work with people I've never talked to, and within our complex there would be enough people to fill 10 anarchist communities. I vote in my local elections for people I've never seen/met /heard of, but only because voting in compulsory for me.. I have no idea how you would expect nearly the entire population to participate I the democratic process to elect 'totally non hierarchical' leaders, expect people to listen to /obey those leaders, with anything even approaching the efficiency we enjoy today.

I'm not a fan of the model. Or any sort of "official" societal "leadership."

[Tafhan]

Based on the emphasis on some sort of social structure/governance most of the types of Anarchists have, it seems to me like these are just types of libertarians.

[Sociobiology]

I often eat pickles because they are a low carbohydrate food, due to my diabetes I cannot safely consume high carb food in-between meals. However these meals are not sporadic because the state intervenes and lowers the price of insulin for me.

You wouldn't have to pay for insulin in an anarchist society.

because you won't have manufactured insulin

[Sociobiology]

Large enough that it ceases to be feasible to be acquainted with everyone in one's population. Dense enough that individuals in the population would be likely to interact with strangers on a daily basis. Although, perhaps a lower density population that migrates and mixes a lot might also qualify. I feel like the regular direct interaction with strangers is more important than a specific density threshold - the individuals need to interact enough to justify being considered a single population. I was thinking of densely populated areas like towns and cities when I wrote that.

I picture a lot of neighborhood-level assemblies that could choose delegates by consensus for city-wide meetings.

and that would be a state, in fact it is a pretty good description of how town councils and most state governments work now.

[Cyrisnia]

Does anyone prefer the longer way (brining/fermenting) or shorter way (boiling a mixture with vinegar in it and pouring it over thinly sliced foodstuffs and letting it chill) for making pickles?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Based on the emphasis on some sort of social structure/governance most of the types of Anarchists have, it seems to me like these are just types of libertarians.

Many anarchists also/alternately identify as libertarian socialists. It's an overlapping demonym.

Thing is, the most visible/common self-identified "libertarians" are unabashed capitalists and have no problem with the existence of the State as a concept. So.

[Cyrisnia]

Based on the emphasis on some sort of social structure/governance most of the types of Anarchists have, it seems to me like these are just types of libertarians.

Many anarchists also/alternately identify as libertarian socialists. It's an overlapping demonym.

Thing is, the most visible/common self-identified "libertarians" are unabashed capitalists and have no problem with the existence of the State as a concept. So.

....so...?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Many anarchists also/alternately identify as libertarian socialists. It's an overlapping demonym.

Thing is, the most visible/common self-identified "libertarians" are unabashed capitalists and have no problem with the existence of the State as a concept. So.

....so...?

So, I don't think it's fair or accurate to say "you're not anarchists you're just libertarians" in a modern-day context.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You wouldn't have to pay for insulin in an anarchist society.

because you won't have manufactured insulin

Because businesses and factories just can't manage with happy and enfranchised workers.

[Sociobiology]

because you won't have manufactured insulin

Because businesses and factories just can't manage with happy and enfranchised workers.

because you can't support genetic engineering if you only have a population of a few thousand.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because businesses and factories just can't manage with happy and enfranchised workers.

because you can't support genetic engineering if you only have a population of a few thousand.

We're going to suddenly kill off most of the world population now, are we? Man, you must know a lot more about anarchism than me or any other anarchist ever, because you're coming up with some new stuff here.

[Sociobiology]

because you can't support genetic engineering if you only have a population of a few thousand.

We're going to suddenly kill off most of the world population now, are we? Man, you must know a lot more about anarchism than me or any other anarchist ever, because you're coming up with some new stuff here.

you are if you plan on giving up laws not everyone agrees with enforced by specialists.

you can have large populations and rules enforced by specialists (states), or you can have small populations and rules enforced without specialists.

so unless you are defining anarchism in such a way that states can also be anarchists (in which case you aren't using the definition most use and you need to define it) you are pushing for much smaller communities.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

We're going to suddenly kill off most of the world population now, are we? Man, you must know a lot more about anarchism than me or any other anarchist ever, because you're coming up with some new stuff here.

you are if you plan on giving up laws not everyone agrees with enforced by specialists.

you can have large populations and rules enforced by specialists (states), or you can have small populations and rules enforced without specialists.

so unless you are defining anarchism in such a way that states can also be anarchists (in which case you aren't using the definition most use and you need to define it) you are pushing for much smaller communities.

I don't see an explanation here for why more than seven billion people are going to die if one community rejects statist governance.

[Sociobiology]

you are if you plan on giving up laws not everyone agrees with enforced by specialists.

you can have large populations and rules enforced by specialists (states), or you can have small populations and rules enforced without specialists.

so unless you are defining anarchism in such a way that states can also be anarchists (in which case you aren't using the definition most use and you need to define it) you are pushing for much smaller communities.

I don't see an explanation here for why more than seven billion people are going to die if one community rejects statist governance.

what would the world population have to do with one community?
If you are talking about a community that is part of a larger state then its not an anarchy, if its not part of a larger state, it won't have the production base to buy insulin much less make it, just like very small societies now.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I don't see an explanation here for why more than seven billion people are going to die if one community rejects statist governance.

what would the world population have to do with one community?
If you are talking about a community that is part of a larger state then its not an anarchy, if its not part of a larger state, it won't have the production base to buy insulin much less make it, just like very small societies now.

Members of an anarchist community are not allowed to travel?

[Sociobiology]

what would the world population have to do with one community?
If you are talking about a community that is part of a larger state then its not an anarchy, if its not part of a larger state, it won't have the production base to buy insulin much less make it, just like very small societies now.

Members of an anarchist community are not allowed to travel?

when did I say that?