The Ancap-Ancom Divide.

[Ripoll]

Anarchism wont work

/thread

Off topic, irrelevant, and completely unsubstantiated.

May I interest you in some food for thought???

https://libertariangaming.org/?p=1939

I dismiss it the same way rational people dismiss socialism and communism. Ideological president over practicality is normally a bad idea, and any idea based off of a Utopian view point is a formula for paralysis. No central bank + no established currency + absence of military = disaster. There's a lot of good reasons the state exists and we're better off for it.

As for the topic, no not at all while they both advocate for one common goal they have entirely different view points about how a society would exist, though I would still argue both their world views would not exist, and if they did they would rapidly be done with and states would begin to form again.

[Anarkhist Kyrylashka]

How would AnCom work???
Communism = State owned economy
Anarchism = No State...

The Ride Never Ends, does it?

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

You've just explained "Free Economy" and "Planned Economy".

No, a "free economy" is no more free than any other economic system enforced violently. Stating "free" and "planned" are labels made to make capitalism look free and libertarian, despite being an hierarchical system almost always enforced through threats of violence.

Just because they're (what you're considering) misleading titles, doesn't make it any less wrong as to what it actually is.

[Kainesia]

Alright the mods are circling looking for prey so ima clear off since I cannot comment without pointing out the obvious flaws of anarchism.

Bye.

[Nord Amour]

Both ideologies are equally flawed.

[Anarkhist Kyrylashka]

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. I now know that as fact.

[Fanosolia]

To my understanding it could just be a wanting to right for how an anarchist not-really-a-state-so-area(?) should be run economically wise, but this is an outsider talking.

I'm not appealing to tradition. There's many more... logical political ideologies that haven't been tried, or set into motion.

there's stuff we haven't tried? like technocracy right?

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

To my understanding it could just be a wanting to right for how an anarchist not-really-a-state-so-area(?) should be run economically wise, but this is an outsider talking.

I'm not appealing to tradition. There's many more... logical political ideologies that haven't been tried, or set into motion.

there's stuff we haven't tried? like technocracy right?

I'm sure we haven't tried all of this.

[Skeckoa]

Social Anarchists see capitalism as coercive due to its exclusive nature as an economic system. Where mutualism, collectivism, syndicalism, communism and primitivism can coexist, capitalists generally speaking are unwilling to do so, outside of the NSG Ancap Community. If capitalism is the only system that can exist, it is, by it's existence, coercive.

Capitalists are the one who don't want to coexist?

As far as Ancaps go, there is nothing wrong with communes, co-ops, pooled collectively managed resources, democratically ran workplaces.

As far as Ancoms go, offering a $1.75/hr job making clothes with my sewing machine to a hungry person is coercive and should not be the case whereas ancaps do not. I'm not talking about anarchists at large, but specifically anarcho_communists. Not the mutualists, not anyone else.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

To my understanding it could just be a wanting to right for how an anarchist not-really-a-state-so-area(?) should be run economically wise, but this is an outsider talking.

I'm not appealing to tradition. There's many more... logical political ideologies that haven't been tried, or set into motion.

there's stuff we haven't tried? like technocracy right?

But see, as a whole, most anarchists disagree with coercion. All things should be voluntary. Therefore, communes, market communties etc. Should all be allowed.

However, certain elements of the anarchist movement refuse to believe that other economic systems can coexist with theirs, even though it should be perfectly rational.

Really, it is just others trying to force their views on others, which is primarily accomplished through the state.

[Ripoll]

To my understanding it could just be a wanting to right for how an anarchist not-really-a-state-so-area(?) should be run economically wise, but this is an outsider talking.



there's stuff we haven't tried? like technocracy right?

But see, as a whole, most anarchists disagree with coercion. All things should be voluntary. Therefore, communes, market communties etc. Should all be allowed.

However, certain elements of the anarchist movement refuse to believe that other economic systems can coexist with theirs, even though it should be perfectly rational.

Really, it is just others trying to force their views on others, which is primarily accomplished through the state.

No, it's rational. How can private ownership of the means of production go hand in hand with communal ownership and democratic work places? Who owns the workers, and what entity embodies the capital?

And aren't there some crazy anarchists who want to get rid of money altogether?

[Greed and Death]

Catalonia was never anarchist. There were Anarchists in the Catalan government, a choice between what they considered the lesser of two evils, the State or the State Run By Franco.

There were de facto anarchist territories of Catalonia.

Detroit is pretty much anarchist territory once you get out of downtown.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

But see, as a whole, most anarchists disagree with coercion. All things should be voluntary. Therefore, communes, market communties etc. Should all be allowed.

However, certain elements of the anarchist movement refuse to believe that other economic systems can coexist with theirs, even though it should be perfectly rational.

Really, it is just others trying to force their views on others, which is primarily accomplished through the state.

No, it's rational. How can private ownership of the means of production go hand in hand with communal ownership and democratic work places? Who owns the workers, and what entity embodies the capital?

