Do we need government?

[Kincoboh]

See part of me says no, because I believe it's possible to function without a government.

However, some governments have done good with law enforcement, welfare and healthcare so until we can prove to live without it, chances are they will continue to exist.

Can we have all those things without a state?

[Atlanticatia]

Yes. In my opinion, there is a need for government for things like health, education, social welfare/social insurance, defence, market regulation, worker protection, stabilizing the economy, etc

[The Cobalt Sky]

Yes. In my opinion, there is a need for government for things like health, education, social welfare/social insurance, defence, market regulation, worker protection, stabilizing the economy, etc

I believe I agree.

And also, I don't like the idea of anarchy. Who will I call when someone has tried to kill me or my family or friends or anyone else?

[Skinia]

History disagrees with you. So I think you're the stupid one here and not the question.

Not learning very quickly, I see. *** 1day ban for flaming again ***

Uhhuh, I seem to be able to return. Jolly good. I'll be a nice little boy from now on.

[Apparatchikstan]

Once two or more family groups enter each others orbit, then some level of politicking becomes necessary. To facilitate the fulfillment of large scale goals, say putting man on the moon, or conducting continent wide wars against atrocious ideologies, proportionate scale cooperation is necessary. However, to insure a just society, the organism of government should be organic and predicated on free association. And of course, to avoid complete dystopia, a government should never be viewed as the only or dominant means or mechanism for community improvement.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Once two or more family groups enter each others orbit, then some level of politicking becomes necessary. To facilitate the fulfillment of large scale goals, say putting man on the moon, or conducting continent wide wars against atrocious ideologies, proportionate scale cooperation is necessary. However, to insure a just society, the organism of government should be organic and predicated on free association. And of course, to avoid complete dystopia, a government should never be viewed as the only or dominant means or mechanism for community improvement.

Source.

Which is why I am of the notion that there are three institutions competing for one another while contributing to the individual's development, viz. the Church, the State, and the Home.

[Kincoboh]

Once two or more family groups enter each others orbit, then some level of politicking becomes necessary. To facilitate the fulfillment of large scale goals, say putting man on the moon, or conducting continent wide wars against atrocious ideologies, proportionate scale cooperation is necessary. However, to insure a just society, the organism of government should be organic and predicated on free association. And of course, to avoid complete dystopia, a government should never be viewed as the only or dominant means or mechanism for community improvement.

Source.

Which is why I am of the notion that there are three institutions competing for one another while contributing to the individual's development, viz. the Church, the State, and the Home.

I feel like there are many more institutions than just those three.

[Twilight Imperium]

Which is why I am of the notion that there are three institutions competing for one another while contributing to the individual's development, viz. the Church, the State, and the Home.

Do people actually believe that? Madison Avenue will be absolutely inconsolable that they were left out.

[Socialist Tera]

Stateless=/= Governmentless.
In communism there is still a government, I just believe there needs to be a state in socialism.

[Syndicapolis]

The ultimate difference would be that Communism demands a transitional period. Also, I don't think transactions and sales of goods are banned in an anarchist society. Which is technically lawless.

Transactions aren't banned in anarchy. They're not banned in communism either, so I don't really know what you're talking about. And no, anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness, be it 'technically' or 'theoretically' or in any way.

Commodity production and exchange will not exist in communism because capital will not exist in communism because exploitation, by definition, cannot exist in communism. The postulation that goods and services will still be bought and sold in communism is Proudhonite nonsense. I see your problem with the notion of the banning of buying and selling, since communism will abolish all the processes and institutions it aims to abolish by rendering them obsolete, not decreeing that anyone who attempts to make a transaction is an "enemy of the state," but that's really just semantics.

I agree that "anarchy leads to communism, and communism to anarchy," but not that communism is inherently anarchist. Marxists want the proletariat to utilise state power and form a transient state that will wither away, rather than being abolished. Some Marxists want a minority party to run this state in a centralised manner. I wouldn't call that anarchist, but it is communist.

[Syndicapolis]

Stateless=/= Governmentless.
In communism there is still a government, I just believe there needs to be a state in socialism.

Do you mean during the dictatorship of the proletariat? Because socialism = communism.

[Socialist Tera]

Stateless=/= Governmentless.
In communism there is still a government, I just believe there needs to be a state in socialism.

Do you mean during the dictatorship of the proletariat? Because socialism = communism.

The state is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was angry when the Paris Commune did not establish a state.
http://www.academia.edu/788494/Commune_ ... ne_of_1871

[Simic Gruul]

Many animals have their own individual or collective territories. The bear marks its boundaries to claim the land as its own, and discourage rival bears from using the resources for food and water.

That's not really a concept of property, as a stronger indvidual or group could merely assert themselves over said resources. With property rights, other are bound to respect your property and you're entitled to remuneration if they steal or destroy it.

But that is the exact definition of property, the goverment in this case only acts as a binding force to protect those who can not protect themselfs and by extension their property. The concept of property existed as soon as we were able to recongize one object from a similar object and could make the choice to keep it, or protect it.

[Skinia]

Transactions aren't banned in anarchy. They're not banned in communism either, so I don't really know what you're talking about. And no, anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness, be it 'technically' or 'theoretically' or in any way.

