Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Liberalter]

So I guess there is a difference between a field used to feed yourself versus a field used to make profit. Private and personal private property aren't defined by the actual physicality of an object or land, but its usage.

Plus, one of them only works if it's enforced by the state.

Actually no. Propertarians hate government, and wish to abolish all means of governing. As an anarchist I want a government, but not a state.

[United Muscovite Nations]

In fairy land they are.

In reality, the difference between a field I grow to feed myself and a field I grow to charge others to use is non. The field doesn't change, but my use of the field does. The Communist would have to bar any use of property not specifically distinguished as personal as illegal. And who makes those classifications but what I assume would be a top down Communist government in order to enforce such a law?

You fail to realize that a 'communist' government doesn't actually exist. The USSR were a 'transition state' to communism, but the state itself wasn't communist. A communist society is stateless.

As for you're big deal on private property, you fail to realize that property rights can only exist if a government is there to enforce them.

State =/= government in the Marxist sense. In Marxism, a state is an apparatus that enforces class rule. Monopoly on force or lack thereof does not make something a state in Marxist theory.

[Catochristoferson]

You fail to realize that a 'communist' government doesn't actually exist. The USSR were a 'transition state' to communism, but the state itself wasn't communist. A communist society is stateless.

As for you're big deal on private property, you fail to realize that property rights can only exist if a government is there to enforce them.

State =/= government in the Marxist sense. In Marxism, a state is an apparatus that enforces class rule. Monopoly on force or lack thereof does not make something a state in Marxist theory.

I'm using the Weberian definition of government.

[United Muscovite Nations]

State =/= government in the Marxist sense. In Marxism, a state is an apparatus that enforces class rule. Monopoly on force or lack thereof does not make something a state in Marxist theory.

I'm using the Weberian definition of government.

Yes, but that doesn't apply to Marxist theory. It's perfectly possible for a communist society to have a monopoly on violence in the Marxist perspective. The USSR wasn't stateless because it enforced the rule of a class structure (nominally the Proletariat), not because it had a government.

[Catochristoferson]

I'm using the Weberian definition of government.

Yes, but that doesn't apply to Marxist theory. It's perfectly possible for a communist society to have a monopoly on violence in the Marxist perspective. The USSR wasn't stateless because it enforced the rule of a class structure (nominally the Proletariat), not because it had a government.

I was pointing out that the USSR ideologically wasn't communist in the Marxist sense. The private property thing was a bit different as I wasn't using Marxist definitions to back that up.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, but that doesn't apply to Marxist theory. It's perfectly possible for a communist society to have a monopoly on violence in the Marxist perspective. The USSR wasn't stateless because it enforced the rule of a class structure (nominally the Proletariat), not because it had a government.

I was pointing out that the USSR ideologically wasn't communist in the Marxist sense. The private property thing was a bit different as I wasn't using Marxist definitions to back that up.

You weren't really using Marxist definitions to back up your point against the Soviet Union either, though. You said that a communist government can't exist, and that's just not true.

[Catochristoferson]

I was pointing out that the USSR ideologically wasn't communist in the Marxist sense. The private property thing was a bit different as I wasn't using Marxist definitions to back that up.

You weren't really using Marxist definitions to back up your point against the Soviet Union either, though. You said that a communist government can't exist, and that's just not true.

According to Marxism a communist society is stateless. Marxism may suggest a transition state to a communist society, but the transition state isn't communist itself.

Most Marxists would call these transition states "Socialist".

[United Muscovite Nations]

You weren't really using Marxist definitions to back up your point against the Soviet Union either, though. You said that a communist government can't exist, and that's just not true.

According to Marxism a communist society is stateless. Marxism may suggest a transition state to a communist society, but the transition state isn't communist itself.

Most Marxists would call these transition states "Socialist".

I am aware of that, but a stateless society isn't one without a government.

The Weberian and Marxist definitions aren't the same.

The USSR wasn't communist because it maintained a system of class rule. Had it not, then it would have not been a state, while still maintaining the monopoly on the use of force.

[Grenartia]

Plus, one of them only works if it's enforced by the state.

Actually no. Propertarians hate government, and wish to abolish all means of governing. As an anarchist I want a government, but not a state.

I've never gotten a good answer from anarchists about what the difference between a government and a state is, other than they want one and hate the other.

[Uiiop]

Actually no. Propertarians hate government, and wish to abolish all means of governing. As an anarchist I want a government, but not a state.

I've never gotten a good answer from anarchists about what the difference between a government and a state is, other than they want one and hate the other.

Would the arbitrariness of the hierarchy be a good answer?

[Grenartia]

I've never gotten a good answer from anarchists about what the difference between a government and a state is, other than they want one and hate the other.

Would the arbitrariness of the hierarchy be a good answer?

Can you elaborate?

[Uiiop]

Would the arbitrariness of the hierarchy be a good answer?

Can you elaborate?

I'm not actually a Anarchist but IIRC there's a school of thought that says that only "Arbitrary" Hierarchies should be removed and all what's still necessary can stay.
While there still some holes in that thought that's is a way to make a distinction between "Government and "state" even if others don't make that distinction.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Can you elaborate?