And aren't there some crazy anarchists who want to get rid of money altogether?

It will depend upon the community you live in. Some will be communes, others markets

Or you could live in the wilderness and not deal with people. Your call.

Also, money that is run by FIAT would be abolished. Crypto currencies, precious metals, ammunition, drugs, and other valuable goods would replace it.

Also: NO ONE OWNS WORKERS OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.

the worker would work in a job market, or in a commune. Whatever they want

[Fanosolia]

To my understanding it could just be a wanting to right for how an anarchist not-really-a-state-so-area(?) should be run economically wise, but this is an outsider talking.



there's stuff we haven't tried? like technocracy right?

But see, as a whole, most anarchists disagree with coercion. All things should be voluntary. Therefore, communes, market communties etc. Should all be allowed.

However, certain elements of the anarchist movement refuse to believe that other economic systems can coexist with theirs, even though it should be perfectly rational.

Really, it is just others trying to force their views on others, which is primarily accomplished through the state.

Perhaps it might also have to do with a concern of harmony? more so the styling of a more bartering/get-what-you-work-for society* vs one based on capital.

(*best way I could define a communist society with my understanding because I do not misusing terms i'm not 100% sure on like commune)

[Conglomerate of Iron]

But see, as a whole, most anarchists disagree with coercion. All things should be voluntary. Therefore, communes, market communties etc. Should all be allowed.

However, certain elements of the anarchist movement refuse to believe that other economic systems can coexist with theirs, even though it should be perfectly rational.

Really, it is just others trying to force their views on others, which is primarily accomplished through the state.

Perhaps it might also have to do with a concern of harmony? more so the styling of a more bartering/get-what-you-work-for society* vs one based on capital.

(*best way I could define a communist society with my understanding because I do not misusing terms i'm not 100% sure on like commune)

I do not understand your concern. Please elaborate.

[Threlizdun]

There's nothing to unite over. "Anarcho-capitalists" support authoritarian, hierarchal societies and utilize tactics counter to our interests. They aren't anarchists and we share no common ground with them accept for opposition to the state. Yes, anarchists should unify, but this naturally doesn't concern those who aren't anarchists.

[Fanosolia]

Perhaps it might also have to do with a concern of harmony? more so the styling of a more bartering/get-what-you-work-for society* vs one based on capital.

(*best way I could define a communist society with my understanding because I do not misusing terms i'm not 100% sure on like commune)

I do not understand your concern. Please elaborate.

Well say you have a village that focused on you put work into the town to say have place to sleep for your rent and such, money does the exist in this village (an extreme example, yes) and someone was hoping to trade from one capitalist village of markets. How would those two do business/trade? Would there be an exchange rate?

[Atlanticatia]

I think the biggest issue with anarchism is..

what do we do about climate change and public health?

Sometimes we might need to do things like regulate emissions from cars, place a price on carbon, ban carbon or deep sea oil drilling, ban incandescent light bulbs, regulate pollution, have the state invest in renewable energy, etc etc. Climate change is the huge threat..we can't afford to have no State when we need to do something to combat climate change.

Another issue is public health. What if we never placed taxes and minimum prices on cigarettes, or banned smoking in public places? There have been huge declines in smoking rates because of actions by governments. An ancap, or ancom, society isn't going to mandate plain packaging of cigarettes or force up the price of cigarettes.
Take vaccinations for example, as that's currently a big problem, where anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate kids. The state might have to make vaccinating kids compulsory if they want to start school; we don't have time to be whining about "muh freedomz", when kids might die from measles because some parents don't want to vaccinate their kids because of a 'personal belief'.

That's, in my opinion, the biggest issue. Things that we don't really have the ability to just ignore and leave it up to voluntarism. Sometimes we need coercion if it is necessary to protect the rights of others (i.e. right to life), the environment, etc.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

There's nothing to unite over. "Anarcho-capitalists" support authoritarian, hierarchal societies and utilize tactics counter to our interests. They aren't anarchists and we share no common ground with them accept for opposition to the state. Yes, anarchists should unify, but this naturally doesn't concern those who aren't anarchists.

I apologize, but how exactly does a free market community support hierarchy?

Lets say I leave your community, gather a sufficient number of like minded people, and settle a voluntaryist town. What stops me from doing that in your anarchist land?

I do not understand your concern. Please elaborate.

Well say you have a village that focused on you put work into the town to say have place to sleep for your rent and such, money does the exist in this village (an extreme example, yes) and someone was hoping to trade from one capitalist village of markets. How would those two do business/trade? Would there be an exchange rate?

Goods would be traded. I want a gallon of gasoline, so you give me a bottle of whiskey, that sort of thing.

People dont need money for trade.

[Sibirsky]

Ancoms view capitalism as a bigger problem than the state and refuse to cooperate. They even made a nice little graphic to illustrate the point.

[Threlizdun]

I think the biggest issue with anarchism is..

what do we do about climate change and public health?