Commodity production and exchange will not exist in communism because capital will not exist in communism because exploitation, by definition, cannot exist in communism. The postulation that goods and services will still be bought and sold in communism is Proudhonite nonsense. I see your problem with the notion of the banning of buying and selling, since communism will abolish all the processes and institutions it aims to abolish by rendering them obsolete, not decreeing that anyone who attempts to make a transaction is an "enemy of the state," but that's really just semantics.

I agree that "anarchy leads to communism, and communism to anarchy," but not that communism is inherently anarchist. Marxists want the proletariat to utilise state power and form a transient state that will wither away, rather than being abolished. Some Marxists want a minority party to run this state in a centralised manner. I wouldn't call that anarchist, but it is communist.

Commodity production and exchange exists in communism through non-exploitative or non-capitalist forms of production (social ownership and workplace democracy) and voluntary transactions through barter and gift economies. Barter is a thing in communism. Whatever marxist dogma you've assumed doesn't really make sense.

Communism is anarchist by definition. A classless, stateless (which already make anarchism) and moneyless society based on the principle "from each depending on their ability, to each depending on their need".

[Syndicapolis]

Commodity production and exchange will not exist in communism because capital will not exist in communism because exploitation, by definition, cannot exist in communism. The postulation that goods and services will still be bought and sold in communism is Proudhonite nonsense. I see your problem with the notion of the banning of buying and selling, since communism will abolish all the processes and institutions it aims to abolish by rendering them obsolete, not decreeing that anyone who attempts to make a transaction is an "enemy of the state," but that's really just semantics.

I agree that "anarchy leads to communism, and communism to anarchy," but not that communism is inherently anarchist. Marxists want the proletariat to utilise state power and form a transient state that will wither away, rather than being abolished. Some Marxists want a minority party to run this state in a centralised manner. I wouldn't call that anarchist, but it is communist.

Commodity production and exchange exists in communism through non-exploitative or non-capitalist forms of production (social ownership and workplace democracy) and voluntary transactions through barter and gift economies. Barter is a thing in communism. Whatever marxist dogma you've assumed doesn't really make sense.

Commodity production is production for a market, and barter is not a market. You don't think markets will exist in socialism, do you?

Communism is anarchist by definition. A classless, stateless (which already make anarchism) and moneyless society based on the principle "from each depending on their ability, to each depending on their need".

The end result of a communist revolution is stateless and classless, but what separates anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism from tendencies of communism that are not anarchist is the fact that the former are state-abolitionist and the latter want the state to wither away after the material conditions that gave rise to it are abolished and the need for a source of coercion to suppress counterrevolution no longer exists. Communism isn't necessarily state-abolitionist.

Do you mean during the dictatorship of the proletariat? Because socialism = communism.

The state is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was angry when the Paris Commune did not establish a state.
http://www.academia.edu/788494/Commune_ ... ne_of_1871

Sorry, that was badly phrased - I meant "the period of the DOTP." That is, the economic period corresponding to the phase of proletarian class rule. What I was getting at was that the state has already withered away by the time socialism/communism has been achieved.

I agree with Marx on the Paris Commune, by the way. I'm not an anarchist.

[Sociomarketist Yugoslavia]

Our lives are certainly better for having it. It's unfortunate that you incorrectly identify it as synonymous with the state however, which our lives would be better without.

What the heck is the difference between the two? Not calling you stupid, just asking...

[Skinia]

Commodity production and exchange exists in communism through non-exploitative or non-capitalist forms of production (social ownership and workplace democracy) and voluntary transactions through barter and gift economies. Barter is a thing in communism. Whatever marxist dogma you've assumed doesn't really make sense.

Commodity production is production for a market, and barter is not a market. You don't think markets will exist in socialism, do you?

Why not?

[Fanosolia]

See part of me says no, because I believe it's possible to function without a government.

However, some governments have done good with law enforcement, welfare and healthcare so until we can prove to live without it, chances are they will continue to exist.

Can we have all those things without a state?

well... I think it's possible without what we call a state currently. I like to think in possibilities and scenarios so if things played out differently, maybe. I believe that something of a state would be created, but like in a mutual understanding. So like collectivism, or like star trek, because people assume roles because of a personal sense duty or they want to do it.

This is me being an idealist and saying "what if scenarios". This is why though I criticize libertarianism and anarchy, I would like to see if we could make it work somehow. As an experiment more than anything, or possibly even a collective mindset change.

[Syndicapolis]

Commodity production is production for a market, and barter is not a market. You don't think markets will exist in socialism, do you?

Why not?

For some reason I assumed you were an ancom. I think it's your flag. Don't mutualists etc use orange and black rather than red and black?

Anyway, markets. My problem with markets is that since they can be defined as the realisation of exchange-values and thus the means by which the M-C-M' process occurs, they also perpetuate the existence of capital. Not only does capital not exist by definition in a socialism, but it causes exploitation, so I don't know why any socialist would want it to exist.

[Fortschritte]

Our lives are certainly better for having it. It's unfortunate that you incorrectly identify it as synonymous with the state however, which our lives would be better without.

What the heck is the difference between the two? Not calling you stupid, just asking...

I'm not an anarchist, but there are differences. A state is an organized and institutional political community with a territory and various organized governments. A government is a organization or group of people that has the power to make laws. Many anarchists believe that forms of government can exist under anarchism, since groups of individuals making laws doesn't directly go against anarchist principles.