I'm not actually a Anarchist but IIRC there's a school of thought that says that only "Arbitrary" Hierarchies should be removed and all what's still necessary can stay.
While there still some holes in that thought that's is a way to make a distinction between "Government and "state" even if others don't make that distinction.

But how does one distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary hierarchies?

[Grenartia]

I'm not actually a Anarchist but IIRC there's a school of thought that says that only "Arbitrary" Hierarchies should be removed and all what's still necessary can stay.
While there still some holes in that thought that's is a way to make a distinction between "Government and "state" even if others don't make that distinction.

But how does one distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary hierarchies?

My thoughts exactly.

[Uiiop]

I'm not actually a Anarchist but IIRC there's a school of thought that says that only "Arbitrary" Hierarchies should be removed and all what's still necessary can stay.
While there still some holes in that thought that's is a way to make a distinction between "Government and "state" even if others don't make that distinction.

But how does one distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary hierarchies?

*Shrugs* I suppose whatever is the least amount of centralized force(or force in general more like) to do something would be non-arbitrary but that's always not a easy thing to figure out if that all.

[United Muscovite Nations]

But how does one distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary hierarchies?

*Shrugs* I suppose whatever is the least amount of centralized force(or force in general more like) to do something would be non-arbitrary but that's always not a easy thing to figure out if that all.

If that's the case, it sounds more like arbitrary in this case means "disliked".

[Grenartia]

*Shrugs* I suppose whatever is the least amount of centralized force(or force in general more like) to do something would be non-arbitrary but that's always not a easy thing to figure out if that all.

If that's the case, it sounds more like arbitrary in this case means "disliked".

I was going to say it sounded pretty damned arbitrary.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If that's the case, it sounds more like arbitrary in this case means "disliked".

I was going to say it sounded pretty damned arbitrary.

I agree. Moreover, it's pretty hard to say that an organized state is arbitrary, just based on what the word means.

[Jelmatt]

Can you elaborate?

I'm not actually a Anarchist but IIRC there's a school of thought that says that only "Arbitrary" Hierarchies should be removed and all what's still necessary can stay.
While there still some holes in that thought that's is a way to make a distinction between "Government and "state" even if others don't make that distinction.

I don't think you're thinking of anarchism. It sounds like you're thinking of modern civic republicanism.

TL;DR: a hierarchy (or rather, a control on action; it's a theory which has to do more with freedom and control than equality and hierarchy, though some level of egalitarianism is implied) is arbitrary to the extent that it's not subject to the rule of law and doesn't represent the interests of those it controls.

[Nazbol Pudding Club]

I'm not actually a Anarchist but IIRC there's a school of thought that says that only "Arbitrary" Hierarchies should be removed and all what's still necessary can stay.
While there still some holes in that thought that's is a way to make a distinction between "Government and "state" even if others don't make that distinction.

But how does one distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary hierarchies?

Hire the Ghostbusters (real ones, not the feminist ones) and see if things get S P O O K Y

[Major-Tom]

went to an anarchist bookstore here in montreal today. lmao such crunchy granola people running it. and a really sad looking neckbeard.

[Nazbol Pudding Club]

went to an anarchist bookstore here in montreal today. lmao such crunchy granola people running it. and a really sad looking neckbeard.

Probably just realised the Cookbook doesn't have a recipe for escaping the friendzone.

[Bakery Hill]

went to an anarchist bookstore here in montreal today. lmao such crunchy granola people running it. and a really sad looking neckbeard.

That's anarchism at the moment, unfortunately.

[Democratic Mongol Popular State]

went to an anarchist bookstore here in montreal today. lmao such crunchy granola people running it. and a really sad looking neckbeard.

Have seen these too, the people running them are awfully defensive and look like they're not making any money off the business anyway.

[Catochristoferson]

Actually no. Propertarians hate government, and wish to abolish all means of governing. As an anarchist I want a government, but not a state.

I've never gotten a good answer from anarchists about what the difference between a government and a state is, other than they want one and hate the other.

Huh. I, as an anarchist, never really liked government as a concept. Most anarchists I've talked to don't like government, and most anarchist philosophers such as Kropotkin, Goldman, Stirner, and others refered to 'government' negatively. So I don't know if what you're saying about anarchists "wanting a government but not a state" is necessarily true or not.

Although, I will say that some anarchists (I guess more Marxist influenced ones) don't have a problem with government but do have a problem with states. And I agree that they do a really poor job explaining what the difference between them is.

Can you elaborate?

I'm not actually a Anarchist but IIRC there's a school of thought that says that only "Arbitrary" Hierarchies should be removed and all what's still necessary can stay.
While there still some holes in that thought that's is a way to make a distinction between "Government and "state" even if others don't make that distinction.

What exactly makes a hierarchy "arbitrary" or "non arbitrary"?

And that school of thought sounds more like Council Communism instead of Anarchism.