Sometimes we might need to do things like regulate emissions from cars, place a price on carbon, ban carbon or deep sea oil drilling, ban incandescent light bulbs, regulate pollution, have the state invest in renewable energy, etc etc. Climate change is the huge threat..we can't afford to have no State when we need to do something to combat climate change.

Another issue is public health. What if we never placed taxes and minimum prices on cigarettes, or banned smoking in public places? There have been huge declines in smoking rates because of actions by governments. An ancap, or ancom, society isn't going to mandate plain packaging of cigarettes or force up the price of cigarettes.
Take vaccinations for example, as that's currently a big problem, where anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate kids. The state might have to make vaccinating kids compulsory if they want to start school; we don't have time to be whining about "muh freedomz", when kids might die from measles because some parents don't want to vaccinate their kids because of a 'personal belief'.

That's, in my opinion, the biggest issue. Things that we don't really have the ability to just ignore and leave it up to voluntarism. Sometimes we need coercion if it is necessary to protect the rights of others (i.e. right to life), the environment, etc.

You speak as if anarchist societies wouldn't have government or laws. The fact that the state and social hierarchies would be abolished does not mean we would abolish all regulations. No, a free society must accept the necessity of using force when people harm others. Prohibiting public smoking and combatting climate change isn't an initiation of violence, but an act to prevent harm to others. Such actions aren't merely combustible with anarchist principles, they're mandated by them.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

I think the biggest issue with anarchism is..

what do we do about climate change and public health?

Sometimes we might need to do things like regulate emissions from cars, place a price on carbon, ban carbon or deep sea oil drilling, ban incandescent light bulbs, regulate pollution, have the state invest in renewable energy, etc etc. Climate change is the huge threat..we can't afford to have no State when we need to do something to combat climate change.

Another issue is public health. What if we never placed taxes and minimum prices on cigarettes, or banned smoking in public places? There have been huge declines in smoking rates because of actions by governments. An ancap, or ancom, society isn't going to mandate plain packaging of cigarettes or force up the price of cigarettes.
Take vaccinations for example, as that's currently a big problem, where anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate kids. The state might have to make vaccinating kids compulsory if they want to start school; we don't have time to be whining about "muh freedomz", when kids might die from measles because some parents don't want to vaccinate their kids because of a 'personal belief'.

That's, in my opinion, the biggest issue. Things that we don't really have the ability to just ignore and leave it up to voluntarism. Sometimes we need coercion if it is necessary to protect the rights of others (i.e. right to life), the environment, etc.

1) the environment would be protected through voluntary community led programs, or a free market.

Once peak oil hits, and oil prices skyrocket, green tech will be boosted massively.

2) i have a right to smoke WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT.

I ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO TO VACCCINES OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF BS THE GOVERNMENTWANTS TO PUT IN MY BODY.

so no, no government or person has a right to tell me what to do with my body. I have a right to my body.

[Atlanticatia]

I think the biggest issue with anarchism is..

what do we do about climate change and public health?

Sometimes we might need to do things like regulate emissions from cars, place a price on carbon, ban carbon or deep sea oil drilling, ban incandescent light bulbs, regulate pollution, have the state invest in renewable energy, etc etc. Climate change is the huge threat..we can't afford to have no State when we need to do something to combat climate change.

Another issue is public health. What if we never placed taxes and minimum prices on cigarettes, or banned smoking in public places? There have been huge declines in smoking rates because of actions by governments. An ancap, or ancom, society isn't going to mandate plain packaging of cigarettes or force up the price of cigarettes.
Take vaccinations for example, as that's currently a big problem, where anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate kids. The state might have to make vaccinating kids compulsory if they want to start school; we don't have time to be whining about "muh freedomz", when kids might die from measles because some parents don't want to vaccinate their kids because of a 'personal belief'.

That's, in my opinion, the biggest issue. Things that we don't really have the ability to just ignore and leave it up to voluntarism. Sometimes we need coercion if it is necessary to protect the rights of others (i.e. right to life), the environment, etc.

You speak as if anarchist societies wouldn't have government or laws. The fact that the state and social hierarchies would be abolished does not mean we would abolish all regulations. No, a free society must accept the necessity of using force when people harm others. Prohibiting public smoking and combatting climate change isn't an initiation of violence, but an act to prevent harm to others. Such actions aren't merely combustible with anarchist principles, they're mandated by them.

How would that work, though, without a state that has power to coerce?

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Ancoms view capitalism as a bigger problem than the state and refuse to cooperate. They even made a nice little graphic to illustrate the point.

(Image)

When I talk to Ancoms in person, they agree to work with me.

On the internet you get the extremist trolls and other ilk.

[Sibirsky]

I apologize, but how exactly does a free market community support hierarchy?

You hire me to do a job. You are my boss and above me in the hierarchy.

Compensating me for my time, and the fact that this is a voluntary, mutually beneficial arrangement is irrelevant. All bosses are like Hitler and Stalin rolled into one, and a much greater enemy than the state.